A6 Rebooted

[caz]

I agree that a harsh questioning of Valerie Storie would likely have been counter productive given her ordeal; in fact she had to be helped into court and placed in a wheelchair from memory. I also agree the jury had the right to assess her evidence accordingly in regard to her relationship, but they were not ostensibly given the opportunity. Spelling things out is exactly what barristers are paid to do.

Thanks, cobalt. That was my point really. If it had been spelled out in open court that the victims had been having an adulterous affair [whether it had only just begun or had been going on for years] I just wonder how that would have affected the jury's opinion on whether or not Valerie had correctly identified Hanratty as the man who had spent all that time in the car, 'babbling out' his self-pitying autobiography. This was the same man who couldn't or wouldn't give a straight story about his own whereabouts at the time. What was he up to, they could be forgiven for thinking, that could have been any worse than murder, rape and attempted murder?

Even if the jury had considered the possibility that the motive was to put an end to the couple's relationship, implying the gunman's knowledge of this and connection to his victims, they would have been left to consider how the answer to the victims' immoral behaviour could, in any sane universe, have been to rape the woman and shoot them both. The words 'sledgehammer', 'crack' and 'nut' spring to mind.

Caz’s last paragraph is, alas, an example of the cod psychology we can be tempted into when trying to make our case for or against. The wild allegations of crimes Hanratty may have committed is really an acknowledgment that there is in fact no known crime Hanratty committed (unlike say, Alphon) which is remotely like the A6 case. Ghost crimes in other words, which exist only in the imagination.
On that matter I will veer into some cod psychology of my own. Hanratty was a burglar but the suggestion was made in court that he had ambitions to be a robber, a ‘stick up’ man in Americanese. He’d made noises about acquiring a gun and given his acquaintance with Dixie France this might not have been much of a problem. So far, so good.
But he seems to have hedged his bets when visiting the Taplow area for, despite carrying a weapon and spare ammunition, he reverted to type and decided on a spot of old fashioned burglary. Not so handy for shinning up drainpipes or slipping through windows but nonetheless he was able to arrive, walk down country roads in his sharp suit, and presumably ‘case’ a joint or two without ever being seen. At some point he gives up on burglary and must be itching to try his hand as an armed robber. Maybe he was on his way to a late night shop, a small garage or a pub at cashing up time when he spots a car in a cornfield. Easy money and a car home as well, so a great opportunity to begin his apprenticeship. Thus far the narrative has a few holes obviously but it can just about be sustained.
What happens thereafter suspends disbelief a little too far. Instead of taking valuables and kicking the couple out of the car in a lonely field, he decides to sit (according to Ms Storie’s evidence for around two hours) babbling out some kind of self-pitying autobiography. The victims’ response seems to be less one of terror and more one of pity and utter boredom. At times they can barely conceal their contempt. Far from dominating them or feeling some kind of power kick he is being treated as the inadequate that he is. Surely time to cut his losses and finish the robbery? Far from it. He decides on a bizarre car rally of his own, stopping for cigarettes and petrol, before the horrific climax to a robbery which was never really a robbery in the first place. From burglar to stick-up man might be just be seen as a logical progression but our man goes way beyond his parameters in a matter of hours: kidnap, murder, rape, attempted murder. And yet at the start of the evening his ambitions could hardly have stretched beyond holding up a small shopkeeper.

So no 'cod psychology' here then, cobalt?

I wasn't making any 'wild allegations' of other crimes Hanratty may have committed. I was talking generally, about anyone who committed this crime. I even suggested that the rape was more about the power this 'inadequate' character had to summon after shooting Gregsten dead, possibly unintentionally. If the victims didn't see the warnings signs, perhaps that's because you have described their experience accurately, and there weren't any - up to that point.

