a6 murder

[Graham]

Hi Graham,
One of the most puzzling aspects of this case is exactly why the killer[ aka Hanratty] should wish to stay in a morris minor for several hours , when Hanratty would surely have robbed the car occupants of money/jewellery, and ordered them to leave the car whilst he drove away, leaving no need to discharge the firearm, and a obvious asset in having a car to desert the scene,
It has all the behaviour of a person in heavy drink, or drug related, which resulted in irrational action, however the man convicted of this crime was not that way inclined.
So If Hanratty was guilty, why did the night proceed the way it did?.
This case makes no sense to anyone intrested in bringing logic to solve it...
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard,

I'm sure that there IS some logic to this case, somewhere, but to date we haven't dropped onto it.

I can't really answer your question, mate. You're right, Hanratty didn't really drink, and I'd honestly doubt if he even knew about drugs, let alone indulge.
It's possible that he did intend just to rob the occupants of the car and then nick the car, but something made him stick around. Could it be that Gregsten and Storie, being personable people, engaged him in conversation which he somehow perversely enjoyed? Could it be that they annoyed him and he decided to subject them to an hour or so of revenge or something? Don't know, Richard.

I guess that this is the crux of the basic mystery of the entire case - was it chance, or was it planned?

Cheers,

Graham

[Steve]

Richard

He stayed in the Morris Minor because he was in charge of the situation and being in power felt good to him. His initial motivation for the hi-jack might well have been to get what he could from the car’s occupants. The gun was a recent acquisition and he wanted to use it to further his desire to become a stick-up man. He directed the car across the part of London he knew best, where he grew up and where his family were living at that time. They went past that part of London because Hanratty was still in charge. Bedford was not particularly significant, it was just in the general direction they were travelling.

From that point the proceedings developed because of Hanratty’s desire for the female occupant of the car.

Quite logical when you think it through it those terms!

Kind regards,
Steve

[Steve]

I guess that this is the crux of the basic mystery of the entire case - was it chance, or was it planned?

Hi Graham

It was 100% chance, pure happenstance!

Kind regards,
Steve

[Graham]

Hi Steve,

You and I both know it was 100% happenstance - nevertheless, the basic mystery of the case is that it will forever be argued if the encounter in the cornfield was happenstance or planned. I worded my statement badly.

Cheers,

Graham

[Steve]

Hi Graham

I hear what you are saying, and totally agree!

Kind regards,
Steve

[JamesDean]

Richard

He stayed in the Morris Minor because he was in charge of the situation and being in power felt good to him. His initial motivation for the hi-jack might well have been to get what he could from the car’s occupants. The gun was a recent acquisition and he wanted to use it to further his desire to become a stick-up man. He directed the car across the part of London he knew best, where he grew up and where his family were living at that time. They went past that part of London because Hanratty was still in charge. Bedford was not particularly significant, it was just in the general direction they were travelling.

From that point the proceedings developed because of Hanratty’s desire for the female occupant of the car.

Quite logical when you think it through it those terms!

Kind regards,
Steve

Hi Steve,

Your story is, as you say, quite logical but nonetheless pure speculation. If you are not Miller, as Reg suggested in a previous post, then you have acquired some similarity in thought. You are 100% convinced that Hanratty is the A6 murderer so everything can be worked back from that perspective to create a logical path of speculation. If only it were that easy Steve. It's the DNA evidence that has closed your mind to all alternatives other than Hanratty as the killer. We do not know how the DNA testing was carried out so it may not be as clear cut as you think. There is much concealment by the powers that be. I wonder why?

[Graham]

Hi James.

Can you give us just a few examples of 'concealment by the powers that be'?
Not trying to catch you out or trip you up in any way. Just interested in your input.

Thanks,

Graham

[JamesDean]

Someone suggested in a previous post that even Paul Foot was inclined to think that Hanratty was the A6 murderer after the 2002 DNA results had provided definitive proof of Hanratty's guilt. I think he still has serious reservations despite the DNA.

