A6 Rebooted

[djw]

I was able to view this Sky History documentary ['The guilty innocent'] last night and for me it left loads to be desired. I could hardly believe the amount of screen time that was allotted to the smug ex-policeman Paul Stickler, he seemed to take over proceedings. It's clear to me that his knowledge and understanding of this complex murder mystery is superficial and he is definitely not a stickler for accuracy. Rhyl is definitely not a 40 minute drive from Liverpool Mr Stickler and Michael Gregsten was not shot through the back of the head but through his left temple and lower left ear. That's besides all the errors and assumptions he made in a youtube video of his which I watched about a year or so ago.

Was it the 1m22 video at at https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GgBbV_SckxA

I'd be interested in any inaccuracies including in the Eryberrie video as I'll likely go to the Chichester talk.

[caz]

I've just finished watching this documentary...

A shocking miscarriage of justice which has caused untold damage and suffering to an innocent man incarcerated for so long.
Lasting shame on the Greater Manchester Police. Unforgivable.
Lasting shame on the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Unforgivable.
How many more innocent people have been fitted up by the police and languishing behind prison walls with little hope of obtaining justice ??

Hi SH,

I could not agree more. The documentary shocked me. I was so angry that this level of corruption and injustice could still happen, well into the 21st century.

The rather crucial difference I saw with Hanratty's case was that Andrew Malkinson was provably innocent, and provably fitted up by the Greater Manchester Police, allowing a highly dangerous sexual predator to remain uncaught for all those years. The DNA didn't lie; policemen did, under pressure to get someone for this serious crime and claiming there was no DNA evidence, relying instead on mistaken identification evidence from the victim, which would not have been enough had they not falsely obtained supporting evidence from two dodgy characters who were 'persuaded' to act as witnesses. There was a DNA profile on the victim's vest top, which wasn't Malkinson's. Unfortunately for the police, samples had previously been taken and retained, and the DNA was later matched via the national database to a Mr. B who lived in the vicinity of the attack and was unknown to the victim, so this man should have been picked up and investigated a very long time ago. There appeared to be no timeline for when Malkinson might expect to be fully compensated for having had his life and good name ruined, nor any reassurance that Mr. B was not still alive or a potential threat to the public.

I thought the Post Office scandal was about as bad as it gets, but this tops it: one innocent man coming up against a brick wall of organised evil, which not only destroyed him but left an evil man at large.

The equivalent with Hanratty would have been identifying Alphon's DNA on the victim's underwear, or the DNA of anyone other than Hanratty who was unknown to Valerie Storie, and destroying it after claiming there was no DNA evidence.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sherlock Houses]

Some sad news to report with the passing on Saturday evening of Michael Hanratty's dear wife Maureen. She was 79 and had been suffering badly from breathing problems for the last couple of years or so. Just like Michael [Mick] and the rest of the Hanratty family she was a passionate believer in James's innocence.

[cobalt]

I saw an interview where Malkinson raised an issue I have commented on here in regard to the A6 Case. Malkinson thought that a body independent of the police should hold evidence obtained in criminal cases. There is a history of evidence disappearing whilst in police hands, or occasionally popping up in a police basement to bolster a disputed case.

[Sherlock Houses]

Anyone who hasn’t watched the BBC 2 documentary on the 17 year conviction of Andrew Malkinson aired tonight needs to view.

lt’s got Hanratty all over it.

I've just finished watching this documentary...

A shocking miscarriage of justice which has caused untold damage and suffering to an innocent man incarcerated for so long.
Lasting shame on the Greater Manchester Police. Unforgivable.
Lasting shame on the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Unforgivable.
How many more innocent people have been fitted up by the police and languishing behind prison walls with little hope of obtaining justice ??

[ansonman]

Anyone who hasn’t watched the BBC 2 documentary on the 17 year conviction of Andrew Malkinson aired tonight needs to view.

lt’s got Hanratty all over it.

[moste]

I was able to view this Sky History documentary ['The guilty innocent'] last night and for me it left loads to be desired. I could hardly believe the amount of screen time that was allotted to the smug ex-policeman Paul Stickler, he seemed to take over proceedings. It's clear to me that his knowledge and understanding of this complex murder mystery is superficial and he is definitely not a stickler for accuracy. Rhyl is definitely not a 40 minute drive from Liverpool Mr Stickler and Michael Gregsten was not shot through the back of the head but through his left temple and lower left ear. That's besides all the errors and assumptions he made in a youtube video of his which I watched about a year or so ago.

I am always aghast at the lack of care that goes into a case such as this. I watched a short intro into Sticklers obvious attempt at assassination of Hanratty’s case. The actual bullet penetration was only 1/2 an inch apart, below the left ear lobe . and exiting slightly lower on other side of face. His brain actually was not impacted. So death occurred as a result of broken jugular, and he bled to death. Just to clear that up. Stickler was arrogant and clearly biased with his views. The shooting of Gregsten , I have always advocated had all the hallmarks of an assassination, Stories statement did not jive with this speculation.

[mpriestnall]

I was able to view this Sky History documentary ['The guilty innocent'] last night and for me it left loads to be desired. I could hardly believe the amount of screen time that was allotted to the smug ex-policeman Paul Stickler, he seemed to take over proceedings. It's clear to me that his knowledge and understanding of this complex murder mystery is superficial and he is definitely not a stickler for accuracy. Rhyl is definitely not a 40 minute drive from Liverpool Mr Stickler and Michael Gregsten was not shot through the back of the head but through his left temple and lower left ear. That's besides all the errors and assumptions he made in a youtube video of his which I watched about a year or so ago.

Not a stickler for facts then? Sorry couldn't resist.

