A6 Rebooted

[Graham]

I'm beginning to wonder if this thread isn't dead on its feet. There has been no real debate for some time now.

In or about December 2010 it was announced via Richard Ingrams (of The Oldie and formerly of Private Eye that a new appeal would be launched early in 2011. No such appeal has been launched, at least as far as I'm aware. Why is this? Shortage of funds, shortage of new evidence, or both? Or a realistic assessment on the part of the Hanratty family's legal advisors that a new appeal is not viable? For example, how could a new DNA analysis be justified, either financially, scientifically, or legally? It can't be, is the simple answer.

I believe that even without the DNA, there was and is sufficient evidence to prove James Hanratty's guilt. Nothing will ever convince me otherwise. I speak as one who once believed in Hanratty's innocence, that he was a victim of the State and of official corruption, etc., etc....however, as I have stated previously on these boards, a more careful re-reading of the available evidence has since shown me that the verdict reached at his trial was the correct verdict.

There was no death-bed confession from Peter Alphon (even if any such confession from that gentleman could be believed); there has never been any post-mortem assistance or comfort for Hanratty from any of the low-life criminal fraternity he associated with. No-one from Soho or anywhere else has ever stepped into the limelight to so much as say, "Jim Hanratty? Diamond geezer. Couldn't have been him". Even Paul Foot, following his interview with Janet Gregsten not long before his death, said that he was forced to accept that Alphon didn't know anywhere near as much about the A6 Crime as he had claimed to. None of the so-called 'evidence' from Liverpool or Rhyl can be proven beyond doubt. If someone, somewhere, even 50 years later, has some knowledge that could possibly lead to a re-assessment, then they have not come forward.

So what's left? Not a lot, actually. Forget new DNA evidence - it isn't going to happen. Forget new 'on-the-ground' evidence - if it hasn't happened yet, it never will. I do, however, agree that there are certain aspects of this case that don't add up - for example, the lack of forensic evidence from the car, which to this day I find incredible. Also Charles France - until and unless the police release full details of his pre-suicide writings, France's role in this case must remain at best mysterious. Frankly, if I were seeking to establish Hanratty's innocence 60 years on, I wouldn't be looking at the DNA...

Enough for now.

Graham

[louisa]

I'm presuming that the Hanratty brothers are now getting old and may not have the energy or the funds to pursue the cause. Maybe they got fed up with banging their heads against a brick wall.

I am certain that the case will be re-opened and when it is it will be by a journalist who will be writing a book on the case or somebody producing a TV documentary. Ordinary people probably wouldn't be able to find the money for it.

As for Hanratty's 'friends' - it seems that most were fairweather friends who made themselves scarce when they saw the trouble he was in. Many of them were petty crooks who wished to keep a low profile. He was spoken well of by girlfriends though. I don't remember reading that character witnesses were asked for.

As for Alphon - he probably got fed up with constantly being called a liar and may have made a decision never to talk about the case again.

My conviction of Hanratty's innocence lies in the overwhelming evidence that he was in a Liverpool sweetshop at 5.30pm on the afternoon before the murder.

[Natalie Severn]

a couple of strange 'co-incidences'

Out of the millions of men in the UK and London one man had caused enough of a sensation at a Finsbury Park hotel the days following the murder to be taken in for questioning by the police.That man was Peter Alphon.It had nothing to do with the Vienna Hotel and the date was 27th August 1961 3 days after the murder.
[In late September Acott put out a nationwide search for Peter Alphon and took the extra ordinary step of naming him but lost interest when Valerie failed to identify him and instead 'identified' an innocent man named Michael Clark] Peter Alphon was therefore the first police suspect .

Meanwhile on 31st August and 1st September 1961 we now know that William Ewer 'spotted' James Hanratty in the fal a fel cafe in Swiss Cottage and also going into Burtol's dry cleaners and Caters flower shop [which he did].Ewer informed the police.Why? He said it was because the young man had eyes like carbuncles-he didn't and neither had Valerie said the gunman had eyes like carbuncles........but Ewer did follow him,did find out on 1st September that his mother was Mrs Hanratty and that he had given the name Ryan....
But the police were not interested in James Hanratty until after Valerie failed to identify Alphon when they suddenly began to focus on Hanratty- somebody who had also stayed in the same hotel as Alphon---
Another puzzle:
Why,if Charles France didn't know William Ewer did he wait six months before popping into William Ewer's shop down the road in highly a distressed state to 'apologise' for what had happened to his brother in law Michael Gregsten? This just days before FRance committed suicide.....more mystery....

Some astonishing coincidences here ....

and btw -who said that the case was closed?

