suspected suicide bomber has been shot by armed police

[Gazza]

Quote:

Steph said:
Blade/Gazza

You are so right cos then we can hang people like Henratty and Derek Bentley all over again.

Glad you agree, I mean if you want to tell someone to shoot a Police Officer then you deserve what you get, hanging sounds fine to me, however shooting him would have been better!

Bring back Judge Jeffreys!!

Like I said earlier technology has moved on since the 50's & 60's.

What of course we could do is after killing a serving Police officer as Kenneth Noye did, we could give them a short custodial sentence, release them, only for them to then murder innocent motorists, then give them another custodial sentence & release them again.......

But of course even they are "better than the worst thing they have ever done" tell that to the families, im sure they would agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tom S]

Quote:

Gazza said:
What of course we could do is after killing a serving Police officer as Kenneth Noye did, we could give them a short custodial sentence, release them, only for them to then murder innocent motorists, then give them another custodial sentence & release them again.......

As I remember it, Kenneth Noye was acquitted of murder having claimed self-defence, so it would have been difficult to give him life for a charge of which he'd been cleared (however perverse the verdict appeared even without the benefit of hindsight).

[Steph]

So you are quite clear what the words "Let him have it" mean then.

[Gazza]

Quote:

Tom S said:

Quote:

Gazza said:
What of course we could do is after killing a serving Police officer as Kenneth Noye did, we could give them a short custodial sentence, release them, only for them to then murder innocent motorists, then give them another custodial sentence & release them again.......

As I remember it, Kenneth Noye was acquitted of murder having claimed self-defence, so it would have been difficult to give him life for a charge of which he'd been cleared (however perverse the verdict appeared even without the benefit of hindsight).

Exactly, lightweight sentences, stab a police officer several times warrants self defence does it?

[Tom S]

The jury thought so and under our system that's what counts. The crux of the defence was, I think, that he didn't know they were policemen, that he thought he was being burgled and that he was entitled to defend himself. The jury chose to believe him and that's that.

 

I can't even remember if was he convicted of anything, but if he was it was only relatively minor offences, compared with murder, wounding with intent etc so any sentence would reflect only that.

 

This is my final word until Monday (unless it absolutely pisses down for the next three days, in which case I'll cancel the cricket-related leave!)

[Gazza]

Quote:

Steph said:
So you are quite clear what the words "Let him have it" mean then.

Twist those words all you want, as they have been since, he knew, as we all did exactly what was meant by that famous sentence.

Oh yeah what were they doing up there & exactly what else do you carry a loaded gun for?

[Gazza]

Quote:

Tom S said:
The jury thought so and under our system that's what counts. The crux of the defence was, I think, that he didn't know they were policemen, that he thought he was being burgled and that he was entitled to defend himself. The jury chose to believe him and that's that.

Exactly my point Tom, Stab a police officer to death who you think is a burglar = self defence, (even though the guy was a wanted criminal). However what if I say Tony Martin? actual burglars in your house (not garden!) one gunshot = murder & not self defence! I know the charges & sentence were reduced, but one is on record for murder the other isnt!
Our judicial system is embarrasing, the Police's job is near impossible to try & get a prosecution.

[BladeRunner]

I like you gazza, you and me agree on many things apart from our choice of football team that is, So Mr steph/mr happy you think murderous scum like Ian Brady,Myra hindley ,Donald(black panther) neilson,Robert Black,Dennis neilson,Ian Huntly,peter sutcliffe, etc never deserved to swing,This collection of scum took the lives of about 40 innocent people many of them defenceless women and children, I am sickened by what you modern day lord longfords think ,The only answer is the noose and I would gladly be a modern day Jack Ketch to pull the trap door lever on all murderers such as these .

[Gazza]

Quote:

Enfield Blade said:
I like you gazza, you and me agree on many things apart from our choice of football team that is.....

Oh I dont know always had a soft spot for Sheffield United, since the Harry Bassett days!

Blade I think the biggest problem is the handling & accepting "discipline".
Something that is badly missing from schooling upwards.
Something Steph certainly has a problem with, some of his quotes are bizarre to say the least, not understanding why he had a screwdriver removed from him on entering a court & Police drivers are all but lunatics while others are gun-totting wild cowboys.
Blade you pull the lever on the trap door & I will flick the switch on the chair & id do it free of charge!

[Steph]

Gazza

 

I think that, perhaps deliberately, you miss the point.

