Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A6 Rebooted

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Archaic View Post
    - Why is this case of the A6 murders personally important to you?

    - How and when did you become interested in it?

    - What aspects of this case particularly fascinate you and inspire you to study the case in detail?

    - What aspects of this case do you feel are important for others to understand because they relate to issues of Justice?

    - What (if any) lasting effect do you think this case will have on England and her citizens?
    It isn’t personally important to me. The day something like this becomes personally important is the day objectivity flies out of the window. Poor Rachel Nickell’s father was totally convinced of Colin Stagg’s guilt, for example, for a long time. My guess (and my hope) is that the overwhelming case against Napper, including the DNA evidence, was enough to convince him he had been wrong about Stagg and to allow him - finally - to get on with the grieving process, knowing that justice was done in the end.

    What fascinates me is human nature, and the curious need for some to have their personal suspicions about other people confirmed, rather than alleviated. It doesn’t bother me personally whether my own instincts about someone I never knew are spot on or turn out to be dead wrong. But I do feel strongly that it‘s always better to be wrong, if it means that a suspected miscarriage of justice was not done, and the wrong man was not punished. I do get sore misgivings when reading these threads that some would rejoice if only they could more effectively put the boot into the justice system and accuse it of hanging an innocent man. I find that quite perverse because surely, surely, we can all sleep easier in our beds if we can believe that the police were initially on the wrong track with Alphon, but with the victim’s assistance were steered onto the right track with Hanratty.

    What’s not to love about that scenario, as confirmed by the only DNA evidence available?

    No lasting effect because I do believe that the vast majority are loving the conclusion that the right man was found (and far more quickly than in the Stagg/Napper case) and justice 1962-style was done after all. And we are the lucky ones, because we have been able to shed the doubts many of us grew up with about this fascinatingly horrible case.

    The solution is there for the taking, yet some people push it away, as if it offends them personally to have to admit that their rotten establishment was not quite so rotten in this high profile instance.

    Love,

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


    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Derrick View Post
      That DNA evidence will be made inadmissable in courts of law.
      Hi Derrick,

      All DNA evidence? Including DNA evidence used to free people?
      Like the LCN result that freed Stagg and convicted Napper?
      Like the DNA result that convicted Castree after Kiszko was freed?

      I very much doubt that that is likely after the Reed\Reed\Garmson ruling that essentially gave the green light to LCN testing where the sample size is between 200-1,000pg [0.2-1ng].

      A major question remains... Do you accept that Valerie's profile was correctly identified from the LCN result on the knicker fragment?

      KR,
      Vic.
      Truth is female, since truth is beauty rather than handsomeness; this [...] would certainly explain the saying that a lie could run around the world before Truth has got its, correction, her boots on, since she would have to chose which pair - the idea that any woman in a position to choose would have just one pair of boots being beyond rational belief.
      Unseen Academicals - Terry Pratchett.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Derrick View Post
        That is why Budowle, Krane et al keep banging on about the inability to infer the tissue source of DNA when using LCN type techniques.
        Hi Derrick,

        From paragraph 56 of http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2009/2698.html :-
        Some stains of biological fluids are detectable by visual examination or presumptive tests (blood, semen or saliva), but some are not – sweat, skin cells or vaginal secretions. It is relatively straight forward to determine the precise nature of the material if it is particulate or if it is a stain of a biological material that can be detected by visual examination or by a presumptive test.

        KR,
        Vic.
        Truth is female, since truth is beauty rather than handsomeness; this [...] would certainly explain the saying that a lie could run around the world before Truth has got its, correction, her boots on, since she would have to chose which pair - the idea that any woman in a position to choose would have just one pair of boots being beyond rational belief.
        Unseen Academicals - Terry Pratchett.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Archaic View Post
          Hello everyone, long time no see!

          I would like to ask all of you a few questions.

          Being an American, I was unfamiliar with the A6 murders, so a while back I did some reading on them. I understand that the case took many twists and turns, including conflicting testimony, confessions that may be false, and a death sentence that some feel was imposed on an innocent man.
          But it's still hard for me as a Yank to understand why this case inspires such passionate interest amongst Brits. There are other bizarre English murders that don't seem to inspire this level of interest and emotion, and I'm trying to understand why this case does.

          >> I was wondering if any of you would care to share the answers to a few questions so the rest of us can put the A6 murders in better perspective?

          - Why is this case of the A6 murders personally important to you?

          - How and when did you become interested in it?

          - What aspects of this case particularly fascinate you and inspire you to study the case in detail?

          - What aspects of this case do you feel are important for others to understand because they relate to issues of Justice?

          - What (if any) lasting effect do you think this case will have on England and her citizens?

          Thanks for your help and best regards,
          Archaic
          Hi Archaic,
          -Regarding whether or not the A6 case is of personal importance, the answer is no.

