Casebook Forums

Casebook Forums (https://forum.casebook.org/index.php)
-   A6 Murders (https://forum.casebook.org/forumdisplay.php?f=116)
-   -   Rob Harriman: Hanratty - The DNA Travesty (Kindle E-Book) (https://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8036)

Derrick 04-16-2014 09:36 AM

Rob Harriman: Hanratty - The DNA Travesty (Kindle E-Book)
 
Hello

Rob Harriman has published the following Kindle E-book here:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/HANRATTY-TRA...riman+hanratty

What should be of interest to anyone who is at all interested in the A6 murder is that Rob Harriman has published the complete (well nearly) transcript of the 3 days of the DNA evidence from the 2002 appeal hearing.

It makes for interesting reading, especially if you thought that the ruling judgement was the last word!

Del

caz 04-17-2014 03:55 AM

Hi Del,

Judging by your latest post on the other thread, I very much doubt I would understand a word of it!

But I wish you and others the best of luck in getting the authorities to look again at the DNA evidence that was considered conclusive at the time of the 2002 appeal.

There is never an argument against questioning what has gone before.

Love,

Caz
X

Derrick 04-21-2014 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caz (Post 291481)
...I very much doubt I would understand a word of it!...

Hi Caz
Just read chapter 1

Let me know what you think.

Del

Victor 05-08-2014 05:48 AM

I've read the first chapter and one thing keeps bothering me...

Hanratty's handkerchief was found wrapped around the murder weapon. How is this not a link between Hanratty and the crime?

Now I can accept that complicated conspiracy theories can be proposed for how these 2 items came to be found together, but it's still a direct link between the weapon used in the crime, and a handkerchief that Hanratty had blown his nose on.

KR,
Vic.

Limehouse 05-08-2014 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Victor (Post 292814)
I've read the first chapter and one thing keeps bothering me...

Hanratty's handkerchief was found wrapped around the murder weapon. How is this not a link between Hanratty and the crime?

Now I can accept that complicated conspiracy theories can be proposed for how these 2 items came to be found together, but it's still a direct link between the weapon used in the crime, and a handkerchief that Hanratty had blown his nose on.

KR,
Vic.

But it does not place Hanratty at the scene of the crime.

What if the murder weapon had had finger prints on it belonging to the person who supplied the gun to the killer? Those prints are a direct link between the person and the weapon used in the crime. But the finger prints do not necessarily place the person at the scene of the crime.

Victor 05-09-2014 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Limehouse (Post 292831)
But it does not place Hanratty at the scene of the crime.

Hi Julie,

I agree, it doesn't indicate that Hanratty fired the murderous shot, but it does mean that after the crime the murderer who had had a handkerchief round their mouth, must have got hold of a handkerchief that Hanratty had recently blown his nose on, wrapped it round the gun, and within 36 hours dumped the 2 items plus bullets together on a bus. The probability that these 2 handkerchiefs are the same cannot be ignored or dismissed as irrelevant. It is perfectly true that there is no concrete proof that the 2 handkerchiefs are the same, but the connection cannot be denied.

Quote:

What if the murder weapon had had finger prints on it belonging to the person who supplied the gun to the killer? Those prints are a direct link between the person and the weapon used in the crime. But the finger prints do not necessarily place the person at the scene of the crime.
In this case we have the fingerprints of a man guilty of illegal weapons trading or some related crime, and the likelihood of those prints being obscured by the killers (or smeared out by gloves) is again high. They are not innocent fingerprints, but they may not be guilty of murder.

KR,
Vic.

Limehouse 05-09-2014 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Victor (Post 292885)
Hi Julie,

I agree, it doesn't indicate that Hanratty fired the murderous shot, but it does mean that after the crime the murderer who had had a handkerchief round their mouth, must have got hold of a handkerchief that Hanratty had recently blown his nose on, wrapped it round the gun, and within 36 hours dumped the 2 items plus bullets together on a bus.
KR,
Vic.


It does not mean that at all Victor. Firstly, Hanratty's handkerchief may never have been at the crime scene and if it was it could have been taken there by the killer. Alternatively, it could well have been obtained soon after the crime and discarded along with the gun. There is no indication of precisely when Hanratty blew his nose on the handkerchief. It could have been days before the murder.

Derrick 05-09-2014 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Limehouse (Post 292912)
It does not mean that at all Victor. Firstly, Hanratty's handkerchief may never have been at the crime scene and if it was it could have been taken there by the killer. Alternatively, it could well have been obtained soon after the crime and discarded along with the gun. There is no indication of precisely when Hanratty blew his nose on the handkerchief. It could have been days before the murder.

Hi Julie
The hanky was certainly Hanratty's; the MtDNA tests done by John Bark in 1997 prove this.
Yet:
Charlotte France was doing Hanratty's laundry at this time.
Dixie France also had access to guns when he worked at the Harmony.
http://www.classiccafes.co.uk/confessional_harmony.htm

So here is another completely plausible scenario that does not include Hanratty being either the gunman or having placed the gun on the bus.

His friend and mentor, France, a notorious police informer and source of non-kosher weaponry could have provided a gun to X (someone as yet unknown) and when he got it back wrapped it in one of Hanratty's hanky's and placed the lot in Hanratty's favoured hiding place. He then gave evidence that that was where Hanratty told him he disposed of stuff.

It is also plausible that France did two other things.

Firstly he told Ewer that Hanratty would be in the vicinity of the cleaners the week after the murder. Hanratty obviously told France that he was going straight out to buy his mum some flowers and to visit the dry cleaners.

Secondly he planted the two cartridge cases in room 24 of the Vienna Hotel not long after that; having known that Hanratty stayed at the Vienna once Hanratty had shown France the Vienna bill on the Friday following the A6 murder.

Therefore it is quite plausible that Hanratty was framed and the A6 murderer will never be known; France and Ewer being dead.

Del

Limehouse 05-09-2014 10:24 AM

Hi Derrick,

Plausible indeed. I have often posed the possibility that the killer was neither Alphon or Hanratty and that he disappeared into the night and was never caught for the A6 crime.

Julie

Derrick 05-09-2014 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Limehouse (Post 292933)
Hi Derrick,

Plausible indeed. I have often posed the possibility that the killer was neither Alphon or Hanratty and that he disappeared into the night and was never caught for the A6 crime.

Julie

Hi Julie
That is my view. Neither Hanratty nor Alphon was the A6 killer; the whole of the evidence doesn't support either being such.

Del


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.