A6 Rebooted

[OneRound]

[QUOTE=ansonman;400825]

Cobalt, let me see if I can help you here:

1] The important point of Valerie's first ID parade was not that she picked out some unknown airman, but that she did NOT pick out Alphon, who was at the time Acott's prime (indeed, only) suspect. With that, his case against Alphon collapsed, at least as far as the A6 was concerned.

I would have thought that picking out some unknown airman was even more important than not picking out Alphon. In choosing an unknown airman she effectively demonstrated that

a) she did not know what her assailant looked like and therefore

b) any subsequent identification could not be relied upon.

Sadly the jury saw otherwise. The unreliable ID did for Hanratty and without it he would not have hung.

Ansonman

Hi Anson - I'm with you there on a) and b).

There was only one person who murdered Michael Gregsten and raped Valerie Storie and thus only one person she could ever identify as the perpetrator. Once she picked out someone whom it clearly was not, her credibility as a witness (although not her honesty and integrity as a person - certain others please note) was severely impaired. It should not have been a case of 'keep going in every different line up until your pick tallies with the latest police suspect'.

The above causes me to seriously question how fairly and reasonably James Hanratty's guilt was proved. I would though stress that is different from asserting his innocence.

Best regards,

OneRound

[ansonman]

[QUOTE=OneRound;400858]

[I]

Hi Anson - I'm with you there on a) and b).

There was only one person who murdered Michael Gregsten and raped Valerie Storie and thus only one person she could ever identify as the perpetrator. Once she picked out someone whom it clearly was not, her credibility as a witness (although not her honesty and integrity as a person - certain others please note) was severely impaired. It should not have been a case of 'keep going in every different line up until your pick tallies with the latest police suspect'.

The above causes me to seriously question how fairly and reasonably James Hanratty's guilt was proved. I would though stress that is different from asserting his innocence.

Best regards,

OneRound

OneRound. I could not agree with you more and I have no doubt that VS honestly believed Hanratty to be her attacker. For me, like you, once she had chosen an entirely innocent man in the first ID, her ability to identify the actual assailant was destroyed totally and it is this point that the defence should have driven home with a bayonet. Figuratively speaking, of course.

You have always held the view, I think, that whilst you feel Hanratty was guilty as charged, you don't agree that his guilt was proven sufficiently for him to hang. I certainly respect that view even though I believe he was entirely innocent of the crime.
Ansonman

[Graham]

The question regarding the first ID parade is, of course, very vexing. There is little doubt that Acott was confident that he had his man in Alphon, and he doubtless had to bite his lip when Valerie picked someone else. This parade was held on 22 September (I think - still no books) and as he now had no valid suspect Acott must have felt he was in a vacuum.

Now I wouldn't even pretend to know anything regarding the law as applied to ID parades, but I rather suspect that once Valerie had picked Michael Clark, and not Alphon, the mechanism, so to speak, returned to zero and Acott was plainly obliged to start again. And this time about the only direction he was able to go was towards 'Ryan', with reference to the dropped cartridge cases.

Acott moved up several gears now, and yet to this day I do not think that it is known for sure how Acott so quickly made the connection Ryan = Hanratty. But he did, the hunt was on, and Hanratty was at last arrested on 11 October (Don't need my books for that date!). I would further suspect that Valerie was offered the advice to forget ID Parade No 1 and to concentrate on Parade No 2 - which, it has to be said, did not offend the legal mind and training of Emmanuel Kleinmann or cause him to cry 'foul' when Valerie picked out his client.

It may all seem unfair to us, and I'm assuming here that no-one posting on this thread is a qualified criminal lawyer. Valerie herself always maintained that she recognised Hanratty as her rapist the moment she saw him - she never deviated from this. To say that she deliberately picked out an innocent man is, in my view, not to be countenanced.

