Thread: A6 Rebooted
View Single Post
  #31  
Old 04-26-2018, 04:28 AM
OneRound OneRound is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 500
Default

[quote=NickB;445825 I don’t know where this idea comes from that overall Hanratty was ‘unlucky', except in the sense that Caz was using the word – that an innocent Hanratty would have been incredibly unlucky to have so many things pointing towards his guilt.

On 23-Sep-61 Alphon said to Acott: “It’s quite clear to me that you’ll never catch him now. It’s over a month old now and if you haven’t caught him now, you never will.” I expect similar thoughts were running though Hanratty’s mind later that day as he drove Gladys to Bedford. He must have felt very lucky that he had got away with it.

I accept that if Crocker only reported the cartridge cases because of the Alphon linkeage, then this was indeed unlucky for Hanratty. But after this had been reported, by continuing to use the ‘Ryan’ alias and the ‘Wood Lane, Kingsbury’ address he was leaving a trail that, I feel, inexorably would have lead to him.[/QUOTE]



Hi Nick - I wasn't suggesting that an innocent man was unlucky to be found guilty but rather that a guilty man got no breaks or luck at all. Many may say ''so what'' and ''it's all he deserved'' to that which is an understandable reaction although not the point I was trying to make.

Besides Crocker reporting the cartridges and off the top of my bonce, Hanratty's bad luck included:

* An incompetent solicitor.

* An inexperienced barrister.

* Police failing to disclose relevant material.

* A local jury.

Even after execution, bad luck continued with:

* The timing of his 2002 appeal. A few years earlier and there would have been no DNA evidence to present to the Court. A few years later and [I believe - I readily acknowledge I'm a very long way from being an expert here] more of an argument could have been presented against the reliability of the DNA findings.

* The attitude of the Court of Appeal. In particular, the judges sitting referred to police withholding material as ''the high watermark of non-disclosure'' but still regarded it as not invalidating the trial and original verdict. Other judges may have taken a different view and reached a different decision. In the Bentley case, it is worth noting that the Court of Appeal commented that ''a properly directed jury would have been entitled to convict'' but nonetheless put aside the conviction as he had ''been denied a fair trial which is the birthright of every British citizen''. Had different judges considered his case and any luck belatedly shone on a hanged Hanratty, he might have received a similar judgement.

Best regards,

OneRound

Last edited by OneRound : 04-26-2018 at 04:35 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote