a6 murder

[Limehouse]

Hi Graham,

Excellent post in reply to my own. As you know, when I first came on the thread, I was almost totally convinced that Hanratty was innocent. However, through debates such as this, I am less convinced. There are, indeed, aspects of this case that bother and worry me. For example, VS heard Hanratty rattling the cartridges around in his pocket. This could not have been six boxes worth. So, did Hanratty obtain a gun and six boxes of cartidges, which he dumped after the crime? Taking your point about Hanratty claiming 'the road to riches was armed robbery' - perhaps this was a trial run - to see if he had the bottle to hold someone up with a gun. He perhaps intended only to rob them at gun point to see if he could in fact do so. Perhaps he became carried away with the power or lost his bottle altogether and could not quite think his way out of things. Then there is the rape. He asks Valerie to kiss him, and after some pressure she does so. Was that, in Hanratty's mind, a signal that she was 'giving consent'? To any straight-thinking person it is a rape at the point of a gun - but to Hanratty with his history of impetuous and irrational behaviour? (I am not excusing him - just trying to work out why he thought he was innocent).

[Tony]

Hi Graham,

Excellent post in reply to my own. As you know, when I first came on the thread, I was almost totally convinced that Hanratty was innocent. However, through debates such as this, I am less convinced. There are, indeed, aspects of this case that bother and worry me. For example, VS heard Hanratty rattling the cartridges around in his pocket. This could not have been six boxes worth. So, did Hanratty obtain a gun and six boxes of cartidges, which he dumped after the crime? Taking your point about Hanratty claiming 'the road to riches was armed robbery' - perhaps this was a trial run - to see if he had the bottle to hold someone up with a gun. He perhaps intended only to rob them at gun point to see if he could in fact do so. Perhaps he became carried away with the power or lost his bottle altogether and could not quite think his way out of things. Then there is the rape. He asks Valerie to kiss him, and after some pressure she does so. Was that, in Hanratty's mind, a signal that she was 'giving consent'? To any straight-thinking person it is a rape at the point of a gun - but to Hanratty with his history of impetuous and irrational behaviour? (I am not excusing him - just trying to work out why he thought he was innocent).

Hello Limehouse,

Three successive excellent posts, two from you and one from Graham.

As you are now more convinced about the guilt of Hanratty and Graham is totally convinced can either one of you explain to me just how, if it was random, that the man Hanratty killed just happened to have a brother-in-law who was very familiar with a lot of Hanratty’s friends.

I don’t know the geography very well of Southern England but I assume Dorney Reach, Slough etc are some way from London.
It’s rather like me going to, say Blackpool and committing a serious crime and arriving back home in the Peak District only to find my random victim has a brother in law who goes to the same pub as me and we have joint business associates in common. A bit unlikely, not to say unlucky, but I suppose it could happen.

Tony.

[Graham]

Hi Limehouse,

Good points all, and very relevant to the discussion.

Hi Tony,

As you are now more convinced about the guilt of Hanratty and Graham is totally convinced can either one of you explain to me just how, if it was random, that the man Hanratty killed just happened to have a brother-in-law who was very familiar with a lot of Hanratty’s friends.

First, I have never been totally convinced of Hanratty's guilt, and have never stated as much. I'm probably 99% convinced, but there is always room for doubt.

Second, William Ewer was an antiques dealer (and quite a successful one, so it seems) and knowing that trade a little bit I can assure you that a lot of antique dealers know a lot of other antique dealers, if you follow me. Louise Anderson was also ostensibly an antiques dealer (Juna Antiques), lived quite close to Ewer's shop, had certainly done business with him, etc. Whether Ewer knew France prior to the crime I can't say - he says he met him only once, after the trial - but even if he did it wouldn't be too amazing - again, they lived close by one another. Which other of JH's friends was he 'very familiar' with?

I wonder if Ewer went to the Rehearsal Club at all?

Incidentally, I've always found it odd that Ewer is usually described as an 'umbrella repairer'. Did anyone ever make a living out of just doing that?
I think Steve on the old thread uncovered an article describing how Ewer had bought (for someone else) an antique valued at four figures - he didn't do this for nothing, you can bet.

As Sherrard said, 'dripping with coincidences'....

Cheers,

Graham

[Rob63]

Hi all,
a question...
Alphon mentioned twice, (once when he was out with Justice and Fox en route to the cornfield, and once to Mr Foot), that there was another pub/inn/hotel opposite the Old Station Inn. Does anyone know if this was true in `61.
Cheers big ears

[Victor]

Three successive excellent posts, two from you and one from Graham.

Hi all,
I agree those 3 posts were good, and the main point concerning the car for me isn't "Why is the no evidence of JH?" it's "Why is there no evidence of anyone?"

if it was random, that the man Hanratty killed just happened to have a brother-in-law who was very familiar with a lot of Hanratty’s friends.

Coincidences happen...I once had a one-night stand with someone who turned out to be my brothers girlfriend, although we didn't know it at the time.

A bit unlikely, not to say unlucky, but I suppose it could happen.

Tony.