Hanratty was no saint; we all know that and I doubt that anyone would say he was a particularly pleasant character. He had spent considerable time at Her Majesty's pleasure and I suggest that it is convenient to let the blame for the A6 murder remain with Hanratty. The establishment has nothing to gain by expending huge sums of money to establish the truth of the matter even if there are courses of action that could potentially be taken to investigate the case further. I suspect the official line is that it is simply not worth the effort. Is there really only one DNA on the hanky?

This is what Paul Foot wrote in the guardian ...

Hanratty's appeal is over, but justice is yet to be done.

The hanged man's alibi is still solid, and vital questions remain unanswered.

* Paul Foot
* The Guardian,
* Monday May 13 2002


Even a lord justice of appeal can work out that if you are in Rhyl, you cannot commit a murder near Bedford. The essence of the case for the innocence of James Hanratty, who was hanged in 1962 for the A6 murder, is that on the day of the murder he travelled to Liverpool, and then on to Rhyl. Soon after his arrest in October 1961, he told his lawyers that in Liverpool he had called at a sweetshop in the Scotland Road to ask the way to Tarleton or Carlton Road. Mrs Olive Dinwoodie gave evidence to say a) that she recalled a man looking like Hanratty calling at her shop and asking the way to Tarleton or Carlton Road and b) that she was only serving in the shop for two days - on August 21 and 22, 1961 - the day of the murder.

Seven prosecution witnesses put him in London on the 21st. So if Hanratty did go to the shop, he must have gone on the 22nd and could not have climbed into Michael Gregsten's car at 9pm that evening and shot him dead five hours later. Stumped by this evidence, the prosecution suggested that Hanratty might have "bought" the alibi - a surprising notion since the man who sold him such an alibi needed to look and speak very like Hanratty.

At his Bedford trial in January and February 1962 Hanratty changed his original story about what he did next. He said he had gone on to Rhyl, and spent the night there. He described the guest house where he stayed which had a green bath in the attic. The landlady of a Rhyl guest house called Ingledene, which had a green bath in the attic, said a man looking like Hanratty had stayed at Ingledene for two nights in the third week of the previous August. Cross-examined, she admitted that the guesthouse was full for at least one of the nights, and broke down. Her evidence was discounted. Over the years that followed many more witnesses substantiated Hanratty's Rhyl alibi. The most impressive was Mrs Margaret Walker, who lived in the street behind Ingledene. She went to the police during the trial and told them of a young man who had come to her house on the night of August 22 1961, looking for lodgings. Two other women in the street told the same story.

After interviewing all these witnesses in the late 1960s, I was convinced that Hanratty was in Rhyl on the night of the 22nd. I wrote a book about the case. The case was referred to the criminal cases review commission in 1997. Their inquiries were led by Bill Skitt, former chief constable of Hertfordshire. All the initial inquiries pointed to Hanratty's innocence. Right at the end, the commission carried out DNA tests on fragments connected with the murder.

For years, those of us campaigning for Hanratty's innocence had been asking for these DNA tests, but were told that no DNA could be recovered from the exhibits. In November 1997 scientists took a swab from Michael Hanratty, the dead man's brother. To the astonishment of the commission, there was a match with his DNA and a handkerchief wrapped around the murder gun when it was found after the murder, and a small square of knickers worn by Valerie Storie on the night she was raped and she and her lover, Michael Gregsten, shot.

In April 1998, a further swab was taken from Hanratty's mother. Michael Hanratty, Jim's brother, and his wife Maureen remember going to the old lady's bedside with Mr Skitt to take the swab. She remembers Skitt saying: "Your brother was innocent - we just can't explain the DNA." Another match was found, and later confirmed when James Hanratty's body was dug up later that year. In spite of the findings, the case was still referred to the court of appeal, which heard the appeal over the past few weeks. The DNA findings conflicted grotesquely with the alibis. If Hanratty was guilty, as the DNA suggested, he could not have been in Liverpool and Rhyl. If he was in Liverpool and Rhyl, there must be something wrong with the DNA.

