Mrs Gregsten"s "intuition" [Feb.19th 1962]

[jimornot?]

.............

Also Charlotte France thought the Identikit looked like Hanratty and told him so, so why couldn't others?

KR,
Vic.

truth is Vic, I think at least one of the identikit pics looks nothing like Hanratty - more like Alphon. Some evidence too (see early post by Jimarilyn) that Alphon resembles both pics at times

all the best

Viv

[Victor]

truth is Vic, I think at least one of the identikit pics looks nothing like Hanratty - more like Alphon. Some evidence too (see early post by Jimarilyn) that Alphon resembles both pics at times

Hi Viv,

The thing about the Identikits is we are comparing 2 dimensional images, whereas VS et al when constructing them would be forming a 2D representation of her 3D memories.

Charlotte France would therefore be in a better position to say whether that 2D Identikit looked anything like the 3D Hanratty stood in front of her, whereas we can never nor will never be able to do that, as we only have a series of 2D photographs of Hanratty to compare.

Have you ever seen a photograph of yourself that you don't think looks anything like yourself? I have (especially the one's taken towards the end of a night out!)

KR,
Vic.

[jimornot?]

Hi Viv,

The thing about the Identikits is we are comparing 2 dimensional images, whereas VS et al when constructing them would be forming a 2D representation of her 3D memories.

Charlotte France would therefore be in a better position to say whether that 2D Identikit looked anything like the 3D Hanratty stood in front of her, whereas we can never nor will never be able to do that, as we only have a series of 2D photographs of Hanratty to compare.

Have you ever seen a photograph of yourself that you don't think looks anything like yourself? I have (especially the one's taken towards the end of a night out!)

KR,
Vic.

hi Vic

point taken thanks

I think the camera can mislead but without labouring the point, none of the photos I've seen of Hanratty look like 1 of the identikits and there are quite a few pics of him so it's not a random, odd, photo. Interesting too how different (to me and many others) the 2 identikit pics are - both from the same source too but am i right in thinking they were issued at the same time?

all the best

viv
PS Not sure I've noticed that phenomena re pics of myself but then being an identical twin I supopose I've seen 'myself' more often than would normally be the case

I never leave incriminating evidence of nights out!

[jimornot?]

Good thread.

For the benefit of anyone who may not have a copy of Bob Woffinden's book here is that Daily Sketch article of Feb 19th 1962 in full.

Scanned it from his book [hope he doesn't mind] as it would take too long to type out for a 3wpm person like myself............


Considering that Bill told Paul Foot the story was "a farrago of nonsense" it seems strange (to me anyway) that he never made any attempts to sue Peter Duffy or the Daily Sketch for publishing such a blatantly untrue story.

What's even stranger is that Bill never tried to sue Peter Alphon either, for the very serious allegations Alphon made against him.

He did sue Paul Foot however upon publication of Paul's book in 1971.

I suppose he had to sue someone, somewhere along the line, otherwise things wouldn't have looked too good for him and people might have gotten the wrong impression.

Anyhow here's that article............

Hi James

welcome back and thanks for this, saved me looking it up.

Do you know who Ewer did sue beyond Paul Foot, I thought there was more than one instance?

seems odd for him to call the story a farrago of nonsense and also admit to parts of it as true. I wish we knew more about him really

al the best

Viv

[Victor]

I think the camera can mislead but without labouring the point, none of the photos I've seen of Hanratty look like 1 of the identikits and there are quite a few pics of him so it's not a random, odd, photo. Interesting too how different (to me and many others) the 2 identikit pics are - both from the same source too but am i right in thinking they were issued at the same time?

Hi Viv,

One of the Identikits was compiled by Valerie, and the other by a number of the other witnesses including Blackhall. The police could not satisfactorily reconcile the two images, so issued both.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Significantly Paul Foot took great care to interview the journalist responsible for the initial story.He says Peter Duffy confirmed it to him when he interviewed him and that Peter Duffy again confirmed it in public on a BBC Panorama programme.Foot as a London Investigative journalist would have known from several inside sources whether or not the story was true.The two crucial corroborative sources are Mrs Dorothy Morrell who sold the flowers to Hanratty to send to his mother which Foot followed up most carefully and cross checked,and the Mr John Wood of the Dry Cleaners who gave evidence of Hanratty being in his shop on 21st August at 11 am and on 4th September, Hanratty also called in to see if his trousers were ready at the end of August.
So I really dont see why the story has to be greeted with such incredulity when Mr and Mrs Ewer had Janet Gregsten and her children staying with them up the road in their big house in Hampstead and when they were trying to help her get over the tragedy,meaning she could well have been to Ewer"s shop to help out,giving her something to do to take her mind off the terrible events of the past few weeks and his shop was just a few yards away from the Dry Cleaners,the florists etc in the arcade etc.

