Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A6 Rebooted

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

  • #76
    We are just now celebrating this wonderful moment for the Egyptian people !Fantastic! [ Back later folk].

    Comment


    • #77
      My skepticism over the LCN tests in Hanratty stems from the evidence given by Dr Jonathan Whitaker in this case and in the Sean Hoey trial.

      There are alarming parallels that cannot be resolved until the Hanratty results are re-examined by someone who knows what they are doing.

      In Hanratty, 2002, at P109 it reads;
      Following the order of the court on 17 October 2000, James Hanratty’s body was exhumed and samples taken from which it has been possible for Dr Whitaker of the Forensic Science Laboratory to state with what a non-scientist would regard as equivalent to absolute certainty (or almost absolute certainty as makes no difference) that the DNA profile recovered from the fragment of knickers and the DNA profile recovered from the mucus staining on the handkerchief have come from James Hanratty. That is not in dispute and, indeed, it is conceded by Mr Mansfield on behalf of the appellant that, should it transpire that all possibility of contamination can be excluded, the DNA evidence points conclusively to James Hanratty having been both the murderer and the rapist.
      @ http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/1141.html

      In Hoey, 2007, at P60 Weir J states;
      What I do find extraordinary is that, knowing that these items had not been collected or preserved using methods designed to ensure the high degree of integrity needed not merely for DNA examination but for the more exacting requirements of LCN DNA, examinations were performed at Birmingham with a view to using them for evidential rather than solely intelligence gathering purposes. The findings of those examinations were put forward and stoutly defended by Mr Whitaker of the Birmingham FSS laboratory as evidence that the Court might safely rely upon as tending to establish the guilt of the accused. This despite the fact that one police and SOCO witness after another and also Dr Griffin had candidly made clear that possible examination for DNA was not in their minds at all as they were collecting, storing, transmitting and dealing with these items in 1998. Why therefore would they then have had present to their minds and been complying with the exacting integrity requirements which reliable DNA examination and most especially that in its LCN form demands? All this NIFS must have known very well when it co-operated in searching for and collecting items for LCN examination in Birmingham and again later when the idea of using the results of those examinations as evidence in this trial must have been under discussion. By that stage the problems inherent in the need to prove integrity had plainly come to be appreciated by one or more police officers concerned in this investigation as was shown by the mendacious attempts to retrospectively alter the Altmore Forest evidence so as to falsely make it appear that appropriate DNA protective precautions had been taken at that scene.
      @ http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle3083217.ece

      Luckily for Sean Hoey he did not have Evison or Mansfield on his team but Dr Dan Krane of Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio who completely demolished Dr Whitaker's certainty. Unlike in Hanratty the EPG's in Hoey and Krane's analysis of them are readily available on the WWW @ http://www.bioforensics.com/statemen..._statement.pdf

      Mr Justice Weir went on to admonish Dr Whitaker in the following way (P63);
      I was concerned about the manner and content of the response of Dr Whitaker to these criticisms. He was most unwilling to accept that the continuing absence of international agreement on validation of LCN (unlike SGM+)or the variations in the way in which it was being implemented in different countries should be any impediment to the ready acceptance by any court of the Birmingham approach. I found him inappropriately combative as an expert witness and his unwillingness to debate constructively the various matters put to him was unhelpful in the extreme. By contrast, his colleague Dr Gill, while understandably concerned to endorse the views of Dr Whitaker where he properly could, was willing to carefully consider the propositions put to him by Mr Pownall QC and, where appropriate, to disagree with his colleague on important issues both general and specific to the case. In my view it was extremely fortunate that the prosecution decided late in the day to call Dr Gill as his evidence greatly helped to inform and bring some objectivity to the debate.
      @ http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article3083217.ece

      Until someone like Dr Krane re-examines the evidence I will still be skeptical.

      Derrick
      Last edited by Derrick; 02-11-2011, 07:15 PM.

      Comment


      • #78
        Thanks for this most constructive contribution Derrick.
        So Mr Justice Weir found Whitaker in gross denial about the lack of international agreement on validation of LCN ! Alarming indeed.

