a6 murder

[larue]

what is a fair trial? a simple question innit? yes, but the answer may not be as simple as one might first think.

i guess we all know what a trial is, but the question of "what is fair" is somewhat more complex, for instance my "Oxford Illustrated Dictionary" printed 1981, has no exact definition that could be said to exactly relate to a trial. the nearest it can come is "free from blemish, clear, clean, just, equitable". so i guess that "just" and "equitable" can be said to relate to a trial, but this is not as satisfying definition, so i will write my own, based on my own sense of fair play [whatever that means]


try this first:

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pubs/descriptions/fair_trial.pdf

[phew]

and from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_a_fair_trial

Right to a fair trial
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A fair and just trial might be impeded by:

Corruption or incompetence (judicial or otherwise)
Contempt of court (typically by the media or jurors)
Witness intimidation
A lack of legal counsel

Conversely, a fair trial requires:

A competent, neutral and detached judge and (if applicable) jury
Uninfluenced witnesses
Ideally, a sufficient and equal amount of legal counsel for all parties

*******************************



larue's fair trial would be one where...

the proceedings are overseen by an totally impartial judge, who ensures that all counsel strictly adhere to correct legal practice

both defence and prosecution have equal resources available to them

both defence and prosecution councels have free and unrestricted access to all the known evidence

all evidence must be disclosed by all parties

only witness evidence that has corroboration can be admissable

based on this rather idealistic definition, it's easy to tell that larue don't think many people ever get a fair trial under the english justice system.

[larue]

hi all

i have been waiting in vain for aboot two months now, for a reply from the author of the book "Harry Allen: Britain's Last Hangman", to see if he is prepared to discuss his sources for chapter 8, "tragedy at deadman's hill"

i have read some very poor reviews of this book, so, i guess he's not,

below i have quoted three sections from that chapter, which i hope qualifies as "fair usage"

i am making no comment of my own, save to say, that i find it interesting that as late as 2008 there seems to be still some dispute/confusion/whatever regarding the original description of the gunman

enjoy



Until August 31st Valerie Storie had consistently told police that the killer had deep-set brown eyes. On August 31st she was transferred to Guy's Hospital, London. While she was in the ambulance, Bedfordshire Police issued a new description of the killer. The man now had large, icy-blue, saucer-like eyes.
This has been described as "a dramatic change," but was it really? What sort of memory retention does a woman have about her attacker when she is being raped on the back seat of a car in almost complete darkness after watching her lover shot dead in cold blood? The salient point about Hanratty was always remembered by Valerie – he had deep, staring eyes. If they were blue, they might well have become brown in her appalling situation.


On September 22nd Acott interviewed Alphon's father, telling him that officers were looking for his son. At this point the police felt sure that Alphon was the killer, because he had a history of odd behaviour, was familiar with the Slough area, and also fitted Valerie's original description.
Acott went to see Valerie Storie in hospital to keep her abreast of developments and she now told him that the killer had "icy-blue" eyes. At the magistrates' hearing Acott played down this new description by saying: the man having icy-blue eyes was only part of the description. It is not one we would depend on."


How accurate was Valerie Storie's memory? She told the court: "I described his eyes as icy-blue, very large. They appeared huge to me because they were just staring. Just very large, icy-blue. I could see almost the whole of the coloured part of the eye. They did not appear to be sunken back. They looked very cold blue."
Yet in early descriptions of the killer, she emphasised the man's deep-set brown eyes. Despite all this, Superintendent Acott told the jury: "Her description of the murderer has never changed from the day of the murder until now, and I have always regarded it as most reliable."

[Victor]

Nudds was allowed to give evidence for the prosecution despite having made TWO false statements about events at the Vienna Hotel on the crucial days in question. Nudds too had a shocking criminal record.

Hi Julie,
Nudds only made ONE false statement (the 2nd), his 3rd said that his 2nd was wrong and his 1st true.

