a6 murder

[jason_c]

But now very outdated LCN DNA tests Jason ,outdated and in contention those DNA tests.I think if it went to the European Court of Human Rights instead of to those with a vested interest to rule on behalf of the prosecution, we would have a very different scenario,in 2010/11.Who knows,it may yet happen.
Best Norma

All of what you say may be true.

By vested interest can you please give specific names? Or is this an all encompassing legal vested interest?

[Natalie Severn]

All of what you say may be true.

By vested interest can you please give specific names? Or is this an all encompassing legal vested interest?

When the state executed Hanratty in 1961-all subsequent appeals went to the Secretary of State for the Home Office .
Therefore the State was not neutral in this matter.It took Hanratty"s life by State execution.As can be seen the State will defend,as robustly as possible, the action that was taken in its name .
If you read the wording of the appeals,the Hawser Report and the more recent
2002 appeal you will see the state defending its interests very robustly throughout ,
Best,
Norma

[jason_c]

When the state executed Hanratty in 1961-all subsequent appeals went to the Secretary of State for the Home Office .
Therefore the State was not neutral in this matter.It took Hanratty"s life by State execution.As can be seen the State will defend,as robustly as possible, the action that was taken in its name .
If you read the wording of the appeals,the Hawser Report and the more recent
2002 appeal you will see the state defending its interests very robustly throughout ,
Best,
Norma

Roy Jenkins defending Hanrattys conviction as "robustly as possible" is difficult to believe.

[Natalie Severn]

Roy Jenkins defending Hanrattys conviction as "robustly as possible" is difficult to believe.

But Jason,it is exactly what Roy Jenkins as Home Secretary did do.
Read Hawser"s address to him who Jenkins had appointed to deal with the appeal.

[jason_c]

Natalie, let me put it another way then. In what way was Roy Jenkins a vested interest?

"If you read the wording of the appeals,the Hawser Report and the more recent
2002 appeal you will see the state defending its interests very robustly throughout"

Sorry, I forgot to pick up on this statement. Are you suggesting the state should simply have looked or heard one side of the arguement in the 2002 appeal?

[Natalie Severn]

Jason,
Look at it another way; the request for the verdict to be ruled unsafe has never ever come from "The Sectretary of State", nor will it ever .
The State paid the hangman to put the noose around Hanratty"s neck. It is in its interests to defend that action it took.

[jason_c]

Jason,
Look at it another way; the request for the verdict to be ruled unsafe has never ever come from "The Sectretary of State", nor will it ever .
The State paid the hangman to put the noose around Hanratty"s neck. It is in its interests to defend that action it took.

Natalie, again im going to ask you for some names who are conspiring for the State.

[Natalie Severn]

Jason,
Anybody who works for the state [and is paid to work for the state] has a vested interest in defending the state; successive Prime Ministers and Home Secretaries all leave their past behind when they take office---not necessarily because they are always "careerists" but because thats the way it works on people.
The Lib Debs currently are in fact very illustrative of this tendency.One sight of "Ministerial limo " and they promptly abandon everything they had been saying up until six months ago and every promise they ever made.
Its not a question of names but rather how the system works.
Best
Norma

[Victor]

Anybody who works for the state [and is paid to work for the state] has a vested interest in defending the state;

Hi Norma,

I can prove that statement wrong with one word - Auditors.

Its not a question of names but rather how the system works.

How do you account for Sean Hodgson, Stefan Kiszko, Derek Bentley, Sion Jenkins, &tc. then? The state admitted they were wrong in each of those cases so why is Hanratty any different?

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Victor,
Can we get this straight: First of all I didn"t say that nobody had ever won such a case against the State.It is ofcourse true that after a fight of nearly half a century /fifty years [46 years to be exact] Derek Bentley ,though executed by hanging , like Hanratty,had his conviction ruled unsafe or was pardoned to be exact.But surely the length of time this took about an execution that took place in the 1950"s proves my point,that the State always goes to great lengths to defend its decision ,it doesn"t just say "Whoops!---we got that wrong sorry!"
What I was doing was referring to the fight the state will always put up to defend its actions. Are you suggesting that this did not happen in the similarly contentious and old case of Derek Bentley?
ps "auditors" do not make decisions.They do what they are told---if my statement is read in context ,the "anyone" I was talking about meant the Secretary of State for the Home Office or The Prime Minister-not their minions.

[Victor]

First of all I didn"t say that nobody had ever won such a case against the State.It is ofcourse true that after a fight of nearly half a century /fifty years [46 years to be exact] Derek Bentley ,though executed by hanging , like Hanratty,had his conviction ruled unsafe or was pardoned to be exact.But surely the length of time this took about an execution that took place in the 1950"s proves my point,that the State always goes to great lengths to defend its decision ,it doesn"t just say "Whoops!---we got that wrong sorry!"

