a6 murder

[Graham]

Wow, just a few posts but a lot to take in...if I may, some brief comments:

1] JH did seem able to make friends easily, can't deny that, but there is little doubt that he did have quite serious personality problems. The much-abused (on this thread at any rate) Leonard Miller says that JH's relationship with his parents wasn't perhaps as warm as some would have it. I haven't read Miller for a long time, but I seem to recall that he put forward some credible evidence that JH's relationship with his mother was not so good. And his walking-away from the window-cleaning business demonstrates (to me, at least) that he was unable to fully appreciate the sacrifice that his father made for him. In other words, he was ungenerous and irresponsible, and unable to appreciate what was being done for his own good. My own father harped on at serious length about my own (perceived) lack of 'gratitude', for whatever reasons, but had my old man given up his pension and gone to the expense of setting up a business for my personal benefit, then I think that I'd have at least given it a good shot. JH in my opinion falls into the category of someone who'd rather make £1 illegitimately than £5 straight down the line.
I think JH genuinely loved his lifestyle and the risks he took. And he wasn't very successful at his chosen lifestyle, either, to judge by the amount of time he spent in chokey.

2] Alphon was something else altogether. He was, not to put too fine a point on it, a wierd-o. Apparently he hated his father, but doted on his mother, who bent over backwards to support him emotionally and financially. I don't believe he was any more of a committed Nazi than I am. Alphon was all gob and bluster. He happened into the A6 Case by sheer coincidence, and he made every attempt to profit by it, even though he came within a hair's breadth of being nailed for it. And profit by it he most certainly did, at least for a time, but ultimately he just drifted back into his old listless, aimless lifestyle, and he died a nobody. Sad? Well, yes, I suppose so. I'm no psychologist, but I think Alphon was an absolute master of whatever situation he found himself in, and so long as Justice and Fox were prepared to finance him, he revelled in it. When they could no longer afford to do so, he shrugged his shoulders and reverted to his old lifestyle and felt none the worse for it.

3] I have always believed that JH went into what can only be described as self-denial regarding the A6 crime. This probably suggests that he was not really in touch with reality, that he was immature and unable to face the consequences of his own actions. I said way back that the murderer John Cannan has always, without one single deviation, denied that he murdered Shirley Banks, even though the forensics (including DNA) fairly and squarely establish him as her killer. Maybe Cannan's reasons are not quite the same as JH's - Cannan was never in any fear of death courtesy of the Law. I believe that JH genuinely felt that so long as he continued to profess his innocence he would be 'let off'. I also genuinely believe that JH was totally amazed that he was found guilty of the A6 Crime, in the same way as most observers at the time were, including even the judge. If only JH had kept his trap shut, stuck to the Liverpool Alibi and kept off the witness stand, chances are that he'd have been acquitted and the A6 Case would have gone down as one of Britain's most sensational unsolved murders.

4] The Rhyl Alibi should never have been, and it continues to astonish me to this day that JH's counsel allowed him to introduce it. There is absolutely no concrete evidence to link JH with Rhyl at the crucial time. There is heresay and confused recollection, but no cold, hard support. JH had most definitely been to Rhyl, and it would seem that he used his recollections of his previous visit(s) to pad out his claim that he was there on the night of August 22nd, but he simply could not prove it.

5] There have been huge efforts by individuals on this thread to discredit the DNA results. The hard facts are that they are impossible to discredit and they will never be repeated, so they must stand. JH's DNA was on the underwear, to the exclusion of any other (apart from Gregsten's, and even that I'm not 100% sure of) and that, I am afraid, is that. Alphon's DNA sample was taken at the time of the tests, and did not match any results obtained. Ergo - Alphon did not deposit his DNA on the underwear. And if there is no forensic evidence linking JH to the car, then there certainly is none to link Alphon to it.

Did I say brief comments?

Cheers,

Graham

[Graham]

Hi Limehouse,

There was a huge amount of evidence witheld from the defence and thus from the jury and in no way, guilty or innocent, did Hanratty receive a fair trial

Yes, a good deal of evidence which might have assisted the defence was held back by the police, but JH unfortunately pissed on his own fireworks.
That, and the doubtless tremendous effect VS had on the jury.

