a6 murder

[Victor]

Vic the only bit of your reply (which consists of unreasond refutations with no basis in fact) is this:

<< Separately packaged, not removed from packaging. >>

This refers to the bits of material evidence kept for possible use later, NOT those taken in and out of court. The utterly cavalier way in which these were treated has been commented on by those present at Hanratty's trial, and demonstrate the total lack of understanding at the time of the possibilities of cross contamination of DNA samples.

Hi Sara,
No, it refers to all the exhibits at the trial with the possible exception of the gun and cartridges - see the judgment.

Michael Hanratty described them as all being 'just tipped into a box at the end of each day'. The Getty photos show the small attache case in which they were carried back and forth. They were also freely handled by people in court, inc Hanratty and witnesses. Whatever makes you think other evidence was less handled or more protected? We just don't know how it was dealt with.

Where are you getting your information? The judgment clearly contradicts the highlighted sentence.

Nothing will convince me at this stage that the original lab had any idea what they were doing with regards to storage of these items (or others); nor how rigourous procedure needed to be as regards lab conditions, sterile clothing and intstruments etc. How could they have a that time? - but they were working in what by current standards would be considered a hopelessly unsterile and compromised environment. And ALL of the material evidence was at some point passing through this same lab and being handled by the same people.

This says to me that you're admitting to being close-minded, and won't accept evidence that opposes your view. The judgment says you are wrong.

To dismiss these caveats in such cavalier terms as 'utter rubbish' says a great deal about your lack of a grasp of these techniques and the rigour of handling required for them to be of any value (not to mention your manners!)

You are stating things as fact that are clearly wrong, without references or citations, I have repeatedly quoted things that prove you wrong and yet you continue to state incorrect information, such as:

Btw, if you don't think that cross-contamination is 'almost inevitable' in samples used for LCN techniques, then you clearly have not read the relevant scientific papers, links for which have bene constantly posted on the other thread.

One of the links that Reg supplied on the other thread says that in the worst case only 70% of samples were contaminated, typical rates of contamination are much less than this. 70% means that 3 times out of 10 there is no contamination, how can that be described as "almost inevitable"?

And there's the proof that I have read at least one of the "relevant scientific papers", and evidence that you have not.

KR,
Vic.
B.Sc (Hons) Ebor

[Victor]

Hello Vic,

Well how many times have you been raped then?


OK feel free to have a go; I deserve it.

Tony.

Hi Tony,

I've been Statutory raped many times.

But only because I was having consentual sex whilst underage, I have never been forcibly raped and have the utmost sympathy for those that have, and I don't mean to belittle their ordeals by stating the above.

KR,
Vic.

[Tony]

Who had access to the exhibits?

Hello Vic,

Your post 3091:

In your reply to Sara about the exhibits being handled openly and by different people in court you ask her where she gets her information from.

Well in all honesty I don’t know; but I do know that the jury asked Judge Gorman for a transcript of the trial. This was refused because certain matters were discussed in the absence of the jury. He did, however allow them to have a list of all the witnesses and he told Sherrard and Swanwick that all the exhibits were to be taken into the jury room so these could be examined by the jury. There were no objections to this.

Tony.

[Victor]

he told Sherrard and Swanwick that all the exhibits were to be taken into the jury room so these could be examined by the jury. There were no objections to this.

Tony.

Hi Tony,

Well the fragment of knickers had already been removed, so that wasn't there. And there's nothing saying that the exhibits were removed from their bags.

The whole point is that only Hanratty's DNA was found on the hanky, and only where it was mucus stained, so there was no contamination detected.

The trial as a source of contamination has been entirely eliminated.

KR,
Vic

[jimarilyn]

Front page of Mirror 23-09-1961

Hi All,

I thought the newspaper article below might be of some interest.
I have plenty of newspaper articles downloaded from the Daily Mirror (re. the A6 Murder Case) for the period August 1961 to 1975.
If you want me to put some on this thread just let me know.
There's lots of revealing and interesting stuff in them.

regards,
James

[jimarilyn]

Daily Mirror 26-09-1961

Hi All,

Just 3 days later (after Alphon had walked into Scotland Yard) this Mirror article is conspicuous by not mentioning the A6 murder at all. Strange.


regards,
James

[jimarilyn]

KR,
Vic.
B.Sc (Hons) Ebor

Hi Victor,

You're not boasting here are you ? Those qualifications might be a bit of a handicap especially if you live in York.
I have got a few "O" levels and a couple of Spirit levels, but that's about all.