Whatever 'previous' Alphon and Hanratty had between them, this crime was different. What makes Alphon psychologically more likely to have held up this couple with a loaded gun and made them drive all that way, not apparently knowing what he was planning to do, or where it was all going to end? If it had been a case of scaring them into ending their affair, and sexually assaulting Valerie as a bonus, using the gun only as a threat, why not do both while the car was parked and get it over with, with a minimum of communication? From your own description, this sounds like the gunman didn't have any definite outcome in mind, but only a vague outline of what he was doing, and where he was going with this loaded gun as his sole point of reference. This smacks more of an experiment gone wrong than someone's cunning plan to teach the victims a lesson in morality.

Where were you, cobalt, when there was all that kerfuffle about alleged rape victims having their sex lives raked over in open court, to try and make them out to be liars, who were accusing innocent men? Innocent men have been accused in this way, but it's rare, and usually involves someone known to the victim. There was no reason for Valerie to identify Hanratty, a total stranger to her, if she knew it wasn't him. Someone raped and shot her, and could still have been out there, free to do it to someone else, if she lied about any aspect of her testimony. Of course there was always the potential to be mistaken, but Hanratty didn't help himself by cancelling one alibi out with the other, and the jury ended up believing Valerie got it right, and knowing Hanratty was a liar. The DNA findings - regardless of personal opinions about how they were reached - support Valerie's account of what happened, and further undermine Hanratty's claims to have been in Liverpool or Rhyl - whichever is the less implausible.

Love,

Caz
X

[moste]

It does seem strange that for all we have pored over the A6 case for much of our lives we don’t seem to know the answer to the two questions I asked earlier: was Sherrard actually aware of the long term affair between Gregsten and Valerie Storie; and if he was, did he consult Hanratty about how (or how not) this would feature at trial.

Caz seems remarkably prescient about how a jury would have reacted to this information, not only in 1960 but also 1860. In fact she even seems to know that they were all aware of the relationship in any case and did not need it to be spelled out. I agree that a harsh questioning of Valerie Storie would likely have been counter productive given her ordeal; in fact she had to be helped into court and placed in a wheelchair from memory. I also agree the jury had the right to assess her evidence accordingly in regard to her relationship, but they were not ostensibly given the opportunity. Spelling things out is exactly what barristers are paid to do.

Caz’s last paragraph is, alas, an example of the cod psychology we can be tempted into when trying to make our case for or against. The wild allegations of crimes Hanratty may have committed is really an acknowledgment that there is in fact no known crime Hanratty committed (unlike say, Alphon) which is remotely like the A6 case. Ghost crimes in other words, which exist only in the imagination.
On that matter I will veer into some cod psychology of my own. Hanratty was a burglar but the suggestion was made in court that he had ambitions to be a robber, a ‘stick up’ man in Americanese. He’d made noises about acquiring a gun and given his acquaintance with Dixie France this might not have been much of a problem. So far, so good.
But he seems to have hedged his bets when visiting the Taplow area for, despite carrying a weapon and spare ammunition, he reverted to type and decided on a spot of old fashioned burglary. Not so handy for shinning up drainpipes or slipping through windows but nonetheless he was able to arrive, walk down country roads in his sharp suit, and presumably ‘case’ a joint or two without ever being seen. At some point he gives up on burglary and must be itching to try his hand as an armed robber. Maybe he was on his way to a late night shop, a small garage or a pub at cashing up time when he spots a car in a cornfield. Easy money and a car home as well, so a great opportunity to begin his apprenticeship. Thus far the narrative has a few holes obviously but it can just about be sustained.
What happens thereafter suspends disbelief a little too far. Instead of taking valuables and kicking the couple out of the car in a lonely field, he decides to sit (according to Ms Storie’s evidence for around two hours) babbling out some kind of self-pitying autobiography. The victims’ response seems to be less one of terror and more one of pity and utter boredom. At times they can barely conceal their contempt. Far from dominating them or feeling some kind of power kick he is being treated as the inadequate that he is. Surely time to cut his losses and finish the robbery? Far from it. He decides on a bizarre car rally of his own, stopping for cigarettes and petrol, before the horrific climax to a robbery which was never really a robbery in the first place. From burglar to stick-up man might be just be seen as a logical progression but our man goes way beyond his parameters in a matter of hours: kidnap, murder, rape, attempted murder. And yet at the start of the evening his ambitions could hardly have stretched beyond holding up a small shopkeeper.

