Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A6 Rebooted

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

  • Hold your horses, Nats! Show me where Valerie says she was "100% certain" about that volunteer? She couldn't have been, could she? So why put words in her mouth on top of everything else she has had to endure? She has remained 100% certain about Hanratty since the day she was confronted with him during the second line-up.
    Caz`,
    Logic should explain that Valerie could not possibly have ever been 100% certain or she would never have wrongly identified a heavily built man as Hanratty.Moreover Valerie ,when she wrongly identified Michael Clark as the A6 gunman, was telling the world she had correctly picked out her rapist anf Gregston"s killer.You can"t have it both ways.Either she thought she had selected her rapist from the line up and was prepared to stand by her choice through the law courts and through the hour of his execution in what ,had he not been an innocent RAF man could have brought about his execution for this capital offence,or she wasn"t sure she had picked the right man in Michael Clark and should have admitted she could identify nobody in that line up.
    Can you stop picking Caz.One moment you are having a go about me not answering posts using the quote function and when I do you decide to scream about how I detest this myself but would do that to you!
    Nx
    Last edited by Natalie Severn; 04-21-2011, 07:41 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Victor View Post
      And the trousers had been cleaned before the forensics team got their hands on them.
      Wrong. If you know otherwise then provide proof.

      Originally posted by Victor View Post
      It categorically is possible to seperate sperm heads from other sources of DNA, but it is a technique that needs to be used, and the results given do not make any mention of methodology whatsoever. Bindman\Woffinden have the results though, and they aren't saying.
      Dr Donald E Riley of the University of Washington makes the following observations in his online article entitled DNA Testing: An Introduction For Non-Scientist – An Illustrated Explanation.
      The description of this procedure so far is quite ideal. It works pretty much as described for fresh samples. Even with fresh samples however, some of the non-sperm DNA will be trapped in the sperm pellet. This can be a major problem if the amount of sperm is very low or if the samples are aged and degraded. Often male cells, most likely immature sperm or white cells may end up in the supernatant, variously called the “female” fraction or “non-sperm” fraction.

      http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/...ley/riley.html

      How do you know that Woffinden has the results? Please provide proof.

      Originally posted by Victor View Post
      Yes VS removed her knickers but replaced them straight afterwards, so it's entirely possible no leakage occurred. There are also other possibilities revolving around the fluids that Valerie herself released, which may have been minimal (due to the non-consensual factor) and therefore not causing the semen to leak out before the knickers were replaced.
      Jean Justice informs us of the nurse who gave evidence at Ampthill who said that;

      the state and position of Valerie's knickers indicated that the girl had not been raped in the classical sense of the word.
      Yet Ms Stories vaginal fluid was detected as being part of the DNA mixture as reported in the ruling of 2002.

      Also can you tell me how Ms Stories vaginal fluid could stop semen leaking from her vagina before her knickers were replaced?

      I'm with Jean Justice on this. That is Ms Storie was coached by the police to accept the suspect eventually brought to court. See his [Jean Justice] book (Olympia Press 1964) between pages 63 to 80.

      The ever changing testimony over the whereabouts of the roadworks proves this completely.

      Derrick

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Derrick View Post
        How do you know that Woffinden has the results? Please provide proof.


        Hello Del,

        How are you doing my old fruit? Apparently we have got to be cordial with each other and not use disparaging phrases. I've been in trouble for using one of your phrases (forum of losers); whereas you seem to have got away with 'good looking chick' and 'foxy minx'.

        Anyway back to the undoubted innocence of James Hanratty, established beyond peradventure by the absence of his seminal fluid stains on any part of the interior of the Morris Minor and if that were not enough, further demonstrated by his overall kindness to the weaker sex - he sent his mother flowers on her birthday - don't you know, and to the question which you ask and is quoted above. I do not know whether you have time to read anything other than your vast array of scientific journals, and in particular whether you had time to read Woffinden's article in last July's edition of Dickie Ingrams's organ, The Oldie.

        It is quite clear that Bob, together with Sir Geoffrey, were instrumental in bringing about the scientific tests carried out on the knicker fragment and the handkerchief. He states that the test results first appeared in The Sun newspaper and also says what those results 'purport' to show; i.e they wrongfully show that it was Jim what done it. Bob gives his view as to what is required to remedy this appalling state of affairs, which is more money to be thrown at Sir Geoffrey.