 

They had never removed a Phillips screwdriver before, they left a flat bladed screwdriver alone and if they had carried out a proper search they would have found at least 3 protimeter attachments with two sharp pins on each.

 

If security is there then it should be total a perfunctury search and removal of the least offensive item in my toolkit seems to me like a "jobsworth" response. Much like the antics of the met police at the moment.

 

BTW would you hang the Jarvis board whose company was responsible for even more "innocent" deaths or the present government who, with their born again christian allies accross the atlantic, have killed even more innocent people than the infamous murderers you list.

 

Just want to know how deep your logic is.

 

BTW the jury convicted after a trial. If you have ever gone to trial you will realise that the main characters in any trial are counsel and the judge. These people put on a show and the best actor can win the day.

 

Whatever Bentley meant, and neither you nor I know exactly what he meant, his I.Q demonstrated that he may not have understood the enormity of what he was doing. But there again you are the font of all knowledge so I must bow to your wisdom in these matters.

 

Why also do you acknowledge that the jury was right with Bentley but not right with Kenneth Noye and Tony Martin. Is it because you have been led to your views by the press who are always after circulation and therefore pander to the lowest common denominator?

[Gazza]

Steph, now you have explained the court saga properly i agree with you, they should of confiscated everything unless they were the tools for a job you were doing there, however in your post you just complained they took a single screwdriver off you.

As for the jarvis board or the government, your comments are not worthy a reply.

As for comparing the Bently Noye & Martin cases, surely that is plain to see, 2 were murderers the other killed someone who had broke into their home.

As for your comment on bowing to my wisdom, you are now obviously clasping at straws to warrant your points of view, by useing sarcasm.

 

Also if you read the thread you will see I dont read any daily paper so that makes that comment also null & void!

[Arkwright]

Quote:

Steph said:
Blade/Gazza

You are so right cos then we can hang people like Henratty and Derek Bentley all over again.

There was this guy on Desert Island Discs about 6 months ago and he made a profound statement which we all should consider when we spout about capital punishment.

"Everybody is better than the worst thing that they have done".

Think about it.

Didn't they finally prove that Hanratty was guilty last year after DNA testing?.
Whether he should have been hung is another question, but he was actually guilty.

[Mr Happy]

Quote:

Enfield Blade said:
I like you gazza, you and me agree on many things apart from our choice of football team that is, So Mr steph/mr happy you think murderous scum like Ian Brady,Myra hindley ,Donald(black panther) neilson,Robert Black,Dennis neilson,Ian Huntly,peter sutcliffe, etc never deserved to swing,This collection of scum took the lives of about 40 innocent people many of them defenceless women and children, I am sickened by what you modern day lord longfords think ,The only answer is the noose and I would gladly be a modern day Jack Ketch to pull the trap door lever on all murderers such as these .

If you look at previous posts on this thread you will see that I agree with just about everything you and Gazza have said. I disagree with just about everything that Steph has said. HOwever, as a Christian, I do not accept that taking a life in cold blood is acceptable. I do think that all murderers should spend the rest of their lives in prison and not receive any pleasent tratment. They should not have telly or recreational facilities etc but should be made to do hard labour 6/7 days per week. They should be made to wear regulation uniforms. This would be a real punishment for what they have done.

My view is that if you execute someone then all you are doing is lowering yourself to their animalistic level.

[Steph]

>Arkwright

 

I suggest you go to http://www.scandals.org/articles/sr970527b.html

 

If you cannot be bothered to read all of the details there try this,

 

The Conclusion

 

Within a few weeks of the execution doubts began to creep into various people's minds, including Mrs. Gregsten's, the investigating police, and the judiciary. It was almost certainly these persistent doubts that led the government to the abolition of hanging. (Hanratty, and perhaps the case of Ruth Ellis - the last woman to be hanged).

The establishment, however, always hate to admit they may have got it wrong, especially if a man has died because of it. But over thirty years, the evidence against Hanratty being guilty has mounted ferociously. Alphon has since admitted it. Witnesses came forward from Wales. And finally a DNA test showed conclusively that he was entirely innocent. Hanratty's family have campaigned for all that time, and justice has been agonisingly slow.

 

Like many of the other cases we have investigated, this is just another one to show the vulnerability of our legal system, especially when a whole set of people make their minds up about a theory. It is more than simple human error, the Hanratty case was the police and judiciary brazenly deciding to fit the facts to their own conjecture.

