a6 murder

[Victor]

The "burden of proof" is on the prosecution to disprove an accused's alibi. This possibly has something to do with the legal situation that a person is presumed "innocent until proven guilty".

Hi James,
Is this just he first alibi given or any and all? I can imagine a situation where someone could keep proposing a new alibi when their last is disproved and indefinitely delay the investigation.

Isn't it very strange that not one person ever came forward to place James Hanratty in the Slough area on 22nd of August 1961, whereas a few people claimed to have either seen Peter Alphon or someone remarkably like him in the area around Dorney Common that Tuesday evening ?

Isn't the Slough/Dorney Common area quite a rural location? Not a lot of people around especially vigilant people looking for someone who may very well be sneaking around casing houses and therefore trying to avoid being spotted.

What is similarly very strange is the fact that not one person has ever claimed to have seen James Hanratty anywhere in the London (or Slough) area from about 9.30am Tuesday (22nd) until around 8am Friday (25th). Several witnesses however (of good repute) came forward to say they either saw James Hanratty or someone remarkably like him on a London to Liverpool train, in Liverpool and in Rhyl at the critical times.

Slightly unusual perhaps, but not impossible.

Even Basil Acott was impressed with Mrs Olive Dinwoodie's (and her granddaughter Barbara's) testimony. So impressed was he in fact that at one point he even suggested the ludicrous possibility that there was an air service connecting Liverpool, London and Dorney, which enabled Hanratty to leg it out of that sweet shop (around 5pm) and head for Speke Airport (about 10 miles away) and then pay for an air ticket to Heathrow and from there somehow make it to Dorney Reach for around 9.30pm.

James

It could simply be viewed as an investigator acting a bit overzealously because he's just had a new alibi dropped on him which he has to investigate rather quickly. Wouldn't you investigate whether it was possible for someone to get from Liverpool to Dorney in the time available? Hence removing the need to investigate the alibi because it doesn't cover the correct timeframe.

KR,
Vic

[simon]

Hi Peter,
Although I've heard about these late-in-the-day grave doubts of Paul Foot, I don't think I've ever seen anything in print. Are you able to point in me in the right direction ?

Regards,
Simon

[Tony]

[QUOTE=Victor;45533]No problem, I like the word myself but don't get enough opportunities to use it. I especially like Torpenhow Hill and must thank QI for introducing it to me.



Hey Vic,

This is bloody good stuff. Roll on Thursday night. That’s what I say.

Incidentally I am going to Sheffield tonight and my journey will take me past Mam Tor also known as The Shivering Mountain. I’ll let you know tomorrow if I notice any occurrences of shivering as I pass by.

Tony

[caz]

Good evening to you Caz,

If I’m reading you correctly you say when did I go from believing Hanratty to be not guilty as opposed to not believing the case against him had not been made.

I think even the ‘Hanratty did it brigade’ will openly say that he should not have been convicted on the evidence in court (see some of Graham’s recent posts) and I agree with them on that. What is your position on this point, Caz?

And yes it follows that if I believe he was innocent then some other person must have been responsible and if he was not there he had to be somewhere else. We all know the sweet shop evidence and Rhyl.
If Miss Storie had not picked out Michael Clark, who she said in court looked like Peter Alphon, as her attacker but had picked out Peter Alphon, , then I feel the police would have had a much simpler and more convincing case and I don’t think the jury would have been out very long at all.

Good Afternoon Tony,

What you wrote above does not really address my question to you about why you always believed Hanratty was innocent and still do. I’m talking about the difference between believing, as many of us do, that the original evidence against him left something to be desired, and believing that an innocent man was taken out of society as a result, leaving us with a rapist and murderer who was free to offend again had he so wished.

Valerie Storie did not pick out Alphon, regardless of any similarities she noticed between him and the man she did pick initially. Had she done so, it could well be that the police would have had a simpler (not so sure about ‘more convincing’) case to put before the jury. But as I’ve pointed out before, it would have involved your same less than reliable Valerie Storie and your same fallible police in need of a conviction, which means that Alphon could have been hanged instead, on no stronger evidence against him. How would that have served the cause of justice any better? Why would anyone be taken seriously if they still claimed he did it after someone else’s DNA (Hanratty’s) turned up on the hankie as well as the knickers, but no trace of Alphon’s? And yet, that is what is being claimed, and Alphon has never been identified by anyone as the gunman and no forensic or circumstantial evidence has ever put him at the scene.

So what evidence tipped the balance for you and made Hanratty innocent and Alphon guilty of rape and murder? Any evidence that Alphon was sexually active and may have coveted other men’s possessions, including their cars and possibly their women too? Any evidence that convinces you that Alphon was at the scene, or that Hanratty was elsewhere, that doesn’t come solely from the minefield of unverified accounts by witnesses who didn’t know either of them personally when claiming to have seen them at specific times and places?

The "burden of proof" is on the prosecution to disprove an accused's alibi. This possibly has something to do with the legal situation that a person is presumed "innocent until proven guilty".

