A6 Rebooted

[babybird67]

Valerie is still serving hers.

Love,

Caz
X

Excellent post as always Caz. I often think people forget about the real victims of this crime. Sadly.

And forget what the justice system exists for. For the victims.

[Derrick]

And forget what the justice system exists for. For the victims.

Hi Babybird

The justice system is supposed to exist for those accused of crime too.

If the justice system was only there for the victims then where would true justice come from and under whose authority?

Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" The remaining saints who are free from all sin and crime would be a very poor shadow of humankind indeed.

Derrick

[Derrick]

Hi Ron

What would be your position if you were told that the scientists instructed by Hanratty's family accepted that the DNA tests conclusively showed the presence of the DNA of (1) James Hanratty (2) Valerie Storie and (3) Michael Gregsten but no one else?

This has already happened in 2002 with Dr Evison.

No scientific evidence has yet been adduced which tends to show that the Court of Appeal got it wrong in saying that there were three profiles discernible on the knickers fragment. When, or if, such evidence is available then you might have something on which to base an argument, but until then you do not.

So I come back to my original question of where did the Crown get Michael Gregstens DNA profile from? Until you answer that you have no basis on which to place such trust in the interpretation of the results.

Woffinden, writing in last June's Oldie magazine, stated that funding was required for further investigation into the DNA test results. The doddery Richard Ingrams devoted a section of the Radio 4 Today Programme to the A6 case, but the forensic scientist invited on the show admitted that she had not had access to the DNA test file. I therefore assume that Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC, as we must now call him, has not yet got round to getting the necessary evidence.

I was personally disappointed by Bindmans call for another appeal without any new evidence.

I wonder if all this nonsense about a further appeal is to cover the embarrassment which must have followed from the DNA test results, for which Woffinden and Bindman had for so many years lobbied, being the final nail in the Hanratty is innocent campaign.

As others have said Ingrams programme was more to do with upholding Foot's good name as anything else. Yet having said that it kept the A6 murder in the public mind. With that in mind, Stephen Wright's article in the Daily Mail that day includes more compelling information than Ingrams programme does. Richard Hanratty's story is compelling.

Derrick

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

I just can't believe you are arguing that journalists don't make up sensational stories - Max Clifford makes a tidy salary feeding rubbish to the tabloids. They are frequently paying out huge sums for slander and libel, and then there's the current "phone hacking" scandal. Journalists are on a par with politicians in terms of honesty.


Woffinden lists the dozen or so points that Ewer wrote in reply to this which includes something ridiculous about asking permission to attend the trial.


Using that logic, it's inconceivable that newspapers would ever be successfully sued - and that's plainly complete and utter nonsense.

KR,
Vic.

Methinks Victor doth protest too much![either that or he is completely ignorant about how the Daily Mail and other Daily Nationals work!]

[Natalie Severn]

I often wonder how Hanratty himself would have reacted in 2002, if he had served a long sentence instead of a very short one at the end of a rope.

I doubt he would have been remotely surprised given the scandalous injustice of his trial.After all enough evidence had been fabricated by various criminals and enough evidence suppressed to ensure the truth would never come to light.
What happened in 2002 was yet more contaminated "evidence". What a joke.

[Victor]

Methinks Victor doth protest too much![either that or he is completely ignorant about how the Daily Mail and other Daily Nationals work!]

Good luck hunting the "Hitchhiker Murderer" with "brown eyes"! Why not listen to your good mate "Gangster Nudds" and accuse Peter Alphon!

PMSL

[caz]

Nats, that's a rather condescending, not to say simplistic view, to imply that it's all a huge joke, that anyone with half a brain should be able to see through. You arrived at your conclusion years ago, as a result of your mother telling you that Hanratty was in Rhyl. Little wonder there is no penetrating that particular brick wall.

And of course, what you say here is a very poor substitute for what has repeatedly been asked of the "Jim must be innocent no matter what" section of our little community here, which is to explain precisely how the 'joke' worked from start to finish.

I'll try again, but I don't hold out much hope of getting you or anyone else to delve below the surface to examine your own theories objectively. I feel like my last effort was totally ignored.

The alternative (to Hanratty being guilty) demands that you conjure up some highly convoluted and frankly unworkable conspiracy, whereby several people and/or groups would have had to work independently of one another from 1961 to 2002, and had a mixture of the most incredible luck, guile and clever judgement, to replace the guilty man (Alphon) with an innocent one (Hanratty) with a criminal record, the right blood group and no provable alibi, despite having been a couple of hundred miles away when the gunman struck; get him picked out and sworn to by the victim as her rapist and fellow traveller for five hours in that cramped vehicle; get the jury to convict him; and then wave a magic wand over the little material evidence that had survived for forty years to produce a perfect trinity of DNA profiles out of the hat, together with the patsy's white hanky waving in limp surrender.

