a6 murder

[Victor]

Miller would not be hedging his bets too far to say that many boarding houses in the early 60's had green baths somewhere in the house. But Millers problem starts when Hanratty describes the bath and its position, the lobby of the house, its rear courtyard, the fact he had breakfast away from other guests and its proximity to the trian lines.
Miller is also in trouble because Mrs Jones and her daughter were never swayed from their insistence that it was Hanratty who had stayed there those 2 nights. For it could have only been those 2 nights; as his whereabouts immediately before and after are well known and documented. Mrs Walker and Mr Larman are both certain of the date due to independent facts.

Hi Reg,

Hanratty's problem starts because he did not say that he slept in the room with the green bath, which would have been the only free bed in the Ingledene that night.

So that's now 2 reasons to doubt the Rhyl alibi:-
1. No signature in any of the books.
2. No confirmation of where he slept (in a full boarding house)

KR,
Vic.

[Tony]

Evening Graham,

I am not so sure green baths were that common in the early sixties. Ten years later maybe (I remember the height of working class chic was having an avacado bathroom suite!!!)

Although there is, as you say, no absolute proof that Hanratty was in Rhyl, there is also no absolute proof that Hanratty was ever in that car either. Valerie Storie believes he was, and evidence certainly suggests he handled the gun that probably killed Gregsten and shot Storie (although oddly, Keith Simpson seemed to believe that the gun fired at the scene was a diffrerent model form that which was found on the bus) but there is no fresensic evidence that places him at the scene of the murder except for the DNA evidence, extracted forty years after the crime.

However, as you pointed out earlier today, there is also no forensic evidence that places Alphon at the scene either - or, for that matter, Gregsten and Storie. Now that is odd. Many of us contributors to the thread have speculated on the forensic-free state of the inside of the car. There was certainly Gregsten's blood - but no fibres, hair, skin cells, prints or any other human deposit. Now, either the forensic team did a very brief and not very thorough forensic sweep of the car, or someone spent some time removing every possible speck of human evidence.

I wonder why someone so careful to remove evidence of their existence in the car, would be so careless as to leave two spent cartridge cases behind in the hotel they stayed in?

Hello Julie Limehouse,

I, like you, do not think green baths were common in the early sixties. I remember being surprised about it in 1971 when I first read Paul Foot’s book and incidentally I had an avocado bathroom suite put in in about 1979 or 1980; perhaps I was a bit behind the times.

I remember it well. I had it delivered on Cup Final Saturday morning and told my wife I would have the old one out and the new suite in before she returned from shopping and I was confident I wouldn’t miss a minute of the Final.

I didn’t see any of the game and the emergency plumber wasn’t best pleased at my amateurish efforts.

Tony.

[Tony]

Hi Tony,



I got carried away a bit...



Since the DNA I've never had any real doubt about Hanratty's guilt, but what I did once say that I could never be 100% certain - only 99%.

Regarding 'Uncle Peter' and the possibility of his leaving a .38 cartridge-case, this would really have to be a complete latter-day miracle, because of the total lack of his DNA on any of the forensic exhibits. (By the way, whilst on the subject of the cartridge cases, with reference to Limehouse's post I'd have to say that if Hanratty had left the cases at The Vienna then that would have had to be prior to the murder, and one has to assume that he didn't set out on 22nd August with the intention to commit murder. He left his father's window-cleaning equipment down the side of someone's house, so I'm pretty sure a couple of cartridge-cases never bothered him too much).

While we're on the subject of hypotheticals, what if someone suddenly emerged today with a statement along the lines: "I was in Dorney Reach on the night of 22nd August and I did see a man who I recognised from later published photos as being James Hanratty in the vicinity of the cornfield. I should have come forward at the time, but I was frightened. Now that I'm near death I see no point in keeping this a secret any longer". What effect would that have on you? I think there's more chance of this than there is of 'Uncle Peter' leaving us a memento of the A6 Crime....

