a6 murder

[Limehouse]

Hello
I stumbled upon this forum by chance when surfing the web about the Hanratty case. There appears to be some serious A6 murder fanatics on here. I haven't come across anything like it elsewhere!
I wasn't even born when the events actually happened. I had become a big Paul Foot fan through his columns in the papers and such. I have also been to political meetings and heard him speak. Very impressive and impassioned speaker indeed. I heard a little about the case from my dad but after reading Who Killed Hanratty I became a bit obsessed to say the least.
I became a little disheartened after the Hanratty familys last appeal was turned down a few years ago. I have only recently re-read Paul Foots book and have been looking for other sources of information. That is how I found this site.
To me, Hanratty was fitted up by the old bill. It seems that so much evidence points to Peter Alphon being the A6 murderer.
After the latest appeal with the DNA that was found made me feel dispirited to say the least, especially with regard to all of the Rhyl people and non-disclosure of evidence. I couldn't believe it.
I'm no scientist but I am sceptical enough to want to know a bit more about what was actually found by the DNA scientists. To me nothing is ever that certain, bar death and crooked establishment figures.
I will read up some more of the postings here and on the DNA section...that looks a bit scary,,,and post up some points that I might have.
Merry Xmas, if I am not back before then.
Steve

Hello Steve and Welcome to the thread.

I have a lot of sympathy with those who think Hanratty was innocent (I was once fully convinced so). I too have ofthe wondered whether Hanratty was framed but I doubt the police were directly involved in the frame-up.

My reasons are as follows. If Alphon was guilty but Hanratty was framed and the police knew this to be the case, why hang a man innocent of the crime and let a very dangerous man go free? How did the police know Alphon would not committ similar crimes? It was surely a huge risk for them to take - for what reason? Hanratty was a criminal - true- but would they have been prepared to let a man gulity of rape and murder go free in order to hang a house-breaker?

Allowing Alphon to go free would have put the public at risk, it would have exposed the policemen involved to possible blackmail and if Alphon had gone on to commit other similar crimes it would have risked the frame-up being exposed to the public.

There is certainly something not quite right about the case. If Hanratty was framed by others and was hanged as a result of such a conspiracy (to pervert the course of justice), then I would not be surprised if conclusions about the DNA results were 'selective' to show a match. After all, the powers-that-be had had to pardon Bentley and Evans on the evidence by which they hung and would not have wanted to admit that yet another innocent man had been executed in the space of a dozen years.

[SteveS]

a quick replie to you all

Hello Tony and Victor and Limehouse
Thanks for your welcomes. much apprecieted
For Tony-
Yeah it was a motly crew that the prosecution put together. How the original jury swallowed that laot god only knows. It is one of the main reasons I never bought the Hanratty is guilty trip. As you say about The people from Rhyl, what did they have to gain? Publicty and noteriety...As far as I know a lot more people in Rhyl would have come forward but wouldn't get involved for reasons that only they can answer. This was at the time of the end of the trial and before the execution as you said. Plus all their testimonys pointed to the time he was in Rhyl.

For Victor-
I dont think that Hanratts family want a pardon but just to get the original verdict quashed. Compo may be due but they might give it to charity or something if they got it.
As for authors there need to get to paid like all of us...we all have to pay the rent! :-)
I am sure private eye were greatful for Paul Foot's fame and needed every penny to deal with the lastet lible suit!
I am sure that Tony was referring to Rhyl witnesses and others that turned up at the trial.

for Limehouse-
I think that the police fitted Haratty up after they could not get a id on Alphon. How would it have stood up in court with no id against Aphin? The old bill had nothing to go with Alphon.
From what you said about alphon no other crimes actully happened. but no other previous unsolved crimes were linked to this one! Just because someone is a suspect doesn't make em guilty.
About the DNA i agree and I feel something is not quite right but not sure waht it is. Nothing is ever that certain. I have read a couple of pieces from newspaper reports about DNA being overturned in some cases so I will look into it a bit more.

Thnx again people for a warm welcome.
Steve

[Tony]

Hi Tony,

Erm...His family might have hoped to get a pardon and compensation!

A few authors got paid to write their books, and their royalties.

Foot got publicity and possibly increased sales figures for Private Eye.

