A6 murder and the 1967 Nimmo Inquiry

[babybird67]

Hi Jen,


I would argue that at best they negate each other.

Witnesses don't 'negate' eachother. If their testimony conflicts, then it is up to the bystander/jury to establish in their own minds which is more convincing. No matter how you dress it up, Skillett made a positive identifcation of the man he said he saw, from a choice of many. That, in my opinion, gives him the edge over someone else who testifies they don't recognise someone who they may have seen.

Well Acott and Oxford certainly thought so,in the first instance!!!!

They may have but i would find it really difficult to accept an argument that said that someone who was less than a foot away from someone else must have been so visually impaired as to give an unrealiable identification, especially when backed up by the positive line up identification.

Blackhall remained throughout his life adamant that the man in the Morris Minor,seen by both himself and Skillett was not Hanratty

What about Valerie's certainty that the man who raped her was Hanratty? She had much more reason for wanting the man who did so caught and convicted. Why would she want an innocent man to hang for what someone else had done to her?

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Jen,

The salient fact is that Skillett did recognise him, to the point where he could correctly identify him as the same man in an offical line up.

I would argue that at best they negate each other.

Quote:
Blackhall was sitting in the passenger seat ,with the window wound down,therefore closest to the driver at the roundabout.[u]
I do not accept that is a meaningful defintion of distance or that such a variation of distance would render Skillett's identification suspect.

Well Acott and Oxford certainly thought so,in the first instance!!!!
They even requested Blackhall not Skillett to draw up an idenikit pictureIt was only when Alphon was dropped from their inquiry they turned to Skillett,who at that stage had not even been called to an ID.
Blackhall remained throughout his life adamant that the man in the Morris Minor,seen by both himself and Skillett was not Hanratty

With regards to Trower.Yes, he "identified" Hanratty.
Yes he did, the third independent, respectable, law abiding citizen to do so

The jury at the 1961 trial accepted the defence submission that Trower could only by virtue of measurements taken by the defence only at best, have had a "three quarter view",Yet Trower had said that the murderer had looked at him.According to his original testimony the pair had "looked into each other"s eyes for about 3 seconds".

Very odd behaviour for someone then to be looking back into the eyes of a bystander---when presumably anxious not to be seen by anyone!
And guess what immediately after Trower gave his "revised/altered" evidence---for the second time,his fried Paddy Hogan invalidated it!!!
Said he hadnt even been there at the time he was saying he had!

[Natalie Severn]

There are a couple of problems with bigging up Blackhall as a witness.

- You cannot hail as reliable someone who ID'd a volunteer twice and at the same time dismiss as unreliable Valerie who ID'd a volunteer once.

- He disproves the contention that anyone would have picked out Hanratty because of his hair.

Nick,
I cited Blackhall because he had sat nearest to the driver and therefore saw the Morris Minor close up with his window wound down.
How could Skillett possibly have seen him better when he was supposed to have his eyes on the road, steering the car in heavy traffic and was at least 2 feet further away?
Moreover Blackhall didnt stop at just not "recognising" Hanratty.He is on record as actually having said the driver of the car who he had seen fairly close up,"looked nothing like Hanratty"

Regarding your other point about Valerie"s ID versus Blackhall"s ID .The statistics I have quoted from the "Innocent "project relate specifically to victims of rape and violent assault.I dont know what statistics exist relating to ordinary eye witness testimony.

[babybird67]

excellent points Nick

There are a couple of problems with bigging up Blackhall as a witness.

- You cannot hail as reliable someone who ID'd a volunteer twice and at the same time dismiss as unreliable Valerie who ID'd a volunteer once.

- He disproves the contention that anyone would have picked out Hanratty because of his hair.

very good.

[NickB]

Well even the court of appeal state that Blackhall did not recognise him and Blackhall later stated that the driver of the Morris Minor looked nothing like Hanratty .Blackhall was sitting in the passenger seat ,with the window wound down,therefore closest to the driver at the roundabout.

There are a couple of problems with bigging up Blackhall as a witness.

- You cannot hail as reliable someone who ID'd a volunteer twice and at the same time dismiss as unreliable Valerie who ID'd a volunteer once.

- He disproves the contention that anyone would have picked out Hanratty because of his hair.

[babybird67]

Well even the court of appeal state that Blackhall did not recognise him and Blackhall later stated that the driver of the Morris Minor looked nothing like Hanratty .

