a6 murder

[Victor]

Hi Steve,

Good post, you've highlighted number of the issues that keep me interested in the case.

The bald facts of the case are that the identification of Mr Skillett and Mr Trower are contradicted by those of, respectively, Mr Blackhall and Mr Hogan.

The recollections of Skillet and Trower for faces are more accurate than Blackhall and Hogan, there is no contradiction. Of course Blackhall did accurately describe the car by the 3 red stripes as you point out, so he did remember something, and the agreggate of their evidence is useful. If you are arguing for a consistent approach then you can't amalgamate the Rhyl witnesses and contrast the Redbridge ones because the glaring inconsistency of whether it was dark or not in Hanratty's statement and the Rhyl witnesses would invalidate them all.

To be fair to both sets of these contradictory identification evidence it would probably be best to set both aside rather than just pick favourites.

You want to set aside all the Rhyl witnesses... Really?

As for Ms Stories evidence it should be pertinent to accept what Mr Sherrard said: The witness may be perfectly honest, absolutely convinced that he or she has identified the right man or woman and you're not going to be able to cross-examine them to show that they're lying "cos they're not lying, they're telling the truth as they see it.

How about accepting that for Dinwoodie too? She is accurately describing events, but it can't be Hanratty because the France's (and Hanratty himself) admit he was in London on the Monday.

It is plain that Ms Stories reliability as a witness was key to James Hanratty's conviction.

Absolutely, she was utterly convinced that Hanratty raped her.

James Hanratty gave the following details of his Rhyl alibi before inquiries began.

Enquired 5 or 6 times for bed and breakfast, being August it was hard to find anywhere.

But no mention of whether he had his luggage with him, or any details about leaving it at Ingledene and still looking for somewhere else so he didn't have to sleep in the room with the bath, the extra illegal bedroom.

By the time he found somewhere it was dark after travelling in and out through other streets.

So he didn't have the "reserve" of a place at Ingledene, and no details about wandering without luggage, invalidating Walker et al.

The woman who put him up was about 50, average built, wearing glasses and had greyish hair.

Is there a clearer stereotype?

Coat rack in the hallway along with a green plant in a bowl.

In 1961, that wa rare?

A green bath in the top part of the house.

And a bed in the same room.... Oops missed another detail there.

Paid 25 shillings for 2 nights and no register to sign.

Which of the 3 books would you like to sign?

Trains heard, but not seen from the room.
Small courtyard at rear.

Again unspecific details compared to what could have been given. Most guesthouses have a sign, and he couldn't remember the name of where he stayed?

These persons above actually verified James Hanratty's alibi by coming forward, independently, and stating that they had, in fact, had an encounter with someone who was or who fitted the description of James Hanratty on the 2 days that these 6 people were collectively in Rhyl, AT THAT TIME AND NO OTHER and that that was when Hanratty said he was there.

Which leads to the obvious conclusion that a young male was looking for lodgings in the seaside "destination" of Rhyl in August 1961, and he may have looked a bit like Hanratty... That sounds typical of any summer day of any year.

These were just ordinary people, as fallible as you and me, going about their everyday lives. I am reminded of the scene from 12 Angry Men where Henry Fonda challanges E G Marshall to name the films he saw only a few days ago but struggles to do so as a good example of this fact, although in art form. Who, in all honesty, could remember an event, in miniscule detail and timing, put to then randomly some time after its occurrence?

Some are good at that sort of thing, some aren't. What makes the Rhyl witnesses any better than Storie, Skillet and Trower?

If one is going to weigh the identification evidence for one side or the other then I would plump for Hanratty's alibi as being, on the whole more reliable and substantiated and as being the more realistic.

I for certain have a reasonable doubt as to Hanratty's guilt based on all the evidence publicly available.

apart from that spectre that is the DNA evidence...

KR,
Vic.

[babybird67]

hi Steve

Interesting post. I'll take it a little at a time.

Hi all
There has been some mention of identification evidence in this case recently.

