Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A6 Rebooted

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

  • Originally posted by caz View Post
    With the best will in the world she could not possibly pick out the right man unless the police could find him and present him to her - which would account for her failure to do so at that first parade and her certainty that he was present at the second.
    Then why did the police expend so much, or so little, energy to eventually name Alphon as their #1 suspect? Acotts so called 12 points eliminating Alphon are pitiful coming so soon after Valerie Storie failed to pick him out. He had no descernable alibi and Ms Storie knew that the killers real name wasn't Jim. The police built him up as the killer then instantly knocked him back down.

    The combined facts of Ms Storie not knowing what the killer actually looked like and the police's reliance on the Vienna Hotel must lead one to conclude that not only was this a very shabby investigation but one where 2 men were being fitted up, Alphon only escaped the noose because he wasn't asked to say fink!

    The spent cases were found 19 days after the murder and Alphon was still wanted. The police must have had some motive to proceed even though he didn't spend the night in room 24. The register and the double room deposit may have persuaded them. Only after Ms Stories failure to pick Alphon out did they go back to the Vienna and call back Nudds. Stinky. Anybody could have planted them in room 24 with it's easy outside access from a public park.

    The Hanratty family became aware that Acott was, at the time, after a big promotion and getting a result in this case was going to increase his pension no end.

    Acott was surprised that the case went to trial and eventually knew very well that Hanratty was in Rhyl at the time. He even thought that the murder was a "gas meter job".

    For a case that had no initial forensic evidence and such a shabby approach to police investigation, to be validated some 40 years later by a DNA technique that has still not been validated for mixed profiles must be the miracle of the last 60 years.

    Some people will buy anything it seems. Just look at Alfie Bowe!

    Derrick

    Comment


    • Hi Caz,
      Seriously what has Alphon to do with anything in my last post ?



      I don"t accept your reasoning here about Rhyl .Rhyl was not the only place Hanratty had been to on 22nd August 1961 don"t forget.He had been to Liverpool too and the sequence of events,as described to his barrister was as follows:

      When Hanratty discovered that the police wanted him for the A6 ,six weeks after the event and following the release of their first suspect Peter Alphon, Hanratty rang Supt. Acott several times insisting that he was innocent and that had taken the train to Liverpool on Tuesday morning 22nd August.Michael Da Costa ,an actor said he saw him on that morning train -more later.
      On October 7th at 5.30 Hanratty rang Acott again, this time from the exchange district of Liverpool.His money was running out and Acott reversed charges .Hanratty claimed the reason he rang Acott again was that he had been to see the three men in Liverpool but they were difficult and refused to back up his alibi that they were fencing for him and refused to come forward.
      Acott begged him to give him the names of the three men anyway but Hanratty refused saying they definitely didn"t want to get involved in a murder case.He said they chucked him out.
      So it is pretty definite that Hanratty went to Liverpool the week of the A6 murder, and even the prosecution accepted it---Acott in particular believed him and Mrs Dinwoody that he had indeed been in Mrs Dinwoody"s shop but Acott believed this was on 21st August not 22nd August.
      The additional information about the train journey of 22nd August which was provided by Michael Da Costa ,a fellow passenger on the train is,that ,like Mr Larman and Margaret Walker Hanratty noticed he had dyed his hair.Da Costa thought this was because he was an actor like himself.The day he saw Hanratty was on the morning of Tuesday 22nd August 1961.Mr Usher , was a left luggage attendant in LIme Street who Hanratty accurately remembered as having a withered hand.Usher also provided a statement, which was never used or passed on to the defence as far as I know, about Mr Usher remembering a man named "Ratty with the initial J" , who had been awkward about the type of ticket he had been given for the case he left.It was on the 22nd August.
      The main problem Hanratty had was telling Acott during his phone calls that he could provide an alibi for himself in LIverpool.He was held to that by Acott . Hanratty explained to Sherrard that one lie had then led to another and it was only when he knew he had to face Swanwick in court and be grilled and cross questioned by him that he put up his hands to Sherrard and explained about Rhyl.Hanratty also told Sherrard that although he stayed there ,he knew nobody at all by name or otherwise in Rhyl, apart from Terry Evans,who he knew only as John.
      Norma
      x
      Last edited by Natalie Severn; 03-31-2011, 09:53 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Derrick View Post
        Then why did the police expend so much, or so little, energy to eventually name Alphon as their #1 suspect? Acotts so called 12 points eliminating Alphon are pitiful coming so soon after Valerie Storie failed to pick him out. He had no descernable alibi and Ms Storie knew that the killers real name wasn't Jim. The police built him up as the killer then instantly knocked him back down.