So not "nothing" then, even if was "notoriety" and "publicity", or "their 15 minutes".

KR,
Vic.

ps Welcome Steve.

Well hello Vic,

You know well that I am always wary of duelling with your good self but come on.

I really think this post of yours is either tongue in cheek or maybe I’ve been wrong about you all along and I may have to resort to sending Reg around to see you, and when you see his brother Ron you might be a little bit less argumentative on some points.

I, of course, did not mean Hanratty’s family or Foot or Woffinden or Jean Justice or Lord Russell. I meant exactly what I said ordinary people who stood to gain nothing.

Thank you, at least, for welcoming SteveS.

Tony.

PS to everyone this is just a minor thing that irritates me but can we at least say that the State ‘hanged’ people, innocent or not; they never ‘hung’ anyone.

[reg1965]

Well hello Vic,

You know well that I am always wary of duelling with your good self but come on.

I really think this post of yours is either tongue in cheek or maybe I’ve been wrong about you all along and I may have to resort to sending Reg around to see you, and when you see his brother Ron you might be a little bit less argumentative on some points.

I, of course, did not mean Hanratty’s family or Foot or Woffinden or Jean Justice or Lord Russell. I meant exactly what I said ordinary people who stood to gain nothing.

Thank you, at least, for welcoming SteveS.

Tony.

PS to everyone this is just a minor thing that irritates me but can we at least say that the State ‘hanged’ people, innocent or not; they never ‘hung’ anyone.

Hello tone me old mate;
Ronnie will be pleased to get a mention.
Reg

[Tony]

Hello Steve and Welcome to the thread.

I have a lot of sympathy with those who think Hanratty was innocent (I was once fully convinced so). I too have ofthe wondered whether Hanratty was framed but I doubt the police were directly involved in the frame-up.

My reasons are as follows. If Alphon was guilty but Hanratty was framed and the police knew this to be the case, why hang a man innocent of the crime and let a very dangerous man go free? How did the police know Alphon would not committ similar crimes? It was surely a huge risk for them to take - for what reason? Hanratty was a criminal - true- but would they have been prepared to let a man gulity of rape and murder go free in order to hang a house-breaker?

Allowing Alphon to go free would have put the public at risk, it would have exposed the policemen involved to possible blackmail and if Alphon had gone on to commit other similar crimes it would have risked the frame-up being exposed to the public.

There is certainly something not quite right about the case. If Hanratty was framed by others and was hanged as a result of such a conspiracy (to pervert the course of justice), then I would not be surprised if conclusions about the DNA results were 'selective' to show a match. After all, the powers-that-be had had to pardon Bentley and Evans on the evidence by which they hung and would not have wanted to admit that yet another innocent man had been executed in the space of a dozen years.

Good evening to my very own favourite Limehouse,

This is one of the most interesting posts we have had on here for some time in my opinion.

You say you were once convinced of Hanratty’s innocence but you doubt the police were involved in the frame up. Well frame up or not Acott and Oxford behaved in a disgraceful way to ensure Hanratty was convicted and executed.

In your second paragraph you wonder why they allowed Alphon to get away; they had to. Valerie Storie their star witness missed him on the ID parade and picked out Michael Clark. They would have looked foolish if they had then charged Alphon and gone to court and said: “Sorry my Lord the lady picked somebody else out but we think she was wrong. We have alerted the public to this man’s identity, he had no alibi, he looked like her identikit, etc etc. So we have finally found someone who she did manage to identify.”

And that’s about all they had of any substance.

As for the police allowing a murderer to go free to carry on murdering; I can only assume that the vast majority of murderers murder once; serial killers are a different breed altogether.

With regards to your final paragraph the establishment hardly ever admit to a mistake in a trial. They nearly always try to uphold the original verdict even when they are on the thinnest of ice.

Tony.

[Victor]

You say you were once convinced of Hanratty’s innocence but you doubt the police were involved in the frame up. Well frame up or not Acott and Oxford behaved in a disgraceful way to ensure Hanratty was convicted and executed.

Hi Tony,
Well it wasn't a frame up because he was guilty and you can't frame someone for something they actually did. I do think the non-disclosure was disgraceful by todays standards, but nearly 50 years ago it wasn't that rare and when you are dealing with a criminal network who have their own non-disclosure (or switching of alibis at the last moment) then it's easy to see how they thought they were levelling the playing field.

