A6 Rebooted

[moste]

[QUOTE=NickB;n834385]Valerie Storie was interviewed in 2002 for a documentary shown on Channel 4. At 1.07 you can see the policewoman who first talked to Valerie say "She never changed her description ..."

Interesting. At approx. 34 mins Valerie believes, ‘Her romance with Mike would have been over if another 6 months had gone by . Because he wouldn’t have left his boys . Then she maintains ‘the ironic thing is ,had the killing and rape not happened when it did ,they probably would have broke up in a few months , IT would never have happened. Admitting that the whole purpose of the exercise by the killer was to force the two apart. I have never picked up on this before, I was under the false impression that she had not a clue why the man was in the car , all very confusing.
Also ,what is the general feeling of Valerie’s statement that she had been to Mikes home, met with Janet inferring her acceptance of the situation. In another situation they may have been friends. All seems so bizarre.

[NickB]

I took the leap and bought the Sticker book on Kindle which I’ll start reading tonight.

I'll be interested to hear what you think about it. For me, it failed in its claim of being the book Valerie would have written. I just didn't get that feeling, and he seemed to be more concerned about defending the police. I recommend the Channel 4 documentary I linked to on the previous page, and the appeal judgement is good for basic points.

There is also a lot of info on this site. It would be good if it was summarised in a sticky thread, but I suppose each 'side' would complain that it had been wrongly represented!

[Herlock Sholmes]

I know itâs a phantom phenomena. It only happens from my IPad on this site, nowhere else. Iâve even asked the administrators about it to no avail. Sorry,bloody nuisance.

No problem Moste. The complete weirdness of technology.

[moste]

I know it’s a phantom phenomena. It only happens from my IPad on this site, nowhere else. I’ve even asked the administrators about it to no avail. Sorry,bloody nuisance.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think I posted a very few times on the A6 thread but I didn’t want to be irritating by asking questions that were obvious to everyone else on here.

I took the leap and bought the Sticker book on Kindle which I’ll start reading tonight.

I know less about tech that I do about the A6 case so I have to ask what those symbols are that appear with your posts. I don’t see them with anyone else’s posts. I’m assuming that they don’t just appear on my iPad? I’ll cut and paste an example…

‘ kindle’ ?

[moste]

P.S. I read Harrimans book on ‘ kindle’ cheap.

[moste]

That’s a good point but that would mean buying all 4. The Harriman book is considered heavy going on the DNA stuff so I’m concerned at buying a book with 50% of the content only of real interest to people with a science background or who have a real interest in science. Which of the ‘Hanratty is guilty’ books would you recommend as 1st choice? At the moment I’m favouring getting the Stickler book 1st.

And just out of interest Moste are you ‘innocent’ or ‘guilty’?

I thought I had seen you on this board more than I actually had . Maybe the Wallace site confused the memory.

Anyhow , I too read the two books you alluded to, Foot and Woffinden, and was convinced of his innocence , I read Leonard Miller but found him to be unfairly biased , and have never understood the aggressive stance and unwillingness to consider various options of people who follow the ‘It is what it is’ attitude .So much of the entire saga is completely dependent on Valerie Storie’s word which has been unreasonably etched in granite in my opinion, leaving little or no room for doubt for most people.
I would urge you to read her story ,supposedly in her own words, on this site I think uploaded by Sherlock Houses, from a Today magazine ‘supplement . Dispute her surviving a horrendous experience , The woman has always left me with a feeling of ‘all is not being told’.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I read Harrimans book ,or tried to, He comes across if I remember as something of an expert on DNA, and consequently a lot of his explaining on the problems of the use of that particular exhibit went over my head.
on other aspects of the case he has some interesting comments , obviously a person in favour of Hanrattyâs innocence, you would have a balance of 3 and 3 if you read these four in terms of for and against guilt.

That’s a good point but that would mean buying all 4. The Harriman book is considered heavy going on the DNA stuff so I’m concerned at buying a book with 50% of the content only of real interest to people with a science background or who have a real interest in science. Which of the ‘Hanratty is guilty’ books would you recommend as 1st choice? At the moment I’m favouring getting the Stickler book 1st.

And just out of interest Moste are you ‘innocent’ or ‘guilty’?

[moste]

I’ve been considering another dip into the Hanratty case lately but I’m undecided on what I might go for. I’ve read Foot and Woffinden and found them both fascinating but for someone that knows next-to-nothing about the case like me it’s easy get persuaded. I came away thinking “surely there’s more than enough here to doubt his guilt,” but of course that’s the opinion of someone that knows zilch who’s just read two books by committed ‘pro-innocence’ authors (and I’m not denigrating those two authors)

So I was wondering if I could get a few opinions on the 4 books that I’ve seen available (apart from an essay by someone called Lamb which I’m dismissing as an option) Everyone on here knows there stuff but I know that there’s a mixture of guilty and not guilty supporters which will give me a balance. Thanks in advance to anyone that replies.


