A6 Rebooted

[OneRound]

My assumption is very reasonable from a political perspective.

The A6 Case has been a thorn in the side of the legal establishment since 1962 and there have been at least three official enquiries- Nimmo, Hawser and Matthews- in addition to the CCRC judgment. That is a lot of time and money but it was spent to shore up the case against Hanratty specifically and more importantly to sustain public confidence in the judicial system.

Had Michael Clark borne any resemblance to James Hanratty then the ID made by Valerie Storie- very much the corner stone of the prosecution case – would have been immeasurably strengthened. It was would have saved a lot of time and money and quelled disquiet.

Now we can be sure that contemporary photographs of Michael Clark existed and probably still do exist. He served in the armed forces I think and also would have required a passport photo. There is no need to go trawling through his family photograph album: the State already holds copyright on two of his photos. Do you really believe it is credible that the State would not have made these photos available, through whatever channels, if the photos strengthened the case against Hanratty?

Hi cobalt - I think we can agree there would be far less need for photographs had Clark appeared at the trial.

As moste has regularly queried, why didn't Sherrard push for this to happen?

My take is that it was down to Sherrard's inexperience and nothing more. However, if we accept your post and assumption doubting that Clark bore any resemblance to Hanratty, Sherrard's failure to successfully demand his appearance was certainly a lucky break for the Prosecution.

Following that and the resulting conviction, it's hard to disagree with Caz that there was then no obligation on the State to dig out and show any photos they might hold. I do not say that easily as I consider that Valerie Storie's mis-identification of Clark was a significant weakness in her evidence and the case against Hanratty.

Best regards,
OneRound

[ansonman]

I am very sorry to hear that Sherlock.

What I found particularly interesting in the comment I quoted was the part that went "he should never even have been charged". That to me seems an odd thing to say. One could imagine Matthews saying something like "he should never have been hanged" or "he was not guilty of the murder" but "he should never even have been charged" seems most intriguing. All the more so because Matthews must have carried out the most thorough of investigations during the 18 months it took him and his team of 20 to complete it. I think it's fair to assume that he and his team would have left no stone unturned and that he had access to every piece of evidence that featured in the case. Add the fact that it was commissioned by Scotland Yard, for submission to the Home Secretary and that at least one national newspaper was tipped off that the report concluded Hanratty's innocence and you have a fascinating mix.

One can only imagine Matthew's frustration at his findings being rejected. I wonder if he shared his thoughts with many others outside the investigating team?

Hanratty: the truth at last? | The Independent | The Independent

[Sherlock Houses]

Some years ago I received the following private message from a contributor to this site:

"Thanks David-will have a look certainly.Had very interesting chat with childhood friend who was in flying squad-now retired.He bellowed at me about Hanratty and the DNA proving his guilt.I mentioned the findings of Roger Matthews the senior detective at Scotland Yard who ,leading a team of 20 detectives said he not only believed Hanratty had nothing whatever to do with it ,through having poured through documents,seeing files never made public etc etc but that he should never even have been charged.So my friend rang him as he was a very dear colleague of his.Matthews who was educated at cambridge University, said he still maintained that Hanratty had nothing to do with the A6 murder.That three people were involved-and he named two of them to him ,but my friend has not told me who they were".

Does anyone know if Matthews is still alive and, if so, is contactable?

I have it on good authority Ansonman that Roger Matthews was very ill in hospital several weeks ago, I know nothing more than that at present.

[cobalt]

On three occasions over the years the State has indeed felt the need to strengthen its case, and that was long before the A6 Case was being discussed on here. Photographs of Clark would have existed at that time and when it comes down to a matter of Mr. Clark’s right to privacy or the credibility of the UK legal system then there would only have been one winner.

So it’s not a matter of satisfying our idle curiosity, it’s a bit more serious than that. It’s about the credibility of UK justice and its capacity to address any possible short comings. A photograph of Michael Clark has the potential to clarify matters yet has been suppressed. The State possesses, or possessed, photographs of Michael Clark yet is very coy about these being seen, even after the man’s death.

I agree the question should more pertinently be not ‘What’ he looks like but ‘Who’ he looks like. That may explain the reluctance of the State to release the photograph(s) into the pubic domain.

[ansonman]

The Matthews report on the A6 murder (1996) - cais Rhyddid Gwybodaeth i Home Office - WhatDoTheyKnow

[caz]

My assumption is very reasonable from a political perspective.

The A6 Case has been a thorn in the side of the legal establishment since 1962 and there have been at least three official enquiries- Nimmo, Hawser and Matthews- in addition to the CCRC judgment. That is a lot of time and money but it was spent to shore up the case against Hanratty specifically and more importantly to sustain public confidence in the judicial system.

Had Michael Clark borne any resemblance to James Hanratty then the ID made by Valerie Storie- very much the corner stone of the prosecution case – would have been immeasurably strengthened. It was would have saved a lot of time and money and quelled disquiet.

Now we can be sure that contemporary photographs of Michael Clark existed and probably still do exist. He served in the armed forces I think and also would have required a passport photo. There is no need to go trawling through his family photograph album: the State already holds copyright on two of his photos. Do you really believe it is credible that the State would not have made these photos available, through whatever channels, if the photos strengthened the case against Hanratty?

I certainly think it's credible, cobalt. From the State's point of view, the case against Hanratty did not need strengthening. A few dissenting voices on the JtR message boards won't change the appeal judgement of 2002.

While we would all like to know what Clark looked like - or rather, who Clark looked like - in the early 1960s, I'm not sure why the State would have seen the least reason to satisfy our curiosity with a photograph, even if the man was the absolute spit of Hanratty.