[julie q]

she saw at the cleaners

hi Natalie
Many people who have written about the A6 murder Have alluded directly or indirectly to Ewers involvement but there appears nothing apart from this bizzare story ,in the public domain at least, to substantiate their claims.People on the forum have questioned Ewers financial standing at the time of the murder,J Gregston describes his shop as being part paintings. part antigues , part umberella repairs . part all sorts of junk,Woffinden page 379.For those not familiar with the London Area go to Google Maps street veiw and click on Wentworth Road Golders Green One of the large detached houses in the picture is where the Ewers moved to shortly after the murder.This proves nothing although there appears to have been some attempt to play down the affluence of the Ewer family.
You mention Kenneth Oxford in your last posting and I think this book may be of some interest , No Way Up The Greasy Pole by Alison Halford. Miss Halford was A former assistant chief constable of Liverpool and served for a time under the then Chief Constable K Oxford ,she was dismissed from the force but brought a claim against Liverpool and Merseyside police authority for unfair dismisal. At her tribunal hearing, at which K Oxford was a principal witness against her , she won a considerable some in compensation after claiming documentary evidence against her had been tampered with.While the book does not concern the A6 murder it does give in an insight into the integrity or otherwise of K Oxford. Miss Halford leaves the reader in no doubt describing him as a pugnacious bully who would intimidate anyone to get his own way.
Another book which may interest you is Michael Mansefield Memoirs Of A Radical Lawyer While it touches only briefly with his role in the court of appeal hearing it has interesting chapters on the Fallibilty of Forensic
Science and the challenges of DNA.
I was present in court when the DNA evidence was introduced at the appeal
and while the the strorage .trasportation of exhibits may have possibly led to contamination, a possibility accepted by all parties , and indeed it may have happened. My recollection is that seeing it argued in court by Dr Evison it did not appear all that convincing. Several people close to the case expressed their dismay feeling that wrong strategy had been depolyed and that more emphasis should have be directed to challenging the integrity of LCN DNA which was then in its infancy and even 10 years on arouses controversy
regards julie q

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Julie,
Thankyou for this post and pointing out about Mr Ewer"s relative affluence around the time of the murder.Also I agree with you entirely about it being the questionable LCN DNA testing that is most worrying although the exhibits certainly do not appear to have been stored in anything like optimal conditions.
It is late now so I think I am going to say goodnight and will return to your post tomorrow evening.
Best Wishes,
Norma

[Limehouse]

hi Natalie
Many people who have written about the A6 murder Have alluded directly or indirectly to Ewers involvement but there appears nothing apart from this bizzare story ,in the public domain at least, to substantiate their claims.People on the forum have questioned Ewers financial standing at the time of the murder,J Gregston describes his shop as being part paintings. part antigues , part umberella repairs . part all sorts of junk,Woffinden page 379.For those not familiar with the London Area go to Google Maps street veiw and click on Wentworth Road Golders Green One of the large detached houses in the picture is where the Ewers moved to shortly after the murder.This proves nothing although there appears to have been some attempt to play down the affluence of the Ewer family.
You mention Kenneth Oxford in your last posting and I think this book may be of some interest , No Way Up The Greasy Pole by Alison Halford. Miss Halford was A former assistant chief constable of Liverpool and served for a time under the then Chief Constable K Oxford ,she was dismissed from the force but brought a claim against Liverpool and Merseyside police authority for unfair dismisal. At her tribunal hearing, at which K Oxford was a principal witness against her , she won a considerable some in compensation after claiming documentary evidence against her had been tampered with.While the book does not concern the A6 murder it does give in an insight into the integrity or otherwise of K Oxford. Miss Halford leaves the reader in no doubt describing him as a pugnacious bully who would intimidate anyone to get his own way.
Another book which may interest you is Michael Mansefield Memoirs Of A Radical Lawyer While it touches only briefly with his role in the court of appeal hearing it has interesting chapters on the Fallibilty of Forensic
Science and the challenges of DNA.
I was present in court when the DNA evidence was introduced at the appeal
and while the the strorage .trasportation of exhibits may have possibly led to contamination, a possibility accepted by all parties , and indeed it may have happened. My recollection is that seeing it argued in court by Dr Evison it did not appear all that convincing. Several people close to the case expressed their dismay feeling that wrong strategy had been depolyed and that more emphasis should have be directed to challenging the integrity of LCN DNA which was then in its infancy and even 10 years on arouses controversy
regards julie q

Morning Julie

Welcome to the deabte. This is a very interesting post. Thank you.

