A6 Rebooted

[Alfie]

Well, yes....and why indeed should he (McNally, that is)? McNally had a sub-poena served against him, and Gillbanks, when he met him, said he was extremely angry. He also said he hadn't seen Hanratty for four years, which is why I find his question puzzling. But the upshot was that Hanratty's alibi was blown out of the water.

Woffinden says that McNally's house was searched on the night of Hanratty's arrest, which suggests that very early on Hanratty named McNally. Foot, however, doesn't refer to this at all.

I'm still puzzled.....

Graham

To expand a little ...

Hanratty doesn't appear to have had a wide circle of male friends/acquaintances (partly a result of his personality, I'd guess, partly a product of spending so much time inside.) So if he had a few criminal associates in Liverpool, there's a good chance McNally, a former lag, would have known who at least some of them were. And in true 'honour among thieves' fashion, he wasn't going to grass them up if Hanratty wasn't prepared to name them.

[Graham]

To expand a little ...

Hanratty doesn't appear to have had a wide circle of male friends/acquaintances (partly a result of his personality, I'd guess, partly a product of spending so much time inside.) So if he had a few criminal associates in Liverpool, there's a good chance McNally, a former lag, would have known who at least some of them were. And in true 'honour among thieves' fashion, he wasn't going to grass them up if Hanratty wasn't prepared to name them.

I think you could well be correct here, Alfie. It's occurred to me that at least part of the reason why McNally was so incensed (and probably why he had a subpoena served against him) was that Hanratty named him as being one of the men he met when he claimed he was in Liverpool, when in fact McNally hadn't seen him for 4 years and was apparently going straight. Hence his refusal to play ball. I'm a bit less puzzled than I was!

Graham

[Observer]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Sherlock Houses]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

No such word Mr Spectator.

[ansonman]

Just how just was the jury?

We know that the other side regard the jury as a fine band of fellows whose verdict was right and proper but just how wise was the jury?

After five hours out, the jury requested further guidance from Judge Gorman:

"Must we be certain and sure of the prisoner's guilt to return a verdict?"

I am not kidding. This is what the jury actually asked, after five hours diliberations. The judge had already told the jury that they had to be certain of their verdict and pointed to the inconsistencies in the prosecution case before they retired. Five hours later they ask the judge, who five hours earlier had told them they have to be certain, if they have to be certain.

Dumb and dumber x 6 or what? Gorman must have been tempted to say "are you lot xxxxing deaf or what?

Anyway, he didn't and instead told them:

"If you have reasonable doubt, then you are not sure. You understand that, do you not?"

I'm not a gambling man and so I wouldn't like to bet on whether they understood what they had by now been told twice. Anyway, the jury toddled off and after another five hours they found Hanratty guilty.

Don't think I'd put them forward as a particularly fine body of persons. More like a collection of dimwits. Sorry to offend.

Ansonman

[NickB]

The judge had already told the jury that they had to be certain of their verdict

I cannot find any record of the judge saying that during the summing up.

What I think happened is that when the jury came back and asked what was meant by ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ the judge, in order to settle the matter, then gave the hardline response: “You have to be sure of the guilt of the accused before you find him guilty.”

I cannot see how any juror who had harboured doubts (and there must have been at least one for the question to be asked) could have been reassured by the judge’s words to give a ‘guilty’ verdict. So, as mentioned before, I think the only logical explanation is that subsequently one or more of the juror/s changed their mind/s.

[ansonman]

I cannot find any record of the judge saying that during the summing up.

What I think happened is that when the jury came back and asked what was meant by ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ the judge, in order to settle the matter, then gave the hardline response: “You have to be sure of the guilt of the accused before you find him guilty.”

I cannot see how any juror who had harboured doubts (and there must have been at least one for the question to be asked) could have been reassured by the judge’s words to give a ‘guilty’ verdict. So, as mentioned before, I think the only logical explanation is that subsequently one or more of the juror/s changed their mind/s.

Hi Nick,

The source is Norma Buddle and she's pretty reliable.

In any event, for the jury to ask after five hours deliberartion, what is meant by beyond reasonable doubt, gives me no doubt that collectively, they weren't at the front of the queue when the brains were handed out.

I mean, if they didn't know what beyond reasonable doubt meant then they were hardly capable of weighing up the nuances of the case.

I think you're spot on re mind changes, in a "my brain hurts" sort of fashion.

Ansonman

[Graham]

This is what was actually said, following some specific questions including one about the cartridge cases:

Foreman: "May we have a further statement from you regarding the definition of 'reasonable doubt'? Must we be certain and sure of the prisoner's guilt to return a verdict?" We must be aware that in 1961 only a unanimous verdict by the jury was permitted under English law; the foreman's questions would appear to indicate that as NickB says at least one jury-member was holding out against a guilty verdict. Nowadays a majority verdict is acceptable.