I think you are right about Nudds. His first statement would have incriminated Alphon. When he discovered that Alphon was in the clear, he was prepared to change his statement to incriminate Hanratty. He was either paying back former favours from the police or his was 'banking' some favours of his own for the future.

His 1st incriminates Hanratty (Ryan), the 2nd was to incriminate Alphon (Durrant), and the 3rd was reverting to the 1st.

I don't disagree with you that he thought he was doing the police a favour in return for preferential treatment later, but I don't think he was necessarily pressurised by the police as he could have simply read about the hunt for Alphon and decided to help them out, although it's more likely he was asked to.

The 2nd statement is plainly ridiculous, all the rubbish about the note signed "The Manager" or similar, and the swapping rooms shenanigans, and the inexplicable counter-intuitive extra charge for having to share a room, and how the extra charge was demonstrably wrong because Hanratty paid the same amount, and the 2nd statement was the one where he had the opportunity to collude with Snell.

I was re-reading Foot last night, specifically the part about the introduction of the Rhyl alibi and was struck by how carefully Foot chose his words, he said something like Hanratty admitted that the '3 men in Liverpool' was "a fabrication" and he'd actually gone to Rhyl. To me "a fabrication" is a synonym for "a lie" but he was careful not to explicitly call Hanratty a Liar. Furthermore, both he and Woffinden suggest that the Rhyl alibi isn't a change of alibi, it's an extension to the existing one.

KR,
Vic.

[larue]

well, that's a whole bunch of words from me, [ yes i do have too much time on my hands, i got made redundant for the 7th time aboot 6 weeks ago ] and it brings me back to the point where i feel i have said all i have to say on the subject of the a6 murder, so i am going to bow out.

i'll have a look-see from time to time, to see how the argument rages, but for now, it's good-bye

[Victor]

witnesses irrelevant? yup, i agree with that, but surely it takes more than an impartial judge to make a trial fair?

Hi Larue,
Fair point other factors matter, but the critical factor would be the impartial judge, who'd make sure all the other things happen.

f'rinstance, why was the site of Hanratty's trial moved at the insistance of the DPP from the old bailey to bedford assizes? surely not to get a biased jury?? [ we ain't having no bloody londoners coming up here murdering people in our backyard

Why was it moved in the first place? A single-murder trial should be able to be dealt with anywhere, why have the extra expense of the Old Bailey officals? Why insult the Bedford staff by implying they couldn't handle the case?

and why was the true nature of the vs/mg relationship witheld from the all male jury? speaking purely hypothetically, you understand, i'm sure they would have thought no less of a young woman, if they knew she was knocking off a married bloke in the back of a car.

IS it relevent to the case? Today yes they would have thought no less of her, but in 1961\2 it was more prudish. And why taint VS and her evidence when it was MG committing adultry, and the ongoing breakdown of his marriage which caused him to "play the field" with several women prior to VS. Fair means fair for VS too.

to me, the prosecution was seeking, and won, unfair advantage. hardly a fair trial.

To me, the defence was seeking, and was denied, unfair advantage, resulting in a fairer trial.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

larue's fair trial would be one where...

the proceedings are overseen by an totally impartial judge, who ensures that all counsel strictly adhere to correct legal practice

I agree, but how is this practical? Who decides that a judge is impartial enough to be a judge?

both defence and prosecution have equal resources available to them

Absolutely, the McDonald's Two (McLibel) defence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonal...rris_%26_Steel

both defence and prosecution councels have free and unrestricted access to all the known evidence

Absolutely.

all evidence must be disclosed by all parties

Including ambush alibis introduced mid-trial.

only witness evidence that has corroboration can be admissable

Hmmm... That denies the possibility of evidence only being witnessed by one person, and who decides what qualifies as corroboration? The judge? The jury?

based on this rather idealistic definition, it's easy to tell that larue don't think many people ever get a fair trial under the english justice system.

There has to be a balance between practicality and fairness, I don't think the taxpayer could afford a system you'd think fair, so some sort of compromise needs to be reached.

KR,
Vic.

