A6 Rebooted

[OneRound]

Afternoon OneRound,

The evidence for the original prosecution was too weak in my opinion, and I have always been against the death penalty in any case.

I would have worded it differently from Sherrard's: "The wrong man was not hanged", but the sentiment is the same: the DNA evidence on the hanky has not IIRC been disputed, and it matched Hanratty's remains and a DNA profile identified from semen on the rape victim's underwear. Therefore it would seem to me beyond reasonable doubt that he had handled the murder weapon and had used it to commit murder and rape. I don't see when, how - or why - this collectively powerful evidence could have been manufactured out of thin air by sinister powers, or completely misinterpreted by the scientists involved to give a desired result.

I see very little comparison with the Post Office scandal. There was never any evidence of theft on the part of those who were wrongly convicted. They were pressured into pleading guilty instead to false accounting and using their own savings to pay for Horizon generated shortfalls in return for not being jailed. Why would anyone on the fiddle after a computer system was introduced have phoned the helpline multiple times, alerting the Post Office to a 'problem' caused by their own criminal actions?

I always come back to why Hanratty lied about his whereabouts on the murder night and changed his story, when his very life depended on the jury finding him not guilty. It's not normal behaviour for someone who believes he is being set up for a crime he didn't commit. He'd have been playing straight into their hands by not giving a simple, truthful account of where he was, which, for all his enemies knew, he might have been able to prove. I know the accused doesn't have to provide an alibi, but by producing two, Hanratty was effectively disproving one of them all by himself, leaving the jury unable to believe either.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

As usual I understand your reasoning but the DNA findings as set out in the Court of Appeal's 2002 judgment didn't prove to me beyond reasonable doubt James Hanratty's legal guilt. I've already detailed several concerns and would again particularly flag the DNA of an unknown male in addition to that of Hanratty being located on Valerie Storie's knickers. IF (perhaps a large ''if'' but still imo fundamentally important to have been properly checked which it wasn't at all) that DNA didn't not belong to Michael Gregsten, then the entire DNA evidence would be shot out of the water. I am uncomfortable in the Court determining that Hanratty's conviction and execution was lawful on a ''presumption'' that the unidentified DNA was Gregsten's, especially as he apparently hadn't had sex with Storie for several days before the rape and murder.

My analogy to the Post Office and Horizon scandal was simply an attempt to raise thinking as to whether the judiciary are too quick to accept findings emanating from current technology.

I do agree with your final paragraph. As previously emphasised, I am not an advocate for Hanratty's innocence but remain doubtful that his guilt was ever fairly (note the police non-disclosures commented upon by the Court of Appeal in their judgement) and reasonably proven.

Best regards,
OneRound

[cobalt]

''I asked Jason Bennetto, who wrote the article in the Independent in 1997, if he had seen the Matthews report.

He replied: "Hello David, I didn't and given the new DNA evidence I now doubt it will ever be looked at again."

Ansonman is opening up what Lord Denning would have called 'an appalling vista.' For if the published Matthews Report were to cast serious doubt about Hanratty's guilt then not only is the original verdict called into question, but also the subsequent LCN DNA which officially 'closed the case' would be questioned as well. The ramifications of that would be considerable in terms not just of future cases, but also open up appeals for cases that have been already been judged. Therefore the Matthews Report must never be opened, any more than say papers relating to King Edward's relations with the Nazi regime in the late 1930s. Of course much of that historic liaison is now in the 'public domain' but that is not the same as releasing damning papers which undermine the status quo and by ultimate definition the monarchy. Ditto for the Hanratty case.

The stakes have been raised way beyond Paul Foot's questioning the authority of UK justice in a particular case.

From the original 1961 statements, any innocent citizens who became embroiled in the case could have their names redacted in a published report. We know there were some suspects questioned at the time who presumably were entirely innocent. The embargo on the Matthews Report is not about them or victims' families. As Moste and myself have long argued, there lies something at the heart of this inexplicable case which touches on national security.

[OneRound]

..... IF (perhaps a large ''if'' but still imo fundamentally important to have been properly checked which it wasn't at all) that DNA didn't not belong to Michael Gregsten, then the entire DNA evidence would be shot out of the water. ....

