Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A6 Rebooted

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What would you do, if you needed an alibi to save your life, ..............
    Would you shrug and say to yourself: “Well there’s no chance of a single one of those people in Rhyl remembering me and saving my bacon, so I won’t even bother mentioning my stay there”? I’m afraid it amounts to only one of two things: a stupid and fatal omission when asked to account for all his movements; or a desperate and fatal lie when he couldn’t account for his movements truthfully.
    Afraid I think I would have done exactly the same Caz, in the circumstances.
    Hanratty ,by the time he knew he was wanted for the A6 murder around the beginning of October 1961,did not dare to go knocking on doors in Rhyl to find
    the landlady or anyone else whose door he had knocked on the previous August and said,
    "Hello Mrs XYZ,You may well have read in the newspapers about the A6 murder---well guess what,I am the man the police think did it!"
    How long do you think it would have been before he had his collar felt by the Rhyl Police?
    I hope I have answered your final paragraph in my first post above---viz----Alphon did not follow the rules of logical or rational behaviour---in my opinion.

    Best Norma
    Last edited by Natalie Severn; 03-14-2011, 10:46 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
      I accept that this is one scenario,indeed it may be THE scenario, but what seems to escape you,Caz, is that Alphon demonstrated on several occasions that he had a sharp conscience concerning the death of Hanratty.We don"t yet know why that was but his behaviour may not have followed a course which you recognise as rational or logical .
      Hang on a moment, Nats. This is circular reasoning. Only if Alphon were proven to be the gunman, and not firing on all cylinders, could you then speculate that his odd confession statements reflected a push-me pull-you fight that was going on in his irrational mind between his conscience over letting Hanratty swing and the natural desire to avoid the same fate. And really, where was this 'demonstrated' conscience when supposedly loading the gun in the first place? And again when you believe he shot MG dead with it? Where was it when he raped the woman who had just witnessed such an unspeakable horror? And when he finally shot her with the intent to silence her forever? You reckon a man like that would suddenly develop a conscience, and a sharp one, because some petty crook without an ounce of common sense was eventually convicted and hanged for his vile acts? All we know is what we could see with our own eyes: a man laughing all the way to the bank, on the back of another man's fate. Some conscience, guilty or innocent of murder

      Obviously this sharp conscience you think Alphon demonstrated (after destroying Valerie's life and leaving her to destroy Hanratty's in turn) depends entirely on you being right about the gunman's true identity. Currently you still have the devil's own job to demonstrate that you are not wrong (on every level) to presume Alphon's guilt. So yes, I'm afraid your claims about his conscience will continue to escape me for now.

      What hasn't escaped me is that Alphon either had the conscience of a vicious gunman and rapist or that of a mercenary, attention-seeking ghoul. But the presumption of his guilt does escape me, and it should escape you too if you care so much about fair trials and justice for all.

      Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
      My apologies, Caz.All I can say is that it wasn"t intended.
      I don"t accept the forensics on a piece of cloth,found after 30 years,that had been cut from knickers that were handled by numbers of people in November 1961, at Ampthill magistrates Court where they were carried to and fro as exhibits among other exhibits,the fragment of cloth cut from them at the end of December 1961 , later being wrapped in cellophane-a porous fibre and put in a brown paper envelope and kept in a file where a rubber stopper and a broken vial were found---thought to have contained a liquid wash of seminal fluid.
      There were absolutely no forensics to link Hanratty to the murder car.
      nx
      Apology accepted.

      I know you don't accept the forensics that fully supported Valerie's testimony. You have made it plain that you can only contemplate scenarios in which she was mistaken or worse. I have little doubt that if Alphon's DNA had shown up and been identified alongside Valerie's and the one remaining profile representing her lover's semen, you would not now be arguing here that this was undoubtedly the result of contamination by Alphon's stored samples as well as several other unconnected people who had once handled the evidence.

      In other words, your faith in Hanratty's innocence is in sole charge of your assessment of the handling and testing of the physical evidence. Moreover, that same faith blinds you to the fact that there were 'absolutely no forensics' to link Alphon, or any other suspect, to the murder car either. It's a total irrelevance when you are seeking to demonstrate someone else's guilt. If you are rejecting the forensics that indicate Hanratty's guilt, how are you accepting Alphon's guilt with absolutely no forensics, anywhere, at any time?

      Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
      Afraid I think I would have done exactly the same Caz, in the circumstances.
      I'm sorry, Nats, but I don't believe you are an idiot. If you found out you were wanted for murder near your London address, and you had been in Rhyl at the time, and had interacted with at least eleven people there and even stayed in a guest house overnight, of course you wouldn't go there to try and establish your alibi in the manner you suggest, while the police were still trying to track you down. You'd either go to the police to clear yourself, or wait for them to come and question you. You'd tell the truth and you'd let them go to Rhyl to verify your account independently. That would have to beat stupidly saying nothing about your trip when you had absolutely nothing to hide, then making it look like you have everything to hide when your chosen alibi crashes and you suddenly rely on the other one, when time is running out to try and verify it and witness memories are fading and no longer reliable.

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • Hang on a moment, Nats. This is circular reasoning. Only if Alphon were proven to be the gunman, and not firing on all cylinders, could you then speculate that his odd confession statements reflected a push-me pull-you fight that was going on in his irrational mind between his conscience over letting Hanratty swing and the natural desire to avoid the same fate. And really, where was this 'demonstrated' conscience when supposedly loading the gun in the first place? And again when you believe he shot MG dead with it? Where was it when he raped the woman who had just witnessed such an unspeakable horror? And when he finally shot her with the intent to silence her forever? You reckon a man like that would suddenly develop a conscience, and a sharp one, because some petty crook without an ounce of common sense was eventually convicted and hanged for his vile acts? All we know is what we could see with our own eyes: a man laughing all the way to the bank, on the back of another man's fate. Some conscience, guilty or innocent of murder

        Obviously this sharp conscience you think Alphon demonstrated (after destroying Valerie's life and leaving her to destroy Hanratty's in turn) depends entirely on you being right about the gunman's true identity. Currently you still have the devil's own job to demonstrate that you are not wrong (on every level) to presume Alphon's guilt. So yes, I'm afraid your claims about his conscience will continue to escape me for now.

        What hasn't escaped me is that Alphon either had the conscience of a vicious gunman and rapist or that of a mercenary, attention-seeking ghoul. But the presumption of his guilt does escape me, and it should escape you too if you care so much about fair trials and justice for all
        The sharp conscience I was talking about Caz,was and is part and parcel of a schizoid personality.Same sort of personality Hitler is believed to have had .When Alphon joined the fascist party , he ,like Hitler and in this country Oswald Mosley, would no doubt have agreed that certain sections of the human race ,namely people of more than one eighth Jewish extraction,gypsies some artists and writers and a few other "non-people" , were actually an anathema to any decent moral society and as such only fit to be taken to death camps and destroyed-.I am sure these chaps all believed this to be the logical,rational, moral way to think and go about things given that ones objective was to achieve Aryan racial purity .
        Now the very last thing Hitler and his henchmen wanted was to murder any of these people.Each and everyone of them would no doubt have considered the death or rape of a pure Aryan woman to have been totally against their moral code and conscience---provided ofcourse that she was pure,preferably a mother ,and obeyed her husband .So conscience then towards those belonging to the Aryan race---which also included members of the German working class [don"t forget Hitler started out as a National Socialist----which ought not to confused with Socialism but at times used socialist rhetoric to attract the masses to its cause .
        So this was Alphon"s crusade his mission if you prefer.
        BTW I am not accusing Alphon of being the A6 gunman.I am exploring that possibility since he was the other leading suspect in the case and later confessed to the murder.
        Last edited by Natalie Severn; 03-15-2011, 10:47 PM. Reason: repetition

        Comment


        • I know you don't accept the forensics that fully supported Valerie's testimony. You have made it plain that you can only contemplate scenarios in which she was mistaken or worse. I have little doubt that if Alphon's DNA had shown up and been identified alongside Valerie's and the one remaining profile representing her lover's semen, you would not now be arguing here that this was undoubtedly the result of contamination by Alphon's stored samples as well as several other unconnected people who had once handled the evidence.
          Yes, I probably would now be arguing for Alphon given that nobody really knows who else"s fingerprints were on the murder car.Provided ofcourse that Alphon hadn"t changed his plea to guilty.
          I have a great deal of sympathy and admiration for Valerie Storie,Caz.Her "grace under pressure" impressed all those who saw her and came through very strongly.But I think Valerie was traumatised at the time of the attack, that her admission that she caught only a fleeting glimpse of the gunman and that she mistakenly identified another man on the first identity parade, should caution about the accuracy of her identification.

