A6 Rebooted

[Sherlock Houses]

Therefore we sceptics are left with the very strong possibility that Hanratty's DNA was deliberately planted on the exhibits. This would be a conspiracy of course, the kind of which happens about every other week in the political and legal systems in order to maintain some semblance of credibility with the wider public. Most governments are a conspiracy against the people so there is nothing shocking in claiming this to be the case, especially where UK justice is concerned. It's par for the course as we have seen over the years in the cases involving Timothy Evans, the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, Stefan Kisko or the Hillsborough disaster. Manufacturing evidence is just part of the legal apparatus, along with concealing evidence that is unhelpful to the prosecution case.

A good number of years ago while surfing the Internet [without even getting wet] I came across an interesting article on
the Liberal Democrat Voice website. The poster, Angus Huck, going off topic ['Cash for honours'] somewhat, mentions the Hanratty case.
He submitted three posts and apart from a couple of minor errors he makes some interesting comments. That article, from July 2007, is still available online and for anyone interested here is the link. [The relevant parts are contained within the first two thirds of the article.]......

https://www.libdemvoice.org/%E2%80%98cash-for-honours%E2%80%99-the-inquiries-continue-1068.html

[cobalt]

Moste,

Don't be so coy. I know you as a man who sees the bigger picture. If Hanratty's DNA was on the victim's underwear then he would be as guilty as sin. No argument.

Now it's possible to adopt a halfway house argument and claim that Hanratty's DNA was inadvertently leaked on to historic exhibits and that therefore he was innocent. That was the strategy adopted at the appeal in order to offer an off ramp to the judicial system. It was as we know rejected.

Therefore we sceptics are left with the very strong possibility that Hanratty's DNA was deliberately planted on the exhibits. This would be a conspiracy of course, the kind of which happens about every other week in the political and legal systems in order to maintain some semblance of credibility with the wider public. Most governments are a conspiracy against the people so there is nothing shocking in claiming this to be the case, especially where UK justice is concerned. It's par for the course as we have seen over the years in the cases involving Timothy Evans, the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, Stefan Kisko or the Hillsborough disaster. Manufacturing evidence is just part of the legal apparatus, along with concealing evidence that is unhelpful to the prosecution case.

In the Hanratty case the concealment involved the murder car itself where we are still being encouraged to believe that no forensic evidence was obtained. This was seen as ludicrous even back in these pre- DNA days but remains an article of faith for those who believe Hanratty was guilty. They can never account for this forensic free car - any contributions welcome- but instead cling to a handkerchief (of dubious provenance) much as Othello did to prove his wife's guilt. They prefer evidence from the back seat of a public corporation bus to that of a car where the murder and rape occurred. They love DNA, except when there is none. So they were presented with some DNA to salve their conscience. Case closed.

[moste]

I wonder if Stickler would know as much or more about dna, than we do. I have asked in as many ways as I can think of, on line, where discussions are on going about the degradation of dna ,in all of the possible situations. And amazingly I can’t seem to find anyone whether an expert in the field with letters after their name, or even a lab technician working in the field, to give an enlightening answer .
It isn’t a tricky one for the learned. A 40 year old piece of cloth with semen stains, treated understandably with total indifference where the still unknown dna is concerned, IE. no gloves worn during handling ,allowing other dna exhibits to come close or into contact ,breathing on ,talking over, while packing and unpacking. My guess is , any modern day specialist would not put their name to any so called results from a test of the said piece of cloth. The fact that the officials came up with a conclusion smacks of collusion.

[moste]

I wonder if Stickler would know as much or more about dna, than we do. I have asked in as many ways as I can think of, on line, where discussions are on going about the degradation of dna ,in all of the possible situations. And amazingly I can’t seem to find anyone whether an expert in the field with letters after their name, or even a lab technician working in the field, to give an enlightening answer .
It isn’t a tricky one for the learned. A 40 year old piece of cloth with semen stains, treated understandably with total indifference where the still unknown dna is concerned, IE. no gloves worn during handling ,allowing other dna exhibits to come close or into contact ,breathing on ,talking over, while packing and unpacking. My guess is , any modern day specialist would not put their name to any so called results from a test of the said piece of cloth. The fact that the officials came up with a conclusion smacks of collusion,
borne out by the list of home secretary’s that exhibited an incredible act of non action and procrastination,

[cobalt]

He was charging £8 for an hour and a half presentation in 2023.

