a6 murder

[SteveS]

hi Steve

no, it was a different book and author. can't remember the title offhand, but there was a chapter aboot the a6 murder, in which it was stated that VS had changed the description of her attacker, from brown eyes to blue, and that Basil Acott did'nt have much faith in her description anyway.

i wanted to learn where the author had gotten this information.

i emailed the publisher [twice] and on both occasions, i had a reply in less than 20 minutes, each time saying that a message will be sent to the author, aksing him if he cared to discuss the chapter with me. obviously, he don't

Hi laure

Cheers for that me old chum.

I think either Tony or James may have an insight into which book that may have been. I certainly remember a similar thing being mentioned before although my sieve like grey matter may be performing tricks on me.

I would also like to add that I would not have liked to have been on the A6 jury. I would have got beaten up probably! Bit like Robert Webber in 12 Angry Men. Tennis balls were mentioned I believe.

Thnx
Steve

[SteveS]

Hi all

From the Caddy review (2008) of LCN/LT(low template) DNA analysis @ page 2

Although used for a number of years we do not yet have any reliable measure of the success rate of LTDNA analysis and this need to be corrected.

accessed @

http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/operational-policing/Review_of_Low_Template_DNA_1.pdf?view=Binary

Thnx
Steve

[Victor]

in answer to your question on the "did the decendant's ever sue?" thread, my answer is that there certainly seems to be something awry with the thread time. one of my last posts seems to have been answered before i posted it!!!!

Hi all,

See http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3248

Some posts are out of sync but should be OK now. The misaligned posts will not be re-sync'ed.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

From the Caddy review (2008) of LCN/LT(low template) DNA analysis @ page 2

Hi Steve,

That's an interesting quote to pick, however, do you know the success rate for SGM+? Try 6%.

Does that mean anything to you? How about the simple, most DNA tests are speculative, they are just "let's chance it" after all, we might get something useful.

KR,
Vic.

[SteveS]

Hello Victor

No, the findings of the CCRC were that the conviction was safe.


I believe that the CCRC findings were correct and the Hanratty family were wrong in their belief in James' innocence.

I am not sure how you have come to the conclusions that you state above. The CCRC (Criminal Cases Review Commision) was set up in March 1997, by the outgoing Tory Government to deal with investigations of miscarriages of justice rather than the Home Office.

In Hanratty the CCRC instigated a multi-million pound investigation into the case and found that (as well as DNA) evidence showed that Hanratty was in fact innocent of the A6 murder and that the original trial verdict was perhaps unsafe. This was enough for the CCRC to send the case back to the court of appeal.
You don't seem to be the sharpest tool in the box, but anyone with any grasp of the case, and current affairs etc will realise that the CCRC has no say in matters of law. It is for the judiciary to ascertain guilt or innocence or at appeal to quash or upold a conviction.

That's an interesting quote to pick, however, do you know the success rate for SGM+? Try 6%.

Why not try 70% or 14%. Unless you supply us with the reference for that fact then we only have your say so on the matter. If it is 6% then LCN will be well below the 1% mark for sure.

Thnx
Steve

[Graham]

In Hanratty the CCRC instigated a multi-million pound investigation into the case and found that (as well as DNA) evidence showed that Hanratty was in fact innocent of the A6 murder and that the original trial verdict was perhaps unsafe. This was enough for the CCRC to send the case back to the court of appeal.

The operative word in the title Criminal Cases Review Commission is 'Review'. That is what they do - they review a case, not make a judgement as to whether the person or persons involved were innocent or guilty. The CCRC, if it finds that there is, for example, new evidence available in a case, or perhaps evidence that was overlooked in the original trial, will refer the case to the Appeal Court, with which the final judgement rests. Agreed that the CCRC felt that the original trial verdict was unsafe, but maybe you could post the evidence placed before the CCRC that. quote, 'showed that Hanratty was in fact inccocent'.

