a6 murder

[Steve]

Hi Larue

These are very good points about the John Kerr evidence. The inexplicable disappearance certainly hindered the furtherance of a fair trial. It could, though, just possibly be an indication of the lack of competence shown by the Bedfordshire Police? Or, to give them the benefit of the doubt, a lack of training through absence of experience of this kind of crime, perhaps?

Yes, Gregsten was careful with his mileage records, and I think I am correct in saying that these records have now shown that most of the Morris Minor sightings were false, and that the police have owned up to the evidence from this part of the enquiry.

Kind regards,
Steve

[larue]

and finally...

how certain is it, that the handkerchief used in the dna test was the same one found with the gun??
after his arrest, jh's clothes were taken for forensic analysis. suppose that another of his handkerchiefs just happened to find it's way into one of those famous cardboard evidence boxes? another of those coincidences???




goodnight all

[Steve]

Very, very good point. We simply do not know. It could be that one of the hankies found in Hanratty's luggage that he so obligingly signposted to the investigative team was 'confused' with the find on the 36A bus.

The only problem with this theory is that in 1961 DNA evidence was still something for the future.

[Graham]

Hi Larue,

Everything you say is correct. After the trial was over there was something of a minor backlash in which the conduct of the police and the prosecution was seriously questioned. John Kerr's note and Gregsten's mileage-log were but two pieces of evidence that the police did not pass to the defence. There is no doubt at all in my mind that the police did not play fair at JH's trial - but in those days the police, the Met in particular, didn't play fair at all.

I have to be honest here, and admit that were it not for the DNA, I'd still be holding out for JH's innocence and a massive miscarriage of justice. The prosecution were, as you say, desperate for evidence to support it, and also equally desperate for any evidence favourable to JH to be suppressed. How Acott and others were able to sleep at night during and after the trial amazes me. I can't go so far as to say that the trial was rigged, because I don't think it was, but it was not conducted in what is supposed to be the total fairness and impartiality of the British police and legal systems. That JH was found guilty surprised even the judge, but the public and the media needed a solution to one of the nastiest crimes of the 20th century, and they got it. If Acott ever looked down from his place in Valhalla when the DNA result was published, he must have heaved a huge sigh of relief.

Sometimes I really wish that no DNA analysis had ever been carried out, on the basis that ignorance is bliss and that I could have continued in my belief in JH's innocence. But the clock can't be turned back. As I remarked before, had JH been acquitted, then Valerie Storey and Janet Gregsten would have lived on unavenged (for want of a better word), the A6 Case would have entered the annals of Great Unsolved Crimes, and perhaps at some point in the not-too-distant future there might have been a death-bed confession. Also as I said on the old boards, apart from the victims of the crime, a good deal of sympathy has to be extended to JH's surviving family, because they have never stopped believing in his innocence in precisely the same way as I'd fight tooth and nail to defend the innocence of a member of my family, had I ever been put in such a terrible position. Difficult to say much more. It chokes me a bit, to be honest.

Cheers,

Graham

[larue]

Very, very good point. We simply do not know. It could be that one of the hankies found in Hanratty's luggage that he so obligingly signposted to the investigative team was 'confused' with the find on the 36A bus.

The only problem with this theory is that in 1961 DNA evidence was still something for the future.

mmmmm well, yeah, but so was the dna in hanratty's teeth. i just think that, the possibility of another of hanratty's handkerchiefs finding it's way into the evidence box, [accidently, or deliberately, after the proposed dna tesing was announced] then subsequently being tested for dna seems a lot more plausible than the cross-contamination theory [though i do not totally rule that out]. occam's razor. the simplest explanation can oft be the best.

goodnight again

[Graham]

mmmmm well, yeah, but so was the dna in hanratty's teeth. i just think that, the possibility of another of hanratty's handkerchiefs finding it's way into the evidence box, [accidently, or deliberately, after the proposed dna tesing was announced] then subsequently being tested for dna seems a lot more plausible than the cross-contamination theory [though i do not totally rule that out]. occam's razor. the simplest explanation can oft be the best.

goodnight again

I'd like to hear from someone like Grey Hunter concerning how forensic labs in pre-DNA days handled exhibits, how they were identified, labelled, stored, etc.

Cheers,

Graham

[jimarilyn]

Hi Larue,

You've made some excellent observations and comments in your recent posts re. JH's handkerchiefs, John Kerr's mislaid written notes, etc. which I thoroughly agree with. It's patently clear to me that JH didn't put the murder weapon and ammunition (wrapped in one of his handkerchiefs) under the back seat of a 36A bus.