Cheers,

Graham

[Andrew]

Hello everyone
It’s the driving evidence that convinces me that it wasn’t JH at the murder scene. I’m sure that a car thief wouldn’t need to ask questions about the gears and how to turn on the lights (I remember that the Minor was a driving school car in the 60’s and had straightforward controls). Someone on this blog suggested that having just murdered someone he went to pieces and couldn’t think straight. I agree that stress could change someone’s driving, but it seems unlikely that they would forget how to change gear (they might drive too fast, cut corners, take chances etc).

The alibi evidence never seems very compelling to me. The trouble is that he was such a slippery character, routinely using aliases and travelling extensively in the course of his ‘business’ and never sleeping in the same bed twice. As I understand it he travelled north to sell a gold watch. How much did he expect to get for it? Would it cover the cost of the train fare? Did he ever actually buy a ticket? It doesn't seem to make financial sense, but that's just his character pehaps.

As I’ve mentioned before my friend’s mother is a Nutzlader and I’ve been trying to get some info from her - but all that I’ve found out so far is that people in that part of the family “never have had 9 to 5 jobs” which, I suppose, we could have guessed. Tomorrow I’m hoping to ask about the family tree as I can’t quite understand who’s who.

Regards

Andrew

[Limehouse]

Hi Folks,

Andrew - good points about the driving. However, some people have pointed out that Hanratty was used to stealing high powered cars rather than basic old Moggies and that's why he was unfamiliar with the controls. Also, there's a bit of evidence that Hanratty wasn't such a good driver as he pranged a hire car in Ireland and his own Sunbeam was a bit battered after a few short weeks.

Graham - as ever, good points and very convincing. if anyone could convince me of Hanratty's guilt, it's you (with a bit of help from our friend Steve). Believe me, I'm under no illusion that Hanratty was a misunderstood 'good guy' at heart. However, I am not so sure he had the guts and the mindset to do what the A6 killer did. Having said that, I'm not sure Alphon did either. I've never been sure about that. It doesn't leave much space for anyone else though does it? However, when compared to each other, Alphon strikes me as being the most disturbed personality wise. For example, whereas Hanratty seemed sensitive, to some extent, about how the publicity affected his family, Alphon cared nothing for the shame and distress that his frequent 'confessions' visited on his family. How could he profess to think so much of his mother when at the same time he confessed publically to a such a terrible crime? Of course, this is not evidence of his guilt, but of his cold, uncaring personality.

Graham, what did you think about my points concerning the option of Hanratty pleading guilty but with diminished responsibility? If he was truly guilty, why didn't his defence put this option to him? Do you think they may have done so but he refused the plea? Perhaps, as you say, he was truly convinced that if he continued to 'bluff' his way through, he would come out the other side a free man. However, perhaps he equally felt that as an innocent man he should confront British justice and put faith in the jury.

[Andrew]

When James did some research into the Nutzlader connection it threw up a query because the registered name came back as Richard Nutzlader-Sanderson. I am told, on authority, that the family used the name Sanderson during the hostilities (and perhaps later) when it was undesirable to have a German name. Nothing was done officially. I assume that you can register a birth in any name you like (and any spelling) and that this is the explanation. If I get any more on this then I'll post it.

Who says there's nothing new on this thread?

Regards
Andrew.

[burkhilly]

Excellent posts Limehouse and Graham - I really enjoyed reading them. What was particularly good to see is debate, which is sensible and respectful of each others view.

Thanks!!!

[Graham]

Hi all on this lovely Sunday evening,

Andrew - good points about the driving. However, some people have pointed out that Hanratty was used to stealing high powered cars rather than basic old Moggies and that's why he was unfamiliar with the controls. Also, there's a bit of evidence that Hanratty wasn't such a good driver as he pranged a hire car in Ireland and his own Sunbeam was a bit battered after a few short weeks.

'Twas I wot suggested that JH nicked only up-market cars that he could make a bob or two on, but did he ever take up car-thievery as anything other than a sideline? Here's something to ponder - about 40 years ago I worked for a rich twerp who for the previous 40-odd years had driven only posh cars, including Jags and (he claimed) an Alvis. At the time I had a humble Austin A40. Anyway, I was taken ill at work and my boss offered to drive me home in my rickety A40 and he damn near killed us. What threw him, he said afterwards, was that me old A40 had no poke, compared with what he was used to, and he was unable to drive it in his usual Stirling Moss-inspired manner. OK, he didn't crunch the gears or stall it, he just didn't know how to drive an ordinary, low-powered car.

Nutzlader - dunno, but it sounds a bit doubtful. Didn't we have someone on this thread a while back who claimed to know Carole France? Or was that just a put-on?

