A6 Rebooted

[OneRound]

Hi Spitfire - a range of good points from you in recent posts.

I suppose that what most niggles me about the DNA evidence on the knicker fragment is that there is something there from some other bloke (ie definitely not Hanratty) but that it has never been scientifically proved from whom. I appreciate it is very understandable why it has been attributed to Gregsten and acknowledge that may well be entirely correct even though I don't readily follow when it got there.

IF (admittedly a very big ''if'') it was shown that this DNA didn't match Gregsten's, the DNA evidence as a whole would be severely called into question.

As previously posted, I struggle to see why the Defence didn't push for tests to confirm the ''attribution to Gregsten'' or otherwise - whatever those results had been, the Hanratty camp would have been no worse off. There again, as also repeatedly posted, I don't understand why they agreed to rule Alphon out.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Ed James]

IF (admittedly a very big ''if'') it was shown that this DNA didn't match Gregsten's, the DNA evidence as a whole would be severely called into question.

As previously posted, I struggle to see why the Defence didn't push for tests to confirm the ''attribution to Gregsten'' or otherwise - whatever those results had been, the Hanratty camp would have been no worse off. There again, as also repeatedly posted, I don't understand why they agreed to rule Alphon out.


OneRound

Hi OneRound

Rob Harriman's book 'Hanratty : The DNA Travesty. . .' is a really worthwhile and essential but difficult read (given the technical aspects of the scientific subject matter). He suggests - and I think he is right - that the appellant's case was wrongly conceived and poorly executed around the respondent's (the Crown) DNA evidence.

The appellant's case was based on contamination only and did not properly focus on the (still) highly questionable , not widely accepted/non validated LCN DNA technique invented by Gill and Whittaker of the Forensic Science Service. In the appellant's representatives partial defence, the 'DNA experts' and Sweeney , the respondent's counsel, were slippery being very vague and inconsistent about the attributed/assumed AB DNA belonging to Gregsten.

The attribution seems to be based solely upon Ms Storie's statement that she had sexual intercourse two days earlier with Mike Gregsten and Whittaker's evidence that what he found was a typical distribution of DNA in a rape case involving a woman who has a regular partner (leaving aside the 40 year time lag and the fact that is not possible to determine the source of the DNA).

Rob Harriman also includes important parts of the transcript (though he did not have access to the documentation submitted by the respondents). It is apparent from parts of this that the judges wer deeply hostile to the case being advanced by Mike Mansfield QC. To have suggested that the AB sample was not MG's would have incurred the wrath of the judges and damaged the strategy the appellant's did have. This is especially so as the appellant's had no 'hard evidence' to suggest this, since all that was available were the results reported and commented upon by the FSS. The miniscule knicker material had been destroyed in the process and their was no opportunity to repeat the tests by the FSS or by the defence.

I don't think people generally realise how dependent the forensic experts are on the so called evidence of a case in putting forward their analysis. How easily this can become fitting the forensic evidence to the police view of the evidence.

Finally,why did the appellant's concede that Alphon wasn't the murderer? We have to consider here that Lord Chief Justice Wolff berated Mansfield for the failure to agree with the respondent's on matters to come before the court so that the court did not have to rule on them - the lack of such a concession would have tested judicial patience further. Quite simply I believe on tactical grounds Mansfield conceded and in any case there is simply not enough evidence to sustain in court that Alphon did it following Ms Storie's non identification. And such an argument would have clouded the basis of the appellant's case that extensive non disclosure of evidence to the defence made the conviction unsafe. In the event the judges gave the non disclosure pointrs short shrift.

regards

Ed

[Derrick]

Hi OneRound

...Hanratty seems to have been a fairly sociable person. By way of a couple of examples, the friendships he struck up with Terry Evans when first in Rhyl and the guy in Ireland who wrote his postcards and accompanied him in his hired car...

You make a point of Hanratty being sociable yet pick the only two examples that you, and pretty much anybody else could come up with.

