a6 murder

[Derrick]

Hi Victor

I had the distinct feeling that you were originally skeptical of Hanratty's guilt but were persuaded by the DNA evidence.
Which elements of the case that had originally perturbed you did the DNA evidence finally set to rest in your own mind, and why?

Derrick

[Victor]

I had the distinct feeling that you were originally skeptical of Hanratty's guilt but were persuaded by the DNA evidence.
Which elements of the case that had originally perturbed you did the DNA evidence finally set to rest in your own mind, and why?

Hi Derrick,

I believe that there are enough anomalies in the original Prosecution case that the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, especially Nudds evidence and the lack of motive, but I've never been convinced that the dodgy Liverpool and Rhyl alibis were enough to say he was innocent.

The DNA evidence simply confirms that VS identification was spot on and she was not mistaken.

KR,
Vic.

[RonIpstone]

I am with Vic on this one. On the evidence which I have read, and I am mindful I was not present at the trial whereas the jury members were, I did not think that the prosecution had done enough to remove all reasonable doubt as to Hanratty's guilt.

In many ways the prosecution had helped the defence with VS's first and wrong ID parade and with the confusion as to who was the last credible suspect to stay in Room 24 of the Vienna Hotel.

I think that Hanratty's disastrous change in the particulars of his alibi half way through the trial must have weighed heavily with the jury despite Gorman J's imprecations that Jim's failure to establish an alibi did not equate to his guilt.

The DNA evidence has tipped the balance firmly in favour of guilty beyond reasonable doubt, even if standing alone it did not amount to proof certain of Jim's guilt, it would when added to the other circumstantial and direct evidence heard at the trial.

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie,

The reference you're seeking can be found on p415 of Bob Woffinden's excellent book. Gladys Alphon mentions it during the course of her interrogation by Acott.
Last October I submitted a post that dealt partly with this.
Here it is and I hope it's helpful..........

Thanks very much James. I had a feeling it had been discussed before. Also very interesting to read once agfain your post with the interesting RAF links in the case.

Thanks again. Might return to this when I have caught up with the other posts.

Julie

[Victor]

On the evidence which I have read, and I am mindful I was not present at the trial whereas the jury members were, I did not think that the prosecution had done enough to remove all reasonable doubt as to Hanratty's guilt.

Hi Ron,

I can't help but see Derrick's recent questions as a plee for everyone to put on rose-tinted specs. We weren't there to hear the manner in which the evidence was given, and have no massively distorted concept on how to evaluate that testimony. The jury unanimously found him guilty, and that's a blunt fact. They watched the witnesses give evidence and responded accordingly.

I also find it amazing that the same people blather on about witheld evidence in accordance with contemporary guidelines yet object when the inadmissibility of Hanratty's ambush alibi is mentioned.

Or Valerie identification is typically suspect, but the Rhyl identification witnesses are spot on, conveniently ignoring that the Rhyl witnesses were 6 months later, whereas Valerie was fresh.

Nothing that has emerged since Hanratty's execution has convincingly proved him innocent.

The DNA evidence has tipped the balance firmly in favour of guilty beyond reasonable doubt, even if standing alone it did not amount to proof certain of Jim's guilt, it would when added to the other circumstantial and direct evidence heard at the trial.

I agree completely.

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Hi Ron,
I also find it amazing that the same people blather on about witheld evidence in accordance with contemporary guidelines yet object when the inadmissibility of Hanratty's ambush alibi is mentioned.
KR,
Vic.

But Vic - the jury were able to hear Hanratty's change of alibi and decide accordingly. There were not able vto hear evidence that was withheld. Additionally - they were obviously unaware that some evidence - statements - had been tampered with.

[Black Rabbit]

Hi Everyone,

Two quick questions that may tax you.

Firstly – Sidney Burton. Does anyone know what his home address was back in August 1961 and also his place of work?

Secondly – Valerie Storie. After surgery, what Ward was she admitted to in Bedford General hospital?

I know it’s a long shot, but someone out there may have this information. Thanks in advance.

