A6 Rebooted

[OneRound]

Hi Anson - I remain unconvinced that Hanratty's guilt has been proved fairly and beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, a not guilty verdict from me.

At risk of appearing to run with the fox and the hounds, I would emphasise that does not mean I am convinced of Hanratty's innocence. Some way from it in fact.

Best regards,

OneRound

Hi Caz,

From March last year. Just saying.

Best regards,

OneRound

[OneRound]

Hi All,

I'd like to turn some of the recent arguments on their head and offer the stark observation that justice is rarely served where the prosecution and/or defence cases are flawed, less than thorough, incompetent, whatever. But while this can (and too often does) result in an innocent person being wrongly convicted, it can equally result in a dangerous criminal being acquitted, particularly where the case for the prosecution is so obviously weak that no jury could fail to have reasonable doubt.

Putting aside for a moment my strong feelings against capital punishment in any circumstances, I am quite satisfied that 1960s society could thank Hanratty himself, followed by the jury, for taking a psychopathic killer and rapist out of action, despite the weaknesses in the actual case, about which the jury were warned. The jury knew he would hang or go free on their decision, yet they could not conjure up between them the sliver of reasonable doubt that would have let him rejoin society, where I have very little doubt he would have re-offended, if only to the 'safer' extent of breaking into more innocent people's homes and making off with their honestly gained personal possessions - at gunpoint if necessary.

We go over and over the old imperfections and uncertainties of the original case and trial, which many of us feel ought to have led to an acquittal of the man in the dock (whether he did it or not), but it is rarely acknowledged that those shortcomings don't, by themselves, indicate innocence over guilt; they only really muddy the waters and mask the truth, making a jury's job that much harder to do the right thing by society.

On a theoretical level, would anyone here relish the thought of the true A6 killer being charged, only to be acquitted due to the shortcomings of others, the police, the witnesses, the prosecution?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi again Caz,

With some genuine respect, I feel your final question is too heavily slanted. No sensible person should relish that thought and so I unequivocally answer 'No'.

However, it's a different matter if the question were to be along the lines - are you prepared for a murderer to be acquitted if his guilt is not proved fairly and reasonably? With a heavy heart, my answer to that is 'Yes' and I would suspect that applies to many others too. It is after all very much the basis of our trial by jury system.

Lest I seem too much of an academic liberal in my comments above, I'll also expose the hypocrite in me and readily admit that if Michael Gregsten or Valerie Storie had been my child, I would not be concerned with such legal niceties and would have been more than happy to have seen Hanratty strung up at the first opportunity.

The conflict between imo the right man being found guilty but by unjust means is part of what intrigues me about this case.

Best regards,

OneRound

[caz]

Hi OneRound,

I do appreciate your observations. I suppose I am biased by the DNA results and the fact that I now firmly believe Hanratty was guilty as charged. One could argue that, at the time, the jury convicted despite the case against him not being sufficiently robust to exclude all reasonable doubt. But for me the fault lies less with the jury, for getting it right, if not for the right reasons, and more with the mechanics of the investigation and trial which invited the jury to get it wrong.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

No Caz I did see your post.

I have already posted on this forum on a couple of occasions that I have seen both Lewis Nickoll's forensic bench notes and have read the entirety of his testimony at trial.

He makes absolutely no mention of finding anything other than O secretor semen (attributed to the rapist) and O non secretor vaginal fluid (attributed to Storie - obviously).

Nowhere in the transcript of the DNA evidence at the appeal in 2002, is any mention made of the finding of AB group semen.

The judges in the ruling have made a gross error in saying that AB semen was found.

Hi Del,

So apologies for being dim, but were the 'smaller quantities of seminal fluid', as mentioned in the Appeal Judgement, plucked out of thin air then? What made anyone suppose in the first place that two separate individuals had left semen on those knickers back in 1961 if there was nothing anywhere to indicate this had been the case? Why would anyone imagine or invent this detail, and to what end? And how could such a 'gross error' occur, without anyone at the time of the appeal noticing and challenging it?

Would there have been any way of knowing, back in 1961, if seminal fluid came from one, two or a dozen separate individuals, unless they found more than one blood group on examination? This is what I assumed must have been the case.

How do you think this rogue section 113 came to be written, if only one man's semen - presumed to be the rapist's - was ever found in 1961? And why hasn't this been taken up and challenged by others with perhaps more influence?

Love,

Caz
X

[NickB]

On the 1 month anniversary of the crime Hanratty drove Gladys Deacon to Bedford. There has been some discussion here about whether he was ‘reliving the incident' or it was merely a coincidence.

