a6 murder

[jimarilyn]

Cheers James. Didn't Hanratty dump the job rather than only being employed for a few hours, and steal from him too?

Hi Victor,

Hanratty worked on the dodgems for the rest of that evening but admitted he didn't like it ( see Bob Woffinden's book p 94) because it was chilly and draughty on Rhyl seafront.
Because Hanratty's shoes were rather worn down, Evans kindly loaned him a new pair of his own. Hanratty didn't turn up for work at the funfair next morning and returned to Liverpool wearing Evans's shoes, which he must have taken a liking to. So yes, he did pinch Evans's shoes.

On the subject of the Ingledene, is it right that it was full on the night of the murder, so if Hanratty had tried to stay there then there wouldn't have been room?

Because Ingledene was full that first evening and because Mrs Grace Jones didn't like to turn away a guest if she could help it, Hanratty was given the bedroom/bathroom (containing the green bath) at the top of the house. It is unclear whether he stayed one or two nights in this particular room.


regards,
James

[Victor]

Hanratty worked on the dodgems for the rest of that evening but admitted he didn't like it ( see Bob Woffinden's book p 94) because it was chilly and draughty on Rhyl seafront.

Cheers James. I've not found my books, so I've just ordered a new set from Amazon.

Because Hanratty's shoes were rather worn down, Evans kindly loaned him a new pair of his own. Hanratty didn't turn up for work at the funfair next morning and returned to Liverpool wearing Evans's shoes, which he must have taken a liking to. So yes, he did pinch Evans's shoes.

So basically another technicality like the "Hanratty raped Carole France" one. Admittedly he was a thief, so it could be "deliberately did a bunk with his shoes" or the other extreme "he did a bunk and forgot all about the shoes" or the in-the-middle inconsiderate apathetic about ownership rights.

Because Ingledene was full that first evening and because Mrs Grace Jones didn't like to turn away a guest if she could help it, Hanratty was given the bedroom/bathroom (containing the green bath) at the top of the house. It is unclear whether he stayed one or two nights in this particular room.

I notice that the Alexei Sayle link Tony gave says that his dad was staying in the room that Hanratty claimed to be in, although he does make other erroneous claims such as "Hanratty was the last person to be hanged in Britain" when he was really the 8th from last.

KR,
Vic.

[Tony]

I've found this quote which I totally agree with from http://web.archive.org/web/200502121...k/hanratty.htm (it's linked from wikipedia)



Does anyone have any more information on what Michael Sherrard said as the page seems to be incomplete.

KR,
Vic.

Hello Vic,

Well it seems as though you and I are back on speaking terms.
I have the full article as a newspaper cutting at work and I will put it on here on Monday for you.
I also have what is supposedly Hanratty’s last confession and I promised to put that on here so I’ll do that as well.

Both my index fingers look like taking some hammer on Monday.

By the way Vic we lost in the quiz league again last night; again by one point and we are firmly anchored at the bottom. Relegation is looming for us; if only I could say the same for Man Urinal.

Ah well there’s always next season.

Tony.

By the way what did you pay for Bob's book on Amazon? It is turning into a real collector's item.

[Victor]

Well it seems as though you and I are back on speaking terms.

I put it down to pre-chrimbo-stress

I have the full article as a newspaper cutting at work and I will put it on here on Monday for you.
I also have what is supposedly Hanratty’s last confession and I promised to put that on here so I’ll do that as well.

That'll be great, but probably as reliable as the Langdale one!

By the way Vic we lost in the quiz league again last night; again by one point and we are firmly anchored at the bottom. Relegation is looming for us; if only I could say the same for Man Urinal.

C'est la vie. You'll have to do some swotting up.

Ah well there’s always next season.

Now that's the spirit.

By the way what did you pay for Bob's book on Amazon? It is turning into a real collector's item.

It was £50~ish for the latest paperback, so I got the earlier hardback for £5~ish. Reg's review of Miller is getting hammered, and it wasn't me!

KR,
Vic.

