a6 murder

[RonIpstone]

Hi Julie,


I have always thought that at least France suspected that Hanratty had obtained a gun. Those suspicions would have been firmed up when the gun was discovered the day after the murder.

Would Dixie France have bought the story that Hanratty had to go to Liverpool to sell his ill-gotten assets? One would have assumed that there were enough dealers in London, and that Dixie could have put Hanratty in touch with at least one of them.

So if France suspected that Hanratty had a gun, and was not in Liverpool on the night of the murder, and the following day the murder weapon was found under the back seat of a bus, where Hanratty had claimed to dispose of his unwanted stuff, then France would have been right in suspecting Hanratty to be the killer. Whatever the discrepancies in the identikit picture might have been to distinguish the killer from Hanratty they were not sufficient to rule out Jim.

The place of the discovery of the gun, and Hanratty confiding in France that under the back seat of a bus is where he thought was a good place to dispose of his unwanted proceeds of burglary, was telling circumstantial evidence against Hanratty. It should be noted that Hanratty never disputed France's evidence on this point.

It might be said that placing the gun under the back seat of a bus was done to frame Hanratty. But I just cannot see that. What would be the point? For a start the 'framer' would have to have a reason to implicate Hanratty; none can really be seriously suggested. If Hanratty had gone to Liverpool and thence to Rhyl, the 'framer' must have been in ignorance of this, for what is the point of framing someone who might have a valid alibi, and be able to prove such?

In fact the discovery of the gun should have helped Hanratty with his alibi. The gun was (according to Edwin Cooke) left under the back seat of the No36A bus sometime between his inspection when cleaning the bus on the night of Wed 23 August and his night time inspection the following day. On the basis that the murderer left the gun, this would give Hanratty extra time to establish his alibi in north Wales or Liverpool. In other words, if he could not prove he was out of the London area on the night of the murder, evidence that he was out of London on 24 August 1961 when the gun was left could also exclude him.

As we know that Hanratty sent a telegram at 8.45pm on 24 August (the gun was discovered 180 miles away and 5 minutes beforehand) from a phone box outside Liverpool Lime Street Station. We also know that the No36A made two round trips that day. The first leaving 5.40am from Rye Lane and arriving at Kilburn at 6.32am; the return leaving Kilburn at 6.39am and arriving at Rye Lane (via Victoria Station) at 8.55am. The second left Rye Lane at 3.45pm going to Brockley Rise and Victoria and back to Rye Lane for 7.35pm.

The timing of the telegram would seem to exclude Hanratty from having travelled on the second journey mentioned above, and if he could have proved that he was in Rhyl or Liverpool in the morning of 24 August, this would have proved his innocence. That he could not leads one to assume that he stayed the night of 23 August somewhere in London, not too far from the No 36A bus route, and travelled on this bus early in the morning to somewhere (Paddington I think was one of the stops) and then to Euston, from where he caught a Liverpool train. During the day of the 24 August he tried to buy an alibi, which attempt failed, and travelled back to London overnight.

He used the actual trip made, with one or two necessary variations, to assist him in his account of the imaginary trip made two days earlier. On the basis that Hanratty was guilty, this must have been what happened.

[NickB]

Did JH return on the Thursday night after sending the telegram? He claimed to have done and gone straight to the France residence upon arrival in London on Friday morning, but the France family said that JH only appeared on Saturday morning.

[jimarilyn]

Would Dixie France have bought the story that Hanratty had to go to Liverpool to sell his ill-gotten assets? One would have assumed that there were enough dealers in London, and that Dixie could have put Hanratty in touch with at least one of them.

Hi Ron,

Hanratty told the France's that the purpose of his trip to Liverpool was to visit an aunt who lived there. Understandably he couldn't very well say he was going there to sell his ill-gotten gains.
He had tried unsuccessfully to sell the stolen jewellery to receivers in London, one of whom told him they were fake, which he didn't believe.
For obvious reasons it would have made good sense to try and sell hot jewellery somewhere miles away from the place it was stolen. And Hanratty had contacts in the Scotland Road area of Liverpool whom he believed could get a better price for him.

