a6 murder

[jimarilyn]

Graham,

Spent too much time on my laptop today, I need a break. Being a bit of a film buff and loving a good movie, I'm off to watch a very good film on Film4 + 1, Road to Perdition (Paul Newman and Tom Hanks). 8.40 this morning I came on my PC so.........................

Yours since early

James

[Graham]

Graham,

Spent too much time on my laptop today, I need a break. Being a bit of a film buff and loving a good movie, I'm off to watch a very good film on Film4 + 1, Road to Perdition (Paul Newman and Tom Hanks). 8.40 this morning I came on my PC so.........................

Yours since early

James

Understood, mate.

I was really looking forward to watching Becket on BBC2 this afernoon, but after an hour I gave up - too many bloody words!

Cheers,

Graham

[Tony]

Simon, me old mate, and James, me old mucker,

I saw that terrible and unforgiveable error, born of having to read business letters and reports written by the grammatically-challenged, too late to correct it. I hang my head in shame. It might also have been down to the excellent bottle of Chilean Merlot I was imbibing when I wrote that post. A million apologies.

Cheers,

Graham

PS: I've got another bottle of the same as I write this...!

PPS: I'm still a Jimdiditite.

Good evening Graham and maybe the hour is late but,

I too, coincidentally, have been partaking in a fine bottle of Chilean Merlot (honestly).

I think I’ll finish this post tomorrow before I make a complete twit, with an A, of myself.

Sleep well my friend.

Tony.

[jimarilyn]

HI Tony,

Adverts are on at the moment. It's Chilean here so I might put the heating on.


regards,
James

[jimarilyn]

Letter sent to Scotland Yard in February 1962

Hi All,

I don't recall the following letter (which appears on pages 232/233 of Bob Woffinden's book) having ever being discussed or mentioned previously on this thread. It makes very interesting reading and I just wondered what others make of it. It arrived at Scotland Yard on February 10th.....

Dear Sir

I am writing on behalf of James Hanratty, though I don't want my name known on account of owing a fine. I know James was in Rhyl on 22-23 August. I know him very well and I saw him there at the time. It is only right I should let you know. I am being honest. I met James when he was released from Strangeways. We had coffee in a Milk Bar. I am a prostitute, well known.

I was with a businessman in Rhyl at the time I saw James, though he didn't see me. The man said his wife was away for the week and asked me to stay with him as he took photos of me in the nude. I got £20 for posing. So, you see you are holding James who has nothing to do with your crime. He maybe won't remember me, only by the name "Bet" or "Topsey".


regards,

James

[Limehouse]

Interesting letter, but wasn't James know to his family and friends as 'Jim?'

[Graham]

Hi JM,

Unfortunately that letter would simply have been heresay evidence, even if it had been sent to Hanratty's defence rather than Scotland Yard. If genuine, it would seem to suggest that Hanratty visited Rhyl fairly frequently, unless he knew her from somewhere else and that, like him, she was just a visitor to Rhyl on occasion. However, the letter gives me the impression that she lived in Rhyl. Also, if genuine and 'Bet' or 'Topsy' genuinely wished to help him, it would further seem that she was very shy about identifying herself.

I can't help but think that Limehouse's comment about the name 'James' makes a good point, as Hanratty was generally known as Jim or Jimmy - cf. his brother Michael who called him 'Jimmy'. Woffinden makes the point that the Crown never disclosed to his defence the full extent of the Rhyl Alibi and its possible implications, which is doubtless true; but he doesn't say whether this particular letter was made known to Sherrard at the time. I'm sure that had Sherrard known about it, then it wouldn't have been too difficult to track down 'Bet' or 'Topsy'. On the other hand, maybe he did know about it, and considered it not worth following up. All a bit vague, if you ask me.

Also on Page 232 of Woffinden is a statement made by Trevor Dutton, who also claimed to have seen someone who could possibly have been Hanratty on the 23rd August. However, Dutton describes the man he saw (who offered him a gold watch) as having a strange accent - possibly Irish or Cockney or 'a mixture of the two' according to Dutton. Hanratty didn't have anything like an Irish accent. He spoke pure Cockney - again, reference his brother Michael's accent in the documentary. No reason to think that James' accent was much different. And Dutton did say that he was unable to describe the man with the watch. Again, very vague.

None of the witnesses reference the Rhyl Alibi produced anything that could be interpreted as absolute proof of a sighting of Hanratty at the crucial time. Had he, for example, signed the Ingledene visitors' book as 'J Ryan', in the same way as he signed the Vienna's, that I believe would have been proof.

Cheers,

Graham

[Limehouse]

Hi Graham (and all),

Good points from you as usual.

What bothers me, and keeps bothering me, is that although Hanratty changed his alibi - which seemed a very foolish thing to do - he still had a good few people willing to stand up and testify that he was somewhere else when this crime was committed. Given that the majority of these witnesses were women, and given the nature and seriousness of the crime itself, don't you think that points to a ring of truth?