 

In the light of the new and irrefutable evidence, law reform is obviously long overdue - and if Hanratty did not die completely in vain, then this is the only aspect of the case which had a meaning. That, and the fact that it would now be virtually impossible to re-introduce capital punishment.

 

Gazza

 

Bentley killed no one, he was under arrest at the time the policeman was shot by his accomplice. The actual killer did not get hung as he was too young but Bentley paid for the words "Let him have it" with his life. It seems to me that those words could have been a request for his accomplice to hand over the gun.

 

Noye did not murder the police officer as a jury aquitted him of the charge.

 

Martin was a murderer as a jury convicted him. It seems to me that if you blast a shotgun into the back of someone and set the scene so that you know this will happen that is pre-meditated murder.

 

As far as Jarvis is concerned were they not responsible for the poor maintenance of the track at Hatfield and Potters Bar where many innocent people died.

 

Did the people killed during "shock and awe" in Bagdad somehow deserve it. Weren't these people innocent?

[Arkwright]

Quote:

Steph said:
>Arkwright

I suggest you go to http://www.scandals.org/articles/sr970527b.html

If you cannot be bothered to read all of the details there try this,

The Conclusion

Within a few weeks of the execution doubts began to creep into various people's minds, including Mrs. Gregsten's, the investigating police, and the judiciary. It was almost certainly these persistent doubts that led the government to the abolition of hanging. (Hanratty, and perhaps the case of Ruth Ellis - the last woman to be hanged).
The establishment, however, always hate to admit they may have got it wrong, especially if a man has died because of it. But over thirty years, the evidence against Hanratty being guilty has mounted ferociously. Alphon has since admitted it. Witnesses came forward from Wales. And finally a DNA test showed conclusively that he was entirely innocent. Hanratty's family have campaigned for all that time, and justice has been agonisingly slow.

Like many of the other cases we have investigated, this is just another one to show the vulnerability of our legal system, especially when a whole set of people make their minds up about a theory. It is more than simple human error, the Hanratty case was the police and judiciary brazenly deciding to fit the facts to their own conjecture.

In the light of the new and irrefutable evidence, law reform is obviously long overdue - and if Hanratty did not die completely in vain, then this is the only aspect of the case which had a meaning. That, and the fact that it would now be virtually impossible to re-introduce capital punishment.

Gazza

Bentley killed no one, he was under arrest at the time the policeman was shot by his accomplice. The actual killer did not get hung as he was too young but Bentley paid for the words "Let him have it" with his life. It seems to me that those words could have been a request for his accomplice to hand over the gun.

Noye did not murder the police officer as a jury aquitted him of the charge.

Martin was a murderer as a jury convicted him. It seems to me that if you blast a shotgun into the back of someone and set the scene so that you know this will happen that is pre-meditated murder.

As far as Jarvis is concerned were they not responsible for the poor maintenance of the track at Hatfield and Potters Bar where many innocent people died.

Did the people killed during "shock and awe" in Bagdad somehow deserve it. Weren't these people innocent?

Thanks for seeing if I can be bothered, I appreciate that.
That report was dated 1997 I see, I believe that in the tests done last year that his semen was proved to be on the dress of the woman raped at the scene, or is this wrong?.

[lovely stuff]

I believe you are correct.

[Jim Cunneen]

You may be intersted in this report....

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1977508.stm

 

 

Jim

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/icon_smokin.gif" alt="" />

[Steph]

From BBC

 

Hanratty's body was exhumed for DNA testing against traces found on Miss Storie's underwear and the handkerchief wrapped around the gun.

 

After the test scientists said the DNA was 2.5 million times more likely to belong to Hanratty than anyone else.

 

Hanratty's family and lawyers argued these tests proved nothing because there was a real possibility evidence gathered in 1961 had been contaminated.

 

If you want to read the notes from the appeal,

 

108. No doubt conscious of developments in this area there came a time in 1995

when the Hanratty family were anxious to apply DNA testing to such of the exhibits

as had survived and which might show one way or the other whether James Hanratty

had been responsible for the murder of Michael Gregsten and the rape of Valerie

Storie. Attempts made in March 1995 were unsuccessful. However, in November

1997 after much consultation further DNA analyses were commissioned this time

using highly sensitive DNA amplification techniques. The test was conducted on the

small remaining piece of fabric from the knickers (part having been used in the 1995

experiment), a piece of material from one of the slips and the areas of staining from

the handkerchief. This time the experiment did produce results in that profiles were

obtained both from the fabric and from the handkerchief which could be compared

with samples taken from James Hanratty's brother, Michael, and his mother, Mary.

