a6 murder

[Graham]

Hello!

Yes, it's me, back from working all over the bloody place and not having a moment or two to closely study my favourite thread on these boards.

Regarding Leonard Miller, I have a feeling that I may well have been the first contributor to this thread actually to have read, and reported on, this book, on the old boards prior to the Great Crash. I obtained the book direct from Zoilus Press (who rather like Olympia Press in Paris who published Jean Justice, specialise in off-the-beaten-track stuff) My personal take on Miller (and I am fairly certain that isn't his real name) is that he wasn't God's gift to literature (or journalism), and I said so at the time; I didn't care for his rather twee and ineffective 'dramatisation' of Hanratty's thoughts, and fictionalisation of what he thought and did; and I said so at the time. But the whole point of Miller is that he didn't actually lay claim to carrying out new research - he merely put another spin on the existing knowledge of the case. That is perfectly legitimate as far as I'm concerned, and he has every right to do it, and he wasn't entirely unsuccessful.

Repeating myself for the umpteenth time, I generally accepted Hanratty's innocence (my acceptance being based largely upon my great respect for Paul Foot and all his works) until the DNA results, and then you can bet your ass that I re-read Foot, Woffinden, Blom-Cooper and anyone else I had at hand regarding the A6 Case. This re-reading (which was off-and-on and took a long time) led me to conclude that certain formerly-accepted 'proofs' of Hanratty's innocence were not really 'proofs' at all, rather circumstantial evidence, heresay, whatever. And I think Miller did the same. Example: the 'fact' that up to 11 people claimed to have seen Hanratty in Rhyl at the crucial time is not 'proof' at all. 'Proof' would be his signature in the register of Ingledene or some other boarding-house in Rhyl. Pre-DNA, I was prepared to accept the word of the Rhyl witnesses, but in reality all they are saying is that they 'thought' they saw someone like Hanratty in Rhyl at the time it mattered. Perhaps they were fed leading questions.

I strongly believe that Hanratty was convicted on Storie's i.d. evidence (which I for one would say is not wholly watertight - she herself admitted that 'her memory of the man is fading') which the jury believed, and his change of alibi halfway through the trial. He shot himself right in the foot (pardon the pun). The statement by Terence McNally, who existed, lived in Liverpool and admitted he knew Hanratty, that 'if he [Hanratty] won't open up, then why should I?' has always puzzled me. Hanratty says he stayed in Liverpool with McNally, but at the crucial time? I don't think so - and when Hanratty knew he couldn't prove it, he changed his alibi to Rhyl and effectively did for himself. Sherrard warned Hanratty that the judge could actually order his being taken to Liverpool to locate McNally (and the other men, whoever they were) and that if he, Hanratty, were unable to do that, he would be lost. And McNally, on a subpoena, said that he hadn't seen Hanratty for the four years since he left Lewes prison. The Liverpool Alibi was shot. Hanratty moved his sights to Rhyl, and was able to prove absolutely nothing.

Graham

[Graham]

Hi Julie
I don't think Hanratty's personality matches that of serial killers. In fact it should be obvious how many serial killers did not get caught for so long because they did manage to mix in so called normal society between fixes.
He was a professional criminal, not big scale, but enough to get by from day to day on....and nothing else.
It was originally suggested by Hanratty supporters such as Lord Russell and Fenner Brockway that he shouldn't have stood trial because he was in some way a mental defective. This came from a succinct comment on some medical report.
I just don't buy any of the personality traits of Hanratty leading to him committing cold blooded murder, especially in the case of the A6 murder.
Take care
reg

Hi Reg,

Being of a morbid turn, and reading lots and lots of stuff about murder solved and unsolved, it's rather surprising just how many murders are committed as one-offs by seemingly ordinary, normal, everyday, boring people who, for whatever reason or reasons, suddenly lose it. Such people can't be compared with your average serial-killer, who is another breed altogether. If nothing else, serial-killers are subtle (usually), whereas one-off murderers are (usually) anything but. Probably not the best of comparisons with Hanratty, but think about Ruth Ellis, who really did lose it one night; her personality-traits and background were, to an extent, similar to Hanratty's and she was provoked to committ murder.....

Graham

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie
I don't think Hanratty's personality matches that of serial killers. In fact it should be obvious how many serial killers did not get caught for so long because they did manage to mix in so called normal society between fixes.
He was a professional criminal, not big scale, but enough to get by from day to day on....and nothing else.
It was originally suggested by Hanratty supporters such as Lord Russell and Fenner Brockway that he shouldn't have stood trial because he was in some way a mental defective. This came from a succinct comment on some medical report.
I just don't buy any of the personality traits of Hanratty leading to him committing cold blooded murder, especially in the case of the A6 murder.
Take care
reg

Hi Reg,

I was not directly comparing Hanratty with Sutcliffe as such. I was simply responsing to Jim's post which described the entirely normal behaviour of Hanratty following the A6 murder and rape. I suggested that it is possible for murderers to be guilty of terrible crimes and carry on their lives as normal. This is true of Sutcliffe. As the circumstances of the A6 crime are very, very rare, it is hard to find a comparison to measure against Hanratty.

