a6 murder

[Tony]

.

The above was from the Yorkshire Post, August 23 1961, and the first I've heard of the claim that the killer quote, "was hitch-hiking to Leeds".

Any ideas, anyone, where this came from? I'm aware that there was some early notion of a hitch-hiker, reference John Kerr, but the first I've heard that he was trying to get to Leeds.

Cheers,

Graham

Hi Graham,

This article has been on the thread before and I used to have it but have now lost it.
Was it reproduced for any particular reason? As I say I have read it many times and have never been able to make anything of it.
Except to say, if it is true and I mean if, it can only have come from Valerie Storie.
She was the only one left who could have said what the gunman is supposed to have said.

Interesting that it says that the car was abandoned 50 yards from the main road to Southend.
Isn’t that where Alphon says he took the gun to be disposed of?

Tony.

[Tony]

[QUOTE=jimornot?;60271]

Here's another bit of interesting stuff gleaned from my happy Googling:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/may/11/ukcrime1

Check out the bit concerning a claim that JH confessed all to "someone" while he was awaiting execution. His spiritual advisor, Can Anthony Hulme, was (naturally) sworn to secrecy under the rules of the confessional (or so we hope), so who might that "someone" have been?

Having said that, there were I believe rumours doing the rounds that Hanratty had admitted guilt in the confessional, but even though I'm a total agnostic I do hope that these rumours aren't true, because if they are then one of the most venerable tenets of the Roman Catholic Church is put into severe doubt.


Hi Graham

could that someone have been Langdale? Am I right in thinking he supposedly admitted guilt to someone like Dixie France?

I recall again previous threads referral to Can. Hulme supposedly revealing all to a member of the public but I can't see that as being true.

All the best

Viv

Good Morning Viv,

Reference Graham’s link to the fact that Hanratty confessed to the crime.

There are three ‘confessions’:

One to Langdale and even Mr Swanwick told the jury to treat it with great care. In other words he either did not believe it himself or did not want a conviction on the strength of it.

Another one to a prison officer who appeared in a TV programme saying Hanratty confessed to him casually whilst having a smoke just before going on to an ID parade in the yard. This alleged confession has been torn apart on here and even the Jimdiditites have said quite firmly that they do not believe it.

The third confession appeared in the Cassandra column and relates a story about a driver taking a friend of Canon Hulme’s to London, long after Hulme’s death, and as they are driving on the M1 past Bedford the passenger says to the driver: “You remember the old A6 murder case? Well Canon Hulme told me years ago that Hanratty confessed just before the execution.”
This account comes from the driver, not the passenger and certainly not Hulme.

I have got the article at work and will print it in full for you on Monday.

Tony.

[Tony]

Re: Sherrard's book, I'll be interested in what you guys think of it. From the very brief interview he gave on the TV documentary, I always had the impression that he thought all along that Hanratty was guilty. Not that that should matter, of course, as he was being paid to defend his client and as a conscientious barrister would do it to the best of his ability, same as Swanwick did his best to get a guilty verdict. (Referring again to the Tony Mancini Case, Norman Birkett never had an doubts at all that Mancini was guilty, but as he said he was paid a handsome fee by the State to defend someone and he did it as best he knew.)

I've also wondered about the efficiency of Sherrard's back-up team. Maybe they were stretched to the limit, but they always seemed to be one step behind the police. That, and Hanratty's crazy performance loaded the dice against Sherrard.

Said it before and I'll sat it again, the verdict astonished just about everyone connected with the A6 Case, but it wasn't the first and it won't be the last surprising outcome of a major trial.

By the way, isn't Justice's "Murder vs Murder" more or less an English translation of "Le Crime de la Route A6"?

Cheers,

Graham

Morning again Graham,

That is interesting, I am really glad you are back.

I’m waiting for Sherrard’s book with great anticipation and I will read it immediately it arrives. I will give you my opinion, for what it’s worth, of how I think he perceived Hanratty. If he gives the impression that he thought Hanratty was innocent or guilty I shall say so.

On the matter of learned counsel being well paid for doing their respective jobs; well of course they are well paid and I am sure sometimes they find the job distasteful. I know I would.

