a6 murder

[Steve]

Tony

People do change their minds when new evidence emerges. In the Hanratty case no new evidence has ever emerged to conclusively prove there has been a miscarriage of justice. There has never been a perfect alibi for Hanratty’s movements on the night of the murder, and some of the people in Rhyl, who claimed to have been certain they had seen Hanratty there at that time, have later back-tracked and said they are now not so certain. No-one yet (other than Alphon) has ever came forward and claimed to be the ‘real A6 killer.’ (Alphon’s claim was motivated not by righting a wrong, despite what he said in Paris.) Nothing has emerged in 46 years to prove 100% beyond doubt that Hanratty was not the A6 gunman.

Almost certainly Swanwick believed his entire life that he had done the correct thing by leading the jury towards a guilty verdict, he would have had no doubt of Hanratty’s guilt, of that I feel sure. But, of course he didn’t NEED to believe that Hanratty was guilty in order to his job.

Michael Sherrard could have believed that Hanratty was innocent, but he too didn’t need to hold that belief in order to do his job and defend him to his best ability. In an interview after learning the results of the Court of Appeal and after the DNA evidence had been made public, Sherrard said he was glad that the wrong man had not been hanged. That means that he NOW believes Hanratty to have been guilty irrespective of his thoughts at the time of the A6 murder trial when he was defending him.

Kind regards,
Steve

[Graham]

There was no public or media outcry after the verdict that the law had got the wrong man, nor was there much of a demonstration outside the prison on the morning of the execution. Unlike Ruth Ellis, who was also guilty, but for whom there was tremendous public sympathy and even real fear of a riot outside Holloway on the morning of her execution.

Paul Foot was the first media man to really promote the possibility of a miscarriage of justice, after Jean Justice had latched onto the case (and I would have to say not entirely for purely altruistic reasons). Later, John Lennon and Yoko Ono also declared their belief in Hanratty's innocence, but again you have to wonder just why they got involved.

Cheers,

Graham

[Tony]

Hi La Rue,

My interest in true crime is fairly low key really and is extends from my interest in social history. For example, my interest in the Ripper crimes is based in the social and political landscape of the time and location rather than in a deep desire to know who the killer was.

As previously stated, my interest in the A6 murder stems from it being in the forefront of the early part of my childhood. This is also true of the Moors Murders - although I don't have the emotional stamina to delve too depply into those crimes.

I have had a long-held interest in the Craig and Bently case because I am concerned with justice being done and I think it Bently's case it was not. I suppose that was also what maintained my interest in the A6 events and what keeps me dipping into the Rillington Place case although, again, I can hardly stand to think about Christie's crimes or that horrible house.

In terms of Tv murder mysteries, I tend to avoid them if at all possible but I do enjoy a few such as New Tricks (for the humour) and Foyle's War (for Foyle - there's something deeply attractive about him).

Actually, when you look at some of these crimes from the 40s, 50s and 60s it makes you realise that the idea of being able to leave your back and front door open and let your kids run free was rather a myth.

Hello Limehouse,

I too have an interest in miscarriages of justice.
However, even though I have been interested in the Craig/Bentley case I have never understood how any one has categorised it as a miscarriage.
In those days, as now, if two people go out to commit a crime and some innocent person ends up dead then both are equally and jointly responsible. Bentley was guilty as charged. He hanged because he was over eighteen Craig didn’t because he was under eighteen. Hard I know but simple.
Bentley should not have hanged because, like Hanratty he had very bad learning difficulties and possibly didn’t understand the implications or Craig’s intentions but there wasn’t much compassion in those days. Irrespective of your mental ability, if you were there and somebody died, particularly a copper, you went through the trapdoor.
The law is exactly the same today as evidenced by the murder of PC Sharon Beshenivsky. One person fired the gun that killed her but I think all five of her attackers were jailed. At least three got life sentences. If that had happened in the 50’s Mr Pierrepoint would have been on triple wages at least.

Tony.

[Graham]

Hi Tony,

At the risk of repeated what's been debated ever since the Craig/Bentley Case, the perennial question is what did Bentley actually mean by, "Let him have it, Chris?" Did he mean shoot him, or give him the gun? I would have to say the latter, but apparently the court interpreted it as the former. And another point to ponder is that Bentley was actually already in custody when Craig pulled the trigger. Personally I feel that Bentley ought not to have been charged with murder, but rather as an accessory to murder. He shouldn't have hanged.

