A6 Rebooted

[caz]

Happy New Year James.

2) William Nudds had been released from Oxford prison in 1958. The murderer is quoted by Valerie Storie as having spent “time” in the Oxford area which could mean that he was in Oxford prison at the same time as Nudds and, being a small prison, they would undoubtedly have known each other. If so Nudds could well have provided a cheap “off the books” room for the murderer on the 23rd August (or have provided one under duress) and also have a very good reason for implicating Alphon or Ryan instead of his “mate” who was obviously a very dangerous character.

Indeed, a very dangerous character - who surprisingly, if not Hanratty, apparently never committed another crime of a remotely similar nature. Maybe this one spooked him too much and he became less dangerous as a result, or maybe he got banged up for a different sort of crime and therefore wasn't free to commit another "A6"?

3) The murderer occupies room 24 at the Vienna on the night of the 23rd August, empties the gun and leaves two shell casings in the chair in the alcove. He disposes of the gun and bullets on the 36a bus the following day, either because this is a standard place for criminals to dispose of rubbish or because this was an agreed method for collecting and returning such dangerous material without physical contact between supplier and user. In doing so he wraps the gun in the hanky he has found in room 24 at the Vienna.

In a case already dripping with coincidences, I would find it astonishing if the murderer had no idea what sort of person had been the previous guest, yet he managed to incriminate someone who not only had a criminal record, but admitted to using the same bus trick to hide or dispose of evidence, had talked about getting a gun to try a stick-up, shared the rapist's blood group (more people in the UK would have had a different one) and would not be able to provide a satisfactory alibi for the murder night. As I've said before, if it wasn't for bad luck, an innocent Hanratty would have had no luck at all.

Also, if buses were regularly used for this kind of purpose, does it not seem odd to you that in this particular instance the gun was found so quickly by the cleaner, yet we don't hear of that many cases of dodgy stuff being found on buses? It was either a pretty reliable method, which only failed on this occasion because the cleaner happened to take his job very seriously, or it was a lousy method almost bound to come unstuck.

4) Nudds has enormous experience of providing false tales and proceeds to do on this occasion, firstly incriminating the last known occupant according to the hotel register and then switching back and forth when he judges that the police require a different version. Above all he is anxious to preserve himself from any retribution.

Again, there are so many ways for such a plan to have failed if the last known occupant had been anyone other than Hanratty, and had been able to account for their movements - as the vast majority of innocent people are in a position to do, even when they stay in seedy guest houses. In this scenario, a guilty Nudds won the lottery jackpot while an innocent Hanratty had his chips.

If I had found anything about this case to make me doubt Hanratty did it, or could have done it, I would have to consider alternative scenarios like these and give them a bit more credence, however unlikely or unworkable they may appear. But to me, they do appear far less likely and less workable than what we are stuck with - Hanratty's conviction for the crime.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi All,

I had a message from former A6 poster Vic, who wondered if readers might be interested in the following paper on DNA testing of Egyptian mummies:

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/1104...l/472404a.html

I found it balanced and informative, particularly in relation to how DNA is said to degrade more quickly in samples that contain moisture. This could be relevant if a 'wash' from Hanratty's trousers is supposed to have been stored in liquid form with the victim's underwear and contaminated it with the DNA that was picked up and presumed to be the rapist's.

Love,

Caz
X

[Derrick]

Hi all

It is a very good thing that ADMIN have done here.

I for one welcome the reopening of the threads and hope that the facts and theories of the case can be debated in a civilized manner.

I for one know that I have learned much from those who hold views that are distinct from mine. Vice Versa we hope.

ATB
Del

[Derrick]

...2) Hanratty's DNA was the only male DNA positively identified by LCN with Gregsten's presumably being inferred from the original attribution of the AB blood grouping.

3) If Hanratty were not the murderer any contamination would have to have wiped out all traces of the rapist's DNA, both in the case of the knicker sample and the handkerchief.

Whilst I can understand the reasoning I have doubts about the conclusions and set out those doubts below using the same numbering system:

Hi James
Paragraph 113 says "...There were smaller quantities of seminal fluid of blood group AB assumed to have come at some earlier stage from Michael Gregsten...". This is WRONG. I have seen Dr Lewis NIckolls bench notes and have read his court testimony. Nowhere does he mention any finding of any AB seminal fluid at all; just O secretor!

