A6 Rebooted

[moste]

Certainly making sense Julie,

That's a coincidence, I was just doing a bit of research on the pill. Apparently public availability according to Wiki. 4th Dec.1961. Enoch Powel approved access through N H S at subsidized cost of 2\- a month. (10p)
Also we have to remember, M.G. may very well have been using a condom, since withdrawal method would have been risky given the apparent regularity, and longevity of their relationship.

[moste]

Here's another bit of an oddity (in my humble opinion) When this desperado gets into the car with gun in hand, and face partly covered, As soon as he decides Gregsten is to be the designated driver, surely he would have taken Valerie's spectacle's away from her for the duration.

[moste]

Julie's last paragraph: However, the exact nature and circumstances of the point at which they were accosted is very important because it may help to understand the motive for this terrible crime.
This is the thing, young John Kerr is insistent that Valerie said "we picked a man up near Slough" and then he held us up.(that's why all the national newspapers were doing a country wide warning about beware of hitchhikers) Now, when Acott had spend 5 hours interviewing her, it was "the tap on the window" by a gunman.
Not too sure about her being concerned about her relationship with Michael, being an issue, since everyone at the office would have known, M.G.s side of the family all knew. As for her folks, we know they liked him very much, surely they would know what was going on, after such a long time,

[Limehouse]

Certainly making sense Julie,

That's a coincidence, I was just doing a bit of research on the pill. Apparently public availability according to Wiki. 4th Dec.1961. Enoch Powel approved access through N H S at subsidized cost of 2\- a month. (10p)
Also we have to remember, M.G. may very well have been using a condom, since withdrawal method would have been risky given the apparent regularity, and longevity of their relationship.

In 1961 though, the pill was only available to married women. If MG was wearing a condom, he would not have left his semen deposits on VS's panties, would he?

As we are on this indelicate topic, I have mentioned this before but it's relevant to repeat it, as VS removed her panties before she was raped, it is rather surprising no deposits were left on the seat or carpets of the car. Not even a tiny smear. Plenty, apparently, in the crotch of her panties, but no where else.

[moste]

No exactly, if he WAS wearing a condom, so the AB sample would be someone else's. I was going to offer various scenarios of what may have been, but I'm sure everyone's imaginations are probably as good as mine, so decided not to go there. As you say "indelicate topic."

[Limehouse]

No exactly, if he WAS wearing a condom, so the AB sample would be someone else's. I was going to offer various scenarios of what may have been, but I'm sure everyone's imaginations are probably as good as mine, so decided not to go there. As you say "indelicate topic."

AB is pretty rare though moste. I do not think there is any doubt that VS and MG made love at some point prior to, or at the moment of, being accosted. This might have been more than 24 hours before, a few moments before or they may have been interrupted during the act. My point is that the evidence, in terms of the statement made about exactly what they were doing when the gunman knocked on the window, may have been 'adjusted' to reflect the idea that they were colleagues rather than lovers.

It's almost as if the gunman was looking for a pair of lovers hidden away in a car in the countryside. Was he looking for VS and MG - or was he a sexual pervert?

If you examine the motives in similar cases (they are rare, but they happen) the motives seem to be either that the killer is resentful and/or disgusted by courting couples, or is a pervert or is seeking to punish the couple.

[caz]

Hi Caz, welcome back.

Well, it was known by Hanratty's close circle that, not only did he hide unwanted loot under the back seat of a bus, but also, his favoured method of wiping off his prints and picking up bits and pieces during robberies was by using his hanky.

One of Hanratty's circle knew he stayed at the Vienna hotel because Hanratty showed him the receipt. So, if the person who hid the gun and ammo kept back a couple of cartridges...... they end up in the hotel room where Hanratty stayed.

I do not necessarily subscribe to this scenario - but it is a possible one nevertheless - and even more so if you happen to believe that Hanratty was involved but did not act alone.

Once again, welcome back.