And? One would not expect everyone who saw him to recognise him again. The salient fact is that Skillett did recognise him, to the point where he could correctly identify him as the same man in an offical line up.

Blackhall was sitting in the passenger seat ,with the window wound down,therefore closest to the driver at the roundabout.[U]

I do not accept that is a meaningful defintion of distance or that such a variation of distance would render Skillett's identification suspect.

With regards to Trower.Yes, he "identified" Hanratty.

Yes he did, the third independent, respectable, law abiding citizen to do so.

His friend Hogan however said he had arrived too late to have even seen the Morris Minor.

Why do you never accept the possibility that those contradicting the witnesses that picked Hanratty from a line up were mistaken, yet assume it to be a given for the actual witnesses themselves? Hogan could well have been mistaken about the time.

Moreover, the defence at the trial had demonstrated how impossible it would have been to have seen him three quarter face from the glimpse he said he had of him. And even the Appeal ruling recognised the difficulties of accepting this so called "identification"

Nobody is saying identification evidence is not without its problems. However, this applies equally to the alleged Rhyl witnesses...yet is never employed to undermine their woolly identifications by those who support Jim's impossible innocence.

viz:From 152 of the ruling:

"The seventh ground of appeal concerns the fact that (not disclosed to the defence) there were other reported sightings of the Morris Minor car during 23 August 1961 in different parts of the country and evidence that a different light grey Morris Minor had been parked directly opposite where Mr Gregsten’s car was recovered. This evidence consists of the following:

v) Doreen Milne said she parked her grey Morris Minor in Avondale Crescent at 8.15am opposite where Michael Gregsten’s car was subsequently found without recalling any car parked opposite hers. Margaret Thompson saw police interest around what she called a grey Morris 1000 at 8.00pm and reported that it had not been there at 5.30pm when she passed with her three year-old son.

And these people couldnt have been mistaken could they?

Even the Court of Appeal considered these sightings which roundly contradict Trower "to represent the high watermark of non-disclosure in this case."

I agree they should have been disclosed. The flaws in the original trial were wrong and regrettable. However, justice was done. The wrong man did not hang, as the honourable Sherrard admitted.

[Natalie Severn]

My witnesses picked their man out from a line-up Norma. They truly identified him. Read Woffinden and Foot and what the Rhyl witnesses actually said...none of them postively identified Hanratty. All of them said they were unsure. The only exception is Mrs Jones and i don't consider her evidence reliable, especially considering Hanratty's own evidence conflicts with hers.

Well even the court of appeal state that Blackhall did not recognise him and Blackhall later stated that the driver of the Morris Minor looked nothing like Hanratty .Blackhall was sitting in the passenger seat ,with the window wound down,therefore closest to the driver at the roundabout.Skillett,the driver , was further away and had got himself into a temper and was driving and shouting expletives at the same time.

With regards to Trower.Yes, he "identified" Hanratty.His friend Hogan however said he had arrived too late to have even seen the Morris Minor.Moreover, the defence at the trial had demonstrated how impossible it would have been to have seen him three quarter face from the glimpse he said he had of him. And even the Appeal ruling recognised the difficulties of accepting this so called "identification"

viz:From 152 of the ruling:

"The seventh ground of appeal concerns the fact that (not disclosed to the defence) there were other reported sightings of the Morris Minor car during 23 August 1961 in different parts of the country and evidence that a different light grey Morris Minor had been parked directly opposite where Mr Gregsten’s car was recovered. This evidence consists of the following:

v) Doreen Milne said she parked her grey Morris Minor in Avondale Crescent at 8.15am opposite where Michael Gregsten’s car was subsequently found without recalling any car parked opposite hers. Margaret Thompson saw police interest around what she called a grey Morris 1000 at 8.00pm and reported that it had not been there at 5.30pm when she passed with her three year-old son.

Even the Court of Appeal considered these sightings which roundly contradict Trower "to represent the high watermark of non-disclosure in this case."

[Natalie Severn]

babybird67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalie Severn
On that day,Monday 21st August,just gone 4 o"clock,the [Liverpool] Echo"s had just arrived,
I was serving a customer,a man,with some cigarettes,when another man came in that is the man in the photograph you have now shown me...........

Are you sure? Can someone with the books check this for me as I am 99% certain she stated the man who asked for directions bought cigarettes from her first.

