A6 Rebooted

[louisa]

# 1012 - The dodgy ex-jailbird witnesses for the prosecution were believed, as were the even dodgier eye witness accounts - because the trial was one-sided. The odds were stacked against Hanratty from the start.

I feel that if Hanratty had been represented by a top QC instead of the inexperienced Michael Sheridan, he would have been cleared. Michael Sheridan wasn't even able to spot a 'frame up' when it was right in front of him, hitting him in the face!

The Met (Metropolitan Police) has always had a reputation for being corrupt. Scotland Yard detectives are part of the Met.

In this case the police (Acott in particular) was able to ignore, alter or conceal, significant evidence that would have helped the Defence. He had no concrete prosecution evidence but relied on weak stories from very weak witnesses.

I believe that the jury were confused by it all. They were from Bedford and saw before them a cockney London 'wide-boy' whom they knew had a criminal record. When Hanratty changed his alibi, thereby admitting he had lied, they made their decision.

[Natalie Severn]

I wonder if the defence, at least for the 2002 appeal, missed a trick regarding Juliana Galves. I think she could have been of immense help to the Hanratty camp. Does anyone know what happened to her? I assume she is now dead.

.............
If she had confirmed it was because of undue pressure by the police, that would have raised serious concerns over their actions and the whole integrity of their conduct throughout the case which in turn would have increased the chances of the original trial being judged ''unfair'' and Hanratty's conviction being overturned.,

OneRound

The problem was, One Round, that her English was not very good.She was an immigrant from Swizerland without a work permit [I think I have that right] so a bit vulnerable.Her husband couldn't speak English and she knew only a little and had to have an interpreter.
I am astonished myself that she was not called as a witness by neither the prosecution or the defence-after all her statement of 13th September,could,as you say,have been very helpful indeed to the defence.
But I suppose with Nudds being prepared to recall things in a way that was very 'helpful the police' -as he put it--- in his second statement,then her evidence looked as though it was a bit redundant.
BUt the big surprise for me was the bit about her saying she had seen a pair of black women's gloves on top of the dirty clothing in the suitcase.What made her say this if it was not true?
As for her statement of 6 SEptember I think that is perfectly understandable
as she was only making a statement 'on behalf of' staff-not quite the same thing as her 13th September statement.
I don't know what has happened to her---Bob Woffinden interviewed her around the time his book came out but thats all I know...
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

# 1012 - The dodgy ex-jailbird witnesses for the prosecution were believed, as were the even dodgier eye witness accounts - because the trial was one-sided. The odds were stacked against Hanratty from the start.

I feel that if Hanratty had been represented by a top QC instead of the inexperienced Michael Sheridan, he would have been cleared. Michael Sheridan wasn't even able to spot a 'frame up' when it was right in front of him, hitting him in the face!

The Met (Metropolitan Police) has always had a reputation for being corrupt. Scotland Yard detectives are part of the Met.

In this case the police (Acott in particular) was able to ignore, alter or conceal, significant evidence that would have helped the Defence. He had no concrete prosecution evidence but relied on weak stories from very weak witnesses.

I believe that the jury were confused by it all. They were from Bedford and saw before them a cockney London 'wide-boy' whom they knew had a criminal record. When Hanratty changed his alibi, thereby admitting he had lied, they made their decision.

Hi Louisa,
I can understand your point of view here but most people believe that Michael Sherrard [not Sheridan btw] defended him expertly.Its true he was very young [33] to have such a case and its also true that Graham Swanwick was very expert and clever but Michael Sherrard talks at some length about how he tried to persuade Hanratty to have more experienced pleaders but Hanratty would have none of it.He felt safe with Sherrard and comfortable with him and that was that.
What he says,Sherrard ,is that there was hanky panky all the way through
from the switching of the trial from the Old Bailey where everybody thought
it would have been less emotionally loaded than in Bedford where it was more parochial and possibly likely to be prejudiced because it had happened there to all the shady witnesses being wheeled out,some key like Langdale who was a notorious police grass along with Nudds.
I think the stuff that leaves a bit of doubt for me about Michael Sherrard ,has to do with Rhyl witnesses.Yes,Mrs Jones was attacked quite viciously by Mr Swanwick and I guess Sherrard thought that if it could happen to Mrs Jones like that---reducing her testimony to tatters-how might Mr Larman,Mrs Walker Mrs Vincent cope who hadnt got the time right in the evening?In fact
Mrs Walker qualified her initial statement saying it was 7.30 by saying it was about 7.30 --- 'after the street lights came on' and that tells us it was not 7.30 but nearer 8.45 on 22 August.Don't forget she is remembering an event 6 months previously that until the trial she hadnt given any more thought too.Ditto Mrs Vincent and Mr Larman.
The defence in Bedford never knew of TRevor Dutton's statement to Abergele police on 9 February a week before the trial ended.They were up to their necks with papers and telephone calls and all they had was an address from one of their clerks of a Mr Dutton from Kinmel Bay---no other information and it was scrawled on the back of an envelope so it had been dismissed/ overlooked as being of no consequence by the sound of things.
Norma

