A6 Rebooted

[caz]

Hi Caz

The prosecution planned to call Pamela Patt to give a deposition at the committal. She was ill and did not attend.

But strangely, between then and the trial she wasn't considered an important witness and wasn't called. Her details were withheld from the defence.

The police, as far as I understand, favoured the afternoon run of the bus as the time in which the gun was dumped on it.

So, giving the police and the prosecution the absolute benefit of any doubt then, Ms Patt's statement was of little help to the prosecution and the gun was placed on the bus in the afternoon thus making it impossible for Hanratty to have put it there.

Del

So how come this crucial observation wasn't picked up on in time for the 2002 appeal, Del? And what steps have you taken to point this out to the authorities since?

Or is it basically just your personal interpretation, and not an established fact?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I should like to ask a question, if I may.

Spitfire excluded, is there anyone on this thread who, as a member of the jury, would have found Hanratty guilty as charged, knowing what we know today and knowing that a guilty verdict would send him to the scaffold?

Ansonman

I would ask to be excused from jury service on the basis that I could not in all conscience deliver a guilty verdict, regardless of the evidence, if the sentence was death.

I realise that is something of a side issue, but you did stipulate 'knowing that a guilty verdict would send him to the scaffold'.

But knowing what we know today, that Hanratty's DNA turned up in semen on the victim's underwear and nasal mucous on the hanky used to wrap the murder weapon, and that he couldn't be straight about his alibi even though his very life depended on it, then yes, I do find him guilty as charged.

Love,

Caz
X

[Derrick]

So how come this crucial observation wasn't picked up on in time for the 2002 appeal, Del?

Oh come off it...

The 36A bus route ran from Rye Lane Depot in New Cross to Victoria, Hyde Park Corner, Marble Arch, Edgware Road, Maida Vale and West Kilburn. It passed Sussex Gardens (the home of James Hanratty’s friend with whom he occasionally stayed) and Sutherland Avenue (the location of the Vienna Hotel). On the morning of 24 August (ie over 24 hours after the killing), Pamela Patt was the bus conductress. After the gun was found that evening, she made a statement describing one unknown passenger going to the top deck of the bus. The eleventh ground of appeal is that neither her statement nor her name and address were disclosed. We proceed on the basis of a failure to comply with contemporary standards of disclosure and the relevant standards of the time.

(p158)

...The appellants were well of that point and that was their 11th ground of appeal.

Tell you what, I'll spell it out for you in simple terms.

If the gun wasn't there the previous evening and if all the passengers on the next morning run were regulars, bar one who doesn't resemble Hanratty, then it stands to absolute reason that the gun was planted on the bus in the afternoon. Thus making it impossible for it to have been placed there by Hanratty.

If you think that the appellant hadn't thought of that then perhaps you should take a few weeks off and have a rest from the case. You do seem to be a little below par recently as you said yourself eh?

Besides, anyone taken in by the judges illogical comments in paragraphs 158 to 162 needs to examine the actual facts of the case.

At paragraph 160 it says;

Pamela Patt’s statement (taken on 26 August 1961) was to the effect that the passengers during the northern part of the journey to West Kilburn were all regulars, with one exception. At 6.10am a young man of dirty appearance, wearing a dirty raincoat got on near the Grosvenor Hotel and went to the upper deck, where he was the only passenger for a time. On the return journey the bus was full between Harrow Road and Victoria. When giving evidence, DS Acott agreed that there would have to have been nobody sitting on the back seat of the bus for it to have been lifted sufficiently to allow the gun to be deposited. He also agreed that the murder weapon and the boxes of cartridges were bulky items.

Both of my emboldened phrases are still dealing with the morning run. No mention is made by the judges of the afternoon run. It was as if it never existed.

The judges have cherry picked what fits and disregarded everything else. Somewhat similar to what Graham Swanwick did in 1962. No change in the establishment's approach to the case in 40 years.

Del

[caz]

No need to get so defensive, Del (if you'll pardon the pun). The point remains that the 2002 appeal was lost, and the defence (albeit reluctantly) accepted what the DNA results indicated. Only you appear to be saying that Hanratty could not possibly have been in London to put the gun on the bus, wrapped in his used hankie.

Don't you think if the defence could have established that much, as opposed to merely making it a ground of appeal that Pamela Patt's details and statement were not disclosed, they would have done so, thus undermining the damaging DNA results with some much needed 'reasonable doubt'?

The fact remains, nobody knows when the gun was left on the bus, therefore you don't know it couldn't have been Hanratty.

