Alphon did not do it...

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Cheers, I found the reference in the full version of the 2002 Appeal. It's an odd error to make, and even odder not to correct it once informed.

Then again, the 2002 judgment is not particularly exercised by what appear to be police errors during the investigation either. It is very relaxed about how the original 'brown eyes' became 'blue', about how parts of the police interview with Hanratty were not recorded contemporaneously and how last minute information by the Rhyl witness Larman failed to be passed on to the defence.

I accept the DNA evidence that Hanratty was guilty, but - like you - have always been bothered by the murderer's eyes' changing colour.

I do recall an ex-detective's explanation that when a policeman took down Storie's original description, he abbreviated blue to bl. and that this was misread as br., meaning brown.

That is, I suggest, not credible.

[cobalt]

Cheers, I found the reference in the full version of the 2002 Appeal. It's an odd error to make, and even odder not to correct it once informed.

Then again, the 2002 judgment is not particularly exercised by what appear to be police errors during the investigation either. It is very relaxed about how the original 'brown eyes' became 'blue', about how parts of the police interview with Hanratty were not recorded contemporaneously and how last minute information by the Rhyl witness Larman failed to be passed on to the defence.

[NickB]

The 2002 Appeal report summary incorrectly said that Alphon was interviewed on 27 August and 7 September. Someone who attended the hearing has posted here that this error was pointed out to them but somehow 'and 7 September' did not get deleted before the report summary was published.

[cobalt]

Some thoughts on Alphon being treated as a suspect in the case.

He was originally interviewed on 27^th August when his behaviour drew the attention of hotel management. This was the official reason for police interest in him. Although the recent Podola murder case had shown dodgy hotel guests to be a fruitful line of enquiry, the police clearly regarded Alphon as little more than a routine follow up and do not seem to have officially confirmed in writing his claim of being at the Vienna Hotel on the evening of the 22^nd August until a week later. Presumably the police were following other lines of enquiry and Alphon was nowhere in that mix.

Then there is a disputed second interview of Alphon on 7^th September as recorded in a legal judgment. I cannot find mention of this in the 2002 Appeal and would welcome confirmation of the source. Most believe this claim of a second interview was an error and for good reason: on the afternoon of 7^th September Alphon was either attacking Mrs. Dalal or associating with his almanac sellers therefore he cannot have been getting ‘grilled’ by detectives. Since Alphon’s Vienna Hotel alibi checked out, the police had no reason to call him back in, and surely Alphon would have mentioned this 7^th September ‘grilling’ amidst his later claims of police harassment.

Yet it is a seriously clumsy error if it is contained in a legal judgment. Perhaps it is not a total error at all. For it is further claimed that a mystery man (or men) were being interviewed between 6^th September 10.00am and 8^th September 2.00pm, although again I lack a source for that and would welcome confirmation. Could it be that the person(s) being questioned were in some way related to Alphon, or that his name cropped up as part of their extensive interviews, and that this is where the confusion arose?

We are all familiar with Alphon’s final interview when he handed himself into police custody on 23^rd September. What stands out to me is how long it took the police to flush Alphon out given that the cartridge cases were discovered in the Vienna Hotel on 11^th September. That’s a long period of time with a killer on the loose. Their lackadaisical approach towards obtaining Alphon’s clothing seems to be negligent, ID parade or not.

[moste]

[QUOTE=babybird67;n3291]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.

Views (expressed politely and without bullying tactics) please.[/QUOTE

[Natalie Severn]

With respect Vic, how do you know anything much of Alphon"s intimate samples remained after he was released from custody? My impression is that Acott lost interest after Valerie identified Michael Clark and not Alphon.
Best
Norma

[Victor]

Except that it was DNA from Hanratty"s seminal fluid they found on the cloth sample.So that sounds like it could have come from the broken vial that people suggested contained a wash of Hanratty's seminal fluid .Cellophane was also used for storage and the paper envelopes were coming apart at the edges.