[louisa]

Sherrard, yes, sorry for this error. It's been a few months since I read the books.

I still think that a top barrister could have swung the case in Hanratty's favour. It couldn't have turned out any worse.

Just the fact that very first notes about the murder - handwritten on the traffic Census form, had been 'lost' and then re-written by police should have been enough to declare it a mis-trial.

In those days juries believed the British police to be upholders of the law and above corruption.

[OneRound]

The problem was, One Round, that her English was not very good.She was an immigrant from Swizerland without a work permit [I think I have that right] so a bit vulnerable.Her husband couldn't speak English and she knew only a little and had to have an interpreter.
I am astonished myself that she was not called as a witness by neither the prosecution or the defence-after all her statement of 13th September,could,as you say,have been very helpful indeed to the defence.
But I suppose with Nudds being prepared to recall things in a way that was very 'helpful the police' -as he put it--- in his second statement,then her evidence looked as though it was a bit redundant.
BUt the big surprise for me was the bit about her saying she had seen a pair of black women's gloves on top of the dirty clothing in the suitcase.What made her say this if it was not true?
As for her statement of 6 SEptember I think that is perfectly understandable
as she was only making a statement 'on behalf of' staff-not quite the same thing as her 13th September statement.
I don't know what has happened to her---Bob Woffinden interviewed her around the time his book came out but thats all I know...
Norma

Thanks, Natalie. That's helpful.

I could understand Juliana Galves wanting to keep her head down around the time of the trial because of the ''immigration'' aspect. Also, not speaking English, she was probably daunted being ''a foreigner in a foreign land''.

However, those concerns - particularly the ''immigration one'' - would no longer have applied at the time of the 2002 Appeal nor in the years building up to it. The defence could also have easily arranged an interpreter for her.

You are absolutely right to flag the gloves. The apparent sighting of the gloves on Alphon's case should also have been important at the 2002 appeal and might have made a massive difference to the outcome.

Why did Ms Galves claim to have seen them?

If only because she was bullied and threatened into saying so by Acott, then his credibility and the police conduct throughout the whole investigation and trial is seriously undermined.

If because she did actually see the gloves there, then that by itself does not make Alphon the guilty man but it should put him further under the spotlight.

Whatever answer Ms Galves gave, it would have helped Hanratty's camp. Why wasn't the question asked?

Even if she had died by the time of the 2002 hearing, a sworn affadavit should have been obtained years before by Hanratty's legal team and presented to the Court.

As an aside, it was a massive owngoal at the 2002 hearing for Hanratty's legal team to concede (as the Court said in their judgment that they did) that Alphon on the basis of the DNA findings was not the murderer. If the DNA findings were unreliable as the Defence claimed, no one could have been ruled in or out of the murder. This aspect should have been clarified by Hanratty's legal team as soon as the judgment was delivered in 2002. As far as I am aware, they did not do so then and have never done so since.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Natalie Severn]

some excellent points you make here One Round.Yes I agree,I am baffled by the DNA concession...it just didnt follow the logic of the contamination issue---however slight it was thought to be surely it should have been inserted as a qualifier re any absolute exoneration of Alphon or-as you correctly say---anyone else for that matter.As has been shown LCN DNA testing is very dicey indeed on such fragments of cloth stored in non-sterile conditions.
And regarding Juliana Galves---spot on! Either way its very strange indeed
that more was not made of her statements.


