A6 Rebooted

[burkhilly]

50 years ago..........but where was JH? Rhyl or A6?

50 years and the debate continues.

[OneRound]

50 years ago..........but where was JH? Rhyl or A6?

50 years and the debate continues.

I think JH was on the A6 but still have doubts as to whether the case against him was proved beyond reasonable doubt or fairly. This apparent conflict continues to pull me back to the case and this forum in particular.

I will look to expand my thoughts in the coming weeks. However, I believe all considerations today should be towards the many lives so sadly impacted by the events of fifty years ago.

[Limehouse]

DNA evidence and the car

To date, the only DNA evidence preserved from this case has been that extracted from the clothing of VS and the hanky. Of course, as posts on these threads have revealed, people have very mixed feelings about the reliability of this evidence.

However, had samples been obtained from the car, the case may well have been 'closed' some years ago. Samples of Hanratty's hair, skin or semen, recovered from the car, would have done much to convince people of his guilt.

I have always said that it is very surprising no evidence was recovered from the car, particularly given the circumstances of the rape. Even in 1961, I would have expected a very thorough examination to have been made of the inside of the car. It is a wonder that sticky tape 'wipes' of the car were not preserved for later examination, in the same way that the clothing was preserved.

[Natalie Severn]

Absolutely Julie! The car had a dozen fingerprints that did not belong to Valerie or Mike Gregsten or relatives------they certainly did not belong to Hanratty---so whose were they?
Best
Norma

[OneRound]

To date, the only DNA evidence preserved from this case has been that extracted from the clothing of VS and the hanky. Of course, as posts on these threads have revealed, people have very mixed feelings about the reliability of this evidence.

However, had samples been obtained from the car, the case may well have been 'closed' some years ago. Samples of Hanratty's hair, skin or semen, recovered from the car, would have done much to convince people of his guilt.

I have always said that it is very surprising no evidence was recovered from the car, particularly given the circumstances of the rape. Even in 1961, I would have expected a very thorough examination to have been made of the inside of the car. It is a wonder that sticky tape 'wipes' of the car were not preserved for later examination, in the same way that the clothing was preserved.

Julie - Interesting post about the DNA. Grateful if I could ask you and other good folk out there a question about the hanky.

Before that though, probably only polite to introduce myself and state my viewpoint.

I've always been introduced in true crime but until quite recently have never taken more than a passing interest in the Hanratty case.

The reasons I never particularly delved into the case before were twofold.

Firstly, for me, Hanratty lost all credibility when he changed his alibi at later than the eleventh hour during his trial.

Secondly, I suspect some of Hanratty's supporters were more anti establisment and/or capital punishment than true believers in his innocence.

The above dig at some of Hanratty's supporters certainly does not include contributors to this forum. To name two. Before being ground down, Tony always used to display great knowledge and considerable humour in his determined and unerring belief that an innocent man went to the gallows. You, Julie, always adopt a reasoned and considerate approach in doubting the safety of the conviction.

As you might gather from the above paragraph, my relative indifference towards this case all changed when I stumbled by chance upon this forum. Such knowledge and stimulating views even if tempers sometimes get too frayed. I have to say this forum has not convinced me of Hanratty's innocence. However, I do believe the original trial was deficient and the last Court of Appeal judgment shoddy. In those circumstances, it is very difficult to see that justice has been done.

In particular, I believe the Court of Appeal were less than thorough and lacking in logic when they gave such credence to the DNA submissions in upholding the original trial verdict. I'll try to expand on that and justify those comments in the near future.

Now back to that hanky. The Court of Appeal gave great significance to Hanratty's DNA being on it. I apologise if I am missing something obvious but am puzzled why they did. In their judgment, they said it was ''beyond belief'' that BOTH Valerie Storie's knickers AND Hanratty's hanky showed his DNA due to contamination.

However, according to ''both sides'' on this forum, Hanratty readily acknowledged at trial that the hanky was his. Is that definitely correct? The Court of Appeal make no reference in their judgment that Hanratty acknowledged this. Assuming he did as others here have stated, I find that staggering. Hanratty's acknowledgement no doubt counted against him at trial. That would seem understandable and reasonable. However, it seems inappropriate and grossly unfair for the Court of Appeal to regard evidence which appears to support what Hanratty said as being additional evidence against him. After all, it would surely have been in Hanratty's interests at trial to deny the hanky was his. The DNA evidence here suggests that Hanratty was telling the truth about something even though it would have been in his interests to lie.

