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

[Spitfire]

But certainty isn't necessary.

So why start with the percentages, you seemed to be saying that 90% wasn't enough.

Where you are right is that a not guilty verdict doesn't mean innocence.

I think a jury member has to be sure or certain or have no reasonable doubt, they all mean pretty much the same. Each juryman will have differing thresholds of what he or she is prepared to convict on. I certainly would not have sent a man to his death if I had thought that there was a 10 per cent chance he had not committed the deed.

Strictly, if the prosecution does not prove its case then the accused is innocent, but the jury would not necessarily believe him to be innocent in the commonly accepted usage of the term. The accused, in those circumstances, benefits from the presumption of innocence.

I based my 90% figure on Blackstone's formulation.

[GUT]

I think a jury member has to be sure or certain or have no reasonable doubt, they all mean pretty much the same. Each juryman will have differing thresholds of what he or she is prepared to convict on. I certainly would not have sent a man to his death if I had thought that there was a 10 per cent chance he had not committed the deed.

Strictly, if the prosecution does not prove its case then the accused is innocent, but the jury would not necessarily believe him to be innocent in the commonly accepted usage of the term. The accused, in those circumstances, benefits from the presumption of innocence.

I based my 90% figure on Blackstone's formulation.

I presume you mean when Blackstone says "It is better that 9 guilty men go free than on innocent man be convicted."

That in reality has nothing to do with the standard to which something needs to be proven, and indeed has over the years been restated as 99 and 1 by the Courts of appeal.

[Spitfire]

I presume you mean when Blackstone says "It is better that 9 guilty men go free than on innocent man be convicted."

That in reality has nothing to do with the standard to which something needs to be proven, and indeed has over the years been restated as 99 and 1 by the Courts of appeal.

Blackstone had it that it was better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted, but that's the gist of it.

The standard of proof is high, and especially so in a capital case. I suspect that in Blackstone's time there were a lot more capital cases than in 1962.

[NickB]

After the jury had been out for 6 hours 26 minutes the Court reassembled. The judge had received a question from the jury: ‘May we have a further statement from you regarding the definition of reasonable doubt?’

The judge told the jury that the words he used were that they ‘must be sure’. He went on: “If you have a reasonable doubt, not a mere fancy sort of doubt, if you have a reasonable doubt you cannot be sure. And therefore, you may think the best way of looking at it is this: You have to be sure of the guilt of the accused before you find him guilty.”

[Dupplin Muir]

Spitfire wrote:

An opinion that Hanratty should not have been convicted on the evidence, is not equivalent to an opinion that he did not do it.

And the fact that he was found guilty does not prove he actually committed the crime. In that sense guilty or not-guilty are just convenient fictions.

[Graham]

Another celebrated murder trial in which the verdict was not as expected was that of William Wallace in 1931 for the murder of his wife Julia. The prosecution suggested strongly that Wallace had gone to extraordinary lengths to provide himself with an alibi which was described as 'improbable'. The judge's summing up was favourable to Wallace, but after just an hour the jury returned a verdict of guilty. However, at appeal Wallace was acquitted. I wonder if the same jury would have found Hanratty not guilty, as there are one or two similarities. (There's at least one thread on this Forum about the Wallace case - if you think the A6 Case is hard to get your head around, wait until you read about Wallace...).

I was actually on the jury in a murder trial in 1972. Right from the start it was virtually open and shut and the defence never really had a chance. After due discussion we took just one poll in the jury room for a unanimous verdict of guilty. At the time all of us on the jury felt slightly ill-at-ease, because had this trial been in 1962 we would have been deciding whether the defendant lived or died. A truly heavy responsibility, and I think the time the Bedford jury took to reach a verdict reflects that they were aware of their responsibility.

Graham

[caz]

Natalie,

I don’t think we can criticise Swanwick for his tactics at the trial. He was entitled, as were Hanratty’s representatives, to do what was required. He did a better job of it. Hanratty’s representatives, in hindsight, lacked the aggression to go for the prosecution witnesses, particularly Valerie Storie. I know Sherrard is well respected by many of Hanratty’s supporters, but for me he lost a game that was winnable. Accepting the DNA results in his later years was a validation of his failure in 1961. As a Marxist, you will perhaps understand my misgivings about how the proletariat are represented when they find themselves in the dock in the bourgeois-capitalist system we are encouraged to call democracy.

I suspect that many of us on this site have reverted to class positions when deciding the guilt or innocence of Hanratty, albeit we have perused the evidence in order to do so.

For those on the political right, Hanratty was a cheap crook who got in over his head, and told a series of depressingly predictable lies, hoping his criminal mates would back him up. The police, in the best British tradition, made a few errors but muddled through in the end, as this country often has. Their job is to protect the public from villains (or villeins) and keep order on their manor. Since then a bunch of well meaning but naïve libertarians have been fighting to clear the name of a gas meter murderer, and in doing so have undermined the concept of capital punishment which is essential to the well being of the state. British justice might be a bit rough and ready, but by God we have never executed an innocent man.

For those on the left, Hanratty was an expendable working class lad, fitted up in order to protect respectable society; a society of Masonic handshakes, Rotary Clubs, and self-employed businessman epitomised by William Ewer. The real culprits were protected from on high, something that Alphon was aware of and made mischief with. Hanratty was a sacrificial victim to a system which can only sustain itself by demonising the lumpen elements of the proletariat in order to frighten the others, and in the process secure the nervous support of the bourgeoisie, or as they are now called, ‘Middle England.’ Rather than admit error, and undermine a judicial system crucial to their survival, the Establishment later corrupted evidence to validate the initial miscarriage of justice.

