A6 Rebooted

[Natalie Severn]

Louisa,
Are you talking about the Cobb's and Mr Newell? I know Mr Fogarty- Waul saw someone as well but the Cobb's and Newell saw a man looking like the identikit
in Marsh Lane on the day of the murder-[in the afternoon ] carrying a rolled over plastic bag -and went to the police about it and were never called to an identity parade even -though they each made a statement.To this day nobody was called to the trial who saw the Morris Minor that night in or near Dorney Reach.

[OneRound]

The two boys were out with a gun that night so one is entitled to ask what they intended doing out with a gun that night ? A policeman was shot at and died.
But Bentley it seems had nothing to do with that specific incident as he was already in police custody when the policeman was shot so how could he be guilty of murder? He was charged as an accomplice........

Natalie - you are missing the significance of my closing sentences and final question to Caz. If you accept what the Court of Appeal said and did in the Bentley case, it should considerably help your corner.

Best wishes,

OneRound

[Natalie Severn]

I do see what you mean ,one round, and yes it does or should help ......but the two cases are very different.I do not accept Hanratty was in any way involved with the murder of Michael Gregsten whereas I do see that Bentley was by default involved in the murder of a policeman.However since Bentley was in police custody at the time etc etc

best
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

But do you think that William Ewer was behind it?

William Ewer was eager to let the police know -just days after the murder happened -that he thought he had recognised ,from descriptions given prior to September 1st 1961, the murderer of Michael Gregsten in James Hanratty.He admits [Sunday Times 16/0-5/1971] to following Hanratty into Cater's flower shop where Hanratty was recorded by Mrs Dorothy Morrell as having sent flowers to Mrs Hanratty on September 1st 1961 under the name of J.Ryan.
Well the police were after Alphon -certainly between 15 September and 25th Sept and staged a nationwide hunt for him so Ewer,despite his amazing 'intuition' clearly did not impress the police that Hanratty was the murderer.
Now his intuitive recognition of his brother in law's killer-so he said-was based on what, until the 31st August ,had been a description of a 30 year old man with dark eyes and an oval shaped face [both identikits had these features] whereas Hanratty had a box shaped face and light blue eyes. A new description was put out on 31st August of a man with blue staring eyes---[note too that the police were after Alphon until 25th September who had hazel eyes!] so why on earth , out of millions of Londoners, did William Ewer believe he had seen the A6 gunman in Swiss Cottage---unless he was trying to throw a blind?

[OneRound]

I do see what you mean ,one round, and yes it does or should help ......but the two cases are very different.I do not accept Hanratty was in any way involved with the murder of Michael Gregsten whereas I do see that Bentley was by default involved in the murder of a policeman.However since Bentley was in police custody at the time etc etc

best
Norma

Natalie - I agree the two cases are very different. I also appreciate and respect your view that Hanratty was not in any way involved with the murder of Michael Gregsten.

I do not share your view nearly so strongly but that is not relevant to the point being made here. The Court of Appeal quashed Bentley's conviction for murder because his trial was ''unfair'' even though they suggested he was actually guilty - ''a properly directed jury would have been entitled to convict''. It is that principle which is important here. Please ignore for now the differences in the cases and put aside your own views about Bentley.

Applying that same principle, if Hanratty's trial can be shown to be unfair - due, for example, to information withheld by the police - then is it not right that his conviction be also quashed, regardless of whether it is suggested he was guilty or not? That is the question I asked Caz earlier.

Similarly, if Hanratty's 2002 Court of Appeal judgment can be shown to be ''unfair'' - due, in particular, to an over reliance upon questionable DNA material - then is it not right that his conviction be quashed or, at the least, a further Appeal be permitted?

I am not expecting you to compromise your belief in Hanratty's innocence but pointing out that doesn't need to be proved to have his conviction quashed and obtain what you essentially want. I appreciate Hanratty's family and his strong supporters including yourself would ideally like a declaration from the Court of Hanratty's total innocence. In my view, that is impossible and will never happen. From a legal perspective, the Court of Appeal determine the ''safety of a conviction'' and do not consider ''innocence''.