Diminished responsibility - being no lawyer I don't know if it was even possible to please diminished responsibility in 1961. If it was, then I agree that JH's defence should have pushed it hard. It wasn't as if he'd be going down for a few years, his life was at stake. Once again I refer back to the Tony Mancini "Brighton Trunk Murder" of the 1930's, when Norman Birkett's defence of what seemed to many to be indefensible was absolutely brilliant, even though he was, I believe, personally convinced that Mancini was guilty (and Mancini eventually confessed, years afterwards). Birkett knew that his client's life was at stake, and he rose to the task. In fairness to JH, Mancini was a clever, intelligent man (as well as being a nasty bugger) and put on a witness-box performance every bit the equal of his defending counsel. I wonder perhaps if Sherrard was only too well aware of JH's deficiencies, and was careful not to place too much of a burden on him - the decision to take the stand was JH's and JH's alone, in spite of Sherrard's serious doubts. I think JH actually said that anyone could see he was innocent, so doubtless assumed that the jury would too. Wrong.

As I understand it he travelled north to sell a gold watch. How much did he expect to get for it? Would it cover the cost of the train fare? Did he ever actually buy a ticket? It doesn't seem to make financial sense, but that's just his character pehaps

I think he claimed to have had more than just a watch to fence. I'm sure that he said he had a lot of stuff which he thought his Liverpool pals would be interested in. He says he bought a ticket, but there's always been doubt as to where he actually went, as he was never able to state with certainty the time of the train he claimed to have taken to Liverpool.

Cheers,

Graham

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
I accept that back in the sixties, what was refered to as a frame did occur, i for instance was fined [ along with a friend] for breaking a blind on a shop that we most certainly didnt.
But we were good targets, and the blind was paid for, via the courts decision to find us guilty.
So it is entirely possible that Hanratty was targetted, but this case is a little bit more serious then a accusation of breaking a shop blind, this was a capital murder trial, and i find it hard to accept that Hanratty was not guilty, as convicted.
Valerie knows the truth, and i am positive she would agree with me that JH was the man that caused havoc that summer evening.
Regards Richard.

[Victor]

Graham, what did you think about my points concerning the option of Hanratty pleading guilty but with diminished responsibility? If he was truly guilty, why didn't his defence put this option to him? Do you think they may have done so but he refused the plea?

Hi all,
I think the problem with diminished responsibility is that you have to admit your guilt, and other than Langdale's evidence (and maybe a priest at some point) JH maintained his innocence. If he refused to admit his guilt, then his defence couldn't give him that option.

Yes, a good deal of evidence which might have assisted the defence was held back by the police, but JH unfortunately pissed on his own fireworks.

I think that JH's late Rhyl ambush alibi was the cause for most of the withheld statements, although the prosecution should have risen above this tit-for-tat game. At least all the names and addresses were given to the defence team so they could run around like madmen taking statements just like JH forced the police to do.

I think the defence had to work hard to get all this information, but eventually they did get it. For example, the defence did get confirmation of the Stanmore burglary, hence supporting JH's "I tore my jacket whilst housebreaking" excuse.

I'm sure that both Foot and Woffinden compliment the judge on making comments favourable to JH in the summing up, so claims of an unfair trial are unfounded.

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Hi Victor,

My point about diminished responsibility is, a guilty man in Hanratty's position should have snapped up the opportunity to plead diminished responsibility. It would have been a walk in the park for him to swing that plea and he would not have ended up on the gallows. However, Hanratty submitted to psychiatric assessment and was passed fit to plead. It convinces me that he was innocent and confident about being found to be innocent. Either that or he was extremely deluded.

Langdale's evidence was a crock of s**t if I may say so. Other prisoners testified that Hanratty hardly spent any time with Langdale despite his claim that he exercised wioth Hanratty every day. Langdale was a nark and a liar - just like Nudds.

Re the Tanmore burglary, the police denied any such burglary had taken place. The presecution used this against Hanratty and had to retract the statement after it was found Hanratty was telling the truth. There are numerous examples of evidence being witheld from the defence and the jury and shameful attempts by prosecution witnesses to manipulate other witnesses. An example is Louise Anderson's 'chat' with Charlotte France claiming that, prior to the crime, Hanratty had stored the gun in the France's linen cupboard. This was just before Mrs France was about to give evidence and it had a catastrophic effect on how she was perceived by the jury and what she actually said about her family's relationship with Hanratty.