In the pre-trial hearing at Ampthill on the 4th and 5th December, Acott gave some illuminating testimony concerning the gun and the Liverpool sweet shop alibi. To quote Acott :

"I don't say he got rid of the gun on a bus in London on the 24th and then went off to Liverpool that day so that he could send a telegram saying he was having a nice time and would be back the following day. I cannot say who put the gun on that bus. I do say that probably the defendant abandoned the gun on the bus on the 24th and then tore off to Liverpool. But if that is when he went then he could not have seen Mrs. Dinwoodie and she could not have seen him. If Mrs. Dinwoodie saw him, it must have been on 22 August. I had Mrs. Dinwoodie's statement double checked by a further inquiry. Mrs. Dinwoodie is a perfectly respectable and responsible citizen."

Acott, through extensive police enquiries, knew that JH was in London all day on Monday 21st of August. He knew also that Mrs. Dinwoodie only worked in that sweet shop on two days, the 21st and 22nd of August. Acott (who believed the case was an inside job) was so concerned at one stage that he (?) suggested there may have been some special air service on that Tuesday which enabled JH to get to Dorney Reach in time to hijack Gregsten and Storie (which was utterly preposterous).

Mrs. Olive Dinwoodie corroborates totally JH's claim that he entered that sweet shop on Scotland Road to ask her for directions to Carlton, Tarleton or Talbot Road. In Acott's own words, Mrs Dinwoodie was " a perfectly respectable and responsible citizen", so unless she's fabricating the whole story it must have been on Tuesday 22nd August that she met JH.

regards

[jimarilyn]

Hi,

I suppose it's very feasible that around 5pm ('ish) on Tuesday 22nd, JH ,suddenly deciding to return down south, flagged down a taxi outside the sweet shop on Scotland Road which whizzed him off to Speke Airport (about 8 to 10 miles away). He then had no trouble in finding an internal flight to Heathrow Airport. At Heathrow he flagged down another taxi (or stole a car or hijacked a light aircraft) which took him all the way to Dorney Reach in Buckinghamshire where he picked up an Enfield .38 revolver and 5 boxes of ammunition........

[Steve]

Hanratty Confession?

Can I ask where you heard or read the story about Hulme? It's news to me.

Hello Graham

This was a report some time ago in a local newspaper that Canon Anthony Hulme, who had been the prison chaplain and one of the priests present at the execution, told someone as they were driving together at Deadman’s Hill, that Hanratty had confessed to the murder in the final minutes of his life.

The report, as far as I am aware, has never been substantiated.

Kind regards,
Steve

[P.L.A]

Carole france

Greetings one and all

Jimarilyn, very interesting posting on the subject of Carole France.

Does your research answer the million dollar question : did shaghappy Uncle Jim put the young lady in a state that required her loving father to find a backstreet abortionist?

Peter

[P.L.A]

Driving

Greetings one and all

Steve, smack on. Yes, the gunman showed an interest in the car throughout the journey. His knowledge of motoring was at a sufficient level to allow him to ask questions.

What about his own self confidence behind the wheel?

In Marsh Lane he had wanted to lock Gregsten in the boot of the car and drive out of the cornfield with Storie in the passenger seat.

This plan was changed when Valerie convinced him that a problem with the exhaust made it unsafe to put somebody in that part of the vehicle.

Shortly after getting into the car, the stranger demanded Mike and Val’s watches. At some point on the journey he decided to return them. As Gregsten was driving it wasn’t possible for him to put his watch back on. They were therefore given to Miss Storie, who put them both on her left wrist.

Peter

[Steve]

The Sweet Shop Evidence

Jimarilyn

Was Hanratty in Liverpool on Monday 21st August 1961? Or did he go there sometime after the murder to try and establish an alibi?

Hawser’s assessment is that the sweet shop incident happened on the Monday, yet there is overwhelming evidence that places Hanratty in London on Monday and Tuesday morning:

 The France family’s recollection that Hanratty was at their house on the Monday afternoon and didn’t leave until early evening

 Evidence from the dentist of the date that Carole France had a tooth out at 2 pm on the Monday and she remembered Hanratty being in the house at she was recovering

 Evidence from John Wood of Burtols cleaners, complete with paperwork proof that a man called ‘Ryan’ and giving a false address known to have been used by Hanratty, took in a green suit which was later identified as belonging to Hanratty (although he had almost certainly stolen it some time previously)

 Hanratty was known to have been to the dog stadium, visited The Rehearsal Club, and spent time with a prostitute all on the Monday

I don’t believe that Hanratty’s overnight stay at The Vienna has ever been in dispute which means he was certainly in London on Monday night and Tuesday morning.