Interestingly, and I haven’t got my reference books to hand, but at the trial of the Great Train Robbers one of the defendants who wasn’t on the ‘job’ but was found to be in possession of a few thousand pounds was sentenced to about eight years in gaol for receiving stolen money.
“Can’t have this, too much of it going on, I mean receiving money from a Train Robbery. Take him down” said the judge.
Now I wonder if there were any red faces amongst the barristers who were representing the actual robbers and had been paid many, many more thousands of pounds for their expertise by those robbers. Not one of them was taken down.
Didn’t Mr Swanwick represent one of the defendants Graham? But as you say it’s all about money and getting a result. In fact I think Mr Swanwick did get a fairly good result for his client.

Tony.

[Rob63]

Hi all, a happy new year to you.
I`m about 2/3 of the way through Mr Foots book and finding it very interesting reading.... although I`m still not swayed one way or the other.
An odd thing occured whilst reading the section on the Rhyl alibi, it brought back a memory from way back in `89. I took off to Newquay for a few days during the summer and wandered up and down the streets looking for a B+B with a vacancy. I eventually found one run by a very old lady and her middle aged daughter. They put me up in a front bedroom which had bunk beds, this was normally used in case people brought their kids with them and they couldn`t fit in with their parents. In the morning I went down for breakfast, into the dining room and sat down, only to be moved by the daughter into the family parlour at the back of the house as there were only enough tables for the amount of double rooms in the house (which were occupied). I ended up having a very pleasant breakfast whilst chatting to the old lady and her daughter.
The memory popped back because of the similarity of the situation at Ingledene.

On a very off topic subject, I spent a day before Christmas in a Police station with one of my grown up offspring after they had been harrassed by an ex partner. Another member of the family had to take part in an interview with a DS. Afterwards the Police were very keen to pick up the ex partner so asked for a description and contact details, we gave a description but only had a vague idea of where the ex was living. A few days later my offspring was informed that the ex had been picked up and interviewed, and that the enquiry was ongoing. A couple of days later the Police phoned my offspring again to ask if they had any address or contact details for the ex. When I was told this I was quite incredulous, surely during an interview they would need details of place of abode etc.
This bugged me so much that a day later I looked on the internet and found the name, full address with postcode and even a landline phone number, listed in a very public directory, the Police can`t be that disorganised can they? I haven`t had much contact with the forces of law except for some motorcycling offences during my distant youth but recent contact hasn`t inspired any confidence in them on my part.

edit: as a footnote it was interesting at the time of giving the description my offspring got the ex height wrong by about eight inches (even though they lived together for about three years), I knew they were as tall as myself so managed to correct it with the officers present

[Tony]

Hi all, a happy new year to you.
I`m about 2/3 of the way through Mr Foots book and finding it very interesting reading.... although I`m still not swayed one way or the other.
An odd thing occured whilst reading the section on the Rhyl alibi, it brought back a memory from way back in `89. I took off to Newquay for a few days during the summer and wandered up and down the streets looking for a B+B with a vacancy. I eventually found one run by a very old lady and her middle aged daughter. They put me up in a front bedroom which had bunk beds, this was normally used in case people brought their kids with them and they couldn`t fit in with their parents. In the morning I went down for breakfast, into the dining room and sat down, only to be moved by the daughter into the family parlour at the back of the house as there were only enough tables for the amount of double rooms in the house (which were occupied). I ended up having a very pleasant breakfast whilst chatting to the old lady and her daughter.
The memory popped back because of the similarity of the situation at Ingledene.

On a very off topic subject, I spent a day before Christmas in a Police station with one of my grown up offspring after they had been harrassed by an ex partner. Another member of the family had to take part in an interview with a DS. Afterwards the Police were very keen to pick up the ex partner so asked for a description and contact details, we gave a description but only had a vague idea of where the ex was living. A few days later my offspring was informed that the ex had been picked up and interviewed, and that the enquiry was ongoing. A couple of days later the Police phoned my offspring again to ask if they had any address or contact details for the ex. When I was told this I was quite incredulous, surely during an interview they would need details of place of abode etc.
This bugged me so much that a day later I looked on the internet and found the name, full address with postcode and even a landline phone number, listed in a very public directory, the Police can`t be that disorganised can they? I haven`t had much contact with the forces of law except for some motorcycling offences during my distant youth but recent contact hasn`t inspired any confidence in them on my part.

edit: as a footnote it was interesting at the time of giving the description my offspring got the ex height wrong by about eight inches (even though they lived together for about three years), I knew they were as tall as myself so managed to correct it with the officers present

Hello Rob63,

That's a very interesting story, particularly the holiday digs part.

