A6 Rebooted

[cobalt]

Hi Graham.

The Jenkins case is a complicated one, so I had to check it on Wikipedia, that less than reliable oracle. He was convicted, albeit on weak evidence, of murdering his step-daughter.

Instead of his guilt being overturned it was then decided a re-trial was required, since new forensic evidence had become available. I confess I do not understand how these decisions are reached- can a wise group of legal experts not determine what verdict the jury would have reached had the evidence been available at the time?

Anyhow at Jenkins' second trial the jury could not agree a verdict, and he was free to leave the court. Again, I am not sure what this means. Is that 10-2 which is often quoted in newspaper reports, or something less? I can understand why 'unanimous' was phased out (when did this happen?) since it means one 'ringer' can subvert the will of the people. But it has to be a concern that an accused has now much more chance of being convicted than at any other time in my lifetime, especially since the double jeopardy rule has been introduced. (A Russian friend once pointed out to me recently that the conviction rates in USA courts is now higher than in the USSR during the 1930s when Stalin was calling the shots. From what I can glean it seems he is correct.)

I think Jenkins can count himself lucky. I saw him interviewed once by Richard and Judy, two cretins of credulousness it would be hard to rival, and he struck me as a glib, Blairite character whose forging of his CV and accused wife beating seemed perfectly in character. Then again, I was not on the jury.

[Graham]

Hi Cobalt,

as far as I can tell the 'majority verdict' rule applying to English juries came in in 1974. It so happened that I was on the jury in a murder trial in 1972, and as far as I can remember we were warned (right word?) by the judge that our verdict had to be unanimous - which it was. More on this later, maybe.

I know Bob Woffinden took up Sion Jenkins' cause, but I never read much on the subject. Like you, I wasn't too impressed with Sion Jenkins, but who am I to judge? On the other hand, I wasn't too impressed with the original prosecution allegation that he had killed Billie-Jo 'because she had annoyed him'. That said, I have to say that I don't think Sion Jenkins killed her. The forensics seem slightly muddled, to say the least.

Graham

[cobalt]

It appears that Sion Jenkins was afforded TWO retrials, not one. In both cases the jury, perhaps understandably, failed to reach a verdict. He later applied for compensation and was equally understandably told where to go.

I have no idea who makes these decisions about retrials and how it chimes with Review Bodies examining cases like the Hanratty one. I remain uneasy however about the composition of juries, despite my recent request of Ansonman. It is obvious that juries have to be chosen at random, otherwise criminal organisations could anticipate who would sit on their trials. However how do we know how random the selection actually is? Does a town clerk really have the final say in who is called for jury duty, particularly in high profile cases? I hope so, but I somehow I am not so confident that this is the case.
And the foreman of the jury is appointed by the members, but again I can see how a strong character or a 'ringer' could easily put himself in this position.
For the record, in Scotland we have 15 members of a jury, not 12. This would seem to offer a safeguard against rogue decisions, but I think that on occasion judges have said they would accept a simple majority (i.e.8-7.) That does not seem beyond a reasonable doubt to me.

[moste]

Hi Cobalt,

as far as I can tell the 'majority verdict' rule applying to English juries came in in 1974. It so happened that I was on the jury in a murder trial in 1972, and as far as I can remember we were warned (right word?) by the judge that our verdict had to be unanimous - which it was. More on this later, maybe.

I know Bob Woffinden took up Sion Jenkins' cause, but I never read much on the subject. Like you, I wasn't too impressed with Sion Jenkins, but who am I to judge? On the other hand, I wasn't too impressed with the original prosecution allegation that he had killed Billie-Jo 'because she had annoyed him'. That said, I have to say that I don't think Sion Jenkins killed her. The forensics seem slightly muddled, to say the least.

Graham

Just reading from the Scottish government web page on' The modern Scottish jury in criminal trials', interestingly the scots criminal juries number 15.
Anyhow further down the page it states "In England and Wales ,The criminal justice act removed the requirement for unanimity in 1967.So maybe the judge was exercising his prerogatives .

