A6 Rebooted

[NickB]

Hmm ... interesting.

Previously on this forum it was stated that the evidence of Nudds was missing from the transcripts, but Nudds gave evidence on day 5.

It appears that the missing files concern the evidence of Detective-Superintendent Acott!

Day 9
Day10
Day11

[Derrick]

Hmm ... interesting.

Previously on this forum it was stated that the evidence of Nudds was missing from the transcripts, but Nudds gave evidence on day 5.

It appears that the missing files concern the evidence of Detective-Superintendent Acott!

Day 9
Day10
Day11

Cor...what a surprise!

[ansonman]

Unreasonable doubt or time to chuck it all in?

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

Agree entirely OR.

Notwithstanding all the other factors, the jury was sufficiently undecided after six hours of deliberation, to ask the judge for a definition of the words "reasonable doubt".

It would be interesting to know how many of the jury had some doubt and how many were sure certain. Equally interesting would be the answer to the question "what convinced the doubters that their doubt was unreasonable?".

One would hate to think it had anything to do with the fact that they'd been deliberating for 9 hours, had sat on the then longest trial in British Criminal history and wanted to go home.

Incidentally, only one of the contributors to this thread, thus far, would have joined the jury in finding Hanratty guilty, which is also interesting.

Ansonman

[NickB]

It would be interesting to know how many of the jury had some doubt and how many were sure certain.

As I understand it, at that time a unanimous guilty verdict was required. So if there was only one juror with doubts and wanted to know what ‘reasonable doubt’ meant, the question would have been worth asking.

Equally interesting would be the answer to the question "what convinced the doubters that their doubt was unreasonable?".

I don’t think the judge’s hardline response to the question (“You have to be sure of the guilt of the accused before you find him guilty.”) left any wriggle room for the doubters. They must have subsequently changed their minds and became sure.

[Sherlock Houses]

One would hate to think it had anything to do with the fact that they'd been deliberating for 9 hours, had sat on the then longest trial in British Criminal history and wanted to go home.

It's my feeling that this came into play., Ansonman. If so, to what degree has to remain speculative of course. The all male jury would have chosen a chairman [nowadays a chairperson] to preside, so to speak, over the deliberations of it's members. This was the one and only time during the course of the trial that the court sat on a Saturday. Who knows, perhaps a few jurors were wishing they were elsewhere, in a social context, on a Saturday evening/night, traditionally the most popular night of the week for millions of Britons.

If that excellent 1957 Sidney Lumet directed courtroom drama "12 Angry Men" is any kind of yardstick then I can imagine a fair amount of subtle [and not so subtle] bullying/persuasion went on in that closed off jury room by the more vociferous members. Almost 10 hours of deliberating is a lengthy time and there must have been considerable doubt in the minds of some jurors as to the guilt of James Hanratty. The doubters, in effect, allowed their minds to be changed, alas. A copy of the trial transcript had earlier been requested by the jury but was denied as it was deemed impracticable.

At 9.10pm that evening the jury returned their guilty verdict and were then free to enjoy the rest of their Saturday night. I wonder how many [if any] of them headed to the nearest pub for a quick drink before heading home.

[Sherlock Houses]

Cor...what a surprise!

Perhaps some hungry mice had got at them Derrick in the meantime as this testimony wasn't missing a few short years ago.

[ansonman]

It's my feeling that this came into play., Ansonman. If so, to what degree has to remain speculative of course. The all male jury would have chosen a chairman [nowadays a chairperson] to preside, so to speak, over the deliberations of it's members. This was the one and only time during the course of the trial that the court sat on a Saturday. Who knows, perhaps a few jurors were wishing they were elsewhere, in a social context, on a Saturday evening/night, traditionally the most popular night of the week for millions of Britons.

If that excellent 1957 Sidney Lumet directed courtroom drama "12 Angry Men" is any kind of yardstick then I can imagine a fair amount of subtle [and not so subtle] bullying/persuasion went on in that closed off jury room by the more vociferous members. Almost 10 hours of deliberating is a lengthy time and there must have been considerable doubt in the minds of some jurors as to the guilt of James Hanratty. The doubters, in effect, allowed their minds to be changed, alas. A copy of the trial transcript had earlier been requested by the jury but was denied as it was deemed impracticable.

At 9.10pm that evening the jury returned their guilty verdict and were then free to enjoy the rest of their Saturday night. I wonder how many [if any] of them headed to the nearest pub for a quick drink before heading home.

Yes indeed, Sherlock.

I was going to say, in response to Nick B's earlier comment, that I think it highly unlikely that only one member of the jury had any doubts as to Hanratty's guilt, unless he was an English Henry Fonder.

At the same time we must assume that the doubters were in the minority and after holding out for most of Saturday, they allowed themselves to cross the floor, as it were.

I understand that the London cast of Twelve Angry Men is about to tour the UK.

Ansonman

[Sherlock Houses]

At the same time we must assume that the doubters were in the minority and after holding out for most of Saturday, they allowed themselves to cross the floor, as it were.

I agree, Ansonman. If you put me on the spot I would guess that 3 jurors out of the 11 had strong doubts. They definitely didn't stick to their guns, in the final analysis, and don't merit that much respect from me, especially when you consider the solemn reality that a man's life was at stake.

[Limehouse]

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

I think the location of the trial significantly hampered the chances of a fair trial.

If the crime happened today, with the same level of feeling as it evoked back in 1961/62, it most certainly would not have been located in the area where the crime occurred.

I can think of at least three modern-day examples of high profile crimes whereby the trial was located away from the scene of the crime(s) to ensure the accused received a fair trial.

