A6 Rebooted

[OneRound]

...

The DNA is worthless unless a referential profile for Gregsten is forthcoming.

Del

Hi Del - as you've probably seen, I've already discussed with Ansonman many aspects from your post.

Can I just check your DNA point above. I take it you are referring to another male's DNA being found on the knicker fragment and it being attributed to Gregsten even though no checks were made. Is that right?

This presumption and aspect has always concerned me.

If it wasn't Gregsten's DNA, then it was either from contamination (in which case Hanratty's DNA could also have got there by contamination) or from an unknown individual who was the actual rapist.

Even it it was Gregsten's DNA, I'm not sure that should completely close the door on Hanratty's supporters. I've read that Gregsten didn't have sex with Valerie Storie that evening and hadn't done so for several days beforehand. Assuming that is correct, how then did his DNA get on the knicker fragment? I can think of possibilities (some not very pleasant) but one possibility again has to be contamination.

This once more does not prove Hanratty's innocence which was the original purpose of the Hanratty team wanting to go down this path. It also still leaves the problem of Hanratty's DNA on the hanky. However, it perhaps leads to a case being made that the DNA evidence was not quite as clear cut as originally ruled.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Sherlock Houses]

Thinking outside the box....Anyone believe in the power of signs ??

A funny thing happened on the way to.... stop it and start again.

A funny thing happened around 9.20 last night as I was following the updated football scores unfold on Sky Sports News. What caught my eye was that a Peter scored for Clyde in the 74th minute and the next scorer displayed was a Louis, scoring for Shrewsbury. Surely the next goal scorer displayed couldn't be an Alphon or Alphonse as the name is ridiculously rare in this country. And so it proved, and yet when I looked at that next scorer's name I couldn't help but notice that all those 6 letters were contained within the name. Mere coincidence or a sign ?

I think the tv screen looked something like this......................

[Sherlock Houses]

Serendipitous Divine Providence.

[NickB]

Another spooky thing ...

In cross-examination Gladys Deacon said she did not know if they drove through Hitchin to Bedford, but she remembered passing an airfield where Hanratty pointed out to her a ‘Spitfire’.

Was he having a premonition of this forum?

[Derrick]

where is doris stokes when she`s needed eh? oh...yeah she's dead!!!

[NickB]

Is anybody there?

Mrs D doing her impression of Doris Stokes.

[Derrick]

...Can I just check your DNA point above. I take it you are referring to another male's DNA being found on the knicker fragment and it being attributed to Gregsten even though no checks were made. Is that right?

Yes.

This presumption and aspect has always concerned me.

Me too.

If it wasn't Gregsten's DNA, then it was either from contamination (in which case Hanratty's DNA could also have got there by contamination) or from an unknown individual who was the actual rapist.

Another individual; unless Gregsten's profile is forthcoming and it can be proved to be his.

Even it it was Gregsten's DNA, I'm not sure that should completely close the door on Hanratty's supporters. I've read that Gregsten didn't have sex with Valerie Storie that evening and hadn't done so for several days beforehand. Assuming that is correct, how then did his DNA get on the knicker fragment? I can think of possibilities (some not very pleasant) but one possibility again has to be contamination.

Storie said that she and Gregsten had sex in that car on the Sunday before the murder. I am not going to go into the circumstances of how Gregsten's sperm could still be on Storie's knickers after 2 days.

This once more does not prove Hanratty's innocence which was the original purpose of the Hanratty team wanting to go down this path. It also still leaves the problem of Hanratty's DNA on the hanky. However, it perhaps leads to a case being made that the DNA evidence was not quite as clear cut as originally ruled.

The hanky was Hanratty's, the MtDNA tests proved it. Plus his laundry was being done by Charlotte France.

What the FSS found on the knicker fragment was 1 allele that they attributed to Storie and an undefined number to Gregsten. The FSS also subjected this to MtDNA testing which returned a null. This means that the sample was definitely from semen. Yet Storie is clearly a woman!

So we have a profile from the knickers with a number of alleles that are not associated with Hanratty that are completely unexplained.

Del

[OneRound]

Hi Del - thanks for your considered reply.

Although we are not always on the same side of (Ansonman's wooden) fence, we share a very similar concern here.

I find it remarkably odd that the Court of Appeal wanted to go as far as have Hanratty's body dug up for additional testing in an attempt to ensure accuracy but were content to effectively hazard a guess at some other bloke's DNA on the knicker fragment.

Best regards,

OneRound

[OneRound]

...

The hanky was Hanratty's, the MtDNA tests proved it. Plus his laundry was being done by Charlotte France.

...

