Talk:James Hanratty

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"he was described as a retard"??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.103.210.214 (talk) 03:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Errors[edit]

hey can someone proof this , spell chaeck ti and smarten it up, it took me all day to write Lincolnshire Poacher 20:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A6 murder[edit]

User Gareth Owen has deleted the entry for A6 Murder and redirected it to James Hanratty.--Darrelljon 15:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Woffinden's e-mail address is bobwoffinden (AT) hotmail (DOT) com. I wrote it in that manner to confuse spam bots which trawl wikipedia.--Darrelljon 22:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leonard Miller's e-mail address is leonardmiller33 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com.--Darrelljon 12:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bus conductress[edit]

What was the bus conductresses name? Patricia something. I will add this and perhaps Fogarty-Wauls statement when I find out.--Darrelljon 13:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, the bus conductress on the 36A Bus was Pamela Patt.--Darrelljon 21:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence[edit]

Perhaps the Evidence anomalies and new evidence could be merged. Also, would the list of agreed facts be better as a narrative?--Darrelljon 15:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might even be better to divide sections into "Evidence incriminating Hanratty" and "Evidence exonerating Hanratty" and even perhaps "Evidence incriminating Alphon"? Or "The case against Hanratty" and "The case against Alphon"--Darrelljon 13:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hanratty told police that on the day of the murder he had left the Vienna Hotel on foot intending to go to Liverpool. By mistake he went to Paddington station initially, at this point he left and went to Euston. Just conjecture but I wonder whether he was afraid that someone might come forward to say that he had been seen at Paddington that day. As Paddington is the station for Slough this would have been potentially very damaging.

Did Hanratty not freely admit this?--Darrelljon 20:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the prosecutor Graham Swanwick QC suggested this (see Bob Woffinden paperback page 226) at the trial but was forced to concede there was no evidence for this.--Darrelljon 19:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facts[edit]

The article claims the Morris Minor's journey at gunpoint is "a basic fact" about the case. Isn't it merely Valerie Storie's testimony until we find the Morris Minor abandoned?--Darrelljon 20:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meike Dalal and Audrey Willis[edit]

Perhaps the Meike Dalal and Audrey Willis incidents could be included.--Darrelljon 21:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lime Street[edit]

Is the reference to Lime Street Police Station correct?--Darrelljon 21:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DNA[edit]

It seems odd that someone with such apparently detailed knowledge of this case should add a the following patently false statement:

"However, in late 2002, there was a plan to exhume Hanratty and collect DNA from his teeth. The A6 Committee said this was pointless, as the evidence has now been contaminated, including being handled by Hanratty himself."

Hanratty was exhumed and DNA confirmed his guilt. The evidence was exhaustively discussed in public by the appeal court judges. It's difficult see how handling the evidence can have resulted in the transfer of mucus into a handkerchief and semen into the rape-victim's underwear. Paul B 00:30 2005 (UTC)

