A6 Rebooted

[caz]

When a suspect is placed in a line-up and is not picked out by the main witness, then he goes free and cannot be tried for that crime.

Er, Louisa, I suspect the police knew the rules when they allowed Clark in the line-up with Alphon. Do you honestly suppose they would have been stupid enough to do that if the two men were as alike as Nats wants them to have been?

And Caz, here's a lesson in grammar for you. An example:

If I say "An English person comes from England, by definition" it means that an English person has to come from England. That is the meaning of English. It is the definition of the word 'English'.

No charge for that.

Now I know you are just pretending to be thick. You are using the expression 'by definition' in precisely the same way I was using it.

If I say "The guilty party who pleads 'not guilty' is lying, by definition", it means that the guilty party has to be telling a lie.

The fact remains that I don't need any qualifications - or grammar lessons - to state that a guilty man who pleads "not guilty" is a liar and will be fully expected to lie about his movements. He could hardly do anything else, could he? This really is stating the bleedin' obvious. And once again, by lying about his movements Hanratty behaved exactly as everyone in the world apart from you would expect the guilty party to do after pleading "not guilty".

Conversely, there is no expectation that an innocent man pleading "not guilty" to murder would either need or choose to lie about movements consisting of a non-violent, non-criminal night spent tucked up in bed in a Rhyl guest house.

That was my original observation and no amount of misplaced sneering about my comprehension skills will make a bit of difference.

Love,

Caz
X

[louisa]

So you haven't read the books by Paul Foot and Bob Woffindon?

[OneRound]

So you haven't read the books by Paul Foot and Bob Woffindon?

Hi Louisa - Whether Caz has or has not read Foot and Woffindon [sic] is not as significant as you imply. These books are certainly no longer the starting point for the Hanratty case. That is to be found in the 2002 Judgment of the Court of Appeal.

All arguments for Hanratty's conviction being unsafe (never mind any case for his innocence) were put to the Court of Appeal and rejected in their entirety. As Caz has previously pointed out, the onus is clearly upon the Hanratty camp to show that the Court were wrong. Barring new evidence suddenly somehow appearing after half a century, any slight hopes of Hanratty's guilty verdict being overturned rest now not on the books of dedicated campaigners but upon a clearly unreasonable stance being found and highlighted in the Court's Judgment.

To find and show the above is very difficult indeed. I believe the only possible avenue available is to cast doubt upon the DNA evidence and show the Court's over reliance upon it in considering other aspects of the appeal. I am still working slowly on that.

However, it should be recognised that the convictions in a recent high profile murder trial which relied in part upon DNA findings that did not satisfy modern safeguards appear to have harmed Hanratty's chances further still.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Natalie Severn]

One Round
What on earth are you talking about? Which scientific cases are these?
I can cite several scientists as well as the ITV today programme of 9th June 2011 entitled 'The Danger of DNA ' all of which point out the great dangers ,little known about in 2002 - of relying on such degraded samples of 42 year old material contaminated at numerous points over these 42 years ----let alone not having been kept in a totally sterile lab to be entered only with people with protective clothing on from head to foot-----a number of scientists including the Association of International Forensic Scientists believe such DNA evidence could have been gravely contaminated and deeply flawed.
And its nonsense to talk about the work of Foot and Woffinden being immaterial to a discussion on this thread on these boards-who says sop Stephen Ryder? I don't think so----Louisa is absolutely correct -she is not arguing about re-opening the 2002 appeal---that is in process currently I understand, but it has nothing to do with the argument between Louisa and Caz on this discussion board.
Btw we are all very keen to hear your DNA findings-promised now for some time but not forthcoming as yet.

In addition there has to be some corroborative evidence before people are convicted solely on the scientific evidence.Have you read or listened to MIchael Sherrard in 2002?
Best wishes
Norma

[louisa]

I was just thinking that an armchair criminologist (and I'm presuming that most contributors to this thread fall into that category) would need to read all that is available in order to get a balanced view of any particular crime.

