A6 Rebooted

[moste]

Hey, I think we've got them rattled!

Graham

I think they've got you Sussed !

[Spitfire]

Quite so Ansonman.

Mrs Margaret Walker was one of these "miracles".

Ah yes Mrs Walker was interviewed by inquiry agents instructed by Hanratty's solicitors who reported back as follows on 19 February 1962

“Mrs Walker was one of the persons out of the six, supplied to you by the D.P.P.’s Dept. She had gone to the police and made a statement. When seen by us she was not definite in anything but gave the impression she wanted to be in on it.”

Sherrard eventually decided not to make use of this 'evidence' and did not try to have it introduced on appeal.

6] Mrs Walker stated that this young man was willing to sleep anywhere "on a settee or anything", it didn't bother him where. This tallies perfectly with Hanratty's sleeping arrangements when staying at the Frances or at Louise Anderson's.

As it seems to be part of the tale that Hanratty had deposited his case at Ingledene having been offered a bed in a bathroom which was not to his liking, so he went off in search of more commodious accommodation, which explains his lack of any luggage, we should read 'anywhere' as meaning anywhere that is not a bed in a bathroom.

[Spitfire]

Hey, I think we've got them rattled!

Graham

Be careful, the boot could be on the other foot after the promised appeal to be made on James Hanratty's behalf some time in the early part of 2011.

[cobalt]

Ansonman,

You have been building up a head of steam over the last few days, and today you have given it full throttle. Those of us skeptical about the guilt of James Hanratty will, I am sure, have been heartened by your last post. It’s a benchmark for the future. Thank you for that.

Regarding cynicism, let’s be honest and admit that it applies to both sides of the argument. I asked some time ago what form of evidence would be acceptable to status quo posters regarding Hanratty being in Rhyl, and you will not be surprised that it was to the effect of him being arrested, photographed fingerprinted and incarcerated by Rhyl police on the evening of the crime! Nothing less will suffice it seems. Yet to be fair, we harbour the same doubts about the DNA evidence which, as things stand, puts the status quo group in a strong position.

Then again that was true of the forensic evidence which convicted the Birmingham 6 and Stefan Kisko. The way some status quo contributors write you would think that no innocent person in the UK had ever been convicted. Do they have views about these two cases? We hear a lot about Mancini who was guilty but got off, due to his marvellous defence barrister, about whom Graham waxes lyrical. But not much about Stefan Kisko. Nothing about the girls who wrongly claimed he had harassed him, and were praised by the judge at the time. (They did it for a laugh apparently.) Nothing about the police or the prison warders (14 stood trial and were acquitted) who brutalized the Birmingham 6. These perjurers have never been brought to court to face their actions.

I think in the last few weeks the balance of the argument has gone the way of we skeptics. Whenever we are told that Valerie Storie is off limits, or that Mansfield did not believe in Alphon’s guilt, or that the jury in 1962 knew more than we do, I think that is a healthy sign. Any attempts to validate the ID of Valerie Storie (how could she identify him if he was not there?) are a sure sign the other side are on weak ground.

[Spitfire]

Ansonman,

You have been building up a head of steam over the last few days, and today you have given it full throttle. Those of us skeptical about the guilt of James Hanratty will, I am sure, have been heartened by your last post. It’s a benchmark for the future. Thank you for that.

Regarding cynicism, let’s be honest and admit that it applies to both sides of the argument. I asked some time ago what form of evidence would be acceptable to status quo posters regarding Hanratty being in Rhyl, and you will not be surprised that it was to the effect of him being arrested, photographed fingerprinted and incarcerated by Rhyl police on the evening of the crime! Nothing less will suffice it seems. Yet to be fair, we harbour the same doubts about the DNA evidence which, as things stand, puts the status quo group in a strong position.

Then again that was true of the forensic evidence which convicted the Birmingham 6 and Stefan Kisko. The way some status quo contributors write you would think that no innocent person in the UK had ever been convicted. Do they have views about these two cases? We hear a lot about Mancini who was guilty but got off, due to his marvellous defence barrister, about whom Graham waxes lyrical. But not much about Stefan Kisko. Nothing about the girls who wrongly claimed he had harassed him, and were praised by the judge at the time. (They did it for a laugh apparently.) Nothing about the police or the prison warders (14 stood trial and were acquitted) who brutalized the Birmingham 6. These perjurers have never been brought to court to face their actions.

I think in the last few weeks the balance of the argument has gone the way of we skeptics. Whenever we are told that Valerie Storie is off limits, or that Mansfield did not believe in Alphon’s guilt, or that the jury in 1962 knew more than we do, I think that is a healthy sign. Any attempts to validate the ID of Valerie Storie (how could she identify him if he was not there?) are a sure sign the other side are on weak ground.

I think you mean Kiszko rather than Kisko. Stefan Ivan Kiszko, to give him his full name, was convicted and acquitted on appeal. His case has nothing to do with the A6 Murder.

Your argument boils down to some people have been wrongly convicted therefore Hanratty was wrongly convicted. The counter to that is that most people found guilty are rightly found guilty, Ian Brady and Myra Hindley for example, therefore Hanratty is guilty.

[ansonman]

Ansonman,

You have been building up a head of steam over the last few days, and today you have given it full throttle. Those of us skeptical about the guilt of James Hanratty will, I am sure, have been heartened by your last post. It’s a benchmark for the future. Thank you for that.

Regarding cynicism, let’s be honest and admit that it applies to both sides of the argument. I asked some time ago what form of evidence would be acceptable to status quo posters regarding Hanratty being in Rhyl, and you will not be surprised that it was to the effect of him being arrested, photographed fingerprinted and incarcerated by Rhyl police on the evening of the crime! Nothing less will suffice it seems. Yet to be fair, we harbour the same doubts about the DNA evidence which, as things stand, puts the status quo group in a strong position.