        Comment


        • #79
          Hi Caz,
          I'm still waiting for a step-by-step account of how everything and everyone conspired separately and together so well to get an innocent Hanratty in the frame to begin with, keep him there throughout the id and trial process and finally kick him firmly in the nuts in 2002 by producing the perfect DNA hat trick.
          In fairness Caz you have been absent quite a bit lately, and over the past six months many inconsistencies have been addressed and many of the anomalies exposed.Yes it has often fallen on deaf ears but it has taken place and often in depth,whether it has been ignored or argued over by Vic for example.
          The witnesses for the prosecution,each and all had flaws.To take the few who were not notorious prison grasses and liars ,such as Nudds and Langdale, its worth reflecting on the specific evidence of Skillett for example who was rounded contradicted by Blackhall in the passenger seat ,who said the man he saw --- he was nearest to the driver of the MM at the roundabout "looked nothing like Hanratty".
          Trower was contradicted by his colleague, Paddy Hogan who said he didnt arrive in time to have even seen the driver of the MM in Avondale Crescent---moreover the defence proved by measurements it was an impossibility to have seen the colour of the man"s hair---which he said he had seen from hios vantage point.
          Valerie Storie ? Valerie admitted she caught only a glance in headlights and after two weeks was forgetting what he looked like.Moreover she apparently changed her description on August 31st [1961] and said that he didnt have deep set brown eyes as reported in every paper for the entire week following the murder, but that the man she saw he had " staring blue eyes".Well thats an impossibility for a start. Nobody would be able to see the colour blue in such an artificial light at night, shortsighted or not.Such colour cannot be clearly identified-it looks grey.
          Additionally Valerie first identified Michael Clark as her rapist and I find such a mistake involving an identification where a man"s life was at stake to be setting the whole legal process towards a potential miscarriage of justice, since its pretty obvious she was not sure what the man looked like. Valerie did her best , but she was shortsighted and she said her assailant and rapist wore a mask.
          There was more.Reading through the papers of that time before Hanratty was caught,are references to the man being nicknamed "ginger" because of the colour of his hair---each paper emphasising that he was known to dye his hair.
          What do we next see happening? Why Hanratty arrived with bright ginger "dyed" hair! Not too difficult for a person to look out for since it had been so well documented the previous weeks.
          This is before you get to Nudds and his "eeny, meeny, miney ,mo" "pick the version the police like best" statements about Alphon and Hanratty and the Vienna Hotel or France and his apology to William Ewer in Swiss Cottage arcade------for what? messing up? Quite a focus point really Swiss Cottage arcade where you can play a game of "now you see him now you don"t" over Hanratty at Burtol"s cleaners directly opposite Ewer"s "umbrella " shop [good name] and where ofcourse he also "dabbled" in antiques!
          Then there is the Morris Minor itself where although there were a number of fingerprints,fibres and blood, there wasnt a single forensic link to Hanratty and not a single semen stain, even though there should have been if what we now understand about what happened took place where it was said to have taken place in the car ---and how .That is not to doubt Valerie"s word.It is simply to state the inconsistency that is evident in what we are expected to understand.
          Just a few of the discrepancies out of 112!
          Cheers Caz,
          Norma
          Last edited by Natalie Severn; 02-11-2011, 11:25 PM.

          Comment


          • #80
            Hanratty's movements in 1961

            In March 1961 Hanratty was released from Strangeways prison. He returned to his family and resolved to settle down and live a worthy life. Soon after this - his father cashed in his pension and started a window cleaning business with Jim.

            Within a few months James became bored and abandoned the business when his parents were on holiday. By trhe summer of 1961 he was back to his old tricks - burglary and car theft. He was prolific during this short period.

            Sometime in June 1961 he bumped inot old prison acquaintance Charles France. They were not that well acquainted but pleased to see each other. France took him home for a cup of tea and to meet his family. France had underworld connections but was little more than an odd job man for the bigger criminals.

            In July he first met Louise Anderson.

            Also that summer - before mid August - he met Ann Pryce at the Rehearsal Club and courted her. Sometime before August 18 - he told Pryce he would soon be going to Liverpool.

            Hanratty knew he would be going to Liverpool before August 18.

            There are several possibilities here:

            1. He was going to Liverpool.
            2. He knew he was going to carry out a crime on behalf of others and was going to use Liverpool as an alibi. The problem with this is that he must also have known roughly the date on which this would happen and that means he and other people knew roughly where the vicitims of this crime would be at the time.
            3. He knew he was going wander out into the country at some point in the near future and try to establish himself as an armed robber and he therefore decided to try to suggest an alibi for that period.

            What I find interesting about this period in Hanratty's life is that within even a few weeks of re-establishing his acquaintance with France - Hanratty had told him that the back seat of a bus was a good place to hide unwanted loot from a robbery - had told him that he wished to branch out into armed robbery - and not very long after that he stands accused of murder by firearms with France as a witness for the prosecution - and where was the gun found?

