a6 murder

[jimornot?]

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.

hi Julie

we just have to disagree because I think this is just the time to do so. The public opinion would hardly have been any worse esp in view of Mr Kiszko's case which to me is the most shocking of any miscarriages of justice I know of.

no good for trh thread if we are all of the same opinion tho

atb

viv

[jimornot?]

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 ....

hi Norma

by most accounts of his less treachorous acquaintances he was a likeable person and his letters from prison were very moving, displaying a level of concern for his family etc.

The events at Deadman's Hill were so outrageous that they would be out of charcater for most of the population. Is it possible for someone who has certain character defects* to find themselves unable to cope with situations they 'inadvertently' find themselves in?

atb

Viv

(* for Hanratty this might be the choice of a life of crime despite appearing to come from a good family background, his bragging of doing a big job, his supposed lack of intelligence)

PS I didn't know / remember that Paul Foot had met Hanratty

[NickB]

Thanks Nick. I don"t know about the letter he sent to The Times---might you be able to provide a link?

There is a quote from it in section 198 of the 2002 appeal. I recall reading it on Times Online before they imposed a paywall.

There is also mention on this thread of a 60's article in the Sunday Times about his earlier incarceration where it was claimed he spat in prison warders faces. I think there was a nice and a nasty side to him.

[Natalie Severn]

There is a quote from it in section 198 of the 2002 appeal. I recall reading it on Times Online before they imposed a paywall.

Thanks Nick, I found the link and can see how difficult this must have been for Sherrard to deal with if statements didnt match.It sounds like Hanratty arrived at a guest house later than say 9.30 after wandering round looking for Terry Evans,whose landmark taxi wasnt there that weekend.

[Victor]

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.

Hi Norma,

I think Sherrard did a pretty decent job, and the judge definitely seems to think so in summing up in his favour, but the jury obviously disagreed.

As Nick has pointed out, his memoirs are full of factual errors, and self-agrandisement that he undermines the good work he did on the case.

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 ....

I think Hanratty was streetwise, which was probably largely due to the large amount of time he spent in prison and socialising with the criminal fraternity. However, I don't think he was particularly clever or bright.

You are quite right that that doesn't make him a murderer or rapist, but the cockiness and smugness would make him feel like he could get away with it.

KR,
Vic.

[NickB]

Sherrard and Hanratty must have pored over those statements putting all the pieces together (the sunlight, the suitcase etc.) in various ways to try and make them work. The fact that the Rhyl witnesses were not called shows that they couldn't.

[Victor]

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)

Hi Julie,

The problem with your suggestion is that it's all or nothing, either Hanratty did it, or all 3 of your suggestions plus the fabrication of the DNA evidence had to occur spread out over 40 years involving numerous officials and scientists, all bent on defrauding the system.

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.

The original DNA testing in 1995 was inconclusive, the 2nd round of testing in 1997 originally used Michael and Mary Hanratty for comparisons and provided positive matches, but obviously couldn't provide an absolute confirmation hence the exhumation to be absolutely sure.

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 [...]
1994 - Colin Stagg [...]
1998 [...] - supporters of Derek Bentley[...]

There's quite a few others where the state has admitted they were wrong, such as Sean Hodgson and Sion Jenkins, that did take a long time to come to light, but are still examples of the state admitting and correctting their errors, what makes Hanratty so different?

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.

For what motive? What would it achieve? If they admit to the five errors above amongst others, why not another one? Oxford and Acott are dead, it makes no difference to them.

KR,
Vic

[Natalie Severn]

There is also mention on this thread of a 60's article in the Sunday Times about his earlier incarceration where it was claimed he spat in prison warders faces. I think there was a nice and a nasty side to him.

