Alphon did not do it...

[Victor]

A lot of fiddling and tampering with evidence has also been shown to have gone on by" modern technology"

Hi Norma,

The ESDA was inconclusive, but specifically did not support the chnages Sherrard wanted.

---and DNA can disappear-

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080507124555AAFg8aZ

and "re-appear"---as a contaminant.

but Valerie's DNA didn't disappear, nor did Gregsten's.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Excuse my ignorance here, but what about a mixed profile, as in this case, where there were no 'unknowns', or unexpected elements in need of explanation or interpretation?

How can the findings have fallen foul of analyst subjectivity, given that they were entirely consistent with the verdict that Hanratty had raped Gregsten's lover, and entirely inconsistent with any other scenario, involving Alphon or any other individual?

Love,

Caz
X

Caz,
A lot of fiddling and tampering with evidence has also been shown to have gone on by" modern technology"---for more see Michael Sherrard QC, in his autobiography,"Wigs and Wherefores "
---and DNA can disappear-

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080507124555AAFg8aZ

and "re-appear"---as a contaminant.
Best
Norma

[Victor]

You must know a heck of a lot about that then!

At least as much as you.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

The years of campaigning by the family were primarily because JH was so insistent he was innocent, they were fooled as were a lot of other people.

It's really difficult to admit to having been duped so successfully, for so long.

KR,
Vic

You must know a heck of a lot about that then!

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Derrick,

The hanky profile was not a mixed profile.

Argument destroyed. Alphon did not touch the hanky or gun.

KR,
Vic.

---yawn--- just part of the France hanky panky!

[Victor]

Alphon cannot be excluded as being culpable of the A6 Murder for the fundamental reason that the LCN DNA evidence in Hanratty was a mixed profile.

LCN mixed profiles cannot exclude anyone.

Hi Derrick,

The hanky profile was not a mixed profile.

Argument destroyed. Alphon did not touch the hanky or gun.

KR,
Vic.

[caz]

Excuse my ignorance here, but what about a mixed profile, as in this case, where there were no 'unknowns', or unexpected elements in need of explanation or interpretation?

How can the findings have fallen foul of analyst subjectivity, given that they were entirely consistent with the verdict that Hanratty had raped Gregsten's lover, and entirely inconsistent with any other scenario, involving Alphon or any other individual?

Love,

Caz
X

[Derrick]

Alphon cannot be excluded as being culpable of the A6 Murder for the fundamental reason that the LCN DNA evidence in Hanratty was a mixed profile.

LCN mixed profiles cannot exclude anyone.

In fact only SGM+ single profile tests can say for certain that someone is not a suspect, all mixtures are prone to analyst subjectivity.

This thread, by way of the precedents set by Caddy and Reed, is now a complete non runner.

Derrick

[RonIpstone]

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/j...6/HANRATTY.htm

article 128.

Counsel acting for the Hanratty family agreed with counsel acting for the Crown that Alphon "could not have been" the A6 murderer: this means that the Hanratty family must now accept this as being true.

The phrase highlighted above is unequivocal: it wasn't Alphon as even Hanratty's surviving family have accepted through their own counsel.

So where does this leave the argument that Hanratty was innocent? Is it really credible to conjecture that another individual was responsible, someone who totally escaped Police notice at the time and since? Or is the only rational thing to do to acknowledge that this exoneration of Alphon, combined with all the other factors and evidence which suggest Hanratty's guilt, leave us with one inescapable conclusion...

Hanratty was guilty.

Those acting for the Hanratty family in the 2002 appeal must have accepted that Alphon did not do it on the basis that his DNA was not discovered on the knickers fragment, but neither was anyone else's (save Gregsten's and Storie's), so by implication, not only did Alphon not do it, neither did anyone else other than Hanratty.

The 2002 appeal turned therefore on the question as to whether the 1962 trial was fundamentally flawed to the extent Hanratty should be acquitted even though he was 'guilty'.

[Victor]

I would imagine his family must know by now but it is hard to admit they were wrong after all those years of campaigning, it must be very hard for them its not as if they can be to blame but they must feel the stigma.

The years of campaigning by the family were primarily because JH was so insistent he was innocent, they were fooled as were a lot of other people.

It's really difficult to admit to having been duped so successfully, for so long.

KR,
Vic

[caz]

I can understand some who refuses to accept the overwhelming evidence that Hanratty was guilty. Its rather like a religion, logic goes out of the window and like religous people if you question their faith with logic they tend to react rather aggresively, it creates a conflict in their brain.

Well said, Henry. Happens rather a lot on these boards.

If you think it brings out the worst in some people to say that Hanratty was almost certainly the A6 murderer, don't even think about going to the Hutchinson threads and saying that he was almost certainly not Jack the Ripper.

Love,

Caz
X

[Henry63]

I only recently became interested in the Haratty case and came to it with a fairly open mind. I have to say I found the evidence I have found so far overwhelming that he was guilty. He struck me as psychopath and like many psychopaths had some charm but no real grasp of the truth or any remorse or feelings for others. Alphon on the other hand may have been a bit wayward and strange but he seemed to be someone with a conscience and some feelings for others, not someone who could carry out such a cold blooded murder and rape. I had a friend like him once, you would tell him a story about something you did and ten minutes later he would be telling the same story to someone else with him as the hero.

I can understand some who refuses to accept the overwhelming evidence that Hanratty was guilty. Its rather like a religion, logic goes out of the window and like religous people if you question their faith with logic they tend to react rather aggresively, it creates a conflict in their brain. I would imagine his family must know by now but it is hard to admit they were wrong after all those years of campaigning, it must be very hard for them its not as if they can be to blame but they must feel the stigma.

There were a lot of coincidences and that can lead to conspiracy theories but its amazing how many coincidences and connections happen in life, unless these can be proved its very unkind to accuse anyone else of involvment.

[babybird67]

hi Tony

off topic but how is the hedgehog?

I went for a teacher training interview today, and i wanted to wear my favourite top, which is a little low-cut, which i usually remedy by wearing a little butterfly brooch to make it less so lol...but i couldn't find my butterfly so instead i found a little hedgehog pin-brooch, and, thinking it may be a good luck sign, wore that instead.

Anyway, it worked, they were very impressed with me and offered me a place even though there are others coming to see them tomorrow, which boosted my confidence after being unwell and out of work for a fair bit!

Just wanted to thank you because i took the story as a sign of good luck and it worked for me.

Jen

Are you saying that you could and would help me get hold of the report, or are you just trying to score points?

Not that I think for a second that you'd believe any qualified person who expressed an opinion that doesn't entirely correspond with your own.

Who'd want to work with that straitjacket?

PM me with your CV along with the details of your previous experience in this line of work (included published articles) and the previous cases in which you have given relevant expert witness testimony and I will give it my utmost attentive consideration.

Best wishes
Reg

[Victor]

Seriously though and what I do find contrary about that is you would turn down the opportunity to see the evidence, inspect it and make a most valid contribution to the case.

You keep knocking on about how much you would like to see it.

Are you saying that you could and would help me get hold of the report, or are you just trying to score points?

Not that I think for a second that you'd believe any qualified person who expressed an opinion that doesn't entirely correspond with your own.

Who'd want to work with that straitjacket?