Alan Razen: Hanratty, The Inconvenient Truth

[Derrick]

Another book on the case, published a few months ago. It doesn't say on Amazon exactly when.

You can get it on Kindle from here;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hanratty-Inconvenient-Truth-Alan-Razen-ebook/dp/B00LEEHIME/ref=pd_ybh_2

Del

[NickB]

I came across this about a month ago. It is hardly a book, only 30 pages. Nothing new and some rather pointless postulations - like how he might have got a train or car down from Liverpool on the Tuesday in time.

In the Appendix he calculates the probability that Hanratty's DNA would be a random match to another individual as 1 in 10 billion.

[Spitfire]

I don't think I will bother buying it even at the price of 77p.

I had a look inside and this passage stood out.


"There are surely few who would regard the Hanratty murder trial as anything other than a dreadful miscarriage of justice. With the evidence available at that time, he should have been acquitted and at the very least, the lack of certainty apparent from that evidence should have prompted the judge to commute the sentence to life imprisonment – whereupon, Hanratty would of had a much better opportunity to mount a successful appeal."


Once the jury had returned its verdict, the death sentence was mandatory. Only the Queen through the exercise of the Royal Prerogative on the advice of the Home Secretary could "commute" the sentence.

[NickB]

To show what you are missing, this is his conclusion:

This case boils down to two issues: the DNA evidence and the Rhyl alibi. These two pieces of evidence cannot be reconciled; they cannot both be true. If one accepts the DNA evidence, Hanratty was guilty. If one dismisses the DNA and accepts the Rhyl alibi, Hanratty was innocent. The Rhyl alibi depends on unreliable witness testimony; the DNA evidence depends on uncontaminated samples.

One potential question remains: if not Hanratty, then who else?

The case is crying out for a proper new post-Alphon book that reflects the information uncovered since the 2 ‘bibles’.

Only the Queen through the exercise of the Royal Prerogative on the advice of the Home Secretary could "commute" the sentence.

Talking of which ....

Sherrard is often criticised for not including the Rhyl witnesses in the first Appeal on the basis that by then he had nothing to lose. But he did have something to lose – the prospect of the Royal Prerogative being used.

[Graham]

I read that pamphlet - for that's all it is - and didn't think much of it. It really only got me going once, when I read this:

Hanratty would of had

Wonderful use of the English language, what?

Yes, I agree that a new investigation is called for, preferably by someone well-qualified and who doesn't have a preconception as to JH's guilt or innocence. Unfortunately, although from time to time the A6 Case does reappear in the media, I don't think it grabs the public mind like it used to.
I know Natalie's done a lot of quite new research fairly recently, but she is a very firm believer in JH's innocence.

By the way, I had a look at the Fred Dinenage stuff on YouTube, and was instantly put off by the stupid "dumb-show" dramatisations, which I loathe.
And I don't think he came up with anything earth-shattering.

Graham

[NickB]

Fred Dinenage stuff on YouTube

Looks like the photo of Valerie at 26:26 shows her at the junction of Court Lane and Marsh Lane with the cornfield gate on the extreme right.

If so, further proof that this is the location of the entrance to the cornfield.