a6 murder

[Derrick]

More than enough evidence has been produced over the years to show that Hanratty was not guilty. But as has happened so many times in this case the judges decided not to deal with that evidence but to focus on the one thing which apparently proves his guilt beyond any doubt. Thus the many people who gave evidence in support of Hanratty were all clearly wrong even though their evidence taken as a whole is overwhelming and totally wipes the floor with the prosecution case.

Until that question is answered the doubt in this case will never go away no matter what the supposed irrefutable scientific evidence might show.

Welcome Uncle Adolph
Your mothers maiden name is not Schicklgruber is it.

Even so, you are quite right about the Hanratty case.

What is your view on the way that the public in general see DNA evidence as being beyond reproach?

Don't be a stranger now, will ya!

Derrick

[Natalie Severn]

More than enough evidence has been produced over the years to show that Hanratty was not guilty. But as has happened so many times in this case the judges decided not to deal with that evidence but to focus on the one thing which apparently proves his guilt beyond any doubt. Thus the many people who gave evidence in support of Hanratty were all clearly wrong even though their evidence taken as a whole is overwhelming and totally wipes the floor with the prosecution case.

Until that question is answered the doubt in this case will never go away no matter what the supposed irrefutable scientific evidence might show.

Ofcourse! Even though the appearance of the 41 year old hanky was quite frankly farcical!
I mean--- was it monogrammed with James Hanratty"s initials or something?
Not a trace of Hanratty"s fingerprints or any of his fibres on that gun or on the 60 cartridge cases found on the 36 bus but--- blow me down,we are expected to believe he had wrapped his clearly identified hanky round them before he hid them in the very spot he had told France was his " fav disposal place" on his "fav" bus! -please-do us a favour!

[Derrick]

What evidence was presented to the judges that they decided not to deal with?

Nick
All of it as the judges decided beforehand that the DNA was conclusive proof of Hanratty's guilt.

Derrick

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Vic,
It often seems to me you refuse to believe the police could ever be wrong .
We heard a short while ago from julie q that Alison Halford successfully brought a claim against the Liverpool and Merseyside police authority for "unfair dismissal".The very same Supt K Oxford who had "interviewed" James Hanratty and made notes on those "interviews" that were later "tampered with"---and proven to have been "tampered with" -by modern forensic handwriting tests-- was a principal witness against Ms Halford.She won on the grounds that ---surprise,surprise--- the "documentation had been tampered with".More coincidences? What else may have been "tampered with"?
Tonight"s head line in the "Evening Standard " concerns three Metropolitan Police Officers facing prosecution over allegations that they used " faked evidence" to halt a rape inquiry.
Last month the same newspaper was reporting on a doctor faking evidence about Ian Tomlinson"s cause of death.
It does happen so get over it ,Vic.
Regards,
Norma

[Limehouse]

Acott's investigation had echoes of a previous case

Clean record? Ask my dear friend Julie Limehouse about that one Vic.

Tony.

There is no doubt that Basil Acott had a distinguished war record and police career.

However - his investigation of the A6 case was no doubt influenced by a previous case in which a policerman had been shot dead.

Gunter Podola was - like Hanratty - a housebreaker. He arrived in England from Germany in 1959 and immediately continued with his housebreaking habits. After breaking into the home of a model - he stole thousands of pounds worth of valuables and tried to blackmail her for their return! She informed the police and Padola was caught in a telephone box and arrested but he escaped whilst being ecorted to a police car. He was soon reapprehended in a block of local flats but in the course of his arrest he shot and killed a policeman and once again escaped.

Three days later - police enquiries led police to a hotel room in Kensington where padola was once again arrested.

When Padola appeared on court in was clear that he had acquired some fairly serious injuries to the face and head. Padola claimed he could not answer the charges of murder against him as he had no memory of the crime due to injuries he received at the time of his arrest. Additionally - Padola's counsel claimed he could not get access to his client to build a defense. There is some deabte over whether access to Padola was denied due to his claim to have an illness involving memory loss or whether it was a case of obstruction to prevent a defence case being built.

There is no doubt that Padola was gulity of shooting dead the policeman. What is questionable is whether Padola received a fair trial on the grounds he had no opportunity to present a defence and importanly - whether the 'supposed' beating he received at the time of his arrest jepardised the chances of a secure coinviction because it raised the possibility of the defendent claiming no memory of the event.

