a6 murder

[Natalie Severn]

Hi viv,

I also don't see why the establishment in the 2000's would seek to cover up for a case tried some 40 years before as has been raised in the past - do you believe that yourself? if so why?

But strictly speaking it wouldn"t be a cover up, viv.The establishment is obliged to defend its actions and you have only to read Hawser and the recent appeal to see that they always defend their actions very robustly.
Most agree that there was insufficient evidence at the time to convict and that Hanratty should have been acquitted, as the judge tried to help the jury understand at the time in Bedford.
Not for nothing did Sherrard reiterate ,soon after the DNA result of 2002, "yet there were no fibres,fingerprints or blood that connected Hanratty to the car"--all that there was was tiny a piece of cloth which he believed "mysteriously reappeared" after being kept "on ice" since 1961.No blood was ever found on Hanratty"s clothing.And the number of shady prosecution witnesses wheeled on by the defence was quite extraordinary.

Best ,
Norma

[Limehouse]

Why would the State try to cover up for a case tried some 40 years before?

Well - for a start - what if - in the original investigation - there were elements of corruption? For example:

a) tampering with statements and guest book at the Vienna Hotel
b) the placing of cartridges in room 24
c) leaning on witness and 'feeding/leading' them (i.e. the conversation between Anderson and Mrs France recently discussed)

Now - the original DNA testing was carried out on Hanratty's relatives in 1999 but proved problematic. Finally - after exhuming his body - DNA seemed to point to Hanratty as guilty.

What would the State (or more precisely British Justice) have to lose by announcing that Hanratty was innocent?

Well - in the lead up to the Hanratty DNA announcement - increasing anxiety about high-profile convictions and the way in which they were obtained had come to light. I note the following:

- 1992 - Stefan Kiszko was released from a prison term for the murder of Lesley Moolseed after it was established that he could not have been the murderer who deposited semen at the scene of Lesley's murder as he was infertile and produced no sperm - whereas the the murderer's semen contained sperm heads. Now - the scientific evidence was there at the time of the trial but not offered as evidence of his defence. Only the 'confession' extracted from Kiszko under exremely oppressive conditions was considered at his trial.

1994 - Colin Stagg was charged with the Murder of Rachel Nickoll after a 'honey trap' set by the police seemed to point to his guilt.

- 1998 after 46 years of campaigning - supporters of Derek Bentley secured a full pardon. For 46 years the 'State' had refused to acknowledge that Bentley's conviction and hanging had been unjust.

Now - I am not claiming that the State 'planted' Hanratty's DNA on the exhibits (although some people do claim this) - but I am saying that the State had every reason to cover up a corrupt investigation and to play down any claims that the exhibits could have been contaminated.

[Black Rabbit]

On a lighter note I give you Tracey Thorn from 'Everything But The Girl' and our old friend Mr Alphon.

Same gene pool?????

[jimornot?]

Why would the State try to cover up for a case tried some 40 years before?

Well - for a start - what if - in the original investigation - there were elements of corruption? For example:

a) tampering with statements and guest book at the Vienna Hotel
b) the placing of cartridges in room 24
c) leaning on witness and 'feeding/leading' them (i.e. the conversation between Anderson and Mrs France recently discussed)

Now - the original DNA testing was carried out on Hanratty's relatives in 1999 but proved problematic. Finally - after exhuming his body - DNA seemed to point to Hanratty as guilty.

What would the State (or more precisely British Justice) have to lose by announcing that Hanratty was innocent?

Well - in the lead up to the Hanratty DNA announcement - increasing anxiety about high-profile convictions and the way in which they were obtained had come to light. I note the following:

- 1992 - Stefan Kiszko was released from a prison term for the murder of Lesley Moolseed after it was established that he could not have been the murderer who deposited semen at the scene of Lesley's murder as he was infertile and produced no sperm - whereas the the murderer's semen contained sperm heads. Now - the scientific evidence was there at the time of the trial but not offered as evidence of his defence. Only the 'confession' extracted from Kiszko under exremely oppressive conditions was considered at his trial.

1994 - Colin Stagg was charged with the Murder of Rachel Nickoll after a 'honey trap' set by the police seemed to point to his guilt.

- 1998 after 46 years of campaigning - supporters of Derek Bentley secured a full pardon. For 46 years the 'State' had refused to acknowledge that Bentley's conviction and hanging had been unjust.