        Bob obviously does not have the scientific training which you have and does not mention alleles dropping in, dropping out or shaking it all about, nor does he touch on stochastic effects, which is very disappointing, especially as I had spent a considerable amount (£3.50) of my holiday money on Ingrams 'Reassuringly Expensive' rag, but the impression Bob gives is that he is in the Hanratty family's and their lawyers' loop.

        It is interesting to see where Sir Geoffrey is at with his noble attempt to rehabilitate the memory of Jim 'with the dreamy blue eyes' Hanratty, I visited his website which has an article or press release from 14 January 2011 here.

        Sir Geoff, or the lackey who wrote the piece, is confused on two counts, first the word is hanged not hung (people are hanged and pictures are hung) and second, Hanratty has had two appeals, a further appeal will be his third. We'll let that pass but Geoffrey is quoted as follows:

        “Since all the other evidence against Hanratty has been discredited, the only basis on which the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal was the DNA evidence, so if we can discredit that then Hanratty should be exonerated.” (my emphasis).

        The use of the subjunctive tense in the above quote would indicate that as of 14 January 2011 Sir Geoffrey did not have the necessary evidence to discredit the DNA evidence. I feel that I should write to Geoff pointing out his 'hung' and 'second appeal' solecisms, at the same time should I put forward your name as a potential and fertile source of scientific evidence to be used in Geoff's second (sic) appeal?

        Yours cordially,

        Ron

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Derrick View Post
          Wrong. If you know otherwise then provide proof.



          Dr Donald E Riley of the University of Washington makes the following observations in his online article entitled DNA Testing: An Introduction For Non-Scientist – An Illustrated Explanation.
          The description of this procedure so far is quite ideal. It works pretty much as described for fresh samples. Even with fresh samples however, some of the non-sperm DNA will be trapped in the sperm pellet. This can be a major problem if the amount of sperm is very low or if the samples are aged and degraded. Often male cells, most likely immature sperm or white cells may end up in the supernatant, variously called the “female” fraction or “non-sperm” fraction.

          http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/...ley/riley.html

          How do you know that Woffinden has the results? Please provide proof.



          Jean Justice informs us of the nurse who gave evidence at Ampthill who said that;

          Yet Ms Stories vaginal fluid was detected as being part of the DNA mixture as reported in the ruling of 2002.

          Also can you tell me how Ms Stories vaginal fluid could stop semen leaking from her vagina before her knickers were replaced?

          I'm with Jean Justice on this. That is Ms Storie was coached by the police to accept the suspect eventually brought to court. See his [Jean Justice] book (Olympia Press 1964) between pages 63 to 80.

          The ever changing testimony over the whereabouts of the roadworks proves this completely.

          Derrick
          Thanks Derrick for a helpful and instructive post.I can"t post easily from our place in Wales at the moment but when I can get on line properly will ask a few questions on the reasons LCN tests are only admissable in the UK, Netherlands and New Zealand as trhe courts have ruled out their use in all other countries.
          Best
          Norma

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
            Thanks Derrick for a helpful and instructive post.I can"t post easily from our place in Wales at the moment but when I can get on line properly will ask a few questions on the reasons LCN tests are only admissable in the UK, Netherlands and New Zealand as trhe courts have ruled out their use in all other countries.
            Best
            Norma

            Hello Natalie or Norma,

            All of Derrick's posts are both helpful and instructive and invariably lead one to the conclusion that it was not the blue eyed boy what done it.

            I am hoping to do a bit of sailing next week in North Wales, let us hope the weather holds.

            Here's a decision of the Supreme Court in New York State in 2010 admitting the use of LCN DNA tests in the murder trial of Hemant Megnath. This is what the court said about the use of LCN testing:

            "LCN DNA testing has been used worldwide for over 10 years and is currently used in many other countries including Australia, Austria, England, New Zealand, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and Switzerland."

            Food for thought when you pose your eagerly anticipated questions.

            Though I really don't know why you bother about this DNA nonsense. Hanratty could not have done it as his semen stains were not found in the Morris Minor, and he always treated the ladies properly, he even sent his mother flowers on her birthday. What murderer and rapist does that?

