The attack on Swedish housewife Mrs Meike Dalal on Thursday, September 7th 1961

[simon]

Hi Limehouse, and thank you.

I think it's more likely that he mis-described than made the sighting up. Per haps whoever he saw, if it wasn't Alphon, could..at a pinch..in the right light..with a bit of imagination.. be thought to look Tafler-ish ? Sort of ? It's a pity we don't know a bit more about Fogerty-Waul..unless I've missed it. In fact I've missed about 4 years here ! - I retire in a few weeks, and I'll do a lot of catching up.

Best wishes to all.

[Sherlock Houses]

Sydney Taplow

My first visit to this forum for years ! - amazing how the debate continues. The people involved, all those decades ago, could never have begun to imagine..

The Sidney Tafler lookalike sighting is what first fascinated me, having myself noticed (in a newspaper photo) Alphon's resemblence to the actor before ever reading (years later, in Foot's book) the witness's account. But I have to agree, now, that perhaps Fogerty-Waul was bending the truth a little. 'Getting in on the act' certainly a possibility.

I get the feeling, Simon, that most people, if they are being honest, would agree that there is a definite resemblance between Alphon and the late British actor Sydney Tafler. Coincidentally enough [and being a sucker for old black and white movies] I watched a good old British crime drama a fortnight ago via Youtube. It was the 1947 movie "It always rains on Sunday" starring Jack Warner and Googie Withers. I might google Googie later this evening. Sydney Tafler had a fairly prominent role in the movie and he was the same age as Alphon in 1961 was, ie. 30/31 years old.

One of the interesting aspects of Michael Fogarty-Waul's sighting of the Tafler look-alike is his comment that the man he saw had a 'distinctive gait'. Peter Alphon had an unusual gait, other people have picked up on it and it is evidenced in the 1967 ITN Dateline video of Alphon in Paris where the cameras follow him along a Parisien street as he leaves his hotel. It's in clip 1 [of 6] in this link.........http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist/BH...56701/?v=0&a=1

[Sherlock Houses]

Came across this short clip on Youtube a short while ago. Curiously enough Sydney plays a hired killer who fires 2 bullets at his victim.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el1X6dhM-4o

[Sherlock Houses]

But why, after Hanratty was charged with murder, did a similar number of well meaning witnesses not emerge? Where are all the statements from Farmer Hodge about a dodgy looking Cockney geezer wearing a sharp suit and bulging pockets walking across his land? There don't seem to be any. So why did Alphon generate such a level of mistaken witnesses in Dorney Reach, but Hanratty, even after he was executed, generate none?

I would be interested to know why this has happened.

Searching questions Cobalt. I think most of us would like to know why this happened.
Nobody has ever stepped forward to place a Hanratty look-alike on a Paddington to Taplow/Maidenhead/Slough train that fateful Tuesday.
Nobody has ever stepped forward to say they spotted a Hanratty look-alike
in a Maidenhead, Slough, Taplow or Dorney pub/shop/farmer's field that day.

Meanwhile up North in Liverpool and Rhyl......................

[Spitfire]

Searching questions Cobalt. I think most of us would like to know why this happened.
Nobody has ever stepped forward to place a Hanratty look-alike on a Paddington to Taplow/Maidenhead/Slough train that fateful Tuesday.
Nobody has ever stepped forward to say they spotted a Hanratty look-alike
in a Maidenhead, Slough, Taplow or Dorney pub/shop/farmer's field that day.

Meanwhile up North in Liverpool and Rhyl......................

And yet Michael Mansfield QC was able to say that Peter Alphon was not the A6 Murderer.

And Michael Sherrard abandoned any attempt to establish a Liverpool/Rhyl alibi in the Court of Criminal Appeal in 1962, and was reported to be of the view in 2002 that the wrong man was not hanged.

All this Alphon did it/ Hanratty did it stuff was put before the jury who decided that beyond reasonable doubt it was Hanratty. The DNA tests confirmed that.

Back to the topic of Mrs Dalal, I do not see any similarity between the assault on her and the A6 Murder. Mrs Dalal's assailant's declaration that he was the A6 Murderer should be taken with a large pinch of salt, and surely the difference between the two crimes is strikingly obvious.

[Natalie Severn]

And yet Michael Mansfield QC was able to say that Peter Alphon was not the A6 Murderer.