Cheers,

Graham

Hi Graham,

This hypothetical man who would be in his seventies probably will not come forward. If he did he would be dismissed, after keeping us waiting for 48 years, as a bit of a crank.
Now if Uncle Peter did come up with one of the missing cartridge cases that would be much more interesting as it is a tangible piece of evidence that you keep wanting to see.

Tony.

[Victor]

Now if Uncle Peter did come up with one of the missing cartridge cases that would be much more interesting as it is a tangible piece of evidence that you keep wanting to see.

Hi Tony,

Foot says they found all but 3 of the cases in the car and lay-by, minus the 2 found in the Vienna, which leaves 1 missing. That's assuming that the cases were collected and left in the Vienna after the crime, of course it could be that 2 shots were fired elsewhere beforehand, and the cases to those were left in the room before heading to the cornfield, which would mean there are 3 missing cases.

KR,
Vic.

[Tony]

Hi Burkhilly,

Nice to read your post. A new poster is always welcome.

Many people were shocked by the DNA findings including me. I was more than convinced Hanratty was innocent when I joined this thread, despite the DNA evidence. However, I am much less certain now - although I seem to swing this way and that everytime I read a few posts! I think there will always be a little bit of me that believes he was innocent.

Graham - good point about the cartridges. They were obviously left at the hotel before the murder and it is possible Hanratty did not actually set out to kill anyone. However, if that is the case, why bother loading the gun?

Does anyone know if any prints were found on the cartridges? Would anyone wipe them clean then leave them behind?

Hello for the second time this afternoon Julie Limehouse,

Why do you say that the cartridge cases “were obviously left at the hotel before the murder”?

Is this generally accepted as true? I personally don’t think it is obvious at all.

Victor says of Hanratty, and before you jump on me Vic I am not quoting your exact words, that he was a calculating, devious, cunning criminal.
Now would this cunning fox have shot and killed, raped and attempted another murder then not have gone back into his calculating cunning mode. If the crime was randomly carried out by Hanratty and he thought Storie to be dead then he would have counted the cartridges realised two were back at the hotel he would have returned to see if they were still there and if Nudds saw him he could say he was looking for his tie which he might have left there. On his way back the cunning fox knew he had to get rid of the gun so he could have tossed the gun and the ammo into a river or buried it. At that time he could have walked about with little to fear he wasn’t in any way suspected of that crime. In fact if you gave Acott his name the morning after Acott himself would probably have laughed. And just about the last thing this cunning fox would have done is risked being caught with the murder weapon by taking it on to the bus

I would just offer one more thing: the gun and ammunition were in police hands two days after the crime. There was a lot of ammunition and Acott shortly after was convinced that Alphon was his man. He knew Alphon stayed at the Vienna but couldn’t quite pin it on him, although he nearly did. A nice tidy bit of additional incriminating evidence would be for someone to find cartridges from the murder weapon at the hotel. OK 3 weeks after the event but everyone believed the police in those days didn’t they.
At the end of the day they did for another man who by the largest of coincidences just happened to be staying at the same hotel as the first prime suspect.

Tony.

Hope you’re wrapped up warm Julie.

[Victor]

Why do you say that the cartridge cases “were obviously left at the hotel before the murder”?

Is this generally accepted as true? I personally don’t think it is obvious at all.

Hi Tony,
I would say that it is obvious that they were left before the murder, but that if there were a conspiracy then they may have been planted afterwards. Of course there may have been all 3 planted afterwards, and the third could have been removed by a cleaner without them recognising it's significance.

Victor says of Hanratty, and before you jump on me Vic I am not quoting your exact words, that he was a calculating, devious, cunning criminal.

Criminal is certainly beyond doubt.
The 3 sly synonyms could be inferred from his succesful crimes (the ones where he wasn't caught) but that could be plain luck.
He certainly went on a convoluted journey round UK and Ireland which could imply cunning, or just as easily panic\fright.

Now would this cunning fox have shot and killed, raped and attempted another murder then not have gone back into his calculating cunning mode.

Panic and out-of-his-depth arguments could be made for just that.