So you don’t think the cops are stupid? Well what about this one then?

Years ago in the mid 1970’s I worked for a building company in Macclesfield we had a contract to refurbish the bank in nearby Prestbury. I think it was a Williams Deacons at the time.
Anyway this was in the days before throw away calculators and we had a bloke come round to our offices to service/mend the adding machines. This same bloke also serviced the machines in the bank at Prestbury.

The bank used to close for an hour at lunchtimes and one day our adding machine expert was at the bank servicing their tills. There were only two employees at the bank a young man and a young girl.
All three sat down to have their lunch together when the engineer decides he’d like to rob the bank. He attacked the couple, killing the young man and tied the girl up and put her in the boot of his car which was parked round the back. He took the cash and left leaving the front door locked. He drove up to the moors and left the poor girl tied up in freezing weather where she eventually died of hypothermia. He eventually was caught after a spending spree and he got life with a minimum 30 years. He may be out now I don’t know.

But here’s the thing when the police and forensics etc arrived at the bank mid afternoon and did what work they could; they ordered a police officer to remain in the bank overnight and make sure nothing was moved etc. well the copper gets bored and starts writing out ransom demands: “Ł50,000 and the girl goes free” etc which he then throws in the waste paper bin only to be found and confuse the enquiry team the next day. Not intentionally of course but stupid nonetheless. But worse! Whilst looking after the crime scene he gets a bit peckish and seeing the three half eaten lunches he quickly polishes them off.
I think it’s the only case in police history where the police ate the evidence.
The bobby was discharged from the force immediately after the case.

Tony.

[Graham]

Hi Tony,

Another one to a prison officer who appeared in a TV programme saying Hanratty confessed to him casually whilst having a smoke just before going on to an ID parade in the yard. This alleged confession has been torn apart on here and even the Jimdiditites have said quite firmly that they do not believe it.

I've got the documentary with that 'confession' and it's laughable! The guy would have us believe that someone under suspicion of murder was allowed out into a corridor for a smoke....apart from which Hanratty didn't smoke, of course.

The third confession appeared in the Cassandra column and relates a story about a driver taking a friend of Canon Hulme’s to London, long after Hulme’s death, and as they are driving on the M1 past Bedford the passenger says to the driver: “You remember the old A6 murder case? Well Canon Hulme told me years ago that Hanratty confessed just before the execution.”

Yes, I remember that well. I hope it's not true, as I said earlier.

Re: the Yorkshire Post article, I think I must have missed the reference to Leeds, as I wasn't aware of this until yesterday. If it came from Valerie Storie, I'd be surprised, but again who knows? There must have been all manner of rumours and speculation flying around in the early days of the investigation.

I have had this discussion with you before you are mixing up the double jeopardy scenario when a person could not be re-tried after having been found not guilty. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a law which would stop the prosecution of an offender simply because some one else had been found guilty. And it’s as simple as that.

I can't really argue with you on this one, Tony, because quite simply I don't know for sure, but I'd have said that once someone has been executed for a crime and if, later, he was found innocent, then I wouldn't have thought anyone else could be tried for that crime. A lawyer I ain't!

Cheers,

Graham

[Tony]

Hi Tony,



I've got the documentary with that 'confession' and it's laughable! The guy would have us believe that someone under suspicion of murder was allowed out into a corridor for a smoke....apart from which Hanratty didn't smoke, of course.



Yes, I remember that well. I hope it's not true, as I said earlier.

Re: the Yorkshire Post article, I think I must have missed the reference to Leeds, as I wasn't aware of this until yesterday. If it came from Valerie Storie, I'd be surprised, but again who knows? There must have been all manner of rumours and speculation flying around in the early days of the investigation.



I can't really argue with you on this one, Tony, because quite simply I don't know for sure, but I'd have said that once someone has been executed for a crime and if, later, he was found innocent, then I wouldn't have thought anyone else could be tried for that crime. A lawyer I ain't!

Cheers,

Graham

Hello Graham.

