Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A6 Rebooted

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

  • Originally posted by jimarilyn View Post
    I'd rather live with the missus thanks.
    I'm glad of that, but whilst living with your missus you will have to live with the concession made by the scourge of the right wing, Micky Mansfield.

    Comment


    • I was present in court the morning when Michael Mansefield in answer to a question from Nigel Sweeney the crown council he conceded that the DNA evidence exculpated Alphon . I can assure you that this was not a veiw shared by the Hanratty family, Bob Woffinden ,or I was led to believe other members of his legal team .I believe it to have been a faux pas on the part M Mansefield, faux pas or not, once conceded it could not be retracted and their Lordships seized on it and icluded it in their written down judgement.
      A written judgement is not as is often quoted here a transcript of the actual appeal court hearing .
      A transcript of the proceedings would show that on the third day of the appeal court hearing the crown asked and were granted an adjournment until the following week. The reason they stated was to give more time for the forensic scientists ,who were going to give evidence on their behalf, to prepare their case.As the DNA findings had been concluded some time before and were supposedly uncontroversial, one can only speculate as to why at this late date it was necessary for them to request more time to examine them
      regards julie q

      Comment


      • Originally posted by jimarilyn View Post
        It appears that hypocrisy and double standards are alive and well on these boards.
        Precisely, jimarilyn. Well said.

        I'm so glad you agree that becoming the judge, jury and criminal profiling expert, to find Alphon guilty, with no trial and zero evidence that the semen left in Valerie's knickers had anything to do with him, is displaying hypocrisy in the extreme, and an extraordinary double standard, when in the same breath you condemn the entire criminal justice system for finding Hanratty guilty, when he was: positively identified by the rape victim; tried in a court of law but did not have the wit he was born with to mention Rhyl at the first opportunity and stick with it; found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the jury; and his DNA was found forty years later on the two main pieces of physical evidence that had connected him with the crime in the first place: the knickers with semen consistent with that scraped from the fly of his trousers; and the snotty hanky which he admitted was his.

        How many murder cases have there been where the original prime suspect was let go and a second suspect charged instead, with the first man turning out to be the guilty party after all? Add in the real murderer's penchant for pointing the finger at himself, like a demented Suicidal Sid, while failing to provide any incriminating details himself, and you have a recipe for a ludicrously implausible tv crime drama, only more inventive.

        How many murderers have confessed voluntarily, without some desperate need or desire to give themselves up, via an attack of conscience, loss of nerve, voices in their head or whatever? How many of those confessed voluntarily while having no intention of actually incriminating themselves? What would be the point, when they could simply have walked away from it, said nothing and got away with murder?

        Contrast this with how many disturbed individuals have confessed to crimes in which they took no part, because they were crying out for the attention it could bring them, the recognition, the fame or fortune, the notoriety, or they were just wired up wrongly.

        Try finking about it. You know it makes sense. You know that in an innocent Hanratty's shoes you'd have shouted Rhyl at the top of your voice, and in a guilty Alphon's shoes you'd have kept your head down and blessed the boys in blue for huge mercies.

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        Last edited by caz; 02-17-2011, 06:05 PM.
        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


        Comment


        • Originally posted by julie q View Post
          ...one can only speculate as to why at this late date it was necessary for them to request more time to examine them
          regards julie q
          Belt and braces, Julie?

          They probably predicted that the most entrenched Hanratty defenders would take all the convincing in the known universe and then some.

          And nobody can say they were not right.

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


          Comment


          • - Why is this case of the A6 murders personally important to you?

            It's not personal at all. I just have an interest in miscarrigages of justice.


            - How and when did you become interested in it?

            I watched a documentary years ago, and felt really sorry for the family so took an interest in the case.



            - What aspects of this case particularly fascinate you and inspire you to study the case in detail?

            My intinct tells me that JH was not guilty, but accept I could be totally wrong. Compared to others on the thread, my knowledge is limited. But I do read this thread on a regular basis, in the hope that new evidence comes to light.



            - What aspects of this case do you feel are important for others to understand because they relate to issues of Justice?

