A6 Rebooted

[GUT]

I think that Bob Woffinden has blotted his copybook in this case by dismissing out of hand the evidence which could have been given by Mr William Lee regarding his sighting of the murder car in Matlock.

What I find strange about this case, which may be peculiar to this forum and not replicated in the outside world, is that there are two camps, one which holds that Hanratty committed the murder and was rightly hanged, and the second which subscribes to the view that Hanratty was completely innocent. There doesn't seem to be anyone expressing the view that Hanratty was most probably guilty of the offence of which he was charged and convicted but the case was not made out against him beyond reasonable doubt.

G'day Spitfire

Well if the case was not made out beyond a reasonable doubt he was innocent, see last time I checked the UK still had as part of the law the presumption of innocence, which says that a person is innocent of a crime until such time as it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Graham]

I think that Bob Woffinden has blotted his copybook in this case by dismissing out of hand the evidence which could have been given by Mr William Lee regarding his sighting of the murder car in Matlock.

What I find strange about this case, which may be peculiar to this forum and not replicated in the outside world, is that there are two camps, one which holds that Hanratty committed the murder and was rightly hanged, and the second which subscribes to the view that Hanratty was completely innocent. There doesn't seem to be anyone expressing the view that Hanratty was most probably guilty of the offence of which he was charged and convicted but the case was not made out against him beyond reasonable doubt.

Well, for what it's worth, ever since I've been posting on the A6 thread (since it began, years ago) I've maintained that Hanratty was indeed guilty, but that had his trial taken place under Scottish law the verdict would very likely have been 'not proven'. It's not often that a jury goes against the tone of the judge's summing-up, but in Hanratty's case they did, and big-time. Still, that's what trial by jury is all about.

Graham

[GUT]

Well, for what it's worth, ever since I've been posting on the A6 thread (since it began, years ago) I've maintained that Hanratty was indeed guilty, but that had his trial taken place under Scottish law the verdict would very likely have been 'not proven'. It's not often that a jury goes against the tone of the judge's summing-up, but in Hanratty's case they did, and big-time. Still, that's what trial by jury is all about.

Graham

G'day Graham

I think you might be surprised at just how often it does happen with both convictions and acquittals.

[NickB]

My view is that I agree with the verdict but am surprised that the Home Secretary did not commute the death sentence to life imprisonment. In 1911 Winston Churchill did that in the case of Steinie Morrison, which has quite a few similarities, and in 1962 there was growing opposition to the death penalty anyway. The irony is that Hanratty’s hanging gave that opposition a boost and it became a contributory factor in abolition.

[Spitfire]

G'day Spitfire

Well if the case was not made out beyond a reasonable doubt he was innocent, see last time I checked the UK still had as part of the law the presumption of innocence, which says that a person is innocent of a crime until such time as it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

G'day GUT.

Your understanding of the law, both at the present time and back in 1962, is undoubtedly correct.

At the beginning of Hanratty's trial he was presumed innocent and it fell to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the members of the jury that he had indeed committed the offence of which he was charged.

The 11 members of the jury who stayed the course must have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Hanratty was guilty and therefore according to law, both in 1962 and at the present time, Hanratty was and is guilty.

[GUT]

G'day GUT.

Your understanding of the law, both at the present time and back in 1962, is undoubtedly correct.

At the beginning of Hanratty's trial he was presumed innocent and it fell to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the members of the jury that he had indeed committed the offence of which he was charged.

The 11 members of the jury who stayed the course must have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Hanratty was guilty and therefore according to law, both in 1962 and at the present time, Hanratty was and is guilty.

Especially because the court of appeal agreed with the jury.

[Spitfire]

My view is that I agree with the verdict but am surprised that the Home Secretary did not commute the death sentence to life imprisonment. In 1911 Winston Churchill did that in the case of Steinie Morrison, which has quite a few similarities, and in 1962 there was growing opposition to the death penalty anyway. The irony is that Hanratty’s hanging gave that opposition a boost and it became a contributory factor in abolition.

If you had sat on the jury would you not have had a nagging doubt that the person who asked Mrs Dinwoodie for directions might have been Hanratty? And that he did so on the afternoon of 22 August 1961?

If that be the case would you not also have had doubts as to the ability of Valerie Storie to make a positive identification, particularly bearing in mind that she had already made one mis-identification before picking out Hanratty.

You might be 95% certain that Hanratty was guilty, but would you have been 100%?

[GUT]

If you had sat on the jury would you not have had a nagging doubt that the person who asked Mrs Dinwoodie for directions might have been Hanratty? And that he did so on the afternoon of 22 August 1961?

If that be the case would you not also have had doubts as to the ability of Valerie Storie to make a positive identification, particularly bearing in mind that she had already made one mis-identification before picking out Hanratty.

You might be 95% certain that Hanratty was guilty, but would you have been 100%?

G'day Spitfire

But 100% certainty is not necessary to obtain a conviction.

[NickB]

I don't think I would have had many doubts about Dinwoodie. Peripheral musings about an air flight and bought alibi have been blown out of all proportion and are now presented as if they were the prosecution's main position on the sweetshop incident. They weren't.

The central and overriding point made at the trial by Acott and the prosecution about this incident was that they believed it occurred on August 21, and that therefore the visitor to the shop could not be Hanratty.

When Sherrard asked him about Olive Dinwoodie, Acott said: “She had always maintained to the police that the conversation took place on August 21 – not August 22.” Sherrard responded that he intended calling her as a witness. Mrs Dinwoodie duly appeared and said she was ‘certain’ it was August 21.

Valerie's mis-identification on the first ID parade would have presented a bigger problem.

