A6 Rebooted

[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

Natalie - I totally fail to understand your comments about me being disingenuous. I would be grateful if you or anyone else could explain this. Not wishing to be rude at all but possibly you are not fully familiar with the term. Would it be helpful for Louisa or Caz to explain it to you?

Meanwhile, I'll certainly have my thoughts on the DNA written up before this case next reaches court.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Natalie Severn]

Natalie - I totally fail to understand your comments about me being disingenuous. I would be grateful if you or anyone else could explain this. Not wishing to be rude at all but possibly you are not fully familiar with the term. Would it be helpful for Louisa or Caz to explain it to you?

Meanwhile, I'll certainly have my thoughts on the DNA written up before this case next reaches court.

Best regards,

OneRound

WOW talk about offensive ---why OneRound? Why are you trying to call into question my understanding of language? Who are you? What is your purpose here?

By the way I have a distinction in Linguistics and studied the subject at a higher level when I did my MPhil.What have you got in terms of linguistic distinction?

[OneRound]

By the way I have a distinction in Linguistics and studied the subject at a higher level when I did my MPhil.What have you got in terms of linguistic distinction?

Natalie - Louisa and I reached a pefectly amicable agreement this evening that no qualifications would be sought nor expected from other posters, other than an interest in the case and a willingness to listen to other posters. We had hoped that approach would be adopted by all.

If you have again changed your mind and are now going to stick around, it would be helpful if you could try to keep up.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Natalie Severn]

and I will put the ball straight back in your court--you stop being such a condescending johnny for goodness sake!and hey--whats your first name or I will soon have to start calling you smug peg--- only joking!

[louisa]

Does anyone know what happened to Valerie Storie's very first statement to the police?

Has anyone had sight of this document? If not, I was wondering if it would be in the archives and now available under the F.O.A. ?

[Natalie Severn]

Does anyone know what happened to Valerie Storie's very first statement to the police?

Has anyone had sight of this document? If not, I was wondering if it would be in the archives and now available under the F.O.A. ?

Hi Louisa, The first statement made by Valerie to the police was unearthed in 1974,12 years after Hanratty was executed.
The importance of the first statement is that Valerie Storie had said in it that the gunman had called himself Jim
'but I don't think that was his real name.'


She had also been asked to estimate the gunman's age and she had said '30'

Mr Acott however, had told the court at trial that he had eliminated Alphon as a suspect for 12 reasons.Two of these were that 'the gunman had called himself Jim"
and another that the suspect was in his mid -20's,while Alphon was 31.

so police inconsistency and mismatch here.

[louisa]

"so police inconsistency and mismatch here"

That seems to be the way of the whole enquiry.

I thought there maybe there was another statement that nobody had yet been privy to. Maybe not.

How I would love to know the entire contents of the box of exhibits taken from the Morris Minor. I'm presuming that everything was kept?

There are just so many facts about this case that are still unknown. When the gunman left the scene of the crime he drove erratically around Bedford and the suburbs......but for how long? A lorry driver in Bedford says he saw the Morris Minor at 6.30am. The car was found at around 7pm near Redbridge Station. Where was it in the interim? It's all still such a mystery.

It seems scarcely possible that witnesses could have seen the car in Redbridge at 6.30am. Could these have been people that just wanted to 'get in on it'?

[Admin]

Posters are reminded that if we ban you from this thread, it will be a permanent ban and there is no return. We encourage you to check your attitudes and responses appropriately, keeping this in mind if you wish to continue posting on this subject.

[Natalie Severn]

Has anybody seen Michael Sherrard's letter pleading for clemency? I would be really grateful if anybody knows where it can be found---pm me if you don't want to post or email me at NormaBuddle@gmail .com
Many Thanks

[louisa]

Hi Norma

If and when you find it, will you post it here please? Thanks.

[Natalie Severn]

If and when Louisa!

[caz]

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.

Hi Louisa,

You don't need to search through anything on my account. I only query the arguments people make where they don't bother to provide evidential support for them, but instead expect me to go looking for it! That's not how debate works and it's certainly not how to get Hanratty off the hook. You are the one with that job, not me.

