Mail's feature of 1999 on Hanratty by Roger Matthews

[Hatchett]

Hi,

The theory of the three conspirators is intruiging.

If three were involved you would expect there to be a definate motive, and some sort of monetary payment.

Have you any views on that?

Best wishes.

[Natalie Severn]

Apparently Roger Matthews concluded in 1996 -and I understand is still firmly convinced- that three people were involved in the A6 crime,one of whom drove the gunman to Dorney Reach.He arrived at this conclusion after a year's research helped by almost two dozen other detectives or similar personnel.When Baden Skitt was appointed chair of the CCRC responsible for recommending the case should go back to the Court of Appeal , he too was convinced after studying the Matthews report of James Hanratty's innocence and duly referred the case back to the Court of Appeal .Baden Skitt like Roger Matthews was an extremely high ranking policeman-and had been Chief Constable of Hertfordshire earlier in his career so he clearly wasn't making wild guesses.
Unfortunately we ourselves can only guess at what it was in that report that convinced both these experienced policemen that Hanratty was 'not only innocent but had nothing to do with the crime'.
A few ideas come to mind:
Is there something in the statement by William Ewer which provided clues and was this why it was sealed for 66 years in 1974 and is still not available to us for another 20 odd years ? Or was it just what happened when a newspaper was sued by a private citizen?
Paul Foot was absolutely convinced that many gaps would be filled if there was access to the unpublished statements and unsaid evidence under lock and key in the Home Office for 100 years -but which presumably Roger Matthews had access to? I suppose the public could press for 100.000 [is it?] on line signatures demanding a public inquiry which would be the only way in which they could be released.

[Sherlock Houses]

Not sure what this has to do with the Matthews report. It seems to concern the events of 1968 and the then Home Secretary's decision not to order a further inquiry into the reasons why Dutton's statement or existence was not disclosed to the defence.

As has been stated above, the 'Dutton point' was not taken by Hanratty's family's counsel in the 2002 appeal, where many wide ranging points were taken. This would seem to suggest that the Jim Callaghan or his department had got it right, or am I missing something? Did Matthews address the Dutton point in his report? If not, what has Dutton got to do with Matthews? Please clarify.

A better question would be what have the last few dozen posts got to do with the Matthews Report ? The thread seems to have wandered completely off track.

[Derrick]

Derrick-this is the reference that I took from Bob Woffinden's book.

Well? That would have been 1968 then.

[Spitfire]

Not sure what this has to do with the Matthews report. It seems to concern the events of 1968 and the then Home Secretary's decision not to order a further inquiry into the reasons why Dutton's statement or existence was not disclosed to the defence.

As has been stated above, the 'Dutton point' was not taken by Hanratty's family's counsel in the 2002 appeal, where many wide ranging points were taken. This would seem to suggest that the Jim Callaghan or his department had got it right, or am I missing something? Did Matthews address the Dutton point in his report? If not, what has Dutton got to do with Matthews? Please clarify.

[Natalie Severn]

Norma

In addition, I'm not quite sure what James Callaghan has to do with all of this. If you are referring to the Home Secretary who received the Nimmo report then that was actually Roy Jenkins.

Nimmo reported his findings on 22nd March 1967. Callaghan was at that time Chancellor of the Exchequer until November 30th that year.

HTH
Del

Derrick-this is the reference that I took from Bob Woffinden's book.

[Derrick]

...and Callaghan was Home Secretary...not Prime Minister...

Norma

In addition, I'm not quite sure what James Callaghan has to do with all of this. If you are referring to the Home Secretary who received the Nimmo report then that was actually Roy Jenkins.

Nimmo reported his findings on 22nd March 1967. Callaghan was at that time Chancellor of the Exchequer until November 30th that year.

HTH
Del

[Natalie Severn]

26 years -but 66 years from the ruling taking us back to 1973 approx.Hawser? A real rigmarole of a report ---in one instance implying Mrs Jones was some buxom blonde !!!-[conjuring up images of a blond floozie ---anyone less like that would be hard to imagine with her coat, hat and handbag epitomising Northern working class respectability.....]

[Sherlock Houses]

Thanks for this information Nick-its not what I was thinking of-but I am in fact quite gobsmacked that it won't be available for another 60+ years

Do you or anyone here have any idea why this is so ?

Not quite 60+ years, just a mere 26 years. No doubt done in the interests of National Security, haha. The Freedom of Information Act is an absolute joke, I know from personal experience.