The judge in his summing up said:
“You will bear in mind that there was a wrong identification on September 24. You heard evidence given by a doctor as to her condition on that day and you heard Superintendent Acott say that if he could have postponed that identification parade on September 24 he would have, but he felt he must hold it because Alphon had been in custody for some 36 hours and he did not want him to be left in suspense.”

This seems a strange explanation to me because after the id parade Alphon was kept in custody anyway in respect of the assault on Meike Dalal.

[Sherlock Houses]

I don't think I would have had many doubts about Dinwoodie. Peripheral musings about an air flight and bought alibi have been blown out of all proportion and are now presented as if they were the prosecution's main position on the sweetshop incident. They weren't.

The central and overriding point made at the trial by Acott and the prosecution about this incident was that they believed it occurred on August 21, and that therefore the visitor to the shop could not be Hanratty.

When Sherrard asked him about Olive Dinwoodie, Acott said: “She had always maintained to the police that the conversation took place on August 21 – not August 22.” Sherrard responded that he intended calling her as a witness. Mrs Dinwoodie duly appeared and said she was ‘certain’ it was August 21.

Paragraph copied from page 197 of Paul Foot's 1971 book [my embolderisation].......

"There is some independent evidence to suggest that in those early days Mrs Dinwoodie was in grave doubt as to the date of the incident [ie. the sweetshop encounter]. Mr Don Smith, one of Liverpool's most experienced crime reporters, who was working at that time for the Daily Herald, heard from a police contact that the Liverpool C.I.D. had found a lady who appeared to substantiate Hanratty's alibi. At once, Smith went to interview Mrs Dinwoodie at her home. He believes he was the first journalist ever to speak to her. 'She told me,' he says, 'that she was, at first, fairly sure that the man had come into the shop on the Tuesday, the day of the murder; but that now so many people had been asking so many questions, she wasn't so sure.' "

The only possible reason for Mrs Dinwoodie settling for the Monday was because of Hanratty's remark that there had been a little girl (Barbara Ford, her granddaughter} helping her in the shop. Barbara was in the shop on the Tuesday also [with her friend Linda Walton] between 4'ish and 5'ish, and although not working behind the counter that day she would venture behind it occasionally to serve children lolly-ices and sweets while her grandmother was very busy serving adults. As we all know Mrs Dinwoodie only served in the shop that Monday and Tuesday. It is beyond any doubt [unless every London witness was lying] that Hanratty was in London all day on the Monday so the conversation between Mrs Dinwoodie and Jimmy Hanratty had to have been on the Tuesday afternoon/early evening. Even Acott admitted as much.

Attached is a different [from the one published in Paul Foot's book] view of the Scotland Road sweetshop. If you look closely you will be able to see the proprietor's name above the shop's entrance.

[NickB]

The only possible reason for Mrs Dinwoodie settling for the Monday was because of Hanratty's remark that there had been a little girl (Barbara Ford, her granddaughter} helping her in the shop.

She changed her mind in order to fit in with what Hanratty said! Why would she do that?

[Derrick]

She changed her mind in order to fit in with what Hanratty said! Why would she do that?

Hi Nick

It all goes back to the committal at Ampthill. Sherrard finally found out about Mrs Dinwoodie and laid into Mr MacDermott as to why she hadn't been called as a witness.

MacDermott lamely said that Mrs Dinwoodie's evidence didn't impact on the material time of the murder.

Sherrard questioned Acott about this and Acott was caught out in his lie about Mrs Dinwoodie being ill from the 22nd.

Sherrard announced that the defence had in fact contacted Mrs Dinwoodie's doctor, ironically called Dr Ryan, to ascertain exactly when she had become ill, which was later on the evening of the 22nd, around 7pm. Acott finally confessed that he had the same information.

The key witness is Linda Walton. She said that on the Tuesday, she and Barbara had gone into the shop just after 4pm and stayed for about an hour. She also said that Barbara would serve behind the counter during that time when Barbara's nan was busy.

This is the evidence that fully corroborates the sweetshop part of Hanratty's alibi. Because of that it was up to the defence to call Mrs Dinwoodie, because the prosecution couldn't and they knew damn well why.

I can hear Swanwick and Acott starting the plane now!

Del

[NickB]

But if Mrs Dinwoodie was an honest witness (as both sides believed she was) I do not understand why she would say it was the Monday in order to fit in with Hanratty’s story. It doesn’t make sense.

Telling the court it was the Monday was a success for the prosecution, not the defence.

PS – Does anyone have Don Smith’s interview with her in the Daily Herald?

[Sherlock Houses]

This is the evidence that fully corroborates the sweetshop part of Hanratty's alibi. Because of that it was up to the defence to call Mrs Dinwoodie, because the prosecution couldn't and they knew damn well why.

I can hear Swanwick and Acott starting the plane now!

I can hear them starting that plane too. Or was it a specially chartered helicopter ?

"If Mrs Dinwoodie saw him, it must have been on 22 August. I had Mrs Dinwoodie's statement double-checked by a further inquiry. Mrs Dinwoodie is a perfectly respectable and responsible citizen."----Acott's testimony at the Committal Proceedings at Ampthill in December 1961.

Paul Foot used to reassure Michael Hanratty that if ever he had occasion to harbour any doubts at all about his brother's innocence to just remember Mrs Dinwoodie. Paul was absolutely spot on.

[NickB]

"If Mrs Dinwoodie saw him (i.e. Hanratty) it must have been on 22 August." That is undeniable.

But Acott did not believe she had seen Hanratty, he believed she had seen someone else visit the shop on 21 August.

In Mrs Dinwoodie's statement on 17-Oct-61 she said “it was definitely the Monday”. So when he double-checked the statement he was double-checking that the incident happened on the Monday.

Sherrard was obviously hoping to get her to say something different in court, but instead she reiterated her certainty that it was the Monday.