Contrary to what Jen has said not one of the four Redbridge witnesses identified the car by its registration number.

Excuse me, but where have i said that? I think you need to read my postings more carefully as i have never said the witnesses were able to identify the car by the registration number. It may help you to remain accurate in future if you use the quote facility attached to each posting...i am happy for people to debate what i have actually said, but not what i haven't said.

What i did say was that two independent witnesses saw a man whom they later identified as Hanratty at an ID parade in the murder car, the Morris Minor which was later found in Avondale Crescent.

Mr Skilett was more reticent in coming forward and when asked by Mr Sherrard, at trial, of his testimony at the Ampthill hearing:

Mr Sherrard: "I agree if Mr. Blackhall picked somebody else out then one or other of us might be making a mistake, or both of us." Of course, because we are are all human and think we are right about these things, however difficult they may be, one has one's own reasons for feeling convinced that one is right?
Mr Skillett: That is right.

Precisely. One of them made a mistake. Neither of them picked out Alphon, whom i believe they were confronted with at the first identity parade. So then we are left with having to compare witness identifications and choose which we feel is more reliable. So if they were both convinced it wasnt Alphon, and one of them convinced it wasn't Hanratty, whilst the other was able to identify Hanratty in an identity parade, you are left with either believing the witness testimony of Blackhall, believing Skillett, either of which case exonerates Alphon, or throwing all witness testimony out altogether, which would leave the already tattered Rhyl alibi even further shredded into dust.

Mr Hogan though was adamant that the Morris car went past 15 minutes before Mr Trower had arrived to pick him up, he (Mr Hogan) had seen the very same car later that evening in Avondale Crescent whilst under police examination. By whatever means Mr Swanwick tried to shake Mr Hogan from his story, Mr Hogan was resolute.

Mrs Maxwell equally could not be shaken from her testimony that she saw Mary Kelly the morning after she was murdered. It doesn't make it true.

It should be noted and understood that Messrs Trower and Skillett did not come forward independently but were pre-empted by Messrs Blackhall and Hogan.

Most people don't go forward voluntarily, especially if they at first do not realise what they witnessed was particularly important. If you are utilising this argument against prosecution witnesses to imply there is something wanting in their evidence, you need to employ it against the defence witnesses and Rhyl alibi witnesses, the vast majority of whom came forward after Hanratty's conviction when his picture was all over the papers etc...and funnily enough, those of them saying they werent sure of who they saw in their original statements ("I would not recognise him again") suddenly came to remember when they saw his picture in the paper.

To be fair to both sets of these contradictory identification evidence it would probably be best to set both aside rather than just pick favourites. I am also not completely convinced that the non-disclosure of the mileage by DS Acott was as the judges at appeal described the high water mark of non-disclosure.

No, i disagree. All evidence should be before the jury for them to come to a conclusion on its significance. The sad thing for Hanratty, of course, was that he was so busy concocting a knowingly false Liverpool alibi (all for innocent reasons of course, bless his cotton socks) that he left his own defence team very little time to assemble any decent testimony for his allegedly true Rhyl alibi. The other sad thing for Hanratty is, of those witnesses who did come forward, most of the accounts given conflicted in vital details with Hanratty's own testimony, which would have shown up in Court, such as those witnesses who saw him in Rhyl at 7.30, when Hanratty himself said he did not leave Liverpool until 7pm...perhaps he flew there?

As for Ms Stories evidence it should be pertinent to accept what Mr Sherrard said: The witness may be perfectly honest, absolutely convinced that he or she has identified the right man or woman and you're not going to be able to cross-examine them to show that they're lying "cos they're not lying, they're telling the truth as they see it.

Agreed. Please apply this to the Rhyl witnesses.

I beleive that the high water mark of non-disclosure was that that surrounded the statements of Ms Storie that the defence were not party to and therefore the jury did not hear.

I agree everything that should have been disclosed should have been disclosed.

It is plain that Ms Stories reliability as a witness was key to James Hanratty's conviction.