Why does it bother me? Well, we have all these people swearing Hanratty was somewhere else at the time, and absolutely no one who can place him near the scene of the crime. Not only that, but it seems to me that all of the evidence against Hanratty is EXTERNAL to the scene of the crime. What I mean by that is, we have a gun wrapped in a hankie. The gun was used during the crime and the evidence on the hankie points to Hanratty. But WHEN did this evidence get there? Before the crime? After the crime?

The we have the cartridges. They were not found inside the car, outside the car or near the car. They were found in a hotel room AFTER the crime. A room that Hanratty occupied, yes, but the bullets were there to be found - yet they are not found soon after the crime but many days after.

The DNA on the knickers - it seems, reading the DNA posts, that there was an abundance of Hanratty DNA on the knickers. There was also, perhaps, Gregtern's DNA - and no one elses? Not Valeries'?

All these little points keep nagging at me and making me doubt Hanratty's guilt.

[jimarilyn]

Hi Graham (and all),

Good points from you as usual.

What bothers me, and keeps bothering me, is that although Hanratty changed his alibi - which seemed a very foolish thing to do - he still had a good few people willing to stand up and testify that he was somewhere else when this crime was committed. Given that the majority of these witnesses were women, and given the nature and seriousness of the crime itself, don't you think that points to a ring of truth?

Why does it bother me? Well, we have all these people swearing Hanratty was somewhere else at the time, and absolutely no one who can place him near the scene of the crime. Not only that, but it seems to me that all of the evidence against Hanratty is EXTERNAL to the scene of the crime. What I mean by that is, we have a gun wrapped in a hankie. The gun was used during the crime and the evidence on the hankie points to Hanratty. But WHEN did this evidence get there? Before the crime? After the crime?

The we have the cartridges. They were not found inside the car, outside the car or near the car. They were found in a hotel room AFTER the crime. A room that Hanratty occupied, yes, but the bullets were there to be found - yet they are not found soon after the crime but many days after.

The DNA on the knickers - it seems, reading the DNA posts, that there was an abundance of Hanratty DNA on the knickers. There was also, perhaps, Gregtern's DNA - and no one elses? Not Valeries'?

All these little points keep nagging at me and making me doubt Hanratty's guilt.

Hi Limehouse,

An excellent post if I may say so. You raise some very good and important points. From all that I've read and learnt about James Hanratty one thing always comes across quite clearly and that is his healthy respect for the female sex. We're all well aware of the fact that he visited prostitutes (he admitted as much himself) but that doesn't mean he devalued them. Thousands of men must use the services of prostitutes as an outlet for their sexuality.

Hanratty was very deferential towards women, witness his relationships with his mother, his Auntie Anne, his cousin Eileen, his friend Louise Anderson, Charlotte France (and her three daughters), and his girlfriends Ann Pryce, Mary Meaden and Gladys Deacon. These females testified as to his character and his good behaviour towards them. Does that sound like the behaviour of a potential rapist/attempted murderer ?

Re. the well known prostitute "Bet"/"Topsey" who wrote and sent that letter to Scotland Yard in February 1962 (see my previous post) one thing is for sure and that is she's either telling the truth or she's lying. It's as simple as that. Perhaps the reason she referred to Hanratty as James rather than Jimmy or Jim was because that's how he was referred to in the media at the time.


regards,

James

[reg1965]

Re the Bet/ Topsey letter.
Graham stated:

Unfortunately that letter would simply have been heresay evidence, even if it had been sent to Hanratty's defence rather than Scotland Yard. If genuine, it would seem to suggest that Hanratty visited Rhyl fairly frequently, unless he knew her from somewhere else and that, like him, she was just a visitor to Rhyl on occasion. However, the letter gives me the impression that she lived in Rhyl. Also, if genuine and 'Bet' or 'Topsy' genuinely wished to help him, it would further seem that she was very shy about identifying herself.

Hearsay evidence is evidence given via a third party This does not constitute hearsay evidence even though it was not followed up and a statement taken.
The letter does not suggest Hanratty visited Rhyl at all apart from the time of the murder and that Bet met Hanratty after he left Strangeways (Manchester). Also the letter gives no impression of Bet living in Rhyl either, only that she was in Rhyl at that time.
I agree that whoever sent the letter risked a lot less than Hanratty did at the time!!!??

Also by Graham

I can't help but think that Limehouse's comment about the name 'James' makes a good point, as Hanratty was generally known as Jim or Jimmy - cf. his brother Michael who called him 'Jimmy'.

The letter was sent to Scotland Yard and the papers were full of the story. If this Bet woman had met Hanratty in Manchester and get his name she would probably have known him as Jimmy. I don't think that the use of the name James means anything at all bar common nicety in correspondence.

