Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A6 Rebooted

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

  • Originally posted by Graham View Post
    Here we go again....

    Graham

    .......seeking truth and justice.
    *************************************
    "A body of men, HOLDING THEMSELVES ACCOUNTABLE TO NOBODY, ought not to be trusted by anybody." --Thomas Paine ["Rights of Man"]

    "Justice is an ideal which transcends the expedience of the State, or the sensitivities of Government officials, or private individuals. IT HAS TO BE PURSUED WHATEVER THE COST IN PEACE OF MIND TO THOSE CONCERNED." --'Justice of the Peace' [July 12th 1975]

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ansonman View Post
      At long last we have several contributors who are, quite rightly, drawing attention to the fact that VS's evidence was, to put it politely, highly unreliable. This unreliable evidence sent JH to the gallows. There was, and is, nothing else to positively link Hanratty to the crime. Of course, VS has always maintained that Hanratty was the murderer and she had to. You can hardly send a man to his death and then say later "actually, I may have got that a bit wrong".

      My own speculative inclination is that Acott had it right in being convinced that Alphon was his man from the start but was wrong footed by VS. (who would want to have stood in front of her in an ID parade?)

      To my mind Alphon was always a more likely candidate than Hanratty. Not only was Alphon a fully paid up member of the Nutter Brigade but those who gave him his alibi (Mother and two co-workers) were far less reliable than those in Rhyl who exonerated Hanratty but were pilloried by many for doing so.

      Ansonman
      Hi Anson,

      I certainly understand where you are coming from and share some of your concerns as to Hanratty's guilt having been proved fairly and beyond reasonable doubt. In particular:

      * the unreliability of witness evidence;

      * non-disclosure by the police - if you read the 2002 Court of Appeal judgment in full, you may form the view that death was a good career move for Acott with him being given the benefit of the doubt as no longer available to explain his actions;

      * other issues in the lead up to the trial - especially Hanratty's identity parade before Valerie Storie in which he was required to speak; this was manifestly unfair as, contrary to the requirement applying to physical features of the participants, no checks had been undertaken in advance to ensure the accents of all who spoke were broadly similar.

      However, I still can't get away from the feeling that ''Jim did it''. Three factors (although, in my opinion, none of them are or should be strong enough to prove Hanratty's guilt):

      1. The absence of a credible alibi and, putting it kindly, Hanratty's original failure to provide the full details of what he eventually claimed. If I had been wrongly convicted of murder when I had, in fact, been in Rhyl, I would have been racking my brains for everything I did on that trip and every person I saw and then shouting them out before my appointment with the hangman. If my life depended on it, I like to think I could have come up with better than ''a green bath''. Sure, some people claimed to have seen someone like Hanratty but if only he had also claimed to have seen them. I also find it mighty suspicious that Hanratty left concrete evidence of so many places where he stayed and visited but not a jot in Rhyl at the crucial time. That said, the onus was not - or should not have been - on Hanratty to prove or even provide an alibi. However, as Graham has sagely pointed out on occasions, Hanratty hardly helped himself by effectively changing his alibi.

      2. The DNA. This was a real clincher for the Court of Appeal. I can understand the reason, that being along the lines of ''you can't argue with science and what the majority of leading scientists tell you''. For me, this is a strong indicator that the right man was hanged. However, I still find it inherently unsatisfactory that modern methods (well, those of 2002) are used to confirm a man's legal guilt when none of the DNA safeguards that are now compulsory have been applied to the particular exhibits in this case over the many intervening years. In other words, I accept contamination is unlikely (and therefore the DNA points to Hanratty's guilt) but am reluctant to rule contamination out completely - otherwise, why have such safeguards today?

      3. There are more than a fair few other factors suggesting a link between the A6 murder and Hanratty. The finding of the bullets from the murder gun in a doss house room used by him is probably the most significant. Again, this doesn't prove guilt but it weighs up in my mind. If these details had never been unearthed at the time, Hanratty's name never linked with the crime and no one ever tried but somehow bizarrely discovered by a researcher today, I am sure most would now be concluding that the case had been cracked half a century on.

