a6 murder

[Victor]

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

Hi Derrick,

Yes. And also that the defence case was not enough to exonerate.

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

They saw all the witnesses give evidence and could evaluate the body language &tc.

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.

Nope, I trust the DNA to verify all the other evidence including VS identification.

You created a poll on here and voted with "DNA proved it".

Yes.

Which is it Victor? Make your mind up man.

I have, the DNA proved that the original verdict was entirely safe. As has Michael Sherrard agreed in his statements.

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.

You want your cake and to eat it too. Apply by the rules, the ambush alibi is as inadmissible as the Rhyl witness evidence is admissible. If you want one, you have to deny the other - or be hopelessly biased.

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.

They [the judges] didn't need to,it was irrelevant.

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

Which is still a lot better than the 6 months for tyhe Rhyl witnesses, after Hamratty had been splayed across the papers too!

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

Ooops there's the DNA, which completely supports the conviction, but nothing that supports the acquittal.

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.

No, I support them for future convictions, just not retrospectively where your argument falls flat.

Derrick.

Bye Reg, oops Derrick...

KR,
Vic.

[Derrick]

Hi Victor

...Yes. And also that the defence case was not enough to exonerate...They saw all the witnesses give evidence and could evaluate the body language &tc...

You explicitly state that a defendent is guilty until found innocent by why of alibi. You don't seem to understand that the burden of proof rests squarely with the prosecution. As Norma has correctly said, the judge (Gorman J) directed the jury to be mindful that a lack of alibi is no indicator of guilt. The judge would have also directed the jury to evaluate only the evidence as given and nothing else, and most certainly not whether the defendent stood there picking his nose throughout or looked shifty etc. Anyway, no one here will ever know exactly what reason(s) the jury decided on to convict. So it is pointless trying to speculate.

Which is still a lot better than the 6 months for tyhe Rhyl witnesses, after Hamratty had been splayed across the papers too!

From fresh to 2 months, good grief!
How was Hanratty splayed across the papers? Can you give an instance of where Hanratty's photo appeared in the national or regional press whilst the trial was in progress? If you remember the defence had to ask permission from the judge to have Hanratty's picture taken, outside the Bedford Assizes, so that they could continue inquiries in Rhyl.

More importantly you also seem to forget that newspaper reports had already appeared, in October 1961, saying that the man the police wanted "dyed his hair". It is most likely that Valerie, Trower and Skillet had read those reports.

You want your cake and to eat it too. Apply by the rules, the ambush alibi is as inadmissible as the Rhyl witness evidence is admissible. If you want one, you have to deny the other - or be hopelessly biased....They [the judges] didn't need to,it was irrelevant...

Complete nonsense. The Rhyl alibi as put forward as grounds in the 2002 appeal was not dismissed as an ambush alibi (and was not mentioned as such at all), but turned down because the judges accepted the DNA evidence (p202)

...No, I support them for future convictions, just not retrospectively where your argument falls flat...

Of course you do... Why should you accept something that undermines your argument.

...Ooops there's the DNA, which completely supports the conviction, but nothing that supports the acquittal...

We come full cycle. You accept the Caddy/Reed rulings but are unwilling to apply them to Hanratty. Appeals against conviction, for your information, can be notoriously slow. It was 3 years, after being referred, before Hanratty's second appeal was actually heard. It has only been 18 months, or so, since the fallout of Reed. Who knows how many convicted persons are lodging complaints of conviction by LCN, retrospective of Reed, with the CCRC but I would bet a fair few will be heard within the next few years.

...Nope, I trust the DNA to verify all the other evidence including VS identification......I have, the DNA proved that the original verdict was entirely safe. As has Michael Sherrard agreed in his statements

But you have agreed with Caddy/Reed and are again placing trust in all the original evidence at the 1962 trial when you have explicitly said that it wasn't enough to convict.

Not good enough I'm afraid.

You are, as I said, just picking and choosing whatever supports your own view, whether it has any basis in fact or not.

Bye Reg, oops Derrick...

Victor (the Macbeth of this forum) seems to have seen the ghost of Banquo sitting in Macbeth's place.

Derrick

[Victor]

Hi Derrick,

You explicitly state that a defendent is guilty until found innocent by why of alibi. You don't seem to understand that the burden of proof rests squarely with the prosecution. As Norma has correctly said, the judge (Gorman J) directed the jury to be mindful that a lack of alibi is no indicator of guilt.

Absolutely not, innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution, and an alibi would be proof that the defendant was elsewhere at the time of the crime and therefore innocent. The lack of a believeable alibi isn't proof the defendant was there committing the crime, it's proof that they weren't somewhere else. The lack of an alibi could also mean that the defendant was at home alone asleep or in a hotel asleep, so the lack of an alibi isn't an indication of guilt, it's the lack of an indication of innocence.