        The combined facts of Ms Storie not knowing what the killer actually looked like and the police's reliance on the Vienna Hotel must lead one to conclude that not only was this a very shabby investigation but one where 2 men were being fitted up, Alphon only escaped the noose because he wasn't asked to say fink!

        The spent cases were found 19 days after the murder and Alphon was still wanted. The police must have had some motive to proceed even though he didn't spend the night in room 24. The register and the double room deposit may have persuaded them. Only after Ms Stories failure to pick Alphon out did they go back to the Vienna and call back Nudds. Stinky. Anybody could have planted them in room 24 with it's easy outside access from a public park.

        The Hanratty family became aware that Acott was, at the time, after a big promotion and getting a result in this case was going to increase his pension no end.

        Acott was surprised that the case went to trial and eventually knew very well that Hanratty was in Rhyl at the time. He even thought that the murder was a "gas meter job".

        For a case that had no initial forensic evidence and such a shabby approach to police investigation, to be validated some 40 years later by a DNA technique that has still not been validated for mixed profiles must be the miracle of the last 60 years.

        Some people will buy anything it seems. Just look at Alfie Bowe!

        Derrick

        Spot on Derrick

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
          Hi Caz,
          Seriously what has Alphon to do with anything in my last post ?

          I don"t accept your reasoning here about Rhyl .Rhyl was not the only place Hanratty had been to on 22nd August 1961 don"t forget.He had been to Liverpool too and the sequence of events,as described to his barrister was as follows:

          When Hanratty discovered that the police wanted him for the A6 ,six weeks after the event and following the release of their first suspect Peter Alphon, Hanratty rang Supt. Acott several times insisting that he was innocent and that had taken the train to Liverpool on Tuesday morning 22nd August.Michael Da Costa ,an actor said he saw him on that morning train -more later.
          On October 7th at 5.30 Hanratty rang Acott again, this time from the exchange district of Liverpool.His money was running out and Acott reversed charges .Hanratty claimed the reason he rang Acott again was that he had been to see the three men in Liverpool but they were difficult and refused to back up his alibi that they were fencing for him and refused to come forward.
          Acott begged him to give him the names of the three men anyway but Hanratty refused saying they definitely didn"t want to get involved in a murder case.He said they chucked him out.
          So it is pretty definite that Hanratty went to Liverpool the week of the A6 murder, and even the prosecution accepted it---Acott in particular believed him and Mrs Dinwoody that he had indeed been in Mrs Dinwoody"s shop but Acott believed this was on 21st August not 22nd August.
          The additional information about the train journey of 22nd August which was provided by Michael Da Costa ,a fellow passenger on the train is,that ,like Mr Larman and Margaret Walker Hanratty noticed he had dyed his hair.Da Costa thought this was because he was an actor like himself.The day he saw Hanratty was on the morning of Tuesday 22nd August 1961.Mr Usher , was a left luggage attendant in LIme Street who Hanratty accurately remembered as having a withered hand.Usher also provided a statement, which was never used or passed on to the defence as far as I know, about Mr Usher remembering a man named "Ratty with the initial J" , who had been awkward about the type of ticket he had been given for the case he left.It was on the 22nd August.
          The main problem Hanratty had was telling Acott during his phone calls that he could provide an alibi for himself in LIverpool.He was held to that by Acott . Hanratty explained to Sherrard that one lie had then led to another and it was only when he knew he had to face Swanwick in court and be grilled and cross questioned by him that he put up his hands to Sherrard and explained about Rhyl.Hanratty also told Sherrard that although he stayed there ,he knew nobody at all by name or otherwise in Rhyl, apart from Terry Evans,who he knew only as John.
          Norma
          x
          Great post Norma. We also have the telegram sent from Liverpool to Charles France on the Thursday - the day Hanratty was supposed to be dumping the gun on a bus in London.

          Comment


          • Hello all

            An interesting article from the late distinguished forensic scientist Dr Zakaria Erzingclioglu at http://innocent.org.uk/misc/cr_erzingclioglu_fss.html.

            The most apposite paragraphs are:

            Let us now consider what happens when forensic advice is required by either side in a criminal trial. A forensic scientist is normally consulted by either a police officer or a solicitor, but only very rarely directly by a barrister. A police officer will often, but by no means always, already have a 'case', by which I mean a belief in a certain course of events and in the guilt of a particular individual, before he consults a scientist. A solicitor or a barrister will always have such a case prior to approaching a consultant.

