A6 Rebooted

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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

[moste]

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

Graham

I read your post ,which doesn’t address , the refusal of the defendant to continue with less tan 12. In other words, can a judge force a trial to continue with less than 12,? I would think not!

[moste]

Sorry supposed to reply to 6278.

[moste]

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

Graham

So how did the law work in ‘61 then Graham re this issue?

[moste]

Are these shutterstock photo’s copyright?

[OneRound]

I read your post ,which doesn’t address , the refusal of the defendant to continue with less tan 12. In other words, can a judge force a trial to continue with less than 12,? I would think not!

Hi moste - The relevant legislation as quoted by Graham appears to make clear that the judge could compel a trial to proceed with only eleven or even ten jurors. However, there's still no reason I'm aware of why Sherrard couldn't at least have approached Justice Gorman and asked for the trial to be abandoned and restart with twelve jurors. After all, as you emphasise, it was a capital case where a further juror could have made all the difference to whether the accused walked free or died. Gorman might have been unmoved but just possibly such a request could have been successful.

Imo, a more confident barrister with greater experience and gravitas would and should have given it a go. However, and before Graham reminds us , it was Hanratty who insisted on Sherrard representing him.

Best regards,
OneRound

[moste]

Hi moste - The relevant legislation as quoted by Graham appears to make clear that the judge could compel a trial to proceed with only eleven or even ten jurors. However, there's still no reason I'm aware of why Sherrard couldn't at least have approached Justice Gorman and asked for the trial to be abandoned and restart with twelve jurors. After all, as you emphasise, it was a capital case where a further juror could have made all the difference to whether the accused walked free or died. Gorman might have been unmoved but just possibly such a request could have been successful.

Imo, a more confident barrister with greater experience and gravitas would and should have given it a go. However, and before Graham reminds us , it was Hanratty who insisted on Sherrard representing him.

Best regards,
OneRound

Wholeheartedly agree , but that piece of legislation re judge having last say on jury numbers , well, to my mind is just another example of ‘The Law Is An Ass’ Hanratty insisting on anything? Well, he was a pillock wasn’t he?
Incidentally, correct me if I’m wrong Hanratty only insisted on Sherrard representing him on the appeal . I think the original Top Barrister was suspended , and Sherrard stepped into his shoes, for the actual trial ,a much junior man
P.S. there are some who believe that if the first choice Barrister had been available( just forget his name) he would very likely have destroyed the prosecutions witnesses carte blanche. Starting with Storie. I guess we’ll never know.