          -I became interested in it relatively recently even though my mother,living in the North West,long ago spoke to me about the case several times, saying that Hanratty had been in Rhyl at the time of the murder.

          -the aspect of the case that most fascinates me is the statement made by William Ewer,brother in law of the murdered man and later his widow"s lover.In his statement of 16 May 1971 to the Sunday Times ,William Ewer admits he "picked out" James Hanratty as having "staring blue eyes" like the description of the murderer.One problem for me is why so when every paper one cares to research from 23rd August to 1st September 1961 ,when this happened , describes a man with brown hair and" deep set brown eyes"[all these papers from the week following the murder can be checked out and if you want I could send you the deatils].
          2nd problem for me is the astonishing coincidence this is-- all this happening only a few days after a murder that took place 50 miles away in Bedford and yet William Ewer spotted the murderer just two yards in front of his Umbrella/Antiques " shop in Swiss Cottage Arcade ?
          And why was it not properly acted upon,especially since after William Ewer acted on his "hunch" ,ie rushing about following the man etc found he had been in both Caters Florists and Burtol"s dry cleaners giving his name as "Ryan" [as in the hotel guest book] and a Mrs Dorothy Morrell had even written down his mother"s address as , Mrs Hanratty of Sycamore Grove" , to send roses to as of September 1st 1961 etc .
          Moreover he, William Ewer, then lost no time at all in informing Scotland Yard who sent two plain clothes policemen to interview Mrs Morrell about the event.
          Yet this astonishing "lead" "apparently" led nowhere! Why ?
          Why instead did police at this time choose to interview a Mr Peter Alphon who they had been tipped off about as behaving in an erratic and very disturbed way in the Alexandre Ct Hotel in the week following the murder?The same Mr Alphon who William Nudds said booked in after Ryan/Hanratty --- the very day of Hanratty"s [Ryan"s] exit at 8.30 am from the hotel ie Alphon booked into the Vienna Hotel on 22nd August 1961 .In one statement Nudds claimed Alphon arrived at 1pm on 22nd,in another that he never even saw him arrive.Juliana Galves also said she hadn"t seen him arrive either and claimed she did not see Alphon until 11.30 on 23rd August----seven hours after the murder.These are though just a few of the inconsistencies or anomalies in the case.

          -the trial itself left much to be desired in terms of justice,no matter whether the accused was guilty or not.There was the taint of corruption in the legal process as later it was revealed that certain evidence had been suppressed , witnesses not called for one reason or another and some written evidence had been tampered with.A shady group of witnesses were wheeled out by the prosecution, one of whom,after visiting William Ewer and apologising for his brother in law"s death,committed suicide.

          -time will tell if it has an impact on England and her citizens.

          Thanks for your interest, Archaic
          Best,
          Norma
          Last edited by Natalie Severn; 02-08-2011, 01:42 PM. Reason: spelling

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Victor View Post
            A major question remains... Do you accept that Valerie's profile was correctly identified from the LCN result on the knicker fragment?
            Hi Vic

            I would like DNA evidence made inadmissible until such times when it is independently tested by 2 seperate labs and the results given to both the prosecution and defence for their own interpretation. At present the Crown have almost a monoploy on forensic DNA tests.

            As far as I know Napper confessed. Castree didn't and is protesting his innocence still. Until I see the evidence with my own eyes I always remain skeptical.

            If VS's profile was detected then why would Hanratty's DNA, if also found, have to be from semen? Anybody can plainly see that VS is a female so how is it possible for her profile to be found on a semen only extract.

            The FSS have contradicted themselves over this. Who do we ultimately believe? Is it to be the CACD ruling with 3 profiles or Roger Mann on BBC's Horizon where he states categorically there is only 1? One of them is definitely wrong. I have a strong feeling that both are wrong.

            The LCN DNA evidence in this case isn't consistent with accepted methods of good practice when presenting DNA evidence.
            • The FSS claim that if there is contamination it must be from semen which is plainly wrong.
            • The FSS instead of giving caveats over the problems with LCN trumpet the results as being nye on damning against Hanratty.
            • Alphon is said to be excluded as the killer but nobody can be excluded from LCN tests because of stochastic effects such as drop out and drop in, increased stutter and baseline noise and pull up.
            This is why I have grave doubts over the results.

            Derrick

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Derrick View Post
              [*]Alphon is said to be excluded as the killer but nobody can be excluded from LCN tests because of stochastic effects such as drop out and drop in, increased stutter and baseline noise and pull up.[/LIST]This is why I have grave doubts over the results.
              If Mike Mansfield says that Alphon was not the murderer/rapist, then the Hanratty Appreciation Society is stuck with that position. I assume that the learned lefty and champion of civil rights is and was au fait with stochastic effects such as drop out and drop in, left leg in and left left out, right leg in and shake it all about. He would therefore made all necessary allowances before making the admission that Alphon was undoubtedly not the murderer.

