Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Mary Jane Kelly: If Mrs. Maxwell Didn't See Mary Who Did She See? - by Wickerman 11 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 20 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 24 minutes ago.
General Discussion: Masonic and the number 39. - by DJA 59 minutes ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by RockySullivan 2 hours ago.
General Discussion: Masonic and the number 39. - by GUT 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (63 posts)
General Discussion: Masonic and the number 39. - (8 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: If Mrs. Maxwell Didn't See Mary Who Did She See? - (7 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (1 posts)
General Discussion: The man who named JtR! - (1 posts)
Research Related: Henry Kelly - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Social Chat > Other Mysteries > A6 Murders

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #4651  
Old 03-22-2018, 07:56 AM
OneRound OneRound is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 500
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spitfire View Post
OR,

You are right. This is what Mr Sweeney QC for the Crown said when addressing the Court of Appeal on 22 April 2002.




I’ve taken the above from Rob Harriman’s book where he gives most of the transcript for the DNA aspect of the appeal.

I am not sure where the “two days” has come from mentioned by Sweeney.

I have had a quick reread of the transcript and Mansfield QC does not seem to make anything of this. But part of the problem in understanding this aspect of the case is that the various expert witnesses have given reports upon which they have been examined and cross examined, and while the questions asked find their way into the transcript, the reports about which they are being asked do not.

It seems therefore that AB group stains were discovered in 1961 and VS would have been asked about these at the time. The Crown and defence at the time were agreed that the seminal stains from the O secretor were those of the rapist/murderer. The AB stains must therefore have been those left by MG.
Hi again Spitfire,

For a moment there, I thought you had the whole transcript of the 2002 appeal. Ah well!

As often, I follow your reasoning to the bottom line. I just cannot shake the feeling that for such an important aspect of the Hanratty case, an agreement or presumption of this sort is unnecessarily casual. I would like there to be as much medical proof as feasible and consider that only reasonable.

As a bit of an aside, I take your point totally about the problems in fully understanding all aspects of a case without the whole transcript and the related expert reports.

I've recently read the Court of Appeal judgement for the Cameo murders case. In their 2003 judgement, the Court of Appeal allowed the posthumous appeals made upon behalf of George Kelly and Charles Connolly and absolutely tore into the police and prosecution witnesses from the original 1950 trials. In setting out the reasons for their findings, the Court highlighted the lies that had been told and the evidence that had been deliberately suppressed. Just going from that judgement, it would seem that no case could now be made against Kelly and Connolly. However, I found it interesting that the Court in their judgement referred (without commenting on the validity) to the Crown QC's view that a retrial would have been sought had Kelly and Connolly still been alive and the appeal held at a much earlier time. Either the Crown's QC was being particularly ungracious to the memories of the two dead men or there was more against them than was (or needed to be) stated in the Court's judgement.

Best regards,

OneRound
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4652  
Old 03-22-2018, 08:07 AM
OneRound OneRound is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 500
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moste View Post
Whilst I believe the presumption would have been verified, the potential significance was and remains huge. If these stains do not tally with Gregsten, that would be strong evidence of another man or, at the least, contamination and the whole of the DNA case against Hanratty would collapse like a house of cards in a cyclone.

HI OR. Quite well put.

Do you not think though, that if the presumption was verified in the negative, we would not have got to know about it anyway?
Thank you, Moste. However, your thinking there goes too far for me. I do not see an establishment conspiracy or cover up. My issues are principally with Acott's non-disclosures and the Court of Appeal's reluctance to give or even explore possible benefits of doubt in favour of Hanratty.

Best regards,

OneRound
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4653  
Old 03-22-2018, 08:11 AM
OneRound OneRound is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 500
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfie View Post
Hi OneRound, Spitfire etc

I was less interested in debating the vagaries of DNA testing than I was in discussing the likelihood of Valerie and Gregsten having sex in the Morrie on the evening of the 22nd, and perhaps being caught in flagrante delicto by Hanratty.

Is there a female poster who'd judge it likely that the knickers Valerie was wearing on Tuesday evening were the same ones that she'd donned on Sunday morning, and hadn't washed in the meantime?
Hi Alfie - if you're not so keen on us making apple pie, don't put so many apples on our doorstep!

