A6 Rebooted

[Derrick]

Hi Caz

Since these witnesses were not used, how can you know that the defence team would have had nothing to lose had they done so? It stands to reason that they were not used because it was felt - rightly or wrongly - that it would do Hanratty more harm than good. It's for you to try and fathom why that might have been. Short of the defence team having some collective mental block about what their brief was, it appears that the Rhyl witnesses were considered to be as much good to Hanratty as a chocolate file in a fruit cake.

On what other basis, other than the other Rhyl witnesses, at the time of the appeal could Hanratty's team have used for fresh evidence? He was going to die anyway so what did he have to lose? I don't understand your argument one bit! His only other chance was a plea for clemency, which the barbarous bastards at the time turned down, knowing full well that further investigations could have been made.

It wasn't until some 30 years later that the majority of the now known undisclosed material came to public awareness. This was all available to the Crown at the time of Hanratty's state murder.

Yes, and there's the rub. Nobody in Rhyl could have known, much less proved, that they had seen or spoken to 'the' Hanratty, and at the crucial time, if he would have given a false name or no name at all (and they presumably didn't ask for one, or remember what he answered), and all they were given many months down the line was one photo of the man on trial to see if his face rang a bell with them.

You have totally missed the point. It wasn't just a case of people nodding in agreement when a picture was thrust under their noses.

Between them they corroborated Hanratty's own account of his time in Rhyl on those 2 days. Some, Dutton for instance, obviously remembered things better than Hanratty did.

Anyone can chip away at individual aspects of it (you can do this with any account by anyone of any event in the history of mankind) but overall the combined testimony of the Rhyl witnesses is to me compelling evidence. From what has been produced since the original case I stick by this as Foot did. Hang Foot and me together if you like.

This is what's nonsense, Derrick. With the best will in the world they could have shown that photo to a hundred people and a goodly proportion would have believed they had seen the man some months previously, especially if they had any idea why it was so important to think back. That's not me confusing them with 'scum', Derrick; it's me equating them with human beings who think they are doing the right thing, but are not actually endowed with superpowers of recollection.

You still don't get it do you? Those that came forward corrobated Hanratty and each other. It wasn't a case of a free for all to see who could identify Hanratty better than the next person. You make little sense here if any at all.

If Valerie is meant to have been mistaken when she 'recognised' Hanratty and his voice in the second line-up, shortly after being stuck for hours in a tiny car with her rapist, then left alive and alone on the roadside, to relive the worst night of her life mentally and force herself to retain as much detail of her ordeal as possible, how the heck can you be remotely confident that the Rhyl witnesses were not mistaken about a photo of a stranger who may or may not have crossed their paths on a specific day many months previously: a brief and insignificant encounter on an ordinary day in their lives, with no particular reason to remember either the man or the date?

Valerie Storie only had one glimpse of the killer. That was in the back of the car when she didn't have her glasses on. Even if one is to believe that she did see the killer when she was wearing her glasses then it was, to her admission for a "second or two". The vocal identification excludes other suspects on the first parade who if asked to speak may have made Ms Storie pick someone other than Clark.

All in all, with all we know now, Ms Storie's identikit picture, parade picks, statements and testimony don't make her a very convincing eyewitness as far as I'm concerned.

I would always take the eyewitness testimony of a disinterested party above that of those directly involved for obvious reasons of emotion, shock etc. The Adolf Beck case which lead to the founding of the Court Of Appeal backs up this supposition. Denning said much the same after the Maxwell Confait debacle in the '70's.

There is no comparison between the two situations, yet you conclude that the victim herself screwed up, sending an innocent man to the gallows, while the Rhyl witnesses must have been totally reliable. A far cry then from the likes of Long, Schwartz, Lawende, Hutchinson and Maxwell - witnesses who made themselves part of another infamous murder case and may have seen nothing or very little.

