A6 Rebooted

[Derrick]

...then the result has to be accepted.

By whom and why?

You have yet to convince me of Hanratty's guilt and going on your recent performance you never will.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Hatchett,
But the entire case is characterised by inconsistencies.Evidence was never offered regarding Hanratty it was all pure speculation.Valerie's initial description and the photofit drawing she helped draw up bore no relation to Hanratty neither in eye colour ,hair line , face shape or nose shape.Moreover she misidentified first off and Valerie was the sole witness,everything depended upon her identification.
Today that case would never have got past the committal proceedings.
All every appeal connected with the case has ever done is obfuscate evidence that has been produced.Its been obfuscation all the way ---by the prosecution,obfuscation as an art.Nothing adds up in their world: Hanratty went to Liverpool on the 21st to set up his alibi for spontaneous rape, and then took the plane back to London to prepare for it! Thats what they suggested ---Swanwick and Acott.It beggars belief.
Norma

[Hatchett]

Hello Derrick,

It is not upto me to convince you of his guilt. All I was doing was clarifying the situation.

Hanratty was tried before a jury and convicted. His Appeal failed. The DNA upheld the verdict.

I think in order for you to be convinced or not convinced of his guilt you would need a time machine, and then by some miracle of time be selected to be on the jury, and make a decision on the evidence presented.

Best wishes.

[Dupplin Muir]

Yes, the Hanratty family may well have wanted a DNA test, but this doesn't mean that they wanted the DNA test they actually got. I think an analogy would be useful here. Suppose I wanted a divorce, but when I got to court I found that the presiding judge was my wife's brother. In this case I would naturally expect that he would step down on the grounds of a conflict of interest. If he didn't, because he claimed that he would be totally impartial, then the hearing would just be a farce. I would be rather displeased if someone said 'But you wanted a divorce, so you just have to put up with whatever you get'.

The same strictures apply to FSS: they should have refused to carry out the DNA tests because any evidence they could give would be tainted by their close association with the police and CPS. They cannot run with the fox and hunt with the hounds. In fact, FSS themselves admit they are biased - I remember reading an newspaper article in which they were asked why they never worked on behalf of the defence. Their spokesman replied that they would do work for the defence - but that anything they found would also be passed to the prosecution. Note that (afaik) they have never supplied the defence with information when they worked on behalf of the police or CPS. They appear to have internalised the corrupt police attitude that, while the prosecution should be entitled to have all the evidence in the case, the defence should be denied anything that might help them. This is why we have the present form of police caution - a suspect is not allowed to keep his defence secret until the trial (as he would in the past), but is forced to disclose it so that the police have an opportunity to twist the evidence to discredit it.

Further, the police admit that DNA tests are worthless - but only when the DNA of a policeman or woman is associated with a crime! When DNA testing was introduced, the government suggested that every member of the police should give a reference sample for elimination purposes. The police objected because they claimed that criminals would plant police DNA at the scene of their crimes. The illogicality and hypocrisy of this argument is breathtaking: if criminals wanted to incriminate members of the police, they could do so whether there was a reference database or not. Secondly, why would criminals restrict themselves to the police? They might just plant the DNA of innocent members of the public to confuse the issue, but of course the police didn't want to pursue this line of reasoning because it would lead to the inevitable conclusion that DNA testing was worthless: you could never tell whether the DNA belonged to the perpetrator or had been deliberately planted.

Lastly, when DNA was introduced, the prosecution gave an undertaking that no-one would ever be convicted on the basis of DNA evidence alone - and we all know how well that promise has been kept...

[Hatchett]

Hi Dupplin Muir,

I do not think that your analogy actually applies. For one thing if you found out that there was a conflict of interest then either you or your legal representative could quite rightly bring that to the attention of the court, and request that the decision maker was removed. If he or she wasnt removed then there would be legal grounds for conplaint.

If that wasnt so, then are you saying that you would not go ahead with a divorce? That surelly is a nonsense.

In the Hnaratty case we are not talking about individuals we are talking about a scientific test. Whether you argue that it is 100 percent or less than that the Hanratty family knew what it was. It is immaterial what agency provides that information or what views they have. The results are the results.

It is very bad form, in my opinion, to request the test and when the test goes against you to shout "foul!"

Best wishes.

[babybird67]

I still don't understand..

what the motivation would be for the 'Establishment' not to clear Hanratty if he was really innocent, when they have demonstrably admitted fault regarding other miscarriages of justice. What is so special about Hanratty that this should be the case?

Also, I do not understand continued challenge of the DNA results. I could understand this if the results were just that Hanratty's DNA was found there. This is not what was found. What was found was that:

a/ his DNA was present as a result of primary, not secondary, transfer; i.e., it was not contamination.

b/ his semen was present in a distribution with the victim's in a 'typical distribution' found after two people have had sex; i.e; he had sex with Valerie Storie; i.e. he raped her.

That means he was the A6 killer. I really do not see how these results can be argued against, other than with the highly unlikely conspiracy theories which abound on this thread.

[caz]

Exactly so, bb. And if Alphon's DNA (or A.N Other's) had turned up instead of Hanratty's, there would have been no way on earth for such a result to be covered up, and team Hanratty would have rightly cheered their victory from the rooftops.

The excuses for the DNA results are getting more and more longwinded and desperate. I can't see anything I've read on this thread amounting to grounds for wiping out those results as if they never existed, and that wouldn't even address the officially 'strong' case without them.