Tut-tut (your following post), you having under-age sex with statues. I hope it wasn't in the British Museum. And here's me thinking you were a clean living boy like myself. You weren't
bragging again by any chants ?

regards,
James

[Victor]

Hi James,

Some time ago you asked about Hanratty's movements in Rhyl to obtain his alibi, I've found a reference that he was in Rhyl on 25 JUly 1961 where he first met Terry Evans. IS this right?

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

Hi James,

Some time ago you asked about Hanratty's movements in Rhyl to obtain his alibi, I've found a reference that he was in Rhyl on 25 JUly 1961 where he first met Terry Evans. IS this right?

KR,
Vic.

Hi Victor,

Yes this is correct. This was indeed the date he first met Terry Evans at Rhyl Fairground. Evans obtained a few hours work for him on the dodgems and Hanratty ended up staying the night at his flat.

regards,
James


PS. Excuse my crude attempts at humour in my previous post. Don't know what I must have been on (possibly the settee). I think I was trying to be too clever with words.

[Rob63]

Bit of an interesting development in forensic science, could`ve gleaned some interesting prints from the two casings found in the hotel...if the evidence hadn`t been destroyed http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7844060.stm

[Tony]

Hi Victor,

Yes this is correct. This was indeed the date he first met Terry Evans at Rhyl Fairground. Evans obtained a few hours work for him on the dodgems and Hanratty ended up staying the night at his flat.

regards,
James


PS. Excuse my crude attempts at humour in my previous post. Don't know what I must have been on (possibly the settee). I think I was trying to be too clever with words.

Hello James,

Well I thought they were very humorous; so much so that I almost smiled to myself.

No they were funny James in the true Alexie Sayle tradition.

Tony

[jimarilyn]

Hello James,

Well I thought they were very humorous; so much so that I almost smiled to myself.

No they were funny James in the true Alexie Sayle tradition.

Tony

Hi Tony,

Thanks for the kind comments. Even though the A6 murder is a very important case and one that I take very seriously, I feel the occasional light touch now and then does not go amiss. I have to say I appreciate the humour that you yourself inject into quite a few of your posts.

You mention Alexei Sayle (who incidentally is my age), Tony. As someone posted a couple or so months ago, his father, Joseph Sayle, was the Trade Union Representative who stayed at Ingledene at the same time as James Hanratty. He testified at the Bedford trial. I wonder how much Joseph spoke about the trial to his family in the following weeks and if young Alexei remembers anything about it ?


regards,
James

[Victor]

Yes this is correct. This was indeed the date he first met Terry Evans at Rhyl Fairground. Evans obtained a few hours work for him on the dodgems and Hanratty ended up staying the night at his flat.

Cheers James. Didn't Hanratty dump the job rather than only being employed for a few hours, and steal from him too?

PS. Excuse my crude attempts at humour in my previous post. Don't know what I must have been on (possibly the settee). I think I was trying to be too clever with words.

No problem. I actually wrote several replies to it and then decided not to post in the end as it would serve no useful purpose. Just like Tony I appreciate the odd light-hearted moments even though we are discussing a very serious subject.

On the subject of the Ingledene, is it right that it was full on the night of the murder, so if Hanratty had tried to stay there then there wouldn't have been room?

KR,
Vic.

[Tony]

Hi Tony,

Thanks for the kind comments. Even though the A6 murder is a very important case and one that I take very seriously, I feel the occasional light touch now and then does not go amiss. I have to say I appreciate the humour that you yourself inject into quite a few of your posts.

You mention Alexei Sayle (who incidentally is my age), Tony. As someone posted a couple or so months ago, his father, Joseph Sayle, was the Trade Union Representative who stayed at Ingledene at the same time as James Hanratty. He testified at the Bedford trial. I wonder how much Joseph spoke about the trial to his family in the following weeks and if young Alexei remembers anything about it ?


regards,
James

Hello James,

My sentiments entirely.

Go to this link for your mate Alexei’s recollections of his father’s version of Ingledene.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/me-my-dad-and-the-day-that-bedford-cid-came-for-us-689060.html

Tony.

[Victor]

I've found this quote which I totally agree with from http://web.archive.org/web/200502121...k/hanratty.htm (it's linked from wikipedia)

The recent DNA tests would seem to prove conclusively that Hanratty did in fact commit the crime for which he was executed. Mr Sherrard said, "The wrong man was not hanged. That was an immense relief to me." However, his opinion of the original prosecution remains unchanged. "The evidence was too weak to justify conviction. I still hold that view."

Does anyone have any more information on what Michael Sherrard said as the page seems to be incomplete.

KR,
Vic.