A6 Rebooted

[Graham]

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.

This is utter tosh. I repeat, the fact that she failed to identify Alphon is the major result of that ID parade. Her 'identity' of an innocent man means nothing. The fact that her attacker was not on that particular ID parade means that she could not identify him. But when she did see him, she knew who he was.

I don't recall any reports of a wrathful Sherrard pointing an accusing finger at Valerie Storie when she was in the witness box and roaring out something to the effect, "Members of the Jury, my Lord, this woman made a totally and completely erroneous identification which absolutely exonerates my client. I rest my case". He did not do that because no rule governing an ID parade had been broken. Simple as that. Given the identification evidence placed before them, the jury made up their own minds taking into account what Sherrard and Gorman brought to their attention.

Perhaps Ansonman will now be in urgent communication with Bindman or whoever these days represents the Hanratty Family interests in this matter.

Graham

[ansonman]

This is utter tosh. I repeat, the fact that she failed to identify Alphon is the major result of that ID parade. Her 'identity' of an innocent man means nothing. The fact that her attacker was not on that particular ID parade means that she could not identify him. But when she did see him, she knew who he was.

I don't recall any reports of a wrathful Sherrard pointing an accusing finger at Valerie Storie when she was in the witness box and roaring out something to the effect, "Members of the Jury, my Lord, this woman made a totally and completely erroneous identification which absolutely exonerates my client. I rest my case". He did not do that because no rule governing an ID parade had been broken. Simple as that. Given the identification evidence placed before them, the jury made up their own minds taking into account what Sherrard and Gorman brought to their attention.

Perhaps Ansonman will now be in urgent communication with Bindman or whoever these days represents the Hanratty Family interests in this matter.

Graham

Her identity of an innocent man means everything and demonstrated that her ability to accurately identify was fatally flawed. How on earth could she possibly have identified an innocent man if she had any ability to make an accurate ID? Making a totally false ID blows her credibility out of the water.

It is indeed a great pity that Sherrard failed to point an accusing finger at her. I guess he must have felt that to do so would have upset the jury. He certainly failed his client for not making clear the fact that she had proved herself incapable of making an accurate ID in the worse possible way. The fact of the matter is that she made two false ID's, and the second resulted in an innocent man being hanged.

Ansonman

[moste]

"Perhaps Ansonman will now be in urgent communication with Bindman or whoever these days represents the Hanratty Family interests in this matter".

Utter Tosh!............Losing point ?, ,,, Get personal , BS

[Spitfire]

I am very much (not really) afraid that nearly 55 years since the trial of James Hanratty, a vicious murderer and rapist, it is now too late to object to the evidence of Miss Storie in the manner which ansonman now does. No objection was taken at the trial, nor at the 1962 appeal nor the 2002 appeal. We must therefore take it that the legal eagles involved in these various proceedings were satisfied that the evidence was (1) admissible and (2) that the trial judge made the appropriate direction to the jury as to the danger of convicting on the identification evidence.

We should rejoice that the wrong man was not hanged. The DNA evidence, which I repeat has not been discredited in any way whatsoever by any person or authority with the competence to do so, has confirmed the jury's verdict.

[moste]

Her identity of an innocent man means everything and demonstrated that her ability to accurately identify was fatally flawed. How on earth could she possibly have identified an innocent man if she had any ability to make an accurate ID? Making a totally false ID blows her credibility out of the water.

It is indeed a great pity that Sherrard failed to point an accusing finger at her. I guess he must have felt that to do so would have upset the jury. He certainly failed his client for not making clear the fact that she had proved herself incapable of making an accurate ID in the worse possible way. The fact of the matter is that she made two false ID's, and the second resulted in an innocent man being hanged.

Ansonman

I have always been of the opinion that Sherrard was out of his depth with this case.
The much more experienced QC that was supposed to have taken this case, I feel would have completely destroyed Storie as a witness with all due respect, and in the nicest possible way. Sherrard I believe had neither the aptitude, nor stomach for it .

[ansonman]

I have always been of the opinion that Sherrard was out of his depth with this case.
The much more experienced QC that was supposed to have taken this case, I feel would have completely destroyed Storie as a witness with all due respect, and in the nicest possible way. Sherrard I believe had neither the aptitude, nor stomach for it .

You are as bang on accurate as polite. What Hanratty needed was a QC rotwieller who was more concerned to save the life of his client than to upset a woman whose life had been ruined. I don't know how many of those were around at the time but Sherrard most certainly was as inadequate a defence lawyer as Storie was an identifier of her attacker.

Your earlier point about "get personal. BS" is also well placed. What we have here is a "Hanratty was guiltyite" actually saying in writing "her identity of an innocent man means nothing". Can you belive that?

Storie picks out an innocent man who she is sure certain is a murderer and rapist. She is aware that this guy, if found guilty, will be hanged. There is not a shred of doubt in her mind that this totally innocent man deserves to lose his life.

And the anti Hanratty commentator has the audacity and/or ignorance to say this means nothing.

God help us.