After Bedford they went to Battersea funfair. When he and Carole had gone to the funfair shortly before they’d had sex in a side street afterwards. But now he had transport, Hanratty drove Gladys all the way to Brockley Hill where they had sex in the car. If he was not reliving the incident, why had he traveled to a place on or near the route that the murder car had taken on its way north?

[NickB]

Since posting the above I have discovered that Gladys lived in Burnt Oak, which goes some way to answering my question.

I find that the information on places and addresses is scattered, so have started a 'Locations' thread where they can be gathered together for easier reference.

[OneRound]

On the 1 month anniversary of the crime Hanratty drove Gladys Deacon to Bedford. There has been some discussion here about whether he was ‘reliving the incident' or it was merely a coincidence.

After Bedford they went to Battersea funfair. When he and Carole had gone to the funfair shortly before they’d had sex in a side street afterwards. But now he had transport, Hanratty drove Gladys all the way to Brockley Hill where they had sex in the car. If he was not reliving the incident, why had he traveled to a place on or near the route that the murder car had taken on its way north?

Hi Nick - please forgive this question but I no longer have any of the books. Where does the information of Hanratty having sex with Gladys Deacon come from?

I thought the evidence given at trial by his young lady friends was very much along the lines of him being a proper gentleman.

I realise this doesn't establish innocence (back to a point recently made by Caz) but the amount of sex available to Hanratty does seem to shoot down the prosecution's suggestion at trial that he was driven by lust to kidnap and rape Valerie Storie. If the jury had known that, it would not have increased any respect for him but it may have caused them to doubt more whether he was a rapist and murderer.

Best regards,

OneRound

[NickB]

As far as I know (and stand to be be corrected) his amorous exploits, as recounted in Woffinden, were given in interviews to his defence team but not revealed in court.

[OneRound]

As far as I know (and stand to be be corrected) his amorous exploits, as recounted in Woffinden, were given in interviews to his defence team but not revealed in court.

Thanks, Nick.

If I, as a jury member, had been informed that Hanratty was able to enjoy amorous exploits with the good-looking Miss Deacon, I would have been even more sceptical of the prosecution's suggestion that lust required him to visit a cornfield miles from home to commit rape.

Best regards,

OneRound

[GUT]

Thanks, Nick.

If I, as a jury member, had been informed that Hanratty was able to enjoy amorous exploits with the good-looking Miss Deacon, I would have been even more sceptical of the prosecution's suggestion that lust required him to visit a cornfield miles from home to commit rape.

Best regards,

OneRound

Save that rape and lust are two different things.

[OneRound]

Save that rape and lust are two different things.

Hi GUT - well, yes, they are but struggling to see your point.

Grateful if you could elaborate.

Best regards,

OneRound

[GUT]

Hi GUT - well, yes, they are but struggling to see your point.

Grateful if you could elaborate.

Best regards,

OneRound

Many Rapists are getting regular sex.

So Hanratty getting it off Ms Deacon in no way impacts on the likelihood of him committing rape.

[NickB]

Indeed I think it could have gone the other way. If his lustful activities with girlfriends and regular visits to prostitutes had been revealed to the bashful burghers of Bedford they might have thought he was a sex-mad fiend.

[OneRound]

Hi GUT and Nick - thanks for your responses and I do take your points. I thought that was what you, GUT, was getting at but wanted to avoid assuming.

I have no expert knowledge of the crime of rape but would think the reasons for it are many and various with the perpetrators coming in all shapes and forms with a similar variety of characteristics. Thus, Hanratty certainly cannot be ruled out regardless of whom he was 'getting it off' elsewhere. I did acknowledge in an earlier post that I was not claiming innocence upon behalf of Hanratty.

That all said, I still consider that if I had been a jury member I would have wanted more persuading that Hanratty was a rapist. Rightly or wrongly (probably wrongly as other matters have transpired), I would have felt that Hanratty was less likely to commit rape if I had known that the delights of Ms Deacon were available to him elsewhere.

I appreciate Nick's point that that feeling would have been lessened if I had also known of Hanratty's regular visits to prostitutes and caused me to question the need for that.

All in all, a lot of fence sitting from me there. That though does go along with my long held view that Hanratty's guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Spitfire]

Hanratty only formed the intention to rape and kill Valerie Storie after he had killed Gregsten. FWIW I don't think he intended to kill either of them when he set out on his mad cap adventure.