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

[Victor]

Hi Julie q,

I agree, very thought-provoking posts.

A miscarriage of justice is a miscarriage justice, irrespective of the character of the accused

This statement is significant and has led me to contemplate the possibility that Hanratty may have been framed for a crime he had committed, which in terms of justice (fairness) is just, but in terms of Justice (the law) I presume creates a second criminal of the framer although does not exonerate the framed. Or does it?

KR,
Vic.

[RonIpstone]

Hi Julie q,

I agree, very thought-provoking posts.



This statement is significant and has led me to contemplate the possibility that Hanratty may have been framed for a crime he had committed, which in terms of justice (fairness) is just, but in terms of Justice (the law) I presume creates a second criminal of the framer although does not exonerate the framed. Or does it?

KR,
Vic.

Vic

I think that the rule is that if the trial had been fatally flawed then Hanratty would have been entitled to be acquitted on appeal even though it could be proved by other means that Hanratty had committed the crime. So if the prosecution had had evidence that tended to show that Hanratty had been framed but did not disclose this to the defence, then it could be said the trial was fatally flawed. It would be a fortiori if the prosecution itself (the Police) had done the framing.

I do not think that in English Law the term 'miscarriage of justice' has any technical meaning. Some might say that there had been no miscarriage of justice if Hanratty had done the crime but had a trial that was fatally flawed; others might say there had been a miscarriage of justice in those circumstances.

Ron

[julie q]

court of appeal

Hi Ron
Thanks for this I believe the term in English law is unsafe conviction
The CCRC website defines an unsafe conviction--
"An appeal against conviction is not a retrial which looks again at the facts of the case in the way the jury did to decide if the appellant is guilty or innocent
The appeal court will only be concerned with whether or not the conviction is unsafe,in determining this it will consider issues such as whether the trial on a whole was fair , if the judge made correct legal rulings ,the admissibilty of evidence ,non disclosure, evidence not presented at the trial,that the judge summed up the case fairly with the appropriate legal directions."

If we accept that,irrespective of guilt or innocence,that the Bedford trial was unfair, we must conclude that conviction was unsafe
Regards Julie q

[Natalie Severn]

Hi julie q,
regarding the following remark attributed to Janet Gregsten by Paul Foot after his interview with her in the 1990"s:

She stated that she now believed in Hanraty's innocence and offered to assist in any way she could to clear his name, she now thought it most likely that Alpon was her husbands killer.Sadly J G died on the 18th January shortly after giving the interview.
regards julie q

Do you have any idea why Janet Gregsten came to believe that Hanratty was innocent and that Alphon was her husband"s killer?

regards,
Norma

[julie q]

She claimed she had formed this opinion after re-reading Paul Foot's book.An opinion not shared by her younger son Anthony,at the time of the court of appeal hearing he was proclaiming his believe that Hanratty was his father's killer and that the hounding and harassment of his mother by journalists had been responsible for the series of heart attacks which eventually led to her death in 1995. I find the latter part of this somewhat strange. The series of interviews she had with Paul Foot prior to the Guardian Weekend article,interviews initiated by Tony Gregston himself, was the first "on the record" contact she had with the press for over 30 years . In the years preceding this she had already suffered ill health and had undergone a heart by pass operation.In 1980 J G left London to live a quiet life in a small Cornish
village called Leedstown before moving to Penzance where she lived until her death. During most of this time the a6 murder was at its most dormant attracting little public or press attention,it is difficult to believe she was being harrased by journalists at this stage in her life.In the early 1990's she was approached by B Woffinden during the production of Mystery Of Deadmans Hill and offered the opportunity to appear on the programme, an offer she declined. She agreed to meet him however and discuss the case provided that what she said was "off the record". It was a suprise therefor when after tranmission of the programme J G lodged a complaint with the Broadcasting Complaints Commission claiming that the "She saw him at the cleaners " sequence had portrayed her unfairly by not including her denial of involvement.The commission adjudicated largely in favour of the producers but said there had been slight degree of inbalance And with a slight alteration to that section they would be allowed to repeat the transmission.

[Natalie Severn]

Thankyou Julie q,
Thinking of the vastness of London and Greater London,it seems incredible that several of the "main players"in this case , lived or worked or visited within just a short -sometimes very short- walking distance of each other. Hanratty was staying most of the time either just round the corner with Charles France and his family from where Bill Ewer had his shop or with Louise Anderson,a little further away but also within walking distance .And it seems Janet Gregsten sometimes visited Bill Ewer"s shop.
Not only that but we know Hanratty took his trousers into the Dry Cleaners only a few yards from and almost directly opposite Bill Ewer"s shop.He also bought flowers for his mother just a few yards from Bill Ewer"s Antique shop.All this just days before and after the A6 murder.
Additionally, the Vienna Hotel is just a mile down the road where Hanratty "was sent " from The Broadway House Hotel on 21st August leaving only a few hours before Alphon "was sent" from The Broadway House Hotel on 22nd August.Mind blowing "coincidences" really

[Victor]

The appeal court will only be concerned with whether or not the conviction is unsafe,in determining this it will consider issues such as whether the trial on a whole was fair , if the judge made correct legal rulings ,the admissibilty of evidence ,non disclosure, evidence not presented at the trial,that the judge summed up the case fairly with the appropriate legal directions.

