A6 Rebooted

[Derrick]

Hi all

Regarding the Tonight programme on ITV the other day it must be pointed out that the FSS expert who gave the so called damning evidence in both of the 2007 cases of the Sean Hoey (Omagh Bombing) trial and the Vincent Simpson case (Templeton Woods) was none other than Dr Jonathan Whitaker.

It was Whitaker who gave the chief evidence in the Hanratty appeal of 2002.

There are too many parallels between all of these cases to feel at all confident that the strength of the scientific evidence is anything other than next to worthless.

Derrick

[Derrick]

In Hoey the DNA evidence was concocted purely by subjective interpretation.

In Simpson the evidence samples of Miss McCabe and Simpson had been stored together in the same box for nearly 30 years.

Derrick

[Derrick]

Tony

It's great to see you back after such a long layoff.

Regards
Derrick

[Tony]

Thank you, Derrick.

For months I thought the forum was closed down. I am now trawling through all the posts.

However:

When Basil Acott put out an appeal in the press to find Peter Louis Alphon in connection with the A6 murder case it was almost the equivalent of the Sheriff putting up a ‘Wanted – Dead or Alive’ poster in several local saloons in Arizona 50 years earlier.

Basil did not go to the press to find Alphon so that he could get him in to ask him if there was anything in his almanacs that might give him a clue to the murderer’s identity. He did it because PLA was the man he wanted to charge with the murder. He simply must have done.
Even though he had brown/hazel eyes he was on parade in front of VS and I am sure Bas would have been delighted if VS had picked him out.
He might even have gripped her shoulder and said: “Well done”. Well he might have done. Yep I think he definitely would have done.

But the fact that VS did not pick out Pete left our hero Basil with something of a problem and we know what happened later.

But why, years later, did Bas say: “We always thought it was a gas meter job”?

I know there are 2 ways of interpreting that phrase:

1. “We always thought it was a gas meter job. But it wasn’t”.
Or:
2. “We always thought it was a gas meter job and we were correct”.

If the answer is 1 then Acott is saying we were stupid to begin with.

But if the answer is 2 then he is virtually admitting they hanged the wrong man.

Either way it seems a little bit odd for him to have even mentioned it when he had had all the intervening years to think about it.


I think there was a lot more to Basil and Ken than meets the eye.

Tony.

[Limehouse]

An A6 poem

Fifty Years

Fifty years have passed since you
last stepped into the sun
Several generations have grown old
and the years have rolled on like the tide,
Great events have unfolded,
world leaders have risen and fallen
and some have died.

The last stage of the American Dream
was snuffed out in a Texas street,
Four lads from Liverpool, more famous than Jesus
inspired, much imitated, conquered the world
and then smashed their empire
in a single beat.

Sex, Larkin insisted, was invented then,
minds expanded and contracted,
finally dissolving in an acid haze,
A trophy was held aloft and a nation cheered wildly
in those glory, glory days.

For some nations the sun never seemed to set,
whilst others cowered in shadows and cool breezes,
Ideologies clashed, people marched,
acceptance dithered, fluttered, dithered again
and limped towards partial triumph,
But mistrust lurked in murky waters with
festering diseases.

It was a young world when you
last stepped into the sun,
But – did you stroll along the prom
with a pocket full of loot,
or creep across a cornfield with a gun?

JSL

[Derrick]

Julie

You poem reminded me of American Pie and We Didn't Start The Fire somewhat.

The open ending will spark some debate perhaps.

Well done

Regards
Derrick

[Natalie Severn]

Julie,
Lovely poem.....and,yes,Derrick is right, it leaves the terrible question to echo in the mind.......
Norma

[Limehouse]

Hi Derrick and Norma

I think what I am trying to do is not question his guilt but to reflect the debate that has been raging for almost fifty years. The world has moved on but the two sides of the debate are still struggling with the same question.

The poem is trying to reflect the debate on this thread by exploring some of the iconic moments since those events happened and then return to the issue that is still in dispute.

Hope that helps.

Julie

[Hatchett]

Hi,

Fifty Years of Tears.

Fifty years ago it was a drab world
Of greys instead of black,
Of washed out sheets instead of skies.
Flat tapped workers trudged to work
In pointless jobs to secure a pension
That they would be too old to enjoy.
You took another path,
Of cheap hotels and sleezy cafes
That shone with a tarnished gliz.
The path led you to prison
Too often.
Is that why you changed course,
And bought the gun,
And attempted the robbery?
Is that what led you to the cornfield.
Is that what sparked the fifty years of Tears
That have fallen down bitter cheeks?
If it was then you should have said.
It would not have stopped the pain.
But it may have stopped the tears,
From the people you left behind.

DF
Best wishes.

[Natalie Severn]

Moving words David.
But think on the following:
The Matthews Report was written by a very senior police officer appointed by Scotland Yard at the request of the Home Office.
Matthews,along with others in the police service came to believe after much investigation that Hanratty was totally innocent of the crime for which he was hanged,
Not possibly innocent but totally innocent.
This in turn gave rise to the 2002 appeal.
In 2002 Mr Whitaker was then wheeled out with his ' Brum Special' an exciting new and quite maverick and groundbreaking version of LCN DNA testing with which extremely tiny particles of DNA could be multiplied thousands of times .Moreover this process has not had peer approval among the International scientific community.And this same International scientific community has ever since worried about the dangerous risk of contaminants and has begun to shout loudly about the crucial and vital need for for totally sterile storage since LCN testing of itself attracts contaminants at a far higher rate and quantity than conventional DNA testing ever would.David, such tests have been and are now being hotly questioned as tests not really at all suitable for use in a court of law since they are known to run the risk of attracting contaminants at a rate ---quite literally----that frightened the FBI into banning them completely from their work.

