Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
<b>123everton</b> re death row/Hanratty
12 Answers
123everton, I don't know where you got the idea that Valerie Storie was blinded; I have never heard that before and it's not true. But she never satisfactorily identified Hanratty. These are the facts:
Her first description of her assailant was given to the surveyor who found her badly injured in the A6 lay-by. He swears, and testified in court, that it bore no resemblance to Hanratty. He made a note of it and handed it to the police who then "lost" it. On being rebuked by the judge, the police then "found" it, but what they found turned out to be a police forgery which the surveyor utterly disowned.
At her first identity parade (Hanratty wasn't present) she "identified" a totally innocent man, one of the police 'make-weights'. At her second, where Hanratty was present, she could not identify anyone visually. She then asked to hear them speak. Since all the make-weights were Northerners who had just arrived as recruits at the nearby RAF base, Hanratty was the only one who spoke with a Cockney accent. On that basis alone she "identified" him.
The rest of the evidence against Hanratty was equally flimsy and his Liverpool/Rhyl alibi has now been verified to an extent that no jury would convict him today.
In any case � back to the main point � there have been many innocent people who have gone to the gallows and many more convicted but subsequently found innocent who would have been hanged had we not put a stop to that gruesome practice.
Her first description of her assailant was given to the surveyor who found her badly injured in the A6 lay-by. He swears, and testified in court, that it bore no resemblance to Hanratty. He made a note of it and handed it to the police who then "lost" it. On being rebuked by the judge, the police then "found" it, but what they found turned out to be a police forgery which the surveyor utterly disowned.
At her first identity parade (Hanratty wasn't present) she "identified" a totally innocent man, one of the police 'make-weights'. At her second, where Hanratty was present, she could not identify anyone visually. She then asked to hear them speak. Since all the make-weights were Northerners who had just arrived as recruits at the nearby RAF base, Hanratty was the only one who spoke with a Cockney accent. On that basis alone she "identified" him.
The rest of the evidence against Hanratty was equally flimsy and his Liverpool/Rhyl alibi has now been verified to an extent that no jury would convict him today.
In any case � back to the main point � there have been many innocent people who have gone to the gallows and many more convicted but subsequently found innocent who would have been hanged had we not put a stop to that gruesome practice.
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chakka35. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Davethedog, I explained this in a previous post, but I'll do it again:
It is quite impossible, at this remove, to make any sense of DNA tests. The Hanratty affair took place 20 years before DNA profiling was invented and in those days they knew nothing about the need to keep items of evidence in separate sterile bags from the very beginning. Storie's and Hanratty's clothes were handled by many policemen and others, put on the same benches in police-stations and laboratories and even carted to and from court in the same cardboard box!
This makes a mockery of the whole thing.
It is quite impossible, at this remove, to make any sense of DNA tests. The Hanratty affair took place 20 years before DNA profiling was invented and in those days they knew nothing about the need to keep items of evidence in separate sterile bags from the very beginning. Storie's and Hanratty's clothes were handled by many policemen and others, put on the same benches in police-stations and laboratories and even carted to and from court in the same cardboard box!
This makes a mockery of the whole thing.
I think chakka has won the argument over the Hanratty case, but anyway, if life meant life, then society would still be protected, and the alleged culprit would still be alive if their innocence was later discovered.
I do, however, have a lot of sympathy for the calls for capital punishment, as like me, so many people are simply frightened of the growing violence in our society.
I am as guilty as anybody for allowing myself to react to this with a kneejerk, but it is the absence of effective policing, and soft sentencing that affects my opinions at times.
I do, however, have a lot of sympathy for the calls for capital punishment, as like me, so many people are simply frightened of the growing violence in our society.
I am as guilty as anybody for allowing myself to react to this with a kneejerk, but it is the absence of effective policing, and soft sentencing that affects my opinions at times.
Because the appeal judges got it wrong.
Before you mock that idea, read Bob Woffinden's Miscarriages of Justice and similar books and discover how badly the Appeals Court have got it wrong in the past.
The Appeals Court is not a trial court in which things have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt to a jury. The appeal decision is made by three people who are senior members of the very system which is being accused of having made a dreadful mistake. And their decison is it - until the next appeal!
If Hanratty were being tried today the DNA "evidence" would count for nothing because the prosecution could not show that Storie's clothing and effects had been bagged and sealed as soon as possible after the offence and before they could possibly have been contaminated by anything belonging to Hanratty.
Your own common-sense should tell you that, since the clothes of both of them were cross-handled, DNA profiling means nothing in this case.
The fact that appeals judges are sometimes thick does not mean that the reat of us have to be.
Before you mock that idea, read Bob Woffinden's Miscarriages of Justice and similar books and discover how badly the Appeals Court have got it wrong in the past.
The Appeals Court is not a trial court in which things have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt to a jury. The appeal decision is made by three people who are senior members of the very system which is being accused of having made a dreadful mistake. And their decison is it - until the next appeal!
If Hanratty were being tried today the DNA "evidence" would count for nothing because the prosecution could not show that Storie's clothing and effects had been bagged and sealed as soon as possible after the offence and before they could possibly have been contaminated by anything belonging to Hanratty.
Your own common-sense should tell you that, since the clothes of both of them were cross-handled, DNA profiling means nothing in this case.
The fact that appeals judges are sometimes thick does not mean that the reat of us have to be.
If she wa'snt blinded then my mistake (I seem to remeber on the show about it that she was blind) either way Hanratty was still guilty, if the D.N.A had proved otherwise his supporters would've been shouting for a pardon. As I said during the thread (I've only just this minute come across this, you shoulda clicked my logo thing somehow) I'd happily say no to the death penalty, if life meant life.
On the news the other day, a 17 year old and another youth (a little younger, dunno how old) attacked a man with a lighter (apparently) then threw him in the canal, he died. 17 year old got 5 years! That's not justice (the younger 1 got less) they'll both be out before they're 21.
I don't lay claim to be the oracle I know enough about that case to venture an opinion, similarly I know enough about modern crime (more than enough) to know what I'm talking about, and what I feel needs to be done about it.
On the news the other day, a 17 year old and another youth (a little younger, dunno how old) attacked a man with a lighter (apparently) then threw him in the canal, he died. 17 year old got 5 years! That's not justice (the younger 1 got less) they'll both be out before they're 21.
I don't lay claim to be the oracle I know enough about that case to venture an opinion, similarly I know enough about modern crime (more than enough) to know what I'm talking about, and what I feel needs to be done about it.
The show I watched about it (a long time ago) was balanced and gave both sides of the argument they discussed the discrepancies in the mileage accounts it also allowed Paul Foot (who wrote the book we talked about) ample opportunity to put his case forward. He took that opportunity and failed to convince me.
I'm flattered that you could go to so much trouble for little ole me, and I think it's good that you've got a hobby.
I'm flattered that you could go to so much trouble for little ole me, and I think it's good that you've got a hobby.
1 to 12 of 12
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.