As for the police allowing a murderer to go free to carry on murdering; I can only assume that the vast majority of murderers murder once; serial killers are a different breed altogether.

I'm not so sure I agree with separating murderers and serial killers like this - where the motive is revenge or jealousy then I think those murderers murder once, but where it's basically theft then why shouldn't they do it again if they got away with it the first time.

With regards to your final paragraph the establishment hardly ever admit to a mistake in a trial. They nearly always try to uphold the original verdict even when they are on the thinnest of ice.

PLA posted a list of mistakenly convicted a short while ago - Bentley being the obvious example, but also Barry George, Birmingham 6, etc. so there are examples of this, but the most obvious counter-argument to your statement is "Of course they try and uphold the original verdict, IT'S THEIR JOB TO!"

My previous post was fairly tongue-in-cheek and I'm sorry I took your comment out of context to have a dig at Foot, but the last line of it holds true, all those Rhyl witnesses would have had their 15 minutes had Hanratty got off, and then there would be the interviews which they might get paid for, a newspaper would pay them for their stories, maybe even a slot on the telly. And the best part for them, the later they leave it, the closer to the noose Hanratty would be, the more publicity there would be, the more money they would make.

KR,
Vic.

[SteveS]

Good evening to my very own favourite Limehouse,

This is one of the most interesting posts we have had on here for some time in my opinion.

You say you were once convinced of Hanratty’s innocence but you doubt the police were involved in the frame up. Well frame up or not Acott and Oxford behaved in a disgraceful way to ensure Hanratty was convicted and executed.

In your second paragraph you wonder why they allowed Alphon to get away; they had to. Valerie Storie their star witness missed him on the ID parade and picked out Michael Clark. They would have looked foolish if they had then charged Alphon and gone to court and said: “Sorry my Lord the lady picked somebody else out but we think she was wrong. We have alerted the public to this man’s identity, he had no alibi, he looked like her identikit, etc etc. So we have finally found someone who she did manage to identify.”

And that’s about all they had of any substance.

As for the police allowing a murderer to go free to carry on murdering; I can only assume that the vast majority of murderers murder once; serial killers are a different breed altogether.

With regards to your final paragraph the establishment hardly ever admit to a mistake in a trial. They nearly always try to uphold the original verdict even when they are on the thinnest of ice.

Tony.

Hi Tony,
Well it wasn't a frame up because he was guilty and you can't frame someone for something they actually did. I do think the non-disclosure was disgraceful by todays standards, but nearly 50 years ago it wasn't that rare and when you are dealing with a criminal network who have their own non-disclosure (or switching of alibis at the last moment) then it's easy to see how they thought they were levelling the playing field.


I'm not so sure I agree with separating murderers and serial killers like this - where the motive is revenge or jealousy then I think those murderers murder once, but where it's basically theft then why shouldn't they do it again if they got away with it the first time.


PLA posted a list of mistakenly convicted a short while ago - Bentley being the obvious example, but also Barry George, Birmingham 6, etc. so there are examples of this, but the most obvious counter-argument to your statement is "Of course they try and uphold the original verdict, IT'S THEIR JOB TO!"

My previous post was fairly tongue-in-cheek and I'm sorry I took your comment out of context to have a dig at Foot, but the last line of it holds true, all those Rhyl witnesses would have had their 15 minutes had Hanratty got off, and then there would be the interviews which they might get paid for, a newspaper would pay them for their stories, maybe even a slot on the telly. And the best part for them, the later they leave it, the closer to the noose Hanratty would be, the more publicity there would be, the more money they would make.

KR,
Vic.

Hello Tony and Victor
I agree that the police fitted the evidence to Hanratty. The huge amount of non-disclosed evidence that the Criminal Cases Review Commision found shows this. Among a lot of others are Kerrs notes that would have fitted Alphon that went missing. The cars mileage log that questioned the East end of london sightings of the car. The withholding of potential alibi witnesses (Christopher Larman especially) until after the trial. Not having the man picked out by Storie on the Guy's parade available. Bindmans the solicitors that now act for the Hanratty family described the amount of non-disclosure as shocking!