I must take issue with your point for two reasons. Hanratty's meeting with Evans was when he was down on his luck looking for work and the meeting with Leonard in Ireland came about because they were forced to share a room together, otherwise they would certainly never have met.

...It seems odd for Hanratty to have kept himself so to himself if in Rhyl around the times of the A6 crimes being committed. And no paper evidence (for example, a bus ticket, a signed guest house register, a receipt for anything) of his presence in Rhyl either - unlike his stay at the Vienna Hotel for which he kept the bill and showed to the Frances...

Hanratty himself explained that he went to Liverpool and then Rhyl in August to sell stolen goods. This is in contrast to his first Rhyl visit as above. His visit to Ireland was to obtain a driving licence.

Put yourself in Hanratty's position and try to construct an alibi from where you were six weeks ago and produce receipts etc to prove it. I couldn't, I just tried it with a calender and wouldn't be able to prove my whereabouts.

...As I say, this doesn't prove guilt but it certainly doesn't provide comfort either. What this does do though definitely for me is rule out the possibility of someone setting out to frame Hanratty in advance. It would have been incredibly rash to do so when you would have expected Hanratty to behave in his usual carefree manner and thus most likely have a sound alibi...

My view is that Hanratty was framed and your argument doesn't disprove that.

The only person who knew about Hanratty's whereabouts and had access to a gun was France.

Beside, nobody saw Hanratty in London, according to his own testimony, between Nudds on the morning of the 22nd and the France family on the Saturday of the 26th.

In all honesty, Hanratty made acquaintances when he suited him in line with his business of passing on hookey gear for cash. That is why I think, in the final analysis, that your argument doesn't stand up.

To disprove your case I suggest Hanratty's movements not long after his return from Liverpool in late August. He dated several girls, bought a car and took all his known friends for a drive in it.

And that is the point. It is certainly not the action of a man who has committed one of the most terrible murders of recent times, when he would, if the A6 murderer, perhaps be better off in hiding.

Del

[Dupplin Muir]

Hanratty showed his receipt from the Vienna Hotel to the Frances? I take it this was before the cartridge cases were found.

Hmmm...interesting!

[Derrick]

Hanratty showed his receipt from the Vienna Hotel to the Frances? I take it this was before the cartridge cases were found.

Hmmm...interesting!

Well DM....of course it was...by 20 odd days.

[caz]

If it wasn't for bad luck...

The above extract from Caz's post does not of course prove Hanratty's guilt. However, it weighs heavily with me.

Hanratty seems to have been a fairly sociable person. By way of a couple of examples, the friendships he struck up with Terry Evans when first in Rhyl and the guy in Ireland who wrote his postcards and accompanied him in his hired car.

It seems odd for Hanratty to have kept himself so to himself if in Rhyl around the times of the A6 crimes being committed. And no paper evidence (for example, a bus ticket, a signed guest house register, a receipt for anything) of his presence in Rhyl either - unlike his stay at the Vienna Hotel for which he kept the bill and showed to the Frances.

As I say, this doesn't prove guilt but it certainly doesn't provide comfort either. What this does do though definitely for me is rule out the possibility of someone setting out to frame Hanratty in advance. It would have been incredibly rash to do so when you would have expected Hanratty to behave in his usual carefree manner and thus most likely have a sound alibi.

Best regards,

OneRound

Hi OneRound,

In addition, from section 45 of the 2002 judgement:

'At no stage did James Hanratty tell any member of the France family that he had been to Rhyl.'

That was a rather unfortunate oversight, making Rhyl look even more like the afterthought of a guilty man, conjured up only when he feared his tales of Liverpool had done him no favours.

In fact, thinking again about what could have possessed Hanratty to leave the gun and ammo on that bus instead of chucking it all in the Thames, it may well have been part and parcel of setting up a Liverpool alibi. After all, they could hardly prove he was on a London bus on the Thursday, disposing of the murder weapon, if he could legitimately claim to have been "having a nice time" in Liverpool that day. He could have seen the bus as a second alibi opportunity, which he wouldn't have got from chucking the lot in the river. It would have been almost as good as an alibi for the actual murder night.