Love,

Caz
X

[Spitfire]

The question before the Court of Appeal was whether Hanratty had a fair trial. The standards of the day required that Pamela Patt's name and address be disclosed to the defence. This did not happen, but the Defence was given a statement by Arthur Embleton which referred to Pamela Patt being the conductress. Therefore, so the argument goes, although the Prosecution did not strictly adhere to the standards of the day, Hanratty suffered no prejudice as his Defence team were made aware of who the conductress was, and could easily have found her just as if they had been given her name and address.

Why did the Defence not call her? The answer offered by the Court of Appeal is that it would have been a risk. The most she could have said is that she did not recognise Hanratty. Equally, given that she described the unknown passenger as being 25 years of age, medium build, thick, wavy, mousey-coloured hair and clean shaven, she could have been cross-examined as to the similarities with James Hanratty.

[NickB]

The answer offered by the Court of Appeal is that it would have been a risk.

I think that was Mansfield's suggestion. The Court said they must "have considered her evidence probative but did not serve it as additional evidence".

If there was an intention to suppress her evidence why was she invited to the committal proceedings?

[Spitfire]

I was paraphrasing paragraph 162 of the judgement

162. By the standards of the time (which would have required disclosure of name and address only), the defence had the relevant information in the statement of Arthur Embleton (with the result that if they had wished to trace her, it would not have been a difficult exercise). In any event, her description of the man (about 25, 5 ft. 7 ins., medium build, thick wavy hair, mousey colour, clean shaven) is unlikely to have taken the defence very far and it would have been remarkable had they sought to call this witness to make a positive non identification and risk her cross-examination on the various features of similarity. We nevertheless refer below to the effect of this failure by the prosecution.

[Derrick]

...The fact remains, nobody knows when the gun was left on the bus, therefore you don't know it couldn't have been Hanratty...

Well the prosecution didn't think that it had been put on the bus in the morning run of that 36A bus.

I can only go by the evidence given and to try to give the prosecution the benefit of any doubt. Ye canna say fairer than that can ye?

Beside, the judges had already made up their minds and accepted the DNA as proof positive of Hanratty's guilt, before even considering any of the appellant grounds.
Del

[Spitfire]

Does anyone know what was the time of the last train from Euston to Liverpool that would have got into Liverpool before 20.40?

[caz]

Well the prosecution didn't think that it had been put on the bus in the morning run of that 36A bus.

I can only go by the evidence given and to try to give the prosecution the benefit of any doubt. Ye canna say fairer than that can ye?

Beside, the judges had already made up their minds and accepted the DNA as proof positive of Hanratty's guilt, before even considering any of the appellant grounds.
Del

Hi Del,

Thanks for conceding - in a roundabout way - that it comes down to what people thought or 'didn't think', and that nobody actually knew for a fact the earliest time the gun could have been hidden on the Thursday.

Love,

Caz
X

[OneRound]

I would ask to be excused from jury service on the basis that I could not in all conscience deliver a guilty verdict, regardless of the evidence, if the sentence was death.

I realise that is something of a side issue, but you did stipulate 'knowing that a guilty verdict would send him to the scaffold'.

But knowing what we know today, that Hanratty's DNA turned up in semen on the victim's underwear and nasal mucous on the hanky used to wrap the murder weapon, and that he couldn't be straight about his alibi even though his very life depended on it, then yes, I do find him guilty as charged.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz.

I'm surprised by your opening comments there. I have always got the impression from your posts that you considered Hanratty received not only the correct verdict but also his just deserts.

Not meant as a criticism and hopefully not offensive. Just an observation.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Graham]

I realise that this thread is purely notional, but I have a feeling that conscientiously objecting to the possible sentence wouldn't have excused you from jury service.

Might have mentioned this before, but in about 1972 I was called for jury service, and one of the cases was a murder in which the victim was robbed of money. When the jury retired, one of the members commented that had it been 10 years previously we'd have been deciding whether the defendant lived or died; after that, we were a very solemn 12 good men (and women) and true, and duly found the defendant guilty. I didn't feel too great about seeing the guy receive a very long prison sentence, but the family of his victim didn't feel too great about what he'd done. In a court of law, the human condition can be seen at its very worst and sometimes its very best.

Graham

[OneRound]

I realise that this thread is purely notional, but I have a feeling that conscientiously objecting to the possible sentence wouldn't have excused you from jury service.

...

Hi Graham - I suspect that's right. I couldn't imagine Rayner Goddard for one (the Lord Chief Justice of the flog 'em and hang 'em brigade, best known today for trying and sentencing Derek Bentley to death) being too impressed by any conscientious objections. More likely he would have jailed the potential juror for contempt.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Sherlock Houses]

Does anyone know what was the time of the last train from Euston to Liverpool that would have got into Liverpool before 20.40?

Yes..

[Spitfire]

Yes..

Good. I thought someone might.