A6 Rebooted

[Limehouse]

The ID parade should have people on it who look like the suspect. In this case the suspect was Alphon, so it is reasonable to assume that the other members on the parade bore a passing resemblance to Alphon rather than Hanratty.

As Valerie Storie believed she had to pick out someone it is not surprising that she picked out someone with Alphonesque characteristics. It would have been interesting to see all members on the parade and to see the extent that she picked out the member on the parade least like Alphon. Also if there were no blue eyed boys in the line up, then again it is hardly surprising she did not select someone with blue eyes.

The modern requirement is for colour photos or a colour video of the ID parade to be taken.

Precisely, but doesn't this throw doubt on the idea that VS had described her attacker as blue-eyed from the word go?

Surely Alphon would never have been a suspect if there was a reliable description of her attacker as blue-eyed almost from day one? How did Alphon end up being a suspect if he did not fit the description, even if his behaviour was odd?

And more to the point, if Clark resembled Alphon rather than Hanratty, how did the description of the attacker change so radically after Clark had been selected?

I don't buy the idea that she 'had to select someone'. That's nonsense. This was a murder, rape and attempted murder investigation. You simply cannot have people being identified just because the victim felt obliged to pick someone!

Kind regards,

Julie

[Sherlock Houses]

VS's identification of Michael Clark on September 24th 1961

I don't buy the idea that she 'had to select someone'. That's nonsense. This was a murder, rape and attempted murder investigation. You simply cannot have people being identified just because the victim felt obliged to pick someone!

You are absolutely spot-on, Limehouse.
Just in case there are any doubting Thomas's concerning this the following highlighted snippet from the Express of January 25th 1962 confirms this.....

[caz]

Thanks Spitfire ,I understand .
My information on this comes from a lawyer, Gareth Peirce and this is what she wrote in 2010:
"There are now new practices for evidence based that most fragile of human attributes ,visual memory.Witnesses must not be prompted;witnesses memory ,as far as possible ,must be as safely protected from contamination as a crime scene.The first description is vital. If a witness makes a positive identification of one individual ,no subsequent identification of a second is permissible. Equivocation and uncertainty are not enough.

Gareth Peirce , lawyer
2010

Hi Nats,

With respect, I think you have misinterpreted this to cover a second ID parade featuring a different suspect. Once Valerie had positively identified Michael Clarke in the first ID parade, no 'equivocation' or 'uncertainty' leading to a subsequent identification of Alphon or one of the other volunteers in that same ID parade would have been permissible. In short, you can't pick out one person and then change your mind and pick another from the same line-up. Quite properly, when she failed to pick out the suspect - Alphon - he was duly eliminated, and could not have been identified by her subsequently. Had she again failed to pick out the suspect - Hanratty this time - in the second parade, that would have been that, unless or until a third suspect could be unearthed.

In theory, umpteen suspects could have been eliminated in this way from as many parades before the real gunman was finally arrested and available for a line-up. But it would have been the first time Valerie had an opportunity to identify this new individual as her attacker, and quite unfair, not to say dangerous, if the opportunity was disallowed and he went free because she had previously picked out one of the non-suspects in the real killer's absence.

I also think this 'dark eyes' versus 'icy blue eyes' argument is a bit of a red herring, if you'll pardon the colourful pun. If Dr Rennie and Acott could not agree on the subject of Clarke's eyes, maybe we should give Valerie some slack on the issue, as we don't know if she saw those features in a Rennie sort of way or an Acott sort of way. The main thing is that she had accurately described Hanratty's eyes before he appeared in that second parade, which presumably helped her to identify him along with the voice.

I have still not had an answer from anyone regarding how Valerie would have known beforehand that the police suspect in that second parade would sport 'strange colour hair'. Was she also told to expect those 'icy blue eyes', or did they coincidentally match a false memory she had of her rapist's eye colour?

Love,

Caz
X

[Derrick]

...I have still not had an answer from anyone regarding how Valerie would have known beforehand that the police suspect in that second parade would sport 'strange colour hair'...

The press had, for several days prior, spread the police's information that they wanted a man in connection with the A6 murder who is known to dye his hair.

It is unlikely that Ms Storie would not have read these articles.

She agreed with Sherrard that that the colour of Hanratty's hair was most unnatural...bananas and carrots!

[caz]

Cheers Del. Just trying to catch up with the A6 case after a long absence.