The judge directed the jury that before convicting Hanratty of the charge of murder the jurors must be sure of his guilt, and that if they had a reasonable doubt then they are not sure. He asked the jury if they understood that.

The foreman's questions seem to indicate to the court that they were not all sure of Hanratty's guilt; indeed, David Lines, the Under-Sheriff of Bedfordshire who was present in court, said, "To me, as a lawyer, it meant that they clearly were not sure". If only one juror held out against a guilty verdict, then the verdict had to be 'not guilty'.

Regarding the jury's question concerning the cartridge cases, the judge advised them that they must not jump to the conclusion that the 'mere finding of the cases in that room denotes that they were left there by the prisoner'. The judge also commented upon the value of circumstantial evidence, and directed the jurors that they should only take into account 'evidence of circumstances all of which point inevitably to the accused', and he repeated that statement to them. He was, I believe, being as fair as he possibly could to the jury (there were only eleven of them, as one juror was excused on the grounds that talk of blood made him physically ill).

Graham

[ansonman]

Do we know at what time of day the jurers reached their unanimous verdict?

I ask this because I am wondering if pressure may have been put on that person, or those persons who were not convinced beyond reasonable doubt, because the boozers were opening or closing within the hour

[ansonman]

I cannot find any record of the judge saying that during the summing up.

What I think happened is that when the jury came back and asked what was meant by ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ the judge, in order to settle the matter, then gave the hardline response: “You have to be sure of the guilt of the accused before you find him guilty.”

I cannot see how any juror who had harboured doubts (and there must have been at least one for the question to be asked) could have been reassured by the judge’s words to give a ‘guilty’ verdict. So, as mentioned before, I think the only logical explanation is that subsequently one or more of the juror/s changed their mind/s.

Hi again Nick,

According to Woffinden, the jury returned after six hours (not five) to ask the judge what was the definition of reasonable doubt.

"David Lines, Under-Sheriff of Bedfordshire, was among those in court who felt that for a jury even to ask that question was particularly telling: "To me, as a lawyer, it meant they clearly weren't sure". The judge it seemed, thought along similar lines, saying to them, "if you have a reasonable doubt, then you are not sure. You understand that, do you not". Woofinden does not say whether they replied.

In answer to my earlier question, the jury finally returned with a verdict at 9.10pm. From my memory of the Tony Hancock "Twelve Angry Men" episode the boozers closed at 10.30pm in those days.

Ansonman

[OneRound]

This is what was actually said, following some specific questions including one about the cartridge cases:

Foreman: "May we have a further statement from you regarding the definition of 'reasonable doubt'? Must we be certain and sure of the prisoner's guilt to return a verdict?" We must be aware that in 1961 only a unanimous verdict by the jury was permitted under English law; the foreman's questions would appear to indicate that as NickB says at least one jury-member was holding out against a guilty verdict. Nowadays a majority verdict is acceptable.

The judge directed the jury that before convicting Hanratty of the charge of murder the jurors must be sure of his guilt, and that if they had a reasonable doubt then they are not sure. He asked the jury if they understood that.

The foreman's questions seem to indicate to the court that they were not all sure of Hanratty's guilt; indeed, David Lines, the Under-Sheriff of Bedfordshire who was present in court, said, "To me, as a lawyer, it meant that they clearly were not sure". If only one juror held out against a guilty verdict, then the verdict had to be 'not guilty'.

Regarding the jury's question concerning the cartridge cases, the judge advised them that they must not jump to the conclusion that the 'mere finding of the cases in that room denotes that they were left there by the prisoner'. The judge also commented upon the value of circumstantial evidence, and directed the jurors that they should only take into account 'evidence of circumstances all of which point inevitably to the accused', and he repeated that statement to them. He was, I believe, being as fair as he possibly could to the jury (there were only eleven of them, as one juror was excused on the grounds that talk of blood made him physically ill).

Graham

Hi Graham,

Re: the wording I've put in bold. Are you certain there? I fully agree that an unanimous verdict had to be delivered by the jury at the time of Hanratty's trial in 1962 and that, unlike today, a majority verdict with only two jurors dissenting was not an option.

However, if full agreement could not be reached because, for example, just one juror disagreed with the rest, then I would have expected what is known as the hung jury (a particularly unfortunate phrase here) to have been discharged and there to have been the great likelihood of a retrial.

I may be wrong but I have a feeling that George Kelly was convicted and executed for the Cameo murders following a retrial as the first jury could not agree. As a further aside, Kelly had his conviction posthumously overturned by the Court of Appeal around the same time that the last appeal for Hanratty was rejected; I read the Court's judgement for Kelly when it was issued and recall being impressed by their logical and fair minded approach. Another interesting case, well worth a look for all.

