A6 Rebooted

[OneRound]

OR,

You are right. This is what Mr Sweeney QC for the Crown said when addressing the Court of Appeal on 22 April 2002.




I’ve taken the above from Rob Harriman’s book where he gives most of the transcript for the DNA aspect of the appeal.

I am not sure where the “two days” has come from mentioned by Sweeney.

I have had a quick reread of the transcript and Mansfield QC does not seem to make anything of this. But part of the problem in understanding this aspect of the case is that the various expert witnesses have given reports upon which they have been examined and cross examined, and while the questions asked find their way into the transcript, the reports about which they are being asked do not.

It seems therefore that AB group stains were discovered in 1961 and VS would have been asked about these at the time. The Crown and defence at the time were agreed that the seminal stains from the O secretor were those of the rapist/murderer. The AB stains must therefore have been those left by MG.

Hi again Spitfire,

For a moment there, I thought you had the whole transcript of the 2002 appeal. Ah well!

As often, I follow your reasoning to the bottom line. I just cannot shake the feeling that for such an important aspect of the Hanratty case, an agreement or presumption of this sort is unnecessarily casual. I would like there to be as much medical proof as feasible and consider that only reasonable.

As a bit of an aside, I take your point totally about the problems in fully understanding all aspects of a case without the whole transcript and the related expert reports.

I've recently read the Court of Appeal judgement for the Cameo murders case. In their 2003 judgement, the Court of Appeal allowed the posthumous appeals made upon behalf of George Kelly and Charles Connolly and absolutely tore into the police and prosecution witnesses from the original 1950 trials. In setting out the reasons for their findings, the Court highlighted the lies that had been told and the evidence that had been deliberately suppressed. Just going from that judgement, it would seem that no case could now be made against Kelly and Connolly. However, I found it interesting that the Court in their judgement referred (without commenting on the validity) to the Crown QC's view that a retrial would have been sought had Kelly and Connolly still been alive and the appeal held at a much earlier time. Either the Crown's QC was being particularly ungracious to the memories of the two dead men or there was more against them than was (or needed to be) stated in the Court's judgement.

Best regards,

OneRound

[OneRound]

Whilst I believe the presumption would have been verified, the potential significance was and remains huge. If these stains do not tally with Gregsten, that would be strong evidence of another man or, at the least, contamination and the whole of the DNA case against Hanratty would collapse like a house of cards in a cyclone.

HI OR. Quite well put.

Do you not think though, that if the presumption was verified in the negative, we would not have got to know about it anyway?

Thank you, Moste. However, your thinking there goes too far for me. I do not see an establishment conspiracy or cover up. My issues are principally with Acott's non-disclosures and the Court of Appeal's reluctance to give or even explore possible benefits of doubt in favour of Hanratty.

Best regards,

OneRound

[OneRound]

Hi OneRound, Spitfire etc

I was less interested in debating the vagaries of DNA testing than I was in discussing the likelihood of Valerie and Gregsten having sex in the Morrie on the evening of the 22nd, and perhaps being caught in flagrante delicto by Hanratty.

Is there a female poster who'd judge it likely that the knickers Valerie was wearing on Tuesday evening were the same ones that she'd donned on Sunday morning, and hadn't washed in the meantime?

Hi Alfie - if you're not so keen on us making apple pie, don't put so many apples on our doorstep!

Best regards,

OneRound

[Alfie]

Hi Alfie - if you're not so keen on us making apple pie, don't put so many apples on our doorstep!

Best regards,

OneRound

Hi OneRound

I don't know what you found on your doorstep, but they weren't my apples. I never mentioned DNA in my original post.

So, back to Valerie's knickers ...

[cobalt]

One possibility might be that the AB sample belonged to Gregsten and had survived the underwear being washed.
In 1961 not all households had a washing machine, so that either meant a copper boiler (highly efficient as I vaguely recall) or handwashing in a sink, followed by a wringer. The trace would not be visible to the naked eye but could have shown up under analysis.

[Alfie]

One possibility might be that the AB sample belonged to Gregsten and had survived the underwear being washed.
In 1961 not all households had a washing machine, so that either meant a copper boiler (highly efficient as I vaguely recall) or handwashing in a sink, followed by a wringer. The trace would not be visible to the naked eye but could have shown up under analysis.

I hadn't thought of that, but I suppose it is a possibility, even if a faint one.

I think what's more likely, though, is that Valerie and Gregsten had intercourse in the car that evening and this fact was concealed by Acott - for the sake of propriety and to keep Valerie in the good graces of the Bedford jury.

[OneRound]

Hi OneRound

I don't know what you found on your doorstep, but they weren't my apples. I never mentioned DNA in my original post.

So, back to Valerie's knickers ...