As luck would have it, he sent the telegram to Dixie France from Liverpool at 8.40 that evening, at around the same time the gun was discovered in London. Convenient timing - and the very best he could have managed if manufacturing an alibi. The most terrible timing and miserable bad luck if he'd really been in Liverpool all day and up north since the Tuesday.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

As previously posted, I struggle to see why the Defence didn't push for tests to confirm the ''attribution to Gregsten'' or otherwise - whatever those results had been, the Hanratty camp would have been no worse off. There again, as also repeatedly posted, I don't understand why they agreed to rule Alphon out.

Best regards,

OneRound

Hi again,

If, as I suggested previously, it was Hanratty's DNA on the hankie that caused Alphon to be ruled out, that might explain it. It would have left the defence clutching at desperate straws, trying to wrestle with questions such as how Alphon knew Hanratty, how he got access to his dirty hankie, and how he thought it could help frame him in '61.

Love,

Caz
X

[Spitfire]

Hi OneRound,

In addition, from section 45 of the 2002 judgement:

'At no stage did James Hanratty tell any member of the France family that he had been to Rhyl.'

That was a rather unfortunate oversight, making Rhyl look even more like the afterthought of a guilty man, conjured up only when he feared his tales of Liverpool had done him no favours.

In fact, thinking again about what could have possessed Hanratty to leave the gun and ammo on that bus instead of chucking it all in the Thames, it may well have been part and parcel of setting up a Liverpool alibi. After all, they could hardly prove he was on a London bus on the Thursday, disposing of the murder weapon, if he could legitimately claim to have been "having a nice time" in Liverpool that day. He could have seen the bus as a second alibi opportunity, which he wouldn't have got from chucking the lot in the river. It would have been almost as good as an alibi for the actual murder night.

As luck would have it, he sent the telegram to Dixie France from Liverpool at 8.40 that evening, at around the same time the gun was discovered in London. Convenient timing - and the very best he could have managed if manufacturing an alibi. The most terrible timing and miserable bad luck if he'd really been in Liverpool all day and up north since the Tuesday.

Love,

Caz
X

Hello Caz,

I see where you are going there. Hanratty could have left the gun on the bus and then got the train from Euston to Liverpool, sent a telegram from the Pool and then returned to the big Smoke.

Whereas if the gun had been left on the bus as part of a scheme to frame the hapless, freckled Hanratty the person doing the framing would have had to had some idea that Hanratty would not be able to establish an alibi in the North. The framer would be going to considerable trouble to obtain a mucus stained hankie of Hanratty's to wrap around the gun. He would also be exposing himself (or at least the real murderer) to an unnecessary risk of detection in toting a revolver and large amount of ammunition around London's streets prior to boarding his bus, and for what benefit? To frame James Hanratty who as far as anyone else knew had gone north on 22 June and who may have had a cast iron alibi.

The reality is that the A6 murder was a botched hold-up by the half witted Hanratty. There was no rhyme or reason to the hold-up and we should not infer too much into the Hanratty's actions in disposing of the gun. It is quite possible that Hanratty thought that for many years the gun would remain undetected in its under-seat hiding place, or he may have thought that it would be found on the night the bus returned to the depot, and that his presence in Liverpool would provide an alibi. Who knows!

[OneRound]

Hi OneRound

Rob Harriman's book 'Hanratty : The DNA Travesty. . .' is a really worthwhile and essential but difficult read (given the technical aspects of the scientific subject matter). He suggests - and I think he is right - that the appellant's case was wrongly conceived and poorly executed around the respondent's (the Crown) DNA evidence.

The appellant's case was based on contamination only and did not properly focus on the (still) highly questionable , not widely accepted/non validated LCN DNA technique invented by Gill and Whittaker of the Forensic Science Service. In the appellant's representatives partial defence, the 'DNA experts' and Sweeney , the respondent's counsel, were slippery being very vague and inconsistent about the attributed/assumed AB DNA belonging to Gregsten.

