A6 Rebooted

[moste]

A poster on the comments after the bbc documentary wrote this. "Jury refused the court transcript?? why??huge red flag!"

[Derrick]

A poster on the comments after the bbc documentary wrote this. "Jury refused the court transcript?? why??huge red flag!"

Hi Moste

Not sure exactly what the OP's angle on this is but....

...before the jury retired they requested a copy of the transcript. Swanwick said;

'there are certain passages in the transcript which took place in the absence of the jury and these matters clearly would have to be removed from the transcript if the application was acceded to.

The judge agreed with Swanwick, although he allowed the jury a full list of the witnesses and access to every exhibit.

Del

[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?..

You'd be better off directing that question to the persons involved, how can I possibly answer for them?

[caz]

Well Derrick, you picked me up on it enough times, when I used to refer to AB semen or DNA, as claimed in the 2002 judgement.

I was just wondering why you sat back meekly and let it go when others were still doing it.

Not because they are Hanratty sympathisers I'm sure...

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Hi DM,

Well nobody seems to have disputed Hanratty's presence in Liverpool on the Thursday evening or that he sent the telegram to Dixie France at 8.40 pm. So if he had only sent another on the Tuesday evening along similar lines, or on the Wednesday morning or Thursday morning, do you really think the jury would have convicted him - assuming the case hadn't already been thrown out?

While I'm waiting for a response from Julie, perhaps I could ask you the same question: if you are completely satisfied that Hanratty was in Liverpool or Rhyl while the crime was unfolding, and also when the murder weapon was left on the London bus, do you accept that the gunman or an accomplice must have known him and attempted to frame him, using his hankie in the process, but without knowing if he'd be able to produce an alibi or not?

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

Hi DM,

Well nobody seems to have disputed Hanratty's presence in Liverpool on the Thursday evening or that he sent the telegram to Dixie France at 8.40 pm. So if he had only sent another on the Tuesday evening along similar lines, or on the Wednesday morning or Thursday morning, do you really think the jury would have convicted him - assuming the case hadn't already been thrown out?

While I'm waiting for a response from Julie, perhaps I could ask you the same question: if you are completely satisfied that Hanratty was in Liverpool or Rhyl while the crime was unfolding, and also when the murder weapon was left on the London bus, do you accept that the gunman or an accomplice must have known him and attempted to frame him, using his hankie in the process, but without knowing if he'd be able to produce an alibi or not?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz - and all,

I will respond to the above and a couple of other points raised in response to a few of my comments regarding how Hanratty might have been framed in the following way:

1. One or two of Hanratty's associates knew he was going to Liverpool and they knew why. They knew he was going in order to attempt to sell of some difficult-to-shift stolen goods he had acquired on his most recent burglaries. They knew that he would find it difficult to produce a credible alibi because, if he was identified as the culprit for the burglaries, he would not want there to be an evidence trail leading to Liverpool/Rhyl.

2. The hanky was possibly left with the gun, not to provide a forensic link to Hanratty (which of course, at that stage was not possible) but becaue the hanky was Hanratty's 'signature'. t was known by his associates and by the police that he favoured this method of avoiding leaving behind prints. (It didn't work, as we all know!).

3. The gun's hiding place under the back seat of the bus, although not unique to Hanratty, was nevertheless another Hanratty 'signature' as testified by Charles France and confirmed by Hanratty himself. In fact, when asked whether he did, indeed favour this place for disposing of unwanted loot he agreed, but then added 'but not for a gun. I've never owned a gun'. That suggests to me that had he a reason for disposing of a gun, this would not be his chosen place.

regards to all,

Julie

[Limehouse]

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.

I think, actually, that Mary Lanz stated the man she saw 'resembled' Alphon. I do not think it can be firmly established that she definitely [B]saw[B] Alphon.

[moste]

OK Julie, I'll have to do some more reading I'm sure I read Mary Lanz had seen Alphon in the pub on more than one occasion Which would make quite a difference to her memory for identifying him later.

[ansonman]

OK Julie, I'll have to do some more reading I'm sure I read Mary Lanz had seen Alphon in the pub on more than one occasion Which would make quite a difference to her memory for identifying him later.