Ansonman

[Graham]

Before this turns into a real old-style A6 Thread pissing-contest, I will say this as my last word on the matter:

Had the defence or the judge seen anything which would have definitely and absolutely disqualified Miss Storie's identification of Hanratty as her attacker, there would have been a lot more said in court than a mere verbal note to the jury on the part of the judge to bear in mind her initial mis-identification. If you are unable to see that, then I'm sorry. I also recommend you to re-read Spitfire's last post.

Graham

[ansonman]

Before this turns into a real old-style A6 Thread pissing-contest, I will say this as my last word on the matter:

Had the defence or the judge seen anything which would have definitely and absolutely disqualified Miss Storie's identification of Hanratty as her attacker, there would have been a lot more said in court than a mere verbal note to the jury on the part of the judge to bear in mind her initial mis-identification. If you are unable to see that, then I'm sorry. I also recommend you to re-read Spitfire's last post.

Graham

I'll make it my last word on the mater also. Nothing disqualified her identification of Hanratty as her attacker. What rendered her identification as totally unsound is the fact that she had previously picked out an innocent man as her attacker.

To put it another way. A person says to someone "do you know who did this?" and the person says "yes, it was the person I am now pointing at".

This person turns out not to be the one who did it and the accuser is totally wrong. Is this accuser to be trusted when she picks out a different person on a second ID parade?

That a lot more was not said in court is irrelevant to the fact that the single and only thing that resulted in Hanratty being hanged, was the identification by someone who had demonstrated that she was totally incapable of making such an identification.

We are talking about somebodies life here.

I go back to the centre of my point.

Could Storie be trusted to identify her assailent? Answer: "Emphatically not".

Was her identification of Hanratty the only "evidence" available to hang him?

Answer: "Yes"

Ansonman

[Derrick]

This is utter tosh. I repeat, the fact that she failed to identify Alphon is the major result of that ID parade. Her 'identity' of an innocent man means nothing. The fact that her attacker was not on that particular ID parade means that she could not identify him. But when she did see him, she knew who he was.

I don't recall any reports of a wrathful Sherrard pointing an accusing finger at Valerie Storie when she was in the witness box and roaring out something to the effect, "Members of the Jury, my Lord, this woman made a totally and completely erroneous identification which absolutely exonerates my client. I rest my case". He did not do that because no rule governing an ID parade had been broken. Simple as that...

Sherrard cross-examined Storie about the first identification parade;

MS) Did you understand that it was your duty, on the first parade, not to point to anyone unless you were satisfied in your mind that he was your assailant?
VS) Yes
MS) Apparently you were satisfied enough on that occasion to make the identification without hearing the men speak?
VS) Yes.
MS) Can you tell us now what that man looked like?
VS) No.
MS)You now know, do you not, that there was a man on that parade called Peter Alphon?
VS) I know now.
MS) After you had identified some person on that parade did you not say that there was a fair resemblance between Alphon and the man who attacked you?
VS) Sometime after that parade. Yes.
Gorman) Was it Peter Alphon that Miss Storie picked out of the parade?
MS) It was not the man you identified?
VS) No.

[Limehouse]

I take it you are not seriously suggesting that Bill Ewer murdered Michael Gregsten and raped Valerie Storie.

If Ewer wanted Gregsten dead (or scared), and Ewer knew Louise Anderson who knew Hanratty, then how does that get Hanratty off the hook?

Louise Anderson knew Hanratty was going to Liverpool to sell stolen goods and knew that he would not be able to give a full and reliable account of himself during the crucial time. Dixie France also knew this, and knew where to place a gun to incriminate Hanratty. I am not stating that this is what actually happened, but it is a very real possibility.

[Limehouse]

The facts as we know them point to James Hanratty being the murderer of Michael Gregsten and the person who raped and attempted to murder Valerie Storie.

The gun under the back seat of the bus, a favourite Hanratty hiding place for unwanted loot; the spent gun cartridge cases in Room 24 of the Vienna, a room in which Hanratty had slept the night before the crime and in which no one else had occupied between Hanratty's stay and the discovery of the cartridge cases; the identification evidence (even allowing for it being open to challenge);the undoubted lying over the alibi and the late disclosure of the Rhyl alibi; the results of the DNA tests which the Hanratty team had initially requested and finally the exhoneration of Peter Alphon (the suspect favoured by Foot and Woffinden) by Hanratty's counsel at the appeal, all the foregoing point to Hanratty being the murderer. The only real question being whether this amounts to proof beyond reasonable doubt. Anyone living in the real world would regard that summary of evidence as laying a case against Hanratty.

Yet for the pro-Hanratty lobby this will not do. It is almost an article of faith that Hanratty did not do it. Therefore there must be facts which exculpate Hanratty, and if these cannot be found then they must be invented and invent them , the pro-Hanratty lobby will.

