A6 Rebooted

[djw]

I think its been mentioned here before but although those directly involved in the case are all dead, records are being withheld due to distress it might cause to their surviving families.

However without knowing how long their families will survive, how do we know when the records will ever be released? Children of those involved very well might outlive any sleuths here who are interested. Saying that though, 2060 might be even longer. Wouldn't Gregstens children have to be centenarians by then? Would that be a good time to be subject to distress?

Really I would like to know if this is worth taking to the Information Commissioner in the opinion of those here.

"...Section 38(1)(a)1 exempts information from disclosure if that disclosure would, or
would be likely to, endanger the physical or mental health of any individual.
This exemption has been applied to information pertaining to the murder of Michael
Gregsten and attack upon Valerie Storie, as well as other sensitive information
relating to other identifiable individuals, the disclosure of which would impact upon
living individuals. We are unable to provide any detail concerning the nature of this
other information, as that would in itself be disclosing exempt information.
For section 38 to be engaged it is necessary to prove that disclosure would involve a
level of harm. The harm/prejudice test for this exemption involves the consideration
of the risk that mental endangerment of an individual ‘would or would be likely’ to
occur2. In consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), The National
Archives has determined that the release of the aforementioned material ‘would be
likely’ to significantly distress the individuals concerned. ..."

"...Family members of the individuals concerned, who would be impacted by disclosure
into the public domain, have been identified and can be presumed living. After
reasonable consideration it has been determined that they are likely to be impacted
by the release of information in this record. Thus the release of this material and its
availability to members of the public is likely to cause shock, harm and distress to
such an extent that mental endangerment may be rendered to these individuals. To
release information, which potentially exposes members of the public to a risk of
mental endangerment, would not be in the public interest. The specific arguments
considered in the public interest test have previously been supplied to you.
Having reviewed and reconsidered these arguments, it is my view that the original
decision was correct. The release of this information into the public domain would be
likely to have a detrimental effect on the mental health of surviving immediate family
of individuals referenced within the record. To disclose distressing information
concerning the events recorded in this file has the potential to endanger their mental
health and as such is not considered to be in the public interest. Therefore it has
been determined that the risk of endangerment outweighs the reasoning for
disclosure in this specific case and the exemption at section 38(1)(a) of the Freedom
of Information Act applies to the information...."

[caz]

Hi Private I,

Yes, you may certainly point that out. Shortly after the 2002 judgement, Sherrard was quoted as saying in a talk to the Law Society, ''The wrong man was not hanged. That was an immense relief to me.''

However, please allow me to point out that his opinion of the original prosecution remained unchanged. As he also stated in that talk, ''The evidence was too weak to justify conviction. I still hold that view.'' And that's where I first came in.

Best regards,
OneRound

Afternoon OneRound,

The evidence for the original prosecution was too weak in my opinion, and I have always been against the death penalty in any case.

I would have worded it differently from Sherrard's: "The wrong man was not hanged", but the sentiment is the same: the DNA evidence on the hanky has not IIRC been disputed, and it matched Hanratty's remains and a DNA profile identified from semen on the rape victim's underwear. Therefore it would seem to me beyond reasonable doubt that he had handled the murder weapon and had used it to commit murder and rape. I don't see when, how - or why - this collectively powerful evidence could have been manufactured out of thin air by sinister powers, or completely misinterpreted by the scientists involved to give a desired result.

I see very little comparison with the Post Office scandal. There was never any evidence of theft on the part of those who were wrongly convicted. They were pressured into pleading guilty instead to false accounting and using their own savings to pay for Horizon generated shortfalls in return for not being jailed. Why would anyone on the fiddle after a computer system was introduced have phoned the helpline multiple times, alerting the Post Office to a 'problem' caused by their own criminal actions?

I always come back to why Hanratty lied about his whereabouts on the murder night and changed his story, when his very life depended on the jury finding him not guilty. It's not normal behaviour for someone who believes he is being set up for a crime he didn't commit. He'd have been playing straight into their hands by not giving a simple, truthful account of where he was, which, for all his enemies knew, he might have been able to prove. I know the accused doesn't have to provide an alibi, but by producing two, Hanratty was effectively disproving one of them all by himself, leaving the jury unable to believe either.