All of us who had followed the case over the years hoped that the appeal would solve this contradiction. As it became clear that the DNA evidence was likely to be accepted, I wondered what new evidence would damage the alibi. Had the authorities discovered, for instance, who sold Hanratty his sweetshop alibi, or whether Hanratty had stayed at Rhyl on some other week that summer of 1961?

In the hearing, absolutely nothing was produced to cast any doubt on the alibi witnesses in the Liverpool sweetshop or the Rhyl guesthouse. Apart from a few remarks about the speed of Hanratty's movements if he did go to the sweetshop that evening (based, I believe, on a wrong assumption about the train he got to Liverpool), the judges (Woolf, Mantell and Leveson) passed on the unlikely and unproved prosecution theory that the sweetshop alibi was bought. Neither they nor the prosecution could find anything to discredit the witnesses in Rhyl.

What meanwhile was the case against the DNA on the knickers? The appellants suggested that over 40 years in police custody the fragment of knickers could have been contaminated. No one could explain, for instance, what was in a vial which had been stored among the exhibits and broken. Could it have contained fluid from a wash of Hanratty's trousers, which were also kept as exhibits and which contained some of his semen? No, said the judges. They accepted the DNA evidence wholesale, and then turned to the 24 cases of police failure to disclose vital evidence.

What about the ESDA tests which showed that a crucial part of the police notes of an interview with Hanratty - the part which referred to him using the word "kip" as the murderer had done, and which he denied - had been rewritten after the original notes had been completed? "Of peripheral significance" said the judges. What about the failure to disclose the alibi statements from Rhyl before the trial? That didn't matter because they were disclosed after the conviction and before the original appeal (where they were not used).

What about the sightings on the morning of the murder of the murder car as far away as Matlock, which contradicted the evidence of identification witnesses, and were notified to the police at the time and not passed on to the defence? Though the judges described this as the "high watermark of non-disclosure", they concluded: "We do not consider that on its own it reveals such fatal unfairness as to render the conviction unsafe." Every one of the appellants' complaints about non-disclosure was similarly rejected.

After dismissing the appeal and patronising the Hanratty family, the judges had a warning for the criminal cases review commission. "There have to be exceptional circumstances," they concluded, "to justify incurring the expenditure of resources on this scale on a case of this age." This was an echo of a similar sulk by another lord chief justice, Lord Lane, in the first appeal of the Birmingham six in 1986, which was also dismissed mainly on grounds of scientific evidence. The Birmingham six went back to prison for another five years before their innocence was finally established. James Hanratty can never be released, but as the expertise in DNA grows, perhaps scientists in the future will apply their minds to the DNA evidence in this case and seek to solve the continuing riddle of how it proved that a man who was in Rhyl managed to commit a murder near Bedford.

[Graham]

Hi James,

All of what you posted notwithstanding (and I've seen it before), the hard fact of the matter is that the Rhyl Alibi cannot be proven beyond any reasonable doubt, and the DNA of both the hankie and the knickers points to Hanratty. I concede that there is a slight possibility of contamination with regard to the DNA of the knickers. But that notwithstanding, Hanratty's defence was unable to show that he was anywhere other than in the Morris Minor on the night of the murder. And God knows they tried.

Cheers,

Graham

[Steve]

Someone suggested in a previous post that even Paul Foot was inclined to think that Hanratty was the A6 murderer after the 2002 DNA results had provided definitive proof of Hanratty's guilt. I think he still has serious reservations despite the DNA.

James, Paul Foot can have no further input on the A6 murder case. Sadly, he died in 2004. Just in case you didn't already know.