Exactly right. Unfortunately, for reasons I cannot understand, the Hanratty case is one of those causes which the chattering classes latch onto and cannot let go whatever the evidence. I suspect it might have something to do with the fact that the late Paul Foot championed Hanratty's innocence (Foot was beloved of the British left and even in 2005 one found letters to Private Eye defending Foot's defence of the indefensible (Hanratty)). The facts are as follows: (i) Hanratty's dna was found in the victim's underwear along with the victim's dna; (ii) no other person's dna was found there; (iii) for there to have been 'contamination' at least one other person's dna would have had to have been there - the true killer; and (iv) the absence of any other dna is conclusive of Hanratty's guilt. End of story. Dodgy witness evidence here and there is a natural consequence of human fallability. DNA evidence is not. JRJW December 2005
If you read Bob Woffinden's Hanratty: The Final Verdict ISBN 0330353012 you would see what an implausible suspect Hanratty is.--Darrelljon 16:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the fact that he was guilty you mean? Paul B 17:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See "The Murders Whos Who" - published in 1978 - they state that Hanratty was almost certainly guilty. In fact, with all respect to Bob Woffinden and Paul Foot, I came away from both books with a sense of Hanratty's overwhelming guilt. I suspect the longstandin fascination with the case has to do with the death penalty. In 1962 it was almost on it's last legs and Hanratty was the 8th last person hanged in the UK (he is the only one of those who has even a slightly arguable case for innocence). I'm not sure though that Foot's support of Hanratty justifies JRJW attack on him and the mythical chattering classes. I disagree with almost of all Foot's politics, but his willingness to argue unpopular causes such as the Birmingham six, show his committment. Like all of us he was allowed to be wrong, and again like all of us he was allowed to hold on to firmly held beliefs in the face of all the evidence. Bob Woffinden does make one very valid point - the perjury at the trial ie Valerie Storie and Michael Gregsten were in the car discussing a Rally meeting! I don't think anybody in the court or in the public believed it at the time, nowadays the headlines would be "Psychopath Slays Sex Crazed Couple!!!".
It's just that Hanratty lacked a plausible motive or plausible account of his alleged journey to Dorney Reach and no witnesses apart from Valerie Storie said he was there. Hardly incriminating, especially when compared to Alphon. Even one of Scotland Yard's most senior detectives assigned to the case in 1994, Detective Chief Superintendant Roger Matthews concluded there had been a grave miscarriage of justice.--Darrelljon 20:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is what always confuses people about high profile criminal cases - lack of 'motive' or 'account' of certain aspects of the case. That's what life's like - people act irrationally and we can't always reconstruct events perfectly. But in this case we have DNA evidence that removes all doubt. For it to have been contaminated, there would have had to have been three strains on the items - Hanratty's, the victim's and the real killer's. There were only two: Hanratty's and the victims. Accordingly, there's no room for doubt. Foot was an intelligent man but one utterly obsessed with bashing the establishment, a peculiarly English trait. He couldn't accept that maybe, despite some dodgy practices, the authorities might have got it right. His supporters can't accept that he could be wrong. But science works differently to politics. Sometimes, you just have to admit you were wrong JRJW April 2006

Do certain people, convinced of the correctness of their cause, just abdicate logical thought? If Alphon had been charged, convicted and swung, then Foot et al would have then spent years demonstrating just how guilty Hanratty was in order to undermine the conviction of Alphon [Andrew M]March 2007.

On the motive question, it is often forgotten that Hanratty had reportedly told a friend not long before the crime that he intended to acquire a gun and become a "stick up" man.Nandt1 12:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Nandt1[reply]

The notion that Hanratty is innocent is about as plausible as the claims that OJ Simpson and Mumia Abu Jamal are innocent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.97 (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eyewitness oddities[edit]

Valerie Storie could not have picked Hanratty out at the first line up. He wasn't in it! That odd cove Peter Alphon was the suspect in that one.

Last UK hanging[edit]

Someone has amended the article to read Hanratty was the eight last person to be hanged in Britain for murder. I'm not sure that's true. Wasn't he among the final 3? I think there may have been further hangings but not for murder. I think also there were further executions but by lethal injection not hanging. I am unclear on this so can someone clarify this?--Darrelljon 21:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Certainly there were no modern UK executions in times of peace by any means other than hanging. Nor, after the immediate post-War period, for crimes other than murder.Nandt1 12:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Nandt1[reply]

- I wish I could have seen the families faces when the lab results came back positive and that scumbag's guilt was proven. Can't believe they are still fighting it, then again they have always kept up the story that he was an angel - even though EVERYONE says he wasn't.

Hanratty was indeed the eighth-to-last person to be hanged in the UK. Two further hangings took place in 1962, three in 1963 (including one in Scotland) and the final two - those of Peter Allen and Gwynne Evans - on August 13 1964. A number of other murderers were sentenced to death after that date but all were reprieved. The last death sentence in the UK was pronounced in November 1965. Hanging was then suspended and finally abolished in 1998. 90.18.52.75 (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If he was eighth-to-last why does the article state seventh-to-last? Which is it? NevarMaor (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North or south?[edit]

The article says in the Witness Testimony of Valerie Storie section:-

  1. The journey continued along the A5 through St Albans, which the gunman mistakenly insisted was Watford, before joining the A6.
  2. At about 01:30, the car was on the A6, travelling south, when the man said he wanted a 'kip' (sleep). Twice he told Gregsten to turn off the road and then changed his mind, and the car returned to the A6.
  3. At Deadman's Hill the man ordered Gregsten to pull into a layby. He at first refused, but the man became aggressive and threatened them with the gun.

But Clophill is north of St Albans on the A6. Either they were going back and forth or, at 01:30, they were travelling north. 212.58.233.129 12:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Columb[reply]

Rating[edit]

This article could easily be raised to B class if you include information the man's life before he murdered someone.

