A6 Rebooted

[cobalt]

‘Following that and the resulting conviction, it's hard to disagree with Caz that there was then no obligation on the State to dig out and show any photos they might hold. '

OR,
No obligation? You cannot be serious. From a taxpayer’s point of view the State has paid for three inquiries and a subsequent review so they have an obligation on that front alone. The photo could have saved everyone a whole lot of time and trouble.

The State also had an obligation to Valerie Storie who was the victim of the crime. If she identified someone very similar in appearance to James Hanratty at the first ID parade then what you described as a ‘misidentification’ becomes very understandable and bolsters the guilty verdict.

I have already referred to the State’s obligation to seeing that justice is, and has, been done.

By the way, they don’t have to ‘dig out’ the photos. They had them to hand at the time and there is no ‘might’ about it. He had a passport photo and almost certainly an armed services photo. These photos, like the Matthews Report, have been suppressed for a reason.

[moste]

If Mathews Ups and Dies ( with all due respect) without releasing the information that the government clearly are not going to cooperate with, I for one will be ..well , frankly gutted.

[moste]

I have it on good authority Ansonman that Roger Matthews was very ill in hospital several weeks ago, I know nothing more than that at present.

Certainly sad to hear. ‘Should never have been charged’ I too have always thought that the powers that be would have literally shriveled inwardly when that was released into the public domain. An extremely damning turn of phrase for the original puppets.

[OneRound]

My assumption is very reasonable from a political perspective.

The A6 Case has been a thorn in the side of the legal establishment since 1962 and there have been at least three official enquiries- Nimmo, Hawser and Matthews- in addition to the CCRC judgment. That is a lot of time and money but it was spent to shore up the case against Hanratty specifically and more importantly to sustain public confidence in the judicial system.

Had Michael Clark borne any resemblance to James Hanratty then the ID made by Valerie Storie- very much the corner stone of the prosecution case – would have been immeasurably strengthened. It was would have saved a lot of time and money and quelled disquiet.

Now we can be sure that contemporary photographs of Michael Clark existed and probably still do exist. He served in the armed forces I think and also would have required a passport photo. There is no need to go trawling through his family photograph album: the State already holds copyright on two of his photos. Do you really believe it is credible that the State would not have made these photos available, through whatever channels, if the photos strengthened the case against Hanratty?

Hi cobalt - I think we can agree there would be far less need for photographs had Clark appeared at the trial.

As moste has regularly queried, why didn't Sherrard push for this to happen?

My take is that it was down to Sherrard's inexperience and nothing more. However, if we accept your post and assumption doubting that Clark bore any resemblance to Hanratty, Sherrard's failure to successfully demand his appearance was certainly a lucky break for the Prosecution.

Following that and the resulting conviction, it's hard to disagree with Caz that there was then no obligation on the State to dig out and show any photos they might hold. I do not say that easily as I consider that Valerie Storie's mis-identification of Clark was a significant weakness in her evidence and the case against Hanratty.

Best regards,
OneRound

[ansonman]

I am very sorry to hear that Sherlock.

What I found particularly interesting in the comment I quoted was the part that went "he should never even have been charged". That to me seems an odd thing to say. One could imagine Matthews saying something like "he should never have been hanged" or "he was not guilty of the murder" but "he should never even have been charged" seems most intriguing. All the more so because Matthews must have carried out the most thorough of investigations during the 18 months it took him and his team of 20 to complete it. I think it's fair to assume that he and his team would have left no stone unturned and that he had access to every piece of evidence that featured in the case. Add the fact that it was commissioned by Scotland Yard, for submission to the Home Secretary and that at least one national newspaper was tipped off that the report concluded Hanratty's innocence and you have a fascinating mix.

One can only imagine Matthew's frustration at his findings being rejected. I wonder if he shared his thoughts with many others outside the investigating team?

Hanratty: the truth at last? | The Independent | The Independent