Mmh, Those final words perhaps smack of the couple knowing the person in the car with them? There are a number of incidents during the evening/night , that could possibly point to this.

[cobalt]

It does seem strange that for all we have pored over the A6 case for much of our lives we don’t seem to know the answer to the two questions I asked earlier: was Sherrard actually aware of the long term affair between Gregsten and Valerie Storie; and if he was, did he consult Hanratty about how (or how not) this would feature at trial.

Caz seems remarkably prescient about how a jury would have reacted to this information, not only in 1960 but also 1860. In fact she even seems to know that they were all aware of the relationship in any case and did not need it to be spelled out. I agree that a harsh questioning of Valerie Storie would likely have been counter productive given her ordeal; in fact she had to be helped into court and placed in a wheelchair from memory. I also agree the jury had the right to assess her evidence accordingly in regard to her relationship, but they were not ostensibly given the opportunity. Spelling things out is exactly what barristers are paid to do.

Caz’s last paragraph is, alas, an example of the cod psychology we can be tempted into when trying to make our case for or against. The wild allegations of crimes Hanratty may have committed is really an acknowledgment that there is in fact no known crime Hanratty committed (unlike say, Alphon) which is remotely like the A6 case. Ghost crimes in other words, which exist only in the imagination.
On that matter I will veer into some cod psychology of my own. Hanratty was a burglar but the suggestion was made in court that he had ambitions to be a robber, a ‘stick up’ man in Americanese. He’d made noises about acquiring a gun and given his acquaintance with Dixie France this might not have been much of a problem. So far, so good.
But he seems to have hedged his bets when visiting the Taplow area for, despite carrying a weapon and spare ammunition, he reverted to type and decided on a spot of old fashioned burglary. Not so handy for shinning up drainpipes or slipping through windows but nonetheless he was able to arrive, walk down country roads in his sharp suit, and presumably ‘case’ a joint or two without ever being seen. At some point he gives up on burglary and must be itching to try his hand as an armed robber. Maybe he was on his way to a late night shop, a small garage or a pub at cashing up time when he spots a car in a cornfield. Easy money and a car home as well, so a great opportunity to begin his apprenticeship. Thus far the narrative has a few holes obviously but it can just about be sustained.
What happens thereafter suspends disbelief a little too far. Instead of taking valuables and kicking the couple out of the car in a lonely field, he decides to sit (according to Ms Storie’s evidence for around two hours) babbling out some kind of self-pitying autobiography. The victims’ response seems to be less one of terror and more one of pity and utter boredom. At times they can barely conceal their contempt. Far from dominating them or feeling some kind of power kick he is being treated as the inadequate that he is. Surely time to cut his losses and finish the robbery? Far from it. He decides on a bizarre car rally of his own, stopping for cigarettes and petrol, before the horrific climax to a robbery which was never really a robbery in the first place. From burglar to stick-up man might be just be seen as a logical progression but our man goes way beyond his parameters in a matter of hours: kidnap, murder, rape, attempted murder. And yet at the start of the evening his ambitions could hardly have stretched beyond holding up a small shopkeeper.

[NickB]

This matter of Sherrard being too soft on Storie arose as part of the argument for the case being thrown out at committal. But at committal Sherrard asked for Storie's evidence to be given in private, and this request was granted.

At the trial Storie said early on that she and Gregsten were very fond of each other. It is difficult to tell at this distance how much this, and other answers, led to a realisation by most people they were having an affair. It has been claimed that Storie first revealed the affair in her Today article, but this cannot be true because in it she talks about having received loads of mail about it.

[caz]

Well, I still await my answers although Caz has thrown in a number of different questions of her own. I think she is confusing the roles of the defence barrister and the judge. It is for the judge to rule on matters that are not relevant to the case; it is for the barrister to develop any line of questioning, no matter how indelicate, to the advantage of his client. As Moste indicated earlier, Sherrard failed to do so.

