a6 murder

[Graham]

As I understand it, Hanratty's utterance in the dock after the verdict was announced should have been, "I am not guilty...I am innocent", but the trauma of the moment and his problems with articulation staccatofied (new word, just made it up) his statement, so it was heard as "I am not....innocent". I would be very surprised if he verbally admitted to his guilt, even at a time like that.

Cheers,

Graham

[Victor]

To be honest, I've always thought of it this way...

Judge: "What say you?"
Foreman: "Guilty"
Judge [to Hanratty]: "Have you anything to say?"

Hanratty: "I am not.... [I'm] innocent"

No false starts, just a missed word, and maybe a bit of hesitation/trepidation.

Although the reasoning and the significance behind it stands firm, he made a mistake and to excuse it for whatever reason and to deny that same reasoning to Valerie and all the trauma and suffering she went through is hypocritical.

But what's his excuse, a guilty man being found out and having to face the consequences of his actions compared to a young woman whose life is never going to be the same again, she might get over losing her lover in unfair circumstances as do millions of others through disease and accidents, but the absolute devastation to her way of life due to the actions of a mindless thug is utterly incomprehensible.

KR,
Vic.

[bootheven]

Yoo Hooo!

Sorry for the belated post.

I am not going to admit to any bias concerning this case because I have thought long and hard about it for many years and since joining this thread I have sat wobbling on the fence! I am now 99% sure that Hanratty did not simply stumble across these two fated lovers sitting in a remote field, take them on a long and pointless journey and then shoot them - for no other reason than he was bored with raiding empty houses.

I think it's good to know you're approaching the case from an unbiased viewpoint but then again, maybe Nudds thought he was too when he gave his statements to the police. All I was trying to say was that people 'are' biased which isn't very helpful when you're trying to establish the truth. When the DNA evidence came out it simply pushed people furthur to the right or left. Michael Hanratty said 'It's a cover up.' Paul Foot said 'The science is wrong.' Nothing you say to these people would have changed their minds because they'd already convinced themselves despite the evidence.

You're right when you say Hanratty couldn't have just stumbled across the Morris Minor. Infact it's a miracle he could be anywhere near Slough at all since Olive Dinwoodie was chatting with him in her shop at 3:30 - 4:30 in the afternoon in Liverpool. Are you saying it is possible that he hopped straight back on a train to London and then travelled to Slough within 5 hours?

If Hanratty was the gun man then he set off that morning and aquired a gun or he set off with the gun in his pigskin suitcase. So you are left with either Hanratty conducting a somewhat premeditated hold up, or someone else committing the crime. If Hanratty was committing a 'premeditated' hold up then he was going against his own usual modus operandi of not having a modus operandi. In which case I am led to think that other people must have been involved to a degree. Someone clearly had to have provided a gun and France seems a likely candidate.

Concerning your approach of 'psychoanalizing' witness statements (and you may have explored this on your site but I have not read that far yet) some of the witnesses were less than reliable. For example, the prisoner who testified that Hanratty had confessed to the murder during an exercise session whilst on remand was a known liar, a police nark and his evidence was contradicted by several other inmates who were never called to give evidence. Additionally, Louise Anderson, Hanratty's 'friend' turned hostile witness, possibly to save herself from being prosecuted for handling stolen goods. Psychoanalysis is hardly needed to reveal the motives of these witnesses whose testimonies contributed to a distorted prosecution case. Pointing out these things is not a product of bias - it is a process of embracing and rejecting evidence and drawing a conclusion.

On it's own I would dismiss Langdale's evidence as hearsay, there is no way of proving it. There are so many crooks and coincidences giving evidence in this case it's difficult to decipher truth from fiction although as a whole, it is hard to imagine dozens of crooks lying against Hanratty without a conscience at all. The fact is, there is very little evidence in this case and the more we get inside peoples minds, the more we can say 'He can be trusted' or not, whatever the case may be which is why I prefer to analyze people and their statements against alleged facts.

For example, yesterday I was analyzing Hanratty's third telephone conversation with Bob Acott on 7 October 1961 when he clearly knew he was wanted for the A6 murder. You only need to read the transcript to confirm this as a fact. Yet during his trial and at an incredibly crucial point when he should have been telling the truth, Hanratty was asked, why he hadn’t told DS Acott the truth about where he had slept on 22 Aug 1961. During that conversation, Hanratty appears to still be lying saying.

