A6 Rebooted

[Spitfire]

One Round - Your assumption that I was not a member of the jury that rightly convicted James Hanratty is correct. If I had been on the jury I believe I would be committing a contempt of court if I were to reveal its deliberations.

I just do not think that there was any local prejudice particular to Bedford and its environs as opposed to any other area of the country. Hanratty's crime made national headlines and all people in all localities were revolted by it. This revulsion was not peculiar to Bedford.

In sending the case to Bedford Hanratty was given the liberal and Liberal Bill Gorman as trial judge. If he had gone on trial at the Old Bailey he could have landed with Melford Stevenson or someone of similar persuasion.

Looked at objectively before the trial, Hanratty had said at the time of the crime he was elsewhere with his criminal associates whom he would not name. On any view of the matter this was a lie, and a lie which Hanratty maintained from the very first time he was questioned over the telephone by Acott until he changed his story in the middle of the trial. This would have been devastating to Hanratty's defence (IMHO).

The jury must have decided that the new story was also a tissue of lies (IMHO) and indeed Mike Sherrard did not think much of it as he never sought to adduce further evidence in support of Hanratty's appeal in 1962.

Of course there will be some people that will hold to their deaths the fond belief that Hanratty was framed, that the cartridge cases in the Vienna were planted, that the identification by Miss Storie and the Redbridge witnesses was flawed, that the barefaced lie as to three criminal chums in Liverpool was an understandable lapse, that any jury empanelled from the citizens of the fair county of Bedfordshire would be hopelessly biased and that the DNA testing, initially requested by the Hanratty defence team, was unreliable. I, on the other hand, speaking for myself and not as any part of any judicially assembled body from the early 1960s, believe, like Mike Sherrard, that the wrong man was not hanged.

[Limehouse]

In sending the case to Bedford Hanratty was given the liberal and Liberal Bill Gorman as trial judge. If he had gone on trial at the Old Bailey he could have landed with Melford Stevenson or someone of similar persuasion.

And that would have resulted in what - him being hanged???

[Hannibal Hayes]

So, for most people, in the situation of JR, they would tell the truth from the outset – I’m sure we can all agree with that? However, JH was not most people & chose not to tell the whole truth from the beginning & then change his story. That didn’t help his case at all & the jury would have thought then, as jury’s would now, that he’s making it up as he goes along to save his skin.

Realistically, this doesn’t help anyone, especially someone who must have known that if he was found guilty he would hang. Unless he was deluded I can’t think of why anyone who would do this.

JH was a petty criminal & may have got it into his head that he can talk his way out of it but that was his downfall.

The whole Country knew of this awful crime so where it took place probably wouldn’t have made any difference.

The judge may have guided the jury to go one way or another but when you have 12 people, he can’t & shouldn’t tell them which way they go. Why or how they got a majority will never be known unless there is someone still alive who was on the jury & willing to open up, risking a charge of contempt of court.

I sometimes find it difficult to believe we still debate JH’s innocence considering the DNA evidence.

[Spitfire]

I sometimes find it difficult to believe we still debate JH’s innocence considering the DNA evidence.

I agree. If the DNA had shown Hanratty to have been not guilty, then I would have accepted it as conclusive of his innocence as I now accept it as conclusive of his guilt. And do not forget that it was Woffinden and Bindman who were initially all in favour of the DNA testing. It was only when the results came back not quite as expected that they changed their tune.

It is hard to escape drawing the conclusion that the jury was not biased but saw through Hanratty and his manifold lies and contortions of the truth, to the extent that each member of the 11 man jury was certain sure that Hanratty was a vicious murderer and rapist.

[Sherlock Houses]

So, for most people, in the situation of JR

The judge may have guided the jury to go one way or another but when you have 12 people, he can’t & shouldn’t tell them which way they go. Why or how they got a majority will never be known unless there is someone still alive who was on the jury & willing to open up, risking a charge of contempt of court.

I sometimes find it difficult to believe we still debate JH’s innocence considering the DNA evidence.

I don't know who this JR [Dallas ? perhaps] chap is.

You seem unaware of the fact that there were 11 jurors not 12 in this trial.

OK, let's all stop debating this case because you personally believe he was guilty [despite the overwhelming amount of evidence indicating his innocence].

You're not Jonathan Whittaker by any chance are you ?

[Sherlock Houses]

Looked at objectively before the trial, Hanratty had said at the time of the crime he was elsewhere with his criminal associates whom he would not name. On any view of the matter this was a lie, and a lie which Hanratty maintained from the very first time he was questioned over the telephone by Acott until he changed his story in the middle of the trial. This would have been devastating to Hanratty's defence (IMHO).

The jury must have decided that the new story was also a tissue of lies (IMHO) and indeed Mike Sherrard did not think much of it as he never sought to adduce further evidence in support of Hanratty's appeal in 1962.

Humble people don't shout.

[Graham]

I'm not sure if it is contempt of court for a juror to discuss a case after its completion. Fairly recently I read of someone who was jury foreman on a UK murder case, and the defendant was found guilty. Some time afterwards the foreman went on record as saying that he'd reconsidered the case and the verdict, and felt that the jury had made a mistake. If anyone recalls this, and can put some names to the case, I'd be interested.