But that was my point, cobalt. How would it have been to the advantage of Sherrard's client to hit the jury over the head with the victim's "immoral character", for being a single woman, who was in a parked car in a cornfield with a married man? Everyone would have grasped the 'indelicate' nature of this circumstance without the need to spell it out. It had nothing to do with Valerie's integrity as a witness, but if the jury had felt it did, they were adults and free to judge her evidence accordingly, alongside Hanratty's claim to have been in two places at once. Had Sherrard ripped into Valerie, as a wicked husband stealer, it would likely have backfired. This was the 1960s, not the 1860s, and the sympathy vote would have been that much stronger for this woman who had lost her man, been raped and shot, and paralysed for life. How would that have helped to throw doubt on the case against Hanratty?

The 'puzzling five hour kidnap journey to nowhere' happened, cobalt. Someone was responsible. Someone without the wit or the experience to make sure the only witness to this 'puzzling' crime couldn't later identify him. That tells us a little about the kind of man who did this.

Another point to make is that this crime seems to have been a first as well as a last for whoever committed it, assuming nothing of a similar nature went undetected. So the idea that Hanratty's character, or previous criminal record, simply didn't fit, is inherently flawed, because it wouldn't have fit anyone else's either. Whoever did this was not someone who had lived a squeaky clean life up until that point, with not so much as a speeding ticket to his name. Nor was he someone who had regularly held up courting couples at gunpoint, or gone on to rape the woman. He had to start somewhere, and it wasn't up the A6. There would have been previous, lesser offences, which may or may not have resulted in a charge or conviction. Some may have gone unreported; others never connected to him. The police could have looked at known sex offenders, for example, but that would have been needle in a haystack territory. Many sex offences are not reported. Offenders who are caught often turn out to have had wives and girlfriends who never suspected a thing. And in this case I doubt rape was the original intention anyway, given that most sex offenders pick on lone victims, for obvious reasons. This was more about a bad character experimenting with the power given to him by a loaded gun.

Love,

Caz
X

[cobalt]

Well, I still await my answers although Caz has thrown in a number of different questions of her own. I think she is confusing the roles of the defence barrister and the judge. It is for the judge to rule on matters that are not relevant to the case; it is for the barrister to develop any line of questioning, no matter how indelicate, to the advantage of his client. As Moste indicated earlier, Sherrard failed to do so.

The jury were entitled to the whole truth so they could draw their own conclusions. They may well have taken Caz’s approach and decided that the Gregsten/Storie relationship was nothing to do with the price of fish. They might equally have drawn a different conclusion: that a woman conducting an affair with a married man, a father of two young children, was not a person to be trusted entirely in her evidence. All the more so since she had concealed the real reason for her being in the cornfield in the first place. What trust could they then place in her identification- which was surely crucial to the verdict- or the puzzling five hour kidnap journey to nowhere? It was for the jury to decide, presented with the whole truth; not an edited version nor a nod and wink version.

This assumes, as Caz did, that Sherrard actually knew about the long term affair between Gregsten and Valerie Storie. Or perhaps the police kept that from him, as they did with other potential evidence, since they did not consider it relevant.

[caz]

A lot of points to counter in your post Caz. Hanratty was a bog standard villain of a sort the cops could have picked up twenty in the day, andprobably as many today. The idea he committed a crime sui generis is betond credulity.

Now I'm going to ask an even more alarming question, cobalt: Would you also think the idea beyond credulity that a bog standard flasher, for instance, of the sort the cops have complaints about on a regular basis, might turn to kidnap and murder if the opportunity presented itself? I personally think that would be a potentially very dangerous opinion for the cops to hold. Sorry if that sounds insensitive, but I feel quite passionately about this.

If Hanratty fluffed his lines, as he surely did, then Valerie Storie trumped him when she picked out the wrong man in the ID parade. He paid a big price for dong that and she paid none. Fluffing her lines cost her nothing.