[larue]

dear me, back already...

but the critical factor would be the impartial judge, who'd make sure all the other things happen.

yeah, right. i wonder how many do?

Why was it moved in the first place? A single-murder trial should be able to be dealt with anywhere, why have the extra expense of the Old Bailey officals? Why insult the Bedford staff by implying they couldn't handle the case?

since when has expense been an issue when the taxpayer foots the bill?
why insult the old bailey staff by implying they couldn't handle the case?

Today yes, 1961\2 was more prudish. And why taint VS and her evidence when it was MG committing adultry, and the ongoing breakdown of his marriage which caused him to "play the field" with several women prior to VS.

oops! sorry Vic, i was trying to be sarcastic there, but failed.

if things had turned out differently, and Mrs G was a feisty sort, vs could easily have ended up with her name being dragged through the divorce courts, undoubtedly to the delight of a certain sunday newspaper!

Fair means fair for VS too.

surely, but vs wasn't on trial, was she? and as for getting involved with a married man, well s**t happens as we all know, and those that play with fire... [and i'm not referring the the shootings]

To me the defence was seeking, and was denied, unfair advantage, resulting in a fairer trial.

yeah, fairer for the prosecution.


i can see you're a half-full kind of guy Vic, and i'm the half empty sort, so never the twain.

[larue]

I agree, but how is this practical? Who decides that a judge is impartial enough to be a judge?

i would have thought that qualifying as a judge would include demonstrable impartialty, and don't forget that misdirection by a judge would be of great significance to any subsequent appeal. [ but only if the appeal was held by a different judge ]

Hmmm... That denies the possibility of evidence only being witnessed by one person, and who decides what qualifies as corroboration? The judge? The jury?

maybe it would be better to take that decision out of human hands, and rely on physical evidence alone?

There has to be a balance between practicality and fairness, I don't think the taxpayer could afford a system you'd think fair, so some sort of compromise needs to be reached.

that seems to be a very reasonable point, but then, what value is put on a human life? is there a dollar value or a pound value? for example, is the cost of say, the lives of three firemen worth the one life they died trying to save from a burning building? who knows, certainly not me.

to me, a compromise seems to be second best. but is compromise good enough? i realize that each case should be taken on it's own merit, but it's hard to see how scrupulous and consistant fairness can be applied to every case.

i guess we'll have to wait till that happy day when everyone has a microchip implanted at birth that records one's every action, and can be monitored by those wonderful safety camera partnerships we all know and love.

with any luck, i'll be dead before then

right, now i really am going...

[jimarilyn]

Hi All,

Just thought I'd mention that I recently uploaded onto Youtube a documentary screened on the Crime and Investigation Network a few months back. It contains a few innaccuracies but nevertheless is quite interesting. It's the one narrated by Robert Powell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udnUJPtIaRA

regards,
James

[jimarilyn]

Hi again,

Excuse the adverts at the beginning of part 1. Being a bit of a technophobe I didn't know how to edit them out.

[Victor]

since when has expense been an issue when the taxpayer foots the bill?

Erm...are you serious? Should I ask Hazel Blears, or any of the other MPs at the moment?

why insult the old bailey staff by implying they couldn't handle the case?

But it isn't, it was supposed to be in Bedford because the crime occurred there.

if things had turned out differently, and Mrs G was a feisty sort, vs could easily have ended up with her name being dragged through the divorce courts, undoubtedly to the delight of a certain sunday newspaper!

You can't divorce a dead person.

i can see you're a half-full kind of guy Vic, and i'm the half empty sort, so never the twain.

Fair enough.

i would have thought that qualifying as a judge would include demonstrable impartialty, and don't forget that misdirection by a judge would be of great significance to any subsequent appeal. [ but only if the appeal was held by a different judge ]

I agree, misdirection by the judge would give adequate grounds for appeal.

maybe it would be better to take that decision out of human hands, and rely on physical evidence alone?

