A6 Rebooted

[OneRound]

Absolutely Rob. Low Copy Number DNA which was used on the A6 murder case, has been discredited around the world so much, It now seams that the UK and two other nations are the only countries who's forensics will deal with it.
I bought the book through kindle, by Rob Harriman, 'Hanratty The DNA Travesty: Did the DNA really prove his guilt?'
I found it too complex to digest to any great degree. However apart from bringing some new questions about the case to the table, He made it quite clear that he himself at any rate believed the DNA presentation to the courts, (where the defence was so poorly represented) was left wanting .
With his book as with most of others I have read; at the end, more questions than answers.

Hi Moste - grateful if you could explain your reasoning about the defence.

Please note that I'm asking out of interest and not necessarily disagreeing.

Thanks,
OneRound

[Spitfire]

Hi Moste - grateful if you could explain your reasoning about the defence.

Please note that I'm asking out of interest and not necessarily disagreeing.

Thanks,
OneRound

Harriman's compliant, so far as I can recall, was that Sherrard did not advance the argument that the killing of Gregsten amounted to manslaughter not murder. His view was that it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the killer had the necessary mens rea to support a murder conviction.

In the real world, however, firing a gun at point blank range at a man, usually means you intend to kill him or cause him grievous bodily harm. As Hanratty had threatened to shoot Gregsten and/or Storie if they did not do as they were told, and as a man is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his acts, it seems reasonable to infer that in shooting Gregsten, Hanratty intended to cause him harm of a grievous nature.

Of course Hanratty could have given evidence that he was in the car, that he threatened Gregsten and Storie but that the gun went off accidentally. If accepted by the jury this could amount to manslaughter.

What Sherrard could not argue was that (1) Hanratty was not the gunman, but if he was, then (2) it was an accident. For a case where a similar disastrous strategy was pursued by defence counsel see Stefan Kiszko's trial for the murder of Lesley Molseed. His defence was (1) he was not the killer but if he was then (2) the drugs he was taking at the time affected his ability to form an intent to murder.

[moste]

And of course, if Hanratty's DNA only got onto the knickers because of accidental contamination, where is the DNA of the actual rapist, as only one male DNA was found on the garment?
.
Graham

How can we be sure, If contamination occurs, that the DNA becomes undecipherable and therefore is quite useless as a forensic tool. The following from, 2014 Dick Warrington 'Crime scene consultant' (Lynn Peavey Co)
Once you’ve established who will enter the scene, limit contamination by wearing the proper protective clothing. Tyvek suits, masks, gloves, and booties are essential. Cover your head to avoid dropping hair on the scene. Change gloves and booties frequently. Evidence is often on the floor; if you get blood or other evidence on your booties, change them.

Gloves can become contaminated in many ways. Whenever you touch blood or other fluids, change gloves. Also be alert to other sources of contamination. If you touch your eyes, scratch your nose, or cover your mouth when you cough, change gloves. If you pick up an item at the scene, change gloves before touching anything else. The first item might have the suspect’s DNA on it. If you touch the item and then grab something else, you could transfer evidence onto the second item. Every time you think your gloves have been compromised, change them. Consider wearing two pairs of gloves; when you need to change them, you can remove the top layer and quickly put on a fresh pair.

Collect booties in a paper sack and send them for processing in case they have any evidence on them. Dispose of gloves and other items in a bag labeled as biohazard. All items you dispose of should be bagged and documented, but not thrown away. Save these items until you’re certain they’re not needed.

A staging area can make it easier to protect your scene. Set up a tent outside the main crime scene for this purpose. This area gives officers a convenient place to change into booties, Tyvek suits, gloves, and masks. It also allows them do their work out of the view of the public and the press.

Contamination can also occur when dealing with prints and DNA evidence. DNA can be transferred from one crime scene to another through tools. Use new tweezers at each scene. Fingerprint brushes and powders can retain DNA, so always use a clean brush and new magnetic powder at each scene. If you don’t, DNA from an old scene could show up at the new scene. Once you process a sample, protect it from contamination. For instance, if you swab a sample to air dry and then cough over it, you’ve compromised your evidence.
Now compare the above, with the environment, and handling of all of the exhibits in 1961 and the storage of same ever since. Does anyone think apart from the judges at the appeal court, that contamination did not occur?!

[moste]

Hi Moste - grateful if you could explain your reasoning about the defence.

Please note that I'm asking out of interest and not necessarily disagreeing.