Acott was the man in charge of Padola's final arrest.

This case possibly answers a few questions about methods used in the A6 case - namely: why police made enquiries of B&Bs and hotels early in the A6 enquiry.

In apprehending Hanratty - a petty housebreaker - for the crime of murder - attempted murder and rape - Acott must have had feelings of de javu.

[NickB]

All of it

All of what?

Uncle Adolph was talking about evidence "to show that Hanratty was not guilty", not evidence that the trial was materially flawed.

What evidence was presented to show that Hanratty was not guilty that the judges decided not to deal with?

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Julie,
re Supt Acott and his integrity or otherwise over the case against James Hanratty

I am unable to agree with you over Supt Acott Julie.Yes Supt Acott had an outstanding record of War Service,thats true.
But what do we know of his work as a policeman? Possibly he was very competent in a number of cases. However,in the case of James Hanratty I recall what Michael Sherrard said in 2002 "I really couldnt bring myself to take in that those who had concealed the evidence in a capital case could have been as wicked as that"
and added-this time specifically referring to Supt Acott :
MICHAEL SHERRARD: When you're eyeball to eyeball with a senior police officer who swears in a good loud voice that your client said this, that and the other and you were going to challenge him, there's something between you and the officer which gives you the feeling he's not coming clean.
Kind Regards
Norma

[Derrick]

All of what?

Uncle Adolph was talking about evidence "to show that Hanratty was not guilty", not evidence that the trial was materially flawed.

What evidence was presented to show that Hanratty was not guilty that the judges decided not to deal with?

Hi Nick
Your starter for ten.
The Rhyl alibi was ultimately dismissed by the judges via 2 points:

• The fact that Hanratty did not rely on the Rhyl alibi at his first appeal
• Comments some 6 years after the appeal by Hanratty's former solicitor.

Neither of these reasons addressed the jury factor or whether the original trial was flawed.

The judges having already made up their own mind before the appeal began where in a position to write up their report in leisure and hope that no one noticed. As Bob Woffinden has already pointed out, the Potters Bar rail crash monopolised the front pages for the next week or so.

Derrick

[Victor]

You seem to obsessed with conspiracy theories. You are paranoid.

Hi Derrick,

I'm not paranoid at all, and I firmly believe that conspiracy theories are deliberate attempts to obfuscate the genuine evidence with irrelevancies and the spectre that one other case in a thousand had irregularities, so this one is tainted too, when there's no real evidence that is the case.

If you think that serious non-disclosure and massaging of evidence in Hanratty is speculation and that the CCRC was somehow involved in a conspiracy then you should get some stronger pills from your shrink.

Show that there was the slightest hint of "serious non-disclosure" or "massaging of evidence" and I'll consider engaging a shrink!

How can you compare 12 detailed points to be "off the cuff"? And as for "the nature of court evidence", the CIO should, as you would agree, give exact reasons, backed up by evidence for excluding a suspect from an investigation. If that is the "nature of court evidence" as you put it, it is no wonder so many innocent people are in jail.

You think those 12 points are detailed? I think you need to get those stronger pills yourself. Acott had no time to prepare the statement and responded as well as he could in the circumstances - that pretty much sums up "off the cuff" to me. I don't agree, he would give "exact reasons" in a prepared report not when giving evidence in court, and that is exactly the nature of court evidence. Even Einstein changed his mind about whether there was a "Big bang" or not.

As to whether there are innocent people in jail - yes, there are a few, and I love Shawshank Redemption, but they are few and far between and to claim Hanratty is another one just because there's a few others is logically inconsistent.

I have as much of an idea of his record as you do...zilch. So don't preach to me when you have no knowledge of the man. I find it hard to believe that you think that a complete reorganisation of Scotland Yard amid proven corruption was the result of conspiracy theories! You really should do some reading on the subject before posting such poor responses.

I agree with Julie...

There is no doubt that Basil Acott had a distinguished war record and police career.

Evidence of one bad apple in a barrel isn't evidence that the entire barrel is corrupt, otherwise Cain and Abel would mean we're all murderers.

Get back in your coffin Victor, I said "I am not saying that Acott had any involvement in corruption".

But I am not giving Acott a ringing endorsement either.