On quite a different matter,I have been to Rhyl many times and in Summer
I went with JS Marilyn to South Kinmel Street and took photos.Looking at one of these recently I realised that the Ingledene B&B overlooks dirrectly into the back windows of the South Kinmel Street houses.
Hanratty claimed he did not need to draw the curtains because it was dark but for someone with a gold watch in his pocket burning a hole and other items of jewellery surely he would have wanted to take a peek when he got on his own and consider what to do with the jewellery -what to ask for it etc
Nobody really would enjoy others peering in at what he was doing from just yards away through brightly lit windows ,had Hanratty been staying in the back bedroom on the 22nd August.But if he had been put in the attic room as Mrs Jones and her daughter claimed [and since he remembered
that attic room well because of its green bath] then it makes perfect sense.He would not have needed to draw curtains or blinds because nobody would be overlooking him!
Best
Norma

[Limehouse]

It's odd how evidence about a pair of gloves pops up TWICE in this investigation. There is Mrs Galves stating she saw a pair of women's gloves on top of clothing in Alphon's suitcase (when Alphon was the suspect) and then we have Louise Anderson stating she had 'lost' a pair of gloves - 'possibly' after Hanratty had stayed at her place.

If Mrs Galves was working 'unlawfully' she could easily have had pressure put on her to 'recall' seeing the gloves. And of course, in Louise Anderson's case, stolen goods had been found on her premises - but she seems to have escaped charges.

It seems to me that the 'sightings' and 'recollections' of these gloves in both cases could well have been 'false memory'.

We know that Hanratty 'never wore gloves' by his own admission - and so of couse, his trade mark hanky had to be found with the weapon. But the killer DID wear gloves, and so gloves had to have been 'seen' or 'lost' just to add that little bit more weight to a shaky case.

[OneRound]

Hi Julie - if only Ms Galves had been asked in the build up to the 2002 appeal (or even before that) what caused her 'false memory', things might now be so different.

Regardless of how relevant her original statement was, if she had confirmed that the cause was bullying and threats from Acott then the police's conduct throughout the whole case would have been undermined and the original jury verdict might well have been declared 'unsafe'.

Moving on to an entirely unconnected question not suggesting anything underhand by the police or wildly speculative at all (unless for some reason you choose to interpret it that way).

We know the bus cleaner cleaner found the gun wrapped in a hanky.

At trial did he ever confirm the hanky being shown to the jury was the same hanky he found?

Best regards,

OneRound

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie - if only Ms Galves had been asked in the build up to the 2002 appeal (or even before that) what caused her 'false memory', things might now be so different.

Regardless of how relevant her original statement was, if she had confirmed that the cause was bullying and threats from Acott then the police's conduct throughout the whole case would have been undermined and the original jury verdict might well have been declared 'unsafe'.

Moving on to an entirely unconnected question not suggesting anything underhand by the police or wildly speculative at all (unless for some reason you choose to interpret it that way).

We know the bus cleaner cleaner found the gun wrapped in a hanky.

At trial did he ever confirm the hanky being shown to the jury was the same hanky he found?

Best regards,

OneRound

Hi OneRound,

Could Mrs Galves have been found in, or just prior to, 2002? Would her memory be as fresh after 40 years? Would she think it relevant if the memory of the gloves was 'false' given that the 'sighting' related to Alphon (who was cleared) and not Hanratty (who was convicted)? Would she have wanted to be dragged out of seclusion and identified as a relevant witness? We can but guess at the answers to these questions.

Regarding the hanky, it was not actually wrapped around the gun but resting on top of the gun and boxes of cartridges. I have no idea if the cleaner confirmed that it was the same hanky (and how would he, unless it had initials on it, which I doubt, because they would have been mentioned at the trial). What I do doubt is that Hanratty would have draped his own hanky over the gun when disposing of it and then calmly admitted that the hanky was his in court! What I also doubt is that he would have taken so much care during the crime, wearing gloves, wiping the gun clean of prints and so on - having walked away from a hotel room leaving behind TWO cartridge cases that had apparently been fired BEFORE the crime!

A very good evening to you.

Julie

[louisa]

Louise Anderson was a turncoat - a fairweather friend. She turned completely against Hanratty when Acott told her that she would be prosecuted for handling and selling stolen goods. I understand that her flat was awash with items from burglaries. She didn't just put the knife in to Hanratty - she twisted it as well.

As for Juliana Galves seeing gloves in Alphon's suitcase - surely she would have just seen a load of clothes in an open suitcase. I wouldn't have thought she would have taken much notice of the contents as they weren't meaningful at that time.