Thanks,
OneRound

No problem, O R , Rob Harriman, gave us the opinion that Dr. Martin Evison, present at the appeal court, representing Hanratty's cause, was somewhat out of his depth, was not given and did not insist on an opportunity to oversee parallel tests performed by independent scientists, (apparently as a result of there not being enough DNA infected material to go around), and basically didn't make enough noise re- contamination issues.
Much like Kleinemans indifference and lack of input to the organising of an identification parade where Storie was invited to find the Cockney with the screwed up hair colouring, " ohh! by the way we'll let you hear them speak, you shouldn't have too much trouble, everyone else is from the midlands except our man!"

[moste]

Harriman's compliant, so far as I can recall, was that Sherrard did not advance the argument that the killing of Gregsten amounted to manslaughter not murder. His view was that it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the killer had the necessary mens rea to support a murder conviction.

In the real world, however, firing a gun at point blank range at a man, usually means you intend to kill him or cause him grievous bodily harm. As Hanratty had threatened to shoot Gregsten and/or Storie if they did not do as they were told, and as a man is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his acts, it seems reasonable to infer that in shooting Gregsten, Hanratty intended to cause him harm of a grievous nature.

Of course Hanratty could have given evidence that he was in the car, that he threatened Gregsten and Storie but that the gun went off accidentally. If accepted by the jury this could amount to manslaughter.

What Sherrard could not argue was that (1) Hanratty was not the gunman, but if he was, then (2) it was an accident. For a case where a similar disastrous strategy was pursued by defence counsel see Stefan Kiszko's trial for the murder of Lesley Molseed. His defence was (1) he was not the killer but if he was then (2) the drugs he was taking at the time affected his ability to form an intent to murder.

What Harriman was pointing out was simply that Sherrard did not challenge Swanwich for trying to have it both ways. His star witness seamed to be saying that the assailant blurted out instantly "He frightened me ,he moved too quick, inferring an accident. lack of mens rea?

[Spitfire]

What Harriman was pointing out was simply that Sherrard did not challenge Swanwich for trying to have it both ways. His star witness seamed to be saying that the assailant blurted out instantly "He frightened me ,he moved too quick, inferring an accident. lack of mens rea?

You can't shoot people dead because you don't like the way they hand you a duffel bag. Hanratty had threatened to shoot and did so. He cannot have intended anything other than to kill Gregsten or cause him grievous harm.

[moste]

You can't shoot people dead because you don't like the way they hand you a duffel bag. Hanratty had threatened to shoot and did so. He cannot have intended anything other than to kill Gregsten or cause him grievous harm.

I agree entirely. Or at least, whoever did the deed, did so with the dexterity efficiency and timing of a person trained and skilled in such contracts, and causing grievous harm, I don't think was part of the exercise.
As for the ensuing time before the car was driven away I believe that falls under the heading 'We're not being told everything!'
NB: Article from Glasgow evening times Sat.26th of Aug. 1961.
Det. Insp. Jock Mackie standing by in Bedford with identikit equipment, MEANWHILE HOME OFFICE PATHOLOGIST DR. KEITH SIMPSON IS ALSO GOING TO BEDFORD IN HIS CAPACITY AS A FIRE ARMS EXPERT.TO INTERVIEW MS. STORIE. Remember this is the doctor who cited the bullets removed from Ms. Storie as .32 calibre. Make of this what you will.

[Semper_Eadem]

Interesting case, As an American born in 1975 I have never heard of it. I asked my Mom if she ever heard of this case as it was before my time. She would of been sweet 16 when this was going down. She said nope she had never heard of it. If she had she soon forgot all about it. Given that she grew up in Iowa in the bible belt with over protective parents, I seriously doubt she did ever hear of it. She just remembers the Civil Rights Movement and Rock And Roll being on her mind at the time news wise.

Anyways, why do you all think Hanratty was innocent. From what I have seen of the case, couple of docs on YouTube, it looks to me like Justice was served. I can understand Hanratty's folks wanting to think he was innocent, my folks would been the same but I think at the end of the day he was probably guilty, now if events played out like Ms Storie said they did is another matter but probably not anything that effected the the general outcome of someone, very probably Hanratty shooting and Ms Storie and Mr Gregston. I wonder how Ms Storie could be confused over the identity of a man who rapped her, you would think his face out be etched in her mind for all time. I don't know, interesting case though.

[OneRound]

Harriman's compliant, so far as I can recall, was that Sherrard did not advance the argument that the killing of Gregsten amounted to manslaughter not murder. His view was that it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the killer had the necessary mens rea to support a murder conviction.