            Now - it has been said that Hanratty wanted to give up the burglaries for armed robbery because there was 'no big money' in house breaking. And yet -in a statement about his house breaking that summer he states that he netted £450 from one job - enough to keep him going for a while.

            More later.

            Comment


            • #81
              What I find interesting about this period in Hanratty's life is that within even a few weeks of re-establishing his acquaintance with France - Hanratty had told him that the back seat of a bus was a good place to hide unwanted loot from a robbery - had told him that he wished to branch out into armed robbery - and not very long after that he stands accused of murder by firearms with France as a witness for the prosecution - and where was the gun found?
              A hugely important point you make here Julie.
              One other thing that may be important is Charles France"s role, as Hanratty"s mentor and fence when Hanratty was a teenage. Charles France, was actually several years older than Hanratty"s mother and already had a criminal history that began years before Hanratty"s birth . He had been Hanratty"s "mentor" when Hanratty was still a teenager of seventeen."He learned me the ropes" Hanratty told his lawyers,and France had profited from the "bits and pieces" of Hanratty"s burglaries by selling them to people such as Louise Anderson who ran an antique business and quite likely those who,like William Ewer were "dabblers in antiques". Hanratty had got himself put inside for his burglaries whereas the wiser and older France had by this time learned how to dodge the law.He was working first as a bouncer at the Rehearsal Strip Club and after he was sacked worked on the tables in the gambling part of the club which was in the basement.He would no doubt have had access to their gun cache too.
              Last edited by Natalie Severn; 02-12-2011, 01:14 PM.

              Comment


              • #82
                I think that the 'JH-is-guilty' brigade have forgotten that the British legal system is adversarial: the only neutrals are (in theory at least) the judge and the jury. On the one hand we have the police, CPS, and their tame forensic experts in FSS, together with effectively unlimited resources. On the other we have the defence and other forensic experts (assuming the defence can scrape together the money to pay them, and they can wrest the evidence from police control). The result of this system is a trial where the guilt or innocence of the suspect becomes secondary to 'getting a result'.

                The problem people have with Hanratty's appeal was that the legal system basically said "Ok, let's all pretend that forensic experts, who are in an incestuous relationship with the prosecution, are somehow impartial". This is why it is a non sequitur to argue that people who campaigned for the appeal are somehow dishonest in refusing to accept the results: the reason they are unhappy is because they assumed that the tests would be carried out by an impartial organisation. I can give you an analogy here. Suppose I have trouble with my central heating, so I call in a plumber, but he botches the job: does this mean that my decision to get a plumber was wrong?

                In any event there seems to be a mistaken belief that the appeals procedure has something to do with justice - in reality it is there to confirm the correctness of the original verdict, which is why appeals rarely succeed unless there is overwhelming evidence that the conviction was wrong. Anyone who thinks the Appeal Court takes an open-minded approach should consider the case of Michael Stone. There is not a scrap of credible evidence to link him to the Chillenden murders, yet he has had two appeals rejected.

                While we're on the topic of Chillenden, I think there are some similarities between this crime and the A6 murder. In each case the police theory is that the attack was carried out by a stray maniac roaming the countryside and picking victims at random, but in reality I think there's little doubt that Lin Russell was meant to die, just as MG was.

                DM

                Comment


                • #83
                  Hi DM,
                  The problem people have with Hanratty's appeal was that the legal system basically said "Ok, let's all pretend that forensic experts, who are in an incestuous relationship with the prosecution, are somehow impartial".
                  .
                  Beautifully put DM.One day , hopefully, we may get laws that don't allow such incestuous cohabiting by forensic experts and the prosecution!
                  Norma

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Dupplin Muir View Post
                    I think that the 'JH-is-guilty' brigade have forgotten that the British legal system is adversarial: the only neutrals are (in theory at least) the judge and the jury. On the one hand we have the police, CPS, and their tame forensic experts in FSS, together with effectively unlimited resources. On the other we have the defence and other forensic experts (assuming the defence can scrape together the money to pay them, and they can wrest the evidence from police control). The result of this system is a trial where the guilt or innocence of the suspect becomes secondary to 'getting a result'.