      Apologies for going on and on. I was going to add a thought about Alphon but it's too late and you must be bored enough so I'll leave that til the morrow.

      Best regards,

      OneRound

      Comment


      • Originally posted by OneRound View Post
        Hi Anson,

        I certainly understand where you are coming from and share some of your concerns as to Hanratty's guilt having been proved fairly and beyond reasonable doubt. In particular:

        * the unreliability of witness evidence;

        * non-disclosure by the police - if you read the 2002 Court of Appeal judgment in full, you may form the view that death was a good career move for Acott with him being given the benefit of the doubt as no longer available to explain his actions;

        * other issues in the lead up to the trial - especially Hanratty's identity parade before Valerie Storie in which he was required to speak; this was manifestly unfair as, contrary to the requirement applying to physical features of the participants, no checks had been undertaken in advance to ensure the accents of all who spoke were broadly similar.

        However, I still can't get away from the feeling that ''Jim did it''. Three factors (although, in my opinion, none of them are or should be strong enough to prove Hanratty's guilt):

        1. The absence of a credible alibi and, putting it kindly, Hanratty's original failure to provide the full details of what he eventually claimed. If I had been wrongly convicted of murder when I had, in fact, been in Rhyl, I would have been racking my brains for everything I did on that trip and every person I saw and then shouting them out before my appointment with the hangman. If my life depended on it, I like to think I could have come up with better than ''a green bath''. Sure, some people claimed to have seen someone like Hanratty but if only he had also claimed to have seen them. I also find it mighty suspicious that Hanratty left concrete evidence of so many places where he stayed and visited but not a jot in Rhyl at the crucial time. That said, the onus was not - or should not have been - on Hanratty to prove or even provide an alibi. However, as Graham has sagely pointed out on occasions, Hanratty hardly helped himself by effectively changing his alibi.

        2. The DNA. This was a real clincher for the Court of Appeal. I can understand the reason, that being along the lines of ''you can't argue with science and what the majority of leading scientists tell you''. For me, this is a strong indicator that the right man was hanged. However, I still find it inherently unsatisfactory that modern methods (well, those of 2002) are used to confirm a man's legal guilt when none of the DNA safeguards that are now compulsory have been applied to the particular exhibits in this case over the many intervening years. In other words, I accept contamination is unlikely (and therefore the DNA points to Hanratty's guilt) but am reluctant to rule contamination out completely - otherwise, why have such safeguards today?

        3. There are more than a fair few other factors suggesting a link between the A6 murder and Hanratty. The finding of the bullets from the murder gun in a doss house room used by him is probably the most significant. Again, this doesn't prove guilt but it weighs up in my mind. If these details had never been unearthed at the time, Hanratty's name never linked with the crime and no one ever tried but somehow bizarrely discovered by a researcher today, I am sure most would now be concluding that the case had been cracked half a century on.

        Apologies for going on and on. I was going to add a thought about Alphon but it's too late and you must be bored enough so I'll leave that til the morrow.

        Best regards,

        OneRound
        Fabulous post in most respects OneRound. I cannot respond now as I'm off to work in a moment but will try to do so tonight.

        Comment


        • Well said, OneRound! I was drafting a post along these lines myself, but no need now, as you've said it all.

          A couple of points:

          1) I think we have to be just a little careful with regard to VS's testimony - don't forget that she's thankfully still alive.

          2) Two or three years ago there was much brave talk, both on these boards and elsewhere, that JH's family and defence team were about to launch a new appeal, in an attempt to have the 2002 Appeal reviewed and, hopefully, overthrown. So far there has been no new appeal. I would like to know why. (I can think of several reasons, but would like to see someone "on JH's side" offer a reason).