          Comment


          • In other words, your faith in Hanratty's innocence is in sole charge of your assessment of the handling and testing of the physical evidence. Moreover, that same faith blinds you to the fact that there were 'absolutely no forensics' to link Alphon, or any other suspect, to the murder car either. It's a total irrelevance when you are seeking to demonstrate someone else's guilt. If you are rejecting the forensics that indicate Hanratty's guilt, how are you accepting Alphon's guilt with absolutely no forensics, anywhere, at any time?
            Caz, can I ask you if you have read today"s papers on the Tomlinson Home Office forensic pathologist, criticised for his post-mortem examination into the death of newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson?
            Apparently the panel of the general medical council found that Dr Freddie Patel"s reports on the death of Saly White-the first victim of Anthony Hardy,"the Camden Ripper" were "irresponsible" and 'not of the standard required of a competent forensic pathologiost and liable to bring the medical profession into disrepute".He ruled out "murder" and said she died of natural causes.The result was that White,in whose flat she was murdered, was never investigated and he went on to murder to other victims.Forensic pathologists have made mistakes---and worse.

            Comment


            • I'm sorry, Nats, but I don't believe you are an idiot. If you found out you were wanted for murder near your London address, and you had been in Rhyl at the time, and had interacted with at least eleven people there and even stayed in a guest house overnight, of course you wouldn't go there to try and establish your alibi in the manner you suggest, while the police were still trying to track you down. You'd either go to the police to clear yourself, or wait for them to come and question you. You'd tell the truth and you'd let them go to Rhyl to verify your account independently. That would have to beat stupidly saying nothing about your trip when you had absolutely nothing to hide, then making it look like you have everything to hide when your chosen alibi crashes and you suddenly rely on the other one, when time is running out to try and verify it and witness memories are fading and no longer reliable.
              Hi again Caz,
              I hardly think "interaction" is the word I would use to describe Hanratty"s door to door knocking in search for digs after 9 pm at night ,some two months previously.
              The women who lived in South Kinmel Street,Mrs Walker[no 12], Mrs Vincent [no 23] and the two Davies women from nos 19 and 27 who later came forward and made statements, saw him only very briefly.What was significant was that all their sightings matched.Ditto Mr Larman who left Rhyl the following day for Staines.Ditto Mr Dutton who lived in Abergele and made two visits a year to Rhyl to pay money into his bank.So how on earth could Hanratty have gone to see them ,how could he have found them after two months had passed ?and if he had gone, say to the women above mentioned, whose doors he had knocked on ,or even to Mrs Jones and her daughter at the B&B ,what would he have said?

              Hanratty had one "friend" in Rhyl, Terry Evans, and its perfectly true he didn"t appear to have tried very hard to find him after the first go at spotting his taxi which was moved those days .He had known him one night only---knew he might know some "fences" but that was about all other than that he was kind enough to get him set up with a job, but he hadn"t really been much bothered not to have found him in late August.But again, imagine Hanratty having to go looking round Rhyl again,asking this one and that where Terry aka John was,Terry who was almost a stranger in many ways to Hanratty, and may have been most put out to have been asked to testfy to police that he had seen him in August when he had not etc etc.Terry might well have got the wind up at such a tricky situation,especially such a request from a comparative stranger. All the time knowing the police were after him for the A6 murder.......yes,I can well understand his reluctance to go looking for people in Rhyl.
              As for him going to the police, you know Caz, that Hanratty had initially been told by his cousin Eileen Cunningham, who he met in the street ,that the police were looking for him and had called at his parents house.Hanratty had immediately thought he had left his fingerprints on a house he had burgled in September and that he would be arrested and given five years.That was why he went away,he said.So he could ring the police,which he did several times,and tried to explain that he had nothing to do with the A6 murder,
              Best,
              Norma
              Last edited by Natalie Severn; 03-16-2011, 12:21 AM.

              Comment


              • Forensic Pathologist condemned over murder case

                Caz,
                Link to the article I was referring earlier about the forensic pathologist,Dr Freddie Patel, whose reports over Sally White in 2003 meant police thought there was "no crime to investigate" and Hardy went on to kill more women :
                Dr Freddy Patel will be questioned by the General Medical Council over his forensic examination work on other cases

                Norma

                Comment


                • Caz & Norma

                  Some interesting debate going on here. Can't join in now but will try to get back tonight. I have a few things floating around in my head (plenty of room for things to float - not much grey matter to bump against!).