Love,

Caz
X

[Rob63]

I haven`t posted on here for a while as I have nothing constructive to add. I rather resigned myself to the fact that Hanratty was guilty because of the DNA evidence, the only time this case has popped into my head since was trying to think of a motive/reason for the crime.
Last night I watched a docudrama called `Murder Detectives` on channel 4, based on a real life murder in Bristol. The murderer was seen on cctv entering premises wearing two gloves but on leaving was only wearing one glove. The other glove was found at the scene and dna tested with a very very good result. The dna matched a person known to the Police, who promptly brought him into custody. They were sure they had the right man until he told them to check cctv at a local pub. Lo and behold he was at the pub during the time of the murder so the Police had to release him.
They later got a tip off about a potential suspect who had skipped the country, I read up on the case and this chap was tried for the murder.
This is only the first episode, the other 2 are on tonight and Wednesday so I`m waiting to see if the glove dna pops up again.
Without the cctv footage at the pub, the initial suspect could have faced a trial and probably would have been convicted based on that DNA evidence.
I`m no longer sure if DNA evidence is as foolproof as it seems ?

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Rob63. Will get back to you on this as we now have a number of cases that have been thrown out of court because the LCN DNA tests were revealed to have been in total error.Very busy atm so it will probably not be until the New Year.
Best Wishes

[Rob63]

Watched the other 2 episodes, the glove popped up again in episode 3 where partial DNA of the second suspect was found. It wasn`t enough to say he definately had worn the glove, but he couldn`t be discounted completely.
In the end the Police didn`t need the forensics as he confessed and was sentenced to minimum 23 years.
I found the variations in DNA quality interesting, especially as the glove was examined within a few days of the crime taking place.
I`m still in the Jim is guilty camp for now, and pondering on a motive. Has there ever been a pyschological profile on Hanratty ?

[Spitfire]

The Channel 4 programme was interesting in other respects but really did not go into the DNA aspect of the case in any great detail.

It was never explained how the first suspect's (Thompson) DNA had found its way into the glove or whether this was a mistake on the part of the forensic laboratory and Thompson's DNA was never present but had been mis-identified.

As to the A6 case, Hanratty's DNA being found on the handkerchief has similarities with the glove, in that the simple fact that the gun was wrapped in Hanratty's hanky did not necessarily mean he had committed the crime. The same cannot be said about the knickers fragment, in that whoever deposited the semen on it was the rapist and therefore the murderer.

Like many, I was a supporter of Hanratty having felt that Foot and Woffinden had made a case for a miscarriage of justice. The two DNA pieces of evidence were rediscovered in the 1990s and both sides wanted DNA testing. It was only when the testing began to go against Hanratty did the defence side turn against the testing.

[Graham]

And of course, if Hanratty's DNA only got onto the knickers because of accidental contamination, where is the DNA of the actual rapist, as only one male DNA was found on the garment?

Graham

[OneRound]

And of course, if Hanratty's DNA only got onto the knickers because of accidental contamination, where is the DNA of the actual rapist, as only one male DNA was found on the garment?

Graham

Hi Graham - that's a very good post which points strongly at Hanratty's guilt. There are in fact so many pointers towards guilt (with no clear indicators in the direction of innocence) that provide me with a definite gut feeling 'he did it'.

However, holes can still be picked in several parts of the prosecution's case including the DNA. That along with non-disclosure at Hanratty's trial puts my legal mind in conflict with my gut and leads to my conclusion that Hanratty's guilt (even though he was guilty) was not proved fairly and beyond reasonable doubt.

I know some here don't like that legalistic approach (hiya Natalie!) but it's largely a game of opinions and that is mine.

As for the DNA referred to in your post, the most likely explanation has to be that Hanratty was the rapist of Valerie Storie and thus the murderer of Michael Gregsten. However, a couple of aspects which just might mean things are not so entirely clear cut:

1. It was a 'fragment' of the knickers that was left and able to be DNA tested. Could Hanratty's DNA have got on that fragment by contamination whilst the actual rapists's DNA was on another part of the knickers (not kept and therefore never DNA tested)?

2. There was some other male DNA on the knicker fragment but that was presumed or, as the Court of Appeal stated in their 2002 ruling, 'attributed' to Michael Gregsten. I may be missing something here but I find that very difficult to reconcile with what I have read as to when he last had sex with Valerie Storie. Given Hanratty's body was dug up to ensure there was no mistake over his DNA, it does seem remarkably odd that the Court were content to simply make such a presumption about the other male DNA.