Also, I'm not 100% certain that it's contempt of court to actually name jury members. The last (and presumably the most recently published) book I read about the Great Train Robbery named most of the jurors and I don't recall any repercussions arising.

But I'm not a lawyer.

Graham

[Hannibal Hayes]

I don't know who this JR [Dallas ? perhaps] chap is.

You seem unaware of the fact that there were 11 jurors not 12 in this trial.

OK, let's all stop debating this case because you personally believe he was guilty [despite the overwhelming amount of evidence indicating his innocence].

You're not Jonathan Whittaker by any chance are you ?

OK, a couple of typo's - don't you ever mistype?

Just my opinion that the evidence (DNA) conclusively points to JH's (not JR's) guilt.

The bottom line is that he added bits to his story half way through the case & must have realised that by doing so would not help his case.

'Overwhelming evidence' is a matter of opinion & that's why we have these debates on forums. But I believe the DNA evidence makes the man guilty.

Er, no.

[Spitfire]

I'm not sure if it is contempt of court for a juror to discuss a case after its completion. Fairly recently I read of someone who was jury foreman on a UK murder case, and the defendant was found guilty. Some time afterwards the foreman went on record as saying that he'd reconsidered the case and the verdict, and felt that the jury had made a mistake. If anyone recalls this, and can put some names to the case, I'd be interested.

Also, I'm not 100% certain that it's contempt of court to actually name jury members. The last (and presumably the most recently published) book I read about the Great Train Robbery named most of the jurors and I don't recall any repercussions arising.

But I'm not a lawyer.

Graham

It is contempt to reveal a jury's deliberations though.

Section 8(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 provides for confidentiality of jury’s deliberations as follows:

(1)Subject to subsection (2) below, it is a contempt of court to obtain, disclose or solicit any particulars of statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast by members of a jury in the course of their deliberations in any legal proceedings.

[OneRound]

One Round - Your assumption that I was not a member of the jury that rightly convicted James Hanratty is correct. If I had been on the jury I believe I would be committing a contempt of court if I were to reveal its deliberations.

I just do not think that there was any local prejudice particular to Bedford and its environs as opposed to any other area of the country. Hanratty's crime made national headlines and all people in all localities were revolted by it. This revulsion was not peculiar to Bedford.

In sending the case to Bedford Hanratty was given the liberal and Liberal Bill Gorman as trial judge. If he had gone on trial at the Old Bailey he could have landed with Melford Stevenson or someone of similar persuasion.

Looked at objectively before the trial, Hanratty had said at the time of the crime he was elsewhere with his criminal associates whom he would not name. On any view of the matter this was a lie, and a lie which Hanratty maintained from the very first time he was questioned over the telephone by Acott until he changed his story in the middle of the trial. This would have been devastating to Hanratty's defence (IMHO).

The jury must have decided that the new story was also a tissue of lies (IMHO) and indeed Mike Sherrard did not think much of it as he never sought to adduce further evidence in support of Hanratty's appeal in 1962.

Of course there will be some people that will hold to their deaths the fond belief that Hanratty was framed, that the cartridge cases in the Vienna were planted, that the identification by Miss Storie and the Redbridge witnesses was flawed, that the barefaced lie as to three criminal chums in Liverpool was an understandable lapse, that any jury empanelled from the citizens of the fair county of Bedfordshire would be hopelessly biased and that the DNA testing, initially requested by the Hanratty defence team, was unreliable. I, on the other hand, speaking for myself and not as any part of any judicially assembled body from the early 1960s, believe, like Mike Sherrard, that the wrong man was not hanged.

Spitfire - with regard to your opening paragraph, thank you for confirming the correctness of my earlier post. As you were not a jury member in this case, I am pleased to note that your own earlier posts were merely presumptuous and not a contempt of court.

I also note your thinking as to why the jury reached the decision it did and, imho (as Sherlock suggests, no need to shout), a lot of your thoughts are not unreasonable. However, my point remains that as we were not on the jury we simply cannot say whether local prejudices influenced that decision or not. My contention remains that the trial should have been held at a non-local court such as the Old Bailey which would have prevented this matter and, in the views of some, genuine concern arising.

Regards,

OneRound

[Derrick]

...The judge may have guided the jury to go one way or another but when you have 12 people, he can’t & shouldn’t tell them which way they go. Why or how they got a majority will never be known unless there is someone still alive who was on the jury & willing to open up, risking a charge of contempt of court...

Firstly the judge can direct the jury to a decision if compelled to do so by a certain point of law or if he decides that there is no case to answer.

The Bedford jury decision wasn't a majority it was and had to be unanimous, even though there were only 11 jurors left at the end.

Del

[Derrick]

...'Overwhelming evidence' is a matter of opinion & that's why we have these debates on forums. But I believe the DNA evidence makes the man guilty...

Hi HH

How is Kid Curry these days?

The CCRC certainly thought that there was overwhelming evidence of Hanratty's conviction being unsafe.