Anybody who is familiar with Liverpool would know that the somewhat deprived, close-knit Scotland Road area of the 1950's and 1960's attracted certain undesirable criminal elements.
Most of the impressive British film "Violent Playground" made in 1958 ( starring Stanley Baker and David McCallum) was actually filmed in that area (Gerrard Gardens just off Scotland Road). I have a dvd of this rarely seen film which I have watched several times over the years.

Proscuting counsel Graham Swandick said at Bedford that Scotland Road was "an area that abounds in thieves". I disagree with this assessment as there are (and always have been) many honest, salt of the earth people who come from that area.

[jimarilyn]

So if France suspected that Hanratty had a gun, and was not in Liverpool on the night of the murder, and the following day the murder weapon was found under the back seat of a bus, where Hanratty had claimed to dispose of his unwanted stuff, then France would have been right in suspecting Hanratty to be the killer. Whatever the discrepancies in the identikit picture might have been to distinguish the killer from Hanratty they were not sufficient to rule out Jim.

Hi Ron,

If this scenario was true then it would mean that Charlie France suspected James Hanratty as being the A6 killer as early as Friday August 25th 1961. This then begs the question why ( if he suspected Hanratty was the A6 killer ) would he welcome Hanratty back into his home as a lodger and not do his civic duty and report his suspicions to the police ?

Unless of course (as many suspect) it was him who planted all that incriminating evidence under the back seat of the 36A bus...............

[RonIpstone]

Hanratty told the France's that the purpose of his trip to Liverpool was to visit an aunt who lived there. Understandably he couldn't very well say he was going there to sell his ill-gotten gains.

I can see why Hanratty might want to keep the 'real' reason for the trip to Liverpool quiet from the ladies in the France household, but I have never really seen why he had to lie in this manner to Dixie, who was aware of most of Hanratty's criminal activities. So I would rephrase your remark as follows:

"Hanratty told the Frances that the purpose of his trip to Liverpool was to visit an aunt who lived there. Understandably he couldn't very well say he was going out to the sticks with a shooter to do a hold-up."

And Hanratty had contacts in the Scotland Road area of Liverpool whom he believed could get a better price for him.

The contacts cannot have been good ones, as he never seems to have made contact with them.

The strange thing is that whereas it was in Hanratty's interest to put himself in Liverpool on the night of 24 August, for reasons I cannot fathom, he chose to give the impression he was in a hotel near Euston, which would, if true, have given him the opportunity to leave the gun on the bus throughout all its journeys that day.

Hanratty was obviously not very bright, and must have been even more confused than normal in the aftermath of the murder.

[Tony]

Hi Ron,

If this scenario was true then it would mean that Charlie France suspected James Hanratty as being the A6 killer as early as Friday August 25th 1961. This then begs the question why ( if he suspected Hanratty was the A6 killer ) would he welcome Hanratty back into his home as a lodger and not do his civic duty and report his suspicions to the police ?

Unless of course (as many suspect) it was him who planted all that incriminating evidence under the back seat of the 36A bus...............

I don’t know if we shall hear any more about what Acott and Oxford found in James Hanratty’s room that convinced them that JH was their man.

But Mr and Mrs Hanratty’s house was not a mansion and I doubt if James even had his own room.
He was hardly ever there and his brothers and parents lived there and they would have occupied all the bedrooms.

So what could ‘it’ have been?


Tony.

[SteveS]

I don’t know if we shall hear any more about what Acott and Oxford found in James Hanratty’s room that convinced them that JH was their man.

But Mr and Mrs Hanratty’s house was not a mansion and I doubt if James even had his own room.
He was hardly ever there and his brothers and parents lived there and they would have occupied all the bedrooms.

So what could ‘it’ have been?


