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:
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by David Orsam 46 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by David Orsam 50 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by David Orsam 55 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by David Orsam 55 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by rjpalmer 2 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by rjpalmer 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (19 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Cecil Hotel, Richard Raminez, Jack Unterweger - (4 posts)
Annie Chapman: Can someone explain to me 'shabby gentile?' - (3 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (3 posts)
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - (2 posts)
General Police Discussion: City of London Police residents of Mitre Square - (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
  #3331  
Old 09-12-2016, 07:20 AM
OneRound OneRound is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 430
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRound View Post
Hi Anson - I remain unconvinced that Hanratty's guilt has been proved fairly and beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, a not guilty verdict from me.

At risk of appearing to run with the fox and the hounds, I would emphasise that does not mean I am convinced of Hanratty's innocence. Some way from it in fact.

Best regards,

OneRound
Hi Caz,

From March last year. Just saying.

Best regards,

OneRound
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3332  
Old 09-12-2016, 07:56 AM
OneRound OneRound is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 430
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Hi All,

I'd like to turn some of the recent arguments on their head and offer the stark observation that justice is rarely served where the prosecution and/or defence cases are flawed, less than thorough, incompetent, whatever. But while this can (and too often does) result in an innocent person being wrongly convicted, it can equally result in a dangerous criminal being acquitted, particularly where the case for the prosecution is so obviously weak that no jury could fail to have reasonable doubt.

Putting aside for a moment my strong feelings against capital punishment in any circumstances, I am quite satisfied that 1960s society could thank Hanratty himself, followed by the jury, for taking a psychopathic killer and rapist out of action, despite the weaknesses in the actual case, about which the jury were warned. The jury knew he would hang or go free on their decision, yet they could not conjure up between them the sliver of reasonable doubt that would have let him rejoin society, where I have very little doubt he would have re-offended, if only to the 'safer' extent of breaking into more innocent people's homes and making off with their honestly gained personal possessions - at gunpoint if necessary.

We go over and over the old imperfections and uncertainties of the original case and trial, which many of us feel ought to have led to an acquittal of the man in the dock (whether he did it or not), but it is rarely acknowledged that those shortcomings don't, by themselves, indicate innocence over guilt; they only really muddy the waters and mask the truth, making a jury's job that much harder to do the right thing by society.

On a theoretical level, would anyone here relish the thought of the true A6 killer being charged, only to be acquitted due to the shortcomings of others, the police, the witnesses, the prosecution?

Love,

Caz
X
Hi again Caz,

With some genuine respect, I feel your final question is too heavily slanted. No sensible person should relish that thought and so I unequivocally answer 'No'.

However, it's a different matter if the question were to be along the lines - are you prepared for a murderer to be acquitted if his guilt is not proved fairly and reasonably? With a heavy heart, my answer to that is 'Yes' and I would suspect that applies to many others too. It is after all very much the basis of our trial by jury system.

Lest I seem too much of an academic liberal in my comments above, I'll also expose the hypocrite in me and readily admit that if Michael Gregsten or Valerie Storie had been my child, I would not be concerned with such legal niceties and would have been more than happy to have seen Hanratty strung up at the first opportunity.

The conflict between imo the right man being found guilty but by unjust means is part of what intrigues me about this case.

Best regards,

OneRound
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3333  
Old 09-14-2016, 05:56 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,575
Default

Hi OneRound,

I do appreciate your observations. I suppose I am biased by the DNA results and the fact that I now firmly believe Hanratty was guilty as charged. One could argue that, at the time, the jury convicted despite the case against him not being sufficiently robust to exclude all reasonable doubt. But for me the fault lies less with the jury, for getting it right, if not for the right reasons, and more with the mechanics of the investigation and trial which invited the jury to get it wrong.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3334  
Old 09-14-2016, 06:38 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derrick View Post
No Caz I did see your post.

I have already posted on this forum on a couple of occasions that I have seen both Lewis Nickoll's forensic bench notes and have read the entirety of his testimony at trial.

He makes absolutely no mention of finding anything other than O secretor semen (attributed to the rapist) and O non secretor vaginal fluid (attributed to Storie - obviously).