And Michael Sherrard abandoned any attempt to establish a Liverpool/Rhyl alibi in the Court of Criminal Appeal in 1962, and was reported to be of the view in 2002 that the wrong man was not hanged.

All this Alphon did it/ Hanratty did it stuff was put before the jury who decided that beyond reasonable doubt it was Hanratty. The DNA tests confirmed that.

Back to the topic of Mrs Dalal, I do not see any similarity between the assault on her and the A6 Murder. Mrs Dalal's assailant's declaration that he was the A6 Murderer should be taken with a large pinch of salt, and surely the difference between the two crimes is strikingly obvious.

Michael Mansfield QC was going on the LCN DNA Test results that have since been proven in several UK courts to be totally unreliable as well as having a much greater propensity to attract contaminants. One of the main findings recently is that the absence of DNA on an LCN test result does not mean the person can be eliminated which was what Mansfield was basing his claim on.

What you are saying about Michael Sherrard is complete and utter nonsense.He may have, at the time,2002 , come to the same conclusion about Alphon as Mansfield because of the then misplaced faith in the tests but that does not mean he therefore believed Hanratty to be the A6 murderer.He spoke on camera just after the 2002 appeal was overturned and its clear he believes Hanratty was in Liverpool in Mrs Dunwoody's shop on the 22nd August 1961 and that the total absence of any forensic information in the murder car linking Hanratty to the crime and the dreadful selectiveness and forensic fiddling with witness statements by the police all pointed to Hanratty's innocence exactly like Chief Constable Skitt and Chief superintendent Roger Matthews believed 40 years later, having examined all the evidence and having had the advantage of having been working detectives for many many years.

[caz]

Michael Mansfield QC was going on the LCN DNA Test results that have since been proven in several UK courts to be totally unreliable as well as having a much greater propensity to attract contaminants...

Hi Nats,

Isn't that a bit misleading? You may say that certain results based on LCN DNA tests have subsequently been proved unreliable, but you cannot say that about the specific results in the Hanratty case.

One of the main findings recently is that the absence of DNA on an LCN test result does not mean the person can be eliminated which was what Mansfield was basing his claim on.

Do you know for a fact that Mansfield based his claim solely on the absence of any Alphon DNA? Wasn't it just as much the presence of Hanratty's DNA - and only Hanratty's - on the hankie, as well as his DNA on the knicker fragment, that would have swung it? After all, there was only one gunman and rapist, and no reason to believe Alphon knew Hanratty, or would have tried to frame him, using one of his hankies.

What you are saying about Michael Sherrard is complete and utter nonsense.He may have, at the time,2002 , come to the same conclusion about Alphon as Mansfield because of the then misplaced faith in the tests but that does not mean he therefore believed Hanratty to be the A6 murderer.He spoke on camera just after the 2002 appeal was overturned and its clear he believes Hanratty was in Liverpool in Mrs Dunwoody's shop on the 22nd August 1961 and that the total absence of any forensic information in the murder car linking Hanratty to the crime and the dreadful selectiveness and forensic fiddling with witness statements by the police all pointed to Hanratty's innocence...

But someone was in that car and committed the crime, Nats, so it's equally 'complete and utter nonsense' to say the lack of any forensic evidence in the vehicle points to Hanratty's innocence.

I might just as well say this points to Alphon's innocence too, along with every other living soul at the time! And as for the 'dreadful selectiveness and forensic fiddling with witness statements' - that would have applied with knobs on to Alphon, had the police used any of them (Nudds for instance) to keep him in the frame, despite Valerie not identifying him as the man who was in that car with her for many hours.

Sorry, but we are straight back to my problem with the fingering of Alphon, while claiming Hanratty was unjustly fingered. How much more unjustly would the former have been fingered, considering the complete lack of evidence - forensic or otherwise - for his involvement? He should certainly be presumed innocent by the standards you use for judging Hanratty.

Love,

Caz
X

[Spitfire]

If Sherrard had believed that Hanratty had been in Liverpool on the afternoon of 22 August 1961, then he would have believed that Hanratty was not the A6 Killer and that his execution was wrong. Sherrard would have been perfectly able to articulate such thoughts but chose to say, and I paraphrase, that the wrong man was not hanged although the 1962 evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict.