1. The gun under the back seat. True, Hanratty did admit to disposing of unwanted loot from burglaries in this hiding place. Unwanted loot. I repeat. Unwanted loot. Not a gun. Nobody would be that stupid.
2. The cartridge cases in room 24. If Hanratty had left them there, why didn't the cleaners find them the following day when they changed the bed AND MOVED THE CHAIR? The manager apparently spotted them as soon as he entered the room on the day they were found !
3. Identification evidence? I think that has been very skillfully discussed in recent days by other posters.
4. Lying about his alibi? Even the judge said that did not make him guilty of murder.
5. DNA evidence? I don't care who asked for it. The method used was completely unreliable scientifically and there was a very REAL possibility of cross-contamination.

I am not blind to Hanratty's faults as a man. I am not blind to the problems that this complex case throw up. I am not blind to the terrible events that night that had long-standing consequences for the victims. However, I have never invented a fact concerning this case - I have only ever questioned the evidence. I would even admit to having little, nagging doubts about his innocence at various times - because I am only human - only a humble woman with, what my husband calls 'a vastly over-blown sense of what-is-right-and-wrong'. So, there it is. I believe Hanratty was almost certainly innocent. I am guilty as charged.

[Sherlock Houses]

This is utter tosh. I repeat, the fact that she failed to identify Alphon is the major result of that ID parade. Her 'identity' of an innocent man means nothing. The fact that her attacker was not on that particular ID parade means that she could not identify him. But when she did see him, she knew who he was.

This is complete crappushka. Valerie Storie knew full well that she was under no obligation to select anyone from that line-up unless she was sure in her own mind that he was infact the gunman. All she had to say to Acott was something along the lines "I'm sorry Mr Acott but I don't see the A6 murderer amongst these 10 men"

The fact that she picked out the innocent R.A.F clerk Michael Clark demonstrates that she had very little inkling as to what the gunman looked like because Michael Clark was the almost complete opposite to James Hanratty in physical appearance.

When cross-examined at the Bedford Trial by Michael Sherrard this is what Acott had to say regarding Clark's physical appearance.......

Acott :- "I can give you a full description of the man who was picked out on that parade.

Sherrard:- "Would you tell me whether he was, as Dr Rennie has told us , a fair-haired man ?"

Acott :- "No, he was not. I have his full description. I have had this man physically examined....I can tell you from my own knowledge : 5 feet 9 inches, dark short-cropped hair, about 27 years of age, and he was heavily built. Anything else, sir ? "

Sherrard :- " Is the man available, by any chance ?"

Acott :- "He was sometime ago, but I cannot say off-hand."


You will notice how deceitful and cunning Acott was in describing Michael Clark. He was ultra careful to hide from the jury and court something which he obviously regarded as vitally significant. The fact that Michael Clark had DARK EYES !! He'd even underlined it on page 174 of his notebook. Can you imagine what the reaction of the court would have been to this sensational information ?? Valerie Storie had allegedly maintained, from August 28th 1961 until her trial evidence in late January 1962, that the murderer had icy-blue, saucer like, staring eyes. So why, for Goodness sake, would she pick out a dark-eyed man on September 24th 1961 ?

[louisa]

A nice bit of sleuthing, Sherlock!
.
.

[Sherlock Houses]

I have always been of the opinion that Sherrard was out of his depth with this case.
The much more experienced QC that was supposed to have taken this case, I feel would have completely destroyed Storie as a witness with all due respect, and in the nicest possible way. Sherrard I believe had neither the aptitude, nor stomach for it .

I share your opinion, Moste. Michael Sherrard was only 33 when he defended James Hanratty at the Bedford Trial. It was his first capital case and his inexperience told markedly. By all accounts he did a decent enough job but he was remiss in some important matters and was up against a very wily and experienced opponent in the 55 year old Swanwick whose trickery was to prove no match in the final analysis for the young Sherrard.

[Graham]

Sherlock, I've seen everything on your post 3732 before, mate. I don't argue with a single word of it. What I've been trying to get across is that if JH's defence seriously felt that Valerie's "identification" of Michael Clark genuinely and irreparably undermined the chances of their client getting a fair trial, then their objection to it would have been put in far stronger terms than it actually was. Indeed, I rather suspect that some QC's would have petitioned the judge for a mis-trial. Do you see what I'm getting at? Sherrard noted his concern, but carried on. Whether he was correct or not to do so - well, he did, and we can't turn back the clock.

With regard to the choice of Sherrard, he was in fact chosen by Emanuel Kleinmann, who evidently thought highly of him even though he had not previously defended a capital case. If I recall, the initial choice was not Sherrard, but whoever it was (and I can't remember) was unable to accept. A more experienced QC may well have attended to matters differently.

Anyone who'd like to see how a defence QC from a few years previously defended his client against a murder charge, and got his client acquitted against all the odds, should read up about the Tony Mancini Case, defended by Norman Birkett. Years later, Mancini confessed to the murder and also described how Birkett, a great actor himself by all accounts, coached Mancini with how he should perform in the witness box. Although I hate to say so, as Michael Sherrard was quite obviously a very human and approachable man, but I think Birkett would have got JH off, as well........

Graham