A6 Rebooted

[ansonman]

Agree with all that you say Cobalt.

Somewhat late in the day, and certainly later than most, I am part way through The Crown on Netflix and have now reached the stage of the wedding of Charles and Diana. For me, the accuracy of the events covered in the series and the amount of research undertaken by those who produced it is second to none. Two things really hit home to me. The first is the extent to which the Royal Family and politicians will do anything to keep the truth from the public in order to preserve the monarchy and the establishment. The second is the extent to which the Great British Public buy into this deceit and suck it up like babies on the teat. The series is as much about political events in Britain as it is about the monarchy and both are exposed as being corrupt and shameful. Hanratty didn't stand a chance.

[Sherlock Houses]

Re. Michael Clark.....


Dr. Ian Rennie would definitely not have made a reliable witness in an Identification Parade if his recall of Michael Clark was anything to go by. He described Michael as having 'light fairish hair' when in actual fact he had very dark hair. Very recently I received a response from Michael's step-sister to a letter I sent her several weeks ago. I will let her letter speak for itself. I can safely say Michael Clark looked nothing at all like James Hanratty........

[moste]

Excellent info. SH. Kindly thank Helen from us all.

There must have been a family issue where swearing to secrecy became important , none of our business of course. Anyhow the one photo of Michael as a younger man satisfies me at least that Valerie Storie did not know what her assailant looked like, and consequently was happy to send Hanratty to his death based on the tone and accent of his voice. But again, good job old chap.

[caz]

Agree with all that you say Cobalt.

Somewhat late in the day, and certainly later than most, I am part way through The Crown on Netflix and have now reached the stage of the wedding of Charles and Diana. For me, the accuracy of the events covered in the series and the amount of research undertaken by those who produced it is second to none. Two things really hit home to me. The first is the extent to which the Royal Family and politicians will do anything to keep the truth from the public in order to preserve the monarchy and the establishment. The second is the extent to which the Great British Public buy into this deceit and suck it up like babies on the teat. The series is as much about political events in Britain as it is about the monarchy and both are exposed as being corrupt and shameful. Hanratty didn't stand a chance.

I don't have much time for the monarchy or the establishment, ansonman, and I am not one to 'buy' into any shameful attempts by politicians to deceive and corrupt.

However, I do have to consider the evidence in the A6 case, and find it hard to see how it could have been conjured up, concealed, destroyed or otherwise manipulated, right from the night of the crime to the 2002 appeal, by an establishment who needed to make an example of a petty criminal like Hanratty, knowing he was likely to have been innocent all along. If the only other potential suspect, Alphon, who was eliminated to most people's satisfaction, had been a royal, a pampered aristocrat or an MP, I might well have smelled something rotten in the whole sad story.

I'm totally against capital punishment for several reasons, but it was the law back then and all those not directly involved with the case could not have been held responsible for Hanratty being hanged, if they were later in a position of authority and suspected a miscarriage of justice. Would they all have felt personally or professionally obliged to protect and defend those who had gone before, for hanging a man who may not have been guilty? Possibly, as fully paid up members of the old boy network, but I'd like to think there would be at least one whistleblower in there somewhere, if there were genuine concerns about the evidence used to convict, and to keep him convicted to this day.

Love,

Caz
X

[cobalt]

Hi Caz,
Always good to hear from you and I mean that sincerely, as Hughie Green used to say. It is easier to come on a site like this and plead for the accused than it is for a person who believes justice has done and believes a line has been drawn under the matter. You must believe in justice to do so and I respect that motive.

Nonetheless I think the evidence has been exactly as you described: ‘’However, I do have to consider the evidence in the A6 case, and find it hard to see how it could have been conjured up, concealed, destroyed.’

You make my case: Conjured up, concealed, and destroyed: That’s what I think happened in the A6 Case. Somewhere in that police basement is a cartridge case from the Vienna Hotel but it will never be subject to modern DNA analysis which might reveal fingerprints. Anymore than the reason detectives arrived at Swiss Cottage one fine afternoon.

There are gaping holes in the prosecution case from 1962 which not even DNA has been able to fill.

[ansonman]

I don't have much time for the monarchy or the establishment, ansonman, and I am not one to 'buy' into any shameful attempts by politicians to deceive and corrupt.

However, I do have to consider the evidence in the A6 case, and find it hard to see how it could have been conjured up, concealed, destroyed or otherwise manipulated, right from the night of the crime to the 2002 appeal, by an establishment who needed to make an example of a petty criminal like Hanratty, knowing he was likely to have been innocent all along. If the only other potential suspect, Alphon, who was eliminated to most people's satisfaction, had been a royal, a pampered aristocrat or an MP, I might well have smelled something rotten in the whole sad story.