Gerry Conlan was serving a 30 year sentence for charges of murder connected with bombing .In October 1989 after serving 15 years he and three others on the same charges were cleared .The Lord Chief Justice quashed their conviction.
The reason? The prosecution had withheld evidence from the defence concerning Conlan's alibi at a hostel .
It was a statement , dated January 1975,made before the trial,by a man who worked as a green grocer , who had seen Conlan at the hostel they were both staying at. The statement detailed the name of the witness and the date the statement was taken.Gareth Peirce,Conlan's solicitor, had turned up a bundle of papers tied up with a label that read 'Not to be disclosed to the defence'.She opened the box ,turned over a piece of paper and there was the statement.
End of story.Conlan and his three compatriots walked free.

And?

I'm asking what grounds you think there are for another appeal to be granted in the A6 case, and what hope you think there is of getting 'strong' changed to anything else.

Once again, do those grounds exist today, and in a coherent form, or have they yet to be conjured up somehow and made to look presentable in law?

Why put anything on a bus that might not even have been discovered?

That is an excellent question, bb. The bus hidey-hole sounds much more like something a none too bright petty crook might do out of habit mingled with a desperation to 'get rid' pretty sharpish. It's worked for him in the past so he tries it again now, although this time it's a murder weapon.

The alternative is that France 'got rid', in a Hanratty-like manner, because he knew or strongly suspected what the gun was used for and who used it, and he didn't want the thing connected to himself in any way.

As you say, anyone wanting to set up a completely innocent Hanratty would surely have planted the gun where it would definitely be discovered and linked to him.

The various conspiracy theories don't hold water and don't hang together. All the people who would have to be involved from 1961 to 2002 were not even on the same side!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

They might just plant the DNA of innocent members of the public to confuse the issue, but of course the police didn't want to pursue this line of reasoning because it would lead to the inevitable conclusion that DNA testing was worthless: you could never tell whether the DNA belonged to the perpetrator or had been deliberately planted.

Anyone notice how the argument has changed again from not being able to identify DNA reliably, to not being able to interpret its presence reliably. Why the devil would anyone bother to plant someone's DNA at the scene if it can't be reliably identified as that person's?

All I know is that without DNA evidence, Sally Anne Bowman's innocent boyfriend would now be serving life for her brutal murder, while the real killer Mark Dixie would almost certainly have offended again by now. Could have been my daughter next time. I wonder what Sally's parents would think of the efforts around here to reduce DNA testing to a worthless tool. I find it quite disgusting actually.

Love,

Caz
X

[babybird67]

hear hear Caz

i find it extremely worrying as well. If I had been raped and the perpetrator's semen was mixed with my own bodily fluids on my knickers AND i had identified him and people were still claiming this wasn't reliable evidence, I'd be so angry. I really don't comprehend the vision of the justice system this attitude seems to argue for.

Jen x

[Natalie Severn]

So we are expected to accept on a wing and a prayer that the forensic scientists managed to extract from a miniscule amount of DNA that was automatically destroyed in its entirety during the process -----[/B] "a typical distribution of seminal and vaginal fluid of James Hanratty and Valerie Storie after 43 years in a police lab

Can we know at least why it was that Michael Gregsten's had disappeared off the radar?

[babybird67]

the same tests that Hanratty's family and supporters campaigned for for years in the belief that it would clear him you mean? And only when they didn't produce the required result did they suddenly object to how the items were stored etc.

[Natalie Severn]

the same tests that Hanratty's family and supporters campaigned for for years in the belief that it would clear him you mean? And only when they didn't produce the required result did they suddenly object to how the items were stored etc.

In my view they should never have put their faith in a 'justice system' that is so riddled with miscarriages of justice anf falsification of evidence. Hiya Jen!

Not after 'obfuscating Lord Hawhsaw'!

[babybird67]

hiya Nats

in that case no matter what appeal is brought it will be rejected because the system is corrupt? In that case, can you explain the other miscarriages of justice which have been exposed etc such as Bentley and the verdict amended? What is so special about Hanratty in this case? And can you explain what on earth the point would be in bringing any further appeals if the system is so corrupt that it will never make the 'right' decision in the Hanratty case?

And what was the point of campaigning for tests if - when they don't yield the results you want - you start to complain the tests arent fair? The tests were deemed fair enough when being campaigned for by Hanratty supporters etc...its only when they didn't like the conclusions of the tests they had to change tack and try to argue (unsuccessfully) that the tests themselves are flawed.

[Derrick]

So we are expected to accept on a wing and a prayer that the forensic scientists managed to extract from a miniscule amount of DNA that was automatically destroyed in its entirety during the process -----[/b] "a typical distribution of seminal and vaginal fluid of James Hanratty and Valerie Storie after 43 years in a police lab

Can we know at least why it was that Michael Gregsten's had disappeared off the radar?

Hi Norma

At paragraph 125 of the CACD ruling in Hanratty the judges say that there was the DNA attributed to Gregsten.

That can only mean that alleles that didn't match Hanratty were found but were attributed to Gregsten.

Any one of those so called Gregsten alleles could also be part of another profile made up of alleles attributed to Hanratty.

Remember that mixed profile interpretation of LCN has not been validated even in the light of the Reed appeal of 2009.

Derrick.

[babybird67]

they were attributed to Gregsten, presumably, because Valerie knew who she had had sex with that night.

Hanratty's was there as a product of primary transfer, and in a distrubution with the victim's 'typical' of when two people have sex. It wasn't just accidentally there.