I agree. She was an extremely reliable witness. She was the only surviving victim of the crimes of that terrible night. She correctly identified Hanratty as the man who raped her, and picked him from a line up, and has been vindicated by the DNA results.

Now lets examine the Rhyl alibi witnesses:


Suppose one was to give the same latitude to the Rhyl witnesses as Jen has given to Messrs Skillet and Trower? Would the following people plausibly lie independently and was it plausible for them to lie collectively:

Mrs Walker
Mrs Vincent
Mrs Jones
Mrs Harris
Mr Larman
Mr Dutton

I have already stated i don't believe the Rhyl witnesses were lying, Steve. I said so quite clearly in previous posts. The only one of the Rhyl witnesses whose veracity i have doubts about is Terry Evans. What I have said though is that memory is constructive and people fill in gaps where they cannot remember clearly. I believe the Rhyl witnesses were mistaken about who they saw. They had to be, if Hanratty himself is to be believed, as many of them said they saw Hanratty before he could possibly have arrived there by his own testimony! Possibly a reason why they were useless as defence witnesses!

James Hanratty gave the following details of his Rhyl alibi before inquiries began.

Was this before or after he had finally admitted his Liverpool alibi was a pack of lies and the money he was offering his dishonest contacts to swear he was with them had been refused? When he suddenly remember he was in Rhyl after all?

Enquired 5 or 6 times for bed and breakfast, being August it was hard to find anywhere.

By the time he found somewhere it was dark after travelling in and out through other streets.

The woman who put him up was about 50, average built, wearing glasses and had greyish hair.

Coat rack in the hallway along with a green plant in a bowl.

A green bath in the top part of the house.

Paid 25 shillings for 2 nights and no register to sign.

Trains heard, but not seen from the room.

Small courtyard at rear.

All these details are so vague and non-descript they could be describing anybody, and any one of a good many lodging houses in Rhyl at that time. If you read Miller he says that JH seems to have been rather fixated with the colour green and when his Liverpool alibi collapsed, he just transferred details of it to his Rhyl alibi...for example, the house he allegedly stayed at in Liverpool had a green door...this changes into the Rhyl green bath. The room with the green bath was not where Hanratty himself says he stayed! He says he stayed in a room with curtains and a small sink. That does not fit the room with the bath. The room he did say he stayed in was occupied by another guest at that time.

These persons above actually verified James Hanratty's alibi by coming forward, independently, and stating that they had, in fact, had an encounter with someone who was or who fitted the description of James Hanratty on the 2 days that these 6 people were collectively in Rhyl, AT THAT TIME AND NO OTHER and that that was when Hanratty said he was there.

Oh i thought he was in Liverpool on that day. Oh no, hang on a minute, he was in London on that day wasn't he. That's right. So these witnesses must be mistaken mustn't they.

Mrs Walker was sure of the date due to a family event on the Friday of the same week.

Mrs Walker only came forward when she saw Mrs Jones surrounded by a crowd of residents in the excitement of travelling up for the trial. In the statement she gave to the Police she stated that "I have seen photographs of James Hanratty in the weekend papers and they are very much like the young man, but i don't want to commit myself....I couldn't swear it was him." (my emphasis) Not only did the time not correspond with the time Hanratty said he was at Rhyl, but she wasn't sure it was him anyway.

Mrs Vincent supports the story given by Mrs Walker.

She has also seen pictures of Hanratty in the paper and says, "I seem to recognise his face." Not exactly sure, is she, and seeing photographs of the man splashed everywhere makes these witnesses already somewhat unreliable.

Mrs Jones and Mrs Harris have never waivered that it was Hanratty who stayed with them on the 2 days that week.

Perhaps if Mrs Jones had run her bed and breakfast according to the law, there might have been some record of it. All the guests that were tracked down as having stayed at that bed and breakfast at those times were adamant they had not seen anyone who looked like Hanratty there. The Prosecution was able to demonstrate that all the rooms were full when Hanratty allegedly stayed there. Hanratty's description of the room in which he stayed does not fit the room with the green bath, which he would only have seen had he been lodged there. Rhyl alibi = colander...fresh salad anyone?