Every defendent is surely innocent before proven guilty therefore it is somewhat churlish to suggest that Hanratty was not framed. Just because Victor thinks Hanratty was guilty doesn't make sense when talikng about someone being framed. You have to reach a guilty verdict first before any thought of it being a fit up job can be entertained. The old bill might try to fit someone up or a suspect might feel he is being fitted up, but until the verdict comes through does the question have any substance? It could be genuine fear on the part of the suspect...Alphon in this case if you ask me. Hanratty did not behave as if he had committed murder in the days and weeks after the A6 murder. A suspect might sue the old bill afterwards for harrassment during a case but that is their right and should infer nothing about the actual verdict.

Victor didn't question Tony's points about Clark and the prosecution case. I agree with Tony and think that this has be correct. In Jean Justices book (not the french language one) the author points out that Hanrratys father blamed Emmanuel Kleinman for not investigating the sweetshop alibi personally rather that leaving it to the police. The same could be said here. Mr Sherrard relied on Kleinman for briefings on findings in the case. Why wasn't Clark found and at least photographed! If Clark didn't resemble Hanratty then Stories evidence was shot down. Storie herself under oath said that Clark resembled Alphon.
In the sweetshop fiasco, the plod showed Olive Dinwoodie just a photo of Hanratty rather than a number of photos of different individuals for her to choose from. As it turned out Olive's testimony was quite strong and forced Graham Swanwick to doubt his own prosection witnesses who put Hanratty fairly and squarely in London on the Monday to the point of suggesting that the alibi had to have been bought from someone who resmbled Hanratty who was there at the time. This line of thinking has to the height of nonsense. For one Hanratty must have been able to find his very double who was there at the right time. Sounds like DNA type estimations of probabiity, about 60 million to one I would say against that being true. (from reg1965's recent posts on the DNA section...these are brilliant I must say. They have helped me to understand the subject a bit better)
As for Victor's assessment of the establishments role in upholding original verdicts. I agree wholeheartedly. It is their job. Doesn't make the MO right but are the establishment bothered. The Birmingham 6 spent 6 years more in chokey because of Lord Lanes obscene reticence, even tough the case was referred to the court of appeal by the then Tory Home Secretary Douglas Hurd. But he was just doing his job you must remember.
As for Tony's statement of thinnest ice this would in this case have to depend on how reliable the DNA evidence was at the latest appeal. It was all the establishment had to go on to uphold the original verdict wasn't it?
I don't think the DNA is right, but am not sure why...still working on that one.

Victor talks about Rhyl witnesses getting their 15 minutes as if they were only interested in getting materially what they could and then tell lies to achieve it. I don't think that this is right at all. Mrs Grace Jones risked getting found by the taxman because of her lax bookkeeping. Mr Terry Evans risked exposing himself as a middleman for fencing of stolen goods. Others came forward at the time of the trial, not near the execution, and made statements that were withheld from the defence until near the end of the trial when Mr Kleinman let the side down again.
Kleinman knew of 6 material Rhyl witnessess well before the appeal in March 1962 but was not well versed in the ongoings of the trial to call them and misadvised Mr Sherrard. The defence at the appeal was that the summing up by Mr Justice Gorman was flawed. This was incorrect as Mr Gorman was in fact the personification of fairness. He was shocked by the guilty verdict. Victor's arguments against the Rhyl witnesses lose validity when confronted by the obvious facts.

Also not sure what Victor is saying when he goes on about theft done once will be done again and therefore constitutes serial killing. It seems he has changed the subject and tried to involve Hanratty as he was certainly a thief. Victor might have been on the juice when he wrote that.

Thnx
Steve

ps this A6 forum rocks!

