a6 murder

[Victor]

How likely is it that anyone would be stupid enough to pay a penny into Loose Lips Alphon's bank account when they found their plan had gone horribly wrong and their chosen 'frightener' had committed rape and the capital crime of murder? No monetary inducements beforehand, mind, just after the failure of this cunning plan. What could Alphon, now a rapist and murderer, have done about it if he had received nothing, because he screwed up and any paymaster would now be in a deeply precarious position if they still paid him? He could hardly have complained to anyone about non-payment of fees!

Hi Caz,

That's just the start of it - apparently Norma thinks hundreds of low-life Londoners would have done it for tuppence (or 30 pieces of silver or something) and yet Alphon was paid this extortionate sum for a complete and utter balls up after the event!

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

That is a complete misrepresentation of what I was explaining to Babybird. Babybird was speculating on people's reaction to the DNA analysis in other cases and she specifically mentioned Jo Yates in Bristol - the scientific details of which have not been made public. There is a difference between comparing cases that have been tested and found wanting and cases that have not even seen the inside of a court room.

Hi Julie,

How did I misrepresent you? I flipped your argument but maintained the logic.

The point is that we have results in Hanratty, and results in Mr E and many many others. Derrick is arguing that the conclusions from the results in Mr E were wrong, therefore the conclusions from the results in Hanratty are likely to be wrong. This is ridiculous because he is ignoring the conclusions from the results in the many other cases, such as Napper where the LCN conclusions were correct. Therefore it's just as valid to argue that the Napper conclusions are correct therefore the Hanratty conclusions are correct.

KR,
Vic.

[NickB]

do you not find it a trifle odd that he said nothing, while fighting for his life during the trial, about asking for those rather specific directions before moving on to Rhyl

I thought he told the police (via Mr Kleinmann) about asking for Tarleton Road on 13th October, just after arriving at Bedford for the Skillet / Blackall / Trower id parade.

[caz]

There is a Tarleton Street in Liverpool, Rhyl, Burnley and Manchester.

Hi Derrick,

But Hanratty only claimed to be in Liverpool, and later Rhyl, when his semen (unless evidence to the contrary surfaces) was being deposited on a woman's underwear considerably further south.

There must have been a reason for Hanratty to suddenly decide he had gone on to Rhyl. Now if you accept that he genuinely had been asking for Liverpool's Tarleton St, while in Liverpool, and was also familiar with Rhyl's seafront and the roads leading directly off it, do you not find it a trifle odd that he said nothing, while fighting for his life during the trial, about asking for those rather specific directions before moving on to Rhyl, and then gave Rhyl, with its own very easy-to-find Tarleton St, as his shiny new improved alibi, when Liverpool's example could surely have saved his neck if only he had thought to mention his enquiry there?

None of it smells right and the jury smelled rotten fish.

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

Derrick wrote:

The actual results are unknown to anyone here so Victor must support his opinion with solid evidence as source tissue is unknowable from DNA testing.

Vic wrote:

Paragraph 120 from the judgment:
Dr Evison [the Defence expert] seems to accept that in the case of the knicker fragment the contaminant would have to be semen.

Whether he was the defence expert or not - how could he 'seem to accept' something that is not actually able to be established according to current scientific knowledge?

Was that line actually in the judgement and if so is Dr Evison being misunderstood or misquoted? Surely a scientist would not 'seem to accept' something?

[Limehouse]

Hello Tony,

I must make it clear that I do not believe all people from Bedfordshire to be dimwits, only a high proportion and this was reflected in the intellectual composition of the jury.

Ron

I assume you carried out relevant tests to determine the intellectual composition of the jury? You were quite critical of people you think are not qualified to comment on the scientific aspects of this case so could we know how you know so much about the intellectual capabilities of a jury that sat in a courtroom almost 50 years ago?

[Derrick]

By the way, I was in Rhyl last summer, walking along the front, as one does, and Tarleton Street suddenly jumped out and grabbed me by the throat. Couldn't miss it. I often wonder how Hanratty managed to miss it, if he was really there for the crucial period and had only the day before been asking in Liverpool for directions to Liverpool's own Tarleton Street.

There is a Tarleton Street in Liverpool, Rhyl, Burnley and Manchester.

[Limehouse]

[QUOTE=Victor;163713]Hi Julie,

But that is exactly what Derrick and others are suggesting. They do not accept the results in the Mr E case (or Colin Stagg, &tc) and therefore we should not accept the results in the Hanratty case. I'm glad you accept the fallacy of this argument.

That is a complete misrepresentation of what I was explaining to Babybird. Babybird was speculating on people's reaction to the DNA analysis in other cases and she specifically mentioned Jo Yates in Bristol - the scientific details of which have not been made public. There is a difference between comparing cases that have been tested and found wanting and cases that have not even seen the inside of a court room.

[caz]

I might just as easily [and perhaps more credibly ] speculate that Alphon was a "hit man" hired by Gregston"s family to scare him off his relationship with Valerie Storie.That that was why £5,000 was paid into his bank in three separate installments that Autumn -together with the £2,700 received from Newspaper"s for "The Story of his Arrest for the A6 Murder".That the arrangement to shock and put the frighteners on the affair suddenly went dramatically wrong when Gregsten hit him with his duffle bag frightening Alphon into shooting him by accident!

Hi Nats,

Just saw this in one of your posts from last summer and wondered if it had been dealt with yet, or if you still think this a possibility?