[Limehouse]

I have been thinking more about the gun and how Hanratty might have obtained it. If he asked around for a gun, and purchased one, it would point to a planned intention to commit armed robbery of some kind. Now, it also seems that he obtained a large number of bullets also, which compunds the intention - he wasn't just going to use the gun to frighten his victims into submission - he was willing to shoot them. If this happened shortly before the events of that night, it seems to mark a serious change in Hanratty's criminal career - as far as we know.

I wonder if Hanratty actually found the gun and bullets during a burglary? Perhaps he came across them and decided to take them to sell - but was then tempted to see how he would shape up as an armed robber? This to me sounds much more like Hanratty.

However, one of the things that does puzzle me, and we have mentioned this before, is how Hanratty managed to carry the gun and the boxes of cartridges in his pockets without looking very uncomfortable and very strange. Did he have a bag of some sort? Why wasn't this aspect of the scenario explored by the defence at his trial? No one has explained how he travelled that far, with all that bulk bulging from him, without attracting attention.

[reg1965]

Hi James,

But that notwithstanding, Hanratty's defence was unable to show that he was anywhere other than in the Morris Minor on the night of the murder. And God knows they tried.

Cheers,

Graham

The burden of proof in any criminal case falls squarely on the prosecutions shoulders. The defence does not even have to utter a word beyond entering a plea to kick it all off! The prosecutions whole case rested on extremely dodgy identification evidence which has now been disproved (Redbridge; crazy driver. Non-disclosure of milage plus Foots work did for this!) or discredited (Valerie Storie; she picked out a totally innocent man first, when the events would have been fresher in her mind, 'the image of this man is fading'!!!!) and some very iffy circumstantial evidence
Reg

[reg1965]

Hey, listen!

I have never, ever stated that Miller's book is God's gift to those who believe in JH's guilt. In fact, I have stated that I don't think Miller's book is all that well-written, informative or even contains any new information. But what I have said is that he is (a) putting an opposite viewpoint to that of Foot and Woffinden and (b) he, like me and anyone else, is entitled to his opinions. It may interest you to know that back in the 1960's when I was young and radical I held Paul Foot in some esteem for his anti-establishment stance (although I have to admit his politics did become a little, er, muddled, as time went on), and his was the first column I always read in the good old days when 'Private Eye' was worth reading. He had a well-earned reputation for going after miscarriages of justice (the A6 Case was far from being his only cause celebre and standing up for the rights of the down-trodden and weak individual. Also, I was pretty well convinced of JH's innocence right up until the DNA test-results were published. I always thought that Foot argued his case(s) fairly and honestly and didn't fall into the trap of viewing JH as a gentle soul who wouldn't hurt a fly.

I don't know what moved Miller to write his book. I have stated here on this thread that I thought the last few chapters of his book were very poorly conceived and written, and that he was using pure speculation almost as proven fact. As it happens, I did once write to him courtesy of his publisher, but wasn't graced with a response. I'm sure he didn't write his book for the £££'s, as Zoilus Press specialises in the publication of somewhat specialist, and esoteric, works. If it's out of print, then that doesn't surprise me in the slightest, as in 2008 the A6 Case is very much a minority interest. Are Foot's and Woffinden's books still in print, would you know?

Re: MG and VS being 'toffee-nosed', both of them were well-spoken, articulate and well-educated in comparison to JH, and I do feel that they must have 'wound him up' somewhat, gun or no gun. If he just banged on their window, robbed them, then buggered off, okay; but he stayed with them for hours. Why?

Cheers,

Graham

Dear Graham
I am sorry if you thought I was having a pop at you personally but I wasn't. I was just replying to your post about why other people villified Millers books and put forward my initial reasons. There were too many others to post at once but I will get to it in due course!
Sorry again if you took offence, none was intended.
Regards
Reg

Ps Both Foot and Woffinden are out of print but large numbers of new and used are available on Amazon UK from nice low prices. No copies of Miller can be found there though!
PPs Bob has co-written a book with Sion Jenkins on the Billi Jo murder. Haven't read it yet but will endeavour to get a copy soon.
PPPs A Bob Woffinden seems to have written a large number of books on Rock music and The Beatles. Does anyone know if this is the same Bob?