I believe the Rhyl witnesses because they corroborate Hanratty's alibi. I don't believe Ms Stories eyewitness testimony because she was, fundamentally, unable to identify the killer from first principles, that is she didn't know what he looked like. That is about as simple as I or anyone can put it.

Derrick

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma
You have made some excellent points but you are wrong here. Bad character evidence is now allowed, which in my opinion is quite outrageous.

Thanks for pointing that out Derrick.I remembered as soon as I saw your post....what a scandal that it though,that its now allowed.
Cheers,
Norma

[caz]

To be fair, if every wannabe crook now knows this is the case, it becomes their own silly fault if they offend today and don't wish it to go against them in the future.

And for those who offended in the past, thinking the law would always play ball and keep it from a future jury, more fool them. Who's the ass?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

So the original error,that cost Hanratty his life,was the belief and acceptance by the crown,that Acott, Swanwick and the prosecution had "proved guilt"beyond reasonable doubt.They had not and we would not be arguing here today if they had and any fool would have seen that they hadn"t.

Cheers, Nats.

I'm out of here.

I'm not going to be your fool any longer.

Hanratty cost himself his own life by not coming up with Rhyl when it might have had a chance of saving his neck. He may not have been Brain of Britain but he wasn't mentally ill either.

First you insist his alibi was sound, then you insist he didn't actually need one, sound or otherwise. Well if he'd had a sound one, he'd have been a prize idiot not to use it in the first place as his get out of jail free card. That's how genuine alibis work. And it doesn't get much simpler than that.

Caz
X

[Black Rabbit]

Hi Caz

It wasn't until some 30 years later that the majority of the now known undisclosed material came to public awareness. This was all available to the Crown at the time of Hanratty's state murder.


Anyone can chip away at individual aspects of it (you can do this with any account by anyone of any event in the history of mankind) but overall the combined testimony of the Rhyl witnesses is to me compelling evidence. From what has been produced since the original case I stick by this as Foot did. Hang Foot and me together if you like.


You still don't get it do you? Those that came forward corrobated Hanratty and each other. It wasn't a case of a free for all to see who could identify Hanratty better than the next person. You make little sense here if any at all.


Valerie Storie only had one glimpse of the killer. That was in the back of the car when she didn't have her glasses on. Even if one is to believe that she did see the killer when she was wearing her glasses then it was, to her admission for a "second or two". The vocal identification excludes other suspects on the first parade who if asked to speak may have made Ms Storie pick someone other than Clark.

All in all, with all we know now, Ms Storie's identikit picture, parade picks, statements and testimony don't make her a very convincing eyewitness as far as I'm concerned.

I would always take the eyewitness testimony of a disinterested party above that of those directly involved for obvious reasons of emotion, shock etc. The Adolf Beck case which lead to the founding of the Court Of Appeal backs up this supposition. Denning said much the same after the Maxwell Confait debacle in the '70's.


I believe the Rhyl witnesses because they corroborate Hanratty's alibi. I don't believe Ms Stories eyewitness testimony because she was, fundamentally, unable to identify the killer from first principles, that is she didn't know what he looked like. That is about as simple as I or anyone can put it.
Derrick

Excellently put Sir! I wholeheartedly concur

[caz]

On what other basis, other than the other Rhyl witnesses, at the time of the appeal could Hanratty's team have used for fresh evidence? He was going to die anyway so what did he have to lose? I don't understand your argument one bit!

Hi Derrick,

Before I take my leave, what do you mean by: 'other than the other Rhyl witnesses'? I thought your argument was that these very witnesses would have provided the 'fresh evidence' that could have proved pivotal and stopped the hangman in his evil tracks. You said the defence team had nothing to lose at that point, and yet they decided not even to try, so I can only conclude that those witnesses were considered an even worse bet than praying or crossing their fingers.