We are living in a fast becoming totalitarian state.

[Natalie Severn]

I counter with...
The DNA evidence does not “stand alone” and the Court refers to some of the more striking coincidences in the light of the DNA evidence if James Hanratty was not guilty. He would have been wrongly identified by three witnesses at identification parades; first as the person at the scene of the crime and secondly (by two witnesses) driving a vehicle close to where the vehicle in which the murder was committed was found. He had the same identifying manner of speech as the killer. He stayed in a room the night before the crime from which bullets that had been fired from the murder weapon were recovered. The murder weapon was recovered from a place on a bus which he regarded as a hiding place and the bus followed a route he could well have used. His DNA was found on a piece of material from Valerie Storie’s knickers where it would be expected to be if he was guilty; it was also found on the handkerchief found with the gun. The Court concludes that this number of alleged coincidences mean that they are not coincidences but provide overwhelming proof of the safety of the conviction from an evidential perspective.


KR,
Vic.

Yes I am aware of what the appeal judges decided and I also respect and understand your own and other people's reluctance to call Valerie's account into question both back in 1963 by Louis Blom-Cooper and today . But this was only one aspect of the case that was called into question and the wording of the conclusion of Judges Woolf, Mantell and Leveson very much contradicted the findings of Detective Chief Superintendent Roger Matthews whose team of twenty Scotland Yard detectives and personnel had studied all the evidence over a period of a year in 1996. Their conclusion found additional support from Baden Skitt ,Chief Constable of Hertfordshire , who was directed by the Home Office to chair the Criminal Cases Review Committee which recommended the case should be returned to the appeal courts .

[Natalie Severn]

In fact Ewer said he didn't even know her (post 87) but Anderson contradicted this when they interviewed her.

The police interview with Ewer as a result of this article is at the National Archives. A poster here made an official application for it and was refused.

Thanks for this information Nick-its not what I was thinking of-but I am in fact quite gobsmacked that it won't be available for another 60+ years

Do you or anyone here have any idea why this is so ?

[NickB]

he specifically denies any business connections.

In fact Ewer said he didn't even know her (post 87) but Anderson contradicted this when they interviewed her.

The police interview with Ewer as a result of this article is at the National Archives. A poster here made an official application for it and was refused.

[Victor]

Does anyone have a link to a text [ possibly in a the newspaper article or magazine] stating that William Ewer had business connections with Louise Anderson's shop in Soho ?

Hi Nats,

There's Ewer's "15 point statement for The Sunday Times" in response to "She saw him at the cleaners" where he specifically denies any business connections. I think it's from 1971.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Hi Vic,
Only your final point still needs to be explained.The rest is disputed and/or circumstantial-not concrete.

I counter with...

The DNA evidence does not “stand alone” and the Court refers to some of the more striking coincidences in the light of the DNA evidence if James Hanratty was not guilty. He would have been wrongly identified by three witnesses at identification parades; first as the person at the scene of the crime and secondly (by two witnesses) driving a vehicle close to where the vehicle in which the murder was committed was found. He had the same identifying manner of speech as the killer. He stayed in a room the night before the crime from which bullets that had been fired from the murder weapon were recovered. The murder weapon was recovered from a place on a bus which he regarded as a hiding place and the bus followed a route he could well have used. His DNA was found on a piece of material from Valerie Storie’s knickers where it would be expected to be if he was guilty; it was also found on the handkerchief found with the gun. The Court concludes that this number of alleged coincidences mean that they are not coincidences but provide overwhelming proof of the safety of the conviction from an evidential perspective.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

All true-but none of this is concrete proof that Hanratty had anything to do with it---let alone was the murderer .

Hi Nats,

LBC thinks it "of crucial importance" that the evidence of the sole survivor of a rural hostage taking lacks corroboration.

I say it's entirely expected, and attempts to cast doubt on the victim's account because of this are unwarranted.

Contamination , even back in 2002, was a recognised possibility.

A possibility yes, but a very implausible one given the results obtained. One-in-a-billion is a possibility and also a quantified probability.

Today the DNA LCN testing of 2002 and its reliability is becoming a different story entirely .

Yes, it's established fact that legally speaking it's reliable.

The Court rejects the possibility of contamination and accepted the prosecution’s submission that the DNA evidence, standing alone was, in fact, certain proof of James Hanratty’s guilt.

KR,
Vic.