A6 Rebooted

[Spitfire]

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. Unless 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’?

I would not put it in terms as blunt as that but, yes, Hanratty's DNA was found on a piece of the victim's knickers and on the hankie used to wrap the gun prior to its disposal.

It was the not guilty campaigners who agitated for DNA testing of both these items. I was one of many who doubted the safety of the conviction prior to the DNA tests but now think that these tests settle things.

But if we all agreed then there would be no debate on the forum.

[Spitfire]

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

OR,

Point taken about the property qualification then in force and which continued to be in force until 1974.

I just very much doubt whether Hanratty would have been more warmly received by the property owning classes of the Metropolis than those of Bedfordshire. Hanratty's crime attracted nationwide publicity and nationwide revulsion and was not just a local issue arousing local passions.

Also, I do not think that some high powered mandarin sitting in the corridors of power directed the trial to be held in Bedford so that Hanratty would have a greater chance of being convicted. If the Crown had been so hell bent on securing a conviction to resort to 'low blows' then why not engage the services of one of the coterie of hanging judges then available, rather than the Liberal and liberal Bill Gorman?

[Hannibal Hayes]

I would not put it in terms as blunt as that but, yes, Hanratty's DNA was found on a piece of the victim's knickers and on the hankie used to wrap the gun prior to its disposal.

It was the not guilty campaigners who agitated for DNA testing of both these items. I was one of many who doubted the safety of the conviction prior to the DNA tests but now think that these tests settle things.

But if we all agreed then there would be no debate on the forum.

True. However, people need to accept that what’s fact is fact – it has been proven & cannot be denied. Like any great conspiracy theory, we then question the fact & say that it can only be fact because it was manipulated before it became fact & therefore it’s not true.

So what the ‘he was innocent’ brigade are saying is that the DNA was planted. Forget all the arguments about a possible alibi or sightings of JH somewhere else at the time – that’s all irrelevant if his DNA was found on Valerie Stories underwear. Surely we should all agree on this?

Keep them peeled.

[Graham]

If the Crown had been so hell bent on securing a conviction to resort to 'low blows' then why not engage the services of one of the coterie of hanging judges then available, rather than the Liberal and liberal Bill Gorman?

Hi Spitfire,

I don't think the Crown actually nominated a particular judge for a particular case. Hanratty's trial was at Bedford Assizes, and came under the Winter Assizes, whose sitting judge was Justice Gorman.

Graham

[OneRound]

OR,

Point taken about the property qualification then in force and which continued to be in force until 1974.

I just very much doubt whether Hanratty would have been more warmly received by the property owning classes of the Metropolis than those of Bedfordshire. Hanratty's crime attracted nationwide publicity and nationwide revulsion and was not just a local issue arousing local passions.

Also, I do not think that some high powered mandarin sitting in the corridors of power directed the trial to be held in Bedford so that Hanratty would have a greater chance of being convicted. If the Crown had been so hell bent on securing a conviction to resort to 'low blows' then why not engage the services of one of the coterie of hanging judges then available, rather than the Liberal and liberal Bill Gorman?

Spitfire - yes, ''Hanratty's crime'' - or, perhaps, we should say the crime he was accused of, as we are discussing matters pre-trial - ''was not just a local issue arousing local passions''. However, such passions were always going to be running higher locally than anywhere else. Given a jury is supposed to approach every case in a calm, detached manner, it does seem very strange and probably prejudicial against Hanratty for the trial to have been held in Bedford.

It has never been explained why Bedford was chosen instead of the Old Bailey (the original choice, I believe). The lack of explanation is, at best, unfortunate as it only adds to the feeling of ''there's so much about this case which wasn't right''. Maybe the trial venue was as a result of thoughtless arrogance and ineptitude - not so bad as a deliberate fix but still totally wrong and just as likely to increase the chances of producing a guilty verdict.

I take your point about the choice of Gorman as judge for Hanratty's trial. Incidentally, there's a massive contrast there with Lord Chief Justice Goddard who not only tried Derek Bentley but, in the view of some, helped put the noose round his neck.

In my opinion, and this also touches on Hannibal's post, once the trial was under way there was no ''fitting-up'' of Hanratty from the Establishment (in the normal way that term is used to mean the Government and/or high ranking officials of the ruling classes). There was though unacceptable gilding of the lily and non-disclosure as regards evidence given and matters withheld at court.

Regards,

OneRound

[Derrick]

The Recorder of London Sir Anthony Hawke said, on 2nd January 1962, when referring the trial back to Bedford;

If the case was returned to Bedford there was every likelihood that this trial will come on more quickly and more expeditiously than it would have done in this court.

HTH
Del

[OneRound]

Hi Spitfire,

I don't think the Crown actually nominated a particular judge for a particular case. Hanratty's trial was at Bedford Assizes, and came under the Winter Assizes, whose sitting judge was Justice Gorman.

Graham

Hi Graham - my last post crossed with your's above.

I think you're right although I'm also sure senior judges could push (and perhaps be encouraged to push) to hear certain cases. Goddard as Lord Chief Justice was determined from the outset to try Craig and Bentley and made sure he did.

Best regards,

OneRound

[OneRound]

Hi Del - thanks for supplying the comment from the Recorder of London. I had missed or forgotten that. Clearly imo, it was the wrong decision but it's still good to hear it.

Best regards,

OneRound

[OneRound]

True. However, people need to accept that what’s fact is fact – it has been proven & cannot be denied. Like any great conspiracy theory, we then question the fact & say that it can only be fact because it was manipulated before it became fact & therefore it’s not true.

