A6 Rebooted

[cobalt]

Einstein was once asked why he did not make his Theory of Relativity easier for the ordinary person to understand. He replied that if he could have done that he would; but he couldn’t.

I think the same applies to the phrase ‘beyond reasonable doubt.’ It’s as near as we can come to try and define what is a fair verdict but it probably means slightly different things to different people. The phrase does not demand complete and utter certainty: that would be rare in a complex murder case. Nor does it mean ‘on the balance of probabilities’ which is the civil law test for a verdict and too low a bar.

I assume ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ lies somewhere in between these two, when a person has reached a settled verdict and is confident within themselves that it is the correct one. The A6 jury might have reached the wrong verdict but it was not a perverse judgment. The testimony of Valerie Storie would have carried a great deal of weight and the change of alibi by Hanratty might have tilted the jury against him.

[ansonman]

Hi Caz,

i certainly agree with you about 12 Angry Men.

It just seems odd to me that the jury in the Hanratty case deliberated for six hours before asking the judge such a fundamental question.

Bear in mind also the fact that immediately before sending the jury out to deliberate, the judge emphasized the importance of reaching a verdict beyond reasonable doubt.

Going back to the film, let’s not forget that we’re it not for Fonda’s determination to examine the evidence as carefully as possible, the jury would have found the defendant guilty. Hanratty could have done with having a Fonda as a member of the jury in his trial.

[caz]

Even if there was a whistleblower the establishment wouldn't want to hear about it. Just ask Mandy Rice-Davies.

Where I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall is in the Grand Jury Room during the deliberations of the jury to consider their verdict. Storie had told them point blank that Hanratty was the man who murdered Gregsten and raped and attempted to murder her. There was absolutely no doubt in her mind that he was guilty and she should know. That's pretty compelling stuff for any jury.

And yet.

Six hours after commencing their deliberations the jury returned to the courtroom to ask the judge: "May we have a further statement from you regarding the definition of reasonable doubt? Must we be certain and sure of the prisoner's guilt to return a verdict?" Would it be unreasonable to assume that at this stage there was a 50/50 split in the minds of the jurors? There must have been a significant difference of opinion for them to ask the just such a fundamental question after six hours of deliberation.

They also asked the judge about the cartridge cases and he said to them, "Those cartridge cases, it is said, were left before 24 August. They were not found until 11 September. You have heard that another person used that room, that there were other people in the hotel, that there was a way outside from this bedroom, and you must not jump to the conclusion that the mere finding of those cartridge cases there denotes that they were left there by the prisoner".

It would be almost another four hours before the jury reached its verdict. The just asked if the guilty verdict was the verdict of them all and was told that it was. I wonder if that really was the case or whether some of the jury members simply caved in and went with the majority.

Hi ansonman,

I would be disgusted if I thought any jury member 'simply caved in and went with the majority', when the man's life was at stake. Had they not seen the incredible Twelve Angry Men, which was released in 1957? Henry Fonda won the British Academy Film Award for Best Foreign Actor, and the film was nominated for the Best Film Award. It would probably be in my top ten films ever made.

The fact that the question about reasonable doubt was asked makes me think the jury considered the case carefully and responsibly before deciding on their verdict.

Love,

Caz
X

[ansonman]

I don't have much time for the monarchy or the establishment, ansonman, and I am not one to 'buy' into any shameful attempts by politicians to deceive and corrupt.

However, I do have to consider the evidence in the A6 case, and find it hard to see how it could have been conjured up, concealed, destroyed or otherwise manipulated, right from the night of the crime to the 2002 appeal, by an establishment who needed to make an example of a petty criminal like Hanratty, knowing he was likely to have been innocent all along. If the only other potential suspect, Alphon, who was eliminated to most people's satisfaction, had been a royal, a pampered aristocrat or an MP, I might well have smelled something rotten in the whole sad story.

I'm totally against capital punishment for several reasons, but it was the law back then and all those not directly involved with the case could not have been held responsible for Hanratty being hanged, if they were later in a position of authority and suspected a miscarriage of justice. Would they all have felt personally or professionally obliged to protect and defend those who had gone before, for hanging a man who may not have been guilty? Possibly, as fully paid up members of the old boy network, but I'd like to think there would be at least one whistleblower in there somewhere, if there were genuine concerns about the evidence used to convict, and to keep him convicted to this day.

Love,

Caz
X

Even if there was a whistleblower the establishment wouldn't want to hear about it. Just ask Mandy Rice-Davies.

Where I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall is in the Grand Jury Room during the deliberations of the jury to consider their verdict. Storie had told them point blank that Hanratty was the man who murdered Gregsten and raped and attempted to murder her. There was absolutely no doubt in her mind that he was guilty and she should know. That's pretty compelling stuff for any jury.

And yet.

Six hours after commencing their deliberations the jury returned to the courtroom to ask the judge: "May we have a further statement from you regarding the definition of reasonable doubt? Must we be certain and sure of the prisoner's guilt to return a verdict?" Would it be unreasonable to assume that at this stage there was a 50/50 split in the minds of the jurors? There must have been a significant difference of opinion for them to ask the just such a fundamental question after six hours of deliberation.

