a6 murder

[Victor]

The DNA has proved to most people’s satisfaction that James Hanratty was indeed the A6 murderer.
If I belonged to that group of people I would not bother with any further debate. Why should I waste my breath or time on the computer? If any body even mentioned a miscarriage to me I would reply “DNA”. There’s nothing else to say for their side; they have ‘won’.
It is over and done with.

Then why do they?

Hi Tony,

Certainly the "who" is "over and done with" but not the "how" or "why", which is what keeps my interest. And certainly the pre-DNA proof that the jury believed seems inadequate, so it's possible for there to be a miscarriage even if, according to Michael Sherrard, they didn't hang an innocent man.

Some of them championed the cause of James Hanratty pre DNA and if they did they must have thought that Acott, Oxford, Storie, Swanwick et all were all wrong.
Did they indeed?

As I replied to Julie earlier, it is possible to doubt the truth, but that doesn't make it wrong. Previously there were "reasonable doubts", which the DNA eliminated.

Well this case is not over. And soon, very soon, there will be updated developments for them to chew over.

Further developments would be great, but for them to be believed it must include a valid explanation for the DNA results obtained, otherwise it'll just be another coincidence in a case "dripping" with them.

The indesputable fact is that Michael Gregsten was murdered, and someone did it, if not Hanratty, then who?

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

It's easy for Jimdiditites to ignore the mountain of evidence pointing to James Hanratty's innocence in favour of blind acceptance of DNA findings obtained from a controversial DNA technique that only three of the World's countries have adopted.

Hi James,

Can you give one piece of evidence that conclusively says Hanratty didn't do it? There's a "mountain" to chose from!

Secondly, I haven't "blindly" accepted the LCN, I've carefully considered it.

Thirdly, Jean Justice could swear blind noir was black and I'd still want some corroboration. He seems the sort of man who'd stop at nothing (including participating in deception and other illegal activities) to prove his point.

KR,
Vic.

[larue]

hi Graham

This is why the A6 Case is still of huge interest. As is, for example, the Lindbergh Kidnap Case - same as the A6, someone was convicted and executed, but even after 80 years questions remain.

... and, i suspect, a whole lot more cases besides.

crippen, for instance.

according to recent research, some geezer in the us of a reckons that a dna test of the material from one of the original microscope slides used in the trial, proves that the remains in the cellar were male, not female... the thot plickens

makes one wonder what other anomolies one would find if one could examine more of the most famous cases in history? as i'm sure the a6 case is not unique in this respect?

If someone really does have new information about the A6 Case - Dupplin Muir where are you? - then I truly cannot wait to see it either.

you and me both!!!

i'm currently ploughing my way through chapter 18 of 'wigs and wherefores'. there's some interesting statements in there...

[RonIpstone]

The trouble with 'updated developments' is that to those who are convinced of Hanratty's innocence any new thing, now matter how flimsy, will convince them still further as to Jim's innocence. To the rest of us, unless the 'updated developments' address the DNA issue, we will be unmoved.

At the risk of repetition, the problem is that the rapist's DNA must have been on VS's knickers in 1961, why had it vanished by 2002, when VS's and MG's DNA, also present in 1961, had survived in tact?

Do your updated developments address this issue?

[caz]

It's easy for Jimdiditites to ignore the mountain of evidence pointing to James Hanratty's innocence...

It's easy to ignore something that we haven't been given sight of.

At the risk of repeating myself until everyone's sick and tired of hearing it, a mountain of evidence that the original conviction was unsafe would not by itself amount to a pimple of evidence that Hanratty was innocent of this crime, or that another individual committed it. Where is there any evidence that would stand up in court that Alphon did it, for example?

The gulf between unsafe and innocent was always there, but it can only be filled today by new evidence so powerful that it overturns the DNA findings. And yet Jimdidn'tdoitites repeatedly demonstrate with comments like the one above that they see no gulf - no difference at all - between unsafe and innocent.

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

i'm currently ploughing my way through chapter 18 of 'wigs and wherefores'. there's some interesting statements in there...