          3) Something that has nothing to do with recent posts, but has bugged me for years - and I'm not the only one - is this: did JH and Alphon know each other, even if only on a nodding acquaintance? Any ideas, anyone?

          Once again, OneRound, an excellent summary.

          Graham
          We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

          Comment


          • Mistaken identity

            Originally posted by OneRound View Post
            Hi Anson,

            I certainly understand where you are coming from and share some of your concerns as to Hanratty's guilt having been proved fairly and beyond reasonable doubt. In particular:

            * the unreliability of witness evidence;

            * non-disclosure by the police - if you read the 2002 Court of Appeal judgment in full, you may form the view that death was a good career move for Acott with him being given the benefit of the doubt as no longer available to explain his actions;

            * other issues in the lead up to the trial - especially Hanratty's identity parade before Valerie Storie in which he was required to speak; this was manifestly unfair as, contrary to the requirement applying to physical features of the participants, no checks had been undertaken in advance to ensure the accents of all who spoke were broadly similar.

            However, I still can't get away from the feeling that ''Jim did it''. Three factors (although, in my opinion, none of them are or should be strong enough to prove Hanratty's guilt):

            1. The absence of a credible alibi and, putting it kindly, Hanratty's original failure to provide the full details of what he eventually claimed. If I had been wrongly convicted of murder when I had, in fact, been in Rhyl, I would have been racking my brains for everything I did on that trip and every person I saw and then shouting them out before my appointment with the hangman. If my life depended on it, I like to think I could have come up with better than ''a green bath''. Sure, some people claimed to have seen someone like Hanratty but if only he had also claimed to have seen them. I also find it mighty suspicious that Hanratty left concrete evidence of so many places where he stayed and visited but not a jot in Rhyl at the crucial time. That said, the onus was not - or should not have been - on Hanratty to prove or even provide an alibi. However, as Graham has sagely pointed out on occasions, Hanratty hardly helped himself by effectively changing his alibi.

            2. The DNA. This was a real clincher for the Court of Appeal. I can understand the reason, that being along the lines of ''you can't argue with science and what the majority of leading scientists tell you''. For me, this is a strong indicator that the right man was hanged. However, I still find it inherently unsatisfactory that modern methods (well, those of 2002) are used to confirm a man's legal guilt when none of the DNA safeguards that are now compulsory have been applied to the particular exhibits in this case over the many intervening years. In other words, I accept contamination is unlikely (and therefore the DNA points to Hanratty's guilt) but am reluctant to rule contamination out completely - otherwise, why have such safeguards today?

            3. There are more than a fair few other factors suggesting a link between the A6 murder and Hanratty. The finding of the bullets from the murder gun in a doss house room used by him is probably the most significant. Again, this doesn't prove guilt but it weighs up in my mind. If these details had never been unearthed at the time, Hanratty's name never linked with the crime and no one ever tried but somehow bizarrely discovered by a researcher today, I am sure most would now be concluding that the case had been cracked half a century on.

            Apologies for going on and on. I was going to add a thought about Alphon but it's too late and you must be bored enough so I'll leave that til the morrow.

            Best regards,

            OneRound
            Hi OneRound,

            Appreciate all you say but the fact remains that Storie's positive identification of Hanratty was critical in securing a guilty verdict at his trial and that identification was unreliable for reasons previously mentioned. Had she not identified Hanratty (after taking a full 20 minutes to do so) he would have walked away a la Alphon. Only difference being that Alphon resembled Storie's description (identikit) whereas Hanratty didn't.

            Regards,

            Ansonman

            Comment


            • Money, money, money

              Originally posted by Graham View Post
              Well said, OneRound! I was drafting a post along these lines myself, but no need now, as you've said it all.

              A couple of points:

              1) I think we have to be just a little careful with regard to VS's testimony - don't forget that she's thankfully still alive.

