A6 Rebooted

[Graham]

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

Hi OR,

and I think he could have done so quite legally, too!

As you know, Sherrard wanted the case tried at The Old Bailey, and was disappointed when the judiciary stipulated Bedford, which was (and is today, I should think) a small close-knit community whose citizens would be outraged that an outsider should disturb their peace. Sherrard felt that JH would have had a much better chance had he been tried in London, as he could have been and probably should have been. I have to say it, and I remain convinced that Hanratty was guilty, that he sure didn't get any breaks.

Graham

[OneRound]

Hi OR,

and I think he could have done so quite legally, too!

As you know, Sherrard wanted the case tried at The Old Bailey, and was disappointed when the judiciary stipulated Bedford, which was (and is today, I should think) a small close-knit community whose citizens would be outraged that an outsider should disturb their peace. Sherrard felt that JH would have had a much better chance had he been tried in London, as he could have been and probably should have been. I have to say it, and I remain convinced that Hanratty was guilty, that he sure didn't get any breaks.

Graham

Hi Graham,

I made the point the other day that it might seem as if I'm trying to run with the fox and the hounds - thought it best to say so myself before someone else did!

However, regardless of James Hanratty's actual guilt or not, I do believe that a strong argument can be made that his conviction should be quashed on the grounds that he was denied ''that fair trial which is the birthright of every British citizen''.

The above quotation comes from the Court of Appeal judgement in 1998 which upheld the appeal made upon behalf of Derek Bentley. Whist many now regard that judgement as confirmation of Bentley's innocence, it was actually anything but. Although it attracted far less publicity, the Court also stated that ''a properly directed jury would have been entitled to convict''.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Spitfire]

Hi Graham,

I made the point the other day that it might seem as if I'm trying to run with the fox and the hounds - thought it best to say so myself before someone else did!

However, regardless of James Hanratty's actual guilt or not, I do believe that a strong argument can be made that his conviction should be quashed on the grounds that he was denied ''that fair trial which is the birthright of every British citizen''.

The above quotation comes from the Court of Appeal judgement in 1998 which upheld the appeal made upon behalf of Derek Bentley. Whist many now regard that judgement as confirmation of Bentley's innocence, it was actually anything but. Although it attracted far less publicity, the Court also stated that ''a properly directed jury would have been entitled to convict''.

Best regards,

OneRound

I do not think that the fact that the trial was held in Bedford would amount to a denial of a fair trial.

[caz]

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

Hi OneRound,

Not offended in the least! While I believe the verdict was correct, I could not have blamed the jury if they felt the case had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. But they did convict, knowing a man would hang, and I couldn't do that.

Had Hanratty walked, and the case remained officially 'unsolved', they would surely have preserved the evidence and tested it for DNA in due course, which would have indicated his guilt.

Love,

Caz
X

[OneRound]

I do not think that the fact that the trial was held in Bedford would amount to a denial of a fair trial.

Come on, Spitfire. That's grossly out of context and you know it.

Where the trial was held just adds to the drip, drip effect of all the other factors - in particular, the conduct of the police and the non-disclosures - and makes the argument for an unfair trial.

OneRound

[OneRound]

Hi OneRound,

Not offended in the least! While I believe the verdict was correct, I could not have blamed the jury if they felt the case had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. But they did convict, knowing a man would hang, and I couldn't do that.

Had Hanratty walked, and the case remained officially 'unsolved', they would surely have preserved the evidence and tested it for DNA in due course, which would have indicated his guilt.

Love,

Caz
X

Thanks, Caz. As ever, you explain things very well.

I agree with you about what would have happened had Hanratty walked and leading to the DNA subsequently indicating (restrained term from you there!) his guilt.

I do wonder though if a re-trial would have been permitted (it is now under English Law if sufficient new evidence comes to light) on account of the DNA findings. Possibly a re-trial would not actually have been allowed due to the lack of safeguards applied in the intervening years to the items tested and shown to contain Hanratty's DNA.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Graham]

As the jurors would be drawn from in and around Bedford, which is not far from the crime-scene, I think it would be impossible and unrealistic to rule out that there was at least some local prejudice on the jurors' benches. Only the prosecution would benefit from this, as Sherrard knew only too well. He argued that the magnitude of the charge against his client, plus the large number of witnesses that would inevitably be called, plus the huge public interest in the case, pointed to the Old Bailey as the obvious venue for JH's trial. The Crown wasn't interested, so Bedford it was. Even though I remain convinced of JH's guilt, this was a low blow.

Graham

[cobalt]

Graham,

Why are you convinced? Convinced is a big word. I respect the jury system as much as most, but there are anomalies. Stefan Kisko is the most obvious example to put forward. The Birmingham Six. Sheila Bowler.

What Is the telling piece of evidence that convinces you that Hanratty was guilty? Leave the jury aside. What convinces you? Where is the magic bullet?

[Graham]

Graham,

Why are you convinced? I respect the jury system as much as most, but there are anomalies. Stefan Kisko is the most obvious example to put forward.

What Is the telling piece of evidence that convinces you that

Basically because he was unable to prove beyond question that he was NOT in the car on the fateful night. Simple as that.

Graham

[cobalt]

Come on Graham. You can do better than that.

You are now requiring the accused to prove his innocence, Therefore we are all guilty as charged? Until we prove otherwise? You are better than that.
What an appalling vista you have opened up as Lord Denning might have said.