Hi Moste,

This post (No. 198) was posted back in 2008

Rgds
Ansonman


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Morning jimarilyn

One has to say that Mary Lanz was not a reliable witness. Her husband was the licensee at the Old Station Inn and she was working behind the bar on the evening of 22nd August. Her first statement was to the police two days later when she confirmed that Gregsten and Storie had been in the bar that evening and also that two strange men, not regular drinkers at the pub, left at around the same time that Gregsten and Storie left. Her description of these men at that time would not have fitted either Alphon or Hanratty.

It was only later that Mary Lanz began speaking of Alphon having been in the bar on the 22nd August and being accompanied by a woman with blonde hair, and by then Jean Justice had paid a visit to the pub taking Alphon with him.

Her testimony does seem to have changed as time went by. One could be cynical and think perhaps the publicity was good for business.

Kind regards,
Steve

[Ed James]

Hi Ed,

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.


OneRound

Hi OneRound

In response to the points above, I am not aware that the transcripts are readily available except at significant cost. Copyright is apparently vested in the private company contracted to undertake transcripts. The book is worth reading for the extracts from the transcripts alone - I got mine on my kindle for a reasonable price from Amazon.

According to the book, Rob Harriman's background is in forensic computing which led him to study DNA forensics

My point about ' tactical grounds' is linked to the role of the courts in the inquisitorial legal system - even at the Court Of appeal level it is a contest between two competing parties and not a search for the truth.

regards

Ed

[Ed James]

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

Hi Caz

Further to my post 2312, I am not disputing Derrick's statements about seeing Lewis Nickoll's bench notes which contain no reference to semen from blood group AB or that scientifically the Crown was unable to establish the semen was from blood group AB. I think these are telling revelations.

I was simply trying to point up what Whittaker asserted and what the Court of Appeal stated as fact at para 113 of their judgment : ' There were smaller quantities of seminal fluid of blood group AB assumed to have come at some earlier stage from Michael Gregsten'. And that this was used in a rather slippery way to suggest that the DNA evidence represented a typical rape scenario where Hanratty was the rapist, ignoring other possibilities.

I did this not as a 'Hanratty sympathiser' - I' m definitely a 'don't know'! I am using this thread to get further insights from the perspective that I regard the inquisitorial legal system as having weaknesses that serve neither prosecution or defence well in some instances.

By the way, I think Miller makes some interesting points , but so far I am not persuaded by the thesis that the gunman stumbled on the Morris Minor and thought I would have some fun/exercise control for some 5 hours.

regards

Ed

[moste]

Hi Moste,

This post (No. 198) was posted back in 2008

Rgds
Ansonman


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Morning jimarilyn

One has to say that Mary Lanz was not a reliable witness. Her husband was the licensee at the Old Station Inn and she was working behind the bar on the evening of 22nd August. Her first statement was to the police two days later when she confirmed that Gregsten and Storie had been in the bar that evening and also that two strange men, not regular drinkers at the pub, left at around the same time that Gregsten and Storie left. Her description of these men at that time would not have fitted either Alphon or Hanratty.

It was only later that Mary Lanz began speaking of Alphon having been in the bar on the 22nd August and being accompanied by a woman with blonde hair, and by then Jean Justice had paid a visit to the pub taking Alphon with him.

Her testimony does seem to have changed as time went by. One could be cynical and think perhaps the publicity was good for business.............................( And the quote to prompt this reply was

Kind regards,
Steve

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimarilyn View Post
Hi Steve,

The landlady of the Old Station Inn, Mary Lanz, testified that she had seen Peter Alphon in her pub on quite a few occasions. A few years later she said she had seen Alphon in the pub at the same time that Michael and Valerie were there on the evening of the 22nd August. She never mentioned this to the police in her original statement which is rather strange if true. Was she ( or is she ) a reliable witness ? Did her pub regulars consider her an honest and trustworthy person, if so then she would seemingly have no axe to grind with Peter Alphon. Alphon has stated (rightly or wrongly) that he was at the not so far away Slough Greyhound Stadium that fateful evening and it is known that he liked a pint or two, so it seems very feasible that he could have been in her pub when Michael and Valerie were there.(end of quote)
From Moste (present day)
We don't know that her statement wasn't given to the police do we? after all, it may be in the same place as Mr.Kerrs piece of paper that he wrote on the back of one of his forms !
A couple of good questions here, however I can't see why Ms. Lanz would necessarily have an axe to grind with Alphon regardless of weather her regulars thought her a reliable witness or not.
Still, I don't believe the above answer by Steve quite does it!

