a6 murder

[Steve]

Hi Steve,

Probably best left in the left luggage locker. What could he have been thinking when opening the locker?
“Shall I put the gun and the ammo in here where it’s safe? No I’d better leave it on the bus”.

Tony.

Hi Tony

Which is one reason why I think the gun etc. was put on the bus by someone other than the gunman himself.

KR
Steve

[Tony]

Hi Tony

Which is one reason why I think the gun etc. was put on the bus by someone other than the gunman himself.

KR
Steve

Hi Steve,

If that’s the case where do we go from here?

Tony.

[reg1965]

Hi All
Re: disposal of gun
Does anyone know how much blood was actually in the Morris Minor when it was found abandoned? Foot (1988. p39) informs us that;

"Nickolls....found 2 clots of blood on the floor, and a rug draped over the drivers seat."

Woffiden (1997. p40) though has further information. he states that Bedfordshire police sent out an urgent telex saying that the suspects clothing was undoubtedly bloodstained. And that on inpecting the Morris car the police were immediately struck by the amount of blood in it, hence the telex. (my italics)

The suspect, being most bloodstained, must have then either changed clothing or travelled across London in a right old state.
Alphon was seen at the Vienna Hotel that morning looking dishevelled. No one has come forward to actually having seen Hanratty in or around the area after the abandonment of the car.

The gun and the ammo was not found until the following evening. (24th). I accept that all the buses on that route were cleaned and checked the night before so it must have been disposed of sometime thursday.
The police, I believe, were inclined to think that the gun was disposed of on the afternoon run of the bus.

Hanratty sent a telegram to France from Liverpool sometime between 7:30pm and 8:45pm on Thursday.

Mr Brine the conductor on the afternoon run of the 36A said that at about 6:30pm a man sat up stairs who had the following description
"Unshaven, eyes fairly deep set with a staring look about them...mousy hair...brown trousers and a blue jacket. Mr Brine said he would regognize the man on an identity parade. Was Mr Brine ever taken to an identity parade? I don't know! He was a prosecution witness though!

This could not have been Hanratty because he was sending a telegram at the latest 8:40pm in Liverpool.

Where was Alphon at this time?

Also am I right in finking that Hanratty wore the same suit all throughout the week. If he had had it cleaned who did it? Have any dry cleaners come forward saying we've had a very bloodstained suit brought in?
He took the green suit in to be cleaned before the murder and it wasn't ready a week after!

Also if the gun was dumped off to another person before it was finally disposed of it surely it would incur more risk of being caught.

Was France the only person Hanratty told about the concealing properties of the back seat of a bus? France certainly used it for the prosecution.

Was France the killer? Descriptions of the gunman suggest not!

So lets say for arguments sake that if it wasn't Hanratty then there is a fair chance it was a conspiricy, involving France and at least the gunman, to murder and to pervert the course of justice.

Possibly France had Hanratty framed before the events rolled out and used his knowledge of Hanratty to inform the gunman of what to say and where to get rid of the gun.

I know I have brought Alphon into this post, but one thing that I don't get is that if Alphon was the gunman why would he have stayed in the same hotel the day after Hanratty had and on the night of the murder! Pure coincidence should not be ruled out.

Did France know about the Vienna bill before the murder took place, or was it when Hanratty arrived back at the end of the week? I fink that it was on the Friday (25th)

If the gunman was Alphon then on finding out that Alphon had stayed at the same hotel a day after Hanratty, France would have had to plant some more really incriminating evidence towards Hanratty (cartridge cases) to divert attention away from Alphon and thus himself.

Even so the cartridges could still have been planted to put the police onto Hanratty regardless of any involvement Alphon may or may not have had in the whole thing.

Just a few thoughts.

Reg

[reg1965]

Hi JamesDean
Re your post #1815
(Great post by the way)

I agree that the DNA techniques used in the Hanratty Appeal must be less reliable than those heavy criticised in Hoey.