[Victor]

You may think that there is nothing to be gained by talking about your sightings of UFO's (uncorroborated fleeting opinion) over Amazon but I do.

Fair enough, let's talk about the least helpful review of Miller's book on amazon - only 2/6 people thought your review was helpful.

And of course, a HanrattyisInnocent person talking about UFOs, maybe that's how you think his semen got on VS underwear.

If Hanratty's hair wasn't conspicuous, at the time of the murder, according to your bible, then it must have been jet black.

What a leap of (il-)logic. At the time of the murder his hair was dark because the black dye was growing out (and needed to be re-dyed on Saturday 26 August), which completely matches...

the fairish to dark brown as given by Valerie Storie.

Also; why did the police persue Alphon when he plainly didn't have saucer like blue eyes and his name wasn't Jim?

I thought the eye colour question was settled - didn't some newspapers run with misleading reports misquoting what VS said.

As for the "Jim" bit, that's one of the embellishments given by the killer during the crime, some of which are true and others not, but of course determining which is which couldn't be done until the actual killer was caught and the comparisons made.

And I must add - welcome back Graham, I completely agree with your interpretation of proof concerning the Rhyl witnesses.

KR,
Vic.

[Tony]

Vic identified.

Hello Vic,

So you agree with Graham about the identification evidence?

Eleven people in Rhyl (all respectable) saw who they identified as James Hanratty. Grace Jones saw a lot of him and all saw him face to face in daylight and had conversations with him. There was only one (yes one) day when they were all in Rhyl at the same time. In total the conversations and dialogue may have amounted to more time than the gunman spent in the car in total darkness with Valerie Storie who said she saw him fleetingly in a car head lights and told Acott her memory of him was fading and not only was her memory fading according to you this most reliable of visual identification witnesses had already been once tested and was to be found lacking.
But like you say she was a solid witness but how do you explain it: First ID parade a failure, next thing her memory is fading, next she picks out Hanratty in what even Acott thought was an unfair parade.
But she must be right and the other eleven must all collectively be wrong. I wonder how many of the eleven picked out someone say for instance like Michael Clark.

Tony.

[Tony]

Hi Tony,

Thank you for your kind comments.

Yes, I have heard about the theory that Sutcliffe may not have worked alone. I don't think much of it myself. Neither do I believe that Sutcliffe was a schizophrenic. I think he was a killer who behaved very much like JtR and that understanding the behaviour of Sutcliffe could help us understand what sort of person JtR was.

Kind regards

Julie

Well a very good afternoon to you Limehouse,

I have just viewed your reply to me and I see after all this time we are now on first name terms. Wow this came as quite a shock to my fragile system but a very pleasant one all the same I can tell you. Yes even though it is still January I feel that Spring is now definitely in the air; I can feel the sap rising as I type.

I may just start sprucing myself up a bit. A haircut is the order of the day for tomorrow and maybe even something for the weekend.
I’ve already forgotten about Vic and Reg and shall, in future, restrict my replies solely to your good self.

Thanks Julie,

Tony.

Only kidding. I’m bored today.

[Victor]

So you agree with Graham about the identification evidence?

Hi Tony,
I most definitely agree with Graham.

First ID parade a failure, next thing her memory is fading, next she picks out Hanratty in what even Acott thought was an unfair parade.

First ID parade was a failure partly because THE RAPIST WASN'T ON IT!

But she must be right and the other eleven must all collectively be wrong. I wonder how many of the eleven picked out someone say for instance like Michael Clark.

Yes, she must be right as the corroborating evidence proves, and it also proves the eleven people were mistaken.

The Important Question:
How many ID parades did those 11 people attend?

How many of them were shown a single picture of Hanratty and simply confirmed it was him? Something that could be referred to as leading the witness.

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Well a very good afternoon to you Limehouse,

I have just viewed your reply to me and I see after all this time we are now on first name terms. Wow this came as quite a shock to my fragile system but a very pleasant one all the same I can tell you. Yes even though it is still January I feel that Spring is now definitely in the air; I can feel the sap rising as I type.

I may just start sprucing myself up a bit. A haircut is the order of the day for tomorrow and maybe even something for the weekend.
I’ve already forgotten about Vic and Reg and shall, in future, restrict my replies solely to your good self.

Thanks Julie,

Tony.

Only kidding. I’m bored today.

Tony,

For the first time in many years your reply made me blush! It seems silly to keep being known as Limehouse when this thread contains such a cosy little rabble! After all, it seems as if most other people post using their own names (well, except PLA - I hope!!). One or two other posters (on other threads) know me as Julie so what the hell??