I have no real argument with anyone. I just want to be able to give my opinion without being asked what 'qualifications' I have for daring to hold an viewpoint that is in opposition to their own, especially when that same person likes nothing better than to give their own (unqualified) opinions and judgements. I'll be happy to let the matter rest there.

Regarding DNA I think the future may hold some new revelations regarding this case. We can only wait and hope.

The lorry driver who told the police that he had seen the Morris Minor at around 6.30am in Bedford said the driver was wearing a green bobble hat. This hat was later found in the abandoned car in Avondale Crescent, Redbridge. The hat was (to my knowledge) never tested for DNA. I feel certain it would have contained a hair or two.

[OneRound]

One Round
What on earth are you talking about? Which scientific cases are these?
I can cite several scientists as well as the ITV today programme of 9th June 2011 entitled 'The Danger of DNA ' all of which point out the great dangers ,little known about in 2002 - of relying on such degraded samples of 42 year old material contaminated at numerous points over these 42 years ----let alone not having been kept in a totally sterile lab to be entered only with people with protective clothing on from head to foot-----a number of scientists including the Association of International Forensic Scientists believe such DNA evidence could have been gravely contaminated and deeply flawed.
And its nonsense to talk about the work of Foot and Woffinden being immaterial to a discussion on this thread on these boards-who says sop Stephen Ryder? I don't think so----Louisa is absolutely correct -she is not arguing about re-opening the 2002 appeal---that is in process currently I understand, but it has nothing to do with the argument between Louisa and Caz on this discussion board.
Btw we are all very keen to hear your DNA findings-promised now for some time but not forthcoming as yet.

In addition there has to be some corroborative evidence before people are convicted solely on the scientific evidence.Have you read or listened to MIchael Sherrard in 2002?
Best wishes
Norma

Hi Natalie - Wow!

You do seem rather keen on taking objection to what I've said and then objecting further to things I haven't.

You query: 'Which scientific cases are these?'. I never used the term 'scientific cases'. I had expected it to be abundantly clear that I was referring to the criminal convictions of Gary Dobson and David Norris. The judge made clear that the jury had to satisfy themselves on various integral aspects to convict. One such aspect was whether they considered themselves able to rely upon DNA findings as presented at Court even though modern DNA safeguards had not been applied. The jury's verdict in the cases of Dobson and Norris means the Hanratty case is no longer unique (that was a powerful argument for his supporters) in having a conviction significantly rest upon DNA findings where current safeguards were not adopted.

You claim I 'talk about the work of Foot and Woffinden being immaterial'. I did not say that nor did I suggest it. I stated it wasn't as 'significant' as Louisa implied and suggested the best starting place now was the 2002 Court Judgment. The reasoning for this was that Hanratty's legal team should have taken the very best of Foot, Woffinden and all others including themselves to the Appeal. The various grounds to overturn Hanratty's guilty verdict together with the supporting arguments made by Hanratty's legal team are contained in the 2002 Judgment together with the reasons - justified or not - for them being dismissed by the Court.

Barring new evidence coming to light, everything relevant to Hanratty's case would have been raised by his legal team ten years ago and consequently covered by the Court in their Judgment. By all means, continue to use Foot and Woffinden. However, in my view, their works can now only be supportive and secondary to arguments for or against specific comments and determinations of the Court.

I am glad you are looking forward to my views about the over reliance of DNA in the Hanratty case. I am sorry this is taking longer than intended. I am sure you appreciate most matters of a legal nature do. After all, I believe Richard Ingrams assured radio listeners in December 2010 that the next appeal for Hanratty would be launched in early 2011. Every day must have been a very busy news day since for such a launch to result in nil publicity.

Finally, you mention the need for corroborative evidence before people are convicted on the basis of scientific advice. I completely agree. Please though don't forget, lest Caz has to point it out to you, that Hanratty was originally convicted on the basis of evidence that had nothing whatsoever to do with DNA. Indeed, the term was hardly known then.

Like many, I believe that original evidence was weak (as Graham and others have pointed out, Hanratty foolishly made it stronger through his own lies). However, it would be disingenuous to suggest that there was no evidence against him at all.