John Bark of the FSS carried out MtDNA tests in 1997 and only found a connection between Michael Hanratty and the hanky but not the knickers.
The hanky was clearly Hanratty's and was planted on the bus, with the gun, by Dixie France, whose wife was doing Hanratty's laundry at the time.

Del

[OneRound]

... John Bark of the FSS carried out MtDNA tests in 1997 and only found a connection between Michael Hanratty and the hanky but not the knickers.
The hanky was clearly Hanratty's and was planted on the bus, with the gun, by Dixie France, whose wife was doing Hanratty's laundry at the time.

Del

Hi folks,

Further to the extract above from Derrick's post, I've always been puzzled as to why the Court of Appeal attributed so much significance to Hanratty's DNA being found on the hanky.

My puzzlement is based upon Hanratty having apparently confirmed at trial that the hanky was his. Other posters in the past have vouched for this but please let me know if it is not the case.

On the basis that it was Hanratty's hanky as he stated, it is not particularly surprising to my mind that his DNA should be found on it. By contrast, the Court of Appeal regarded it as revealing and damning. It seems reasonable to assume that the jury regarded the gun being wrapped in Hanratty's hanky (as per his confirmation) against him. That's fair enough in my book. However, it seems unfair to regard the DNA on the hanky as providing additional evidence against Hanratty when all it really showed was that he had told the truth concerning this particular aspect when it probably would have been in his interests at the time to lie.

Best regards,
OneRound

[Derrick]

...Hanratty having apparently confirmed at trial that the hanky was his. Other posters in the past have vouched for this but please let me know if it is not the case...

I am not sure he did. If someone knows different then a reference would be useful.

...On the basis that it was Hanratty's hanky as he stated, it is not particularly surprising to my mind that his DNA should be found on it. By contrast, the Court of Appeal regarded it as revealing and damning. It seems reasonable to assume that the jury regarded the gun being wrapped in Hanratty's hanky (as per his confirmation) against him. That's fair enough in my book. However, it seems unfair to regard the DNA on the hanky as providing additional evidence against Hanratty when all it really showed was that he had told the truth concerning this particular aspect when it probably would have been in his interests at the time to lie...

It is Hanratty's hanky whether he admitted it in court or not...the MtDNA tests prove it.

The hanky doesn't incriminate Hanratty at all, especially when someone else connected to the case has access to it.

The Court of Appeal used it as part of a contamination double whammy that they described as beggaring belief and went a long way in allowing them to uphold the conviction.

Del

[Derrick]

At the 2002 appeal on the opening day of the DNA evidence (22nd April 2002) Nigel Sweeney, for the Crown, made the following statement:

In the seminal fraction, there are a major profile and some minor pieces. The major profile, again in yellow, matching the appellant's DNA profile. The seminal fraction minor profile having a small number of readings in red and one in blue, as your Lordships can see. Insofar as the blue one is concerned that is a match with Miss Storie. Insofar as the red one is concerned, that is another person, neither the appellant nor Miss Storie, which, as it happens, would be consistent with finding Mr Gregsten's DNA, there having been intercourse between him and Miss Storie some two day before the fatal event.

This matter was never again mentioned in the whole of the hearing. Furthermore, the results produced at the appeal were in the form of a table of allele numbers; the original EPG's and data, culled by the FSS, have never been made available to anyone outside of the CPS or Met Police despite numerous calls by the appellant to release them.

The seminal fraction is a product of a centrifugal process that is undertaken to separate the typically male content (sperm) from everything else.

Yet, one allele is attributed to Miss Storie, a woman. Other alleles, the number not disclosed, attributed to Mr Gregsten, without any reference profile to compare it to. Although Hanratty's remains were exhumed with much media excitement there is nowhere to be found of any such event where Mr Gregsten's remained were exhumed. There is also no mention in all of the FSS scientists statements where they mention that MtDNA tests were performed from the Gregsten family on this sample. Only his mother or any siblings could have been of use here.

I for one cannot imagine the type of scenario that the respondent is trying to suggest here. It is a known fact that sperm can persist in the vagina for up to 7 days and still be detectable. Yet Mr Gregsten and Miss Storie would be taking a very big gamble by having unprotected sex, given their covert 3 year affair (and Gregsten's well known money troubles) and the fact that the the contraceptive pill only became available in December 1961 (and then only for married women).