Again, Valerie was not the one on trial, yet you are implying that Hanratty was somehow her victim, when he was his own worst enemy. She picked out the wrong man from the first ID parade, but she could hardly have picked out the right one if he wasn't there. She had nothing to do with the fact that Hanratty came to police attention and appeared in a second ID parade.

Which is why I go back to the issue at debate, the decision not to question her character at trial. I have assumed that Sherrard knew of the Gregsten/Storie relationship before trial and have asked whether he had Hanratty’s approval not to bring it up at trial. I have had no answer so far from either NickB, or Spitfire, who are generally acknowledged as experts on fact on this site. They are certainly my points of reference on matters of fact.

I still fail to see how it would have helped Hanratty if the victim's character was questioned on the basis of her relationship with a married man. What would that have had to do with the price of fish? "Ah, then Hanratty didn't do it, because he had no knowledge of this"? Come on cobalt, this may have been only the start of the swinging sixties, but the jury members were not so naive that it didn't dawn on them that the couple were up to naughties in the car in the cornfield. The gunman didn't need to know them from Adam to suspect as much, and the jury would have seen that without Sherrard drawing a flaming diagram.

I am now asking a more alarming question: was it possible that Sherrard attempted to defend Hanratty without knowing about relationship between Gregsten and Valerie Storie? Was he, in the words of Nye Bevin, going naked into the debating chamber?

I really don't think it would have mattered either way, cobalt. It was Hanratty who chose to lie about his whereabouts when a married man and a single woman, alone together in a parked car, were forced to take that fateful drive.

Love,

Caz
X

[cobalt]

A lot of points to counter in your post Caz. Hanratty was a bog standard villain of a sort the cops could have picked up twenty in the day, andprobably as many today. The idea he committed a crime sui generis is betond credulity.

If Hanratty fluffed his lines, as he surely did, then Valerie Storie trumped him when she picked out the wrong man in the ID parade. He paid a big price for dong that and she paid none. Fluffing her lines cost her nothing.

Which is why I go back to the issue at debate, the decision not to question her character at trial. I have assumed that Sherrard knew of the Gregsten/Storie relationship before trial and have asked whether he had Hanratty’s approval not to bring it up at trial. I have had no answer so far from either NickB, or Spitfire, who are generally acknowledged as experts on fact on this site. They are certainly my points of reference on matters of fact.

I am now asking a more alarming question: was it possible that Sherrard attempted to defend Hanratty without knowing about relationship between Gregsten and Valerie Storie? Was he, in the words of Nye Bevin, going naked into the debating chamber?

[caz]

Sticking to the topic of how a defence barrister should conduct a case, we are often informed here that Sherrard quite understandably insisted Hanratty sign a disclaimer in respect of his change of alibi. This speaks well to Sherrard’s judgment and respect for his client as well. Fine.

However, I assume Sherrard was fully aware of the true relationship between Gregsten and Valerie Storie before trial. Did he share this knowledge with his client Hanratty? And did Hanratty agree that any line of questioning in regard to this should not be used?

I'm not sure what difference it would have made to the jury, even if they were told that Gregsten and Valerie had been at it like rabbits every opportunity they had. If anyone had seriously believed this had provided the motive for someone who knew and objected to their loose morals to arrange for their punishment, that should all have been investigated before Hanratty was tried. But it wasn't, so Sherrard was left with the job of trying to limit the damage Hanratty inflicted on himself by lying and changing his alibi. If he had nothing to do with this crime, and could not be connected in any way to either victim, he could have been 100% truthful about where he was at the time, and stuck with it. That was his best shot and he fluffed it. I don't know if Sherrard told him he was better off with one unprovable alibi than two, but in his shoes I'd have driven that truth home with a sledgehammer.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

From a defence lawyer’s perspective any prosecution witness is very much on trial. It is his duty to question everything about that witness to the advantage of his client. Truth trumps morality or politeness when a man’s life is on the line.

