A6 Rebooted

[Cogidubnus]

I could believe something like that...

[Limehouse]

Which leads back to my point - as long as someone viable is in the dock and there's a chance he's guilty - what's the problem?

More to the point - if you have 'manipulated' evidence to fit one suspect and your witness lets you down - you have the awkward little problem of that evidence fitting the place where it was found - but no longer the suspect.

[Ed James]

I think the Hanratty- did- it- school can also buy the Ansoman scenario without compromising their ultimate belief.

I would add to Ansoman's well thought out scenario that Acott would have kept VS up to date prior to the ID parade by saying how they had got the right man now and that he had tried to elude them by dyeing his hair (something covered in the Press).

I think the Dupplin Muir recommended documentary shows how firmly embedded the victim's identification of the assailant can be despite producing photofit/identikits that don't match the assailant.

There are two surpises for me. First, that Acott did not better 'support' VS in the Alphon identity parade.Secondly, that VS took 20 minutes to pick out Hanratty - with the vividly unnatural hair colour, his nervous demeanour and his London accent.

But picking up Julie's (Limehouse's) point about the discovered cartridges now being made to fit Hanratty, what is the suggestion for how the cartridges got in room 24?

[ansonman]

I don't want to hurry you, but.

In pages 323 and 324 of his book, Woofinden refers to VS's own account of the murder as serialised over three weeks in "Today" in June 1962. In respect of her identification of Hanratty, Woofinden says that she wrote:

"I said quietly, "Number 6". In a second the door of the room had slammed shut behind me as I was quickly wheeled out into the corridor. Superintendent Acott gripped my arm, and said, "Well done". I knew I had settled my score with Hanratty"

Woofindon later comments:

"In light of Valerie Storie's account, it seemed that her belief that she had picked out the right man could only have been reinforced by Acott's instantanious reaction. She said at the trial that she had "no doubt whatsoever" that Hanratty was the gunman. But to what extent was it buttressed by Acott's confirmation. If it was beset by doubts before, then in the wake of the Today article it looked even more dubious".

On Page 118 of "Who killed Hanratty?" Paul Foot also refers to the "Today" article but he quotes Storie as saying "Suddenly, at the very end of the twenty minutes allowed for the identification parade, I was asked if I recognised anyone". In omitting that sentence I think Woofinden misses a very revealing part of the article because it reads to me as though Storie was running out of time and was prompted (by who?) to say if she recognised anyone before being timed out. One wonders what would have happened if she hadn't been reminded her time was almost up?

Even after hearing the only cockney accent on parade VS very nearly failed to intentify anyone after being wheeled along the line nine times over twenty minutes. Anyone who considers that to be a positive ID must be crazy.

Thanks for comments Ed. I somehow think that few in the "Hanratty did it" camp would buy into anything less than a deathbed confession from Storie that she had sent the wrong man to his death.

Ansonman

[Graham]

I somehow think that few in the "Hanratty did it" camp would buy into anything less than a deathbed confession from Storie that she had sent the wrong man to his death.

But the point - and an extremely important point - is that the Jury believed her.

Incidentally, in Lord Russell's book, Hanratty is described as being able to pronounce the "th" diphthong when he had to, or when it suited him.

Valerie failed to pick out Alphon from 10 men on that parade, but picked out Hanratty from 13 men. Do we know for sure that an i.d. parade was limited to 20 minutes? I can't find any reference to confirm this.

Graham

[ansonman]

The future 'ain't bright when you're (a cockney) Orange

But the point - and an extremely important point - is that the Jury believed her.

Incidentally, in Lord Russell's book, Hanratty is described as being able to pronounce the "th" diphthong when he had to, or when it suited him.

Valerie failed to pick out Alphon from 10 men on that parade, but picked out Hanratty from 13 men. Do we know for sure that an i.d. parade was limited to 20 minutes? I can't find any reference to confirm this.

Graham

According to the quotation by Foot, Storie said herself "Suddenly, at the very end of the twenty minutes allowed for the ID parade" So she was under the impression there was a time limit. Added to which she was effectively told that the end (of the time allowed) was nigh.

I would have thought that 20 minutes was more than enough time to identify someone, provided you saw them well enough in the first place. Which by her own admission, she did not. This was her last shot. No one else was in the frame as would have been made clear to her by Acott. If she failed to pick out Acott's patsy then all bets would be off. But she still needed a full 20 minutes to pick out a guy who was distinguishable by his orange hair and cockney accent.