Nowhere in the transcript of the DNA evidence at the appeal in 2002, is any mention made of the finding of AB group semen.

The judges in the ruling have made a gross error in saying that AB semen was found.
Hi Del,

So apologies for being dim, but were the 'smaller quantities of seminal fluid', as mentioned in the Appeal Judgement, plucked out of thin air then? What made anyone suppose in the first place that two separate individuals had left semen on those knickers back in 1961 if there was nothing anywhere to indicate this had been the case? Why would anyone imagine or invent this detail, and to what end? And how could such a 'gross error' occur, without anyone at the time of the appeal noticing and challenging it?

Would there have been any way of knowing, back in 1961, if seminal fluid came from one, two or a dozen separate individuals, unless they found more than one blood group on examination? This is what I assumed must have been the case.

How do you think this rogue section 113 came to be written, if only one man's semen - presumed to be the rapist's - was ever found in 1961? And why hasn't this been taken up and challenged by others with perhaps more influence?

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov



Last edited by caz : 09-14-2016 at 06:41 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3335  
Old 09-15-2016, 06:01 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 790
Default

On the 1 month anniversary of the crime Hanratty drove Gladys Deacon to Bedford. There has been some discussion here about whether he was ‘reliving the incident' or it was merely a coincidence.

After Bedford they went to Battersea funfair. When he and Carole had gone to the funfair shortly before they’d had sex in a side street afterwards. But now he had transport, Hanratty drove Gladys all the way to Brockley Hill where they had sex in the car. If he was not reliving the incident, why had he traveled to a place on or near the route that the murder car had taken on its way north?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3336  
Old 09-15-2016, 09:32 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 790
Default

Since posting the above I have discovered that Gladys lived in Burnt Oak, which goes some way to answering my question.

I find that the information on places and addresses is scattered, so have started a 'Locations' thread where they can be gathered together for easier reference.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3337  
Old 09-16-2016, 09:12 AM
OneRound OneRound is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 430
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB View Post
On the 1 month anniversary of the crime Hanratty drove Gladys Deacon to Bedford. There has been some discussion here about whether he was ‘reliving the incident' or it was merely a coincidence.

After Bedford they went to Battersea funfair. When he and Carole had gone to the funfair shortly before they’d had sex in a side street afterwards. But now he had transport, Hanratty drove Gladys all the way to Brockley Hill where they had sex in the car. If he was not reliving the incident, why had he traveled to a place on or near the route that the murder car had taken on its way north?
Hi Nick - please forgive this question but I no longer have any of the books. Where does the information of Hanratty having sex with Gladys Deacon come from?

I thought the evidence given at trial by his young lady friends was very much along the lines of him being a proper gentleman.

I realise this doesn't establish innocence (back to a point recently made by Caz) but the amount of sex available to Hanratty does seem to shoot down the prosecution's suggestion at trial that he was driven by lust to kidnap and rape Valerie Storie. If the jury had known that, it would not have increased any respect for him but it may have caused them to doubt more whether he was a rapist and murderer.

Best regards,

OneRound
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3338  
Old 09-16-2016, 12:02 PM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 790
Default

As far as I know (and stand to be be corrected) his amorous exploits, as recounted in Woffinden, were given in interviews to his defence team but not revealed in court.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3339  
Old 09-16-2016, 02:29 PM
OneRound OneRound is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 430
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB View Post
As far as I know (and stand to be be corrected) his amorous exploits, as recounted in Woffinden, were given in interviews to his defence team but not revealed in court.
Thanks, Nick.

If I, as a jury member, had been informed that Hanratty was able to enjoy amorous exploits with the good-looking Miss Deacon, I would have been even more sceptical of the prosecution's suggestion that lust required him to visit a cornfield miles from home to commit rape.

Best regards,

OneRound
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3340  
Old 09-16-2016, 02:42 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,200
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRound View Post
Thanks, Nick.

If I, as a jury member, had been informed that Hanratty was able to enjoy amorous exploits with the good-looking Miss Deacon, I would have been even more sceptical of the prosecution's suggestion that lust required him to visit a cornfield miles from home to commit rape.

Best regards,

OneRound
Save that rape and lust are two different things.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
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 01:58 PM.


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