It happened. Coincidences happen every day, there's an entire genre devoted to them, called SitComs.

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Hello Limehouse,

Three successive excellent posts, two from you and one from Graham.

As you are now more convinced about the guilt of Hanratty and Graham is totally convinced can either one of you explain to me just how, if it was random, that the man Hanratty killed just happened to have a brother-in-law who was very familiar with a lot of Hanratty’s friends.
I don’t know the geography very well of Southern England but I assume Dorney Reach, Slough etc are some way from London.
It’s rather like me going to, say Blackpool and committing a serious crime and arriving back home in the Peak District only to find my random victim has a brother in law who goes to the same pub as me and we have joint business associates in common. A bit unlikely, not to say unlucky, but I suppose it could happen.

Tony.

Hi Tony,

Thanks for your kind comments.

I have underlined a passage in your post that I think is extremely relevant. In my post I myself refer to precisely this point - thus:

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).

This is an aspect of the case I find totally unconvincing. Can we really believe Hanratty just happened to fancy wandering around that part of the countryside, happens to see a car in a cornfield and hijacks the car that by chance is occupied by a man whose brother-in-law knows rather shady characters who are known to Hanratty. No matter how hard I try, I just can't convince myself of this so-called random liaison - even allowing for the fact that the couple moved from one spot to another. After all, wasn't it established that this wasn't the first time the cornfield location had been used?

Must go now but will be back soon!

[Rob63]

Hi Limehouse, I also read somewhere that it wasn`t the first time that the couple had used the cornfield for a liason. I think there was a remark by a lady who lived nearby that the field was a common spot for indulging couples to park up and that it was very annoying for the residents.
Out of interest is there anyone who has pondered that the shooter may have been someone who is totally off the radar ?

[reg1965]

Bob Woffinden is alive and well and still living in Hanrattyland

Hi All
Contrary to my post #2876 I have great news.

I emailed Bob Woffinden, again, the day before that post and lo and behold got a reply from him.

The essence of his email is that he is not prepared to let the case drop and is closely following the DNA developments. He said that his last conversation with Paul Foot, days before his death, was a discussion of how to get to the bottom of what had gone wrong with the DNA! It seems that Paul Foot had not given up on his belief of Hanratty's innocence.

He is very keen to take the Hanratty case further.

I emailed him back this afternoon and amazingly he rang me. We had a great 30 minute chat about the case.

I can say that he told me that Michael Hanratty and his wife emigrated to Spain just after the appeal.
It also seems that very little else has been done officially about the case. It all comes down to resources.
I did ask him what he thought of Leonard Millers book and he told me that him and Paul Foot had a right old laugh over that load of rubbish.

Cheers
Reg

[Limehouse]

Hi Limehouse, I also read somewhere that it wasn`t the first time that the couple had used the cornfield for a liason. I think there was a remark by a lady who lived nearby that the field was a common spot for indulging couples to park up and that it was very annoying for the residents.
Out of interest is there anyone who has pondered that the shooter may have been someone who is totally off the radar ?

Hi Rob,

Yes, I have often wondered whether the killer was someone completely different and not Hanratty or Alphon. Could it be that an unidentified and unknown person out there was responsible?

If so it still leaves us with the big question. Why??/

[Limehouse]

Hi All
Contrary to my post #2876 I have great news.

I emailed Bob Woffinden, again, the day before that post and lo and behold got a reply from him.

The essence of his email is that he is not prepared to let the case drop and is closely following the DNA developments. He said that his last conversation with Paul Foot, days before his death, was a discussion of how to get to the bottom of what had gone wrong with the DNA! It seems that Paul Foot had not given up on his belief of Hanratty's innocence.

He is very keen to take the Hanratty case further.

I emailed him back this afternoon and amazingly he rang me. We had a great 30 minute chat about the case.

I can say that he told me that Michael Hanratty and his wife emigrated to Spain just after the appeal.
It also seems that very little else has been done officially about the case. It all comes down to resources.
I did ask him what he thought of Leonard Millers book and he told me that him and Paul Foot had a right old laugh over that load of rubbish.

Cheers
Reg

Hi Reg,

I wonder if Woffinden has seen this thread and if so, would he be willing to join in the debate??

[reg1965]

Hi Reg,

I wonder if Woffinden has seen this thread and if so, would he be willing to join in the debate??

Hi Limehouse
I told him about it!
Reg

[Tony]

Hi All
Contrary to my post #2876 I have great news.

I emailed Bob Woffinden, again, the day before that post and lo and behold got a reply from him.

The essence of his email is that he is not prepared to let the case drop and is closely following the DNA developments. He said that his last conversation with Paul Foot, days before his death, was a discussion of how to get to the bottom of what had gone wrong with the DNA! It seems that Paul Foot had not given up on his belief of Hanratty's innocence.

He is very keen to take the Hanratty case further.

I emailed him back this afternoon and amazingly he rang me. We had a great 30 minute chat about the case.

I can say that he told me that Michael Hanratty and his wife emigrated to Spain just after the appeal.
It also seems that very little else has been done officially about the case. It all comes down to resources.
I did ask him what he thought of Leonard Millers book and he told me that him and Paul Foot had a right old laugh over that load of rubbish.