Hi Alfie - in my crime and cook books, the knicker staining leads to discussion of the DNA finding even more than an abundance of apples leads to making of apple pie.

Best regards,

OneRound

[OneRound]

I hadn't thought of that, but I suppose it is a possibility, even if a faint one.

I think what's more likely, though, is that Valerie and Gregsten had intercourse in the car that evening and this fact was concealed by Acott - for the sake of propriety and to keep Valerie in the good graces of the Bedford jury.

Hi again Alfie - what they were up to in the car before being disturbed would almost certainly be regarded as irrelevant today. However, if concealment did occur as you speculate to influence the jury of the time, that gives rise to concern.

Best regards,

OneRound

[ansonman]

Hi again Alfie - what they were up to in the car before being disturbed would almost certainly be regarded as irrelevant today. However, if concealment did occur as you speculate to influence the jury of the time, that gives rise to concern.

Best regards,

OneRound

I find it hard to believe that they drove into the cornfield for any reason other than to have intercourse. It is hardly surprising that this was concealed, given the fact that their relationship was concealed. If the jury were not made aware of the relationship they were not going to be made aware that they had sex on the night of the attack. Would the jury members be so naďve as to believe that they drove into the cornfield after visiting the pub, in order to further their discussions without being disturbed? Quite possibly. Having said that, their motivation for being in the cornfield was surely irrelevant to the jury at the time.

Ansonman

[Graham]

I believe that Valerie in her first interview said that she and Gregsten had 'picked up a hitch-hiker near Slough', which was in turn picked up by the press in early reports of the A6 Crime. This I am sure was an attempt on her part for both propriety, and to try to hide the fact that she was in an affair with a married man. Then, when she changed that to the pair of them being in the car in the cornfield to plan a motor rally, it was left at that, again for the sake of propriety, but I doubt there was a person in the courtroom - or in the land, for that matter - who wasn't aware of the true reason for their being in the cornfield.

Graham

[Alfie]

I believe that Valerie in her first interview said that she and Gregsten had 'picked up a hitch-hiker near Slough', which was in turn picked up by the press in early reports of the A6 Crime. This I am sure was an attempt on her part for both propriety, and to try to hide the fact that she was in an affair with a married man. Then, when she changed that to the pair of them being in the car in the cornfield to plan a motor rally, it was left at that, again for the sake of propriety, but I doubt there was a person in the courtroom - or in the land, for that matter - who wasn't aware of the true reason for their being in the cornfield.

Graham

You may be right, Graham. But I've nowhere seen a quote attributed to Valerie that affirmed this. I'm more inclined to think the hitchhiking story was a false trail laid by the police - to keep some crucial info up their sleeve, and as a way of weeding out that cranks who felt compelled to confess to the crime.

[Graham]

You may be right, Graham. But I've nowhere seen a quote attributed to Valerie that affirmed this. I'm more inclined to think the hitchhiking story was a false trail laid by the police - to keep some crucial info up their sleeve, and as a way of weeding out that cranks who felt compelled to confess to the crime.

And you could also be correct - when I get a minute I'll check the books.

I believe a number of nutters confessed to the crime anyway....

Graham

[Alfie]

Ronald Lofthouse

The Evening Times' account of the third day of the trial has Sherrard asking Valerie if she recognized the name Ronald or Ronnie Lofthouse. Valerie said no. That's a new name in the A6 investigation to me. Anybody have any idea who he was and why Sherrard would be asking Valerie if she knew of him?

[moste]

The Evening Times' account of the third day of the trial has Sherrard asking Valerie if she recognized the name Ronald or Ronnie Lofthouse. Valerie said no. That's a new name in the A6 investigation to me. Anybody have any idea who he was and why Sherrard would be asking Valerie if she knew of him?

And Sherrard didn’t pursue it, or elaborate any further, did he ?

[moste]

We don't know, do we, what blood group Gregsten was?
Maybe the AB semen came from the chap that Valerie hung around with when not seeing Mike.
In any event, I think if we could pick the brains of a bona fida, totally impartial, DNA expert, we would be 'set straight' on the usefulness of any and all DNA found in the Pandora's box wherein lay the A6 murders exhibits! regardless of who called for the test.
Again.. the DNA was a means to an end for the establishment and associated authorities to GET the damn monkey off their backs , once and for all. It worked wonderfully.

This is from Derrick last year:

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
...Can you explain how you know the judgement was wrong to state that smaller quantities of AB seminal fluid were present when the knickers were first examined?...Derrick...
Because I've seen copies of Lewis Nickolls bench notes and read his entire testimony at the trial. No AB semen found on any of the exhibits...full stop. The judges are either lying or were just not paying attention


So ,if Derricks post is to be accepted as factual. We dont know Gregstens blood group DO WE?