            Inevitably, therefore, the forensic scientist is very often presented with a 'line' that he is required to support. If he does not support the case presented to him, it is generally true to say that he will not be in good odour with those who consulted him. In practice, the reputation of the forensic scientist rests on whether or not he has rendered good service to those who paid him.
            I think this is highly relevant to the alleged DNA evidence.

            DM

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Dupplin Muir View Post
              ...I think this is highly relevant to the alleged DNA evidence....
              Hi DM

              The old truism of he who pays the piper calls the tune was never more apt. Although it does work the other way too. Too many so called independent consultants working for defence teams don't like to question too deeply the results of Crown experts. It is usually by not wanting to bite the hand that feeds. These consultants may want to come back into the fold at some later stage. There are a number of good indies, such as Allan Jamieson but they are few and far between and as such are snowed under with casework. It is not a fair fight by any means.

              Good to see you back

              Derrick

              Comment


              • Dupplin Muir Hello all

                An interesting article from the late distinguished forensic scientist Dr Zakaria Erzingclioglu at http://innocent.org.uk/misc/cr_erzingclioglu_fss.html.

                The most apposite paragraphs are:

                Quote:
                Let us now consider what happens when forensic advice is required by either side in a criminal trial. A forensic scientist is normally consulted by either a police officer or a solicitor, but only very rarely directly by a barrister. A police officer will often, but by no means always, already have a 'case', by which I mean a belief in a certain course of events and in the guilt of a particular individual, before he consults a scientist. A solicitor or a barrister will always have such a case prior to approaching a consultant.

                Inevitably, therefore, the forensic scientist is very often presented with a 'line' that he is required to support. If he does not support the case presented to him, it is generally true to say that he will not be in good odour with those who consulted him. In practice, the reputation of the forensic scientist rests on whether or not he has rendered good service to those who paid him.
                I think this is highly relevant to the alleged DNA evidence.

                DM
                I am astounded ,quite frankly by the extent of the problem.
                The following passage too seems well worth highlighting---although really the entire article is illuminating about what can and does go on in the name of forensic "science":

                "What, then, are the consequences of all this? We have a system in which many unscrupulous, incompetent and unqualified people are allowed to appear as scientific witnesses in criminal courts. The system requires such people to appear on behalf of one 'side' or the other and are paid to do so. If they satisfy their side, they will be consulted again; if they do not, they are very unlikely to be consulted on future occasions. If they are not consulted, they will lose their livelihood. It is neither the adversarial system nor the payment of fees that is the problem; it is the marriage of both that produces the explosive mixture."


                Many Thanks for bringing this article to our attention,

                Norma
                Last edited by Natalie Severn; 04-01-2011, 09:48 PM.

                Comment


                • Lewis Hawser

                  Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
                  Since then we have had Hawser doing somersaults with the truth---mostly by preferring to believe gangsters such as Nudds and Langdale,over the evidence of five B&B landladies ,Mrs Jones [and her daughter Brenda Harris] from Ingledene ,Kinmel Street and four other B&B landladies from South Kinmel Street where a young man who looked very like Hanratty had gone knocking on their doors late on the evening of Tuesday 22nd August 1961.


                  Good morning all,

                  This home office report is currently listed on E-Bay for anybody willing to part with 45. That works out at a whopping 46p a page !



                  This post of yours Natalie is very good and illuminating.


                  atb

                  Joseph

                  Comment


                  • Thanks Joseph and good to see you here again.I think quite a few libraries have the Hawser Report in their reference sections and some or all of it can be photocopied on the photocopiers belonging to the library -as I have done myself,but the report cannot usually be borrowed from a reference section of the library of course.It makes instructive reading from the point of view of avoidance not being prepared to fully address or fully answer ,fairly and squarely, the numerous inconsistencies and anomalies raised both at the trial and afterwards of the time of sunset in Rhyl on 22nd August 1961,8.30 pm, the time of streetlighting in Rhyl on 22nd August [after 9pm],and Mrs Walkers timing of her sighting of "about 7.30" made 6 months after the event and said to be inconsistent in the statements of Mrs Walker and James Hanratty.The point is ofcourse that Mrs Walker did indeed give Kleinman the time of 7.30 for the sighting but added,"it was getting dark and the street lights were on"---none of this is examined,it is just cited as being "inconsistent with what Hanratty said was the time he arrived".
                    Well quite clearly,when properly examined ,it is not!Hanratty said he was not sure what time he arrived in Rhyl ---[or indeed exactly when he left Liverpool],but that when he was knocking on doors in Rhyl asking about B&B"s on 22nd August 1961, it was already "getting dark',

                    Best,
                    Norma

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Derrick View Post
                      ...Ms Storie knew that the killers real name wasn't Jim.
                      Hi Derrick,

                      Why call Valerie 'Ms Storie' in the same breath as calling her a liar? She may have thought the gunman was not stupid enough to give his real name then leave her alive, but she clearly realised that he had done just that after picking him out.

