a6 murder

[Victor]

Hi Vic,

Don’t envy you one little bit; been there, done that, don’t like it.

Well you don’t need to check there were only eleven jurors and they were not offered a majority verdict option.
They must have been unanimous; they had to be.

This thread has opened up, for me at any rate, an insight into what may have occurred in the jury room.
If you like we are all back in the jury room today; some arguing for innocent some for guilty. I have never served on a jury so I have no first hand experience to call on. But I suspect jurors are called up at random from the electoral roll and there is no aptitude or intelligence test for them to take. They might be very street wise or completely unworldly. Some may have read books on miscarriages of justice; others will support the police 100%. There will be some strong characters and there are bound to be as many weak characters and as with all things the strong will get their way.
Can you imagine a weak, nervous type of chap, juror 1, sitting alongside juror 2 who just happens to be Johnl or Reg or dare I say it your good self? They could well take the approach: “Well if he says its Saturday then it is Saturday. If he says guilty I’m OK with that if he says innocent I’m OK with that too.”

There must have been some serious debate going on in that jury room to take so long to arrive at a unanimous verdict and the very fact that after many hours they came back out to ask the judge to define reasonable doubt must have meant at least one of them was having doubts. Let’s just say it was 9-2 for guilty and the 2 dissenters were up against a very strong character, perhaps a bully how long would they last before they caved in? And maybe, just maybe the 9-2 was the very first vote and after prolonged discussions the majority of the 9 were thinking about changing their minds but had seen the treatment the other 2 had got from the bully so decided to stick with him.
All speculation I know but just maybe.

By the way nowadays the judge can send a man down for life on a majority of 10-2 which means that about 16% thought not guilty. To me that’s a reasonable doubt for the court and the judge.

Good luck with the weekend.

Tony.

Give me "Twelve Angry Men"... even Paul Merton's version!

The one thing they do check is that anyone with a criminal conviction is automatically barred from serving on a jury... And civil servants are called more often than anyone else.

There's one thing about bullies, if you stand up to them they usually don't hurt you. I think if I'd been on that jury, I'd have sat it out saying "not guilty" until it forced a re-trial.

Take care,
Vic.

[reg1965]

Give me "Twelve Angry Men"... even Paul Merton's version!

The one thing they do check is that anyone with a criminal conviction is automatically barred from serving on a jury... And civil servants are called more often than anyone else.

There's one thing about bullies, if you stand up to them they usually don't hurt you. I think if I'd been on that jury, I'd have sat it out saying "not guilty" until it forced a re-trial.

Take care,
Vic.

Hi Vic
I couldn't agree more. Sticking to one's guns is a good thing when we have good reasons.
Twelve Angry Men is my all time favourite film....no surprise there I suppose

Reg

[PC49]

Some evidence as strong as the DNA evidence implicating Hanratty would work.

A confession including explaining how Hanratty's semen got on Storie's knickers and how the rapists' semen was removed, and how they did it in a time before DNA analysis to this degree was known about.

So if you don't think Hanratty did it, who do you think did?

KR,
Vic.

If I knew the answer to that, my friend, I'd be a very rich man!

[Tony]

Hi Vic
I couldn't agree more. Sticking to one's guns is a good thing when we have good reasons.
Twelve Angry Men is my all time favourite film....no surprise there I suppose

Reg

A very good evening to you Reg,

First of all the best of luck for tonight.

Secondly I have just read your post about the film 12 Angry Men and thought I might get myself a copy off Amazon even though I have seen it lots of times it’s always worth another look.
You describe it on here as the best film you have ever seen and I must admit it’s bloody good. Anyway I went to Amazon typed in 12 Angry Men and there it is for £2.98. While I was on there I thought I might as well read a couple of the reviews and there on the first page is a review from Reg Superman!
Reg Superman’s review is entitled ‘The Greatest Film Ever Made’.

This is not the same person as yourself is it Mr Kent?

Tony.

[Victor]

So if you don't think Hanratty did it, who do you think did?

If I knew the answer to that, my friend, I'd be a very rich man!

Come on, what a cop out (excuse the bad pun PC49 ). I didn't ask you who did it, I asked who you think did it.

You should know what you think.

12 Angry Men and there it is for £2.98

Well I know what I'll be getting as soon as I've settled into my new place, my old video plays at a variety of speeds just bordering the correct one. I think it gets bored and then speeds up to catch up with where it should be - it just doesn't appreciate a true classic.