Apologies for the incorrect use of a double negative in my last post. I think I've left it too late to edit. I should have just said ''didn't'' and not ''didn't not''.

OneRound

[ansonman]

"I always come back to why Hanratty lied about his whereabouts on the murder night and changed his story, when his very life depended on the jury finding him not guilty. It's not normal behaviour for someone who believes he is being set up for a crime he didn't commit. He'd have been playing straight into their hands by not giving a simple, truthful account of where he was, which, for all his enemies knew, he might have been able to prove. I know the accused doesn't have to provide an alibi, but by producing two, Hanratty was effectively disproving one of them all by himself, leaving the jury unable to believe either.

Love,

Caz"


The trial judge, Gorman said this about Hanratty and his alibi:

"HE DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE HIS ALIBI.THE FAILURE OR OTHERWISE OF THE ALIBI DOES NOT MAKE HIM GUILTY."
Sherrard stated in his 2009 biography:The judge gave the jury perfectly good direction. He made it as clear to the jury as he could that he did not think the case against Hanratty was strong enough.

Taken from "The A6 Murder" By Norma Buddle 2012:

"At the trial, Mr Stanwick's opening speech for the prosecution made a big deal out of the "unsubstantiated" alibi of the three men in Liverpool. From then on the thought of being cross-questioned about his alibi concerning the three men in Liverpool troubled Hanratty. The alibi had been blurted out to Acott during his first telephone calls to Scotland Yard. Hanratty had explained that he didn't want to fall into the hands of the police because they would arrest him on burglary charges and he would get 6 years. When asked their names he had desperately tried to think of the people he knew who would ring Scotland Yard for him and assure the police he had been nowhere near any cornfield in Buckinghamshire on the night of August 22nd.

Acott had put him on the spot, had asked him for the names of these friends who would "stand alibi" for him. Hanratty could only think of friends on his burglar network who might, with certain inducements, be more reliable than a landlady in Rhyl whose name and address he could not even remember. But his friends, when he approached them in Liverpool had made it clear that they wanted nothing whatever to do with the police, still less to be called to give evidence under oath in a murder case".

Certainly Hanratty made a rod for his own back by changing his alibi a week into the trail. However, I can understand why he came up with the original alibi and why he changed it. Moreover, there were plenty of witnesses who were able to substantiate the Rhyl alibi.

Having said all that, the alibi, whether changed or not, is an irrelevance. What did for Hanratty was the evidence given by Storie. Her absolute conviction that Hanratty was her attacker made it certain that he would be found guilty. Even if he had had an alibi that was watertight, Storie's evidence would still have hanged him.

[OneRound]

"I always come back to why Hanratty lied about his whereabouts on the murder night and changed his story, when his very life depended on the jury finding him not guilty. It's not normal behaviour for someone who believes he is being set up for a crime he didn't commit. He'd have been playing straight into their hands by not giving a simple, truthful account of where he was, which, for all his enemies knew, he might have been able to prove. I know the accused doesn't have to provide an alibi, but by producing two, Hanratty was effectively disproving one of them all by himself, leaving the jury unable to believe either.

Love,

Caz"


The trial judge, Gorman said this about Hanratty and his alibi:

"HE DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE HIS ALIBI.THE FAILURE OR OTHERWISE OF THE ALIBI DOES NOT MAKE HIM GUILTY."
Sherrard stated in his 2009 biography:The judge gave the jury perfectly good direction. He made it as clear to the jury as he could that he did not think the case against Hanratty was strong enough.

Taken from "The A6 Murder" By Norma Buddle 2012:

"At the trial, Mr Stanwick's opening speech for the prosecution made a big deal out of the "unsubstantiated" alibi of the three men in Liverpool. From then on the thought of being cross-questioned about his alibi concerning the three men in Liverpool troubled Hanratty. The alibi had been blurted out to Acott during his first telephone calls to Scotland Yard. Hanratty had explained that he didn't want to fall into the hands of the police because they would arrest him on burglary charges and he would get 6 years. When asked their names he had desperately tried to think of the people he knew who would ring Scotland Yard for him and assure the police he had been nowhere near any cornfield in Buckinghamshire on the night of August 22nd.