How likely is it that anyone would be stupid enough to pay a penny into Loose Lips Alphon's bank account when they found their plan had gone horribly wrong and their chosen 'frightener' had committed rape and the capital crime of murder? No monetary inducements beforehand, mind, just after the failure of this cunning plan. What could Alphon, now a rapist and murderer, have done about it if he had received nothing, because he screwed up and any paymaster would now be in a deeply precarious position if they still paid him? He could hardly have complained to anyone about non-payment of fees!

Love,

Caz
X

[Black Rabbit]

I must make it clear that I do not believe all people from Bedfordshire to be dimwits, only a high proportion and this was reflected in the intellectual composition of the jury.

Ron

Do I detect the rants of a childish ignorant, arrogant bigot?
Or can you justify your statement?

You could at least apologise for insulting us Bedfordians but you don't seem to care. I pity you.

[caz]

Blimey, on my last visit you lot were only up to page 625 and now there are 777 of the little buggers and still no sign of Hanratty being exonerated on account of his semen turning up on the rape victim's underwear.

Quelle surprise.

Carry on chaps. I'll pop in again after about another 150 pages shall I?

Love,

Caz
X

By the way, I was in Rhyl last summer, walking along the front, as one does, and Tarleton Street suddenly jumped out and grabbed me by the throat. Couldn't miss it. I often wonder how Hanratty managed to miss it, if he was really there for the crucial period and had only the day before been asking in Liverpool for directions to Liverpool's own Tarleton Street.

[RonIpstone]

The other day I read an article that stated that forensic scientists whilst looking for the DNA of Colin Stagg on Rachel Nickell had missed the DNA that was present from the real murderer Robert Napper.
Following from this The Association of Chief Police Officers wrote to all police forces asking them to carry out a review of all serious crime cases.

Now, as I say I do not possess your expertise in these matters but maybe you could help me. What is the difference in the case of Stagg and Hanratty?

Hello Tony,

I claim no expertise "in these matters".

From what you have posted, it would seem that the FSS missed material which might have given a profile of the murderer. It was not looking for the DNA of Stagg (indeed it seems that no DNA profile of Stagg has ever been taken).

In the Hanratty case the material is the semen stained knickers fragment which undoubtedly was impressed with the DNA material of the rapist at some stage in its history. This material has been tested by the FSS under the supervision of the Hanratty lawyers and revealed JH's, VS's and MG's DNA profile, with the main contributor being JH. All of which points to JH being the rapist and murderer.

You shall have to make allowances here for me for although I am not a Bedfordshire dimwit as you believe people from Bedford to be I am from Derbyshire and here we are: “Derbyshire born, Derbyshire bred: strong in th’arm and thick in yead”

I must make it clear that I do not believe all people from Bedfordshire to be dimwits, only a high proportion and this was reflected in the intellectual composition of the jury.

Graham Swanwick was a Derbyshire man, his birth being registered in Chesterfield in 1906, so this might explain his conduct in the prosecution of Hanratty and the persecution of Mrs Jones. The family name 'Swanwick' is an old established Derbyshire name deriving from the village of that name in the county. Many Swanwicks left Derbyshire due to the ravishes of the bubonic plague in 17th Century, but it would seem that Graham's ancestors survived and even thrived in Derbyshire and his dad even became a solicitor there.

The judge, Bill Gorman, was a Lancashire lad and, as is common with most Lancastrians, had a great deal of common sense as well as a brilliant mind. I assume that Michael Sherrard was (and is) from the Home Counties and seems to have been out of his depth when dealing with his more intelligent northern counterparts.

It was Jim's bad planning which led to him being tried by a Bedfordshire jury and defended by a bloke from the Home Counties. If he had made Gregsten drive a bit further up the A6 he could have secured a Derbyshire jury, or further up and better still, a Lancashire jury.

Ron

[Victor]

Forensic scientists, carrying out a review of the case in 2001, made an appalling blunder. They failed to test the tiny DNA sample found on Rachel’s body; had they done so they would have matched it to Napper’s, which by that time was on the database.

Hi Tony,

It's good to see you back posting. I hope you noted that there was no problem with the LCN tests that were conducted, it's the lack testing that was the problem in the Stagg case, and presumably the other 200-2,000 you mentioned too.

That means that Paul Foot was actually calling for more LCN DNA testing to be done, and simultaneously not believing the results that it gave, so what was the point of calling for the testing?

The logical conclusion is that Foot should have been arguing that the result exonerating Stagg should be considered as unsafe as he believes the result confirming Hanratty's guilt is, and therefore Stagg should still be in jail.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

The Nickell case is from 1993. Hanratty from 1961. The CA in 2002 didn't have a clue what had happened to the exhibits at times. The so called "golden thread" was obviously broken in this case. Plus Grant examined, first Hanratty's green suit then the next day VS's knickers. Same lab, ergo contamination hazard (in 1961).

Hi Derrick,

Yes we all know that the possibility of contamination could not be excluded - but the results show it didn't happen.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

For the very simple reason sweetheart that Victor said;

And to think I was recently called a chauvanist!

The actual results are unknown to anyone here so Victor must support his opinion with solid evidence as source tissue is unknowable from DNA testing.

Paragraph 120 from the judgment:
Dr Evison [the Defence expert] seems to accept that in the case of the knicker fragment the contaminant would have to be semen.

Anybody can see that! Why can't you?

Yes, why can't you see that?

KR,
Vic.