[reg1965]

Hi Steve
Sorry I haven't acknowledged you posts before but welcome aboard.
Another member of the cause...great knowledge of the case mate.
I don't disagree with much you say. There are lots of other non-disclosed evidence but you said among others so I will leave that to you for now.
You seem to be a bloke who likes to make his own mind up and so if you are interested in the DNA I would suggest looking at Dupplin Muirs 2 posts on the other thread recently. Also JamesDeans posts are most interesting. Some other posters on there take the appeal courts hearing report as being gospel and will go no further! I hope that you are not one of them!!!
Regards
Reg

[jimarilyn]

Hi SteveS

This is a fine post (2722). As Reg rightly points out you have a great knowledge of the case. You also have a keen grasp and understanding of some very important aspects of the case which should not be overlooked.
You are spot on about James Hanratty's behaviour in the weeks following the murder, which was completely inconsistent with someone who has committed murder, rape and attempted murder.
Hanratty was very visible in London after his return from Liverpool on the morning of Friday August 25th. He resumed normal relations with his close friends, the Frances and Louise Anderson and indeed continued to lodge alternately with both up until September 4th.
This was the date he flew to Ireland, primarily to obtain the 12 month driving licence which would enable him to legitimately purchase and drive the Sunbeam Alpine he would acquire a fortnight later.
He returned from his week long stay in Ireland on September 11th which just happened to coincide with the day the 2 empty cartridge cases were discovered (?) in room 24 of the Vienna Hotel. It was also the day that Valerie Storie was interviewed by Baz Acott for 5 hours.
Had Hanratty been guilty of the A6 murder the last place he'd want to be found would be London, the centre of a massive police investigation into the murder of Michael Gregsten. He'd avoid it like the proverbial plague. But no, having nothing to fear and no reason not to return to London he continued his carefree, everyday lifestyle and again resumed normal relations with friends both male and female. He bought the Sunbeam Alpine on September 20th and showed off his prized possession to these friends. He also carried on with his housebreaking activities. All this taking place while London was a hubbub of police activity in the search for the A6 murderer. Hanratty's behaviour was very characteristic of him, it was the same behaviour he had displayed since his release from prison. Contrast this with the strange, nervous, suspicious and attention drawing behaviour of the police's prime suspect, Peter Alphon................

You're spot on again Steve regarding Mrs Grace Jones and Terry Evans, both these brave witnesses put themselves in a potentially very precarious position because they wanted truth and justice to be served. They had no hidden agendas and can hardly be said to be glory seekers out for their 15 minutes of fame. Mrs Jones and her daughter Brenda shared breakfast with Hanratty on August 23rd and 24th in their own living room, which looked out onto the small, tiled courtyard at the back of their guesthouse, which Hanratty so accurately described. He was the only guest that summer who had had breakfast with them in their own living room. They sat down at table with him and saw him face to face, long enough for his features to make an impression. Thus, five and a half months later, when shown photographs of Hanratty they were able to recall this face which had registered on their minds.

Terry Evans had met James Hanratty exactly one month ( July 25th) before, at the fairground in Rhyl. He had obtained several hours work for Hanratty on the dodgems and afterwards Hanratty had ended up lodging at his flat for the night. On Hanratty's second visit to Rhyl (August 22nd/23rd) knowing Evans's connections, he had tried, unsuccessfully, to locate Evans for the purpose of selling stolen jewellery.
Evans got to hear of Hanratty's enquiries for him through acquaintances of his in Rhyl. Although he had taken to Hanratty he must have been very miffed about Hanratty's theft of his newly bought shoes. He must have had little desire to get involved in a very high profile murder case but obviously felt compelled to do so because he knew that Hanratty had been looking for him on those two days in late August. He was prepared, in the interests of truth and justice, to take the risk of exposing himself as a middleman for fences.

The other Rhyl witnesses who had made themselves known while the trial was still in progress were all middle-aged, respectable and trustworthy citizens. They corroborrated Hanratty's alibi, not because they were all anti-capital punishment and wanted to save someone from the hangman's noose, but simply because they remembered encountering a young man in his mid 20's on those two days in late August 1961 who looked remarkably like James Hanratty.


regards,
James

[jimarilyn]

Sounds like DNA type estimations of probabiity, about 60 million to one I would say against that being true. (from reg1965's recent posts on the DNA section...these are brilliant I must say. They have helped me to understand the subject a bit better)

Hi Steve,

I totally agree with you. My knowledge and understanding of DNA ( Don't No Anything) is next to nothing. Thought it was a teenager's text term for their girlfriend Diana. However, after spending about an hour the other evening slowly and carefully reading Reg's very impressive posts (126-130) my very limited understanding of DNA has increased noticeably.