[NickB]

I have a couple of questions about the trial.


1. Did Swanwick give a ‘health warning’ about Nudds evidence?

According to Sherrard, as reported by Russell, Swanwick said in his opening remarks to the jury:
'Do not rely on Nudds unless there is documentary corroboration available'.
(in paragraph 14 here.)


2. Did Louise Anderson give evidence about her missing black gloves?

It appears to say here that the judge agreed to the defence’s request not to admit this evidence.

[Victor]

But Vic - the jury were able to hear Hanratty's change of alibi and decide accordingly. There were not able to hear evidence that was withheld. Additionally - they were obviously unaware that some evidence - statements - had been tampered with.

Hi Julie,

What statements were tampered with? The ESDA tests were inconclusive.

The point about ambush alibis is that they are no longer admissible as evidence, therefore today it wouldn't be allowed. The rules at the time required the prosecution to supply the defence with the names and addersses of anyone who mae a statement, and this was done. If Hanratty had revealed the Rhyl information sooner then more enquiries could have been made by Gillbanks his investigator, it was Hanratty himself who crippled his defence. Furthermore several of the statements were available for the appeal and were deliberately not used.

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie,

What statements were tampered with? The ESDA tests were inconclusive.

The point about ambush alibis is that they are no longer admissible as evidence, therefore today it wouldn't be allowed. The rules at the time required the prosecution to supply the defence with the names and addersses of anyone who mae a statement, and this was done. If Hanratty had revealed the Rhyl information sooner then more enquiries could have been made by Gillbanks his investigator, it was Hanratty himself who crippled his defence. Furthermore several of the statements were available for the appeal and were deliberately not used.

KR,
Vic.

Vic - it is irelevant that today Hanratty's alibi would not be permitted. He is no longer on trial. Under the rules of the day - he was allowed to change his alibi. It is also unhelpful to Hanratty to state that statements that were withehld at the trial were available for the appeal as he was already dead at that time.

It is likely that Hanratty was totally convinced that his Liverpool friends would collaborate his Liverpool alibi as the other Liverpool witnesses did. However - it is a mystery to me why he did not at the same time state that after visiting Liverpool he went on the Rhyl. If he had done this from the outset it is unlikely he would have been found guilty. Hanratty's role in his own demise has never been denied - but he deserved a fair trial and he did not get one.

There is one other important point. This case resulted in many victims and it is only because of the nature of the investigation that doubts were planted in the minds of many people since. If the investigation had been honourable - and not an ego trip for the principal investigating officers - people would have had more confidence in the verdict and those victims would not have had to endure the never-ending speculation about the outcome if this case for so many years afterwards.

[NickB]

It is also unhelpful to Hanratty to state that statements that were withehld at the trial were available for the appeal as he was already dead at that time.

I thought Vic was referring to the first appeal in 1962. Sherrard did not call evidence and witnesses concerned with the Rhyl alibi because they ‘did not match Hanratty’s evidence’ and ‘did not find support from Hanratty himself’ who was still alive.

[jimarilyn]

Hi Everyone,

Two quick questions that may tax you.

Firstly – Sidney Burton. Does anyone know what his home address was back in August 1961 and also his place of work?

Secondly – Valerie Storie. After surgery, what Ward was she admitted to in Bedford General hospital?

I know it’s a long shot, but someone out there may have this information. Thanks in advance.

Hi Black Rabbit,

I have access to the 1961 addresses of many of the A6 Murder Trial witnesses (including John Kerr's) but not that of Sidney Burton. All I've discovered about Mr Burton is that he was 67 years old in August 1961, worked for the River-Board and lived in a thatched cottage a mile away from Deadman's Hill.

As for Valerie Storie she underwent an operation at Bedford Hospital at some point on August 23rd. I would guess that after surgery she was returned to Charteris Ward.

[Derrick]

I can't help but see Derrick's recent questions as a plee for everyone to put on rose-tinted specs. We weren't there to hear the manner in which the evidence was given, and have no massively distorted concept on how to evaluate that testimony. The jury unanimously found him guilty, and that's a blunt fact. They watched the witnesses give evidence and responded accordingly.