I'm totally against capital punishment for several reasons, but it was the law back then and all those not directly involved with the case could not have been held responsible for Hanratty being hanged, if they were later in a position of authority and suspected a miscarriage of justice. Would they all have felt personally or professionally obliged to protect and defend those who had gone before, for hanging a man who may not have been guilty? Possibly, as fully paid up members of the old boy network, but I'd like to think there would be at least one whistleblower in there somewhere, if there were genuine concerns about the evidence used to convict, and to keep him convicted to this day.

Love,

Caz
X

Even if there was a whistleblower the establishment wouldn't want to hear about it. Just ask Mandy Rice-Davies.

Where I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall is in the Grand Jury Room during the deliberations of the jury to consider their verdict. Storie had told them point blank that Hanratty was the man who murdered Gregsten and raped and attempted to murder her. There was absolutely no doubt in her mind that he was guilty and she should know. That's pretty compelling stuff for any jury.

And yet.

Six hours after commencing their deliberations the jury returned to the courtroom to ask the judge: "May we have a further statement from you regarding the definition of reasonable doubt? Must we be certain and sure of the prisoner's guilt to return a verdict?" Would it be unreasonable to assume that at this stage there was a 50/50 split in the minds of the jurors? There must have been a significant difference of opinion for them to ask the just such a fundamental question after six hours of deliberation.

They also asked the judge about the cartridge cases and he said to them, "Those cartridge cases, it is said, were left before 24 August. They were not found until 11 September. You have heard that another person used that room, that there were other people in the hotel, that there was a way outside from this bedroom, and you must not jump to the conclusion that the mere finding of those cartridge cases there denotes that they were left there by the prisoner".

It would be almost another four hours before the jury reached its verdict. The just asked if the guilty verdict was the verdict of them all and was told that it was. I wonder if that really was the case or whether some of the jury members simply caved in and went with the majority.

[caz]

Even if there was a whistleblower the establishment wouldn't want to hear about it. Just ask Mandy Rice-Davies.

Where I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall is in the Grand Jury Room during the deliberations of the jury to consider their verdict. Storie had told them point blank that Hanratty was the man who murdered Gregsten and raped and attempted to murder her. There was absolutely no doubt in her mind that he was guilty and she should know. That's pretty compelling stuff for any jury.

And yet.

Six hours after commencing their deliberations the jury returned to the courtroom to ask the judge: "May we have a further statement from you regarding the definition of reasonable doubt? Must we be certain and sure of the prisoner's guilt to return a verdict?" Would it be unreasonable to assume that at this stage there was a 50/50 split in the minds of the jurors? There must have been a significant difference of opinion for them to ask the just such a fundamental question after six hours of deliberation.

They also asked the judge about the cartridge cases and he said to them, "Those cartridge cases, it is said, were left before 24 August. They were not found until 11 September. You have heard that another person used that room, that there were other people in the hotel, that there was a way outside from this bedroom, and you must not jump to the conclusion that the mere finding of those cartridge cases there denotes that they were left there by the prisoner".

It would be almost another four hours before the jury reached its verdict. The just asked if the guilty verdict was the verdict of them all and was told that it was. I wonder if that really was the case or whether some of the jury members simply caved in and went with the majority.

Hi ansonman,

I would be disgusted if I thought any jury member 'simply caved in and went with the majority', when the man's life was at stake. Had they not seen the incredible Twelve Angry Men, which was released in 1957? Henry Fonda won the British Academy Film Award for Best Foreign Actor, and the film was nominated for the Best Film Award. It would probably be in my top ten films ever made.

The fact that the question about reasonable doubt was asked makes me think the jury considered the case carefully and responsibly before deciding on their verdict.

Love,

Caz
X

[ansonman]

Hi Caz,

i certainly agree with you about 12 Angry Men.

It just seems odd to me that the jury in the Hanratty case deliberated for six hours before asking the judge such a fundamental question.

Bear in mind also the fact that immediately before sending the jury out to deliberate, the judge emphasized the importance of reaching a verdict beyond reasonable doubt.

Going back to the film, let’s not forget that we’re it not for Fonda’s determination to examine the evidence as carefully as possible, the jury would have found the defendant guilty. Hanratty could have done with having a Fonda as a member of the jury in his trial.

[cobalt]

Einstein was once asked why he did not make his Theory of Relativity easier for the ordinary person to understand. He replied that if he could have done that he would; but he couldn’t.