              2) Two or three years ago there was much brave talk, both on these boards and elsewhere, that JH's family and defence team were about to launch a new appeal, in an attempt to have the 2002 Appeal reviewed and, hopefully, overthrown. So far there has been no new appeal. I would like to know why. (I can think of several reasons, but would like to see someone "on JH's side" offer a reason).

              3) Something that has nothing to do with recent posts, but has bugged me for years - and I'm not the only one - is this: did JH and Alphon know each other, even if only on a nodding acquaintance? Any ideas, anyone?

              Once again, OneRound, an excellent summary.

              Graham
              Re your second point, the reason is quite simply that of cost. The family would be lucky to see any change out of 3 million to finance such an appeal, and that estimate may well be on the low side. I'll be happy to make a modest contribution should a big benefactor come along, mind. 'Tis a pitty Lennon is no longer with us (another man of outstanding judgement).

              Ansonman

              Comment


              • Originally posted by ansonman View Post
                Re your second point, the reason is quite simply that of cost. The family would be lucky to see any change out of 3 million to finance such an appeal, and that estimate may well be on the low side. I'll be happy to make a modest contribution should a big benefactor come along, mind. 'Tis a pitty Lennon is no longer with us (another man of outstanding judgement).

                Ansonman
                I wouldn't disagree with you, Ansonman, except when I suggested this a long time ago I believe that it was refuted. I am sure that the family were well advised from the outset of the potential cost of another appeal.

                John Lennon - the Working Class Hero himself. Outstanding judgement? Why did he lose interest so quickly?

                Graham
                We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

                Comment


                • Give me some truth

                  Originally posted by Graham View Post
                  I wouldn't disagree with you, Ansonman, except when I suggested this a long time ago I believe that it was refuted. I am sure that the family were well advised from the outset of the potential cost of another appeal.

                  John Lennon - the Working Class Hero himself. Outstanding judgement? Why did he lose interest so quickly?

                  Graham
                  He didn't lose interest but he was a very busy man who supported very many good causes. Nonetheless, he was hugely helpful to the A6 Committee and Hanratty family. Check out the 36 minute utube video of Lennon's 1969 documentary "Did Britain Murder Hanratty?":

                  Norma Buddle has given me kind permission to upload her video of John Lennon's very important 1969 documentary as one continuous Youtube video. The discernin...


                  Interestingly, Norma Buddle gave her permission to upload the video.

                  Ansonman

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Graham View Post
                    Well said, OneRound! I was drafting a post along these lines myself, but no need now, as you've said it all.

                    A couple of points:

                    1) I think we have to be just a little careful with regard to VS's testimony - don't forget that she's thankfully still alive.

                    2) Two or three years ago there was much brave talk, both on these boards and elsewhere, that JH's family and defence team were about to launch a new appeal, in an attempt to have the 2002 Appeal reviewed and, hopefully, overthrown. So far there has been no new appeal. I would like to know why. (I can think of several reasons, but would like to see someone "on JH's side" offer a reason).

                    3) Something that has nothing to do with recent posts, but has bugged me for years - and I'm not the only one - is this: did JH and Alphon know each other, even if only on a nodding acquaintance? Any ideas, anyone?

                    Once again, OneRound, an excellent summary.

                    Graham
                    Thanks, Graham. Appreciate the feedback - and particularly from Limehouse as well (Julie, look forward to your further comments when you are back from the salt mine).

                    On your own points:

                    1) Noted and very much agreed. I have tried throughout to avoid personal criticism of Miss Storie and anything she testified but rather to concentrate upon her identification of Hanratty and question the validity of that given her earlier identification of AN Other.

