A6 Rebooted

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie - this question followed your possible suggestion that the police had planted cartridges in the Vienna hotel. Interested in your view. Be as dismissive as you wish - you always set the highest watermark for tact and diplomacy on this forum.

I'll try to put together an email this weekend covering my concerns about the DNA ''evidence'' and the Court's over reliance upon it, including when dismissing other avenues of appeal However, it should be noted that other headline verdicts this week will further hinder Hanratty's cause.

Best regards,

OneRound

Hi OneRound,

Sorry not to have responded to that question.

I think it is highly unlikely that the police planted the hanky at the crime scene. If the police wanted to frame Hanratty at that stage, they would have had more or less the same amount of evidence then as they had when they went to trial and would not have bothered with Alphon.

I definitely think the cartridges were planted, although not necessarily by the police. It is possible they were placed there in order to incriminate Alphon, who was the main suspect at the time, but they could equally have been planted by the people who 'planted' the gun etc. After all, by that stage, several people knew where Hanratty had been on the day before the crime.

best wishes to you.

Julie

[OneRound]

Hi OneRound,

Sorry not to have responded to that question.

I think it is highly unlikely that the police planted the hanky at the crime scene. If the police wanted to frame Hanratty at that stage, they would have had more or less the same amount of evidence then as they had when they went to trial and would not have bothered with Alphon.

I definitely think the cartridges were planted, although not necessarily by the police. It is possible they were placed there in order to incriminate Alphon, who was the main suspect at the time, but they could equally have been planted by the people who 'planted' the gun etc. After all, by that stage, several people knew where Hanratty had been on the day before the crime.

best wishes to you.

Julie

Hi Julie - I wasn't suggesting that the police had planted the hanky on the bus along with the gun and ammo. I was just wondering if they might have replaced it with one of Hanratty's hankies by the time the case reached court.

That's probably too fanciful. However, I remain mystified that Hanratty could and did admit that the hanky shown in court was his.

One possible explanation might be that the hanky (shown in court) bore a distinctive monogramme. However, if that was the case, why didn't Acott ask the media to broadcast that loudly as soon as the hanky was found?

As far as I'm aware, the bus cleaner never identified in court the hanky being shown to the jury as the same one he found.

Even as the originator of this aspect, I'm not convinced about it. However, I think it at least merits being considered and then fully ruled out if it can be.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie - I wasn't suggesting that the police had planted the hanky on the bus along with the gun and ammo. I was just wondering if they might have replaced it with one of Hanratty's hankies by the time the case reached court.

That's probably too fanciful. However, I remain mystified that Hanratty could and did admit that the hanky shown in court was his.

One possible explanation might be that the hanky (shown in court) bore a distinctive monogramme. However, if that was the case, why didn't Acott ask the media to broadcast that loudly as soon as the hanky was found?

As far as I'm aware, the bus cleaner never identified in court the hanky being shown to the jury as the same one he found.

Even as the originator of this aspect, I'm not convinced about it. However, I think it at least merits being considered and then fully ruled out if it can be.

Best regards,

OneRound

Wow! I hadn't even considered the idea that the hanky may have been substituted just before the trial! What a thought! Well, I would not rule it out, but at that point in time, there was no real advantage to doing so unless there were initials on the hanky. There was no forensic advantage to doing such a thing in those days.

[Graham]

Hi Julie,

With regard to other possible police suspects in the A6 Case, it has been commented upon many times in the past that a very large part of the official police files were never made public. Whether they were all made available to either the defence or the prosecution, obviously I don't know. However, the point I'm trying to make is that it is extremely unlikely that Hanratty and Alphon were the only suspects, and there are hints in the various writings on the case that the police interviewed a number of persons prior to either Alphon or, later, Hanratty being in the frame. The police needed to be seen as being on the ball. Naturally, anyone who was hauled in as part of the A6 inquiries would very likely not wish to publicise the fact. I can't recall anyone, over the intervening years, coming out with a story along the lines "I was suspected as being the A6 killer", even though such a story would be potentially profitable.

One small side story: do you recall that a former military policeman at RAF Halton once claimed that he'd guarded Hanratty when the police organised an identity-parade at Halton? I can't recall the policeman's name, but it'll be somewhere on this thread. He said that the man he claimed was Hanratty was very nervous and smoked all the time - as we all know, Hanratty was a non-smoker. I wonder if the guy the policeman was guarding was a genuine 'other suspect' who perhaps at a later date the policeman connectedwith Hanratty? Little wonder he was smoking heavily if Acott had got the arm on him for the A6, whoever he was.

Cheers,

Graham

[OneRound]

Wow! I hadn't even considered the idea that the hanky may have been substituted just before the trial! What a thought! Well, I would not rule it out, but at that point in time, there was no real advantage to doing so unless there were initials on the hanky. There was no forensic advantage to doing such a thing in those days.

Hi again Julie - I completely agree there was ''no forensic advantage to doing such a thing in those days''.

