Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A6 Rebooted

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • FISHY1118
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    Hi Derrick,

    But Hanratty only claimed to be in Liverpool, and later Rhyl, when his semen (unless evidence to the contrary surfaces) was being deposited on a woman's underwear considerably further south.

    There must have been a reason for Hanratty to suddenly decide he had gone on to Rhyl. Now if you accept that he genuinely had been asking for Liverpool's Tarleton St, while in Liverpool, and was also familiar with Rhyl's seafront and the roads leading directly off it, do you not find it a trifle odd that he said nothing, while fighting for his life during the trial, about asking for those rather specific directions before moving on to Rhyl, and then gave Rhyl, with its own very easy-to-find Tarleton St, as his shiny new improved alibi, when Liverpool's example could surely have saved his neck if only he had thought to mention his enquiry there?

    None of it smells right and the jury smelled rotten fish.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    I wanted to go back and see where all this started caz, wow 11 years ago and over 6000 post .

    Leave a comment:


  • Spitfire
    replied
    Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot 2022-05-11 at 12.30.19.jpeg
Views:	1265
Size:	144.4 KB
ID:	785673 Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot 2022-05-11 at 12.30.43.jpeg
Views:	1277
Size:	233.8 KB
ID:	785674
    The above is an extract of Mr Matthews' evidence given in the Court of Appeal in 2002 which I have taken from Rob Harriman's book. Mr Matthews was called by Mr Mansfield to give evidence in support of the appeal.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Hi All,

    Please excuse my ignorance, but is it known whether Matthews commented publicly on the case again after the 2002 Appeal Judgement, which included the DNA evidence?

    I do acknowledge the problems with the original investigation and trial, and why there was a need for a second appeal, to test the various arguments for a serious miscarriage of justice. The Hanratty family must have been convinced at one time, along with so many others, that DNA would finally clear their Jim's name. Presumably Matthews, judging by his comments to the Daily Mail in May 1999, thought the same at that time?

    I'm just trying to get my own head round how some the most staunch Hanratty defenders got round the fact that when his body was exhumed in October 2000, his DNA proved a match to what was found on the surviving fragment of underwear and the hankie, and the staining on both items was said to be consistent with Hanratty having raped Valerie and hidden the murder weapon on the bus with his own used hankie. I do struggle with how those results could have been artificially engineered by a corrupt individual or series of individuals, between August 1961 and 2000, or how two accidental contamination incidents could have produced a result that appeared definitive and also confirmed Valerie's certainty that the wrong man was not hanged.

    By all means continue to argue that Hanratty ought to have been acquitted due to the incompetence of those involved in 1962, but that wouldn't make him innocent or Alphon guilty. Where is the third man?

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    https://fb.watch/cWrHq8wBY4/ Roy Ramm showing the kind of passion for the death of Yvonne Fletcher, that he most likely witnessed in his Chief Superintendent Mathews in 1996 after the Hanratty investigation.

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    Originally posted by cobalt View Post
    In the news clipping Commander Roy Ramm is described as being head of Scotland Yard's international and organised crime group. (Which makes it sound like a criminal enterprise in its own right!)
    Ramm was the man that Roger Matthews reported to in terms of his A6 investigation. I notice that the word 'organised' was highlighted in green and wonder whether this was of any significance?
    I wondered about that also . (Looking him over on youtube he seems a similar type to Woffinden, could even be brothers.) Interesting that he resigned from the Met as Mathews's boss on completion of that officers one year investigation into the Hanratty case,in 1996, after the release/leak to the press of his reports findings. another coincidence??

    Leave a comment:


  • cobalt
    replied
    In the news clipping Commander Roy Ramm is described as being head of Scotland Yard's international and organised crime group. (Which makes it sound like a criminal enterprise in its own right!)
    Ramm was the man that Roger Matthews reported to in terms of his A6 investigation. I notice that the word 'organised' was highlighted in green and wonder whether this was of any significance?

    Leave a comment:


  • Spitfire
    replied
    Originally posted by djw View Post
    The Ministry of Justice have responded that they do not hold the information and the Home Office previously said they do not either. A search on the National Archives brings up a variety of results.

    Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
    DAILY MAIL ARTICLE PUBLISHED UNDER THE TITLE "THEY HANGED
    THE WRONG MAN" (May 1999) . .written by Roger Matthews on the report he produced in 1996 after a year's research during which he led a team of 20 as Detective Chief Superintendent Roger Matthews of Scotland Yard.

    Finally, as I dug still deeper, I came across matters that concerned me profoundly about the conduct of the investigation. It would be wholly improper for me to reveal details before the appeal hearing. Mention of KIP. Original notes of phone calls. The hotel register (copy). Disparity between evidence of SIO and Oxford. The manner in which a J Ryan was traced smelled of informant. Postcard utterly impossible

    Eventually, I acquainted my senior officers with my conclusion: a quite breathtaking miscarriage of justice had seemed to have taken place; just as Hanratty's family, friends and several distinguished writers had always maintained.

