A6 Rebooted

[caz]

Hi Caz

I'm afraid you don't grasp the difference between ONE eye-witness, whose testimony is worthless, and the testimony of 8-10 independent witnesses, whose testimony is far more reliable. Thus the identification by VS is of no value, and would not have been even if she hadn't been brutalised in the way she was. On the other hand, in Rhyl you have a number of witnesses who confirm the presence of a young man, with an 'odd' accent and strange-looking hair, asking directions. There can be no comparison between the two situations.

Hi DM,

But I do grasp the difference between 'a' young man, asking for directions in a seaside town that was very popular with young men in high summer, and 'the' man who left semen on his victim's underwear, to be DNA profiled 40 years later, revealing its source to be the 'same' man the victim identified as her rapist, when confronted with him.

No contest I'm afraid, but you seem to have misidentified me as someone you need to convince otherwise.

One other point here, though. Valerie was able to single out Hanratty from the others in his line-up and she finally pronounced herself 100% certain when she heard his voice. Yet you believe the man who had actually raped and shot her looked - and presumably sounded - quite different from this latest police suspect. So while you might explain this away by saying she was a poor eye and ear witness, just like most people are, it doesn't explain what made her focus on Hanratty the suspect to start with. He didn't just look and sound to her more like her rapist than any of the other men in either line-up; she was certain this was the same man. Now that was a terribly unlucky coincidence for your Jim - or it has to count for something. What would the chances have been of her picking out the suspect, if he had not looked or sounded much like the actual rapist, as we are constantly being asked to believe was the case?

Or are you now going to suggest that the police let slip to Valerie which man was their suspect and she just went with that?

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

Hi DM,
One other point here, though. Valerie was able to single out Hanratty from the others in his line-up and she finally pronounced herself 100% certain when she heard his voice. Yet you believe the man who had actually raped and shot her looked - and presumably sounded - quite different from this latest police suspect. So while you might explain this away by saying she was a poor eye and ear witness, just like most people are, it doesn't explain what made her focus on Hanratty the suspect to start with. He didn't just look and sound to her more like her rapist than any of the other men in either line-up; she was certain this was the same man. Now that was a terribly unlucky coincidence for your Jim - or it has to count for something. What would the chances have been of her picking out the suspect, if he had not looked or sounded much like the actual rapist, as we are constantly being asked to believe was the case?

Or are you now going to suggest that the police let slip to Valerie which man was their suspect and she just went with that?

Love,

Caz
X

Mrs Dalal - who saw the man who attacked her quite clearly in broad daylight in her own home and who described him in detail - including the characteristic 'shortie raincoat' picked out Alphon as her attacker in an ID parade. She was so certain it was him that she was too terrified to tap him on the shoulder but she positively ID him. She picked out the suspect.

He was charged but didn't stand trial.

I suppose there was no evidence available to plant at the scene.

[caz]

I suppose there was no evidence available to plant at the scene.

Hi Limehouse,

How remiss of your hopelessly corrupt boys in blue, if they could find nothing to plant at the scene - especially if you believe the victim was spot on in this particular case and got the right man.

And this is meant to be an argument for the polar opposite happening to your poor sweet Jim lad?



Logic takes its leave when you need to believe.

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

Hi Limehouse,

How remiss of your hopelessly corrupt boys in blue, if they could find nothing to plant at the scene - especially if you believe the victim was spot on in this particular case and got the right man.

And this is meant to be an argument for the polar opposite happening to your poor sweet Jim lad?



Logic takes its leave when you need to believe.

Love,

Caz
X

Well - they thought they'd got Alphon banged to rights. He was charged with this attack the same day Valerie failed to pick him out as HER attacker. I am sure the police thought they'd got their man in Alphon because he fitted the ORIGINAL description - his behaviour was erratic in the period following the
A6 crime - he could not fully account for himself on the night of the attack and he was the only suspect in the attack on Mrs Dalal. It must have been a huge shock to them when Valerie didn't ID him.