Cheers,

Graham

[SteveS]

The operative word in the title Criminal Cases Review Commission is 'Review'. That is what they do - they review a case, not make a judgement as to whether the person or persons involved were innocent or guilty. The CCRC, if it finds that there is, for example, new evidence available in a case, or perhaps evidence that was overlooked in the original trial, will refer the case to the Appeal Court, with which the final judgement rests. Agreed that the CCRC felt that the original trial verdict was unsafe, but maybe you could post the evidence placed before the CCRC that. quote, 'showed that Hanratty was in fact inccocent'.

Cheers,

Graham

Paul Foot writing in the Guardian on 25th July 2000 says

The criminal cases review commission referred the Hanratty case to the court of appeal last year with staggering new evidence that the case against Hanratty had been rigged. The commission was well aware of DNA evidence linking Hanratty to the crime and did not discount it. Nor did it rule out the possibility that exhibits on which the DNA tests were based - fragments of knickers and a handkerchief - could have been stored with material taken from Hanratty, and could have been contaminated. The commission concluded: "It is impossible to draw any firm conclusion as to the current evidential integrity of the exhibits of the cloth examples in this case. The known (and unknown) aspects of the history of those items must be weighed in the balance."

Paul Foot writing in the Guardian on 4th April 2001 says

More than two years ago, I attended a press conference in the offices of Bindman and Partners, lawyers to the Hanratty family for the past 33 years. The press conference was called because the criminal cases review commission had referred the Hanratty case to the court of appeal. The main reason for the referral was that every single new discovery by the commission's investigators pointed to Hanratty's innocence. In particular, two witnesses who identified Hanratty as a man they had seen driving the murder car in London on the morning after the murder were discredited by the rather shocking fact that the murder car was nowhere near London at the time. Moreover, the police knew this perfectly well but had not disclosed the information to the prosecution, let alone the defence.

There were many other matters relating to the police handling of the case that plainly disturbed the CCRC investigators, who were led by a former chief constable of Hertfordshire. The case was one of the first to be thoroughly investigated by the CCRC, and by October 1997 the investigators were quite satisfied that a miscarriage of justice had taken place. They prepared to refer the case to the court of appeal.

Before they did so, they carried out DNA tests on some of the exhibits connected with the murder, including fragments of clothing worn at the time by Valerie Storie, who was in the car with Michael Gregsten when he was murdered and was herself shot by the killer and left for dead at the roadside.

To everyone's astonishment, and in clear contrast to all the rest of the evidence, the tests showed a match between the DNA on the exhibits and swabs taken from Hanratty's brother and mother, who had since died. These DNA findings were plainly and honestly reported in the commission's report. The report made it clear that in the commission's view, given the possibility of contamination over such a long period of time, the tests were not conclusive of Hanratty's guilt and should be discussed and considered, with all the other evidence, in the court of appeal.

Paul Foot writing in the Guardian on 13 May 2002

In April 1998, a further swab was taken from Hanratty's mother. Michael Hanratty, Jim's brother, and his wife Maureen remember going to the old lady's bedside with Mr Skitt to take the swab. She remembers Skitt saying: "Your brother was innocent - we just can't explain the DNA." Another match was found, and later confirmed when James Hanratty's body was dug up later that year. In spite of the findings, the case was still referred to the court of appeal, which heard the appeal over the past few weeks. The DNA findings conflicted grotesquely with the alibis. If Hanratty was guilty, as the DNA suggested, he could not have been in Liverpool and Rhyl. If he was in Liverpool and Rhyl, there must be something wrong with the DNA.

Why on earth do you think Mr Skitt would say something like that?

Thnx
Steve

[Limehouse]

Great stuff Steve. Thanks for that.

AND, if Hanratty was not in Liverpool or Rhyl, where was he? Where did he go immediately after the murder, after dumping the car? Where did he stay? Who saw him?