These comparisons confirmed that the male contribution to the profiling from the

knickers almost certainly came from either a son of Mary or a brother of Michael. It

was also shown at a much lower level of probability that it was a son of Mary and a

brother of Michael who had been responsible for depositing the mucus stains on the

handkerchief.

109. Following the order of the court on 17 October 2000, James Hanratty's body

was exhumed and samples taken from which it has been possible for Dr Whitaker of

the Forensic Science Laboratory to state with what a non-scientist would regard as

equivalent to absolute certainty (or almost absolute certainty as makes no

difference) that the DNA profile recovered from the fragment of knickers and the

DNA profile recovered from the mucus staining on the handkerchief have come from

James Hanratty. That is not in dispute and, indeed, it is conceded by Mr Mansfield on

behalf of the appellant that, should it transpire that all possibility of contamination

can be excluded, the DNA evidence points conclusively to James Hanratty having

been both the murderer and the rapist.

Contamination.

110. As was so clearly explained by Ms Woodroffe, an independent scientific

consultant and a most impressive witness, DNA may migrate from one surface to

another by a variety of means. Primary transfer is what happens when there is direct

contact between a donor individual and a recipient individual or surface as might

occur during sexual intercourse. Secondary transfer is what happens when the DNA

is moved via an intermediary as where a contaminated and an uncontaminated

surface are brought into contact with one another. Then there may be movement of

DNA again via an intermediary where perhaps the same hand first touches the

infected surface and then another surface which had hitherto been uncontaminated

as might happen where exhibits are handled without proper precautions in the

witness box. Having said that, usually one can expect a greater quantity of DNA to

be transferred as a result of primary as opposed to secondary contact. But it is

always necessary to allow for particular circumstances as where the DNA is dry, as in

the case of hair, or wet, as in the case of seminal fluid. Similarly, regard must be had

to the duration of the contact. Up to the happening of the crime event, accidental

movement of DNA in this way is referred to as "transfer"; after the crime event as

"contamination". We are only concerned with the latter, but for ease of expression

we shall use the terms interchangeably.

111. In this case it may be helpful first to identify the relevant exhibits or objects

and then to trace their history through to their first examination in 1995 by which

time it is accepted that there was no longer any risk of contamination.

112. Quite clearly the knickers (exhibit 26 at trial) and later the fragment cut from

the crotch area and the handkerchief (exhibit 35) are of first importance. So too, as

possible contaminators, are James Hanratty's intimate samples and items of clothing

which may have borne traces of his DNA.

113. The knickers arrived at the Metropolitan Police Laboratory (MPL) on 23 August

1961 where they were examined by Dr Nickolls, the director and his assistant, Henry

Howard. They were found to be stained with seminal fluid in the area of the crotch

and at the back for five inches upwards from the crotch. Vaginal fluid from Valerie

Storie was also present. There were smaller quantities of seminal fluid of blood group

AB assumed to have come at some earlier stage from Michael Gregsten. Although

the laboratory records are not dated, the notes are numbered sequentially and we

are confident that the knickers were examined almost immediately and in any event

no later than 23 September 1961 when the notes show that certain samples taken

from Peter Alphon were examined at the laboratory. The handkerchief came to the

laboratory on 25 August, was screened for blood and semen and, none being found,

seems to have been put to one side.

114. On 7 October 1961 a suitcase containing James Hanratty's clothing was seized

from the home of his girlfriend, Louise Anderson. It was received at the laboratory

on 9 October. Amongst other items it contained a pair of dark pinstriped trousers

(part of the Hepworth suit) and a green jacket and trousers. Some hairs and fibres

were removed from the outside of the dark trousers as was a sample from a seminal

stain on the inside of the fly. A suggestion, which has not been contradicted, is that

the seminal stain may have been washed out and retained in the form of a liquid. On

13 October, the laboratory received samples of James Hanratty's blood and saliva. It

was only at this point that the police became aware of his blood grouping. The

records are incomplete but there would seem to be no reason for any of James

Hanratty's items of clothing or for his intimate samples to be present in the

laboratory at the same time as the knickers or the handkerchief. There is, of course,

the possibility that all the exhibits were stored in the same place, albeit separately

packaged, which, it is submitted, might have provided the opportunity for secondary

contamination. Dr Nickolls is dead. Mr Howard is still alive though in poor health. His

recollection is that the dangers of contamination were recognised even in 1961 and

that the practice was to take elementary precautions such as making sure that

clothing from victim and suspect were not examined on the same day.