They also asked the judge about the cartridge cases and he said to them, "Those cartridge cases, it is said, were left before 24 August. They were not found until 11 September. You have heard that another person used that room, that there were other people in the hotel, that there was a way outside from this bedroom, and you must not jump to the conclusion that the mere finding of those cartridge cases there denotes that they were left there by the prisoner".

It would be almost another four hours before the jury reached its verdict. The just asked if the guilty verdict was the verdict of them all and was told that it was. I wonder if that really was the case or whether some of the jury members simply caved in and went with the majority.

[cobalt]

Hi Caz,
Always good to hear from you and I mean that sincerely, as Hughie Green used to say. It is easier to come on a site like this and plead for the accused than it is for a person who believes justice has done and believes a line has been drawn under the matter. You must believe in justice to do so and I respect that motive.

Nonetheless I think the evidence has been exactly as you described: ‘’However, I do have to consider the evidence in the A6 case, and find it hard to see how it could have been conjured up, concealed, destroyed.’

You make my case: Conjured up, concealed, and destroyed: That’s what I think happened in the A6 Case. Somewhere in that police basement is a cartridge case from the Vienna Hotel but it will never be subject to modern DNA analysis which might reveal fingerprints. Anymore than the reason detectives arrived at Swiss Cottage one fine afternoon.

There are gaping holes in the prosecution case from 1962 which not even DNA has been able to fill.

[caz]

Agree with all that you say Cobalt.

Somewhat late in the day, and certainly later than most, I am part way through The Crown on Netflix and have now reached the stage of the wedding of Charles and Diana. For me, the accuracy of the events covered in the series and the amount of research undertaken by those who produced it is second to none. Two things really hit home to me. The first is the extent to which the Royal Family and politicians will do anything to keep the truth from the public in order to preserve the monarchy and the establishment. The second is the extent to which the Great British Public buy into this deceit and suck it up like babies on the teat. The series is as much about political events in Britain as it is about the monarchy and both are exposed as being corrupt and shameful. Hanratty didn't stand a chance.

I don't have much time for the monarchy or the establishment, ansonman, and I am not one to 'buy' into any shameful attempts by politicians to deceive and corrupt.

However, I do have to consider the evidence in the A6 case, and find it hard to see how it could have been conjured up, concealed, destroyed or otherwise manipulated, right from the night of the crime to the 2002 appeal, by an establishment who needed to make an example of a petty criminal like Hanratty, knowing he was likely to have been innocent all along. If the only other potential suspect, Alphon, who was eliminated to most people's satisfaction, had been a royal, a pampered aristocrat or an MP, I might well have smelled something rotten in the whole sad story.

I'm totally against capital punishment for several reasons, but it was the law back then and all those not directly involved with the case could not have been held responsible for Hanratty being hanged, if they were later in a position of authority and suspected a miscarriage of justice. Would they all have felt personally or professionally obliged to protect and defend those who had gone before, for hanging a man who may not have been guilty? Possibly, as fully paid up members of the old boy network, but I'd like to think there would be at least one whistleblower in there somewhere, if there were genuine concerns about the evidence used to convict, and to keep him convicted to this day.

Love,

Caz
X

[moste]

Excellent info. SH. Kindly thank Helen from us all.

There must have been a family issue where swearing to secrecy became important , none of our business of course. Anyhow the one photo of Michael as a younger man satisfies me at least that Valerie Storie did not know what her assailant looked like, and consequently was happy to send Hanratty to his death based on the tone and accent of his voice. But again, good job old chap.

[Sherlock Houses]

Re. Michael Clark.....


Dr. Ian Rennie would definitely not have made a reliable witness in an Identification Parade if his recall of Michael Clark was anything to go by. He described Michael as having 'light fairish hair' when in actual fact he had very dark hair. Very recently I received a response from Michael's step-sister to a letter I sent her several weeks ago. I will let her letter speak for itself. I can safely say Michael Clark looked nothing at all like James Hanratty........

[ansonman]

Agree with all that you say Cobalt.

Somewhat late in the day, and certainly later than most, I am part way through The Crown on Netflix and have now reached the stage of the wedding of Charles and Diana. For me, the accuracy of the events covered in the series and the amount of research undertaken by those who produced it is second to none. Two things really hit home to me. The first is the extent to which the Royal Family and politicians will do anything to keep the truth from the public in order to preserve the monarchy and the establishment. The second is the extent to which the Great British Public buy into this deceit and suck it up like babies on the teat. The series is as much about political events in Britain as it is about the monarchy and both are exposed as being corrupt and shameful. Hanratty didn't stand a chance.

[cobalt]

Home Secretaries come and go but they all place politics before justice. Frank Soskice was a very good example: as a Labour shadow minister he called for a new inquiry into the Timothy Evans case, but once he became Home Secretary he changed his mind!