Hi Norma,

Surely that's the role of the State? To protect their citizens from murderous rapists like Hanratty. Occasionally during the process innocent people will be tried and found guilty through the trial process and that's the point, the State should attempt to establish their case, and the defendant allowed to establish theirs. Some form of review needs to be in place to minimise mistakes - and the CCRC does this. There is no point in maintaining an erroneous position because that does not fulfil the purpose of protecting the citizens because the real guilty party is free to commit further crimes.

What I was doing was referring to the fight the state will always put up to defend its actions. Are you suggesting that this did not happen in the similarly contentious and old case of Derek Bentley?

As I said, that is the role of the state - to prosecute cases and defend their actions, but that doesn't necessarily imply that they go about this unfairly.

Derek Bentley is a contentious case as he did not commit murder, Hanratty has lost most of it's contentiousness since the 2002 ruling.

ps "auditors" do not make decisions.They do what they are told

Auditors who work for the state are employed to find problems with state processes and recommend corrective actions. It's their job to attack the State and locate breaking points so no-one else can.

if my statement is read in context ,the "anyone" I was talking about meant the Secretary of State for the Home Office or The Prime Minister-not their minions.

Your statement employs the all-encompassing "anyone who works for the state" which I took to include the minions too, but now you've corrected yourself, I still believe that it's pointless to dogmatically defend a broken system what's needed are realistic suggestions for improving it.

KR,
Vic.

[NickB]

I think if it went to the European Court of Human Rights instead of to those with a vested interest to rule on behalf of the prosecution, we would have a very different scenario

Would you accept the European Court's verdict if it went against Hanratty?

[Natalie Severn]

Would you accept the European Court's verdict if it went against Hanratty?

Yes, I believe I would Nick.
But at the present time I believe that Hanratty was totally innocent and the more I read between the lines of what Michael Sherrard CBE,QC says about the trial ,only a year ago in 2009, about the background to the case, the shady witnesses for the prosecution, the tampering with witness statements , the changed venue etc the more convinced I am,not just of Hanratty"s innocence regarding the murder and rape, but that he knew nothing about the A6 murder.

[Derrick]

Yes, I believe I would Nick.
But at the present time I believe that Hanratty was totally innocent and the more I read between the lines of what Michael Sherrard CBE,QC says about the trial ,only a year ago in 2009, about the background to the case, the shady witnesses for the prosecution, the tampering with witness statements , the changed venue etc the more convinced I am,not just of Hanratty"s innocence regarding the murder and rape, but that he knew nothing about the A6 murder.

Norma
I completely agree.

Derrick

[Limehouse]

Hi Victor,
Can we get this straight: First of all I didn"t say that nobody had ever won such a case against the State.It is ofcourse true that after a fight of nearly half a century /fifty years [46 years to be exact] Derek Bentley ,though executed by hanging , like Hanratty,had his conviction ruled unsafe or was pardoned to be exact.But surely the length of time this took about an execution that took place in the 1950"s proves my point,that the State always goes to great lengths to defend its decision ,it doesn"t just say "Whoops!---we got that wrong sorry!"
What I was doing was referring to the fight the state will always put up to defend its actions. Are you suggesting that this did not happen in the similarly contentious and old case of Derek Bentley?
ps "auditors" do not make decisions.They do what they are told---if my statement is read in context ,the "anyone" I was talking about meant the Secretary of State for the Home Office or The Prime Minister-not their minions.

I agree totally Norma. As I pointed out a few posts back - Bentley should never have been convicted and his family certainly should not have had a fight lasting 46 years to get his full pardon. It was exactly as you describe - the state hangin on to its original decision for dear life.

Stefan Kiszko shoul never have been convicted. It was a corrupt investigation and trial - upheld by the state - that saw him wronfully convicted.

Sion Jenkins was not pardoned nor did the state admit they were wrong. He was cleared after THREE trials - cleared by a jury - not the state.

I also want to make one very important point. A few posts back - in conceeding that some aspects of the investigation and trial were less than satisfactory - Vic concluded with a statement something like ' but the DNA showed in the end that the conviction was safe and justice was done.' (Sorry - can't locate the exact statement).

This has been an echo repeated by many who believe Hanratty was guilty. If you accept the DNA proves Hanratty's guilt you must be very satisfied that Hanratty was guilty. But what if the DNA had been clearly inconclusive? What if it had pointed to someone so far unknown to this case? Could you then say that - despite the corrupt nature of the investigation and trial that justice had been done for Mike and Valerie and their families? Wouldn't the corrupt nature of the investigation and trial have allowed a guilty man to escape justice? Didn't the investigation team take serious risks in terms of some of the antics they indulged in?

Now - put yourself in my position and that of the other people who doubt Hanratty's guilt. Our concern extends far greater than the possibility that an innocent man was hanged. Our concern extends to the possibility that a guilty man went free and justice was not done.