Reg

[PC49]

Firstly, I must point out that I am brand new to this Forum, and have not been able to read all the posts, on the subject of the A6 Murder. Those I have read, I find (in the main) to be fascinating. I've read most of the books on the subject, apart from that by Louis Blom-Cooper (which I have recently acquired), and am almost at the end of Bob Woffinden's book. With exception of Leonard Miller's "detective thriller" all of these books demonstrated varying degrees of merit.
Despite the announcement regarding the DNA evidence, I simply am not convinced of Hanratty's guilt. I know that I should be, BUT I am not!
Please forgive any unwitting ignorance on my behalf, but has anyone previously raised issue over the possible falsification of the DNA findings, or is everyone merely compliant with whatever the powers-that-be, in this country, put out as supposed fact?
It would be ideal to be able to read a synopsis of all the posts on the subject, but in the absence of such a facility, I hope other contributors will accept my late entry onto the scene, and bear with me whilst I catch up.
Thank you.

[Limehouse]

Hello PC49, and welcome to the site and this thread. Like you, I am not wholly convinced of Hanratty's guilt, but I have to say that those on the thread who are, always make a convincing and fair case, especially concerning their respect for the testimony of Valarie Storie and the finality of the DNA evidence.

Several people have expressed reservations about the DNA results. Most of these concerns focus on possible cross-contamination whilst the garments were in storage (apparently in an open box, together, with no protection). Other people feel that the DNA evidence was contrived to avoid embarrassment to the establishment, who hanged a man. Others still feel that the scientific realiability of the DNA evidence is not sound. Most of these people seem to have a good knowledge of this sort of science.

Personally, I feel that certain authors have been over generous in their description of Hanratty as a fundamentally decent chap who did a bit of burglary. He was, in fact, a selfish and greedy man who stole people's possessions when they were absent from home and had no conscience in doing so. He had a loving and supportive family who held him dear, but time and time again he let them down. He could have lived a decent life but he was addicted to burglary, partly because he was reasonably good at it (although he did get caught a few times) and partly because it was easy money and it afforded him the show-off luxuries that boosted his self-esteem.

Having said all that, I still find it hard to believe he was the man who knocked on the window of the car in that cornfield that night back in 1961. If it was Hanratty, part of me feels he was there for a reason other than to rob the couple. However, it could be that he was trying to open up a new chapter in his career - going equipped with a gun - and he happened across this couple who could have turned out to be his first 'hold-up' victims, but turned into something much more tragic. A few people on the thread have suggested that Storie and Gregstern, being well spoken and so obviously 'posher' than Hanratty, brought out a degree of resentment in him, thus starting a chain of events that ended in tragedy. I can actually connect with this idea. After all, Hanratty was used to robbing empty houses, he wasn't, as far as we know, used to coming face-to-face with the people he was trying to rob. If he had decided on a new tactic, he may have been surprised by being confronted with people who could so obviously out-smart him.

[Tony]

Firstly, I must point out that I am brand new to this Forum, and have not been able to read all the posts, on the subject of the A6 Murder. Those I have read, I find (in the main) to be fascinating. I've read most of the books on the subject, apart from that by Louis Blom-Cooper (which I have recently acquired), and am almost at the end of Bob Woffinden's book. With exception of Leonard Miller's "detective thriller" all of these books demonstrated varying degrees of merit.
Despite the announcement regarding the DNA evidence, I simply am not convinced of Hanratty's guilt. I know that I should be, BUT I am not!
Please forgive any unwitting ignorance on my behalf, but has anyone previously raised issue over the possible falsification of the DNA findings, or is everyone merely compliant with whatever the powers-that-be, in this country, put out as supposed fact?
It would be ideal to be able to read a synopsis of all the posts on the subject, but in the absence of such a facility, I hope other contributors will accept my late entry onto the scene, and bear with me whilst I catch up.
Thank you.

Hello, hello, hello PC49,

A very warm welcome to you, Sir. You don’t reside at Letsbe Avenue do you? But it does seem you may possibly have a police background and your input with regards to that will be fascinating.

If you really do believe in Hanratty’s innocence then you are with me in the minority but don’t let that put you off. The other side aren’t a bad set of sticks really.

So it’s over to you and I await your input with keen anticipation.

Tony.

[simon]

The question I think it all boils down to is this : what on earth would keep JH (or, okay, at a stretch, maybe someone else) sitting in the back of that car for so many hours when he could have been doing something more financially rewarding, or simply more interesting, elsewhere ? 'Following instructions' is one possibility, but I think the sexual motive is probably the correct one...and I suspect the whole situation arose from whatever he saw when he first spotted the car. The couple discussing a future car rally ? - well, yeah.. I guess that might have done it.

[reg1965]

The question I think it all boils down to is this : what on earth would keep JH (or, okay, at a stretch, maybe someone else) sitting in the back of that car for so many hours when he could have been doing something more financially rewarding, or simply more interesting, elsewhere ? 'Following instructions' is one possibility, but I think the sexual motive is probably the correct one...and I suspect the whole situation arose from whatever he saw when he first spotted the car. The couple discussing a future car rally ? - well, yeah.. I guess that might have done it.

It might have done if it hadn't been for the fact that he was either in Rhyl at the time on his way back to the smoke on a train from Liverpool!

Reg