A6 Rebooted

[OneRound]

I really don't think we can rely on DNA being 100% trustworthy.

Louisa - 100% agreed as far as the Hanratty case goes.

The Court of Appeal not only shoddily relied upon it but also attributed great significance to something which was hardly relevant.

More to follow ....

Best wishes,

OneRound

[louisa]

The police regard the fact that somebody is probably innocent as being a minor legal technicality which doesn't need to stand in the way of a prosecution. Acott certainly did.

[OneRound]

The police regard the fact that somebody is probably innocent as being a minor legal technicality which doesn't need to stand in the way of a prosecution. Acott certainly did.

One of the very few things that all agree on in respect of this case is that Valerie Storie identified the wrong man on the first identification parade she attended.

It is very concerning to contemplate what would happened if the wrong man she had identified had been not been Michael Clark but prime suspect at the time Peter Alphon.

For starters:

* Acott would have grabbed Miss Storie by the arm and said ''Well done''.

* Alphon would have been formally charged and prosecuted.

* Acott would never have produced his list of why ''it couldn't have been Alphon''.

* Before trial, Alphon would have ''confessed'' to Roy Langdale or someone else of similar character.

I'm sure you can all continue ....

Best wishes,

OneRound

[Limehouse]

One of the very few things that all agree on in respect of this case is that Valerie Storie identified the wrong man on the first identification parade she attended.

It is very concerning to contemplate what would happened if the wrong man she had identified had been not been Michael Clark but prime suspect at the time Peter Alphon.

For starters:

* Acott would have grabbed Miss Storie by the arm and said ''Well done''.

* Alphon would have been formally charged and prosecuted.

* Acott would never have produced his list of why ''it couldn't have been Alphon''.

* Before trial, Alphon would have ''confessed'' to Roy Langdale or someone else of similar character.

I'm sure you can all continue ....

Best wishes,

OneRound

Excellent point OneRound. Some would say that 'justice had been done' Others would have formed a committee to campaign against the sentence.... and so it goes on.

What does interest me, is that hardly anyone seems to ponder on the possibility that both Hanratty and Alphon were blameless and that the killer got clean away.

What we have to ask ourselves (and many have done so over the years) is:
why did a gunman attack these two lovers parked in a cornfield?

There are a few possibilities:

1) he was a pervert
2) he was deranged
3) he had a reason for doing so - a 'mission' of some sort.

Point number three does not really seem to have featured high on the investigation team's list but i think it is the most likely reason given the evidence and circumstances.

have a good weekend everyone!

[louisa]

Some good points there.

Yes the murderer could have been somebody who just happened to be wandering around. It was a warm summer's evening after all. But somebody with a gun - in those days?

Limehouse - Your three points make sense and they all apply perfectly to Peter Alphon.


I don't want to say anything too detrimental about Valerie Storie, but yes she initially identified the wrong man.

Just a few days after her attack, Valerie had told Acott that she may not be able to identify her attacker as her memory was fading.

However, then - miraculously - her memory seemed to suddenly improve. She completely changed the look of her attacker from somebody who she described (immediately after the attack) as having deep set brown eyes and hair greased back - aged about 30 - to somebody with big saucer like blue eyes (exactly like Hanratty) age about 25.

It's strange that the look of her attacker significantly changed after Janet Gregsten's prolonged visit to her bedside.

It's a travesty of justice that anyone should hang on the strength of such a changeable (and therefore unreliable) eye witness account.

[Limehouse]

Hi Louisa,

Yes, it could have been someone just 'wandering around' but I find it unlikely. I think it is more likely (although not certain) that the couple were targeted and that the gunman was known to some, a very few, but was not Hanratty or Alphon. Working from that presumption, the gunman was party to the framing of Hanratty, along with others.

[louisa]

But do you think that William Ewer was behind it?

[caz]

Hi OneRound,

Only just caught up with this thread since my last visit - sorry.

Re Bentley, there was never any doubt that only Craig had a gun and only Craig could have murdered anyone with it. Also, Bentley had a lower mental age than Craig, and it was only the latter's age that saved his neck. So for me there is little comparison with the A6 case. Again, there is no evidence that anyone other than Hanratty fired the gun that night and raped Valerie.

You make a good point about anyone framing Hanratty not knowing that he would be unable to produce a verifiable alibi. Added to that, they could not have known that the rapist's blood group would match Hanratty's, nor that Valerie would oblige by picking him out, when he presumably would not have been a spitting image of the man who actually raped her. They certainly could not have rigged such indicative DNA results, no matter what we think of their reliability today.

If anything had gone wrong with this framing attempt, certain associates of Hanratty would have been in deep water and very quickly.

No, it doesn't work for me I'm afraid. The stuff of elaborate detective novels.

Love,

Caz
X

[louisa]

"there is no evidence that anyone other than Hanratty fired the gun that night and raped Valerie"

There is also no evidence that Hanratty was the man (other than dodgy DNA evidence which must have been contaminated) because Hanratty just could not have been the murderer, for the following simple fact.

He was in a Liverpool sweetshop at 5pm on the day of the murder (it could only have been that day). Liverpool is hundreds of miles north of Slough.

The times just don't add up and that, for me, is enough to clear Hanratty.