[reg1965]

Well I know what I'll be getting as soon as I've settled into my new place, my old video plays at a variety of speeds just bordering the correct one. I think it gets bored and then speeds up to catch up with where it should be - it just doesn't appreciate a true classic.

Vic

The video says no!

I've got it on a DVD from the far east for £1 off of Ebay and the picture and sound transfer are both excellent considering the film was made in 1957! I watch it every few months or so and have seen it probably 50 times! What a sad man I am! I also recently bought a brilliant Phillips DVD player from Tesco for about 50 quid that plays all sorts of different formats (DivX, Mpeg, AVI, MP3 etc). It even has a front USB port so that I can plug an external hard drive device in and play files from that on a wide screen TV. Great stuff.

Reg

[reg1965]

A very good evening to you Reg,

First of all the best of luck for tonight.

Secondly I have just read your post about the film 12 Angry Men and thought I might get myself a copy off Amazon even though I have seen it lots of times it’s always worth another look.
You describe it on here as the best film you have ever seen and I must admit it’s bloody good. Anyway I went to Amazon typed in 12 Angry Men and there it is for £2.98. While I was on there I thought I might as well read a couple of the reviews and there on the first page is a review from Reg Superman!
Reg Superman’s review is entitled ‘The Greatest Film Ever Made’.

This is not the same person as yourself is it Mr Kent?

Tony.

Hi Tony
Thanks for your best wishes for the gooners against the spuds. Sorry about the Owls last night.

I don't know what made me put Reg Superman...how embarrassing!! I couldn't remember my original account details so signed in again with another email address to post the review. I have just reread it after 2 years...If I may so myself it's quite good!! 18 out of 19 positive reads. In fact all of the reviews give 5 stars it must be unique for a film on Amazon with more than 30 reviews.
It wasn't you who was number 19 was it?

Cheers
Mr Kent

[Tony]

Hi Tony
Thanks for your best wishes for the gooners against the spuds. Sorry about the Owls last night.

I don't know what made me put Reg Superman...how embarrassing!! I couldn't remember my original account details so signed in again with another email address to post the review. I have just reread it after 2 years...If I may so myself it's quite good!! 18 out of 19 positive reads. In fact all of the reviews give 5 stars it must be unique for a film on Amazon with more than 30 reviews.
It wasn't you who was number 19 was it?

Cheers
Mr Kent

Thank you, Superman.

Tony.

[reg1965]

Thank you, Superman.

Tony.

Thats all right just keep johnl away from the kryptonite.
Sorry must dash, Spiderman has just popped round for tea!

As an aside, the late 90's remake with Jack Lemmon (Fonda) and George C Scott (Cobb) is also pretty good and has updated racial and cultural references added to the characters and their dialogue.

Cheers mate
Clark

[JIMBOW]

Hi Alan,

A young actor by the name of Michael da Costa claimed he saw Hanratty or someone remarkably like him on a London to Liverpool train on 22nd August. Da Costa remembered him because of Hanratty's dyed-black hair which must have grabbed his attention. In 1961 it was very unusual (unlike today) for young men to dye their hair.

regards,
James

I think Foot's book says that da Costa claims he saw JH on the station platform rather than on the train itself and the claim wasn't taken much further because certain aspects did not 'fit' (double-breasted vs. single-breasted suit, what the person was carrying etc; - don't have the book with me so can't recall exactly). Da Costa did say that, as an actor, he was 'taken' with the person's hair, thinking that it was such an unusual colour that it might have been a wig.

JH did claim that in his train compartment there was a well-dressed businessman with lettered cufflinks (can't recall the letters) who, regrettably, did not come forward.

Up the 'Pool, though!

Jim

[alan]

I think Foot's book says that da Costa claims he saw JH on the station platform rather than on the train itself and the claim wasn't taken much further because certain aspects did not 'fit' (double-breasted vs. single-breasted suit, what the person was carrying etc; - don't have the book with me so can't recall exactly). Da Costa did say that, as an actor, he was 'taken' with the person's hair, thinking that it was such an unusual colour that it might have been a wig.

JH did claim that in his train compartment there was a well-dressed businessman with lettered cufflinks (can't recall the letters) who, regrettably, did not come forward.

Up the 'Pool, though!

