A6 Murder who wrote the letter to Gregsten's boss complaining of the relationship?

[caz]

Kiszco produced no sperm due to his medical condition.

And you know this because - you trust the people who established this and you trust the methods they used.

That is my only point, although Castree was finally nailed for this crime by his DNA. It was found to match a 30 year old semen sample from the victim's underwear. I take it you don't dispute the reliability of that particular result and are not campaigning for Castree's conviction to be looked at again?

So again, how are you picking and choosing what forensic evidence is reliable and what isn't, if it's not purely down to which results match your personal beliefs?

Why, for instance, would you or Nats not question the evidence that got Peter Sutcliffe banged up in the 80s for the Yorkshire Ripper murders, given that Hillsborough was in the same decade and is constantly being brought up to show just how corrupt and indiscriminate the authorities can be in 'setting up' entirely the wrong people?

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

And you know this because - you trust the people who established this and you trust the methods they used.

That is my only point, although Castree was finally nailed for this crime by his DNA. It was found to match a 30 year old semen sample from the victim's underwear. I take it you don't dispute the reliability of that particular result and are not campaigning for Castree's conviction to be looked at again?

So again, how are you picking and choosing what forensic evidence is reliable and what isn't, if it's not purely down to which results match your personal beliefs?

Why, for instance, would you or Nats not question the evidence that got Peter Sutcliffe banged up in the 80s for the Yorkshire Ripper murders, given that Hillsborough was in the same decade and is constantly being brought up to show just how corrupt and indiscriminate the authorities can be in 'setting up' entirely the wrong people?

Love,

Caz
X

Caz, you only have to put a sample of semen under a poweful enough microscope to see whether it contains spermatoza. I could have done that as an O Level Human Biology student.

Castree's DNA sample is irrelevant and I don't even have to think about it since it had nothing whatever to do with Kiszco being cleared of Lesley's murder.

Kiszco's conviction was quashed and he was relased from prison long before Castree was identified as the possible murderer. After almost two decades in prison, his case was looked at again and the forensic evidence came to light. It was there to be found in 1975 - but it was ignored because of the false evidence given by the teenage girls who claimed Kiszco had exposed himself to them. This was a completely malicious and untrue accusation. It led to police arresting Kiszco and subjecting him to hours and hours of questioning until he finally confessed. He later said:

"I started to tell these lies and they seemed to please them and the pressure was off as far as I was concerned. I thought if I admitted what I did to the police they would check out what I had said, find it untrue and would then let me go".

[caz]

Caz, you only have to put a sample of semen under a poweful enough microscope to see whether it contains spermatoza. I could have done that as an O Level Human Biology student.

Hi Limehouse,

But the point is that you didn't do it in this case. Others did. You were not asked to examine or confirm any of the evidence, or to be an observer, yet you happily accepted without question that a sample of semen was indeed put under the microscope; the sample indeed came from Kiszco; and it indeed contained no sperm. I expect there are many qualified to say "I could have done the DNA tests that indicated Hanratty's guilt and Alphon's innocence", but it's meaningless if they were never asked to do so and were not there to see the results for themselves.

The case was eventually solved when Castree's DNA was found on the victim's underwear and positively identified after 30 years. So yes, I'm afraid you do have to think about that - very hard - unless you can give a good reason why your concerns about the honesty and reliability of the evidence - forensic and otherwise - used to implicate Hanratty and Kiszco did not and do not extend to Castree. How do you know he was not similarly 'set up' and every bit as deserving of your concern as Kiszco was?

Nothing that happened to Kiszco is remotely relevant or comparable unless you can demonstrate that Hanratty was similarly innocent. Their treatment and their reaction to it could have been identical, but it would still prove absolutely nothing about the latter's guilt or innocence.