Julie

Thanks Julie.

So for Hanratty to have been totally innocent, it appears that he would have to have been totally set up, either by the real gunman or an accomplice with access to the murder weapon, who would also have to have been one of Hanratty's cronies, and not some unknown, unconnected killer and rapist.

I'm not sure how comfortably that sits with a second stitch-up on the part of the police, when they had to let Alphon go. And how would the real gunman have steered the police in a Hanratty direction in the first place, had it not been for the strange coincidence of their initial interest in Alphon, who just happened to stay in the same hotel as Hanratty, that same week in August? That coincidence is one thing, but it would appear to have played right into the hands of the real gunman and the police, with nothing but fate pulling the strings.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

AB is pretty rare though moste. I do not think there is any doubt that VS and MG made love at some point prior to, or at the moment of, being accosted. This might have been more than 24 hours before, a few moments before or they may have been interrupted during the act. My point is that the evidence, in terms of the statement made about exactly what they were doing when the gunman knocked on the window, may have been 'adjusted' to reflect the idea that they were colleagues rather than lovers.

Hi again Julie,

I am totally confused now, in light of Derrick's post directed at me:

As I posted, and you quoted, there wasn't any semen, fluid or any other such material of an AB source found at all in 1961.

The judgement from 2002 is completely and utterly wrong on that point. I cannot for the life of me see how I can make this point any clearer.

Can we at least agree that they found semen deposits from two males on Valerie's underwear back in '61, and were somehow able to determine which had come from the rapist, and that his blood group was O? Nobody appears to have disputed this much. But more importantly, why were all Hanratty's defenders asleep when the 2002 judgement came out, if it was 'completely and utterly wrong on that point'?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Originally Posted by Derrick
As I have said before, I have seen copies of Mr Lewis Nickolls' original notes and his testimony at the trial and nowhere is there fluid of group AB reported on Miss Stories knickers at all.

Hi Derrick,

But if, for instance, it was established behind the scenes that the minor staining was group AB semen, and undoubtedly the result of a prior sexual act between the victim and her married lover, could they not have excluded this from the trial testimony as irrelevant and potentially distracting? The morals of the victims were not on trial after all. How can you be sure you have seen everything in connection with this 'delicate' aspect of the case?

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

Hi again Julie,

I am totally confused now, in light of Derrick's post directed at me:



Can we at least agree that they found semen deposits from two males on Valerie's underwear back in '61, and were somehow able to determine which had come from the rapist, and that his blood group was O? Nobody appears to have disputed this much. But more importantly, why were all Hanratty's defenders asleep when the 2002 judgement came out, if it was 'completely and utterly wrong on that point'?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

As far as I am aware, semen with blood group O was certainly found on VS's underwear.

I have not seen the report that Derrick has seen, but what I do know is that the second semen stain was 'attributed' to MG (in 2002) based on the evidence offered at some point, that MG and VS had sexual intercourse either on the day they were accosted or the days leading up to that.

[Limehouse]

Thanks Julie.

So for Hanratty to have been totally innocent, it appears that he would have to have been totally set up, either by the real gunman or an accomplice with access to the murder weapon, who would also have to have been one of Hanratty's cronies, and not some unknown, unconnected killer and rapist.

I'm not sure how comfortably that sits with a second stitch-up on the part of the police, when they had to let Alphon go. And how would the real gunman have steered the police in a Hanratty direction in the first place, had it not been for the strange coincidence of their initial interest in Alphon, who just happened to stay in the same hotel as Hanratty, that same week in August? That coincidence is one thing, but it would appear to have played right into the hands of the real gunman and the police, with nothing but fate pulling the strings.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Fair points, it does seem unlikely, but in reality, what are the chances of the second suspect and guilty party (Hanratty) being identified as a result of having stayed at the same hotel, on nights each side of the events, as the first suspect? It's unlikely but that's what was accepted as the truth.

