A6 Rebooted

[Spitfire]

Hi Spitfire,

That's very compelling.

I'm not saying you have changed tack but in a few of your recent posts you do appear more to the view that Hanratty got a raw deal at trial. Fair comment?

Best regards,

OneRound

Hi OneRound,

As he ended up being hanged it is fair to say that things could have gone better for Hanratty.

On the information available at the 1962 trial, I would have been inclined to say that there was not strong enough evidence to convict, but the jury were present in court and they are the ones that matter.

As to a raw deal, he had competent counsel and a sympathetic judge, he was not verballed to any real extent by Acott. Although folk have criticised the jury, they did at least spend some considerable time considering their verdict and they must have agonised to a degree over their verdict. It can't be pleasant deciding whether a man should forfeit his life.

Hanratty also had the dubious privilege of being able to ambush the prosecution with his new alibi which he would not be allowed to do today. I say dubious, as it may well have been better for Hanratty to stay in the dock, not give evidence and rely on his alibi as recounted to Acott (and to an extent supported by Mrs Dinwoodie). And to a great extent Hanratty in changing his alibi was the author of his own misfortune. If he had not then Hanratty, the murderer, would have been found not guilty and who would then have had the raw deal?

S.

[Derrick]

Hi OneRound,

As he ended up being hanged it is fair to say that things could have gone better for Hanratty.

On the information available at the 1962 trial, I would have been inclined to say that there was not strong enough evidence to convict, but the jury were present in court and they are the ones that matter.

As to a raw deal, he had competent counsel and a sympathetic judge, he was not verballed to any real extent by Acott. Although folk have criticised the jury, they did at least spend some considerable time considering their verdict and they must have agonised to a degree over their verdict. It can't be pleasant deciding whether a man should forfeit his life.

Hanratty also had the dubious privilege of being able to ambush the prosecution with his new alibi which he would not be allowed to do today. I say dubious, as it may well have been better for Hanratty to stay in the dock, not give evidence and rely on his alibi as recounted to Acott (and to an extent supported by Mrs Dinwoodie). And to a great extent Hanratty in changing his alibi was the author of his own misfortune. If he had not then Hanratty, the murderer, would have been found not guilty and who would then have had the raw deal?

S.

I've read fewer better arguments for capital punishment staying off of the statute book.

Del

[Derrick]

...Hanratty also had the dubious privilege of being able to ambush the prosecution with his new alibi which he would not be allowed to do today...

If you knew anything about the case Spitfire you would have realised that the prosecution actually ambushed the defence first.

That was over the evidence of Roy Langdale.

So let us not get too precious of the ground over which we stand. (anon)

HTH
Del

[Spitfire]

If you knew anything about the case Spitfire you would have realised that the prosecution actually ambushed the defence first.

That's told me.

[moste]

Sherrard asked Acott: “If you really rely on the description given by Miss Storie, how could you have begun to think that this [Alphon] was the man whom you should interview in connection with the murder?”

Acott answered that Alphon had to be interviewed to be eliminated. But why did he make a public appeal for Alphon naming him as the suspect and then visit Storie? The police knew about Alphon’s parents and his almanac supplier. They could have traced and interviewed him without fuss.

Could this have been the classical 'catch the real killer off guard ploy' but then the identikit drawing is such a good attempt to capture Alphons caricature , it's a real puzzle!

[moste]

Gregsten was always in a financial mess.

This was to be the house Gregsten was moving into on the Sat 26th of Aug. Where would his money be coming from? he had already sold his green Morris 1000 in March to make ends meet. Janet had sold his beloved piano. He had just forked out for a weeks holiday in Swanage Dorset and driven 500 miles the double round trip, because he wanted to paint the flat at Sabine House mid week. He was leaving his wife and family but wanted to make sure the flat wasn't in need of decorating? All very very odd.

[NickB]

I thought he was just renting a flat here, and this was the flat that he came back to paint in preparation for moving in.

[Alfie]

The judge's summing up

Just came across this in Russell (pp. 164-5):

"There were, therefore, three witnesses, two of whom were the witnesses upon whose evidence the Crown principally relied and all of whom were able to see this man [Michael Clark] under more or less ideal conditions with ample time for careful observation. All three were either in conflict or unable to recall the necessary details. It was this state of affairs that led Mr Justice Gorman to say to the jury: ‘Supposing there had been no evidence on 24th September that would have exonerated the man who was picked out by Miss Storie on that date, how tragic the consequences might have been for someone else’."