The DNA tests in the 2002 appeal have not in the slightest been discredited. Neither Bindman nor Woffinden has been able to produce one DNA expert who has considered all the DNA material before the court in 2002 and pronounce Hanratty as not guilty. This despite both of them appearing on a radio show in 2010 promising another appeal early in 2011!

Mansfield QC and Sherrard QC were right, Alphon did not do the A6 Murder and Jim did it and was rightly hanged.

This inevitably means that Mrs Dalal's assailant, even if it had been Alphon which is debatable, was not the A6 Murderer.

[Dupplin Muir]

Spitfire:

To reverse your question, can you name any independent DNA experts (ie not tainted by association with a government agency) who backs LCN DNA as reliable? For me, any evidence given by people who work for the prosecution is inherently untrustworthy, since they would swear that black was white if it suited the police. I've seen too many cases where this has happened to have any illusions about their probity.

Also, since you claim Sherrard said that 'the wrong man was not hanged', perhaps you could indicate where he says this in his autobiography.

[Graham]

If Sherrard had believed that Hanratty had been in Liverpool on the afternoon of 22 August 1961, then he would have believed that Hanratty was not the A6 Killer and that his execution was wrong. Sherrard would have been perfectly able to articulate such thoughts but chose to say, and I paraphrase, that the wrong man was not hanged although the 1962 evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict.

The DNA tests in the 2002 appeal have not in the slightest been discredited. Neither Bindman nor Woffinden has been able to produce one DNA expert who has considered all the DNA material before the court in 2002 and pronounce Hanratty as not guilty. This despite both of them appearing on a radio show in 2010 promising another appeal early in 2011!

Mansfield QC and Sherrard QC were right, Alphon did not do the A6 Murder and Jim did it and was rightly hanged.

This inevitably means that Mrs Dalal's assailant, even if it had been Alphon which is debatable, was not the A6 Murderer.

Spitfire,

very well summed-up. By definition, when Sherrard, as Hanratty's defence-counsel in his trial, stated that the wrong man was not hanged, then he rejected both of Hanratty's alibis. Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't believe them in the first place - I think it almost goes without saying, given the fact that he made Hanratty sign a statement that the decision to change his alibi was his and his alone, that Sherrard certainly did not believe the Rhyl Alibi.

As far as the DNA is concerned, the judges at the 2002 Appeal accepted it, and that ought to be final. If Messrs Bindman and Woffinden disagree, then perhaps someone might tell me what happened to their promised new appeal in 2012? Did it fall through because of lack of funds, lack of new evidence, or just sheer lack of any supportive evidence at all?

And The Matthews Report. Nats refers to it frequently, yet if, as she seems to believe, it offers incontrovertible evidence of Hanratty's innocence, why has it never been published? Will it ever see the light of day, one wonders?

And the lack of forensics in the car. Hanratty's supporters - well, at least one of them - has said many times that this supports Hanratty's innocence. Does it not also support Alphon's? And anyone else who walks this planet?

And the claimed sightings of Alphon or an Alphon look-alike around Dorney Reach. These were not reported until after Alphon's phizzog had appeared in the press and on TV. In the case of Mr Fogerty-Waul he reported his sightings not to the police but to a local Slough journalist called Tony Mason. Who just happened to be acquainted with Messrs Justice and Fox, who were more than happy to interview him. If Mr F-W's sightings were really of Alphon, then why was he not called as a witness at the original appeal? Because his sightings were valueless, given that Alphon's features were now in the public domain. Yet it seems that there are still those amongst Hanratty's supporters who feel that Mr F-W's sightings were indeed of Peter Alphon.

Graham

[cobalt]

And the lack of forensics in the car. Hanratty's supporters - well, at least one of them - has said many times that this supports Hanratty's innocence. Does it not also support Alphon's? And anyone else who walks this planet

Like much of your credulous approach to the prosecution case, this rather misses the point.
It is not the fact that none of Hanratty's blood group was found either in the form of saliva or semen which raises concern; it is the fact that no one's saliva or semen was found.
Any rational person , either in 1962 or today, recognises this is an impossibility given the nature of the crime. That means either that the forensic examination was grossly inefficient, but on scale almost unimaginable. Or, much more likely I would suggest, that the evidence which was found inside the car was suppressed since it did not support the prosecution case.

This is yet another dog which did not bark. And there are too many of them in this case.