Your point that she DID pickout the suspect the second time round has been much discussed and one could point out that

1. it took 20 minutes to reach a decision
2. Valerie had to ask each suspect to speak and Hanratty had a London accent
3. Hanratty's hair made him stand out
4. Hanratty didn't fit the original description

which to some of us slightly undermines the reliability of her testimony.

YOU and others believe that Hanratty's DNA was left on her underwear - but this evidence was not available at the trial and can be contradicted by others who are qualified scientists and dispute the reliability of the DNA in those particular circumstances.

[caz]

1. it took 20 minutes to reach a decision
2. Valerie had to ask each suspect to speak and Hanratty had a London accent
3. Hanratty's hair made him stand out
4. Hanratty didn't fit the original description

1. Valerie understandably needed to be 100% certain this time, and it's highly unlikely that this intelligent woman would have picked anyone from this second line-up if she couldn't be. She was only too well aware by now that the guilty man would not necessarily be there.
2. Belt and braces. A face can only begin to fade from one's memory if it was seen in the first place. Only seeing the same face again (preferably in the flesh, not just a photo) can refresh the memory and restore the original clarity, but the clincher would be the all too horribly familiar voice coming from that face, transporting her back to the hours spent in that tiny car, while he talked and she could only sit there listening to "Jim", in fear of her life.
3. So what? Would you pick someone out as your attacker on the basis that his hair looked strange compared with the others? What if it had been bright pink? Shaved off completely or a bad comb-over? Or a rug like Bruce Forsyth's? How would that have told Valerie he was even the police suspect, never mind the right man this time? She evidently knew it was him despite his ineffective attempt at disguise. If she had been raped by anyone else, his hair would have been even less like Hanratty's as it appeared in the line-up.
4. See my answer 2.

Do you seriously think the powers that be allowed Hanratty's remains to be dug up then engineered matching DNA profiles from the underwear fragment and the hanky? I don't even know if it would be possible to obtain results like that via error, guile or sheer invention, but that's what they got.

Those who argue that the underwear and hanky profiles were not a reliable match, either to each other or to Hanratty's bodily rermains, have yet to support that argument with any actual evidence. Their only fallback position seems to be that the profiles did match reliably, but contamination caused Hanratty's DNA to turn up on the underwear (while the rapist's escaped) and the hanky was planted.

These two positions are mutually exclusive so you need to decide which has more going for it and drop the other. They can't both be right and if Valerie, like your Mrs Dalal, reliably identified her attacker, so did the DNA.

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

Do you seriously think the powers that be allowed Hanratty's remains to be dug up then engineered matching DNA profiles from the underwear fragment and the hanky? I don't even know if it would be possible to obtain results like that via error, guile or sheer invention, but that's what they got.

Caz
X

No - I don't seriously think that - neither have I suggested it.

When you say 'results like that' what do you mean? They got NO meaningful results the first time round so how can you be so certain that the methods used several years later are so very reliable when scientists - people trained to understand such processes - cannnot agree over the validity of the results? It was hardly like a litmus test you know - they didn't just brush a stick over the 'deposits' on the knicker fragment and say 'hey presto ' it's a match!'

Secondly - the hanky was not found at the scene of crime and could have been placed with the gun by any number of people.

[Graham]

I thought I'd just have a quick say re: the DNA, not an aspect of the debate I've ever engaged in, because I'm not sufficiently qualified to do so. But the thing that I think bears repeating here (in a thread that is now so circular that I'm giddy already) is that the Hanratty family and defence pushed very hard for a DNA test, confident that the result would clear Jim. They were horrified when the original test did no such thing, and mortified when the repeat test proved that Jim did it.

As for the hanky, if it was indeed planted, then obviously it wasn't because the planter thought it'd show a positive DNA result. As Jim recognised the hanky as his, then if it was planted the planter must have known that it could be identified as Jim's, which to my mind suggests a monogram. However, I don't believe it was planted.