Best regards,

OneRound

[moste]

Hi Nick,

The source is Norma Buddle and she's pretty reliable.

In any event, for the jury to ask after five hours deliberartion, what is meant by beyond reasonable doubt, gives me no doubt that collectively, they weren't at the front of the queue when the brains were handed out.

I mean, if they didn't know what beyond reasonable doubt meant then they were hardly capable of weighing up the nuances of the case.

I think you're spot on re mind changes, in a "my brain hurts" sort of fashion.

Ansonman

I do not consider the people from Bedfordshire to be dimwits, only a high proportion, and this was reflected in the intellectual composition of the jury. Post number 1 from A6 rebooted, from 'Ronistone' (which was not taken kindly by our Limehouse.
Anyhow, There was certainly some anguish, and possibly head games going on in that deliberation room.
Now then ,I know it was acceptable and legal for the defence and prosecution to be asked if 'they were happy to continue with only eleven jurors'
Personally ,I can't believe the prisoner at the bar was dealt this piece of injustice by his defence team.I mean you only have to look at the chance percentages, to realize this was not a good move for Hanratty.Who would consider 11 voters being as good an option as 12 ?

[Graham]

Hi OR,

I'm not a lawyer, so I can't be certain, but I think that in days of yore if a jury could not reach a unanimous verdict within a reasonable period of time (what's 'reasonable'?), they could inform the judge of that. I think in this case the judge could (and probably usually did) order a re-trial. In Scotland, the situation is and was different, inasmuch as they had a third verdict of 'Not Proven'. In which case, the defendant could walk but did and does (apparently) run the risk of the judiciary ordering a re-trial at some future date. Whether this option is ever actually applied, I don't know.

However, in the Hanratty trial, following their request to the judge for clarification (after which they came back again to ask for some grub...) they did reach a unanimous verdict after 11 hours. I wonder if this was taken into account at the first (1962) appeal?

Graham

[cobalt]

Purely for information, and speaking as a Scot, I am sure that the Not Proven verdict did NOT allow a second trial at a later date. This is a popular misconception.

This erroneous belief was widely held by the Scottish public, and was one reason why the Not Proven verdict was put under great scrutiny after a high profile murder of a young woman in the early 1990s.

The dubious abolition of 'double jeopardy', which I must say I oppose, has meant this argument is now redundant.

Ansonman, Please do not abuse the jury at Hanratty's trial. Like you I think they got it wrong, but I am sure they took their duties seriously. Otherwise they would not have asked for clarification. Unlike Spitfire and others I do not regard their judgment as sacrosanct, but I have no doubt it was given in good faith.

There are cheap shots on this site regarding Hanratty's character, the landlady at Rhyl and last week the people of Liverpool as being a den of thieves! (I think this was meant humorously, which it might have been if voiced by a Scouser.)
Let us not resort to this level of debate by berating the jury at Hanratty's trial. Sherrard was not quite up to the job and had a difficult client as well. besides Valerie Storie in a wheelchair. The jury judged as they saw fit.

[Graham]

Purely for information, and speaking as a Scot, I am sure that the Not Proven verdict did NOT allow a second trial at a later date. This is a popular misconception.

This erroneous belief was widely held by the Scottish public, and was one reason why the Not Proven verdict was put under great scrutiny after a high profile murder of a young woman in the early 1990s.

The dubious abolition of 'double jeopardy', which I must say I oppose, has meant this argument is now redundant.

Ansonman, Please do not abuse the jury at Hanratty's trial. Like you I think they got it wrong, but I am sure they took their duties seriously. Otherwise they would not have asked for clarification. Unlike Spitfire and others I do not regard their judgment as sacrosanct, but I have no doubt it was given in good faith.

There are cheap shots on this site regarding Hanratty's character, the landlady at Rhyl and last week the people of Liverpool as being a den of thieves! (I think this was meant humorously, which it might have been if voiced by a Scouser.)
Let us not resort to this level of debate by berating the jury at Hanratty's trial. Sherrard was not quite up to the job and had a difficult client as well. besides Valerie Storie in a wheelchair. The jury judged as they saw fit.

Good post, Cobalt, and well put. As I said in an earlier post, a lawyer I am not, but over the years of reading about high-profile trials, especially murder trials, in the UK, it has always seemed to me that the Scottish verdict of 'not proven' is at the least very sensible. I accept what you say that a Not Proven verdict does not mean that a second trial can be or will be held. Does 'double jeopardy' still apply in UK and English law? Was not Sion Jenkins tried twice for the murder of his adoptive daughter Billie Jo? Or have I got it all arse-about-backwards?

Graham