Dr Lewis Nickolls found no fluids of an AB class on Miss Stories knickers; just group O secretor seminal fluid and group O vaginal fluid.

So why did the judges publicly state at paragraph 113 that...

...There were smaller quantities of seminal fluid of blood group AB assumed to have come at some earlier stage from Michael Gregsten...

...when quite clearly there wasn't any found by Dr Nickolls? This is very worrying and has quite clearly mislead the British public for well over a decade.

Del

[NickB]

I've always been puzzled as to why the Court of Appeal attributed so much significance to Hanratty's DNA being found on the hanky.

My puzzlement is based upon Hanratty having apparently confirmed at trial that the hanky was his.

This has also puzzled me. If Hanratty admitted it was his handkerchief, why does the Appeal report make no mention of this?

Postings about his admission appear to go back to the original ‘A6 Murders’ thread where there is an excerpt from the trial proceedings that might be from the Leonard Miller book [post 2,726 by Tony, page 273].

Swanwick: “Mr Hanratty the gun was found wrapped in a handkerchief. Did you know that?”

Hanratty: “No, Sir.”

Swanwick: “Clerk of the court will you show Mr Hanratty exhibit no xx please.”

Swanwick: “Now Mr Hanratty tell My Lord and the jury, is that your handkerchief?”

Hanratty: “Well yes Sir it is indeed.”

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Derrick

It is the easy acceptance (without any form of testing) that the alien DNA was Gregstons, that leaves me so UN-easy...and there was the possibility of a broken specimen tube in that drawer...how unscientific...

Aside from that, there's the fact that as a childhood enthusiast, and adult bus industry insider, I know that most buses of this vintage contained hiding places which were known to be used by criminals to dump evidence (eg rifled handbags, empty wallets etc)...

But aside from these two uneasy factors, it's genuinely hard to see beyond the guilty verdict...perhaps because of the inherent uncertainties he shouldn't have hung, but served a life sentence instead...but that's looking at it with 21st Century hindsight...this will upset some...I'm sorry...

All the best

Dave

[Limehouse]

It's good to see the debate up and running again. I am not sure I have anything much to contribute these days but I do have a few thoughts and comments formulating so, you never know.

Take care all.

[OneRound]

Hi folks,

As regards the possibility of a tube or vial containing liquid being retained on file, Mr Roger Mann, for the respondent, told the Court of Appeal that he had never come across this in his thirty-two years of experience. Whilst acknowledging their own lack of scientific experience, the Court were of the view that ''it would seem a curious method of storage''.

That all seems fair enough. However, isn't the alternative explanation even more curious? That a decision was made to retain an EMPTY vial or tube on file.

Best regards,
OneRound

[Limehouse]

Hi folks,

As regards the possibility of a tube or vial containing liquid being retained on file, Mr Roger Mann, for the respondent, told the Court of Appeal that he had never come across this in his thirty-two years of experience. Whilst acknowledging their own lack of scientific experience, the Court were of the view that ''it would seem a curious method of storage''.

That all seems fair enough. However, isn't the alternative explanation even more curious? That a decision was made to retain an EMPTY vial or tube on file.

Best regards,
OneRound

Would be unusual, do you think, it the vial had contained pubic hairs? I have a feeling I have heard of this happening back then?

[Natalie Severn]

The broken glass vial had a rubber bung near it when it was found indicating it had originally been the stopper for the vial.
To answer Julie's point, hairs were found but they had been placed between flat glass tablets or small glass slabs-not in any glass tubes.

[Derrick]

...That all seems fair enough. However, isn't the alternative explanation even more curious? That a decision was made to retain an EMPTY vial or tube on file...

That is a very cogent observation.

[Limehouse]

The broken glass vial had a rubber bung near it when it was found indicating it had originally been the stopper for the vial.
To answer Julie's point, hairs were found but they had been placed between flat glass tablets or small glass slabs-not in any glass tubes.

Thanks for that. I wonder if these hairs were also tested?

That vial must have contained something liquid if a rubber stopper was used and, as OneRound states, it's hardly likely to have contained nothing.