Hi Larue,

Sherrard's book has had some good reviews. Does he say much about the A6?

Cheers,

Graham

[larue]

hi Graham

chapter 18, 'James Hanratty' runs from page 91 to page 114, so it's not exactly an in-depth review of the case, but he does make several statements that raised my eyebrows. i'll post them shortly. stay tuned...

[larue]

hi Graham

these are some interesting extracts from Mr Sherrard's book...[ quotes are in blue]


The case was committed for trial from the Bedford Magistrates. It had been touch and go whether they would find that there was no case to answer but the huge press interest in the horrific events meant that they must have felt that the world was waiting for the outcome of a full trial The seriousness of the case compounded by intense local interest and the risk of bias enabled me to persuade them that the case should be remitted to the Old Bailey for trial.


[my bold]

Having persuaded the justices at committal that a trial in Bedford would be likely to deprive Hanratty of the fair trial that could only be achieved in London, it was something of a shock when, a matter of two weeks before the case was to be listed, we appeared at the Old Bailey before the Recorder of London, Sir Anthony Hawke, who greeted us with the words, "I'm told that there is a convenient day for the hearing to start at Bedford on January 17th 1962." Graham Swanwick, counsel for the prosecution, had not even opened his mouth.
I was left with suspicions that there had been manoeuvring behind the scenes for the trial to take place in the court where the prosecution was most likely to succeed. No matter what my views were, the decision was not negotiable.

So we transferred.

if that's not a conspiracy, i don't know what is...


The tale unfolded before a jury called from the Burghers of Bedford – or something similar, according to the criminal bar. They turned out to be exactly as described to this novice: all male, middle-class, white. property-owning gentry. From the outset, they appeared to be all too likely to live up to the Bedford reputation of being of the notoriously hard-nosed hang-'em, flog-'em school of justice.


re the Judge...

He was bursting himself to indicate to the jury that he did not think the case was strong enough. His summing-up, in his high-pitched voice, was a model of fairness, emphasizing that the jury had to be sure and emphasizing points that I would not have dared to do had I been in his place.


re the final visit...

The High Sheriff attended: he was still unconvinced by the evidence.



i especially like this bit...[my bold]

The evidence that confirmed Hanratty's guilt, so far as the appeal process is concerned, is the DNA. But who would have thought that, for 31 years, the police would have kept, on ice, Valerie Storie's knickers and the handkerchief that wrapped the gun? Or exhumed him for DNA matches?

does this mean that the police had sufficient precognition to forsee the dna test decades before it was a reality? [ i think that should read 41 years...] who'd have thought it??

a few pages later...

It turned out that evidence was retained, frozen, to await the new technology that was eventually used: Valerie Stone's knickers; Hanratty's handkerchief.


re the investigating officers...

Detective Superintendent Oxford, eventually knighted, was the number two man in the investigation team. I formed the opinion that he was a very subtle operator. People who met him – including the jury, no doubt – could not help but be impressed with his personality. The comparison with the dour, almost clumsy style of the other important player, DS Acott, was like that of the proverbial chalk and cheese. In the run-up to the recent appeal process, he was to be asked about the integrity of the police notes. But he had a heart attack and died. His explanation for the forensic findings of alterations will never be heard.

[RonIpstone]

these are some interesting extracts from Mr Sherrard's book

Hi Larue,

I have not got the book so to some extent I am fumbling a little in the dark, but my eye caught this customer review on Amazon which took issue with some of Sherrard's recollection as to how Vic Durand QC was removed from the case.

Amazon Review

A little more research revealed this adjournment motion in the House of Commons on 9 March 1962 in which the circumstances surrounding Meek v Fleming are set out more fully.

Hansard

[Victor]

The evidence that confirmed Hanratty's guilt, so far as the appeal process is concerned, is the DNA. But who would have thought that, for 31 years, the police would have kept, on ice, Valerie Storie's knickers and the handkerchief that wrapped the gun? Or exhumed him for DNA matches?

It turned out that evidence was retained, frozen, to await the new technology that was eventually used: Valerie Stone's knickers; Hanratty's handkerchief.

