A6 Rebooted

[Hatchett]

Hi,

There was no accusation at the trial that the cardridge cases had been planted. The point was argued as to whether they could be directly proven to have been left by Hanratty. The Judge in summing up pointed out that there was no direct evidence to prove that.

What the jury decided on that particular point we shall never know. What we do know however is that their over all verdict after having considered the whole of the evidence presented to them was that Hanratty was guilty.

Best wishes.

[caz]

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.

So how come the latest DNA evidence was not only admissible, but was considered to have made 'a strong case even stronger'? More to the point, what if the DNA had gone the other way and been identified as Alphon's or A.N.Other's, but not Hanratty's?

Are you saying that evidence not presented before, indicating Hanratty's innocence, would not be grounds for a fresh appeal? Can you imagine the outcry if the DNA had gone Hanratty's way, or documentary proof of his stay in Rhyl had been found, and they said: "Nope, sorry, appeals are only for breaches of law"? And why is anyone here even talking about another appeal in the future, if no further forensic tests are possible and the Rhyl 'alibi' could never be milked legally anyway, and never can be?

What could a further appeal possibly achieve, even if the DNA result were successfully taken out of the equation? The case was considered a 'strong' one without it, so what grounds could anyone cite in future, that were not fully exploited back in 2002 to no avail?

Love,

Confused Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

The case was considered a 'strong' one without it, so what grounds could anyone cite in future, that were not fully exploited back in 2002 to no avail?

Thats just the point Caz.The case never was a 'strong one'.A careful analysis of the summing up by the judge makes it pretty clear there was insufficient evidence and that the doubts the jury had were very real .Nothing whatever connected Hanratty with that crime unless you are into improbable and unproven nonsense ;no forensic evidence on any part of the murder car ;no forensic evidence on the used cartridge cases from after the murder that Hanratty must have returned to the Vienna with before the 11th September with the express intention of incriminating himself;not a fibre or fingerprint on the gun or 60 cartridge cases that Hanratty allegedly placed on the 36 bus ,wrapped in his very own monogrammed hanky, by which everyone would know instantly it was his.
No sighting whatever of him in Dorney Reach!
An expert driver and car thief -yet unable to start a Morris Minor and needing Valerie"s assistance to use the gears or turn the lights on..
Look through the press reports ,Caz,why don't you if you disbelieve it and see for yourself reports of Valerie"s description given to the police on the very day she was taken to Bedford General Hospital,of a man "aged about 30, medium build,5ft 6 ins tall ,deep set brown eyes,dark hair ,brushed straight back receding slightly at the temples, wearing a brown suit "[London Evening News 23rd August-and many others on 24th August ].

Yes,Valerie did 'identify him' but she spent hours constructing an identikit that looked nothing like him and just a week after her first description had been circulated she gave police an entirely new description.The man no longer had 'deep set brown eyes' -now he had 'icy blue eyes'- as big as saucers.Yes,this time she was 'quite sure' but she had been 'quite sure' the previous time she attended an identity parade and had identified Michael Clark as her rapist and her lover's killer.

A strong case with Valerie the sole eye witnesses?

[Derrick]

Thats just the point Caz.The case never was a 'strong one'....

A strong case with Valerie the sole eye witnesses?

Hi Norma
You are quite right.

The CCRC spent 2 years reinvestigating the case and found that Hanratty was innocent and had been fitted up. They referred it back to the Court of Appeal even with the knowledge of the LCN DNA test reports.

The Lord Chief Justice made a complete ass of himself when he said that the case against Hanratty was already a strong one. The CCRC had already proved it wasn't. The CACD just bought the bogus evidence of the FSS and the arrogant alchemist Dr Whitaker.

ATB
Derrick

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Derrick. I knew the Home Office had requested an internal report from Scotland Yard in 1995 and it was carried out by Detective Superintendent Roger Matthews and he concluded that James Hanratty was entirely innocent and had been wrongly hanged. There was delay then by the Home Secretary,Michael Howard------need we say more?
Rory Bremner hit the spot 'Don't be frightened ---- no need to be afraid!
Well I think Howard managed somehow to scupper it.Who was it said there was something of the night about him............

[jimarilyn]

The Lord Chief Justice made a complete ass of himself when he said that the case against Hanratty was already a strong one.

Absolutely, Derrick. The doddering Appeal Court judges betrayed their blatant prejudice towards the case by stating that the so called DNA evidence 'made a strong case even stronger' [or words to that defect]. Such admirable impartiality. Talk about horses wearing blinkers.