Is Gorman saying what I think he is ... that if Clark hadn't had an alibi for the night of August 22nd he could have ended up in the dock instead of Hanratty? Surely not!

[ansonman]

12 non angry man

Hi Spitfire,

That's very compelling.

I'm not saying you have changed tack but in a few of your recent posts you do appear more to the view that Hanratty got a raw deal at trial. Fair comment?

Best regards,

OneRound

As ever OneRound, you are polite to the point of understatement.

Some time ago (I can't be bothered to go back to check when) I asked if any contributors to this thread would find Hanratty guilty, knowing that to do so would see him hang. I had several responses, including from your goodself.

Only one said he would have found Hanratty guilty and that was Spitfire. I remember thinking at the time that although I could not disagree with him more, I admired his honesty.

Today, Spitfire says "On the information available at the 1962 trial, I would have been inclined to say that there was not strong enough evidence to convict".

Everyone is entitled to change their minds, especially where a mans life is at stake. I am glad to assume that there is not one person on this thread who would find Hanratty guilty as charged on the evidence (or lack of same) available.

Ansonman

[Spitfire]

I should like to ask a question, if I may.

Spitfire excluded, is there anyone on this thread who, as a member of the jury, would have found Hanratty guilty as charged, knowing what we know today and knowing that a guilty verdict would send him to the scaffold?

Ansonman

Well I could be bothered to look it up, and I don't think I replied directly.

[Spitfire]

Without seeing and hearing all the evidence one cannot say how one would have voted if one had been on the jury.

It seems that the trial judge summed up indicating that an acquittal would be a reasonable and sensible verdict. The eleven man jury disagreed and convicted.

The trial did not feature Mr Larman and Mesdames Vincent and Walker's evidence. Would they have made a difference? Sherrard chose not to call them for the 1962 appeal, so presumably he thought not.

The trial did not have the DNA evidence which in the first instance was sought to be introduced by pro-Hanratty campaigners. It was only when it seemed that this evidence would tell against their man was any exception taken to it. Had this DNA evidence exculpated Hanratty, then I would have accepted it. As it presently stands, the DNA exculpates everyone including Alphon but inculpates Hanratty.

I think Mike Sherrard probably got it right when addressing Law Society students he said, "The wrong man was not hanged. That was an immense relief to me." and "The evidence was too weak to justify conviction. I still hold that view."

But the above is what I posted the following day.

[moste]

I thought he was just renting a flat here, and this was the flat that he came back to paint in preparation for moving in.

I thought that too, then on seeing the house, I thought again, since it looks to be a private family home, Its not likely that the room(s)he would be living in would need any work doing. I know these days its commonplace to see what used to be beautiful homes bastardised and turned into multiple flats, but not the case in this era , you may be right though, still, extra outlay he could ill afford.

[Pcdunn]

Single family home??

This was to be the house Gregsten was moving into on the Sat 26th of Aug. Where would his money be coming from? he had already sold his green Morris 1000 in March to make ends meet. Janet had sold his beloved piano. He had just forked out for a weeks holiday in Swanage Dorset and driven 500 miles the double round trip, because he wanted to paint the flat at Sabine House mid week. He was leaving his wife and family but wanted to make sure the flat wasn't in need of decorating? All very very odd.

I don't know. At first glance, it looks to me like what we call duplexes -- two apartments side by side with identical doors on either side. In this case they could have divided the house from top to bottom (down the middle), with stairs perhaps under the center archway. Gregsten refers to a "flat", doesn't he? Maybe it is only one half of the house.

If you had the house's address, you could look online for descriptions of this structure and see if it indicates whether it is a single-family or a multi-family residence.

[cobalt]

Spitfire,

You are normally very fair in your assessments, but you must be aware that the statement attributed to Sherrard : 'The wrong man was not hanged' has been effectively discredited on this site.

Why would he have voiced this opinion to Law Society students but not ventilated it further afield? Check the source.

[Graham]

but you must be aware that the statement attributed to Sherrard : 'The wrong man was not hanged' has been effectively discredited on this site.

No it hasn't. Ask Alexander Baron.

G