All very strange. I appreciate the matter of the DNA on the knickers still has to be addressed. I'll try to cover that and other concerns another day ,,,,

[Limehouse]

Hi OneRound,

Welcome to the A6 thread and thanks for a great post. I don't have time to answer your post at the moment as I'm off to work shorty but i will try to get back to it tonight.

You make some really good points that are worthy of further discussion.

I agree about Tony. Perhaps if we could get back to a friendly agree/disagree culture on the thread, it will thrive once more.

Julie

[OneRound]

That Hanky

Hi Julie,

Thanks for the warm welcome. Appreciated.

To concentrate a bit more on the hanky.

My essential point is - Why on earth did the Court of Appeal attribute such significance to Hanratty's DNA being found on the hanky?

According to ''both sides'' here, Hanratty acknowledged at trial that the hanky was his. Therefore, it does not seem surprising to me that his DNA should show up on the hanky.

The DNA on the hanky would have been highly significant if Hanratty had denied or even doubted it was his. However, that was not the situation. For all the doubts about Hanratty's honesty (some with good reason), it seems he told the truth about the hanky when it would surely have been in his interests to lie and deny it being his.

From the above, I can only draw one of three possible conclusions (the first is quite possible and pretty wide ranging):

1. I am misreading things or missing something obvious, in which case apologies to you and all; or

2. ''Both sides'' here are wrong about Hanratty having acknowledged at trial that the hanky was his, in which case much of my argument falls away; or

3. The Court of Appeal were staggeringly shoddy when evaluating the impact of Hanratty's DNA being found on the hanky. They considered and then dismissed the possibility of contamination. However, if the hanky was Hanratty's, as he apparently said, contamination need not have even been considered. The Court of Appeal treat the DNA as establishing a vital NEW link between Hanratty and the hanky; however, it didn't - the link had already been acknowledged by Hanratty at trial and so was known to the jury then. It should not have been something extra for the Court of Appeal to use as pointing towards additional evidence of guilt as they did.

Although Tony and I are not as one on this case, I strongly agree that it would be very good to have him again contributing and debating on this forum. His knowledge and humour are much missed.

Thank you again, Julie.

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie,

Thanks for the warm welcome. Appreciated.

To concentrate a bit more on the hanky.

My essential point is - Why on earth did the Court of Appeal attribute such significance to Hanratty's DNA being found on the hanky?

According to ''both sides'' here, Hanratty acknowledged at trial that the hanky was his. Therefore, it does not seem surprising to me that his DNA should show up on the hanky.

The DNA on the hanky would have been highly significant if Hanratty had denied or even doubted it was his. However, that was not the situation. For all the doubts about Hanratty's honesty (some with good reason), it seems he told the truth about the hanky when it would surely have been in his interests to lie and deny it being his.

From the above, I can only draw one of three possible conclusions (the first is quite possible and pretty wide ranging):

1. I am misreading things or missing something obvious, in which case apologies to you and all; or

2. ''Both sides'' here are wrong about Hanratty having acknowledged at trial that the hanky was his, in which case much of my argument falls away; or

3. The Court of Appeal were staggeringly shoddy when evaluating the impact of Hanratty's DNA being found on the hanky. They considered and then dismissed the possibility of contamination. However, if the hanky was Hanratty's, as he apparently said, contamination need not have even been considered. The Court of Appeal treat the DNA as establishing a vital NEW link between Hanratty and the hanky; however, it didn't - the link had already been acknowledged by Hanratty at trial and so was known to the jury then. It should not have been something extra for the Court of Appeal to use as pointing towards additional evidence of guilt as they did.

Although Tony and I are not as one on this case, I strongly agree that it would be very good to have him again contributing and debating on this forum. His knowledge and humour are much missed.

Thank you again, Julie.

Hello OneRound,

What an interesting post!

Well, there are several possibilities in answer to your questions.

Firstly, the thing about the hanky, apart from the presence of Hanratty's DNA, was that it was found with the gun and ammunition. For those who believe Hanratty was guilty, this is a very strong link between Hanratty and the crime scene and finding Hanratty's DNA on the hanky and on Valerie's underwear 'proves', for many people, that Hanratty was guilty.

For people who do not believe Hanratty was guilty, the hanky is irrelevant, whether or not Hanratty's DNA is on it. The reason for this is that those who believe Hanratty was innocent believe the hanky was placed with the gun and ammunition because it was well-known that Hanratty used hankerchiefs rather than gloves when raiding people's homes. For the same reason, the gun and ammunition were placed under the back seat of a bus - because Hanratty had told his 'friend' Dixie, that this was a good hiding place for unwanted loot.

