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: A theory about some injuries! - by Abby Normal 1 minute ago.
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - by Abby Normal 4 minutes ago.
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - by Abby Normal 7 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by caz 12 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by caz 42 minutes ago.
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - by mklhawley 49 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (33 posts)
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - (14 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: A theory about some injuries! - (7 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Was Ernest Dowson Jack the Ripper? - (5 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - (5 posts)
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - (4 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
  #4031  
Old 02-27-2017, 08:39 AM
Spitfire Spitfire is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 513
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRound View Post
Hi again Spit - before I fully reply, can I please check that you mean ''am'' here.

Thanks,

OneRound
Yep, seen driving into Avondale Crescent from Redbridge Lane East by Trower at 7am , then the car drives along Avondale exiting onto Roding Lane South, then off to Coventry (for more skullduggery) where it is seen at 3.25pm from where it heads south to return to Avondale Crescent for 6.45pm.

It would have been seen at 7am in Avondale Crescent, and 3.25pm in Coventry, but would not have been parked there (Avondale Crescent) all day. Unlikely I agree, but...

Last edited by Spitfire : 02-27-2017 at 08:49 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4032  
Old 02-27-2017, 09:32 AM
OneRound OneRound is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 403
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spitfire View Post
Yep, seen driving into Avondale Crescent from Redbridge Lane East by Trower at 7am , then the car drives along Avondale exiting onto Roding Lane South, then off to Coventry (for more skullduggery) where it is seen at 3.25pm from where it heads south to return to Avondale Crescent for 6.45pm.

It would have been seen at 7am in Avondale Crescent, and 3.25pm in Coventry, but would not have been parked there (Avondale Crescent) all day. Unlikely I agree, but...
Arrhh, gotcha, thanks again, Spit.

I was working upon the (long odds) possibility that IF the car had been in Coventry at circa 3.25 pm, it could have been driven to Avondale Crescent to arrive there by the time it was found. I was relying on that to blow Skillett and Trower's evidence out of the water. I freely acknowledge that I had not considered the car having got to Cov via Avondale before returning to Avondale! Even for this most bizarre of cases, I consider that too remote a possibility.

Whatever was likely or even most unlikely, I maintain my view that all reported sightings should have been disclosed to the defence team in order that they could determine how best to prepare for Hanratty's trial. In my opinion, the denial of that to the defence team meant that Hanratty was denied a fair trial.

Best regards,

OneRound
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4033  
Old 02-27-2017, 09:50 AM
Spitfire Spitfire is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 513
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRound View Post
Whatever was likely or even most unlikely, I maintain my view that all reported sightings should have been disclosed to the defence team in order that they could determine how best to prepare for Hanratty's trial. In my opinion, the denial of that to the defence team meant that Hanratty was denied a fair trial.
Hello OR,

The Court of Appeal agreed that there had been material non-disclosure and that the witnesses' identities should have been disclosed to the defence but that did not amount to a fundamental flaw in the trial.

I would still like to know why no complaint was made about the absence of the Draycott sighting, I would have thought for the defence, that the more, the merrier.

Although it is common knowledge that where there a sensational crime has been committed a whole host of nutters, crackpots, malicious attention seekers and genuine witnesses come out of the woodwork to "assist" the police. Should all these names be passed on to the defence team?

Anyway, it should be remembered that the failure of the prosecution to disclose the car sighting witnesses was nothing compared to the damage which Jim inflicted on his own defence by failing to mention the "real" alibi until halfway through his trial.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4034  
Old 02-27-2017, 11:01 AM
OneRound OneRound is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 403
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spitfire View Post
Hello OR,

The Court of Appeal agreed that there had been material non-disclosure and that the witnesses' identities should have been disclosed to the defence but that did not amount to a fundamental flaw in the trial.

I would still like to know why no complaint was made about the absence of the Draycott sighting, I would have thought for the defence, that the more, the merrier.

Although it is common knowledge that where there a sensational crime has been committed a whole host of nutters, crackpots, malicious attention seekers and genuine witnesses come out of the woodwork to "assist" the police. Should all these names be passed on to the defence team?

Anyway, it should be remembered that the failure of the prosecution to disclose the car sighting witnesses was nothing compared to the damage which Jim inflicted on his own defence by failing to mention the "real" alibi until halfway through his trial.
Hi again Spit,

Unsurprisingly I agree with the Court of Appeal's findings there about the non-disclosures but not their resulting conclusion. A big decision but maybe small margins. Might different judges have ruled differently? I can't say but, if they had, they might have quashed the guilty verdict on that alone and chosen not to consider the DNA findings. Not sure where that would have left us here!

As for Draycott - I take your point about 'the more the merrier' but unless the timing of his reported sighting could be challenged, it might have hindered more than it helped as it did nothing to disprove the evidence of Trower and Skillett. Furthermore, as Draycott didn't notice the driver, he couldn't give any support to it not being Hanratty behind the wheel.

I also take your point about nutters and crackpots etc. I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise but my initial inclination is that they should all be passed on to the defence with a brief note of the police's finding - then it's up to the defence whether to investigate further or consign to the bin. When it's their man depending on them, I think that's how it should be with the defence team determining whether someone is a nutter or a potential star witness.

I totally agree with your final para and know that Graham does too (if he hasn't already responded!).