Let’s for the sake of argument leave the word executed out of the equation for a moment.

Stephan Kisko was sentenced to life for the murder of Leslie Moleseed. He was not executed but may have been if the death penalty was around.
He was subsequently found to be innocent and released after sixteen years. Another man has since been tried for the same murder and is now serving life.

The wrongful execution makes the scenario much worse.

Tony.

[Graham]

Hello Graham.

Let’s for the sake of argument leave the word executed out of the equation for a moment.

Stephan Kisko was sentenced to life for the murder of Leslie Moleseed. He was not executed but may have been if the death penalty was around.
He was subsequently found to be innocent and released after sixteen years. Another man has since been tried for the same murder and is now serving life.

The wrongful execution makes the scenario much worse.

Tony.

Yep, you're right, mate. Point conceded!

Graham

[Tony]

Yep, you're right, mate. Point conceded!

Graham

Hello Graham,

I was not trying to point score I assure you but at the end of the day the law is the law and that is why Hanratty hanged. He shouldn’t have.

I have really appreciated your contributions of late Graham; you make this thread what it is.
I have always been convinced that Hanratty was wrongly done by. You on the other hand held my view but changed your mind post DNA. It is a very creditable effort for a man to stand up and say: “I was wrong.” For that you should have much credit.
But it is equally as difficult for me and others like me to say: “Oh yes we will disregard all we know about this case and simply say we give up the State has proved itself right. Goodnight.”

We need to continue the debate and I personally do not think it is at an end.

Just a personal point of view, I know.

On a lighter note, and I know you are not keen on this Graham, I intend to resurrect Basil and his team or maybe his wife tomorrow. Not quite in the Miller class but maybe, just maybe, worth a read.

Sleep tight my friend.

Tony.

[reg1965]

But it is equally as difficult for me and others like me to say: “Oh yes we will disregard all we know about this case and simply say we give up the State has proved itself right. Goodnight.”

We need to continue the debate and I personally do not think it is at an end.

Hi Tony
Sounds like the Owls were poxed today against Fulham, although Tommy Spurr's goal should be worth a watch on ITV's alternative to MOTD whenever its on.

Anyway enough of that malarky.

I wholeheartedly agree with your quote above.

The argument now comes down to whether the DNA evidence put forward by Dr Johnathan Whitaker at the appeal in 2002 is in fact correct and backs up the other evidence against Hanratty to make the original verdict safe taking into account the new evidence put forward by the appellants.

Cheers
Reg

[Rob63]

Hi Tony
The argument now comes down to whether the DNA evidence put forward by Dr Johnathan Whitaker at the appeal in 2002 is in fact correct and backs up the other evidence against Hanratty to make the original verdict safe taking into account the new evidence put forward by the appellants.

Cheers
Reg

Nail on the head

Found an interesting statement from a retired cop Joe Jackson who was involved in investigating the Barrowland murders...

[qoute]DNA is a great tool but that's all. It should not take the place of proper detective work[/qoute]

[reg1965]

Nail on the head

Found an interesting statement from a retired cop Joe Jackson who was involved in investigating the Barrowland murders...

[qoute]DNA is a great tool but that's all. It should not take the place of proper detective work[/qoute]

Hi Rob
2 of Peter Tobin's victims bodies were discovered in Margate (50 Irvine Drive on the Millmead Estate), a town not too far from where I live, the other year. It was all over the local press and telly for weeks.

Jackson seems a very straight copper trying to play by the rules and realises the true worth of DNA in criminal cases. A confession or other substantial evidence has to be produced before a conviction can be sought surely just on DNA or forensic evidence.

Cheers
Reg

[Dupplin Muir]

Hello all

I can also add a quote from the distinguished forensic scientist, Dr Zakaria Erzinçlioglu (sadly no longer with us). In his book Every Contact Leaves a Trace (2000) he says:

‘Moreover, no evidence is infallible – not even DNA or old-fashioned fingerprints. Arriving at the truth in a forensic investigation is a matter of attacking a problem from many different angles. If the story that emerges is supported by all the strands of evidence, one can then have good reason to believe that it is the truth.' (p.102)

For me it sums up what a good prosecution case should be, and what the A6 investigation so obviously was not.