Tony.

Hi Tony

Wouldn't the Hanratty family have been aware of anything that the police had discovered in James's room?

If that is the case, surely we would have heard about it by now? Especially as SPE says it pertained purely to a possible motive and was as SPE went on to say "not germane to the actual crime". Would this have not been passed onto Foot and would he have not published it?

Coupled with SPE saying it was inadmissable, then it seems that this is just another piece of police wishful thinking that come to nought. A bit like the whole police investigation into the A6 murder as far as I'm concerned.

Although, and I am not so sure about this, wouldn't all libel laws have been lifted after conviction. If that is correct then why wasn't this information made public by a leak to the press? The Ewer-cleaners story was printed almost immediately, I believe. That story said that Ewer knew Anderson for godsake. Ewer later denied this, but did not sue at the time.

Unless SPE comes clean and tells all then this piece of A6 (mis)information must be taken with a very large pinch of salt.

I have more faith in the Bluemoon story of Carol's remorse over Hanratty being framed and Mrs France's brother, John Russell, who may have known more than was forthcoming at the time. Unfortunately he died some 6 years ago.

Good to see you back

Thnx
Steve

[Victor]

Vic, your scenario [I](d) the gun was Dixie's and Hanratty stole it from him[I] seems to eminate from the testimony of Anderson which, in my opinion, is as reliable as Nudds. It is fairly well established (and has been excellently described by Jim in an earlier post) that Anderson turned evidence against Hanratty to save her own skin.

Hi Julie,

Actually it's from Charlotte France not Anderson, although it is reporting Anderson's comments, but with the corroboration of the butchers. Mrs France certainly seemed convinced.

However the police came to name Alphon, they did so, believing they had their man. It is strange they did this, as Alphon seems to have differed in appearance from the now 'accepted' description that later transpired into Hanratty's appearance, but of course, Alphon did resemble the description noted by Kerr and later distributed to news channels.

I appreciate that it's a bold step to take to name someone, but I think Nudds strongly confirmed a suspicion and the police would have been accused of negligence had they not done everything to get hold of Alphon at that time.

It is strange also that the police seem to have accpeted whatever version of events Nudds threw at them at various points, as you say Vic, partly using his 2nd statement as the basis for naming Alphon, but of course, later accepting other versions that seemed to clear Alphon.

I think Nudds was heavily leaned on to give the police something tangible to go on, and Nudds gave them what he thought they wanted to hear.

Of course, we know Hanratty went to Ireland, but where was he in the days immediately following the murder? Where did he stay? With whom? If his version of events is fiction, what is the truth? Why wasn't more donw to fully establish his whereabouts? Where did he eat? Where did he sleep? Who did he speak to?

All very good questions that Hanratty himself should have been able to answer to clear himself if he was innocent.

My feelings about Alphon are that he was unhinged, that he capitalised on his involvement in the A6 case but that his actual involvement was almost certainly accidental.

Mine too.

if dumped by the murderer, it suggests that the shooting was not as accidental as it might have been thought. By that I mean that even if the murderer acted impetuously, afraid of Gregten's sudden movement, he was not actually that shocked by the use of the gun, and was prepared to use it again (as he did - to shoot Valerie) and again (as he seems to have re-loaded after shooting Valerie)

In for a penny...?

Valerie was shot and left for dead, re-loading and firing again should be unnecessary, so that makes re-loading a 2nd time less unnusual, in my view.

if dumped and re-loaded by someone else, the motivation for re-loading might be entirely different.

It could be, it could also be that the gunman re-loaded again in the car, and was dumped in that state.

KR,
Vic.

[RonIpstone]

Hi Ron,

If this scenario was true then it would mean that Charlie France suspected James Hanratty as being the A6 killer as early as Friday August 25th 1961. This then begs the question why ( if he suspected Hanratty was the A6 killer ) would he welcome Hanratty back into his home as a lodger and not do his civic duty and report his suspicions to the police ?