I think the whole conspiracy theory hinges on how much honesty there was all round in the original investigation from day. I also think that some people who subscribe to this theory believe Hanratty may have been involved, but did not act alone - that he had help obtaining and disposing of the gun.

Julie

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Fair points, it does seem unlikely, but in reality, what are the chances of the second suspect and guilty party (Hanratty) being identified as a result of having stayed at the same hotel, on nights each side of the events, as the first suspect? It's unlikely but that's what was accepted as the truth.

I think the whole conspiracy theory hinges on how much honesty there was all round in the original investigation from day. I also think that some people who subscribe to this theory believe Hanratty may have been involved, but did not act alone - that he had help obtaining and disposing of the gun.

Julie

Hi Julie,

Looking at the 2002 judgement again, I have to say I think Hanratty had to be involved - directly - although I concede others may have become involved, willingly or otherwise, after the event.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

From section 113 of the 2002 Judgement:

The knickers arrived at the Metropolitan Police Laboratory (MPL) on 23 August 1961 where they were examined by Dr Nickolls, the director and his assistant, Henry Howard. They were found to be stained with seminal fluid in the area of the crotch and at the back for five inches upwards from the crotch. Vaginal fluid from Valerie Storie was also present. There were smaller quantities of seminal fluid of blood group AB assumed to have come at some earlier stage from Michael Gregsten. Although the laboratory records are not dated, the notes are numbered sequentially and we are confident that the knickers were examined almost immediately and in any event no later than 23 September 1961 when the notes show that certain samples taken from Peter Alphon were examined at the laboratory.

I fail to understand how the sentence I highlighted above came about if, as Derrick claims, there was nothing of the kind found at the time. It would be a very serious detail to invent, yet an oddly specific one to include by mistake. And I do wonder why Derrick seems to be the only Hanratty defender to have exposed and criticised such a potentially significant error, considering that the 2002 attribution of DNA to Gregsten relies massively on the detection of semen from two males at the time of the crime.

However, back to the hankie...

From section 126:

The only DNA extracted from the handkerchief came from James Hanratty. The only places on the handkerchief from which his DNA was extracted were the areas of mucus staining. It is to be expected that whoever was responsible for the mucus staining would have left evidence of his DNA. If the explanation for James Hanratty’s DNA being found on the handkerchief is subsequent contamination it must follow that either the original DNA had degraded so as to become undetectable or James Hanratty’s DNA has in some way overwhelmed the original deposit so that the original is no longer capable of being traced. More than that the transfer must have taken place in such a way as to affect only the areas of mucus staining and not the unstained part of the handkerchief which was not found to bear DNA from James Hanratty or anyone else.

For me, the evidence is conclusive: the hankie was indeed Hanratty's. But as I pointed out in a previous post, nobody in '61 could have tied that hankie forensically to Hanratty, yet the real gunman (or accomplice) - if not Hanratty - is meant to have gone the extra mile by finding one of his hankies to wrap round the murder weapon before hiding it on the bus?

Isn't it more likely that Hanratty found comfort, in the wake of that disastrous night's work, in the old routine of using his hankie and familiar hiding place for the unwanted remains of his criminal activities?

I wonder if it was chiefly the DNA from the hankie that effectively cleared Alphon of being the gunman.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Looking again at Hanratty's movements later in the murder week, it does seem very likely to me that he was attempting to establish a false alibi (possibly on the advice of Dixie France?) by sending that telegram from Liverpool when he did.

Why, if he went from London to Liverpool on the Tuesday, then to Rhyl and back to Liverpool (where he sent the telegram), before returning to London, did he never think to mention his rather crucial overnight stay in Rhyl to any of the Frances? It would at least make sense if he never went to Rhyl that week, and only thought to mention it when his Liverpool alibi wasn't looking too clever.

Love,

Caz
X

[moste]

Is it not pure conjecture, that M.G. was of group AB blood type, I have only ever read "assumed" with regards to the AB being M.G.s