A6 Rebooted

[Limehouse]

This is not what justice is about.The case had to proven by the prosecution.In the view of many ,many thousands of people at the time the case was not proven.Having a 'hunch' about someone has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with prejudice.

Excellent Norma.

[Dupplin Muir]

Hmm

From Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_copy_number

However, the technique came under attack from the Judge during the trial of Sean Hoey - who was eventually cleared of involvement in the Omagh Bombing. One of the criticisms the judge leveled at LCN was that although the FSS had internally validated and published scientific papers on the technique, there was an alleged lack of external validation by the wider scientific community. Following the Judge's ruling, the use of the technique was suspended in the UK, pending a review by the Crown Prosecution Service. This review was completed and the suspension lifted on the January 14, 2008 with the CPS stating that it had not seen anything to suggest that any current problems exist with LCN.

So the CPS, which benefits heavily from the use of LCN, decides that it is all hunky-dory...no bias there then!

Another interesting insight into the CPS review from http://www.denverda.org/DNA_Document...%20release.pdf

The Review team did not consult anyone who had expressed contrary opinion on the merits of the FSS Ltd’s LTDNA technique and spoke only to the organisations selling the technique and to the police as ‘customers’. (This despite the Home Office’s own stated view that where commercial products are being “sold” to the police, “the police and others are not well placed to evaluate the quality of the service provided across the range of scientific disciplines…there needs to be a mechanism to identify poor providers or services and protect the police and Criminal Justice System (CJS) from them before procurement…and the police are not the only user of forensic science and the quality standards must reflect the needs of other stakeholders in the CJS.”1)

Another interesting quote:

A scientific report, produced for a criminal appeal case by the FSS Ltd in March 2008, contained the statement, “Preliminary indications are that this report makes no significant criticisms of the LCN technique”. This means that the FSS Ltd and its staff had knowledge of the results of the Review at least three weeks prior to its release.

I wonder who could possibly have leaked the report ahead of schedule, given the repeated assurances that FSS are not in collusion with the CPS and police?

I'm afraid the people who defend the police, CPS and FSS believe that these organisations are staffed by fine, upstanding chaps and chapesses whose sole interest is serving the public, whereas in reality they attract people who tend to suffer from serious personality problems - for example they often have sadistic and/or authoritarian personalities, and such people are psychologically incapable of admitting the possibility of error. A good example is Michael Stone: he was convicted solely on the basis of an alleged prison confession, and the judge who quashed the conviction said that such confessions are not valid evidence. However, what did the police proffer in evidence at the retrial? Why, another prison confession!

From http://www.ismichaelstoneguilty.info...ed_edition.pdf

This is obviously a state of affairs with which Stone himself is none too happy, but the wider issue is that his conviction is not simply an injustice, it is ludicrous. If Michael Stone can be convicted of crimes as heinous as the Chillenden murders on nonsense such as this, then
not one of us is safe, although different standards apply to police officers.

In the spring of 2001, a murder trial was held at the Central Criminal Court in which the prosecution evidence was qualitatively superior by several orders of magnitude from that presented against Michael Stone. A police officer named Christopher Sherwood shot a man to death in a bungled raid at St Leonards, Sussex, in January 1998. James Ashley was stark naked; he had been in bed with his girlfriend, and, surprised at the raid, jumped up and was gunned down. There could be no question of his being armed. On May 2, 2001, without so much as a whimper from the prosecution, the judge halted the trial and directed the jury to return verdicts of not guilty to murder and manslaughter. The name of the judge was Mrs Justice Rafferty - Anne Rafferty QC, the prosecutrix in Michael Stone’s first trial. According to her entry in Who’s Who, Anne Rafferty has been a High Court judge since 2000.

I apologise for the length of this post, but I don't think I'll contribute again. I firmly believe that if it suddenly emerged that Hanratty was actually in Australia at the time of the murder, having tea with the Pope and the Queen in front of 10,000 witnesses, some people would still insist he was guilty and that some kind of 'doppelganger' had taken his place in the Antipodes...

DM

[Limehouse]

Before and since the Hanratty trial there have been many incidents of juries returning a 'guilty' verdict based on the evidence presented in court when in fact the person (or persons) was innocent of the crime(s) for which they were charged. In some of these cases the evidence was fabricated or a 'confession' obtained under questionable circumstances. Often - the accused has been a vulnerable person - not always able to articulate well. Sometimes new evidence has emerged that has shown the original verdict to have been completely wrong leading to the conviction being quashed. It is usually ONLY when such evidence emerges that the truth comes out. In most of these cases - decent law-abiding people would have trusted the people concerned with investigating these crimes to have done so honestly and thoroughly and would not dream of questioning the verdicts.