The DNA aside then how many of the appellants grounds have been truly put to bed by the appeal court judge's ruling?

The rhyl alibi?
Stories identification?
The value of the non-disclosed evidence?
Other miscellaneous points?

Any comments anyone?

Reg

[ansonman]

Justice is yet to be done

Hi Reg,

The discredited DNA should be put to one side (or consigned to the rubbish bin) for reasons already set out in several excellent postings. That having been done, none of the appellants grounds have been put to bed.

The following, and perhaps last, article by Paul Foot is as relevant now as the day he wrote it.

Regards,

Ansonman

13 May 2002
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

By Paul Foot

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".

[Steve]

Hello Ansonman

The big problem with all of Foot's statement is that it has never been proven beyond doubt that Hanratty was in Liverpool on the Monday and/or Tuesday, or that he was in Rhyl during that week.

KR
Steve

[ansonman]

Beyond reasonable doubt

Hi Steve,

It has not been proved beyond doubt that Hanratty was not in Liverpool or Rhyl. However, the evidence of the witnesses, to my mind, weighs heavily towards Hanratty having been in both places.

There are many people, not least on this site, who were convinced of Hanratty's innocence right up until the results of the DNA analysis. If we now disregard those results, as we must for reasons previously set out by others, then we have no evidence whatsoever, to prove beyond doubt that Hanratty was guilty as charged. Conversely, we have plenty of witness evidence to show he could not possibly have been at the crime scene on the night of the murder/rape.

It was not proved beyond doubt that Barry George was not on Dando's doorstep but the fact that it could not be proved that he was, was sufficient to find him innocent, albeit belatedly, on appeal.

Regards,

Ansonman

[reg1965]

Hello Ansonman

The big problem with all of Foot's statement is that it has never been proven beyond doubt that Hanratty was in Liverpool on the Monday and/or Tuesday, or that he was in Rhyl during that week.

KR
Steve

Hi Steve
The prosecution at the original trial had to concede that he was certainly in London on the Monday. Many of their witnesses testified so.
Weighing up both sides of the evidence with what we know is the prosecution case truly convincing beyond a reasonable doubt when compared to the defence's?
Cheers
Reg

[Steve]

The jury thought so!

[Steve]

Hi Steve,

It has not been proved beyond doubt that Hanratty was not in Liverpool or Rhyl. However, the evidence of the witnesses, to my mind, weighs heavily towards Hanratty having been in both places.

There are many people, not least on this site, who were convinced of Hanratty's innocence right up until the results of the DNA analysis. If we now disregard those results, as we must for reasons previously set out by others, then we have no evidence whatsoever, to prove beyond doubt that Hanratty was guilty as charged. Conversely, we have plenty of witness evidence to show he could not possibly have been at the crime scene on the night of the murder/rape.

It was not proved beyond doubt that Barry George was not on Dando's doorstep but the fact that it could not be proved that he was, was sufficient to find him innocent, albeit belatedly, on appeal.

Regards,

Ansonman

I have to say I speak to many people who are still not convinced that Barry George was innocent. Yes, there are also many who feel that he was convicted on very poor evidence, and in fact should not have been convicted on the evidence presented at the trial. Much like Hanratty, in fact, but it does show that there are still diverse camps on the Barry George front.

[reg1965]

The jury thought so!

Sorry Steve
My post omitted the word now meaning as in 2008.

it should have read:-

Weighing up both sides of the evidence with what we know now is the prosecution case truly convincing beyond a reasonable doubt when compared to the defence's?

sorry again for confusion
Reg

[ansonman]

Evidential Anomalies

I have to say I speak to many people who are still not convinced that Barry George was innocent. Yes, there are also many who feel that he was convicted on very poor evidence, and in fact should not have been convicted on the evidence presented at the trial. Much like Hanratty, in fact, but it does show that there are still diverse camps on the Barry George front.