[moste]

Hi Cobalt posts crossed,

[moste]

Some penetrating questions an enquiring and impartial newcomer might ask herself/himself concerning the A6 Murder case [all pertaining to the week following the murder].........

1] Why does Valerie Storie's identi-kit photo look so strikingly like the first suspect Peter Alphon and absolutely nothing like James Hanratty ?

2] Why is Valerie Storie's initial description of the murderer's hair, 'STRAIGHT, WELL-GREASED, DARK BROWN, BRUSHED STRAIGHT BACK, SLIGHTLY RECEDING AT TEMPLES ' so uncannily accurate for Peter Alphon ?

3] Why did Peter Alphon go into HIDING for five days immediately following the murder ?

4] Why did Valerie Storie make no mention of the icy-blue colour of the murderer's eyes until August 28th if his eyes were his most impressionable feature ?

5] Why did Superintendent Richard Morgan just hours after the discovery of the murder state on camera that the killer had BROWN eyes ?


Believable answers please [no B.S. permitted] on an E-Postcard.......

6] Why were John Smith and Michael Blacks 10 pm. to 6.00 am. shifts as traffic enumerators suspended from Deadmans hill, and moved a couple of miles further south? why wasn't more made of this?

7] Where did John Kerrs notes on Valerie's identification go to? and why did the police produce a bogus paper clearly not written by Kerr?

8] Why did defence workers Mr. Gillibanks, (retired Det.) and Det. Pugh, not follow proper procedure,when showing the two important witnesses Mrs. Jones, and Mrs. Dinwoodie only one photo of a suspect,
in two separate incidents, each damaging the usefulness of the interviews?

9] What was the purpose of Mr.Ewers overt actions to indicate he had spotted Gregstens killer, disturbing local business people, and eventually calling the police in on what he had witnessed?

10] What reason could Dixie France have, for visiting Mr. Ewer with condolences on the loss of his brother in law, becoming quite upset, and needing to be consoled by Mr. Ewer. someone according to Ewer he had not met before or since?


Same rules apply as above.

[OneRound]

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 and all,

It's often said by commentators that in asking this question the jury were leaning towards a 'not guilty' verdict. Admittedly, the way the judge answered also suggests that's the way he was pointing them.

However, other than knowing that at least one juror required clarification on the meaning of 'beyond reasonable doubt', we do not know the purpose of the request and what lay behind it.

For all we know, nine or ten jurors might already have been absolutely certain of guilt whilst one or two were pretty certain and wanted to know if that was sufficient. In such a scenario, it would subsequently have been a case of them hardening their decision rather than changing their mind.

However, and I repeat, we just do not know.

I don't know if any of you followed or recall the Vicky Pryce case from about three years ago. She was the wife of an MP accused of perverting the course of justice through taking driver penalty points for her husband.

Anyway, in the Pryce case, the judge who had already provided certain written instructions was asked further questions by the jury. He was distinctly unimpressed and referred to 'absolutely fundamental deficiencies in understanding of their [the jury's] role and the trial process'.

Amongst the additional questions was a request to 'define what is reasonable doubt'. The judge's answer was: 'A reasonable doubt is a doubt which is reasonable. These are ordinary English words that the law doesn't allow me to help you with beyond the written directions that I have already given.'' This comes across to me as more neutral and not so obviously sympathetic to the defendant as the words of Mr Justice Gorman in Hanratty's case.

As an aside and possibly of trivia interest, the judge in Pryce's case was Mr Justice Sweeney. As Nigel Sweeney, QC he had successfully represented the Crown at the 2002 appeal of Hanratty.

Going back to Hanratty's trial and noting Cobalt's comments about the jury, I make no comment about the intelligence or integrity of those eleven men. I am in no position to do so. I do though feel it was wrong that it was a 'local' jury which tried Hanratty. If only for reasons of perception, his trial should have been held at the Old Bailey as originally planned with the jurors having no proximity to the crime scene.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Sherlock Houses]

6] Why were John Smith and Michael Blacks 10 pm. to 6.00 am. shifts as traffic enumerators suspended from Deadmans hill, and moved a couple of miles further south? why wasn't more made of this?

