A6 Rebooted

[caz]

Just as well that Michael Clark had an alibi!

He didn't need one, ansonman. He was there to make up the numbers. I'm sure you know how this works, so why make such a fatuous comment?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

<sub>Hi again Caz,

We've had this dance before but you're a good partner, so let's go across the floor one more time.

As Valerie Storie asserted, there was only one man who shot Michael Gregsten and raped her. Once she picked the wrong man, her credibility was gone. For me at least.

If the guilty man was not on the first parade, it was incumbent on her to pick no one. It was not - or should not have been - a case of keep going until you pick someone on a further parade whom the police consider to be a suspect and then he can be charged.

Worth being aware that had she picked out Alphon first time round (and she had as much chance of doing so as the random man she identified), he would almost certainly have been charged and then .... hmmm.

Best regards,
OneRound</sub>

Not sure about that, OneRound. Valerie might have had a very specific reason for ruling out Alphon, along with all the others she ruled out.

Yes, if she had picked out Alphon, after ruling out all the others in that first parade, things could have been very bad for him indeed. But it never happened so we can only guess. Had Alphon hanged instead of Hanratty, and had the verdict been as hotly disputed for years afterwards, the DNA evidence would presumably have proved a miscarriage of justice in his case, and Valerie would still be accused today of having picked out the wrong man, but at least that accusation would be wholly justified.

Love,

Caz
X

[ansonman]

Just as well that Michael Clark had an alibi!

[OneRound]

Surely she picked out a different person on the two parades she attended. You make it sound like there were several!

Also, she couldn't have picked out Hanratty on the first one because he wasn't there. Alphon was, but she failed to pick him out, and he is the only other suspect who was ever seriously considered.

Love,

Caz
X

<sub>Hi again Caz,

We've had this dance before but you're a good partner, so let's go across the floor one more time.

As Valerie Storie asserted, there was only one man who shot Michael Gregsten and raped her. Once she picked the wrong man, her credibility was gone. For me at least.

If the guilty man was not on the first parade, it was incumbent on her to pick no one. It was not - or should not have been - a case of keep going until you pick someone on a further parade whom the police consider to be a suspect and then he can be charged.

Worth being aware that had she picked out Alphon first time round (and she had as much chance of doing so as the random man she identified), he would almost certainly have been charged and then .... hmmm.

Best regards,
OneRound</sub>

[ansonman]

Well, cobalt, you have already made up your own mind about what the Matthews Report would reveal, so why do you need to see it? Assuming you won't be 'distressed' either way, it's not up to you to speak for surviving relatives of anyone who was personally involved in the case in any capacity. You may regard their potential distress as a bogus reason for not publishing, but you can't know that distress would not still be a consequence of doing so.

People can't always admit it to themselves that they were, or could have been wrong, let alone put it in an official report. Distrusting the DNA findings goes with the territory of being unable to let go of a belief, regardless of what the evidence indicates.

Love,

Caz

According to accounts I have read, Matthews concluded that Hanratty was entirely innocent of the crime and had been wrongly hanged. Is it unreasonable for us to know how and why Matthews reached this conclusion? I would have thought it is in almost everyone's interests to want to get to the truth.

[caz]

''Would disclosure be likely to reveal anything powerful enough to overturn or cast serious doubt on the DNA findings?''
Yes, otherwise the Matthews Report would have been published. I regard the distress, real or imagined, to surviving relatives a bogus reason for not publishing. The notion that the Hanratty family might be caused further distress by publication is preposterous since Matthews conveyed to them his belief that James Hanratty was innocent of the crime.

''If not, please don't tell me it wouldn't be argued that such evidence was bound to be destroyed or redacted to protect the status quo.''
I suspect that sensitive information has long since been shredded but judging by Matthews' recommendation there must be enough evidence in existence to cast serious doubt on the verdict. So far as I am aware Matthews never retracted his original belief that Hanratty was innocent even after the DNA evidence emerged. Either he was reluctant to admit he was wrong- a common human frailty- or he distrusted the DNA evidence.

Even for those who hold the DNA evidence to be a 'slam dunk' it would surely be instructive to see why Matthews was misled into believing that there were three persons involved in the crime.

Well, cobalt, you have already made up your own mind about what the Matthews Report would reveal, so why do you need to see it? Assuming you won't be 'distressed' either way, it's not up to you to speak for surviving relatives of anyone who was personally involved in the case in any capacity. You may regard their potential distress as a bogus reason for not publishing, but you can't know that distress would not still be a consequence of doing so.

People can't always admit it to themselves that they were, or could have been wrong, let alone put it in an official report. Distrusting the DNA findings goes with the territory of being unable to let go of a belief, regardless of what the evidence indicates.

Love,

Caz
X

[cobalt]

'No' will be the answer I think.

Legal technicality? Why? There is clearly something underlying the A6 Case which we are not aware of, hence our collective ignorance.

[ansonman]

Guardian 19/2/62:

"Transcript request
When the jury requested that a transcript of the proceedings should be made available to them, Mr Graham Swanwick QC, who had prosecuted, said: "There are certain passages in the transcript which took place in the absence of the jury and these matters clearly would have had to be removed from the transcript if the application was acceded to."