The relationship between Gregsten and Valerie Storie was very much part of the case otherwise they would not have been in a cornfield together. The jury had the right to know that they were doing a little more than planning a car rally. They also had the right to draw inferences regarding Valerie Storie’s overall character given that an affair with a married man must contain some element of deception or breach of trust.
Sherrard was complicit in concealing the full story from the jury and in that regard I think he made a misjudgement. In doing so he also closed off an avenue of possible motive, the lack of which in this case has demanded armchair psychology of a rather desperate kind.

It’s a truism to say every case is unique but given the amount of wannabee stick up men, thieves, robbers, opportunists and car thieves it does odd that nothing like the A6 Case has ever been repeated in the last sixty years. A sadly limited and predictable burglar called James Hanratty has, according to the official version, committed a singular crime that seems to have no parallel. As Moste often remarks, there is something at the centre of this case that has been concealed hence our confused efforts to make sense of it.

Well if Hanratty was guilty, cobalt, that would explain why it was a one-off! If he was innocent, then yes, it's a mystery why the man who got clean away with rape and murder didn't go on to commit any other crimes of a similar nature. Perhaps he just learned to control himself?

The problem with exploring avenues of possible motive is that there was only ever one man in the dock, and those avenues you are thinking of could arguably not have been applied to Hanratty if he had no known links to the victims. Generally speaking, motive can be very hard to establish until the guilty person has been identified, and even then it's not always obvious why a crime of such an unusual nature was committed. If it was a crime of opportunity, for example, by a stranger with a gun who came across the couple and wondered what it would be like to give them a scare, then the motive would have been purely psychological, and totally on the gunman's shoulders, regardless of the couple's private lives and unconnected to them.

Avenues of 'possible' motive, then, are not particularly useful. They'd have needed something far stronger, which could then have been connected directly with a specific individual, with known connections to the victims and their circumstances, who would have become a person of interest to be eliminated before Hanratty even made it to the dock.

Love,

Caz
X

[cobalt]

Sticking to the topic of how a defence barrister should conduct a case, we are often informed here that Sherrard quite understandably insisted Hanratty sign a disclaimer in respect of his change of alibi. This speaks well to Sherrard’s judgment and respect for his client as well. Fine.

However, I assume Sherrard was fully aware of the true relationship between Gregsten and Valerie Storie before trial. Did he share this knowledge with his client Hanratty? And did Hanratty agree that any line of questioning in regard to this should not be used?

[moste]

From a defence lawyer’s perspective any prosecution witness is very much on trial. It is his duty to question everything about that witness to the advantage of his client. Truth trumps morality or politeness when a man’s life is on the line.

The relationship between Gregsten and Valerie Storie was very much part of the case otherwise they would not have been in a cornfield together. The jury had the right to know that they were doing a little more than planning a car rally. They also had the right to draw inferences regarding Valerie Storie’s overall character given that an affair with a married man must contain some element of deception or breach of trust.
Sherrard was complicit in concealing the full story from the jury and in that regard I think he made a misjudgement. In doing so he also closed off an avenue of possible motive, the lack of which in this case has demanded armchair psychology of a rather desperate kind.

It’s a truism to say every case is unique but given the amount of wannabee stick up men, thieves, robbers, opportunists and car thieves it does odd that nothing like the A6 Case has ever been repeated in the last sixty years. A sadly limited and predictable burglar called James Hanratty has, according to the official version, committed a singular crime that seems to have no parallel. As Moste often remarks, there is something at the centre of this case that has been concealed hence our confused efforts to make sense of it.