The attribution seems to be based solely upon Ms Storie's statement that she had sexual intercourse two days earlier with Mike Gregsten and Whittaker's evidence that what he found was a typical distribution of DNA in a rape case involving a woman who has a regular partner (leaving aside the 40 year time lag and the fact that is not possible to determine the source of the DNA).

Rob Harriman also includes important parts of the transcript (though he did not have access to the documentation submitted by the respondents). It is apparent from parts of this that the judges wer deeply hostile to the case being advanced by Mike Mansfield QC. To have suggested that the AB sample was not MG's would have incurred the wrath of the judges and damaged the strategy the appellant's did have. This is especially so as the appellant's had no 'hard evidence' to suggest this, since all that was available were the results reported and commented upon by the FSS. The miniscule knicker material had been destroyed in the process and their was no opportunity to repeat the tests by the FSS or by the defence.

I don't think people generally realise how dependent the forensic experts are on the so called evidence of a case in putting forward their analysis. How easily this can become fitting the forensic evidence to the police view of the evidence.

Finally,why did the appellant's concede that Alphon wasn't the murderer? We have to consider here that Lord Chief Justice Wolff berated Mansfield for the failure to agree with the respondent's on matters to come before the court so that the court did not have to rule on them - the lack of such a concession would have tested judicial patience further. Quite simply I believe on tactical grounds Mansfield conceded and in any case there is simply not enough evidence to sustain in court that Alphon did it following Ms Storie's non identification. And such an argument would have clouded the basis of the appellant's case that extensive non disclosure of evidence to the defence made the conviction unsafe. In the event the judges gave the non disclosure pointrs short shrift.

regards

Ed

Hi Ed,

Thanks for your interesting and helpful post.

I haven't read Harriman's book. Whilst I note from the other thread that Spitfire isn't too taken with it all, I still feel I should get a copy. If I'm going to raise possible issues about the DNA, it's probably only fair that I read up a bit on it.

It would also be good to view some of the transcripts from the 2002 Appeal as contained in the book. Whilst I've read the Court of Appeal judgement several times, I've never seen any of the transcripts - I assume these aren't readily available elsewhere?

Do you know anything of Harriman's background and interest in the case? I picked up Spitfire's comment about him not being a scientist.

One aspect your post brought out well - and which I acknowledge I previously hadn't given much thought to - were ''tactical grounds'' that the Defence had to consider. I still believe the Defence budged too much on the wrong subject (ie agreeing to rule Alphon out) but can perhaps appreciate better now why they did.

Best regards,

OneRound

[caz]

My view is that Hanratty was framed and your argument doesn't disprove that.

The only person who knew about Hanratty's whereabouts and had access to a gun was France.

Beside, nobody saw Hanratty in London, according to his own testimony, between Nudds on the morning of the 22nd and the France family on the Saturday of the 26th.

Hi Derrick,

But how could France have known where Hanratty would be during the critical period? And how could he have found out afterwards, if 'nobody' saw him in London? He could only go by what Hanratty chose to tell him, and it seems he never thought to mention to the Frances that he had decided to break up his claimed Liverpool trip with a night in Rhyl.

France may have advised a guilty Hanratty to send a telegram to help set up an alibi, but if he was planning to frame an innocent man he'd have come badly unstuck if Hanratty had been sending telegrams to him or anyone else during the long hours the crime was being committed, or around the time the murder weapon was taken onto the bus. In short, France could have had no control over Hanratty's ability or inability to prove his own whereabouts.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi again Derrick,

I notice in a couple of recent posts (not your own, I hasten to add) there is still the odd reference to 'AB DNA' or an 'AB sample', despite your insistence that the judgement got this badly wrong. Did you not say they were unable to establish - in 1961 or 2002 - that any of the semen present was blood group AB (in common with Gregsten)? Why are people still not getting the message?