Hi Steve,

I would not disagree with what you say.

One of the things that really irks me in cases like Hanratty/George is that if the Police disagree with a jury or appeal verdict, they can, and generally do, say something to the effect that "as far as we are concerned the quilty man got off and we are not prepared to look for anyone else".

To my mind, this is an absolute outrage. If a court finds the accused innocent then the Police should have a duty to get off their backsides and search for new evidence and find the guilty party.

In the case of the Dando murder the Police have effectively closed the case saying that until such time as any new evidence surfaces they will do nothing. Presumably they would have said the same had Hanratty been found not guilty in 1962.

The law of the land should require the Police to get out and find the evidence and not to let their predudice allow the real criminals to get away with murder.

Finally, for now:

Evidential anomalies

Prosecution Evidence
In the second line up, Valerie Storie picked Hanratty (though she admitted she only ever saw the face of the man for a second or two in the lights of a car headlamp while he raped her).
John Silkett picked out Hanratty as the driver of the Morris Minor as it sped down Eastern Avenue (his companion, Edward Blackall, who had a closer view of the man, did not).
James Trower identified Hanratty as driving the Morris as it turned into Redbridge Lane (Trower's companion was adamant that Trower couldn't have seen him from where they were standing).
Another prosecution witness was Roy Langdale, who was serving time in prison, and claimed that Hanratty confessed to him. (Two others that Hanratty exercised with said that Hanratty consistently denied any involvement.)
Charlie France, a friend of Hanratty's, testified that Hanratty had said to him once that 'the back seat of a bus was a good place to hide something'.

Defence Evidence
No witnesses were able to place Hanratty in the vicinity of Dorney Reach (Valerie Storie excepted)
Elsie Cobb said that around 14:30 on 21 August she saw a man passing her house who she described as aged 27 to 30, 5 foot 6 with dark hair brushed back and a thin nose. Her neighbour Frederick Newell added that the man had a sallow complexion.
The gunman said "I've been in institutions since I was eight", Hanratty would not use words like "institutions".
Mary Lanz proprietor of the Old Station Inn, Taplow where Gregsten and Storie had last been before the cornfield was later able to identify Alphon as having also been there.
Even if the Rhyl alibi is disregarded, Hanratty's meeting with Olive Dinwoodie would make his presence in Dorney Reach by 9 p.m. extremely implausible.
On Thursday 24 August at 20:40 Hanratty sent a telegram from Lime Street, Liverpool in which he purported to be in London
In the first line up, Valerie Storie picked out with total certainty an innocent sailor instead of the police suspect Alphon
In the second line up, Hanratty stood out as his hair was bright orange and the police were so concerned about this they considered acquiring skullcaps
Although the cartridge cases were found in the Hotel Vienna, no one ever adequately explained how they came to be there the day before the murder.
Hanratty disposed of his suit jacket 6 weeks after the crime, Alphon disposed of his raincoat straightaway.
Unlike the gunman's description of himself, Hanratty had never lived in a house with a cellar (let alone been locked in one and given only bread and water), was not coming up for PD, had not served five years for housebreaking and had already been in prison on the Isle of Wight.
Valerie Storie had said that Jim was obviously not the gunman's real name despite what the gunman claimed.
Juliana Galves said she saw Alphon with a pair of black gloves on his suitcase during his stay in the Vienna.
Peter Alphon wrote to the Daily Express in 1962 saying he believed Hanratty was innocent and he supported a reprieve.
Peter Alphon wrote to the Home Secretary in 1962 saying "I killed Gregsten".
In her original statement, Valerie Storie states the man who abducted her was in his 30s, whereas in her second statement she changed this to 'mid 20s'. Hanratty was 25 but Alphon was 31.