Julie (Limehouse)

[Natalie Severn]

Many Thanks julieq.I went to the real estate for Wentworth Road and they have a semi detached,four bedroom house up for sale for £899,990---so tipping one million and that for a semi-detached.I reckon that a big detached house in Wentworth Road would therefore fetch between one million and one and a half million pounds!Not bad!----and its thought Mr Ewer wasn"t well off?

[Natalie Severn]

Hello again Julie,
Yes,I am indeed familiar with the case of Alison Halford.I am from Birkenhead originally and used to know one or two of the people mentioned in the case.I always thought the case against her had a lot to do with the very strong male culture and bias she referred to,though ,and I think too that Ms Halford appeared to have opted at one time for joining in the milieu of heavy drinkers ,I suppose hoping that "if you can"t beat "em join "em , though everybody who knew her said that although she liked a drink she was very able to hold it and she never appeared drunk .She seems to have been an outstandingly competent police woman too and it seems a shame she had to face such an ordeal .

But yes,I was very interested in what you said with regard to the role Kenneth Oxford played and that the accusations she brought against him of tampering with documentary evidence were apparently upheld and she won significant damages as a result.
I am interested to know too that you attended the appeal and that you didnt find Evison"s findings very persuasive.However the one thing I can say is that none of the evidence had been kept in anything like optimal conditions.I understand that it was early days, in 2002, to argue over the LCN DNA testing carried out.Even today the battle over their reliability or otherwise has not been won in the UK.
I dont know enough about how Michael Mansfield QC tackled the appeal to comment really.But what I read didnt impress me as much as Michael Sherrard ,Hanratty"s trial barrister did, but Sherrard was really very young to take such a case as that on---even though he did go on to become one of the UK"s leading QC"s and advocates,but he was just 33 in 1961 and he himself says he was too emotionally involved with Hanratty who he had grown fond of and Hanratty,in turn ,refused to have anyone but Sherrard to defend him and held onto him tightly ---for dear life.He said the execution of Hanratty affected him [and his young wife] pretty badly.They thought he was going to be acquitted and the result was devastating.

[Victor]

I understand that it was early days, in 2002, to argue over the LCN DNA testing carried out.Even today the battle over their reliability or otherwise has not been won in the UK.

Hi Norma,

The Reed\Reed\Garmson ruling has resolved a large proportion of the issues by agreeing that LCN where the quantified DNA is above the 200pg threshold is as reliable as SGM+, below the threshold will be argued on a case-by-case basis. It could easily be argued that the battle if not over, is in it's final stages.

I appreciate that it was not quantified in the LCN tests on Hanratty's samples, although there's the quantification step in the SGM+ tests previously done.

KR,
Vic.

[julie q]

court of appeal

Hi Norma,

The Reed\Reed\Garmson ruling has resolved a large proportion of the issues by agreeing that LCN where the quantified DNA is above the 200pg threshold is as reliable as SGM+, below the threshold will be argued on a case-by-case basis. It could easily be argued that the battle if not over, is in it's final stages.

I appreciate that it was not quantified in the LCN tests on Hanratty's samples, although there's the quantification step in the SGM+ tests previously done.

KR,
Vic.