Excellent work by Reg.


regards,
James

[Tony]

Witness for the Prosecution????

Now call me stupid if you like but let’s forget about DNA for now, it was not known of in 1961, but put yourselves in James Hanratty’s position in the witness box for a moment. Don’t forget things are not looking at all good to him. As Leonard Miller puts it he is a cunning, devious criminal; but now he finds himself centre stage and Mr Swanwick is out to get him.

Swanwick: “Mr Hanratty did you have a conversation with Mr France about the back seat of a bus?”

Hanratty: “Yes Sir but only as a place to hide rubbish jewellery not to hide a gun.”

Swanwick: “Be that as it may Mr Hanratty you know, do you not, that the gun was found under the back seat of the bus?”

Hanratty: “Yes Sir I know the gun was found there as you say but I am a thief not a murderer. I have never had a gun.”

Swanwick: “Mr Hanratty the gun was found wrapped in a handkerchief. Did you know that?”

Hanratty: “No, Sir.”

Swanwick: “Clerk of the court will you show Mr Hanratty exhibit no xx please.”

Swanwick: “Now Mr Hanratty tell My Lord and the jury’ is that your handkerchief?”

Hanratty: “Well yes Sir it is indeed.”

Now a couple of questions here: If I had been Hanratty and remember he had time to think while the exhibit/handkerchief was passed to him and he could make the court wait for his answer, I would have said; “Never seen it before.”
Did the handkerchief have some way of being identified as belonging to Hanratty such as a monogramme? For me all handkerchiefs if they are white look the same.

I do not know why Hanratty said readily it was his. If he was innocent or guilty it was a foolish thing to do.
A guilty man would have most definitely said: “No, definitely not mine, never seen it before, nothing to do with me; why are you asking me such a question?”
An innocent man might have said much the same if it was or wasn’t his handkerchief but only a man determined to tell the truth from the outset and never waiver from telling the truth would put his hand up to that. It was damning evidence if Hanratty had wrapped the gun in it and left it on the bus. Unless he had determined to tell the truth on every point regardless of how bad it looked I can not fathom his answer. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Help me out on this one Vic. I know you like pulling holes in my postings and I always appreciate your responses.

Tony.

[reg1965]

Now call me stupid if you like but let’s forget about DNA for now, it was not known of in 1961, but put yourselves in James Hanratty’s position in the witness box for a moment. Don’t forget things are not looking at all good to him. As Leonard Miller puts it he is a cunning, devious criminal; but now he finds himself centre stage and Mr Swanwick is out to get him.

Swanwick: “Mr Hanratty did you have a conversation with Mr France about the back seat of a bus?”

Hanratty: “Yes Sir but only as a place to hide rubbish jewellery not to hide a gun.”

Swanwick: “Be that as it may Mr Hanratty you know, do you not, that the gun was found under the back seat of the bus?”

Hanratty: “Yes Sir I know the gun was found there as you say but I am a thief not a murderer. I have never had a gun.”

Swanwick: “Mr Hanratty the gun was found wrapped in a handkerchief. Did you know that?”

Hanratty: “No, Sir.”

Swanwick: “Clerk of the court will you show Mr Hanratty exhibit no xx please.”

Swanwick: “Now Mr Hanratty tell My Lord and the jury’ is that your handkerchief?”

Hanratty: “Well yes Sir it is indeed.”

Now a couple of questions here: If I had been Hanratty and remember he had time to think while the exhibit/handkerchief was passed to him and he could make the court wait for his answer, I would have said; “Never seen it before.”
Did the handkerchief have some way of being identified as belonging to Hanratty such as a monogramme? For me all handkerchiefs if they are white look the same.

I do not know why Hanratty said readily it was his. If he was innocent or guilty it was a foolish thing to do.
A guilty man would have most definitely said: “No, definitely not mine, never seen it before, nothing to do with me; why are you asking me such a question?”
An innocent man might have said much the same if it was or wasn’t his handkerchief but only a man determined to tell the truth from the outset and never waiver from telling the truth would put his hand up to that. It was damning evidence if Hanratty had wrapped the gun in it and left it on the bus. Unless he had determined to tell the truth on every point regardless of how bad it looked I can not fathom his answer. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Help me out on this one Vic. I know you like pulling holes in my postings and I always appreciate your responses.

