Alphon did not do it...

[babybird67]

By the way Nick, although I regard both Foot and Woffinden in the highest regard, there are other ways of finding out some obscure ‘facts’ in the case without having to read their publications.

Tony

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!

[Tony]

I don’t know whether the family ever fingered Alphon, but Foot and other defenders of JH did. I think they were barking up the wrong tree even without the DNA evidence.

There would have been many things that Valerie had not told the police that only she and the culprit knew. If Alphon were the culprit he could very easily have mentioned these. Even if he had only mentioned a few they would have interested Valerie and she could have asked specific questions to test him further.

There were probably even things that the culprit could have mentioned that only the police knew. Or things that could have been checked out – like where he drove the car - and upon investigation been validated.

Valerie and the police knew he was talking rubbish.

Hello Nick,

I agree with you that there were things only known to the gunman and Valerie about what happened in the car. Obviously Gregston had left us.
Peter Alphon said he could prove it was him in the car because only he and Valerie would know of one thing that happened. When you read a certain passage of Valerie’s evidence it does make peculiar reading in respect to that claim.

By the way Nick, although I regard both Foot and Woffinden in the highest regard, there are other ways of finding out some obscure ‘facts’ in the case without having to read their publications.

Tony

Reg's post suggests to me that Woffinden has a copy of the report too, although I do not think it's completely established that they are deliberately suppressing it to obscure how decisive the match is.

Reg's post shouldn't suggest to anyone that Bob Woffinden, or anyone else for that matter, has a copy of the report.

I posted where it could be obtained.

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.

If Babybird67 thinks the actual cost of getting the data is prohibitive, just think how much an independent DNA expert would charge to produce a full report. How much did Dr Dan Krane charge to evaluate the LCN DNA evidence in Hoey? I don't know. You tell me.

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.

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; which come solely from your holy script which is the appeal ruling, which you continue to quote as being true.

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.

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.

[NickB]

I don’t know whether the family ever fingered Alphon, but Foot and other defenders of JH did. I think they were barking up the wrong tree even without the DNA evidence.

There would have been many things that Valerie had not told the police that only she and the culprit knew. If Alphon were the culprit he could very easily have mentioned these. Even if he had only mentioned a few they would have interested Valerie and she could have asked specific questions to test him further.

There were probably even things that the culprit could have mentioned that only the police knew. Or things that could have been checked out – like where he drove the car - and upon investigation been validated.

Valerie and the police knew he was talking rubbish.

[babybird67]

hi Vic

Hi Jen,

Equally definite is "the DNA evidence standing alone is certain proof of James Hanratty’s guilt" and if he did then Alphon can't have done.

Absolutely. I was trying to tease out the following points really.

The Hanratty family disputes the DNA results which prove as far as is possible to prove Hanratty's guilt, as far as i can establish, citing contamination? I know this was the attitude of Foot who suggests something must be wrong with the science and did not apparently allow those results to sway him from his conviction that Hanratty was innocent.

However - the Hanratty family have not disputed the fact that it has been established that Alphon "could not have been" (i.e., definitely was not) the A6 murderer, since it is stated specifically in the Appeal Judgement that their counsel accept this to be the case.

It follows from this, that if they are still disputing the guilt of JH, whilst accepting the innocence of Alphon, somebody completely off the radar must have been responsible...and how likely is that scenario, especially when combined with all the other pieces of evidence suggesting JH's guilt?

I'd love to see it too, especially the specifics such as how many matches were there between the semen profile, Hanratty's and the less conclusive hanky profile.

Wouldn't it be enthralling reading? Although the cost quoted by Reg is prohibitive for me sadly. I should think everyone interested in the case would be over the moon to read all the details of that evidence...imagine how much more knowledge we would have specific to the case!

Reg's post suggests to me that Woffinden has a copy of the report too, although I do not think it's completely established that they are deliberately suppressing it to obscure how decisive the match is.

I would hope in the interests of truth it would not be being deliberately suppressed, although of course it is possible. The terms expressed in the Judgement of Appeal were exceptionally definite though, weren't they. There was no room for doubt at all in coming to the conclusions that were drawn, even having considered the possibility of contamination.

[Victor]

It was not made in terms of "most probably wasn't" or "remote possibilty of being", which leaves room for doubt. It was absolute, definite, "could not have been."

Hi Jen,

Equally definite is "the DNA evidence standing alone is certain proof of James Hanratty’s guilt" and if he did then Alphon can't have done.

Also "By way of postscript we should record that it has been agreed by Mr Sweeney and Mr Mansfield that on the evidence now available Peter Alphon could not have been the murderer. It is understood that this agreement arose out of the DNA evidence."

I'd love to see the actual DNA report...do you (or does anyone else) know whether it is available anywhere?

I'd love to see it too, especially the specifics such as how many matches were there between the semen profile, Hanratty's and the less conclusive hanky profile.

Reg's post suggests to me that Woffinden has a copy of the report too, although I do not think it's completely established that they are deliberately suppressing it to obscure how decisive the match is.

KR,
Vic.

I'd love to see the actual DNA report...do you (or does anyone else) know whether it is available anywhere?

Ring Sir Geoffrey Bindman, he is the Hanratty family's solicitor. His phone number is 020 7833 4433. His email address is:
g.bindman@bindmans.com

Or you could contact the FSS directly and ask for them to provide you with the actual test results. I would imagine that you would have to pay at least £1500 plus purchase tax for the privilege. That is if you can explain the reasons for wanting the data in the first place.

[babybird67]

hi Vic

thanks for that, and yes i would agree that it is very unlikely that no sign of the rapist's DNA would have survived, yet VS's and MG's would have.

But my point really was the fact that counsel acting for Hanratty's family were in agreement with counsel acting for the Crown that Alphon "could not have been" the A6 murderer: the terminology being used is definite. It was not made in terms of "most probably wasn't" or "remote possibilty of being", which leaves room for doubt. It was absolute, definite, "could not have been."

Terms which were accepted by the Hanratty family's counsel and therefore by the Hanratty family. If they, presumably his biggest supporters, accept now that the A6 murderer could not have been Alphon, where does that leave the investigation, and the claims that it wasn't Hanratty? Is it conceivable that there is someone else out there who it could have been? Seems very unlikely to me.

I'd love to see the actual DNA report...do you (or does anyone else) know whether it is available anywhere?

[Victor]

Hi Jen,

There are a couple of ways of denying the DNA evidence which can be summarised as:-

1. Hanratty's DNA is derived from contamination and there wasn't enough of the rapist's DNA to detect, therefore there is no profile and anyone including Alphon could have committed the crime.

This would be surprising given that the rapists was found to be a type O secretor blood group in 1961, so there was some DNA there contained in semen, and if VS DNA can survive whatever happened to the knicker fragment you need to find a reason why the rapist's wouldn't , and likewise for MG (type AB secretor blood group).

2. LCN the DNA technique used suffers from the fact that you are looking for such a small sample that some errors can occur, known as allelic drop-in where a peak appears that shouldn't, and drop-out, where a peak doesn't appear but should, so the extremely remote possibility exists that all 13-26 peaks of the rapists (eg. Alphon) profile dropped-out, and those peaks that were detected that matched Hanratty's profile dropped-in in exactly the right place.

So essentially, if you doubt the DNA then you can accuse whoever you like and Alphon sought every opportunity to involve himself in the case, after being one of a number of hotel and guest house guests to be reported to the police for behaving suspiciously in the days following the crime. Without defining what "suspicously" means.

KR,
Vic.

[babybird67]

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j1166/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.

Views (expressed politely and without bullying tactics) please.