Best regards,

OneRound

[caz]

Sigh -

Louisa, you gave us your as yet unqualified opinion that Alphon behaved as we might expect an unbalanced person to behave after committing the very specific and unusual A6 murder and rape.

I merely stated the fact that Hanratty behaved as every guilty party behaves after pleading "not guilty", ie they lie about their movements. Hanratty lied about his movements. Fact. Not opinion. We make of it what we will and the jury made him guilty, not me. The 2002 Appeal Judgement still made him guilty, not me.

As OneRound and I keep repeating, the onus shifted since then onto those who still want to argue for Hanratty's innocence, or at least for his conviction to be unsafe as it stands today.

I have read everything that has been posted on the subject on these boards, including the Appeal Judgement. Nats and co have taken the time and trouble to scour all the available literature for every pro-Hanratty statement they could find to bring to the table and have quoted their favourites umpteen times backwards, forwards and sideways. So no, I don't propose to scour that literature again for any missing gems that might make all the difference. And since you appear to be implying that the gems are in the books but Nats and co have thus far only quoted the insignificant stuff, it surely falls to you to search through all their posts to identify what they have missed and what you could provide to help the common 'cause'.

It is not your place to argue for Hanratty's innocence and sneer at me for not trying to find your supporting evidence. I am in the happy position of being able to sit back and wait to be informed about what - if anything - makes the 2002 judgement legally unsound. In the meantime this thread continues to have some entertainment value for me, or I wouldn't be playing along at all.

Love,

Caz
X

[OneRound]

I was just thinking that an armchair criminologist (and I'm presuming that most contributors to this thread fall into that category) would need to read all that is available in order to get a balanced view of any particular crime.

I have no real argument with anyone. I just want to be able to give my opinion without being asked what 'qualifications' I have for daring to hold an viewpoint that is in opposition to their own, especially when that same person likes nothing better than to give their own (unqualified) opinions and judgements. I'll be happy to let the matter rest there.

Regarding DNA I think the future may hold some new revelations regarding this case. We can only wait and hope.

The lorry driver who told the police that he had seen the Morris Minor at around 6.30am in Bedford said the driver was wearing a green bobble hat. This hat was later found in the abandoned car in Avondale Crescent, Redbridge. The hat was (to my knowledge) never tested for DNA. I feel certain it would have contained a hair or two.

Hi Louisa - that seems an entirely reasonable and fair stance. As this is an open forum, qualifications should not be expected nor sought. Just an interest in the subject and, hopefully, a willingness to listen to the views of others.

Very interesting point about the lorry driver, the bobble hat and DNA testing. I will need to check but I believe there were some doubts about this sighting.

As pretty much a complete aside, the letters from the hoaxer 'Wearside Jack' to the police in the Yorkshire Ripper case were originally thought to be from the actual murderer or from someone with close connections to that crime squad. This was because some of the details in those letters were not believed to have ever been revealed to the public. Unknown to the police at the time, it was later ascertained that they had in fact been featured in a regional tv programme from where Wearside Jack had obtained many details. Utterly incredible.

I throw that in as (1) I find it fascinating and (2) it makes me wonder which came first - the revelation by the police of the bobble hat in the car or the lorry driver's 'sighting' of it. I have no real reason to question the lorry driver's integrity. I just have a nagging doubt and the 'Wearside Jack' episode makes it harder for me to put that doubt aside.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Natalie - Wow!

You do seem rather keen on taking objection to what I've said and then objecting further to things I haven't.

You query: 'Which scientific cases are these?'. I never used the term 'scientific cases'. I had expected it to be abundantly clear that I was referring to the criminal convictions of Gary Dobson and David Norris. The judge made clear that the jury had to satisfy themselves on various integral aspects to convict. One such aspect was whether they considered themselves able to rely upon DNA findings as presented at Court even though modern DNA safeguards had not been applied. The jury's verdict in the cases of Dobson and Norris means the Hanratty case is no longer unique (that was a powerful argument for his supporters) in having a conviction significantly rest upon DNA findings where current safeguards were not adopted.