All meant constructively and fairly.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Natalie Severn]

Interesting views on the legal aspects of this but I am not very into that actually. Whose laws are they anyway?
But you go ahead ofcourse you must and argue it from a legal point of view one round -if it all helps -best wishes
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

Ps funny kind of dialogue this-I say one thing and you reply with another and vice versa! It's ok too. Just a bit Pinteresque !x

[louisa]

Getting back to William Ewer - as I see it, no matter who pulled the trigger - Ewer was involved. Ewer knew Dixie France of old and knew him to be a willing little nobody who would do most things for a bit of cash, and who knew the London underworld - and was somebody who could easily procure a gun for instance.

This is how I see things:

After the murder - which wasn't meant to have happened - Ewer asked Dixie France if he knew anyone that could be put in the frame, to draw attention away from the real murderer. Dixie France readily put his friend's name forward - Hanratty - thinking that Hanratty would soon be cleared of the crime. To Dixie France's horror - Hanratty was hanged for the crime.

[Natalie Severn]

I think its a possible scenario Louisa.I have always found it curious that France went to see William Ewer a few days before he committed suicide allegedly to apologise about Gregsten. As Ewer set up house with Janet Gregsten not that long after and became her lover one can't help thinking that Ewer may have been emotionally involved with Janet at the time.
Btw I know I wrote the other day that France committed suicide three days after Hanratty was hanged--I meant to write three days after Hanratty's appeal was rejected.
Clearly something fishy was going on.I mean all that stuff about recognising Hanratty as his brother in law's killer a few days after the murder because' he had eyes like carbunkles'---who had ever said hanratty had eyes like carbunkles? It certainly didnt fit the official description of [deep set -not very deep set -brown eyes ----put out just hours after Valerie gave her description to the police in hospital.....! Nor did it fit either of the identikits that were drawn up on 26th August and flashed on the TV screens nationwide----and what an extraordinary thing to come out with---of all the millions of Londoner's to pick out--and to pick someone out in Swiss Cottage 50 miles from where it happened! Fingering him? ---why he was shouting it from the roof tops--- loud speaker stuff this-telling the police about this complete stranger in Swiss Cottage.........astonishing stuff[no wonder the police didn't follow it up-they must have thought----hey-- we've got a right queer one here !-----------[lets fukc that for a game of soldiers!]

[louisa]

I entirely agree with you on all those points.

What Ewer told the police - and the truth of the matter - were, I'm sure, very different.

I expect Ewer only admitted to knowing Dixie France because Ewer was scared that somebody had spotted France going into his shop. To say he had come into Ewer's shop to say he was sorry about the death of Gregsten is ridiculous. I suspect that France had gone to Ewer's shop because his nerves were frazzled and he wanted to know what he should do. I bet Ewer was mortified to see France standing there, in his (outwardly) respectable shop.

[caz]

If Hanratty's trial is shown also to be ''unfair'', is it not right that his conviction too be quashed?

Indeed, but it's a big 'if' right now, isn't it OneRound?

"Unfair" to whose satisfaction? Who gets to judge it unfair, on what grounds, and what authority would they have for so doing?

You and I both feel that Hanratty was guilty as charged, despite also having misgivings about the original trial being 'fair'. Others are convinced he was innocent and someone else must have committed the crime, despite having no evidence whatsoever against this other person, never mind evidence 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Someone did it, but how much 'fairer' is it to accuse anyone other than Hanratty, considering the total lack of evidence?

Hi All,

If Hanratty was elsewhere when the murder and rape took place, he must have realised at some point that he was the victim of a frame-up, particularly when his hanky turned up wrapped round a gun he had never fired at anyone! Fighting for his life, he would surely have named all likely names involved, instead of which he kept quiet about it and came up with his too-late Rhyl alibi.

38% may have shared blood group O, but that means the majority - 62% - did NOT have group O. The point is, anyone framing Hanratty for the rape (whether or not they had thought of this aspect) could so easily have come unstuck. And yet it was Hanratty who came unstuck at every turn, which should not have happened if he was being framed and he knew it.

Love,

Caz
X

[louisa]

Hi Caz

I doubt very much if the person who planted Hanratty's hankerchief was thinking about DNA. The process of analysis wasn't around back then.

