a6 murder

[larue]

probably too short notice, i know, but there is a movie on tonight channel 103 itv central w, called pierrepoint, all about albert.

i bought this on dvd aboot three weeks ago. it's a bit grim in parts, but would appear to be reasonably authentic. worth watching

[Sherlock]

I already have a copy of Pierrepoint on DVD. It is an interesting story, but is not entirely factually accurate. I understand that Clive Revill, who earlier appeared briefly as Albert Pierrepoint in Let Him Have It was orginally to have played the leading part, but dropped out when he became unhappy with the inaccuracies in the script. The next choice was Warren Mitchell, but he also disagreed with the producer, and was finally replaced by Timothy Spall.

Pierrepoint had resigned by the time of Hanratty's execution at Bedford Prison in 1962. I believe the execution was carried out by Henry Allen, one of Pierrepoint's sucessors.

SHERLOCK

[Steve]

That's correct - Henry Allen was the hangman. I understand that he attended executions in a dinner jacket and always wore a bow tie!

[Graham]

If my missus permits, I'll watch the Pierrepoint film (on in 55 minutes), and wonder if they'll show Albert's little trick of lighting a cigar just before entering the condemned-cell, doing what he was paid to do, then returning to his cigar, which would still be alight, to take a luxurious puff and demonstrate to anyone remotely interested just how quick and efficient he was...

What a way to earn a crust, eh?

Cheers,

Graham

[JamesDean]

That's correct - Henry Allen was the hangman. I understand that he attended executions in a dinner jacket and always wore a bow tie!

Harry Allen to be precise.

KR

James

[larue]

wonder if they'll show Albert's little trick of lighting a cigar just before entering the condemned-cell, doing what he was paid to do, then returning to his cigar, which would still be alight, to take a luxurious puff and demonstrate to anyone remotely interested just how quick and efficient he was...

they did!

[larue]

I already have a copy of Pierrepoint on DVD. It is an interesting story, but is not entirely factually accurate.

hi Sherlock

funny you should say that.

however, i have recently copped for a copy of albert's autobiography, so it will be interesting to see how book and film tally.

[larue]

just how quick and efficient he was...

hi Graham

i think his record was 7.5 seconds from his entry to the condemed cell to pulling the lever.

phew!

[larue]

oh, by the way

the documentary 'executioner: pierrepoint' seems to be doing the rounds again. that's also very interesting.

goodnight all. don't have nightmares...

[Graham]

Well, I watched 'Pierrepoint', and I wonder why I hadn't got anything better to do! I honestly couldn't see the 'point' of the film!

Graham

[Limehouse]

That's correct - Henry Allen was the hangman. I understand that he attended executions in a dinner jacket and always wore a bow tie!

Steve, I think he displayed very poor taste and I can't think why the authorities allowed it. However, I suppose that if you are called upon to end a person's life, you must be allowed to cope with it in your own way.

[jimarilyn]

The Rhyl alibi

Hi All,Having just returned from holiday at my sister's at the weekend I have spent part of the last couple or so days catching up with the numerous posts submitted while I have been away. I must say I have been very impressed with new poster Reg1965's knowledge,understanding and insight of the case. I took Paul Foot's excellent book with me to re-read on holiday.

Paul asks the question "Why did Hanratty not talk of Rhyl from the outset ? Why, when he knew he was wanted for the A6 murder, did he not go to Rhyl to check on the boarding house in which he said he stayed ? Here is Hanratty's own answer* :

Mr. Swanwick : Why did you never go back (to Rhyl) to try to pinpoint it (the boarding house) ?

James Hanratty : Because at this stage when I spoke to Mr Acott over the phone I know I had already told Mr Acott a lie about Liverpool and it was quite obvious to me inside that I never committed this crime and I had nothing at all to fear. But--let me finish-- as this case eventually went along I got so frightened with the evidence what was being brought forward to me, with the lies and such things as what has happened in this witness box-- well, it is disgraceful to talk about them. But I am just trying to suggest at this stage when I spoke to Mr Acott I did not fear any danger, because I knew in my heart and soul I did not commit this crime.

Mr Swanwick : But you had from 7th to 11th of October, and you were in Liverpool or Blackpool-- in that area-- when you could have gone along and tried to find this boarding house, and if you had found it all your troubles would have been over, would they not ?

James Hanratty : Yes, in that sense, yes, but in the state I was in at that time i was very depressed and with the tension in the papers, it is very hard to say how your mind will react at that stage. I was a wanted man by Mr Acott. He wanted me to interview me. It was in the papers and the police wanted to interview me. I could not go and knock at houses in Rhyl and ask if I stayed there on 23rd and 22nd August. I was a wanted man. I had to check and those houses I had to go to.


