a6 murder

[reg1965]

And Acott said that when he first interviewed Hanratty almost the first thing that Hanratty said to him was: “What size were the bullets?”
Hanratty always denied saying this but if he did why did he say it and if he didn’t why did Acott say such a thing?

Answers on a postcard please to Reg.

Tony.

Hi Tony
We all know that Hanratty was almost illiterate. If he did ask about the calibre of the bullets then it would have come from his knowledge of the case. Most people would have been talking about the case and the finding of the gun and Hanratty would surely have heard that it was a .38. If he did say it, it could have just been through naive inquizitiveness.

Acott, obviously, would have wanted Hanratty to be connected in any way possible to the cases found in room 24. Acott's now known reputation for withholding and falsifying evidence would suggest that he wouldn't have had any qualms about falsifying anything Hanratty said.

No postcards please, my social secretary is overwhelmed at the mo!

Take care mate
Reg

[Victor]

Acott's now known reputation for withholding and falsifying evidence would suggest that he wouldn't have had any qualms about falsifying anything Hanratty said.

Hi Reg,

Withholding evidence - Acott was definitely doing that in accordance with the law in the sixties.

Falsifying evidence - What are you talking about? That's a serious allegation to make.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

We all know that Hanratty was almost illiterate. If he did ask about the calibre of the bullets then it would have come from his knowledge of the case. Most people would have been talking about the case and the finding of the gun and Hanratty would surely have heard that it was a .38. If he did say it, it could have just been through naive inquizitiveness.

An alternative explanation using the known facts could be that the guilty Hanratty who knew that he had shot Gregsten and Storie with .38 bullets, hears about .32 bullets being mentioned and thinks he might literally be getting away with murder.

KR,
Vic.

[Tony]

Hi Reg,

Withholding evidence - Acott was definitely doing that in accordance with the law in the sixties.

Falsifying evidence - What are you talking about? That's a serious allegation to make.

KR,
Vic.

Can you let me know please the relevant clause and in which document that clause is within that says it is in accordance with the law for police to withhold evidence.

Thank you.

Tony.

[Victor]

Can you let me know please the relevant clause and in which document that clause is within that says it is in accordance with the law for police to withhold evidence.

Hi Tony,

It's the other way round, at that time there was no law insisting that all evidence is made available, hence it didn't have to be so wasn't.

KR,
Vic.

[Tony]

Hi Tony,

It's the other way round, at that time there was no law insisting that all evidence is made available, hence it didn't have to be so wasn't.

KR,
Vic.

Vic,

Absolute rubbish.

Tony.

[Victor]

Vic,

Absolute rubbish.

Tony.

Tony,

How so?

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Can you let me know please the relevant clause and in which document that clause is within that says it is in accordance with the law for police to withhold evidence.

Thank you.

Tony.

Hi Tony,

As you have called my comments "rubbish", I'd like to echo your question above. Please can you let me know the relevant clause from which document that says it is obligatory for the police to disclose all of their evidence.

Thank you.

KR,
Vic.

[reg1965]

An alternative explanation using the known facts could be that the guilty Hanratty who knew that he had shot Gregsten and Storie with .38 bullets, hears about .32 bullets being mentioned and thinks he might literally be getting away with murder.

KR,
Vic.

It is an alternative yet not a sensible explanation.

Was Hanratty a drinking partner of Dr Simpson?

If not from where would Hanratty have heard .32 stock being mentioned?

[reg1965]

Hi all
Consider the strange tale of Mrs Louise Anderson.

To all intents and purposes she is a friend of Hanratty's who fences his stolen gear.

He occasionally stays overnight at her house and she fixes him up with a girl that he might like to take out on dates.

He gets charged with the A6 murder and suddenly she thinks he's satan.

What could have happened here?

Reg

[reg1965]

Hi Tony,

As you have called my comments "rubbish", I'd like to echo your question above. Please can you let me know the relevant clause from which document that says it is obligatory for the police to disclose all of their evidence.

Thank you.

KR,
Vic.

Even so, the prosecution at the original trial relied on the witness testimony of Skillett and Trower. Material was witheld that undermined facts that the prosecution relied on. The names and addresses of the persons who saw the Morris Minor at other places that fateful day should have been disclosed.

Therefore Acott witheld evidence.

He also falsified evidence with regard to the notes taken on Hanratty's arrest. ESDA proves that notes were rewritten after being taken. The word kip was probably introduced here. Even so Hanratty couldn't read or write too well so the police could have written down the Sonnets of Shakespeare and Hanratty would not have known. Hanratty did not mention kip at all. The statements mention the word kip three times. Therefore false exact contemporaneous record keeping by Big Baz and his batman Oxo. I'm shocked.

