A6 murder and the 1967 Nimmo Inquiry

[babybird67]

my mistake

i have now, with help from Vic and Graham (thanks guys) checked the sources for the reference i made to the man who Mrs Dinwoodie spoke to buying cigarettes. It appears i did misread this reference, and she was serving someone else with cigarettes when he came in. Mistakes are made by the best of us, and i am no exception, and am happy to acknowledge my mistake.

[RonIpstone]

Michael Sherrard QC is a highly respected lawyer who Lord Denning said was "the best of advocates".Michael Sherrard is considered to be one of the foremost advocates of his generation.

..and only one of his clients got hanged!

[Victor]

I find the term "senile ramblings" to be of itself disparaging and offensive -in any context and made by anyone about anyone.

Hi Norma,

Why? My grandmother suffered from Altzheimers and rambled on about all sorts of rubbish, therefore I have no issue with describing any untrue and\or ridiculous comments as possibly senile ramblings. I see absolutely no problem with it whatsoever.

Its use here is intended to be disparaging.

Not true, it was a possible explanation for the blantantly inaccurate quotes that you have posted.

and it is offensive,untrue and in my opinion obscene.

It is neither offensive nor untrue nor obscene.

The biography is co authored by Sherrard"s colleague,the lawyer Linda Goldman.

Well she obviously didn't make a very good job of correcting his errors if so many of them appear in the final book.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Victor,
I find the term "senile ramblings " to be of itself disparaging and offensive -in any context and made by anyone about anyone.Its use here is intended to be disparaging. and it is offensive,untrue and in my opinion obscene. The biography is co authored by Sherrard"s colleague,the lawyer Linda Goldman .
I rarely if ever complain to admin about anything ,ever, on these boards---I leave that to others.But your remarks here are untrue and very offensive .
Norma

[Victor]

I am going to report this statement to admin straight away as I think it needs to be removed from the boards.
Michael Sherrard QC is a highly respected lawyer who Lord Denning said was "the best of advocates".Michael Sherrard is considered to be one of the foremost advocates of his generation.

Hi Norma,

If you take a small portion of it out of context then you would think that. I agree with Lord Denning, he was a great advocate but the error-laden extracts that you have repeated quoted from his autobiography indicate that his memory may be failing and one explanation could be the perfectly natural senility that comes with advancing years.

KR,
Vic.

ps. Feigned indignation is a pathetic tactic - if it's not feigned then you obviously didn't read the post carefully enough.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,


I wasn't and have the judgment to support my position, what have you got? The innacurate, and\or biased, and\or deliberately distorted, and\or senile ramblings, of the advocate who was duped by his client 49 years ago.

KR,
Vic.

What a foul,untrue, obscene and revolting statement.

I am going to report this statement to admin straight away as I think it needs to be removed from the boards.
Michael Sherrard QC is a highly respected lawyer who Lord Denning said was "the best of advocates".Michael Sherrard is considered to be one of the foremost advocates of his generation.

[Victor]

All this sad story was about was Gregsten"s family getting utterly fed up with serial adulterer Michael Gregsten. They determined to frighten off the young woman who had fallen under his spell by hiring a "hitman" as Alphon said---trouble was whoever it was bungled badly!

That's highly speculative Norma, and you still haven't explained the hypocrisy of saying any East End kid would have done it for thrupence, and yet Alphon supposedly got the equivalent of £250,000 for doing it.

I am inclined to think it could have been Alphon,yes, but with Nudds giving out disinformation at the rate of knots, who knows?

And here we go again, the only people who rely on Nudds are those who think Alphon had anything to do with the A6 murder

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Oh,then if thats the line of argument its absurd to discuss anything here with you at all because your mind is made up,you accept everything they say without question

Hi Norma,

I accept what the judgment has to say on the matter unless there is good, reliable evidence to the contary. All this "dusty" old drawer, and "degraded" or "fragile" scrap of cloth talk is just speculative codswallop.

20 minutes is a heck of a long time to be in a state of uncertainty and hesitation about somebody you are certain was your rapist.

There was no uncertainty, there was just hesitation revealing the result, which is patently obvious considering that she had made a mistake the first time when her attacker wasn't there.

Can you clarify why this was the case?

You know why, there was not enough DNA on the sample tested to give a result with SGM+, so they used the more sensitive LCN technique.

Well not according to everything I have read on it.

You've obviously only read biased accounts then, try reading the judgment which will inform you better.

Please don"t talk poppycock.

I wasn't and have the judgment to support my position, what have you got? The innacurate, and\or biased, and\or deliberately distorted, and\or senile ramblings, of the advocate who was duped by his client 49 years ago.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

All this sad story was about was Gregsten"s family getting utterly fed up with serial adulterer Michael Gregsten.They determined to frighten off the young woman who had fallen under his spell by hiring a "hitman" as Alphon said---trouble was whoever it was bungled badly!
I am inclined to think it could have been Alphon,yes, but with Nudds giving out disinformation at the rate of knots, who knows? It could have been any East End kid who knew Redbridge .,As Stephen Thomas once said ,speaking as a sixties Londoner,---it was so not James Hanratty!

