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

[Sherlock Houses]

The fact remains that Hanratty's eyes did match her 'large icy blue eyes', which is rather unlikely to have happened by chance, if he was a scapegoat who bore little resemblance, including in the eye department, to the man who had actually raped her.

And you know this how ? From personal observation of James Hanratty when you were a youngster ? You are quite wrong.

To set the record straight James Hanratty did not have icy blue or pale blue eyes.

The following extract is taken from the Daily Mirror of February 14th and forms part of Michael Sherrard's closing address to the Bedford jury from the day before.....

Mr Sherrard referred to the evidence of Valerie Storie that the A6 attacker was pale faced and had very large, pale blue, staring icy eyes....

Pointing to Hanratty in the dock, Mr Sherrard asked the jury :
"Is this someone whose face you would describe as pale ?
Does he strike you as having pale blue, icy blue eyes ?"

Mr Sherrard went on :
"It is my respectful submission to you that Miss Storie is honest but wrong..."

[Graham]

The same judgment that lied when it stated [among other erroneous things] that Peter Alphon was interviewed by police on September 7th 1961.

Surely, you mean 'made a mistake', same as you claim that Mrs Dinwoody made a mistake regarding when Hanratty was supposed to be in the sweet-shop??? Or is it only the anti-Hanratty faction who 'lie' whilst the pro-Hanrattyistas 'make mistakes'?

Graham

[Sherlock Houses]

Re. my previous post [1141]....So we have the situation that even in the depths of mid-winter, after being locked up in custody for several months, James Hanratty could not be described as having a pale face. Six months previous to this, at the time of the A6 murder, his face was heavily freckled. No doubt as a result of 3 months outdoor work as a window cleaner.

[Sherlock Houses]

Surely, you mean 'made a mistake', same as you claim that Mrs Dinwoody made a mistake regarding when Hanratty was supposed to be in the sweet-shop??? Or is it only the anti-Hanratty faction who 'lie' whilst the pro-Hanrattyistas 'make mistakes'?

Graham

Hanratty has been branded a liar many times on these boards by the 'anti-Hanratty faction', but we daren't call anyone from our glorious establishment a liar ? The simple truth is that they lied [or misled if you prefer].

They must have carefully proof read their judgment before publishing it but were still prepared to proceed with their deception.


If, as you claim, they were just mistaken, you must ask yourself what else in their judgment they could have been mistaken about.

[Graham]

Hanratty has been branded a liar many times on these boards by the 'anti-Hanratty faction', but we daren't call anyone from our glorious establishment a liar ? The simple truth is that they lied [or misled if you prefer].

They must have carefully proof read their judgment before publishing it but were still prepared to proceed with their deception.


If, as you claim, they were just mistaken, you must ask yourself what else in their judgment they could have been mistaken about.

Did anyone from the Defence note this mistake - oh, sorry, lie? Deception? Are you suggesting that getting the date of Alphon's first interview wrong had a massive negative effect on the ensuing judgment?

I wasn't claiming anything, sir, merely making a suggestion. As you seem to be the expert on matters pertaining to the Appeal, perhaps you could answer your own question and tell us what other mistakes the Judges could have made in their judgment?

Graham

[Sherlock Houses]

Did anyone from the Defence note this mistake - oh, sorry, lie? Deception? Are you suggesting that getting the date of Alphon's first interview wrong had a massive negative effect on the ensuing judgment?

But they didn't get the date of Alphon's first interview wrong did they ? What they did do was claim that Alphon was interviewed on September 7th 1961 which was untrue. (See paragraph 37 of the judgment).

I wasn't claiming anything, sir, merely making a suggestion. As you seem to be the expert on matters pertaining to the Appeal, perhaps you could answer your own question and tell us what other mistakes the Judges could have made in their judgment?

I can assure you I'm no expert on matters relating to the appeal judgment as I've only read it about 3 times. There are probably posters on this forum who have read it countless times without noticing any errors.

Paragraphs 13 to 74 of this judgment come under the heading "The Facts".
Now a 'fact' is something that is known or proved to be true.
Paragraph 13 alone contains an error about Valerie Storie's age.
Paragraphs 13 to 26 cannot in any sense of the word be described as 'facts' as they are Valerie Storie's version of events of that fateful night which are unverifiable and open to challenge.

When I get around to reading the judgment again in full (including it's interminable mid-section full of legal double talk and mumbo-jumbo) I will get back to you and see how many errors, if any, they could have made.

[Graham]

Paragraphs 13 to 26 cannot in any sense of the word be described as 'facts' as they are Valerie Storie's version of events of that fateful night which are unverifiable and open to challenge.