'....At that stage, I knew that I was only wanted for interviewing, not for the actual A6 murder charge, which I found out later or the truth would have been told straight away.’

As I say on my website. I'm not willing to accept Hanratty was fluffing his lines in another 'faux pas.' How many chances are enough chances for Hanratty during a murder trial? He articulates his speech quite well sometimes in my opinion.

People close to Hanratty would be best qualified to decide whether they thought he was guilty or not. You might say Louise Anderson had an axe to grind because she was a fence, but she may also have been justifiably convinced of Hanratty's guilt.

To address your last point, I wasn't saying that quoting and pointing evidence out was biased. It's how people interpret that evidence that is biased. Besides, there is very little evidence in this case which is why it has been long debated and the reading and re-reading of a handful of books written by biased authors hasn't solved anything in my mind.

I have resorted to psycho-analyzing witness statements to a certain extent if only to strengthen the perspective I have on the true meaning of them and therefore the witnesses motives. When Bentley said 'Let him have it, Chris.' he could have meant one of two things which is why I think it is dangerous to accept or reject evidence before the true meaning has been established.

I would guess that the consensus of public opinion still dictates that Hanratty shouldn't have been found guilty based on the 'lack of concrete evidence' against him, which only further demonstrates the futility of debating this case and the weakness of our 'Black or White' judicial system.


Regards to all.
Boot

[Victor]

You're right when you say Hanratty couldn't have just stumbled across the Morris Minor.

Hi Boot,
I have to question that statement, I believe that Hanratty was as familiar with the Slough Dog Track as Alphon was, so he probably did know the area.

Infact it's a miracle he could be anywhere near Slough at all since Olive Dinwoodie was chatting with him in her shop at 3:30 - 4:30 in the afternoon in Liverpool. Are you saying it is possible that he hopped straight back on a train to London and then travelled to Slough within 5 hours?

I think the sweetshop incident happened on the Monday, as 3 witnesses stated as such (Dinwoodie, Ford and the other man customer), therefore as Hanratty was at the France's then it couldn't be him.

If Hanratty was the gun man then he set off that morning and aquired a gun or he set off with the gun in his pigskin suitcase.

He must have got the gun prior to leaving the bullets in the Vienna on the Monday night.

Someone clearly had to have provided a gun and France seems a likely candidate.

France or Fisher or any of Hanratty's other criminal acquaintances.

On it's own I would dismiss Langdale's evidence as hearsay, there is no way of proving it.

Apart from Langdale having to bank on the prison guard overhearing him and then relaying that information to Acott, by no means a certainty.

I would guess that the consensus of public opinion still dictates that Hanratty shouldn't have been found guilty based on the 'lack of concrete evidence' against him, which only further demonstrates the futility of debating this case and the weakness of our 'Black or White' judicial system.

Lack of concrete evidence? You mean apart from the direct link between Hanratty and the gun cartridges at the Vienna, and the back seat of a bus, and his hanky...

And then there is the conspicuously 'missing' evidence like the Hepworth jacket, and the lack of detail about the Ingledene which Foot 'conveniently' links in for him such as 'he must have slept in the attic bathroom for one night and a different room the next' despite Hanratty not saying so himself.

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

Hi Boot,

Good post - enjoyed it.

Nothing you say to these people would have changed their minds because they'd already convinced themselves despite the evidence

.

Absolutely correct. Of course JH's family thought he was innocent and continued to support him, as I hope mine would if ever I was in that position, God forbid. Paul Foot I always had a lot of time for, and I respected him as an investigating journalist, and he spent a very large chunk of his time and his life on the A6 Case, so naturally he wasn't easily prepared to admit he was wrong.

Dinwoodie was chatting with him in her shop at 3:30 - 4:30 in the afternoon in Liverpool.

Never proven. By her own admission she wasn't well at the time, so maybe her mind was more on her health than on who did or didn't enter her shop.
I am of the opinion that JH may have been in that self-same shop on a previous visit to Liverpool, and used his recollections of it for his 'Liverpool Alibi'.

