a6 murder

[P.L.A]

Odds And Ends

Thought that paragraph 9 from the Court of Appeal judgement in the Derek Bentley case would be of interest to the A6 forum.

9) The indictment which the two defendants faced contained only one count of murder. A separate indictment alleged other offences, including shooting at D.C. Fairfax and another officer, Police Constable Harrison, with intent to murder and various firearms’ offences. In accordance with a rule of practice established by the Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Jones [1918] 1 K.B. 416, no other count could be joined in an indictment with a count of murder. That rule has since been disapproved (see Connelly v D.P.P. [1964] A.C. 1254), but it explains why the jury had to concentrate on the killing of P.C. Miles and was only required to bring in verdicts on a single count of murder.

The complete document can be found on

http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/derekbentley/judgement.htm

Also, majority verdicts very only introduced as an option in criminal cases in 1967. Before that, everything had to be unanimous.

On the question of women jurors, they weren’t allowed at all till the 1920s. Before 1972, people without freehold or leasehold property could not serve on juries – thus making it quite difficult for women to be eligible.

Peter.

[reg1965]

In reply to this statement i would like to correct you in saying that William Nutzlader wasn't the police informer nor did he have dealings in firearms the man who you have got your wires crossed with is Roy Laingsdowne (sorry if spelling is inaccurate) aka langy, he was a well known police informer and petty crook he came from the kilburn area of queens park he now recides in spain, he told police that Hanratty had told him in confession that he murdered Gregson this was complete nonsense as Laingsdowne was a born liar he told police this infomation to shorten a sentence that he was serving. I personally know that Nutzlader was in bostel at the time and had no dealings whatsoever with guns or with this case.
I would also like to inform you all that John Russell was the brother of Mrs France and good pal to Dixie France, John died around 6 years ago.

Hi Blue Moon
I was not incorrect. I was talking about William George Richard Nudds who was employed at the Vienna Hotel when Hanratty and Alphon stayed there and when the cartridge cases were found. He was a notorious liar and police informant as I mentioned. He was sent to prison after the A6 murder and a fellow prisoner at that time (who Woffinden thinks is believable) said that Nudds told him that Hanratty was innocent.
I am aware of William Nutzlader from a previous post by someone else some months ago. And Roy Langdale gave evidence against Hanratty by saying that Hanratty confessed the A6 murder to him whilst they were both on remand in Brixton (I think).
Thanks for more info on John Russell. On page 17 of Foot (1988) He describes an uncomfortable meeting with Mrs France and two of her brothers (unnamed) in December 1969. It seems thay were anxious not to discuss the case in public.
Regards
Reg

[Victor]

Hello Vic,

Your response to a new contributor, John must leave him as perplexed as I am.

Hi Tony,
Even though it was John's first post, he prefaced it with "One of my occasional threads" implying that he's a lurker and so I afforded him the respect of a seasoned contributor.

When he enquires about the non-revealing of Michael Clark in Court which I think was one of Michael Sherrard’s biggest errors you reply thus:

“If he was available, if he was contactable...So there's a couple of reasons why he wasn't produced.”
I am sorry but that is not two reasons; it is not even one.

I'm not familiar with the legal requirements of forcing someone to give evidence, it's often been noted that it was Hanratty's own choice to appear in the witness box, therefore if he had the option then why shouldn't everyone else?

Michael Clark could have died between the ID parade and the trial - hence he wouldn't be available.

He could have emigrated and therefore not be contactable.

And by the way in sworn evidence Valerie Storie stated Michael Clark bore a strong resemblance to Peter Alphon.

I've not contradicted this, but he looked so similar to Alphon that she could tell them apart and say it was Clark and not Alphon.

Do you seriously think he was identified and the police said “Thanks very much, off you go, don’t bother leaving any details where we can contact you and we don’t think the defence will be interested either”

I don't think you've got this the right way round, Clark was not charged with any crime and so there is no reason for the police to take contact details, especially in 1961 where practices weren't as evolved as today.

Come on Vic. Play the game.

Tony.

I am. VS identified MC in preference to PLA, then said MC resembles PLA (but not enough for her to finger PLA), then on a second parade identifies JH. Any attempt to pin the crime on PLA on the basis of his resemblance to MC is doomed to failure because PLA was on the ID parade and not identified - this must be obvious to everyone surely?

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Thought that paragraph 9 from the Court of Appeal judgement in the Derek Bentley case would be of interest to the A6 forum.