Look, everything that your Rhyl witnesses 'remembered' would have happened over and over again on an almost daily basis in a typical early 60s high summer, involving any number of young males, some of whom would have resembled that photo. With no name, no confirmatory paperwork and no uniquely distinguishing feature of Hanratty's alleged stay (for instance, sharing a memorable joke, buying a distinctive souvenir - now that might have fit the definition of 'compelling'), that would have made him more likely than anyone else to be the man they were thinking of, it could have been virtually anyone.

No, Derrick, you still don't get it. Do you honestly imagine that any of us would be here now, if a single one of the Rhyl (or Liverpool witnesses) had ever independently provided an account that matched Hanratty's sufficiently well to put him that far from the crime scene beyond reasonable doubt? If that had been the case, how incompetent are you making Foot and co appear for their failure to right such a wrong years ago with a single paragraph in a newspaper?

All in all, with all we know now, Ms Storie's identikit picture, parade picks, statements and testimony don't make her a very convincing eyewitness as far as I'm concerned.

The DNA evidence makes her a completely sound witness, as far as the last appeal judgement was concerned. Good luck in convincing enough people otherwise, but I think you'll need some pretty stunning 'fresh evidence' for that. Rhyl has been drained and found lacking in that department. What you 'believe' is not fresh evidence, it's not even stale old evidence. It's a stale old belief that is taking you nowhere.

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalie Severn
So the original error,that cost Hanratty his life,was the belief and acceptance by the crown,that Acott, Swanwick and the prosecution had "proved guilt"beyond reasonable doubt.They had not and we would not be arguing here today if they had and any fool would have seen that they hadn"t.

Caz wrote:
Cheers, Nats.

I'm out of here.

I'm not going to be your fool any longer.

Caz,
When I wrote this,I was trying to avoid repeating the statement repeated over and over again,that the Bedfordshire Jury were "dim".I was referring to the original flawed trial,to the degree of doubt signified by the jury needing,after six hours pondering to return not with a verdict but with a request for further guidance from the judge:"May we have a further statement from you regarding the definition of reasonable doubt?" Must we be certain and sure of a prisoner"s guilt to return a verdict?
David Lines,Under Sherriff of Bedfordshire,and present at Hanratty"s execution ,felt that for a jury to even ask such a question was particularly telling: "To me,as a lawyer, it meant they clearly were not sure"
The judge clearly thought along similar lines:"If you have a reasonable doubt,then you are not sure.You understand that,do you not?

The jury asked a further question about the cartridge cases.The Judge told them:
"Those cartridge cases,it is said,were left before 24 August.They were not found until 11 September.You have heard thjat another person used that room,that there were other people in that hotel,that there was a way outside from this bedroom,and you must not jump to the conclusion that the mere finding of those cartridge cases there denotes that they were left there by the prisoner".



The jury then went away and came back after another 5 hours---after a request for tea and sandwiches --with the verdict of guilty.Was it the passage of the hours that brought on the certainty or was it their failure to follow the subject matter of the case , grasp its anomalies and inconsistencies and analyse it as a whole? Put simply was it their stupidity,was it prejudice, or, were they,perhaps,through no fault of their own, just a bit thick?

But hey,Caz, please don"t think I meant you to be any kind of fool,fool you most definitely are not and all your posts, both here and in general on the boards are greatly appreciated by me at any rate,[and I am sure by many others] as they bring a lot of bright mindedness, astuteness and vim to any debate,
Best,
Norma
x
ps,just in case Black Rabbit now thinks I am joining in with Ron"s mantra about Bedfordshire people being dim,I am not,let me be quite clear,I am referring solely to how this jury came by a verdict of guilty when they were very clearly uncertain and did therefore,have "reasonable doubt" about their verdict.

[Derrick]

Hi Caz

Before I take my leave.....

Sorry to see you go. You'll be back some time I'm sure. Although hasn't a good looking chick like you got anything better to do than argue the toss with this band of sad losers?