            The DNA evidence is what is most relevant. The DNA evidence "proved" that JH had been the murderer/rapist. However, because I've now read up on this the type of DNA testing used (banned in the USA apparently), I'm not totally convinced,




            - What (if any) lasting effect do you think this case will have on England and her citizens?

            The A6 Murder happened over 50 years ago and in the intervening time there have been many documentaties, books and articles about the case. During this time more and more people believed that JH was innocent. Then came the DNA testing which seemed to prove that JH was guilty. I certainly thought he was - believing that DNA testing was absolute proof of this guilt.
            About two years ago I found this site, and here I am - not debating very much - but popping in and keeping myself updated.

            Comment


            • Hi Caz,
              when he was positively identified by the rape victim;
              How this "positive identification" was accepted without question is beyond me.Surely a "positive identification" should
              a] not follow on the heels of a previous "positive identification" of a man whose named was Micheal Clark ,a man moreover who Valerie agreed in court, in response to questions from Michael Sherrard,she had previously said looked a bit like Alphon?
              or
              b] take the victim nearly twenty minutes to decide over?-[ even then requiring "voice support" to be truly "positive"]
              Valerie apparently claimed, at some point on or just before the 31st August 1961,---that his eyes were" blue" and not " deep set and brown" which was the description that had been circulated by police and had reached all the Nationals and had been given out by police on TV the week following the murder.
              Apart from the serious inconsistency here regarding the altered description of the suspect in this capital offence, it is an impossibility to be able to determine the eye colour blue in such artificial light ---however long you look it will look appear as a shade of grey---as indeed would hazel eyes look ie eyes the colour of hazel which is composed of a light green / yellow mix.

              All this, all this against a backdrop of Valerie helping to compose an identikit that was a dead ringer for Peter Alphon!.
              Last edited by Natalie Severn; 02-17-2011, 08:21 PM.

              Comment


              • When was the first time the public knew about the hanky?.

                Has anybody got a press cutting from the 24th August 1961 which refers to the box of 60 cartridges and the gun being found with a hanky wrapped round them? I have searched and am carrying on looking so far without success.Thanks

                Comment


                • Originally posted by julie q View Post
                  I was present in court the morning when Michael Mansefield in answer to a question from Nigel Sweeney the crown council he conceded that the DNA evidence exculpated Alphon . I can assure you that this was not a veiw shared by the Hanratty family, Bob Woffinden ,or I was led to believe other members of his legal team .I believe it to have been a faux pas on the part M Mansefield, faux pas or not, once conceded it could not be retracted and their Lordships seized on it and icluded it in their written down judgement.
                  A written judgement is not as is often quoted here a transcript of the actual appeal court hearing .
                  A transcript of the proceedings would show that on the third day of the appeal court hearing the crown asked and were granted an adjournment until the following week. The reason they stated was to give more time for the forensic scientists ,who were going to give evidence on their behalf, to prepare their case.As the DNA findings had been concluded some time before and were supposedly uncontroversial, one can only speculate as to why at this late date it was necessary for them to request more time to examine them
                  regards julie q
                  Smoke and mirrors again by the prosecution! One is surely to goodness entitled to "speculate why the forensic scientists needed more time to prepare their case" for the prosecution .Moreover, hasn"t this same "Dr Whitaker" just been rebuked for the manner in which he made claims pertaining to another case --- claims that other forensic scientists challenge?

                  I am more than a little taken aback that the "written judgment" is not a transcript. Who scribed the "Written Judgement"----?
                  Last edited by Natalie Severn; 02-17-2011, 08:45 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Black Rabbit View Post
                    Has it ever been established whether MG & VS actually DID have intercourse that evening? Did VS confirm as much?
                    Hi BR!
                    Also it there an actual (official) reference regarding the source of the DNA used to compare with MG's so it can be checked?
                    Well all I can find in the judgement[2002] is that " the seminal fluid of blood group AB is assumed to have come from Michael Gegsten."
                    Norma

