The attack on Swedish housewife Mrs Meike Dalal on Thursday, September 7th 1961

[Graham]

Bindman is the guy who promised the third appeal, claiming that “the only basis on which the Court of Appeal rejected the [second] appeal was the DNA evidence”!!

Sorry Nick, I was also under the (plainly erroneous) impression that the Matthews Report would have formed a large part of the basis of any new appeal. I was also under the (possibly erroneous) impression that in 2002 the Court Of Appeal quite plainly stated that even if the DNA evidence was discounted there was still enough evidence adduced at the 1961 trial to convict Hanratty.

Graham

[Limehouse]

Thanks Graham for the source of the quote . However it is my understanding from Sherrard's autobiography written in 2009 that he believed that after the 2002 ruling he had no other choice than to accept the LCN DNA findings.But he says in his autobiography that he remains very suspicious as to why a portion of Valerie Storie's knickers was ever kept 'on ice' for 42 years. In the previous paragraph he talks about the forensic handwriting tests that revealed alterations by police [Oxford's ] to Hanratty's statements on the night of his arrest and asks what the jury might have made of these and other evidence that has come to light about police tampering and alteration of witness statements .All this is in his book which is in London so I don't have immediate access to it--- but it is in the public domaine-'Wigs and Wherefores' by Michael Sherrard and Linda Goldman[?].It is my view reading his autobiograph he was very far from convinced that the LCN DNA tests were done on cloth that was not only contaminated but also may have been tampered with hence his question why were they 'kept on ice' for 42 years ?

That's a very good point Norma. What was known and accepted about the reliability of LCN DNA testing back in 2002 and what is known now differ greatly. Many people accept the 2002 findings without question but do not realise that such findings would not stand up in court today.

It is nothing less than shocking that the tampering of Hanratty's statement has never been addressed by a public enquiry. Sherrard would not have been able to openly discuss this in his book if there was not some truth in it.

[Limehouse]

Hi Nats,




So...once again, when will we actually be allowed to see this famous Report? Or could it be that in retrospect its authors have realised that in fact it doesn't prove Hanratty's innocence? Could this be one reason why the much-vaunted third appeal scheduled for early 2013 (I think) has never gone ahead?

Graham

Hi Graham,

There is an unnamed reference to it in the link below. It's amazing to read Alphon's comments in this article in which he refers to his 'victimisation'. What a cheek!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wrongly-hanged-hanratty-is-found-innocent-1285402.html

There is also another reference to the Matthews Report in the following article:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/HANGED+HANRATTY+WAS+INNOCENT+SAYS+NEW+YARD+INQUIRY.-a061158693

[Derrick]

The Bindman quote about Matthews (paraphrased perhaps) can be found here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wrongly-hanged-hanratty-is-found-innocent-1285402.html

[Derrick]

You beat me to it Julie:-)

[Spitfire]

Sorry Nick, I was also under the (plainly erroneous) impression that the Matthews Report would have formed a large part of the basis of any new appeal. I was also under the (possibly erroneous) impression that in 2002 the Court Of Appeal quite plainly stated that even if the DNA evidence was discounted there was still enough evidence adduced at the 1961 trial to convict Hanratty.

Graham

I think the Matthews report formed the basis of the reference to the CCRC and the 2002 appeal. I am prepared to accept that Matthews believed that the new information which he had uncovered would have led a properly directed jury to return a verdict of not guilty. This does not mean that he believed Hanratty was innocent, merely that the evidence was not sufficient to warrant a guilty verdict.

The DNA evidence clearly brought the case right to Hanratty's door.

As to the DNA evidence Bindman is quoted in January 2011 on his website:

"Since all the other evidence against Hanratty has been discredited, the only basis on which the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal was the DNA evidence, so if we can discredit that then Hanratty should be exonerated.”


So far he and Woffinden have not discredited that evidence.

[Graham]

Hmmmm...both of those reports are somewhat dodgy, and bear in mind that The Independent report, which I've seen before, was prior to the final DNA analysis and is a bit 'previous' I think, in announcing that the Home Office had found Hanratty was after all innocent.

The Free Library report, which is also pre-DNA final analysis, is not reliable.
For instance, it says that Nudds 'tipped off' the police regarding the identification of Hanratty, which is not true. It also states that Nudds committed suicide after Hanratty's execution, which is news to me. Possibly whoever wrote that is confusing Nudds with Dixie France, about whom there was some suspicion that he may have identified 'Ryan' as being Hanratty, but even so he or she gets the timescale of France's suicide wrong.

Unless and until Matthew's Report is published, there seems very little point in discussing it as we don't really know what it contains.

You really have to almost admire Alphon for his bloody nerve, though, don't you?

Graham

[Spitfire]

You really have to almost admire Alphon for his bloody nerve, though, don't you?

In fairness to Alphon, he probably felt aggrieved that he been 'fitted up' for the A6 when Nudds was persuaded to make his second statement. I think he resolved to gain revenge on the authorities and to make some cash for himself.

[Derrick]

I think the Matthews report formed the basis of the reference to the CCRC and the 2002 appeal. I am prepared to accept that Matthews believed that the new information which he had uncovered would have led a properly directed jury to return a verdict of not guilty. This does not mean that he believed Hanratty was innocent, merely that the evidence was not sufficient to warrant a guilty verdict.

The DNA evidence clearly brought the case right to Hanratty's door.