If the crime was randomly carried out by Hanratty and he thought Storie to be dead then he would have counted the cartridges realised two were back at the hotel

That doesn't follow because only 3 cases were not found at the scene, the others were.

I would just offer one more thing: the gun and ammunition were in police hands two days after the crime. There was a lot of ammunition and Acott shortly after was convinced that Alphon was his man. He knew Alphon stayed at the Vienna but couldn’t quite pin it on him, although he nearly did. A nice tidy bit of additional incriminating evidence would be for someone to find cartridges from the murder weapon at the hotel. OK 3 weeks after the event but everyone believed the police in those days didn’t they.

The highlighted bit is suspect. It was Nudds dodgy 2nd statement that destroyed PLA's alibi and implicated him.

At the end of the day they did for another man who by the largest of coincidences just happened to be staying at the same hotel as the first prime suspect.

PLA was only prime suspect becasue he was the only suspect, despite not matching VS description.

JH was unlucky that PLA was staying in the same hotel and acting suspiciously enough to be brought to the attention of the police - although hotel managers were specifically asked to report suspicious behaviour of guests, and many more hotels may have been investigated.

KR,
Vic.

[Rob63]

Hi peeps,
I was busy painting the shower block in work today and a question popped into my head. Why would the assailant ask VS how to start the car and work the gears, she was the passenger not the driver. Did VS have a driving licence does anyone know.
Not being sexist here but there were considerably fewer drivers in `61 than today and female drivers were even rarer. My Mrs has just asked "How did the assailant know that VS could drive"

[reg1965]

Hi Graham
Re you post #3173...what an epic as Tony so remarked!

As I understand it, the forensic people found plenty of evidence that MG and VS (and perhaps others?) had used the car, which is understandable - finger-prints on the steering-wheel, gear-stick, etc., I should think. But to find no evidence linking either Hanratty or Alphon to the car rather suggests that either (a) their investigation wasn't all that thorough and/or (b) forensic techniques in 1961 were not that great. My ex-forensic friend says that even something as simple as a sticky-tape removal of fibres from the back seat should have found something - and that was apparently a known technique in those days. VS said that her attacker wore gloves, which would take care of any fingerprints, but what about mud and soil and other detritus from the cornfield adhering to shoes? Was none found on the floor of the car? Even Sherlock Holmes was able to finger a criminal or two by identifying a particular type of soil from shoes! Again, I would have to say that if it wasn't Hanratty but Alphon in the car, then there is nothing linking the latter to the car, either. My friend also said that under 'normal' conditions, it is virtually impossible for anyone to remove 100% of the evidence of his or her presence in a car, even though he or she may be in the car for only a few hours. On balance, I'd have to say that the forensic investigation of the car was lacking (and I'd love to know, by the way, how many times the car was checked over, and what finally happened to it).

One obvious conclusion to your above anaysis which you did not pick up on is that someone else other than Hanratty or Alphon was the killer. They were not on the fingerprint register and did not get picked up as a suspect for samples.
As the rigour of the forensic investigation is unknown it is perhaps unfair to say that on this one the job was not done as thoroughly as possible but rather the police failed to find the right man as the killer.

Regarding Mrs Jones, yes, she was ripped to shreds by Swanwick (who after all was only doing what he was engaged to do) but I wonder why it wasn't possible to arrange (yet another) i.d. parade for her with Hanratty in the line-up? Was there a legal reason why this was never done? Could you positively identify someone who knocked your door three months ago trying to sell you something? And the real cruncher for me is that Joe Gillbanks showed her only one photo - that of Hanratty. Had he shown her a few more and she'd then identified Hanratty, then her evidence may have been much more credible. Oh, and Hanratty got the colour of her hair wrong, as it happened - he said it was grey when it was actually fair. I think Sherrard took a massive gamble when he called Mrs Jones for the defence, and he lost it badly.