Hi Nick,
I was actually thinking particularly of the Prison warders who looked after him in his final days , the Governor of the prison where he spent his last days and the Catholic priests,all of whom had grown very fond of him according to several accounts. Father John Hughes was joined by Father Hulme and Father Keogh in appearing to believe in his innocence -they visited him almost daily in prison and grew to form a certain conviction over it as did the nun whose name I don"t remember,but who wrote to ask the Pope to intervene.Anyway they all believed him to be innocent as did Mr and Mrs Hanratty and his brothers ofcourse.
Now I don"t doubt that during earlier stints in the nick he could be nasty to warders--- ok he spat at his prison warders earlier on-maybe they were needlessly rude and unpleasant to him?But fine I am quite sure he also had a nasty side to him..
Viv and Nick,I don"t forget Hanratty"s life choice was "Housebreaking" which is anti social and nasty for the people robbed.I was also surprised at Hanratty"s lack of contriteness about his housebreaking activities during his exchanges with Swanwick.His attitude to Swanwick appearing to be in line with the contempt he had clearly developed for DS Acott and DS Oxford ----knowing they were lying about him I suppose ie about what he had said and what he had not said to them during their interrogations of him. It suggests to me he was very angry indeed with Acott"s and Oxford"s fiddled statements etc , Langdale"s lies and other anomalies in the prosecution"s case. In his own way he has punished them for their behaviour towards him-------and continues to punish them, posthumously ,by the tide of revulsion towards hanging that spread after his execution , the questions that continue to be asked about the case,the books that have been written etc.
Concurrently,from his condemned cell he somehow managed to win the affection , admiration and respect of all those involved in his care from Sherrard and his prison warders, the priests who visited him daily ,the prison governor ,the Bedford Sherrif , the 90.000 who signed the petition against his execution all of whom seem to have been sort of "won over" to his side.All this,I must confess, suggests to me a level of perceptiveness and manipulation on Hanratty's part---which while I am not particularly critical about , makes me mindful that Hanratty was far from a fool when it came to understanding human behaviour.
Not a chap who I can ever see being interested in doing "stick ups" in a Cornfield in Slough.

[Victor]

Now I don"t doubt that during earlier stints in the nick he could be nasty to warders--- ok he spat at his prison warders earlier on-maybe they were needlessly rude and unpleasant to him?But fine I am quite sure he also had a nasty side to him.

Hi Norma,

Don't forget that he was one of only 5 prisoners to have "done the lot" that year, so it's more likely that he provoked the warders rather than the other way round.

His attitude to Swanwick appearing to be in line with the contempt he had clearly developed for DS Acott and DS Oxford ----knowing they were lying about him I suppose ie about what he had said and what he had not said to them during their interrogations of him.

It has not been proved that Acott and Oxford lied about Hanratty, I think it extremely unlikely.

It suggests to me he was very angry indeed with Acott"s and Oxford"s fiddled statements etc , Langdale"s lies and other anomalies in the prosecution"s case.

The ESDA tests did not show that the statements were re-written, so they are not fiddled. Secondly, how do you know Langdale lied?

In his own way he has punished them for their behaviour towards him-------and continues to punish them, posthumously ,by the tide of revulsion towards hanging that spread after his execution , the questions that continue to be asked about the case,the books that have been written etc.

More people in the UK still support the death penalty than are against it... see http://www.metro.co.uk/news/747748-h...-death-penalty for results from 2009.

Not a chap who I can ever see being interested in doing "stick ups" in a Cornfield in Slough.

But he specifically was interested in getting a gun and doing stick ups, and said so himself.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Vic,

Don't forget that he was one of only 5 prisoners to have "done the lot" that year, so it's more likely that he provoked the warders rather than the other way round

Quite possibly.But he also knew when not to give them old buck too!

It has not been proved that Acott and Oxford lied about Hanratty, I think it extremely unlikely.

MICHAEL SHERRARD QC (James Hanratty's trial barrister) I really couldn't bring myself to take in that those who had concealed the evidence in a capital case could have been as wicked as that.

The ESDA tests did not show that the statements were re-written, so they are not fiddled. Secondly, how do you know Langdale lied?

I believe the ESDA tests did precisely that Vic, viz they showed that the police had tampered with them.
Langdale was a notorious grass as well as a criminal and such a man might have said anything Acott wanted him to say-for a favour ofcourse.

But he specifically was interested in getting a gun and doing stick ups, and said so himself.

Where does he say this? On the contrary he tackled it head on when Swanwick suggested it to him and then turned the tables on Swanwick in a brilliant bit of repartee !

[Natalie Severn]

Come back Caz!
I know others would appreciate your latest discoveries!
We miss you
Norma

[Limehouse]

Come back Caz!
I know others would appreciate your latest discoveries!
We miss you
Norma

I endorse Norma's comments Caz. Come back and let's have a good old debate!

Julie

[Victor]

MICHAEL SHERRARD QC (James Hanratty's trial barrister) I really couldn't bring myself to take in that those who had concealed the evidence in a capital case could have been as wicked as that.

Hi Norma,

Michael Sherrard's opinion is well known, but as the defeated trial barrister, he'd have to blame his failings on something. The details concealed basically amount to the statements taken by the police of the Rhyl witnesses and was completely in accordance with the contemporary guidelines.

I believe the ESDA tests did precisely that Vic, viz they showed that the police had tampered with them.