The judge would have also directed the jury to evaluate only the evidence as given and nothing else, and most certainly not whether the defendent stood there picking his nose throughout or looked shifty etc. Anyway, no one here will ever know exactly what reason(s) the jury decided on to convict. So it is pointless trying to speculate.

It's interesting to see you downgrade the 50-93% of conversation that various authorities atrribute to body language (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_language ) as standing there picking his nose. I'm not speculating about why the jury convicted, just giving a major reason why we can't understand what they saw and heard by just reading the words

From fresh to 2 months, good grief!

2 months is fresh especially when contrasted with the 6 months for the Rhyl witness.

How was Hanratty splayed across the papers? Can you give an instance of where Hanratty's photo appeared in the national or regional press whilst the trial was in progress? If you remember the defence had to ask permission from the judge to have Hanratty's picture taken, outside the Bedford Assizes, so that they could continue inquiries in Rhyl.

That's James' argument, he'll be able to reply to this point.

More importantly you also seem to forget that newspaper reports had already appeared, in October 1961, saying that the man the police wanted "dyed his hair". It is most likely that Valerie, Trower and Skillet had read those reports.

Isn't that a contradiction to your point above, the 3 witnesses who identified Hanratty in the identity parades could be influenced by newspaper reports, but the Rhyl witnesses 4 months later couldn't? Can you explain what you mean here?

The Rhyl alibi as put forward as grounds in the 2002 appeal was not dismissed as an ambush alibi (and was not mentioned as such at all), but turned down because the judges accepted the DNA evidence (p202)

The Rhyl alibi did not need to be dismissed as an ambush alibi because it was refuted by the DNA evidence which corroborated the other trial evidence. There's no mention of the ambush alibi point at all in the judgment.

You accept the Caddy/Reed rulings but are unwilling to apply them to Hanratty.

I accept the Caddy\Reed rulings, but appreciate the difficulty of applying them retrospectively, which is exactly the same as for all other legal positions and rulings. I accept that the LCN tests performed in Hanratty do not fully meet those later guidelines because a quantification step was not performed because at that time it was not considered necessary. I do not think that one failure renders the entire results invalid.

Appeals against conviction, for your information, can be notoriously slow. It was 3 years, after being referred, before Hanratty's second appeal was actually heard. It has only been 18 months, or so, since the fallout of Reed. Who knows how many convicted persons are lodging complaints of conviction by LCN, retrospective of Reed, with the CCRC but I would bet a fair few will be heard within the next few years.

Each case will need to be considered separately, and I welcome it because then we'll know exactly what proportion of them succeed purely on the basis of subsequent rulings.

But you have agreed with Caddy/Reed and are again placing trust in all the original evidence at the 1962 trial when you have explicitly said that it wasn't enough to convict.

My personal opinion was that the original trial evidence was insufficient to convict beyond reasonable doubt, which is moderated by the fact that we only know 7% (according to Borg) of the evidence - and I haven't read the entire trial transcript. The DNA proves that my original opinion was cautious, and that the jury were more accurate.

You are, as I said, just picking and choosing whatever supports your own view, whether it has any basis in fact or not.

Blah. You are dogmatically sticking to your original view and are deliberately and belligerantly dismissing any factual evidence that contradicts that viewpoint. Touche.

Now we've got the pointless tit-for-tat out the way can we just move on and concentrate on the evidence rather than personal abuse.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Vic,

The lack of an alibi could also mean that the defendant was at home alone asleep or in a hotel asleep, so the lack of an alibi isn't an indication of guilt, it's the lack of an indication of innocence.

Mr Justice Gormon [the judge at Hanratty"s trial]:
He does not have to prove his alibi.The failure or otherwise of the alibi does not make him guilty. You do not have to rely on it.

I'm not speculating about why the jury convicted, just giving a major reason why we can't understand what they saw and heard by just reading the words

What the property owning gentry that comprised the Bedford Jury saw and heard is pretty obvious to anyone with any imagination:All they saw or were prepared to see was Hanratty"s criminal record for housebreaking---and it caused them huge disquiet.Never mind that there wasnt a scrap of any evidence whatever , never mind that he had no record for violence of any kind and that all the young girls he went out with spoke of him being a gentle kind man who treated them with respect.To these country bumpkins he was burglar Bill and it caused them all to brown their y fronts.

[Black Rabbit]

Hi Vic,
What the property owning gentry that comprised the Bedford Jury saw and heard is pretty obvious to anyone with any imagination:All they saw or were prepared to see was Hanratty"s criminal record for housebreaking---and it caused them huge disquiet.Never mind that there wasnt a scrap of any evidence whatever , never mind that he had no record for violence of any kind and that all the young girls he went out with spoke of him being a gentle kind man who treated them with respect.To these country bumpkins he was burglar Bill and it caused them all to brown their y fronts.