[Hatchett]

Hello Baby Bird

I think the answer is that without Alphon the controversy would probably die or have never existed, and that the answer to the case would return to the jury's decision at the end of the trial.

Best wishes.

[babybird67]

absolutely Jason

Its called muddying the waters. The more dubious characters are mentioned the less we discuss Hanratty's DNA, or his ever changeable alibi.

and i think the Jimmites' case would fall completely to pieces without the crutch that they cling to that is Alphon...you'd have to conceive of yet another person, who would have completely gone under the radar, as murderer and rapist. Why they still cling to such a crutch that has not a shred of evidence to recommend it is anyone's guess.

[jason_c]

why we are discussing Alphon. Hanratty's relatives and his defence counsel both agreed 'Alphon could not have been' the A6 murderer. If that is accepted by the Defence, what is the problem accepting it now? Why keep maligning a man's character without any evidence whatsoever?

Its called muddying the waters. The more dubious characters are mentioned the less we discuss Hanratty's DNA, or his ever changeable alibi.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Vic,

Because it says so in the judgment.

Oh,then if thats the line of argument its absurd to discuss anything here with you at all because your mind is made up,you accept everything they say without question

Why? She made a mistake the first time and wanted to be sure the second. Yes she did select Clark in preference to Alphon, and he wasn't her rapist.

.

20 minutes is a heck of a long time to be in a state of uncertainty and hesitation about somebody you are certain was your rapist.

They had to use LCN because SGM did not give acceptable results.

Can you clarify why this was the case?

And yes, fairly acceptable, the first manilla envelope was dry, the second too, and the sellotape had come away from the cellophane, but it was conatined.

Well not according to everything I have read on it.

And yes, fairly acceptable, the first manilla envelope was dry, the second too, and the sellotape had come away from the cellophane, but it was conatined.

Please don"t talk poppycock.

[babybird67]

i still don't understand...

why we are discussing Alphon. Hanratty's relatives and his defence counsel both agreed 'Alphon could not have been' the A6 murderer. If that is accepted by the Defence, what is the problem accepting it now? Why keep maligning a man's character without any evidence whatsoever?

[Victor]

And how on earth do you know this?The whole point is that nobody knows what happened or whether or not it had been inside that particular drawer for over 31 years , abandoned.To state otherwise is just pure speculation.

Hi Norma,

Because it says so in the judgment.

Well it sounds a very odd way to go about things.One thing you can not deny is that Valerie picked out Michael Clark,in her first try,and she wrong.

Why? She made a mistake the first time and wanted to be sure the second. Yes she did select Clark in preference to Alphon, and he wasn't her rapist.

If it wasnt nearly bare of DNA why on earth did they have to use Low Copy Number DNA testing on it and then throw it away saying there was nothing left on it to test? Why LCN ? BTW where is the other half off the section that was cut from the crotch---any idea?

They had to use LCN because SGM did not give acceptable results.

All the DNA was washed from the sample to test so there was no need to keep it any long - although they may well have done so.

The first half was used in the first set of test at the request of Woffinden on behalf of the Hanratty family, and the second half in the LCN tests.

Even though there was a broken vial inside it,separated from its rubber stopper that could have contained a wash from semen stained trousers?Apparently there were other items from Hanratty in that drawer too.

There were hairs from Alphon too. And yes, fairly acceptable, the first manilla envelope was dry, the second too, and the sellotape had come away from the cellophane, but it was conatined.

Not exactly comparable at all.DNA from bones does last.DNA from cloth can disappear in a matter of weeks.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...7124555AAFg8aZ

Sorry, that's "scientifically unacceptable" in the words of Prof Jamieson...
From http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/...tement%202.pdf

Dr Whitaker’s proffered explanation was that the most rational explanation for such failure was the degradation of the frozen DNA. This is simply scientifically unacceptable. DNA is an inherently stable molecule and requires something to destroy or degrade it; examples are action by light, cellular enzymes, or bacteria.

DNA has been extracted from mummies (albeit with mixed success), and profiles are routinely obtained in Medical Genetics from blood spots on card stored at room temperature that are at least 40 years old.

which in your Yahoo link is mentioned here..."So most of the DNA from a human body would degrade pretty quickly, sitting at room temperature, with all sorts of impurities around to help break it down."

Moreover nobody knows who handled that cloth. It was in a brown envelope whose edges had come apart and it was left abandoned for 31 years in a dusty old drawer.

It doesn't matter who handled the cloth, the results show no contamination occurred. And I'd like to know how you conclude the drawer was "dusty".

The envelope it was found in was falling apart.

One of the 3 envelopes had come unsealed, that's a long long long way from "falling apart".

KR,
Vic.