Referring back to Ruth Ellis for a mo, had that happened in France it would almost certainly have been viewed as crime passionelle, which it was.

But it's too easy to view these old cases with 21st century eyes.

Hanratty's conviction was, as I've always maintained, weak, based as it was on identification, which in many respects is the weakest evidence of all. But the jury believed Valerie Storie, and that, really, is that. I seriously believe that had the A6 Case happened even a few years later, the verdict would have been 'not guilty' due to insufficient evidence, reasonable doubt, dubious police practice, his psychological state, and probably a few other things too.

One of the big question-marks for me is, what if Hanratty had been cleared and was still alive today? Would the DNA tests have taken place? Legally, would they have been allowed to take place?

Cheers,

Graham

[Steve]

One of the big question-marks for me is, what if Hanratty had been cleared and was still alive today? Would the DNA tests have taken place? Legally, would they have been allowed to take place?

Hi Graham

Good question. If Hanratty had been cleared and assuming no-one else was ever convicted the A6 murder would have been an unsolved crime, and by the time DNA came along thirty years plus had elapsed so it would have taken a huge will on someone's part to start testing the Hanratty family DNA. I for one cannot see that is something that would have happened.

Interesting question all the same.

KR
Steve

[Graham]

Hi Graham

Good question. If Hanratty had been cleared and assuming no-one else was ever convicted the A6 murder would have been an unsolved crime, and by the time DNA came along thirty years plus had elapsed so it would have taken a huge will on someone's part to start testing the Hanratty family DNA. I for one cannot see that is something that would have happened.

Interesting question all the same.

KR
Steve

Hi Steve.

I suppose that Hanratty and his family would just have refused to give any DNA samples. Simple as that. I don't think they could have been forced to do so.


Cheers,

Graham

[Tony]

Hi Tony,

At the risk of repeated what's been debated ever since the Craig/Bentley Case, the perennial question is what did Bentley actually mean by, "Let him have it, Chris?" Did he mean shoot him, or give him the gun? I would have to say the latter, but apparently the court interpreted it as the former. And another point to ponder is that Bentley was actually already in custody when Craig pulled the trigger. Personally I feel that Bentley ought not to have been charged with murder, but rather as an accessory to murder. He shouldn't have hanged.

Referring back to Ruth Ellis for a mo, had that happened in France it would almost certainly have been viewed as crime passionelle, which it was.

But it's too easy to view these old cases with 21st century eyes.

Hanratty's conviction was, as I've always maintained, weak, based as it was on identification, which in many respects is the weakest evidence of all. But the jury believed Valerie Storie, and that, really, is that. I seriously believe that had the A6 Case happened even a few years later, the verdict would have been 'not guilty' due to insufficient evidence, reasonable doubt, dubious police practice, his psychological state, and probably a few other things too.

One of the big question-marks for me is, what if Hanratty had been cleared and was still alive today? Would the DNA tests have taken place? Legally, would they have been allowed to take place?

Cheers,

Graham

Evening Graham,

A very excellent post if I may say so.

Point by point if I may.

Yes Bentley was technically in custody. He wasn’t at the police station or anything like that he was being held on the roof and was in a position to shout instructions to and encourage his fellow burglar which he did. I agree with you that his words: “Let him have it” were misinterpreted by the jury. They would have been led to their misunderstanding of the phrase by the police and the prosecution and the jury of 12 noble men believed the police as did everyone back then. Usually if someone was arrested well that was it the police always got their man. They might not have always got the right man but it was usually good enough for the general public.
At that point in time Bentley was guilty as charged and yes I agree with you the sentence was harsh and capital punishment was and always will be hard.

Yes you are absolutely correct with the Ruth Ellis verdict and the fact that it wouldn’t have been a capital charge in France.

Yes the evidence at Hanratty’s trial was weak and a few years later I would go even further than you and say he probably wouldn’t have been charged and if he had and the judge had been Gorman I think he would have instructed the jury to bring in a not guilty verdict because of lack of evidence and the defence may not even had to put its case.

If Hanratty had been found not guilty and was still alive is an extremely interesting point. The DNA was used to attempt to prove his innocence as we all know it did not but still some of us do not accept it proved his guilt. Until recently a person could not be tried for the same crime twice, however, that went with the introduction of the Double Jeopardy act which says if new evidence is found a person can be tried again. Now if the police then wanted to obtain the DNA sample and retry a 70 odd year old man I think they would be quite entitled to do so. Whether they would or not is another matter. But an extremely interesting point and well worthy of further debate.