                  Julie

                  Comment


                  • Caz and Julie,
                    The following quote can be illustrated here by an important current case the link to which I have provided above [ re the forensic pathologist case reported in yesterday"s Guardian],
                    Best Norma
                    Dupplin Muir wrote:
                    To summarise, those who take the DNA evidence seriously are putting their trust in a system which has a long and inglorious history of forensic scientists going into the witness-box and lying through their teeth to ensure a conviction, from Spilsbury through to Skuse, Cameron and Meadow, with a 'Mention in Despatches' for Paul Britton after his sterling efforts to help the police fit-up Colin Stagg. Believing in the probity of FSS is akin to believing in the tooth-fairy or Santa Claus: it's a matter of faith and not amenable to rational argument.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
                      Caz, can I ask you if you have read today"s papers on the Tomlinson Home Office forensic pathologist, criticised for his post-mortem examination into the death of newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson?
                      Apparently the panel of the general medical council found that Dr Freddie Patel"s reports on the death of Saly White-the first victim of Anthony Hardy,"the Camden Ripper" were "irresponsible" and 'not of the standard required of a competent forensic pathologiost and liable to bring the medical profession into disrepute".He ruled out "murder" and said she died of natural causes.The result was that White,in whose flat she was murdered, was never investigated and he went on to murder to other victims.Forensic pathologists have made mistakes---and worse.
                      Nats, I don't see how that's relevant. If one forensic pathologist could 'bring the medical profession into disrepute' it stands to reason that most are not inherently incompetent or worse.

                      Had the first major suspect in the A6 case been tried and convicted due to mistakes or corruption (there was no strong case against Alphon after all - not even a weak one!), who knows that Hanratty would not have gone on to rape and murder other victims?

                      All we know is that Alphon didn't, and there is no evidence that he raped and murdered the first time. You may not think there was a strong enough case for Hanratty's guilt, and you may think that stinks. But you have no case at all against Alphon, and no chance of building one up, and yet you think it's perfectly fair to attribute a damaged and highly dangerous personality to him without the expertise to offer a professional diagnosis, in order to accuse him without any material evidence of the vile acts for which Hanratty remains convicted.

                      Quite astonishing really.

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X
                      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
                        .......yes,I can well understand his reluctance to go looking for people in Rhyl.
                        As for him going to the police, you know Caz, that Hanratty had initially been told by his cousin Eileen Cunningham, who he met in the street ,that the police were looking for him and had called at his parents house.Hanratty had immediately thought he had left his fingerprints on a house he had burgled in September and that he would be arrested and given five years.That was why he went away,he said.So he could ring the police,which he did several times,and tried to explain that he had nothing to do with the A6 murder,
                        Nats, read my post again. I did not suggest that Hanratty should have gone to Rhyl to establish his own alibi; I said the opposite, agreeing with you that the idea was silly. And if he wasn't even there that night, it would be more than reluctance on his part to go looking for people to say he was!

                        Once he realised he was being sought for rape and murder he could forget a mere five years for burglary! If he rang the police 'several times' to deny any involvement, it beggars belief that he would not have sent them to Rhyl, to find confirmation that he was nowhere near the crime scene. What better way to 'explain' his innocence - unless he hadn't thought of this explanation yet?

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                        Comment


                        • If he rang the police 'several times' to deny any involvement, it beggars belief that he would not have sent them to Rhyl, to find confirmation that he was nowhere near the crime scene. What better way to 'explain' his innocence - unless he hadn't thought of this explanation yet?
                          Thanks Caz,
                          But exactly who would he have sent the police to? He didn"t remember the address of Mrs Jones.The address of Mrs Walker in South Kinmel Street is difficult to describe as it is sandwiched between the railway station and Kinmel Street and is reached by a narrow lane off Kinmel Street.In fact Hanratty gave a pretty clear indication of how to find Ingledene and it was his memory of the house being near the railway and entered directly from the street,of it not having a front garden,but having a small court yard at the rear and there being a concrete bridge and picture house at the end of the road ,and above all a green bath at the top of the house that enabled his defence to find it, after he described it in his cell during his trial.If he was inventing all this he was taking amazing risks while he was on trial for his life!As it was he was accurate in the details that he remembered.

                          People don"t particularly note the name of streets B&B"s are in whan they satop only briefly.We stay regularly in Statford on Avon.I remember the name of the B&B we last stayed in but not the name of the street-moreover the street is off a roundabout which has five exits.I would find it again easily but I don"t know the surname of the chap who runs it----I think his name was Ken or Kevin but I"m not sure.We payed cash so didn"t need a receipt and neither me nor my husband signed the guest book.It cost 46 for one night.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by caz View Post
                            Nats, I don't see how that's relevant. If one forensic pathologist could 'bring the medical profession into disrepute' it stands to reason that most are not inherently incompetent or worse.

                            Had the first major suspect in the A6 case been tried and convicted due to mistakes or corruption (there was no strong case against Alphon after all - not even a weak one!), who knows that Hanratty would not have gone on to rape and murder other victims?