Another dirty trick was Louise Anderson's evidence that, days after the murder, Hanratty had visited her with long scratches down the side of his face. What was a jury supposed to make of this? That he was scratched by his victim (no evidence of this found under Storie's finger nails) or that he was a man who habitually got into fights? What did Anderson have to gain by betraying the man she had befriended and who had supplied her with a healthy incomce from the procedds of his burglaries? Why, she gained a blind eye being turned to the real nature of her business!

Fair trial? With witnesses like Nudds, Andersons and Langdale?

[Victor]

Hi Julie,

My point about diminished responsibility is, a guilty man in Hanratty's position should have snapped up the opportunity to plead diminished responsibility. It would have been a walk in the park for him to swing that plea and he would not have ended up on the gallows. However, Hanratty submitted to psychiatric assessment and was passed fit to plead. It convinces me that he was innocent and confident about being found to be innocent. Either that or he was extremely deluded.

Well that's the problem isn't it, a guilty man with enough intelligence to work out that it was an easy way out would jump at the chance, a guilty man who'd previously claimed that 'he always wipes his fingerprints away with a handkerchief so will never be caught' (Foot) and who shows numerous examples of arrogance and cockiness and knowing better than Sherrard [changing alibi, taking the stand, selecting the inexperienced Sherrard] might interpret that as cowardice. I think he was arrogant and believed he'd be found innocent, but that doesn't mean he was innocent.

And then there are comparisons with Derek Bentley, someone else of limited intelligence who was hanged, only Bentley really was innocent.

Langdale's evidence was a crock of s**t if I may say so.

Why? Initial impressions would be that Langdale lied, but with hindsight how can you be sure? It's alleged he knew details of the crime that could only have come from the murderer himself.

Re the Tanmore burglary, the police denied any such burglary had taken place.

No they didn't deny it outright, they checked the records and stated they could find no reports of a burglary, but that's because nothing was stolen other than the jacket from the back of a wardrobe where it was being stored, therefore the police relayed the information they had.

The presecution used this against Hanratty and had to retract the statement after it was found Hanratty was telling the truth.

Yes, they corrected the information as soon as the householder was asked to check again and discovered the loss.

There are numerous examples of evidence being witheld from the defence and the jury ...

Such as? I know they didn't get the full statements from Rhyl, but they had all the names and addresses so they could check for themselves. I think that's appropriate for an ambush alibi that would be inadmissible today, therefore under today's procedures the defence wouldn't get those statements either (because they wouldn't be taken).

... and shameful attempts by prosecution witnesses to manipulate other witnesses.

Really, what about Grace Jones attempt to manipulate Terry Jones? Defence witnesses manipulating eachother.

Another dirty trick was Louise Anderson's evidence that, days after the murder, Hanratty had visited her with long scratches down the side of his face.

Why is that a dirty trick? Are you claiming it wasn't true? I think Hanratty claimed he got them from housebreaking.

What was a jury supposed to make of this? That he was scratched by his victim (no evidence of this found under Storie's finger nails) or that he was a man who habitually got into fights?

Why not that he was a clumsy, poor housebreaker. He was caught several times, had left fingerprints at many crimescenes, and also allegedly tore his Hepworth jacket "on the job".

What did Anderson have to gain by betraying the man she had befriended and who had supplied her with a healthy incomce from the procedds of his burglaries? Why, she gained a blind eye being turned to the real nature of her business!

She had a lot of stuff confiscated, had to work to sell Hanratty's stolen property, and then give him the majority of the money, hardly a "healthy income".

Yes, she was not prosecuted for handling stolen goods, but neither was Grace Jones for tax evasion! However, I do think that she was offered some sort of immunity in return for giving evidence, but that's a long way from accusing her of perjury.

Fair trial? With witnesses like Nudds, Andersons and Langdale?

It depends upon what you mean by "fair trial", I'd say the witnesses are irrelevent and it's the impartiality of the judge that makes a trial fair.

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Langdale's evidence

Langdale was in Brixton prison with Hanratty and was overheard claiming to another prisoner that 'Hanratty confessed to me in jail' The conversation was overheard by a prison hospital worker who was accompanying Langdale back to jail afer a remand hearing. It seems as though Langdale too kgreat care to ensure he was overheard.

He was called to give evidence about Hanratty's 'confession' and claimed to be one of the only men Hanratty spoke to in jail. He claimed that Hanratty had spoken to him 'at length' about the crime and the motive (he wanted to rape the girl but could not do so when Gregten was alive).