Now - I am not claiming that the State 'planted' Hanratty's DNA on the exhibits (although some people do claim this) - but I am saying that the State had every reason to cover up a corrupt investigation and to play down any claims that the exhibits could have been contaminated.

hi Julie

I see where you are coming from but take the view that it is precisely because 'they' (the establishment) could admit fault in the other cases, one more to add to the pot was as easy to do rather than defend the indefendable. 'They' wouldn't necessarily have to admit to any of the shortcomings you highlighted merely to state that the original conviction appears unsafe.

All the best

viv

[jimornot?]

On a lighter note I give you Tracey Thorn from 'Everything But The Girl' and our old friend Mr Alphon.

Same gene pool?????

brilliant!

[jimornot?]

Hi viv,


But strictly speaking it wouldn"t be a cover up, viv.The establishment is obliged to defend its actions and you have only to read Hawser and the recent appeal to see that they always defend their actions very robustly.
Most agree that there was insufficient evidence at the time to convict and that Hanratty should have been acquitted, as the judge tried to help the jury understand at the time in Bedford.
Not for nothing did Sherrard reiterate ,soon after the DNA result of 2002, "yet there were no fibres,fingerprints or blood that connected Hanratty to the car"--all that there was was tiny a piece of cloth which he believed "mysteriously reappeared" after being kept "on ice" since 1961.No blood was ever found on Hanratty"s clothing.And the number of shady prosecution witnesses wheeled on by the defence was quite extraordinary.

Best ,
Norma

Hi Norma

But, this line of reasoning assumes the DNA results were due to contamination. Just maybe it proves the jury got it right even though Hanratty should have been acquitted at the time.

I totally understand the arguments regarding fibres but they didn't incriminate Alphon either. I concede about (most of) the prosecution witnesses but even those in defence of hanratty couldn't supply proof of his alibi, merely recollections - Graham (where is he by the way - come back) highlighted this ages ago - no hotel register, no train tickets etc. Perhaps we could disregard all witnesses except surely the one who was definitely there - valerie. I am convinced that had she any doubts at all she would not have fingered Hanratty (and remained so certain it was the right call) rather than risk the murderer getting away with it


The fascination for me in this case is the way in which there are so many grounds for supporting the argument we choose to adopt. I have ultimately moved 180 degrees in this but deep down would like to have these newly held beliefs shaken (hard to truly let go of the old thoughts). As it stands, I am yet to be convinced butvery open to the debate and willing to challenge any viewpoint!

all the best

viv

PS I'll ask again, did anyone find the quote of Sherrard indicating the right man had been hanged? I haven't yet it seemed to be taken as fact a while ago on this thread until you challenged it

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Viv,
Thanks for your posts.Its clear that these days the memories of the young Hanratty,Sherrard"s client who he grew to like,and the memory of 23 year old ,Valerie Storie, can still be a painful one.
But Sherrard is clearly still taken aback by the behaviour of the police,particularly DS Acott ,and by the number of shady witnesses that were brought in by the prosecution, by the fact that evidence had been tampered with by the police and crucial evidence deliberately withheld.He hasn" t backed down because of the DNA results and appears unconvinced by them viz:When one of the actors from the Bootleg Theatre Company, begun in 1961 to help the public understand the anomalies of the case, rang him, after the DNA results were made public, asked "So do you think he did it?" Michael Sherrard [in the words of his biographer] gave the only answer he could."I think the court is going to think so."

Perhaps we could disregard all witnesses except surely the one who was definitely there - valerie. I am convinced that had she any doubts at all she would not have fingered Hanratty (and remained so certain it was the right call) rather than risk the murderer getting away with it

I can only again quote Michael Sherrard QC here, because he saw and heard it all:
" Valerie Storie was a rather pathetic figure. She was brought into court on a stretcher and gave her evidence from a wheelchair. Everybody felt sorry for her. What she said had happened to her had happened, Gregsten had been murdered in her presence, she had been raped."

and about her testimony Sherrard said,at the same time in May 2002 :

"The witness may be perfectly honest, absolutely convinced that he or she has identified the right man or woman and you're not going to be able to cross-examine them to show that they're lying "cos they're not lying, they're telling the truth as they see it."

PS I'll ask again, did anyone find the quote of Sherrard indicating the right man had been hanged? I haven't yet it seemed to be taken as fact a while ago on this thread until you challenged it

I challenged it because in his autobiography, written last year 2009, Sherrard makes it so clear that he is still in doubt.