So what the ‘he was innocent’ brigade are saying is that the DNA was planted. Forget all the arguments about a possible alibi or sightings of JH somewhere else at the time – that’s all irrelevant if his DNA was found on Valerie Stories underwear. Surely we should all agree on this?

Keep them peeled.

Hi Hannibal - I guess you're instinctively against anyone accused of this crime as ''in all the trains and banks you robbed, you never shot anyone''.

Anyway, I certainly don't think that the DNA was planted. Inconceivable to my mind that scientists of today would engage in a criminal conspiracy with all the risks and potential penalties involved to prevent a miscarriage of the past being unearthed which involved people they never knew.

However, I still remain a tad uneasy about modern scientific methods being used to ''prove'' guilt when none of the normally required modern safeguards have been applied to the items tested. That sense of unease only grows when added to all the other unsatisfactory elements surrounding this case.

It should also be noted that some posters of a far more scientific bent than me raise various technical objections to the DNA evidence although I'll leave them to re-introduce those aspects if they so wish.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Graham]

Don't forget that the judges at the last Appeal stated that in their opinion there was sufficient evidence apart from the DNA to convict Hanratty.

Graham

[caz]

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

I wondered the same thing, OneRound.

But one thing would have been certain. Hanratty would not have faced the death penalty (assuming he had lived to hear the damaging DNA findings).

I suppose there must be a natural tendency to associate the Hanratty-did-it-ites with the hang 'em and flog' em brigade, and those who insist Hanratty was innocent with 'lefties' who see miscarriages of justice everywhere.

I am fiercely of the belief that Derek Bentley and Timothy Evans, to name but two, were victims of terrible miscarriages, so I'd like to think I assess the evidence in individual cases more fairly than those who are looking to find guilt - or innocence - and rush to judgement accordingly.

Love,

Caz
X

[OneRound]

Don't forget that the judges at the last Appeal stated that in their opinion there was sufficient evidence apart from the DNA to convict Hanratty.

Graham

Hi Graham - that's certainly not forgotten by me although I do wonder whether the judges were influenced by the DNA findings when considering the other evidence.

Best regards,

OneRound

[OneRound]

I wondered the same thing, OneRound.

But one thing would have been certain. Hanratty would not have faced the death penalty (assuming he had lived to hear the damaging DNA findings).

I suppose there must be a natural tendency to associate the Hanratty-did-it-ites with the hang 'em and flog' em brigade, and those who insist Hanratty was innocent with 'lefties' who see miscarriages of justice everywhere.

I am fiercely of the belief that Derek Bentley and Timothy Evans, to name but two, were victims of terrible miscarriages, so I'd like to think I assess the evidence in individual cases more fairly than those who are looking to find guilt - or innocence - and rush to judgement accordingly.

Love,

Caz
X

Thanks, Caz. Another very good and interesting post.

If Hanratty had faced a modern day retrial, your comment about him not facing the death penalty is pertinent. Just possibly that might have tipped the scales towards a guilty verdict.

Completely agree with your implied comment that a ''rush to judgement'' can result in a denial of justice. The early timeline of the Bentley case stands out shamefully there:
* November 1952 - arrested and charged with murder
* December 1952 - tried and convicted
* January 1953 - appeal held and dismissed
* January 1953 (again) - executed.

I would add that I - and, more significantly, others who know me - don't regard myself as a leftie seeing miscarriages of justice everywhere. I appreciate you didn't say I was, just wanted to emphasise the point. In fact, had Michael Gregsten been my son or Valerie Storie my daughter, I'm sure I would have been happy to pull the lever on Hanratty myself.

However, trying to look at matters in a more dispassionate and rounded way, I do feel strongly that everyone deserves a fair trial. That's why I'm so torn by this case and probably in part why also so fascinated. Did he get a fair trial? I don't think so. Was he innocent? Same answer again.

With very best regards,

OneRound

[caz]

Thanks, OneRound.

I would add that I - and, more significantly, others who know me - don't regard myself as a leftie seeing miscarriages of justice everywhere. I appreciate you didn't say I was, just wanted to emphasise the point.

Oh absolutely. Similarly, those who know me don't regard me as a hang 'em and flog 'em type. I just hoped my observations on this particular subject had not given that impression to anyone.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

So what the ‘he was innocent’ brigade are saying is that the DNA was planted. Forget all the arguments about a possible alibi or sightings of JH somewhere else at the time – that’s all irrelevant if his DNA was found on Valerie Stories underwear. Surely we should all agree on this?

Hi HH,

There are several schools of thought on this. Some think Hanratty's semen must have got on the victim's underwear after the event, via an incredibly unlucky contamination event, which would have required a tiny trace from his trouser fly to have come into direct contact with the retained knicker fragment, presumably during storage.

Others believe the DNA matches, between the knicker fragment, mucous-stained hankie and Hanratty's exhumed remains, are in themselves unreliable.

However, for someone else to have been the rapist and gunman, this unknown person's semen must have been totally absent or undetectable when the DNA tests were conducted, even though it was present immediately after the crime in 1961, and was examined and blood typed.

The least likely of three unlikely scenarios (to my mind) would be planting Hanratty's DNA. They'd have needed to exhume his body for that, but they didn't do so until earlier tests using DNA from Hanratty relatives had already been found consistent with his guilt.

Even if we accept the DNA findings, as I do, they should be considered alongside all the other evidence, and not be seen on their own as sufficient proof of guilt.

Hope this helps!

Love,

Caz
X