The defence team worked hard to find other prisoners who testified that Langdale's claims were false. Far from being 'the only man Hanratty spoke to in Brixton' Langdale had exercised with Hanratty only three or four times and they hardly spoke during that time. The person Hanratty spoke to most in jail was David Emery who maintained that when he spoke about the crime, it was to insist on his innocence. The defence team found both fellow prisoners and prison officers who all insisted that Hanratty consistently proclaimed his innocence in jail and hardly had any contact with Langdale and certainly not the kind of intimate contact that would be needed for such a confession.

In return for his 'helpful evidence' concerning the A6 murder trial, Langdale received a favourable outcome at his trial. Even though he was on remand, with a shocking criminal record (much worse than Hanratty's before the A6 trial) he received probation. Woffinden discovered that Langdale had frequently received scant punishment for his crimes in return for 'helpful evidence and information against others.

Nudds was allowed to give evidence for the prosecution despite having made TWO false statements about events at the Vienna Hotel on the crucial days in question. Nudds too had a shocking criminal record.

These two men were known criminals and were almost certainly treated favourably when caught and convicted of crimes because they were narks.

[Graham]

Hi Limehouse,

Good post! I think what you wrote encapsulates the weirdness and the fascination of the A6 Case - the more you look into it the more weird and fascinating it becomes. It's hard to dismiss Langdale as anything other than a nark, but I wonder...did JH's mouth run away with him while he was on remand? Probably not, but he was such an unpredictable character you just never know.

There was also the strange episode (recorded on one of the videos about the A6) where a former RAF policeman claims that JH was held under loose guard at RAF Halton for an i.d. parade and says he saw him 'come out into a corridor for a smoke', and that he, JH, remarked to the policeman something to the effect that 'I did it, but they can't prove it'. For a start, JH didn't smoke, secondly someone under arrest on suspicion of murder and rape would be held under exceedingly close guard. What's the origin of this story, I wonder?

I've long thought that Nudds was something akin to desperation tactics on the part of Acott, who badly needed convicting evidence and needed it quick. Not only did Nuddie have a terrible record, he was also a long-time police-informer, and I reckon he thought he might do himself a bit of good in the eyes of the law.

Just adds to my long-held feeling that had JH kept his trap shut during the trial he'd almost certainly have been acquitted.

[Limehouse]

Hi Graham,

Yes, I remember reading about the RAF man's claims and it struck me immediately that Hanratty's didn't smoke. Of course, it would have been taken for granted that he did (as did amost all of the working class population in those days) and thus, up pop these little stories and i can't help thinking that all these emerged because there was so little hard evidence to place Hanratty at the scene of the murder.

What also strikes me about these 'incidents' is that they are so at odds with what Hanratty was saying to everyone else. Surely he must have realised that mouthing off confessions in one place and writing convincing letters and pleading innocence in others would compromise his trial outcome? Hanratty could not possibly have been so stupid as to believe these 'confessions' would not have been revealed? Also, when Hanratty was questioned by his defence team about his 'confession' to Langdale he could not even recall who Langdale was and when he did recall him he said he had hardly exchanged any conversations with Langdale and 'I would not speak of things like that to someone after a few words with them'. In other words, Hanratty was saying that he (and no one) would settle down for a cosy confession of such a serious crime, before his trial, to man man he hardly knew and had hardly exchanged two or three words with.

I think you are right about Nudds. His first statement would have incriminated Alphon. When he discovered that Alphon was in the clear, he was prepared to change his statement to incriminate Hanratty. He was either paying back former favours from the police or his was 'banking' some favours of his own for the future.

[larue]

It depends upon what you mean by "fair trial", I'd say the witnesses are irrelevent and it's the impartiality of the judge that makes a trial fair.

hi Vic

i must say i'm suprised to learn you think that.

witnesses irrelevant? yup, i agree with that, but surely it takes more than an impartial judge to make a trial fair?

f'rinstance, why was the site of Hanratty's trial moved at the insistance of the DPP from the old bailey to bedford assizes? surely not to get a biased jury?? [ we ain't having no bloody londoners coming up here murdering people in our backyard ]

and why was the true nature of the vs/mg relationship witheld from the all male jury? speaking purely hypothetically, you understand, i'm sure they would have thought no less of a young woman, if they knew she was knocking off a married bloke in the back of a car.

to me, the prosecution was seeking, and won, unfair advantage. hardly a fair trial.