I don't think that's possible. DNA is physical evidence but that's opening a huge can of worms...

that seems to be a very reasonable point, but then, what value is put on a human life? is there a dollar value or a pound value? for example, is the cost of say, the lives of three firemen worth the one life they died trying to save from a burning building? who knows, certainly not me.

It depends on how you judge things, if those 3 firemen had saved 100s of people in previous incidents to the one you refer to, then it must be worth it, especially as some firemen live until retirement.

to me, a compromise seems to be second best. but is compromise good enough? i realize that each case should be taken on it's own merit, but it's hard to see how scrupulous and consistant fairness can be applied to every case.

By definition, compromises are not the best outcome for everyone individually, but also not the worst outcome for everyone individually. They should be the best outcome for everyone holistically or collectively.

i guess we'll have to wait till that happy day when everyone has a microchip implanted at birth that records one's every action, and can be monitored by those wonderful safety camera partnerships we all know and love.

with any luck, i'll be dead before then

Hopefully me too! Big Brother scares most people because someone has to be in charge, and you have to trust that person (or group) to be fair.

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

Don't have time just now to read all through Larue's and Victor's postings, but would just say that according to all commentators, including Foot and Woffinden, Judge Gorman appeared unerringly fair and impartial, and was seen to be physically surprised at the 'guilty' verdict.

Cheers,

Graham

[Limehouse]

Hi folks,

Lovely to see la Rue posting again. Sorry to hear of your redundancy. I hope it's for a short period only. Please don't stop posting. Your contributions today have been so inspiring.

With reference to the trial being held in Bedford, this would never happen in this day and age. It is in the interests of all concerned in these cases to hold the trial in a city further away from the scene of the crime.

There was a case locally about 15 years ago where a mother was accused of murdering her 6 year-old son in some woods near their home. All the initial court appearances where local and feelings were such that, whenever she appeared in court, people came out in their hundreds to boo and hiss at the police van as it arrived at court. It was felt that she would not get a fair hearing locally and her trial was held in another twon.

Likewise, soon after 9/11, four local Asian youths plucked a young white boy off the streets one night and slit him open from his crotch to his chin. Their murder trial was held in another city because it would have been difficult to find local jury members who did not know someone involved in the trial in one way or another.

With reference to the notion that witnesses are irrelevant to a trial - this is a very strange notion indeed and in the case of the Hanratty trial, all the prosecution had was witnesses and even then, only one of them could place Hanratty at the scene of the crime and that was VS. There was no direct forensic evidence that linked Hanratty to the crime.

[Victor]

With reference to the notion that witnesses are irrelevant to a trial - this is a very strange notion indeed and in the case of the Hanratty trial, all the prosecution had was witnesses and even then, only one of them could place Hanratty at the scene of the crime and that was VS. There was no direct forensic evidence that linked Hanratty to the crime.

Hi Julie,
I think you might have the wrong end of the stick with the above, Larue and myself appear to agree that the witnesses are irrelevant to whether the trial is a fair one or unfair, and that the impartiality of the judge is the most important factor.

Taking the examples of Nudds and Langdale, whose honesty is disputed, the fact that they were witnesses shouldn't mean that the trial is automatically unfair.

As to the direct forensic evidence, there was the type O secretor blood and semen in VS knickers, which was much later found to be Hanratty's.

The cartridge cases in the room at the Vienna next to the bed Hanratty slept in the night before the murder.

And of course the debate about what happened to the Hepworth jacket.

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Hi Vic,

Hanratty's blood type would have match many of the men in that courtroom. It was not 'found to be Hanratty's' for another forty odd years and even then I dispute that it was impossible for the garments not to have been contaminated.

The cartridge cases in the room at the Vienna hotel do not place Hanratty at the scene of the crime. Those cases were found several weeks after the crime and, incidently, several weeks after the 'murder weapon' and spare cartridges were found on the London bus.

Talking of forensics, when questioned about his clothes, Alphon consistently refused to surrender his clothes for police examination. He was frequently asked where his spare clothes were kept and refused to say.