[Graham]

and btw -who said that the case was closed?

Not me, Nats!

I would also remind you of Michael Sherrard's highly appropriate statement when he described this case as 'dripping with coincidence'. He was dead right.

As an aside (I've said this before) I was a long-haired left-wing rebel and general questioner of officialdom back in the Sixties, and at the time I was convinced that JH had been set up. The (brief) presence of John Lennon in the A6 saga served to strengthen my conviction that there was a conspiracy - I mean, he and Yoko didn't need the publicity, did they? Paul Foot was also revered as a seeker after truth, etc. Only when I carefully re-read the books a few years ago did I realise that virtually every aspect of support for JH was capable of being demolished.

Have been reading "Voodoo Histories" by David Aaronovitch, which examines how and why conspiracy theories start and thrive. Very interesting and recommended.

Anyway, I hope the thread will get moving again, as I'd miss it if it faded away.

Regards,

Graham

[burkhilly]

You're quite right Graham - the thread has been very slow. I pop in occasionally in the hope there's something new to be read.

I'm still on the fence with regards to JH's guilt........I want to believe he was innocent - but the DNA suggests guilt.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Graham,
I enjoyed hearing all that about your radical days!
My own understanding of where MIchael Sherrard stands with regard to Hanratty is that he was both fond of him personally and that to this day
he very strongly believes the police fiddled with evidence and statements,. withheld vital evidence such as that of Mr Larman's until the trial was over and it was too late for him to be cross questioned---although there is a record of Acott having received Larman's statement on 15 February two days before the trial ended-so why didn't Acott hand it over?
Mr Dutton had also given evidence to Abergele police on 9th February that matched what had been said by the manager of Reynolds Billiard Hall [H said this was on 22nd ] about Hanratty trying to sell him a gold watch the following day [23rd] in Rhyl High Street. But neither Sherrard or Hanratty knew anything whatever about Mr Dutton's statement---The first time Sherrard knew of it was in 1968 .Larman was of crucial importance as on 12th February when he went to the Staines Police he referred to Hanratty's artificial hair colouring and this matched Mrs Walker's description and could have strengthened her statement in the eyes of jury had she been called. Its true Sherrard was concerned to bring forward Mrs Walker,Mrs Vincent and Mr Larman [post trial but in time for appeal ] as it is a dangerous practice in an appeal---but Sherrard did present all three statements of MW/IV/CL to the Home Secretary begging for clemency after the appeal was refused. And compared to the shaky evidence given by several prosecution witnesses it was very compelling stuff surely---e g two of the three noted his hair being an unusual colour---together with Michael DaCostamaking 3 of them.
Kleinman said that the big problem calling these people was 'timing 'but Hanratty himself in his testimony is very clear: [to Swanwick] I can't give you the time I left or arrived.When I arrived it was 'getting dark' -I did not say 'it was dark' He was not a 'clock watcher' he said.
The cumulative evidence of Margaret Walker +Christopher Larman +Ivy Vincent + Margaret Davies and her son and daughter in law + Mr Da Costa and Mr Dutton is far stronger than say that of the dubious Nudds's or Langdale or [imo] witness the alteed statements of Louise Anderson.Then you have Mrs Dinwoody who remembers taking him by the elbow,leading him to the door of the shop and pointing out the direction of the bus stop at about 5 pm on 21st or 22nd August 1961.Ok but it was definitely not 21st.So many witnesses in London said otherwise from the Frances to Ann Pryce.Btw Graham I now have a copy of the solicitors notes of exactly what H said about what he saw when he got off the bus.He describes seeing a ladies and gents toilet---it was there until very recently--even now there are the remains visible---definitely he didn't say there was any picture house there.That was Kinmel St Rhyl and there is one there for sure to this day.
Evidence was also 'withheld 'about the sightings of the Morris Minor both in Avondale Avenue and elsewhere far from Redbridge and at 6.30 am.The photographed contents in the boot of the MM at the time [1961-september] of a man's green bobble hat , exactly matched the description of the sighting as well as the matching number plate [given to police later that day -23/8/61] and meant the car could not have been in Avondale Avenue when Skillett/Blackhall and Trower said they saw it.And Margaret Thompson was not the only witness in Avondale Crescent whose statement was withheld and who who said the car was not there at 5 pm when she went to the shops.Doreen Milne was another who actually parked her car directly opposite where the car was found and whose car also an MM exactly matched in colour the murder car.
Sherrard was also at pains to point out in his book that the witnesses the police relied on were all shady characters.We now know that each ,save for France, benefitted in one way or another from giving evidence on behalf of the prosecution, especially Langdale whose evidence, at the time, was considered by RA Butler ,Home Secretary to be so important that it was given as the reason no repreive was allowed.Yet it was all nonsense according to both Sherrard and Foot.The information, not able to be used in court because it was 'hearsay' was simply about a remark Hanratty had made that 'only Hanratty could have known about'.But according to both Sherrard and Foot it was complete nonsense.The information had been known about from three weeks previously when it had been on the radio,TV and carried over even into papers!
One other point [as its getting late and I haven't ready access to my books]

Sherrard is emphatic that the police went to unbelievable lengths to get a conviction----he clearly thinks Hanratty was innocent and you can read what he has said about the case in the April edition 'The Oldie' -already out!

