My book : THE A6 MURDER: Was Hanratty Innocent?

[Natalie Severn]

The hanging of James Hanratty on April 4 1962 for the A6 murder is one of the most celebrated alleged miscarriages of justice in British Judicial history.John Lennon and Yoko Ono were among those who participated in the campaign to clear his name begun by his father immediately after the trial and continuing to this day ,fifty years later.The book began as a series of pamphlets which re-examined the evidence discovered by journalists ,authors and researchers as well as my own fresh research based on interviews with friends and neighbours of the original Rhyl witnesses whose evidence was never heard at the trial , some statements not having been brought to light until several years after the trial.The book was devised ,written and illustrated by myself with photos and drawings from or of the time and with considerable support from James Moore and Julie S Lambert with especially important contributions on the 2002 DNA evidence from William Beadle,chair of The Whitechapel Society and from Andrew Buddle who is a sociologist.
The book is available from Housmans at www.housmans.com/books.php
It costs £12 + pp

[Graham]

Best of luck with the book, Nats, but as I've said before unless there is some new and concrete evidence to support Hanratty, the original trial verdict remains sound, at least as far as I'm concerned. And believe me, some new evidence would be more than welcome to me, to get the debate going again.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Many Thanks for your good wishes Graham. I do appreciate that the DNA tests of 2002 caused lots of people to change their minds while for others it confirmed their original belief that James Hanratty was guilty as charged.
I am as certain as I can be that Hanratty was innocent and knew nothing about the crime on the A6.The research I have done showed me how it is not difficult to achieve a conviction of the innocent and over the years lawyers have repeatedly identified the contributory factors and this case is top heavy with them.For instance obtaining the cooperation of witnesses by means of attractive inducements and fear of the alternative- as with Louise Anderson" fear of being prosecuted for receiving stolen goods and Nudds admitting he was trying to please the police by changing his story to suit what they wanted at different times. Likewise Langdale who got himself let off on probation in a fraud case!
Another repeatedly identified factor is a reliance on "identification" evidence which is no such thing and is now not acceptable particularly if the witness has first positively identified an innocent man as Valerie did when she positively ( but mistakenly ) identified Michael Clark as the gunman.
Finally the provision of factual certainty by scientists where there is no proper basis for it ( a recurrent theme apparently in both the UK and US - and Italy too going on a recent famous case there )
but Graham I promise I will listen - I know your knowledge of the case is is very extensive and has always impressed me
AtB
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

April 4 1962
Last words "keep smiling Mick!"
Jim

[OneRound]

Many Thanks for your good wishes Graham. I do appreciate that the DNA tests of 2002 caused lots of people to change their minds while for others it confirmed their original belief that James Hanratty was guilty as charged.
I am as certain as I can be that Hanratty was innocent and knew nothing about the crime on the A6.The research I have done showed me how it is not difficult to achieve a conviction of the innocent and over the years lawyers have repeatedly identified the contributory factors and this case is top heavy with them.For instance obtaining the cooperation of witnesses by means of attractive inducements and fear of the alternative- as with Louise Anderson" fear of being prosecuted for receiving stolen goods and Nudds admitting he was trying to please the police by changing his story to suit what they wanted at different times. Likewise Langdale who got himself let off on probation in a fraud case!
Another repeatedly identified factor is a reliance on "identification" evidence which is no such thing and is now not acceptable particularly if the witness has first positively identified an innocent man as Valerie did when she positively ( but mistakenly ) identified Michael Clark as the gunman.
Finally the provision of factual certainty by scientists where there is no proper basis for it ( a recurrent theme apparently in both the UK and US - and Italy too going on a recent famous case there )
but Graham I promise I will listen - I know your knowledge of the case is is very extensive and has always impressed me
AtB
Norma

Hi Natalie - been very busy recently so haven't been posting although still looking in from time to time.

Very best wishes for the book from me too.