DM

[Limehouse]

Weighing it all up

I have been thinking about the things that make me feel Hanratty was guilty and the things that make me doubt his guilt and I have written them down thus:

Doubts

1. Hanratty had no [B]known[B] history of violence or sexual deviance.

2. Nobody reports seeing Hanratty or a man who fits Hanratty's description near or en route to the location of the abuction. (A man with six boxes of cartridges in his pockets would have stood out).

3. It is claimed to have been a completely random abuction, yet Hanratty picks a car in the middle of nowhere containing a man whose brother-in-law knew several of Hanratty's London-based 'shady' friends (Dixie France and Louise whats-her-name).

4. All of the physical evidence against Hanratty is found external to the crime scene. For example, cartidges found in Hanratty's hotel room a good while after the murder matched those at the scene. The gun found wrapped in Hanratty's hanky is found under the seat of a bus. The DNA evidence is discovered on knickers that have been stored alongside Hanratty's garments for many years. Nothing, not one tiny fibre of Hanratty's garments, is found at the scene of the murder. Hanratty has been in the car for hours. He has draped himself all over the back seat. He has made physical contact with VS - and yet not a single fibre is to be found. In fact, no fibres belonging to the killer (if not Hanratty) are found. Strange? Not if you are tempted to believe the rest of the evidence may have been planted. If Hanratty was innocent, the one thing they could not have obtained and planted that night was a fibre from the suit he was wearing that night. This is stretching things a bit, I know, but when you add it to the rest of my doubts above, you do have to start to wonder.

5. For a 'random' abduction, it seems a motiveless and pointless exercise. On the face of it, it seems to be a robbery, but why didn't he run off after having obtained their money and watches? Surely the longer he stayed in the car, the more risk he was taking? It's as if the abductor had gone there for a purpose but then couldn't quite work out what to do and how to do it.


Points that make me think he was guilty

1. Hanratty had a history of criminality. he never achieved remission whilst in prison because of his poor behaviour record.

2. VS was in the car with him for hours and is totally convinced in her belief it was Hanratty.

3. Hanratty had a history of impetuous behaviour - the tendancy to act without thinking through his actions. The abduction could have been an attempt to take his criminality up a notch - without really thinking about what he was trying to achieve.

4. Hanratty always failed to take responsibility for his actions - his burglaries were excused by the claim 'he only robbed rich people' but he found it impossible to accept the effect his criminality had on others. This might explain why he denied responsibility for the crime so convincingly - if he was involved but not the only one involved, he would have seen himself as innocent.

5. Hanratty has a history of 'wandering' - looking for places to rob. he would not have been put off by the notion that he had not visited a place before.

6. He changed his alibi. (This could have been because an alibi had been pre-arranged on the basis that Hanratty would 'disrupt' the relationship of MG and VS. When things went so drastically wrong, the pre-arranged alibi failed to materialise because those involved were too scared by the actual outcome of the crime and its consequences)

7. The DNA evidence in terms of the pattern of the distribution of the evidence seems to point to Hanratty.

8. If all of the evidence was planted in the way I described above, any fibres found at the scene that pointed to someone else would have had to have been 'not found' and this would have involved a lot more people in the 'framing'. It seems too far fetched.


I realise, of course, that some of my points contradict each other. However, this is the nature of the case. You think one way and reason then pulls you in a different direction. The most serious doubts I have are that the abduction does not seem so random when you consider that people on the fringes of the case knew each other and played a part in Hanratty's conviction.

[Graham]

Hi Limehouse,

Loved your post! You've put this thread back on the straight and narrow!

A couple of comments:

2

. Nobody reports seeing Hanratty or a man who fits Hanratty's description near or en route to the location of the abuction. (A man with six boxes of cartridges in his pockets would have stood out

It's true nobody described anyone like JH around Dorney that evening. But ref: the cartridges, VS said he rattled them in his pocket like marbles, so that would suggest they were loose in his pockets, not in boxes. (A box of 24 .38 cartridges is a heavy object, incidentally, not good for the posh suits JH usually wore!)

3. It is claimed to have been a completely random abuction, yet Hanratty picks a car in the middle of nowhere containing a man whose brother-in-law knew several of Hanratty's London-based 'shady' friends (Dixie France and Louise whats-her-name

VS and JG parked first in Huntercombe Lane after leaving The Old Station Inn (at least that's what she said) and stayed there for a short time before leaving and going to the cornfield. Presumably Huntercombe Lane wasn't private enough for them, and also presumably they left on a whim for a more private spot. In which case, how could JH (or anyone else) pre-plan to 'meet' them in the cornfield?