You claim I 'talk about the work of Foot and Woffinden being immaterial'. I did not say that nor did I suggest it. I stated it wasn't as 'significant' as Louisa implied and suggested the best starting place now was the 2002 Court Judgment. The reasoning for this was that Hanratty's legal team should have taken the very best of Foot, Woffinden and all others including themselves to the Appeal. The various grounds to overturn Hanratty's guilty verdict together with the supporting arguments made by Hanratty's legal team are contained in the 2002 Judgment together with the reasons - justified or not - for them being dismissed by the Court.

Barring new evidence coming to light, everything relevant to Hanratty's case would have been raised by his legal team ten years ago and consequently covered by the Court in their Judgment. By all means, continue to use Foot and Woffinden. However, in my view, their works can now only be supportive and secondary to arguments for or against specific comments and determinations of the Court.

I am glad you are looking forward to my views about the over reliance of DNA in the Hanratty case. I am sorry this is taking longer than intended. I am sure you appreciate most matters of a legal nature do. After all, I believe Richard Ingrams assured radio listeners in December 2010 that the next appeal for Hanratty would be launched in early 2011. Every day must have been a very busy news day since for such a launch to result in nil publicity.

Finally, you mention the need for corroborative evidence before people are convicted on the basis of scientific advice. I completely agree. Please though don't forget, lest Caz has to point it out to you, that Hanratty was originally convicted on the basis of evidence that had nothing whatsoever to do with DNA. Indeed, the term was hardly known then.

Like many, I believe that original evidence was weak (as Graham and others have pointed out, Hanratty foolishly made it stronger through his own lies). However, it would be disingenuous to suggest that there was no evidence against him at all.

Best regards,

Michael Sherrard QC, Hanratty's trial barrister, made it completely clear both in the 2002 Horizon programme and in 2009 in his biography that police had fiddled with the statements they had written up and that this had been proven by modern handwriting tests.In fact Mr Sherrard claims the police evidence was deeply flawed and that they had gone to extraordinary lengths to secure their conviction .
Mr Oxford was supposed to have explained how it was that Hanratty never got to sign the statements he contested so vigorously and how it was that these alterations had taken place -statements that is that the police had taken on the night of his arrest and which remained a matter of great dispute throughout what you yourself have several times have called a shoddy trial and /or unfair trial and in case people forget Hanratty never even had a solicitor present when those statement were taken.But Mr Oxford died in the run up to the appeal so could never answer the questions.
That you have such faith in the legal system ---Oh boy!
Anyway lets see what you come up with over the DNA----and please---do come on ---Norris-- was due to go down no matter what and everyone knew it!There are however quite a few other cases---aren't there?
As for my point over the appeal---I was reminding you that this is a discussion board not a court of law!
Really looking forward to your DNA piece One Round[no name?]----
Best Wishes
Norma

[OneRound]

.... But Mr Oxford died in the run up to the appeal so could never answer the questions.
That you have such faith in the legal system ---Oh boy! ....

Natalie - there you go again! Objecting to what I've said and what I haven't.

I never affirmed 'faith in the legal system'. I merely pointed out - as Caz has probably made herself hoarse calling it out to you - that the 2002 Court of Appeal Judgment should now be the starting point for review of this case and that the onus is now squarely upon the Hanratty camp to disprove that Judgment. That was always going to be very difficult and the recent convictions of Norris and Dobson have made it even more so.

I am on record as being critical of police conduct in the original investigation and have referred to Acott's death as 'a good career move'. I don't fully follow your comments but you appear to suggest I am a supporter of Oxford. That is not the case.

Finally, I don't understand why you reproduce my entire posts when you reply to almost none of the points I have made.

OneRound

[Natalie Severn]

But one Round-you miss the point I am making which is that this is a discussion board not a place where you or Caz for that matter think you can set or control the agenda.
And please dont keep on saying this is what Caz thinks[implying that therefore we should all do as Caz says--- as though she is some kind of' O'Grady says' type oracle . Louisa is entitled to call Caz on what she knows of the history of the case.If some people are not aware of some of the historical facts of this case then it affects the debate we are having.And can we also keep words like Caz tries to put into people's heads such as Louisa being thick out of this.Its both abusive and offensive to suggest it either way.

