A6 Rebooted

[OneRound]

...

Incidentally, with regard to the hoary old chestnut of the Identikits, it is on record that JH was at the Frances' flat watching TV when the Identikits were flashed onto the screen. Mrs France remarked to JH that one of them, the one produced by Valerie, "looks just like you!"

Graham

Did Mrs France go on to add, ''apart from the absence of freckles''? I think not.

Also, good closing point in John's post today that none of ''the Rhyl witnesses'' appear to have said anything about Hanratty having such a distinctive facial feature.

Best regards,

OneRound

[OneRound]

I strongly suspect that if the AB semen had been shown to be from someone other than Gregsten, the evidence for contamination (deemed hopelessly inadequate when cited by the defence) would have been found strong enough to support the idea of contamination with DNA from A. N. Other, Esq - in preference to accepting that the rape may have been perpetrated by someone else...

Hi Dupplin - I think we're at one here. My main point was that if the idea of contamination from A. N. Other, Esq could have been shown, that in itself should have been sufficient to doubt the reliability of the DNA evidence as a whole and therefore that part of it against Hanratty.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Sherlock Houses]

Charlotte France..............

Incidentally, with regard to the hoary old chestnut of the Identikits, it is on record that JH was at the Frances' flat watching TV when the Identikits were flashed onto the screen. Mrs France remarked to JH that one of them, the one produced by Valerie, "looks just like you!"

Hanratty himself volunteered this information to his defence team about Charlotte France's alleged remark. As Paul Foot muses [on page 49 of his book] it was a very puzzling and mysterious comment for her to make, especially when you consider the reality that neither Identi-kit picture looks even remotely like Hanratty. As the recent A6 murder was arguably the major news topic of the day I'd hazard a guess that Hanratty and Mr and Mrs France were all aware of the fact that the alleged murder weapon had been found underneath the upstairs back seat of a 36A bus 5 days earlier. If so, it would seem reasonable to assume that Dixie had told his wife about Hanratty mentioning to him a couple or so weeks earlier that that was such a hiding place for him [Hanratty] to dispose of worthless stolen stuff. Putting two and two together [and getting five] she would then associate Hanratty in some way with the murder weapon. Something along these lines is the only fathomable proposal I can come up with to try to explain her truly bewildering remark about Hanratty resembling the Identi-kit images.

Hanratty looks absolutely nothing like the Identi-kit pictures and anyone suggesting that he does is being perverse in my opinion.

[moste]

Unless Mrs. France said it in this manner. "Hey! he looks just like you Jimmy, Ha Ha HA" . except if it was only as a bit of jest, its hard to think why James would ever mention it again,

[moste]

No big deal Graham I just wanted to hear you say "you were willing to accept that," regarding it being Michael Hanratty that Sherlock had spoken to. And therefor you could take it to the bank, James's complexion I mean.
So I think to sum up,( and I would love to hear Norma Buddles take on this.)We have an interesting situation where the defence, before, during, or after Hanratty"s demise, the A6 committee, all the people who have written books, and, this forum up until Sherlocks bombshell just the other day, all failed to realise, even given a possible fading over the weeks following Aug. 23rd. that at that period in time his heavily freckled face, would without doubt have been the most striking feature of even the most fleeting glimpse of this man.

[moste]

Thank you John for concurring with me. I think its fair to say now, Valerie Storie couldn't have seen James Hanratty.And her identification of him was most likely influenced by others ,and to put it mildly an absolute SHAM.
Ps. Excellent work Sherlock.

[john]

I have always taken the view that the defence did not serve Hanratty well. They should have far more inquisitive about some of the prosecution witnesses. However it reflects the era the trial was held in. Even defences were deferent to the system. Now they positively attack it.

We also only have the word of the forensic team for the DNA results. The defence were never allowed to test anything themselves with an independent scientist. Thus we only have the words of the state scientist. A Scientist paid for by the state/prosecution. Of course you say, they would be totally honest and scrupulous.

Do I need to list the considerable times that the forensic teams in criminal cases have found to be say at the very least faulty if not perverse in their evidence.

In any scientific conclusions on any matter, the most fundamental fact is that it should be able to be tested and confirmed at least twice by separate people. That is why some recent scientific theories be it biology or chemistry or physics etc have collapsed when tested by an other person other that the proposer. If the DNA Had been found by an independent tester than I would be more convinced of the solidity of the results.

It must be one of the very few cases where the 'defence' have never been able to test themselves. It happens always now.

[Graham]

No big deal Graham I just wanted to hear you say "you were willing to accept that," regarding it being Michael Hanratty that Sherlock had spoken to. And therefor you could take it to the bank, James's complexion I mean

By accepting that JH had freckles doesn't necessarily imply that they were a prominent aspect of his appearance. Otherwise don't you think that they would have been mentioned by all the various A6 writers down the years? Do the photos of JH in Paul Foot's book suggest that he had prominent freckles? I don't think so.

Not at all convincing, I'm afraid.

Graham

[Spitfire]

I believe that Hanratty was present in court for the entire duration of his trial of over three weeks, so the jury had ample opportunity for comparing him with the indentikits produced during the search for the killer. Likewise Michael Sherrard had ample opportunity for adverting the jury's attention to the presence of an abundance of freckles on the face of Hanratty, and the lack thereof on either of the indentikits.

