Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Alphon did not do it...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • reg1965
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Victor View Post
    I have no need for additional income, thank you.
    That may be the case, but you could do it pro bono.

    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.

    And seeing that you obviously know what you are doing, or say you do, it would be truly beneficial to your own needs, without having to shell out a penny for the privilege.

    Leave a comment:


  • Victor
    replied
    Originally posted by reg1965 View Post
    The submission was some 5 or 6 years before the appeal was actually heard. So wrong again Vic.
    During which time there were further submissions and contact.

    Leave a comment:


  • Victor
    replied
    Originally posted by reg1965 View Post
    Really? How much do you charge per hour and would you be prepared to appear for the defence in any future appeal?
    I have no need for additional income, thank you.

    Leave a comment:


  • reg1965
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Victor View Post
    I clearly stated that "I do not think it's completely established that they are deliberately suppressing it to obscure how decisive the match is"
    (my bold)

    You seem to be inferring that some deliberate supression may have occurred, but that you did not have enough evidence to suggest that full deliberate suppression had in fact taken place. Am I right?

    Leave a comment:


  • reg1965
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Victor View Post
    Of course it does. Woffinden says he had access to all Bindman's documentation, especially when producing the submission for the appeal.
    The submission was some 5 or 6 years before the appeal was actually heard. So wrong again Vic.

    Leave a comment:


  • reg1965
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Victor View Post
    You already know I'm a postgraduate chemist, so I know what I'm doing.
    Really? How much do you charge per hour and would you be prepared to appear for the defence in any future appeal?

    Leave a comment:


  • NickB
    replied
    Originally posted by Tony View Post
    Why has no one commented on my submission of Valerie Storieís court room evidence of selecting Michael Clark ...
    I think she made a grave error which I don't think should be excused. If you select someone in a line up you should be absolutely certain, and I don't see how she could have been that time.

    Also I think she and the police should have realised the importance of voice identification. Even if Michael Clark had gasped a few words of surprise she would probably have realised it wasn't him.

    Leave a comment:


  • Victor
    replied
    Originally posted by Tony View Post
    I do not understand the term Ďmountain of dungí on a supposedly educated board you will need to help me here.
    Really Tony, your posting history demonstrates that you are certainly familiar with most english colloquialisms and the association between cattle dung and lies is multi-national. And to deny that "dung" is a euphemism is just beneath you.

    KR,
    Vic.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tony
    replied
    Originally posted by Victor View Post
    Hi Nick & Tony,

    He also said a lot of stuff that is demonstrably untrue, so he was bound to get lucky on one specific in a mountain of dung.

    KR,
    Vic.
    Well maybe you have not read the Peter Alphonís reports of what happened in the car or reconciled them with Valerie Storieís sworn evidence in court.

    I do not understand the term Ďmountain of dungí on a supposedly educated board you will need to help me here.

    Why has no one commented on my submission of Valerie Storieís court room evidence of selecting Michael Clark as her loverís killer, her rapist and attempted killer? I find that a bit odd.

    Tony.

    Leave a comment:


  • Victor
    replied
    Originally posted by Tony View Post
    Mate I do not know how much you know of this case but Peter Alphon said something happened in the car that could only be known to himself and Valerie Storie.
    Hi Nick & Tony,

    He also said a lot of stuff that is demonstrably untrue, so he was bound to get lucky on one specific in a mountain of dung.

    KR,
    Vic.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tony
    replied
    Originally posted by NickB View Post
    Yes, so Alphonís claims were testable. If he had compiled a list of things only the two of them would know, and they were true, that would be compelling.

    Of course there is also the problem of his voice.

    Iíve been reading about Steinie Morrison - another house burglar with no history of violence tried for murder. Unfortunately there are only passing references to that case on this forum.
    Hello again Nick,

    Mate I do not know how much you know of this case but Peter Alphon said something happened in the car that could only be known to himself and Valerie Storie.
    I have a lot of her court room evidence and some of the things she says are a bit odd with regards to the Peter Alphon suggestion.

    If you know what I am on about then that is fair enough if you donít just ask me on here to send you a PM about it and the significant part of Valerieís evidence in court.

    I shall also send it to my good pal Julie Limehouse who is by a country mile the most sensible person on here and I would advise you to look to her for guidance about the case.

    Tony.

    Leave a comment:


  • NickB
    replied
    Originally posted by Tony View Post
    Peter Alphon said he could prove it was him in the car ....
    Yes, so Alphonís claims were testable. If he had compiled a list of things only the two of them would know, and they were true, that would be compelling.

    Of course there is also the problem of his voice.

    Iíve been reading about Steinie Morrison - another house burglar with no history of violence tried for murder. Unfortunately there are only passing references to that case on this forum.

    Leave a comment:


  • babybird67
    replied
    hello Tony

    Originally posted by Tony View Post
    Hello Babybird,

    Nothing to do with the case for a moment but, Babybird, I have just put a baby hedgehog in a cardboard box in my kitchen; it doesnít look too well but it has just started making a lot of scratching noises. Iíll go and have a look at it in a minute to see how itís going on.

    Now then anybody can have an opinion about anything. Well thatís what makes for an interesting life.