115. All the exhibits, including those mentioned, were produced at the committal

proceedings which took place between 22 November 1961 and 5 December 1961. If

the usual procedures of the time were followed it would seem doubtful that any one

of the exhibits, barring possibly the gun and certain of the cartridges, would ever

have been removed from its packaging or container. Even so, as Mr Mansfield points

out and the respondent concedes, the possibility that there was contact between the

various exhibits cannot be excluded altogether.

116. As a result of correspondence between James Hanratty's then solicitors and

the DPP, arrangements were made for the pathologist, Dr Grant, to have access to

James Hanratty's intimate samples and also to certain of the exhibits. It appears

from the records that Dr Grant examined the green jacket and trousers on 28

December 1961 and Valerie Storie's slips and knickers the following day. It was on

this latter occasion that a portion of the crotch area of the knickers was removed and

thereafter, as seems clear, stored separately from the other exhibits including the

knickers from which it had been excised. As also seems clear, a fragment of the

excised portion was retained by the laboratory having first been placed in a small

envelope made of cellophane and sellotape which was in turn put into a small brown

envelope and the small envelope into a larger envelope before being treasury tagged

to a laboratory file. It was so placed when rediscovered in 1991.

117. At the trial which took place between 22 January 1962 and 17 February 1962

all the exhibits with the exception of a portion of the slip and the fragment of the

knickers referred to previously were produced and in due course, taken out by the

jury on retirement. Thereafter, on 9 April 1962, James Hanratty's suitcase and

clothing were returned to his father and on 22 May 1962 Valerie Storie's slips, her

knickers and various samples were all destroyed.

118. The handkerchief seems to have remained with the Bedfordshire Constabulary

until September or early October 1997 when it was discovered in the course of

enquiries made on behalf of the Commission. It was in the original envelope inside

another envelope marked with the exhibit number '35'.

119. The file containing the fragment from the knickers was discovered in 1991 by

Jennifer Wiles. It was still packaged as described except that the cellophane package

was no longer intact. Also found in the file were some broken slides and slide holders

possibly having contained hairs and fibres collected at the scene of the murder.

There were also two polythene bags each containing hairs thought now to have come

from Alphon. There was another polythene bag containing a number of bullets and

significantly, so Mr Mansfield submits, a polythene bag containing a small rubber

bung and fragments of glass including a curved piece suggesting that the polythene

bag had at one time contained a glass vial or tube.

120. Mr Mansfield submits against that background that the respondent has not

been able to exclude the possibility of contamination. In making that submission, he

is supported by Dr Martin Evison who is a senior lecturer in Forensic Biological

Anthropology in the Department of Forensic Anthropology at The Medico Legal

Centre in Sheffield and has many academic achievements and publications to his

credit. He told the court that he had not been able to exclude "the realistic possibility

of contamination". Dr Evison seems to accept that in the case of the knicker

fragment the contaminant would have to be semen. That really limits the possibilities

to (1) contact between the knickers and the Hepworth trousers and (2) contact

between the contents of the broken vial and the fragment held on file. That would

mean, so far as the first possibility is concerned, contact between the knickers and

the fly area of the trousers in the laboratory, during storage or on production at

committal. The mechanics are difficult to visualise and we gain the impression that it

is neither Mr Mansfield's or Dr Evison's preferred explanation. Contact could not take

place any later than that because, as we know, Dr Grant cut out the fragment from

the knickers before the trial took place and the fragment itself was not exhibited. The

second possibility involves a hypothesis in which the broken vial contained a solution

of James Hanratty's semen (extracted from the Hepworth trousers) which upon the

vial being broken escaped in such a way as to invade the insecure packaging in

which the fabric from the knickers was being kept. One of the respondent's

witnesses, Mr Roger Mann, who has thirty-two years experience as a forensic

scientist, gave evidence that he has never come across a vial or tube containing

liquid being retained on a file and we are bound to say that, without having any kind

of scientific experience at all, it would seem a curious method of storage. Mr

Greenhalgh, who saw the file and examined the fabric in 1995, told us that he

considered the risk of contamination to the fabric to be very low. We quote from his

evidence.

