A6 Rebooted

[Limehouse]

Hello Tony,

I must make it clear that I do not believe all people from Bedfordshire to be dimwits, only a high proportion and this was reflected in the intellectual composition of the jury.

Ron

I assume you carried out relevant tests to determine the intellectual composition of the jury? You were quite critical of people you think are not qualified to comment on the scientific aspects of this case so could we know how you know so much about the intellectual capabilities of a jury that sat in a courtroom almost 50 years ago?

[Limehouse]

Derrick wrote:

The actual results are unknown to anyone here so Victor must support his opinion with solid evidence as source tissue is unknowable from DNA testing.

Vic wrote:

Paragraph 120 from the judgment:
Dr Evison [the Defence expert] seems to accept that in the case of the knicker fragment the contaminant would have to be semen.

Whether he was the defence expert or not - how could he 'seem to accept' something that is not actually able to be established according to current scientific knowledge?

Was that line actually in the judgement and if so is Dr Evison being misunderstood or misquoted? Surely a scientist would not 'seem to accept' something?

[caz]

There is a Tarleton Street in Liverpool, Rhyl, Burnley and Manchester.

Hi Derrick,

But Hanratty only claimed to be in Liverpool, and later Rhyl, when his semen (unless evidence to the contrary surfaces) was being deposited on a woman's underwear considerably further south.

There must have been a reason for Hanratty to suddenly decide he had gone on to Rhyl. Now if you accept that he genuinely had been asking for Liverpool's Tarleton St, while in Liverpool, and was also familiar with Rhyl's seafront and the roads leading directly off it, do you not find it a trifle odd that he said nothing, while fighting for his life during the trial, about asking for those rather specific directions before moving on to Rhyl, and then gave Rhyl, with its own very easy-to-find Tarleton St, as his shiny new improved alibi, when Liverpool's example could surely have saved his neck if only he had thought to mention his enquiry there?

None of it smells right and the jury smelled rotten fish.

Love,

Caz
X

[NickB]

do you not find it a trifle odd that he said nothing, while fighting for his life during the trial, about asking for those rather specific directions before moving on to Rhyl

I thought he told the police (via Mr Kleinmann) about asking for Tarleton Road on 13th October, just after arriving at Bedford for the Skillet / Blackall / Trower id parade.

[Victor]

That is a complete misrepresentation of what I was explaining to Babybird. Babybird was speculating on people's reaction to the DNA analysis in other cases and she specifically mentioned Jo Yates in Bristol - the scientific details of which have not been made public. There is a difference between comparing cases that have been tested and found wanting and cases that have not even seen the inside of a court room.

Hi Julie,

How did I misrepresent you? I flipped your argument but maintained the logic.

The point is that we have results in Hanratty, and results in Mr E and many many others. Derrick is arguing that the conclusions from the results in Mr E were wrong, therefore the conclusions from the results in Hanratty are likely to be wrong. This is ridiculous because he is ignoring the conclusions from the results in the many other cases, such as Napper where the LCN conclusions were correct. Therefore it's just as valid to argue that the Napper conclusions are correct therefore the Hanratty conclusions are correct.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

how could he 'seem to accept' something that is not actually able to be established according to current scientific knowledge?

Hi Julie,

You are wrong. It is possible to discriminate sperm heads from other DNA sources.

Secondly, presumably he refused to state he accepts the proposition - otherwise he'd be fired just like Lincoln was, so much for an unbiased defence - but he could not honestly and legitimately deny it.

Was that line actually in the judgement and if so is Dr Evison being misunderstood or misquoted? Surely a scientist would not 'seem to accept' something?

Yes the line was in paragraph 120 of the judgment, and I gave the link to it too so you could see for yourself. Here it is again -> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/1141.html

I don't think he was either misunderstood nor misquoted - the judgment is the 3 judges opinion of what he said, so the above is a plausible explanation but not the only possibility.

KR,
Vic.

[caz]

I thought he told the police (via Mr Kleinmann) about asking for Tarleton Road on 13th October, just after arriving at Bedford for the Skillet / Blackall / Trower id parade.

Hi Nick,

Do you happen to know exactly what Hanratty was able to say about his alleged request(s) for directions, ie before the sweet shop lady was sought out?

What I'm trying to get at is how many details were confirmed independently by the sweet shop lady; how many new ones she gave, that Hanratty never mentioned; and why - if the two stories had enough in common - could Hanratty's defence not have made a hell of a lot more of this in order to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that he was at least in Liverpool at some point during the critical period he so badly needed to account for?

Did the defence so let him down on this point that he realised Rhyl was now an absolute necessity to introduce? Or did he let himself down because his version did not match the truth?

Love,

Caz
X

[babybird67]

Hi Nick,

Do you happen to know exactly what Hanratty was able to say about his alleged request(s) for directions, ie before the sweet shop lady was sought out?

What I'm trying to get at is how many details were confirmed independently by the sweet shop lady; how many new ones she gave, that Hanratty never mentioned; and why - if the two stories had enough in common - could Hanratty's defence not have made a hell of a lot more of this in order to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that he was at least in Liverpool at some point during the critical period he so badly needed to account for?

Did the defence so let him down on this point that he realised Rhyl was now an absolute necessity to introduce? Or did he let himself down because his version did not match the truth?

Love,

Caz
X

As far as I can remember, Caz, the details themselves did not match in any respect. Mrs Dinwoodie describes someone who spoke with either a Welsh or Scottish aceent; it doesn't matter how much anyone tries to twist that, neither of those accents resembles a London accent in any way.