[Graham]

Hi Steve,

interesting extracts from Paul Foot's writings (and wouldn't he be just a teensy-weensy bit biased?) but still nothing to prove that Hanratty was innocent. If there was - and we've all seen those Guardian articles - this thread would have ceased to exist some time ago.

Why on earth do you think Mr Skitt would say something like that?

He was expressing his opinion.

Cheers,

Graham

[SteveS]

Hi Graham

interesting extracts from Paul Foot's writings (and wouldn't he be just a teensy-weensy bit biased?) but still nothing to prove that Hanratty was innocent. If there was - and we've all seen those Guardian articles - this thread would have ceased to exist some time ago.

Paul Foot's views were well known, as a journalist and as a member of the SWP. I don't think that he has any particular monopoly on bias. We are all entitled to our opinions and inevitable bias as you put it. He has followed the case as closely as anyone can. He has seen more evidence than most and in some cases was instrumental in gathering it, in the form of witness statements etc. These statements formed part of the CCRC's investigation.

Bob Woffinden too, as an investigative journalist, prepared, with Geoffrey Bindman the massive report which was the original submission, in July 1994, to the Home Office, which was later passed, with other submissions, including those from the Matthews report, to the CCRC.

As for innocence, every defendent is, surely, innocent until proven guilty. The presumption of innocence is paramount to our system of justice. (Although Jack Straw and his band of elves will probably destroy that too) The jury foreman is not asked whether they find the defendent guilty or innocent but guilty or not guilty. A subtle difference though and I am sure that you would agree with it. Innocence therefore is presumed unless the jury find otherwise.

In Hanratty, as Mr Skitt infers, the jury were obviously deceived and made thier fateful decision without being privy to important facts in the case, withheld by DS Acott.

I am sure that this thread would exist but we would all be arguing the toss over who really did commit the A6 murder, and why?

He was expressing his opinion.

Yes, expressing his opinion as head of the CCRC's investigation (and as a former Met assistant commisioner and former chief constable of Herts) and basing that opinion on the evidence that had come to light. No doubt his opinion was also coupled and informed with the evidence given in the original trial and also in light of the LCN tests done by the crown.

For a former chief constable to make such a remark says to me something about the case and the way it was originally investigated by DS Acott and DSgt Oxford.

Thnx
Steve

[john]

As you know I belive James was innocent.

But even if he was guilty as none of us have the monopoly of knowing all beyond doubt there appears very much another hand in the murder.

Hanratty was never known for staying still. Yet we according to the Miller theory have to believe that he caught the train from Paddington to Slough-no witnesses ever produced-even dubious and rigged- by the way at the station or the train- and then from approx 10.30am onwards wandered around the country lanes until 9.30 to 9.45 at night with a gun in his pocket looking for a house to burgle and preferably stick up with the gun-not a problem surely I would have thought in the area before 9.30 at night

Miller makes a great thing about this being a lone murderer.
So for twelve hours he wanders around the countrysyde-no witnesses there by the way except for Nellie seeing a man- and then having been depressed at not finding for nearly 12 hours a house to burgle or a person to stick up-after all he could have threatened Nellie Climo in the lane or the other cottagers-he raids the car.

Even if he did, does anyone seriously believe it is a solo effort with no other hand in it at all. I most certainly do not. It does not fit at all with Hanratty's pysch at all-he could never ever stay still for long
Even in Rhyl-the suggested alibi picture paints him as darting here and there-in london he stays all over the place and not for very long-Miller is very selective in using his pyscho theories. Yet Miller theorises. that Hanratty wanders for twelve hours in the fields and lanes.

Presumably he had to eat between 0930 and 945 at night whuost wandering throught the Berkshire lanes. So where.
Picinic in the fields?

He writes that Hanratty raped Valerie because he was frustrated by a woman with character who stood up to him. Fine but this conveniently ignores Louise Anderson who was no shy violet. Instead of threatening her-he offers bizarrely to marry her!! Tosh pyschology.