Mr Larman and Mrs Walker were perhaps a little out with timing but to all intents and purposes an hour is not too wide of the mark when trying to remember, to them insignificant, events some 6 months previously. The same goes for Hanratty and his recollection of the various travel times.

Yes indeed...i move we strip all requirement of accurate timings from alibi requirements...imagine how many crooks we could let loose onto society then.

Judge: So you were in Rhyl at the time?
Defendant: well, at that time, or thereabouts, M'Lud.
Judge: so it could have been earlier or later than 7.30?
Defendant: well it could have M'Lud, i don't ave a good memory for times.
Judge: well can you remember the day?
Defendant: well it could have been a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday...or perhaps Thursday or Friday. Of course it might have been one of the weekend days, i don't rightly recall.
judge: well do you remember the month?
Defendant: Maybe August...or July...could have been September, M'Lud.
Judge: Oh well, a few timing discrepancies can't be helped...all the other very vague details you have given us tie in, don't they...case dismissed!

Timings with regards to alibis are exceptionally important. You cannot just say, oh well, everything seems to fit but the timings are out...those things all could have happened but on a different day/time/month etc. Timing is crucial and the timings given by JH (even though he was being deliberately obtuse about timings all through his alibi/s) did not fit with the timings given by the Rhyl witnesses. That is why his Defence team could not call them...they would have undermined their client's claims even more.

Mr Dutton, the Kinmel Bay chicken farmer, also verified the date (by his bank book) he was approached and offered a watch for sale, mentioned by Hanratty. It was the only day he was in Rhyl that summer, the last deposit he made to his bank being in the spring.

Yes...another problem here though isnt there. JH didn't claim to have approached anyone in Rhyl to sell them a watch. He approached someone in Liverpool. So whoever approached him wasn't Hanratty. In his own words, he said "I am afraid i cannot describe this man." Not exactly definite about who he saw was he?

Another Rhyl witness, Mrs Betty Davies, incidently shoots down the proposal that Hanratty must have been at Ingledene in July by the fact that she supports both Mrs Walker and Mrs Vincent account and by stating that she was in Prestatyn Hospital and gave birth on 20th July and left the hospital on 28th. The baby died on the 31st July.

In her statement given in 1968 (why didnt she come forward before?) she herself states once again the problem of most of the Rhyl witnesses having come forward in a storm of media coverage:

"I have read and talked about the Hanratty case since, and I believe that the man who called at my house in late August, 1961, could have been James Hanratty." (my emphasis)

I wonder if she could have sworn to it in a court of law...she doesnt' sound very definite to me. And that's with the benefit of having seen pictures of the accused in the media.

We also have Terry Evans' evidence although Hanratty never met him in Rhyl on those 2 days. Hanratty said that he had been looking for Evans and Evan's black cab was not at the fairground as Hanratty stated. And Evans further backs up Hanratty's alibi by acknowleding his car had been moved from the spot when Hantatty first saw it in late July 1961 at the funfair.

Evans is the only one of the witnesses i would have doubts about in terms of honesty. He was spotted talking to Mrs Jones in the Court setting when she had been advised not to talk to the other Rhyl witnesses and the defence also failed to call him to back up their client...i wonder why?

The evidence of Mrs Dinwoodie, whose testimony was unshakeable, was albeit again tinged with the fundamental problems of eye witness indentification, that of timing. The prosecution was in all sorts of problems dealing with her testimony.

Again the evidence Mrs Dinwoodie gave did not tally with that given by Hanratty when you get down to details. According to Dinwoodie, she could barely hear what the man was saying and was busy serving other customers when he asked directions, and asked some other customers to help him. According to Hanratty, however, when he asked for directions:

Woman came to the door of the shop and showed me a bus stop which was near it....The woman said, 'This is Bank Hall, and you have to get on a bus and go into town.'

