A6 Rebooted

[ansonman]

The Matthews Report is now available at https://discovery.nationalarchives.g...ls/r/C20846951

Many thanks indeed for the update.

It’s not the report but rather a briefing note that commences at page 35. Presumably the previous pages comprise the report. Nonetheless, it’s fascinating and you deserve much recognition for having obtained it.

l downloaded it earlier today for free. Essentially, Matthews concludes that Hanratty’s conviction was unsafe and recommendeds that the case be referred to the Court of Appeal. He doesn’t say who he thinks committed the murder but says that the case against Alphon was much greater than the case against Hanratty.

What stands out for me, and which l was unaware of, is the ID parade in which Storie eventually identified Hanratty. Matthew’s makes the following observation:

”It would appear that his (Hanratty) was the only London accent among members of the parade”.

Unbelievable.

Thanks again djw.

Ansonman

[djw]

I think 35 is the page numbering applied by the National Archives (or someone other than Matthews). You can see on page 45, Matthews refers to the outset of the paper where he suggests referring the case to the Court of Appeal which is on page 35. The National Archives held the Appeal documents in several batches and the Matthews report was held within a batch of the appeal.

[OneRound]

Many thanks indeed for the update.

It’s not the report but rather a briefing note that commences at page 35. Presumably the previous pages comprise the report. Nonetheless, it’s fascinating and you deserve much recognition for having obtained it.

l downloaded it earlier today for free. Essentially, Matthews concludes that Hanratty’s conviction was unsafe and recommendeds that the case be referred to the Court of Appeal. He doesn’t say who he thinks committed the murder but says that the case against Alphon was much greater than the case against Hanratty.

What stands out for me, and which l was unaware of, is the ID parade in which Storie eventually identified Hanratty. Matthew’s makes the following observation:

”It would appear that his (Hanratty) was the only London accent among members of the parade”.

Unbelievable.

Thanks again djw.

Ansonman

Hi again Ansonman - been a while.

At James Hanratty's posthumous appeal in 2010, Michael Mansfield QC, acting upon behalf of the family, referred to the ID parade as ''incurably unfair''. I can only agree with that and firmly believe that Hanratty was shamefully let down at the time by his solicitor Emmanuel Kleinman who raised no objection.

In case of interest, the use of volunteers or stooges at ID parades and some personal experiences have recently been discussed on the Bible John: A New Suspect thread.

I'll comment separately about Matthews more generally.

Best regards,
OneRound

[ansonman]

Hi OneRound,

Indeed it has.

I’m more than surprised that so far, only three of us have commented on what I believe to be possibly the most interesting document ever to be shared on this thread. I never knew that Hanratty was the only member of the ID parade who spoke with a London accent. Certainly I don’t recall reading about that fact in the many books I’ve read on the case over the years.That alone was grounds enough for his brief to have insisted that the parade be abandoned.

Will look into that Bible John thread.

Look forward to reading your further comments.

Best regards,

Ansonman

[cobalt]

I’m more than surprised that so far, only three of us have commented on what I believe to be possibly the most interesting document ever to be shared on this thread.

I've not been able to download the document. I'm obviously aware of the summary findings by Matthews, but is there any commentary made by him that indicates he has addressed specific areas of conflicting evidence which has surrounded the A6 Case for all these years.

[Spitfire]

I've not been able to download the document. I'm obviously aware of the summary findings by Matthews, but is there any commentary made by him that indicates he has addressed specific areas of conflicting evidence which has surrounded the A6 Case for all these years.

Why can you not download it?

Have you created a free account?

If not, do so.

Once that's done it is free to download.

[Spitfire]

At long last, the famous Matthews Report is allowed to be viewed by those who have paid (indirectly) for its compilation.

Matthews did not unearth any new evidence and merely expressed the opinion that there was not enough evidence to warrant Hanratty being brought to trial.

It was heartening that Matthews expressed the view that DNA evidence could resolve the case, as indeed it eventually did.

[cobalt]

Cheers, I was able to download the Matthews Briefing Note. It's pretty thin gruel and a long way short of being a report that would convince anyone either way about Hanratty's guilt or innocence. Why it had to remain secret for about 30 years is unclear.

When the DNA evidence emerged later- evidence which has been well discussed on this site- Michael Hanratty claimed that Matthews had spoken to the family and was at a loss to explain how the results established Hanratty's guilt. Assuming Michael Hanratty is relating the meeting accurately, this is clearly at odds with Matthews' Briefing Note which is quite equivocal on Hanratty's guilt. I could understand that Matthews might have been surprised by the turn of events, but according to Michael Hanratty the policeman was more in a state of bewilderment. There is nothing contained in the Briefing Paper to explain Matthews allegedly being convinced of Hanratty's innocence.

In his Briefing Paper Matthews does touch on the issue of police misconduct, particularly in respect of conflicting statements made by Acott and Oxford concerning when the Vienna Hotel register was taken into police custody. He notes that the later date, 20th September, was the day before the Glickbergs came up with version III of their evidence and Matthews' phrase that this is 'a matter of some concern' is as far as he is able to take the matter. (Although it is debatable whether any document provided by the Glickbergs on any date would be worth the paper it is written on.)

Like Hanratty and Alphon, the Glickbergs were inveterate liars which makes any assessment of their conflicting evidence difficult. The fact they all adopted aliases at various times speaks to their honesty. But if either of Hanratty or Alphon produced a false alibi then it is not hard to see why they did so with a murder charge hanging over them. What's in it for the Glickbergs? Their first version exonerates Alphon and is often assumed to be the nearest to the truth so far as they understood that concept. It's possible Alphon paid them for an alibi I suppose, but then you think they might have mentioned this when concocting version II. Version III is, from memory a rehash of version I, and quite how this was supposed to put the Glickbergs in the good offices of the investigators is a matter that is not easily explained.

Perhaps that is the gist of Matthews' investigation. The alibi provided for Alphon was contradicted and then exhumed by the crucial witnesses at the Vienna Hotel, so was effectively worthless. The ID of Hanratty by Valerie Storie came after she had previously identified another man and relied upon his accent, a feature which seemed to mark him out from others in the ID parade.

[OneRound]

Thin gruel indeed, cobalt.

I suspect the so called Matthews Report is actually the same as the Briefing Note addressed to ''Commander'' (probably Roy Ramm) other than some topping and tailing when sent to the Home Office. I say this as the Briefing Note appears finalised and makes no reference to any more detailed accompanying document or report produced by Matthews.

Matthews' work and that of his team (twenty people, yes? Really that many?) seems to have been confined to reviewing all the available paperwork to the exclusion of any actual investigation or even interviews of those still alive and in good health at the time. Unsurprisingly, he comes up with questions and concerns but a lack of answers and certainty. Even his comment about the highly disturbing oral element of the ID parade and Hanratty apparently being the only person with a London accent is prefaced with, ''It would seem'' rather than providing a definitive statement.

Furthermore, Matthews adds little new to the matters raised by Foot and Woffinden years before. It is a disappointing cop out (no pun intended) that he begins and ends his Briefing Note by recommending the early referral of the case to the Court of Appeal to rule upon matters. I have previously been critical of the Court of Appeal's judgement and remain so (in particular, their over reliance on DNA findings despite the absence of current evidential requirements for its safekeeping and their lack of concern as to Acott's non-disclosures). However, I don't think Matthews did much to help them either way.

Best regards,
OneRound