Yes,I am sure.It is from the statements obtained by Mr Gillbanks from Mrs Dinwoodie, Barbara Ann Ford and Linda Walton during the week of December 9th to 16th 1961.This specific statement made by Mrs Dinwoodie begins :" On Monday morning,the 21st August........and can be found beginning on line 6.The statement is quoted in full and all 20 lines of it can be found on page 199 of Paul Foot"s book."I was serving a customer,a man,with some cigarettes,when another man came in,that is the man in the photograph you have now shown me.
Best
Norma

[babybird67]

On that day,Monday 21st August,just gone 4 o"clock,the [Liverpool] Echo"s had just arrived,
I was serving a customer,a man,with some cigarettes,when another man came in that is the man in the photograph you have now shown me...........

Are you sure? Can someone with the books check this for me as I am 99% certain she stated the man who asked for directions bought cigarettes from her first.

[babybird67]

All of this is very interesting (yawn), not.


This forum and all its little threads has become extremely tedious. It makes hairsplitting seem interesting.

Derrick

go back in the sock drawer then...nobody's forcing you to read or post here.

[babybird67]

Sorry to pull the semantics on you Jen, but there is a second definition given on your link which is...
an excuse for something you have failed to do or have done wrong

So Norma could just be referring to the rather lame excuse Hanratty gave that he was in Liverpool\Rhyl, hence the use of the word "perfect" in the example usage given. You even demonstrate that yourself in the next line of your post...

How can an alibi which is a proven thing be a "straw" alibi?

I agree which the rest of what you are saying though, Hanratty would never have gone in to buy cigarettes.

KR,
Vic.

Cheers Vic. I was thinking more of a legal definition of 'alibi' in that it has to be proven rather than just an 'excuse' as such. Proven as in a signature in a guest book or a bus ticket, that's why i was only concerned with the first definition. I know the word alibi is used in an informal sense/not a legal setting in terms of the second definition. Like many words, can have so many permutations and meanings. But the second defintion would never be a legally acceptable alibi accepted in a court of law. Hope that makes my point a bit clearer.

[Natalie Severn]

Well Derrick ,my reason for starting this thread is because sometimes statements of importance get lost in the very big thread that exists and my own view is that nothing is more important than the Rhyl witnesses ,some of whom came forward while the trial was going on but were too late to have had their evidence put to the jury.It is my own view that Mrs Dinwoody"s statement ,when viewed in conjuction with the Rhyl statements,provides further corroboration for those statements,in that it loosely confirms the pattern of hours and days that cover Hanratty"s movements,as stated by him, over the period of the 21st-24th of August 1961.
But if this makes you yawn, then can you suggest what we need to focus on instead ,in your opinion?
Thanks
Best
Norma

[Derrick]

All of this is very interesting (yawn), not.

The most important aspect of the sweetshop alibi is that the prosecution at the original trial did not discredit it. In fact Swanwick suggested that Hanratty flew straight back from Liverpool to London after visiting the sweetshop on the Tuesday as he had already proved Jimmy was in London on the Monday.

This forum and all its little threads has become extremely tedious. It makes hairsplitting seem interesting.

Derrick

[Natalie Severn]

Norma,

I accept your correction. I was more or less quoting from memory.

However, that still doesn't account for the fact that Mrs D's 'man' had a Scots or Welsh accent and also that the policeman made the monumental balls-up of showing her only one photo - that of JH.

Graham

No problem, Graham.
My own view about the impression Mrs D had of the man having a Scots or Welsh accent is simply that he had a different accent than the one she heard each day,which in Scotland Road would be likely to have been Scouse.Her granddaughter separately,described the man as having a "funny accent"......well might not many of us hearing different regional accents from the one we heard every day, describe them as sounding "funny"?
As far as the photo goes I don"t see it as being so significant but I understand from different posters here that by law several photos of different men should have been shown for her to choose from.
However it seems her granddaughter, Barbara Ford may well have been asked to "pick out" the man she saw viz:
Barbara Ford:I have seen photographs by Inspector Parkinson.I did not pick any out"
Miss Ford was then shown a side view picture of Hanratty taken in prison,and agreed at once that it was the man who had come into the shop.and signed it."I do remember the side face photograph',she said.

[Graham]

Norma,

I accept your correction. I was more or less quoting from memory.

However, that still doesn't account for the fact that Mrs D's 'man' had a Scots or Welsh accent and also that the policeman made the monumental balls-up of showing her only one photo - that of JH.

Graham