The defence

The defence

It is useful to remind ourselves here that the defence’s task is not to prove innocence. The primary task of the defence is to create suffi cient doubt about the evidence which the prosecution puts to the jury (‘agreed facts’) plus ‘facts to be determined by the jury’ plus ‘inferences to be drawn from all the facts’, so that the jury cannot be satisfi ed beyond a reasonable doubt, that the prosecution has indeed demonstrated the guilt of the accused ( Firth, 2016 ).

Hanratty denied his presence at the crime scene and his defence counsel, Michael Sherrard, QC, argued that, other than the testimony of Storie, there was no evidence to suggest he was in or around the vicinity of Dorney Reach on the evening of 22 August. The defence sought to challenge the prosecution’s evidence, arguing that Storie had only a very limited opportunity to see her assailant and that, at a fi rst identity parade which did not include Hanratty, she had picked out another man. Furthermore, although some of the description of the assailant’s history was consistent with Hanratty’s, some of it was not and also his accent was not unique ( Moles and Sangha, 2002 ). Similarly, Sherrard contended that Skillett and Trower had only a limited opportunity to see the driver of the Morris Minor and, moreover, Blackhall (Skillett’s passenger) had picked out another man who was an innocent volunteer in the identity parade ( Woffi nden, 1997 ). The defence further submitted that the description of the assailant’s erratic driving was inconsistent with Hanratty’s knowledge and experience of driving cars ( Moles and Sangha, 2002 ).

The discovery of the gun, Sherrard argued, was not meaningful evidence against Hanratty because the back seat of a bus was not an uncommon place to discard unwanted items. Furthermore, it was argued that it did not make sense for two empty cartridge cases to be discarded in the Vienna Hotel prior to the murder (meaning that the bullets were fi red beforehand). A more likely scenario, it was suggested, was that the cartridges were discarded after the murder. This pointed to someone else having placed them there ( Moles and Sangha, 2002 ). It was also argued that fellow inmate Roy Langdale’s evidence was inconsistent with Hanratty’s repeated protestations of his innocence. Under cross- examination, Langdale admitted that he had been paid by two newspapers to sell his story about the case ( Woffi nden, 1997 ). Hanratty admitted to having a conversation with someone about becoming a stick- up man but it was simply ‘talk’ and merely an example of him being boastful ( Moles and Sangha, 2002 ).

Having changed his alibi midway through the trial, when he took the stand Hanratty explained that on 22 August, he left the Vienna Hotel at approximately 9.30 am and walked to Paddington train station by mistake. He took a taxi to Euston Station and caught a train to Liverpool, arriving at about 4.30 pm. He said that he intended to meet a man called Aspinall, whom he had met in prison some three to four years previously, in order to