A6 Rebooted

[caz]

On 13-Oct-61 Kleinman, or perhaps it is safer to say the defence team, notified police of the sweetshop alibi. In this first statement it is claimed Hanratty asked for “Carlton or Talbot Road”. (section 54 of the 2002 Appeal)

After Mrs Dinwoodie's evidence became known to the defence, in further statements Hanratty is said to have asked for “Carlton or Tarleton Road”. Thus he morphed what he had originally claimed to have said into something resembling what Mrs Dinwoodie had said.

There are other differences in their accounts. For example, Hanratty claimed the woman in the shop said he should get a bus and came to the door and showed him the bus-stop, but Mrs Dinwoodie said she suggested other customers could help the visitor and went on serving.

At the trial Mrs Dinwoodie nodded towards Hanratty after Sherrard showed her the photograph she had signed and asked if she could see that person in court. The question of valid identification goes back to when she was presented with the photograph to sign.

Finally, she testified that she was certain the visitor had come into her shop on 21st August.

Hi Nick,

That's quite damaging if Hanratty only added Tarleton Road in the wake of Mrs Dinwoodie's evidence. Giving two very common, but distinct street names - Carlton or Talbot - in the first place didn't do him that much of a favour.

As far as I can gather from a quick look at my Liverpool A-Z, there is a Tarleton Street in the centre of Liverpool and a Carlton Street near the docks, either of which could have been the subject of an enquiry in Scotland Road, a short bus ride away. Plenty of Talbots in other districts further afield (also other Carltons), but none of them near the centre.

Clearly Mrs D's certainty about the day didn't help, but that might not have mattered if other details had matched. For instance, if they had both just said Tarleton Street, independently, and if Mrs D had heard a cockney accent asking for it, I doubt getting her Monday and Tuesday confused would have been a deal breaker.

Did Mrs D not have a radio in 1961? Did she never get to the cinema, unlike nearly everyone of that generation? How was it possible for a Liverpudlian not to have instantly recognised the cockney accent prevalent in so many British films of the era? What accent did she think he had - Irish or Scottish? With so many Irish people in Liverpool I don't understand how she could have got that so wrong, in addition to the day and which road the man had asked for. Yet she claimed to recall what he looked like, and that he resembled the (only) photo she was shown, that of Hanratty.

And of course, no mention by anyone in Liverpool or Rhyl of a ruddy face smothered in high summer freckles.

Even though I accept that Sherrard and Kleinman were not neutral when commenting at later dates about the Rhyl evidence, Sherrard clearly felt at the time of the original appeal, when he had much to gain from winning the case and getting Hanratty's conviction overturned, that it was better left well alone.

Love,

Caz
X

[Spitfire]

Quite correct Caz, there were a large number of differences between the account given by the freckled Jim Hanratty and the honest Mrs D of the 'meeting' of these two, yet a disturbing number of similarities which might have led the jury to conclude that it was indeed James Hanratty asking Mrs D for directions on 22 August 1961.

Was this the element of doubt that the Hanratty defence needed? Perhaps it was and it was negated by the performance of Grace Jones in the witness box later in the proceedings. I believe that the jury were undoubtedly of the opinion that JH did not spend either of the nights of the 22 and 23 August in Ingledene. Any good that Mrs Dinwoodie might have done Hanratty was set at nought by Mrs J.

[caz]

And by Hanratty himself, of course, Spitfire. The jury were not supposed to require a proven alibi, but you can't expect them to forget that he gave two different ones for the actual time of the crime, therefore at least one must have been a total load of cobblers. Juries are inclined to take a dim view of such things and to ask themselves a) why would anyone on trial for his life lie about something so important if he really was in one of those places, and b) what else might he be lying about.

Love,

Caz
X

[Dupplin Muir]

To return to the DNA evidence.

As part of my 'day job' I work with undergraduates, of whom some are studying Forensics. Naturally enough, the degree incorporates much practical work, including DNA testing using SGM+, which uses 10 loci plus a sex-marker. In the course of this I've noticed a disquieting tendency that you won't find mentioned on any syllabus, or in any text-book.

Sometimes in a DNA test you will find that one or more bands are too broad, too faint, or even absent altogether. When this happens it is classed as 'indeterminate' and should excluded when calculating match-probabilities.