Just checked my order:-
Woffinden £4.29
Foot £0.02

[Tony]

I put it down to pre-chrimbo-stress


That'll be great, but probably as reliable as the Langdale one!


C'est la vie. You'll have to do some swotting up.


Now that's the spirit.


It was £50~ish for the latest paperback, so I got the earlier hardback for £5~ish. Reg's review of Miller is getting hammered, and it wasn't me!

KR,
Vic.

Just checked my order:-
Woffinden £4.29
Foot £0.02

Now look here for one minute please Vic. I have only just resumed cordial relations with you and I may have to suspend them once again.

I have just checked the Amazon website and read the five reviews of Miller’s book, which I have read by the way, and contrary to what you say Reg is not getting hammered. In fact quite the contrary. There are five reviews including Reg’s own effort. Three of the others do not mention Reg or his review; the other does mention Reg’s review and is complimentary about it.

Now I am not sticking up for Reg we all know he is more than capable of that but you do not need to stir him up with statements such as the one you have just made. You know he will check it out and when he does I suspect another fuse will be blown.

Take cover, Vic.

Tony.

[reg1965]

From the horses mouth.

I have just lifted them straight from Amazon so some text may be indeed hyperlinks that have not been detected by ascii text pasting.

the five posts reviewing Leonard Millers book are quoted, last first, as follows;

Amateur & unconvincing!!, 23 Sep 2008
By R. E. Vickers "Blue Man" (Everton, U.K.) - See all my reviews

Whilst I can appreciate some of the comments made by previous reviewers of Leonard Miller's book, I must say that "reg1965" does provide the most pertinent and cogent synopsis.
Firstly, Mr Miller's proof reader should have taken a lot more care, as there are many spelling and grammatical errors in the book. This serves to give an overall amateurish impression, before one even takes account of the actual theories put forward by the author. Also this book will not be much use to anyone approaching this infamous murder case for the first time. I should suggest that any of the books on the subject written by Jean Justice, Louis Blom-Cooper, Lord Russell of Liverpool, Paul Foot, or Bob Woffinden should be read first, in order to be aware of the basic facts of the A6 case. Each of these authors has their own opinions on the validity of the case against James Hanratty, and they all put forward strong, and not-so-strong, arguments and points of view.
Mr Miller has the benefit of having written his book after the first round of damning DNA evidence against Hanratty, so would appear to be on safe ground when impressing upon the reader that he suddenly changed his long-held belief of Hanratty's innocence to his positive guilt, supposedly as a result of a few paragraphs extracted from Bob Woffinden's book!!
Despite Miller's assertions, and wildly vivid account of the crime and its aftermath, so much of his logic simply doesn't ring true, and is merely supposition. Glaringly, he conveniently overlooks the fact that Valerie Storie actually picked out a totally innocent man from the first identity parade. It was only at the second attempt that she managed to select Hanratty when, by all accounts on the case, he was sporting a head of bright orange hair!! Also, his dismissal of William Ewer and Janet Gregsten's supposed intuitive sighting of Hanratty, as the murderer, outside a flower shop some days after the crime is anything but convincing. In fact, there are a number of spurious and selective attempts to either demolish or build up theories that quite simply don't convince.
It's extremely difficult to track this book down nowadays, and is really only worth paying the hefty sums quoted for a copy if you wish to seek as many views and opinions, as possible, on this most enigmatic murder case.

1 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
At last, an explanation, 4 Feb 2005
By A Customer

I read Paul Foot's book and Bob Woffinden's book with tremendous interest about six years ago and found the whole case of James Hanratty absolutely fascinating. Like those two authors, I felt certain that there had been a miscarriage of justice too and was so intrigued by Hanratty's alibi that I drove my bewildered wife around Rhyl one day just to see the infamous Ingledene guest house on Kinmel Street. I too was tempted to adopt Foot's head-in-the-sand approach when the DNA results in 2001 established Hanratty's guilt: surely the DNA samples were tainted?
But Leonard Miller has done what no-one else has dared or attempted to do. He has approached the crime from the viewpoint of considering Hanratty's guilt and has done an efficient and devastatingly convincing job of gently and plausibly dismantling every previous query about Hanratty's supposed innocence.