Mrs Dinwoodie, however said,

I could hardly understand him when he asked for directions to Tarleton Road. I told him i did not know that road, only Tarleton Street. Several others, customers, came into the shop and i said perhaps they could help him and i went on serving and did not even notice him go out. He was hard to understand, i thought he was Scots or Welsh...

So someone who was a Cockney we have to believe sounded either Scots or Welsh when asking these directions. Also, Hanratty was a non-smoker wasn't he? Mrs Dinwoodie said she served this man with cigarettes! She does not mention going to the door with him and pointing out the bus stop or explaining to him how to get a bus or where from. Once again, the alibi just collapses as soon as you look at the details of it.

If Hanratty was really in Rhyl, why did he not have a bus ticket, train ticket etc to prove it?

All of the witnesses at trial, bar Valerie Storie were not expected to remember a chance encounter. They were not supposed to see someone and think, I'll remember that face and the time, it might come in useful at some future point. These were just ordinary people, as fallible as you and me, going about their everyday lives. I am reminded of the scene from 12 Angry Men where Henry Fonda challanges E G Marshall to name the films he saw only a few days ago but struggles to do so as a good example of this fact, although in art form. Who, in all honesty, could remember an event, in miniscule detail and timing, put to then randomly some time after its occurrence?

Absolutely, Steve, you have hit the nail on the head there, and that is WHY all the Rhyl alibi witnesses are even LESS reliable than Ms Storie, Skillett and Trower, who all were closer to the incidents they witnessed in time than any of the Rhyl witnesses. You have explained eloquently in that passage just how much reliability should be placed on the Rhyl testimony, in a seaside town where it was extremely common for young men/people to be asking about boarding houses with rooms free etc. If you read the Rhyl witness statements, they almost all say they could not be sure of who they saw or the times they saw him. They are therefore pretty useless in terms of establishing an alibi, which must be precise on those matters to have any weight at all.

If one is going to weigh the identification evidence for one side or the other then I would plump for Hanratty's alibi as being, on the whole more reliable and substantiated and as being the more realistic.

That's your opinion, Steve, which of course you are entitled to. I am still baffled as to why anyone can accept such an uncorroborated alibi, especially as it is the second offering from someone who had a pretty good reason for lying about where he was that night.

For if as Jen says of Ms Storie ...ought to know who it was who stole her life away..., why would those people in Rhyl come forward to give evidence to substantiate a potential murderer and rapists alibi that could allow him to go free? For a bit of publicity and their 15 minutes of fame?

I have never said this or given it as a reason. I have doubts about the veracity of one of the Rhyl witnesses, the one who allegedly didnt even see him that day he was allegedly there. The other Rhyl witnesses were mistaken, hence their inability to be sure about identification (it could have been him) and timings. Memory is constructive. Many of these witnesses came forward years after the event, at public meetings held by pro-Hanratty supporters, and thought they were helping an 'innocent' man's cause.

I think that anyone who truly believes that should have a long look in the mirror and re-evaluate their tenuous connection to the human race.

I think people who accuse a victim of deliberately falsifying evidence in order to convict an innocent man would be more needful of this advice, Steve, don't you?

It must be reiterated that the core of these people of Rhyl did not come along years later but were making statements to the fact whilst Hanratty's trial was still in progress and yet some of these names and statements were withheld for years.

Yet the Defence couldn't make use of them because they differed from Hanratty's own testimony too much...doesn't that tell you anything?

As Lord Russell said in his fine book on the case, To anyone who has had the opportunity to read the complete transcript of the evidence and give long and careful consideration to the case in all its aspects the conclusion is almost inescapible that the verdict should have been one of not guilty.

Russell was writing before the DNA results established how wrong he was. Whatever doubts arose from the original trial and the with-holding of evidence have been put to bed by the DNA evidence, imo. They fit the overwhelming picture of Hanratty as the A6 murderer.

I see Miller doesn't figure in your list of references. I'd recommend it. A very good read.