                            All we know is that Alphon didn't, and there is no evidence that he raped and murdered the first time. You may not think there was a strong enough case for Hanratty's guilt, and you may think that stinks. But you have no case at all against Alphon, and no chance of building one up, and yet you think it's perfectly fair to attribute a damaged and highly dangerous personality to him without the expertise to offer a professional diagnosis, in order to accuse him without any material evidence of the vile acts for which Hanratty remains convicted.

                            Quite astonishing really.

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X

                            To be fair Caz - whether Alphon was guilty of the A6 crimes or not - there is some evidence that he was unstable and possibly dangerous.

                            Firstly he was responsible for making hundreds of nuisance phone calls to various people and these calls were very disturbing and distressing. He is also suspected of making calls to the hospital threatening Valerie's life and safety.

                            Secondly - there is no doubt that he attacked Mary Hanratty physically. He was also charged - but not convicted - of attacking Mrs Dalal. She positively identified him at an identification parade. She had a clear and prolonged view of her attacker - an attack carried out her in her own home in broad daylight. The man who did this told her he was the A6 killer.

                            Finally - Alphon 'confessed' to the A6 crime in front of television cameras. Whether guilty or not - this kind of behaviour is not that of a stable person.

                            In a lot of ways one can understand why the police thought Alphon was such a strong suspect. He fitted the description first issued and they continued to consider him a strong suspect to the extent that they named him and put him on an ID parade - brown eyes and all - even though we are encouraged to accept that Valerie said he had blue eyes right from the start.

                            Comment


                            • Hanratty was asked why he didn't go back to Rhyl to seek out his alibi just before his arrest.

                              His answer was fairly straightforward and logical. He explained he could hardly knock on doors seeking out the house he had stayed in when he was, by then, wanted for murder.

                              Like all innocent defendents before and after, he believed that because he was innocent that everything would work out ok.

                              Hanratty was cruelly robbed of further appeals on his own behalf but so many other innocent persons since have suffered appeal knockbacks and spent many years unnecessarily in prison because of the intransigence of the justice system in this country.

                              Derrick

                              Comment


                              • All we know is that Alphon didn't, and there is no evidence that he raped and murdered the first time. You may not think there was a strong enough case for Hanratty's guilt, and you may think that stinks. But you have no case at all against Alphon, and no chance of building one up, and yet you think it's perfectly fair to attribute a damaged and highly dangerous personality to him without the expertise to offer a professional diagnosis, in order to accuse him without any material evidence of the vile acts for which Hanratty remains convicted
                                .

                                I think you must have forgotten ,Caz, how Alphon came to be the first suspect in the A6 murder case.In both Paul Foot"s book and in Jean Justice"s book on the A6 mystery, there are tape recorded transcripts of Alphon"s own words and conversations with both Foot and Justice -viz the following verbatim transcript of a taped telephone conversation with Jean Justice recorded in October 1962:

                                There is only one man who means anything in the world to me and that was Hitler, and they crucified him.When you say that Hitler lived again in the cornfield that night , that was one thing we had in common."

                                Alphon had studied in depth astrology and theosophy[which aims at direct communication with God and the soul].He was extremely interested in witchcraft and black magic.In politics he was a Fascist and a great admirer of Hitler.He had never held down a job.He was a keen gambler specially on the dogs.He was a loner with a deep attachment to his mother.
                                This,Caz is text book stuff regarding a schizoid personality---the type of personality that can tip over into paranoid schizophrenia- but very often does not, thankfully.However,overall he fits the bill re those who "cross the line"---I worked with such people for several months in the Art Therapy dept of a large psychiatric hospital in the North West in the early years of my teaching career.Alphon is pretty classic.

                                If anyone is guilty of dangerous behaviour it is Alphon from his suspected poisonous phone calls to the France family,his documented ones to the Hanratty family and to Lord Russell who took him to court over it.Alphon was charged with an attack on Mrs Dalal and Mrs Dalal identified him as her attacker-this was just a few days after the A6 murder---the man who assaulted her shouting out he was the A6 killer.[It wasn"t Hanratty--he was in Ireland being interviewed by police about a minor car crash].Alphon was also charged with assault over Mrs Hanratty.
                                There are transcripts too btw,of him persecuting Lord Russell with threatening and abusive nuisance calls.

                                I am not inventing a "dangerous personality" for Alphon, Caz.He did this himself through plenty of his own behaviour.

                                Nevertheless I still believe the murder to have been an accident, what followed, horrific as it was, was the result of that accident.
                                Best
                                Normax
                                Last edited by Natalie Severn; 03-18-2011, 07:14 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X