What I have found is that where there are matches at 8 or 9 loci, many students will seize upon any pretext to declare the other one or two loci as 'indeterminate'. If one band is slightly wider or fuzzier than normal they tend to discount the match even where it clearly exonerates the 'suspect'. Similarly, when a band is actually too wide or too faint, and should be excluded, they will still count it as a match provided the two bands overlap.

This kind of thing clearly happens in real-life cases, and you can usually tell because they will quote match-probabilities in the hundreds of thousands or millions to one, rather than the more usual billion to one.

Basically, evidence that should exonerate the suspect is being used to reinforce the case against them, while evidence which provides a degree of support for their guilt is being wildly oversold.

Here is a case where an obviously innocent man was fitted-up by a dodgy DNA test:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Adams

Note that the prosecution quoted odds of 200 million to one, which suggests at least one locus was discounted.

[caz]

Hi DM,

In the case you refer to, there were obvious problems with the non-DNA evidence, chiefly the victim not picking out the suspect and indeed saying he was the wrong age and nothing like the man who attacked her.

Even when a perfect, undisputed DNA match is found, a case should never be based on that evidence alone, and it's even worse if the other evidence is in direct conflict with it.

Thankfully the A6 case does not fall into the same category. The victim was certain in her own mind that she picked out the right man and the DNA results (from her underwear and the hanky in contact with the murder weapon) only supported that certainty. Had they undermined it, or implicated anyone other than Hanratty (as many were hoping and expecting), I like to think we would all now accept that she was mistaken. I very much doubt anyone - particularly Hanratty supporters - would be trying this hard to find fault with the DNA results in this case, by referring to other cases, or other findings, that were distinctly 'dodgy'.

Love,

Caz
X

[OneRound]

...

Thankfully the A6 case does not fall into the same category. The victim was certain in her own mind that she picked out the right man ...

Hi Caz,

''Eventually certain'' is probably more appropriate.

Best regards,

One Round

[ansonman]

Ill never forget wat's sis name

Hi Caz,

''Eventually certain'' is probably more appropriate.

Best regards,

One Round

Bang on target One Round

I don't ever remember reading that VS was uncertain that the man she picked out at the fist ID parade was her attacker. I suppose on that occasion she thought that since they'd gone to the trouble to appear on parade, she ought to pick out somebody.

Ansonman

[Spitfire]

There can be no doubt that the question of the accuracy of Valerie Storie's identification first of Michael Clark and second of James Hanratty on the two parades was extensively canvassed before the jury. That august body came to the conclusion that the second identification was the one that mattered and accordingly convicted Hanratty. What persuaded the jury to come to that conclusion we cannot say at this distance in time. We were not in court, whereas the jury members were.

There is one aspect of the case which does not seem to have received much, if any, attention and that is the identification by Hanratty of Mrs Jones. We know that in court Mrs J was asked whether it was the man in the dock who she offered accommodation over those fateful nights in August 1961. She thought it was, but was not certain. But what of Hanratty?

If my life had depended upon finding the identity of the guesthouse proprietor with whom I had stayed, then I would have had some view as to whether the person who had come to give evidence on my behalf was in fact the person with whom I had lodged. Yet Hanratty is totally silent on this question.

If it were me, and I were genuinely not guilty and I had stayed in Ingledene with Mrs Jones, then I would have made known those facts most emphatically. I would have told the warders to write in the various letters on my behalf that Mrs Jones had been my landlady. I can understand that there might be reasons which precluded that. I would have told my parents, when they came to visit, that Mrs J was indeed my landlady and I recognised her. And most of all I would have told Michael Sherrard to run any appeal on that basis.

Yet we have nothing that seems to indicate that Hanratty did indeed recognise Mrs Jones.

[cobalt]

Spitfire,

I cant really see your point.

Hanratty's claim that Mrs Jones was his landlady on the night in question would have been meaningless in a judicial setting unless she had given testimony on his behalf. It would make no difference how loudly he protested the fact.

Her evidence was weighed up by the jury no doubt, but are you suggesting it would have carried more weight had Hanratty sworn on oath that he recognised her? I think you are being naďve.

My feeling is that Hanratty was wrongly convicted and that Mrs Jones was probably giving a truthful account. But I cant believe that histrionics in the dock by Hanratty would have changed the verdict.

