Mail's feature of 1999 on Hanratty by Roger Matthews

[Hatchett]

Hi Everyone,

I agree that this thread has a better feel to it that it had yester year, which I dont think was productive at all.

Yes, the case will not die, and as I have said before (and it is only my opinion) it will not die because there was not enough evidence presented at Hanratty's trial to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

I also think ( as again as I have said before) if Hanratty had not changed his alibi halfway through the decision would probably have been different.

If the case had been held in Scotland I think a verdict of Not Proven would have been given, which would probably have been the correct verdict.

Best wishes to you all.

[GUT]

G'day Hatchett

I also think ( as again as I have said before) if Hanratty had not changed his alibi halfway through the decision would probably have been different.

It certainly couldn't have helped, but if the first alibi was doomed to exposure?

[Derrick]

...It certainly couldn't have helped, but if the first alibi was doomed to exposure?...

Hi GUT

Not quite sure what you mean here?

The prosecution at the original trial believed Mrs Dinwoodie was telling the truth and also had a good number of their own witnesses placing Hanratty in London on the Monday. So they put forward the proposition that perhaps Hanratty had used an air-service from Liverpool to be able to arrive at Dorney Reach at around 9:30pm.

My view is is that the jury just believed Miss Storie more than Hanratty...if only the jury had been aware of Miss Storie's non-disclosed statements and the additional mileage on the car, the outcome would certainly have been a lot different.

Del

[Hatchett]

Hi GUT,

It is a case of credibility. Hanratty had sworn on oath for the first alibi and then changed his mind and swore on oath on the second one. It is a reasonable conclusion that could have been in the jury's mind that if he could lie on oath for that, which he had to have done with the first alibi, then he could lie on oath on anything.

It is a major issue.

Best wishes.

[Hatchett]

Hi Derrick,

I think the jury had sympathy for Miss Storey, after all she had gone through a lot and had lost a lot. Not to lessen any of that tragedy that Miss Storey had to live through for the rest of her life, but if the full reasons of her relationship with Gregston had been revealed, perhaps the jury would have been more objective in their reasoning.

[Graham]

With regard to non-disclosure to the jury the true facts of Valerie Storey and Michael Gregsten's relationship, this has to be viewed in the light of the morals of the time. Plus, given the nature of the crime, I don't think the truth about their relationship would have made much difference to the outcome.

In my view, and without wishing to criticise in any way Mr Sherrard's conduct of the defence, Hanratty was his own worst enemy. It was his choice, and his alone, that he changed his alibi, even though Mr Sherrard plainly disagreed with this decision and made Hanratty sign an affidavit that doing so was 100% his decision. It is worth noting that these days changing one's alibi mid-way through a trial is not permitted by law. Then there was Hanratty's insistence that he take the witness stand - his choice, but again I really don't think that Mr Sherrard fully supported this decision. According to John Kerr, Hanratty's demeanour in the witness box was 'cocky', and if so this must have had a negative effect upon the jury.

I've always thought that had Hanratty stuck to his 'Liverpool Alibi', effectively challenging the prosecution to destroy it, and also stayed out of the witness-box, the chances were that he would have been acquitted. And, in my view, got away with murder.

Mr Justice Gorman's summing-up was seen by most commentators as sympathetic to the defendant, but still the jury convicted him. In short, they did not believe him. Also, it has to be said that Valerie Storey's condition must have swayed them.

In 1932, the infamous Brighton Trunk Murder occurred, in which a real piece of low-life called Tony Mancini was accused of the murder of his sometime girl-friend. As it happened, his defence was conducted by Norman Birkett, one of this country's greatest advocates ever, who effectively coached Mancini as to his behaviour and demeanour in the witness-box. Birkett also with great skill cast doubt in the minds of the jury upon virtually every piece of prosecution evidence. The jury returned a verdict of 'not guilty', and around 50 years afterwards Mancini confessed that he had indeed murdered his girl-friend. He said that Birkett effectively taught him how to act in the witness-box, and obviously Mancini was an apt pupil not to say a natural-born actor.

Graham

[NickB]

Hanratty changed his alibi just hours before taking the witness stand. So if he had not taken the stand, would he have bothered changing it? I see the two as connected.

I think a significant consequence of the changed alibi was that the final witnesses were from Rhyl. So Mrs Jones dreadful evidence, including the lie about what she had discussed with Evans in court, was freshest in the jury’s mind after a trial of record breaking length.

Gorman’s summing up may have been sympathetic to the defendant, but not to Mrs Jones. In his 10 hours speech he went through all the witnesses in detail, but said he would not spend long on her evidence “because I feel quite sure that by this time you have made up your minds what sort of woman she is.”

[GUT]

G'day Derrick

Hi GUT

Not quite sure what you mean here?