7] Where did John Kerrs notes on Valerie's identification go to? and why did the police produce a bogus paper clearly not written by Kerr?

8] Why did defence workers Mr. Gillibanks, (retired Det.) and Det. Pugh, not follow proper procedure,when showing the two important witnesses Mrs. Jones, and Mrs. Dinwoodie only one photo of a suspect,
in two separate incidents, each damaging the usefulness of the interviews?

9] What was the purpose of Mr.Ewers overt actions to indicate he had spotted Gregstens killer, disturbing local business people, and eventually calling the police in on what he had witnessed?

10] What reason could Dixie France have, for visiting Mr. Ewer with condolences on the loss of his brother in law, becoming quite upset, and needing to be consoled by Mr. Ewer. someone according to Ewer he had not met before or since?


Same rules apply as above.

All perfectly valid questions Moste. Like other posters I could add a lot more to the list, however that will keep for another day. As has been pointed out on numerous occasions on this forum there are so many inexplicable anomalies in this case. So many mysterious actions and incidents that have you scratching your head. You just couldn't make them up.

With reference to question 8 on your list, it must be pointed out that Pugh of the Liverpool police wasn't acting on behalf of the defence in mid-October, he was given his assignment by his Liverpool Chief. The defence team were kept completely in the dark by Acott about the existence of Mrs Dinwoodie for a further 7 weeks. A very obliging and considerate man dear old Basil.

[OneRound]

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.

Hi Cobalt,

I am no expert but I am confident you are right about the effects of a Not Proven verdict.

I've mixed feelings about the abolition of 'double jeopardy'.

On the one hand, I don't feel an acquitted person should be left with the possibility of a retrial hanging over him just because the police might want to have another go and choose to keep digging. The police should have established a sufficiently robust case before the case went to trial.

There again, if I was a relative or friend of the person murdered by Tony Mancini (Graham's recent posts refer) I would be disgusted by the thug boasting about the murder after acquittal and all too keen for him to be retried and then strung up.

This prompts an interesting (to my sad mind) theoretical question about Hanratty. If he had been acquitted at trial as many commentators expected and had he been alive forty years later, would the subsequently discovered DNA 'evidence' have led to a retrial? [Ok, it might not have been discovered if he had been acquitted but let that go.]

The confidence that the Court of Appeal showed in the DNA 'evidence' confirming guilt in 2002 would initially suggest a retrial would have resulted. However, I'm not so sure. Would the Court of Appeal have instead ruled that it was not possible for the necessary safeguards to have been applied to the DNA 'evidence' and so the status quo be maintained with the original verdict of 'not guilty' (in this scenario) continuing to stand?

Best regards,

OneRound

[Sherlock Houses]

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 agree, the Bedford jury certainly weren't at the head of the queue when it came to intelligence and trying to sort fact from fiction. One of them even had to drop out due to his dislike of the mention of blood, would you believe it ? That left 11 fairly dim-witted male jurors with the grave responsibility of determining a man's innocence or guilt. I can't escape the impression that Justice William Gorman must have thought to himself before sending the jury out to deliberate once more..,..."Your life Mr Hanratty, unfortunately is in the hands of these 11 dim-witted, property owning burghers outraged that a murder should occur in their precious County of Bedfordshire. And they don't even have a clue about what reasonable doubt means."

[Graham]

After his acquittal, Mancini joined a travelling fair for a short time as 'The Infamous Brighton Trunk Murderer' - actually, there were two trunk murders in Brighton at the time, the other one being completely unexplained.
He confessed to the murder of Violette Saunders only in 1976, but as he'd been acquitted at trial in 1934 no further action could be taken. Apparently he behaved himself following his acquittal.