Hi Julie q,

In Hanratty's case the judge was undoubtedly fair, and several commentators Foot and Woffinden included have agreed with this, the only aspect that you have listed that is relevent is the non-disclosure and the CCRC did not accept that it made the trial unfair - although some people question that ruling.

If we accept that,irrespective of guilt or innocence,that the Bedford trial was unfair, we must conclude that conviction was unsafe

Presumably that then opens up the possibility of a retrial along the lines of Sion Jenkins, although with Hanratty having been hanged and a large number of the other witnesses now dead, then what would happen?

KR,
Vic.

[Derrick]

...In Hanratty's case the judge was undoubtedly fair, and several commentators Foot and Woffinden included have agreed with this, the only aspect that you have listed that is relevent is the non-disclosure and the CCRC did not accept that it made the trial unfair - although some people question that ruling.

The CCRC (Criminal Cases Review Commission) were the ones who decided that the non disclosure was unfair and therefore referred the case back to the CACD. (Court of Appeal, Criminal Division)

I know of no-one who questioned the CCRC's decision to refer. What people were you thinking of?

Presumably that then opens up the possibility of a retrial along the lines of Sion Jenkins, although with Hanratty having been hanged and a large number of the other witnesses now dead, then what would happen?

The conviction would be quashed. Only the Crown (ie The Home Secretary and the CCRC) have the power to pardon.

Derrick

[Victor]

The CCRC (Criminal Cases Review Commission) were the ones who decided that the non disclosure was unfair and therefore referred the case back to the CACD. (Court of Appeal, Criminal Division)

I know of no-one who questioned the CCRC's decision to refer. What people were you thinking of?

Hi Derrick,

The question obviously reads the non-disclosure was dismissed as not significantly affecting the outcome, and some people question that decision - yourself included.

The conviction would be quashed. Only the Crown (ie The Home Secretary and the CCRC) have the power to pardon.

If the conviction were quashed then presumably it wouldn't be a declaration of Hanratty's innocence, and as he and a lot of the witnesses are dead then nothing further would be required.

KR,
Vic

[Natalie Severn]

For Jen-an old post but an interesting one with regards to someone who was present at the hearing.

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]

For Jen-an old post but an interesting one with regards to someone who was present at the hearing.

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

[babybird67]

For Jen-an old post but an interesting one with regards to someone who was present at the hearing.

Thanks Norma but contamination does not and cannot explain two things:

1/ the distribution of the semen which showed sexual intercourse had taken place...it was not just spilled on, it was there in a manner which was consistent with sexual intercourse having taken place. I wish i could give more details on this, but it was quite clear...these people use these methods all the time to establish whether there has been sexual intercourse in rape trials, they know what they are looking for and they know what they saw.

2/ where the real rapist's profile disappeared to even if the Hanratty profile could be attibuted to contamination (which it could not). There is no possible explanation for three innocent profiles remaining extant on the sample and only the illusory guilty party's being magically erased. Seriously there isn't. Please think about it.

[Natalie Severn]

Jen,
I take your point here,it is difficult to be going into details.However,I have serious doubts about what the scientist says here about Valerie"s and the rapists body "fluid"s mixing"--which I have read about previously.
I cannot see any woman,particularly Valerie after the horrific ordeal she had been through,being able to release the sort of vaginal lubricants that are released during sexual intercourse.There is a name for them and they are associated with pleasure and enjoyment.There could have been no enjoyment for poor Valerie---.This is such a delicate area now - I don"t know how else to express it.This rape was in no way comparable to normal sexual intercourse generating a normal release of body fluids surely?
Regards,
Norma

[Victor]

I cannot see any woman,particularly Valerie after the horrific ordeal she had been through,being able to release the sort of vaginal lubricants that are released during sexual intercourse.There is a name for them and they are associated with pleasure and enjoyment.There could have been no enjoyment for poor Valerie---.This is such a delicate area now - I don"t know how else to express it.This rape was in no way comparable to normal sexual intercourse generating a normal release of body fluids surely?

Hi Norma,

I agree that this is a delicate subject, however, I believe the opposite to be the case, there are instances where women who do not normally achieve orgasm during regular sexual intercourse have done so during rape.

KR,
Vic.