              We should remind ourselves that it was a major plank in the defence case at Hanratty's trial that it was Alphon what done it. Mansfield must have known the defence at trial and must have known that in exculpating Alphon the evidence against Jim became more incriminating.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
                Hi Archaic,

                -the aspect of the case that most fascinates me is the statement made by William Ewer,brother in law of the murdered man and later his widow"s lover.In his statement of 16 May 1971 to the Sunday Times ,William Ewer admits he "picked out" James Hanratty as having "staring blue eyes" like the description of the murderer.One problem for me is why so when every paper one cares to research from 23rd August to 1st September 1961 ,when this happened , describes a man with brown hair and" deep set brown eyes"[all these papers from the week following the murder can be checked out and if you want I could send you the deatils].
                2nd problem for me is the astonishing coincidence this is-- all this happening only a few days after a murder that took place 50 miles away in Bedford and yet William Ewer spotted the murderer just two yards in front of his Umbrella/Antiques " shop in Swiss Cottage Arcade ?
                And why was it not properly acted upon,especially since after William Ewer acted on his "hunch" ,ie rushing about following the man etc found he had been in both Caters Florists and Burtol"s dry cleaners giving his name as "Ryan" [as in the hotel guest book] and a Mrs Dorothy Morrell had even written down his mother"s address as , Mrs Hanratty of Sycamore Grove" , to send roses to as of September 1st 1961 etc .
                Moreover he, William Ewer, then lost no time at all in informing Scotland Yard who sent two plain clothes policemen to interview Mrs Morrell about the event.
                Yet this astonishing "lead" "apparently" led nowhere! Why ?
                Why instead did police at this time choose to interview a Mr Peter Alphon who they had been tipped off about as behaving in an erratic and very disturbed way in the Alexandre Ct Hotel in the week following the murder?The same Mr Alphon who William Nudds said booked in after Ryan/Hanratty --- the very day of Hanratty"s [Ryan"s] exit at 8.30 am from the hotel ie Alphon booked into the Vienna Hotel on 22nd August 1961 .In one statement Nudds claimed Alphon arrived at 1pm on 22nd,in another that he never even saw him arrive.Juliana Galves also said she hadn"t seen him arrive either and claimed she did not see Alphon until 11.30 on 23rd August----seven hours after the murder.These are though just a few of the inconsistencies or anomalies in the case.
                Because the story had no basis in fact and was a post trial invention by journalists with the connivance , wittingly or unwittingly, or Ewer.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by RonIpstone View Post
                  If Mike Mansfield says that Alphon was not the murderer/rapist, then the Hanratty Appreciation Society is stuck with that position. I assume that the learned lefty and champion of civil rights is and was au fait with stochastic effects such as drop out and drop in, left leg in and left left out, right leg in and shake it all about. He would therefore made all necessary allowances before making the admission that Alphon was undoubtedly not the murderer.

                  We should remind ourselves that it was a major plank in the defence case at Hanratty's trial that it was Alphon what done it. Mansfield must have known the defence at trial and must have known that in exculpating Alphon the evidence against Jim became more incriminating.
                  Hi Ron
                  Mansfield may be au fait with the Okey Cokey but when did he actually last win a case?
                  I wouldn't want him anywhere near a court room with his piss poor record.
                  I hope this is of help.
                  Derrick

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by RonIpstone View Post
                    Because the story had no basis in fact and was a post trial invention by journalists with the connivance , wittingly or unwittingly, or Ewer.
                    Interesting your response.
                    So lets look at some facts:
                    Concerning William Ewer and his relationship with Janet Gregsten,the widow of Michael Gregsten.
                    Fact 1]
                    Mrs Gregsten went to live with William Ewer and his wife and went to William Ewer"s shop in the arcade to be "supported " by her brother-in-law during the weeks following the murder.
                    Fact 2] Mrs Gregsten and William Ewer became lovers not long after and lived together for a number of years.

                    Fact 3]concerning Mr Ewer"s Statement of 16 May 1971 to the Sunday Times. William Ewer himself wrote it in response to an article of May 9 1971 in the Sunday Times that had been written about him and about which he was keen to "set the record straight".

                    Fact 4] Sworn testimony at Ampthill of Mr John Wood, Swiss Cottage Area Supervisor for Burtols Dry Cleaners situated two yards across the arcade from Mr Ewer"s Umbrella Shop. Mr John Wood was serving opposite Mr William Ewer"s on the Monday of 21st August about 11 am.He gave testimony on oath that he had received a green suit from a man who gave his name as Ryan.So Hanratty deposited his suit there ,under the name of Ryan on the 21st August 1961.

