a6 murder

[Victor]

I was just a bit surprised by you saying earlier that Mr Bell could have had a double when his entry was scored out.I thought you were being flippant-sorry,no harm intended

Hi Norma,
I wasn't suggesting a double, just another man with a surname of Bell. Thank you, apology accepted.
KR,
Vic

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,
OK, if there were no fingerprints then that could be explained by the killer wearing gloves - but no fibre from clothing? No soil from shoes which might have been traced to the field in Dorney? Not a single hair?

Graham

Hi Graham,
Thanks for reminding us because its of crucial importance.He also wore a mask and gloves throughout.
To me it strikes of a brilliantly thought through strategy and tactics----except when the duffel bag passing caused it all to go tragically pear shaped for Mr Gregsten ,
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,
I wasn't suggesting a double, just another man with a surname of Bell. Thank you, apology accepted.
KR,
Vic

I understand and thats possible ofcourse,Cheers Vic,
Norma

[babybird67]

hi Norma

Hi Baby Bird,

But did Valerie see his face, since he was masked and it was dark?

Yes she did she his face. She described him to the Police who issued a photofit from which one of his friends recognised him. Two independent witnesses later identified him as being in the car as well. She also identified him by voice, making extra sure of her identification.

Unfortunately for both victims and their rapists , the history of eye witness testimony in this area particularly,is littered with "fatal" errors and wrong convictions--215 in one count alone recently ,in just one state in America.
Regards,
Norma

Yes eyewitness testimony can be suspect. In this case, three independent witnesses identified and picked Hanratty from line ups as either being at the scene itself or later in the murder car. DNA evidence has later proven these identifications to be correct.

Do you know what I find so tragic? I read Nick B's link and if you look at the figures for rape you will see that only one out of ten rapes even get as far as being reported...and of those that do there are convictions in only 6% of cases. Either that means women are lying on a monumental scale, or rapists are getting away with it on a monumental scale. The burden of proof is already very high, and it comes down to one person's word against another. In this case, we are dealing not only with rape but with murder. It was not just one person's word against another's. It was three identifications by three upstanding members of the community. It was the cartridge cases. It was the handkerchief. It was the disposal of the murder weapon in Hanratty's expressed favourite place to hide things. It was his inability to tell the truth about where he was that night. In retrospect now we have the DNA which proves that he had sex with Valerie that night.

If this isn't enough to convince anyone of his guilt, and carry a conviction, then we might as well let every criminal out of prison now to carry on raping and murdering at their leisure.

I understand why questions were asked after the first trial. I agree with the objections about the non-disclosure of certain elements, although certainly not anything to do with Ms Storie's sex life, because it was not a rape trial, and even if it had been i do not agree that disclosure of the victim's sexual life is relevant. Ms Storie and Mr Gregsten were not on trial. Hanratty was.



This is not about miscarriages of justice per se. It is about this particular case with this particular evidence, and the only miscarriage of justice going on is that the victim of the case is not being given any closure and is constantly being undermined and doubted. I can only imagine the horror of having to relive over and over the original ordeal and to cope with people trying to demonise her and glorify and exonerate her rapist (I am not accusing you of doing that Norma, but it certainly is done regularly on this thread, and shame on those that do it).

There has been a period of questioning. It has lasted decades. There has been a trial and several appeals. All the questions have been asked, and no matter how often you ask them the answers are always the same. Hanratty's semen was on Valerie's knickers in a mixture which proved he had sex with her. She didn't have sex with him consensually. He raped her and killed Michael Gregsten. However much anyone would like to believe any different those are the cold hard facts of the matter. I think it is cruel to keep asking questions and doubting Valerie's competency and/or veracity. She has been vindicated by the DNA. The justice system exists to give redress to victims. To keep undermining this particular verdict is not right or just in terms of Ms Storie's experience. She has proven her case in court at least three times over. I feel it is time to respect her, and let the matter rest.

[Graham]

Why would Hanratty substitute the obvious lie of the Liverpool alibi with another fabrication? Why would he run a new alibi giving such detail including meetings with various people if it was a lie? If he had just made it up then the chances of it being supported by any of these supposed witnesses would have been virtually nil. Similarly, if the trip had taken place on an earlier occasion and Hanratty was describing that it is absolutely certain that the alibi would have fallen apart. Yet there were many people who supported it including some who pinpointed it to the date or at least approximate date that Hanratty said.