I agree that Hanratty must have known that he was being framed but remember - he was a young man with limited thought processes - not the sharpest knife in the drawer (as they say).

He wasn't even bright enough to wear gloves when we went out burgling houses.

But unfortunately his stupidity knew no bounds when he wholeheartedly believed that British justice would prevail

[caz]

Hi Caz

I doubt very much if the person who planted Hanratty's hankerchief was thinking about DNA. The process of analysis wasn't around back then.

Again, that misses the point, Louisa. If someone who knew Hanratty well enough to be planting his hanky on the bus, did so in order to frame him, that person was taking all kinds of unknown and unknowable risks (not least of which was an understandably angry and terrified Hanratty naming names) each of which could have sent the whole thing pear-shaped at any point in time since.

Assuming Hanratty would have known if he was being framed or not, there is just the one scenario whereby his silence on the matter would have made sense: if one of his cronies had taken charge of the gun and planted it where Hanratty was known to hide stuff, realising he was guilty and not wanting any trouble brought to their own door. Clearly Hanratty could hardly have protested about it or named the name(s) in this scenario without dropping himself right in it! But if he was innocent his very life depended on identifying who knew about his hiding place and also had access to his hankies.

I'm not sure Hanratty defenders can have it both ways. Often they claim that Hanratty was intelligent and street smart - too much so to have committed such a stupid and senseless crime - then in the next breath they need to make him pig thick to explain why he only thought of Rhyl at the eleventh hour, when the rope was swinging in front of his eyes, and never once thought to insist that someone he knew must have set him up and planted the murder weapon, wrapped in his hanky.

The point is, he stopped believing that British justice would save his neck when he was forced to bring up Rhyl. So why not bring up the people who must have framed him if he was innocent?

Usually, an innocent man is framed when blame needs to be shifted from the genuinely guilty. So where is the motive for framing anyone in this case, and why Hanratty? The only other man to be seriously suspected (as far as I know) was Alphon, so if the frame-up was designed to get him off the hook, why did he do his level best to get back on it again after the successful conviction of Hanratty? It makes no sense at all. Why would Hanratty's cronies want to see him hanged to protect a guilty Alphon? Is there any evidence that they all knew each other? If not, the whole frame-up idea begins to crumble, for lack of any bonding substance.

If we need an unlikely or unnecessary frame-up, a conspiracy or three involving various disparate groups, or just breath-taking incompetence all round, in order to make the case for the unlucky Hanratty's innocence, this should ring its own alarm bells. Where is the evidence that needed to be deflected in Hanratty's direction, and where was it pointing to begin with?

Love,

Caz
X

[OneRound]

Indeed, but it's a big 'if' right now, isn't it OneRound?

"Unfair" to whose satisfaction? Who gets to judge it unfair, on what grounds, and what authority would they have for so doing?

You and I both feel that Hanratty was guilty as charged, despite also having misgivings about the original trial being 'fair'. Others are convinced he was innocent and someone else must have committed the crime, despite having no evidence whatsoever against this other person, never mind evidence 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Someone did it, but how much 'fairer' is it to accuse anyone other than Hanratty, considering the total lack of evidence?

Hi All,

If Hanratty was elsewhere when the murder and rape took place, he must have realised at some point that he was the victim of a frame-up, particularly when his hanky turned up wrapped round a gun he had never fired at anyone! Fighting for his life, he would surely have named all likely names involved, instead of which he kept quiet about it and came up with his too-late Rhyl alibi.

38% may have shared blood group O, but that means the majority - 62% - did NOT have group O. The point is, anyone framing Hanratty for the rape (whether or not they had thought of this aspect) could so easily have come unstuck. And yet it was Hanratty who came unstuck at every turn, which should not have happened if he was being framed and he knew it.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

First of all, the part of your post dealing with my earlier query.

I'll take your questions at face value.

Yes, Caz, it is a very big ''if'' for the trial now to be shown as ''unfair''. In my view, the only way to do that - and it will still be incredibly hard and lengthy with no guarantee of success - is to discredit the 2002 Court of Appeal judgment and get things back to where they were just before that; ie a new hearing to be held by the Court of Appeal to rule on the ''unfairness'' of the original trial.

