a6 murder

[jimarilyn]

Hello Alan,

Yes I did refer to the incident as ‘if it did take place’ and yes I believe it most certainly did.

Put yourself in Hanratty’s shoes for a moment: you have been arrested for and charged with murder. They need to prove you guilty. You need not say nor do anything.
But you would know in 1961 if the jury believed the prosecution case and found you guilty you would probably be on the end of a rope. So you need to defend yourself but you are the type of character who leads a come day go day sort of existence. You don’t have a regular job so you can’t say you were at work or anything like that so you simply think: “Where the bloody hell was I on that Tuesday afternoon?”
Eventually you remember one thing, a tiny thing: somebody a stranger tried to help you out in the late afternoon by pointing you in the right direction of a road you were looking for in Liverpool. But it’s a bit of a long shot for it was only an old lady in a sweet shop but, well, that’s what happened.
“Look the only person that can vouch for me is an old lady in a sweet shop in Liverpool. I don’t know her name or the shop’s name or even exactly where it is now. I don't even know if she will recall such a minor incident but that’s the best I can do.”

I bet the defence looked to the heavens in desperation and Acott would have had a laugh with Oxford about it.
I bet nobody at the time thought they would come across Mrs Dinwoodie but they did. And what is more she confirmed exactly what he said. A sweet shop is a very busy place but in 1961 how many Londoners called in asking for directions? Not many I would have thought.
Acott, at the trial, accepted what Mrs Dinwoodie said to be true and he knew Hanratty was in London on the Monday so the incident must have been on Tuesday the afternoon of the murder. Acott, now a bit stuck, then said it was possible that another Londoner called at her shop asking for directions at the time Hanratty said he was there. Hmm good old Bob.

Tony.

Hi Tony,

Another fine post and excellently put.


regards,
James

[alan]

Hello Alan,

Yes I did refer to the incident as ‘if it did take place’ and yes I believe it most certainly did.

Put yourself in Hanratty’s shoes for a moment: you have been arrested for and charged with murder. They need to prove you guilty. You need not say nor do anything.
But you would know in 1961 if the jury believed the prosecution case and found you guilty you would probably be on the end of a rope. So you need to defend yourself but you are the type of character who leads a come day go day sort of existence. You don’t have a regular job so you can’t say you were at work or anything like that so you simply think: “Where the bloody hell was I on that Tuesday afternoon?”
Eventually you remember one thing, a tiny thing: somebody a stranger tried to help you out in the late afternoon by pointing you in the right direction of a road you were looking for in Liverpool. But it’s a bit of a long shot for it was only an old lady in a sweet shop but, well, that’s what happened.
“Look the only person that can vouch for me is an old lady in a sweet shop in Liverpool. I don’t know her name or the shop’s name or even exactly where it is now. I don't even know if she will recall such a minor incident but that’s the best I can do.”

I bet the defence looked to the heavens in desperation and Acott would have had a laugh with Oxford about it.
I bet nobody at the time thought they would come across Mrs Dinwoodie but they did. And what is more she confirmed exactly what he said. A sweet shop is a very busy place but in 1961 how many Londoners called in asking for directions? Not many I would have thought.
Acott, at the trial, accepted what Mrs Dinwoodie said to be true and he knew Hanratty was in London on the Monday so the incident must have been on Tuesday the afternoon of the murder. Acott, now a bit stuck, then said it was possible that another Londoner called at her shop asking for directions at the time Hanratty said he was there. Hmm good old Bob.

Tony.

Dear Tony,

Thanks for your view and I can't see any argument against it. I personally believe the Dinwoodie evidence and I believe it was JH in the shop.

I have to assume that it was JH who offered Dinwoodie as an alibi and that she didn't turn up out of the blue on a white charger offering her services.

So, if the magic carpet ride to Dorney doesn't quiite work (and I find this far fetched) it (probably) makes JH innocent so where does the DNA come from?

One other point that confuses me; if the Trower evidence is now disproved owing to timings and mileage is the sighting on Eastern Avenue also now disproved? The bit about the passenger recalling the three red stripes on the rear bumper seems rather compelling.

Regards,

Alan

[Victor]

Hello Vic,

I don’t think I explained the sentence you referred to very well. So let me have another go.

I was actually putting myself in Acott’s position.
He had got who he at that time thought was the gunman. Well he must have done; if he thought Alphon had nothing to do with it there would have been no ID parade.