[Sherlock Houses]

I was able to view this Sky History documentary ['The guilty innocent'] last night and for me it left loads to be desired. I could hardly believe the amount of screen time that was allotted to the smug ex-policeman Paul Stickler, he seemed to take over proceedings. It's clear to me that his knowledge and understanding of this complex murder mystery is superficial and he is definitely not a stickler for accuracy. Rhyl is definitely not a 40 minute drive from Liverpool Mr Stickler and Michael Gregsten was not shot through the back of the head but through his left temple and lower left ear. That's besides all the errors and assumptions he made in a youtube video of his which I watched about a year or so ago.

[NickB]

Roger Matthews makes a brief appearance on the Channel.4 programme, at around the 44 minute mark.

Hanratty's parents met George Davis when Peter Hain was promoting a book about wrongful identification ...

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-liberal-leader-peter-hain-centre-who-was-arrested-and-tried-for-a-106878049.html

[moste]

I thought a mini series would be needed a movie couldn’t be long enough.maybe 8 50 minutes episodes.
on the Roger Mathews thing ,his whole one year sabbatical on the Hanratty trail died with him then it seems.until accessible when the cows come home.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock - I did the same last night and soon came to the same conclusion. A decent enough introductory overview of the case and the key participants for a newcomer but nothing informative or revealing for those already having a basic knowledge. Inevitably for a 60 minute programme (including several sets of adverts) reviewing such a complicated case from over sixty years ago, there just wasn't sufficient time to probe any aspects in depth whilst some weren't included at all.

Two points about Valerie Storie's ID of James Hanratty:

1. As mentioned on the programme, the old chestnut of brown eyes changing to blue and whether this was Valerie misremembering or a copper's c0ck up; and

2. Not mentioned on the programme but highly significant to me in casting doubt upon her subsequent ''certain'' identification of Hanratty, Valerie attended an earlier parade in which she picked out an innocent volunteer. As only one man killed Michael Gregsten and raped Valerie, there was only one man in the world whom she could properly pick out; if he wasn't on the first parade or she was unsure, she should have picked no one. For me, picking the wrong man the first time considerably lessened her credibility when she picked Hanratty on the second parade.


Like you, I found the George Davis programme more interesting and enjoyable although it did seem to give Davis an easy ride. Whilst quashing his conviction in 2011 due in the main to concerns about police identifications, the Court of Appeal made clear they could not assert his innocence and definitely doubted his claimed alibi. The programme made no reference to the Court of Appeal's reservations.

Best regards,
OneRound

Hello OneRound,

At least I wasn’t imagining things. I knew there were at least questions asked about the ID.

Yeah the documentary is an ok watch for someone who knows little or nothing about the case. I know little or nothing but it told me nothing new. I was thinking of buying the Harriman book but I’ve been put off by talk of it being very science/DNA heavy? The case needs someone to write a good unbiased, in-depth analysis presenting all of the facts and discussing all viewpoints. Someone on here should have a crack at it (or a collaberation) It also needs a longer documentary. At least a three parter. Maybe one day.

One question - is anything still happening with the case?

[OneRound]

Well, thanks to technology I watched the Hanratty documentary last night. All I’ll say is “don’t build your hopes up.” Someone called Robert Harriman (?) was ‘Hanratty was innocent,’ and someone called Paul Sickler was ‘Hanratty was guilty.’ Other comments by Duncan Campbell and Louise Shorter. There’s also a short interview with Hanratty’s nephew (who had his son with him.) One thing that did surprise me though was a short piece of footage of a modern day interview with Valerie Storie. I was under the impression that she’d never talked in public about the case.

One question about the case, and this is probably down to my poor memory - they were saying that Valerie’s ID of Hanratty was cut and dried but why do I have the impression that it wasn’t? Didn’t her description of him change at some point? It’s probably just my memory as it’s been ages since I’ve read anything and even then I’ve only read two books on the case.

The George Davis one was enjoyable imo btw.

Hi Herlock - I did the same last night and soon came to the same conclusion. A decent enough introductory overview of the case and the key participants for a newcomer but nothing informative or revealing for those already having a basic knowledge. Inevitably for a 60 minute programme (including several sets of adverts) reviewing such a complicated case from over sixty years ago, there just wasn't sufficient time to probe any aspects in depth whilst some weren't included at all.

Two points about Valerie Storie's ID of James Hanratty:

1. As mentioned on the programme, the old chestnut of brown eyes changing to blue and whether this was Valerie misremembering or a copper's c0ck up; and

2. Not mentioned on the programme but highly significant to me in casting doubt upon her subsequent ''certain'' identification of Hanratty, Valerie attended an earlier parade in which she picked out an innocent volunteer. As only one man killed Michael Gregsten and raped Valerie, there was only one man in the world whom she could properly pick out; if he wasn't on the first parade or she was unsure, she should have picked no one. For me, picking the wrong man the first time considerably lessened her credibility when she picked Hanratty on the second parade.


Like you, I found the George Davis programme more interesting and enjoyable although it did seem to give Davis an easy ride. Whilst quashing his conviction in 2011 due in the main to concerns about police identifications, the Court of Appeal made clear they could not assert his innocence and definitely doubted his claimed alibi. The programme made no reference to the Court of Appeal's reservations.

Best regards,
OneRound

[Herlock Sholmes]

Valerie Storie was interviewed in 2002 for a documentary shown on Channel 4. At 1.07 you can see the policewoman who first talked to Valerie say "She never changed her description ..."

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9y_7KiYI0q8

Thanks Nick. Must be my dodgy memory.

[NickB]

Valerie Storie was interviewed in 2002 for a documentary shown on Channel 4. At 1.07 you can see the policewoman who first talked to Valerie say "She never changed her description ..."

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9y_7KiYI0q8