a6 murder

[Limehouse]

Norma - post 6689 - great stuff.

[Victor]

It wasnt just the Rhyl statements as you infer,but statements of other witnesses too.

Hi Norma,

Yes, only specific statements were withheld, as I said in accordance with the contemporary guidelines.

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.

The shady witnesses were either associates of Hanratty, or due to the circumstances - Nudds because Hanratty chose to stay at the Vienna, Langdale was a fellow prisoner. The prosecution had no choice but to use their evidence, however, the major evidence came from Valerie who can never be described as "shady".

With regards to the police "tampering with witness statements",the following is pulled directly from the judgment:
[...]
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.

Why alterations? The next paragraph states...
"We accept Dr Baxendale’s evidence, but we do not consider that his evidence establishes that it is probable there was anything improper about the manner in which the notes were recorded."

And there's no explanation for what was on the affected pages, and whether the contents materially affect the outcome. Hanratty only disputed a couple of the things Acott and Oxford stated concerning the use of the word 'kip' which of itself goes some way to confirm that no malpractice occurred.

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'll reply to Julie's post later and cover this point.

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.

Ah-ha, Hanratty is emphatic about the cornfield location being ridiculous, but that's not the point I was making, the Don Fisher incident concerns Hanratty getting a gun and progressing onto "stick ups" - I think France gave evidence of a conversation along similar lines too.

KR,
Vic.

[Tony]

Hi Norma,

Yes, only specific statements were withheld, as I said in accordance with the contemporary guidelines.


Vic.

The police were, and still are, there to discover the truth.

They are not there to choose just what evidence that has come to light that they may or may not reveal to the defence.

If there is evidence discovered that might help or exonerate the accused they are obliged to tell the defence of those matters. Otherwise they would be perverting the course of justice.
If they carried these concealments into Court and then they came to light the Judge may well hold the officers in contempt.

Can you let us know where we can see for ourselves these ‘contemporary guidelines’?

Tony.

[jimornot?]

[QUOTE=Victor;149893]Hi Norma,

Yes, only specific statements were withheld, as I said in accordance with the contemporary guidelines...................

Hi Vic and everyone

can't see why anything should be withheld, in any ideal circumstances. Agree with Tony's last post on this (good to see you back Tony where are Jimarilyn and Graham -plus Caz, Babybird, PLA, Ron, SteveS, Larue, Dupplin etc etc?)

as regards the EDSA tests, what was the reason given for anything having to be re-written? All seems fishy really

As I've said before, on careful reflection I now think Hanratty did it. Not because he was seeking to do anything like that at the outset but he took an opportunity that went tragically wrong.

He did not get a fair trial that's for sure esp being sited at Bedford in the first instance. To me no weight should be given to the testimonies of Langdale and Anderson and I would not trust ANY statements of Nudds / Galves who seemed to say what they thought should be said at the time. I think this can be laid squarely at the door of the police who were less than exemplary in their handling of things and not sure I would have much faith at all in the impartiality/professionalism of Acott or Oxford.

By the same token I wouldn't go too much on the defence witnesses either given that Sherrard clearly didn't have much confidence in them. I accept though I seem to be dismissing pretty well all the evidence. I think - but respect fully the doubts about it - the hanky and gun, the DNA proves his guilt along with VS's testimony (not 100% reliable I agreee) and the lack of substantiated evidence re hanratty's second alibi.

I can't quite get to how the police finally tracked down Hanratty /Ryan. I can't help but think they got a tip off early on (maybe from france) which led to Alphon first and then later hanratty - thats seems more palusible than the events that seem to be accepted as the norm

just some random queries and thoughts

have a great weekend all

Viv

[NickB]

I think one aspect is that only the names and addresses of some witnesses were required to be given to the defence rather than full statements as required today. Certainly more needs to be disclosed now.

In any case, in the 2002 appeal I note in section 80:
"The prosecution do not dispute there was non-disclosure as alleged and have not relied on the substantial difference between the duties of disclosure on the prosecution today as compared with 1962."

I can't quite get to how the police finally tracked down Hanratty /Ryan.

I would be interested to know why you think they tracked him down by another route and why you think this is significant.

[Derrick]

The police were, and still are, there to discover the truth.

They are not there to choose just what evidence that has come to light that they may or may not reveal to the defence.