[Graham]

Cobalt,

before I respond to your other questions and statements, could you please tell us why evidence that might have been found inside the car was suppressed?

Graham

[cobalt]

Graham,

I apologise if the word 'credulous' seemed offensive. The reason I used it was because the prosecution case relies a great deal on trust. We have to believe the eyewitness evidence of Valerie Storie, which seems entirely reasonable at first sight, but not in the context in which it was ultimately given. The other eyewitness evidence is, in my view, slightly less credible than those who claimed Hanratty was in Rhyl.

The other major plank in the case against Hanratty is the gun on the bus and the cartridges in the Vienna Hotel. Neither of these points to his innocence I accept, and indeed they might just be indicators of his guilt. But given the fuller understanding of the case that has emerged over the years, very few would place much credence in the testimony of Nudds et al. The role of Dixie France is a riddle wrapped inside an enigma.

That leaves the forensic evidence, which is now the strongest factor indicating Hanratty's guilt. Indeed it has reversed the situation as was, for previously the onus was on the prosecution case. Now those who believe in Hanratty's innocence have to make the case. I can only refer you to Limehouse and her exhaustive efforts in this area.

Sorry to take so long to answer your initial question. Why would forensic evidence of saliva, semen and presumably fabric be suppressed? Well, it must have existed in some form, even if not to a standard required for criminal prosecution. So let us start with the obvious point: it was suppressed. For if the forensic evidence had implicated Hanratty, then clearly it would not have been suppressed, since such evidence would have strengthened the rather thin case against him. A case which might have gone either way.
That, to me , is more important than my musings as to why it was suppressed. The moment I veer towards conjecture you will, quite rightly, employ your legal mind and remind all of us that I am merely offering a subjective possibility. What I am offering is the claim, reasonable I believe, that forensic evidence was suppressed. The ball is not in my court. The prosecution has to explain why this anomaly/oversight/incompetence occurred.

[caz]

That leaves the forensic evidence, which is now the strongest factor indicating Hanratty's guilt. Indeed it has reversed the situation as was, for previously the onus was on the prosecution case. Now those who believe in Hanratty's innocence have to make the case. I can only refer you to Limehouse and her exhaustive efforts in this area...

...The moment I veer towards conjecture you will, quite rightly, employ your legal mind and remind all of us that I am merely offering a subjective possibility. What I am offering is the claim, reasonable I believe, that forensic evidence was suppressed. The ball is not in my court. The prosecution has to explain why this anomaly/oversight/incompetence occurred.

Hi cobalt,

Isn't that a contradiction? You rightly say that Hanratty is now guilty unless or until his defenders can prove him innocent, then you say the ball is in the prosecution's court to explain what you believe was the suppression of forensic evidence in the car.

I'm afraid it's the other way round, and you would need to demonstrate this suppression and why it could only point to Hanratty's innocence.

If you are claiming police corruption here, then Hanratty could have left forensic evidence in the car, which the police compromised or destroyed while initially trying to build a case against Alphon. If they merely missed any such evidence, there would still be no proof it wasn't left by Hanratty.

Love,

Caz
X

[cobalt]

Hello Caz,

I accept that the burden of proof at present rests with the defence, despite the best efforts of Limehouse on forensics.

But Graham is trying to draw some conjecture from me regarding the alleged suppression of evidence. I am not prepared to be drawn on that matter, no matter how interesting it might prove. I would rather focus on the reality of a car interior where a man was murdered and a woman sexually assaulted. Ample opportunity for forensic material to be gathered one would have thought, yet none, so far as I am aware, was presented at trial. Now this may not 'prove' suppression to your satisfaction, but since you think it possible 'they might merely have missed it' I doubt if anything ever could.

The evidence suppressed can obviously have had no material worth in the prosecution of James Hanratty. Muddying the waters by suggesting the police might have degraded the forensics by trying to build a case against Alphon is only echoing what many of us have claimed for many years: that forensic evidence can be used not to elicit the truth but to 'fit up' the main suspect.

The motivation for this suppression of evidence is far less relevant than the fact it must surely have taken place. So I am happy to take up the challenge to make the case for Hanratty's innocence, and refer to the two dogs which did not bark in the night: the complete absence of witnesses who saw Hanratty at the locus (save of course Valerie Storey) and the car which housed a brutal murder and callous rape yet yielded no forensic evidence against the accused.