He's no Ludovic Kennedy, though, and his style (for a former Media Studies lecturer) is turgid in places and simply grammatically wrong elsewhere. There are no photos (which would have helped a lot) but I don't suppose that anyone will read this as their first insight into the case and will probably have access to the photos.

I have withheld a star simply because I didn't like Miller's attempt to up the pace by writing his chapter about the crime itself as a thriller with short, punchy sentences - but I have to admit that he gets his point across well. I disagree entirely with reg1965 from Broadstairs: at no point did I feel that Miller was forcing the argument.

Am I convinced? I never thought I could be made to change to my mind about Hanratty but I have. Well done, Leonard Miller, on a superbly constructed and entirely cogent book.

For those who don't like his approach, consider very carefully that the DNA testing in 2001 found Hanratty's DNA on the tested samples but NO-ONE ELSE'S. If Peter Alphon committed the crime (as he has tried to assert for over forty years), then where is HIS DNA on Valerie Storie's underwear?

Miscarriage of Justice? Miscarriage of Jean Justice, I think. And if that doesn't make sense, read the book!

Top marks to Zoilus Press for execellent service and free postage.

2 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
Misleading Nonsense, 10 Jan 2005
By "reg1965" - See all my reviews

Leonard Millers so called 'Analysis' of the infamous A6 murder is a wretched shoddy piece of work. He has done no new research and has based his findings purely on conjecture and childish use of logic. I have no doubt that Mr Miller is well acquainted with the case, but i must say that his arguments and logic leave a lot to be desired. If you know nothing about the A6 case your best bet is Paul Foots 'Who Killed Hanratty'. You dont have to take everything that Foot says as Gospel, but at least the man shot the identification evidence used against Hanratty to pieces. Miller doesn't even come close to putting forward anything new to this whole mess. Buy this book only if you have read a grown up account of the case, either Foot or Bob Woffinden, and would like to have a laugh at this juvenile rubbish. Otherwise avoid. I would have given no stars but wasn't allowed to! I suppose he actually managed to get it published!!

2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
Hanratty the very final verdict?, 28 Feb 2004
By "norberthandstand" - See all my reviews

This book does not, and does not seek to provide a comprehensive or 'wide-angle' review of the Hanratty case.
The Court of Appeal in May 2002 put the lid on any hopes which the pro-Hanratty lobby had of securing a posthumous exoneration of Hanratty. This book was written in 2001 when the results of the DNA tests of an exhumed Hanratty were known. Miller is therefore on fairly strong ground in arguing for the guilt of Hanratty.
The arguments which Miller advances for rejecting the Rhyl alibi are cogent.
The explanation of an apparently inexplicable crime is convincing.
This book is a must for someone with an existing interest in the Hanratty case. I doubt whether someone who had no previous knowledge of the Hanratty case would find it quite as interesting.

10 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
The A6 Murder Case Solved at Last?, 12 Dec 2001
By A Customer

This new book on the notorious A6 murder case of 1961 makes fascinating reading. The case is famous for the mysterious nature of the crime. The killer's motive was never established, nor the reason why he abducted two lovers from a field in Buckinghamshire and forced them on a long, mysterious drive to a lay-by outside Bedford, which ended in murder and rape.
Most people probably know about this case from TV programmes or from Paul Foot's bestselling Penguin paperback on the case. These argue that the execution of James Hanratty for the crime was a major miscarriage of justice, and that a conspiracy lay behind the crime which was never uncovered at the trial.
Leonard Miller's book is the seventh one published on the case, and it offers a remarkably fluent and persuasive account of the crime. Miller seems to know every detail of the case and subjects it to fresh scrutiny. The central question he addresses is: was James Hanratty perhaps guilty all the time?
Miller looks at the way the miscarriage of justice campaigners developed their arguments over four decades. Every aspect of the case for Hanratty is examined in detail, including his alibi and the confessions of the first prime suspect.
The chapters on Hanratt's alibi and the conspiracy theories are particularly convincing, though I think the best chapter of all is the one entitled "The Crime" which goes through every aspect of what occurred on the night of 22 August 1961 and, for me at any rate, for the first time offers a convincing explanation of what the killer was up to.
New to me was Miller's examination of the parallels between the crime and Hitchcock's Psycho, released the year before the A6 case.
Ultimately this book sets the failures of the prosecution case against inconsistencies in the case put forward by the miscarriage of justice campaigners. If your mind is made up about the A6 case then this probably isn't the book for you, but if you want a fresh look at this enigmatic crime then I would recommend it. I would even argue that Miller has solved it, in a way that the prosecution never did.