Tony.

Hi Tony
Hanratty could have denied the hanky being his and the forensics at the time would not have been able to say otherwise.
With regard to the DNA evidence at appeal (sorry Tony) it was accepted by the findings that the hanky was JH's.
I don't think that this is any great surprise as JH said it was his anyway, DNA found or no DNA found, because it was planted with the gun and ammo on the bus by some other person, probably Alphon, maybe France.

JH said he discussed getting a gun with a man called Donald Fisher. Fisher denied that this conversation was anymore than bravado and was never called to give evidence. If as Foot says (1988, p180) why was Fisher not called on this very important point.
Why did Acott in his testimony suggest that JH had mentioned getting the gun from Fisher during telephone conversations. This is not true. The first time that JH mentioned Fisher after the murder was in a letter to Fisher after Acott had said to JH that he (Acott) had spoken to a man in Ealing called Fisher and he had said that JH had inquired about a gun.
Acott lied entirely about this piece of evidence.

Acott forged some of the interviews with JH which has been proved by esda testing on the so called contemporaneous notes taken by Big Baz and his Bagman Oxo to suggest that JH used the word kip (instead of sleep) to fit in with VS's testimony.

regards
Reg

[Victor]

Every defendent is surely innocent before proven guilty therefore it is somewhat churlish to suggest that Hanratty was not framed. Just because Victor thinks Hanratty was guilty doesn't make sense when talikng about someone being framed. You have to reach a guilty verdict first before any thought of it being a fit up job can be entertained. The old bill might try to fit someone up or a suspect might feel he is being fitted up, but until the verdict comes through does the question have any substance?

Legally Hanratty is guilty of the crimes, and therefore could not have been framed. We have the benefit of hindsight, and a lot more facts that have emerged in the last 40+ years such as the DNA evidence.

Victor didn't question Tony's points about Clark and the prosecution case.

I didn't question them because I agree with him - Clark should have been called as a witness. This is a criticism of the handling of the case which almost everyone thinks was appalling.

For one Hanratty must have been able to find his very double who was there at the right time.

This is patently ridiculous, as I have posted before, anyone who's broadly similar would do, he wouldn't have to be an exact doppelganger.

Mrs Grace Jones risked getting found by the taxman because of her lax bookkeeping. Mr Terry Evans risked exposing himself as a middleman for fencing of stolen goods.

Neither risked anything because the accusations would need to be investigated and substantiated - it would jeopardise continuing criminal activities of these 2, but previous instances would be overlooked.

Also not sure what Victor is saying when he goes on about theft done once will be done again and therefore constitutes serial killing. It seems he has changed the subject and tried to involve Hanratty as he was certainly a thief. Victor might have been on the juice when he wrote that.

If you read what Tony wrote "I can only assume that the vast majority of murderers murder once; serial killers are a different breed altogether.", then my comments are based on that. I.e., murders who murder because of jealousy or revenge or any sort of domestic reason are only likely to murder once - the source of their emotional state. But murders who murder because of bungled thefts - armed robbers and the like - where the murder is incidental to the crime, would have fewer reasons not to murder again.

You are right, Hanratty is a thief who progressed onto armed robbery, and this one went wrong, resulting in him murdering, raping and attempting to murder.

ps this A6 forum rocks!

It does.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Now call me stupid if you like

No chance - at least you have an open mind about the case.

but let’s forget about DNA for now, it was not known of in 1961, but put yourselves in James Hanratty’s position in the witness box for a moment. Don’t forget things are not looking at all good to him. As Leonard Miller puts it he is a cunning, devious criminal; but now he finds himself centre stage and Mr Swanwick is out to get him.

Now a couple of questions here: If I had been Hanratty and remember he had time to think while the exhibit/handkerchief was passed to him and he could make the court wait for his answer, I would have said; “Never seen it before.”

Yes, he could have lied on oath - and in doing so committed another crime.

Did the handkerchief have some way of being identified as belonging to Hanratty such as a monogramme? For me all handkerchiefs if they are white look the same.

Good question - it did of course have his nasal mucous on it, and it was blood typed as O, the same as Hanratty and Alphon.