Then again that was true of the forensic evidence which convicted the Birmingham 6 and Stefan Kisko. The way some status quo contributors write you would think that no innocent person in the UK had ever been convicted. Do they have views about these two cases? We hear a lot about Mancini who was guilty but got off, due to his marvellous defence barrister, about whom Graham waxes lyrical. But not much about Stefan Kisko. Nothing about the girls who wrongly claimed he had harassed him, and were praised by the judge at the time. (They did it for a laugh apparently.) Nothing about the police or the prison warders (14 stood trial and were acquitted) who brutalized the Birmingham 6. These perjurers have never been brought to court to face their actions.

I think in the last few weeks the balance of the argument has gone the way of we skeptics. Whenever we are told that Valerie Storie is off limits, or that Mansfield did not believe in Alphon’s guilt, or that the jury in 1962 knew more than we do, I think that is a healthy sign. Any attempts to validate the ID of Valerie Storie (how could she identify him if he was not there?) are a sure sign the other side are on weak ground.

Hi Cobalt,

I am grateful for your comments and impressed by your well balanced observations. The other side have always been on weak ground but just how fragile that ground is, is now becoming clearer and clearer. Though not to them, I fear. The three monkeys come to mind. Replace evil with truth.

Regards,

Ansonman

[Spitfire]

Hi Cobalt,

I am grateful for your comments and impressed by your well balanced observations. The other side have always been on weak ground but just how fragile that ground is, is now becoming clearer and clearer. Though not to them, I fear. The three monkeys come to mind. Replace evil with truth.

Regards,

Ansonman

I am sure that we will be eating our words once the conviction of James Hanratty is overturned in the forthcoming appeal which is due to be heard in the early part of 2011.

I some how think that the Hanratty team will not be relying on the evidence of Mrs Walker which they (or their predecessors) did not seek to rely upon in 1962.

[ansonman]

I am sure that we will be eating our words once the conviction of James Hanratty is overturned in the forthcoming appeal which is due to be heard in the early part of 2011.

I some how think that the Hanratty team will not be relying on the evidence of Mrs Walker which they (or their predecessors) did not seek to rely upon in 1962.

Rattle of a Simple Man.

Ansonman

[Spitfire]

Rattle of a Simple Man.

Ansonman

Guilty as charged. I am a simple soul and if I am told on the BBC that there will be a new appeal in early 2011, then that is what I believe.

No doubt there will be some evidence from a DNA expert, and one that has had access to all the test results, experts reports and the like, to the effect that the conclusion drawn by the Court of Appeal that no one other than Hanratty could have committed the murder was erroneous. When that happens the Hanrattyites might be going somewhere, but until then the facts of this case point to the undoubted guilt of James Hanratty.

[Sherlock Houses]

I think you mean Kiszko rather than Kisko. Stefan Ivan Kiszko, to give him his full name, was convicted and acquitted on appeal. His case has nothing to do with the A6 Murder.

Tut-tut. Why am I not surprised ? Goodness me SF you really need to get out of this childish habit of pulling people up on the slightest spelling mistake. Time to get over it.

Also I might add, that's pretty rich coming from someone who believes Janet Gregsten went to see Valerie Storie on August 31st 1961. Was this before or after she helped Billy Ewer that day hang a Wilson Steer painting in his humble umbrella repair shop ??

[Graham]

Since the inception of the A6 Forum, a fair few years ago now, it has nearly always been the case that when the Hanrattyistas resort to the kind of sneering sarcasm, and veiled (and not-so-veiled) personal insults seen recently on this thread, and seem unable to offer any real evidence to back up their contention that 'he didn't do it', they are rattled.

Graham

[Derrick]

Since the inception of the A6 Forum, a fair few years ago now, it has nearly always been the case that when the Hanrattyistas resort to the kind of sneering sarcasm, and veiled (and not-so-veiled) personal insults seen recently on this thread, and seem unable to offer any real evidence to back up their contention that 'he didn't do it', they are rattled.

Graham

Let he who is without sin cast.......

[Graham]

Let he who is without sin cast.......

Indeed, sir, but I generally only retaliate, not initiate.

Graham

[Sherlock Houses]

I think Natalie Severn would very strongly disagree as she, to name just one, has been on the receiving end of blatantly sarcastic comments from anti-Hanratty posters.
Not veiled comments either.

The hypocrisy is truly astounding.

[Graham]

I think Natalie Severn would very strongly disagree as she, to name just one, has been on the receiving end of blatantly sarcastic comments from anti-Hanratty posters.
Not veiled comments either.

The hypocrisy is truly astounding.

Are you seriously suggesting that Natalie couldn't dish it out herself? Let me tell you that I've been on the receiving end of her 'rhetoric' on more than one occasion. I will own up for the benefit of newcomers and admit that I was once banned by Admin, but it was not for insulting behaviour or verbal threats. And on one memorable occasion I was actually threatened with physical violence by a Hanrattyista, although how he intended to inflict it was never made clear. I've had a couple of PM's from Hanratty supporters that were frankly appalling and a little scary, and had they been placed on the open forum the writers would have been instantly banned. Then there was the legendary "reg1965", one of the most verbally insulting and aggressive posters I've ever seen on any forum, and yes, he too was a Hanratty supporter.

Take those blinkers off, my friend, and look at your own side of the fence as well as mine. Get real. The whole A6 Forum was closed down by Admin at one time when things got really hairy, and I don't think any of us would wish for a repeat. Let's see if we can continue to discuss this case in a reasonable and gentlemanly manner - those of us who believe in Hanratty's guilt also bleed when we are pricked.

Graham