In the real world, however, firing a gun at point blank range at a man, usually means you intend to kill him or cause him grievous bodily harm. As Hanratty had threatened to shoot Gregsten and/or Storie if they did not do as they were told, and as a man is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his acts, it seems reasonable to infer that in shooting Gregsten, Hanratty intended to cause him harm of a grievous nature.

Of course Hanratty could have given evidence that he was in the car, that he threatened Gregsten and Storie but that the gun went off accidentally. If accepted by the jury this could amount to manslaughter.

What Sherrard could not argue was that (1) Hanratty was not the gunman, but if he was, then (2) it was an accident. For a case where a similar disastrous strategy was pursued by defence counsel see Stefan Kiszko's trial for the murder of Lesley Molseed. His defence was (1) he was not the killer but if he was then (2) the drugs he was taking at the time affected his ability to form an intent to murder.

Thanks, Spitfire.

Your final paragraph makes me think of the Derek Bentley case. In particular, the comment attributed to him, ''Let him have it, Chris.'' As many will know, those words were allegedly heard by several policemen on the Croydon rooftop when his companion shot and killed another policeman.

Now, I accept Bentley was last in the queue when luck was being handed out and was a very unfortunate individual. However, I've never been able to go along with the view as many of his supporters still suggest and his defence counsel pondered feebly at trial that those words were a plea for the gun to be handed over (and not, as the prosecution argued, an incitement to shoot) when Bentley denied ever uttering them. Once Bentley gave that denial, the defence involving an interpretation of the meaning of those words was gone.

Best regards,
OneRound

[OneRound]

No problem, O R , Rob Harriman, gave us the opinion that Dr. Martin Evison, present at the appeal court, representing Hanratty's cause, was somewhat out of his depth, was not given and did not insist on an opportunity to oversee parallel tests performed by independent scientists, (apparently as a result of there not being enough DNA infected material to go around), and basically didn't make enough noise re- contamination issues.
Much like Kleinemans indifference and lack of input to the organising of an identification parade where Storie was invited to find the Cockney with the screwed up hair colouring, " ohh! by the way we'll let you hear them speak, you shouldn't have too much trouble, everyone else is from the midlands except our man!"

Thanks, Moste.

I'll throw in the mix here a small extract from the penultimate paragraph of the Court of Appeal's ruling in 2002 -
''They [the Hanratty family and their supporters] have also been remarkably well served by the lawyers acting on their behalf.''

Was that simply an expression of appreciation of a job well done?

Or was it perhaps more designed to block off another route of a possible future appeal (ie a further appeal based upon alleged failings by the Hanratty family's legal team)?

Best regards,
OneRound

[moste]

Thanks, Moste.

I'll throw in the mix here a small extract from the penultimate paragraph of the Court of Appeal's ruling in 2002 -
''They [the Hanratty family and their supporters] have also been remarkably well served by the lawyers acting on their behalf.''

Was that simply an expression of appreciation of a job well done?

Or was it perhaps more designed to block off another route of a possible future appeal (ie a further appeal based upon alleged failings by the Hanratty family's legal team)?

Best regards,
OneRound

Hello again.
I have this as the last sentence.
10."Finally, the Court commends the Hanratty family for the manner in which they have logically but mistakenly pursued their long campaign to establish James Hanratty’s innocence. The Court does not criticise the Commission, but points out that a case of this age must be exceptional to justify this level of expenditure"
In other words,' its over, don't bother us again!'

[OneRound]

Hello again.
I have this as the last sentence.
10."Finally, the Court commends the Hanratty family for the manner in which they have logically but mistakenly pursued their long campaign to establish James Hanratty’s innocence. The Court does not criticise the Commission, but points out that a case of this age must be exceptional to justify this level of expenditure"
In other words,' its over, don't bother us again!'

Yes, hello again Moste.

I'm sure what you have quoted is from an edited version of the judgment. The quotation I supplied earlier about the Hanratty family being ''remarkably well served by their lawyers'' was from paragraph 214 of the Court of Appeal's full judgment.

But, no matter - you are bang on the money with your ''don't bother us again!'' interpretation.

Best regards,
OneRound

[Graham]

Maybe 5 years ago we were being assured that there would be another - a third - appeal on behalf of Hanratty, but as we know it has never happened. For a start, who would be prepared to fund such an appeal, which would have only a minimal chance of success, particularly after the findings of the Court Of Appeal following the last one? I also note that on the website of Bindman & Partners, the lawyers representing the Hanratty family, all links to the case have been removed, and there are only two very short paragraphs referring to it. Are we to assume that this practice no longer represents the Hanratty family? If so, are we also to assume that the family will no longer be considering the mounting of a further appeal? I'm sure that our Natalie will have something to say about this.....but in the meantime I do feel that "don't bother us again" just about sums up the official attitude to a further appeal.