9) The indictment which the two defendants faced contained only one count of murder. A separate indictment alleged other offences, including shooting at D.C. Fairfax and another officer, Police Constable Harrison, with intent to murder and various firearms’ offences. In accordance with a rule of practice established by the Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Jones [1918] 1 K.B. 416, no other count could be joined in an indictment with a count of murder. That rule has since been disapproved (see Connelly v D.P.P. [1964] A.C. 1254), but it explains why the jury had to concentrate on the killing of P.C. Miles and was only required to bring in verdicts on a single count of murder.

The complete document can be found on

http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/derekbentley/judgement.htm

Also, majority verdicts very only introduced as an option in criminal cases in 1967. Before that, everything had to be unanimous.

On the question of women jurors, they weren’t allowed at all till the 1920s. Before 1972, people without freehold or leasehold property could not serve on juries – thus making it quite difficult for women to be eligible.

Peter.

Nice to have you back PLA.

Your point about who could serve on a jury at the time of the trial of Hanratty serves to illustrate just how undemocratic our society was at the time and how class and status coloured even the jutice system.

[Victor]

I am fed up with duelling with idiots like Caz and Victor on the DNA thread so take a look at this:

Running away with your tail between your legs. Aw, bless.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/op...-13477716.html

One law for the rich (or socially connected) one for the poor (or Irish)!

Cheers
Reg

Drag in any old reference to DNA in the hope of somehow tarnishing the technique. There is an obvious and direct route of DNA transfer from Madeleine via her clothing, her belongings, or even her parents themselves to the vehicle in question. Anyone could have got the McCann's off on that basis.

Now what are you proposing as the route of contamination in the A6 case?

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Vic wrote: Now what are you proposing as the route of contamination in the A6 case?

Well, the fact that the garments in question, both Storie's and Hanratty's, were stored together in an unstable environment for decades is enough to concern me.

[blue moon]

Hi Blue Moon
I was not incorrect. I was talking about William George Richard Nudds who was employed at the Vienna Hotel when Hanratty and Alphon stayed there and when the cartridge cases were found. He was a notorious liar and police informant as I mentioned. He was sent to prison after the A6 murder and a fellow prisoner at that time (who Woffinden thinks is believable) said that Nudds told him that Hanratty was innocent.
I am aware of William Nutzlader from a previous post by someone else some months ago. And Roy Langdale gave evidence against Hanratty by saying that Hanratty confessed the A6 murder to him whilst they were both on remand in Brixton (I think).
Thanks for more info on John Russell. On page 17 of Foot (1988) He describes an uncomfortable meeting with Mrs France and two of her brothers (unnamed) in December 1969. It seems thay were anxious not to discuss the case in public.
Regards
Reg

Hi everyone please except my apologies, i saw a quote that had been posted on here a wile ago and im sure it stated that William J nutzlader was being also named as Nudds sorry for the mishap, your correct he did marry Carol France but divorced she went onto marry another man of whom surname she has to this day, sorry again. Blue moon.

[Victor]

Vic wrote: Now what are you proposing as the route of contamination in the A6 case?

Well, the fact that the garments in question, both Storie's and Hanratty's, were stored together in an unstable environment for decades is enough to concern me.

Good afternoon Limehouse,

1. No garments of Hanratty's were stored together with the fragment or the hanky.

2. What do you mean by "unstable environment"? Locked in a drawer thereby eliminating light. Wrapped in cellophane thereby blocking water and bacteria. In an envelope which shows no sign of water damage and also blocking light. All of these factors indicate a stable environment.

I will concede that a vial that may have contained a wash of Hanratty's trousers was present and broken, but the lack of water damage to the paper envelope and the presence of cellophane mitigate against this.

Not good enough.

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Vic,

I was strongly under the impression that these garments were 'lost' (or at least stored away somewhere, half forgotten) and were discovered in a box, stored together, in less than favourable circumstances. If you know different for sure then I am prepared to retract my statement.

In his Guardian column following the release of the DNA results, Foot wrote of the DNA evidence:

The criminal cases review commission referred the Hanratty case to the court of appeal last year with staggering new evidence that the case against Hanratty had been rigged. The commission was well aware of DNA evidence linking Hanratty to the crime and did not discount it. Nor did it rule out the possibility that exhibits on which the DNA tests were based - fragments of knickers and a handkerchief - could have been stored with material taken from Hanratty, and could have been contaminated. The commission concluded: "It is impossible to draw any firm conclusion as to the current evidential integrity of the exhibits of the cloth examples in this case. The known (and unknown) aspects of the history of those items must be weighed in the balance." http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists...346988,00.html

In my mind, there is obviously room for doubt concerning the value of the DNA evidence.

[Victor]

Vic,

I was strongly under the impression that these garments were 'lost' (or at least stored away somewhere, half forgotten) and were discovered in a box, stored together, in less than favourable circumstances. If you know different for sure then I am prepared to retract my statement.