Love,

Caz
X

[OneRound]

Hi OneRound

... Put yourself in Hanratty's position and try to construct an alibi from where you were six weeks ago and produce receipts etc to prove it. I couldn't, I just tried it with a calender and wouldn't be able to prove my whereabouts.
...


... My view is that Hanratty was framed and your argument doesn't disprove that.
...


To disprove your case I suggest Hanratty's movements not long after his return from Liverpool in late August. He dated several girls, bought a car and took all his known friends for a drive in it.

And that is the point. It is certainly not the action of a man who has committed one of the most terrible murders of recent times, when he would, if the A6 murderer, perhaps be better off in hiding.

Del

Hi Del,

Just a few quick comments on the extracts above from your recent post.

1. I appreciate your comment that it is not always possible to prove where you were six weeks earlier. However, in line with posts today from Caz and Spitfire, I don't feel that's the main point. Isn't it more to the point that no one would set out to frame you in advance unless they could be sure of knowing you wouldn't have an alibi?

2. I genuinely respect your belief about this case even though I do not share it. It was never my intention to disprove your view but simply to state what weighed heavily for me and why.

3. As regards your last two paragraphs, I do feel that Hanratty dating several girls and taking friends for a drive support my earlier view about him being a pretty sociable kind of person. As to whether these were the actions of an innocent man enjoying life or a guilty one prematurely celebrating having got away with heinous crimes ....

Best regards,

OneRound

[Spitfire]

3. As regards your last two paragraphs, I do feel that Hanratty dating several girls and taking friends for a drive support my earlier view about him being a pretty sociable kind of person. As to whether these were the actions of an innocent man enjoying life or a guilty one prematurely celebrating having got away with heinous crimes ....

Didn't he drive one of the girls, Gladys Deacon up to Bedford for the day? Strange choice for a date?

[Dupplin Muir]

Caz wrote:

France may have advised a guilty Hanratty to send a telegram to help set up an alibi, but if he was planning to frame an innocent man he'd have come badly unstuck if Hanratty had been sending telegrams to him or anyone else during the long hours the crime was being committed, or around the time the murder weapon was taken onto the bus. In short, France could have had no control over Hanratty's ability or inability to prove his own whereabouts.

Do you really think this would have helped Hanratty? He had a pretty strong alibi yet the prosecution simply ignored it. Note that when I say 'strong' I mean in comparison with what are normally considered good alibis, not the 100% perfect alibi that the prosecution were demanding. If Hanratty had been sending telegrams at the times you mention, the prosecution would simply have claimed that someone else sent them on his behalf. If he had a dozen witnesses claiming to have seen him at the time of the murder, there would have been allegations of a look-alike masquerading as JH.

The prosecution seem to have assumed that the concept of 'reasonable doubt' applied to them rather than the defence,and all they had to do was show some inaccuracies in JH's story to disprove his account of his movements. In reality they should not have been allowed to make unfounded surmises about Hanratty's movements,and the trial judge should have basically told them to 'put up or shut up'. If they couldn't prove where JH was, they should not have been permitted to challenge his alibi in order to fit in with their pre-conceived scenario. They basically used circular logic: Hanratty did the shooting so he can't have an alibi. Why do we think that he did the shooting? Because he doesn't have an alibi.

[moste]

Absolutely correct D M, and while on the subject of alibis. Just reading from Rob Harrimans account of things.Alphon was seen by witness Ms. Mary Lanz proprietor of the Old station inn pub, leaving the place soon after Gregsten left with Storie, what was made of this? He maintained if I'm not mistaken that at this moment in time he was with his mother, but this was later discredited This was the same suspect that shared the same doss house as Hanratty where the spent shells were found, and the same suspect that Mr.Fogarty Waul claims, he's sure he had given a ride to, and some time later saw him lurking around Marsh lane! This is a fellow who lied about his alibi, and in fact was close to the scene of the abduction. Incidentally,I can't figure out why they dropped Alphon like a stone when VS didn't Identify him in the police lineup,I don't see that a person is completely exonerated because someone hasn't identified them, given her track record I mean.