What this thread and the whole A6 debate needs desperately is something new, one way or the other, to get things moving again. Don't suppose it'll ever happen.

See you in another 3 months

Graham

[Dupplin Muir]

Hi Caz

I think that you haven't considered one possibility that I believe is extremely likely - that VS had no real idea of what the gunman looked like and was just picking people at random. She chose the wrong person in the first line-up and then (by chance) picked out Hanratty in the second. Doubtless if she'd picked someone else then the police would have chosen some other ne'er-do-well and had a third line-up.

Before you dismiss this, what do you think would have happened if she had picked Alphon in the first ID parade? The police would have patted her on the back and said 'well done' as they did with JH, and this would have convinced her that she'd actually got the right man. The police would hardly have said to themselves 'Well, she might have got it wrong so let's have another line-up just in case'. Alphon (like JH) offered two distinct alibis (meeting his mother/staying at the Vienna) but neither of these was anything like as strong as the Rhyl alibi - Alphon's mother would have sworn black was white to protect him, and Nudds had already given a second statement which destroyed the other alibi. Alphon also had the opportunity to leave the cartridge cases at the hotel.

At the trial VS would have testified against Alphon in just the same way she did against Hanratty, and the prosecution would have found a way to introduce evidence of his strange beliefs - his admiration for Hitler for example. This would have been a black mark against him because most people in court would remember the Second World War.

In the light of this I consider it certain that Alphon would have been convicted and executed, and the people here who are defending Hanratty's execution would be defending this in the same way - oh, and FSS would be claiming to have found Alphon's DNA on the cloth fragment...

DM

[Graham]

So if the Rhyl 'Alibi' was so strong, then why did Jim fart around with all that nonsense about staying in some flat in Liverpool?

Graham

[Limehouse]

I thought I'd just have a quick say re: the DNA, not an aspect of the debate I've ever engaged in, because I'm not sufficiently qualified to do so. But the thing that I think bears repeating here (in a thread that is now so circular that I'm giddy already) is that the Hanratty family and defence pushed very hard for a DNA test, confident that the result would clear Jim. They were horrified when the original test did no such thing, and mortified when the repeat test proved that Jim did it.

As for the hanky, if it was indeed planted, then obviously it wasn't because the planter thought it'd show a positive DNA result. As Jim recognised the hanky as his, then if it was planted the planter must have known that it could be identified as Jim's, which to my mind suggests a monogram. However, I don't believe it was planted.

What this thread and the whole A6 debate needs desperately is something new, one way or the other, to get things moving again. Don't suppose it'll ever happen.

See you in another 3 months

Graham

Hi Graham - nice to see you back posting. Peronsally - for me it makes no difference who asked for the DNA test. All the doubts I had about this case were formed well before the DNA tests were carried out. The DNA evidence - could never convince me Hanratty was guilty. YOU (and several others) at times have come closer to convincing me than the DNA could ever do.

YOu are right - the debate is rather circular - but at least it's reltiovely peaceful and civilised now.

Julie

[Limehouse]

Hi Caz

I think that you haven't considered one possibility that I believe is extremely likely - that VS had no real idea of what the gunman looked like and was just picking people at random. She chose the wrong person in the first line-up and then (by chance) picked out Hanratty in the second. Doubtless if she'd picked someone else then the police would have chosen some other ne'er-do-well and had a third line-up.

Before you dismiss this, what do you think would have happened if she had picked Alphon in the first ID parade? The police would have patted her on the back and said 'well done' as they did with JH, and this would have convinced her that she'd actually got the right man. The police would hardly have said to themselves 'Well, she might have got it wrong so let's have another line-up just in case'. Alphon (like JH) offered two distinct alibis (meeting his mother/staying at the Vienna) but neither of these was anything like as strong as the Rhyl alibi - Alphon's mother would have sworn black was white to protect him, and Nudds had already given a second statement which destroyed the other alibi. Alphon also had the opportunity to leave the cartridge cases at the hotel.