[Sherlock Houses]

There is one aspect of the case which does not seem to have received much, if any, attention and that is the identification by Hanratty of Mrs Jones. We know that in court Mrs J was asked whether it was the man in the dock who she offered accommodation over those fateful nights in August 1961. She thought it was, but was not certain. But what of Hanratty?

If my life had depended upon finding the identity of the guesthouse proprietor with whom I had stayed, then I would have had some view as to whether the person who had come to give evidence on my behalf was in fact the person with whom I had lodged. Yet Hanratty is totally silent on this question.

If it were me, and I were genuinely not guilty and I had stayed in Ingledene with Mrs Jones, then I would have made known those facts most emphatically. I would have told the warders to write in the various letters on my behalf that Mrs Jones had been my landlady. I can understand that there might be reasons which precluded that. I would have told my parents, when they came to visit, that Mrs J was indeed my landlady and I recognised her. And most of all I would have told Michael Sherrard to run any appeal on that basis.

Yet we have nothing that seems to indicate that Hanratty did indeed recognise Mrs Jones.

I think we do have something........

From the old thread.[April 2008].........

[moste]

Hi SH.
That's interesting stuff from Larue back in 2008. I had a brother who, like Hanratty it seams, would go very red if excited, even when being questioned about something he was totally innocent of.
Of course Michaels opinion about any information about Jimmy,s persona, is mostly ignored on these threads .

[Sherlock Houses]

Of course Michaels opinion about any information about Jimmy,s persona, is mostly ignored on these threads .

As is most of the impressive and plentiful evidence supporting his innocence, Moste.

[moste]

Despite occasional ridicule on the subject, I still think there is something in the ruddy face and freckles thing.
The various brief encounters with people forming James's alibi, I think could be forgiven for not particularly remembering distinct aspects of his face,
Last summer I travelled the length and breadth of England on holiday with my wife .We stayed at I think eight different B&Bs. and with the exception of the one we call home base, when visiting the old country, neither of us would be able to pick out any of the proprietors where we stayed, from an Identification parade. and I in particular am regarded as having an exceptional memory.
On the other hand, In the situation Ms. Storie found herself in, it being absolutely imperative that she remember her assailant, and identify him without hesitation, well we all know what a picnic that turned out to be.

[Spitfire]

I think that the jury members were convinced that Mrs Jones had not afforded Hanratty accommodation for the August nights in question. I think that the prosecution, to a certain extent ambushed by Hanratty's crafty change of alibi, was able to show that all rooms at Ingledene were occupied by other guests.

Hanratty's description of his room was that it was at the back of the house, on an upper floor, had a window and a sink. For Hanratty to have stayed at Ingledene then Mrs Jones must have had available for let a room of such a discription. She did not, and so subsequent to her woeful evidence it has been necessary to put Hanratty for one or two nights in the famous room with the green bath, even though Hanratty had not mentioned the bath (unless he could not distinguish a bath from a sink) and the attic room with the bath did not have a window but had a skylight.

Mrs Jones was definitely caught out lying on oath with regards to her conversations with Terry Evans which obviously did not help Hanratty as it puts a huge question over her truthfulness in other aspects of the case.

[moste]

I think that the jury members were convinced that Mrs Jones had not afforded Hanratty accommodation for the August nights in question. I think that the prosecution, to a certain extent ambushed by Hanratty's crafty change of alibi, was able to show that all rooms at Ingledene were occupied by other guests.

Hanratty's description of his room was that it was at the back of the house, on an upper floor, had a window and a sink. For Hanratty to have stayed at Ingledene then Mrs Jones must have had available for let a room of such a discription. She did not, and so subsequent to her woeful evidence it has been necessary to put Hanratty for one or two nights in the famous room with the green bath, even though Hanratty had not mentioned the bath (unless he could not distinguish a bath from a sink) and the attic room with the bath did not have a window but had a skylight.

Mrs Jones was definitely caught out lying on oath with regards to her conversations with Terry Evans which obviously did not help Hanratty as it puts a huge question over her truthfulness in other aspects of the case.

I think you will find that Hanratty did describe Ingledene in good detail, the green bath, the living room, which he had to use because there was no room in the breakfast room. right down to the hall coat stand, complete with mirror! Ps a skylight is a window in the ceiling ... duh!