Cheers
Reg

Good evening Reg,

Hey this is brilliant stuff. I’ve tried to get hold of Bob for ages for an update with no success. You are a better detective than me. Congratulations, Sir. He sounds like a really nice bloke.

Can you enlarge on the dialogue/emails between the two of you?

I certainly wouldn’t expect you to break any confidences but this is the most interesting development in years. Well apart from John Russell that is.

Tony.

[Tony]

Good evening Reg,

Hey this is brilliant stuff. I’ve tried to get hold of Bob for ages for an update with no success. You are a better detective than me. Congratulations, Sir. He sounds like a really nice bloke.

Can you enlarge on the dialogue/emails between the two of you?

I certainly wouldn’t expect you to break any confidences but this is the most interesting development in years. Well apart from John Russell that is.

Tony.

Hello again Reg,

Here is a copy of Miller’s letter to the editor of the Guardian dated 14th May, 2002.

I wonder why Bob and Paul did not reply?

“The eyewitness evidence for and against James Hanratty was questionable, and contrary to what Paul Foot claims there are holes and contradictions in the Liverpool and Rhyl alibis (Hanratty's appeal is over, but justice is yet to be done, May 13).
In my book Shadows of Deadman's Hill, I examined every argument for Hanratty's innocence put forward by Bob Woffinden (Hanratty appeal, May 11) and Paul Foot, concluding that they were both wrong. Neither journalist to my knowledge has responded to my wide-ranging critique or my explanation as to why and how this enigmatic crime occurred.
To go on claiming that Hanratty was innocent is to ignore compelling evidence against him, including his stated interest in obtaining a gun and two medical diagnoses prior to the crime that he was a latent psychopath.
The miscarriage of justice campaign was based on three errors: the belief that Valerie Storie changed her testimony about the colour of her attacker's eyes (she didn't); the bogus confessions of the publicity-hungry Peter Alphon; and the idea that the crime was pre-planned and involved a criminal conspiracy. But the tragic events of the night of 22/23 August 1961 began by chance and can only be understood in the light of Hanratty's own damaged and immature personality.”

Leonard Miller
York
leonardmiller33@hotmail.com

[reg1965]

Good evening Reg,

Hey this is brilliant stuff. I’ve tried to get hold of Bob for ages for an update with no success. You are a better detective than me. Congratulations, Sir. He sounds like a really nice bloke.

Can you enlarge on the dialogue/emails between the two of you?

I certainly wouldn’t expect you to break any confidences but this is the most interesting development in years. Well apart from John Russell that is.

Tony.

Hi Tony
Bobs view I think is that, to be frank, a lot of dosh has to gotten together to put together a solid case condemning the DNA evidence. That is the bottom line.
He goes on to say that another updated edition of his book (or one by someone else) is also warranted to bring the case up to date in the public eye.
As I said I pointed Bob in the direction of this site so who knows...he may have a look.

I would like to know from BlueMoon who this John Russell character is and what his involvement was. A reference to an outside source would be good.

Cheers
Reg

[reg1965]

Hello again Reg,

Here is a copy of Miller’s letter to the editor of the Guardian dated 14th May, 2002.

I wonder why Bob and Paul did not reply?

“The eyewitness evidence for and against James Hanratty was questionable, and contrary to what Paul Foot claims there are holes and contradictions in the Liverpool and Rhyl alibis (Hanratty's appeal is over, but justice is yet to be done, May 13).
In my book Shadows of Deadman's Hill, I examined every argument for Hanratty's innocence put forward by Bob Woffinden (Hanratty appeal, May 11) and Paul Foot, concluding that they were both wrong. Neither journalist to my knowledge has responded to my wide-ranging critique or my explanation as to why and how this enigmatic crime occurred.
To go on claiming that Hanratty was innocent is to ignore compelling evidence against him, including his stated interest in obtaining a gun and two medical diagnoses prior to the crime that he was a latent psychopath.
The miscarriage of justice campaign was based on three errors: the belief that Valerie Storie changed her testimony about the colour of her attacker's eyes (she didn't); the bogus confessions of the publicity-hungry Peter Alphon; and the idea that the crime was pre-planned and involved a criminal conspiracy. But the tragic events of the night of 22/23 August 1961 began by chance and can only be understood in the light of Hanratty's own damaged and immature personality.”

Leonard Miller
York
leonardmiller33@hotmail.com

Hi Tony
From what Bob said, him and Foot were too busy pissing themselves laughing to bother. Apart from that I don't know. Why bother arguing with an idiot I suppose.
He did say that in one passage of the book, Miller uses, to discredit the Rhyl alibi, the fact that a bookies was a few doors down from Ingledene and that if Hanratty had been there then he would have mentioned it and been in for a bet. Bob told me that Hanratty did mention it in his testimony! Maybe that gives you your answer, Millers letter wasn't worth replying to.

I'll ask him next time if I remember.

Take care
Reg

ps that email address for Miller is no longer valid. I tried and got a failed delivery message.