Unless of course (as many suspect) it was him who planted all that incriminating evidence under the back seat of the 36A bus...............

If Dixie had planted the gun and ammo under the back seat of the bus to frame Hanratty, then that would be all the more reason for him to go to the Police to perform his civic duty, or to make the framing of Hanratty effective.

We cannot be sure of Dixie's mental state throughout all this. Would he have had the nerve to go to the cops? Would he have been robust enough to refuse Hanratty admission to his house? Perhaps not.

It is also possible that Dixie did not get the news of the discovery of the gun until after Hanratty had returned from Liverpool and re-established himself in the France household.

[Stewart P Evans]

The A6 Murder

Hi Tony

Wouldn't the Hanratty family have been aware of anything that the police had discovered in James's room?
If that is the case, surely we would have heard about it by now? Especially as SPE says it pertained purely to a possible motive and was as SPE went on to say "not germane to the actual crime". Would this have not been passed onto Foot and would he have not published it?
Coupled with SPE saying it was inadmissable, then it seems that this is just another piece of police wishful thinking that come to nought. A bit like the whole police investigation into the A6 murder as far as I'm concerned.
...
Unless SPE comes clean and tells all then this piece of A6 (mis)information must be taken with a very large pinch of salt.
...
Steve

I am not in the habit of inventing stories. I unequivocally state that a retired New Scotland Yard Detective Inspector friend of mine, who was a working colleague of Acott's, told me years ago that Acott and his team had found items in Hanratty's room (which, I presumed, was the room he used on the occasions when he was at home). These items reflected on the nature of Hanratty and gave powerful support for him acting in the way that the murderer had.

In saying that this material was inadmissable as evidence in the case brought I am merely repeating what my friend told me. In view of the fact that the A6 murder, although of great interest to me, has always been on the 'back burner' (as obviously my research, writing and books have always been on older cases, especially Jack the Ripper) I am not as up to date on it as many here. It would be a nonsense to suggest that this was made up. For what reason? How could it possibly be 'misinformation' when he told me in a private conversation about fifteen years ago and with no aim of making it public knowledge? My friend made no great deal of it and merely mentioned it when we were discussing the A6 murder and the Guenther Podola police murder case which he himself investigated.

My friend, needless to say, told me that there was never a shadow of doubt with the police that Hanratty was guilty. I also have to say that, from my reading of the case and the appeals, I too have always believed that the right verdict was reached. That does not necessarily mean that I agree that Hanratty should have been executed.

I followed the A6 case in the newspapers at the time it happened and read Foot's book when it first appeared. I noted that Foot resorted to the ploy, found in most hopeless cases such as this, of attacking the police, the prosecution, their witnesses and the evidence without producing anything convincing of Hanratty's innocence.

[caz]

I followed the A6 case in the newspapers at the time it happened and read Foot's book when it first appeared. I noted that Foot resorted to the ploy, found in most hopeless cases such as this, of attacking the police, the prosecution, their witnesses and the evidence without producing anything convincing of Hanratty's innocence.

And that, for me, is the point.

Regardless of how 'safe' any of us views the original verdict, based on the evidence as presented at the time, I have yet to see anything from Hanratty's defenders that indicates he was innocent.

In 1962, the onus was on the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, and whatever the defence came up with was not enough to suggest any reasonable doubt to the jury, even though they knew a guilty verdict would condemn Hanratty to death.

If Hanratty's name is to be helped now, his defence 'team' on this thread will have their work cut out to show reasonable doubt today, now we have the supporting DNA evidence.

Love,

Caz
X

[P.L.A]

Acott

My friend made no great deal of it and merely mentioned it when we were discussing the A6 murder and the Guenther Podola police murder case which he himself investigated.

Hi Stewart

DCI Acott led the raid on the hotel room to arrest Podola.

Peter.