Hi Norma,

Yes but that means that there were equal opportunities for Alphon, or anyone who may have handled the knickers (such as those at the committal) to have contaminated the sample, and yet we know that no other DNA profile was found, so those routes of contamination failed. Which in turn means that the sample is more unlikely to have been contaminated.

Alphon's profile was absent despite possible routes of contamination with his cellular material, that to me means he did not do the rape.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Richard,
I can quite see how you view this but you are incorrect about Hanratty being a person to panic in the way you suggest.Alphon was the one who appears to have been a state of overwhelming "panic" both when Juliana Galves saw him at 11.45 looking dishevelled and distracted--moving close to the open suitcase with the pair of ladies Black nylon gloves - lying on top of his clothes.Incidently--he never allowed the police to see that suitcase , ever, or his clothes .
Viz: Acott to Alphon:
Now tell me the hotels and offices where your luggage is,so I can find it and examine your clothing
Alphon: No,I dont want my private papers scrutinized.They are political.How do you think thats going to help?Do you think I"ve got blood stained shirts?

Acott: Have you got blood stained shirts?

Alphon, Ofcourse not but I dont want to produce them to you.......

{and he never did}
However when Police moved on to Hanratty he told Acott exactly where his clothes were,so police could retrieve them and gave immediate permission for them to conduct whatever scientific tests they wanted.[which they did and found nothing whatsoever to link him with the murder concerning any of those clothes "not a hair nor a fibre nor a fingerprint matched Hanratty"s in that Morris Minor ".
Nor did Hanratty panic when in custody or when he was in the witness box being grilled for hours by the prosecution.
In the interlude in between August 23rd and his arrest in Blackpool he was mainly enjoying him self out and about with his girl friends and new sports car!
Cheers
Norma
Will be away for a few days now---see you here Friday Richard!

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
I can see , and understand, both arguments here, but surely this case was considered proven by experts in the field when the Dna results were known, they are professionals, not speculators, if one takes their findings, and places that amongst the court findings at Hanrattys trial, and most important of all the conviction of a living victim ie, Valerie Storey, that she had no doubts in his guilt for eg. ' As soon as we were confronted he knew the 'game was up', then why is it doubt still lingers amongst so many ?
I remember the case, and all the 'Innocent pleas', I am well aware of dodgy Identification parades, having been in one myself in the early sixties, I am also aware of certain police methods that may have been used to incriminate a person to obtain a conviction, however in this case, there is no doubt [ in my opinion] that the right man was convicted.
Hanratty was not the smartest crook on the planet, he panicked in the car, he panicked after he shot Gregson[ proberly his attempt to disarm the gunman] he would have panicked after he shot Valerie, he panicked disposing of the gun, and when convicted and sentenced to death he panicked to save his neck, his only hope resting on his familys belief in his innocence.
That sums up my feelings .
Regards Richard.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

Of course we need to include any other possible contaminators too, such as Alphon's samples (see previous reference to Alphon's hairs discovered with the knicker fragment) for which there was no trace revealed in the results, or the hairs recovered from the scene.

KR,
Vic.

Hi Vic,
Except that it was DNA from Hanratty"s seminal fluid they found on the cloth sample.So that sounds like it could have come from the broken vial that people suggested contained a wash of Hanratty's seminal fluid .Cellophane was also used for storage and the paper envelopes were coming apart at the edges.
Norma

[Victor]

Quite clearly the knickers (exhibit 26 at trial) and later the fragment cut from the crotch area and the handkerchief (exhibit 35) are of first importance. So too, as possible contaminators, are James Hanratty’s intimate samples and items of clothing which may have borne traces of his DNA

Hi Norma,

Of course we need to include any other possible contaminators too, such as Alphon's samples (see previous reference to Alphon's hairs discovered with the knicker fragment) for which there was no trace revealed in the results, or the hairs recovered from the scene.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Thanks Victor, I will study the links you gave me tonight,- meanwhile I am posting number 111 and 115 from the same 2002 judgement you used.It shows quite clearly how garments,including the trousers stained on the inside with Hanratty"s semen and the knickers and the hanky---at that point were all brought out at the Committal when DNA could have migrated. As well as that it has been agreed that the contents of the broken vial could have contained a wash from Hanratty"s trousers and could have caused contamination during storage.