Thanks for that eloquent rebuttal Cobalt. I would only add that, Hanratty had 3 reasonably sound witnesses in Liverpool, Dinwoodie, who ‘may ‘ have got the days wrong when the stranger came in asking directions. Billiards manager who didn’t want to buy a stolen watch and was off on his hols at the weekend. And Withered hand, who (very fortunately for the prosecution ) couldn’t remember anyone of Hanrattys description, simply because he was the wrong withered hand! Incidentally just a reminder ,prosecution produced Mr.Hirons the wrong garage attendant from the much quieter Shell station ,because the very busy Regent station at London airport ,could not be expected to remember much of any particular car out of dozens in the late evening of that autumn day.Regent garage, the one emphatic memory Storie had, and Acott ignored her, this is the one witness he placed so much store by.
Motive in this crime was the stumbling block. The statement by prosecution that Hanratty wanted sexually to possess Storie for himself. ,(which the jury clearly bought into ) given what we have learned from various people who knew him very well, clearly is ludicrous. For a motive, in my opinion, it would have paid dividends to find out more of Janet Gregsten and Mr. Ewer’s relationship, but not after the murder , way before.

[cobalt]

From a defence lawyer’s perspective any prosecution witness is very much on trial. It is his duty to question everything about that witness to the advantage of his client. Truth trumps morality or politeness when a man’s life is on the line.

The relationship between Gregsten and Valerie Storie was very much part of the case otherwise they would not have been in a cornfield together. The jury had the right to know that they were doing a little more than planning a car rally. They also had the right to draw inferences regarding Valerie Storie’s overall character given that an affair with a married man must contain some element of deception or breach of trust.
Sherrard was complicit in concealing the full story from the jury and in that regard I think he made a misjudgement. In doing so he also closed off an avenue of possible motive, the lack of which in this case has demanded armchair psychology of a rather desperate kind.

It’s a truism to say every case is unique but given the amount of wannabee stick up men, thieves, robbers, opportunists and car thieves it does odd that nothing like the A6 Case has ever been repeated in the last sixty years. A sadly limited and predictable burglar called James Hanratty has, according to the official version, committed a singular crime that seems to have no parallel. As Moste often remarks, there is something at the centre of this case that has been concealed hence our confused efforts to make sense of it.

[caz]

Badgering a woman in a wheelchair sounds like a poor tactic to me, but Sherrard could have introduced the nature of the relationship with the timeworn qualification, ‘This is not a court of morals.’

But of course, Valerie Storie was not the one on trial, so I'm not sure why the nature of her relationship with Gregsten should have been considered relevant.

It's my belief that the culprit was trying something new and never actually intended to murder anyone. When he shot Gregsten dead, there was no going back and if he was going to save his own neck he had to summon up the power and the will to kill the only witness. That power went to his head and he raped Valerie before shooting her, fully intending her to die and take his guilty secret with her.

I don't personally agree with the death penalty, and I do think there are grounds for concern over the original trial. Hanratty wasn't obliged to prove he was in Liverpool, or Rhyl, or anywhere else, when this horrific crime was committed, but the jury - understandably, I feel - simply couldn't imagine why a man fighting for his life on a murder charge would have chosen to lie about where he was, who he was with and what he was doing, if he wasn't murdering or raping anyone.

For my money, the DNA evidence confirmed the guilty verdict was right beyond reasonable doubt, even if the way it was reached was wrong.

Love,

Caz
X

[cobalt]

Sherrard must have done a reasonably good job. The jury were out for ten hours and on one occasion asked the judge for advice. They also requested a transcript of the trial, which shows they were aware that the evidence had to be reviewed carefully, but this was denied. I think in vernacular Scots, the jury were ‘swithering.’ Hanratty, who’d spent a fair time of his short life in various docks, was of the opinion that Sherrard had served him well.

However, given the difficulty the jury had in reaching a verdict, it’s hard to deny that a more experienced barrister might have tilted the case Hanratty’s way. Hanratty presented himself as a self-confessed thief so it was inevitable the jury would have reservations over his ability to tell the truth. Changing his alibi could only have confirmed their suspicions. Yet had Sherrard made known the true relationship between Gregsten and Valerie Storie then her evidence may have been seen in a less favourable light. This relationship also opened up the possibility of motive and may well have given a jury pause for thought.

Badgering a woman in a wheelchair sounds like a poor tactic to me, but Sherrard could have introduced the nature of the relationship with the timeworn qualification, ‘This is not a court of morals.’