It is a strongly-held belief that British justice is fair and in most cases that is so. However - in certain cases the public (and those who govern them) are outraged by crimes of a particular type and cry out for a swift investigation resulting in a 'just' conlcusion. The A6 case was one of these crimes. A man wandering about the countryside with a gun shooting a man dead and raping his companion was hardly heard of in this country. It must have engendered panic and alarm up and down the country. It was a crime that required the skills and experience of the mighty Scotland Yard - and they had the case sewn up very swiftly in the circumstances.

It was a crime that made no sense what-so-ever in relation to the arrest and conviction of Hanratty because crimes of this sort almost always have a motive - yet none was satisfactorily offered. The man in the dock was without doubt a rogue in the sense that he had no respect for people's property or territory. He was no stranger to the justice system and would probably have gone on offending if he had not been hanged for this crime. Alphon was quite right when he described Hanratty as 'expendable' and he was because he paid with his life for another man's crime and no amount of 'he-left-his-DNA-all-over-his-victim's-knickers' type of debate' will ever convince me otherwise. I am a person of no great intellect - but some of this country's finest minds do (and have) agree with me.

[RonIpstone]

I firmly believe that if it suddenly emerged that Hanratty was actually in Australia at the time of the murder, having tea with the Pope and the Queen in front of 10,000 witnesses, some people would still insist he was guilty and that some kind of 'doppelganger' had taken his place in the Antipodes...

A much more credible alibi than the ones invented by Hanratty.

[Graham]

In 1972 I was on a jury at Birmingham Crown Court trying a murder case. The guy in the dock was accused of murdering an Avon lady for her money. Her body was actually thrust into a high-rise rubbish-chute. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that to fully appreciate a person's reaction to the charge against him, you have to be there, in court. Reading the local papers each evening (which I probably shouldn't have done, strictly speaking) made me wonder if the reporters had actually been at the same trial.

I think it was John Kerr who described Hanratty at the trial as being cocky and strutting. If so, now what impression would that have made upon the jury?

The case was proven by the prosecution, as far as the jury was concerned, and that's all that matters. It made no difference if the learned judge's summing-up was favourable to the accused - what happened within the private confines of the jury-room was all that mattered. And there were not "thousands" of people objecting to the verdict at the time: there was a few, no more. There was not a huge gathering of protestors outside Bedford Prison on the morning of Hanratty's execution: there was a few, and their names were for some reason taken by the police on duty. There were no mass public protests at the verdict or the execution.

With regard to the DNA, what really pisses me off is the suggestion, veiled or otherwise, that there was some kind of conspiracy going on with regards to Hanratty. I've asked this before, and never received an answer: if there was a conspiracy, precisely who was conspiring against whom? Personally, I like conspiracy theories - stuff like JFK, Lindbergh, Profumo and so forth. But if there was some kind of conspiracy in the Hanratty Case, who were the conspirators, and why? If the Establishment/Police/Government/Legal System were actively and knowingly conspiring to pervert justice in the case of James Francis Hanratty, can someone please tell me why? It's not a big ask, is it? Was it to protect someome? The Metropolitain Police, for example? If so, it was a waste of effort, because the MePo had ridden over not a few conspiracies, real and imagined; they had also come out of investigations into corruption, and at around the time of the Ar Case, if not unscathed then surviving. The Establishment? They'd just survived (more or less) the Profumo Scandal, and were unlikely to be too bothered by the doings of a petty crook, even if he did annoy one or two fairly senior police officers.

There was never any conspiracy in the Hanratty Case. He was guilty as charged and he paid the penalty.

There will never be another appeal against his conviction There are no grounds for such an appeal. If there were, there would have been another appeal by now.

I think like Dupplin Muir I am tempted to call it a day with regard to all this. I can add no more, and Hanratty's supporters can't either. It's a weird, odd, strange, disturbing case - Sherrard had it dead right when he said it is dripping with coincidence. It is. That is absolutely correct. Yet at the very core of it is the inarguable fact that on the night of 22 August 1961 James Francis Hanratty murdered Michael Gregsten, whether on purpose or by accident, and raped and seriously injured Valerie Storie.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

A much more credible alibi than the ones invented by Hanratty.