[SteveS]

As you know I belive James was innocent.

Hi john

I agree with everthing you say in a most clearly and cogently argued post. You are a very knowledgeable student of the A6, if I may say.

I read a post on here somewhere that Leonard Miller wrote an open letter to a national newspaper challanging Paul Foot and Bob Woffinden to answer his questions over Hanratty's diagnosis as being a latent psychopath by 2 doctors.

Where did Mr Miller get this information from in the first place and why wasn't this testimony used by the prosecution to bolster the case against him? Mr Sherrard thought the Crowns use of the testimony of Roy Langdale was scraping the barrel, after all?

Thnx
Steve

[Graham]

A few quick points re: recent posts:

1] Steve, you may not remember Paul Foot when he was at his height writing for Private Eye - once he got his teeth into something he never let go. A great campaigner for peoples' rights and miscarriages of justice - and I always viewed his as such even though I believe he made a mistake with Hanratty.

2] Still waiting to see actual proof found by the CCRC to establish JH's innocence.

3] JH was obviously in the Slough area for some (unknown) time until he tapped on the window of the car. Where he was, what he was doing, who he was with will never be known, but for sure he wasn't just 'wandering around the countryside'. No, there were no witnesses who saw him on a train from wherever to Slough - same as there were none who saw him, as he claimed to be, on the train from London to Liverpool.

4]

I read a post on here somewhere that Leonard Miller wrote an open letter to a national newspaper challanging Paul Foot and Bob Woffinden to answer his questions over Hanratty's diagnosis as being a latent psychopath by 2 doctors.

Can you locate that post, Steve? And did Foot and Woffinden respond to Miller's challenge?

Cheers,

Graham

[Joseph]

Can you locate that post, Steve? And did Foot and Woffinden respond to Miller's challenge?

Hello Graham,

Leonard Miller wrote a letter to the Guardian in May 2002. Perhaps this is what Steve is referring to.
Mr Miller even leaves his e-mail address.

This letter can be viewed in the following link.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2002/may/14/guardianletters2

atb

Joseph

[SteveS]

Hi Graham

1] Steve, you may not remember Paul Foot when he was at his height writing for Private Eye - once he got his teeth into something he never let go. A great campaigner for peoples' rights and miscarriages of justice - and I always viewed his as such even though I believe he made a mistake with Hanratty.

Your'e right there old man! Seriously though and in deference to my elders I came to know Paul Foot's work through his writings for Socialist Worker and The Daily Mirror in the 1980's. It was, though, his articles and books on miscarriages on justice that most interested me.

The Carl Bridgewater and Colin Wallace cases were documented by him and resulted in all thier convictions being quashed and, bar Pat Molloy, the men being released from chokey.

The problem with Hanratty is that he can never be released and that I feel is not because Foot is wrong but because the state finds it very difficult to overturn cases where someone has been executed.

You may argue that the cases of Evans, Bentley et al have been quashed.

But their cases are somewhat different to that of James Hanratty. By that I mean that Home Office papers and records in other cases are not withheld from public scrutiny under Freedom of Information exceptions (as they are now) as they are in Hanratty and Alphons case. Foot knew this from very early on in his investigations into the case in the late 1960's. Some records in the Hanratty case are withheld from public viewing until well into the 2030's.

WHY?

2] Still waiting to see actual proof found by the CCRC to establish JH's innocence.

I can't help you anymore on this one. All I am going on is a reasonable doubt as to Hanratty's guilt. I have one. You are on your own with this one.

3] JH was obviously in the Slough area for some (unknown) time until he tapped on the window of the car. Where he was, what he was doing, who he was with will never be known, but for sure he wasn't just 'wandering around the countryside'. No, there were no witnesses who saw him on a train from wherever to Slough - same as there were none who saw him, as he claimed to be, on the train from London to Liverpool.

