11 NOVEMBER 1966, Page 9

Trial by Television

—Verdict in Doubt

TV By STUART HOOD

It was clear why the subject had been chosen. It is of extreme interest for two reasons. First of all, there is the question whether Hanratty

was indeed guilty of the crime. The jury was out for an inordinate time and at one point asked for guidance on 'reasonable doubt.' Then there are the mysteries of the case—the apparent lack of motive in the killing, the teasing questions concerning human behas lour which went un- answered because, in law. they were irrelevancies. Why. for instance, did Gregsten go away from the car to fetch a packet of cigarettes and come back to the man who was going to kill him? It is a story that bristles with coincidences, with clashes of opinion between witnesses, with odd, untidy episodes. which nag at the mind as one hears again the strange and frightening story.

The BBC has, in the past. been chary of deal- ing with murder. It has reported crime. It has —in television news—covered the demonstra- tions at the prison gate at the moment of execution of sentence. But it has not, for in- stance, readily agreed to the documentary treat- ment of murder cases unless they were forty or fifty years old, because—it was argued—offence might be given to relatives of the persons in- volved, whether murderers or victims. To film Miss Valerie Storey reiterating her conviction of Hanratty's guilt, to interview his father and to question persons who have, in one way or the other, been involved in the case, was there- fore an important change in policy.

The question has to be asked whether Panorama was justified in making this new de- parture. If we accept—as we must—that Panorama is a serious piece of television journa- lism, the answer can only be in the affirmative. There is a justifiable news peg in that the Home Secretary is believed to be considering an inquiry into the case. John Morgan's interviews were restrained and fair. He has discovered in Rhyl a new witness who might in a court of law have been able to establish an alibi for Hanratty. There was no element of sensationalism in the 4reatment of the subject. Morgan stressed that the persons he interviewed were not speaking in a court of law. He was careful to point out that an inquiry would have to reach its con- clusions with judicial care. In these terms, the programme could not be faulted.

Why, then, did it leave one with a feeling compounded of dissatisfaction and vague dis- taste? The dissatisfaction was due to the fact that much of what was said to camera was already known or else extremely boring to hear. Some of the statements were rambling and— on film—difficult to cut. In print, or in oratio oh!: qua, they could have been put more pithily and with no loss of point. The distaste came from one shot of a man's hands clutching and twisting as he spoke--a shot which seemed to be making some sort of unspoken comment. Over and above, there was a feeling that one was watching human beings talk of experiences and situations before millions of people which ought, perhaps, to be

discussed only within the formal setting of an inquiry or a court. Yet they had volunteered to talk of their own free will and without coercion. Perhaps the unease was due merely to a sus- picion that somehow the programme was in bad taste. Perhaps it merely meant that we are not yet prepared for the time of which Marshall McLuhan is the prophet, when there will no longer be any defence interposed between us and the visual image. We shall need stronger nerves.