I agree - there's nothing on his actual life? Just the crime he committed. If anyone is looking for facts I know that he was a pupil at St James High School in Burnt Oak, London - as I was a pupil there too (at a later date)! 62.25.109.195 (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First mention of Valerie Storie not linked[edit]

Hi The names of Gregson & Storie are only hyperlinked further down (which confused me) is it a mistake or a convention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzapper (talk • contribs) 10:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They should not be linked at all, as they redirect here. Paul B (talk) 10:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo[edit]

I have added a photo and cleaned the list text. --andreasegde (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been written by someone convinced of Hanratty's innocence[edit]

Thei article reads like it has been written by one of Hanratty's family members. I think that comes down to the original author in 2005. At any rate, I think it needs a considerable amount of editing, at the moment it looks like the a submission in his defence. According to authoritative sources, Hanratty's guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt - and this article should reflect that. FOARP (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Agreed. I've made a small edit to one sentence, but this really needs a massive tidy, and actually could do with a complete rewrite. While there were many campaigning for a pardon, that doesn't change the fact that the evidence now shows him to be guilty.RattusMaximus (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His mental history[edit]

You say 'None of Hanratty’s mental history was given during the 21 days of his trial for the murder.' Does this mean that he might have been reprieved if this evidence had been presented in court? If so, the text should clarify this. 86.183.206.77 (talk) 12:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC) The defence lawyers in a case such as this must decide whether the defence is going to be a straightforward denial that the accused did not commit the crime, or admission that he did commit the crime but should be found not guilty of murder by reason of diminished responsibility. To argue that he did not do it but if he did, then he is not guilty because of diminished responsibility, is to court disaster. This was the poor defence run by Stefan Kiszko's team see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed#Poor_defence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.29.148 (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right age for conscription[edit]

Why wasn't he serving in the forces? There were plenty of low-grade jobs in various depots - servicing vehicles, catering, laundry work etc. - that would not involve handling weapons on active service. Valetude (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He would only have been eligible to do 18 months NS between the ages of 17-21. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Illiterate, and generally regarded as a retard, presumably he would have been deemed too thick even for the services? Ptelea (talk) 11:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even at the time they would have come up with a more polite way of putting it than that. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying Discussion of DNA tests[edit]

I have tried to explain more clearly what was involved in the DNA tests, in the process rewriting some text which I had myself originally drafted on the subject before reading the full text of these decision by the Court of Appeal. I evidently oversimplified previously when I wrote that there was no other male DNA present. In the case of the handkerchief, this was true. But in the case of Miss Storie's knickers, there was the DNA of a second male, which the court interpreted as coming from her lover Michael Gregsten.

Apologies for not explaining the change here when I first made it -- another editor quite reasonably reversed the change then as being unexplained. Nandt1 (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See further info[edit]

For further information, see archive.spectator.co.uk/article/11th-may-2002/24/han-ratty-deserved- to-die — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.244.38 (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I've no doubt Hanratty was guilty, that's a very silly article. Paul B (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The intro is all wrong (and to some extent the article as well)[edit]

The emphasis as to why Hanratty notablity is all wrong in the current intro.

Currently the emphasis is on his crime. Although heinous, being a rapist or a murderer is not sufficient grounds for wikipedia. Or because he was one the last people to be executed in the UK. The thing that makes this case important is what it stood for: an innocent man wrongly convicted and killed for a crime he did not commit (see Timothy Evans).

In Hanrraty's case, he made vociferous claims that he was innocent, that led to his case becoming a cause célèbre for the campaign to abolish the death penalty in the UK. For forty years they made point after point to show that his conviction was weak and unsound. It eventually resulted in a court of appeal hearing when Hanratty's family thought he'd be exonerated but then the DNA evidence came in.

He'd done it all along.

That should be how the intro should be restructured. The crime is just the background to the events that happened after they executed the right person.

It also suggests the article should be framed that way too.86.129.3.167 (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Hanratty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on James Hanratty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing here about Hanratty's claims that he "was being controlled"[edit]

This is a very complicated and controversial matter. Gregsten's surviving family members agree with my theories about what might have happened here, and considering that they represent the victims, that is saying something quite significant. Unfortunately at the time, there could never have been any external evidence, but hopefully one day we will get it. Until then, it remains outside the scope of Wikipedia. 81.101.239.132 (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Hanratty&oldid=1207583025"