Recommended reading

However, despite the lack of a good story in the prosecution’s case, Hanratty was found guilty and we observed in this chapter that it was perhaps because jurors considered that the isolated pieces of evidence proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, like with every other case we examine in this book, there are other factors that could have contributed to his conviction. One explanation may be found in comparing the lower social status of Hanratty in relation to the higher social status of his victims, Gregsten and Storie. In Chapter 7 , we will be learning about how the law can behave diff erently depending on the relative social positions of the defendant and victim. Additionally, Hanratty’s guilty verdict may have been powerfully infl uenced by the inconsistency in his testimony, that is, his frank admission halfway through his trial that he had lied about his initial alibi. In the next chapter, we will explore the nature and impact of inconsistencies in testimony.

Recommended reading

Pennington and Hastie’s (1991 ) ‘A cognitive theory of juror decision making: the story model’ and their 1992 article ‘Explaining the evidence: tests of the story model for juror decision making’ both off er a comprehensive analysis and overview of the story- telling model. For a critique and alternative models, see Griffi n’s (2013 ) article ‘Narrative, truth, and trial’ and also Jellema’s (2020) ‘The reasonable doubt standard as inference to the best explanation’. Perhaps the most comprehensive overview of the Hanratty case is Woffi nden’s (1997) book Hanratty: The Final Verdict and, as you have seen in this chapter, Woffi nden seeks to argue throughout for Hanratty’s innocence. Unfortunately, Miller’s (2001) book Shadows of Deadman’s Hill is not widely available (or is very expensive). However, for an account that depicts Hanratty’s guilt, we recommend Louis Blom- Cooper’s (1963) book The A6 Murder, Regina v. James Hanratty: The Semblance of Truth .

Notes

1 Hanratty’s testimony during cross- examination at his trial for murder ( Foot, 1971 : 285). 2 ‘Done the lot’ was a slang term for serving the whole of a sentence with no remission ( Miller, 2001 ). 3 It is important to bear in mind that, although the police found traces of semen on Valerie

Storie’s underwear, it could only be used to determine blood type and not to identify

DNA, because DNA testing had not been invented in 1961. 4 The charges of rape and attempted murder of Valerie Storie were dropped in favour of prosecuting Hanratty for the more serious charge of murdering Michael Gregsten. 5 Miller (2001) argued that there is no evidence that Hanratty and Alphon knew each other. 6 Similar to Miller’s speculation, sociologist Jack Katz (1988 : 276) analysed some high profi le crimes in the US which looked ‘senseless’ and noted that they could have refl ected the

‘dizzying emotions of deviance’ as the situation unfolded.

7 Despite the Court of Appeal’s opinion that the DNA evidence ‘standing alone’ was certain proof of guilt, it is important to remember that even DNA evidence needs a story to support its interpretation. The story to support conviction needed to include information about where the evidence had been found, how it had been preserved, how it had been tested and with what result. A story questioning conviction might focus on how the evidence had been badly preserved (for example, with the possibility of contamination) or tested. Indeed, Hanratty’s family introduced a new appeal against his conviction based on their claim that the DNA evidence had been contaminated (BBC, 2010). In Chapter 6 , we will see how O. J. Simpson’s defence team successfully raised doubts about the reliability of the DNA evidence collected by the police and introduced by the prosecution at his trial.