The police presented only one photo, that of Hanratty, to Mrs Dinwoodie; this was not good practice either, as you have put in the case of Mrs Jones.
Yet, as with Mrs Jones and Mrs Harris, Mrs Dinwoodie was adamant it was Hanratty who came to the shop (which would be on the Tuesday, as it could not have been the Monday), because she picked him out, without doubt, in a second round of several photographs, of which one was a different photo of Hanratty! Her testimony was not disputed by the shredder Swanwick. In fact Swanwick suggested the sweetshop alibi (not Rhyl) had been bought. Total codswallop on the prosecutions part.
In my view the sweetshop and the cumulative weight of the Rhyl witnessess is convincing. Together they substantiate Hanratty's alibi. Tarleton or Carlton Road, asking 5 or 6 times for lodgings, the details about Ingledene and the gold watch; plus descriptions from them about Hanratty's appearance and lack of luggage.

The Mary Lanz evidence I've never been sure about. Like Mrs Jones and others who run boaring-houses and hotels and pubs, why should she be able to accurately identify one or more person in her doubtless busy pub unless he or she was a regular, as were MG and VS? Alphon came out with some rubbish about going into the Old Station Inn with a heavily-disguised Janet Gregsten on the night of the murder, but I'm afraid that if you believe that, you'll believe anything. According to Paul Foot, Alphon told Justice and Fox that the Old Station Inn was <i>not</i> the pub where MG and VS had been prior to their abduction. And also according to Foot, Mary Lanz told Justice that she had seen Alphon in her pub 'on more than one occasion the previous summer', without specifically mentioning the evening of August 22nd. All a bit vague, if you ask me. Could she honestly and truthfully describe <i>everyone</i> who'd been in her pub over the previous few months?

Irrespective of Alphon sightings, Hanratty was not seen by a corrobarative witness at Dorney Reach. That is a fact.

Terry Evans obviously felt that JH couldn't be the killer, and then along comes Mrs Jones who spoiled everything by being seen talking to him during the trial, strictly against judges' rules. Also, I believe that Charlie Jones the newspaper seller admitted to Nimmo that he'd been 'leaned upon' by Evans to say that he'd seen JH in Rhyl, which obviously makes his, Jones', evidence somewhat unreliable. Did Evans 'lean on' anyone else, one wonders? He was a hard man...

Mrs Jones was initially not sure it was Hanratty because of the colour of his hair when he stayed at Ingledene. This was the basis of the conversation with Mr Evans that caused the judge to rebuke them. As for Mr Jones read Foot (1988 pps249-251).

Cheers
Reg

[reg1965]

Hi Reg,

Hanratty's problem starts because he did not say that he slept in the room with the green bath, which would have been the only free bed in the Ingledene that night.

So that's now 2 reasons to doubt the Rhyl alibi:-
1. No signature in any of the books.
2. No confirmation of where he slept (in a full boarding house)

KR,
Vic.

Hi Vic

Hanratty, in his alibi testimony stated that he wasn't asked to sign a book. No one ever suggested that he had been asked to, or indeed did, sign a register.
It would have been a problem for Hanratty if Mrs Jones had said that all guests had to sign.

Mr Swanwick tried to fill all of the rooms on both nights that Hanratty stayed at Ingledene. The witnesses who could be found to have stayed there could not completely account for movements of the others. Which ever way you look at it the prosecution did not fully account for all of the possibilities of accomodation on those two nights.

Regards
Reg

[Tony]

Hi Graham
Re you post #3173...what an epic as Tony so remarked!



One obvious conclusion to your above anaysis which you did not pick up on is that someone else other than Hanratty or Alphon was the killer. They were not on the fingerprint register and did not get picked up as a suspect for samples.
As the rigour of the forensic investigation is unknown it is perhaps unfair to say that on this one the job was not done as thoroughly as possible but rather the police failed to find the right man as the killer.