At his trial, Hanratty admitted that, yes, the hanky was his, and yes, he had told Dixie that this was a good hiding place. As you say, why would a guilty man admit to these things - things that would incriminate, and ultimately convict him?

Well, there are several possibilities:

1. Hanratty was guilty, but had a lot of confidence in his alibi and believed that, even after he had admitted these things, there would not be enough hard evidence to convict him.
2. Hanratty was stupid.
3. Hanratty was innocent and believed that, just as British Justice had tried him and convicted him fairly in the past - when he WAS guilty - so it would be that he would be found not guilty when he was innocent.

I think you are right about the alibi - he should have mentioned Rhyl to start with - but he did explain his reasons for not doing so and they did (kind of) make sense in a Hanratty sort of way.

For me, all of the things that point to Hanratty - the gun, the hanky, the bus, the cartridge cases etc are external to the crime scene. It is relevant that his finger prints did not appear in the car, or on the gun or on the cartridge cases or on any of the boxes of ammunition. This is a man who was famous for leaving his 'dabs' behind - despite his claim that using a hanky to wipe down afterwards was better than wearing gloves. Interestingly, the killer wore gloves - and after being leaned on a bit, Louise Anderson testified that she had 'lost' a pair of gloves. Thus the case against Hanratty had covered both grounds - the gloves issue and the 'trademark' hanky.

As for hanratty's DNA on the underwear - well if you have read the other posts you know what I think of the DNA evidence.

I hope we can keep up this interesting discussion.

Julie

[OneRound]

Hello OneRound,

What an interesting post!

Well, there are several possibilities in answer to your questions.

Firstly, the thing about the hanky, apart from the presence of Hanratty's DNA, was that it was found with the gun and ammunition. For those who believe Hanratty was guilty, this is a very strong link between Hanratty and the crime scene and finding Hanratty's DNA on the hanky and on Valerie's underwear 'proves', for many people, that Hanratty was guilty.


Julie

Hi again Julie,

Thanks again for your reply and, in particular, your confirmation that Hanratty acknowledged at his trial that the hanky was his. In this post, I'll just concentrate upon the first point made by you as quoted above.

I appreciate that the hanky was found with the gun and the ammunition. I further accept that this showed ''a very strong link between Hanratty and the crime scene''.

However, it should also be recognised (something the Court of Appeal failed to do) that this ''very strong link'' was made clear to the jury by Hanratty himself at trial when he confirmed the hanky was his. I am sure that must have counted against him when the jury came to ther verdict. In my view, that would have been understandable and reasonable.

My concern and objection is that the Court of Appeal treat the DNA on the hanky as establishing something new. It does not. It merely confirms what Hanratty said and was already in the mix when the jury deliberated.

In their judgment, the Court of Appeal do not make any reference to Hanratty's acknowledgement at trial about the hanky. That to me is a major omission and failing on their part.

The Court of Appeal though do state [paragraph 126] that it ''is beyond belief'' that BOTH the hanky AND the knicker fragment could show Hanratty's DNA through contamination. They are effectively using the presence of DNA on the hanky to justify their view that the DNA on the knicker fragment is not from contamination. That is an entirely false argument. Hanratty's DNA on the hanky proves and supports nothing new other than he was telling the truth on this issue.

Like you, Julie, I have further concerns about other elements of the DNA ''evidence'' and the Court of Appeal's judgment. I'll flag these another day.

I trust the above makes sense and thank you once more for your interest.

Best wishes,

OneRound

[Limehouse]

Hi OneRound,

Yes, I see your point and it is a good argument for being concerned about the Appeal.

I wonder what others think?

Looking forward to more discussion!

Julie

[caz]

Hi OneRound,

You make a fair point about the hanky. There was never a reason to suppose that contamination was responsible for Hanratty's DNA being found on it, if it was admittedly his own hanky.

But I do seem to recall a lot of arguments by Hanratty defenders, who claimed that the knicker fragment and the hanky would have become contaminated during testing, poor handling and storage.

It always seemed a case of trying to have it all ways: (1) if Hanratty acknowledged the hanky was his, it must have been wrapped round the gun by someone else and planted on the bus (why not somewhere far more incriminating, and more likely to be found quickly and linked to Hanratty if it was a frame-up?); (2) alternatively his DNA was only on the hanky through contamination (and ditto the knickers) and therefore his admission of owership counted for nothing; (3) or the DNA could not even be safely identified as Hanratty's, due to the passage of time, unreliable testing methods and so on.