Sorry for the long post.

Tony

[Steve]

Now if the police then wanted to obtain the DNA sample and retry a 70 odd year old man I think they would be quite entitled to do so. Whether they would or not is another matter. But an extremely interesting point and well worthy of further debate.

With all those years having elapsed I think there would not have been a public appetite to do so. The police could well see it differently, and their cold crimes people might have seen it as their duty to solve a previously unsolved crime. Could the police in those circumstances have obtained a court order to force surviving Hanratty family members to surrender DNA samples?

[Graham]

Hi Tony,

Thanks for your kind comment.

Re: Craig/Bentley and especially Ruth Ellis, I just 'borrowed' this from Wikepedia's entry on Christmas Humphries, who acted for the Crown in both cases:

"In 1982 at the Buddhist Society in London, Ruth Ellis's son Andre McCallum secretly taped a conversation with Humphreys where he said the following[citation needed]:

"As a barrister for fifty years I was just putting the facts of the actual murder. I knew nothing of the background and I didn't care."

"So you still think there was an injustice in that she [Ruth Ellis] was found guilty of deliberate murder when she wasn't?"

"It [mercy] never came into my mind because, you must understand, how we play in parts as if on a stage. I have my part to play. Defending counsel has his. The judge has his. The jury have theirs...Mercy never came into it. It was never suggested. It was never part of it. There could be no mercy in what seemed to be cold-blooded murder."

"I think I said to the jury, 'Members of the jury this is to all intents and purposes a plea of guilty.'

Ruth Ellis had actually pleaded not guilty at her trial in June 1955."

I think this says a lot about how a Crown counsel acts in the prosecution of a trial, and it could well be applied to Graham Swanwick in his prosecution of Hanratty. The prosecuting counsel is simply doing the job allocated to it, and it's the purpose of defence counsel to counter.

One other point to make about Humphries is that he was, amazingly, a Buddhist, and held the taking of life as totally abhorrent. Hence his reputation, along with his reportedly great skill as a cross-examiner, as an effective prosecution counsel in capital cases. He was also prosecution at the trials of Timothy Evans and Gunther Podola. And for all that, he was apparently a really nice bloke, too!

Your point re: DNA 45 years after the event is valid, but I wonder if DNA samples can actually be taken without the full consent of the person concerned so long as he/she is not being charged with anything. Anyone know?

Cheers,

Graham

[Graham]

With all those years having elapsed I think there would not have been a public appetite to do so. The police could well see it differently, and their cold crimes people might have seen it as their duty to solve a previously unsolved crime. Could the police in those circumstances have obtained a court order to force surviving Hanratty family members to surrender DNA samples?

Hi Steve,

Our posts crossed. I put the same point in response to Tony's post.

Cheers,

Graham

[Steve]

Hi Steve,

Our posts crossed. I put the same point in response to Tony's post.

Cheers,

Graham

Hi Graham

These are interesting points - Christmas Humprhies post was very interesting too - I never knew he was a Buddhist!

KR
Steve

[Graham]

Hi Graham

These are interesting points - Christmas Humprhies post was very interesting too - I never knew he was a Buddhist!

KR
Steve

Yeah, weird, eh? He was also a Theosophist, about which I know zip.

Odd that he prosecuted those who had taken human life, even though it meant that he might be seen as the instrument of their own death....

Ah well....they reckon Judge Jeffreys was a notorious Bible Basher and God Botherer!

Cheers,

Graham

[Steve]

Didn't Alphon claim to be a theosophist? Or have I got that confused with some other -ism?

[Graham]

Didn't Alphon claim to be a theosophist? Or have I got that confused with some other -ism?

I think Alphon was whatever he wanted to be depending on the mood he was in when he awoke on any given morning....

....having said that, I've suddenly been put in mind of a bloke I knew about 40 years ago when it was cool to profess to being a Buddhist, Fascist, or any other -ist. This bloke was obviously very well read, and could argue the leg off a chair, took the opposing view even though he might have been outnumbered 100-1, and he was considered by all who knew him to be...odd. The fact that he was a trained (and very good) actor may have had something to do with it. I've always maintained that Alphon was a highly-accomplished actor....

Cheers,

Graham

[Steve]

And probably whatever was best to provide a reason for not finding a proper job to do in life!