I stumbled across this forum a few weeks ago and have spent some time reading the previous posts, I am very impressed by effort taken by people on both sides of the argument to uncover scientific detail.
Regarding Natalie Severen's comments vis a vis Michael Mansfield's performance at the court of appeal.I have long been an admirer of M. M. his advocacy has been instrumental in helping to rectify numerous miscarriages of justice,I am afraid however I do not consider the Hanratty appeal ,irrespective of the judgement ,one of the highlights of his career ,perhaps this why so little space is devoted to it in his memoirs.
Michael Sherrard also represented the Hanratty family in an advisory capacity at the court of appeal,many wished he had been leading counsel. After his opening speech M.M. was asked by Lord Woolf if Accot was available to be called or if in fact he was still alive. M.M. appeared not to know that one of the main prosecution witnesses at the original trial was in fact dead.Many people, my self included, are of the opinion the long delay,8 years from the original submission,in bringing the case to appeal court was to exclude Accot from having to testify. It may appear a small point but it seemed to wrongfoot M.M. Much worse was to follow,N Sweeney counsel for the crown then asked that in the light of the evidence the crown intented to introduce did counsel for the appellant now accept that a man called Peter Alphon can no longer be considered as being the murderer.M.M. conceded that this was so.The only evidence the crown were introducing was DNA in accepting that this exonerated Alphon he was in essence accepting the validity of the DNA evidence .It is perhaps little wonder when Dr Evison came to give his evidence it appeared less than convincing, in some respects the argument had already been conceded. It is my recollection that only when junior counsel Henry Blaxland assumed lead role for some aspects of the appeal was it delivered with the passion we had expected . He also appeared to have a greater grasp of the details of the case,the fact that Bob Woffinden's son was a trainee barrister under his tutelage may have helped in this respect.
I believe the judgement had been made however before the case even came to court.The three judges had been given copies of the complete submission several weeks in the advance, they were also aware of the DNA evidence which had already been leaked to the press. I was back in court the following month when after giving their judgement they patronised the Hanratty family and their legal team by praising them for their dignity and diligence and then criticised the C.C.R.C.for the expenditure of resources in bringing the case to court. The C.C.RC.,whose commissioners were present had no right of reply and cannot comment on court judgements.It was left to Geoffery Bindman in a strong worded article in a Times law supplement to write "The fact that later acquired evidence may lead the court to the conclusion that the appellant might have in fact committed the crime of which he is charged must be balanced against the wrong that is done to the individual or,more importantly the justice system, by allowing to stand a conviction which has been obtained by improper or unlawful means"
I think due respect must be given to the CCRC ,they had access to the voluminous
documentation on the case,the only impartial body to have had this privilege,much of which is still not in the public domain,and had interviewed surviving witnesses including V Storie, R Acott ,and K Oxford before presenting their submission. The conclusion they came to was broadly in line with that of superintendent Roger Mathews who carried out a review of the case for the home office in 1996. In an interview with the Daily Mail on May 8
1999 R Mathews emphasized his believe that Hanratty had been wrongly convicted .By the time the case came to the appeal court however Roger Mathew's report had been shelved, Scotland Yard had carried out another review on the case this time the senior investigating officer was Steve Dan who came to a different conclusion.It appears that Mr Dan has been well rewarded for his investigation he has since been appointed assistant chief constable of Hampshire
On another thread there is speculation regarding the character of Hanratty and the reasons for his delinquency,but with respect is this not irrelevant.In 1969 a notorious Glagow criminal Paddy Meehan was convicted for the brutal murder of a woman during the pursuit of burglary at her house. He was senteced to life imprisonment and would have hanged had that option been available. His defence counsel Nicholas Fairbairn was convinced of his innocence and led a campaign to clear his name,eventually leading to an appeal court hearing and the quashing of the conviction ,very unsual in Scotland where the justice system is even more reluctant to overturn jury verdicts than their English counterparts . Nicholas Fairbairn later had commented " Paddy Meehan was one of the most reprehensible and odious individuals I had to represent during my career in criminal law, I considered the Scottish public were well served in many respects by his imprisonment However the man was not guiltly of the crime for which he was incarcerated and it was my duty to fight to clear his name both for him and the reputation of the Scottish justice system" A miscarriage of justice is a miscarriage justice, irrespective of the character of the accused
BEST REGARDS
Julie q

[julie q]

court of appeal

Hi Norma,

The Reed\Reed\Garmson ruling has resolved a large proportion of the issues by agreeing that LCN where the quantified DNA is above the 200pg threshold is as reliable as SGM+, below the threshold will be argued on a case-by-case basis. It could easily be argued that the battle if not over, is in it's final stages.

I appreciate that it was not quantified in the LCN tests on Hanratty's samples, although there's the quantification step in the SGM+ tests previously done.

KR,
Vic.