And one final note - this has been noted before, but Kleinmann turned down Acott's suggestion that all the parade members wear surgeon's caps to hide their hair and give Hanratty an equal chance. Kleinmann did this because he wished to divert attention from Hanratty's pale blue eyes.


Graham

[OneRound]

[QUOTE=ansonman;400867]

OneRound. I could not agree with you more and I have no doubt that VS honestly believed Hanratty to be her attacker. For me, like you, once she had chosen an entirely innocent man in the first ID, her ability to identify the actual assailant was destroyed totally and it is this point that the defence should have driven home with a bayonet. Figuratively speaking, of course.

You have always held the view, I think, that whilst you feel Hanratty was guilty as charged, you don't agree that his guilt was proven sufficiently for him to hang. I certainly respect that view even though I believe he was entirely innocent of the crime.
Ansonman

Thanks, Anson. Appreciated. It's good to be able to be able to have respect and debate without the necessity to agree.

You're pretty much on the money with my views although I'll try to expand a bit on them later tonight or tomorrow.

Best regards,

OneRound

[moste]

[QUOTE=ansonman;400825]

Cobalt, let me see if I can help you here:

1] The important point of Valerie's first ID parade was not that she picked out some unknown airman, but that she did NOT pick out Alphon, who was at the time Acott's prime (indeed, only) suspect. With that, his case against Alphon collapsed, at least as far as the A6 was concerned.

I would have thought that picking out some unknown airman was even more important than not picking out Alphon. In choosing an unknown airman she effectively demonstrated that

a) she did not know what her assailant looked like and therefore

b) any subsequent identification could not be relied upon.

Sadly the jury saw otherwise. The unreliable ID did for Hanratty and without it he would not have hung.

Ansonman

What you have said here is exactly how I would have put it.

Which goes to show how differently events are perceived from one person to another.

Further,I just wanted to mention with regards to Valerie's identification efforts .
It would seem to me ,having only had the slightest of glimpses of the assailant,the mans voice ,and the fact that she had apparently listened to him for six hours,with all his rantings and babbling,obviously witnessing all of his inflections,would have been key to her ability in remembering him.Baring in mind the wonderful grit ,determination, and tenacity she showed,early in the days of her speaking from her bed side with the detective Woodin, ('she wanted this monster caught at all costs,it's partly what helped her pull through') It's difficult for me at least, to understand that she wouldn't have been able to explain that it was paramount 'that she heard her assailant speak ,say for example two or three paragraphs from a card .If we counter this with.She was a bit confused,never having done anything like this before.Or she was naive , and just thought'Ill just pick someone out who I think looks like the man'
Then, if we counter with that, I then would turn to the Chief Superintendent, or anyone present who was thoroughly versed in this case, and ask them the question "what the hell were you thinking in not exposing Valerie to as much dialogue as possible from each of these men on the ID parade?"

[moste]

The question regarding the first ID parade is, of course, very vexing. There is little doubt that Acott was confident that he had his man in Alphon, and he doubtless had to bite his lip when Valerie picked someone else. This parade was held on 22 September (I think - still no books) and as he now had no valid suspect Acott must have felt he was in a vacuum.

Now I wouldn't even pretend to know anything regarding the law as applied to ID parades, but I rather suspect that once Valerie had picked Michael Clark, and not Alphon, the mechanism, so to speak, returned to zero and Acott was plainly obliged to start again. And this time about the only direction he was able to go was towards 'Ryan', with reference to the dropped cartridge cases.

Acott moved up several gears now, and yet to this day I do not think that it is known for sure how Acott so quickly made the connection Ryan = Hanratty. But he did, the hunt was on, and Hanratty was at last arrested on 11 October (Don't need my books for that date!). I would further suspect that Valerie was offered the advice to forget ID Parade No 1 and to concentrate on Parade No 2 - which, it has to be said, did not offend the legal mind and training of Emmanuel Kleinmann or cause him to cry 'foul' when Valerie picked out his client.