The Birmingham Six appeal was eventually upheld in 1991 allegedly on the grounds of new evidence. There was plenty evidence to undermine the conviction before that date- and even more so in the case of the Guildford Four- but the political climate was not right to do so earlier. The persons responsible for the Birmingham bombings are now fairly well known- one has even admitted responsibility on youtube- but there is no political appetite to pursue them through the courts. Especially since the guilty men would have been known to the police back in 1974 and for the most part slipped through the net.

I think two people slipped through the net of the A6 Case in 1961, Alphon by the skin of his teeth. I agree the judicial system could admit these failings after a period of time but there is no political benefit in doing so. There was no potential Good Friday Agreement lying in the road ahead as quid pro quo for admitting failure in the A6 Case in 1997. To chuck in some more schoolboy Latin - cui bono?

The 2002 Appeal judgment was intended to draw a political line under the case and use high tech LCN DNA to dazzle we cynics into submission. It has succeeded in so far as the general public is concerned whose interest wanes with the passing years obviously. How many people under 60 are engaged enough to come on to this site and express a considered opinion?

[djw]

Would the Matthews report be subject to the Official Secrets Act? The BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57998950) state the act 'cover[s] areas including security and intelligence, defence and international relations.' Hanrattys case was a civilian murder criminal case (whilst the death penalty remained).

The closest section would seem to be Section 4 of the 1989 Official Secrets act which relates to disclosure of information which would assist a criminal or the commission of a crime. However it had been over thirty years since active criminal investigations concluded (and Hanratty executed) and over twenty years since the last official enquiry.

On the potential embarrassment to British justice for any miscarriage of justice, Paul Foot talks it up in this 1997 LRB article (https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v19/n24/paul-foot/diary). However, unlike the Birmingham 6 who were released, in the A6 murder there was nobody to release from prison in the event the conviction was overturned.

On the potential embarrassment to the Home office over the Hanratty case specifically, there had been over ten changes of Home Secretary and twenty years since the Hawser report. Why did the Home Office agree to any revisit, why not just ignore the Woffinden-Bindman documentary/dossier submitted?

Would ten different home secretaries be aware of police malpractice in the Hanratty case but any risk themselves to cover for one particular instance of police malpractice or investigatory shortcomings all the while agreeing to commissioning three public enquiries at great cost to increase the risk of exposure of this?

I think it unlikely that a dodgy id parade and a couple of planted bits of evidence for fitting up in the singular Hanratty case, exposes systematic corruption beyond what was known of in the 1990s at a police level let alone a civil service, home office level. A year after the Matthews report, the Stephen Lawrence enquiry found the current police 'institutionally racist' but the Home Office then or now, cannot admit 'long-retired or deceased officers got it wrong in one case in 1962 but we abolished capital punishment shortly after'. Or a multi decade grudge against the Hanratty family campaign for what? Anti-Irish sentiment? See the Birmingham 6, that prejudice did not justify coverups.

In any case, the findings of the Matthews report seemed leaked to the press by 1997. The official secrets act prosecutions were against spies, or journalists reporting on spy related activity e.g David Shayler in 1997

[Limehouse]

Hello all, nice to see the debate is still going! I can't remember when I last logged in. So it's 60 years since James Hanratty was on trial and it only seems like months ago we were commenting on the 50th anniversary. How times races along. It's good to see there are still people speaking up for James. Sadly, I do not think we will ever see this case resolved. Of course, officially, James was guilty as charged, but it cannot be denied that there are questions to be asked about the nature of the investigation and the safeness of Hanratty's conviction. Stay safe all.

[Spitfire]

Sixty years ago today the trial of James Hanratty for the capital murder of Michael Gregsten began.

[Spitfire]

From Private Eye March 1972.

[cobalt]

'''At the 2002 appeal it was said that the DNA evidence served to make a strong case even stronger.''

This is standard wording by the UK legal system when they uphold a dodgy case. To quote Lord Lane in 1988 after turning down an appeal by the Birmingham Six: ‘ …the longer this hearing has gone on the more convinced this court has become that the verdict of the jury was correct.’ The intention is to discourage any further appeals in respect of that particular case which is then considered closed. Fortunately for justice, it doesn’t always turn out that way.

Lane was junior counsel for the prosecution at the A6 trial. He had a long track record of turning down appeals- Timothy Evans, The Guildford Four, Winston Silcott- only for the appeals to be later upheld. So there would be no prizes for guessing his take on the A6 Case. So whenever you hear that ‘strong case stronger’ mantra it’s a good idea to keep digging. It’s obvious any contemporary photograph of Michael Clark cannot help the prosecution case. Otherwise in the 40 years between the crime and the vaunted 2002 judgment that photo would have appeared when, to borrow Caz’s metaphor, the A6 cake was crumbling.

Suppression of evidence has been a feature of the A6 Case: the sightings of the car and mileage recordings which were not passed on to the defence; a photograph of a green hat in the boot of the car which is acknowledged but I don’t think has ever seen the light of day; Dixie Francis’ suicide note; the reasons for plain clothes officers to visit Swiss Cottage arcade prior to the discovery at the Vienna Hotel; the 90 year (?) embargo placed on Ewer’s settlement with a national newspaper; the Matthews Report. And of course Clark’s photograph.