Acott had put him on the spot, had asked him for the names of these friends who would "stand alibi" for him. Hanratty could only think of friends on his burglar network who might, with certain inducements, be more reliable than a landlady in Rhyl whose name and address he could not even remember. But his friends, when he approached them in Liverpool had made it clear that they wanted nothing whatever to do with the police, still less to be called to give evidence under oath in a murder case".

Certainly Hanratty made a rod for his own back by changing his alibi a week into the trail. However, I can understand why he came up with the original alibi and why he changed it. Moreover, there were plenty of witnesses who were able to substantiate the Rhyl alibi.

Having said all that, the alibi, whether changed or not, is an irrelevance. What did for Hanratty was the evidence given by Storie. Her absolute conviction that Hanratty was her attacker made it certain that he would be found guilty. Even if he had had an alibi that was watertight, Storie's evidence would still have hanged him.

Hi ansonman - Yes, Storie's evidence and her certainty in delivering it contributed very significantly to Hanratty being found guilty by the eleven (that's right, yes?) Bedfordshire jurors. However, I doubt I would have been so swayed had I been on the jury. Let us not forget that her evidence conflicted with that of John Kerr and, most importantly of all, she picked out a different person on every identification parade she attended.

Best regards,
OneRound

[ansonman]

Hi ansonman - Yes, Storie's evidence and her certainty in delivering it contributed very significantly to Hanratty being found guilty by the eleven (that's right, yes?) Bedfordshire jurors. However, I doubt I would have been so swayed had I been on the jury. Let us not forget that her evidence conflicted with that of John Kerr and, most importantly of all, she picked out a different person on every identification parade she attended.

Best regards,
OneRound

"Very significantly" is a bit of an understatement. I agree that she never did have a clear view of her attacker, but she was absolutely certain that Hanratty was her attacker and Gregsten's murderer. That's what did for Hanratty.

Sherrard: "Miss Storie, one appreciates your position of course, but it is my plain duty to suggest to you, that although you may be convinced in your own mind, you are nevertheless absolutely honest, but absolutely wrong. I must make that point quite plain to you".

Storie: "I do not agree with that suggestion".

Swanwick: "Have you any doubt whatever about your identification?"

Storie: "I have no doubt at all".

[Spitfire]

Hi ansonman - Yes, Storie's evidence and her certainty in delivering it contributed very significantly to Hanratty being found guilty by the eleven (that's right, yes?) Bedfordshire jurors.

Jim could have insisted on a new jury, but he and his Counsel seemed happy with the remaining eleven.

[caz]

'Let justice be done though the heavens fall,' is the expression I think.

How many people who be 'potentially distressed' by publishing the Matthews Report? Fewer I would contend than those on this site who have called for it to be made public. Valerie Storie had no children unfortunately- that option was effectively removed from her. I think Michael Gregsten had two children who will now be old enough to receive a state pension. They have long been old enough to understand the relationship between their father and Valerie Storie so I am unclear about what distress, if any, publishing the report would bring. There is also the matter of the Hanratty family but I doubt their feelings were considered in making the decision to keep the Matthews Report from public view.

The decision has all the hallmarks of a smokescreen to prevent public scrutiny of police actions, or perhaps police inactions, in the course of the A6 investigation. If the immediate surviving relatives of Gregsten and Storie announced that they had no objection to the Matthews Report being published then I am sure some other pretext would be found not to do so.

Not a very nice comparison, is it? Fewer individuals potentially facing distress by disclosure, compared with those who believe they are right and are seeking to prove it, when the DNA evidence indicates otherwise? Who really gains in 2023 from causing this potential distress to a single individual? Would disclosure be likely to reveal anything powerful enough to overturn or cast serious doubt on the DNA findings? If not, please don't tell me it wouldn't be argued that such evidence was bound to be destroyed or redacted to protect the status quo. And what about the additional distress to the surviving Hanratty family if you think it's inevitable that he would remain 'officially' guilty following any further disclosures? If their feelings are not considered by the decision makers, are you considering them now?

Love

Caz
X

[caz]

Even if he had had an alibi that was watertight, Storie's evidence would still have hanged him.

I'm sorry, ansonman, but I simply cannot accept this argument. Hanratty didn't need an alibi, because it was the prosecution's job to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was at the scene of crime.

But a 'watertight alibi', by anyone's definition, would have disproved the prosecution's case, regardless of how sure the victim claimed to be that Hanratty was the man in the car that night.