[john]

There is a glaring error in this.

It is still being assume dby all that Skillett/Blackhall/Trower dod see the car at the time they were going to work ie early morning.

Independent evidence later-three decades after revealed that they could NOT have seen the murder car or the driver.

Where was this evidence? From the Police investigation themselves when Matthews in 1995-1996 re-opened the investigation and concluded in his report-before the DNA years later saga sidetracked everyone of these strange anomalies- that the car had not been in Avondale that morning. This evidence which the Police have kept closed amongst themselves and indeed have not ever given to bindman and unfortunately the DNA side tracking at the Appeal meant that this was not revealed any further must have been strong enough for Matthews to have put that in his report as a conclusion.
On what baiss i do not know except I understand it was not on the saga of missing milegae. It was some evidence which Acott knew about but again had not disclosed at the time to the defence.

Thus as the police-Matthews and indeed another Police investigation after that in 1997 concluded that the car was NOT in Avondale at am morning-what did Skillett/Trower/et al see. The murder car driving into Avondale and then disappearing until much later in the day. Not likely. So if the three were admanat that it was the car yet evidence from the Police concluded it was not there-there is a massive anomaly. Both sides cannot be right. One cannot just dismiss the Police when it suits and then take Prosecution evidence when it does suit.

I woulkd suggest that the Police in 1995-1996 had no reason to be inaccurate in their conclusion pre-DNA and the car whereabouts They had reason in 1961 to be inaccurate. That much is clear in their other non disclosures. Thus if the car was not in Avondale that am, yet the three testified it was seen going into it and near by so who and what did the three actually see and as I have asked before I wonder about the backgrounds of the three. We know virtually nothing.
The prosecution witnesses as well as the defence I have to say had a set off decidely dodgy some of them criminal characters in the box.
ANDERSON/NUDDS/FRANCE/LANGDALE/JONES/EVANS. Do I need to go on.
The actual witnesses on both sides that you would trust to buy a used car from are not huge.
So I wonder and I wonder.

[Victor]

It is still being assume dby all that Skillett/Blackhall/Trower dod see the car at the time they were going to work ie early morning.

Independent evidence later-three decades after revealed that they could NOT have seen the murder car or the driver.

Hi John,

In addition to Skillett, Blackhall and Trower, there's the evidence of Doris Athoe who lived in Avondale and states the car was there early morning, so the best you can say is that there is conflicting evidence on the subject. Blackhall's "3 red stripes" is persuasive evidence certainly a lot better than anything from the Rhyl alleged witnesses.

The mileage of the car doesn't leave a lot of room for the car to be driven around during the day, although the delay would help explain how Hanratty managed to clean up most of the forensic evidence from the car, and the delay before he disposed of the murder weapon.

This evidence which the Police have kept closed amongst themselves and indeed have not ever given to bindman and unfortunately the DNA side tracking at the Appeal meant that this was not revealed any further must have been strong enough for Matthews to have put that in his report as a conclusion.
On what baiss i do not know except I understand it was not on the saga of missing milegae. It was some evidence which Acott knew about but again had not disclosed at the time to the defence.

Purlease, not more secret squirrel "evidence", where is this report and the particular conclusion so it can be examined?

I woulkd suggest that the Police in 1995-1996 had no reason to be inaccurate in their conclusion pre-DNA and the car whereabouts They had reason in 1961 to be inaccurate. That much is clear in their other non disclosures.

There's a massive difference between non-disclosure and conspiring to pervert the course of justice, which is what you appear to be suggesting.

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Hi John,

The mileage of the car doesn't leave a lot of room for the car to be driven around during the day, although the delay would help explain how Hanratty managed to clean up most of the forensic evidence from the car, and the delay before he disposed of the murder weapon.
Vic.

[B]Are you actually suggesting that:

Hanratty took the car somewhere and cleaned it of all forensic evidence.
He then diposed before of the murder weapon, wrapped in his own hanky, in a place he had admitted to previously using as a dumping ground for unwanted loot?