The advantage to the police and prosecution was Hanratty's identification of the hanky and admission in court that it was his. Sorry to labour the point but how could Hanratty do that?

It must have needed something a lot more unique than just the colour of the hanky. Possibly initials or some other distinctive monogramme. That then takes me back to my earlier question today. Why didn't Acott inform the media of the monogramme immediately the hanky was found? Or did the monogramme magically appear between the hanky being found on the bus and appearing in court?

Best regards,

OneRound

[caz]

Some good points, Caz.

Only a tiny fragment of Valerie Storie's knickers were kept. I can't help but wonder about the rest of the garment. If the entire garment had been DNA tested, I wonder if Alphon's DNA would have been present?

Thanks, Louisa.

The point is, there would have been absolutely no point in retaining just this 'tiny' fragment unless it was known to be stained with the rapist's group O semen. I think it's clutching at straws to imagine any alternative scenario, considering this was done very early on and they were well aware that they were dealing with two semen deposits from men with different blood groups.

DNA from this fragment was eventually matched to the victim (again, as you'd expect - it was her own garment) and to the convicted man's remains and hanky, the remaining DNA being attributed to her lover. There were apparently no unexpected 'extras' or omissions to account for.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz - and happy New Year to you and all.

These are good points...

...Whether there was an 'exact' match for Hanratty's DNA on the knicker fragment is open to contention since the DNA extracted was a mixture of several profiles.

Thanks, Limehouse.

Why say 'several' profiles when you know that just the three were indicated - the precise number you'd expect, considering the nature of the beast? There is nothing here to suggest either contamination or unreliable testing, yet both must be argued for by those with faith in Hanratty's complete innocence.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

...I remain mystified that Hanratty could and did admit that the hanky shown in court was his.

Hi OneRound,

For whatever reason, Hanratty evidently felt honesty to be the best policy at this point. Maybe he feared they had already established the hanky to be his via other means and that denial would only makes things worse for him. Maybe they had matched it to others he owned, if he had bought a pack of three for example.

What would make even less sense would be saying it was his if it wasn't. And that gives us, by an ironic twist of fate, confirmation that the eventual DNA match between the hanky and his remains was perfectly reliable. So although you quite rightly observed that this DNA match went no further than to confirm his own admission, we can turn that on its head and use his admission as evidence that the methods employed to pick up and match DNA profiles from cloth were basically sound in this particular case. There is no evidence specific to this case that the results were not sound.

Love,

Caz
X

[louisa]

I'm going to have to apologize for sounding like an old broken LP record, but I have to conclude that Hanratty was totally innocent of this crime - simply because it is physically impossible for him to have been in two places at almost the same time (the Liverpool sweetshop at 5.30pm on the 22nd and then the cornfield in Slough at 8.45pm on the 22nd).

[Natalie Severn]

I'm going to have to apologize for sounding like an old broken LP record, but I have to conclude that Hanratty was totally innocent of this crime - simply because it is physically impossible for him to have been in two places at almost the same time (the Liverpool sweetshop at 5.30pm on the 22nd and then the cornfield in Slough at 8.45pm on the 22nd).

And certainly if you had met some of the people in Rhyl that I have- the librarian at Rhyl library who grew up close by and went to school with Ivy Vincent's daughter,the lady who runs the print shop in Kinmel Street and still knows the Duttons,and used to go to the local club with Mrs Jones, Mrs Vincent and Mrs Davies and who speaks so kindly of these women as well as Mrs Walker who she did not know personally but knew of both her decency and honesty---this lady was quite horrified by the suggestio that people thought they were all lying for some reason........why would they?
As for the LCN DNA tests---as Gareth Peirce says in her book Dispatches from the Dark Siden torture and the death of justice,:

'it is not difficult to achievea conviction of the innocent ,over many decades particular contributory factors have been identified:
1]the co-operation of witnesses by means of inducements and fear of the alternative---think of the evidence of Juliana Galves, William Nudds,Roy Langdale,Louise Anderson

2]'identification' evidence---which is no such thing-----think of the evidence of Valerie Storie,Trower and Skillett none of which would be acceptable under today's standards

3]The provision of factual certainty by scientists where there is no proper basis for it.....

This last has become a bit of a scandal actually---more later

[louisa]

Very true Natalie.

I have a bit of a problem with DNA generally.

What percentage of the 7 billion people on this planet have been DNA tested and profiled? I would suggest a small percentage overall.

How is it possible then, that a scientist can announce that somebody is guilty because "there is a 2 billion to one chance that he did it" ?

What I am saying that it just isn't possible (is it?) to categorically state that no two people, except identical twins, have the same DNA profile. Maybe it's just a case that two people with the same DNA haven't surfaced yet.

This theory, of course, wouldn't hold much water in a court of law though.

[OneRound]

I'm going to have to apologize for sounding like an old broken LP record, but I have to conclude that Hanratty was totally innocent of this crime - simply because it is physically impossible for him to have been in two places at almost the same time (the Liverpool sweetshop at 5.30pm on the 22nd and then the cornfield in Slough at 8.45pm on the 22nd).