[NickB]

did anyone find the quote of Sherrard indicating the right man had been hanged?

It is here

He also says in his book (page 104):
“The evidence that confirmed Hanratty's guilt, so far as the appeal process is concerned, is the DNA.”

However, clearly he still feels bitter about aspects of the trial and the guilty verdict it delivered.

[Natalie Severn]

It is here

He also says in his book (page 104):
“The evidence that confirmed Hanratty's guilt, so far as the appeal process is concerned, is the DNA.”

However, clearly he still feels bitter about aspects of the trial and the guilty verdict it delivered.

Yes,but he clearly states on page 103, in an incredulous aside :It turned out that evidence was retained ,frozen,to await new technology that was eventually used: Valerie Storie"s knickers;Hanratty"s handkerchief.....and he reiterates at the end of his chapter:
"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 kept,on ice,Valerie Storie"s knickers and the handkerchief that wrapped the gun? Or exhumed him for DNA matches?
Perhaps modern techniques would have changed the way that the evidence was presented and there wouldhave been a clearer understanding of the way the jury came to its conclusions."
And he finishes with the word "perhaps"

[NickB]

[I]evidence was retained, frozen ...
kept, on ice

It has been pointed out on this thread that the evidence was not "frozen" and "kept, on ice".

Perhaps if someone told Sherrard this he would not be so incredulous about it.

[Natalie Severn]

It has been pointed out on this thread that the evidence was not "frozen" and "kept, on ice".

Perhaps if someone told Sherrard this he would not be so incredulous about it. Perhaps.

Come Nick,he is being instinctively mistrustful of any evidence presented now or then-and with every reason!

[NickB]

As I said before I sympathise with Sherrard.

He lost a case many thought he should have won. In a way he might have preferred the judge to be biased against Hanratty because it would have taken the pressure off him – and given him a better chance in the appeal. You can see how sensitive Sherrard is to criticism of his actions in this case by his letter to the Sunday Times justifying why he did not call the Rhyl alibi witnesses.

I agree that he shows fondness towards Hanratty and seems remarkably forgiving about the difficult position he was put in over the Rhyl alibi. Some on this forum think that he should have refused to allow it. But once Hanratty had told him that he was not in Liverpool for that period, how could Sherrard have proceeded defending what he knew to be a lie?

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Nick.I don"t know about the letter he sent to The Times---might you be able to provide a link?
Yes, I think he feels he was a bit too close to Hanratty which allowed Hanratty to rely on him totally, when Sherrard knew there were older lawyers who might have shifted the early appeal in his favour.
I also pick up that Hanratty was one of those people who had something about him that seems to have endeared him to people--particularly when they got to know him as his warders did and the prison governor did ,who both Sherrard and Foot say had grown fond of him and were profoundly upset about his execution.My own opinion is that Hanratty was a heck of a lot brighter than most of them,in his own way, that he ran circles round his friends and those who loved him,and that he adored the drama of the situation he was in.It doesnt make him a murderer.But ....

[Limehouse]

hi Julie

I see where you are coming from but take the view that it is precisely because 'they' (the establishment) could admit fault in the other cases, one more to add to the pot was as easy to do rather than defend the indefendable. 'They' wouldn't necessarily have to admit to any of the shortcomings you highlighted merely to state that the original conviction appears unsafe.

All the best

viv

But Nick - it took 46 years for the state to pardon Bentley. They did not need any new or additional evidence to do this - it was all there right from the start. If Bentley's sister and supporters had not fought so hard and long - they would never have achieved a full pardon. Whjy diod they have toi wait for so long?

Also - in the case of Kiszko - the evidence that he could not have been the murderer due to not secreting sperm in his semen was there to be presented at trail. It took years of fighting to obtain this evidence to secure his release. The man endured 16 years in jail being branded a child rapist and murderer - do you know what they do to men like that?

No - the state did not simply hold its hands up and admit 'it's a fair cop - lets release/pardon these men'.

After all the years that Hanratty's supporters fought for his case - they were not going to admit that the investgation had been corrupt. It was not a good time to admit they had hanged another innocent man.

[jimornot?]

It is here

He also says in his book (page 104):
“The evidence that confirmed Hanratty's guilt, so far as the appeal process is concerned, is the DNA.”

However, clearly he still feels bitter about aspects of the trial and the guilty verdict it delivered.

thanks Nick, I couldn't find it

Viv