Something I've been meaning to mention for a while (and sorry to go on):

In one of his telephone conversations with Hanratty, prior to the arrest in Blackpool, Acott mentioned to him something to the effect that cartridges had been discovered in the room he, Hanratty, had occupied at The Vienna the night before the crime. On hearing this, Hanratty, rather than denying most vehemently that he had ever possessed a gun, asked Acott what 'size' (calibre) these bullets were; Acott declined to tell him. In retrospect, this must have been a "dohhhhhh!" moment, and I would bet a bob or two that on hearing this Acott was totally satisfied that Hanratty had indeed possessed a gun. This episode seems to have gone largely un-noticed by most people interested in the A6 Case.

This reminds me of an obscure case in the 1930's, when a woman called Ethel Major did in her violent husband by means of dosing his dinner with strychnine which she had stolen from her gamekeeper father. The uneaten part of the meal was thrown out, and ended up being fed to a neighbour's dog, which also died. The day prior to the funeral, when Mr Major was neatly ensconced in his coffin, the police received anonymous information that the poor dog's last meal had come from Mrs Major. The police stopped the funeral, carried out a post-mortem on Mr Major and took in Mrs Major for questioning. One of the first things she said was along the lines, "I never possessed any strychnine!" and this was before the police interrogator had even mentioned it! That was all they needed, and Mrs Majors, after her "dohhhhhh!" moment, had an early appointment with Mr Pierrepoint.

Sorry to go a little off-thread, but you'll see what I'm getting at.

Graham

[Spitfire]

Interesting case, As an American born in 1975 I have never heard of it. I asked my Mom if she ever heard of this case as it was before my time. She would of been sweet 16 when this was going down. She said nope she had never heard of it. If she had she soon forgot all about it. Given that she grew up in Iowa in the bible belt with over protective parents, I seriously doubt she did ever hear of it. She just remembers the Civil Rights Movement and Rock And Roll being on her mind at the time news wise.

Anyways, why do you all think Hanratty was innocent. From what I have seen of the case, couple of docs on YouTube, it looks to me like Justice was served. I can understand Hanratty's folks wanting to think he was innocent, my folks would been the same but I think at the end of the day he was probably guilty, now if events played out like Ms Storie said they did is another matter but probably not anything that effected the the general outcome of someone, very probably Hanratty shooting and Ms Storie and Mr Gregston. I wonder how Ms Storie could be confused over the identity of a man who rapped her, you would think his face out be etched in her mind for all time. I don't know, interesting case though.

Hello Semper,
The case was headline news in the Uk at the time of its commission in August 1961 and at the time of the trial in February 1962. Doubts as to the correctness of the verdict were voiced in various quarters (including the House of Commons) both before and after the execution of Hanratty in April 1962. The case was championed by investigative journalist Paul Foot who wrote Who Killed Hanratty published first in 1971. John Lennon and Yoko Ono also got involved. So you can see it was quite high profile.

An inquiry by Lewis Hawser was commissioned who found in his report of 1975 that the case against Hanratty was overwhelming. Many disagreed with this. It is fair to say that the trial judge Mr Justice Gorman had summed up for an aquittal, and the argument that the evidence was not sufficient to hang a man is quite a strong one.

The campaign for Hanratty's innocence continued and another book Hanratty the Final Verdict by Bob Woffinden appeared in 1997. There had also been television programs which argued for Hanratty's innocence. Woffinden had been involved in the case since the mid-1980s. Eventually the matter was referred to the Court of Appeal in 2002 which confirmed the conviction. New DNA evidence was admitted which tended to show that Hanratty was the A6 killer. The judgement is here. R v Hanratty.

As to your point about the killer's face being etched on Miss Storie's memory, the defence was able to rely upon an earlier id parade in which she had picked out an entirely innocent man as being Gregsten's killer and her rapist. If she had such a vivid recall, then she would not have made the false identification.

[Graham]

For a balanced assessment of the A6 Case which concludes that Hanratty was guilty as charged, then Leonard Miller's "Shadows Of Deadman's Hill" is a good read. It effectively shoots down some of the myths that have built up around this case. Unfortunately, this book is now out of print. Copies fetch good money on the net.

Graham