Furthermore, DNA alone cannot prove anyone's guilt. It has to be examined in concert and within the context of all the other evidence in the case. This is the CPS's line apparently!

regards
Del

[otterman62]

"conspiracy Theories"

So, which family do you believe instigated this whole fiasco? Was it Mrs. Gregsten to get her husband back? Was it Storie's parents to get their daughter away from a married man?

If Mrs. Gregsten then why would she pay a sizable sum of money to a man who completely cocked up the job and KILLED the husband she was trying to get back?

If the Stories, then, again, why would they pay money to a man who RAPED their daughter and left her paralyzed?

Blackmail from the killer makes no sense because in order for the blackmail to stick, he would have to implicate himself in a case that carried the death penalty.

I don't have a good explanation for Alphon's money, but it could have come from other less than completely lawful activities that he didn't want the police to get wind of and nothing to do with the A6 case.

penhalion firstly i never suggested that the stories were involved , nor do i believe that they were. I think that the alleged involvement of the Gregsten family hasnt been adequately investigated. Nor is their involvement some kind of crackpot theory completely out of context. It was a theory suggested by Peter Alphon, one of the two main suspects in this case as named by the police. perhaps uniquely It wasnt suggested to deflect the blame from him to somebody else but was put forward after JH had been charged and after PA was apparently in the clear. Of course he could have been a lunatic seeking publicity , but his theory should have been better investigated as a man's life depended on it. As you say you dont have a good explanation for PA's money, and it appears neither does anyone else. Surely the police should have been able to track the audit trail or look at Gregsten/Ewer accounts to see if there was a match in money out from there matching money in to PA. I dont think for a moment that if they did hire PA that they ever intended murder, but i beleive that PA said that the intention was to scare the couple and make Gregsten look cowardly, by letting him escape, which everyone agress he had the opportunity to do at various stops on the journey. Obviously if he was hired , with the benefit of hindsight PA wasnt some scary thug, but a very disturbed man which previous and post events proved, and it was this that led to the final tragic events on deadmans hill. Also Alphon mentions JH being framed and then Charles France who is involved in the apparently crucial evidence against JH commits suicide!!! again a bit of a coincidence , no? and even if it was a coincidence were the contents of his suicide notes ever investigated ? was his family interviewed to say what he said in his notes. If , as you suggest it was a pure coincidence then that would be provable and the conspiracy theory falls apart. My main point is that I am willing to believe that JH is guilty or willing to believe that JH is innocent, but until all the facts are investigated then I share a deep concern that an innocent man may have been hung for something he didnt do. BTW thanks to all for their comments, cracking forum!

[Hannibal Hayes]

Hi HH

How is Kid Curry these days?

The CCRC certainly thought that there was overwhelming evidence of Hanratty's conviction being unsafe.

Furthermore, DNA alone cannot prove anyone's guilt. It has to be examined in concert and within the context of all the other evidence in the case. This is the CPS's line apparently!

regards
Del

Apologies, I didn’t word that very well. Yes, you’re right, that can happen but I was thinking more of a judge trying to manipulate the jurors to go one way or another with some carefully chosen words rather than telling them to go one way because it was unsafe etc.

Right again with the DNA evidence. My opinion is that as JH’s DNA was found on Valerie Storie’s underwear, I can’t imagine how else it got there. However, I don’t know how much was found – whether it was a trace or a substantial amount.

So was the judge just after a plain majority vote or 6 guilty/5 not?

Only people of a certain age will get the Hannibal Hayes reference – these pesky kids of today don’t know what they missed! Anyone else think JH looks like Woody Harrelson?!

[caz]

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!

Hi moste,

You seem to misunderstand what an alibi is. The Liverpool alibi did not remain 'a constant' throughout, and the Rhy visit was not an 'expansion' of that alibi.

Essentially, Hanratty's whereabouts for the duration of the crime itself were his alibi, and he originally claimed he spent those hours in Liverpool. During the trial he changed horses and claimed he spent those same hours in Rhyl, thus admitting he had lied about spending them in Liverpool. It was an uphill battle after that to show he wasn't lying about Rhyl too. Whether he was ever in Liverpool earlier that week is neither here nor there in relation to his changing alibi. By his own admission he wasn't there while the crime was being committed. I fail to see how dropping a false alibi in favour of a different one makes the new one 'believable'. You ask why he'd do that if it wasn't true, and it's a fair question. He was more likely to get the benefit of the doubt if he stuck with Liverpool and the jury had no proof he was lying. He must have got the willies about people seeing through this lie.

I'd turn your question round and ask why he'd tell a STUPID lie like that if he had a genuine alibi up his sleeve. Naming his Liverpool fences wouldn't have helped since he was not in Liverpool for the crucial hours, but supposedly in Rhyl. As he had no proof of being in either place that night, his Liverpool lie seriously - I'd say fatally - damaged his chances of being believed when it came to Rhyl, whether this was true or not.

If he had got the willies about Rhyl and changed again, and said he spent the night in Chester, would you find that believable too, on the grounds that he wouldn't have introduced it if it wasn't true?

As a matter of interest, if you met Hanratty in the afterlife and discovered he had committed this vile crime after all, what would your feelings be towards him then?

Love,

Caz
X