Mail's feature of 1999 on Hanratty by Roger Matthews

[GUT]

G'day Victor

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

Though I will have a fresh read.

[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 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.

[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.

[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.”

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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?

[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.

[Victor]

The authorities should release for publication the report by Roger Matthews. There can be no valid reason for withholding it.

Hi Spitfire,

There's not a lot of chance of that happening, the Civil Service have strict rules about not releasing reports that are superseded before they are finalised. And that is your "valid reason", it isn't complete, i.e., it was never released or cleared for publication.

KR,
Vic.

[Sherlock Houses]

The authorities should release for publication the report by Roger Matthews. There can be no valid reason for withholding it.

I agree 100% Spitfire.
In an ideal world that would happen.
However we don't appear to live in a very open society here in the UK as so much important information [from every sphere of life] is withheld from public scrutiny and never sees the light of day.
Who makes these decisions ? An elite group of elected officials/politicians/judges who decide amongst themselves that they know far better than 99.999 % of the populace.
The lengthy 1967 Nimmo Report into the Rhyl Alibi was never made publicly available. I don't know why.
It's been 18 years now since Roger Matthews' Report was received by the Home Office. Somehow I can't see the authorities releasing this report for publication. It probably is not in their interests to do so.

[Victor]

Hi Del,

I agree that the blood typing is forensic evidence but as probative evidence that could point to a single suspect then it is of little or no worth.

But it does eliminate two thirds of the population as potential suspects! I agree it doesn't pinpoint one person, however, to say "no worth" is completely wrong, and I would strongly disagree with "little worth"

So to all intents and purposes the prosecution, at the original trial, had nothing forensically of any value whatsoever...the gun and its accoutrements were, are and always will be part of the circumstantial evidence.

Again I disagree, the ballistics proved the link between cartridge cases in the Vienna, and the hanky &tc from the bus, and the weapon used in the crime.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Awe Thanks Spitfire-that means such a lot x