As for the DNA it would be thrown out lock stock and barrel in today's courts of appeal---we have collected several cases as examples---

Caz! another time--- ----promise to get back to you!

AtB
Norma

[caz]

As for the DNA it would be thrown out lock stock and barrel in today's courts of appeal---we have collected several cases as examples---

Hi Nats,

You simply don't know that and the only way to test it would be to get the A6 case back into a court of appeal.

A million thrown out cases 'as examples' would not tell us anything unless at least one could be demonstrated to be directly comparable to the very specific results obtained, which identified Hanratty's DNA along with the victim's and her lover's, but nobody else's.

Contamination was considered, but it was found beyond unlikely to have produced such findings, but at least this argument acknowledges that the only 'suspect' DNA picked up was Hanratty's, and was therefore reliably identified, as was Valerie's.

As I have said many times, the only two arguments I have seen against the DNA evidence in this case are contamination or misidentification, but one directly contradicts the other and neither produces anything like a reasonable explanation for the findings. One relies on the correct identification of Hanratty's DNA, accidently contaminating the victim's underwear, while the rapist's DNA failed to show up on the semen stained fragment; the other relies on the rapist's DNA showing up but being completely misidentified as Hanratty's, while the victim's DNA was correctly identified.

Show me just one case with comparable findings that has been 'thrown out' and I will happily reconsider the A6 results in that context.

Of course, even if you could get rid of the DNA evidence against Hanratty by referring to other cases, that would be the easy part. Unreliable still wouldn't equal wrong, any more than unsafe would imply innocence.

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

Hi Nats,
As I have said many times, the only two arguments I have seen against the DNA evidence in this case are contamination or misidentification, but one directly contradicts the other and neither produces anything like a reasonable explanation for the findings. One relies on the correct identification of Hanratty's DNA, accidently contaminating the victim's underwear, while the rapist's DNA failed to show up on the semen stained fragment; the other relies on the rapist's DNA showing up but being completely misidentified as Hanratty's, while the victim's DNA was correctly identified.

Show me just one case with comparable findings that has been 'thrown out' and I will happily reconsider the A6 results in that context.

Of course, even if you could get rid of the DNA evidence against Hanratty by referring to other cases, that would be the easy part. Unreliable still wouldn't equal wrong, any more than unsafe would imply innocence.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Sorry to chop your post down, but I just wanted to point out that the rapist's DNA failed to show up in the car which is incredible because VS and her attacker were cramped into the back of a small car on the back seat and VS took off her knickers. Yet not a speck or drop of the rapist's DNA was found on the seat or the floor of the car. Did it disappear or was it never there in the first place?

[NickB]

Surely it was decades before DNA profiling.

However I agree with Graham that it is strange there was no forensic evidence from the car.

"The gunman takes the rug from the boot of the car and places it over the drivers seat repeating that he does not want to get blood on him. He wipes the steering wheel and then asks Storie to start the car for him and show him the positions of the gears."

I notice from the photos that the rug was still over the driver's seat when the car was found. Had everything been cleaned?

[Graham]

Hi Nick,

yes, it was years before DNA. I think what Julie's saying is that no forensics were retrieved from the car which could have positively identified the gunman either then or following storage to a time when DNA was available, as per the underwear.

The car certainly yielded fingerprints, but not those of Hanratty or Alphon. I can't vouch for this, but I believe that fingerprints were found belonging to Gregsten, Valerie Storey, Gregsten's two aunts, and other persons know to be friends or family of the Gregstens. What I find incredible is that there were apparently no traces of soil from the cornfield reported to have been found in the car. No hair, no clothing fibre, no nothing. Either the techniques of retrieving forensic samples from cars in 1961 were very poor, or the car itself had received an incredibly thorough cleaning.