Can I ask - and I mean this supportively - did you choose the book title or was it imposed by the publishers? The reason I ask is that I (and possibly others) would be more likely to be persuaded and answer in the affirmative to the question ''Was Hanratty Wrongly Convicted?'' than ''Was Hanratty Innocent?''.

The instances you cite (Anderson, Nudds, Langdale and the incorrect identification of Michael Clarke) are powerful. However, I believe they're more relevant to showing a case for wrongful conviction than proving innocence. You may consider the distinction too subtle and unnecessary. After all, it's your book and, as I say, good luck with it.

Best wishes,

OneRound

[Limehouse]

Hi Norma,

You have put such an enormous amount of research and time into this book and I am sure it will bring a whole new audience to the case.

Graham - you may well get your whole new debate!

Julie

[Natalie Severn]

Hi One Round!
Thankyou for your good wishes-much appreciated.You make a good point about the title- I suppose that I went for a simpler concept in the title that's all really and indeed yours may have been a better title because irrespective of whether or not he was innocent his conviction in a capital case on such weak mostly circumstantial evidence, some of which, like the identification by Valerie after first identifying somebody else-would have been inadmissible on such evidence today.
AtB
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Julie - that would be good if it attracts a new audience
Best
Norma x

[Graham]

I think it was Louis Blom-Cooper who said that if the A6 Case had happened in Scotland, the ensuing verdict at Hanratty's trial would have been 'not proven', and I think that that's a fair comment.

Graham

[louisa]

I've just woken up to the fact that today is the 50th anniversary of (in my opinion and many others) one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in British history.

Natalie - I wish you every success with your book, which I shall certainly be purchasing. Judging from your posts on this forum and your fascinating and informative pamphlets on this case, your knowledge of the A6 murder is phenomenal and must have taken a great deal of time to research it.

RIP James Hanratty.

[caz]

Good luck with the book, Nats!

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

With reference to Louisa's post (and she naturally has every right to express her opinion) I'd just like to say on the 50th anniversary of Hanratty's execution that we ought to be thinking not only of him but of the lives he ruined and affected.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

First thanks to both Caz and Louise for the sweet words here! Graham you are right that others suffered horribly, Valerie in particular left paralysed for life from the age of 22 and ofcourse Michael Gregsten lost his life too. It must never be forgotten , they did not deserve any of it let alone its culmination in murder and rape.
However it is also hard for those of us who believe Hanratty was convicted and hanged for a crime which on the evidence we have today he did not commit.
I am very aware of your longterm interest in the case and your knowledge of many aspects of it most surely surpasses mine but my own research has focused also on factual statistical research which led to information about an astonishing number of wrongful convictions both here and on America many of which rested on eye witness testimony and error or DNA error.
Btw lovely piece in Richard Ingrams mag ,"The Oldie" on my book .......!!! But which also carries another article - by a wonderful doctor ,Jim Swire whose daughter - was murdered in the Lockerbie bombing and where Dr Swire maintains vehemently that Megrahi was the victim of an appalling miscarriage of justice- it's a moving upsetting article that rings of truth and the desire for justice- I would urge everyone to read it -
Kind regards
Norma

[Graham]

Hi Nats,

I am by no means knowledgeable about DNA and would never pretend to be, but I am 100% certain that the number of rightful convictions made via DNA far outweighs the number of wrongful convictions.

And, as Caz correctly emphasises, there is evidence to point to Hanratty's guilt without the assistance of DNA.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Graham
There are many many aspects of the case against James Hanratty that are absolutely appalling.To take just one example -evidence in a capital case- such as this was- evidence that surely went along way to convicting Hanratty- was primarily based on the visual memory of Valerie Storie Thankfully today this would have been inadmissable as it is now recognised to be the most precarious and fragile of human attributes.Now a witnesses memory must be as safely protected from contamination as a crime scene.The first description is vital. If a witness makes a positive identification of one individual such as Michael Clark was by V'S -no subsequent identification of a second is permissible.
Equivocation and uncertainty are not enough.
In fact a series of catastrophic misidentifications leading to wrongful convictions led to this change in the law in the early 1990"s.
Best
Norma