In turn, the only way that the 2002 Appeal can be discredited is to conclusively show that the Court then overly and unreasonably relied upon what is now discredited DNA findings in supporting Hanratty's guilt. If the campaign to quash Hanratty's conviction is to travel any further, this is the road that must be taken. However sincerely the beliefs are held, comments by his defenders that, for example, ''Hanratty was in a sweetshop at a crucial time'' will just be met by a chorus of ''Oh no, he wasn't!'' by those convinced of his guilt and the whole thing will sound more and more like a grisly pantomime.
Something new has to be produced or shown for the Court of Appeal to act. The restating of old arguments will not work. Scientific advancement discrediting the DNA together with careful review of the 2002 judgment showing the Court's over reliance upon it then might be regarded as both new and sufficient.

As I suggest, it will be incredibly hard to do this and even get the case back on the starting blocks but I see no other way. Whilst I refer above to the Court of Appeal, it is in fact the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) who would have to first suggest referring the case once more to the Court. Unfortunately, the CCRC are unlikely to be keen to do so. At the end of their 2002 judgment,the Court delivered a veiled rebuke to the CCRC for the expenditure incurred on a case of this age. It will therefore take something significant for the CCRC to risk increasing and incurring the Court's wrath again.

I actually still think it's a fight worth fighting. Despite my doubts as to Hanratty's innocence, his guilt has never been proved reasonably or fairly. I maintain he deserves a fair appeal at the least given he had an unfair trial [any accusation of hypocrisy as to a likely different view if Michael Gregsten or Valerie Storie had been my son or daughter would probably be valid!]. I suspect you disagree - that's fair enough as you are fully satisfied as to his guilt. I find it more surprising and disappointing that Natalie seems hardly interested in this possible avenue despite her total belief in Hanratty's innocence.

As you say, someone did it. That at least is certain. I have no problem with others being put forward as possibly involved but I do strongly believe that speculation should be clearly stated and not presented as established fact. That is one of the many difficulties in reviewing this complex case.

My own thoughts are that the police were keen to gild the lily to ensure a guilty man in their view did not get away with it. I'm far from convinced that there was a deliberate, highly cunning (but only in some parts!) and ultimately incredibly lucky frame up conducted by other criminals for Hanratty to take the rap.

As for the possibility of others being involved, I think it was Victor some time ago who commented along the lines of - Hanratty couldn't provide details without revealing ''his own starring role''. I'll keep my own powder dry for now but I did think that comment was rather clever.

[Limehouse]

Hi Caz,

There are two possible scenarios. Hanratty suspected who was involved in the framing and said nothing because he was terrified his family would be targeted OR he was convinced that the framing and evidence was so fragile, he would be found innocent.

Possibly, he had no idea who framed him or why.

His Rhyl alibi was hardly eleventh hour - it was the second week of the trial and the reasons for his delay in mentioning Rhyl have been fully explored in recent posts. You might as well say that if Hanratty was guilty, he would have made very sure he had his story straight right from the start. There were times in his trial when he could have flately refused to accept evidence put to him that pointed to his guilt. For example, only Hanratty and France were present when the 'back seat of a bus' conversation took place. And yet Hanratty readily admitted that the conversation took place. He could also have denied owning the hanky - but he didn't.

You speak as if no one has ever been framed for a crime before. You ignore the fact that those likely to be involved in a frame up KNEW he was going to Liverpool for essentially dishonest reasons and would not easily be able to establish his presence there. As for the blood sample, there was little risk because if Hanratty had a different blood group and this had come out at the trial or sooner, it may have excluded Hanratty from the case but it would not necessarily have put anyone else in the frame (except for Alphon - who would have been eliminated at the line-up stage).

Just because no one else but Alphon was suspected does not mean that someone else was responsible and walked away form the crime scene never to be identified. Acott didn't it seems, stray too far from the strategy that the man responsible would have hidden out in a B&B. That may be true for oddballs like Hanratty and Alphon but it does not apply to everyone.