[jimarilyn]

Hi all
Consider the strange tale of Mrs Louise Anderson.

To all intents and purposes she is a friend of Hanratty's who fences his stolen gear.

He occasionally stays overnight at her house and she fixes him up with a girl that he might like to take out on dates.

He gets charged with the A6 murder and suddenly she thinks he's satan.

What could have happened here?

Reg

Hi Reg,

Louise Anderson (or should that read fag-ash Lil), now there's an enigma if ever there was one !

On October 9th 1961 (when it was known that the police were looking for James Hanratty) she told Daily Mirror reporter, Edward Vale, that she was not scared of Hanratty, yet when she testified at the Bedford trial just over three months later she told the court that she was very frightened of him.

What had happened during those three and a half months to cause her to commit perjury ? Had the police leaned heavily on her, 'persuading' her to change her testimony in return for not charging her with being a fence (which she very certainly was, and in a big way) ? Was this her reward from the police for depicting Hanratty as some kind of monster ?

That newspaper article of October 10th is reproduced below.
I wonder what the female equivalent of Billy Liar or Tom Pepper is.

regards,
James

[Tony]

Even so, the prosecution at the original trial relied on the witness testimony of Skillett and Trower. Material was witheld that undermined facts that the prosecution relied on. The names and addresses of the persons who saw the Morris Minor at other places that fateful day should have been disclosed.

Therefore Acott witheld evidence.

He also falsified evidence with regard to the notes taken on Hanratty's arrest. ESDA proves that notes were rewritten after being taken. The word kip was probably introduced here. Even so Hanratty couldn't read or write too well so the police could have written down the Sonnets of Shakespeare and Hanratty would not have known. Hanratty did not mention kip at all. The statements mention the word kip three times. Therefore false exact contemporaneous record keeping by Big Baz and his batman Oxo. I'm shocked.

Hello Reg,

First and foremost it is the duty of the police to solve a crime. It is not the duty of the police to effect a conviction no matter what.
Whilst investigating a crime the police will be able to come up with all sorts of evidence. The suspect or the man under arrest has not got his own police force to carry out investigations for him so he is able to call on the very police force that has had him arrested.
“You see I could not have done it because I was on the golf course” or whatever. The police have then to make enquiries at the golf course not only on their own behalf but on the behalf of the arrested man.

If it turns out he was indeed on the golf course they can’t just keep quiet about it they are obliged to tell the man’s defence team. That is exactly what an investigation is all about. The police should carry out exhaustive enquiries and if they find something to the defendants advantage then that should be revealed. It would be a strange sort of justice if that were not the case.

If for instance, and purely hypothetical, the police found a gun on a bus and some underworld lowlife had said “Oh yes by the way I forgot to mention it but your suspect told me he was in the habit of dumping stuff on the bus” and when the gun was examined there was a strange set of fingerprints on the gun that did not match their suspect, but a lot of other stuff did, they can not simply wipe the gun clean.

If as you say Reg, in our case, the police had evidence that the Morris Minor was seen in other places at times that it made their own prosecution witnesses unreliable they were obliged to tell the defence. The fact that they didn’t is another matter.

There are two crimes committed here: 1 perverting the course of justice; 2 if asked in court and they lie about it then they commit perjury. Both carry prison sentences.

Strangely there are at this moment several police officers in custody charged with both perverting the course of justice and perjury in a murder trial.

Tony.

[reg1965]

First and foremost it is the duty of the police to solve a crime. It is not the duty of the police to effect a conviction no matter what.
Whilst investigating a crime the police will be able to come up with all sorts of evidence. The suspect or the man under arrest has not got his own police force to carry out investigations for him so he is able to call on the very police force that has had him arrested.

Hi Tony
Today, it is ultimately up to the lawyers at the CPS to determine whether or not a case has sufficient evidence to bring a conviction and therefore whether of not to proceed to bring a suspect to trial or indeed drop any or all charges.
Even after the introduction of PACE in the early eighties, British justice is still a very pale comparison with any kind of an ideal system.

As an aside, why did the Guildford 4 spend 15 years in jail, for a crime that they did not commit, when the police then nabbed the Balcombe Street 4 who fully confessed to the pub bombings only nine months after the Guildford 4 were convicted?
The Balcombe Street 4 did not face charges relating to the Woolwich and Guildford bombings but tried at every turn to mention them in defence arguments. Still the establishment would not admit that it had 4 innocent people rotting away in jail.

Carole Richardson had a cast iron alibi for the time of the Guildford bombing, she was at a concert by Jack The Lad, an offshoot of Lindesfarne.

Cheers mate
Reg

[reg1965]

Hi all
Does anyone have information about whether Bill Ewer actually knew Charles France and Louise Anderson?

And also whether Ewer had connections to police officers at that time?

Reg