            Yours cordially,


            Ron
            Last edited by RonIpstone; 04-22-2011, 01:00 PM.

            Comment


            • the sticky issue of the semen (sorry!)

              I haven't got the link because my computer has had a virus and I have to restore it to factory settings so it has lost a lot of what I had saved, but in the 2002 Appeal Judgement, it was not just the knickers that were mentioned but Valerie's slip. It seems common sense to me that although she removed her knickers at Hanratty's directions, she remained in all her other clothing, including the slip, which would have been underneath her bottom therefore preventing any of the semen contaminating the car seat. She immediately put her knickers back on after being raped. I do not see any inconsistency with there being a lack of semen in the car itself...I can understand quite clearly that it would have leaked firstly perhaps a little onto the slip she was wearing, and the majority of it onto her knickers which she replaced at the earliest opportunity.

              Quite often the simplest explanation is the best.

              If anybody has a link to the Appeal Judgement so i can put it back into my favourites I would be grateful if they could post it.

              Happy Easter to All and happy bank holidays to those who don't celebrate Easter.
              babybird

              There is only one happiness in life—to love and be loved.

              George Sand

              Comment


              • Happy Easter to you BB and here is your link.

                Comment


                • ooo thank you Ron


                  I could kiss you for that!

                  Jen x
                  babybird

                  There is only one happiness in life—to love and be loved.

                  George Sand

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Victor View Post
                    Hi Ron,

                    What about Jim's expressed desire to progress from housebreaking and car hijacking to gun crime? Very few people stick to their current role and have no desire to advance their chosen profession.

                    KR,
                    Vic

                    Under cross examination - Hanratty admitted he had a conversation with a man called Fisher about a gun. He actually said "I do not deny it beacuse it was the truth my Lord... it was a phrase of talk my Lord". He did not state that he wanted to progress into gun crime. This was under cross examination by Sherrard.

                    In reply to a suggestion by Swanwick that he went out on that night to do a stick up with a gun Hanratty replied "It is quite obvious if i did that I would not be looking for a car in a cornfiled - as you put it to the court. I will be looking for some cash - a bank - a shop - something to that effect. I would not be looking for a car in a cornfiled for some cash fo a stick-up."

                    Given Hanratty's preference for low risk - high return crimes - this seems to be a perfectly logical reply.

                    On the subject of the gun - as we have previously heard - on the way to court Louise Anderson fell into conversation with Mrs France with whom she shared a car. Anderson (apparently unaware of the identity of mrs France) started to reveal how she knew Hanratty had hidden a gun in the house of 'those poor people' (the Frances). She went on to say how the people didn't know 'but she knew' and then she went on to give exact details as to how and where the gun was stored (even describing the name of a local Butcher in whose carrier bag the gun was stored). Hanratty apparently told Anderson this for no apparent reason before the crime.

                    This is total bunkem. Anderson had obviously been tutored in this appalling conversation in order to establish a provenance for the gun.

                    IF Anderson had really known of the gun's existance in the France household before the murder why didn't she:

                    1. Tell the police this when they came to collect Hanratty's belongings from her flat ?
                    2. End her relationship with Hanratty following his confession that he had a gun?
                    3. Warn the Frances (who had young children) that Hanratty was hiding a gun in their flat - after all - she knew Charles France well enough.

                    The 'gun in a butcher's bad under pink blankets' was a complete fabrication invented to get over the awkward fact that no one could explain where the gun came from or where it was stored before the murder. Anderson was party to this fabricatioon to avoid being charged with receiving stolen goods.

                    Comment


                    • hi Limehouse

                      Originally posted by Limehouse View Post
                      Under cross examination - Hanratty admitted he had a conversation with a man called Fisher about a gun. He actually said "I do not deny it beacuse it was the truth my Lord... it was a phrase of talk my Lord". He did not state that he wanted to progress into gun crime. This was under cross examination by Sherrard.
                      One would have to ask why they were discussing guns at all if it had not crossed Hanratty's mind to progress to gun crime. It is not the sort of conversation one has without a purpose to it, unless between gun club enthusiasts I presume.