Tony, in fact one person didn't agree with me who is known as "A Customer" and said and I quote

I have withheld a star simply because I didn't like Miller's attempt to up the pace by writing his chapter about the crime itself as a thriller with short, punchy sentences - but I have to admit that he gets his point across well. I disagree entirely with reg1965 from Broadstairs: at no point did I feel that Miller was forcing the argument.

Although I doubt that "A Customer" will be pushing for Mr Miller for being a future Nobel Laureate.

Reg

[jimarilyn]

So basically another technicality like the "Hanratty raped Carole France" one.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, Victor. Are you accusing Hanratty of raping Carole France ? Is it just a personal opinion or do you have proof/evidence that he raped her ? Or are you being deliberately provocative and controversial ?


regards,
James

[jimarilyn]

Reg's review of Lenny Miller's book

Misleading Nonsense, 10 Jan 2005
By "reg1965" - See all my reviews

Leonard Millers so called 'Analysis' of the infamous A6 murder is a wretched shoddy piece of work. He has done no new research and has based his findings purely on conjecture and childish use of logic. I have no doubt that Mr Miller is well acquainted with the case, but i must say that his arguments and logic leave a lot to be desired. If you know nothing about the A6 case your best bet is Paul Foots 'Who Killed Hanratty'. You dont have to take everything that Foot says as Gospel, but at least the man shot the identification evidence used against Hanratty to pieces. Miller doesn't even come close to putting forward anything new to this whole mess. Buy this book only if you have read a grown up account of the case, either Foot or Bob Woffinden, and would like to have a laugh at this juvenile rubbish. Otherwise avoid. I would have given no stars but wasn't allowed to! I suppose he actually managed to get it published!!



Hi Reg,

Excellently said and my feelings exactly on the matter.
Miller claimed that prior to the DNA testing he was convinced of Hanratty's innocence. I don't believe him.


regards,
James

[jimarilyn]

Hi All,

Just re-reading Lord Russell's fine book. He puts things very well in an impressive paragraph on page 104.....

There were so many things that did not fit the accused and Mr Sherrard had got the Superintendent to agree to a long list of them when cross-examined. But there were already certain pointers in the case which indicated where the truth probably lay. The crime of which Hanratty was accused was one of the most horrible of modern times and there was a nation-wide hunt for the criminal. What would anyone expect the murderer to do after he had committed the crime and what, in fact, did Hanratty do ? Would one expect him to carry on calmly, quietly, not turning a hair, visiting all the usual places, seeing all his old friends, buying himself a motor-car, going for a ride in the country with his girlfriend, and even doing a couple of burglaries. Does that fit in with one's conception of what such a murderer would do in such circumstances ? It is, however, what Hanratty did.


I'd be very interested to hear other poster's views on this matter as I think it's very pertinent in trying to understand this crime.
Contrast this behaviour with Alphon's own behaviour immediately after the crime. Alphon hid himself away in the Alexandra Court Hotel for five full days, acting extremely suspiciously.


regards,
James.

[Limehouse]

Hi All,

Just re-reading Lord Russell's fine book. He puts things very well in an impressive paragraph on page 104.....