Del

Hi again Del,

Whilst not totally damning, the hanky is still pretty damaging for the Hanratty camp, isn't it?

I assume from the reference to the laundry (and some of your other posts) that you believe Dixie France planted the hanky with the gun and bullets on the bus.

With DNA unimagined in 1961, no one could have foreseen it assisting any frame up. So why would Dixie or anyone else have chosen to leave Hanratty's hanky there?

Best regards,

OneRound

[ansonman]

Del,

You recently commented:

"The circumstantial evidence presented at trial could be easily explained by inserting Dixie France's name for Hanratty's" and:

"The hanky was Hanratty's, the MtDNA tests proved it. Plus his laundry was being done by Charlotte France".

The night France committed suicide:

"he had written a great deal - the landlady said there were "about 100 pages lying about the room" - but unfortunately it was the police who found him. They took away all these deathbed writings, most of which have never been disclosed to any independent source". (Woffinden).

That's a long suicide note.

Is it reasonable to assume that France believed he would be found by the police before anyone else? (landlady excepted, possibly). I'm assuming it is because he posted a note to Charlotte intimating his suicide, following which she called the police and they found him dead.

Do we know how it was the police were able to find him?

Would it be reasonable to assume that France thought it likely that his writings would be read and taken by the police? In other words, was his diatribe intended for police consumption rather than anyone else? In which case were the writings designed to protect his family rather than tell the real story?

Finally, do we know how it is that a few of his writings have been publicly revealed? Did the police give the entire writings to the family, or just a carefully chosen selection?

Regards,

Ansonman

[Spitfire]

With DNA unimagined in 1961, no one could have foreseen it assisting any frame up. So why would Dixie or anyone else have chosen to leave Hanratty's hanky there?

OR,

We assume that Dixie had supernatural powers, possibly as a result of his close friendship with the aforementioned Doris Stokes.

Dixie when he embarked on his evil plan to frame his friend must have known or have had reasonable grounds to believe; (1) that Jim would not be able to substantiate any alibi, whether in Rhyl or Liverpool;(2) that Trower and Skillett would identify Hanratty; (3) that Valerie Storie would identify Jim; (4) that Acott would discount the William Lee sighting in Matlock; (5) that Trower, Skillet, Blackhall, Doris Athoe, and Sidney Lawrence would support Acott in giving evidence which would controvert the otherwise incontrovertible evidence of William Lee and which would place 847BHN in Avondale Crescent at a time inconsistent with Lee's Matlock sighting;(6) that Acott would get the simple task of the car's odometer readings wrong; (7) that 40 years later the forensic scientists would make a pig's ear of the testing of the semen stained knicker fragment.

In view of the foregoing, I see no reason why Dixie should not have anticipated advances in forensic science and planted Jim's snotty handkerchief under the back seat of the upper deck of a No 36A bus.

[Spitfire]

Thinking on, if Dixie and others wanted to frame Hanratty, why did they didn't they leave something in 847 BHN which could be traced back to Jim. If I had wanted to frame Jim, I would have made sure that fibres from his suit were found in the car.

[OneRound]

Hi Spit - well, I tend to get the impression that you rather go along with my earlier view that Hanratty's DNA being on the hanky was ''pretty damaging'' for his camp.

I'll leave Del and others to challenge that if and as they wish.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Spitfire]

Hello OR,

The used Hanratty hankie does point to Hanratty being the gunman, but obviously would not be sufficient on its own to justify a conviction, even if the hankie-wrapped gun was found in a location used by Jim for disposing of unwanted "stuff".

Why the putative framer, the egregious Dixie, would want to use a used hankie rather than a freshly laundered one does not make sense, as in 1961 and for many years thereafter, it was not possible to detect who was the owner of such an item by scientific analysis of the mucus deposited thereon.

I wonder how or when it is said Dixie got hold of his friend's used hankie. Did Jim ever complain that his laundry returned by Charlotte France was one hankie light? Was Charlotte implicated in this heinous act of treachery? There are so many dark deeds in this unfortunate saga that nothing, literally nothing, would surprise me.

Regards

S

[ansonman]

Hello OR,

I wonder how or when it is said Dixie got hold of his friend's used hankie. Did Jim ever complain that his laundry returned by Charlotte France was one hankie light? Was Charlotte implicated in this heinous act of treachery? There are so many dark deeds in this unfortunate saga that nothing, literally nothing, would surprise me.

Regards

S

Perhaps Dixie did the laundry and ironing and the wife simply returned same.

As my old boss used to say, you never know what goes on behind closed doors. Or who irons the drawers (and hankies).

Ansonman