Someone clearly had to have provided a gun and France seems a likely candidate.

Agreed. France had plenty of underworld connections, and acquiring a gun in those days wasn't all that difficult. I still think that after the crime, for whatever misguided reason, JH gave the gun back to France for him to dispose of (instead of tossing it into the Thames) and France was a very frightened man, so planted the gun on the bus to take the heat of himself if the worst came to the worst.

The fact is, there is very little evidence in this case and the more we get inside peoples minds, the more we can say 'He can be trusted' or not, whatever the case may be which is why I prefer to analyze people and their statements against alleged facts.

Agreed. Langdale was a known police informer, and his 'evidence' may have been because he was planted, or he could simply have manufactured it to score a few points. But I don't think it can be completely dismissed.

You might say Louise Anderson had an axe to grind because she was a fence, but she may also have been justifiably convinced of Hanratty's guilt

My impression of her is that she was very heavily leaned on by Acott & Co, as she was certainly not 100% honest in her business dealings. I also get the impression that she was frightened of Hanratty.

I would guess that the consensus of public opinion still dictates that Hanratty shouldn't have been found guilty based on the 'lack of concrete evidence' against him, which only further demonstrates the futility of debating this case and the weakness of our 'Black or White' judicial system.

I don't think there's any doubt that Hanratty shouldn't have been convicted on the strength of the evidence presented against him. But he was to an extent the architect of his own downfall, together with the fact that the A6 Crime was outrageous and almost unprecedented in its sheer viciousness, and the public wanted justice.

Perhaps after 48 years it is futile to debate this case, but there are so many unanswered questions and mysteries wrapped up in it that speaking personally I still find it has a fascination all its own. We'll probably never know the 'truth' behind the A6 Case; we certainly will never know all of the facts.
(Those who favour Alphon as the guilty man must be disappointed that, thus far at least, no death-bed revelation has been made public. If he left any notes, or another confession, we'll probably never know that, either).

Cheers,

Graham

[Victor]

(Those who favour Alphon as the guilty man must be disappointed that, thus far at least, no death-bed revelation has been made public. If he left any notes, or another confession, we'll probably never know that, either).

Anyone know anything about his Will, Executors, &tc.?

KR,
Vic

[simon]

Just a thought. If the object of the exercise was to kill Gregsten, why would JH need 'cartons of bullets bulging in his pockets' ? Wouldn't a loaded gun have been enough, against an unarmed and unsuspecting man ?

[Graham]

Hi Simon,

Just a thought. If the object of the exercise was to kill Gregsten, why would JH need 'cartons of bullets bulging in his pockets' ? Wouldn't a loaded gun have been enough, against an unarmed and unsuspecting man ?

It's a good thought, too. I've often wondered about this. Maybe it's because he'd only just acquired the gun + ammo that day, from somewhere in the Slough area, and hadn't had the opportunity to stash the ammo boxes somewhere.

Cheers,

Graham

[Victor]

It's a good thought, too. I've often wondered about this. Maybe it's because he'd only just acquired the gun + ammo that day, from somewhere in the Slough area, and hadn't had the opportunity to stash the ammo boxes somewhere.

Hi Graham,

That would mean you think someone (probably France) planted the cartridges in the Vienna after the crime, then?

Admittedly Hanratty showed the Frances his Vienna receipt when he got back to London on the Friday, which is well before Galves and Crocker found the bullets in Room 24.

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

Hi Victor,

That would mean you think someone (probably France) planted the cartridges in the Vienna after the crime, then?

This is an expected but difficult question to answer, but to an extent yes, it does mean that you can't discount the possibility that the cases were planted at The Vienna. It's often been suggested that, if any 'conspiracy' existed, it was after the crime rather than before. But, thinking about it, Valerie said that she heard him rattle the bullets in his pocket like marbles, so they couldn't have been in boxes. There is the possibility that he had the gun at The Vienna that morning, having very recently acquired it, re-loaded it after testing it somewhere, and accidentally left two cases on the chair, and perhaps stowed the boxes in one or other of his hidey-holes, maybe a left-luggage office somewhere.