Best regards,

OneRound
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4654  
Old 03-22-2018, 10:18 AM
Alfie Alfie is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 196
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRound View Post
Hi Alfie - if you're not so keen on us making apple pie, don't put so many apples on our doorstep!

Best regards,

OneRound
Hi OneRound

I don't know what you found on your doorstep, but they weren't my apples. I never mentioned DNA in my original post.

So, back to Valerie's knickers ...
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4655  
Old 03-22-2018, 12:47 PM
cobalt cobalt is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 278
Default

One possibility might be that the AB sample belonged to Gregsten and had survived the underwear being washed.
In 1961 not all households had a washing machine, so that either meant a copper boiler (highly efficient as I vaguely recall) or handwashing in a sink, followed by a wringer. The trace would not be visible to the naked eye but could have shown up under analysis.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4656  
Old 03-22-2018, 11:38 PM
Alfie Alfie is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 196
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cobalt View Post
One possibility might be that the AB sample belonged to Gregsten and had survived the underwear being washed.
In 1961 not all households had a washing machine, so that either meant a copper boiler (highly efficient as I vaguely recall) or handwashing in a sink, followed by a wringer. The trace would not be visible to the naked eye but could have shown up under analysis.
I hadn't thought of that, but I suppose it is a possibility, even if a faint one.

I think what's more likely, though, is that Valerie and Gregsten had intercourse in the car that evening and this fact was concealed by Acott - for the sake of propriety and to keep Valerie in the good graces of the Bedford jury.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4657  
Old 03-23-2018, 01:10 AM
OneRound OneRound is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 500
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfie View Post
Hi OneRound

I don't know what you found on your doorstep, but they weren't my apples. I never mentioned DNA in my original post.

So, back to Valerie's knickers ...
Hi Alfie - in my crime and cook books, the knicker staining leads to discussion of the DNA finding even more than an abundance of apples leads to making of apple pie.

Best regards,

OneRound
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4658  
Old 03-23-2018, 01:21 AM
OneRound OneRound is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 500
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfie View Post
I hadn't thought of that, but I suppose it is a possibility, even if a faint one.

I think what's more likely, though, is that Valerie and Gregsten had intercourse in the car that evening and this fact was concealed by Acott - for the sake of propriety and to keep Valerie in the good graces of the Bedford jury.
Hi again Alfie - what they were up to in the car before being disturbed would almost certainly be regarded as irrelevant today. However, if concealment did occur as you speculate to influence the jury of the time, that gives rise to concern.

Best regards,

OneRound
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4659  
Old 03-23-2018, 04:34 AM
ansonman ansonman is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 144
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRound View Post
Hi again Alfie - what they were up to in the car before being disturbed would almost certainly be regarded as irrelevant today. However, if concealment did occur as you speculate to influence the jury of the time, that gives rise to concern.

Best regards,

OneRound
I find it hard to believe that they drove into the cornfield for any reason other than to have intercourse. It is hardly surprising that this was concealed, given the fact that their relationship was concealed. If the jury were not made aware of the relationship they were not going to be made aware that they had sex on the night of the attack. Would the jury members be so naďve as to believe that they drove into the cornfield after visiting the pub, in order to further their discussions without being disturbed? Quite possibly. Having said that, their motivation for being in the cornfield was surely irrelevant to the jury at the time.

Ansonman
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4660  
Old 03-23-2018, 05:18 AM
Graham Graham is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 3,329
Default

I believe that Valerie in her first interview said that she and Gregsten had 'picked up a hitch-hiker near Slough', which was in turn picked up by the press in early reports of the A6 Crime. This I am sure was an attempt on her part for both propriety, and to try to hide the fact that she was in an affair with a married man. Then, when she changed that to the pair of them being in the car in the cornfield to plan a motor rally, it was left at that, again for the sake of propriety, but I doubt there was a person in the courtroom - or in the land, for that matter - who wasn't aware of the true reason for their being in the cornfield.

Graham
__________________
We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:45 PM.


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