a6 murder

[Victor]

Further to this Woffinden asks ....And whose were those unidentified fingerprints ? Were they matched with other suspects ? --Peter Alphon's, for example ? The jury was never told. To this day, the information has never been publicly revealed. (page 177)

regards ,
James

Let's see... Janet G, their kids, the Scene of Crime Officers, John Kerr, ambulance men. That's a few to be going on with.

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

because that never happens....Oh look Alphon and Michael Clark!!

KR,
Vic.

Hi Victor,

But Alphon and Michael Clark weren't buddies...........or were they ?

regards,
James

[jimarilyn]

Let's see... Janet G, their kids, the Scene of Crime Officers, John Kerr, ambulance men. That's a few to be going on with.

KR,
Vic.

hi Victor,

But you said originally that only MG's and VS's prints were discovered in the car.

regards,
James

[Victor]

Hello Vic,

You’ve been busy this afternoon. Good for you it’s nice to see some activity and friendly argument.

Well you have well and truly savaged me this afternoon and with good points. Although it is your opinion of events. One thing I would say with regards to your post 2450.

At what point do you think Hanratty was offered this fake alibi and do we know how many of his Scouse fences had Cockney accents and looked just like him?

Tony.

Hi Tony,

I wouldn't say savaged, just offered a few comments from another viewpoint.

I'm not convinced that the alibi was bought, I just think that there has to be an explanation for it that includes JH being back at the cornfield to leave his sperm on VS's knickers.

For example, was it JH who offered the "Carlton or Tarleton Rd" comment and was it Mrs Dinwoodie who confirmed it, or was it she that said it and JH said "That's what I asked"?

I need to get my books out again, but I'm moving this weekend and won't get to them for a while.

KR,
Vic.

[Tony]

Hello Vic,

You’ve been busy this afternoon. Good for you it’s nice to see some activity and friendly argument.

Well you have well and truly savaged me this afternoon and with good points. Although it is your opinion of events. One thing I would say with regards to your post 2450.

At what point do you think Hanratty was offered this fake alibi and do we know how many of his Scouse fences had Cockney accents and looked just like him?

Tony.

Hello again Vic,

Again reference your post 2450:

“Now that assumption I completely disagree with, presumably Michael Clark had some features she recognised, she did not pick him out completely at random.”

I wonder what these features were that she recognised. His features did not resemble Hanratty but they did resemble Alphon. And how do we know? Valerie Storie told us so.

One of the biggest downfalls of the defence was that Sherrard did not insist that Acott let him see Clark.

We don’t know now and probably never will know what he looked like but it would be bloody interesting.

Tony.

[Victor]

hi Victor,

But you said originally that only MG's and VS's prints were discovered in the car.

regards,
James

Hi James,

Well let's look again shall we...

Absolutely not so Victor. As Bob Woffinden states in his book (page116)...In the course of the investigation, police had amassed quite a number of fingerprints and palm prints ---from the 36A bus, from Upper Richmond Road and, most importantly, from the MORRIS MINOR car and it's contents. As a result of their analysis, Scotland Yard experts were able to report categorically that none of the prints was Hanratty's

regards,
James


PS. Woffinden wrote "was" instead of "were"

That's a comment very lacking in specifics, for example it doesn't say that a lot of fingerprints were discovered in the car, it says a number were discovered on the bus, road and car - all 3 together. What we need to know is how many were on the car ALONE.

KR,
Vic.

[Tony]

Let's see... Janet G, their kids, the Scene of Crime Officers, John Kerr, ambulance men. That's a few to be going on with.

KR,
Vic.

Hello again Vic,


When do you suppose that the fingerprints of John Kerr or the ambulance men could have got into the Morris Minor?
Tony.

[Victor]

Hello again Vic,


When do you suppose that the fingerprints of John Kerr or the ambulance men could have got into the Morris Minor?
Tony.

Quite right too...they shouldn't! My mistake, sorry.

[Tony]

Hi Tony,

I wouldn't say savaged, just offered a few comments from another viewpoint.

I'm not convinced that the alibi was bought, I just think that there has to be an explanation for it that includes JH being back at the cornfield to leave his sperm on VS's knickers.

For example, was it JH who offered the "Carlton or Tarleton Rd" comment and was it Mrs Dinwoodie who confirmed it, or was it she that said it and JH said "That's what I asked"?

I need to get my books out again, but I'm moving this weekend and won't get to them for a while.

KR,
Vic.

Hey Vic,


Good luck with the move. I believe it’s one of the most stressful things you can do in life. But, personally speaking and from experience, it comes a considerable way behind arguing with your good self, Caz, Graham, Steve and the unforgettable Johnl.

Tony.

[Tony]

Something that might interest somebody, probably nobody.

Hello Everyone,

We’re all very active this afternoon so here’s one of those contemporary articles about the case. It would appear that everyman and his dog had access to all the exhibits at the trial. Where were they kept during the nights and weekends? We don’t know but there were a lot of people passing them around seemingly without anyone getting any DNA on them. Sorry I’m not going down that road.
One thing though; isn’t it rather strange that a defendant with a possible death sentence about to be handed to him has to drag himself up before the judge to be told that the jurors are a bit peckish and would like a cup of tea and a chocolate digestive?