The cases at The Vienna have always been something of a problem for me, because I don't think even JH would have been so remiss as to leave a couple there. There is always the possibility that France planted them (or had them planted) to put put the heat on JH. Same goes for the gun on the bus, providing of course that JH gave the gun (back?) to France for disposal.

A very puzzling aspect of the case.

Cheers,

Graham

[Victor]

There is the possibility that he had the gun at The Vienna that morning, having very recently acquired it, re-loaded it after testing it somewhere, and accidentally left two cases on the chair, and perhaps stowed the boxes in one or other of his hidey-holes, maybe a left-luggage office somewhere.

The cases at The Vienna have always been something of a problem for me, because I don't think even JH would have been so remiss as to leave a couple there.

Hi Graham,

The planting theory is always possible, which combined with the Louise Anderson to Charlotte France 'He kept the gun in your airing cupboard' comment, means that JH could have left soem empty cases in the airing cupboard accidently, prior to the crime.

Alternatively, it's possible he put his bag\case on the chair, and the cartridge cases fell out and he didn't notice them, especially as they could have slipped down the back of the seat and out of plain sight.

The possibility of France been given the gun, then hearing about the crime and thinking he has to get rid of it, so he stupidly drops it on the bus, then realising he's in effect framed his friend so gets the guilts and that preempts his suicide has occurred to me before.

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Hi Graham, Vic,

Let us suppose that the assertion the gun was supplied by France to Hanratty is correct. Leaving aside theories of who actually disposed of it on the bus and whether the cartridges were 'planted' or left accidently at the scene - in these circumstances, isn't it likely that Frances' suicide was prompted, not only by his friend's resulting death sentence, but by the fact that a young father and husband had died and a woman injured for life - all because of that gun?

[Graham]

With reference to France's suicide, he obviously felt himself unable to face life following some connection with the A6 Crime. For a long time I've suspected that he it was who supplied JH with the gun. I don't think someone like France (who was, after all, not walking life's straight and narrow) would kill himself for the simple reason that he knew JH and gave him hospitality at his home. There must have been something deeper. Had he indeed supplied the gun, then it's conceivable that he could have expected to be charged with being an accessory to murder which, although not a capital offence, could have seen him inside for a fair few years. I've also felt for a long time that JH returned the gun to France, who then got rid of it in the one place that would incriminate JH. Who, incredibly, admitted that he told France about hiding stuff in the back seat of a bus and who, equally incredibly, identified that hankie as his. Guilty or not, JH should have denied both, and no-one would have known any better at the time (not until the DNA analysis, as it goes). Another case of JH hammering a nail into his own coffin.

JH never disclosed how he came by the gun*, in which case he must have been protecting someone from prosecution, and that someone was very likely (but by no means certainly) Dixie France. Maybe JH felt that he owed France something, for seducing his daughter - who knows?

* I think that Acott must have really put the screws on JH regarding the origin of the gun, but quite plainly JH never revealed anything. At that time, capital punishment was reserved for murder by shooting and murder of a police-officer. Anyone even remotely connected with a murder by shooting would have been in serious trouble.

Or is all this a bit too facile?

Cheers,

Graham

[Limehouse]

Great stuff Graham. Whatever my reservations about Hanratt's absolute guilt, I feel sure someone had a hand in getting rid of the gun and, almost certainly, placing the cartridges at the hotel.

I think what I was trying to say in my post concerning Dixie France was that if he provided the gun that killed MG and injured VS, his suicide could have been due to guilt about the outcome of the crime for these two, as well as (or maybe instead of) guilt over Hanratty being executed. As you point out, he may well also have feared another long stretch in jail.

I think we have said before how very sad this case is in terms of the people whose lives were changed forever. There were many victims - MG and his wife, children and wider family, VS and her family, Dixie France's wife, children and wider family and the Hanratty family. How much pain for such a pointless crime.

[Victor]

Hi Julie and Graham,

France's earlier suicide attempts suggest that Julie may well be right, and that guilt over Hanratty being sentenced to die wasn't that significant because he'd tried to kill himself before JH was sentenced.

Does anyone think it's possible that Dixie turned on JH because he'd found out about JH and his daughter? "Turned on" as in gave evidence against.

KR,
Vic.