It may all seem unfair to us, and I'm assuming here that no-one posting on this thread is a qualified criminal lawyer. Valerie herself always maintained that she recognised Hanratty as her rapist the moment she saw him - she never deviated from this. To say that she deliberately picked out an innocent man is, in my view, not to be countenanced.

And one final note - this has been noted before, but Kleinmann turned down Acott's suggestion that all the parade members wear surgeon's caps to hide their hair and give Hanratty an equal chance. Kleinmann did this because he wished to divert attention from Hanratty's pale blue eyes.


Graham

Its absolutely astonishing to my mind that Kleinmann neglected to allow his client the understanding of the full terms of an ID parade (much the same as Valerie was) ,and have him wear a head cover. His excuse about the eye colour, was a feeble attempt to hide his embarrassment.

[ansonman]

[QUOTE=moste;400948]

[I]

What you have said here is exactly how I would have put it.

Which goes to show how differently events are perceived from one person to another.

Further,I just wanted to mention with regards to Valerie's identification efforts .
It would seem to me ,having only had the slightest of glimpses of the assailant,the mans voice ,and the fact that she had apparently listened to him for six hours,with all his rantings and babbling,obviously witnessing all of his inflections,would have been key to her ability in remembering him.Baring in mind the wonderful grit ,determination, and tenacity she showed,early in the days of her speaking from her bed side with the detective Woodin, ('she wanted this monster caught at all costs,it's partly what helped her pull through') It's difficult for me at least, to understand that she wouldn't have been able to explain that it was paramount 'that she heard her assailant speak ,say for example two or three paragraphs from a card .If we counter this with.She was a bit confused,never having done anything like this before.Or she was naive , and just thought'Ill just pick someone out who I think looks like the man'
Then, if we counter with that, I then would turn to the Chief Superintendent, or anyone present who was thoroughly versed in this case, and ask them the question "what the hell were you thinking in not exposing Valerie to as much dialogue as possible from each of these men on the ID parade?"

If we accept, as we must (and I do not think that anyone on this thred will argue the opposite) that VS was totally and absolutely unable to identify her assailent (as demonstrated by the fact that she chose an innocent man in the 1st ID) then we must also accept that there is not one shred of evidence to connect Hanratty to the crime.

Ansonman

[Spitfire]

If we accept, as we must (and I do not think that anyone on this thred will argue the opposite) that VS was totally and absolutely unable to identify her assailent (as demonstrated by the fact that she chose an innocent man in the 1st ID) then we must also accept that there is not one shred of evidence to connect Hanratty to the crime.

Ansonman

And so with that astute observation 55 years of debate concerning Hanratty's guilt comes to a close.

[Graham]

And so with that astute observation 55 years of debate concerning Hanratty's guilt comes to a close.

Well, it was good while it lasted and I've enjoyed it, Spitty. See you around.

Graham

[Spitfire]

Well, it was good while it lasted and I've enjoyed it, Spitty. See you around.

Graham

Indeed. I wonder what we will do with our time now.

This fella, Guy Fawkes, not guilty or what?

S.

[ansonman]

Indeed. I wonder what we will do with our time now.

This fella, Guy Fawkes, not guilty or what?

S.

There can be no doubt that what did for Hanratty was VS's unwavering insistence that he was her attacker. Without her certainty Hanratty would not have been found guilty.
I have no doubt whatever that VS was 110% sure certain that Hanratty had murdered Gregsten and attempted to murder her. I have no doubt whatever that she was also 110% certain that the unknown airman she chose in the first ID was Gregsten's murderer and her attacker.
It is for this latter reason that it must be concluded that, despite her certainty, she was unable to accurately identify her attacker.
If we therefore remove from the equation her certainty that Hanratty was guilty, as we must, then we are left with no conclusive evidence that Hanratty was guilty.
This is an unpalatable and ugly truth for those who remain convinced of Hanratty's guilt. It is not surprising that there is little for these people to throw into the mix other than sarcasm and the towel.