Regards,

Ansonman

[johnl]

Paul Foot

Hello Ansonman
I'll take paul Foot's article paragraph by paragraph:-
Mrs. Dinwoodie was "certain" that the incident took place on the 21st (p69)
Mr. Harding confirmed that he had visited the shop on the 22nd and that Mrs. Dinwoodie was not there at that time (p70)
As seven witnesses had seen JH in London on the 21st then PF draws the conclusion that it must have been the 22nd-WRONG, the logical conclusion is that Mrs. Dinwoodie's account was incorrect!
The "most impressive" Mrs. Walker went to the police and made a statement to the police to the effect that she had seen JH at 7.30 in Rhyl, which was in direct conflict with JH's sworn testimony to the effect that he was either in Liverpool or on the coach ( a journey which NOWADAYS takes 1hr 45min). Her evidence was not used at the appeal for the reason I have stated and it would have shattered what little credibility JH had left.
Foot says "In spite of these findings", but surely an appeal is what he had wanted all along wasn't it, and without an appeal the DNA evidence would have gone unchallenged?
The DNA evidence has been dealt with elsewhere.
"What abut the failure to disclose the alibi statements from Rhyl before the trial?". Well, I'll leave that one for you to work out!
PF knew that the Matlock sighting was an impossibility, bearing in mind the odometer reading, so it's a red herring.
The judges were not patronising to the family of JH, Iahve read what they said and I think they were very kind.

All the best
johnl

[reg1965]

Hello Ansonman
I'll take paul Foot's article paragraph by paragraph:-
Mrs. Dinwoodie was "certain" that the incident took place on the 21st (p69)
Mr. Harding confirmed that he had visited the shop on the 22nd and that Mrs. Dinwoodie was not there at that time (p70)
As seven witnesses had seen JH in London on the 21st then PF draws the conclusion that it must have been the 22nd-WRONG, the logical conclusion is that Mrs. Dinwoodie's account was incorrect!
The "most impressive" Mrs. Walker went to the police and made a statement to the police to the effect that she had seen JH at 7.30 in Rhyl, which was in direct conflict with JH's sworn testimony to the effect that he was either in Liverpool or on the coach ( a journey which NOWADAYS takes 1hr 45min). Her evidence was not used at the appeal for the reason I have stated and it would have shattered what little credibility JH had left.
Foot says "In spite of these findings", but surely an appeal is what he had wanted all along wasn't it, and without an appeal the DNA evidence would have gone unchallenged?
The DNA evidence has been dealt with elsewhere.
"What abut the failure to disclose the alibi statements from Rhyl before the trial?". Well, I'll leave that one for you to work out!
PF knew that the Matlock sighting was an impossibility, bearing in mind the odometer reading, so it's a red herring.
The judges were not patronising to the family of JH, Iahve read what they said and I think they were very kind.

All the best
johnl

Hi john
Just to clarify something with you. The paragraph numbers you give, that is p69 and p70 are from your holy tenet viz the appeal courts ruling document?

Just wanted to be sure what you were referencing.
Reg

[Graham]

Wow! It's hotting up here!

I just logged on after a bloody awful day in the rain (shan't say what I was doing or trying to do...) and it's good to see that the pre-DNA evidence in the case is being debated.

All I'd say at this stage is that there really isn't much comparison between the Jill Dando and the A6 cases - the successful prosecution of the latter was based upon identification, no matter how flimsy some of us consider that identification. Yet it convinced the jury, and that, when all's said and done, is what matters.

And no matter how much it's discussed and debated, the fact remains that any sightings of JH in either Liverpool or Rhyl are simply pure heresay, and can't be proven today any more than they could be proved in 1961/2. However, I'll concede that the defence's investigations of Liverpool and Rhyl sightings were not conducted in a very professional manner, but as I said in an earlier post, if JH had, for example, genuinely been at Ingledene and had signed the visitors' book as Ryan, Hanratty or whatever, and had been able to confirm what name he'd used, we wouldn't be on this thread right now. JH quite simply was totally unable to substantiate any of his claims with regard to an alibi.

Cheers,

Graham