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

Hi Limehouse,
The case was eventually solved when Castree's DNA was found on the victim's underwear and positively identified after 30 years. So yes, I'm afraid you do have to think about that - very hard - unless you can give a good reason why your concerns about the honesty and reliability of the evidence - forensic and otherwise - used to implicate Hanratty and Kiszco did not and do not extend to Castree. How do you know he was not similarly 'set up' and every bit as deserving of your concern as Kiszco was?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Kiszco was released YEARS before Castree was identified as the murderer. It was not any identification of Castree's DNA that prompted the release of Kiszco.

Kiszco was incriminated by false evidence, by evidence withheld from the jury, by a confession that was forced from him and by the non-acceptance of his alibi. The re-examination of the sample found at the scene was not the only reason Kiszco was released. It was a re-examination of all of the evidence.

Obviously, I cannot demonstrate to you that Hanratty was innocent because you do not share the same doubts about the evidence offered at his trial as I do.

The comparisons I made between these cases was based on their reactions to being arrested and their behaviours when under police questioning.

Happy New year to you.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Kiszco was released YEARS before Castree was identified as the murderer. It was not any identification of Castree's DNA that prompted the release of Kiszco.

I know that, Limehouse, and never suggested otherwise.

Kiszco was incriminated by false evidence, by evidence withheld from the jury, by a confession that was forced from him and by the non-acceptance of his alibi. The re-examination of the sample found at the scene was not the only reason Kiszco was released. It was a re-examination of all of the evidence.

I know that too. That is precisely why I am asking you why you would trust the same justice system to have got it 'right' in the end (albeit too late for Kiszco), and not convicted another wrong man, through similarly false evidence, incompetence or dishonesty.

Obviously, I cannot demonstrate to you that Hanratty was innocent because you do not share the same doubts about the evidence offered at his trial as I do.

No, the reason you cannot demonstrate to anyone that Hanratty was innocent is because you cannot prove he was elsewhere, or that anyone else committed this crime. I could share your doubts about the evidence for his guilt, but doubts do not demonstrate innocence.

The comparisons I made between these cases was based on their reactions to being arrested and their behaviours when under police questioning.

Exactly - that was the very point I was making to you. Their reactions and behaviours could have been identical, while their motivations could have been quite different. Just because one was proven innocent doesn't mean the other is any less likely to have been guilty. Only evidence can decide that.

If anything, the Kiszco case is a poor one to use for comparison purposes with Hanratty because it demonstrates what happened in a genuine miscarriage of justice - the wrongs were admitted and all the evidence was re-examined, and proof emerged beyond all reasonable doubt that Kiszco could not have been guilty, and eventually Castree was found to fit the bill instead.

Why would the A6 case be any different if the same kind of mistakes were made, and a similar miscarriage of justice really had taken place, along with the evidence to demonstrate the fact beyond doubt?

Happy new year to you too.

Love,

Caz
X

[Alfie]

Hanratty drove this car ,on his own ,from London to Manchester on the evening of October 6/7 1961 .
This alone supplies all the evidence needed that he was quite expert at such 'ventures' and could drive cars with quite sophisticated mechanics-he was a car thief for goodness sake. Also the evidence given by several of his friends about being taken out in expensive cars plus the lifts and drives into the countryside in the Sunbeam Sports car e.g. Louise Anderson,witness for the prosecution and several girl friends named at the trial [the evidence by the girls is provided by Paul Foot in the John Lennon film entitled "Did Britain Murder Hanratty? " where Foot interviews those girls each of whom testified at the trial apparently.[I hope to be able to provide a 'you tube 'clipping from the film in the next month or so ]

Just re-watched the Lennon doco, and nowhere in it could I find Foot interviewing the girls about JH's driving ability.

What I did find though is this interesting snippet concerning JH's Liverpool alibi, specifically his bus-ride up Scotland Road while supposedly looking for Tarlton or Talbot road:

Foot tells his Watford audience: "He gets in a bus and he goes up the Scotland Road. And he gets some of the way up the Scotland Road and he asks the conductor, 'I want to get off at Tarlton Road', and the conductor says 'I've never heard of it, get off here.'"

I can't remember hearing about this conductor before and Foot doesn't seem to mention him in his book. Anybody know anything about this exchange or is it a figment of Foot's imagination?