The sweet shop episode could only have taken place on one of two dates but on one of those the prosecution proved he was in London. Thus, it could only have taken place on the 22nd. Similarly, whilst precise timings admittedly do not fit there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Rhyl events took place and the likelihood is they took place on the date argued by Hanratty.

"Nonsense"......I don't think so.

Hanratty's defence could find no-one in Liverpool willing to vouch for his presence there at the crucial time. His mates didn't want to know, and the sweetshop story is just that - a story. He was in Liverpool sometime during that week, because he sent Dixie France a telegram from there, but he knew he could not prove that he was there on the Monday eveningand felt obliged to change his alibi to what used to be known in the courts as an 'ambush alibi'.

Regarding the Rhyl "Alibi", I'll say it for 99th time - there is no concrete evidence of his presence there at the crucial time. No signature in a guest-book, no bus ticket-stub, no nothing. Just the confused and conflicting 'memories' of some perfectly decent people who felt they should help. Don't forget that Sherrard made Hanratty sign a statement to the effect that to disclose the Rhyl "Alibi" in the witness-box was his choice, and his alone, thus effectively stating that his defence didn't believe it. He had been in Rhyl a few weeks previously, and it seems highly likely that he laced his Rhyl "Alibi" with memories from this previous visit, in an effort to provide verisimilitude.

By the way, Norma - Hanratty wore a large hankie 'outlaw fashion' to cover his face, but Valeries says he took it off when he demanded that she kiss him.

Graham

PS: a huge welcome back, Babybird. Difficult to keep away, isn't it?

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Baby Bird,
Yes,I appreciate what you are saying about Valerie"s suffering and that of Michael Gregsten"s surviving family. And it is something that saddens me because Valerie in particular deserves every sympathy and respect and Michael Gregsten and his family did not deserve any of what happened then or since either.
Perhaps if James Hanratty had not had his appeal dismissed despite a petition signed by 28,000, after a trial full of anomolies in evidence ,full of flaws---not only from the police,then the outrage of the possibility of them hanging an innocent man would not have caused such repercussions.
However while I agree with you totally that Valerie"s personal life choices were nothing to do with anyone else,and that she was the totally innocent victim of a barbarous and totally uuprovoked attack I have read carefully Michael Sherrard's contemplations , Hanratty"s trial barrister, on the outcome of the 1961 trial,and its repercussions, in his 2009 biography--viz:
"Had the Jury speculated on why Gregsten and Storie had gone to that particular country field in the first place,if not set up to it, perhaps by his family,wanting to frighten her off?
Had they wondered why so many shady characters turned up as witnesses,having suddenly become good citizens,ready to deal with the police in a way that hitherto had not been their custom? And what would they have made of the police fiddling with witness statements,had modern forensic hand-writing tests been available to them? Hanratty would have been proved to have been telling the truth about much of what has been altered" .

Sherrard moves on to the question of DNA but states of this latest twist ...."The "buts" are and were many in this extraordinary matter" and he continues :"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 would have kept on ice,Valerie Storie"s knickers and the handkerchief that wrapped the gun? Or exhumed him for DNA matches?

Good question.

I accept none of the evidence at face value, I am afraid,Baby Bird , that comes from the trial .It has nothing to do with my sympathy for Valerie or Michael Gregsten"s family only with truth and justice,--- and from what I have learnt and read of this trial ,"truth",like love,as Yeats once said ," fled' [and rather early on] .
Paul Foot said---and continued to say after the DNA had supposedly " proved" the state was correct to have executed Hanratty for the A6 murder:

"To sum up,I am sure as it is possible to be that James Hanratty did not commit the A6 murder.I am quite certain that any jury presented with all the evidence now available would not convict Hanratty."

Kind Regards,
Norma

[I will return to the witness statements you refer to another time BabyBird ].

[NickB]

Found an article by Dick Taverne who looked into the case as minister at the Home Office under Roy Jenkins.