Love,

Caz
X

[cobalt]

I apologise for replying to my own post but it refers to the police response to the crime. The official version states that police were making enquiries in the very shopping centre near William Ewer's. premises. We still do not know why the police turned up in Swiss Cottage on 1st September 1961, in plainclothes, but the official version as I understand it that they they were investigating the 'Northwood Robberies.' Whatever they were. Or may be I am wrong. Maybe they were after the A6 murderer. I have no idea and maybe only Matthews knows. I would like clarity on this matter.

Now Ewer, being a local busybody, alerted the police and other shop keepers to a ''dodgy; character he had seen hanging around. Whether this character was Hanratty, or resembled Hanratty, is unclear. Ewer later claimed it was, but I am not sure what he said to shop keepers or police at that time. It may be that police records of that day clarify why they were investigating. The later 'I saw him at the Cleaners' yarn is obviously complete fiction so I will dispense with that.

Whatever, the police emerged with a name. A false name of J. Ryan but one which eventually put a man on the gallows. I assume, but I obviously do not know, that Ewer was aware of this name at the time. The police should really have known this was an alias used by Hanratty, but maybe they were slack.

Some time later, cartridge cases were found in the Vienna Hotel. The police response is astonishing to the point of lethargy. The most dangerous man in Britain is either Alphon, who the police knew, or Ryan. But they they fail to track either down. It takes almost two weeks before Alphon, hardly a man capable of merging into the background, announces himself to the police. And when they lose interest in him they are very slow to track down Ryan, who might be roaming any cornfield in the country with a revolver in hand. It all speaks to me that the police knew this was a one crime that would not be repeated.

[cobalt]

OR has given a very good critique of the DNA evidence. Much appreciated.

Less well known is the non DNA evidence from 1961.Now I appreciate that forensic science has developed since then, but let us not be badgered into thinking that 1961 was the dark ages. The potential from the murder/rape car was considerable, especially in terms of fibres, saliva and hair. Valerie Storie's clothing should have yielded considerable data -at the the time- of fibre and hair evidence. Yet we are led to believe that nothing was discovered. You can only take that as you do. Nothing, absolutely nothing, was discovered to incriminate Hanratty from either the car or her clothing at the time. It's almost beyond belief.

If we have to accept the car was so 'clean' then we have to accept it was thoroughly cleaned after the crime. But according to the prosecution case there was no time to do this. It would have required a damp cloth at the very least, probably a vacuum cleaner. How do you clean the footwells? When was this was done? And who did it? When did the car arrive in London? And was the person who drove it there the same person who committed the crime?

The non DNA, the Dog that did not Bark in the Night, speaks as loud to me as the DNA which appeared, conveniently, many years later.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi again Private I,

What mostly stops me from fully buying into the DNA evidence proving Hanratty's guilt is that DNA from the semen of an unknown AB blood group secretor was found on Valerie Storie's knickers. Presuming but not checking it was from Michael Gregsten is unacceptable to me, especially as he and Miss Storie had apparently not had sex for several days before the murder.

Best regards,
OneRound

I know.

I did read that in an earlier post of yours.

I had not actually heard of it before.

[OneRound]

I did actually see a video recording of Sherrard saying the first sentence, but not the second.

I always had doubts myself about whether the verdict was correct based on the evidence presented in court.

I do not, however, have any doubts about the DNA evidence.

Hi again Private I,

What mostly stops me from fully buying into the DNA evidence proving Hanratty's guilt is that DNA from the semen of an unknown AB blood group secretor was found on Valerie Storie's knickers. Presuming but not checking it was from Michael Gregsten is unacceptable to me, especially as he and Miss Storie had apparently not had sex for several days before the murder.

Best regards,
OneRound

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi Private I,

Yes, you may certainly point that out. Shortly after the 2002 judgement, Sherrard was quoted as saying in a talk to the Law Society, ''The wrong man was not hanged. That was an immense relief to me.''

However, please allow me to point out that his opinion of the original prosecution remained unchanged. As he also stated in that talk, ''The evidence was too weak to justify conviction. I still hold that view.'' And that's where I first came in.

