A6 Rebooted

[Graham]

On the subject of Rhyl witnesses ...

Does anyone know what role was played by Jane Fitzgerald and her assistant Jennifer Miller of James Hairdressing Salon?

Both names new to me, Nick. Not mentioned by either Foot or Woffo. Makes one wonder about hair-dyeing..........

Graham

[Graham]

In my opinion ,the business of the juror dropping out on day two, regardless of the legality of continuing on with 11 or even 10 .
This should have been Sherrards call .With consultation with Hanratty, and his solicitor. Personally,I can’t believe ,since this was a capital crime they were dealing with, Sherrard wasn’t telling Gorman ,’Under no circumstances can we be continuing with less than maximum number of jurors.’ Hanratty needed to ‘Hedge his bets’ it could have been the difference between a ‘hung jury‘ and him hanging. Just consider , a retrial may have given the Hanratty defence team the extra time needed to amass the additional witnesses from Rhyl.

That's not how the Law worked then - I don't know if anything has changed since 1961. See Post 6269.

Graham

[NickB]

On the subject of Rhyl witnesses ...

Does anyone know what role was played by Jane Fitzgerald and her assistant Jennifer Miller of James Hairdressing Salon?

[moste]

In my opinion ,the business of the juror dropping out on day two, regardless of the legality of continuing on with 11 or even 10 .
This should have been Sherrards call .With consultation with Hanratty, and his solicitor. Personally,I can’t believe ,since this was a capital crime they were dealing with, Sherrard wasn’t telling Gorman ,’Under no circumstances can we be continuing with less than maximum number of jurors.’ Hanratty needed to ‘Hedge his bets’ it could have been the difference between a ‘hung jury‘ and him hanging. Just consider , a retrial may have given the Hanratty defence team the extra time needed to amass the additional witnesses from Rhyl.

[Alfie]

... it was interesting (and slightly surprising) to see the Law in action at first hand.Graham

I also did a stint on a jury many moons ago - a man accused by his estranged wife of sexually abusing their two children. Two things in particular struck me: how hesitant in their speech, how diffident and non-theatrical the prosecuting and defence counsels were (Rumpole of the Bailey they definitely weren't); and how when considering their verdict only a handful of jurors seemed at all confident in their opinions and in their recollections of the events of the trial; the bulk of the members appeared to lack the memory or reasoning powers to offer any opinion at all. They just sat mutely waiting to be led to a decision by the more voluble and forceful jurors. It was a sobering experience.

[OneRound]

Hi OR,

of course no-one other than the jurors will ever know for sure what happened in the Jury Room. They were out for a long time - nearly 10 hours. They returned at one point to ask the judge if 'they must be certain and sure of the prisoner's guilt before we can reach and return a verdict'. The judge told them that if they had any 'reasonable doubt', then they were not sure'. They also asked a question regarding the cartridge cases, to which the judge advised that they need not have definitely been left there by the prisoner. All very fair. Commentators said that it now appeared the verdict would be 'not guilty', and when at gone 9.00pm the jury returned with a unanimous verdict of 'guilty', apparently even Judge Gorman looked surprised.

Years ago, if my fading memory is correct, there was a poster on this thread who said he was living in Bedford at the time of the Crime, and said that feelings against Hanratty in the town were running very high. Whether or not any or all of the jurors eventually selected had such feelings is impossible to determine, but I do get the very faint whiff, even allowing for the jury's questions mentioned above, of a verdict which seemed almost pre-determined. I hope it wasn't.

Graham

Thanks again, Graham.

I agree that Judge Gorman comes across as very fair and one of the few members of the A6 cast to emerge with credit.

Incidentally and perhaps surprisingly, he was the prosecuting counsel in the grotesquely unfair Cameo Murders trials I referred to yesterday. There again, the unfairness in that case was not down to the lawyers but several unsavoury witnesses and, in particular, a corrupt policeman, namely moste's old nemesis Bert Balmer.

Best regards,
OneRound

[Graham]

Re: the photos posted by Nick. If anyone who goes to Rhyl fancies seeking out Ingledene, the name is no longer above the door in the glass panel, and the numbering of the houses has changed.

Graham

[Graham]

Hi again Graham,

Very largely at one with you there.

The only point I would emphasise in response is that a verdict of 'not proven' being unavailable in an English court was not a justification in itself for the Bedford jury to return a verdict of guilty.

Best regards,
OneRound

Hi OR,

of course no-one other than the jurors will ever know for sure what happened in the Jury Room. They were out for a long time - nearly 10 hours. They returned at one point to ask the judge if 'they must be certain and sure of the prisoner's guilt before we can reach and return a verdict'. The judge told them that if they had any 'reasonable doubt', then they were not sure'. They also asked a question regarding the cartridge cases, to which the judge advised that they need not have definitely been left there by the prisoner. All very fair. Commentators said that it now appeared the verdict would be 'not guilty', and when at gone 9.00pm the jury returned with a unanimous verdict of 'guilty', apparently even Judge Gorman looked surprised.