                    2) Anson's comment about ''Money, money, money'' is clearly understandable and has some merit. However, no one (however wealthy) has an entitlement to purchase a new appeal. Furthermore, a new appeal could not be based on continuing unease. New evidence would need to be obtained; admittedly, money would need to be spent in trying to obtain that. Even then, the appellants would be up against a very shrewd judgment from the Court of Appeal in 2002. Whilst the Court stated that the DNA demonstrated Hanratty's guilt, they also stated that the original trial evidence was sufficient by itself to justify his conviction. Something of a double whammy. Even if you can blow away the DNA evidence, you're still left with a guilty verdict. Furthermore, the Court made very pointed comments at the end of their ruling that the Criminal Cases Review Commission (''CCRC'') should be wary of investigating historic cases and particularly conscious of the costs involved. Realistically, the CCRC will not want to risk getting their knuckles wrapped a lot harder and so won't touch this case again unless new and very strong evidence is presented. Without a new CCRC investigation or review, I don't see how a new appeal can get under way.

                    3) I've wondered that too. No hard evidence at all but I think it's likely that they had run into each other - same dog tracks, similar itinerant life styles, similar hotels / doss houses, similar dodgy dealings, possible similar cronies, etc. Entirely conjecture and speculation on my part but I do wonder if Alphon played some small part in the lead up to the events of that fateful night. Perhaps he tipped off Hanratty in some way about Gregsten and Storie or was an intermediary in obtaining the gun. I suggest this possibility mainly on account of Alphon appearing to be so scared in the days following the murder and locking himself away. Why was that? Surely there was more to it than him being an oddball? Also, he was using a false name at the time - why again?
                    One other aspect about Alphon which might have helped the Hanratty camp's 2002 appeal. Julianna Galves stated during the original investigation that she saw Alphon with a pair of woman's gloves on his suitcase. If she really did, that's mighty strange even by Alphonesque standards. If she didn't but was pressured into saying so by Acott, that would have gone some way towards discrediting the police investigation and cast further doubt on the safety of Hanratty's conviction. A missed opportunity imo not to produce Ms Galves at the 2002 appeal or, even if she had died by then, an affidavit about this from her.

                    Best regards,

                    OneRound

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ansonman View Post
                      He didn't lose interest but he was a very busy man who supported very many good causes. Nonetheless, he was hugely helpful to the A6 Committee and Hanratty family. Check out the 36 minute utube video of Lennon's 1969 documentary "Did Britain Murder Hanratty?":

                      Norma Buddle has given me kind permission to upload her video of John Lennon's very important 1969 documentary as one continuous Youtube video. The discernin...


                      Interestingly, Norma Buddle gave her permission to upload the video.

                      Ansonman
                      I do recall that during the premiere of the film "The Magic Christian" John Lennon brandished a banner that wrongly claimed "James Hanratty - Murdered By The State", or words to that effect. Probably more entertaining than the film itself. If he was so hugely busy, why did he get involved in the first place? What other good causes did he support?

                      Graham
                      We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

                      Comment


                      • Hi OneRound,

                        good points concerning the (low) possibility of a new appeal - no new evidence, no grounds, basically.

                        Re: old Alphon, I'm being pestered to go out just now, so will come back about this tomorrow.

                        Graham
                        We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by OneRound View Post
                          On your own points:




                          3) I've wondered that too. No hard evidence at all but I think it's likely that they had run into each other - same dog tracks, similar itinerant life styles, similar hotels / doss houses, similar dodgy dealings, possible similar cronies, etc. Entirely conjecture and speculation on my part but I do wonder if Alphon played some small part in the lead up to the events of that fateful night. Perhaps he tipped off Hanratty in some way about Gregsten and Storie or was an intermediary in obtaining the gun. I suggest this possibility mainly on account of Alphon appearing to be so scared in the days following the murder and locking himself away. Why was that? Surely there was more to it than him being an oddball? Also, he was using a false name at the time - why again?
                          One other aspect about Alphon which might have helped the Hanratty camp's 2002 appeal. Julianna Galves stated during the original investigation that she saw Alphon with a pair of woman's gloves on his suitcase. If she really did, that's mighty strange even by Alphonesque standards. If she didn't but was pressured into saying so by Acott, that would have gone some way towards discrediting the police investigation and cast further doubt on the safety of Hanratty's conviction. A missed opportunity imo not to produce Ms Galves at the 2002 appeal or, even if she had died by then, an affidavit about this from her.