What you are saying is Acott is a policeman, one or two policemen are corrupt, therefore Acott is corrupt.

Cats are mammals with 4 legs and a tail, my dog is a mammal with 4 legs and a tail, therefore my dog is a cat.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

There is no doubt that Basil Acott had a distinguished war record and police career.

However - his investigation of the A6 case was no doubt influenced by a previous case in which a policerman had been shot dead.

There is no doubt that Padola was gulity of shooting dead the policeman. What is questionable is whether Padola received a fair trial on the grounds he had no opportunity to present a defence and importanly - whether the 'supposed' beating he received at the time of his arrest jepardised the chances of a secure coinviction because it raised the possibility of the defendent claiming no memory of the event.

Hi Julie,

I understand Gunter Podola admitted he had faked his "amnesia" in order to escape the noose.

This case possibly answers a few questions about methods used in the A6 case - namely: why police made enquiries of B&Bs and hotels early in the A6 enquiry.

In apprehending Hanratty - a petty housebreaker - for the crime of murder - attempted murder and rape - Acott must have had feelings of de javu.

Admittedly there are similarities, but I believe that it was standard practice to appeal for information from guest house owners and hotelliers after serious crimes, possibly influenced by the Podola case amongst others.

I feel it is unfair to assume that essentially the Podola case was one too many and tipped Acott over the edge into dishonest activity when there is no direct evidence for such.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

It often seems to me you refuse to believe the police could ever be wrong .

Hi Norma,

The police do get it wrong...Sean Hodgson, Stefan Kiskzo, Barry George. What I do refuse to believe is that one corrupt or mistaken policeman means that all of them are.

It does happen so get over it ,Vic.

Yes but proving that it can happen or has happened in other cases does not mean that it did happen in this case. It is very much akin to someone saying "Hanratty committed crimes, he got sent to prison for committing crimes, therefore he committed this one". You and others have vehemently argued against that assumption but seem to be applying the same principle yourself.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

The Rhyl alibi was ultimately dismissed by the judges via 2 points:

• The fact that Hanratty did not rely on the Rhyl alibi at his first appeal
• Comments some 6 years after the appeal by Hanratty's former solicitor.

Neither of these reasons addressed the jury factor or whether the original trial was flawed.

Hi Derrick,

I think that Michael Sherrards comment that the statements were not consistent with the evidence which James Hanratty had given is a pretty significant reason for dismissing the evidence. And if he thought that then why would the jury think differently?

KR,
Vic.

[Derrick]

Evidence of one bad apple in a barrel isn't evidence that the entire barrel is corrupt, otherwise Cain and Abel would mean we're all murderers.

What you are saying is Acott is a policeman, one or two policemen are corrupt, therefore Acott is corrupt.

487 corrupt coppers, half of the detective force in Scotland Yard, were on the take. This is not evidence of one bad apple but an entirely rotten barrel.

Over 300 other officers could not be trusted and were moved out of the Yard to other forces.

In essence CID's control of Scotland Yard was completely dismantled. The corruption had been going on whilst Acott was a serving officer in the same force!

As I said, I have no evidence of Acott being involved in impropriety; but don't talk to me about one bad apple as if nothing happened.

The Masonic link in all of this cannot be overlooked as many coppers were masons as were the criminals that benefitted from being "On The Square" with them.

Was William Ewer a freemason?

Public trust in the police started to wain dramatically because of this and has not returned.

Derrick

[Derrick]

Hi Derrick,

I think that Michael Sherrards comment that the statements were not consistent with the evidence which James Hanratty had given is a pretty significant reason for dismissing the evidence. And if he thought that then why would the jury think differently?

KR,
Vic.

Try again Victor.
That was covered by my second point - Kleinmann's press article. It was he who briefed Sherrard.

[uncle_adolph]

Hi Derrick,

I think that Michael Sherrards comment that the statements were not consistent with the evidence which James Hanratty had given is a pretty significant reason for dismissing the evidence. And if he thought that then why would the jury think differently?

KR,
Vic.

And those inconsistencies were almost totally down to differences in timing.

But then, if the timings had fitted, wouldn't the prosecution simply have said that Hanratty had bought the Rhyl alibi as well.....after all, that was how he got the sweet shop alibi, wasn't it?