If there is evidence discovered that might help or exonerate the accused they are obliged to tell the defence of those matters. Otherwise they would be perverting the course of justice.
If they carried these concealments into Court and then they came to light the Judge may well hold the officers in contempt.

Can you let us know where we can see for ourselves these ‘contemporary guidelines’?

Tony.

Hi Tony
You are completely wrong here.

The police's only goal is to charge a suspect and gather enough "evidence" to try to gain a conviction. The truth of the matter is irrelevent.

The prosecuting authorities then decide what evidence to withhold, ie that which doesn't help their case, and this has been going on for donkey's years.

As I understand it the defence only has to be served with names of people who have made statements. If the defence wish to see other withheld material then they must disclose their own defence papers. I am not going to comment on the fairness of this approach.

The trial process in England and Wales is also not interested in the truth. It is essentially set up for the jury to decide, on the evidence given whether the prosecution have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that any particular defendent is guilty. The prosecution case could be a pack of lies and a jury might still convict. It is then for the convicted individual to seek to appeal. Again the fairness of this is anybody's guess.

According to Michael Naughton they are well over 4000 successful appeals against conviction every year. These stem from the mundane misdemeanor to the more serious crimes and murder. That is over 15 successful appears every single working day of the year.

These are all miscarriages of justice by the very definition of the term.

That only includes appeals that are successful. The number of innocent people whose appeals are turned down or do not appeal is obviously unknown.

The police and the criminal justice system are getting it wrong to a shockingly high rate.

A number of years back the son of a friend of mine was charged with speeding. She showed me the police officer's statement and we then decided to visit the locus in quo and see if we could replicate the alleged offence.

She had a 3 litre BMW compared to the boys clapped out Ford Escort. It wasn't possible so I offered to be an expert witness and provided kinetical physics formulas and graphs to disprove the police's claims.

After a few months or umming and arhing the CPS dropped the case and paid my friends £1000 costs. It transpired that the policeman (a sergeant) in question had a grudge with her son and tried to fit him up with a speeding charge.

If one challenges such things then perhaps the truth may come out.

Derrick

[RonIpstone]

It was Acott who turned what should have been a routine, if high profile, investigation into the dog’s breakfast which the A6 Murder has since become.

If DSI Acott had accepted the finding of the spent cartridge cases in Room 24 at face value, he would have been able to conclude that the killer had probably dropped them while staying in that room and almost certainly at some stage the murder weapon had been in that room. If he had kept an open mind then he would have had Hanratty (or Ryan) as a suspect almost as soon as the discovery of the cartridge cases had been reported to him. Yet for some reason he decided to go after Alphon. Perhaps he believed that the cases must have been dropped after the murder, and if that had been the case, then the murderer must have been in the Vienna after the early morning of 23 August when the Morris Minor was left near Redbridge tube station. However, Alphon had not stayed in Room 24 and had no connection with this room, indeed he had stayed in Room 6 on a different floor. This led Acott to induce Nudds to alter his first statement to make the connection between Alphon and Room 24.

If Valerie had identified Alphon then there was a fair chance he would be convicted and be hanged for the crime. I believe that so sure was Acott of Alphon’s guilt that his belief was communicated one way or another to Valerie who made the false identification of a totally innocent member of the parade. This false identification would cast considerable doubt on her ability to identify Gregsten’s killer and her rapist.

The main evidence against Hanratty consisted of (1) he had stayed in Room 24 (2) he had a habit of discarding unwanted ‘stuff’ where the gun had been found (3) the gun was wrapped in his hankie (4) Val and the other identification witnesses identified him as the killer and/or driver of Moggie Minor (5) Langdale, a fellow con, gave evidence that Hanratty had admitted to him that he was the killer (6) the Liverpool alibi was invention and eventually (7) the Rhyl alibi was likewise. For my own part I would discount entirely (5) above and heavily discount Val’s evidence in (4) above, but this still leaves evidence that leads to a high degree of suspicion against Hanratty even if it does not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Again, for my part, the DNA evidence converted that high degree of suspicion into a case proved beyond reasonable doubt.