Short of having a sign above Hanratty's head bearing the legend "I am your man" Acott had done everything in his power to lead Storie to his second choice. And yet she still needs 20 minutes, and prompting before choosing Hanratty.

Ansonman

[Limehouse]

But picking up Julie's (Limehouse's) point about the discovered cartridges now being made to fit Hanratty, what is the suggestion for how the cartridges got in room 24?

Who had access to the police via his 'several changeable statements?' Why did he change his statements? Who had access to the rooms? Who could have had a reason to change his statements and plant evidence?

[ansonman]

Her glassless glimpse was sure certain

But the point - and an extremely important point - is that the Jury believed her.

Incidentally, in Lord Russell's book, Hanratty is described as being able to pronounce the "th" diphthong when he had to, or when it suited him.

Valerie failed to pick out Alphon from 10 men on that parade, but picked out Hanratty from 13 men. Do we know for sure that an i.d. parade was limited to 20 minutes? I can't find any reference to confirm this.

Graham

Of course the jury believed her. She was the sole witness and she stated under oath that there was absolutely no doubt in her mind whatsoever that Hanratty was the murderer. Absolutely black and white. No shadow of doubt. And that sent him to the gallows.

The fact that she had changed her mind on her description of her attacker, changed her original identikit, picked out the worng man from the first ID, failed to chose Acott's certain man in the second (the police had taken the unusual step of naming Alphon as their man), commented to a doctor and to Acott that Alphon bore a resemblance to her original identikit, admitted that she had had only a slight glimpse of her attacker and that she was not wearing her glasses at the time (she was short sighted), took a full 20 minutes before chosing Hanratty, and then only after asking members of the parade to say "thinking" (Hanratty being the only cockney in the ID parade).

All that, and yet she is sure certain that Hanratty is her attacker. The jury believed her alright, and you can't blame them for that, given her unwavering performance in court. The astonishing thing, to my mind, is that some people still believe that she had a clear view of Hanratty during the attack and that, notwithstanding her catalogue of changes, she chose the one what did it.

Ansonman

[OneRound]

... Valerie failed to pick out Alphon from 10 men on that parade, but picked out Hanratty from 13 men. Do we know for sure that an i.d. parade was limited to 20 minutes? I can't find any reference to confirm this.

Graham

Hi Graham and all,

I claim no expert knowledge of identity parades but was on one back in the '70s. I would emphasise I was one of the dozen making up the numbers rather than the suspect (stage whisper - ''Oh yeah, OneRound would claim that!'').

My overriding memory is how informal the whole thing was, at least as far as the volunteers were concerned. Being honest, it was also an enjoyable experience as it allowed me and a few colleagues to skive off work for an hour or so on full pay with our employer's permission (a large company that considered it was doing its bit for the community by helping out the local police force in this way).

It worked like this. The local cop shop phoned the employer and said they needed a few individuals roughly of a certain age and description for an id parade. A lady from Personnel (no HR in those days!) then went round the office and recruited a few participants who didn't need much persuading. We were picked up the next day in a police mini-bus and taken off for it.

We were shown into a large side room at the police station. Any instructions were very brief. It was really just a case of being asked to line up and let the suspect into the line wherever he wanted. There definitely was no mention of how long the process would take or any time limit applying. No way of knowing this would have happened but I could have envisaged the police sergeant in charge of proceedings (just imagine someone from one of those old British films) blatantly tapping his watch to catch everyone's attention and hurry things along if matters had dragged on for a while. In other words, I think the process would have been brought to an end by good old fashioned common sense and nous rather than any strictly enforced formal rules.

That's speculation on my part but it's my take based on what happened. If there was no formal rule governing the length of time permitted for an id parade then, I very much doubt that there would have been anything more rigorous in place a decade earlier when Valerie Storie picked out James Hanratty.

As for what happened on my parade, the witness picked out one of my workmates. After the original suspect had been led out of the room, the sergeant turned to my colleague - who by now was fearing a lifetime behind bars for some unknown offence (we were never told anything about the crime concerned) - and said with a smile something like, ''You messed that up for us but don't worry as we've got him for something else!''. Had the police then or later wanted to follow up with him, they would have had to try and get his name from our employer's Personnel department. We were just a bunch of unnamed and unknown individuals as far as the police were concerned - they didn't have or at any point take our names.

Finally, we were each given a £1 note from the sergeant for our time and trouble. Did we declare this to our employer? What do you think!

Best regards,

OneRound

[NickB]

Valerie's account of the id parade is in the elusive 2nd instalment of her Today feature. However the 3rd instalment starts with a mention of it, as you can see in post 1580 on this thread. The reason she gives here for taking 20 minutes appears to be that she deliberately delayed identifying Hanratty to make him suffer.