That is merely your biased interpretation of Valerie's evidence. There is a disturbing trend on these threads just now to accuse Valerie of, at best, innaccuracy; at worst, lying. Naturally enough, the Hanrattyistas see very little reason to condemn his so-called 'alibis', even though both of them are so paper-thin you can see right through them.

Graham

[cobalt]

I can't see what is 'disturbing' about questioning Valerie Storie's accuracy. Only a person with a strong motivation to protect the status quo could come up with that claim.

Valerie Storie went through an ordeal, so why should her ability to recall events accurately, especially in the aftermath, be considered off limits? Are you suggesting we should not test her testimony? SH has indicated that even great legal minds can get things wrong in the cold light of day many years later. Yet Valerie Storie's testimony has to remain Holy Writ?

In so far as her lying is concerned, that is another matter. You have pointed out she would have had little motivation to protect anyone who had done such injury to her.
But she did mislead the jury. She let them believe that her relationship with Michael Gregsten was nothing more than a Platonic car rally affair, whereas it was much more than that. So you tell me that James Hanratty lied to the jury, but that has to remain a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that Valerie Storie misled the murder trial jury.

[cobalt]

Apologies. Double post.

[Spitfire]

I can't see what is 'disturbing' about questioning Valerie Storie's accuracy. Only a person with a strong motivation to protect the status quo could come up with that claim.

Valerie Storie went through an ordeal, so why should her ability to recall events accurately, especially in the aftermath, be considered off limits? Are you suggesting we should not test her testimony? SH has indicated that even great legal minds can get things wrong in the cold light of day many years later. Yet Valerie Storie's testimony has to remain Holy Writ?

In so far as her lying is concerned, that is another matter. You have pointed out she would have had little motivation to protect anyone who had done such injury to her.
But she did mislead the jury. She let them believe that her relationship with Michael Gregsten was nothing more than a Platonic car rally affair, whereas it was much more than that. So you tell me that James Hanratty lied to the jury, but that has to remain a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that Valerie Storie misled the murder trial jury.

The Hanrattyites or Hanrattyistas or whatever they wish to be called on this forum should regard themselves as being bound by the admissions made on Hanratty's behalf by his professional advisors, more particularly Sherrard and Mansfield.

Sherrard has been recorded as saying Valerie Storie gave her evidence honestly. He has never complained that Miss Storie misled the jury. He could have cross-examined her on her relationship with Mr Gregsten if he had thought it would have advanced his client's case. That he did not do so points to his thinking that it was not relevant to the issue in question.

Mansfield said that Alphon had nothing to do with the murder.

All the issues regarding Miss Storie's recollection were before the jury. Most importantly they were aware that she had previously made a false positive identification and that to a certain extent Hanratty's appearance stood out from the crowd.

Yet the jury were certain that Hanratty did it and their view was backed up by the DNA.

[Graham]

She let them believe that her relationship with Michael Gregsten was nothing more than a Platonic car rally affair, whereas it was much more than that.

As Spitfire points out, her relationship with Gregsten had absolutely nothing to do with the case. I would suggest that had she been totally honest and told the court that she and Gregsten were lovers, the judge would have advised the jury to disregard this. It was not her morals that were on trial here.

Graham

[Alfie]

And you know this how ? From personal observation of James Hanratty when you were a youngster ? You are quite wrong.

To set the record straight James Hanratty did not have icy blue or pale blue eyes.

The following extract is taken from the Daily Mirror of February 14th and forms part of Michael Sherrard's closing address to the Bedford jury from the day before.....

Valerie's description was "icy blue large saucer-like eyes". Nothing about them being pale or pale blue.

Are you trying to claim his eyes weren't blue?

[Sherlock Houses]

Are you trying to claim his eyes weren't blue?

...No

[caz]

So you tell me that James Hanratty lied to the jury, but that has to remain a matter of opinion.

Hi cobalt,

Well he lied to somebody - unless it is your opinion that he could have been in two places at once. And if that is your opinion, why not three places? Liverpool with friends, a guest house in Rhyl and a car on the A6?

What else would you call it, if not lying to the police about his whereabouts on the murder night? And didn't he admit he had lied about staying that night in Liverpool?

Talk about defending the indefensible.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

To set the record straight James Hanratty did not have icy blue or pale blue eyes.

Hi SH,

Are you perhaps making the understandable leap from icy to pale? If we equate the icy with cold and staring instead, we just get large and blue. The icy bit would relate to the temporary expression in those eyes, not the shade or depth of colour.

I'm just trying to understand the objection you were making to my post on the subject of Hanratty having eyes as Valerie described (and I'm assuming here that the 'brown eyes' reference was a mistake by the police, later corrected by Valerie herself, as the one person who had actually seen the gunman's eyes).

Love,

Caz
X