4. All of the physical evidence against Hanratty is found external to the crime scene. For example, cartidges found in Hanratty's hotel room a good while after the murder matched those at the scene. The gun found wrapped in Hanratty's hanky is found under the seat of a bus.

Correct, but the cartridges could have been left there by JH when he re-loaded the gun presumably - common word in the A6 Case - after having some practice with it somewhere. As Crocker said, they were on a chair in a dark alcove and could easily be missed by the cleaner. As for the gun, the police stated that it had been wiped clean of fingerprints - if so, then if it had been placed there deliberately to incriminate JH, the gun wouldn't have been wiped clean of his dabs. And we know that JH was fairly meticulous when it came to wiping his dabs from the scenes of his burglaries and so forth.

Nothing, not one tiny fibre of Hanratty's garments, is found at the scene of the murder. Hanratty has been in the car for hours. He has draped himself all over the back seat. He has made physical contact with VS - and yet not a single fibre is to be found. In fact, no fibres belonging to the killer (if not Hanratty) are found. Strange? Not if you are tempted to believe the rest of the evidence may have been planted. If Hanratty was innocent, the one thing they could not have obtained and planted that night was a fibre from the suit he was wearing that night. This is stretching things a bit, I know, but when you add it to the rest of my doubts above, you do have to start to wonder.

I too have always been surprised at the stated lack of any forensics in the car. There must have been fibres, hair, skin cells, etc., from totally inncocent passengers prior to the crime, and I find it very odd that no hair or fibre from JH (or PLA for that matter...) were found. I honestly can't equate this with sloppy police forensics (but of course this can't be ruled out), so can only presume (that word again!) that JH carried out a very, very meticulous cleaning of the car before it was abandoned. But a murderer/rapist on the run valeting a car before he scooted??? Again, can't be ruled out, I suppose, but it doesn't sound likely.

5. For a 'random' abduction, it seems a motiveless and pointless exercise. On the face of it, it seems to be a robbery, but why didn't he run off after having obtained their money and watches? Surely the longer he stayed in the car, the more risk he was taking? It's as if the abductor had gone there for a purpose but then couldn't quite work out what to do and how to do it.

This really is a core point in the whole A6 Mystery. The only person able to tell us what went on during that nightmare seems to have said all she ever intends to say on the matter (wholly understandably) and unless we look very deeply into JH's psychology we'll probably never know the answer. But we can all have theories, eh...?

1. Hanratty had a history of criminality. he never achieved remission whilst in prison because of his poor behaviour record.

He was a hard nut, all right, and could certainly look after himself if he had to. He doesn't come across as a Ronald Stanley Fletcher type of con.

2. VS was in the car with him for hours and is totally convinced in her belief it was Hanratty.

Inarguable.

3. Hanratty had a history of impetuous behaviour - the tendancy to act without thinking through his actions. The abduction could have been an attempt to take his criminality up a notch - without really thinking about what he was trying to achieve.

See above. He also told someone (can't remember who) that burglary was all played out, and the road to riches was armed-robbery. Or words to that affect. But like his dad's window-cleaning enterprise, he made a pig's ear of it.

4. Hanratty always failed to take responsibility for his actions - his burglaries were excused by the claim 'he only robbed rich people' but he found it impossible to accept the effect his criminality had on others. This might explain why he denied responsibility for the crime so convincingly - if he was involved but not the only one involved, he would have seen himself as innocent.

Correct. I've always gone along with the hypothesis that he simply went into some kind of denial.

6. He changed his alibi.

He changed his alibi when he realised that his original Liverpool one couldn't stand on its claimed merits.


Finally, as Michael Sherrard himself commented, and very appositely, this case 'is dripping with coincidence'. I've long thought that had the A6 Case come in front of a Scottish court, the only verdict would have been 'Not Proven' - a verdict not available in England and Wales. (But it basically means, "We know you did it, but we can't supply unshakeable evidence")

Phew! Sorry for the length of this post, but this is the kind of debate I really enjoy!!

Cheers,

Graham