I emphasise that my questions and comments in 1 and 2 above do nothing to establish Hanratty's innocence. However, whilst they are there, doubts over the finding of his guilt may persist.

Turning briefly to Rob's posts - I don't have their judgement in front of me but the Court of Appeal, to all intents and purposes, ruled that even if the DNA findings were to be ignored, Hanratty's guilt had still been clearly proven at his original trial. Some people may not like that judgement (I don't for one) but it was a highly effective 'belt and braces' method of preventing any further appeal on the grounds of DNA alone.

Best regards,
OneRound

[Limehouse]

The same cannot be said about the knickers fragment, in that whoever deposited the semen on it was the rapist and therefore the murderer.

Not necessarily. The semen might have belonged to a consenting male who was not the rapist and not MG.

The rapist's semen could have been deposited elsewhere on the knicker fragment. In any case, as VS testified that she removed her knickers before she was raped, as requested by the gunman, the deposit from the rapist could have been minimal.

[Limehouse]

Hi Graham - that's a very good post which points strongly at Hanratty's guilt. There are in fact so many pointers towards guilt (with no clear indicators in the direction of innocence) that provide me with a definite gut feeling 'he did it'.

However, holes can still be picked in several parts of the prosecution's case including the DNA. That along with non-disclosure at Hanratty's trial puts my legal mind in conflict with my gut and leads to my conclusion that Hanratty's guilt (even though he was guilty) was not proved fairly and beyond reasonable doubt.

I know some here don't like that legalistic approach (hiya Natalie!) but it's largely a game of opinions and that is mine.

As for the DNA referred to in your post, the most likely explanation has to be that Hanratty was the rapist of Valerie Storie and thus the murderer of Michael Gregsten. However, a couple of aspects which just might mean things are not so entirely clear cut:

1. It was a 'fragment' of the knickers that was left and able to be DNA tested. Could Hanratty's DNA have got on that fragment by contamination whilst the actual rapists's DNA was on another part of the knickers (not kept and therefore never DNA tested)?

2. There was some other male DNA on the knicker fragment but that was presumed or, as the Court of Appeal stated in their 2002 ruling, 'attributed' to Michael Gregsten. I may be missing something here but I find that very difficult to reconcile with what I have read as to when he last had sex with Valerie Storie. Given Hanratty's body was dug up to ensure there was no mistake over his DNA, it does seem remarkably odd that the Court were content to simply make such a presumption about the other male DNA.

I emphasise that my questions and comments in 1 and 2 above do nothing to establish Hanratty's innocence. However, whilst they are there, doubts over the finding of his guilt may persist.

Turning briefly to Rob's posts - I don't have their judgement in front of me but the Court of Appeal, to all intents and purposes, ruled that even if the DNA findings were to be ignored, Hanratty's guilt had still been clearly proven at his original trial. Some people may not like that judgement (I don't for one) but it was a highly effective 'belt and braces' method of preventing any further appeal on the grounds of DNA alone.

Best regards,
OneRound

A very good post OR.

[Limehouse]

And of course, if Hanratty's DNA only got onto the knickers because of accidental contamination, where is the DNA of the actual rapist, as only one male DNA was found on the garment?

Graham

I don't think that's quite right Graham. At least two DNA profiles were found, one 'attributed' to MG. However, the profiles were all mixed together and had to be 'separated out' using comparative profiles.

There may also have been some other minor DNA deposits (strands, I think) that did not match the complete profiles and may have come from other people who had handled the garment.

Obtaining an absolutely clear DNA from a garment of this age, when it has been handled multiple times and had plenty of time to degrade, is enormously difficult.

[moste]

.
.
Without the cctv footage at the pub, the initial suspect could have faced a trial and probably would have been convicted based on that DNA evidence.
I`m no longer sure if DNA evidence is as foolproof as it seems ?

Absolutely Rob. Low Copy Number DNA which was used on the A6 murder case, has been discredited around the world so much, It now seams that the UK and two other nations are the only countries who's forensics will deal with it.
I bought the book through kindle, by Rob Harriman, 'Hanratty The DNA Travesty: Did the DNA really prove his guilt?'
I found it too complex to digest to any great degree. However apart from bringing some new questions about the case to the table, He made it quite clear that he himself at any rate believed the DNA presentation to the courts, (where the defence was so poorly represented) was left wanting .
With his book as with most of others I have read; at the end, more questions than answers.