                    The problem people have with Hanratty's appeal was that the legal system basically said "Ok, let's all pretend that forensic experts, who are in an incestuous relationship with the prosecution, are somehow impartial". This is why it is a non sequitur to argue that people who campaigned for the appeal are somehow dishonest in refusing to accept the results: the reason they are unhappy is because they assumed that the tests would be carried out by an impartial organisation. I can give you an analogy here. Suppose I have trouble with my central heating, so I call in a plumber, but he botches the job: does this mean that my decision to get a plumber was wrong?

                    In any event there seems to be a mistaken belief that the appeals procedure has something to do with justice - in reality it is there to confirm the correctness of the original verdict, which is why appeals rarely succeed unless there is overwhelming evidence that the conviction was wrong. Anyone who thinks the Appeal Court takes an open-minded approach should consider the case of Michael Stone. There is not a scrap of credible evidence to link him to the Chillenden murders, yet he has had two appeals rejected.

                    While we're on the topic of Chillenden, I think there are some similarities between this crime and the A6 murder. In each case the police theory is that the attack was carried out by a stray maniac roaming the countryside and picking victims at random, but in reality I think there's little doubt that Lin Russell was meant to die, just as MG was.

                    DM

                    Fantastic stuff DM anmd welcome back to the A6 thread. We should hear much more of you. Your posts are always spot on.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Three possibilities

                      Originally posted by Limehouse View Post
                      Fantastic stuff DM anmd welcome back to the A6 thread. We should hear much more of you. Your posts are always spot on.
                      Hi everyone

                      I want to do two things. I want to build on my post of yesterday detailing Hanratty's movements from March to August 1961.

                      I also want to offer to Caz and others on the thread three possibilities concerning the events that became what we call the A6 murder.

                      Not everyone will like my proposals - but I ask you to consider them as just possibilities that I have been turning over in my mind. They are not supposed to be my absolute word on the events.

                      So - here it goes.

                      After Hanaratty left jail in March 1961 he tried to settle down. As Woffinden puts it - it is unlikely he wanted to give up his criminal activities - he just didn't want to get caught. That is perhaps why he agreed to join his father in the window cleaning business (what a career for a house breaker!). Personally I think that it is very unlikely that he really meant it when he told another old lag that he wanted to diversify into armed robbery. Firstly - the penalty for getting caught for armed robbery was very severe in those days - double figures. Secondly - he was prabably bragging - bigging himself up.

                      So - after a few weeks window cleaning that summer he returns to house breaking and car stealing. He also bumps into Charles France - an old prison acquaintance from his teenage days. Additionally - he meets Louise Anderson (did France introduce them? It's possible). He first met her in July - only weeks before the murder and rape. She befriends him and gives him money for the spoils of his burglaries. It is possible Anderson knows Willima Ewer.

                      Within weeks of the revival of an old friendship and the start of a new one - Hanratty is implicated in one of the most infamous murder cases of the latter half of the 20th century.

                      So what ahppened?

                      Here is possibility 1:

                      a) An middle class man - not an experienced criminal in the ordinary sense but on the fringes of shady dealings of the stolen goods and forgery type wishes to dispose of a relative by marriage.
                      b) He makes tentative enquiries and via an acquaintance he is told a person is willing to do this for a payment up front and a final payment after the event.
                      c) The person recruited is given vague details about where to find the couple - several locations are suggested and the most likely night is indicated (late in the day - perhaps the day before).
                      d) The deed is done but one of the victims survives. The killer is unaware of this - but takes care to wipe over the back seat and floor of the car to make it less likely anything will be traced back to him. He disappears into the night and is either killed and disposed of later to stop him 'talking' or he goes to ground - perhaps abroad - never to resurface.
                      e) Meanwhile - the person who acquired the gun disposes of the gun in a manner known to incriminate another small-time crook. He places the gun - wrapped in that small-time crook's hanky - in a place that the crook himself has admitted using. For insurance he keeps back a few cartridges in case he has to try to prove that the small time crook was not in a place he claimed to be at the time of the murder.
                      f) The said small-time crook actually went off to Liverpool (actually the day after the gun-obtainer was expecting him to go) as he had been planning to do.
                      g) When the small-time crook returns from his trip - he shows his friend the receipt for his stay at the Vienna Hotel (I wonder why? Did it come up in conversation that he didn't go to Liverpool on the day he planned? Did France ask him where he stayed?
                      h) The gun-obtainer waits to see what happens. When it looks as though another man might be implicated in the crime the cartridge cases aree slipped into the hotel room.

                      I agree that the main objection to this version of events is that it does not account for the testimony of the rape victim and it does not account for the DNA results - but you know my views on both of those. It also doesn't account for the witness testimonies of those in Liverpool and Rhyl.