Hi jimarilyn,

Yes of course. I think we all get that. But if the jury sees the defendant pissing all over his first alibi by having to come up with a second, that still has no documentary evidence, it’s a bit much for him to expect them to disregard this indication that he is a desperate man with something to hide. If he came into the court with two distinct alibis in mind, the natural conclusion for any jury to come to would be that he would not have kept the stronger one in reserve, and therefore the second was likely, in their eyes, to be as weak as the first or even weaker. If he didn’t even have the second one in mind until the first one let him down, how’s that for buggering up his own presumed innocence?

Love,

Caz
X

[jimarilyn]

Is this just he first alibi given or any and all?* I can imagine a situation where someone could keep proposing a new alibi when their last is disproved and indefinitely delay the investigation.

I can't for the life of me imagine anyone doing such a thing, proposing alibi after alibi. The Liverpool part of Hanratty's alibi was always maintained, up until the moment he left that sweet shop on Scotland Road (which incidentally is exactly 4 miles from my home).

Isn't the Slough/Dorney Common area quite a rural location?* Not a lot of people around especially vigilant people looking for someone who may very well be sneaking around casing houses and therefore trying to avoid being spotted.

Yes this area is in rural location. Mrs Mary Lanz testified that she saw Peter Alphon in her pub (The Old Station Inn) that same fateful evening that Mike Gregsten and Val Storie were there. Alphon was very familiar with that area.

Slightly unusual perhaps, but not impossible.

Slightly unusual ? Come off it !

It could simply be viewed as an investigator acting a bit overzealously because he's just had a new alibi dropped on him which he has to investigate rather quickly.* Wouldn't you investigate whether it was possible for someone to get from Liverpool to Dorney in the time available?* Hence removing the need to investigate the alibi because it doesn't cover the correct timeframe.

Acott hadn't had a new alibi dropped on him. He'd known of the sweet shop encounter since mid October 1961.

regards,

James

[jimarilyn]

[QUOTE=Tony;45556]

No problem, I like the word myself but don't get enough opportunities to use it. I especially like Torpenhow Hill and must thank QI for introducing it to me.



Hey Vic,

This is bloody good stuff. Roll on Thursday night. That’s what I say.

Incidentally I am going to Sheffield tonight and my journey will take me past Mam Tor also known as The Shivering Mountain. I’ll let you know tomorrow if I notice any occurrences of shivering as I pass by.

Tony

Hi Tony,

Are you off to watch the Owls ?

regards

James

[Victor]

I can't for the life of me imagine anyone doing such a thing, proposing alibi after alibi. The Liverpool part of Hanratty's alibi was always maintained, up until the moment he left that sweet shop on Scotland Road (which incidentally is exactly 4 miles from my home).

I agree, it is ridiculous but not impossible. People do ridiculous things, for example, confessing to murders they haven't committed as in the JtR case.

Yes this area is in rural location. Mrs Mary Lanz testified that she saw Peter Alphon in her pub (The Old Station Inn) that same fateful evening that Mike Gregsten and Val Storie were there. Alphon was very familiar with that area.

So do you agree that it is possible that if he was there then JH may have been casing houses and therefore deliberately attempting to avoid being seen?

Slightly unusual ? Come off it !

Again my suggestion of JH being up to no good and avoiding being seen sounds like a plausible reason why he wasn't spotted.

Acott hadn't had a new alibi dropped on him. He'd known of the sweet shop encounter since mid October 1961.

regards,

James

OK, so if you ignore the new alibi part of my comment, it still leaves us with questioning whether an investigation into whether a proposed alibi actually covers the timeframe of the murder indicates that the investigators attach great weight to the alibi? And I would argue that it does not, as all alibis should be investigated.

KR,
Vic

[Graham]

A few notes:

1] A defendent's alibi can of course be questioned by the prosecution who may or may not call witnesses to disprove it, in the same way as the defence may call witnesses to support it. In modern British law, a defendent may use only one alibi and one only, unlike in Hanratty's day when it was perfectly acceptable (but rather foolish) for him to drop his initial alibi and move to another. The defence can state that their client Mr X was in a certain place at a certain time, but if needs be must be prepared to support that claim with evidence if prosecuting counsel challenge it. The evidence for Hanratty's Rhyl alibi, after he'd dropped the Liverpool one, was heresay and nothing more, and Swanwick scored a very valuable point.

2] Re: the sweetshop in Scotland Road. Am I right in thinking that the policeman sent to interview Mrs Dinwoody showed her just one photo of a man, and that that photo was of James Hanratty? (I stand to be corrected here). If that was indeed the case, then it was an almighty balls-up and in my view effectively burned the sweetshop alibi.