Concerning the jury and the judge, it is quite clear that the judge steered the jury towards a 'not guilty' verdict and he did so because he had grave reservations about the quality/reliability of the evidence.

The jury, quite rightly, deliberated in returning an early verdict and required direction from the judge on certain matters. This does seem to suggest that, local as they were, they were concerned with delivering the correct verdict.

Like several posters have said before, if the case was heard in Scotland, it is almost certain that a verdict of 'not proven' would have been reached.

[Derrick]

Personally I believe that the movement of the trial away from the Old Bailey to Bedford was completely unfair and understand that the politics that surround that decision may never be known.

Furthermore, I also believe that the jury's verdict was certainly perverse. The evidence against Hanratty, in a capital murder trial, was not strong enough to convict and condemn a man to lose his own life based on the case brought against him.

The jury's perverse decision was one of the grounds that Sherrard put before the Appeal Court in March 1962. The court though were to have none of it, as they reckoned that the jury, having heard all of the evidence, were quite right to convict if they thought it right to do so.

I don't agree with the appeal courts decision in 1962 just like I don't agree with their decision in 2002.

Anyway, this is in answer to a question put, I think, by ansonman a week or so ago but I am replying from someone who wouldn't have voted guilty and I would certainly have prevented a unanimous decision however long it may have taken.

Del

[Spitfire]

Anyway, this is in answer to a question put, I think, by ansonman a week or so ago but I am replying from someone who wouldn't have voted guilty and I would certainly have prevented a unanimous decision however long it may have taken.

I am not sure why the citizens of Bedfordshire would be more ready to convict than those living in the Metropolis. Evans and Bentley both had Old Bailey trials and it did little to help them. On the plus side Hanratty was given a judge who was fair and even handed, and it was generally perceived that his summing up was for a verdict of not guilty.

Before anyone can say which way they would have voted they would have had to have heard all the evidence. Even if one has read the complete transcript, the jury would have been in a better position to judge the credibility of the witnesses as they would have seen the witnesses and Hanratty give evidence.

The change of trial venue pales into insignificance when set against Hanratty's general demeanour and his lying about his whereabouts on the night of the crime. That is what cost Hanratty his life.

[OneRound]

I am not sure why the citizens of Bedfordshire would be more ready to convict than those living in the Metropolis. Evans and Bentley both had Old Bailey trials and it did little to help them. On the plus side Hanratty was given a judge who was fair and even handed, and it was generally perceived that his summing up was for a verdict of not guilty.

Before anyone can say which way they would have voted they would have had to have heard all the evidence. Even if one has read the complete transcript, the jury would have been in a better position to judge the credibility of the witnesses as they would have seen the witnesses and Hanratty give evidence.

The change of trial venue pales into insignificance when set against Hanratty's general demeanour and his lying about his whereabouts on the night of the crime. That is what cost Hanratty his life.

Spitfire - it is hardly surprising that the choice of the Old Bailey as the trial venue for Evans and Bentley did nothing to help them. You conveniently overlook major features of the two cases.

The jury in the first case were taken in, just as the police had been, by a mass murderer who lied on oath and testified against Evans, as was eventually demonstrated at Christie's trial. The jury in the second case were pressured by a biased judge to deliver a guilty verdict against Bentley, as the Court of Appeal concluded forty-five years after his execution.

Given your comments about the judge in the Hanratty case and the general perception of his summing up for a not guilty verdict, the question arises as to why they went the other way. I realise your answer to this is in your final paragraph and personally I have a lot of time for that. However, I can't say that local prejudices didn't also play a part. The important thing to me here is that the matter of possible local prejudices should have never been allowed to arise and would obviously have been avoided had the choice of Old Bailey not been changed.

I appreciate your point that anyone needs to have heard all the evidence in the Hanratty case before saying which way they would have voted. However, I struggle to square that with your final sentence when you categorically state why the jury found him guilty. To my mind, you would need to have been on the jury to make such a statement and I assume you weren't.

Regards,

OneRound

[moste]

From Spitfire:"Evans and Bentley both had Old Bailey trials and it did little to help them"
I'm confused
Rillington place was in Notting Hill, and the Bentley incident was in Croydon! Are you saying that Londoners would have taken a dimmer view of these crimes as they were committed in their neck of the woods. These cases probably should have been tried in Birmingham, and Hanratty in London. To be fair. Or am I missing something with this post?

[moste]

Surely if the old bailey did nothing to help Evans and Bentley, then it follows that Bedford court would not have been a good idea for Hanratty.Its well documented that public feelings about this crime in the home counties were very strong.

[moste]

From Spitfire:"The change of trial venue pales into insignificance when set against Hanratty's general demeanour and his lying about his whereabouts on the night of the crime. That is what cost Hanratty his life."

The change of venue doesn't pale into insignificance when set against anything.Mr. Sherrard was annoyed at being thwarted on this issue, for good reason.
As for lying about his whereabouts. The Liverpool alibi remained a constant throughout. The expansion of the alibi to the Rhyl visit, was a mistake, (that for me is what would make it believable, why even introduce it if it isn't true?)He should obviously have told the whole story from the beginning, even to the naming names with regards to his fences. He was (as he said) so convinced that, if he hadn't done this terrible thing, then justice would prevail, and no need to drop his so called mates in the mire. STUPID!
As for the jury perceiving his demeanour, I reckon some of them may have been thinking "cocky little bastard, he doesn't impress me one bit"
On the other hand, some of them probably would have got quite a kick out of listening to Jimmy, kicking the brilliant queens council Mr. Graham Swanwicks arse,(metaphorically speaking.)
No. Just about every facet of this case reeks of "Stitch up". That is what cost Hanratty his life