[RonIpstone]

Hi Stewart,

I cannot help but feeling that Acott and his team must have felt some little discomfort about this case caused by their actions after the discovery of the spent cartridges in the Vienna Hotel on 11 September 1961. Instead of trying to ascertain who might have stayed in Room 24 around the time of the murder and then seeing if any of the witnesses could identify any resident of Room 24 as the murderer/driver of 847 BHN, a hue and cry was put out for the resident of Room 6 on the night of the murder.

Nudds, the night porter, obliged with a second statement which implicated Alphon (resident of Room 6) and contradicted his earlier statement. I would never suggest that either Acott or Oxford or any other member of the Metropolitan Police Force, which during the 1960's enjoyed an unparalleled reputation for fairness and incorruptibility in matters of detection, employed any underhand methods in obtaining Mr. Nudds's second statement. But Nudds's second statement, the hue and cry for Alphon and the wrongful identification by Miss Storie of an innocent member of the parade, all resulted from Acott going after Alphon first rather than the occupants of Room 24.

Many of the qualms as to the safety of the conviction of Hanratty would not have existed had Acott not made that fateful decision and he must have known that, so one would expect the odd self serving statement to be made by Acott as to the safety of Hanratty's conviction.

In one way Acott undoubtedly would be better placed than the rest of us to know how safe Hanratty's conviction was, in that he would know how voluntary was Nudds's second statement.

[Graham]

Hi All,

As Caz says:

Regardless of how 'safe' any of us views the original verdict, based on the evidence as presented at the time, I have yet to see anything from Hanratty's defenders that indicates he was innocent.

And this is really the whole basis of the pre-DNA argument - and I say again that had Hanratty kept his trap shut during his trial he may well have been acquitted, as he probably should have been based on the prosecution case.

Ron,

I cannot help but feeling that Acott and his team must have felt some little discomfort about this case caused by their actions after the discovery of the spent cartridges in the Vienna Hotel on 11 September 1961. Instead of trying to ascertain who might have stayed in Room 24 around the time of the murder and then seeing if any of the witnesses could identify any resident of Room 24 as the murderer/driver of 847 BHN, a hue and cry was put out for the resident of Room 6 on the night of the murder.

Trouble is, the Vienna wasn't much more than a glorified doss-house, apparently well-known to gays and businessmen with girl-friends who wanted somewhere for the night. I'd doubt if Acott would have had much chance of contacting anyone who stayed in the hotel on that and any other night, and doubtless he knew it. Hanratty's use of a false name in the register probably applied to 95% of the guests. Not that I personally know anything of such matters, you understand....

Stewart,

I am not in the habit of inventing stories. I unequivocally state that a retired New Scotland Yard Detective Inspector friend of mine, who was a working colleague of Acott's, told me years ago that Acott and his team had found items in Hanratty's room (which, I presumed, was the room he used on the occasions when he was at home). These items reflected on the nature of Hanratty and gave powerful support for him acting in the way that the murderer had.

Now you know why some of us get so bloody frustrated on this thread - the Hanrattyites will automatically rubbish anything that doesn't fall in line with their various theories, and rarely do they provide any kind of rationale for said rubbishing.

Hey, hasn't this been a good week for posters who said they were leaving the thread forever to change their mind??!! Wonder why?

Cheers,

Graham

[jimarilyn]

Hi Stewart

DCI Acott led the raid on the hotel room to arrest Podola.

Peter.

Hi Peter,

I think SPE was cryptically pointing to Acott's colleague Kenneth Oxford in his post.

I find SPE's first sentence in that post quite interesting.

Just like Tony, I'm very puzzled as to what it could have been that Baz and Oxo claimed they found in Jimmy's room at Sycamore Grove.

SPE's being far too cryptic in my opinion.
There's been far too much secrecy over the years in this case and tons of evidence not disclosed.
Just think, when I'm 109 years old I might be able to view some of Charlie France's voluminous suicide notes which were scattered all over the floor of the room in that Doss house in Acton.