A6 Rebooted

[babybird67]

hi Norma

yes babybird dropped by then her heart sank when she saw once again Jim on 'repeat all the old myths mode' and she kind of thought, hey, justice was done, the man was sentenced, due law was followed, and seems to have been accepted by everyone, including Hanratty's own defence team...and is it really worth my time arguing with people who distort evidence and can't see the wood for the trees and believe honest citizens are more likely to lie than seasoned criminals...and I thought...no, not tonight...

[Natalie Severn]

Chacune a son gout, Babybird......pas de probleme!
I am watching David Frost with Sting on Aljazeera and its yawn making......bring on the revolutions.

[Derrick]

....and seems to have been accepted by everyone, including Hanratty's own defence team...

Strange that you should say something which is not true, seeing as Hanratty's defence team are planning a new appeal.

Not quite the acceptance of guilt that you quite falsely make out.

[babybird67]

Strange that you should say something which is not true, seeing as Hanratty's defence team are planning a new appeal.

Not quite the acceptance of guilt that you quite falsely make out.

I'll believe it when I see it Derrick. Until then...rumour...gossip...wishful thinking.

[Graham]

It was put about in the media in December 2010 that the Hanratty Family and defence-team were to lodge a new appeal against his conviction early in the New Year. It's now 1st March. When does "early in the New Year" run out? Where is their new appeal and, more to the point, who is going to finance it?

Graham

[RonIpstone]

Strange that you should say something which is not true, seeing as Hanratty's defence team are planning a new appeal.

Not quite the acceptance of guilt that you quite falsely make out.

I have no doubt that our learned friends, in the interests of justice of course, would bite the hand off anyone proffering the necessary funds to spin this case out further. I do not see Woffinden or Ingrams funding any appeal, nor do I see Mansfield or Bindman acting pro bono.

In any event, as I understand matters, it is only the Criminal Cases Review Commission that can refer the case to the Court of Appeal. They have done so once and on that occasion three things happened (1) the court found that Hanratty's trial was not fatally flawed (2) the court admitted fresh evidence in form of the DNA tests which showed the conviction was sound and (3) the court expressed the view that the commission should not refer cases of this vintage to the Court of Appeal.

So even if there is further DNA evidence which casts doubt on (2) above the Hanratty Appreciation Society has the problem that (1) above still stands and the Commission will not make a further referral as the case is now nearly 9 years older than it was when the court expressed its displeasure of old cases being referred.

Like it or lump it, Jim's family is not going to secure an overturning of the 1962 conviction.

[Natalie Severn]

You may be in for a surprise Ron at what people can do---eventually.Think back a few weeks,we were all in a totally different world.Nobody could have imagined what is happening! But after 50 odd years the oppressed people of Egypt have risen-and thrown out the corrupt Mubarek who the West were once so happy with--all because a rather poor, insignificant little country like Tunisia lit the fuse---take heed I say the Arab world is stirring![ and your term ,"like it or lump it "is particularly apposite to apply to it all --- you may have to like it or lump it actually over the process of appeal!]

[Derrick]

It was put about in the media in December 2010 that the Hanratty Family and defence-team were to lodge a new appeal against his conviction early in the New Year. It's now 1st March. When does "early in the New Year" run out? Where is their new appeal and, more to the point, who is going to finance it?

Graham

Hi Graham
You will just have to have a bit of patience dear heart.

The last appeal took 8 years from from being lodged with the Home Secretary to an actual court hearing in 2002. That is discounting the 3 years Woffinden and Bindman spent gathering the initial evidence.

Lord Ingram of Gnomesville and Sir Geoffrey of Bindman were perhaps a little quick out of the traps in declaring a quick resolution, that's for certain.

It will have to be privately funded, something you will not have to worry about.

Derrick

[Natalie Severn]

Yes Derrick.....and it will happen!

[Graham]

Frankly, sweetie-pie, I couldn't care less one way or the other, because the chances of another appeal are bleaker than those of income-tax being abolished. Neither could I care less who might fund this almost-certainly mythical new appeal - if anyone has that kind of lolly to throw around on a dead-cert waste of time, then good for him, her, or them.

But at least this has given us a new subject to argue about, a welcome break from the never-ending repeats of groundless conjecture from the JH Fan Club.

Graham

[Limehouse]

Frankly, sweetie-pie, I couldn't care less one way or the other, because the chances of another appeal are bleaker than those of income-tax being abolished. Neither could I care less who might fund this almost-certainly mythical new appeal - if anyone has that kind of lolly to throw around on a dead-cert waste of time, then good for him, her, or them.