Hanratty was done. He was done by the Establishment. He was a pleb. He was a bad bastard in many ways anyhow. Now move along and stop whingeing after 40 years for all is done and dusted. That is the message from those in power.

But. But. Even those on this on this site who believe he was guilty want justice to have been done. I salute your belief in the judicial system.

But I still think you are naïve. Hanratty was fitted up big time and a terrible injustice was done.

[Graham]

Come on Graham. You can do better than that.

You are now requiring the accused to prove his innocence, Therefore we are all guilty as charged? Until we prove otherwise? You are better than that.
What an appalling vista you have opened up as Lord Denning might have said.

Hanratty was done. He was done by the Establishment. He was a pleb. He was a bad bastard in many ways anyhow. Now move along and stop whingeing after 40 years for all is done and dusted. That is the message from those in power.

But. But. Even those on this on this site who believe he was guilty want justice to have been done. I salute your belief in the judicial system.

But I still think you are naïve. Hanratty was fitted up big time and a terrible injustice was done.

My friend, you asked me a simple question and I gave you my honest answer. By all means, believe what you want to believe, and I'll do likewise. I stick gy what I said.

Graham

[cobalt]

Yes, I asked you a question.

And in order to answer it you had to assume that a man was guilty until proven innocent. This a perversion of what I understand our legal system to be. I hope to hell to you are never again called to jury service. You misunderstand the basic tenets of our legal system. No wonder the man in the dock when you were on jury service back in 1972 was considered bang to rights! The onus is on the prosecution!

Hanratty had no legal requirement to prove his innocence. Like many proletarians, he felt the need to justify himself. The bourgeoisie would have known better. He played into their hands by trying to justify himself.

The Rhyl alibi is a red herring as I have said here before. Whether Hanratty was in Rhyl or not he was still not capable of being convicted as the A6 killer by any reasonable judge of opinion. There is too much emphasis on Rhyl, and not enough on the threadbare case against Hanrattty.

[Spitfire]

I too am convinced that Hanratty was guilty as charged. Like his defence Counsel, the personable Michael Sherrard, I believe that the evidence upon which he was convicted was too weak to justify a guilty verdict.

If the DNA tests had shown Hanratty to be innocent then I would have accepted them, with the same good grace which I now accept them.

As to the Establishment fit-up of James Hanratty, we should remember that the judge, Mr Justice Gorman, more or less summed up for an acquittal. If the Establishment had wanted a guilty verdict at all costs, then a more prosecution minded judge would have been selected.

It was the eleven ordinary men off the street who determined Jimmy's guilt. We know little of them, save that they were selected from the Bedfordshire electoral register, we certainly cannot infer that they were members of the Establishment. We know that these eleven unanimously went against the gentle nudging of the trial judge but we do not know why. My guess is that they believed that Hanratty was incapable of telling the truth, and the Rhyl alibi was a pack of lies. It's true that the defendant does not have to prove his innocence, but if he ventures into the witness box and tells a tissue of lies, he can hardly complain if the jury take that into account.

But the point is the wrong man was not hanged.

[OneRound]

I too am convinced that Hanratty was guilty as charged. Like his defence Counsel, the personable Michael Sherrard, I believe that the evidence upon which he was convicted was too weak to justify a guilty verdict.

If the DNA tests had shown Hanratty to be innocent then I would have accepted them, with the same good grace which I now accept them.

As to the Establishment fit-up of James Hanratty, we should remember that the judge, Mr Justice Gorman, more or less summed up for an acquittal. If the Establishment had wanted a guilty verdict at all costs, then a more prosecution minded judge would have been selected.

It was the eleven ordinary men off the street who determined Jimmy's guilt. We know little of them, save that they were selected from the Bedfordshire electoral register, we certainly cannot infer that they were members of the Establishment. We know that these eleven unanimously went against the gentle nudging of the trial judge but we do not know why. My guess is that they believed that Hanratty was incapable of telling the truth, and the Rhyl alibi was a pack of lies. It's true that the defendant does not have to prove his innocence, but if he ventures into the witness box and tells a tissue of lies, he can hardly complain if the jury take that into account.

But the point is the wrong man was not hanged.

Spitfire - I take the general thrust of your post although you over-egg the pudding concerning the jury.

The jurors deciding whether Hanratty lived or died would not simply have been ''eleven ordinary men off the street ... selected from the Bedfordshire electoral register''. They would also have had to meet the property qualification then in force. This necessitated jurors to fulfil the additional requirement of being the owner or tenant of a property. Not surprisingly, it often resulted in juries comprising solely of property owning, middle class males whilst many young adults and women of all ages remained ineligible for jury service even though they were on the electoral register.

Yes, that's the way it was back then and even though the juror qualifications had to be applied in Hanratty's case, it's another factor as to why it was wrong for the trial to be held at Bedford in front of men of local property rather than in a more neutral and appropriate setting of the Old Bailey (Graham's excellent recent post refers).

Regards,

OneRound

[Hannibal Hayes]

Just to clarify something: Was Hanratty's DNA found in semen on the victim's underwear and his nasal mucous on the hanky used to wrap the murder weapon?

If the answer is yes, the doubters should really shut up shop & go home. Unles someone can give me a reason why his DNA was found on the underwear ...

Otherwise, someone in a high place planted his DNA. Can you clarify ‘fitted up’?