[ansonman]

October 2025.

[ansonman]

He's got an impressive website and an events schedule running right up to the end of October. From church halls to cruise ships, no less. No mention of what he charges.
He presumably has a question and answer session at the end of his presentations and so at least one would have an opportunity to ask a penetrating question or two. My guess is that few members of the audience would have any detailed knowledge of the cases he presents.

[moste]

Oh good! I forget , is Stickler of the opinion that that Hanratty was guilty. So the purpose of these talks would be ? Other than a money spinner.

[djw]

Author of The Long Silence, Paul Stickler has announced 5 further talks in the UK on the A6 murder

1. 14/01/2025 - Christchurch, Dorset
2. 16/01/2025 - Southampton, Hampshire
3. 27/05/2025 - Sherborne, Dorset
4. 28/05/2025 - Warminster, Wiltshire
5. 6/10/2025 - Wimborne, Dorset
6. 11/10/2025 - Peel, Isle of Man

[Sherlock Houses]

As has been well noted several times on the A6 threads not one single hair fingerprint, fibre or anything else of Hanratty’s was found in the murder car. No shred of evidence. Uncannily enough, at the very same time that Mike, Val and murderer were cramped together in that small car, a drama was being screened on itv, the title of which was “Shred of evidence”.

[moste]

Wonder if Tony had considered this.or anyone else for that matter, since Jim knew the Frances were working against him appearing for the prosecution, and Mrs France often did Jim’s laundry. and since Jim believed he was being stitched up, may he have come clean about ownership of hanky to thwart any proposal that he was lying by the Frances? It’s the only answer I can come up with. It must have been identifiable as his.
Also Jim must have realised that with the amount of evidence stacked against him ,his only chance was to have the jury believe he was framed.
p.s.hard to believe Cobalt after all these decades that M G and V S could well have been Coronation St. fans.

[Spitfire]

Here it is.

[cobalt]

Remember that the general consensus of Hanratty giving evidence in the dock was of a man rather too cocky for his own good, who gave as good as he got.
Yet this reported exchange resembles a scene some years back from Coronation Street when a simpering Derek Wilton crumbled in the witness box and was described as a 'wet lettuce.'

[OneRound]

That reported exchange in court is highly dubious; it reads like something from a play by Terence Rattigan.

First of all, Hanratty would have known through his barrister the details of the discovery in the backseat of the bus and would also have been aware of the exhibits to be presented in court. Yet he seems blissfully unaware of this evidence, evidence which could send him to the gallows.

Secondly, despite being apparently 'ambushed' about the existence of said handkerchief, Hanratty recovers quickly (we assume) to confirm it is his. A remarkable ability on his part since few of us, even when presented with a patterned, monogrammed snot rag, could in all honesty offer much more than, 'It resembles a handkerchief I once owned.'

But Hanratty does more than this: he actually reveals his surprised astonishment in the response: 'Well yes sir, it is indeed.' An implausible exchange I would suggest.

Hi all,

Yes, that's the reported exchange I was trying to recall.

Highly dubious as cobalt states and explains above. In addition, there's a reference in the alleged exchange to ''exhibit no xx''. If the exchange were from a true trial transcript, then the actual exhibit number would have been quoted and shown.

Tony used to joke - or clown about - making up scenarios and conversations involving some of the participants in the A6 case. Some could be amusing, such as Acott failing to sleep at night and expressing worries concerning his actions to his wife. However, in this instance, he appears to have muddied the waters and unnecessarily added confusion.

Unless Tony or others can show the exchange to be genuine, I will now side with Spitfire and regard Hanratty's admission of the hanky being his as nothing more than a ''myth''.

Best regards,
OneRound

[cobalt]

That reported exchange in court is highly dubious; it reads like something from a play by Terence Rattigan.

First of all, Hanratty would have known through his barrister the details of the discovery in the backseat of the bus and would also have been aware of the exhibits to be presented in court. Yet he seems blissfully unaware of this evidence, evidence which could send him to the gallows.

Secondly, despite being apparently 'ambushed' about the existence of said handkerchief, Hanratty recovers quickly (we assume) to confirm it is his. A remarkable ability on his part since few of us, even when presented with a patterned, monogrammed snot rag, could in all honesty offer much more than, 'It resembles a handkerchief I once owned.'

But Hanratty does more than this: he actually reveals his surprised astonishment in the response: 'Well yes sir, it is indeed.' An implausible exchange I would suggest.