    My views were endorsed by my then Commander, Roy Ramm, head of the Yard's International and Organized Crime Group. In May 1996, we reported jointly and formally that the Metropolitan Police would not oppose a Home Office recommendation to the Home Secretary advising him to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. I was assured that a decision would be arrived at ''within weeks".

    This did not happen. Politicians had dodged the issue for over thirty years. The incumbent at the Home Office obviously saw no reason to depart from tradition. . .
    In April 1997 - perhaps appropriately on the 1st - a new body called the Criminal Cases Review Commission was set up. The matter was placed in their hands.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot 2022-05-10 at 13.10.18.jpg
Views:	1261
Size:	238.5 KB
ID:	785612

    Hello DJW,

    I have posted a quote from NatalieSevern above re the "Matthews Report" which purportedly was quoted from the Daily Mail in May 1999. I have also posted the actual section of the Daily Mail of 8th May 1999. You will see the differences, but the point I make is that the report was not solely the report of Roger Matthews and therefore may not be known as that by the Minister of Justice. It may be the report by Ramm and Matthews or by the Metropolitan Police. Also are we sure of the date of the report being 29th May 1996.

    You may have better luck making a request to the M of J for any written report to the Home Office or the M of J relating to the safety of the conviction of James Hanratty in 1962 and made by the Metropolitan Police or any police officer or police force in or about May 1996.

    Spitfire

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Fair enough, cobalt.

    But the prosecution case was made and made again in 2002, when it was upheld, with nobody disputing the elimination of the only other suspect, Peter Alphon. If the case had still not been strong enough, with the DNA evidence, to remove any remaining doubt in Hanratty's guilt, there would surely have been some way of obtaining a further appeal, and indeed a few years back on these boards we were told to expect one. I don't recall anyone with the required legal clout pushing robustly and repeatedly for a third appeal and being rebuffed every time by the powers that be, but maybe I missed it.

    I appreciate that you think Valerie was simply mistaken, and would agree with me that she'd have hated the idea of identifying the wrong man, leaving a rapist and murderer free to hurt others. But while she was still very much alive there were all sorts of attacks here on her honesty, accusing her of deliberate lies and deception. If I had been in her shoes - or rather, her wheelchair - and I'd read what people were saying openly all those years later, I'd have been sorely tempted to take action. But as such accusations invariably came from posters hiding their identity behind a pseudonym, she was intelligent enough not to treat any of them seriously.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • cobalt
    replied
    Indeed, point taken! I also wrote that Valerie Storie possibly unwittingly sent an innocent man to his death but that is incorrect: the decision to carry out the full force of the law was made by the judicial system; Ms. Storie was merely a witness within that process.

    I don’t see myself as a loyal defender of James Hanratty, more a person who is unconvinced that justice was done in this particular case. If the prosecution case is strong enough then it should be able to contend with the issue of William Ewer’s settlement with the Sunday Times newspaper being made public, as well as the Matthews Report as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by cobalt View Post
    Miss Storie died a few years ago so that difficulty has been removed.
    I realise Valerie's identification of Hanratty continues to be a 'difficulty' for his loyal defenders, but that sentence of yours could have been worded a bit more sensitively, cobalt!

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • djw
    replied
    The Ministry of Justice have responded that they do not hold the information and the Home Office previously said they do not either. A search on the National Archives brings up a variety of results.

    Leave a comment:


  • djw
    replied
    The FOI to the Ministry of Justice is https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...coming-2014529

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    Originally posted by cobalt View Post
    It would seem the report is held either by The Ministry of Justice or The National Archive. I assume there are other copies in existence aside from Matthews’ personal one.

    The reluctance to publish the report in 1996 would have centred on two issues. One would have been the damage to the reputation of UK justice, although mistakes can be admitted to so long as they can be attributed to older methods and practices no longer in use. The other consideration would have been the impact on the undisputed victim of the A6 Case, Valerie Storie, who possibly unwittingly sent an innocent man to his death.

    Miss Storie died a few years ago so that difficulty has been removed. However another problem has arisen in regard to the 2002 Appeal which was dismissed largely on DNA evidence. If the Matthews Report undermines the subsequent DNA evidence presented at appeal then there are serious implications for the criminal justice system, in which DNA evidence is regarded as something of a gold standard.

    Valerie gone But then there is the two Gregsten boys

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    Wow. Any old crutch will do to procrastinate in this case they must thanking god for Covid wonderful example of choking bureaucracy

    Leave a comment:


  • cobalt
    replied
    It would seem the report is held either by The Ministry of Justice or The National Archive. I assume there are other copies in existence aside from Matthews’ personal one.

    The reluctance to publish the report in 1996 would have centred on two issues. One would have been the damage to the reputation of UK justice, although mistakes can be admitted to so long as they can be attributed to older methods and practices no longer in use. The other consideration would have been the impact on the undisputed victim of the A6 Case, Valerie Storie, who possibly unwittingly sent an innocent man to his death.

    Miss Storie died a few years ago so that difficulty has been removed. However another problem has arisen in regard to the 2002 Appeal which was dismissed largely on DNA evidence. If the Matthews Report undermines the subsequent DNA evidence presented at appeal then there are serious implications for the criminal justice system, in which DNA evidence is regarded as something of a gold standard.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X