[Hatchett]

Hi,

The Appeal was requested by the Hanratty family and their followers to consider the DNA eveidence the means of which were not available at the time. Access to DNA findings if they had been available would have been made use of at the original trial.

You ask what would have happened if the DNA had proved that Hanratty was innocent. The answer to that depends on your faith in the jidicial system as it stands now. And indeed what has happened with other cases.

I believe that Hanratty would have been vindicated, if that had been the case. Unfortunately, it wasnt the case and he was not vindicated.

That was the gamble the Hanratty family and their followers took.

Best wishes.

[Derrick]

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.

Hi Hatchett

Appeals deal with both the technical fairness of trials and fresh evidence not adduced at trial. This fresh evidence may involve witnesses not called at the original trial if they were not known then. An appeal cannot rely on evidence that was or could have been available at the time of the original trial.

In Hanratty, any surviving Rhyl witness, bar Mrs Jones and Mr Evans, could have been called in 2002. Their details were not served on the defence until at least after the closing speeches had been delivered. The defence didn't even know about them all until several years after the trial.

Any of the witnesses who said that they spotted the Morris Minor discovered via the non-disclosure of the mileage could have also been called, if still alive.

The judges implied that Acott and Oxford could have appeared to defend their non-disclosure if either were still alive.

Even Valerie Storie could have been called to clarifiy the points arising from her non-disclosed statements.

Derrick

[Derrick]

The Appeal was requested by the Hanratty family and their followers to consider the DNA eveidence the means of which were not available at the time.

Hi Hatchett
Your point above is incorrect. The Hanratty family brought upmteen grounds of appeal none of which included DNA evidence.

It was the Crown that sought to rely on DNA evidence and was the only evidence that they brought to the table. They didn't refute any of the appellants grounds.

The Hanratty defence team sought to counter the DNA evidence by suggesting that contamination had ocurred.

Hope that helps.
Derrick

[caz]

Look, you all seem to be missing the point. I don't care who thinks the case was a strong one without the DNA, or weak as water with it. I'm asking what grounds you all think there are for another appeal to be granted, and what hope you think there is of getting 'strong' changed to something else.

Do those grounds actually exist today, and in a coherent form, or have they yet to be conjured up somehow and made to look presentable in law?

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

Gerry Conlan was serving a 30 year sentence for charges of murder connected with bombing .In October 1989 after serving 15 years he and three others on the same charges were cleared .The Lord Chief Justice quashed their conviction.
The reason? The prosecution had withheld evidence from the defence concerning Conlan's alibi at a hostel .
It was a statement , dated January 1975,made before the trial,by a man who worked as a green grocer , who had seen Conlan at the hostel they were both staying at. The statement detailed the name of the witness and the date the statement was taken.Gareth Peirce,Conlan's solicitor, had turned up a bundle of papers tied up with a label that read 'Not to be disclosed to the defence'.She opened the box ,turned over a piece of paper and there was the statement.
End of story.Conlan and his three compatriots walked free.

[Hatchett]

Hi Natalie,

That is exactly my point it was non disclosure of evidence. The appealcourt is not there to rehear the case.

regards.

[Hatchett]

Hello Derrick,

That is right. The appeal court would have to make a decision on the non disclosure of information. That is a point of law. If there was non disclosure then a decision would have to be made as to whether or not it would have made sufficient difference to the outcome of the original case.

The Appeal Court is not there to re hear the case.

On the DNA are you trying to say that the Hanratty family never asked or petitioned for DNA evidence to be looked into and considered?

If you are then I suggest that is a little re writing of history.

Regards.

[Hatchett]

Hello Caz,

I think your point is absolutely right. What grounds would there be for a further appeal? It is difficult to see how there could be any.

What could have made a strong case into a weak one? At the Appeal that has been held the only thing that I could see that would have done that was the DNA evidence, which in actual fact reinforced the original veridct.

Case close, I would say.

Best wishes.

David.

[babybird67]

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.

Other than that he was known to have been the last occupant of that very room do you mean, apart from another gentleman who did not fit the description of the A6 murderer...and of course the fact that his hankerchief was wrapped around the gun which matched them, and these items were hidden in his chosen hiding place.

All pure co-incidence of course.

By the way, if somebody had access to the weapon/cartridges and wanted to plant them, why plant the actual gun somewhere on a bus, and just some empty cartridge cases in the room? If someone wanted to fit Hanratty up (still no sensible suggestions as to who or why that i have seen on this point either) why not plant the gun, hankie AND the cartridges all in the same place? Why put anything on a bus that might not even have been discovered?