                          Best regards,

                          OneRound
                          Hi all,

                          I'm really impressed by the quality of the debate right now.

                          Do I think Hanratty and Alphon knew each other? Well, as OneRound points out, they frequented the same type of venue and lived a similar lifestyle. I think it is entirely possible they met but I very much doubt that they could have been anything like 'best buddies'. Alphon would have looked down on JH as being intellectually inferior. Perhaps I am being uncharitable towards Alphon, but I could see him being a bit of a bully to someone like JH and, therefore, I would not entirely rule out him having some small role in all of this business.

                          Re Mrs Galves, now that's a very good point about the gloves and your thoughts about whether Alcott could have leaned on her to make that statement before Alphon was actually ruled out. Remember, it was also Mrs Galves who stated that she had moved the chair when changing the bed in room 24 on the morning following the A6 event. The cartridges did not appear to be present at that time but turned up a few weeks later.

                          I will never, ever believe those cartridge cases were left there by the gunman,. whoever he was. I will always believe they were placed there.

                          Let's put ourselves in Acott's shoes and take ourselves back to 1961 with all the attitudes and methods that were employed in those days to secure a conviction. You have two men, neither of whom could be said to be living a wholesome and productive life by the standards of the time. Both of them skulked around cheap B&B hotels, living more or less a hand-to-mouth existence. One of them was a prolific criminal. Then you have this horrendous crime that shocked and horrified the nation. A family man and a young woman, both respectably employed, enthusiastically planning a time-out event for their colleagues. They are taken captive by a gunman who takes them on a terrifying car ride to who-knows-where and they end up parked in a dark, shady lay-by in the darkest hours when the world is asleep. A man is callously shot through the head and the young woman is sexually outraged and left for dead. By sheer determination she survives and the police and investigating officers have to piece together the evidence and bring someone to justice - just like they did in the TV police dramas of the time.

                          Acott and his team had to wrap this up fast. This type of crime is very difficult to solve because it is so random and they did not have CCTV cameras and other technology that would speed up an investigation today. What did it really matter if the person in the dock is quite possibly innocent if he is a no-good drifter anyway? What did it matter if the evidence used to secure a conviction was manipulated a bit to fit the person in the dock - especially if there is a good chance he was guilty?
                          Last edited by Limehouse; 12-05-2014, 01:43 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Hi All,

                            Re: Alphon, first off, I don't believe for an instant he was the A6 Killer! However...

                            When A6 detectives visited the Alexandra Court Hotel following a complaint from the manager, one thing they reported seeing was a newspaper (The Daily Express?) in his case, folded to show a headline concerning the A6. Right away, to my mind at least, this shows that Alphon had at least a passing interest in the case - but then, so did millions of people. But taken that the police were called as a direct result of Acott's plea to hotels, b&b's, etc., regarding any odd behaviour of a guest, coupled with what seems to me symptoms of serious nervous agitation on the part of Alphon, plus it occurred less than a week after the crime....coincidence?

                            Alphon and Hanratty both stayed at the same dowdy hotel on succeeding nights and both used aliases when they signed the register. Had either of both of them stayed at The Vienna before? Had they stayed there on the same night, then this I think would have been beyond coincidence.
                            I bet a few conspiracy theorists would suggest that they met, perhaps on the early afternoon of August 22nd...perhaps in a station buffet. Open to further discussion?

                            Both had similar, vagrant lifestyles, and preferred to make money via (in JH's case most certainly) less-than-ethical methods. Both liked gambling, and it would seem that both of them visited the same dog-track (Slough) and almost certainly others as well.

                            It has been suggested that Alphon also visited the Rehearsal Club, which was one of Hanratty's favourite haunts. If this is true, was it just coincidence?

                            Alphon was reasonably well-educated and well-read; Hanratty was neither. Sometimes opposites attract.

                            More later...domestic duties call.