Surely,surely you are not now going to say that they are wrong.That LCN DNA testing is actually fine because, in the case of James Hanratty, his DNA was kept in an air sealed room which could only be entered by specially clothed workers,masked and fully aware of the risk of contaminants?
We have no idea of the evidential history of that tiny piece of cloth.We think that the tiny fragment of cloth,less than a quarter of a centimetre square and over 40 years old ,was kept in the drawer of a police lab after being excised from knickers in 1961.We know the knickers had been taken from cardboard boxes in which Hanratty's trousers had been kept and put on display at Ampthill each day for ten days.We know they were handled in the same lab as Hanratty's trousers in December 1961.We know that even Dr Whitaker has admitted that sometimes things are left lying about in the lab and sometimes even put in boxes they ought not be put in.He admitted this himself to his great credit.But who knows how these things were handled in 1961?

Remember those 2002 LCN DNA tests ,are of the same testing process that is now undergoing such critical scrutiny by the International Community of Forensic Scientists..

[Limehouse]

Moving words David.
But think on the following:
The Matthews Report was written by a very senior police officer appointed by Scotland Yard at the request of the Home Office.
Matthews,along with others in the police service came to believe after much investigation that Hanratty was totally innocent of the crime for which he was hanged,
Not possibly innocent but totally innocent.
This in turn gave rise to the 2002 appeal.
In 2002 Mr Whitaker was then wheeled out with his ' Brum Special' an exciting new and quite maverick and groundbreaking version of LCN DNA testing with which extremely tiny particles of DNA could be multiplied thousands of times .Moreover this process has not had peer approval among the International scientific community.And this same International scientific community has ever since worried about the dangerous risk of contaminants and has begun to shout loudly about the crucial and vital need for for totally sterile storage since LCN testing of itself attracts contaminants at a far higher rate and quantity than conventional DNA testing ever would.David, such tests have been and are now being hotly questioned as tests not really at all suitable for use in a court of law since they are known to run the risk of attracting contaminants at a rate ---quite literally----that frightened the FBI into banning them completely from their work.

Surely,surely you are not now going to say that they are wrong.That LCN DNA testing is actually fine because, in the case of James Hanratty, his DNA was kept in an air sealed room which could only be entered by specially clothed workers,masked and fully aware of the risk of contaminants?
We have no idea of the evidential history of that tiny piece of cloth.We think that the tiny fragment of cloth,less than a quarter of a centimetre square and over 40 years old ,was kept in the drawer of a police lab after being excised from knickers in 1961.We know the knickers had been taken from cardboard boxes in which Hanratty's trousers had been kept and put on display at Ampthill each day for ten days.We know they were handled in the same lab as Hanratty's trousers in December 1961.We know that even Dr Whitaker has admitted that sometimes things are left lying about in the lab and sometimes even put in boxes they ought not be put in.He admitted this himself to his great credit.But who knows how these things were handled in 1961?

Remember those 2002 LCN DNA tests ,are of the same testing process that is now undergoing such critical scrutiny by the International Community of Forensic Scientists..

This is a very important post Norma - and I think it should also be remembered that the last round of tests completely destroyed the last remaining piece of cloth so no further tests are now possible.

[Natalie Severn]

Thankyou Julie.I too think it is important.
Best Norma

[Natalie Severn]

re miscarriage of justice: The Cardiff Three

This current case concerning a miscarriage of justice involving three innocent men jailed for murder in Cardiff ,highlights the fabrication of evidence by at least five policemen and possibly as many as 12-13 policemen. It is instructive in what it reveals about the methods said to have been used,20 years ago , to obtain their convictions ".The police involved are accused of 'moulding,manipulating influencing and fabricating' evidence to obtain the convictions.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-in-court-over-framing-of-cardiff-three-2308189.html

[caz]

We know such things have gone on in the past and are going on today and will do so in the future. Such is human nature, sadly.

The above is akin to referencing a case of a medical man becoming a serial killer on a William Gull thread, as if that somehow supported Gull being Jack the Ripper.

What does it add to the great A6 debate to know that some policemen (doctors/lawyers/politicians/journalists) are rotters?

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

We know such things have gone on in the past and are going on today and will do so in the future. Such is human nature, sadly.

The above is akin to referencing a case of a medical man becoming a serial killer on a William Gull thread, as if that somehow supported Gull being Jack the Ripper.

What does it add to the great A6 debate to know that some policemen (doctors/lawyers/politicians/journalists) are rotters?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,
As you know lawyers for the defence have argued that there was extensive and inexcusable non-disclosure.Michael Mansfield QC considered that Det Supt Robert Acott may have deliberately withheld evidence that would have proved Hanratty's innocence and Michael Sherrard QC said that handwriting tests showed Hanratty had been telling the truth when Acott had tried to show he was lying ,Sherrard claimed the handwriting tests of 2002 proved that written records had been 'tampered with'.

The other policeman, Kenneth Oxford, working alongside Acott while he was recording Hanratty's words, was described by Miss Alison Halford, former Chief Constable of Liverpool as a pugnacious bully who would intimidate anyone to get his own way.She won a claim against LIverpool and Merseyside police authority for unfair dismissal.At her tribunal hearing Kenneth Oxford was a principal witness against her and she won a considerable sum in compensation after claiming documentary evidence against her had been 'tampered with '.
These are THE two policemen who made the written record in question---not any old bent copper.
Best,
Norma