Have a good evening.

Julie

[reg1965]

If one believes that the Rhyl alibi (along with a mountain of non-disclosed information) is compelling evidence that would have, if fully produced before the jury, (it wasn't by the way) swayed the jury to acquittal, then one must therefore have a reasonable doubt concerning Hanratty's culpability.

If one believes that the DNA evidence as produced in 2002 is compelling evidence as to Hanratty's guilt alone then obviously they must believe that the Rhyl alibi must be wrong.

Either way, through my own reasearch, I find the Rhyl alibi more convincing as it collectively supports Hanratty's statement of his movements in Rhyl on those 2 days he says he was there. As I do with Mrs Dinwoodie's evidence with regard to the sweet shop encounter.

All scientific evidence is probalistic when being used as identification evidence. Therefore DNA profiling is also a probabalistic exercise. As such it is only worth consideration as evidence when used for intelligence, such as in obtaining a confession, or as an exhibit when corroborated by other evidence. Perhaps fingerprint evidence may prove to be more reliable than DNA one day!

It was proclaimed in the Hanratty appeal of 2002 that contamination could not be ruled out by the respondents, then the DNA evidence is surely not overwhelming proof of guilt alone in the case of James Hanratty as the judges also proclaimed.

I believe that the only way to finally get all of this out into the open is to have a truly public inquiry, with real powers to sequestrate and sub poena evidence that both sides may wish to call and to advocate just rebalance if found for Hanratty. A pipe dream, I confess!
Reg

[Rob63]

Perhaps fingerprint evidence may prove to be more reliable than DNA one day!
Reg

I refer you to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7844060.stm
If a lot of people stopped getting involved in personal confrontations on this thread then maybe we could concentrate on the job in hand.... are there any cartridge cases remaining from the evidence???...probably not but this is the sort of thing we should be looking at..hard evidence

[jimarilyn]

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.

Hi Limehouse,

Sorry it's taken me some time to reply to your post. I don't know that much about the Yorkshire Ripper murders to be honest, but didn't Sutcliffe move about the country quite a lot which must have helped to divert any suspicions/attention away from him.

My reading of Hanratty is that he was (in spite of his thieving and house-breaking, which I certainly don't condone) basically at heart a simple, decent, truthful and kind-hearted Cockney wide-boy. I don't believe he had the guile and cunning of say a Peter Sutcliffe.

I'd guess that 90 odd percent of people guilty of capital murder (and facing the death penalty) would remove themselves as far away from the scene as they possibly could. I know I would have, if ever (GOD forbid) I had found myself in such a position.


regards,
James



PS. Thanks for revealing your real name. Julie is a lovely name. Like Tony, I wish you would submit more postings on this thread, they are always well thought out and well received. I admire the empathy you show in your posts.

[jimarilyn]

I refer you to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7844060.stm
If a lot of people stopped getting involved in personal confrontations on this thread then maybe we could concentrate on the job in hand.... are there any cartridge cases remaining from the evidence???...probably not but this is the sort of thing we should be looking at..hard evidence

Hi Rob,

I've looked at this link a couple of times recently and it certainly does give food for thought. I don't know if the two cartridge cases found (??) at the Vienna are amongst the surviving exhibits from the trial. If so, I wonder just how many pairs of hands have touched them throughout the last 48 years.

Perhaps the prime and original suspect in the case has retained a few which might come to light before he shuffles off this mortal coil. If so, let's hope the police don't get there first like they did when Dixie France topped himself (and confiscated the dozens of suicide notes he left, which might eventually see the light of day when our great, great grandchildren are picking up their pensions ) .


regards,
James

[jimarilyn]

Either way, through my own reasearch, I find the Rhyl alibi more convincing as it collectively supports Hanratty's statement of his movements in Rhyl on those 2 days he says he was there. As I do with Mrs Dinwoodie's evidence with regard to the sweet shop encounter.

Hi Reg,

Personally speaking, the more I consider the persuasive testimony of all those respectable Rhyl witnesses the even more convinced I am that James Hanratty was in Rhyl on the evening of August 22nd 1961.

As Tony very rightly points out there was only one day when they were all in Rhyl at the same time.


regards,
James

[Limehouse]

Hi Limehouse,

Sorry it's taken me some time to reply to your post. I don't know that much about the Yorkshire Ripper murders to be honest, but didn't Sutcliffe move about the country quite a lot which must have helped to divert any suspicions/attention away from him.

My reading of Hanratty is that he was (in spite of his thieving and house-breaking, which I certainly don't condone) basically at heart a simple, decent, truthful and kind-hearted Cockney wide-boy. I don't believe he had the guile and cunning of say a Peter Sutcliffe.