                      In reply to a suggestion by Swanwick that he went out on that night to do a stick up with a gun Hanratty replied "It is quite obvious if i did that I would not be looking for a car in a cornfiled - as you put it to the court. I will be looking for some cash - a bank - a shop - something to that effect. I would not be looking for a car in a cornfiled for some cash fo a stick-up."
                      I think he had been looking for a more suitable target during daylight hours but had not been successful. He was not 'looking' for a couple in a cornfield, but he came across them, and I believe spontaneously decided to rob them, without thinking through the consequences of anything. Which was his usual way of doing things.

                      Given Hanratty's preference for low risk - high return crimes - this seems to be a perfectly logical reply.
                      It would have been a low risk crime if he had not abducted the couple, driven round aimlessly for hours and then accidentally murdered one of them in cold blood. That split second reaction changed everything. If he had had the brains to simply rob them and then leave with their watches and whatever money they had, nobody would have heard of James Hanratty (or maybe they would...history has shown us what he was capable of).

                      On the subject of the gun - as we have previously heard - on the way to court Louise Anderson fell into conversation with Mrs France with whom she shared a car. Anderson (apparently unaware of the identity of mrs France) started to reveal how she knew Hanratty had hidden a gun in the house of 'those poor people' (the Frances). She went on to say how the people didn't know 'but she knew' and then she went on to give exact details as to how and where the gun was stored (even describing the name of a local Butcher in whose carrier bag the gun was stored). Hanratty apparently told Anderson this for no apparent reason before the crime.

                      This is total bunkem. Anderson had obviously been tutored in this appalling conversation in order to establish a provenance for the gun.
                      You need to provide evidence if you are claiming somebody told Anderson to say this. Who was it? When? Why? Why do you automatically assume Anderson's statements to be bunkem, because she was a criminal receiving stolen goods, yet take at face value every word of Hanratty's, when he was the criminal providing some of them? Is it not equally bunkem that Hanratty happened to have an innocent conversation about a gun with Fisher just a short while before someone the victim identified as him held up a car at gunpoint and killed and raped the victims?

                      IF Anderson had really known of the gun's existance in the France household before the murder why didn't she:

                      1. Tell the police this when they came to collect Hanratty's belongings from her flat ?
                      Maybe she did?


                      2. End her relationship with Hanratty following his confession that he had a gun?
                      Because she was a criminal moving amongst a criminal fraternity.Maybe it didn't bother her that much until she realised what Hanratty was capable of doing with it...ie not just using it to scare people, but to murder and maim people.


                      3. Warn the Frances (who had young children) that Hanratty was hiding a gun in their flat - after all - she knew Charles France well enough.
                      Maybe she assumed as so many people on this thread do that France supplied it, therefore why should she tell them what they already knew?

                      The 'gun in a butcher's bad under pink blankets' was a complete fabrication invented to get over the awkward fact that no one could explain where the gun came from or where it was stored before the murder. Anderson was party to this fabricatioon to avoid being charged with receiving stolen goods.
                      And the Liverpool/Rhyl alibis were complete fabrications designed to get a vicious murderer and rapist off his just punishment.
                      babybird

                      There is only one happiness in life—to love and be loved.

                      George Sand

                      Comment


                      • First it is important to realise that during the 1980"s and 1990"s a series of miscarriages of justice were revealed that exposed faulty or dishonest forensic science practice.Cases such as that of John Preece, Judith Ward,the BirminghamSix, the Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven, Stefan Kiszko became known in many households.Currently there is the case of Dr Patel hitting the headlines whose faulty forensic practices over the years appear to have enabled a serial killer to go on to kill two more women in Camden Town and have now resulted in a huge row over the true cause of death of Ian Tomlinson.
                        Currently there is no registration council or system of accreditation for Forensic Science.Without such a system Forensic practitioners can be incompetent or dishonest because even when a scientist is competent , s/he may not,necessarily be honest.

                        Comment


                        • hi Nats

                          miscarriages of justice are bad and should be guarded against at all costs. There's no evidence any such thing took place in the case of Hanrartty though.

                          Jen
                          babybird

                          There is only one happiness in life—to love and be loved.