One of the points he makes is that Langdale (who he calls Langley) was believable because he said Hanratty told him the hold-up started in a field, which had not been made public. An earlier post here says that Foot (p408) showed this wasn’t true, but Taverne mentions the Foot book in his article so he must have read it.

[uncle_adolph]

Hanratty's defence could find no-one in Liverpool willing to vouch for his presence there at the crucial time. His mates didn't want to know, and the sweetshop story is just that - a story. He was in Liverpool sometime during that week, because he sent Dixie France a telegram from there, but he knew he could not prove that he was there on the Monday eveningand felt obliged to change his alibi to what used to be known in the courts as an 'ambush alibi'.

Regarding the Rhyl "Alibi", I'll say it for 99th time - there is no concrete evidence of his presence there at the crucial time. No signature in a guest-book, no bus ticket-stub, no nothing. Just the confused and conflicting 'memories' of some perfectly decent people who felt they should help. Don't forget that Sherrard made Hanratty sign a statement to the effect that to disclose the Rhyl "Alibi" in the witness-box was his choice, and his alone, thus effectively stating that his defence didn't believe it. He had been in Rhyl a few weeks previously, and it seems highly likely that he laced his Rhyl "Alibi" with memories from this previous visit, in an effort to provide verisimilitude.

Of course, it all depends on what you mean by "concrete" evidence.

Regrettably there is no ticket stub or guest book signature.....perhaps someone should have mentioned to Hanratty at the time that he was about to be accused of murder and then he might have made more of an effort at covering his tracks. Let's face it, we all keep ticket stubs ad infinitum don't we.....

Let me ask you this. If you were guilty of a crime such as this and you decided to switch alibis would you have come up with a story like this? Of course you wouldn't.

[Graham]

Hi Norma,

I am quite certain that any jury presented with all the evidence now available would not convict Hanratty."

As has been said plenty of times before, it's still surprising that Hanratty was found guilty on the evidence laid before the court. I still feel that had he (a)
stuck to his Liverpool Alibi and (b) not chosen to take the stand, he may well have been acquitted. Perhaps it's a case of his trying too hard to prove that he had nothing to do with the A6 Crime. I don't know what Sherrard says about the above, if anything, as I haven't read his book. I'd also love to know what tipped the balance against Hanratty in the jury room. Possibly a combination of his personality and attitude, together with the memorable sight of a paralyed Valerie Storey? Or was it just her identification of him?

Graham

[uncle_adolph]

Found an article by Dick Taverne who looked into the case as minister at the Home Office under Roy Jenkins.

One of the points he makes is that Langdale (who he calls Langley) was believable because he said Hanratty told him the hold-up started in a field, which had not been made public. An earlier post here says that Foot (p408) showed this wasn’t true, but Taverne mentions the Foot book in his article so he must have read it.

If what you're saying is that Langdale's evidence helped hang Hanratty then it is a shocking indictment of the prosecution case.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Graham,
Some of Sherrard"s biography makes hard reading because for Sherrard despite its distance in time, its clearly still a painful memory:
viz "Going down to see him in the cells after the verdict was very hard.What do you say to someone who has been sentenced to die within a matter of weeks? When came to last step at the bottom of the stairway he was facing me ,each hand cuffed to awarder on either side.My first thought was ,"He looks so young."
I approached him and while I was trying to think of something to say,he reached out to me.The warder"s arm followed the gesture in a grotesque shadow.He took my hand and said,"Don"t you go upsetting yourself ,Sir.You"ve done everything you could.We"ll appeal."
I think in that one paragraph you can see that Sherrard"s own sensations had been deeply affected by his client"s predicament and that in the end he is only too aware that his client"s best [long term] interests might have been better served had he kept his distance more and insisted he had had a "leader" such as Victor Durand-.
"I advised Hanratty I wanted a leader.I wanted Victor Durand .Hanratty was almost in tears about that."Why can"t you do it?" he asked.
I assured him I would be there throughout.Even today I am morally certain [B] that Victor would have secured an acquittal.Victor would have maintained a dour stance for one thing and kept his distance from his client.I think he would not have gone down to the cells each day as I did before the court rose That might not have given Hanratty th e chance to change his alibi[/B]Victor was hugely admired by his clients,solicitors and the bar. "He is better than me...he is a star he is recorder at Bedford Assizes so he has local knowledge.He really is the best".....I managed to convince Hanratty no other would do.BUT --- "This gave me some difficulty when Victor was suspended from practice and couldn"t take the case"!