The police presented only one photo, that of Hanratty, to Mrs Dinwoodie; this was not good practice either, as you have put in the case of Mrs Jones.
Yet, as with Mrs Jones and Mrs Harris, Mrs Dinwoodie was adamant it was Hanratty who came to the shop (which would be on the Tuesday, as it could not have been the Monday), because she picked him out, without doubt, in a second round of several photographs, of which one was a different photo of Hanratty! Her testimony was not disputed by the shredder Swanwick. In fact Swanwick suggested the sweetshop alibi (not Rhyl) had been bought. Total codswallop on the prosecutions part.
In my view the sweetshop and the cumulative weight of the Rhyl witnessess is convincing. Together they substantiate Hanratty's alibi. Tarleton or Carlton Road, asking 5 or 6 times for lodgings, the details about Ingledene and the gold watch; plus descriptions from them about Hanratty's appearance and lack of luggage.



Irrespective of Alphon sightings, Hanratty was not seen by a corrobarative witness at Dorney Reach. That is a fact.



Mrs Jones was initially not sure it was Hanratty because of the colour of his hair when he stayed at Ingledene. This was the basis of the conversation with Mr Evans that caused the judge to rebuke them. As for Mr Jones read Foot (1988 pps249-251).

Cheers
Reg

Hello Reg,

This post of yours is interesting for a number of reasons.

Are you seriously saying that you think it possible that neither Hanratty nor Alphon carried out the crime?
Bearing in mind your depth of knowledge of this crime I find this possibility incredible and would like you to expand upon it. It could not possibly be Dixie could it? Surely he was too old.
But it is a very interesting idea and contrary to Vic’s post that Alphon was the only suspect I believe he was one of several; he only became the prime suspect after being questioned by Acott.
Maybe somebody we have never heard of may offer a death bed explanation to the crime. Talking about that what has happened to Bluemoon? I thought we might have been treated to something about the case that has never been revealed before but he appears to have left us.

As you say in Hanratty’s defence Mrs Dinwoodie’s evidence was crucial and apparently believed by both Swanwick and the judge. She had no reason whatsoever to stick up for Hanratty yet she did.

Look after yourself Reg,

Tony.

[Limehouse]

Hello for the second time this afternoon Julie Limehouse,

Why do you say that the cartridge cases “were obviously left at the hotel before the murder”?

Is this generally accepted as true? I personally don’t think it is obvious at all.

Victor says of Hanratty, and before you jump on me Vic I am not quoting your exact words, that he was a calculating, devious, cunning criminal.
Now would this cunning fox have shot and killed, raped and attempted another murder then not have gone back into his calculating cunning mode. If the crime was randomly carried out by Hanratty and he thought Storie to be dead then he would have counted the cartridges realised two were back at the hotel he would have returned to see if they were still there and if Nudds saw him he could say he was looking for his tie which he might have left there. On his way back the cunning fox knew he had to get rid of the gun so he could have tossed the gun and the ammo into a river or buried it. At that time he could have walked about with little to fear he wasn’t in any way suspected of that crime. In fact if you gave Acott his name the morning after Acott himself would probably have laughed. And just about the last thing this cunning fox would have done is risked being caught with the murder weapon by taking it on to the bus

I would just offer one more thing: the gun and ammunition were in police hands two days after the crime. There was a lot of ammunition and Acott shortly after was convinced that Alphon was his man. He knew Alphon stayed at the Vienna but couldn’t quite pin it on him, although he nearly did. A nice tidy bit of additional incriminating evidence would be for someone to find cartridges from the murder weapon at the hotel. OK 3 weeks after the event but everyone believed the police in those days didn’t they.
At the end of the day they did for another man who by the largest of coincidences just happened to be staying at the same hotel as the first prime suspect.
Tony.

Hope you’re wrapped up warm Julie.

Evening Tony,

Yes, nice a warm in my study with the two kitten curled up on my lap too!

I have highlighted a passage of your post above concerning how the cartridges appeared in the hotel room three weeks after the crime and I had exactly the same idea as you but hardly liked to express it.