...what do you mean by: 'other than the other Rhyl witnesses'? I thought your argument was that these very witnesses would have provided the 'fresh evidence' that could have proved pivotal and stopped the hangman in his evil tracks. You said the defence team had nothing to lose at that point, and yet they decided not even to try, so I can only conclude that those witnesses were considered an even worse bet than praying or crossing their fingers.

My own belief on this is that Kleinmann, as instructing solicitor didn't brief Sherrard satisfactorily over the Rhyl witness statements because of his own basic ineptitude and lack of understanding of the case. It happens, to quote a phrase from your good self.

Look, everything that your Rhyl witnesses 'remembered' would have happened over and over again on an almost daily basis in a typical early 60s high summer, involving any number of young males, some of whom would have resembled that photo. With no name, no confirmatory paperwork and no uniquely distinguishing feature of Hanratty's alleged stay (for instance, sharing a memorable joke, buying a distinctive souvenir - now that might have fit the definition of 'compelling'), that would have made him more likely than anyone else to be the man they were thinking of, it could have been virtually anyone.

Hanratty described Ingledenes relative position to the train tracks, its back room and rear courtyard accurately. He mentioned asking a dozen or so people for digs, one of which had a big dog. The man who stayed at Ingledene was the same one who Mrs Walker saw, and she was sure of the date. She was backed up Mrs Vincent and Mrs Davies. Larman and Dutton add additional weight with the hair condition and the offer of a watch for sale. All on the same two days and no other ones that summer.

If an alibi has to come down to signing a register, buying a tacky souvenir or cracking jokes then good help any defendant putting up an alibi defence.

No, Derrick, you still don't get it. Do you honestly imagine that any of us would be here now, if a single one of the Rhyl (or Liverpool witnesses) had ever independently provided an account that matched Hanratty's sufficiently well to put him that far from the crime scene beyond reasonable doubt? If that had been the case, how incompetent are you making Foot and co appear for their failure to right such a wrong years ago with a single paragraph in a newspaper?

You still can't get over the fact that none, or very few, alibi's are corroborated by people coming forward independently. When defendants rely on an alibi defence the police follow it up with enquires. In this case all of the Rhyl statements were witheld from the defence until the end of the trial. The defence do what they can on limited resources. The plod knew that Hanratty was in Rhyl on the night of the murder. The CCRC investigation in 1997 found the same.

The DNA evidence makes her a completely sound witness, as far as the last appeal judgement was concerned. Good luck in convincing enough people otherwise, but I think you'll need some pretty stunning 'fresh evidence' for that. Rhyl has been drained and found lacking in that department. What you 'believe' is not fresh evidence, it's not even stale old evidence. It's a stale old belief that is taking you nowhere.

As far as the DNA evidence and the appeal judgement is concerned, I wouldn't wipe my backside on it. I hope that helps clarify my position should there be any doubt.

Derrick

[Natalie Severn]

As far as the DNA evidence and the appeal judgement is concerned, I wouldn't wipe my backside on it. I hope that helps clarify my position should there be any doubt.

Derrick

You would be hard put to make it any clearer than that Derrick

[caz]

Although hasn't a good looking chick like you got anything better to do than argue the toss with this band of sad losers?

There's no answer to that, Derrick. Or at least, I can't think of one.

The plod knew that Hanratty was in Rhyl on the night of the murder.

If that were the case, and you could have proved it with your first post here (and done what Foot and co completely failed to do during years of campaigning), you would now have something better to do than argue the toss.

The only 'sad loser' up the A6 remains Hanratty, until you can come to his rescue with something a bit more solid and helpful than 'the plod knew'.

Luckily the DNA evidence and appeal judgement are out of reach of your unwiped backside, but yes, you have clarified your position beyond what I really wanted to know. I hope you have plenty of newspaper on the hook - the Daily Mail preferably - and do ask the next one in to "give it a few minutes".

Love,

Caz
X

[Derrick]

Hi Caz

There's no answer to that, Derrick. Or at least, I can't think of one.

I told you that you would be back...you just can't leave it alone can you you foxy minx?