Jim

Thanks Jimbow,

That whole train journey from the time JH left the Vienna seems mighty fishy to me.

Regards,

Alan

[Tony]

I think Foot's book says that da Costa claims he saw JH on the station platform rather than on the train itself and the claim wasn't taken much further because certain aspects did not 'fit' (double-breasted vs. single-breasted suit, what the person was carrying etc; - don't have the book with me so can't recall exactly). Da Costa did say that, as an actor, he was 'taken' with the person's hair, thinking that it was such an unusual colour that it might have been a wig.

JH did claim that in his train compartment there was a well-dressed businessman with lettered cufflinks (can't recall the letters) who, regrettably, did not come forward.

Up the 'Pool, though!

Jim

Hello Jim,

I think the da Costa evidence differs slightly in the books. Foot says da Costa saw Hanratty on the station platform and Woffinden has the sighting on the train.

I haven’t got the relevant information to hand at the moment but I think that Hanratty said in one of his letters to his parents whilst he was waiting for the appeal that the businessman with the gold cuff links with a letter ‘E’ wrote to him in prison saying he was the man on the train on that day. I don’t know if anything was done about it. I’ll have to make further investigations. Unless someone can help me out.

Tony.

[PC49]

Come on, what a cop out (excuse the bad pun PC49 ). I didn't ask you who did it, I asked who you think did it.

You should know what you think.



Well I know what I'll be getting as soon as I've settled into my new place, my old video plays at a variety of speeds just bordering the correct one. I think it gets bored and then speeds up to catch up with where it should be - it just doesn't appreciate a true classic.

Well Victor, I'm glad you asked what I "think" and not what I "fink!"
Seriously, I've got to say that I consider Alphon to fit the bill (so to speak) rather more than Hanratty.
A perfect example is the identikit picture of the suspect, compiled with the great assistance of the only living direct witness to the crime, namely Valerie Storie. It looks nothing like Hanratty, but an awful lot like Alphon.
However, having said that, she did contrive to select a totally innocent party from the initial line-up, when one would have thought that the killer's face was more fresh in her mind. So how could anyone be completely sure that she eventually identified the real offender after all? How many strikes was she to be allowed?
Also, conflicting evidence provided by Nudds & co, together with the convenient discovery of heavy artillery on a London bus, Acott's dubious and underhanded methods, the sweetshop alibi (the idea of this being "bought" is plainly laughable) & the Rhyl witnesses, just make me very uneasy about Hanratty's conviction. So much of the prosecution evidence could quite easily have been made to fit Alphon instead of Hanratty.
I must point out that these are only thoughts and opinions. Like I said, I couldn't point a direct finger at anyone as I feel that, Storie apart, the only others who could ever make a telling contribution to exactly who was the killer are France (deceased), Ewer, Acott and possibly Alphon and Anderson.
Good luck with your move.
Best regards:

[PC49]

Dear PC49, (or should I say Archibald Berkeley Willoughby)

I too think that Reg's synopsis is brilliant. He has fixed views and backs them up. I am a little more sceptical like somewhere between the hot and cold tap.

Have you read the details of the appeal? That gives some interesting information too. It's a bit of a flog but you can find the website address on Thread 1512. Whether it helps us sceptics or not is debatable.

Regards,

Alan

Hello Alan - Archie B. Willoughby Esq here!
I'm trying very hard not to be biased, but it's exactly right about Reg. He never wavers from his opinions on the case, and backs them up with sound and logical facts. With complete objectivity, I must say that he is far more convincing than any of our friends across the fence.
I havn't yet waded through the details of the Appeal, but fully intend to when time permits.
All the very best

[JIMBOW]

Thanks Jimbow,

That whole train journey from the time JH left the Vienna seems mighty fishy to me.

Regards,

Alan

Yes, 'fishy' indeed, Alan. If, as Tony alludes to in another post, that businessman did exist and had come forward publicly, it would certainly have lent considerable credence to JH's L'Pool/Rhyl alibi. Mind you, an argument could be made that Hanratty, as a native Londoner who had probably visited Liverpool by train at least a few times (he had 'connections' there), must surely have known that the train left from Euston and that he concocted the story about mistakenly going to Paddington first in order to 'cover' his tracks (should anyone have seen him at Paddington or Nudds remembering that JH had asked for directions to P'Ton when leaving the hotel).

Regards,
Jim