I do not know why Hanratty said readily it was his. If he was innocent or guilty it was a foolish thing to do.

It was the truth and denying it would be committing a further crime.

A guilty man would have most definitely said: “No, definitely not mine, never seen it before, nothing to do with me; why are you asking me such a question?”

He'd have nothing to lose - either way.

An innocent man might have said much the same if it was or wasn’t his handkerchief but only a man determined to tell the truth from the outset and never waiver from telling the truth would put his hand up to that. It was damning evidence if Hanratty had wrapped the gun in it and left it on the bus. Unless he had determined to tell the truth on every point regardless of how bad it looked I can not fathom his answer. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Well that's the problem with arguing hypotheticals - nothing can be inferred with any certainty.

But to continue playing, anyone who'd been set up in this way (his handkerchief planted with the murder weapon) would stand a better chance if they consistently told the truth, whether they'd committed the original crime or not.

I have no problem with the theory that his handkerchief was planted with the gun - it's likely that when he handed the gun over to someone to dispose of he had already wrapped it in the handkerchief, and the person who disposed of it didn't touch it for fear of leaving fingerprints and getting accused of aiding and abetting or whatever.

Help me out on this one Vic. I know you like pulling holes in my postings and I always appreciate your responses.

Tony.

There you go - I hope it's a case of everyone contributes and a consensus forms, rather than me pulling holes in your posts.

KR,
Vic.

[Tony]

No chance - at least you have an open mind about the case.



Yes, he could have lied on oath - and in doing so committed another crime.


Good question - it did of course have his nasal mucous on it, and it was blood typed as O, the same as Hanratty and Alphon.


It was the truth and denying it would be committing a further crime.


He'd have nothing to lose - either way.


Well that's the problem with arguing hypotheticals - nothing can be inferred with any certainty.

But to continue playing, anyone who'd been set up in this way (his handkerchief planted with the murder weapon) would stand a better chance if they consistently told the truth, whether they'd committed the original crime or not.

I have no problem with the theory that his handkerchief was planted with the gun - it's likely that when he handed the gun over to someone to dispose of he had already wrapped it in the handkerchief, and the person who disposed of it didn't touch it for fear of leaving fingerprints and getting accused of aiding and abetting or whatever.


There you go - I hope it's a case of everyone contributes and a consensus forms, rather than me pulling holes in your posts.

KR,
Vic.

Hello Vic,

Well you have succeeded; you have drawn me in.

Your reply to me:

And you are at it again, my friend.

Are you seriously trying to say a man on trial for murder would, and you presume him to be guilty, have any problems at all with telling a lie about the ownership of a handkerchief?

I can just imagine it: “well this is a fine pickle I find myself in. I’ve just killed a man, raped and tried to kill his girlfriend and now they are asking me if that’s my handkerchief. Well I had better own up to that one I don’t want to get myself into any more trouble do I?”

I am writing this as your perception of Hanratty and not Hanratty’s situation in the witness box.

Your reply to SteveS:

You say the following:

“Legally Hanratty is guilty of the crimes, and therefore could not have been framed. We have the benefit of hindsight, and a lot more facts that have emerged in the last 40+ years such as the DNA evidence.”

Now are you saying, which it seems to me that you are, that you can not have been framed if you are convicted? Check my postings on the Patrick Meehan case in which he was sentenced to life after being framed by the police and who spent seven years in solitary, refusing to do any prison work, until the identity of the real killer was revealed. He was given a free pardon and for all of those seven years and during the trial the police, the prison governor and all the prisoners in gaol and indeed half of Scotland knew the identity of the real murderer. But it becomes a bit awkward for the police to say hang on we fitted this man up believing at the time he did it but now we know he didn’t. Can you pass back the evidence we planted on him so that we can throw it away and then everybody can forget it?

And just exactly what do you mean by: “a lot more facts have emerged in the last 40 years + such as the DNA evidence”?
Apart from the DNA I know of not one fact that has indicated Hanratty was the murderer and as you know I can’t debate DNA with you or Reg. Not that I don’t want to I just don’t know how to as I said last week I can’t debate how an aeroplane flies across the Atlantic; we are told they are foolproof but sometimes, something goes wrong and they crash.


I like this forum to Vic.


Tony.