The appeal judgement may have taken a belt and braces approach, to quash claims that both hanky and knickers could have been contaminated. Clearly that wasn't the case. It WAS beyond belief that the hanky was contaminated, considering that Hanratty himself had admitted ownership.

So we have a hanky that was NOT overly handled, poorly stored, unreliably tested: Hanratty's DNA and only his turned up, confirming all was well with that piece of material evidence. No good reason, therefore, to conclude that the knicker fragment was any different - a nice DNA match to the hanky and Hanratty's remains, plus the victim's DNA and just one other, as expected from the circumstances on the night of the rape and murder.

The appeal had to be given something strong enough to cast reasonable doubt on Hanratty's guilt, as indicated by the latest forensic evidence. It was not forthcoming.

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

Hi Caz,

It is entirely possible that the hanky contaminated the knickers when they were stored together at some point before the trial.

As for the gun on the bus not being 'incriminating' - at the trail, Charles france testified that a few weeks previous to the murder, Hanratty had shown France his hidling place for unwanted stolen loot when they were travelling on a bus together. Therefore, at least one of his associates knew it would be a place that could be linked to Hanratty. At his trail, as well as admitting the hanky was his, Hanratty also admitted that he had shown france his hiding place on the bus. Again, he could have lied about this and it would have been france's word against his, but he told the truth.

Julie

[caz]

But Limehouse, I thought they looked closely at the circumstances and were able to rule out, beyond reasonable doubt, any likelihood of the twice semen stained knicker fragment ever coming into close enough contact with the hanky to have become contaminated with Hanratty's nasal mucous. And I thought everyone agreed at the appeal that his DNA on the knickers must have come from the group O semen staining, known to have been present when the fragment was extracted and preserved. The alternative is that Hanratty's defence team missed a trick and were hopelessly incompetent, which is what you would need to demonstrate, using the evidence they should have produced.

Anyone planting the murder weapon on the bus had to sit and wait for it to be found, and for the hanky to be identified as Hanratty's. For that to happen, Hanratty had first to be suspected for other reasons. It makes no sense as a frame-up, but it makes perfect sense for Hanratty to panic and find comfort from putting the gun in one of his usual hiding places. He wasn't too good at "finking" things through before acting, or he would never have picked Rhyl in a panic to find a new hiding place, after Liverpool failed to impress.

I really don't think you can blame people for finding him guilty as convicted in 2002. It was his fault for bringing up Rhyl at the last minute; his fault for admitting to his bus hidey-hole; his fault for admitting that the hanky was his; and his fault that his DNA was the only 'suspect' profile found on the victim's underwear and the hanky used to wrap the murder weapon.

If someone else had planted it, and someone else had been the rapist and gunman, nothing else should have fit. And yet everything did in the end. No demonstrably loose ends.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I meant to add that contamination goes both ways. If the claim is that mucous from the hanky must have got on the knicker fragment and posed as Hanratty's semen (while the real rapist's semen managed to absent itself), then there should have been some transfer of the bodily fluids (Valerie's and her lover's) to the hanky. But nothing was picked up from it except Hanratty's profile, which argues strongly against the possibility of cross-contamination.

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Caz,
You do realize that the "piece of cloth" in question-from the knicker fragment,was less than one tenth of an inch square in size-that is it is miniscule and so it could easily be the case that the real rapists fluid was on another part of the knicker entirely.The chap who brought the boxes with the knickers and Hanratty's trousers each day, to Ampthill magistrates court ,in November 1961, ie well over a month before the knicker piece was cut off
-did not wear gloves
-handled these exhibits-including the knickers and trousers every day of the hearing
-the knickers and Hanratty's trousers and other items were all brought in in card boxes
and put out together on tables each day ....


Now you can not do that and then carry out a DNA test using LCN-low copy number testing.The international community of Forensic scientists insist that the evidential history of such an exhibit should be devoid of contamination risk - items should therefore never have been handled like this by anyone not wearing gloves,a mask and sterile clothing.All such exhibits should be kept in a sterile lab where contamination cannot occur.These are the pre-requisits for LCN testing.As you know these exhibits were kept in a police lab in brown paper envelopes for over 40 years......its such idiotic nonsense all of it-And so typical somehow.Read up on Sean Hoey et al and Whitaker in his own words when challenged in Australia........