                      ...Alphon only escaped the noose because he wasn't asked to say fink!
                      Even if you were right, it would only have made his conviction unsafe instead, considering your low opinion of Valerie as a reliable eye and ear witness, and the complete lack of any Alphon DNA on anything related to the crime.

                      Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
                      Hi Caz,
                      Seriously what has Alphon to do with anything in my last post ?
                      Was that a serious question, Nats? Talk about ducking the hard ones! Either you believe the evidence against Alphon is stronger than that against Hanratty or you had no business ever arguing that Alphon was involved while Hanratty was just an innocent patsy. You have to face your own conclusions and explain them in evidential terms sooner or later, surely?

                      The moment an innocent Hanratty realised that his Liverpool cronies would not support this part of his alibi, he would have immediately told Acott about going on to stay in Rhyl overnight, and being that much closer in time to the events in question it would have given him the very best chance of recalling vital details and jotting them all down for his conversations with Acott. It wouldn't have been a case of having to 'put up his hands' and 'explain' anything if he had gone to Rhyl innocently enough straight from Liverpool and before returning south.

                      If I can see this a mile off, why keep spinning the line as if it will suddenly sound reasonable that he couldn't or wouldn't add this genuine trip until it eventually became a case of Hobson's choice, by which time his 'recollections' were too vague and too late to swing the jury over? What could have been so scary about admitting he'd been to Rhyl, that was even worse than the fear of being hanged by the neck until he was dead? Having stayed there last summer I can well imagine why anyone might be reluctant to admit it under normal circumstances, but not when they were facing a murder charge at t'other end of the country.

                      Originally posted by Limehouse View Post
                      We also have the telegram sent from Liverpool to Charles France on the Thursday - the day Hanratty was supposed to be dumping the gun on a bus in London.
                      Sounds to me like the result of too much "finking", Limehouse, and not a little panic. Have you thought about when an innocent Hanratty would have first appreciated the need to establish his presence in Liverpool during that fatal week in August? How and when would he have ascertained all the salient details of the A6 crime, the when and where from start to finish?

                      Only the gunman himself would have known, when that telegram was being sent, exactly how many hours on which days might have to be accounted for, and how far away to put himself from all of the locations associated with the crime. He'd have been "finking" through his options by then, unlike anyone else yet to be suspected and yet to hear all about it. Put in that context, isn't it much more likely that a guilty man, about to claim Liverpool as his alibi, would have been sending such a telegram to the same man who knew of his habit of hiding guilty secrets on London buses? Where was his habit of sending telegrams?

                      Love,

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


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by caz View Post
                        Hi Derrick,
                        Sounds to me like the result of too much "finking", Limehouse, and not a little panic. Have you thought about when an innocent Hanratty would have first appreciated the need to establish his presence in Liverpool during that fatal week in August? How and when would he have ascertained all the salient details of the A6 crime, the when and where from start to finish?

                        Only the gunman himself would have known, when that telegram was being sent, exactly how many hours on which days might have to be accounted for, and how far away to put himself from all of the locations associated with the crime. He'd have been "finking" through his options by then, unlike anyone else yet to be suspected and yet to hear all about it. Put in that context, isn't it much more likely that a guilty man, about to claim Liverpool as his alibi, would have been sending such a telegram to the same man who knew of his habit of hiding guilty secrets on London buses? Where was his habit of sending telegrams?

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        My point was that he could not have been sending a telegram from Liverpool if he was supposed to be in London dumping a gun on a bus - but it sounds as though you are implying that Charles France might have been doing that for him?

                        Hanratty DID have a hbit of sending telegrams. It was a common practice in those days - especially as fewer people had phones. Hanrattty had difficulty in using telephones as he had trouble dialing the numbers in the correct order. Sending a telegram was easier for him as the person taking the details wrote the message.