3] Re: sightings of Alphon in/around Dorney Reach. Sorry, but the best that can be said here is that some people claimed to have seen a man they thought resembled Alphon, after they'd seen photos of him in the press. I concede that one witness at Dorney said he saw a man who resembled the actor Sidney Tafler, as Alphon did. But again, this is just heresay and there is no absolute proof that Peter Alphon was seen near Dorney Reach before or on the night of the murder. Mrs Lanz, if I recall, said she saw Alphon in The Old Station Inn in the company of a woman; almost on cue, Alphon later used this 'sighting' to claim that the woman was Janet Gregsten in disguise, and that she identified her husband and Valerie Storie to Alphon. Yeah, course she did...

4] On a more serious note, when a defendent is either acquitted or later cleared of the charge against him, the police's usual statement if they still think he was guilty, is to say something to the effect that they are pursuing no further inquiries. Recent cases are Stephen Downing, Colin Stagg and, maybe, Barry George. I sometimes wonder, had Hanratty been acquitted, if Acott might have made a similar statement. After all, he himself said he was happy with Alphon's alibi. I'd ask the 'Jim Is Innocent' faction to comment on this, and maybe have a bit of a think as to who did it, if Jim was innocent and the police were happy with Alphon's alibi. Might pass a productive hour or so...

Cheers,

Graham

[larue]

"the defence point of view" is equivalent to "the point of view of the legal team representing Hanratty" therefore what you are basically saying is Hanratty sabotaged his own defence.
Vic

hi Vic
i think that is exactly what jh did, albeit unwittingly. sherrard did not want him to go into the witness box, but jh was insistant, and so doing, shot himself in the foot. [no pun intended]

[Graham]

hi Vic
i think that is exactly what jh did, albeit unwittingly. sherrard did not want him to go into the witness box, but jh was insistant, and so doing, shot himself in the foot. [no pun intended]

It wasn't just that: Sherrard made JH sign a disclaimer apropos the Rhyl Alibi, which is indicative of how much faith his defence had in it.

To read contemporary reports of the trial, JH made a complete arse of himself in the witness-box, irrespective of what Foot and Woffinden have to say.

Cheers,

Graham

[larue]

'evenin' all
[knees bend, dixon theme fades out]

i'm not a member of the jim is innocent brigade, or the hanratty did it brigade, i'm still sitting on the fence. it's pretty lonely up here. i think there is a plausible argument for both views.

i find the dna evidence rather difficult to accept in isolation. if it was presented as part of a body of evidence, along with other tangible evidence, then i think i would find it easier to accept. it seems to me, to be at odds with other factors in the case.

for instance, normal head hair loss for adult males is in the region of 50 to 100 hairs a day. [ this does not include men who are going bald ]. say, 75 hairs on average.

jh was alleged to have spent aproximately 6 hours in the death car, so at the 'normal' average rate of loss, he should have shed in the region of 18 hairs in the car during that time. the forensics experts found zip, despite going over the car with a fine tooth comb.

likewise there was no fluid or fibre evidence, nor a single fingerprint, not one single solitary thing to link him to that car. and yet forty odd years later - bingo. dna jackpot. it almost beggars belief.

[Graham]

According to the coppers, there was no forensic evidence at all in the car, whether connected with JH or anyone else. You have to assume they dusted the Morris for fingerprints, did their thing with sticky tape, etc., etc.
I've also wondered if, assuming JH approached the car via a field, there were traces of Dorney mud in the back of the car off his shoes. Not that that would mean anything in isolation, other than to suggest that Gregsten and Storie picked up their passenger at Dorney and not en route, as was suggested by at least one newspaper at the time. All we have from the police regarding the car is - nothing. Odd.

Cheers,

Graham

[larue]

It wasn't just that: Sherrard made JH sign a disclaimer apropos the Rhyl Alibi, which is indicative of how much faith his defence had in it.
Cheers,

Graham

exactly! and if that was not a big fat vote of no confidence, i don't know what is!

i wonder how much effort sherrard actually expended in explaining to jh what damage he could do to his own defence. not enough, apparently. i also wonder if, when jh would not be persuaded, did sherrard think of bailing out of the case?

[larue]

i reckon VS is key to this mystery, if mystery is what it is, though i doubt that there will ever be a full and frank debate, as i am sure lawyers will be watching

[Graham]

exactly! and if that was not a big fat vote of no confidence, i don't know what is!

i wonder how much effort sherrard actually expended in explaining to jh what damage he could do to his own defence. not enough, apparently. i also wonder if, when jh would not be persuaded, did sherrard think of bailing out of the case?

Hi Larue,

Sherrard was appointed by Kleinmann, Hanratty's solicitor, and I wonder - no disrespect to Sherrard - if he was Kleinmann's first choice. I would suspect that Sherrard jumped at the chance, as the A6 Case had to be Britain's biggest crime-case for 10 years or more, but like you I kind of get the impression that before the trial was anywhere near its end he may well have been having second thoughts....

Time was when a defendant in British courts wasn't allowed to take the witness stand, and I think Sherrard probably wished he was back in those days.

Cheers,

Graham