It looks like I was right. It is evidently proving too big an ask.

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Caz,
I will be brief but thanks for your reply. No it wasnt Mum who got me questioning so much as the confession of that great admirer of Hitler---so soon after the 2nd World War too,confessing with such sang froid that it was he,Peter Alphon, the first police suspect,who was actually the A6 murderer.
This I followed up much later on ,with a study of the research produced by Paul Foot and the "Rogues Gallery" of Prosecution witnesses he introduced,together with their CV"s ,all this combined with the meticulous in depth research he did on the Liverpool alibi and the fresh evidence he then produced on Mrs Dinwoody and her granddaughter, and the granddaughter"s friend ,along with the rest of the evidence on the eleven Rhyl witnesses---all such witnesses supposed to have been thoroughly investigated by Nimmo but actually not thoroughly investigated at all! Finally there was the newer concocted evidence Bob Woffinden exposed through having done still more painstaking research for his TV programme.He exposed too how painfully slender even the "circumstantial" evidence had been against Hanratty.
So having carefully weighed up the flawed legal process that led to the original conviction,including the concocted and withheld evidence later discovered , it didnt surprise me at all that a 40 year old piece of cloth ,stored in the offices of the prosecution , would yield the result it did!But then I have a lot less faith in the openness and honesty of these people than others here do.Like the Egyptian protesters I mistrust what goes on behind the closed doors of those in power----either in 1961 or in 2002!
Have a great weekend Caz!
Best,
Norma

[jimarilyn]

Hi Caz,
I will be brief but thanks for your reply. No it wasnt Mum who got me questioning so much as the confession of that great admirer of Hitler---so soon after the 2nd World War too,confessing with such sang froid that it was he,Peter Alphon, the first police suspect,who was actually the A6 murderer.
This I followed up much later on ,with a study of the research produced by Paul Foot and the "Rogues Gallery" of Prosecution witnesses he introduced,together with their CV"s ,all this combined with the meticulous in depth research he did on the Liverpool alibi and the fresh evidence he then produced on Mrs Dinwoody and her granddaughter, and the granddaughter"s friend ,along with the rest of the evidence on the eleven Rhyl witnesses---all such witnesses supposed to have been thoroughly investigated by Nimmo but actually not thoroughly investigated at all! Finally there was the newer concocted evidence Bob Woffinden exposed through having done still more painstaking research for his TV programme.He exposed too how painfully slender even the "circumstantial" evidence had been against Hanratty.
So having carefully weighed up the flawed legal process that led to the original conviction,including the concocted and withheld evidence later discovered , it didnt surprise me at all that a 40 year old piece of cloth ,stored in the offices of the prosecution , would yield the result it did!But then I have a lot less faith in the openness and honesty of these people than others here do.Like the Egyptian protesters I mistrust what goes on behind the closed doors of those in power----either in 1961 or in 2002!
Have a great weekend Caz!
Best,
Norma

Brilliant.

[Victor]

No it wasnt Mum who got me questioning so much as the confession of that great admirer of Hitler---so soon after the 2nd World War too,confessing with such sang froid that it was he,Peter Alphon, the first police suspect,who was actually the A6 murderer.

Hi Norma,

As they seem to matter to you so much, please could you explain the relevence of:-

• The political beliefs of a suspect (especially compared to the criminal history of an alternative suspect).

• One confession amongst many.

• The first police suspect - maybe Robert Murat kidnapped Maddie McCann or Chris Jefferies killed Jo Yeates.

This I followed up much later on ,with a study of the research produced by Paul Foot and the "Rogues Gallery" of Prosecution witnesses he introduced,together with their CV"s

Most of Nudds evidence was independantly confirmed by Hanratty, and the rest is the only real evidence against Alphon.

all this combined with the meticulous in depth research he did on the Liverpool alibi and the fresh evidence he then produced on Mrs Dinwoody and her granddaughter, and the granddaughter"s friend

Only if you ignore the lorry driver, and the Welsh or Scottish accent.

along with the rest of the evidence on the eleven Rhyl witnesses---all such witnesses supposed to have been thoroughly investigated by Nimmo but actually not thoroughly investigated at all!

All of which contradicts the evidence of Hanratty.