The prosecution at the original trial believed Mrs Dinwoodie was telling the truth and also had a good number of their own witnesses placing Hanratty in London on the Monday. So they put forward the proposition that perhaps Hanratty had used an air-service from Liverpool to be able to arrive at Dorney Reach at around 9:30pm.

My view is is that the jury just believed Miss Storie more than Hanratty...if only the jury had been aware of Miss Storie's non-disclosed statements and the additional mileage on the car, the outcome would certainly have been a lot different.

Del

What I meant was pretty simple, if Hanratty knew that it was possible that for whatever reason his alibi was going to be exposed as false he had no choice but to come up with an alternate. But that was a huge risk.

As Graham points out Sherrard got written instructions on the change of alibi, as any Barrister worth his salts would. Two reasons really to do this, first to cover your own a$$ and second to bring home to the punter that you think what they are doing is DUMB.

[GUT]

G'day Graham

In 1932, the infamous Brighton Trunk Murder occurred, in which a real piece of low-life called Tony Mancini was accused of the murder of his sometime girl-friend. As it happened, his defence was conducted by Norman Birkett, one of this country's greatest advocates ever, who effectively coached Mancini as to his behaviour and demeanour in the witness-box. Birkett also with great skill cast doubt in the minds of the jury upon virtually every piece of prosecution evidence. The jury returned a verdict of 'not guilty', and around 50 years afterwards Mancini confessed that he had indeed murdered his girl-friend. He said that Birkett effectively taught him how to act in the witness-box, and obviously Mancini was an apt pupil not to say a natural-born actor.

Graham

Good to hear that some clients listen to what they're told. Though pity the prosecution couldn't do their job.

[Victor]

What I meant was pretty simple, if Hanratty knew that it was possible that for whatever reason his alibi was going to be exposed as false he had no choice but to come up with an alternate. But that was a huge risk.

Hi GUT,

Whether the alibi was "changed" or not is quite an interesting point. On the one hand you could say he added a lot and just altered a small part - he didn't stay with the 3 mates in Liverpool and went to Rhyl instead; whereas if you viewed it as a complete change then maybe the Dinwoodie evidence was dismissed because it was part of the first alibi that Hanratty himself denied.

If the jury saw it as Hanratty contradicting Dinwoodie then they understandably dismissed her evidence, whereas I think most of us would conclude that the Rhyl is an addition to the sweet shop evidence not a replacement.

KR,
Vic.

[GUT]

G'day Victor

I read t the other way, as a change of alibi.

Though I will have a fresh read.

[GUT]

G'day Victor

Clearly what you see as an amendment I see as a change.

There is only one day that is relevant to the alibi 22 August, the night of the murder.

Today it would not be an issue as there is a requirement to give notice of an intention to rely on an alibi [28 days I think] so it can be investigated.

I have little doubt that a jury that was told that they would hear that he was in Liverpool on 22 August and were then told, no he was in Rhyl would be having real difficulty knowing what evidence put on his behalf should be believed.

Many people also seem to rely on Usher, who was never called at the trial, the most likely reasons are that Sherrard QC thought that he wold be crucified on cross, or that with the change of focus from Liverpool to Rhyl made it pretty much irrelevant.

[Hatchett]

Hi All,

I think it is clear that he changed his alibi. But if I go along with your argument, he is guilty at the very least of muddying the waters. As someone said earlier, Hanratty's presentation on the witness box, a cocky individual who made his living by breaking into houses and stealing cars would not have gone down well in a court of law .... especially in Bedford

[Limehouse]

Hi All,

I think it is clear that he changed his alibi. But if I go along with your argument, he is guilty at the very least of muddying the waters. As someone said earlier, Hanratty's presentation on the witness box, a cocky individual who made his living by breaking into houses and stealing cars would not have gone down well in a court of law .... especially in Bedford

It was John Kerr who described Hanratty as 'cocky'. Now, I am not trying to stereotype or be class specific or anything - but who can define what 'cocky' is? John Kerr was about to go up to Oxford University. He was from a completely different background to Hanratty. What might come across to Kerr as 'cocky' might just have been a normal and acceptable tone in Hanratty's world. Despite his criminality, he was known for his politeness, his good manners and his dignity when facing the death penalty.

[Victor]

but who can define what 'cocky' is? John Kerr was about to go up to Oxford University. He was from a completely different background to Hanratty. What might come across to Kerr as 'cocky' might just have been a normal and acceptable tone in Hanratty's world.

Hi Julie,

Cocky invariably implies a negative, such as over-confident or arrogant. And I can easily see that what one person sees as confident (relaxed, at ease, in control, comfortable with the situation); another might view as arrogance (dismissive, dominant, unwarranted belief in own superiority).

YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary) as people seem to be saying a lot on the internet these days.

KR,
Vic.