Mrs Dinwoodie also said she herself was too busy and barely spoke to him anyway, and other customers took him to the door and pointed out a bus stop and direction to him.

I don't have the books I'm afraid, but from what I can remember, when examined closely, the details don't match up, and that is why the alibi was not able to be made more of in court. It is the Rhyl alibi all over again in that the details are all mis-matching (e.g. witnesses alleging they saw Hanratty at a time he could not have been there/said himself he wasnt there).

And let's not forget this was all supposed to have happened on a day when it is known Hanratty was in London with the Frances.

[Graham]

Liverpool Alibi

Big problem for JH was that immediately after being charged, Kleinmann passed his statement to the police before initiating inquiries on behalf of the defence! Even Woffinden implies that this was not clever. What it meant was that the police got to Mrs Dinwoodie before the defence, who had no chance to interview her before she'd "identified" as JH the one photo she was shown by the police, and thus thrown the entire identification into doubt.

Graham

[caz]

Thanks BB and Graham.

What I'm really after is how Hanratty described the whole scenario of asking for those directions. Did he mention asking in a sweet shop? Did he mention Liverpool's Tarleton St in so many words when including this detail in his alibi? If so, why is there a question mark over whether he asked for Tarleton St/Rd/Carlton St/Rd or just something that may have sounded like it to the sweet shop lady, who was apparently taking so little notice? If not, how could anyone have confirmed what he asked for, if he couldn't even remember himself where he needed to go?

I agree entirely about the accent being a problem. People want it both ways: unfair if his recognisably Cockney accent set him up on the id parade; unfair if it was so unrecognisably Cockney that a Scouser took it as Welsh or Scottish.

It was bad enough showing just the one photo to Mrs Dinwoodie (I don't think it would be admissible today) but if she could already have seen a single photo of JH in the media it could have been a classic case of getting two occasions mixed up: recognising JH from a very recent media picture and honestly thinking she was recognising the man who, some time previously, had come into her shop. There's no going back if something like this could have happened and it's a very common problem with eye witness testimony.

Another reason why Hanratty should have mentioned it much sooner if he really went on to Rhyl that night and needed someone he saw there - just one would have done - to be able to confirm it before the media circus got going.

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

Hi Caz,

Miller says that JH told his defence that he knew a man called Aspinall in Liverpool who was a fence, so presumably implying that he'd done biz with him before. JH said that Aspinall lived in Carlton Avenue or Tarleton Avenue. Note he said avenue, not street or road. He said he took a bus from Lime Street station along the Scotland Road, claiming that a woman he asked told him that that was where Carlton Avenue was. Note that he was asking for Carlton not Tarlton Avenue, according to what he said.

He said he went into a sweetshop opposite a cinema and asked for Carlton or Tarlton Avenue. There was he said a woman and a girl. He was told there was no Carlton Avenue anywhere near. He said the woman took him to the door of the shop and showed him a bus-stop. Now he says he asks them (but not sure who 'them' is) for Talbot Road and Cartlon Road. The woman (presumably the woman in the shop, although this isn't clear) told him where he was - Bank Hall. He then told his defence that he didn't get to Carlton Road beccause he couldn't find the street.

All a bit mixed up and confusing, changing the names of the streets/roads/avenues in his rambling statement to his defence.

Graham

[Victor]

What I'm really after is how Hanratty described the whole scenario of asking for those directions. Did he mention asking in a sweet shop?

Hi Caz,

Yes he did mention the sweetshop.

People want it both ways: unfair if his recognisably Cockney accent set him up on the id parade; unfair if it was so unrecognisably Cockney that a Scouser took it as Welsh or Scottish.

Like so much of this case!

It was bad enough showing just the one photo to Mrs Dinwoodie (I don't think it would be admissible today)

That was the police's fault though! It's hard to penalise the alibi when the police balls'ed up the ID like this.

Another reason why Hanratty should have mentioned it much sooner if he really went on to Rhyl that night and needed someone he saw there - just one would have done - to be able to confirm it before the media circus got going.

That's the major problem with "ambush alibi's", only this time it backfired.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Whether he [Dr Evison] was the defence expert or not - how could he 'seem to accept' something that is not actually able to be established according to current scientific knowledge?

Hi Julie,

The proof that sperm can be detected seperately from other sources of DNA is most of the way down this article -> http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/...ley/riley.html

KR,
Vic.

[babybird67]

yes Vic

that is really what clinches the DNA for me...

1/ that it was found in a distribution typical of intercourse having taken place;

and

2/ that not only would contamination have had to occur, for which there is absolutely no evidence, but that an equally if not more improbable act of total eradication of the 'real' rapist's DNA would also have had to occur.

As someone much more au fait with the science than me, can you tell me if this is impossible according to the laws of physics or just extremely, exceptionally, completely unlikely.

[Derrick]

It was bad enough showing just the one photo to Mrs Dinwoodie (I don't think it would be admissible today) but if she could already have seen a single photo of JH in the media it could have been a classic case of getting two occasions mixed up: recognising JH from a very recent media picture and honestly thinking she was recognising the man who, some time previously, had come into her shop. There's no going back if something like this could have happened and it's a very common problem with eye witness testimony.

Hi Caz
No pictures of Hanratty appeared in the media until after his conviction.
During the trial the defence had to apply to the judge to allow a photograph of Hanratty to be taken within the court grounds so that they could further investigate the Rhyl alibi.
Derrick