If that were the case, and you could have proved it with your first post here (and done what Foot and co completely failed to do during years of campaigning), you would now have something better to do than argue the toss.

I am still here, you were the one who said that they were leaving!

The only 'sad loser' up the A6 remains Hanratty, until you can come to his rescue with something a bit more solid and helpful than 'the plod knew'.

Chief Super Baden Skitt of Herts Plod and chief investigator for the CCRC on the Hanratty case told the Hanratty family that James Hanratty was innocent. He was plod and the plod at the time knew the same.

Luckily the DNA evidence and appeal judgement are out of reach of your unwiped backside, but yes, you have clarified your position beyond what I really wanted to know. I hope you have plenty of newspaper on the hook - the Daily Mail preferably - and do ask the next one in to "give it a few minutes".

My bum is as pristine as anyones dear. I printed the appeal on 80gms paper and that hurts darling although I'm buying laser printable Andrex next time from eBum!

Derrick

[caz]

...you just can't leave it alone can you you foxy minx?

Foxy minx, Derrick old sport? I haven't been called one of those for quite a while. Takes me back!

I am still here, you were the one who said that they were leaving!

Ah, but it's every foxy minx's prerogative to change her mind. And of course I could keep popping in and out until hell freezes over and Hanratty's conviction will still be officially safe and sound. You are still here presumably because you have yet to make the slightest difference to this verdict.

Chief Super Baden Skitt of Herts Plod and chief investigator for the CCRC on the Hanratty case told the Hanratty family that James Hanratty was innocent. He was plod and the plod at the time knew the same.

So the Hanratty family needed telling? That's telling.

A pity the plod's communication skills didn't extend to telling Hanratty's defenders at the time of the 2002 appeal.

My bum is as pristine as anyones dear. I printed the appeal on 80gms paper and that hurts darling although I'm buying laser printable Andrex next time from eBum!

Too much information!

But none to show that Hanratty was in Rhyl (and evidently would rather have died - quite literally - than admit it).

Oh well, carry on wiping.

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

Bottoms up I say!

[Natalie Severn]

Too much information!

But none to show that Hanratty was in Rhyl

You can only make a statement like this Caz,by discrediting everything all eleven people in Rhyl said they saw.
I do realise that truth and belief in justice - fled from the scene the moment the Bedfordshire jury ,on February 17th 1962,totally flouted the rules pertaining to a verdict of guilt.After all they had had to twice seek guidance during their decision making about their doubts about the guilt of the accused to Judge Gorman and were told ,unequivocally, by Judge Gorman, that if they had such reasonable doubt --then [it stands to reason] they were not sure .

Therefore,had they had any real collective integrity, [or was it more to do with a collective misinterpretation of the rules of court ?] Hanratty should have been acquitted--according to those same rules of court.But they appear to have ignored the advice of the judge, suppressed their doubts about Hanratty"s guilt and collectively agreed upon a guilty verdict-after eleven hours of indecision.
Since then we have had Hawser doing somersaults with the truth---mostly by preferring to believe gangsters such as Nudds and Langdale,over the evidence of five B&B landladies ,Mrs Jones [and her daughter Brenda Harris] from Ingledene ,Kinmel Street and four other B&B landladies from South Kinmel Street where a young man who looked very like Hanratty had gone knocking on their doors late on the evening of Tuesday 22nd August 1961.Likewise all subsequent attempts to deal fairly and squarely with the new evidence at appeal----until ,that is, we were told there was a pile of Hanratty"s DNA on the hanky kept in a drawer at Bedfordshire police station for 40 years and on a tiny piece of forty year old knicker that been kept wrapped in [porous] cellophane and a brown paper envelope in a police lab---along with a broken vial that could have contained a wash of Hanratty"s seminal fluid.HA! HA! HA!You are joking?
There is ,in point of fact ,Caz, plenty of information from Rhyl people who made statements about a young male they saw who they believed was Hanratty who came knocking on their doors in Rhyl ,late on 22nd August 1961.