But at least this has given us a new subject to argue about, a welcome break from the never-ending repeats of groundless conjecture from the JH Fan Club.Graham

Hi Graham

I have the greatest respect for you and the way you present your arguments but it is disappointing to see you resort to using such psuedonyms. Almost all of those who doubt Hanratty's guilt have consistently shown disapproval of his criminal lifestyle and have frequently argued that in their view the conviction of the wrong man achieves no justice for any of the victims. Grouping us together as a 'fan club' or 'appreciation society' does not reflect the arguments presented againsty Hanratty's conviction or the way they have been presented.

Respectful regards.

Julie

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Julie,
Well quite frankly I call the whole of that society into question that threw -and still throws its most vulnerable on the scrap heap at the age of 15.I believe it was and is criminal of itself.
The Hanratty"s were a respectable family---when Mr and Mrs Hanratty went into that court room , to hear their son committed for trial ,they had never entered a court room in their lives.They had also done their utmost,as practising catholics,to bring their children up as honest citizens.James was rejected by an educational class system that gave few resources to failing working class children .Only "grammar schools" and those children deemed worthy of a grammar school education were provided with adequate funds in those days---I have studied all this when I trained as a teacher.Somebody like James fell by the wayside in terms of literacy as many did-and do still do because of the inadequacies in the education system of meeting their needs .In James"s case this was partly also due to being "evacuated" at the age of six,just as he reached literacy readiness.So in my view a crime was committed against him by the education system and his subsequent behaviour is not something I wish to condemn him over.I don"t like it,Julie, but I refuse to condemn him and prefer to condemn those who were paid to attend to his educational needs and teach him properly.I am sorry if you are upset about that because I very much value your thoughts on this case in almost all other respects.
However,if James Hanratty did commit the murder for which he was hanged, I have no sympathy for him whatever---despite everything I have written above.He was not insane from all accounts and I have absolutely no sympathy for murderers or terrorists who kill innocent people .
But I do not believe James Hanratty had anything whatever to do with the A6 murder,as must be obvious by now.

[Limehouse]

Hi Norma

It was true then and it is true now - many young criminals re-offend because they learn how to be better criminals in prison. If - after his first few offences as a teenager - Hanratty had been offered the chance to train for a trade instead of being sent to borstal he may have made much more of his life instead of continuing with his criminal offending. He should also have been given more support to address his literacy problems. However - people were 'written off' so easily in those days. It has been often stated that Hanratty was given a label of 'mentally deficient' - whatever that ios supposed to mean. But what was done to help him? What is a parent supposed to do after such a diagnosis?

Like you I doubt very much that Hanratty was responsible for the A6 crime.

[Derrick]

In any event, as I understand matters, it is only the Criminal Cases Review Commission that can refer the case to the Court of Appeal. They have done so once and on that occasion three things happened (1) the court found that Hanratty's trial was not fatally flawed (2) the court admitted fresh evidence in form of the DNA tests which showed the conviction was sound and (3) the court expressed the view that the commission should not refer cases of this vintage to the Court of Appeal.

So even if there is further DNA evidence which casts doubt on (2) above the Hanratty Appreciation Society has the problem that (1) above still stands and the Commission will not make a further referral as the case is now nearly 9 years older than it was when the court expressed its displeasure of old cases being referred.

Hi Ron
The CACD only came to the conclusion of your 1st item because they accepted that the (2nd item) DNA evidence proved Hanratty's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore supported Valerie Stories identification and nothing more.

The CACD should have left it there but went on to make idiots of themselves by entangling themsleves in a web of circular argument that belied their own conclusion.

If the DNA is discredited it obviously places Ms Storie's identification in doubt and at odds with the defences own grounds of non disclosed evidence and a whole wodge of alibi witness statements that was never put before a jury.

As for your item 3, an ongoing appeal with a certain vintage, that of the 1975 conviction of George Davis, for the Ilford LEB robbery, is being looked at by the CCRC and could quite likely be referred back to the CACD.

Kenneth Noye has been granted a new appeal via the CCRC because the discredited pathologist Michael Heath gave damning forensic evidence in the Stephen Cameron "M25 Road Rage" murder case.

I can't see either of these cases getting satisfaction for the appellant as the CACD is so intransigent and is usurping its true purpose on a regular basis.

This can be seen in the recent appeal of Simon Hall. The CACD should have ordered a retrial and let a jury make the decision of what the fibre evidence actually meant in the balance of everything else. But no; the CACD made that decision themselves. A complete disgrace.

We are getting closer to a totalatarian state with every day that passes. Orwell was quite correct

Derrick

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Ron
...........
We are getting closer to a totalatarian state with every day that passes. Orwell was quite correct

Derrick

Absolutely correct.