There were so many things that did not fit the accused and Mr Sherrard had got the Superintendent to agree to a long list of them when cross-examined. But there were already certain pointers in the case which indicated where the truth probably lay. The crime of which Hanratty was accused was one of the most horrible of modern times and there was a nation-wide hunt for the criminal. What would anyone expect the murderer to do after he had committed the crime and what, in fact, did Hanratty do ? Would one expect him to carry on calmly, quietly, not turning a hair, visiting all the usual places, seeing all his old friends, buying himself a motor-car, going for a ride in the country with his girlfriend, and even doing a couple of burglaries. Does that fit in with one's conception of what such a murderer would do in such circumstances ? It is, however, what Hanratty did.


I'd be very interested to hear other poster's views on this matter as I think it's very pertinent in trying to understand this crime.
Contrast this behaviour with Alphon's own behaviour immediately after the crime. Alphon hid himself away in the Alexandra Court Hotel for five full days, acting extremely suspiciously.


regards,
James.

I take your point Jim, but we have to be careful when using such an argument. For example, Peter Sutcliffe, shortly after battering a young woman to death with a dozen hammer blows, went home and made his mother-in-law a cup of tea. He then joined his wife in bed. He went to work the next day. He went to visit his mother the following weekend. In fact, he returned to a normal life every time he battered a woman to death (or left them with fearful injuries from which they took years to recover). He did this more than a dozen times.

[Victor]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, Victor. Are you accusing Hanratty of raping Carole France ? Is it just a personal opinion or do you have proof/evidence that he raped her ? Or are you being deliberately provocative and controversial ?

I'm saying that Hanratty had sex with Carole France whilst she was underage, so technically he raped her.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

I have just checked the Amazon website and read the five reviews of Miller’s book, which I have read by the way, and contrary to what you say Reg is not getting hammered. In fact quite the contrary. There are five reviews including Reg’s own effort. Three of the others do not mention Reg or his review; the other does mention Reg’s review and is complimentary about it.

Hi Tony,

When I was hunting for the books there were 6 reviews there and one of them was very scathing of Reg's review saying it was a "wretched shoddy piece of work" echoing his comments, but it appears to no longer be there.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

What would anyone expect the murderer to do after he had committed the crime and what, in fact, did Hanratty do ? Would one expect him to carry on calmly, quietly, not turning a hair, visiting all the usual places, seeing all his old friends, buying himself a motor-car, going for a ride in the country with his girlfriend, and even doing a couple of burglaries. Does that fit in with one's conception of what such a murderer would do in such circumstances ? It is, however, what Hanratty did

I'd be very interested to hear other poster's views on this matter as I think it's very pertinent in trying to understand this crime.
Contrast this behaviour with Alphon's own behaviour immediately after the crime. Alphon hid himself away in the Alexandra Court Hotel for five full days, acting extremely suspiciously.

regards,
James.

Hi James,

Well dyeing and re-dyeing your hair several times so you don't match the descriptions is pretty suspicious. So much so that it went an "unusual" or "vivid" colour. Several people have used this to show that the ID parade was unfair, but it seems more like it served him right for trying to disguise himself.

KR,
Vic.

[reg1965]

Well dyeing and re-dyeing your hair several times so you don't match the descriptions is pretty suspicious. So much so that it went an "unusual" or "vivid" colour. Several people have used this to show that the ID parade was unfair, but it seems more like it served him right for trying to disguise himself.

Carole France dyed Hanratty's hair black 3 weeks before the 22/23 August 1961. It did appear unusual and vivid to several of the Rhyl alibi witnesses. Even to the point of looking somewhat streaky.
It is strange then, one would say, that Valerie Storie's description of the killers hair ranged from fairish to dark brown and not the unusual and vivid look that it surely was.
Carole France redyed his hair the Friday he returned from Liverpool (25 August). If Hanratty was at all concerned why did he have it redyed the same colour. It was only after he was wanted that he tried to have the dye bleached out.

reg

[reg1965]

Hi Tony,

When I was hunting for the books there were 6 reviews there and one of them was very scathing of Reg's review saying it was a "wretched shoddy piece of work" echoing his comments, but it appears to no longer be there.

KR,
Vic.

Either the reviewer very quickly withdrew their comment, reasons known only to themselves but one would assume because it was crap or it never existed in the first place, the latter of which seems most likely to me.

reg