1. Hanratty’s Guilt: The A6 Murder and its Aftermath by Leonard Miller


2. Executed: But Was Hanratty Innocent by Robert Harriman


3. The Long Silence: The Story of James Hanratty….by Paul Stickler


4. Hanratty - The Inconvenient Truth by Alan Razen

I read Harrimans book ,or tried to, He comes across if I remember as something of an expert on DNA, and consequently a lot of his explaining on the problems of the use of that particular exhibit went over my head.
on other aspects of the case he has some interesting comments , obviously a person in favour of Hanratty’s innocence, you would have a balance of 3 and 3 if you read these four in terms of for and against guilt.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve been considering another dip into the Hanratty case lately but I’m undecided on what I might go for. I’ve read Foot and Woffinden and found them both fascinating but for someone that knows next-to-nothing about the case like me it’s easy get persuaded. I came away thinking “surely there’s more than enough here to doubt his guilt,” but of course that’s the opinion of someone that knows zilch who’s just read two books by committed ‘pro-innocence’ authors (and I’m not denigrating those two authors)

So I was wondering if I could get a few opinions on the 4 books that I’ve seen available (apart from an essay by someone called Lamb which I’m dismissing as an option) Everyone on here knows there stuff but I know that there’s a mixture of guilty and not guilty supporters which will give me a balance. Thanks in advance to anyone that replies.


1. Hanratty’s Guilt: The A6 Murder and its Aftermath by Leonard Miller


2. Executed: But Was Hanratty Innocent by Robert Harriman


3. The Long Silence: The Story of James Hanratty….by Paul Stickler


4. Hanratty - The Inconvenient Truth by Alan Razen

[Pcdunn]

Michael and Maureen Hanratty's son, Darren, was recently interviewed by Metro. He has some very interesting and thought provoking things to say.
Here is the link to that article.....

https://metro.co.uk/2024/06/02/uncle...cent-20923858/

Fascinating article, thank you for the link!

[Sherlock Houses]

Michael and Maureen Hanratty's son, Darren, was recently interviewed by Metro. He has some very interesting and thought provoking things to say.
Here is the link to that article.....

https://metro.co.uk/2024/06/02/uncle-one-last-executed-uk-innocent-20923858/

[Sherlock Houses]

Was it the 1m22 video at at https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GgBbV_SckxA

No, this exhaustive 1min 22 second video is definitely not the video I watched DJW. The one I watched at the time was much longer and I think it was an accompaniment to his book "The Long Silence". It doesn't appear to be available on youtube anymore which is no surprise to me.

[djw]

I was able to view this Sky History documentary ['The guilty innocent'] last night and for me it left loads to be desired. I could hardly believe the amount of screen time that was allotted to the smug ex-policeman Paul Stickler, he seemed to take over proceedings. It's clear to me that his knowledge and understanding of this complex murder mystery is superficial and he is definitely not a stickler for accuracy. Rhyl is definitely not a 40 minute drive from Liverpool Mr Stickler and Michael Gregsten was not shot through the back of the head but through his left temple and lower left ear. That's besides all the errors and assumptions he made in a youtube video of his which I watched about a year or so ago.

Was it the 1m22 video at at https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GgBbV_SckxA

I'd be interested in any inaccuracies including in the Eryberrie video as I'll likely go to the Chichester talk.

[caz]

I've just finished watching this documentary...

A shocking miscarriage of justice which has caused untold damage and suffering to an innocent man incarcerated for so long.
Lasting shame on the Greater Manchester Police. Unforgivable.
Lasting shame on the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Unforgivable.
How many more innocent people have been fitted up by the police and languishing behind prison walls with little hope of obtaining justice ??

Hi SH,

I could not agree more. The documentary shocked me. I was so angry that this level of corruption and injustice could still happen, well into the 21st century.

The rather crucial difference I saw with Hanratty's case was that Andrew Malkinson was provably innocent, and provably fitted up by the Greater Manchester Police, allowing a highly dangerous sexual predator to remain uncaught for all those years. The DNA didn't lie; policemen did, under pressure to get someone for this serious crime and claiming there was no DNA evidence, relying instead on mistaken identification evidence from the victim, which would not have been enough had they not falsely obtained supporting evidence from two dodgy characters who were 'persuaded' to act as witnesses. There was a DNA profile on the victim's vest top, which wasn't Malkinson's. Unfortunately for the police, samples had previously been taken and retained, and the DNA was later matched via the national database to a Mr. B who lived in the vicinity of the attack and was unknown to the victim, so this man should have been picked up and investigated a very long time ago. There appeared to be no timeline for when Malkinson might expect to be fully compensated for having had his life and good name ruined, nor any reassurance that Mr. B was not still alive or a potential threat to the public.

I thought the Post Office scandal was about as bad as it gets, but this tops it: one innocent man coming up against a brick wall of organised evil, which not only destroyed him but left an evil man at large.

The equivalent with Hanratty would have been identifying Alphon's DNA on the victim's underwear, or the DNA of anyone other than Hanratty who was unknown to Valerie Storie, and destroying it after claiming there was no DNA evidence.

Love,

Caz
X