Hanratty didn't have the motive and he didn't have the opportunity. As for the murder weapon, Hanratty would have chucked it in the Thames - not hidden it under a bus seat where he knew it would be found the following day.

It all pointed to a frame-up. Why would Charles Frances present himself to Scotland Yard and volunteer the information that Hanratty told him that under the back seat of a bus was a good place to hide junk?

[Limehouse]

Hi OneRound,

Only just caught up with this thread since my last visit - sorry.

Re Bentley, there was never any doubt that only Craig had a gun and only Craig could have murdered anyone with it. Also, Bentley had a lower mental age than Craig, and it was only the latter's age that saved his neck. So for me there is little comparison with the A6 case. Again, there is no evidence that anyone other than Hanratty fired the gun that night and raped Valerie.

You make a good point about anyone framing Hanratty not knowing that he would be unable to produce a verifiable alibi. Added to that, they could not have known that the rapist's blood group would match Hanratty's, nor that Valerie would oblige by picking him out, when he presumably would not have been a spitting image of the man who actually raped her. They certainly could not have rigged such indicative DNA results, no matter what we think of their reliability today.

If anything had gone wrong with this framing attempt, certain associates of Hanratty would have been in deep water and very quickly.

No, it doesn't work for me I'm afraid. The stuff of elaborate detective novels.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz, Welcome back to the debate!

Concerning the blood group - I doubt whether anyone who involved themselves in such a frame up was even aware that some people's blood groups can be detected in body fluids so they would hardly have been bothering about the matter. Added to which - Blood group O is a common group even allowing for the fact that not all men release blood group evidence into their semen.

As has been discussed beofre, Valerie took 20 minutes to pick Hanratty out - and only after she had asked him to say those famous half dozen or so words.

The DNA evidence is questionable at the very least and as there are only a very few DNA specialists in the world, some of whom cannot even agree quite basic points about the reliability of DNA evidence obtained from such ancient samples, I think that debate will run and run.

Julie

[Limehouse]

But do you think that William Ewer was behind it?

Hmm, quite possibly but not certainly. Sorry to be so vague!

Julie

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Caz,

your sentence:
'Again, there is no evidence that anyone other than Hanratty fired the gun that night and raped Valerie Storie.'

There is no evidence that Hanratty fired the gun! None! No fingerprints on the gun they found, nothing whatever by way of a forensic link in the Morris Minor -despite the murder and blood,the rape and other body fluids.No fingerprints.BUt there were fingerprints that were not disclosed.Whose were they I wonder?


As for the blood group, 38% of us share the same blood group -ie approx 25 million of us British share the same blood group as Hanratty and Alphon who had the same blood group .

And btw Valerie Storie was in no doubt that she had picked out the right man [ Michael Clark] three weeks before.She was certain at that point---but we hear he had lightish hair and was heavily built!!!! Amazing he wasn't produced at the trial to see how closely he resembled Hanratty!
Best,
Norma

[louisa]

Out of all the accounts of true crime that I have read, and I've read hundreds maybe thousands, the Hanratty case is the one that made me sit up and think.

If one of us was to witness a murder right outside our home we would naturally report what we saw the police wouldn't we? A statement would (presumably) be taken, but then.......if we heard no more about it.....if we were not called as a witness.....we would just assume that our evidence was not required. We would never think, for a minute, that the police may be withholding our evidence because it would be prejudicial to the prosecution of the person they were trying to frame.

After reading how Acott either lost, altered, or withheld evidence, I have no confidence in the police. I doubt very much if things have changed since 1962.

[OneRound]

Hi OneRound,

Only just caught up with this thread since my last visit - sorry.

Re Bentley, there was never any doubt that only Craig had a gun and only Craig could have murdered anyone with it. Also, Bentley had a lower mental age than Craig, and it was only the latter's age that saved his neck. So for me there is little comparison with the A6 case. Again, there is no evidence that anyone other than Hanratty fired the gun that night and raped Valerie.

You make a good point about anyone framing Hanratty not knowing that he would be unable to produce a verifiable alibi. Added to that, they could not have known that the rapist's blood group would match Hanratty's, nor that Valerie would oblige by picking him out, when he presumably would not have been a spitting image of the man who actually raped her. They certainly could not have rigged such indicative DNA results, no matter what we think of their reliability today.

If anything had gone wrong with this framing attempt, certain associates of Hanratty would have been in deep water and very quickly.

No, it doesn't work for me I'm afraid. The stuff of elaborate detective novels.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

A warm welcome back from me too.

Very good of you to be so complimentary about part of my post - even if it was the part that supports your argument!

Anyway, back to the Bentley case.

There is considerable sympathy for Bentley having been hanged; not least because of his low mental age and the clearly greater role played by Craig who was too young to be executed.

Nonetheless, the Court of Appeal suggested Bentley was guilty of murder - ''a properly directed jury would have been entitled to convict''.

Bentley's conviction was quashed because and only because his trial was ''unfair''.

If Hanratty's trial is shown also to be ''unfair'', is it not right that his conviction too be quashed?

Best regards,

OneRound

[Natalie Severn]

The two boys were out with a gun that night so one is entitled to ask what they intended doing out with a gun that night ? A policeman was shot at and died.
But Bentley it seems had nothing to do with that specific incident as he was already in police custody when the policeman was shot so how could he be guilty of murder? He was charged as an accomplice........