Hi Tony,

That's the point of an ID parade though isn't it, you have a suspect, you see if the victim recognises him, if so he becomes a "better" suspect. And the reverse is also true, you can use an ID parade to downgrade or eliminate a suspect. You are equating "thought he'd done it" with "suspect" without including "thought he may have done it"

If then Valerie had picked Alphon then: “Bingo”. She’s picked the man we suspect, it’s game up for him.

Not strictly true, an ID parade isn't definitive, the witness can be mistaken either way - not recognising her assailant because he'd changed in some way, for example dying his hair bright orange - or by picking out someone very similar.

If on the other hand she picked an entirely innocent man then my use of the word “catastrophe” wasn’t meant in the literal sense. By it I meant Acott’s theories and suspicions were undone and at that time he had no where else to go or in other words no other suspect to turn to. He was back to square one which at that point in time would have been catastrophic for him.

OK, I get your point, but that is exactly what happened, VS did not pick out PLA.

And distress or not if Valerie picked out this entirely innocent man then presumably she could equally have picked out any of the men.

Now that assumption I completely disagree with, presumably Michael Clark had some features she recognised, she did not pick him out completely at random.

Also if as you say Acott was so insistent that she pick someone out then he must have felt he had the gunman on offer to her.

Tony.

I didn't say Acott was so insistent, I used the word "perhaps" to indicate that I was offering a suggestion as to what may have happened.

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

One other point that confuses me; if the Trower evidence is now disproved owing to timings and mileage is the sighting on Eastern Avenue also now disproved? The bit about the passenger recalling the three red stripes on the rear bumper seems rather compelling.

Regards,

Alan

Hi Alan,

Personally speaking (and in common with a lot of other posters) I find James Trower an utterly unreliable witness. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him, to coin a well used phrase.

It was Edward Blackhall who identified the Morris Minor by the three red stripes and he does come across as a genuine and trustworthy witness. The disappointing thing for me is that considering the fact that Blackhall and John Skillett are supposed to have encountered the "murder car" for a duration of 5 to 10 minutes, neither of them had the presence of mind to make a note of the car's registration plate number.

The Morris Minor was obviously being driven in the Redbridge area at some point that Wednesday because it was discovered in Avondale Crescent around 6.30pm. The big question is at what time did the driver leave it there ? It's very hard to believe that it had been there since around 7.15am that day without it coming to the police's attention. It was, after all, the most sought after car in Britain.


regards,
James

[Victor]

Hello PC49,

At the trial Mr Swanwick never once suggested to Mrs Dinwoodie that no one came to her sweet shop to make enquiries about Tarleton or Carlton Road all he did say was that perhaps Hanratty resembled a man who made such an enquiry.
So he was asking the jury to accept the fact that Hanratty came up with a story that actually happened and he himself, Swanwick, accepted that it had happened. But it wasn’t Hanratty who made the enquiry. If it wasn’t Hanratty then how could Hanratty have known about it?

And if you were buying an alibi I would suggest you could buy a better one than that. How could he have bought something so ludicrous.

Tony.

Hi Tony,

Isn't that precisely the sort of alibi you'd want to buy? An enquiry memorable in that fact that it was for "Tarleton or Carlton Rd" at a specific place and time, well away from the murder site.

It could have been any of JH's fencing pals (and I don't mean the sort with foils) who are then in a perfect position to sell it to him.

Here's one of your little imaginary scenes to see how it goes:-
JH: "I'm looking for an alibi for 22nd August"
Pal: "I was in this sweet shop in Liverpool and asked this little grey-haired old lady the way to Tarleton Road, only I messed up and said Carlton Road."
JH: "Perfect just what I need"

[Victor]

The disappointing thing for me is that considering the fact that Blackhall and John Skillett are supposed to have encountered the "murder car" for a duration of 5 to 10 minutes, neither of them had the presence of mind to make a note of the car's registration plate number.

Hi James,

What a wonderful gift hindsight is.

How many car registration plates do you note down in your daily life? Personally, I don't note any down other than those that have done something memorable like prang a parked car.

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

Morris Minor

The most sought after car in Britain on that day should have been the most important exhibit of all, much more important than a very small fragment of a pair of knickers.
Not one fingerprint, hair or fibre belonging to James Hanratty was ever found in that car, which speaks absolute volumes in his favour. Especially considering that we're all supposed to shed between 50 and 100 hairs from our heads each day. Does anyone on this thread know what became of the car ? Being the most important piece of evidence it should have been kept somewhere safe, it wouldn't have taken up a great deal of space and Goodness knows what findings it may have yielded for future examinations.

regards,
James

[jimarilyn]

How many car registration plates do you note down in your daily life? Personally, I don't note any down other than those that have done something memorable like prang a parked car.