One thing that always impressed me about James Hanratty was his basic honesty and openness. I know that might sound contradictory given that he was a car thief and burglar, but deep down, I believe, the family values imparted* to him from his devoutly Catholic parents stayed with him always. Examples of his openness and truthfulness are littered throughout Paul Foot's book ( and Bob Woffinden's book ).

[johnl]

Rhyl alibi

Hello jimarilyn
So you are very impressed with Reg1965's knowledge, understanding and insight of the case.
As an example let's take a look at his post 1542 and "THE BEST" of all the Rhyl witnesses, Mrs. Walker and Mr. Larman "who came forward to support the alibi, terms of date, hair condition and NO LUGGAGE!"
They both made statements to the police and the defence to the effect that they had seen Hanratty in Rhyl between 7.30 and 8.00 on 22 August, and particularly noticed his hair, which was bronze or black and Mr. Larman states the sun was shining on it and he could not see the colour properly but it was most outstanding.
This evidence was never introduced at the first appeal for one very good reason; to quote his solicitor "He could not have spoken to any of these people at 7.30 pm because his evidence on oath was that he did not leave Lverpool by coach for Rhyl until after 7.30 pm and that when he arrived in Rhyl it was late evening and dark" this was apart from other inconsistencies and mutually contradictory features.
So these were "THE BEST" Rhyl witnesses.
Very impressive!

[Limehouse]

Hi Jimarilyn,

I agree with you in some ways concerning Hanratty's apparent openess, and as you say, examples of this are revealed in Foot and Woffendin's books, but these are selective examples and they tend to paint a picture of Hanratty as a basically decent young man who just indulged in a little bit of housebreaking. However, in reality he lacked a particular insight into the impact of his crimes on others. He felt it was alright to rob from people who lived in big houses because they would probably be insured. He could not understand that some of the items he stole were irreplaceable to the owners of the house. The story mentioned recently in a post about how he sold a diamond ring, the proceeds from a burglary, touched a nerve with me. I could imagine it being a treasured item - perhaps the wedding ring of a dead mother, sister or grandmother. I can imagine too, that awful feeling of having been soiled and tainted when an intruder has been into your house, touched your things, seen your most intimate possessions and taken things that you loved and valued.

Although I do have reservations about Hanratty's guilt, I do think that he was too fond of justifying his wicked behaviour and I also think he was skilled at talking his way out of a situatioon and sounding plausible at the same time.

[Tony]

Identification issue.

Hello Limehouse,

I think of all the contributors to the forum you are best placed to answer several queries I have.
They relate to Miss Storie’s evidence and powers of observation as an identification witness.

First of all let us not forget that virtually everyone in ‘the Hanratty did it camp’ say the jury was most impressed by Miss Storie’s evidence and that was the main reason for the guilty verdict.

Given in evidence:

“After we passed Silsoe, he (the man in the car) saw a turning off to the left. He appeared to be looking out of the car on the left-hand side and he saw this turning. He said to Mike, ‘Turn down there’ and we turned down this little lane. I saw a post with a notice on which it said ‘Private, no parking’ I said to the man, ‘We cannot stop here. This is a private road and we shall only draw attention to ourselves’. So he agreed we should turn round and continue northwards on the A6. A little while after he saw another little turning off to the left and he said, ‘Go down there’. After 50 or 100 yards down this little turning there were some houses. Mike stopped by the houses and I again said, ‘We cannot stop here, someone will see us’. And so for the second time he agreed we should turn round and continue going north".

Now here’s the thing Limehouse: you are in a car with a gunman, you are scared but intelligent wouldn’t you want to be discovered? Wouldn’t you want someone to alert the police to this car parked on a private road? Why did she not want anyone to see them?

On Miss Storie’s own admission she saw the gunman’s face for but a few seconds at night by the light of a passing car.
On the Alphon parade she picked out Michael Clark as the gunman. I assume she was certain he was the man at the time.
She looked at the men in perfect lighting conditions for five minutes or more. It must have been an ordeal. I would have thought Michael Clark’s face would have been very frightening to her and would become etched in her memory. At the very least she must have looked very closely at him. None of us, I think, has ever seen Michael Clark.

Given in evidence:

Q: You identified a man as being, in your view, the assailant?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you tell us now what that man looked like?
A: No.

Would you have remembered a small detail of Michael Clark, Limehouse?


Tony.