Until the final DNA test results were made known, I was a Hanratty supporter. I believed, like Hanratty's defence team,that the DNA would exonerate Hanratty. The handkerchief would not disclose a link to Hanratty and the knickers fragment would disclose the indentity of the real rapist of Miss Storie and the killer of Michael Gregsten. The Defence had its own experts (Drs Lincoln and Evison) to oversee the tests.

I believe that the defence experts were convinced that the DNA of Hanratty had been found, hence the only argument on appeal being that it had got there by contamination. But if that be right, what had happened to the rapist's DNA? A question that has been posed many times but never answered by an expert instructed by the defence.

[cobalt]

I would place little store by the DNA evidence.

As John pointed out, if an experiment cannot be repeated a number of times giving the same result, then it is scientifically meaningless. That is an Achilles Heel within Low Copy DNA, and exacerbated when only fragments of the original evidence is available for testing.

Secondly, in serious miscarriages of justice the prosecution has been found guilt of doctoring or concealing evidence. The Birmingham6 and Stefan Kisko cases are two of the better known. In neither case was the person guilty of wilful misrepresentation called to account; this would suggest the practice is not yet completely outlawed.

The Hanratty case is a harder one to explain away than other controversial executions around the time, so the possibility of perjured evidence (for a man already dead in any case) remains.

[Graham]

The Hanratty case is a harder one to explain away than other controversial executions around the time, so the possibility of perjured evidence (for a man already dead in any case) remains.

What were these 'other controversial executions around this time'? Can you be specific?

Graham

[moste]

Check out J.H. opposite page 241 in Paul Foots, "Who killed Hanratty". Is this ( to quote V.S.)" a pale face "would you say? or more akin to someone ruddy faced, with freckles. What do you think gang?
In consequence what is convincing I think, is that the fist time V.S. saw J.H. is in the line up, when she picked out the man she thought she was supposed to pick out. prompting Acott to utter that damning phrase "Well done! I knew I had settled my score"

[cobalt]

I was referring to cases in the years leading up to the abolition of capital punishment in the UK. The three commonly referred to are those of Tim Evans, Derek Bentley and Ruth Ellis.

In the latter two their guilt is less of an issue, than the punishment meted out. Tim Evans' execution was a different matter since his neighbour John Christie, whom he had accused at trial, was subsequently found to have been a serial killer over a number of years. It took the authorities the best part of a dozen years to pardon Evans, at one point suggesting that although he may have been innocent of one murder he was probably guilty of the one for which he was not tried. This despite the fact the bodies of his wife and daughter were found together at the same time! So officially, as of 1965, no innocent person had been executed in the UK.

Hanratty was unlike the other three accused: he was described as being sharp to the point of being cocky. And more tellingly he had an alibi (challenged it is true), no obvious motive and no credible forensic evidence to link him with the crime.

[Graham]

Hi Cobalt,

what you say is perfectly correct. However, to this day there is a suspicion that Timothy Evans did in fact kill his daughter, whether he was pardoned or not. It was an extremely complicated case, as is the A6. I haven't read anything about this case for a long time, but may just do so now you've raised it.

Derek Bentley was the victim of the technically correct but unbelievably vicious application of the law at the time. He killed no-one, but because it was considered he and Craig went out armed and therefore intended to use the gun, together with the infamous "Let him have it, Chris!" uttered by Bentley, and the fact that the victim was a police officer, the law condemned him and not Craig, who was too young to hang.

Ruth Ellis pleaded 'not guilty' at the insistence of her barrister, but when she was asked by the prosecution what she intended to do when she fired the gun at Blakeley, she replied that she intended to kill him and that was that as far as a verdict was concerned. It appears that she genuinely wanted to die for what she had done.

Yes, Hanratty did have an alibi - the Rhyl Alibi - but it was never proved and never can be. As I've said many times over the years, if the A6 Case had happened under Scottish law, the probable verdict would have been 'not proven'.

Graham

[OneRound]

Hi Cobalt,

what you say is perfectly correct. However, to this day there is a suspicion that Timothy Evans did in fact kill his daughter, whether he was pardoned or not. It was an extremely complicated case, as is the A6. I haven't read anything about this case for a long time, but may just do so now you've raised it.

Derek Bentley was the victim of the technically correct but unbelievably vicious application of the law at the time. He killed no-one, but because it was considered he and Craig went out armed and therefore intended to use the gun, together with the infamous "Let him have it, Chris!" uttered by Bentley, and the fact that the victim was a police officer, the law condemned him and not Craig, who was too young to hang.

Ruth Ellis pleaded 'not guilty' at the insistence of her barrister, but when she was asked by the prosecution what she intended to do when she fired the gun at Blakeley, she replied that she intended to kill him and that was that as far as a verdict was concerned. It appears that she genuinely wanted to die for what she had done.

Yes, Hanratty did have an alibi - the Rhyl Alibi - but it was never proved and never can be. As I've said many times over the years, if the A6 Case had happened under Scottish law, the probable verdict would have been 'not proven'.

Graham

Hi Cobalt and Graham - certainly some stand out cases there.

Another well worth a read in my opinion is the Cameo Murders of 1949. I don't have time to go into detail now but it too has many intriguing and unsettling features.

Best regards,

OneRound