This is a very good point Victor. I can truthfully say that over the course of the last twelve months or so I have written down the registration numbers of two dangerously driven cars which I have narrowly avoided colliding with. Considering myself a responsible citizen and realising that these bad drivers were likely to cause future accidents I felt it my duty to report this to the police. Without going into any detail and for brevity's sake, the police basically just didn't want to know, which is a sad state of affairs.
There are literally thousands of bad drivers out there.

regards,
James

[Victor]

The most sought after car in Britain on that day should have been the most important exhibit of all, much more important than a very small fragment of a pair of knickers.

Hi James,
That's a bit confusing, the small fragment wasn't exhibitted, the rest of the knickers were.

Not one fingerprint, hair or fibre belonging to James Hanratty was ever found in that car, which speaks absolute volumes in his favour. Especially considering that we're all supposed to shed between 50 and 100 hairs from our heads each day. Does anyone on this thread know what became of the car ? Being the most important piece of evidence it should have been kept somewhere safe, it wouldn't have taken up a great deal of space and Goodness knows what findings it may have yielded for future examinations.

regards,
James

And that's a bit of a distortion too because not one fingerprint, hair or fibre from any other person was found either, other than MG and VS. So if it wasn't JH, where's the rapists hair/fibre/fingerprints got to?

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

This is a very good point Victor. I can truthfully say that over the course of the last twelve months or so I have written down the registration numbers of two dangerously driven cars which I have narrowly avoided colliding with. Considering myself a responsible citizen and realising that these bad drivers were likely to cause future accidents I felt it my duty to report this to the police. Without going into any detail and for brevity's sake, the police basically just didn't want to know, which is a sad state of affairs.
There are literally thousands of bad drivers out there.

regards,
James

Hi James,

Yes, I agree completely. There usually has to be a particular reason to note the registration, and even then the chances of the police doing something are small, which results in the general public just not bothering to act. Catch 22 or vicious circle...

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

Here's one of your little imaginary scenes to see how it goes:-
JH: "I'm looking for an alibi for 22nd August"
Pal: "I was in this sweet shop in Liverpool and asked this little grey-haired old lady the way to Tarleton Road, only I messed up and said Carlton Road."
JH: "Perfect just what I need"

......and JH's pal just happened to look the spit of JH....and have a cockney accent


regards,
James

[jimarilyn]

And that's a bit of a distortion too because not one fingerprint, hair or fibre from any other person was found either, other than MG and VS. So if it wasn't JH, where's the rapists hair/fibre/fingerprints got to?

KR,
Vic.

Absolutely not so Victor. As Bob Woffinden states in his book (page116)...In the course of the investigation, police had amassed quite a number of fingerprints and palm prints ---from the 36A bus, from Upper Richmond Road and, most importantly, from the MORRIS MINOR car and it's contents. As a result of their analysis, Scotland Yard experts were able to report categorically that none of the prints was Hanratty's

regards,
James


PS. Woffinden wrote "was" instead of "were"

[jimarilyn]

Unidentified fingerprints in Morris minor

Further to this Woffinden asks ....And whose were those unidentified fingerprints ? Were they matched with other suspects ? --Peter Alphon's, for example ? The jury was never told. To this day, the information has never been publicly revealed. (page 177)


regards ,
James

[Tony]

Hi Tony,

Isn't that precisely the sort of alibi you'd want to buy? An enquiry memorable in that fact that it was for "Tarleton or Carlton Rd" at a specific place and time, well away from the murder site.

It could have been any of JH's fencing pals (and I don't mean the sort with foils) who are then in a perfect position to sell it to him.

Here's one of your little imaginary scenes to see how it goes:-
JH: "I'm looking for an alibi for 22nd August"
Pal: "I was in this sweet shop in Liverpool and asked this little grey-haired old lady the way to Tarleton Road, only I messed up and said Carlton Road."
JH: "Perfect just what I need"

Hello Vic,

You’ve been busy this afternoon. Good for you it’s nice to see some activity and friendly argument.

Well you have well and truly savaged me this afternoon and with good points. Although it is your opinion of events. One thing I would say with regards to your post 2450.

At what point do you think Hanratty was offered this fake alibi and do we know how many of his Scouse fences had Cockney accents and looked just like him?

Tony.

[Victor]

......and JH's pal just happened to look the spit of JH....and have a cockney accent


regards,
James

because that never happens....Oh look Alphon and Michael Clark!!

KR,
Vic.