                      What it does do is offer a motive and explain how events may have unfolded without being too unlikely.

                      Possibility 2

                      a) Charles France is a small time crook with vague connections to bigger fish who basically use him for their dirty work. He is not very satisfied with this but it gives him a living of sorts. He wants to earn more respect but also wants to pass his 'dirty work' role to someone else. When he bumps into Hanratty he has the perfect person for the job.
                      b) France is contacted by an acquaintance who has another acquaintance who wishes to dispose of a member of the family.
                      c) France obtains the gun and discusses the situation with Hanratty. Hanratty wants a lot of money for the job. It is highly risky. He gets a decent payment up front and is promised a lot more after the event.
                      d) An alibi is arranged.
                      e) Hanratty is supposed to travel to the area the day before the week in which the murder is supposed to take place but ends up staying at the Vienna because he spends too much time wandering around 'psyching' himself up.
                      f) Hanratty makes a mess of things. He goes to Liverpool having handed the gun to France to dispose of. He expects France to tip the gun in the river or something similar. However - France disposes of the gun in the place he has discussed with Hanratty. He wraps it in Hanratty's hanky which he obtained from the washing that his wife did for the boy. He keeps back a few cartridge cases for insurance.
                      g) France finds out that his friend stayed at the Vienna and slips the cartridge cases in as described above.
                      h) Hanratty eventually takes the blame and does not involve others in the conspiracy because he wants his family to believe in his innocence.


                      This version satisfies the motive and also accounts for VS's testimony and the DNA results but it is not without problems as it incriminates France and also involves others in a conspiracy as described in possibility 1.
                      It also doesn't account for the winess testimonies of those in Liverpool and Rhyl.

                      Possibility 3

                      a) Hanratty obtains a gun from France to diversify into armed robbery.
                      b) Hanratty sets up an alibi in Liverpool.
                      c) Instead of going to Liverpool when he is supposed to he drifts off into the countryside to find a place to try out the gun. When he is satisfied he can fire it into the air or at an stationary non-human object (to scare people) he sets out to 'do a job'. How scared can he make people? Could he scare this couple sitting in a car in a field?
                      d) The rest is history. The gun goes off by accident. When it does he realises he has to kill the girl as well. Why waste an opportunity? WHy not satisfy himself with her before he kills her?
                      e) He returns to London after the events and tells France a tale about having done a small armd job. France has no reason to suspect otherwise and agrees to dispose of the gun. Hanratty goes off the Liverpool.
                      f) After several days have passed and more information about the events on the A6 are revealed France wonders. Was it his friend? Could it really be the boy he had invited into his home and treated like a son?
                      g) France disposes of the gun on the bus with Hanratty's hanky keeping back two cartridge cases for extra insurance if needed.

                      This version is most problematic for me because it does not really provide a realistic motive and does not reflect what we know about Hanratty's character. Neither does it account for witness testimonies in Liverpool or Rhyl.

                      It does however account for the testimony of VS and satisfies the DNA results if you accept the science involved.


                      So - three possibilities aspects of which have been discussed before. I suspect one of them is close to the truth.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Hi Julie,
                        As I don"t believe the conviction was safe or even that Hanratty had anything whatever to do with the case,I don"t think there is any point in me participating in a discussion about Proposal 2 or 3.
                        However Julie,what you say about the conversation with Donald Fisher is part of a contested written report by Supt Acott. Hanratty gave a totally different account of it to his lawyer.More importantly so did Donald Fisher.Paul Foot interviewed Donald Fisher in June 1970.

                        The following is what Fisher had to say to Paul Foot about the matter in June 1970:

                        "Fisher explained to the police the conversation about the gun was entirely trivial and meaningless; that he had never got a gun for Hanratty and believed Hanratty had never used one."For these reasons no doubt, Fisher was never used to give evidence by the prosecution.
                        Paul Foot then asks why ,if the conversation about the gun was a serious one,why was it Fisher was not called to substantiate it?


                        Best,
                        Norma

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Hi Norma

                          I think you are quite right to doubt whether Hanratty did actually discuss getting a gun and diversifying into armed robbery. As my posts discusses - if the conversation ever did take place it is highly unlikely that Hanratty meant a word of it as it is almost certain that he had no intention of going back to jail. As a burglar who had no previous experience of guns (that we know of) it is not very likely that he would take such risks with a method of obtaining ready cash when the penalty would be so great.