This alibi stuff is just so much nonsense though.There was no credible alibi given by the other suspect Alphon either actually.
Hanratty was never seen anywhere near Dorney Reach---not that night ---not ever.There was nothing whatever in or around the murder car to incriminate Hanratty--no forensic link to Hanratty from that car---even though a rape had taken place on the back seat.
He left the Vienna as the judge pointed out the night before the murder night and anybody at all could enter that hotel basement room from a public garden let alone other guests or staff.The two witnesses the police used Trower and Skillett were roundly contradicted by Blackhall and Paddy Hogan-
Eleven people known about came forward from Rhyl to support Hanratty"s alibi some who had never wanted to get involved in a murder trial such as the Davies family who came forward very reluctantly after an appeal from Mr And Mrs Hanratty and the A6 Committee in 1968 .Others who went to the police never had their statement sent to the defence such a Mr Fish who gave a young man who looked very like Hanratty directions from the corner of River and Aquarium Street.An elderly lady also saw his photo and was,according to ex policeman Frank Evans adamant she recognised him and said had called there on Tuesday 23rd. Mr Dutton's statement and Mr Larman"s had similar fates .....
But turn to the statements of Nudds , Langdale , Trower or Skillett and these chaps all seem to have had second sight and could spot a wrong'un blindfold,a bit like the reports of Mrs Gregsten who, despite Valerie drawing up an identikit of a man with a long oval face ,deep set dark eyes and a smooth ,slightly receding hairline shouted 'SNAP!'ITS HIM! when she saw square jawed,blue eyed Hanratty with a quiff and a widow's peak coming out of the cleaners 8 days after the murder just two yards awayfrom the antiques shop;It's Him! Willie It's Him! She shrieked.He looks exactly like Valerie described!And Willie ran up the street and down the street and in her ladies chamber!
It would be such a laugh if it wasn't so serious.

[Natalie Severn]

Here are some pics about the execution of Hanratty.Over a period of less than ten days Mr Hanratty collected 29,000 signatures and more
An all night vigil was held by Oxford University students
200 people stood in silence outside Bedford Jail on the morning of execution[I found pictures of others on the far side of the street too
A local man laid a wreath

Graham I am just setting the record straight.

[jimarilyn]

Here are some pics about the execution of Hanratty.Over a period of less than ten days Mr Hanratty collected 29,000 signatures and more
An all night vigil was held by Oxford University students
200 people stood in silence outside Bedford Jail on the morning of execution[I found pictures of others on the far side of the street too
A local man laid a wreath

Graham I am just setting the record straight.

Appropriate images for the very valid points you make Norma. I re-read Paul Foot's brilliant book (for the umpteenth time) recently and on page 294 he points out that on March 28th Mr Hanratty submitted to the Home Office a petitiion containing 90,000 plus signatures calling for a reprieve. All to no avail however. As we all know the petition fell on the deaf ears of a Home Secretary. The British Establishment as usual was in an undue haste for an execution, at the expense of discovering the truth of the matter. Shades of the Cameo Cinema murders of 1949 where the innocent George Kelly was hanged thanks to the unforgivable machinations of the notoriously corrupt Chief Inspector Herbert Balmer.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks James.I did know that Mr Hanratty eventually collected upwards of 90,000 signatures but couldn"t find the source for that.Is it in Paul Foot"s book? Was it at the time of the execution or later ?
I remember my mother talking quite a bit about the Cameo Cinema murder case.It was a very famous one apparently.Poor George Kelly ---still another name ,another case.
Best,
Norma

[jimarilyn]

Thanks James.I did know that Mr Hanratty eventually collected upwards of 90,000 signatures but couldn"t find the source for that.Is it in Paul Foot"s book? Was it at the time of the execution or later ?
I remember my mother talking quite a bit about the Cameo Cinema murder case.It was a very famous one apparently.Poor George Kelly ---still another name ,another case.
Best,
Norma

Yes it's on page 294 of his book, Norma. Mr Hanratty handed over the petition exactly a week before his son's execution.

There are several similarities/connections with the Cameo case, not least of which is the fact that leading counsel for the prosecution was none other than William Gorman, who a dozen years later as Justice Gorman would preside over the A6 murder case at Bedford.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks James.I have just looked it up and you are right-it was 90,000 signatures all told.