If Hanratty then travelled to Liverpool on the Tuesday morning, having eventually arrived at the correct station, and been in the sweet shop in Scotland Road in time to ask for directions sometime during the Tuesday afternoon, then it is ‘theoretically possible’ for him to have travelled south again and to have been in the cornfield at around 9 pm, but Hawser believed it to have been ‘so unlikely that it can be ignored.’

So where does this leave us?

Quite simply, there is absolutely no concrete evidence to place Hanratty anywhere near Liverpool until after the murder, and much concrete evidence to place him in London right up until the day of the abduction. Also, by his own admission, he went from The Vienna Hotel to Paddington Station, where trains run to Slough, Taplow and Maidenhead.

Even if you discount the London evidence – Carole France, the man at the Cleaners, etc. and assume they are wrong, mistaken or deliberately not telling the truth for whatever reason – and believe that Hanratty did travel to Liverpool on the Monday, then why did he return to The Vienna Hotel in London to spend Monday night, with the intention of going back to Liverpool the next day? It does not have the ring of truth about it.

If you take a common sense approach to the sweet shop evidence, the simple fact is that either the incident never happened, or it happened on Monday, or possibly the Tuesday, but the man was not Hanratty. Or Hanratty visited the sweet shop on a completely different occasion and the recollections of Dinwoodie, Walton, Ford, Harding and the Cowley brothers are wrong.

Or, if still not convinced, we are left with the possibility or theory that Hanratty made a mad dash to Liverpool on the Monday to establish an alibi and returned to London with the intention of committing the crime, and then went back to Liverpool to make it seem that he had been in Liverpool for the whole week. This would need the Frances to have lied, possibly to weaken Hanratty’s alibi and John Wood at Burtols cleaners to have lied and falsified evidence, possibly also to damage Hanratty’s story, and just possibly because he was a friend of Bill Ewer. Hanratty would have paid cash at The Vienna and could realistically have believed no-one would have discovered his stay there, he was booked in under a false name and it was unlikely he would have been recognised, or that the hotel would subsequently be linked to the eventual crime. He could well have believed his secret return to London would never be discovered. If that was the case, Alphon put paid to that ‘plan.’ And, of course, where this theory falls down is this would make Hanratty the murderer!

What is absolutely certain is that some part of the witness evidence relating the sweet shop incident is wrong.

Kind regards,
Steve

[Steve]

Greetings one and all

did shaghappy Uncle Jim put the young lady in a state that required her loving father to find a backstreet abortionist?

Peter

Hello Peter

Peter Laurence Abrahams?

Yes, this kind of thing did happen, of course, in those days, and would have been kept as quiet as possible. Quiet enough even to have escaped the attention of the investigating officers. It would not explain Dixie's 'they are going to crucify us' statement, and it's difficult to believe guilt at allowing this to happen to his daughter, even unintentionally, would drive him to suicide.

KR
Steve

Peter Lewis Alford (Am I getting closer?)

[jimarilyn]

Maybe Peter Louis(e) Anderson

[jimarilyn]

Quite simply, there is absolutely no concrete evidence to place Hanratty anywhere near Liverpool until after the murder, and much concrete evidence to place him in London right up until the day of the abduction. Also, by his own admission, he went from The Vienna Hotel to Paddington Station, where trains run to Slough, Taplow and Maidenhead.

Hi Steve,

If JH was guilty, why would he not just say he went straight to Euston Station ? Why bring up Paddington at all ? Because basically he was a guileless and open individual as can be seen by his behaviour and movements subsequent to the murder, the same cannot be said for PLA.

I travelled down to London for a couple of days in November with my girlfriend but I have no concrete evidence of having been there. Anyhow what constitutes concrete evidence ?

What about Mrs. Dinwoodie's statements ? Does not that constitute evidence ? It has been shown that the incident with JH could only have happened on the 22nd of August. Are you proposing that a lookalike of JH's went into her shop at the said time to enquire about directions to a Carlton, Tarleton or Talbot Road ?

What about Kempt (Billiards Hall manager by Lime Street Station), Mrs. Dinwoodie's granddaughter, Grace Jones, Brenda Harris, Margaret Walker and the other Rhyl witnesses who testify to having seen or bumped into JH on the Tuesday evening ? Not to mention the different witnesses in Rhyl the next day ? Were all these respectable and trustworthy witnesses all glory seekers ?