It is your place to argue whatever you want; I never said it wasn't. I said it was not your place to expect me to search out evidence that may support your arguments. It is for you to bring the evidence to the table yourself if you want me to consider it.

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.

I said I do not propose to read through the literature again, to look for anything crucial that you think Nats and co have failed to highlight. And I don't think I've ever claimed to be 'certain' of Hanratty's guilt, but I am certain the onus is on others now to support their faith in his wrongful conviction. Big difference.

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

I'm only too aware of it, having been raised within walking distance of Wimbledon Common, where Colin Stagg was wrongfully accused and shamefully treated over another horrific murder case, and having lived for 30 years within walking distance of Tamworth Rd Croydon, where Craig shot dead a policeman and Bentley hanged for it, despite his lower mental age and the fact that he had no gun and shot nobody. So I can hardly be biased in favour of late 20th century policing and justice!

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.

Who has stopped you? When I don't take your opinions seriously I don't respond at all - like when you suggested all the DNA experts could be wrong and that many more people around the world could share identical profiles for all they know. Nobody responded to that one.

At other times I do take your views seriously but I am perfectly entitled, as you are, to challenge anything that is unsupported or unsupportable.

Love,

Caz
X

[louisa]

I suppose I'm just one of those people who thinks that DNA can get contaminated and that the system for testing it isn't infallible.


When you say 'nobody responded' - there are only about four of us currently (and occasionally) posting on this thread.


Did you read the message from Admin #1253?

[OneRound]

I suppose I'm just one of those people who thinks that DNA can get contaminated and that the system for testing it isn't infallible.


When you say 'nobody responded' - there are only about four of us currently (and occasionally) posting on this thread.


Did you read the message from Admin #1253?

Hi Louisa - you are definitely right that DNA can get contaminated. That's clearly why there are so many safeguards in place today - however, even with such current safeguards, I can't say whether they actually eliminate the chance of an error or merely substantially reduce the chance of one. A one in ten thousand chance may not generally matter very much unless you are the person 10,000th in line to be on the receiving end of it.

What is certain is that items from the past being DNA tested today have a much greater chance of being contaminated. That surely stands to reason as modern safeguards were never applied from outset to those items and nor could they have been. That is why from a purely legal perspective I was surprised by the recent convictions of Norris and Dobson. I don't currently have the trial transcript in front of me but I recall from earlier reading that the trial judge made clear that the jury had to go through several loops before bringing in a guilty verdict. The first of these loops was to satisfy themselves that the DNA from almost two decades ago (and therefore not subject to anything like modern safeguards) was not contaminated. Let me make very clear that I am no supporter of Norris and Dobson. However, I find it very difficult to see how the jury could have been satisfied on this point.

There again, I have seen enough cases to know that what a judge says to a jury and what they actually deliberate in private need not always be one and the same! Possibly the judge's comments to the Hanratty jury about 'reasonable doubt' also come to mind here.

I know Natalie is keen to read my doubts and concerns about the DNA findings that the Court of Appeal relied upon so much in 2002 to uphold Hanratty's conviction. Please regard the above as the beginning of the introduction.

Finally, I saw the Admin post referred to above. Louisa - you and I agreed shortly before that a perfectly amicable way to take future posts (whether agreements or disagreements) forward. I for one will now try to stick to that.

Best regards,

OneRound

[caz]

I suppose I'm just one of those people who thinks that DNA can get contaminated and that the system for testing it isn't infallible.

Where did that bit of unnecessary sarcasm come from? Are you implying that I don't think DNA can get contaminated and that testing is infallible? I have never said anything like that, nor have I seen anyone else saying it. I was referring to your theory concerning the numbers of people possibly sharing identical DNA profiles. Nothing to do with contamination or testing methods.

When you say 'nobody responded' - there are only about four of us currently (and occasionally) posting on this thread.

That's right, and none of us responded, so I was not alone.

Did you read the message from Admin #1253?

Yes thanks. As I previously mentioned to you, I read all the posts here. What are you implying now??

Love,

Caz
X