Ansonman

[Spitfire]

There can be no doubt that what did for Hanratty was VS's unwavering insistence that he was her attacker. Without her certainty Hanratty would not have been found guilty.
I have no doubt whatever that VS was 110% sure certain that Hanratty had murdered Gregsten and attempted to murder her. I have no doubt whatever that she was also 110% certain that the unknown airman she chose in the first ID was Gregsten's murderer and her attacker.
It is for this latter reason that it must be concluded that, despite her certainty, she was unable to accurately identify her attacker.
If we therefore remove from the equation her certainty that Hanratty was guilty, as we must, then we are left with no conclusive evidence that Hanratty was guilty.
This is an unpalatable and ugly truth for those who remain convinced of Hanratty's guilt. It is not surprising that there is little for these people to throw into the mix other than sarcasm and the towel.

Ansonman

Apart from Miss Storie's identification evidence, we have; the spent cartridge cases left in Hanratty's room at the Vienna; the gun wrapped in a hankie with Hanratty's snot on it; the gun found in a place habitually used by Hanratty for the disposal of unwanted "stuff"; Hanratty's DNA from the seminal stains on the portion of Miss Storie's knickers; the identification evidence from the witnesses prior to Hanratty ditching the car in Avondale Crescent.

All that coupled with Hanratty's inability to stand up anything like a coherent alibi leads me to the conclusion that Hanratty was guilty of the offence for which he was hanged.

[ansonman]

Apart from Miss Storie's identification evidence, we have; the spent cartridge cases left in Hanratty's room at the Vienna; the gun wrapped in a hankie with Hanratty's snot on it; the gun found in a place habitually used by Hanratty for the disposal of unwanted "stuff"; Hanratty's DNA from the seminal stains on the portion of Miss Storie's knickers; the identification evidence from the witnesses prior to Hanratty ditching the car in Avondale Crescent.

All that coupled with Hanratty's inability to stand up anything like a coherent alibi leads me to the conclusion that Hanratty was guilty of the offence for which he was hanged.

You seriously believe a jury would have returned a guilty verdict in the absence of VS's identification?
The DNA "evidence" has been thoroughly discredited and was not available to the jury. I repeat there was no direct evidence to link Hanratty to the crime and without VS's unwavering, certain and absolute conviction that he was the man, there's no way he would have been found guilty, regardless of your conclusion.

Ansonman

[Spitfire]

You seriously believe a jury would have returned a guilty verdict in the absence of VS's identification?
The DNA "evidence" has been thoroughly discredited and was not available to the jury. I repeat there was no direct evidence to link Hanratty to the crime and without VS's unwavering, certain and absolute conviction that he was the man, there's no way he would have been found guilty, regardless of your conclusion.

Ansonman

If Miss Storie had not identified him, he would not have been prosecuted.

Miss Storie's identification was weakened by her previous false positive identification and this was pointed out to the jury by both Sherrard and Gorman J in his summing up. The jury came to the conclusion that Hanratty did it and the DNA evidence, which has not been discredited in any way by anyone competent to discredit it, confirmed that that was the correct decision.

[ansonman]

If Miss Storie had not identified him, he would not have been prosecuted.

Miss Storie's identification was weakened by her previous false positive identification and this was pointed out to the jury by both Sherrard and Gorman J in his summing up. The jury came to the conclusion that Hanratty did it and the DNA evidence, which has not been discredited in any way by anyone competent to discredit it, confirmed that that was the correct decision.

"If Miss Storie had not identified him, he would not have been prosecuted".

Well said. The question now arises, "was she in a position to identify him?". Answer: "Absolutely not". She had previously identified an entirely innocent man whom she was convinced was her attacker and Gregsten's murderer. Given that catastrophic error, her ability to indentify her attacker was zilch.

So, we take her identification out of the equation, because she has proved her ID ability is useless, and we are left with Hanratty the innocent. That's that sorted then.

Ansonman