A6 Rebooted

[jimarilyn]

Hanratty was never seen anywhere near Dorney Reach---not that night ---not ever.

Nor any Hanratty look-alikes either Norma. And yet we're expected to believe that Hanratty boarded a train from Paddington Station around 10.00 am on the morning of the murder and got off around the Slough/Maidenhead area, spending the next ten or so hours completely invisible to all and sundry. Completely off the radar. On a warm summer's day dressed in his smart brand new chalk striped Hepworth's suit and carrying a large revolver and ammunition galore.

Yet there is not a soul around to say he/she saw anyone fitting Hanratty's description ambling around the Dorney countryside. In very stark contrast to all those people in Liverpool and Rhyl who testified to seeing and encountering James Hanratty [or his doppelganger] that same summer's day and evening. But of course all those upright citizens were merely publicity seekers out for their 15 minutes of fame and intent on perverting the course of justice.......

[Derrick]

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...

Blimey DM

The police and the DPP/CPS drop some clangers but how the hell did that case ever come to trial?

Makes you wonder how incompetent the authorities really are.

Derrick

[Dupplin Muir]

Derrick wrote:

The police and the DPP/CPS drop some clangers but how the hell did that case ever come to trial?

Makes you wonder how incompetent the authorities really are.

Hi Derrick

I have no idea how the mistake happened - I guess they never thought to check on the accused's whereabouts at the time. However, what really surprised me was the suspect: either he was incredibly cool, and realised that he was more likely to get compensation if it all came out in open court, or at first he didn't put 2 and 2 together and only later realised that he had an unbreakable alibi!

[caz]

It's all very well coming up with cases where mistakes were made - and were subsequently discovered, admitted and rectified. I expect there are hundreds of them, if you wanted to waste your time listing more of them here.

What you need to do is concentrate on this case, and expose all the mistakes you claim were made, by producing some actual evidence (Hanratty provably banged up in Wandsworth or taking tea with the Pope down under - that would do it), so that the authorities would be forced to admit they screwed up in a thousand cases instead of just the 999.

In very stark contrast to all those people in Liverpool and Rhyl who testified to seeing and encountering James Hanratty [or his doppelganger] that same summer's day and evening. But of course all those upright citizens were merely publicity seekers out for their 15 minutes of fame and intent on perverting the course of justice.......

I think that's a bit harsh on the poor dears. They probably just needed a trip to Specsavers, or reacted as most witnesses would if shown a single photo and asked a loaded question about brief encounters with strangers months previously and whether Hanratty could have been one of them.

There's a jolly good reason why team Hanratty didn't safely gather in all the good people of Liverpool and Rhyl for the 2002 appeal and let them do their worst.

Love,

Caz
X

[babybird67]

exactly Caz

one of the main reasons being their evidence would have conflicted directly with the defendant's!

hope you are well

Jen x

[Hatchett]

Hi All,

Appeals deal with breaches of law. That is the grounds of appeal. It is not at all to rehear the case. The alleged non disclosure of evidence was quite rightly brought up. To bring forward witnesses that were not called at the original trial would certainlt not be admissable.

A case of conspiracy or even ineptitude cannot and should not be made, in my view, without an understanding of the legal arena where this battle was fought.

Best wishes.

[Limehouse]

Hi All,

Appeals deal with breaches of law. That is the grounds of appeal. It is not at all to rehear the case. The alleged non disclosure of evidence was quite rightly brought up. To bring forward witnesses that were not called at the original trial would certainlt not be admissable.

A case of conspiracy or even ineptitude cannot and should not be made, in my view, without an understanding of the legal arena where this battle was fought.

Best wishes.

I don't have to have any legal training to work out that without the cartridge cases in room 24 there would have been absolutely chance of linking Hanratty to this crime at his trial. I have no doubt (and no problem expressing it) that those cartridge cases were planted.

[Hatchett]

Hi Limehouse,

Well that is something that should have been brought up at the trial. It was nothing to do with the court of Appeal, which like I say deals with points of law.

Best wishes.

[babybird67]

no evidence

there is no evidence that the cartridge cases were planted, therefore even if the 'idea' had been brought up at trial, or appeal, it would not be relevant since there is no supporting evidence for such a claim.

[Limehouse]

there is no evidence that the cartridge cases were planted, therefore even if the 'idea' had been brought up at trial, or appeal, it would not be relevant since there is no supporting evidence for such a claim.

There is no evidence that the cartridge cases were left by Hanratty either. Absolutely no evidence what-so-ever. No finger prints and no witnesses to testify that he left them in room 24. Even the judge said so.

[Limehouse]

I think that's a bit harsh on the poor dears. They probably just needed a trip to Specsavers, or reacted as most witnesses would if shown a single photo and asked a loaded question about brief encounters with strangers months previously and whether Hanratty could have been one of them.

Love,

Caz
X

Of course - the witnesses who claimed to have seen Hanratty in the car on the morning following the attack all agreed wth each other - didn't they?

And one of the chaps was taken to see the car and asked "Is this the car you saw that morning?" And of course - he said "Yes!"

[Natalie Severn]

there is no evidence that the cartridge cases were planted, therefore even if the 'idea' had been brought up at trial, or appeal, it would not be relevant since there is no supporting evidence for such a claim.

And as Judge Gorman painstakingly pointed out in his summing up, there was absolutely no evidence that Hanratty left them there.The judge also advised the jury to pay attention to the fact that these used cartridges would have had to have been left by Hanratty before any shots were fired or any murder had taken place---by which he was suggesting it was a very unlikely scenario if not an absolutely ridiculous one!
He also noted that room 24 was vulnerable to being accessed from the public park as its French windows were not locked --and neither was its other door meaning anybody could have entered the room on any of the 19 days that had passed between the murder and hotel staff coming across the used cartridge cases.

[Graham]

Regarding the cartdridge cases, perhaps someone on JH's side could explain why, upon being told by Acott that some cases had been found in the room he slept in, instead of denying all knowledge of any cases, JH asked Acott what size they were? That seems a rather odd reply, under the circumstances.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Witness Blackhall,who wound his window down and was right next to the Morris Minor driver at the roundabout seemed to think Skillett needed specsavers.He said the driver looked "nothing like Hanratty'.....and did not identify him.
And Valerie admitted that she had only a brief 'glimpse' of the gunman's face and that his facial features were fading from her memory after two weeks and she even 'identified' two different men.There were no other eye witnesses.Just Valerie and Skillett-since everybody trashed Trower's nonsense.

[Natalie Severn]

Regarding the cartdridge cases, perhaps someone on JH's side could explain why, upon being told by Acott that some cases had been found in the room he slept in, instead of denying all knowledge of any cases, JH asked Acott what size they were? That seems a rather odd reply, under the circumstances.

Graham

This is Hanratty"s version of that exchange:

He [Acott] said to me,"Jimmy,in the alcove where you stayed on 21st August,we found some bullets and a gun'.........At this stage I thought the superintendent was kidding me because I made a remark to this effect.I said: You aint kidding me,Mr Acott are you?'He said :I am not kidding you ,Jimmy,this is a very serious business ..." I said to Superintendent Acott; That is the end for me now.I have not had no bullets or any gun at any time,' ---------and at that stage I asked what size the bullets was.I was so excited and depressed with this new evidence that he had sprung on me,I was flabbergasted,and I knew at this stage that matters looked very very serious against me.'[Vol.X111,p.44.]
Norma