The ESDA test was done by Dr David Baxendale, and the judgment states:-
"What we regard as significant is that Dr Baxendale found no evidence that anything had been added or removed from the notes in the course of pages being rewritten."

Langdale was a notorious grass as well as a criminal and such a man might have said anything Acott wanted him to say-for a favour ofcourse.

Yes, Langdale was nearly as accomplished a criminal as Hanratty, but that doesn't mean that what he said was a lie nor that he was coerced into making his statement. And now that the DNA has proved Hanratty was guilty, then that lends weight to Langdale's account. It doesn't mean it is true, but you are evaluating it on the basis of reputation alone.

Where does he say this? On the contrary he tackled it head on when Swanwick suggested it to him and then turned the tables on Swanwick in a brilliant bit of repartee !

I think he confirmed it to Acott when asked about Don Fisher, I don't have my books on me to check.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Vic,

The details concealed basically amount to the statements taken by the police of the Rhyl witnesses and was completely in accordance with the contemporary guidelines.

It wasnt just the Rhyl statements as you infer,but statements of other witnesses too.
We also need to be mindful of the unusual number of shady witnesses that turned up for the prosecution,criminals fresh from long term jail sentences or still inside like Langdale was that causes one to be suspicious about what went on,and it extended to clearly visible manoeuvering behind the scenes so that the trial that had been set to take place in London and which,had it been would have given Hanratty a much fairer chance was suddenly changed to Bedford and ofcourse more seriously ,where prejudice was much more likely to dominate over thinking and judgment.

With regards to the police "tampering with witness statements",the following is pulled directly from the judgment:
Dr Baxendale gave evidence before us on this appeal. He explained that you could expect, if someone was writing on a pad of pages that the impressions made by writing on the first page could be detected on the second page and so on. So here, by using ESDA, he found that page 2 reveals the impressions from the handwriting on page 1 and page 3 bears the impression of the handwriting on page 2. However, Dr Baxendale was not able to detect any impressions from page 3 on page 4. Instead he detected on page 4 some faint impressions which came from page 20. On page 5 more than one set of impressions were identified but the only feature of significance were impressions which suggested that there was more than one previous page 4. The differing impressions on page 15 established that there had been more than one version of page 15. The same was true of page 19. Dr Baxendale was of the opinion that pages 4, 15 and 19 in exhibit 117 had been rewritten. In addition, that page 4 in exhibit 117 had been under page 20 at the time that that page was written. Otherwise his findings on the different pages were generally in accordance with what you would expect if the notes had been recorded in a straightforward manner and no second copies made

I take this to suggest there had been alterations made .

Yes, Langdale was nearly as accomplished a criminal as Hanratty, but that doesn't mean that what he said was a lie nor that he was coerced into making his statement. And now that the DNA has proved Hanratty was guilty, then that lends weight to Langdale's account. It doesn't mean it is true, but you are evaluating it on the basis of reputation alone

No Vic, I am well aware that other prisoners who knew Hanratty and exercised with him while he was on remand were adamant that Langdale was lying and that Hanratty had only ever protested his innocence to them and to other prisoners.

I think he confirmed it to Acott when asked about Don Fisher, I don't have my books on me to check.

I dont think you are right Vic.Hanratty is emphatic in his exchange with Swanwick that the whole idea of him ever going to a cornfield to do "stick ups" is just so much nonsense----and from what I have learned about Hanratty and his car thief activities and housebreaking activities , such a suggestion is ridiculous and makes no sense.
Best
Norma

[Limehouse]

Vic wrote: Yes, Langdale was nearly as accomplished a criminal as Hanratty, but that doesn't mean that what he said was a lie nor that he was coerced into making his statement. And now that the DNA has proved Hanratty was guilty, then that lends weight to Langdale's account. It doesn't mean it is true, but you are evaluating it on the basis of reputation alone

Vic - Langale's statement conflicted with the testimonies of other inmates and prison warders. Langdale claimed to have exercised with Hanratty everyday. Other inmates and a prison warder claimed that Hanratty had almost no contact with Langdale in jail. The 'confession' Langdale is said to have heard from Hanratty could not have taken place according to many other witnesses.

As for the DNA lending weight to Langdale's statement - well I am sorry but that is an arse-upwards way of arguing for Hanratty's guilt.

I've said before but I will repeat it - if the case had been conducted fairly - with credible witnesses - untampered-with statements - unchanged trial location and with no important evidence witheld - fewer of us would be doubting the DNA evidence. In fact - the quest for DNA evidence would have been unnecessary.