Louisa - apology accepted. No problem.

I'm sure all agree that Hanratty couldn't have been in two places at almost the same time. Unfortunately, many - including the Court of Appeal - have already applied the same reasoning and concluded that Hanratty couldn't have been in the Liverpool sweetshop.

There may be something in the sweetshop claim but as presented by the Defence (and commented upon admirably by Graham shortly before Christmas) it resembles more a bucket with holes than a water tight alibi.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Natalie Severn]

There may be something in the sweetshop claim but as presented by the Defence (and commented upon admirably by Graham shortly before Christmas) it resembles more a bucket with holes than a water tight alibi.

Best regards,

OneRound

......well One Round if you have ever examined the claim the prosecution made about the sweetshop alibi-which they took very seriously indeed---you would split your sides laughing!It is a bit like a Charlie Chaplin skit!Talk about a bucket with holes in it!
Lets not forget they had the gunman carrying out an 'unpremeditated 'sex attack' and Acott suggested in all seriousness that Hanratty could have gone to Speke airport where there was a regular air service to the South and that this was how he had managed somehow to get from Liverpool to Buckinghamshire in the four hours possible!
Swanwick colluded in this and later suggested that Hanratty may have paid someone in advance to go into the sweetshop and ask for Carlton or Tarleton Road---all this to get to that cornfield and carry out the 'unpremeditated' sex attack five hours later on the A6 lay-by!----and on a girl he had never before seen or made a pass at.[The judge actually warned the jury about the illogicality of the paid Liverpool alibi ie JH paying some chap who looked like him to go into Mrs Dinwoodie's shop asking for Tarleton or Carlton Road .

With all due courtesy and good faith
Norma

[OneRound]

......well One Round if you have ever examined the claim the prosecution made about the sweetshop alibi-which they took very seriously indeed---you would split your sides laughing!It is a bit like a Charlie Chaplin skit!Talk about a bucket with holes in it!
Lets not forget they had the gunman carrying out an 'unpremeditated 'sex attack' and Acott suggested in all seriousness that Hanratty could have gone to Speke airport where there was a regular air service to the South and that this was how he had managed somehow to get from Liverpool to Buckinghamshire in the four hours possible!
Swanwick colluded in this and later suggested that Hanratty may have paid someone in advance to go into the sweetshop and ask for Carlton or Tarleton Road---all this to get to that cornfield and carry out the 'unpremeditated' sex attack five hours later on the A6 lay-by!----and on a girl he had never before seen or made a pass at.[The judge actually warned the jury about the illogicality of the paid Liverpool alibi ie JH paying some chap who looked like him to go into Mrs Dinwoodie's shop asking for Tarleton or Carlton Road .

With all due courtesy and good faith
Norma

Hi Natalie - as I'm sure you know, I'm no fan of the police conduct throughout this case. Dealing with the pssibility of the sweetshop alibi was hardly Swanwick's finest legal hour either.

However, Louisa presented it as establishing for her ''that Hanratty was totally innocent of this crime''. All of us are of course entitled to our own views and I trust that will always continue. However, Louisa cannot expect all others to share that same view when there have never been any clear and unequivocal supporting witness statements.

Significantly, the Court of Appeal took a different view from Louisa about the sweetshop. I cannot see their view on that changing in isolation.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Natalie Severn]

However, Louisa cannot expect all others to share that same view when there have never been any clear and unequivocal supporting witness statements.

Significantly, the Court of Appeal took a different view from Louisa about the sweetshop. I cannot see their view on that changing in isolation.

Best regards,

OneRound

Regarding the view of the Court of Appeal they seemed to glide over a lot of things instead of staying with the specific detail and answering it exactly---for example --they have no explanation for the very different 'undisclosed statements' about the car parked in Avondale crescent made by Margaret Thompson and Doreen Milne.No real explanation either about the driver of an MM that morning with same car reg in green bobble hat seen far far from London am the same green bobble hat that was seen on the enlarged images in colour of what was found in the murder car---just something about mileage details which could or could not have explained/countered it----but did not because we simply don't know how accurate Gregsten's notes were!tHey called it the 'high water mark of non'disclosure ' but nobody bothered to attend to it properly ---Why?

This evidence would totally contradict that of Trower and Skillett-the only people ever to have made a positive s[?]sighting --but already contradicted by the other two witnesses that were with them at the time[Blackhall and Hogan]
so that leaves just Valerie Storie as a witness.
Her 'eye witness + voice recognition' would be bowled out of court today.She had altered her 1st identikit descriptionof 26th August to the August 31st decription[ that had him with icy blue ones---yet the first identikit was directed by herself and
described a man with an oval jawline totally unlike Hanratty's who -in both identikit pics -had dark eyes and a clear hairline---again totally different from the widows peak hair line of Hanratty and his light blue eyes--
Not just that but she went on to identify Michael Clark-ie on her first identity parade.What if he had not been a volunteer? Would he have swung to?