                          George Sand

                          Comment


                          • You can"t count the witnesses for the prosecution on one hand,and those you can count have been discredited either because they were criminals and grasses and loathed by their fellow prisoners like Nudds or Langdale apparently were [ and who were possibly leant on by police or needed to do the police a favour for their own reasons] or they were people like Skillett and Trower , apparently perfectly decent, honest, people but totally discredited by equally honest, decent witnesses like Blackhall or Hogan who totally contradicted their evidence.
                            Valerie is a case on her own.She did believe she had identified her rapist on two different occasions concerning two different men in a case where a wrongful identification could have meant execution for either and in Hanratty"s case it didmean execution.But I sincerely believe Valerie did her best on each occasion , in fact I am quite certain.
                            Valerie also thought she could see blue eyes, in the dark, in a vehicles headlights,but that is impossible,scientifically, actually.But its not impossible to "think" the person"s eyes are light blue,when they may actually be green or hazel coloured eyes.All would actually appear mid to light grey.


                            No fibres, hairs,semen, not a single finger print to link Hanratty to the crime.
                            Eleven people in Rhyl who say they saw him there on the 22nd August 1961.
                            And even Acott believed Mrs Dinwoody in Liverpool in actual fact, despite the 21st and 22nd nonsense talked.

                            All the verdict amounted to was that a rather mentally challenged ,hang "em and flog "em, all male, middle class, jury in Bedford who
                            didn"t know their arses from their elbows after eleven hours without a decent meal or a decent drink ----and after a great deal of confusion about the meaning of the words "reasonable doubt" decided to call it quits and unite to cause a death by hanging.
                            Last edited by Natalie Severn; 04-22-2011, 05:58 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by babybird67 View Post
                              miscarriages of justice are bad and should be guarded against at all costs. There's no evidence any such thing took place in the case of Hanrartty though.

                              Jen
                              Jen,
                              There is lots and lots of evidence.That is why the case won"t die.

                              Norma

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
                                You can"t count the witnesses for the prosecution on one hand,and those you can count have been discredited either because they were criminals and grasses and loathed by their fellow prisoners like Nudds or Langdale apparently were [ and who were possibly leant on by police or needed to do the police a favour for their own reasons] or they were people like Skillett and Trower , apparently perfectly decent, honest, people but totally discredited by equally honest, decent witnesses like Blackhall or Hogan who totally contradicted their evidence.
                                If you are arguing that contradictions in witness testimony 'discredit' eachother, then following that logic all the Rhyl witnesses are discredited because they conflict with another witness, Valerie. It doesn't work like that. Witnesses give their testimony in court, a jury listens to it, and makes up their mind. In this case that was done and the verdict was guilty.

                                Valerie also thought she could see blue eyes, in the dark, in a vehicles headlights,but that is impossible,scientifically, actually.
                                She didn't see them in the dark. She saw them in the light which shone in from the passing cars.


                                No fibres, hairs,semen, not a single finger print to link Hanratty to the crime.
                                Apart from his semen all over the victim's knickers you mean? And his mucous all over the hankie that was wrapped around the murder weapon. He must have been incredibly unlucky for such damning scientific evidence to turn up twice!


                                Eleven people in Rhyl who say they saw him there on the 22nd August 1961.
                                Actually they don't say that. They say they saw someone who could have been or who looked like Hanratty. None of them really made any positive identfication of him. Being shown one photo and being asked if that was him doesn't count.


                                And even Acott believed Mrs Dinwoody in Liverpool in actual fact, despite the 21st and 22nd nonsense talked.
                                Acott was not infallible. You cannot try to discredit his relation of taking down the Hanratty interview notes and then claim he must have been right in this. Hanratty and Dinwoodie could not have met. Hanratty was in London the only day that would have been possible.

                                All the verdict amounted to was that a rather mentally challenged ,hang "em and flog "em, all male, middle class, jury in Bedford who
                                didn"t know their arses from their elbows after eleven hours without a decent meal or a decent drink ----and after a great deal of confusion about the meaning of the words "reasonable doubt" decided to call it quits and unite to cause a death by hanging.
                                I don't share your rather dismissive and insulting opinion of the jury or its capablities. History shows they did a rather good job and got the verdict correct.

                                Jen
                                babybird

                                There is only one happiness in life—to love and be loved.

                                George Sand

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X