I don't see how Hanratty was obviously in the Slough area. You say it yourself. No witnesses. Unless you count Valerie Stories flawed identification of her assailant.

Michael Da Costa, an actor, saw a man he thought was Hanratty on the same train from Euston that day. He recognized his dyed hair, important inasmuch as men who dyed their hair was rare. More importantly though it was another person who commented on unusual looking hair. This person seems to be placing Hanratty going north instead of west.

If he was in the Slough area as you say, why was he not just wandering around as you put it? What evidence have you got for what he was doing there?

I have heard plenty of stories (and that is all they are) of people not thinking Hanratty was guilty and of others who saw him elsewhere but did not come forward. I have not heard anything of people placing Hanratty in the Slough area at all.

In fact according to the Times on 23rd November 1961 during the committal at Ampthill Mr E G MacDermott for the prosecution said:

"When he was in the back of the car, when he raped her, several cars passed and by their light as they went along the A6 she could see him quite clearly, and perhaps you may think it was because she saw him quite clearly, it was necessary for him to kill her."

Yet at the trial in Bedford the Times reports, on the 25th January 1962, of Mr Swanwicks questioning of Miss Storie thus.

Then he said to me 'Turn round and face me. I know your hands are free.'
He looked at me. He said: 'Kiss me'. I refused. While we were in this position, facing each other, a car came from the direction of Luton, towards Bedford, lighting up the man's face. This was the first opportunity of really seeing what he looked like.
He had very large, pale blue, staring icy eyes. He seemed to have a pale face. I should imagine anyone should have having just shot someone. He had got brown hair, combed back with no parting. The light was only on his face for a few seconds as the vehicle went past, then we were in complete darkness again.
Mr Swanwick.--At that time were you wearing your spectacles?--Yes. Can you see very well without your spectacles?--Not very well.

No futher mention was made of the glimpse in the back seat, from the committal, by this report.

It is extemely interesting that Mr Swanwick should ask whether Miss Storie was wearing her spectacles at that time.

The Times, our great paper of record, reports a distinct contradiction in the testimony of Miss Storie and in the case for the prosecution. Did she have a glimpse of him from the front seat or laying on the back seat? How do we know whether or not Miss Storie had her glasses on whilst being raped by this man? She did have poor eyesight by her own admission along with the withheld statements confessing her own anxiety of not being able to identify him.

I think you are clutching at straws Graham.

4]

Can you locate that post, Steve? And did Foot and Woffinden respond to Miller's challenge?

Graham your first question is answered by the following

Hello again Reg,

Here is a copy of Miller’s letter to the editor of the Guardian dated 14th May, 2002.

I wonder why Bob and Paul did not reply?

“The eyewitness evidence for and against James Hanratty was questionable, and contrary to what Paul Foot claims there are holes and contradictions in the Liverpool and Rhyl alibis (Hanratty's appeal is over, but justice is yet to be done, May 13).
In my book Shadows of Deadman's Hill, I examined every argument for Hanratty's innocence put forward by Bob Woffinden (Hanratty appeal, May 11) and Paul Foot, concluding that they were both wrong. Neither journalist to my knowledge has responded to my wide-ranging critique or my explanation as to why and how this enigmatic crime occurred.
To go on claiming that Hanratty was innocent is to ignore compelling evidence against him, including his stated interest in obtaining a gun and two medical diagnoses prior to the crime that he was a latent psychopath.
The miscarriage of justice campaign was based on three errors: the belief that Valerie Storie changed her testimony about the colour of her attacker's eyes (she didn't); the bogus confessions of the publicity-hungry Peter Alphon; and the idea that the crime was pre-planned and involved a criminal conspiracy. But the tragic events of the night of 22/23 August 1961 began by chance and can only be understood in the light of Hanratty's own damaged and immature personality.”

Leonard Miller
York
leonardmiller33@hotmail.com

Tony seems to answer your second question.

Thnx
Steve