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
                      Has anybody got a press cutting from the 24th August 1961 which refers to the box of 60 cartridges and the gun being found with a hanky wrapped round them? I have searched and am carrying on looking so far without success.Thanks
                      The information you are looking for is contained on a BBC news archive site called" On this day " it includes an interveiw with Edwin Cooke the man who found them. I am sorry I seem unable to upload this I probably don't have the expertise . If you go to BBC main news page and type in On this day 24/8/61 it will take you to it.I think if just type in A6 murder it may also take you to it

                      A handed down/written judgement from the court of appeal are the findings of the appeal court judges based the submissions of the appellant and the court of appeal hearings. This available free on line. The transcript of the full court of appeal hearing is more difficult to obtain. A copy is held at The Royal Courts Of Justice in the Srand
                      I hope this has been of help to you
                      kind regards
                      julie q

                      Comment


                      • I am so grateful ,Julie q. thankyou .Tomorrow I will check both these out.
                        Kind Regards,
                        Norma

                        Comment


                        • DNAboost

                          I came across the following articles (a little dated I know but relevant none the less) which are very interesting regarding DNA testing. I have taken the liberty of taking a quote from each but please read the whole article in each case.

                          http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7959431.stm

                          ‘Cold Cases’
                          ‘Previously, it was impossible for scientists to accurately separate out DNA from different individuals at one crime scene, for example, where two or more suspects handled the same weapon’



                          http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Is...ostWarmsUp.asp

                          ‘But crime-scene samples which have come from more than one source, or have become contaminated or degraded over time, have until now proved uninterpretable by DNA profiling. ‘

                          So it makes me wonder how such definitive results were achieved from the (mixed) samples taken from the knicker fragment prior to DNAboost
                          Silence is Consent!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Black Rabbit View Post


                            So it makes me wonder how such definitive results were achieved from the (mixed) samples taken from the knicker fragment prior to DNAboost
                            Precisely. If there had been two unidentified contributors to the DNA material under analysis, then there would have been difficulty or even impossibility in identifying the contributors. In the instant case it was possible to exclude the DNA of the known contributors, to wit, Michael Gregsten and Valerie Storie and analyse the remaining contributor or contributors. This matched the profile of Sunny Jim much to the chagrin of his numerous supporters. Their argument was that Jim's DNA was there as a contaminant; but this left the question, where was the real rapist's DNA? Nowhere, being the answer to this poser. So either Jim was the rapist or the rapist's DNA has degraded to the extent that it escapes detection.

                            So, to sum up, one unaccounted for profile which matched Jim's DNA.

                            Comment


                            • Their argument was that Jim's DNA was there as a contaminant; but this left the question, where was the real rapist's DNA? Nowhere, being the answer to this poser. So either Jim was the rapist or the rapist's DNA has degraded to the extent that it escapes detection.
                              But as I now understand,LCN DNA should have included information from the following handlers of the undergarments together with those who had handled the "exhibits" ,all of which were produced,including the knickers, at Ampthill Magistrates Court which opened the prosecution case on 22nd November 1961 lasting until December 5th. The knicker piece was not cut off until the last week of December 1961.

                              Handlers:
                              A] the nurses who had removed the underclothing from V S-[question of whether or not they wore gloves]
                              b] the police who bagged the underclothing and took them to the police lab
                              [this was long before DNA testing so very unlikely they would have worn forensic gear for this.
                              c] the forensic pathologists who cut off the pieces of knicker.[possibly wore gloves]
                              c] the handlers of the exhibits that appeared at Ampthill which were produced from cardboard boxes on several occasions and contained a variety of items---including the knickers and undergarments.

                              Where has all this "vanished" to which I now understand, should have been picked up by LCN DNA?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post

                                Where has all this "vanished" to which I now understand, should have been picked up by LCN DNA?
                                Precisely. If any of the contaminants had been extant when the LCN tests were carried out they could have made it impossible to obtain a clear DNA profile of the murderer, James Hanratty. That there were no contaminants is a matter of the greatest serendipity, for it allowed the forensic boffins to finally bring home the charge to the door of Hanratty. Well done Natalie or Norma for spotting this.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X