                        Comment


                        • 49 years ago today - James Hanratty was hanged.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Limehouse View Post
                            49 years ago today - James Hanratty was hanged.
                            Good.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Limehouse View Post
                              49 years ago today - James Hanratty was hanged.
                              Totally shocking---especially as Hanratty was so obviously innocent. As someone said to me today in my local library,James Hanratty was such a perfect type to be "fitted up"--- --and they had to pin it on somebody. Or as Alphon ,the first suspect in the A6 murder put it [as well as him also being the very perceptive son of a Scotland Yard employee] ,as Alphon aptly put it "Hanratty was expendable".Exactly---and quite a vulnerable young man in actual fact. In all a disgraceful indictment and lasting blot on British justice .
                              Norma
                              Last edited by Natalie Severn; 04-05-2011, 12:50 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Hi Caz,
                                Originally Posted by Natalie Severn
                                Hi Caz,
                                Seriously what has Alphon to do with anything in my last post ?
                                Was that a serious question, Nats? Talk about ducking the hard ones! Either you believe the evidence against Alphon is stronger than that against Hanratty or you had no business ever arguing that Alphon was involved while Hanratty was just an innocent patsy. You have to face your own conclusions and explain them in evidential terms sooner or later, surely?

                                The moment an innocent Hanratty realised that his Liverpool cronies would not support this part of his alibi, he would have immediately told Acott about going on to stay in Rhyl overnight, and being that much closer in time to the events in question it would have given him the very best chance of recalling vital details and jotting them all down for his conversations with Acott. It wouldn't have been a case of having to 'put up his hands' and 'explain' anything if he had gone to Rhyl innocently enough straight from Liverpool and before returning south.

                                If I can see this a mile off, why keep spinning the line as if it will suddenly sound reasonable that he couldn't or wouldn't add this genuine trip until it eventually became a case of Hobson's choice, by which time his 'recollections' were too vague and too late to swing the jury over? What could have been so scary about admitting he'd been to Rhyl, that was even worse than the fear of being hanged by the neck until he was dead? Having stayed there last summer I can well imagine why anyone might be reluctant to admit it under normal circumstances, but not when they were facing a murder charge at t'other end of the country.
                                Caz,please re-read my original post.I was not at all addressing the subject of Alphon --and was simply asking you why you were digressing and suddenly introducing him into the argument!

                                I have time and again explained the role I believe Alphon , the first suspect, may have played.May you have missed those posts ?
                                I have explained a number of times why I think Alphon may have committed the A6 murder,mainly because of the type of personality I am quite certain he had with his interest in strange religions,his admiration for Hitler and Fascism ,his high intelligence,his semi vagrant attitude to life,his poor work record,his avowed messianic mission, which perfectly fits a schizoid personality.Even his alleged motive for this crime tallies with why I think he could have acted at the request of the man he called "The Central Figure" who had encouraged his crusade to rid our green and pleasant land of all immorality and infidelity;I accept what he said himself he did and why, in his final confession to the A6 murder.So to me,with this backdrop to Alphon"s personality to go on ,I think I understand why he became the very first suspect of those people in the Alexandre Hotel where he went the day after the murder,and why and how they grew more and more suspicious---which I believe was because he had been tipped into breakdown by the accidental shooting of Gregsten,which in turn led to the vile attack on Valerie .
                                As far as Rhyl is concerned I believe the people I have spoken to in Rhyl who vouch for the four women who made statements about the young man who looked like Hanratty and who knocked on their doors after the street lights were on on Tuesday 22nd August 1961.
                                Hanratty knew Acott was determined to pin the murder on him no matter what he said in their garbled telephone conversations in October.He was desperate to prove he had an alibi and thought his friends in LIverpool would back him up.Who,in Rhyl did he know that well?Nobody.But the good people of Rhyl---well over half a dozen of them,did actually provide perfectly good alibis-but Hanratty wasn"t then to know such entire strangers would come to the fore and make statements to back him up. Anyway, as the judge said---Hanratty did not need an alibi to prove his innocence. Alphon got off,and he had no alibi.
                                Finally,I dont believe,if Valerie truly knew what her rapist looked like,she could possibly have mistakenly identified the "heavily built" Michael Clark as
                                her rapist and Gregsten"s killer.She didn"t know what the gunman looked like,clearly, because she didn"t have a proper look at him as she herself admitted.She saw his hairline she said and his hair was brushed straight back---well that ought to tell you something because Hanratty"s hair could not be brushed straight back---it had a quiff! No wonder Blackhall said the man he saw at the roundabout in the Morris Minor looked nothing like Hanratty----he was nowhere near any of it!

                                As for the DNA---just more nonsense.Read the brilliant article by the scientist Zakaria Erzinclioglu that Dupplin Muir gave a link to some few posts back illustrating the totally bogus use of DNA a fair majority of bogus "forensic scientists" get up to.Do,please read it Caz!
                                Norma
                                Last edited by Natalie Severn; 04-05-2011, 01:47 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X