At the trial VS would have testified against Alphon in just the same way she did against Hanratty, and the prosecution would have found a way to introduce evidence of his strange beliefs - his admiration for Hitler for example. This would have been a black mark against him because most people in court would remember the Second World War.

In the light of this I consider it certain that Alphon would have been convicted and executed, and the people here who are defending Hanratty's execution would be defending this in the same way - oh, and FSS would be claiming to have found Alphon's DNA on the cloth fragment...

DM

Excellent post DM.

[caz]

When you say 'results like that' what do you mean? They got NO meaningful results the first time round so how can you be so certain that the methods used several years later are so very reliable when scientists - people trained to understand such processes - cannnot agree over the validity of the results? It was hardly like a litmus test you know - they didn't just brush a stick over the 'deposits' on the knicker fragment and say 'hey presto ' it's a match!'

Secondly - the hanky was not found at the scene of crime and could have been placed with the gun by any number of people.

Hi Limehouse,

I meant the very specific results according to the 2002 appeal judgement.

You have to explain in what way those results were 'unreliable', since a match was claimed between the single DNA profile obtained from the mucous staining on the hanky; the only 'suspicious' DNA profile obtained from the semen stained underwear; and Hanratty's bodily remains.

Are you saying that the profiles from hanky and knickers could not each have been reliably matched to Hanratty's remains? Or something else? If so, what exactly? Surely there would have been a lot more fuss made before now by experts in the field, not to mention the Hanratty family, their lawyers and supporters, if it simply wasn't possible to establish if either or both the profiles in question matched Hanratty's remains. In fact the judgement waxes lyrical on the infinitesimal chances of Hanratty's DNA turning up on both items and anyone else being responsible for this crime. His defenders only went down the potential contamination route because they were forced to accept the DNA identification as reliable and could only dispute its interpretation.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz

I think that you haven't considered one possibility that I believe is extremely likely - that VS had no real idea of what the gunman looked like and was just picking people at random. She chose the wrong person in the first line-up and then (by chance) picked out Hanratty in the second. Doubtless if she'd picked someone else then the police would have chosen some other ne'er-do-well and had a third line-up.

Are you serious, DM? Her only chance of choosing the right person from the first line-up was if he had been there, and clearly she didn't know Alphon from Adam or she would have chosen him. If she was just picking men at random, what were the chances of her picking the police suspect on either occasion? I'd be more inclined to believe that Hanratty had been signposted as the suspect in some way, except that it clearly didn't work with Alphon, or wasn't tried.

You seem to be dwelling in 'if' world where Valerie is concerned: she didn't pick Alphon in the first parade; she didn't pick 'someone else' in the second. So what the police would have done next means nothing. She didn't testify against Alphon, and how could she have done? Her rapist had blue eyes according to her testimony, and Alphon's were hazel. He didn't register with her during his line-up, while blue eyed Hanratty had the necessary impact. There never was any evidence against Alphon that could have led to his conviction for this crime, let alone a safe one. He'd have been charged and convicted if there had been a case. There wasn't.

If you seriously think the FSS were able to make up the DNA findings out of whole cloth (excuse the pun) and Hanratty's defenders meekly swallowed it, there is nothing that will ever make you think differently.

But I do wonder why they had to go to all the trouble of digging up Hanratty's remains if finding an innocent man guilty really was as easy as falling off a log.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Limehouse,

Since you described DM's post as 'excellent', forgive me if I continue to think you do seriously believe the DNA findings could have been 'engineered' to give the desired outcome.

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

Hi Limehouse,

Since you described DM's post as 'excellent', forgive me if I continue to think you do seriously believe the DNA findings could have been 'engineered' to give the desired outcome.

Love,

Caz
X

I think it is the method - LCN - of analysing the DNA that bothers me and if they had tested an Alphon sample using the same method I would have doubts about its reliability. I think the case against Alphon and Hanratty is weak.

Julie