The Judge refused the request, but agreed to the jury's having a copy of the list of witnesses."

I don't recall reading about this until now. Does anyone know which aspects of the trial took place in the absence of the jury?

[Pcdunn]

Jim could have insisted on a new jury, but he and his Counsel seemed happy with the remaining eleven.

No alternate jurors available to step in for the excused squeamish juror? Why not?

[cobalt]

''Would disclosure be likely to reveal anything powerful enough to overturn or cast serious doubt on the DNA findings?''
Yes, otherwise the Matthews Report would have been published. I regard the distress, real or imagined, to surviving relatives a bogus reason for not publishing. The notion that the Hanratty family might be caused further distress by publication is preposterous since Matthews conveyed to them his belief that James Hanratty was innocent of the crime.

''If not, please don't tell me it wouldn't be argued that such evidence was bound to be destroyed or redacted to protect the status quo.''
I suspect that sensitive information has long since been shredded but judging by Matthews' recommendation there must be enough evidence in existence to cast serious doubt on the verdict. So far as I am aware Matthews never retracted his original belief that Hanratty was innocent even after the DNA evidence emerged. Either he was reluctant to admit he was wrong- a common human frailty- or he distrusted the DNA evidence.

Even for those who hold the DNA evidence to be a 'slam dunk' it would surely be instructive to see why Matthews was misled into believing that there were three persons involved in the crime.

[caz]

Hi ansonman - Yes, Storie's evidence and her certainty in delivering it contributed very significantly to Hanratty being found guilty by the eleven (that's right, yes?) Bedfordshire jurors. However, I doubt I would have been so swayed had I been on the jury. Let us not forget that her evidence conflicted with that of John Kerr and, most importantly of all, she picked out a different person on every identification parade she attended.

Best regards,
OneRound

Surely she picked out a different person on the two parades she attended. You make it sound like there were several!

Also, she couldn't have picked out Hanratty on the first one because he wasn't there. Alphon was, but she failed to pick him out, and he is the only other suspect who was ever seriously considered.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Even if he had had an alibi that was watertight, Storie's evidence would still have hanged him.

I'm sorry, ansonman, but I simply cannot accept this argument. Hanratty didn't need an alibi, because it was the prosecution's job to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was at the scene of crime.

But a 'watertight alibi', by anyone's definition, would have disproved the prosecution's case, regardless of how sure the victim claimed to be that Hanratty was the man in the car that night.

Would the case against him not have been thrown out without even coming to trial if Hanratty could have proved he was elsewhere?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

'Let justice be done though the heavens fall,' is the expression I think.

How many people who be 'potentially distressed' by publishing the Matthews Report? Fewer I would contend than those on this site who have called for it to be made public. Valerie Storie had no children unfortunately- that option was effectively removed from her. I think Michael Gregsten had two children who will now be old enough to receive a state pension. They have long been old enough to understand the relationship between their father and Valerie Storie so I am unclear about what distress, if any, publishing the report would bring. There is also the matter of the Hanratty family but I doubt their feelings were considered in making the decision to keep the Matthews Report from public view.

The decision has all the hallmarks of a smokescreen to prevent public scrutiny of police actions, or perhaps police inactions, in the course of the A6 investigation. If the immediate surviving relatives of Gregsten and Storie announced that they had no objection to the Matthews Report being published then I am sure some other pretext would be found not to do so.

Not a very nice comparison, is it? Fewer individuals potentially facing distress by disclosure, compared with those who believe they are right and are seeking to prove it, when the DNA evidence indicates otherwise? Who really gains in 2023 from causing this potential distress to a single individual? Would disclosure be likely to reveal anything powerful enough to overturn or cast serious doubt on the DNA findings? If not, please don't tell me it wouldn't be argued that such evidence was bound to be destroyed or redacted to protect the status quo. And what about the additional distress to the surviving Hanratty family if you think it's inevitable that he would remain 'officially' guilty following any further disclosures? If their feelings are not considered by the decision makers, are you considering them now?

Love

Caz
X

[Spitfire]

Hi ansonman - Yes, Storie's evidence and her certainty in delivering it contributed very significantly to Hanratty being found guilty by the eleven (that's right, yes?) Bedfordshire jurors.

Jim could have insisted on a new jury, but he and his Counsel seemed happy with the remaining eleven.

[ansonman]

Hi ansonman - Yes, Storie's evidence and her certainty in delivering it contributed very significantly to Hanratty being found guilty by the eleven (that's right, yes?) Bedfordshire jurors. However, I doubt I would have been so swayed had I been on the jury. Let us not forget that her evidence conflicted with that of John Kerr and, most importantly of all, she picked out a different person on every identification parade she attended.

Best regards,
OneRound

"Very significantly" is a bit of an understatement. I agree that she never did have a clear view of her attacker, but she was absolutely certain that Hanratty was her attacker and Gregsten's murderer. That's what did for Hanratty.

Sherrard: "Miss Storie, one appreciates your position of course, but it is my plain duty to suggest to you, that although you may be convinced in your own mind, you are nevertheless absolutely honest, but absolutely wrong. I must make that point quite plain to you".

Storie: "I do not agree with that suggestion".

Swanwick: "Have you any doubt whatever about your identification?"

Storie: "I have no doubt at all".