I don't necessarily accept that the cartidges were 'obviously placed in the room before the murder' but according to the accepted version, they were. My original point was, why would someone be so careless as to leave them there, having taken so much time to ensure no forensic evidence was left in the car? I also asked whether the cartridges were checked for finger prints. Surely the defence would have wanted to know this? If they had Hanratty's prints on, fair enough but if they were clean it does pose the question of whether they were planted because, after all, why would a man wipe his prints from cartridges and then walk away, leaving them in the hotel? Also, if they were fired into a cusion at the hotel as a practice shot (as has been speculated) why didn't anyone hear the gun going off and why wasn't the damaged cushion produced as evidence?

This is all very important because, DNA evidence and VS's testimony aside, the cartridges and the gun (with the hanky) are the only physical things that really tie Hanratty to the crime scene but neither were found at the scene. The crime scene itself was completely clean of Hanratty's presence (except, it seems, Valerie's knickers, if you'll pardon the vulgarity). It would have been difficult for anyone to place fibres from the clothes Hanratty was wearing that night at the scene (although the odd hair would not have been so difficult) but it was not difficult to 'plant' evidence in other places that Hanratty had, or could have, visited.

To me, what it seems to add up to is either a very poor forensic examination of the scene and car (as Graham has plausibly suggested) or a thorough cleaning of the inside of the car (perhaps using sticky tape??) and a few careful plants of evidence to inciminate Hanratty.

However, all that being said, it still does not lead us to the real killer or even an explantion for the crime.

Have a pleasnt evening all of you.

Julie

[reg1965]

Are you seriously saying that you think it possible that neither Hanratty nor Alphon carried out the crime?
Bearing in mind your depth of knowledge of this crime I find this possibility incredible and would like you to expand upon it. It could not possibly be Dixie could it? Surely he was too old.

Hi Tony
Put your non existent hat and your (unknown) hair back on for a moment chummy!
Graham was putting forward that if Hanratty was not the killer then Alphon wasn't either as no evidence exists against either them and cited poor forensic science for this position. I was just saying that it is just as possible that neither did it and some A N Other is culpable and has never been fingered.
There is no real concrete evidence against Hanratty and I believe that there is more evidence against Alphon as you yourself know.
Have you got the Hawser report yet?
Take care mate
Reg

[burkhilly]

I'm now on page 250 of the thread, and the more I read the more I'm thinking "was he innocent". Some of the arguments put for and against are excellent. I come from Liverpool and am facinated by the alibi provided by Mrs Dinwoodie. I'm too young to remember this area from the 60s, and most of it's gone now. I will look for some photos from the 60s and see if I can spot the shop.

With regards to the DNA, I've assumed that this type of evidence is conclusive. However, after reading some of the informed arguments on the thread, I'm now not so sure, although the logical part of me believes the results were correct. At the moment I'm considering climbing up to sit on the fence!

I don't think I'll be taking much part in the discussions as I'm no where near as informed as other interested parties - but please keep the opinions coming, they are facinating.

[reg1965]

I'm now on page 250 of the thread, and the more I read the more I'm thinking "was he innocent". Some of the arguments put for and against are excellent. I come from Liverpool and am facinated by the alibi provided by Mrs Dinwoodie. I'm too young to remember this area from the 60s, and most of it's gone now. I will look for some photos from the 60s and see if I can spot the shop.

With regards to the DNA, I've assumed that this type of evidence is conclusive. However, after reading some of the informed arguments on the thread, I'm now not so sure, although the logical part of me believes the results were correct. At the moment I'm considering climbing up to sit on the fence!

I don't think I'll be taking much part in the discussions as I'm no where near as informed as other interested parties - but please keep the opinions coming, they are facinating.

Hi burkhilly
You have posted and as such are stuck with this motley crew, Get used to it and start posting. Your views are just as valid as anyone else's.
Ask questions and go from there...you have come to the right place for anything A6!
welcome again
Cheers
Reg

[burkhilly]

Hi Reg

I'm sitting on the fence because of some of your posts. They are so informative. I like the way you list points and then someone respond disputing what you've said - which is part of this thread!


The only thing I want to know about in the DNA process and unless I go to university for three years and learn the science surrounding it, I've no chance. Like so many people I tend to listen to the "experts" and then agree with their findings.

Keep up the good work!