I could never really understand why neither Sherrard, Swanwick, Foot or Woffinden either never referred to, or made an issue of, the forensics or lack of them from the car. I am convinced that the police went over that car with the proverbial fine-tooth comb, otherwise they wouldn't have been doing their job.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

----got to admit Graham-excellent observations.
I think there was difficulty co-ordinating the investigation at first.The police in Slough did little about the cornfield all round-for example they found no witnesses who had seen the gunman- despite nationwide descriptions .Only the Cobbs and their immediate neighbour saw someone resembling the identikit of the man with the receding hairline -but they said this sighting was at 2pm in the afternoon of 22nd .

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Caz,
That isn't quite right about the LCN DNA identifying Hanratty's,V.S's and MG's.
Initially the defence took this up strongly asking why only Hanratty's DNA was found on the knicker fragment.
Problem is I am in Wales without books or anything -so this is difficult- but one of the persistent queries in 2002 as I recall from the appeal transcript,was the question of why only Hanratty's DNA was on it---and I dont think there was a clear answer---if there was it came late in the day and seemed rather curious.
AtB
Norma

[caz]

Hi Nats,

The Appeal Judgement is quite clear about the three DNA profiles found on the knicker fragment: one matched DNA from Hanratty's remains and mucous from his hanky; one matched the victim's; the third was attributed to her lover.

The fragment was originally stained with two men's semen, the blood groups consistent with Hanratty and Gregsten.

I believe the reference to only Hanratty's DNA being found has been misinterpreted; it merely means that his was the only 'foreign' or 'suspect' profile, as both the others were innocently accounted for. In short, no profiles were found that could not be accounted for. Obviously the defence questioned this because they were fully expecting another man's profile to be there - the real rapist's - and if anyone else's DNA had accidentally contaminated the fragment, that would have been almost as good from their point of view.

It must have been profoundly disappointing to the defence when only Hanratty's DNA was found where it should never have been - on the victim's underwear.

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Caz
I wonder have you ever seen pics of the type of sterile environment that is now insisted upon by the international forensic scientific community ie from crime scene to laboratory and inside the lab too where masks gloves head gear etc has to be worn to avoid contamination when using LCN DNA tests?LCN is now considered a magnet for contaminants.
Given hanratty's trousers and valerie's underwear were put out each day from the same boxes how can anyone not now see how easy during the committal alone ie before the exhibits went to the lab on dec 28th 1961 it would have been for transference to occur. Also how come the DNA of the nurses who removed valerie's underwear and the police who handled all these materials daily and often together -taking them to the lab. and from police station to the pathologists - how come their dna was never found on the cloth ?found?and btw they did not automatically and probably did not at all- wear gloves. In my book there is a Getty image of the exhibits clerk arriving at court with the duffle bag and a pile of other exhibits and he is BAREHANDED !!!!!so when he took out the hanky his dna would have remained on it ------Hanratty"s and later at the trial members of the jury would have been permitted to pass these exhibits round.so how come all this DNA which lcn DNA can pick up from almost nothing- how come it has all disappeared?
As for the wording of the appeal about whose dna is on the fragment of cloth and the hanky -it changes - in other words it is unclear why they refer solely to Hanratty"s.
No computer still writing this on my iPhone - not easy to see whole sentence so hope it's ok
Best
Norma x

[Limehouse]

Hi Nats,

The Appeal Judgement is quite clear about the three DNA profiles found on the knicker fragment: one matched DNA from Hanratty's remains and mucous from his hanky; one matched the victim's; the third was attributed to her lover.

The fragment was originally stained with two men's semen, the blood groups consistent with Hanratty and Gregsten.

I believe the reference to only Hanratty's DNA being found has been misinterpreted; it merely means that his was the only 'foreign' or 'suspect' profile, as both the others were innocently accounted for. In short, no profiles were found that could not be accounted for. Obviously the defence questioned this because they were fully expecting another man's profile to be there - the real rapist's - and if anyone else's DNA had accidentally contaminated the fragment, that would have been almost as good from their point of view.

It must have been profoundly disappointing to the defence when only Hanratty's DNA was found where it should never have been - on the victim's underwear.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

It is not surprising that the DNA on the hanky matched the DNA from Hanratty's remains since Hanratty never denied the hanky was his. However, there is no evidence whatsoever to place the hanky at the scene of the crime.

At the risk of repeating myself, the rapist's DNA was apprarently found on her underwear, even though she removed her knickers prior to the rape. Now this is not impossible, as there would possibly have been some leaking (sorry to be so indelicate) when she replaced her knickers. However, given that she removed her underwear, there must surely have been some forensic evidence deposited within the car. None was found. As Graham has pointed out, this is hard to explain and as Graham also explained, it is surprising the defence did not make more of this.

Now, it is fair to speculate that the examination of the car was none too thorough. How can we therefore rely on examinations of clothing under very poor conditions?