[OneRound]

But one Round-you miss the point I am making which is that this is a discussion board not a place where you or Caz for that matter think you can set or control the agenda.
And please dont keep on saying this is what Caz thinks[implying that therefore we should all do as Caz says--- as though she is some kind of' O'Grady says' type oracle . Louisa is entitled to call Caz on what she knows of the history of the case.If some people are not aware of some of the historical facts of this case then it affects the debate we are having.And can we also keep words like Caz tries to put into people's heads such as Louisa being thick out of this.Its both abusive and offensive to suggest it either way.

Natalie - it seems rather odd that you emphasise this is a discussion board and then inform me what I shouldn't be saying.

Let me emphasise that I have no desire to set or control the agenda. I have a clear view as to what is most relevant and have explained that. I fail to see anything wrong in that.

Your concerns about Caz's language should be directed to her. Any attempts by you to criticise me in that regard are again disingenuous.

OneRound

[louisa]

And since you appear to be implying that the gems are in the books but Nats and co have thus far only quoted the insignificant stuff, it surely falls to you to search through all their posts to identify what they have missed and what you could provide to help the common 'cause'.

It is not your place to argue for Hanratty's innocence and sneer at me for not trying to find your supporting evidence.

1. Why should I search through posts? You're the one with the queries.

2. Actually, it is my place to argue for Hanratty's innocence (or guilt, if I believed him to be guilty), just as it is for anybody else on this forum with an opinion on this matter.


OneRound wrote:

"Hi Louisa - that seems an entirely reasonable and fair stance. As this is an open forum, qualifications should not be expected nor sought. Just an interest in the subject and, hopefully, a willingness to listen to the views of others".

Well said OneRound.

Bullying tactics just don't work with me. If someone is reduced to making rude personal comments about another poster then it tells me that they know how weak their argument is.

And I can't see how somebody who has not read the books by Paul Foot or Bob Woffindon can be so certain of Hanratty's guilt. That's just my opinion. If you have read them Caz, then I apologize, but you haven't replied, so I assume the answer is No.

Not every person who is arrested and tried (and hanged) is guilty of the crime. The police can and do make mistakes.

I'm hoping that we will now be able to freely voice our own opinions on this case and have them taken seriously, even if they are not agreed with by everyone.

[OneRound]

....
OneRound wrote:

"Hi Louisa - that seems an entirely reasonable and fair stance. As this is an open forum, qualifications should not be expected nor sought. Just an interest in the subject and, hopefully, a willingness to listen to the views of others".

Well said OneRound.

Bullying tactics just don't work with me. If someone is reduced to making rude personal comments about another poster then it tells me that they know how weak their argument is.

And I can't see how somebody who has not read the books by Paul Foot or Bob Woffindon can be so certain of Hanratty's guilt. That's just my opinion. If you have read them Caz, then I apologize, but you haven't replied, so I assume the answer is No.

Not every person who is arrested and tried (and hanged) is guilty of the crime. The police can and do make mistakes.

I'm hoping that we will now be able to freely voice our own opinions on this case and have them taken seriously, even if they are not agreed with by everyone.

Hi again Louisa - you and I are agreed on the principles. Let's hope we and all can put them into practice.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Natalie Severn]

Natalie - it seems rather odd that you emphasise this is a discussion board and then inform me what I shouldn't be saying.

Let me emphasise that I have no desire to set or control the agenda. I have a clear view as to what is most relevant and have explained that. I fail to see anything wrong in that.

Your concerns about Caz's language should be directed to her. Any attempts by you to criticise me in that regard are again disingenuous.

OneRound

Just as it is disingenuous of you to be constantly reminding me about what Caz has said and what she has not said -----look back at your own words-to me--just today- about Caz.I wondered if you were being divisive actually.
When you have written up your thoughts on the DNA I will be back-meanwhile this is just so much going round in circles sniping---I can do without it thankyou very much!
Cheers
Norma