I'd guess that 90 odd percent of people guilty of capital murder (and facing the death penalty) would remove themselves as far away from the scene as they possibly could. I know I would have, if ever (GOD forbid) I had found myself in such a position.


regards,
James



PS. Thanks for revealing your real name. Julie is a lovely name. Like Tony, I wish you would submit more postings on this thread, they are always well thought out and well received. I admire the empathy you show in your posts.

Good morning James,

Yes, Sutcliffe did move from city to city in order to attack women. He is said to have a higher than average IQ although he was a poor achiever at school. He is also said to have been shy with women socially, although they were attracted to him and trusted him. He is also thought to be a bit of a 'mummy's boy'. I would think he is almost certainly a psychopath which would explain why he has expressed no remorse, refuses to take responsibility for his actions and was able to walk away from each attack and carry on his life as normal.

It has been suggested that Hanratty was also a psychopath. Most people feel that Hanratty does not really fit the image of a cold, unfeeling criminal. However, I wonder how much Hanratty's image as a 'naughty but likeable rogue' has been fed by the books that support his innocence? There are certain traits in Hanratty's personality that suggest that he had no conscience (robbing people's houses, leaving his father high and dry after he cashed in his pension to start a business with his son, walking away in another's man's shoes, kindly lent to him) but it is unclear how much of this is simply impetuous behaviour - that of a child-like man who simply has to have his own way. It is clear that his family were decent people who believed they knew their son well enough to think him incapable of the A6 crime.

It has also been said that Hanratty was 'mentally defective'. I don't at all agree with this. He was a skilled thief and knew exactly what to steal to achieve the highest return. Although he was illiterate, certain aspects of his illiteracy suggest he may have been dyslexic. In Hanratty's day, a working class boy presenting with illiteracy and criminality was much more likely to be branded 'mentally defective' than simply 'learning disabled'. Dyslexia in no way affects the intellect. In fact, many people with dyslexia have higher than average IQs and become highly skilled in other areas of their lives. It is possible, to my way of thinking, that Hanratty became addicted to his wayward lifestyle because he was relatively good at it. It provided him with personal satisfaction and a decent return. Sometimes he displayed breathtaking stupidity (giving his own name and address when he had to sign the book in jewellers to whom he sold some silver) but one has to wonder whether this was part of Hanratty's tendency to be basically truthful (I suppose I mean that to him, telling lies was worse than stealing from people he thought could afford to lose it).

When I weigh it all up, Hanratty does not seem to fit the profile of a ruthless killer or rapist and I am just no convinced at all about any of the physical 'evidence' against him - and yet there are still nagging doubts about his innocence. Other than Alphon, there does not seem to be anyone else in the frame - and why would anyone frame Hanratty to protect Alphon?

Regards

Julie

[Victor]

If one believes that the Rhyl alibi (along with a mountain of non-disclosed information) is compelling evidence that would have, if fully produced before the jury, (it wasn't by the way) swayed the jury to acquittal, then one must therefore have a reasonable doubt concerning Hanratty's culpability.

Apart from the massive reservations about the way those witnesses identified Hanratty.

If one believes that the DNA evidence as produced in 2002 is compelling evidence as to Hanratty's guilt alone then obviously they must believe that the Rhyl alibi must be wrong.

Yes, I do.

Either way, through my own reasearch, I find the Rhyl alibi more convincing as it collectively supports Hanratty's statement of his movements in Rhyl on those 2 days he says he was there. As I do with Mrs Dinwoodie's evidence with regard to the sweet shop encounter.

11 dodgy identifications are more convincing than legally submissible scientific evidence. That I find very hard to believe.

All scientific evidence is probalistic when being used as identification evidence. Therefore DNA profiling is also a probabalistic exercise. As such it is only worth consideration as evidence when used for intelligence, such as in obtaining a confession, or as an exhibit when corroborated by other evidence. Perhaps fingerprint evidence may prove to be more reliable than DNA one day!

Virtually all evidence is probabalistic. For example an ID parade, you are comparing a bunch of people in front of you with an memory and expressing an opinion that the people are the same.

It was proclaimed in the Hanratty appeal of 2002 that contamination could not be ruled out by the respondents, then the DNA evidence is surely not overwhelming proof of guilt alone in the case of James Hanratty as the judges also proclaimed.

Two things - You have misquoted the appeal, the actual quote is "the possibility of contamination could not be ruled out", and so that possibility was examined, and no contamination was found.

Second, the DNA evidence is corroboration of the other evidence, mainly VS identification, therefore it isn't alone.

I believe that the only way to finally get all of this out into the open is to have a truly public inquiry, with real powers to sequestrate and sub poena evidence that both sides may wish to call and to advocate just rebalance if found for Hanratty. A pipe dream, I confess!
Reg

What a complete and utter waste of taxpayers money. At what point is enough enough? What evidence would you accept as confirming Hanratty's guilt?

KR,
Vic.