Best regards,
OneRound

I did actually see a video recording of Sherrard saying the first sentence, but not the second.

I always had doubts myself about whether the verdict was correct based on the evidence presented in court.

I do not, however, have any doubts about the DNA evidence.

[OneRound]

May I point out that Michael Sherrard, who was Hanratty's defence counsel, accepted the DNA findings and that Hanratty was guilty.

Hi Private I,

Yes, you may certainly point that out. Shortly after the 2002 judgement, Sherrard was quoted as saying in a talk to the Law Society, ''The wrong man was not hanged. That was an immense relief to me.''

However, please allow me to point out that his opinion of the original prosecution remained unchanged. As he also stated in that talk, ''The evidence was too weak to justify conviction. I still hold that view.'' And that's where I first came in.

Best regards,
OneRound

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

May I point out that Michael Sherrard, who was Hanratty's defence counsel, accepted the DNA findings and that Hanratty was guilty.

[ansonman]

Er, DNA, anyone??

The combined weight of evidence in 1997 can't compete with that.

Love,

Caz
X

I asked Jason Bennetto, who wrote the article in the Independent in 1997, if he had seen the Matthews report. He replied:

"Hello David, I didn't and given the new DNA evidence I now doubt it will ever be looked at again."

[OneRound]

Just a few comments now about the DNA.

Matters are set out by the Court of Appeal in paras 106 to 128 of their 2002 judgement (link in Caz's post #4282 above).

For any newcomers to this thread (and it's great there are some), it's only right to flag from outset that Hanratty's family and legal team were originally very keen to use DNA findings in an attempt to establish his innocence. However, they challenged its integrity once the findings pointed more towards his guilt.

It is also only right to declare up front that I am far more a scientific numbskull than an eminent scientist, of whom several convinced the Court of Appeal of his guilt. I am no position to say anyone was wrong but I do feel aspects of this part of the Court's judgement raise queries.

Main aspects for me are as below:

1. As well as Hanratty's DNA (he was a blood group O secretor), the Court also refer to DNA from the semen of an AB blood group secretor being shown to be on the fragment of Valerie Storie's knickers and ''attribute'' that to her lover Michael Gregsten. The Court could of course be right there but, nonetheless, I feel the ''presumption'' (another term used by the Court) should have been thoroughly checked. After all, the Court insisted on Hanratty's body being exhumed to check on the accuracy of findings for him. The contrast in approach between the two DNA findings is massive and to my mind just as much surprising. If the AB DNA had been cross-checked to Gregsten and found not to be his, that would have invalidated the DNA evidence totally. Admittedly, that is a big ''if''. However, in my opinion, the Court should have been relying on a thorough cross-check and not a ''presumption''.

Something else which increases my unease in this regard relates to when Gregsten last had sex with Ms Storie. I believe she said this was several days before the murder. If that's right, it would seem to lessen the likelihood of it being his AB semen on the knickers. Odd.

[I appreciate Del has strong views about the reported AB findings. My comments stem from the Court's judgement.]

2. The Court regarded it as very damning for Hanratty that only his and Valerie Storie's DNA plus that ''attributed'' to Gregsten were located on the knicker fragment tested in 1997. The Court effectively took the view that if Hanratty's DNA got there through contamination and he was not the rapist, the DNA of another male (ie the rapist) would have had to have been there as well. As there wasn't, that meant Hanratty had to be the rapist. I follow the logic. However, what was being checked was only ''a fragment'' which had been cut away from the knickers for basic tests thirty-six years earlier following the crime and then reduced further in 1995 when another part was removed for initial and unsuccessful DNA testing. Could the rapist's DNA have been on the part that was removed in 1995 and destroyed when unsuccessfully tested? I obviously don't know but feel it's a fair question.

3. At the 2002 appeal, Hanratty's legal team argued that the knicker fragment might have been contaminated as a result of spillage from a broken vial, containing a liquidised sample from Hanratty, stored and found in an envelope alongside it. A boffin with thirty years' experience told the Court he had never come across a vial containing contents to be stored in this way and, whilst acknowledging their own lack of scientific experience, the Court commented that it would seem strange to do so. Fair enough. However, wouldn't it have been even more strange to store an empty vial in this way?