I think the same applies to the phrase ‘beyond reasonable doubt.’ It’s as near as we can come to try and define what is a fair verdict but it probably means slightly different things to different people. The phrase does not demand complete and utter certainty: that would be rare in a complex murder case. Nor does it mean ‘on the balance of probabilities’ which is the civil law test for a verdict and too low a bar.

I assume ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ lies somewhere in between these two, when a person has reached a settled verdict and is confident within themselves that it is the correct one. The A6 jury might have reached the wrong verdict but it was not a perverse judgment. The testimony of Valerie Storie would have carried a great deal of weight and the change of alibi by Hanratty might have tilted the jury against him.

[caz]

Good posts, both.

The operative word is 'reasonable' and that will always be a subjective opinion on the part of individual jury members. That is what they have to decide between them, when they discuss the case against the accused. Where any doubts crop up, they are supposed to concern the strength of the evidence brought by the prosecution. The defence does not need to prove innocence, of course, or supply a credible alibi, so the onus is all on the prosecution to put the accused at the scene of crime.

Having had it spelled out to the Hanratty jury that a guilty verdict must only be delivered if there was no reasonable doubt about it, I can't see how they still arrived at that verdict unless any doubts expressed were ultimately agreed between them to be of the unreasonable kind, such as a gut feeling that Hanratty didn't seem the 'type', or the crime seemed 'out of character', or just a reluctance to have this man's execution on their conscience.

Hanratty's change of alibi, coupled with Valerie's professed certainty, about the man who had been in their car for hours on end, talking and asking questions before raping and shooting her, could have done nothing to suggest reasonable doubt to the jury. After all, Hanratty was, in his own way, the second best prosecution witness: "I was in Liverpool overnight, but if nobody believes me I was in Rhyl." He was on trial for a capital crime, yet he couldn't make up his mind where he was, if not in the car with the victims. Hard for any jury not to see that as a pretty damning admission.

Love,

Caz
X

[ansonman]

I wonder if you saw the first part of the Yorkshire Ripper documentary last night.
As well as the "staggering incompetence" of the police, another eye opener was the staggering incompetence of jurors who found two innocent men guilty. These poor fellows were imprisoned for more than two decades as a consequence. In one of the cases the jury was keen to reach a verdict before the Christmas holiday so as not to have their festivities inconvenienced. Thank goodness there was no death penalty at that time.

[cobalt]

It is harrowing, although in one case the victim actually volunteered himself. Corroborating evidence? I assume there was little. So what can the jury do when presented with a cropped version of events? Do the best they can, same as you or me.

Don't blame the juries. Blame those in the wigs and gowns who see justice as part of a medieval game of jousting. It's despicable. It's a war they will never fight and so such good fun.

[ansonman]

It is harrowing, although in one case the victim actually volunteered himself. Corroborating evidence? I assume there was little. So what can the jury do when presented with a cropped version of events? Do the best they can, same as you or me.

Don't blame the juries. Blame those in the wigs and gowns who see justice as part of a medieval game of jousting. It's despicable. It's a war they will never fight and so such good fun.

I would put corrupt police in front of the wigs and gowns in the "blame queue".

[moste]

Well, first off accepting Only 11 jurors ,always been a bone of contention for me. Secondly, given all of the evidence the jury had to sift through ,plus their serious confusion over what their collective duties actually were , there is a question as to the juries ability to bring to a conclusion a fair verdict. Thirdly, in an attempt to side with Sherrard ( much against my better judgment re his general performance)It seems I think, that Sherrard was reasonably pleased with the way things progressed while Acott and co. were on the stand. From this I mean that the jury must have understood that Sherrard looked like he had exposed the possibility that police corruption existed .Thirdly The judge I believe was wrong footed by the jury emerging from their deliberations after so many hours with what most people would regard as inept procrastinations ,and although infuriated, kept his cool ,because he believed Hanratty was innocent ,and was going to be found not guilty. In truth, all three ,wigs ,jury , and police corruption, are equally guilty here. If Hanratty was always going to hang regardless of the efforts of the defence, then the existence of a conspiracy has to be considered.

[ansonman]

"The judge I believe was wrong footed by the jury emerging from their deliberations after so many hours with what most people would regard as inept procrastinations ,and although infuriated, kept his cool ,because he believed Hanratty was innocent ,and was going to be found not guilty".

The bitter irony was that the judge went out of his way to ensure that Hanratty had a fair trial and did indeed anticipate a not guilty verdict. When it came to his appeal the judges fairness went against Hanratty.