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.
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.
Comment