Swanwick did his job: Sherrard didn’t.

Brilliant, cobalt!

Except for one thing: I class myself as being on the left; I am totally against the concept of capital punishment and firmly believe that nobody should have hanged for the A6 murder; I am also well aware there have been far too many grave and inexcusable miscarriages of justice in the history of British crime, resulting in the innocent being punished for the sins of the guilty.

But I am still forced to accept that, despite the shortcomings of the original trial, the wrong man was not hanged in this case.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

...the point I am trying to make is that lying about one thing does not make one guilty of everything. The victim was possibly responsible for telling a version of the 'truth' to save her family, and MGs, from unfair judgement.

Hi Julie,

And possibly responsible for sending a man she knew might well be innocent to his death?

Possibly telling a version of the 'truth' (for whatever reason) certainly implies deliberately lying. I think that is going way too far.

How about Hanratty deliberately lying about his whereabouts at the time of the murder (saying he was in Liverpool), knowing the jury had the power to send him to his death if they discovered he was lying?

I would suggest that was what did for him, and not the victim being economical with the truth.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sherlock Houses]

You are indeed making sense, Limehouse. He told his friend Ann Pryce and the Frances on that Monday [the 21st] that he was going to Liverpool. He obviously planned to be away for several days hence the reason for Charlotte France laundering his dirty clothing and then packing his brown pigskin case with enough clothes to last 5 days. And Liverpool, lo and behold, was the very place where several witnesses placed him and corroborated his story in such an impressive way.

Omitted to mention that he also told Louise Anderson about his intended trip up to Liverpool.

[caz]

People claiming the Liverpool alibi was a complete fiction...

Hi again Julie,

To be strict about this, an alibi covers the actual time the crime was taking place, so if he wasn't in Liverpool during this entire period, but in Rhyl or anywhere else, it was a complete fiction, and it is not 'people' who are claiming it, but Hanratty himself!

If he really was in Liverpool while the A6 crime was in progress, he lied twice: firstly by claiming his Liverpool alibi had been complete fiction, and secondly by claiming he had been in Rhyl instead.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

...did he fully intend to go to Liverpool and at the last minute, obtained a gun and wandered out to the Berkshire countryside? If the latter is the case, it's a very strange thing to do and not at all in keeping with Hanratty's previous method of working.

Hi again Julie,

But lying about his whereabouts if he had genuinely gone to Liverpool as he had told people (and thence to Rhyl, or not), and was therefore innocent of rape and murder, is arguably an even stranger thing to do.

If Hanratty was experimenting with a different, more edgy kind of criminal caper, he was hardly likely to tell his friends about his intentions, but very likely to say he was going a very long way from where he actually intended to try his luck. No surprise then, after the chaos of that long August 22nd night, that he would race up to Liverpool and send that telegram on 24th, to make it seem like he had gone there just as he had indicated, and been there since the Tuesday afternoon.

Incidentally, there is no suggestion that he told his friends he had stayed two nights in Rhyl, between going up to Liverpool and coming down from there again.

Love,

Caz
X

[Derrick]

...making for the nearby George Hotel which was in those days a veritable hang out for the criminal fraternity...

Moste,

A little bird told me, some time back, that the George was owned by the same people who owned the Rehearsal Club. I cannot myself vouch for the voracity of such a claim.

Del

[moste]

Moste,

A little bird told me, some time back, that the George was owned by the same people who owned the Rehearsal Club. I cannot myself vouch for the voracity of such a claim.

Del

-Hi Del. Very interesting.---I believe there is a very good chance that the location where the car finally came to rest is indicative----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by / Julie.2012.
.

As a matter of interest, just round the corner from Redbridge Station is The George, a public house in Wanstead, formally run by the parents of Harry Roberts, who in 1966 was one of three criminals convicted of shooting dead three policemen in west London. Roberts was born in Wanstead and grew up there. In 1961, he was in jail, but had criminal associates in the area.

answer from from Nats:
Leave me with it for a couple of days- x anybody know who the other VILLAINS living in or near Avondale crescent and Redbridge were ?

[Sherlock Houses]

-Hi Del. Very interesting.---I believe there is a very good chance that the location where the car finally came to rest is indicative----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by / Julie.2012.
.

As a matter of interest, just round the corner from Redbridge Station is The George, a public house in Wanstead, formally run by the parents of Harry Roberts, who in 1966 was one of three criminals convicted of shooting dead three policemen in west London. Roberts was born in Wanstead and grew up there. In 1961, he was in jail, but had criminal associates in the area.

Not knowing the London area well I didn't realise Avondale Crescent was near to Wanstead. I was under the impression it was in Ilford.
All quite intriguing when put into context with the following newspaper extract from the Daily Express of September 2nd 1961.

Food for some thought perhaps.......

[moste]

Omitted to mention that he also told Louise Anderson about his intended trip up to Liverpool.

Its frustrating listening to people arguing back and forth about JHs alibis. I mean, his proof of being in London on the Monday is a given. His statement of his movements up to the visit to the sweet shop in Scotland road are also a given. Tuesday 4:30ish, 22nd Aug. proved by two people in shop who Signed the back of his photo .It wouldn't matter if he had made his way back to London at this point, he couldn't have been the murderer. If he lied about what he did after this Liverpool sighting, then he was a stupid man, but the police not following the correct protocol with the photos, and the jury being influenced by him changing his mind, about what he wanted them to believe, after Tues.4:30 on the 22nd Aug. (even possibly perjuring himself, to protect his friends or whatever,again, a stupid man) should have been of no consequence to the verdict. P.S. Caz. Hanratty maintained his alibi in Liverpool up until It was no longer possible to get to Dorney.