I stumbled across this forum a few weeks ago and have spent some time reading the previous posts, I am very impressed by effort taken by people on both sides of the argument to uncover scientific detail.
Regarding Natalie Severen's comments vis a vis Michael Mansfield's performance at the court of appeal.I have long been an admirer of M. M. his advocacy has been instrumental in helping to rectify numerous miscarriages of justice,I am afraid however I do not consider the Hanratty appeal ,irrespective of the judgement ,one of the highlights of his career ,perhaps this why so little space is devoted to it in his memoirs.
Michael Sherrard also represented the Hanratty family in an advisory capacity at the court of appeal,many wished he had been leading counsel. After his opening speech M.M. was asked by Lord Woolf if Accot was available to be called or if in fact he was still alive. M.M. appeared not to know that one of the main prosecution witnesses at the original trial was in fact dead.Many people, my self included, are of the opinion the long delay,8 years from the original submission,in bringing the case to appeal court was to exclude Accot from having to testify. It may appear a small point but it seemed to wrongfoot M.M. Much worse was to follow,N Sweeney counsel for the crown then asked that in the light of the evidence the crown intented to introduce did counsel for the appellant now accept that a man called Peter Alphon can no longer be considered as being the murderer.M.M. conceded that this was so.The only evidence the crown were introducing was DNA in accepting that this exonerated Alphon he was in essence accepting the validity of the DNA evidence .It is perhaps little wonder when Dr Evison came to give his evidence it appeared less than convincing, in some respects the argument had already been conceded. It is my recollection that only when junior counsel Henry Blaxland assumed lead role for some aspects of the appeal was it delivered with the passion we had expected . He also appeared to have a greater grasp of the details of the case,the fact that Bob Woffinden's son was a trainee barrister under his tutelage may have helped in this respect.
I believe the judgement had been made however before the case even came to court.The three judges had been given copies of the complete submission several weeks in the advance, they were also aware of the DNA evidence which had already been leaked to the press. I was back in court the following month when after giving their judgement they patronised the Hanratty family and their legal team by praising them for their dignity and diligence and then criticised the C.C.R.C.for the expenditure of resources in bringing the case to court. The C.C.RC.,whose commissioners were present had no right of reply and cannot comment on court judgements.It was left to Geoffery Bindman in a strong worded article in a Times law supplement to write "The fact that later acquired evidence may lead the court to the conclusion that the appellant might have in fact committed the crime of which he is charged must be balanced against the wrong that is done to the individual or,more importantly the justice system, by allowing to stand a conviction which has been obtained by improper or unlawful means"
I think due respect must be given to the CCRC ,they had access to the voluminous
documentation on the case,the only impartial body to have had this privilege,much of which is still not in the public domain,and had interviewed surviving witnesses including V Storie, R Acott ,and K Oxford before presenting their submission. The conclusion they came to was broadly in line with that of superintendent Roger Mathews who carried out a review of the case for the home office in 1996. In an interview with the Daily Mail on May 8
1999 R Mathews emphasized his believe that Hanratty had been wrongly convicted .By the time the case came to the appeal court however Roger Mathew's report had been shelved, Scotland Yard had carried out another review on the case this time the senior investigating officer was Steve Dan who came to a different conclusion.It appears that Mr Dan has been well rewarded for his investigation he has since been appointed assistant chief constable of Hampshire
On another thread there is speculation regarding the character of Hanratty and the reasons for his delinquency,but with respect is this not irrelevant.In 1969 a notorious Glagow criminal Paddy Meehan was convicted for the brutal murder of a woman during the pursuit of burglary at her house. He was senteced to life imprisonment and would have hanged had that option been available. His defence counsel Nicholas Fairbairn was convinced of his innocence and led a campaign to clear his name,eventually leading to an appeal court hearing and the quashing of the conviction ,very unsual in Scotland where the justice system is even more reluctant to overturn jury verdicts than their English counterparts . Nicholas Fairbairn later had commented " Paddy Meehan was one of the most reprehensible and odious individuals I had to represent during my career in criminal law, I considered the Scottish public were well served in many respects by his imprisonment However the man was not guiltly of the crime for which he was incarcerated and it was my duty to fight to clear his name both for him and the reputation of the Scottish justice system" A miscarriage of justice is a miscarriage justice, irrespective of the character of the accused
BEST REGARDS
Julie q

[Natalie Severn]

On another thread there is speculation regarding the character of Hanratty and the reasons for his delinquency,but with respect is this not
irrelevant.

I agree it is completely irrelevant to speculate over the character of Hanratty,in terms of whether or not he was given a fair trial and whether or not he should have been acquitted or whether or not there was a miscarriage of justice.My own reason for addressing the issue of James Hanratty"s character and "curriculum vitae" has to do with the negativity in which his character and life "choices"-if they can be called that, may have been perceived by the Bedford Jury and how a fundamental prejudice about those life choices may have blocked their ability to unravel the case as it unfolded during its presentation in court and consequently resulted in the Bedford Jury not being able to assess the case objectively.



But thankyou Julie q ,for such an informative and helpful post. I for one ,very much appreciate your first hand observations and understanding of the law which is of great help to me .I need a bit more time though to absorb your other comments and observations here ,before I return to some of the issues you raise .
Best Wishes
Norma