Finally there was the newer concocted evidence Bob Woffinden exposed through having done still more painstaking research for his TV programme.He exposed too how painfully slender even the "circumstantial" evidence had been against Hanratty.

Now could they "concoct" Hanratty's DNA profile before he was exhumed?

So having carefully weighed up the flawed legal process that led to the original conviction,including the concocted and withheld evidence later discovered,

How was the legal process flawed? This is the first time that I've seen anyone criticise Judge Gorman.

it didnt surprise me at all that a 40 year old piece of cloth ,stored in the offices of the prosecution , would yield the result it did!

The knicker fragment was discovered in 1991, ie. 30 years after the crime. In the Met Police Labs, not the prosecution offices. The hanky was found seperately by Bedford Constabulary - again not prosecution offices, and that had only one DNA profile on it.

KR,
Vic.

[caz]

Brilliant, Vic.

And as usual, I'm still waiting for a step-by-step account of how everything and everyone conspired separately and together so well to get an innocent Hanratty in the frame to begin with, keep him there throughout the id and trial process and finally kick him firmly in the nuts in 2002 by producing the perfect DNA hat trick.

The lesson for today for Norma and co is never believe the word of a conma... sorry, character as unstable, talkative, needy and frankly odd as Alphon was, especially if the only 'support' for his nasty, teasing 'did I or didn't I cheat the hangman and allow an innocent man to hang instead' came from the criminal end of the spectrum. Alphon made a lot of money out of the gullible. At least he can't do that any more, but he is still able to waste people's time and energy from beyond the grave - if you let him.

One can only get conned by someone like that if it fits with one's readymade jaundiced view that the criminal justice system gets the wrong man more often than not.

Love,

Caz
X

[Victor]

Brilliant, Vic.

Thanks Caz.

And as usual, I'm still waiting for a step-by-step account of how everything and everyone conspired separately and together so well to get an innocent Hanratty in the frame to begin with, keep him there throughout the id and trial process and finally kick him firmly in the nuts in 2002 by producing the perfect DNA hat trick.

Yup me too, although usually these pertinent questions get ignored and then the same flawed "the establishment set 'im up" conspiracy theories get repeated. Or you get the "I hit a nerve there", or "you're protesting too much" obfuscation.

Alphon made a lot of money out of the gullible.

But you're gullible if you think he earned the equivalent of quarter of a million after doing something any old wide boy would do for thruppence!

At least he can't do that any more, but he is still able to waste people's time and energy from beyond the grave - if you let him.

John Humble is believed to be responsible for Sutcliffe remaining free to kill a couple more. Stefan Kiszko and Sean Hodgson confessed too.

KR,
Vic.

[caz]

And Mike "couldn't forge a sick note or con his way out of a paper bag" Barrett, who must have been thrilled to find so many apparently smart people falling hook, line and sinker for his terrible "master forger" lies, because they wanted to believe him.

His middle name really should have been Matilda (Hilarious Bollock's heroine, who told such dreadful lies).

Love,

Caz
X

[babybird67]

The lesson for today for Norma and co is never believe the word of a conma... sorry, character as unstable, talkative, needy and frankly odd as Alphon was....he is still able to waste people's time and energy from beyond the grave - if you let him.

One can only get conned by someone like that if it fits with one's readymade jaundiced view that the criminal justice system gets the wrong man more often than not.

Love,

Caz
X

My emphasis.

I honestly thought you were going to say Hanratty at the point you said Alphon. Just subsitute the name and all the points remain pertinent and valid. Both conmen, both wasting people's time beyond the grave.

[caz]

Hi bb,

The saying usually goes that you can't con an innocent man, which is harsh and very obviously not always the case. It generally applies to offering something for nothing, or on the cheap (ie too good to be true) and waiting for the needy or greedy to take the bait.

But you can certainly con anyone who wants something badly enough to be true, eg something they have invested enough of themselves in believing. Sometimes you don't even need any convincing 'evidence'. There is no more evidence, and considerably less evidence, that Alphon was ever in that car, raping VS and shooting MG dead, yet he was able to convince people that he was there, and had deliberately left out of his 'confession' any of the details that could have incriminated him.

A classic false confession if ever there was one. Why didn't he write down those details and leave them to posterity if he really wanted history to know, after his death, how he got away with murder? He could have had the last laugh. Now he just looks like a pathetic parasite, making a bad name for himself off the back of someone else's horrific crime. That tells me he had no choice. He wasn't there, so he couldn't tell all and put two ghostly fingers up at the lot of them.

Love,

Caz
X