Hi larue,

The knicker fragment was discovered in 1991 so roughly 30 years later. It was found seperately to the handkerchief, and neither were "on ice" nor "frozen" unless the second quote above refers to the time between discovery and testing, when that is a possibility.

Those mistakes plus the one highlighted in the Amazon Review posted by Ron seriously undermine the veracity of Sherrard's book.

KR,
Vic.

[larue]

hi Vic

The knicker fragment was discovered in 1991 so roughly 30 years later.

fair enough mate. i was thinking aboot the 2001[ish] analysis. no biggie

It was found seperately to the handkerchief, and neither were "on ice" nor "frozen" unless the second quote above refers to the time between discovery and testing, when that is a possibility.

Those mistakes plus the one highlighted in the Amazon Review posted by Ron seriously undermine the veracity of Sherrard's book.

KR,
Vic.

actually Vic, i don't think you were meant to take the 'on ice' thing literally, i rather think that to 'put on ice' is a euphemism for 'to put away for safekeeping or later use, to store untill needed', not that the knickers were actually placed on a block of ice. likewise 'frozen', more likely meant 'frozen in time' ie not touched for a while.

however, as to the book review... well well well what do we have here??? lying coppers, a barrister trying to con a jury, and other barristers that cannot get their facts right??? whatever next? i expect someone will be telling us that eye witnesses are unreliable and scientific tests can be botched. then where will we be? one just does not know who one can believe...

[Limehouse]

Hi larue,

The knicker fragment was discovered in 1991 so roughly 30 years later. It was found seperately to the handkerchief, and neither were "on ice" nor "frozen" unless the second quote above refers to the time between discovery and testing, when that is a possibility.

Those mistakes plus the one highlighted in the Amazon Review posted by Ron seriously undermine the veracity of Sherrard's book.

KR,
Vic.

Oh come Vic, Sherrad was as close to the case as anyone - such as VS - and in your eyes we are not allowed to question her recall.

[NickB]

How could Sherrard have been as close to the case as Valerie?

I don’t think proven mistakes by Sherrard or Valerie should be ignored. Valerie’s mistake in her first identity parade certainly counted against her.

The expression “on ice” has commas either side and is preceded by the word “kept”. Same again with “frozen”. commas either side and preceded by the word “retained”. If he simply meant “kept” and “retained” this is a strange way to put it.

I am wary of autobiographies in which all the writer’s actions were perfect and everyone else’s were mischievous. I wonder Larue (and thanks for the excerpts!) if he mentions anything that counts against his side of the case.

As an aside … the Durand matter reminds me of the Rumpole story featuring a Superintendent Glazier. When brought to give evidence the prosecution refer to him as Mr Glazier. Immediately Rumpole’s suspicions are aroused, and he establishes that Glazier has been demoted.

[Victor]

Oh come Vic, Sherrad was as close to the case as anyone - such as VS - and in your eyes we are not allowed to question her recall.

I deliberately gave him the benefit of the doubt concerning the "31 years" and I allowed for the interpretation larue gave "on ice" = stored away, but for the second reference to "frozen" in the context quoted I had to find a valid interpretation for, so I suggested something plausible.

His blatant and deliberate falsification of the Durand situation is just pure dishonesty or abysmal recollection and research compounded by inadequate fact checking. Take your pick.

As for VS, I've said before that I'm happy to accept that she may be mistaken on some specifics, but that accusing her of collusion or deliberate lying or perjury is completely out of order.

Those glaring errors makes Prof Simpsons couple of millimetre gaff on the weapon used pale into insignificance.

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

Courtesy of Larue's kindness I've read the appropriate chapter in Sherrard's book. Two points:

1] confirms what I always thought, that had JH stuck to the Liverpool Alibi (and also, possibly, not taken the witness stand) he may well have been acquitted. The judge advised the jury that an alibi need not be proven to be of significance.

2] Sherrard himself says that, had Durand taken the case as leader, he may well have not even given JH the chance to change is alibi.

However, had he been acquitted, a man guilty of a horrendous crime would have gone free.

Graham