When he heard the news he immediately dictated a letter to his father in the condemned cell at Bedford:

Dear Dad,
I am very sorry that things have turned out like this,but I know that you have got the courage and strength to bring back the family good name,and you have been such a good father to us all,I know that you will take extra care of Mum.
I can't say how sorry I am that this has turned out this way,but that was not my fault,it was the fault of others.I am writing this letter knowing this is my only chance to thank you and Mum for all that you have done for me.And the only way I can pay my respect to you and the family is to show what kind of man I really am,though I am about to take the punishment for someone else's crime,I will face it like a man, and show both courage and strength,and try to make you proud of your son.
Thank you Dad for your two wonderful visits,your courage was really wonderful,and I will never forget the way you controlled yourself,you can't really understand how much that really meant to me.The time is nearly here,and I will be thinking of you.And only hope I can be as much a man as you are,
God Bless you all,
Your ever loving Son.

In the next letter to both his mother and father he talks about the dog racing being his bad mistake,'I feel thats what really put me on the road to crime'
and he again apologises for these mistakes and the terrible strain they have been under and [to his mother]......" you have been on my mind all evening "...
"I will be glad when morning does come....I promise you that I will face it like a man."
He speaks with gratitude too regarding the two priests who have visited him regularly and of their kindness....."I must say that everybody here has been so kind to me.."
"...so Mum and Dad until we meet again you will always be in my thoughts.So God Bless you all,
From your ever loving son Jim."

One more letter followed written to his brother Michael ."A few hours later", wrote Paul Foot,"James Hanratty walked with dignity to his death."

Two photos : the first of James Hanratty aged four with his mother the second of Mr Hanratty .Both spent the rest of their lives
fighting to clear their son's name of the A6 crime.

[Limehouse]

Thank you for that sobering post Norma. Whether Hanratty was guilty or not - his parents and family were innocent and suffered deeply like all of the victims in this case.

[Natalie Severn]

Bob Woffinden wrote that Swanwick"s peroration immediately before the judge"s summing up was "as bereft of common sense as it was of supporting evidence[/I]"---and the judge seems to have agreed subtly indicating on several occasions that what evidence existed was questionable viz :Nudds holds the key to many doors here but members of the jury, do not try to force the locks......."

[caz]

After the first round of tests proved inconclusive - I believe it would have been wiser to carry out no further tests.

Hmmm, why ‘wiser’? And with the result that... what? The chances of Hanratty ever having his name cleared would have: increased; decreased; or remained exactly the same?

The Hanratty defenders who expected further DNA tests to clear him (or at the very least render his conviction unsafe) would have cried foul even more loudly had they not been carried out for any reason you care to imagine. As it is the further test results can hardly be described as inconclusive (unlike the previous ones) or they would have been, back in 2002 when it mattered.

Wiser with hindsight, Limehouse, knowing the results went the 'wrong' way? I find it very hard to believe anyone would be banging this same drum had a different man's DNA shown up as clearly on the knicker fragment, and no sign of Hanratty's.

I sincerely believe that aspects of the original evidence were fabricated and corrupted and the tragic outcome is that the debate rages on thus possibly increasing the pain that the victims of this crime - and their families - have had to endure.

Astonishing! Whose fault is it if the debate ‘rages’ on, nearly a decade after the last appeal backed up Valerie's identification and gave her some richly deserved peace of mind? If you are so concerned that picking publicly at this old scab may reopen the wound, why don't you stop doing it? Why not work on finding the kind of information that might actually justify causing fresh pain, by shedding some genuine fresh light? If you have none at present, why not leave it be until you do?

I firmly believe that if it suddenly emerged that Hanratty was actually in Australia at the time of the murder, having tea with the Pope and the Queen in front of 10,000 witnesses, some people would still insist he was guilty and that some kind of 'doppelganger' had taken his place in the Antipodes...

Yes, and how ridiculous they would look. I mean it’s so much more likely that an anonymous petty crook would find himself at the centre of the above story than be committing a serious crime much closer to home, leaving his DNA in the process. Why would anyone demand better evidence than “well he did look a bit like the A6 suspect, so it must have been him”?

Sometimes I do wonder how Hanratty defenders think they are helping his cause.

Love,

Caz
X

[Dupplin Muir]

Hi Caz

I'm going to tell you a little story, and when I've finished let me know if you still think my attitude to the DNA evidence is unreasonable.

Many years ago I attended a trial where a man had been accused of burglary. The police claimed to have found his fingerprints at the scene, and look! there they were on their little transparencies, large as life. A forensic expert took the stand to confirm that, yes indeed, they belonged to Mr X. The only problem was that the accused had been on remand in Wandsworth Prison on the night of the burglary...