115.[ of Judgement]:
All the exhibits, including those mentioned, were produced at the committal proceedings which took place between 22 November 1961 and 5 December 1961. If the usual procedures of the time were followed it would seem doubtful that any one of the exhibits, barring possibly the gun and certain of the cartridges, would ever have been removed from its packaging or container. Even so, as Mr Mansfield points out and the respondent concedes, the possibility that there was contact between the various exhibits cannot be excluded altogether.

Hi Norma,

Yes there are a number of possibilities and the judgment refers to the "possibility of contamination" not being ruled out, but then there's the oft repeated problem of the selective degredation of the rapist's DNA (if it wasn't Hanratty) and no known process will do that and leave the other two DNA profiles on the mixed sample intact, not even your suggestion of a selective scraping or targetting of the rapist's semen for which I can't envision how that would be done.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Vic, Sorry,these too should also have been included because these were all the items produced at the committal:

112
On 7 October 1961 a suitcase containing James Hanratty’s clothing was seized from the home of his girlfriend, Louise Anderson. It was received at the laboratory on 9 October. Amongst other items it contained a pair of dark pinstriped trousers (part of the Hepworth suit) and a green jacket and trousers. Some hairs and fibres were removed from the outside of the dark trousers as was a sample from a seminal stain on the inside of the fly. A suggestion, which has not been contradicted, is that the seminal stain may have been washed out and retained in the form of a liquid. Quite clearly the knickers (exhibit 26 at trial) and later the fragment cut from the crotch area and the handkerchief (exhibit 35) are of first importance. So too, as possible contaminators, are James Hanratty’s intimate samples and items of clothing which may have borne traces of his DNA


Quite clearly the knickers (exhibit 26 at trial) and later the fragment cut from the crotch area and the handkerchief (exhibit 35) are of first importance. So too, as possible contaminators, are James Hanratty’s intimate samples and items of clothing which may have borne traces of his DNA

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Victor, I will study the links you gave me tonight,- meanwhile I am posting number 111 and 115 from the same 2002 judgement you used.It shows quite clearly how garments,including the trousers stained on the inside with Hanratty"s semen and the knickers and the hanky---at that point were all brought out at the Committal when DNA could have migrated. As well as that it has been agreed that the contents of the broken vial could have contained a wash from Hanratty"s trousers and could have caused contamination during storage.

Yes,you are quite right in stating the trousers themselves were not stored, my mistake.


115.[ of Judgement]:
All the exhibits, including those mentioned, were produced at the committal proceedings which took place between 22 November 1961 and 5 December 1961. If the usual procedures of the time were followed it would seem doubtful that any one of the exhibits, barring possibly the gun and certain of the cartridges, would ever have been removed from its packaging or container. Even so, as Mr Mansfield points out and the respondent concedes, the possibility that there was contact between the various exhibits cannot be excluded altogether.

the following refers to the first line of the above extract beginning,"All the exhibits..."

111.[ of the judgement]
The knickers arrived at the Metropolitan Police Laboratory (MPL) on 23 August 1961 where they were examined by Dr Nickolls, the director and his assistant, Henry Howard. They were found to be stained with seminal fluid in the area of the crotch and at the back for five inches upwards from the crotch. Vaginal fluid from Valerie Storie was also present. There were smaller quantities of seminal fluid of blood group AB assumed to have come at some earlier stage from Michael Gregsten. Although the laboratory records are not dated, the notes are numbered sequentially and we are confident that the knickers were examined almost immediately and in any event no later than 23 September 1961 when the notes show that certain samples taken from Peter Alphon were examined at the laboratory. The handkerchief came to the laboratory on 25 August, was screened for blood and semen and, none being found, seems to have been put to one side. Best Norma

[Victor]

Sorry the last link doesn't work...It's actually http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/...tement%202.pdf

But I did find this...http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/html/codis_swgdam.htm

Not had chance to read it all yet.

KR,
Vic.