Would he, after having done all this, calmly admit in court that the hanky was his and yes, he did say under the back seat of a bus was a good place to hide things?

Are you seriously suggesting he would have gone to all that trouble concealing his presence in the car and then left a trail of evidence in other places?

[Victor]

[B]Are you actually suggesting that:

Hi Julie,

I was trying to find a plausible explanation for John's suggestion that the car was not dumped in the early hours and as you implied, there isn't one. If there really is "another Police investigation after that in 1997 concluded that the car was NOT in Avondale at am morning" then I need to see it before rejecting the Appeal Judgment when it says...

As to the presence of the motor car in Avondale Crescent, this evidence broadly fitted with that of Doris Athoe. She lived at 6 Avondale Crescent and recollected the interest shown by the police in what was the Morris Minor 847 BHN later on 23 August. She said that she had seen it “round about 7 o’clock in the morning” and that it remained there on the occasions (“at least twice”) that she had passed up and down the Crescent. Her deposition was read and thus the time at which the car was left was not in issue: the availability of new material on sightings of what may have been the Morris Minor later that day provides a further ground of appeal (Ground 7).

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

Hi all!

Been a bit busy recently, so very little time to check out my favourite thread. But good to see that it's reverted to a friendly discussion and debate of the case once more.

Re: Doris Athoe, interesting that her evidence was played down by Sherrard, and also by Foot and Woffinden. Which to my suspicious little mind means that there was a good deal of truth to it....

Was she actually called as a witness by either side, would anyone know?

Cheers,

Graham

[Victor]

Re: Doris Athoe

Was she actually called as a witness by either side, would anyone know?

Hi Graham,

I guess she wasn't as "Her deposition was read and thus the time at which the car was left was not in issue", that implies everyone accepted her statement.

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

I went to the lay-by today. I know it's been done before, but I understand that the council may make changes and build a visitor centre for the adjacent Forestry Commission site. So I went hoping to get a comparison photo to the 1961 picture that I've attached. The building with four chimney stacks is Oxley's Cottages and they are still there, right at the top of the hill, but shrouded from view by the vegitation which has grown in the last 48 years. Today's picture isn't in quite the right place, but it demonstrates the problem of sighting the horizon, given the number of trees and bushes in the way.
Regards
Andrew

Hi Andrew,

I was very impressed with your comparison photos of the lay-by. One of these days I intend to visit the area to try and get a feel for it. Did you find it as eerie as some people have suggested ?
The nearest I've ever been to Maulden/Deadman's Hill was on a hot July day in 1977 when I attended a truly unfiorgettable outdoor concert by Neil Diamond at Woburn Abbey (about 10 miles away).

It's a great pity that the full trial transcript is not available on the Internet in PDF format for all to study.
In July of last year I received a reply from the archivist at Bedford, Nigel Lutt, in response to an email I had sent a few days earlier...........

Dear Sir

Thank you for your message.

The transcript of the Hanratty trial can be consulted here; the reference number is HS/Jud 5. It consists of an alphabetical index of witnesses and notes, followed by the transcripts day by day, running to a very large number of pages. We believe it to be complete, except that the first 55 pages of Day 11(5 Feb 1962) are missing.

We have no plans to convert the transcript to electronic format. One of the problems is that we think it would probably constitute a copyright infringement (photocopying is ruled out on these grounds as well).

I am sorry that I cannot be more encouraging on this last point. Perhaps there is a similar transcript at the National Archives, Kew, which may be nearer to your home?

yours sincerely,

Nigel Lutt
archivist
(01234) 228834 (my direct line)

[jimarilyn]

The whole concept of a 'conspiracy' to either seperate or bring together MG and JG via the use of a gunman is to my mind absolutely and utterly preposterous! It was pure invention by people who are unable to view anything even slightly mysterious without proposing a conspiracy theory.
Sold a few books, though....