                    Fact 5] Paul Foot interviewed Mrs Dorothy Morrell in her flower shop,Caters, in August 1970. Still working at the Flower shop,she remembered the visit of Hanratty very well, and confirmed that she was visited by two plain clothes policemen shortly afterwards making inquiries about the incident that had been reported to them by Mr William Ewer.

                    Fact 6] The police were put on the trail of James Hanratty and was confirmed confirmed by Mrs Morrell [and the ex policeman in the photographers shop] and to both the Daily Mail and Daily Sketch.The story of Mrs Gregsten"s intuition appeared in the Sketch, written by Peter Duffy two days after Hanratty"s conviction.

                    Fact 7] William Ewer ,without being precise,said the story of February 1962 contained "certain inaccuracies" but Peter Duffy
                    .
                    Fact 8] Paul Foot spoke to Peter Duffy about the story and Duffy was adamant the story was accurate.

                    Fact 9 He confirmed it not only to Paul Foot but to the BBC Panorama programme of November 1966.

                    Fact 10] Mrs Dorothy Morrell also confirmed the name used as being "Ryan"---as had Mr John Wood and the name of the person to whom the flowers were sent,Mrs Hanratty of Sycamore Grove.
                    Fact 10] both the above shops were just yards away from William Ewer"s shop in the Swiss Cottage Arcade.
                    More "facts" later regarding Charles France,a main prosecution witness against James Hanratty and his visit to William Ewer shortly before his suicide.
                    Last edited by Natalie Severn; 02-08-2011, 05:06 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Natalie

                      You do realise you are accusing Janet of being a criminal don't you?

                      It seems Hanratty fan club members can cope with everyone else being a criminal but their golden boy!
                      babybird

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

                      George Sand

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
                        So lets look at some facts:
                        Hi Norma
                        Great post.

                        Ron is wrong when he states that the story has no basis in fact.

                        Why didn't Ewer sue the paper when the story first broke?

                        Derrick

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by babybird67 View Post
                          You do realise you are accusing Janet of being a criminal don't you?

                          It seems Hanratty fan club members can cope with everyone else being a criminal but their golden boy!
                          Hi Babybird

                          As Michael Winner would say "calm down dear!"

                          No one except a complete hatstand would believe that Hanratty wasn't a housebreaker and car thief.

                          Ewer, an adultery like his brother in law, more than likely used Janet Gregsten's name to deflect direct attention from himself as being the sole source of the factual episode.

                          Derrick

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Derrick View Post
                            Hi Babybird

                            As Michael Winner would say "calm down dear!"

                            No one except a complete hatstand would believe that Hanratty wasn't a housebreaker and car thief.

                            Ewer, an adultery like his brother in law, more than likely used Janet Gregsten's name to deflect direct attention from himself as being the sole source of the factual episode.

                            Derrick
                            This, Derrick ,is an excellent point.
                            Thanks for your comment about my post,
                            Cheers
                            Norma

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by babybird67 View Post
                              You do realise you are accusing Janet of being a criminal don't you?

                              It seems Hanratty fan club members can cope with everyone else being a criminal but their golden boy!
                              Please - as we have all agreed to abide by a good behaviour code in order for this thread to survive - could we drop the Hanratty Appreciation Society (Ron) and Hanratty Fan Club (BB) labels? The debate has been fantastic since the thread was rebooted and I for one am prepared to set aside past irritations and differences so let's all please try to keep it civil.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Derrick View Post
                                If VS's profile was detected then why would Hanratty's DNA, if also found, have to be from semen? Anybody can plainly see that VS is a female so how is it possible for her profile to be found on a semen only extract.

                                The FSS have contradicted themselves over this. Who do we ultimately believe? Is it to be the CACD ruling with 3 profiles or Roger Mann on BBC's Horizon where he states categorically there is only 1? One of them is definitely wrong. I have a strong feeling that both are wrong.
                                Hi Derrick,

                                Not sure I understand this. Anybody can plainly see that while VS is female, and innocent of any crime, her rapist was male, most definitely a criminal, and his semen, along with her innocent lover's, was found on her underwear immediately after the crime.

                                Even those who plump for JH's DNA arriving after the event on a rapist-free fragment of knicker concede that this would presumably have had to be semen transferred accidentally from a trouser accident, and not from his sweat, blood or tears while wondering what alibi he could invent next.

                                It is patently clear to me that Roger Mann's 1 profile referred to the one potentially guilty profile that had to be accounted for. The other 2 (making 3 in total) were both expected profiles, one belonging to VS, the other attributable to MG, and as such were givens. Mann evidently took it for granted that his audience would appreciate the fact that there was only the one suspicious and therefore significant profile to be considered, since the other two were easily accounted for innocently.

                                Love,

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


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X