[Ed James]

In my early 20s in 1975 newly working for a solicitor I was called upon to attend an ID parade and advise a client (who I had never met ) charged with a series of jewellery thefts ( involving distracting the owner, and then bolting with displayed jewellery) . On arrival at the local nick, I found a dishevelled client ( as a result of being in police custody for several days ) and 7 pristine office workers all wearing collar and tie. I was not fully aware of the protocol but had the presence of mind to have the jackets and ties removed and the collars loosened to casual mode . I contemplated but ruled out delaying until the client had shaved or a change of clothes was arranged Much to my dismay the first witness picked the client out. But after I moved his place in the line up , the next 4 witnesses picked out somebody else!

The Hanratty ID parade certainly didn't comply with contemporary Home Office rules - see extracts From PACE Code D Annex B):

3. Before the identification parade takes place, the suspect or their solicitor shall be provided with details of the first description of the suspect by any witnesses who are attending the identification parade. . .
9. The identification parade shall consist of at least eight people (in addition to the suspect) who, so far as possible, resemble the suspect in age, height, general
appearance and position in life
10. If the suspect has an unusual physical feature, e.g., a facial scar, tattoo or distinctive hairstyle or hair colour which cannot be replicated on other members of the identification parade, steps may be taken to conceal the location of that feature on the suspect and the other members of the identification parade if the suspect and their solicitor, or appropriate adult, agree. For example, by use of a plaster or a hat, so thatall members of the identification parade resemble each other in general appearance [ what no skull caps!]

16. . . . Immediately before the witness inspects the identification parade, they shall be told the person they saw on a specified earlier occasion may, or may not, be present and if they cannot make a positive identification they should say so. The witness must also be told they should not make any decision about whether the person they saw is on the identification parade until they have
looked at each member at least twice.

17. When the officer or police staff (see paragraph 3.11) conducting the identification procedure is satisfied the witness has properly looked at each member of the identification parade, they shall ask the witness whether the person they saw on a specified earlier occasion is on the identification parade and, if so, to indicate the number of the person concerned, . [ no mention of 20 minute time limit!]

18. If the witness wishes to hear any identification parade member speak, adopt any specified posture or move, they shall first be asked whether they can identify anyperson(s) on the identification parade on the basis of appearance only. When the request is to hear members of the identification parade speak, the witness shall be reminded that the participants in the identification parade have been chosen on the basis of physical appearance only. Members of the identification parade may then be asked to comply with request to hear them speak, see them move or adopt any specified posture

Over 62 years after Hanratty's hanging, there are apparently no firm guidelines on voice identification, though it is recognised that voice identification can be even more unreliable than visual identification.

[Graham]

With regard to the abnormal colour of JH's hair at the time of his two i.d. parades, it seems that Acott actually suggested the use of "skull caps" for all parade members. According to Woffinden (pg 246, paperback edition) Acott sent a memo to Bedfordshire police to arrange for operating theatre-type skull-caps to be obtained. As the second i.d. parade was to take place in Stoke Mandeville Hospital, this shouldn't have been difficult to sort out. But they were never issue, and even more puzzling is the fact that JH's solicitor, Mr Kleinmann, seems to have raised no objections, even though it must have been obvious to him that his client's hair stuck out like a sore thumb. Ed James kindly posted some of the rules pertaining to i.d. parades, and presumably these applied in 1961, so to my mind it is difficult to understand why Kleinmann allowed the parade to go ahead. Woffinden suggested that Kleinmann might have felt that JH's weird hair, if uncovered, might have drawn Valerie's attention away from his icy-blue staring eyes.

Graham

[OneRound]

With regard to the abnormal colour of JH's hair at the time of his two i.d. parades, it seems that Acott actually suggested the use of "skull caps" for all parade members. According to Woffinden (pg 246, paperback edition) Acott sent a memo to Bedfordshire police to arrange for operating theatre-type skull-caps to be obtained. As the second i.d. parade was to take place in Stoke Mandeville Hospital, this shouldn't have been difficult to sort out. But they were never issue, and even more puzzling is the fact that JH's solicitor, Mr Kleinmann, seems to have raised no objections, even though it must have been obvious to him that his client's hair stuck out like a sore thumb. Ed James kindly posted some of the rules pertaining to i.d. parades, and presumably these applied in 1961, so to my mind it is difficult to understand why Kleinmann allowed the parade to go ahead. Woffinden suggested that Kleinmann might have felt that JH's weird hair, if uncovered, might have drawn Valerie's attention away from his icy-blue staring eyes.