4. A fair bit of weight appears to have been given by the Court to the DNA findings of Hanratty and Valerie showing a ''typical distribution'' consistent with them having had sex. That does seem pretty damning. I would just like it to have been clarified whether the distribution would have definitely been different if Hanratty's DNA was as a result of contamination.

5. Discussion about the DNA here usually involves the knicker fragment and/or the hanky. Understandably so. However, a third item was also submitted for DNA testing. This was one of Valerie Storie's slips upon which semen was identified immediately after the crime. No result was found from this DNA testing. Given Hanratty's DNA was readily identified on the knicker fragment, why didn't it show up on the slip? As I say, I'm no scientist but might it suggest the DNA on the knicker fragment got there through different means (ie contamination)?

Having assessed the scientific evidence, the Court concluded that the possibility of contamination of the knicker fragment or the hanky was ''fanciful'' and of both ''beyond belief''. However, if you include the slip, only 2 of the 3 items tested are indicators of Hanratty's guilt. If you then doubt the knicker fragment (see particularly points 1 and 3 above re the unestablished AB finding and broken vial), that only leaves the hanky.

6. The hanky. Caz's favourite. Again understandably so. That is very damning. Unless you buy into ideas of police corruption and manipulation of exhibits and evidence, the DNA findings prove that the hanky wrapped around the murder weapon was Hanratty's. Although that leaves extremely serious questions to be answered by Hanratty's remaining supporters, it does not actually prove he fired the gun that killed Gregsten, raped Valerie Storie or even hid the gun and hanky where it was found. We do know others had access to his laundry.


Let me make very clear that none of the above points go any way to suggesting innocence on the part of James Hanratty, let alone proving it which was the aim of those who first campaigned for DNA use. I'm actually as sure as I can be taking everything in the round that Hanratty was guilty. I'm just not as convinced as some that his guilt was proved fairly at trial or that the DNA evidence almost forty years later (inevitably without the safeguards being taken which are now so mandatory) was so unanswerably conclusive.

If things had been very different in a make believe legal world - in particular, Hanratty not being executed and still being alive, the appeal of 2002 being heard many years earlier but with DNA being used years earlier than it was and able to be brought to the appeal - I would have thought it fair and just for Hanratty to have been granted a retrial.

Obviously that could not happen and didn't. I therefore remain uncomfortable that a man - even though I consider him guilty - on trial for his life did not get a fair hearing. This though is where the hypocrite in me comes out. If Michael Gregsten or Valerie Storie had been my son or daughter, hangman Harry Allen could have got any required help from me in an instant.

With apologies for the length and best regards,

OneRound

Further to my post a few minutes ago, this earlier post outlines my specific concerns about the DNA and general thoughts on the case.

Best regards,
OneRound

[OneRound]

Er, DNA, anyone??

The combined weight of evidence in 1997 can't compete with that.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz and all,

It's inescapable that the DNA findings were harmful to those claiming innocence upon behalf of Hanratty. However, I've never been convinced that they were quite the slam dunk as treated by the Court of Appeal in 2002. Possibly worth noting that around the time this appeal was dismissed, the judiciary were also convinced of the reliability of evidence supplied by the Post Office and Horizon.

Best regards,
OneRound

[djw]

Er, DNA, anyone??

The combined weight of evidence in 1997 can't compete with that.

Love,

Caz
X

Have you read Rob Harrimans books about this?

[caz]

Er, DNA, anyone??

The combined weight of evidence in 1997 can't compete with that.

Love,

Caz
X

[ansonman]

"Home Office officials are understood to have concluded that Hanratty was innocent. Michael Howard, the Home Secretary, is shortly expected to announce that he is to refer the case to the Court of Appeal, where the conviction is expected to be quashed." Independent 27/1/97.

Howard is the guy that I would like to share an evening with. He, as much as anyone knows what's in the file.

The Independent article concludes:

"But the combined weight of evidence, backed by the police inquiry, appears to have been enough for the authorities to concede finally that a grave miscarriage of justice took place". So why did Howard change his mind? Or did the journalists get it wrong?

Wouldn't mind betting than Mrs Howard knows a thing or two.