    I have an opinion about lots of things including the A6 case. I believe Hanratty was the victim of a miscarriage of justice just as a bloke who lived not far away from me was and who suffered the same fate. His case was never such a celebrated one as we are discussing right now; but equally disturbing nevertheless.

    As for the A6 case, and yes I have stood in the waxworks at Blackpool and looked at James Hanratty; he was stood beside Adolf Hitler whose arm had fallen off, he somehow did not look as menacing giving his nazi salute with his uniform sleeve flapping about, people are passionate about it all right.
    I do think you need to read both Foot and Woffinden, apart from being good reads, they are virtually what we all base our scripts on.

    If like me you support Hanratty you will continue to do so. Most of my mates believe he was certainly guilty and they say they have nothing to prove; he was tried, found guilty, executed and his 2002 appeal was rejected. They have nothing more to say on the matter but give me a wry smile if I ever bring it up.
    I would certainly not get carried away and fall out with anybody about it. In fact if that situation were to arise I would exit stage left pronto.

    I have gone out of my way to find Paul Foot to speak to him about the case (having found him I could not get close enough to him to discuss it). I have been to night classes to research it and I have read every article and seen every documentary I have been able to.

    I have spent 38 years trying to gain more knowledge and gather as much information as I can. I hope you will do the same.

    Tony.
    I appreciate your post and your knowledge regarding the case and i will certainly read Foot and Woffinden as soon as Graham posts them to me. I absolutely love to learn and this case has caught my imagination. I'd love to know more about the France family for example and whether Dixie is a possible candidate for having supplied the gun, leading to his subsequent suicide. I'd actually love to read the original trial transcripts but, if i am not mistaken, they are only available in person in Bedford and are incredibly long and that just isn't possible at the moment.

    You stand out Tony as one of the more rational and courteous posters on the A6 thread, a fact of which you should be proud.

    I look forward to learning much from you.



    Jen

    Leave a comment:


  • Tony
    replied
    Originally posted by babybird67 View Post
    Really Tony?

    I am glad you are of that opinion. Others seems to think posters shouldn't even have an opinion of their own without having read them!
    Hello Babybird,

    Nothing to do with the case for a moment but, Babybird, I have just put a baby hedgehog in a cardboard box in my kitchen; it doesnít look too well but it has just started making a lot of scratching noises. Iíll go and have a look at it in a minute to see how itís going on.

    Now then anybody can have an opinion about anything. Well thatís what makes for an interesting life.

    I have an opinion about lots of things including the A6 case. I believe Hanratty was the victim of a miscarriage of justice just as a bloke who lived not far away from me was and who suffered the same fate. His case was never such a celebrated one as we are discussing right now; but equally disturbing nevertheless.

    As for the A6 case, and yes I have stood in the waxworks at Blackpool and looked at James Hanratty; he was stood beside Adolf Hitler whose arm had fallen off, he somehow did not look as menacing giving his nazi salute with his uniform sleeve flapping about, people are passionate about it all right.
    I do think you need to read both Foot and Woffinden, apart from being good reads, they are virtually what we all base our scripts on.

    If like me you support Hanratty you will continue to do so. Most of my mates believe he was certainly guilty and they say they have nothing to prove; he was tried, found guilty, executed and his 2002 appeal was rejected. They have nothing more to say on the matter but give me a wry smile if I ever bring it up.
    I would certainly not get carried away and fall out with anybody about it. In fact if that situation were to arise I would exit stage left pronto.

    I have gone out of my way to find Paul Foot to speak to him about the case (having found him I could not get close enough to him to discuss it). I have been to night classes to research it and I have read every article and seen every documentary I have been able to.

    I have spent 38 years trying to gain more knowledge and gather as much information as I can. I hope you will do the same.

    Tony.

    Leave a comment:


  • Victor
    replied
    Originally posted by reg1965 View Post
    Reg's post shouldn't suggest to anyone that Bob Woffinden, or anyone else for that matter, has a copy of the report.
    Of course it does. Woffinden says he had access to all Bindman's documentation, especially when producing the submission for the appeal.

    What would you gain out of getting it anyway? You would still have to have the results looked at by someone who knows what they are doing.
    You already know I'm a postgraduate chemist, so I know what I'm doing.

    Bob Woffinden, if you recall, compiled the 400 odd page report that formed the basis of the CCRC investigation into the case in the 1990's.
    During which time he had access to Bindman's documentation, I know.

    To accuse they which I take to mean Bob and myself of suppressing documents and information that they both regard as dubious is not only stupid but counterproductive to your own arguments
    I clearly stated that "I do not think it's completely established that they are deliberately suppressing it to obscure how decisive the match is"

    Get real man.....I want to see it more than you do...put it that way. That is why I am doing some real work in this case rather than just sitting back and pooh poohing everyone who disagrees with you. I am in contact with people actually involved in the case...which is a darn sight more than you.
    You are pooh poohing everyone who disagrees with you, you only have to read your recent uprovoked outburst at Jen (babybird) to show that.

    But you are right in one sense. I wouldn't give you any new facts about the case even if I was on my death bed. The only reason being that in my humble opinion you don't deserve any.
    I have no problem with that, it just means that you've got zero chance of proving Hanratty isn't a vicious murderer and rapist.

    KR,
    Vic.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X