Hi Limehouse,

They were locked away and forgotten about, that is definite. Paragraph 110-128 of the Judgment deal specifically with this. See http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/j...6/HANRATTY.htm

The best part of which says (para 125)
"Finally, we must visualise a pattern which is wholly consistent with sexual intercourse having taken place in which Valerie Storie and James Hanratty were the participants."

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Hi Limehouse,

They were locked away and forgotten about, that is definite. Paragraph 110-128 of the Judgment deal specifically with this. See http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/j...6/HANRATTY.htm

The best part of which says (para 125)
"Finally, we must visualise a pattern which is wholly consistent with sexual intercourse having taken place in which Valerie Storie and James Hanratty were the participants."

KR,
Vic.

Personally, I cannot see how we can 'visualise a pattern which is wholly consistent with sexual intercourse having taken place' between Hanratty and Storie based on evidence that consists of a fragment of cloth that might have been contaminated by a wash taken from Hanratty's trousers. Like the 'evidence' of the cartridges in the hotel and the gun and bullets on the bus, this evidence is external to the scene of the murder and no forensic evidence what-so-ever positvely places Hanratty at the scene of the murder. The most positive evidence that places him there, in my opinion, is the testimony of Valerie Storie, and even that appears shaky at times if you view it in terms of the complete ****-up made by the police in taking and retaining witness evidence soon after the events.

[john]

The other aspect which I think about more and more are the roles that Skilhall/Trower/Blackhall and the other one( i am writing this at work without my notes from memory) actually played in this.

We know what they said they saw etc. However the car could not have been going into Avondale at the time ie 0700 approx that people had attributed this to until the last decade.
Thus what was going on here?????

What do we actually know about them apart from the authors little bits about them?

The next bit is going to appear harsh but you could not make up a cast for a story in what actually happened

The prosecution
VS-who was having an affair with a married father which was not so common then despite what we now think in retro
MG-Who was clearly a lothario
JG-who tried twice to commit suicide
WE-Self admitted police Informer and ultimately lover of JG despite being maried
LA-A Fence
CF-A trickster
WN-Where do we start with him
BA AND OK Clearly lying in some aspects of their evidence whether he did it or not
FS-A convict
RL-A Convict
and so on and so on

The defence
JH-A Convict
GD-Fiddling the books
TS-A Convict

and so on.

Olive Dinwoodie-one of the few in the case who appears above reproach character wise.

The side players
JJ-Flamboyant and dissolute
PA-Clearly unbalanced
JF-A very strange barrister in some if his actions

The whole case whether he did or not and I believe he didn't reeks of corruption/lying/fiddling of evidence on both sides/ and so on.

That is why it will never die.
There was mass lying go on from I now feel from both sides. God only knows where the actual truth really lies.

[Victor]

Personally, I cannot see how we can 'visualise a pattern which is wholly consistent with sexual intercourse having taken place' between Hanratty and Storie based on evidence that consists of a fragment of cloth that might have been contaminated by a wash taken from Hanratty's trousers.

Hi Limehouse,
It's a semen stained piece of knickers, that was blood-typed as O in 1961 and therfore couldn't be MG's semen, and therefore must be the rapists semen, and therefore must be semen from the murderer.

If this wash was from Hanratty, then why did it completely remove DNA from the rapist's semen, but not VS vaginal fluids? The analogy I used last year was to take a cake with red-VS sprinkles, blue-"rapists" sprinkles and now you must scatter green-JH sprinkles onto the cake knocking off all the blue ones, leaving the red ones and some green must stick.

Like the 'evidence' of the cartridges in the hotel and the gun and bullets on the bus, this evidence is external to the scene of the murder and no forensic evidence what-so-ever positvely places Hanratty at the scene of the murder.

This evidence is from the victim's clothing. How can you describe it as "external"?

The most positive evidence that places him there, in my opinion, is the testimony of Valerie Storie, and even that appears shaky at times if you view it in terms of the complete ****-up made by the police in taking and retaining witness evidence soon after the events.

VS evidence is understandably shaky. One of the questions that Reg has chosen to ignore goes like this "How long do you think it takes for someone to get over being crippled FOR LIFE?"

KR,
Vic.

[reg1965]

Hi all
From the previous posters view and one which they challange me to answer, let me pose this:-
How long do you think it will take a man to get over being hanged for a crime he did not commit on very shaky evidence.

Regards
Reg

[Graham]

After picking up for a short time, this thread is now once more boring...and in one case boorish...the arguments are now so circular that I'm getting dizzy.

Graham