Years ago, if my fading memory is correct, there was a poster on this thread who said he was living in Bedford at the time of the Crime, and said that feelings against Hanratty in the town were running very high. Whether or not any or all of the jurors eventually selected had such feelings is impossible to determine, but I do get the very faint whiff, even allowing for the jury's questions mentioned above, of a verdict which seemed almost pre-determined. I hope it wasn't.

Graham

[OneRound]

Hi OR,

ref: your Post 6259. With regard to the fairness or otherwise of Hanratty's trial, I'm not the only one who's suggested that had the trial been in a Scottish court, the verdict may well have been 'not proven'. Which is not to say that I believe he was innocent. However, I believe the turning-point in the proceedings were when he changed his alibi - that, certainly as far as the jury was concerned, did it. Had he stuck to his Liverpool version, then I think it may well have been quite difficult for the prosecution to prove to the jury that he wasn't there. Which would, I feel, have instantly put a degree of doubt in the minds of the jury. Sherrard couldn't prevent Hanratty from changing his alibi, and doubtless earnestly counselled him not to. It's significant that this ploy was known in 1961 as an ambush alibi, and has long been disallowed in UK courts.

Graham

Hi again Graham,

Very largely at one with you there.

The only point I would emphasise in response is that a verdict of 'not proven' being unavailable in an English court was not a justification in itself for the Bedford jury to return a verdict of guilty.

Best regards,
OneRound

[OneRound]

Woffo goes on to say:

The 1925 Criminal Justice Act allows a trial, where any jury-member has to be discharged because of illness, to be continued with eleven, ot even ten, members. In this case, Justice Gorman said that the man concerned should be relieved 'without the slightest criticism of the court.

There you have it. Maybe this was prejudicial to the outcome, but impossible to say for sure. ...

Graham

Thanks, Graham and you earlier, Nick.

In line with Graham's post, it's impossible to say whether twelve jurors would have made any difference to Hanratty. Furthermore, the legislation allowed for such a happening. Nonetheless, I would have been far less relaxed about it than Justice Gorman appeared to be. It's not as if the juror concerned was taken ill during the trial. He was a complete wuss and only belatedly made that known. He should have made that clear before the trial got underway. If I had been the judge, I would have looked to come up with some excuse to give the bailing juror a night in the cells before discharging him.

Best regards,
OneRound

[Graham]

Woffo goes on to say:

The 1925 Criminal Justice Act allows a trial, where any jury-member has to be discharged because of illness, to be continued with eleven, ot even ten, members. In this case, Justice Gorman said that the man concerned should be relieved 'without the slightest criticism of the court.

There you have it. Maybe this was prejudicial to the outcome, but impossible to say for sure. Regarding the case I was on, the lady who felt ill when she saw the photos of the murder victim, recovered sufficiently to carry on after a period of recovery in the jury room. The Judge was most concerned that she felt well enough to continue; which she did. In any case, after the jury retired, an initial poll was taken, and the verdict of 'Guilty' was unanimous. And didn't change.

Fairly horrible though that case was, it was interesting (and slightly surprising) to see the Law in action at first hand.

Graham

[NickB]

'By the start of the second day, it was clear that the distressed juror would be able to hearken to the evidence no longer.' - Woff page 176.

[OneRound]

Hi folks and maybe Graham in particular,

Yep, cracking photos - great job, Nick. I too was very taken by the ones of Valerie and Meike Dalal. I can't recall where I got this from but believe Meike Dalal was still alive as of a couple of years ago.

Just want to ask a bit about the juror please. How far advanced was the trial when he bailed? Also - looking to Graham although not exclusively - did this attract public criticism at the time? In an age where male emotions and feelings were not at the fore, I'm wondering if there was a reaction of ''do your duty, man and don't be so lily livered''? Surely anyway, he should have declared his concerns at outset?

The juror dropping out was something else which may have been unfortunate for Hanratty. As unanimous verdicts were then required, the greater the number of jurors, the greater the chances one of them disagreeing. Whilst some will understandably claim Hanratty deserved no luck, that certainly seems to be what happened as the case against him proceeded.

Best regards,
OneRound

[Graham]

Hi OR,

ref: your Post 6259. With regard to the fairness or otherwise of Hanratty's trial, I'm not the only one who's suggested that had the trial been in a Scottish court, the verdict may well have been 'not proven'. Which is not to say that I believe he was innocent. However, I believe the turning-point in the proceedings were when he changed his alibi - that, certainly as far as the jury was concerned, did it. Had he stuck to his Liverpool version, then I think it may well have been quite difficult for the prosecution to prove to the jury that he wasn't there. Which would, I feel, have instantly put a degree of doubt in the minds of the jury. Sherrard couldn't prevent Hanratty from changing his alibi, and doubtless earnestly counselled him not to. It's significant that this ploy was known in 1961 as an ambush alibi, and has long been disallowed in UK courts.

Graham

[NickB]

If Florence = Charlotte then maybe that is James Russell.

Paul Foot fared better in the year of the appeal, in October 2002, when he got 12.72% standing for Mayor of Hackney!