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

[Sherlock Houses]

Did anyone from the Defence note this mistake - oh, sorry, lie? Deception? Are you suggesting that getting the date of Alphon's first interview wrong had a massive negative effect on the ensuing judgment?

But they didn't get the date of Alphon's first interview wrong did they ? What they did do was claim that Alphon was interviewed on September 7th 1961 which was untrue. (See paragraph 37 of the judgment).

I wasn't claiming anything, sir, merely making a suggestion. As you seem to be the expert on matters pertaining to the Appeal, perhaps you could answer your own question and tell us what other mistakes the Judges could have made in their judgment?

I can assure you I'm no expert on matters relating to the appeal judgment as I've only read it about 3 times. There are probably posters on this forum who have read it countless times without noticing any errors.

Paragraphs 13 to 74 of this judgment come under the heading "The Facts".
Now a 'fact' is something that is known or proved to be true.
Paragraph 13 alone contains an error about Valerie Storie's age.
Paragraphs 13 to 26 cannot in any sense of the word be described as 'facts' as they are Valerie Storie's version of events of that fateful night which are unverifiable and open to challenge.

When I get around to reading the judgment again in full (including it's interminable mid-section full of legal double talk and mumbo-jumbo) I will get back to you and see how many errors, if any, they could have made.

[Graham]

Hanratty has been branded a liar many times on these boards by the 'anti-Hanratty faction', but we daren't call anyone from our glorious establishment a liar ? The simple truth is that they lied [or misled if you prefer].

They must have carefully proof read their judgment before publishing it but were still prepared to proceed with their deception.


If, as you claim, they were just mistaken, you must ask yourself what else in their judgment they could have been mistaken about.

Did anyone from the Defence note this mistake - oh, sorry, lie? Deception? Are you suggesting that getting the date of Alphon's first interview wrong had a massive negative effect on the ensuing judgment?

I wasn't claiming anything, sir, merely making a suggestion. As you seem to be the expert on matters pertaining to the Appeal, perhaps you could answer your own question and tell us what other mistakes the Judges could have made in their judgment?

Graham

[Sherlock Houses]

Surely, you mean 'made a mistake', same as you claim that Mrs Dinwoody made a mistake regarding when Hanratty was supposed to be in the sweet-shop??? Or is it only the anti-Hanratty faction who 'lie' whilst the pro-Hanrattyistas 'make mistakes'?

Graham

Hanratty has been branded a liar many times on these boards by the 'anti-Hanratty faction', but we daren't call anyone from our glorious establishment a liar ? The simple truth is that they lied [or misled if you prefer].

They must have carefully proof read their judgment before publishing it but were still prepared to proceed with their deception.


If, as you claim, they were just mistaken, you must ask yourself what else in their judgment they could have been mistaken about.

[Sherlock Houses]

Re. my previous post [1141]....So we have the situation that even in the depths of mid-winter, after being locked up in custody for several months, James Hanratty could not be described as having a pale face. Six months previous to this, at the time of the A6 murder, his face was heavily freckled. No doubt as a result of 3 months outdoor work as a window cleaner.

[Graham]

The same judgment that lied when it stated [among other erroneous things] that Peter Alphon was interviewed by police on September 7th 1961.

Surely, you mean 'made a mistake', same as you claim that Mrs Dinwoody made a mistake regarding when Hanratty was supposed to be in the sweet-shop??? Or is it only the anti-Hanratty faction who 'lie' whilst the pro-Hanrattyistas 'make mistakes'?

Graham

[Sherlock Houses]

The fact remains that Hanratty's eyes did match her 'large icy blue eyes', which is rather unlikely to have happened by chance, if he was a scapegoat who bore little resemblance, including in the eye department, to the man who had actually raped her.

And you know this how ? From personal observation of James Hanratty when you were a youngster ? You are quite wrong.

To set the record straight James Hanratty did not have icy blue or pale blue eyes.

The following extract is taken from the Daily Mirror of February 14th and forms part of Michael Sherrard's closing address to the Bedford jury from the day before.....

Mr Sherrard referred to the evidence of Valerie Storie that the A6 attacker was pale faced and had very large, pale blue, staring icy eyes....

Pointing to Hanratty in the dock, Mr Sherrard asked the jury :
"Is this someone whose face you would describe as pale ?
Does he strike you as having pale blue, icy blue eyes ?"

Mr Sherrard went on :
"It is my respectful submission to you that Miss Storie is honest but wrong..."