[caz]

Hi Julie,

Many thanks for your reply. Can I take it then that you accept that for Hanratty to have been innocent, the real gunman, or an accomplice, must have been one of his criminal associates, who had access to his dirty hankie?

One or two of Hanratty's associates knew he was going to Liverpool and they knew why. They knew he was going in order to attempt to sell of some difficult-to-shift stolen goods he had acquired on his most recent burglaries. They knew that he would find it difficult to produce a credible alibi because, if he was identified as the culprit for the burglaries, he would not want there to be an evidence trail leading to Liverpool/Rhyl.

But the fact (assuming it is a fact) that Hanratty told one or two of his associates he was going to Liverpool does not mean he actually went there. Clearly if he was the gunman he didn't - not until the Thursday that is. We also know he was capable of changing his story when it suited him (from Liverpool to Rhyl for example). And he didn't apparently tell his associates about Rhyl, either before or after the trip. So would the real gunman, or an accomplice, really have trusted Hanratty to be true to his word, make himself scarce in Liverpool for the duration and leave no trace of his presence, in that city or anywhere else?

And of course, if Hanratty wanted no evidence trail leading to Liverpool and his fencing attempts there, what was he doing sending that odd little telegram to Dixie France on the Thursday evening, saying nothing of any real importance? Doesn't that rather contradict your whole argument?

Furthermore, had the timing of that telegram clashed with the leaving of the murder weapon and hankie on the bus, it would have proved a serious, possibly fatal error of judgement on the part of whoever was trying to frame Hanratty.

Don't you think it fabulously convenient timing for your guilty associate(s), that Hanratty only decided to reveal he was in Liverpool when it was too late to do him any good?

And how unlucky was it for Jim, that his timing allowed for him to have left everything on the bus and headed straight up to Liverpool to establish his presence there?

Unless of course he did just that, because he knew a credible alibi was exactly what he would be needing.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz

Further to my post 2312, I am not disputing Derrick's statements about seeing Lewis Nickoll's bench notes which contain no reference to semen from blood group AB or that scientifically the Crown was unable to establish the semen was from blood group AB. I think these are telling revelations.

I was simply trying to point up what Whittaker asserted and what the Court of Appeal stated as fact at para 113 of their judgment : ' There were smaller quantities of seminal fluid of blood group AB assumed to have come at some earlier stage from Michael Gregsten'. And that this was used in a rather slippery way to suggest that the DNA evidence represented a typical rape scenario where Hanratty was the rapist, ignoring other possibilities.

I did this not as a 'Hanratty sympathiser' - I' m definitely a 'don't know'! I am using this thread to get further insights from the perspective that I regard the inquisitorial legal system as having weaknesses that serve neither prosecution or defence well in some instances.

Thanks for the explanation, Ed. Much appreciated.

Is it quite fair, though, to say that other possibilities were 'ignored'? I thought both sides accepted that Hanratty's DNA was detectable on the knicker fragment, and therefore only a contamination event involving his semen could reasonably have accounted for the findings if anyone else had been the rapist. The various contamination possibilities were not ignored. They were explored but none appeared remotely likely to have produced the results as described.

When Hanratty's hankie comes into play, we either accept the results which are consistent (or not inconsistent if you prefer) with him handling the murder weapon and raping Valerie, two days after she had sex with Gregsten, or we have to conjure up a complex and completely speculative scenario whereby one of Hanratty's criminal associates successfully framed him for the crime, not knowing his blood group would keep him in the frame, let alone that 40 years later there would be DNA evidence which had become contaminated in such a way as to carry on the original deception perfectly.

Love,

Caz
X

[OneRound]

Hi folks - further to Caz's recent post to Julie, can I ask a question please to all posters about something else I've never understood.

It concerns the telegram sent to the France family. What was the significance and reason that Hanratty's address was shown as The Imperial Hotel, Russell Square, London? Where did that come from and why?

Many thanks,

OneRound