[OneRound]

As for Juliana Galves seeing gloves in Alphon's suitcase - surely she would have just seen a load of clothes in an open suitcase. I wouldn't have thought she would have taken much notice of the contents as they weren't meaningful at that time.

Agreed.

But why did she at one time state she did?

Best regards,

OneRound

[Natalie Severn]

Agreed.

But why did she at one time state she did?

Best regards,

OneRound

Yes,I think it is instructive in itself that she said so at one time.
If it wasn't true what made her say it was and why?

[OneRound]

Hi OneRound,

Could Mrs Galves have been found in, or just prior to, 2002? Would her memory be as fresh after 40 years? Would she think it relevant if the memory of the gloves was 'false' given that the 'sighting' related to Alphon (who was cleared) and not Hanratty (who was convicted)? Would she have wanted to be dragged out of seclusion and identified as a relevant witness? We can but guess at the answers to these questions.

Regarding the hanky, it was not actually wrapped around the gun but resting on top of the gun and boxes of cartridges. I have no idea if the cleaner confirmed that it was the same hanky (and how would he, unless it had initials on it, which I doubt, because they would have been mentioned at the trial). What I do doubt is that Hanratty would have draped his own hanky over the gun when disposing of it and then calmly admitted that the hanky was his in court! What I also doubt is that he would have taken so much care during the crime, wearing gloves, wiping the gun clean of prints and so on - having walked away from a hotel room leaving behind TWO cartridge cases that had apparently been fired BEFORE the crime!

A very good evening to you.

Julie

Hi Julie,

With regard to the first two questions in your opening para, Hanratty's legal team certainly should have tried to find her and hope her memory remained fresh. After all, Woffinden found her and she wasn't gaga then. I would not expect someone to forget key aspects of a police murder investigation that they were involved with albeit innocently.

Whether Ms Galves thought things 'relevant' is immaterial. It is what the Court of Appeal would have thought as to why she changed her statements that is so incredibly relevant. If she said it was because of intimidation from Acott that would have been a massive step towards quashing Hanratty's conviction.

She might not have wanted to be involved but she probably could have been made legally to do so.

I accept there are ''ifs, buts and don't knows'' concerning Ms Galves. My real point is that a determined effort should have been made by Hanratty's legal team years before the 2002 appeal to ask and obtain all answers from her. Although I obviously don't know what the answers would have been, I'm convinced they would have helped the Hanratty camp, either to a reasonable extent or quite possibly to a major extent.

In the unlikely event that she is still alive and mentally able, a solicitor should see her pronto with an affidavit!

I apologise for getting the positioning of the hanky as to the gun wrong. However, that didn't impact any point trying to be made. Put it this way:

1. The cleaner found a hanky on the bus. That same hanky was handed to the police.

2. In court, Hanratty confirmed a hanky being shown to the jury was his.

Do we know the two hankies were one and the same? They probably were but I would like to have something to back that up. Hanratty was able to identify the hanky as being one he owned. Why couldn't the cleaner identify the hanky as being the one he found? To be fair, perhaps he did. I would just like to be certain.

I remain baffled as to how Hanratty could identify the hanky in court as being his and, even though he did, why he should admit to it - other than being incredibly honest about something when it would clearly have been in his life's interest to lie.

As mentioned before, I find it very difficult to accept the hanky - when found -was monogrammed. If it had been, Acott would surely have told the press. I don't suppose the hanky became monogrammed some time after being found, do you?

Let me emphasise that the above question is pure speculation and is probably way off course. I would just like it to be definitively ruled out.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Natalie Severn]

Louisa,
...and in much the same vein,what made Louise Anderson change her statements [both at the time and] over the years until she finally had a story in The News of the Screws of Hanratty allegedly 'confessing' the murder to her the day afterit happened! None of which was known anyrthing about at the time ,not, in fact ,until louise dictated her story to the paper for a sizeable sum no doubt a good four years after the trial!
Cheers
Norma

[louisa]

What made Louise Anderson change her story? You answered the question already Natalie - it was money. Greed does things to people and Louise Anderson was a dishonest person anyway. She was caught with stolen goods in her possession and testifying against Hanratty was her only way out of avoiding a prison sentence. I presume her shop ceased trading once she was unable to buy and sell stolen goods so she would have been desperate for money - hence her story to the News of the World. She probably told the reporters everything they wanted to hear - with as much embellishment as she could dream up.

She hated Hanratty by this time. By trying to save himself (and telling the truth) he dropped her right in it.