Would the case against him not have been thrown out without even coming to trial if Hanratty could have proved he was elsewhere?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi ansonman - Yes, Storie's evidence and her certainty in delivering it contributed very significantly to Hanratty being found guilty by the eleven (that's right, yes?) Bedfordshire jurors. However, I doubt I would have been so swayed had I been on the jury. Let us not forget that her evidence conflicted with that of John Kerr and, most importantly of all, she picked out a different person on every identification parade she attended.

Best regards,
OneRound

Surely she picked out a different person on the two parades she attended. You make it sound like there were several!

Also, she couldn't have picked out Hanratty on the first one because he wasn't there. Alphon was, but she failed to pick him out, and he is the only other suspect who was ever seriously considered.

Love,

Caz
X

[cobalt]

''Would disclosure be likely to reveal anything powerful enough to overturn or cast serious doubt on the DNA findings?''
Yes, otherwise the Matthews Report would have been published. I regard the distress, real or imagined, to surviving relatives a bogus reason for not publishing. The notion that the Hanratty family might be caused further distress by publication is preposterous since Matthews conveyed to them his belief that James Hanratty was innocent of the crime.

''If not, please don't tell me it wouldn't be argued that such evidence was bound to be destroyed or redacted to protect the status quo.''
I suspect that sensitive information has long since been shredded but judging by Matthews' recommendation there must be enough evidence in existence to cast serious doubt on the verdict. So far as I am aware Matthews never retracted his original belief that Hanratty was innocent even after the DNA evidence emerged. Either he was reluctant to admit he was wrong- a common human frailty- or he distrusted the DNA evidence.

Even for those who hold the DNA evidence to be a 'slam dunk' it would surely be instructive to see why Matthews was misled into believing that there were three persons involved in the crime.

[Pcdunn]

Jim could have insisted on a new jury, but he and his Counsel seemed happy with the remaining eleven.

No alternate jurors available to step in for the excused squeamish juror? Why not?

[ansonman]

Guardian 19/2/62:

"Transcript request
When the jury requested that a transcript of the proceedings should be made available to them, Mr Graham Swanwick QC, who had prosecuted, said: "There are certain passages in the transcript which took place in the absence of the jury and these matters clearly would have had to be removed from the transcript if the application was acceded to."

The Judge refused the request, but agreed to the jury's having a copy of the list of witnesses."

I don't recall reading about this until now. Does anyone know which aspects of the trial took place in the absence of the jury?

[cobalt]

'No' will be the answer I think.

Legal technicality? Why? There is clearly something underlying the A6 Case which we are not aware of, hence our collective ignorance.

[caz]

''Would disclosure be likely to reveal anything powerful enough to overturn or cast serious doubt on the DNA findings?''
Yes, otherwise the Matthews Report would have been published. I regard the distress, real or imagined, to surviving relatives a bogus reason for not publishing. The notion that the Hanratty family might be caused further distress by publication is preposterous since Matthews conveyed to them his belief that James Hanratty was innocent of the crime.

''If not, please don't tell me it wouldn't be argued that such evidence was bound to be destroyed or redacted to protect the status quo.''
I suspect that sensitive information has long since been shredded but judging by Matthews' recommendation there must be enough evidence in existence to cast serious doubt on the verdict. So far as I am aware Matthews never retracted his original belief that Hanratty was innocent even after the DNA evidence emerged. Either he was reluctant to admit he was wrong- a common human frailty- or he distrusted the DNA evidence.

Even for those who hold the DNA evidence to be a 'slam dunk' it would surely be instructive to see why Matthews was misled into believing that there were three persons involved in the crime.

Well, cobalt, you have already made up your own mind about what the Matthews Report would reveal, so why do you need to see it? Assuming you won't be 'distressed' either way, it's not up to you to speak for surviving relatives of anyone who was personally involved in the case in any capacity. You may regard their potential distress as a bogus reason for not publishing, but you can't know that distress would not still be a consequence of doing so.

People can't always admit it to themselves that they were, or could have been wrong, let alone put it in an official report. Distrusting the DNA findings goes with the territory of being unable to let go of a belief, regardless of what the evidence indicates.

Love,

Caz
X