Click on bold, purple text to visit the pages they link to.

Friday, 12 October 2012

Project Diary 1


This is our first Project Diary detailing the outline of our idea for the trailer we will be creating.



Further Information about the A6 Murders (Quoted from the James Hanratty Wikipedia Article)


The facts
At about 06:45 on 23 August 1961, the body of Michael J. Gregsten (b. 28 December 1924) was discovered in a lay-by on the A6 at Deadman's Hill, near the Bedfordshire village of Clophill; he had been shot twice in the head with a .38 revolver at point blank range. Lying next to him semi-conscious was his mistress Valerie Storie (b. 24 November 1938). She had been raped and then shot, four times in the left shoulder and once in the neck, leaving her paralysed below the shoulders.
The evening after the murder, the car Gregsten and Storie had been in at the time, a grey four-door 1956 Morris Minor registration 847 BHN, was found abandoned behind Redbridge tube station in Essex. The car had been jointly owned by Gregsten's mother and aunt, and lent to the couple who, according to Storie, were 'planning a car rally'.
Gregsten was a scientist at the Road Research Laboratory at Slough. Storie was an assistant at the same laboratory and had been having an affair with Gregsten, although this did not become public knowledge until much later. Gregsten lived with his wife Janet and two children at Abbots Langley, whither he had returned in December 1960 after living with Storie for an unspecified period.

DNA evidence and appeal in 2002
The case for Hanratty's innocence was pursued by his family as well as by some of the opponents of capital punishment in the United Kingdom, who maintained that Hanratty was innocent and sought to draw attention to evidence that would cast doubt on the validity of his conviction. However, following an appeal by his family, modern testing of DNA from his exhumed corpse and members of his family convinced Court of Appeal judges in 2002 that his guilt was proved "beyond doubt". Paul Foot and some other campaigners continued to believe in Hanratty's innocence and argued that the DNA evidence could have been contaminated, noting that the small DNA samples from items of clothing, kept in a police laboratory for over 40 years "in conditions that do not satisfy modern evidential standards", had had to be subjected to very new amplification techniques in order to yield any genetic profile. However, no DNA other than Hanratty's was found on the evidence tested, contrary to what would have been expected had the evidence indeed been contaminated. 

No comments:

Post a Comment