Love,

Caz
X

[ansonman]

Some years ago I received the following private message from a contributor to this site:

"Thanks David-will have a look certainly.Had very interesting chat with childhood friend who was in flying squad-now retired.He bellowed at me about Hanratty and the DNA proving his guilt.I mentioned the findings of Roger Matthews the senior detective at Scotland Yard who ,leading a team of 20 detectives said he not only believed Hanratty had nothing whatever to do with it ,through having poured through documents,seeing files never made public etc etc but that he should never even have been charged.So my friend rang him as he was a very dear colleague of his.Matthews who was educated at cambridge University, said he still maintained that Hanratty had nothing to do with the A6 murder.That three people were involved-and he named two of them to him ,but my friend has not told me who they were".

Does anyone know if Matthews is still alive and, if so, is contactable?

[moste]

I agree 100% . However would/could Clark’s photograph be available if he didn’t want it to be. Now maybe,but not perhaps until after he had passed away.

[cobalt]

My assumption is very reasonable from a political perspective.

The A6 Case has been a thorn in the side of the legal establishment since 1962 and there have been at least three official enquiries- Nimmo, Hawser and Matthews- in addition to the CCRC judgment. That is a lot of time and money but it was spent to shore up the case against Hanratty specifically and more importantly to sustain public confidence in the judicial system.

Had Michael Clark borne any resemblance to James Hanratty then the ID made by Valerie Storie- very much the corner stone of the prosecution case – would have been immeasurably strengthened. It was would have saved a lot of time and money and quelled disquiet.

Now we can be sure that contemporary photographs of Michael Clark existed and probably still do exist. He served in the armed forces I think and also would have required a passport photo. There is no need to go trawling through his family photograph album: the State already holds copyright on two of his photos. Do you really believe it is credible that the State would not have made these photos available, through whatever channels, if the photos strengthened the case against Hanratty?

[OneRound]

It would obviously be very interesting for us to see a photograph of Michael Clark but its absence surely tells its own story.
Given the disquiet that has persisted over Hanratty's conviction then if Mr. Clark resembled James Hanratty his photograph would have been in the public domain for the last 50 years at least. The Establishment would have ensured that happened in order to protect their legal system.

I would assume there is precious little facial resemblance between Michael Clark and James Hanratty.

Hi cobalt - I follow your reasoning but, in the words of a wise old boss, believe that we should -

Beware the Curse of Assumption.

Best regards,
OneRound

[OneRound]

IâÂÂm not sure that we should not let it be.

Sarah has been sent a lengthy explanatory run down on the whole affair ,and from her reply to Sherlock at the end finishes off with the questionâÂÂCan I ask how Michael fits in with your familyâ and âÂÂIf you have any further information about himâÂÂ, giving us the feeling sheâÂÂs happy to keep the dialogue open. Yet nothing since MalachyâÂÂs correspondence. Could Malachy have received something and not passed it on to Sherlock? a bit confusing.

Hi moste - yes, a bit confusing as you say. Frustrating too, especially as time could well be against us and may even have run out in getting clarification.

I feel that if we don't try to get to the bottom of ''what exactly did Michael Clark look like etc'', we will be repeating Sherrard's mistake at trial of letting this potentially important question fizzle out without even a whimper. Something you have understandably and regularly criticised Sherrard about.

Best regards,
OneRound

[cobalt]

It would obviously be very interesting for us to see a photograph of Michael Clark but its absence surely tells its own story.
Given the disquiet that has persisted over Hanratty's conviction then if Mr. Clark resembled James Hanratty his photograph would have been in the public domain for the last 50 years at least. The Establishment would have ensured that happened in order to protect their legal system.

I would assume there is precious little facial resemblance between Michael Clark and James Hanratty.

[gallicrow]

[QUOTE=Spitfire;n778759]

Am I correct in thinking that Gladys Lily died in 2000 and that Michael's dad Herbert William died in 1968?

Yes for Gladys Lily Falkner / Clark / Keast.

Not sure about Herbert William Clark. The death in 1968 might be him. Another alternative - according to the 1939 register Herbert was born on the 18th November 1907, and someone called William Herbert Clark with date of birth 18th November 1905 died in Chatham in 1988. This is probably a coincidence, but whoever registered his death might have switched his forenames around and got the year of his birth wrong. Stranger things have happened (that horse becoming Pope, for one...)

[moste]

Hi Spit,

Obviously, I would be happy to do so. I almost said in my last post that I and probably others here would be more than willing. However, I felt that Sherlock would not trust my delicacy and that it would therefore be wrong to volunteer anyone else.

I don't actually see the problem here. For my money, Sherlock did most of the diplomatic hard yards in his communication of 29th April 2020 to Sarah reproduced by him above.

Regards,
OneRound

I’m not sure that we should not let it be.

Sarah has been sent a lengthy explanatory run down on the whole affair ,and from her reply to Sherlock at the end finishes off with the question’Can I ask how Michael fits in with your family’ and ‘If you have any further information about him’, giving us the feeling she’s happy to keep the dialogue open. Yet nothing since Malachy’s correspondence. Could Malachy have received something and not passed it on to Sherlock? a bit confusing.

[OneRound]

OR

Perhaps you might offer to draft a suitable delicately phrased request. I am sure it would be appreciated by Sherlock H.

I think that the Sarah in question is the late Michael A F Clark's step-niece and thus 30 years or so younger than he was.

Hi Spit,

Obviously, I would be happy to do so. I almost said in my last post that I and probably others here would be more than willing. However, I felt that Sherlock would not trust my delicacy and that it would therefore be wrong to volunteer anyone else.

I don't actually see the problem here. For my money, Sherlock did most of the diplomatic hard yards in his communication of 29th April 2020 to Sarah reproduced by him above.

Regards,
OneRound