Graham

[ansonman]

I agree, the Bedford jury certainly weren't at the head of the queue when it came to intelligence and trying to sort fact from fiction. One of them even had to drop out due to his dislike of the mention of blood, would you believe it ? That left 11 fairly dim-witted male jurors with the grave responsibility of determining a man's innocence or guilt. I can't escape the impression that Justice William Gorman must have thought to himself before sending the jury out to deliberate once more..,..."Your life Mr Hanratty, unfortunately is in the hands of these 11 dim-witted, property owning burghers outraged that a murder should occur in their precious County of Bedfordshire. And they don't even have a clue about what reasonable doubt means."

Absolutely Sherlock.

I think the lesson that Sherrard must have learned from this can be summed up as "keep it simple".
Beyond reasonable doubt, Hanratty should not have changed his alibi because that introduced more confusion for the jury. Even better, Hanratty should have said he spent the night with his dear old mum. That would have been much more comforting for the jury. They would have understood that. Perhaps.

Ansonman

[NickB]

He confessed to the murder of Violette Saunders only in 1976, but as he'd been acquitted at trial in 1934 no further action could be taken.

Well he could have been charged with perjury. Sussex police re-opened the file in 1976, but the DPP stated that independent corroboration of Mancini’s claim was essential. He wrote to the Chief Constable of Sussex: “My opinion therefore is that there is insufficient evidence available or likely to become available to prosecute Mancini.”

Shortly after Mancini confessed to the News of the World Steven Knight met him and after a couple of years correspondence interviewed him for 3 days. Graham - you've suggested in previous posts that Hanratty went into denial, and this is what Mancini told Knight had happened to him.

Mancini: "I found that I could lower the safety curtain in my mind."

Knight: "Quite soon after?"

Mancini: "That same night. I could lower this safety curtain and it would blank it out completely. What had happened was blanked out as though I'd drawn fire curtains across my mind for that period and I couldn't see."

Sherrard said he saw Hanratty every day and I think it is reasonable to deduce that, like Birkett, he did try and help his client prepare for his evidence.

For example, Sherrard asked Hanratty why he had lied about his alibi and then said: “Just explain it in your own words.” I think this indicates that a response had been rehearsed. But as the answer that came out was gobbledegook, I think Hanratty forgot what had been prepared.

Of course the description ‘gobbledegook’ is only my opinion, so I reproduce below the answer he gave so anyone can make their own assessment.

"My Lord, at this stage I read in the papers that the police wanted to interview me in a murder which took place. One article I remember reading stated that this man Ryan might have shared the same hotel as the murderer for that trial. That was in one paper. That was before I went to Liverpool, my Lord. On the first occasion when I rang Superintendent Acott he was thoroughly interested to know my whereabouts on the 22nd and 23rd of August. I was a little bit confused myself with seeing my name in the papers knowing that my mother, father and brother were looking for me. I knew in myself that I did not commit this crime so I tried to help in every way I could to help Superintendent Acott when he asked me where I was on the 22nd and 23rd of August. At that stage I knew I was only wanted for interviewing, not for the actual A6 murder charge which I eventually found out later or the truth would have been told straightaway. I know I made a terrible mistake by telling Superintendent Acott about these three men, but I have been advised that the truth only counts in this matter, and might I say here every word of that is the truth."

[moste]

All perfectly valid questions Moste. Like other posters I could add a lot more to the list, however that will keep for another day. As has been pointed out on numerous occasions on this forum there are so many inexplicable anomalies in this case. So many mysterious actions and incidents that have you scratching your head. You just couldn't make them up.

With reference to question 8 on your list, it must be pointed out that Pugh of the Liverpool police wasn't acting on behalf of the defence in mid-October, he was given his assignment by his Liverpool Chief. The defence team were kept completely in the dark by Acott about the existence of Mrs Dinwoodie for a further 7 weeks. A very obliging and considerate man dear old Basil.

quite right SH

[JPR1975]

In relation to the Sion Jenkins emails over the weekend.

I read his book (in collaboration with Bob Woffinden) "The Murder of Billie-Jo" this summer whilst on holiday and a great read for anyone interested in the case.

JPR