As to the DNA evidence Bindman is quoted in January 2011 on his website:

"Since all the other evidence against Hanratty has been discredited, the only basis on which the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal was the DNA evidence, so if we can discredit that then Hanratty should be exonerated.”


So far he and Woffinden have not discredited that evidence.

Here:

https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/lcn_testing_annex_a.html

it says;

If these samples pre-date the special DNA precautions that are now taken, their suitability for testing is reviewed in advance and any limitations on the interpretation of the result due to this are made clear in the statement.

But I don't believe that this precaution was given at the appeal in 2002 by either the prosecution or the judges.

Oops! The British public have been mislead again!

Del

[Natalie Severn]

That's a very good point Norma. What was known and accepted about the reliability of LCN DNA testing back in 2002 and what is known now differ greatly. Many people accept the 2002 findings without question but do not realise that such findings would not stand up in court today.

It is nothing less than shocking that the tampering of Hanratty's statement has never been addressed by a public enquiry. Sherrard would not have been able to openly discuss this in his book if there was not some truth in it.

Absolutely Julie-though Michael Sherrard QC , Hanratty's trial barrister , chooses his words carefully there is no question he is deeply suspicious of the 42 year old cloth being kept 'on ice' and makes that clear.
It is also significant that the DNA evidence which the prosecution insisted proved their case at the appeal had been kept under lock and key at a police station for 42 years where only the police had entrance.As custodians of the evidence which nobody but them was allowed near, how do we know it wasn't contaminated? Could they have proved that contamination did not occur over 42 years?
The FSS used to carry those tests out in camera where the public were barred access.There was no independent oversight and no validation of their methods . Yet the cornerstone of scientific method is that it is repeatable....an experiment that cannot be repeated is worthless yet by doing all this testing in secret and destroying the evidence in the process , the public are clearly expected to accept such tests as an 'act of faith' rather than a scientifically provable fact.In the Hanratty case the fragment of cloth was destroyed in the process making it impossible for future LCN DNA experts to challenge the result .
Prosecution forensic experts are not /were not an 'impartial organisation'. The appeals procedure has much more to do with upholding the original verdict than ensuring justice .There has to be overwhelming evidence that the conviction was wrong for an appeal to succeed.This case has been infested with contamination of the truth and of justice for the hanged man from start to finish.

[Spitfire]

Here:

https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/lcn_testing_annex_a.html

it says;

If these samples pre-date the special DNA precautions that are now taken, their suitability for testing is reviewed in advance and any limitations on the interpretation of the result due to this are made clear in the statement.

But I don't believe that this precaution was given at the appeal in 2002 by either the prosecution or the judges.

Oops! The British public have been mislead again!

Del

Oops, what statement is being talked about?

Let us not forget that it was the Hanratty team which pushed for DNA testing. It was only when the results went against Jim that Bindman and Woffinden back-tracked. At all material times the tests were observed by scientists instructed on behalf of the defence. One of whom, Dr Pat Lincoln went on camera to express his confidence that the tests would produce a result.

As a member of the British Public, I do not believe I have been misled EXCEPT that on Radio 4 in late 2010 a further appeal was promised for the early part of 2011, and this has shown no sign of coming to pass.

[Sherlock Houses]

Just friends.........

Hi Julie,

I think you've hit the nail right on the head here. Valerie's parents, her employers and her colleagues all knew about her affair with MG.

Unless Valerie's mum was telling porkies it would appear that she had been kept very much in the dark about the true nature of her daughter's relationship with the married Gregsten.

The following is taken from the August 24th edition of the Daily Mirror.

[Graham]

In fairness to Alphon, he probably felt aggrieved that he been 'fitted up' for the A6 when Nudds was persuaded to make his second statement. I think he resolved to gain revenge on the authorities and to make some cash for himself.

After he surrendered himself at Cannon Row police-station on 23 September, Alphon was by his own account subjected to a terrific grilling at the hands of Acott and other boys in blue. Afterwards Alphon admitted he had been 'terrified', and at some later point swore revenge upon Acott. I'm not sure if he did actually gain revenge on the authorities, but he certainly did make some profit out of it. Which he promptly spent - easy come, easy go seemed to be his maxim.

Graham

[Graham]

Unless Valerie's mum was telling porkies it would appear that she had been kept very much in the dark about the true nature of her daughter's relationship with the married Gregsten.

No, I don't believe Mrs Storie was telling porkies. Valerie herself stated quite openly that her parents knew about her affair. You have to remember that this was 1961, when there was a far less open attitude towards such matters, and no doubt Mrs Storie said what she said for the benefit of friends, neighbours, relatives and the public-at-large. The pretence of their being 'just good friends' was kept up all through the trial, although I seriously doubt if many of the people present in the court-room were under much of an illusion.

Graham

[Sherlock Houses]

The FSS used to carry those tests out in camera where the public were barred access.There was no independent oversight and no validation of their methods . Yet the cornerstone of scientific method is that it is repeatable....an experiment that cannot be repeated is worthless yet by doing all this testing in secret and destroying the evidence in the process , the public are clearly expected to accept such tests as an 'act of faith' rather than a scientifically provable fact.In the Hanratty case the fragment of cloth was destroyed in the process making it impossible for future LCN DNA experts to challenge the result .
Prosecution forensic experts are not /were not an 'impartial organisation'. The appeals procedure has much more to do with upholding the original verdict than ensuring justice .There has to be overwhelming evidence that the conviction was wrong for an appeal to succeed.This case has been infested with contamination of the truth and of justice for the hanged man from start to finish.

Precisely, Natalie