Next there was the shock of the altered venue. Sherrard had persuaded the justices at the committal that a trial in Bedford would have been likely to deprive Hanratty of a fair trial that could only be achieved in London and the Old Bailey was decided.But when, as scheduled, they appeared before the Recorder,Sir Anthony Hawke, he greeted them with the words,"I am told that there is a convenient day for the hearing to start at Bedford on January 17th 1962." Graham Swanwick,writes Sherrard,had not even opened his mouth.
Sherrard adds:"from the outset they the all male,middle class, white,property owning gentry[ that composed] the Bedfordshire jury , lived up to their reputation of being the notoriously hard nosed hang "em and flog"em school of justice.
"I was left with suspicions that there had been manoeuvring behind the scenes for the trial to take place in the court where the prosecution was most likely to succeed.No matter what my views were,the decision was not negotiable".
Finally Sherrard talks about how optimistic Hanratty and his family had been and how difficult it had been for him "to curb the optimism of Hanratty and his family given the lengths the police were prepared to go to secure a conviction."Here,although he refers to the police evidence being deeply flawed- he adds and there were flaws all over the place ,not only from the police

But certainly Sherrard makes no attempt to diminish the effect of the late alibi:"The whole balanceof the case had been altered bythe late alibi,the subject of fearsome prosecution criticism" he writes.
[The judge had intervened even in his summing up--"he doesnt have to prove his alibi.The failure or otherwise of the alibi does not make him guilty.You do not have to rely on it" he said.


[from A Biography of Michael Sherrard,Wigs and Wherefores",2009]

[Graham]

Hi Norma,

I really must read Sherrard's autobiography. He strikes me as a totally honest, compassionate man and for a young barrister to lose a client, one of the last persons to be executed in this country surely hit him hard. But having said that, Graham Swanwick also had a reputation for honesty, courtesy and compassion - even Bob Woffinden said so.

The decision to place the trial in Bedford rather than the Old Bailey must have seemed like the ultimate dirty trick to Sherrard. Sir Anthony Hawke said that 'the trial would come on quicker in Bedford', which I always took to be an admission that the media were breathing hot and heavy down the necks of the lawmen. The A6 really was viewed as the crime of the century, and the press were circling like vultures - I know, because I can remember it.

Regarding the jurors, obviously it's not possible to be specific about them. I think even now it's an offence to discuss a case that one tried as a juror (maybe someone with more legal knowledge than I can clarify this). At least, as far as I'm aware, no-one who sat on the A6 jury has made any comment about how the verdict was reached. I'm not sure how Sherrard could know that the jury was middle-class, property-owning gentry to a man. Maybe they were; maybe they weren't. I was once on the jury for a murder-trial (in Birmingham, 1972) and I'm still baffled by the selection process. The defendant and his brief have the right to look at each prospective member of the jury as he or she is called by the Clerk of the court, and in my case I think some 30 men and women were called before the defendent was satisfied. Quite how it was decided who to reject and who to accept was beyond me.

Lastly, Mr Justice Gorman was absolutely correct to point out to the jury that Hanratty didn't have to prove his alibi, but I think the damage was already done.

Incidentally, Victor Durand got into trouble with the Bar for failing to disclose information during a trial in which he was defending counsel. The full facts can easily be found via Google or at:http://www.akinjideandco.com/adcocacy.html (not my spelling!)

Graham

[NickB]

If what you're saying is that Langdale's evidence helped hang Hanratty then it is a shocking indictment of the prosecution case.

No I don't think he made any difference at the trial, I'm saying Taverne believed him when he looked through the Home Office files later.

[Graham]

Even I, as a Jimdiditite, think that Langdale's evidence sucks.

Graham

[uncle_adolph]

No I don't think he made any difference at the trial, I'm saying Taverne believed him when he looked through the Home Office files later.

My mistake....I didn't see your link.