[Tony]

Hi James,

All of what you posted notwithstanding (and I've seen it before), the hard fact of the matter is that the Rhyl Alibi cannot be proven beyond any reasonable doubt, and the DNA of both the hankie and the knickers points to Hanratty. I concede that there is a slight possibility of contamination with regard to the DNA of the knickers. But that notwithstanding, Hanratty's defence was unable to show that he was anywhere other than in the Morris Minor on the night of the murder. And God knows they tried.

Cheers,

Graham

Hello Graham,

Just a couple of points on your attached post and I know that they have been said many times before but as in the words of Judge Gorman the accused does not have to prove his innocence it is up to the prosecution to prove his guilt. He was innocent until proved guilty.

You say the Rhyl alibi cannot be proved beyond any reasonable doubt. It doesn’t have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. A doubt is sufficient here.
Similarly the defence did not have to prove he wasn’t in the Morris Minor it was up to the prosecution to prove that he was.
There was absolutely no evidence to prove Hanratty was in the car other than Valerie’s identification and that was obviously suspect on three counts:

1 She firstly identified Michael Clark as the gunman.
2 She told Acott that her memory of the man was fading.
3 When she did get it ‘right’ it was on a parade highly weighed against Hanratty i.e.: only cockney on the line, strange hair and probable coaxing of Valerie before the parade by Acott.

Tony.

[Tony]

Liverpool.

Hello everyone,

Wow things are happening quickly on this board. I’ve not had chance to say welcome to Reg. So a very warm welcome to you Reg.

The Liverpool alibi to me seems very important. Swanwick accused Hanratty in court of somehow buying it.
Mrs Dinwoodie was the sole person who could verify Hanratty’s appearance in Liverpool. She was in the sweetshop on the 21st and 22nd August and a man came in on one of those days and asked if she could direct him to Tarleton Road. She didn’t know Tarleton Road but knew Tarleton Street. She wasn’t at the shop after the 22nd of August. Asked in court if she recognised the man she pointed to Hanratty and said he resembled the man. The police had already accepted that Hanratty was in London on the 21st so it must have been the 22nd.
Mr Swanwick accepted Mrs Dinwoodie as an honest witness.
Nobody, least of all Mr Swanwick, could explain how he could have been in Liverpool in the early evening and then turned up a few hours later at the cornfield so how could the prosecution get over this problem?
Mr Swanwick put it to Mrs Dinwoodie that possibly someone who resembled Hanratty had come into her shop and asked for directions to Tarleton Road (obviously this ‘lost’ person was also looking for the same mistaken Tarleton Road not Tarleton Street).
If Hanratty was not the man as Mr Swanwick says then how on earth would Hanratty have known about this event ever taking place?
Even the Judge told the jury: “Do you think it is likely that there were two people making similar enquiries? It is up to the prosecution to prove he was not there.”

I think the odds on this scenario are millions to one. Possibly in the same league as the DNA odds.

Also with regard to the Liverpool alibi Hanratty said he tried to sell a watch at a billiard hall but was prevented from doing so by the manager, Mr Kempt who was standing on the steps outside and refused him entry. Mr Kempt confirmed this incident took place exactly as Hanratty stated. He wasn’t sure of the date but was going on holiday on 26th August so he said it was before that.
Swanwick asked the Judge when summing up to remind the jury that this was possibly a conversation between Mr Kempt and somebody else; and the accused somehow got to know about it and used it to suit his own ends. Or it was Hanratty but on another occasion.
It was at this point Mr Sherrard said things were beginning to remind him of Alice in Wonderland.

Tony.