Graham

Hi Graham and all - Interesting take and ruling on this by the Court of Appeal in their 2002 judgment.

Paragraph 147: ''It is far from clear that DS Acott was concerned that the parade would be unfair to James Hanratty; his instruction is equally consistent with a concern that his hair might be off-putting to an identifying witness who would be sure that the killer (seen by Valerie Storie) and the driver (seen by John Skillett, Edward Blackhall and James Trower) did not have hair of the colour of James Hanratty. In any event, DS Acott's view is not to the point. The parades were organised by independent officers charged to ensure that every precaution is taken to eliminate unfairness as described in the Home Office guidance then governing the procedure. It was conducted in the presence of James Hanratty's solicitor who made no complaint at the time and the fairness of the parade was fully explored at the trial.''

Paragraph 206: ''As to the appellant's complaint about his hair (as we have already explained) this is very much a matter which is as likely to have been in James Hanratty's favour, as against him, since it would certainly make him look different from the person who attacked Miss Storie.''

Best regards,

OneRound

[Spitfire]

Hi Graham and all - Interesting take and ruling on this by the Court of Appeal in their 2002 judgment.



Paragraph 206: ''As to the appellant's complaint about his hair (as we have already explained) this is very much a matter which is as likely to have been in James Hanratty's favour, as against him, since it would certainly make him look different from the person who attacked Miss Storie.''

That's all right as far as it goes, but if Miss Storie had little or no idea as to how her attacker looked she might try and guess which of the contenders on the ID parade was the one the police suspected and in this regard Hanratty's strange and multi-coloured Barnet would be a strong clue.

[ansonman]

Klienman and the fatal ID Parade

With regard to the abnormal colour of JH's hair at the time of his two i.d. parades, it seems that Acott actually suggested the use of "skull caps" for all parade members. According to Woffinden (pg 246, paperback edition) Acott sent a memo to Bedfordshire police to arrange for operating theatre-type skull-caps to be obtained. As the second i.d. parade was to take place in Stoke Mandeville Hospital, this shouldn't have been difficult to sort out. But they were never issue, and even more puzzling is the fact that JH's solicitor, Mr Kleinmann, seems to have raised no objections, even though it must have been obvious to him that his client's hair stuck out like a sore thumb. Ed James kindly posted some of the rules pertaining to i.d. parades, and presumably these applied in 1961, so to my mind it is difficult to understand why Kleinmann allowed the parade to go ahead. Woffinden suggested that Kleinmann might have felt that JH's weird hair, if uncovered, might have drawn Valerie's attention away from his icy-blue staring eyes.

Graham

Graham,

You make an extremely important point re Kleinman allowing the parade to go ahead unchallenged. I share your puzzlement and even more so after reading Ed James account of when he represented a client on an ID parade back in the '70's. On that occasion Ed, newly working for a solicitor, did far more to protect a client (who he had never before met) charged with jewelry theft than did Klienman, a qualified solicitor, fully au fait with ID Home Office rules, representing a client whose life would be at stake. That Klienman made no attempt to halt the parade or to register any objection to the proceedings whatsover, I find absolutely incredible.

Ok, so Klienman arrived an hour late for the parade and Acott & co would not have been happy about that. But that hardly gave Kleinman an excuse for allowing Hanratty to appear in a parade when he stood out like a carrot in a bunch of bananas. I cannot imaging that Sherrard did not say to him afterwards "Why the hell did you let that happen!?"

By all accounts Kleinman seems to have gone out of his way to help Hanratty after this appalling deriliction of duty but perhaps that was more indicative of his feeling responsible in large part for the fatal selection by Storie.

Like Spitfire, I don't buy the idea that looking completely out of place in any way helped Hanratty. Quite the contrarary. What I do accept is that anything less than an abandonment of the parade or having all the participants wearing identical headgear (be they skull caps or hats) would not have changed the outcome of a second parade featuring Hanratty. Once VS had been able to study Hanratty for such a long time at the first parade, she would have remebered him even if he and his co-paraders had been wearing turbans at a second.

Had Kleinman really been on his toes, he would also have made sure that Hanratty was accompanied on parade by several co-cockneys.

The important point here is that even if Klienman had been unable to stop the proceedings (though reading Ed's post it rather looks as though Kleinman could have insisted on stopping the proceedings or at least have the line up wearing identical clothing) he could and should have registered his objection. In failing to do either of these things he did as much damage to Hanratty as did VS.

Ansonman