But it would never do for appeal judges in this case to believe for one moment the words of those witnesses from Rhyl would it? The entire case would have fallen apart.
In fact it is clearly very easy for appeals to gloss over or even omit in entirety-as it did in this case on every occasion, some of the inconsistencies and anomolies in the evidence .For example,the contradictory statement by Paddy Hogan about his pal Trower"s fantasies; the contradiction by Blackhall of Skillet"s evidence-adding that the man he saw,at the same time,and from a closer view-point looked nothing like Hanratty to the damning evidence of Valerie"s potentially fatal but certain indentification of Michael Clark, as her rapist and Gregsten"s killer-in the first instance that is.
The truth got hidden away ,Caz, long, long before, under layers of lies and half-truths,as did the testimony of every single witness for the defence from Rhyl or Liverpool or Euston Railway Station.

What I would dearly love is for someone to explain how it was that the jury were able to get away with a verdict like that after a trial so flawed it couldn"t even provide one jot of real evidence to link Hanratty to the crime---the murder car had not one hair, finger print, blood stain or seminal stain to link the crime to Hanratty! Not one jot!
You may come back with Valerie"s identification.But Valerie first identified Michael Clark as her rapist so how to account for that?
Norma
x

[caz]

Doubts and certainties

You can only make a statement like this Caz,by discrediting everything all eleven people in Rhyl said they saw.

I don't have to do any 'discrediting', Nats, because Hanratty's defence did that for me! Work it out for yourself. It needed only one reliable account from a Rhyl direction to be presented at either appeal and we wouldn't be here now.

The jury, assuming they had the requisite number of brain cells for coherent thought, would have weighed up the pros and cons and concluded that an innocent man who valued his life one iota would, beyond a shadow of a doubt, have mentioned an innocent overnight stay in Rhyl before he was even stuck in front of a woman he was suspected of raping two hundred miles away. So it's a red herring to keep insisting they had doubts about his guilt but sent him to his death anyway, just for jolly. That would be a terrible accusation to make if it were not patently false. There is no accounting for Hanratty introducing Rhyl at that late stage of his ordeal - unless it was a fabrication.

...a trial so flawed it couldn"t even provide one jot of real evidence to link Hanratty to the crime---the murder car had not one hair, finger print, blood stain or seminal stain to link the crime to Hanratty! Not one jot!

And what about your conclusion that Alphon was involved? How flawed must that be, considering you can't even provide a potential trace of Alphon DNA, anywhere at all in relation to this crime? Valerie was given the chance to identify Alphon before she was confronted with Hanratty. But she picked a volunteer because she clearly didn't know Alphon from Adam, and would arguably have been more fearful of not picking anyone out, in the event that the police had managed to find her rapist for that first line-up, than picking one of the innocent volunteers, who were obviously never in any danger, in the event that the real culprit was absent.

With the best will in the world she could not possibly pick out the right man unless the police could find him and present him to her - which would account for her failure to do so at that first parade and her certainty that he was present at the second.

Alphon, as a viable alternative, is a complete non-starter using logic alone. Think about it. By demanding stronger evidence against Hanratty than victim id, his unfeasibly late alibi change and his DNA on the hanky holding the murder weapon, which matched that on the rape victim's underwear and his own bodily remains, don't you see that you set yourself up every time you claim even the beginnings of a case against Alphon? If you think the A6 jury must have had doubts and should have acquitted, the same thing applies with knobs on to you and Alphon. If you had applied exactly the same evidential criteria to both men, with a cool and dispassionate eye, you'd have had no choice but to presume Alphon innocent. That's what real justice is based on, not faith or emotion, or subjectively championing the perceived 'underdog'.

Look again at your 'evidence' for Alphon's involvement. Would you have been remotely satisfied to see Hanratty tried and convicted on nothing stronger than that?

Have a good weekend.

Love,

Caz
X