                            Graham
                            We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

                            Comment


                            • It makes one fink

                              Originally posted by Limehouse View Post
                              Hi all,

                              I'm really impressed by the quality of the debate right now.

                              Do I think Hanratty and Alphon knew each other? Well, as OneRound points out, they frequented the same type of venue and lived a similar lifestyle. I think it is entirely possible they met but I very much doubt that they could have been anything like 'best buddies'. Alphon would have looked down on JH as being intellectually inferior. Perhaps I am being uncharitable towards Alphon, but I could see him being a bit of a bully to someone like JH and, therefore, I would not entirely rule out him having some small role in all of this business.

                              Re Mrs Galves, now that's a very good point about the gloves and your thoughts about whether Alcott could have leaned on her to make that statement before Alphon was actually ruled out. Remember, it was also Mrs Galves who stated that she had moved the chair when changing the bed in room 24 on the morning following the A6 event. The cartridges did not appear to be present at that time but turned up a few weeks later.

                              I will never, ever believe those cartridge cases were left there by the gunman,. whoever he was. I will always believe they were placed there.

                              Let's put ourselves in Acott's shoes and take ourselves back to 1961 with all the attitudes and methods that were employed in those days to secure a conviction. You have two men, neither of whom could be said to be living a wholesome and productive life by the standards of the time. Both of them skulked around cheap B&B hotels, living more or less a hand-to-mouth existence. One of them was a prolific criminal. Then you have this horrendous crime that shocked and horrified the nation. A family man and a young woman, both respectably employed, enthusiastically planning a time-out event for their colleagues. They are taken captive by a gunman who takes them on a terrifying car ride to who-knows-where and they end up parked in a dark, shady lay-by in the darkest hours when the world is asleep. A man is callously shot through the head and the young woman is sexually outraged and left for dead. By sheer determination she survives and the police and investigating officers have to piece together the evidence and bring someone to justice - just like they did in the TV police dramas of the time.

                              Acott and his team had to wrap this up fast. This type of crime is very difficult to solve because it is so random and they did not have CCTV cameras and other technology that would speed up an investigation today. What did it really matter if the person in the dock is quite possibly innocent if he is a no-good drifter anyway? What did it matter if the evidence used to secure a conviction was manipulated a bit to fit the person in the dock - especially if there is a good chance he was guilty?
                              Could not disagree with much of that Limehouse, but I could add to your scenario.

                              Acott is absolutely desperate to secure a conviction. He was certain he had his man until he was wrong footed by Valerie. This left egg on his face and a stain on his character which required cleansing. So, he finds a man who is not his man, but can come a close second. No matter, a conviction is a conviction. But how to secure same? He MUST have Valerie identify this new boy on the rope. So, he says to Valerie that the good news is that he has his man (again) but that the bad news is that if Val doesn't get it right this time around then they are both buggered, so to speak. She has previously picked out the wrong man and failed to pick out the right man and so she simply has to get it right this time. What might be called "three strikes and you're out" in todays parlance. Even Acott cannot tell Valerie who to choose, but he says to her "take all the time you need but this time, be absolutely sure you pick out the man who attacked you". This is a difficult task indeed, especially as Valerie never did get a good look at the man and has changed her description of him several times. No matter, Acott has this ace covered. He tells Valerie that if she cannot identify her attacker, the she must ask him to repeat "be quite I am thinking". Which, after almost 20 minutes of studying the line up, she does. Valerie is unaware that not only is Hanratty the only dyed-hair cockney in the line up, he's the only dyed in the wool cockney. So, when he alone says "finking" Valerie is applauded by Acott for choosing his (second) right man and Valerie thinks that if Mr Acott says so, then she must have the right bloke banged to rights . One can imagine the relief on Acott face and the thought going through his mind "for 20 minutes there, I thought she might let me down again".

                              Ansonman

                              Comment


                              • Blimey Ansonman...that sounds uncannily like what happened!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X