Tony.



Transcript request
When the jury requested that a transcript of the proceedings should be made available to them, Mr Graham Swanwick QC, who had prosecuted, said: "There are certain passages in the transcript which took place in the absence of the jury and these matters clearly would have had to be removed from the transcript if the application was acceded to."
The Judge refused the request, but agreed to the jury's having a copy of the list of witnesses. He also told both counsel that he wanted the jury to have every exhibit in the case in their room while they deliberated, and the 136 items, including the revolver which the Crown said was the murder weapon were carried there from the Court.
After 6 hours 26 minutes the Court reassembled for the Judge to give the jury further guidance. He said he had received a letter from them. In this the jury asked: "May we have a further statement from you regarding the definition of reasonable doubt. If you have a reasonable doubt, not a mere fancy sort of doubt, if you have a reasonable doubt, you cannot be sure. And therefore you may think the best way of looking at it is this: you have to be sure of the guilt of the accused before you find him guilty."
Recalled to the dock
The Court broke up again, but reassembled once more, without the jury, at about 7.30 pm. The Judge sat waiting while Hanratty was told it was necessary for him to return to the dock.
Mr Michael Sherrard, the defence counsel, asked the Judge if he would excuse him to go below to explain the situation to Hanratty. "I think it is causing him some distress, this constant ..." Mr Sherrard said.
The Judge (interrupting) said: "Yes, I must have him here." After Hanratty had stepped into the dock the Judge stated that he had received another note from the jury. This said: "Is it possible for us to have some tea, please?"
Mr Justice Gorman asked both counsel if they had any objection and both saying they had none, the Judge observed: "That being so, arrangements have already been made." He added that he would not allow it to be carried out until he had the consent of counsel.
Hanratty was taken back to his cell and returned at 9.10 pm to hear the verdict.

[Victor]

It would appear that everyman and his dog had access to all the exhibits at the trial. Where were they kept during the nights and weekends? We don’t know but there were a lot of people passing them around seemingly without anyone getting any DNA on them. Sorry I’m not going down that road.

Hi Tony,

It's worth pointing out again that the samples used for the DNA profiles were NOT exhibitted at the trial, they were kept by the scientists and all items from the trial were destroyed. Therefore the "without getting any DNA on them" is a redundant comment, because they weren't there in the first place.

KR,
Vic.

[Tony]

Hi Tony,

It's worth pointing out again that the samples used for the DNA profiles were NOT exhibitted at the trial, they were kept by the scientists and all items from the trial were destroyed. Therefore the "without getting any DNA on them" is a redundant comment, because they weren't there in the first place.

KR,
Vic.

Hi Vic,

As I say I am unwilling to go down the DNA road because I simply do not know anything about it other than what I read in the papers etc. I first came across it in the Colin Pitchfork case and found it fascinating. In fact Pitchfork was the first man to be convicted on this type of evidence. By the way does anyone know if he’s still locked up?

However, you say that :

“It's worth pointing out again that the samples used for the DNA profiles were NOT exhibitted at the trial, they were kept by the scientists and all items from the trial were destroyed. Therefore the "without getting any DNA on them" is a redundant comment, because they weren't there in the first place.”

But wasn’t the handkerchief passed to Hanratty in the witness box?
Who passed it to him who brought it to court and why did that particular item survive the other 135 items?
As I say I am a novice on this and I bow to your’s, Reg’s, Dupplin Muir's and James Dean’s vastly superior knowledge.

Tony.

[Victor]

Ah-ha. Paragraphs 117-8 from the Judgment:-

At the trial which took place between 22 January 1962 and 17 February 1962 all the exhibits with the exception of a portion of the slip and the fragment of the knickers referred to previously were produced and in due course, taken out by the jury on retirement. Thereafter, on 9 April 1962, James Hanratty's suitcase and clothing were returned to his father and on 22 May 1962 Valerie Storie's slips, her knickers and various samples were all destroyed.

The handkerchief seems to have remained with the Bedfordshire Constabulary until September or early October 1997 when it was discovered in the course of enquiries made on behalf of the Commission. It was in the original envelope inside another envelope marked with the exhibit number '35'.

So it seems that the hanky was produced but the fragment of knickers wasn't.

KR,
Vic.

[reg1965]

Hi all
Does anyone know whether one can tell whether two seperate cartridge cases were both fired from the same gun, if you didn't have the gun to test against?

Cheers
Reg

[Tony]

Hi all
Does anyone know whether one can tell whether two seperate cartridge cases were both fired from the same gun, if you didn't have the gun to test against?

Cheers
Reg

Good evening to you Reg,

I think I know what you are getting at here but the cartridge cases found at the murder scene and the ones found in the Vienna Hotel were all around when the gun was in the possession of the police.

I wouldn’t have thought there would have been any tampering in that respect. But with five or six boxes of ammunition found on the bus, and we don’t know how many there were to start with, it is possible that some may have got ‘mislaid’. Do we know how many complete bullets were found on the bus and did Acott bring them all into court or had he lost a couple?

Tony.