[NickB]

I agree that Alphon was not interviewed on 7-Sep. But the Lewis report contains Mackle’s notes where he has written down blue eyes, so I think the Appeal were right to say Valerie told Mackle about the blue eyes on 26-Aug. I also think Woffinden was right to conclude that the ‘brown eyes’ description “was simply a mistake by Bedfordshire police.”

[Sherlock Houses]

The Appeal, Section 131, says on this day she described the eyes as blue to Inspector Mackle who was in charge of constructing the identikit image.

Aha, the infamous 2002 appeal/judgment.

The same judgment that lied when it stated [among other erroneous things] that Peter Alphon was interviewed by police on September 7th 1961.
He definitely wasn't questioned by police on that date.

[Sherlock Houses]

Hey now Or, it wasn't me who was responsible for this thread being completely sidetracked from it's original theme. The vast majority of the posts on this thread belong to the Rebooted thread.

[OneRound]

And here's silly me thinking this thread was about the September 7th attack on Mrs Dalal. I must pay more attention.

As you said, Sherlock. Appears to contradict your most recent post which in any case isn't exactly overwhelming proof of James Hanratty's innocence.

OneRound

[Sherlock Houses]

I can only find one reference to Mrs Dorothy Morrell in Foot's book (1988 ed) at page 51.

Maybe you need to start reading whole chapters in future SF instead of a quick look at the Index. There's at least one more reference to Dorothy in Paul's book, just 2 short pages later. If you'd read just a couple of pages further into that chapter you might have come across it.

[moste]

Will you be lettting Robert Woffinden know about the quote on Page 48 of his book, or shall I? He must have accepted what Mr Hilliard wrote, or he wouldn't have included it in his book. So his fallibility is once more called into question........

The inference gained from the case that you highlight is that the system was so skilfully operated. Maybe Mackie wasn't too good with it, because to this day I can see little resemblance to either Hanratty or Alphon in the photofits he produced. Any system that requires individual skill or interpretation on the part of the operator is always going to be a bit iffy.

Graham

You can't see a resemblance of the left hand identikit picture as acclaimed by Storie, to Peter Alphon? your having us on Graham!
And that last sentence, I cant believe you said that!

[Derrick]

...Any system that requires individual skill or interpretation on the part of the operator is always going to be a bit iffy...

Yeah, but there two flaws in your argument here Graham;

Firstly, Storie signed the finished identikit as being a very good likeness of her assailant. This very good likeness which bears no resemblance whatsoever to James Hanratty.

And secondly, the DNA evidence given in 2002 depended largely on the individual skill or interpretation on the part of the operator.

Del

[Graham]

Will you be lettting Robert Woffinden know about the quote on Page 48 of his book, or shall I? He must have accepted what Mr Hilliard wrote, or he wouldn't have included it in his book. So his fallibility is once more called into question........

The inference gained from the case that you highlight is that the system was so skilfully operated. Maybe Mackie wasn't too good with it, because to this day I can see little resemblance to either Hanratty or Alphon in the photofits he produced. Any system that requires individual skill or interpretation on the part of the operator is always going to be a bit iffy.

Graham

[Sherlock Houses]

Judge for yourselves

Reference that sometimes erudite book by Mr Robert Woffinden, Sherlock Houses (and others) seem to have somehow missed that on Page 48 we have:

"I don't know anybody who was ever identified from a photofit", commented Brian Hilliard, former editor of the Police Review. "The technique came in in a blaze of technological glory, and about a year later everyone realised it wasn't of any real assistance"

I mentioned this in a post a short time ago, but amazingly it seems to have been missed just as it has been by readers of Woffinden's book, so I repeat it here in full.

Graham

The Identikit system was first used in the UK about 5 months before the A6 murder and was instrumental in identifying the murderer of Elsie Batten.....

https://web.archive.org/web/20090109203929/http://www.met.police.uk/history/bush.htm

The last paragraph in that Metropolitan Police Service article speaks for itself I would suggest................

"This case is of particular interest because the arrest of the murderer was achieved as a direct result of the use of an American system, known familiarly as " Identikit ", for building up the facial likeness of a suspect. This was the first time this equipment had ever been used in this country, but so skilfully was it operated and so effective was the resultant 'picture', that a ' C' Division Police Constable , P.C. 341 ' E ' Cole was able to recognise the wanted man Bush and detain him......"