I also find it amazing that the same people blather on about witheld evidence in accordance with contemporary guidelines yet object when the inadmissibility of Hanratty's ambush alibi is mentioned.

Or Valerie identification is typically suspect, but the Rhyl identification witnesses are spot on, conveniently ignoring that the Rhyl witnesses were 6 months later, whereas Valerie was fresh.

Nothing that has emerged since Hanratty's execution has convincingly proved him innocent.

Hi Victor
Rose tinted spectacles. Oh that's rich.

You have explicitly stated that the evidence at trial in 1962 was not enough to convict.

Here you are now relying on how the jury convicted Hanratty with some kind of justification.

You are also relying solely on the correctness of the DNA evidence to support the identification of Miss Storie as described in the appeal ruling of 2002. You created a poll on here and voted with "DNA proved it".

Which is it Victor? Make your mind up man.

The ambush alibi is not relevant as an argument either as the respondent in 2002 brought no new evidence to counter the grounds over fresh evidence concerning it. The judges made no mention of it in the ruling. If they [the judges] had found it was an ambush alibi it would certainly have been mentioned and dismissed accordingly.

You say Valerie's identification was fresh, which is not true. Her identification of Hanratty was nearly 2 months after the crime.

Nor has any evidence emerged since the trial, which you yourself say did not have enough evidence to convict, that supports the original conviction.

If you are denying the Reed/Caddy rulings on LCN DNA then I say that you are just picking and choosing evidence to support you own arguments regardless of the facts.

Derrick.

[Natalie Severn]

The jury comprised twelve men from the Bedford gentry who took one look at Hanratty"s housebreaking record and felt profoundly uneasy about having such a character around Bedford who might even break into their own houses!
This was ofcourse a gift for the prosecution and why the trial was not heard in the Old Bailey where the jury would have been more urbane but in a place where a conviction was much more of a certainty especially this group of dyed in the wool hang"em and flog "em reactionaries!
Its obvious Hanratty never stood a chance with such a bigoted bunch ,however sound his alibi might have been ,or brilliant his defence [and Sherrard was pretty good] or enlightened the presiding judge [and Hanratty couldnt have had a more enlightened or fairer judge by all accounts].
The die was cast.

[Victor]

t is irelevant that today Hanratty's alibi would not be permitted. He is no longer on trial. Under the rules of the day - he was allowed to change his alibi. It is also unhelpful to Hanratty to state that statements that were withehld at the trial were available for the appeal as he was already dead at that time.

Hi Julie,

No, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Hanratty was allowed to change his alibi and the proisecution were allowed to reveal only the names and adresses of the supporting witnesses. As Nick says he was not dead at the time of the first appeal, although Gregsten was!

It is likely that Hanratty was totally convinced that his Liverpool friends would collaborate his Liverpool alibi as the other Liverpool witnesses did.

Honour amongst thievies... Hanratty thought his dodgy mates in Liverpool would support his dodgy goings on elsewhere, yet these goings on were way above their league - so they refused to be involved in that very heavy nastinesss.

However - it is a mystery to me why he did not at the same time state that after visiting Liverpool he went on the Rhyl. If he had done this from the outset it is unlikely he would have been found guilty. Hanratty's role in his own demise has never been denied - but he deserved a fair trial and he did not get one.

A mystery? It's plain, he was guilty and wanted to avoid the consequences so called on his mates to bail him out, and they would have done if it wasn't so serious.

There is one other important point. This case resulted in many victims and it is only because of the nature of the investigation that doubts were planted in the minds of many people since. If the investigation had been honourable - and not an ego trip for the principal investigating officers - people would have had more confidence in the verdict and those victims would not have had to endure the never-ending speculation about the outcome if this case for so many years afterwards.

How else could they have run it? It was a major murder inquiry, and high profile because of the media coverage of the victims. The investigating officers were under pressure to get a result, they were as honourable as possible.

KR,
Vic