Tweet
Richard Ingrams, the doddery former editor of the scandal sheet Private Eye, took his moment in the public spotlight as guest editor of BBC Radio 4’s Today to champion the cause of convicted murderer, James Hanratty.
We, the listening public, had been warned by the BBC’s website that Dickie Ingrams would be looking at the case of James Hanratty, and I quote what was written there:
“He [Ingrams] will be looking at the case of James Hanratty, who was hanged for the notorious A6 Murder, and plans to launch a fresh appeal against that conviction.....”
It does not seem to have been appreciated by the BBC that the carrying into execution of the 1962 sentence curtailed James Hanratty’s ability to plan for anything but we will let that pass. To get us in the mood and to add topicality to the guest editor’s choice of story, the last item on every news bulletin was the ‘news’ that a second appeal against the 1962 conviction was being planned. We, the great British listening public, should have been warned that factual accuracy was not going to be the strong suit of either the BBC News or its guest editor for the day; for Jim appealed in 1962, a second appeal on his behalf was dismissed in 2002 and a further appeal would, by my calculations, be a third appeal. But let us let that pass.
Eventually, at about 8.10 am, we reached the story itself. What a damp squib. We heard Jim’s brother trotting out the sincerely held belief that Jim was not the culprit. Bindman and Ingrams, the latter picking up the baton from his 'best friend', the late Paul Foot, mumbled the usual nonsense about contamination and DNA not being all it’s cracked up to be. We heard from Matt Foot, a solicitor and son of Paul, who rather guardedly informed us that DNA was not infallible, and that the science should be questioned. There being no show without Punch, we had to hear the views of Bobby Woffinden. To add balance we had a five second clip from the 1960s of Valerie Storie saying it was Hanratty what done it.
I thought that there might be some meat in this otherwise stale and unpalatable sandwich when a delightful lady by the name of Linda Geddes was produced to add her considered views. It seems that Linda is a boffin of some description who writes for the New Scientist and accordingly well qualified to speak on DNA matters. Yet fairly early in her interview she cheerfully admitted that she had not seen the DNA file on the Hanratty/A6 exhibits and accordingly could not comment specifically on the validity or otherwise of those tests. However, she seemed to indicate that the tests (the results of which she had not seen) might (a high chance) have disclosed a match with a person other than Hanratty, but it was all speculation. Why had Bindman not given her the file? Why had Ingrams not drafted in someone who had seen the file and who had the appropriate qualifications to speak on the matter?
To refresh our minds, the Court of Appeal in 2002 was prepared to accept that there was the possibility of contamination, but posed the question, if Hanratty’s DNA was present as a contaminant, then what had become of the rapist/murderer’s DNA? In August 1961 the rapist/murderer’s blood group was detected on the knickers from the seminal fluid deposited thereon. These tests were conducted well before any possibility of contamination from James Hanratty could arise.
Bindman, Woffinden and now, it seems, Ingrams must come up with a plausible answer to the question posed by the Court of Appeal in 2002. On the evidence on the Today programme broadcast today they are a long way yet from formulating such a reply. At no stage did Sir Geoffrey intimate that further scientific evidence could be adduced which could explain the conundrum of the vanishing DNA of the real rapist/murderer. Mr Ingrams’ avowed intention was to vindicate the name of his ‘best friend’, Paul Foot, which he believes has been besmirched by Hanratty’s undoubted guilt. He, Ingrams, will have to do better than this showing.
We, the listening public, had been warned by the BBC’s website that Dickie Ingrams would be looking at the case of James Hanratty, and I quote what was written there:
“He [Ingrams] will be looking at the case of James Hanratty, who was hanged for the notorious A6 Murder, and plans to launch a fresh appeal against that conviction.....”
It does not seem to have been appreciated by the BBC that the carrying into execution of the 1962 sentence curtailed James Hanratty’s ability to plan for anything but we will let that pass. To get us in the mood and to add topicality to the guest editor’s choice of story, the last item on every news bulletin was the ‘news’ that a second appeal against the 1962 conviction was being planned. We, the great British listening public, should have been warned that factual accuracy was not going to be the strong suit of either the BBC News or its guest editor for the day; for Jim appealed in 1962, a second appeal on his behalf was dismissed in 2002 and a further appeal would, by my calculations, be a third appeal. But let us let that pass.
Eventually, at about 8.10 am, we reached the story itself. What a damp squib. We heard Jim’s brother trotting out the sincerely held belief that Jim was not the culprit. Bindman and Ingrams, the latter picking up the baton from his 'best friend', the late Paul Foot, mumbled the usual nonsense about contamination and DNA not being all it’s cracked up to be. We heard from Matt Foot, a solicitor and son of Paul, who rather guardedly informed us that DNA was not infallible, and that the science should be questioned. There being no show without Punch, we had to hear the views of Bobby Woffinden. To add balance we had a five second clip from the 1960s of Valerie Storie saying it was Hanratty what done it.
I thought that there might be some meat in this otherwise stale and unpalatable sandwich when a delightful lady by the name of Linda Geddes was produced to add her considered views. It seems that Linda is a boffin of some description who writes for the New Scientist and accordingly well qualified to speak on DNA matters. Yet fairly early in her interview she cheerfully admitted that she had not seen the DNA file on the Hanratty/A6 exhibits and accordingly could not comment specifically on the validity or otherwise of those tests. However, she seemed to indicate that the tests (the results of which she had not seen) might (a high chance) have disclosed a match with a person other than Hanratty, but it was all speculation. Why had Bindman not given her the file? Why had Ingrams not drafted in someone who had seen the file and who had the appropriate qualifications to speak on the matter?
To refresh our minds, the Court of Appeal in 2002 was prepared to accept that there was the possibility of contamination, but posed the question, if Hanratty’s DNA was present as a contaminant, then what had become of the rapist/murderer’s DNA? In August 1961 the rapist/murderer’s blood group was detected on the knickers from the seminal fluid deposited thereon. These tests were conducted well before any possibility of contamination from James Hanratty could arise.
Bindman, Woffinden and now, it seems, Ingrams must come up with a plausible answer to the question posed by the Court of Appeal in 2002. On the evidence on the Today programme broadcast today they are a long way yet from formulating such a reply. At no stage did Sir Geoffrey intimate that further scientific evidence could be adduced which could explain the conundrum of the vanishing DNA of the real rapist/murderer. Mr Ingrams’ avowed intention was to vindicate the name of his ‘best friend’, Paul Foot, which he believes has been besmirched by Hanratty’s undoubted guilt. He, Ingrams, will have to do better than this showing.
Comment