"As I examined the item, the piece of blue material from the knickers was in a sealed

packet inside the two envelopes. I did not observe any damage to that packaging

which I considered likely to be a risk of contamination. As far as I was concerned

they were sealed, although the outer envelopes were not sealed there was no

indication of any liquid damage on the brown paper envelopes, as might have been

expected if a liquid sample had leaked onto them."

121. That said we should also record that not one of the respondent's witnesses

excluded the possibility of contamination. They have expressed themselves in

different ways but the general tenor of the evidence has been that they each

considered the possibility to be remote. That, of course, has to be contrasted with

the opinion of Dr Evison who never moved from his original position as stated in this

judgment.

122. As far as the handkerchief is concerned, it will be remembered when first

examined it was considered to be of no scientific interest. No blood or semen was

detected. When John Bark, a forensic scientist working at the Forensic Science

Laboratory in Birmingham, examined the handkerchief in 1997 he found that:

"The handkerchief appears to be stained with some body fluid, cellular material

which has bonded strongly to the cotton fabric over a number of years. There is no

microscopic evidence that semen is present."

That conclusion is supported by Roger Mann who subjected the handkerchief to

chemical screening though he acknowledges the test carried out would not

necessarily detect semen deposited by a male who did not produce spermatozoa.

Realistically, however, it would seem to follow that the contaminant would have to

be something other than semen and almost certainly liquid in form.

123. The handkerchief was placed in an open buff OHMS envelope from which, no

doubt, it was produced both at the committal proceedings and at trial. It was not

examined by Dr Grant. In those circumstances the opportunities for contamination

would seem to be extremely limited. However, in common with the approach taken

in the case of the knicker fragment, the respondent's experts are prepared to accept

that there has been, at least, a theoretical risk of contamination.

124. Making it quite clear that for the time being we are simply considering the risk

of contamination of a neutral surface without regard to the DNA profiles which were

eventually obtained, we, too, accept that there was at least a theoretical possibility

of both the knicker fragment and the handkerchief having been in contact with a

surface bearing DNA contaminants from James Hanratty.

125. But that is to ignore the results of the DNA profiling. With regard to the

knicker fragment we have what Dr Whitaker would describe as a typical distribution

of male and female DNA following an act of sexual intercourse leading, to the

obvious inference that the male contribution came from James Hanratty. For that not

to be the case we would have to suppose that the DNA of the rapist, also of blood

group O, had either degraded so as to become undetectable or had been masked by

James Hanratty's DNA during the course of a contaminating event. Moreover, we

would also have to suppose that Valerie Storie's DNA had remained in its original

state, or at least detectable, and had escaped being overridden by DNA from James

Hanratty. The same would have to be true of the DNA attributed to Michael

Gregsten. Finally, we must visualise a pattern which is wholly consistent with sexual

intercourse having taken place in which Valerie Storie and James Hanratty were the

participants.

126. Much the same reasoning would apply to the handkerchief. The only DNA

extracted from the handkerchief came from James Hanratty. The only places on the

handkerchief from which his DNA was extracted were the areas of mucus staining. It

is to be expected that whoever was responsible for the mucus staining would have

left evidence of his DNA. If the explanation for James Hanratty's DNA being found on

the handkerchief is subsequent contamination it must follow that either the original

DNA had degraded so as to become undetectable or James Hanratty's DNA has in

some way overwhelmed the original deposit so that the original is no longer capable

of being traced. More than that the transfer must have taken place in such a way as

to affect only the areas of mucus staining and not the unstained part of the

handkerchief which was not found to bear DNA from James Hanratty or anyone else.

In our view the notion that such a thing might have happened in either case is

fanciful. The idea that it might have happened twice over is beyond belief.

127. Accordingly, we reject the evidence of Dr Evison where it is in conflict with the

additional evidence of the respondents, agreeing as we do with the submission made

by Mr Sweeney that the DNA evidence standing alone is certain proof of James

Hanratty's guilt.

128. By way of postscript we should record that it has been agreed by Mr Sweeney

and Mr Mansfield that on the evidence now available Peter Alphon could not have

been the murderer. It is understood that this agreement arose out of the DNA

evidence.

[Arkwright]

Thanks for that Steph.

Therefore it seems that the anti hanging argument would be better applied to the the DEFINATE miscarriage of Justice that was the Birmingham 6 ( Which is also more appropriate in that it involved terrorism).

[Mr Happy]

Ok, now I really am getting bor......

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!