Sorry, I'm not aware of the details of the original trial at Bedford, but at what point before the delivery of their verdict, were the jury given the details of Hanrattys previous criminal record?

[RonIpstone]

Sorry, I'm not aware of the details of the original trial at Bedford, but at what point before the delivery of their verdict, were the jury given the details of Hanrattys previous criminal record?

In general an accused's previous is not put before the jury. In the Hanratty case, in order to explain his actions and his alibi(s), Hanratty himself put his previous in evidence. The jury were well aware that Hanratty was an experienced housebreaker and had served time for those crimes.

[Victor]

Mr Justice Gormon [the judge at Hanratty"s trial]:
He does not have to prove his alibi.The failure or otherwise of the alibi does not make him guilty. You do not have to rely on it.

Hi Norma,

That's exactly the point I made, a proven alibi makes someone definitely innocent, but the lack or failure of an alibi doesn't necessarily make them guilty.

KR,
Vic.

[Stephen Thomas]

Can't help sharing this with people interested in this case.

Today I bought at a reasonable price a first edition hardback copy of the Foot book (Jonathan Cape 1971, original price £2.50) The interesting thing is that it's in absolutely pristine condition and looks like it was published yesterday or someone had it in a jiffy bag for 39 years.

[Joseph]

Richard Austen Butler.

[Black Rabbit]

In general an accused's previous is not put before the jury. In the Hanratty case, in order to explain his actions and his alibi(s), Hanratty himself put his previous in evidence. The jury were well aware that Hanratty was an experienced housebreaker and had served time for those crimes.

Well then in that case surely any jury, any where in the country, would form a biased opinion.

Under such circumstances, how would James Hanratty be expected to receive a 'fair trial'?

[Victor]

Well then in that case surely any jury, any where in the country, would form a biased opinion.

Under such circumstances, how would James Hanratty be expected to receive a 'fair trial'?

Hi BR,

Hanratty himself in evidence said he wasn't a decent person - I think the exact words were along the lines of 'not someone the court would approve of' - but that he was a housebreaker not a murderer or rapist.

The judge certainly seems to have believed him and summed up for an acquittal, whereas the jury sent him to the gallows.

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Hi BR,

Hanratty himself in evidence said he wasn't a decent person - I think the exact words were along the lines of 'not someone the court would approve of' - but that he was a housebreaker not a murderer or rapist.

The judge certainly seems to have believed him and summed up for an acquittal, whereas the jury sent him to the gallows.

KR,
Vic.

I wonder what an Old Bailey jury would have done?

[Derrick]

Well then in that case surely any jury, any where in the country, would form a biased opinion.

Under such circumstances, how would James Hanratty be expected to receive a 'fair trial'?

Black Rabbit
Here is an article discussing the changing of the rules regarding bad character evidence.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-89556/Previous-convictions-law-changed.html

It doesn't apply to this case but is interesting all the same.

A very sensible essay by Justice here on the proposed rule changes:

http://www.justice.org.uk/images/pdfs/cjbbadcharacter.pdf

I agree with Ron and as I understand it unless the defendant takes the stand, with a few arcane exceptions, the prosecution are not allowed to mention any previous form that the accused may have. Unless agreed by both parties or disclosed by the defence, a mistrial or acquittal will be entered in.

Hanratty having taken the stand was open to questioning regarding his convictions through his alibi of trying to offload stolen goods.

I remember John Kerr speaking of Hanratty looking like a nasty piece of work, not necessarily a murderer, but a nasty piece of work in the Horizon programme in 2002.

Derrick

[Derrick]

Both Skillet and Trower picked out Hanratty from the identity parade of 13th October.

One has to bear in mind that there had been newspaper reports of the wanted man having dyed hair.

Trower's evidence at trial was very poor and completely unconvincing.

Skillet's identification is contradicted by the evidence put forward by Blackhall.

Derrick

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Derrick,
I have to return the Paul Foot book back to the library this coming week.I notice that Stephen has sort of joined the thread and he now has a copy which is really good as Foot investigated the witnesses you refer to very thoroughly ,particularly the ones you mention. As you said Blackhall possibly saw the driver of the MM close up and in daylight the morning of the murder and was nearest to him in the passenger seat.However he didnt identify Hanratty - indeed somewhere in Paul Foot"s book he talks about not having gone far enough down the line to identify Alphon and instead identifying someone else "who looked like Alphon".I am pretty busy at the moment but will dig out the exact quote on this before I return the book on Thursday.I recall reading that Blackhall even adds that when he sawa photograph of Alphon ,later, he was pretty sure he would have identified him.Its an interesting bit of digging Foot did on Blackhall"s memory of events.
Cheers
Norma