Best regards,

OneRound
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4035  
Old 02-27-2017, 12:48 PM
Spitfire Spitfire is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 513
Default

Hi OR,

First of all, and before Sherlock Houses takes me to task, accept my apologies for saying in my earlier post that the Bedford milkman was 'Draycott' as per my even earlier posts the correct name is Drayton.

Apropos witnesses in Bedford and Essex, whilst browsing today I saw this this report from a few years back. It amused me anyway.

As to the law, I think it would for the Court of Appeal to quash the conviction if there had been a fundamental flaw in the trial process, even if other evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If a retrial were possible, then in those circumstances, one would be ordered. Because of the execution of Hanratty and the passage of time, a retrial could not really have been ordered.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4036  
Old 02-27-2017, 01:12 PM
Derrick Derrick is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 568
Default

hanratty couldn't be the a6 killer because he would have done 2 things.

torched the car and then stolen another.

chucked the gun in the drink.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4037  
Old 02-27-2017, 01:34 PM
Spitfire Spitfire is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 513
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derrick View Post
hanratty couldn't be the a6 killer because he would have done 2 things.

torched the car and then stolen another.

chucked the gun in the drink.
Good evening Derrick,

I've been mystified as to why Mansfield et al did not complain about the failure to disclose the milkman witness, Charles Drayton, who claims to have seen the murder car, 847 BHN at 5.25 am in the morning of 23 August 1961. Can you shed any light on this? It seems strange as Bob Woffinden was of the opinion that Drayton's evidence was the "immediately convincing", whereas the sighting by William Lee was "plainly wrong" and you of course have described Lee's evidence as "incontrovertible".

Whilst on the subject of Lee, you maintain he saw the Morris Minor at 8.30 am not at 6.30 am as stated in the Court of Appeal judgment. Why do you say this? Does anyone else agree with you?

Awaiting your reply with interest

S
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4038  
Old 02-27-2017, 01:42 PM
OneRound OneRound is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 403
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spitfire View Post
Hi OR,

First of all, and before Sherlock Houses takes me to task, accept my apologies for saying in my earlier post that the Bedford milkman was 'Draycott' as per my even earlier posts the correct name is Drayton.

Apropos witnesses in Bedford and Essex, whilst browsing today I saw this this report from a few years back. It amused me anyway.

As to the law, I think it would for the Court of Appeal to quash the conviction if there had been a fundamental flaw in the trial process, even if other evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If a retrial were possible, then in those circumstances, one would be ordered. Because of the execution of Hanratty and the passage of time, a retrial could not really have been ordered.
Thanks once more, Spit.

All points noted. Guess milko Drayton might not have been too accurate with the time if he was more worried about lions on the prowl in Bedford!

I agree with your final para. In allowing the dna evidence to be presented, the Court of Appeal stated that it would not save the conviction if the trial was shown to be fundamentally flawed. It did though seem to me that the game was up once the dna came into the mix.

Best regards,

OneRound
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4039  
Old 02-28-2017, 06:52 AM
Derrick Derrick is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 568
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spitfire View Post
Good evening Derrick,

I've been mystified as to why Mansfield et al did not complain about the failure to disclose the milkman witness, Charles Drayton, who claims to have seen the murder car, 847 BHN at 5.25 am in the morning of 23 August 1961. Can you shed any light on this? It seems strange as Bob Woffinden was of the opinion that Drayton's evidence was the "immediately convincing", whereas the sighting by William Lee was "plainly wrong" and you of course have described Lee's evidence as "incontrovertible".

Whilst on the subject of Lee, you maintain he saw the Morris Minor at 8.30 am not at 6.30 am as stated in the Court of Appeal judgment. Why do you say this? Does anyone else agree with you?

Awaiting your reply with interest

S
Good afternoon Spitfire

I am sure the appellant lumped all of the additional sightings into one ground dealt with, off-handedly imho, by the CACD beginning at paragraph 151.

I say it was 8:30 because that is what he said in his statement, which I have seen, to the police that day. As far as people agreeing with me...the CCRC for starters. Acott must have been crucially worried by Lee's statement that he buried it. Yet he wrote on Lee's statement "N/A. Car already discovered in Avondale Crescent."!!!!

Lee seeing the car at 8:30, validates Drayton's sighting at 5:25am and invalidates Skillet and Trower's identifications, leaving Storie's as the only evidence against Hanratty.

The circumstantial evidence presented at trial could be easily explained by inserting Dixie France's name for Hanratty's.

The DNA is worthless unless a referential profile for Gregsten is forthcoming.

Del
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4040  
Old 02-28-2017, 09:53 AM
ansonman ansonman is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derrick View Post
Good afternoon Spitfire

I am sure the appellant lumped all of the additional sightings into one ground dealt with, off-handedly imho, by the CACD beginning at paragraph 151.

I say it was 8:30 because that is what he said in his statement, which I have seen, to the police that day. As far as people agreeing with me...the CCRC for starters. Acott must have been crucially worried by Lee's statement that he buried it. Yet he wrote on Lee's statement "N/A. Car already discovered in Avondale Crescent."!!!!

Lee seeing the car at 8:30, validates Drayton's sighting at 5:25am and invalidates Skillet and Trower's identifications, leaving Storie's as the only evidence against Hanratty.

The circumstantial evidence presented at trial could be easily explained by inserting Dixie France's name for Hanratty's.

The DNA is worthless unless a referential profile for Gregsten is forthcoming.

Del
Del

Although we are not yet into March, I doubt that a more authoritative post will appear on the site this year.

Ansonman
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 09:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.