A6 Rebooted

[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.

[cobalt]

The concept of 'distress to surviving family members' seems reasonable at a first glance, but then surely no more than what was caused by the crime itself.

I have long suspected that there are skeletons in William Ewer's cupboard which impinge upon the security services. There was a well known left wing journalist from North London in the 1920s who shared Ewer's names. This was not the William Ewer we knew, just to be clear, but he led an interesting life. He started out as a Bolshevik supporter and ending up an anti-soviet informer for MI5.

[ansonman]

I doubt whether the Information Commissioner will take us any further forward. How about your MP? They seems to be tripping over themselves to help out constituents as the GE approaches.

[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.

[cobalt]

djw,

They might open it in 2060 along with the document relating to William Ewer's libel case against Times Newspapers.
Here is a copy from the National Archives site which confirms in 2020 the decision from 1973 to close the record for 86 years. Since you clearly know your way around these matters, why would such a precise date as 86 have been chosen? I realise the verdict of the A6 Case was in 1962 but that would not make a round 100 years either.

And what are the 'two exemptions' (apologies that the margin did not copy in my quote) listed as 'Health and Safety' or 'Personnel information where the applicant is a third party.' I assume these are circumstances that would permit the opening of the record before 2060, but who would constitute a 'third party?'

Closed For 86 years

2020

Health and Safety

Personal information where the applicant is a 3rd party

01 January 2060

[djw]

Well done in finding it. The very fact that the report remains under wraps says it all.

Further to this, the National Archives also hold a copy and I made a FOI request in 2023. This was refused and I requested an internal review which has just also come back refused.

I would like to share the response here.

[caz]

Hi djw,

I recently watched an engrossing 2023 tv drama and related documentary on the 1973 Llandarcy murders mentioned above, referred to as the Steeltown Murders. Joseph Kappen was eventually identified as the prime suspect from familial DNA evidence. His remains were exhumed in 2002, and a perfect DNA match was established to the killer's profile from the victims' clothing, proving his guilt beyond doubt.

This immediately made me think of the A6 case, when Hanratty's remains were found to match the DNA profile from the surviving victim's underwear and the hanky wrapped round the murder weapon. I did wonder if the same testing method was used in Kappen's case, and whether the usual objections in Hanratty's case still apply in 2023. If not, would this only leave the contamination and conspiracy arguments, which would appear to rely on a) DNA from Hanratty accidentally coming into direct contact with the knicker fragment, due to poor handling and storage conditions back in 1961, and b) the real killer - or an accomplice - having somehow obtained a used hanky from Hanratty [decades before there was any way to identify it forensically] to plant on a London bus with the gun?

Love,

Caz
X