                          I have presented three possibilities because - as Hanratty doubters - we have been challenged to show how we think the crime could have been done with Hanratty as an innocent. Of course - only one of my possibilities presents Hanratty as totally innocent but I hope that possibility 3 - when positioned in relation to the other possibilities I have explored - will be shown to be the least feasible.

                          What I have also tried to do is present three possibilities that leave out Alphon as there is such strong opposition to him being included and some Hanratty-did-it contenders seem to argue that if Alphon is innocent - Hanratty must be guilty.

                          When you look at the build up to the events that August - what you have is the life of a young man that changed radically after re-establishing his association with a man who was his criminal mentor years before. Previous posts seem to suggest that the relationship between France and Hanratty was a long and warm one - but in fact their re-association lasted only a few weeks. In that short time we are asked to believe that Hanratty changed from a house-breaker to a cold-blooded murderer and rapist.

                          The man who metaphorically puts the gun in Hanratty's hand is Charles France. France knew too that Hanratty was going to Liverpool. This trip was evidently pre-planned as we know that Hanratty told Ann Pryce some time before August 18 that he was 'going to Liverpool soon'. Charles France could easily have known that Hanratty would find it difficult to secure an alibi in Liverpool because of the nature of his visit. Indeed - his 'friends' would not give him an alibi - but Mrs D in the sweetshop and others in Rhyl believe they saw Hanratty. However - France has the trump card that can throw doubt on them. He has the gun wrapped in Hanratty's trade-mark hanky hidden in Hanratty's trade mark hiding hole and what's more he has some 'insurance' cartridges fired from the gun that can be 'planted' if need be.

                          I hope you can see Norma that I am pointing firmly to possibility 1.

                          Julie

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Limehouse View Post

                            The man who metaphorically puts the gun in Hanratty's hand is Charles France.
                            What? How can you assert such a thing with absolutely zero evidence to back that up?

                            France knew too that Hanratty was going to Liverpool. This trip was evidently pre-planned as we know that Hanratty told Ann Pryce some time before August 18 that he was 'going to Liverpool soon'. Charles France could easily have known that Hanratty would find it difficult to secure an alibi in Liverpool because of the nature of his visit. Indeed - his 'friends' would not give him an alibi - but Mrs D in the sweetshop and others in Rhyl believe they saw Hanratty. However - France has the trump card that can throw doubt on them. He has the gun wrapped in Hanratty's trade-mark hanky hidden in Hanratty's trade mark hiding hole and what's more he has some 'insurance' cartridges fired from the gun that can be 'planted' if need be.
                            No wonder the poor man commited suicide when he is condemned without a single shred of evidence that he had any involvement whatsoever with any gun or anything to do with the A6 other than his misfortune to had met and let into his home a rapist and murderer.

                            Thank God the Julie/Norma/Jim school of justice doesn't have hold in the UK.
                            babybird

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

                            George Sand

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by babybird67 View Post
                              What? How can you assert such a thing with absolutely zero evidence to back that up?



                              No wonder the poor man commited suicide when he is condemned without a single shred of evidence that he had any involvement whatsoever with any gun or anything to do with the A6 other than his misfortune to had met and let into his home a rapist and murderer.

                              Thank God the Julie/Norma/Jim school of justice doesn't have hold in the UK.
                              For God's sake BB. Read my post properly. Read the words 'possibility' above each 'possibility'.

                              I knew it was pointless trying to address the argument that Hanaratty doubters have never put forward a plausible theory about what may really have happened.

                              You won't be happy until we give way and say everyone else connected with the case was worthy of sainthood except for Hanratty who had horns under his quiff and a tail stuffed down the back of his trousers.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                No wonder the poor man commited suicide when he is condemned without a single shred of evidence that he had any involvement whatsoever with any gun or anything to do with the A6 other than his misfortune to had met and let into his home a rapist and murderer.
                                Jen,
                                Are you being serious ?
                                The actual record of this man Charles France is that when James Hanratty was an unemployed teenager already on the scrap heap ,it was he, France, a man twenty years older with a long criminal record , who took the young Hanratty " under his wing" and encouraged him to go out and steal.He,France, then profited from what the gullible Hanratty had stolen and sold on the stolen goods.
                                France was a revoltingly corrupt man ,so without scruples he blatantly used a vulnerable teenage boy who had left the education system without the basic skills of reading or writing.
                                And what do we discover six years later, Hanratty who had been jailed for his burglaries since he last saw France,has again been befriended by this man who could and clearly did use for him for his own criminal purposes.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X