I bet the idea wasn't quite as preposterous to you prior to the questionable DNA findings of 2001/2002 Graham, when, (like Lenny Miller) you claimed to have believed in Hanratty's innocence. You must have had good cause to have believed thus and probably had some theory to account for who was responsible for and behind the murder. Possibly you agreed with Acott's view that it was a gas-meter job.

[jimarilyn]

Also I think too much emphasis has been placed on the short time she had a good view of him during the incident. Anyone listening to a man talking for 5 to 6 hours, in close proximity, would be able to recognise his voice.

The killer, according to Storie, wore a triangular shaped handkerchief/piece of cloth over his nose and lower part of his face. If he had worn this for the duration his voice would have sounded somewhat different than normal.

On that identification parade, almost 2 months after the murder, she asked each of the 13 men to say just seven words..."Be quiet will you I am thinking". Hanratty, apparently, was the only cockney on that parade and in common with many cockneys mispronounced "th" as "f". Joe Cole, the Chelsea footballer, is just one modern day example of someone who talks like this. James Hanratty, despite his learning dificulties, was nobody's fool. Do you not think that had he been the A6 murderer (and confronted with his rape victim) he would have tried his utmost to disguise/change his voice in some way so that she wouldn't recognise it ?

[Graham]

I know hindsight's a wonderful thing, but given that so many famous and well-connected people backed Hanratty's innocence in the 60's and 70's it was only too easy to fall in line with them, especially after Foot's book was published. Foot seemed absolutely convinced that there was a conspiracy to frame JH; he was a highly respected investigative journalist (and a very good writer) and his arguments were very persuasive. However, I could never quite convince myself that, had there been a conspiracy, it was as Foot described it. I thought that there was a very good case for some kind of conspiracy, but over the years the more I thought about it the more I thought it unlikely. I still think there were goings-on which have never been fully explained (and probably never will be) but these I think happened in the aftermath of the crime, and not before. And I also was never really convinced that Alphon did it - his statements were just too unreliable and contradictory.

What I certainly did reject was the theory that the crime was all about Gregsten's marriage - that to me just didn't have any ring of truth in it.

And what I still most certainly believe is that JH should not have been convicted on the basis of the evidence produced at his trial.

It's good to discuss these aspects of the Case, DNA or no DNA.

Cheers,

Graham

[Tony]

I bet the idea wasn't quite as preposterous to you prior to the questionable DNA findings of 2001/2002 Graham, when, (like Lenny Miller) you claimed to have believed in Hanratty's innocence. You must have had good cause to have believed thus and probably had some theory to account for who was responsible for and behind the murder. Possibly you agreed with Acott's view that it was a gas-meter job.

Hello to you my good friend James,

Nice to see you back. Also a good evening to you Graham.

I do not post on here much now but I read most days.

Can anyone explain to me why the evidence of the nurse at the Ampthill Court, given under oath, was neither taken up by Paul Foot nor Bob Woffinden?
More importantly why did Michael Mansfield not bring it to the notice of the judges at the Court of Appeal. It could have had great importance with that appeal.

Surely Foot, Woffinden and Mansfield could not all have missed her evidence. Although it must be said that this witness was not called at the Bedford trial. She would have been today.

Tony.

[Graham]

Hi Tony,

nice to hear from you again. My memory isn't what it was (it was never much anyway) and I don't have my books handy, so could you please remind me what the nurse's evidence was? (I think I remember, but can't be sure...I'm also most of the way down a bottle of decent Cabernet as well, which doesn't help...)

Cheers,

Graham

[NickB]

... triangular shaped handkerchief/piece of cloth over his nose and lower part of his face ...

I still think that hearing someone for so long, including what appeared to be a 2 hour monologue, you would get to know the voice even through a handkerchief. And I don't know how long he wore it; presumably not at the petrol station, when he got out and towards the end.

... Do you not think that had he been the A6 murderer (and confronted with his rape victim) he would have tried his utmost to disguise/change his voice in some way so that she wouldn't recognise it ?

As has been pointed out earlier the police would have known if he were disguising his voice, so I don't think he could have got away with this.