If I had been on that jury in 1962 in Bedford I would have voted for an acquittal. There was suspicion but not proof to the required standard, and I would not have sent anyone to his death where there was evidence that the investigating officers had influenced a prosecution witness, Nudds, in the way that Acott and Oxford had. If they were capable of that, of what else might they be capable. But all’s well that ends well and Hanratty’s conviction was in the end just, and if any crime deserved the death penalty, then this one did.

That some folk believe that none of the evidence points to Jim's guilt is astounding.

[NickB]

If Valerie had identified Alphon then there was a fair chance he would be convicted and be hanged for the crime.

An Alphon trial would have relied heavily upon Nudds evidence.

[Derrick]

An Alphon trial would have relied heavily upon Nudds evidence.

Cobblers
It would have relied on Valeries evidence alone as Hanratty's did.

Derrick

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Ron

If DSI Acott had accepted the finding of the spent cartridge cases in Room 24 at face value, he would have been able to conclude that the killer had probably dropped them while staying in that room and almost certainly at some stage the murder weapon had been in that room

I find it really odd that these "used" cartridge cases were only found 19 days after the murder when the Vienna Hotel had in fact come under suspicion and had had a visit from the police almost immediately after the murder and as early as 27th August because of the Alphon link. Juliana Galves had already been interviewed and had had to go to the police to make a statement on 6th September .After all the A6 murder was a front page story in all the newspapers .

[QUOTE]The main evidence against Hanratty consisted of
(1) he had stayed in Room 24----

[yes,but how do we know the cartridge cases weren"t placed there 19 days later by Nudds as fairy lightfoot?]

(2) he had a habit of discarding unwanted ‘stuff’ where the gun had been found

[yes Nick, but it wasnt just the gun - over 60 cartridges were placed there making a sizeable package---]


(3) the gun was wrapped in his hankie

[But if you think about this whoever left that gun and those 60 cartridge cases made very sure not to leave a single finger print---[none at all were Hanratty"s ]-----yet if it was indeed Hanratty then he deliberately wrapped all this in his hanky just so everyone would know for certain it was him! How crazy can you get?

"The Liverpool alibi was an invention"

But , crucially ,not the Mrs Dinwoody part.

the Rhyl alibi was likewise

-go tell that to certain people in Rhyl,Nick,people who know several of the players ---one lived just a few doors from Mrs Jones in fact !

and I would not have sent anyone to his death where there was evidence that the investigating officers had influenced a prosecution witness, Nudds, in the way that Acott and Oxford had.

Which is why I don"t know where that bit of knicker might have come from or where it had actually been--

if any crime deserved the death penalty, then this one did.

If the person who committed the crime was sane at the time,then I agree---
Best
Norma

[Stephen Thomas]

OK, lets get a bit surreal or existential or whatever. Can anyone explain why a suited and booted North London small time crook is wandering about in a field in the middle of nowhere killing and maiming strangers for no reason?

[Natalie Severn]

OK, lets get a bit surreal or existential or whatever. Can anyone explain why a suited and booted North London small time crook is wandering about in a field in the middle of nowhere killing and maiming strangers for no reason?

Thats most interesting Stephen.My spouse is a Londoner,born in 1947 and lived in London all his life and there is no way he can see this North Londoner of 24 who is a small time crook going to the cornfield,doing a "stick up" and then spending five whole hours-at least-driving round the outskirts in a Morris Minor going nowhere.Thats not Hanratty he says,no way!

[Stephen Thomas]

Thanks Norma

The idea that I was trying to get across was that there is something extremely weird about this case over and above the possible miscarriage of justice stuff.

There just has to be an aspect that isn't being considered.

[Natalie Severn]

Yes,Stephen, I agree- there just has to be!
Norma

[jimornot?]

Thanks Norma

The idea that I was trying to get across was that there is something extremely weird about this case over and above the possible miscarriage of justice stuff.

There just has to be an aspect that isn't being considered.

hi Stephen

do say more?

Lets just assume acceptance that Hanratty did it - he was a smartly dressed person and a burglar so if he was on a job he could have been trampling around anywhere - in this case a cornfield - perhaps eyeing up houses to visit. If he had indeed thought of going for bigger jobs he had obtained a gun and was carrying it that night. The rest may well have been a case of events getting out of control and the driving round was precisley because he was 'finking'. Why is it so unfeasible?

Interested in your thoughts and theories

all the best

Viv