a6 murder

[Tony]

Limehouse

Julie Limehouse, as far as I know, has never described James Hanratty as anything else other than a heartless thief. That is also my own perception of the man.
I believe Jimmy Hanratty to be innocent; Julie is on the fence.
To suggest that she has not shared the same view of his character on here as mine is totally unfair to her.
I do not know what the agenda is on here with these swipes at Julie but I do not like them one bit. She is by far the best impartial contributor on here.

Tony.

[Graham]

Hi All

I would like to state unreservedly that my last post to Graham was uncalled for and would like to think that I can assuage any offence caused by its inference or intent by this unconditional apology to Graham and anyone who may have been upset by it.

I would also like to state that I wish this forum and all it's underlying threads to operate in a civilised and cooperative state to the end that the A6 murder be discussed and that forthwith all mention of past and present personal differences be put aside and never mentioned again by anyone.

Thnx
Steve

Hi Steve,

I appreciate this. Thank you.

Regards,

Graham

[Graham]

Hi PLA,

Wowee! Just read your links. However, I think if you live in a society such as Saudi Arabia then you better be aware of how they view such matters as paedophilia and boasting on live TV about your shagging exploits. Do you remember that English woman teacher a couple of years ago who was daft enough to call her teddy-bear Mohammed? She was lucky not to have been flogged.

When I lived in the USA in the late 1970's several states rescinded the moratorium on capital punishment, and the first to go (involuntarily, that is)was a bloke called John Spenkelink in Florida in 1979. Doubtless a real mean mother, but the media had a field day covering his execution - you couldn't turn on the TV without getting all the gory details of death by electrocution. They turned capital punishment into show-biz, but I kept my trap shut about it - after all, I was a 'guest' in a foreign country and unqualified to pass judgement on how the US law operates. Still sickened me, though.

Graham

[Tony]

Hi PLA,

Wowee! Just read your links. However, I think if you live in a society such as Saudi Arabia then you better be aware of how they view such matters as paedophilia and boasting on live TV about your shagging exploits. Do you remember that English woman teacher a couple of years ago who was daft enough to call her teddy-bear Mohammed? She was lucky not to have been flogged.

When I lived in the USA in the late 1970's several states rescinded the moratorium on capital punishment, and the first to go (involuntarily, that is)was a bloke called John Spenkelink in Florida in 1979. Doubtless a real mean mother, but the media had a field day covering his execution - you couldn't turn on the TV without getting all the gory details of death by electrocution. They turned capital punishment into show-biz, but I kept my trap shut about it - after all, I was a 'guest' in a foreign country and unqualified to pass judgement on how the US law operates. Still sickened me, though.

Graham

A very good evening Graham,

I happen to go to the States very often; after the re-introduction of the death penalty the first man who had a claim to fame was Gary Gilmour (not the Australian all rounder)). He was executed by firing squad in Salt Lake City.
Strangely enough it was on 17th Jan 1977 the anniversary of my birthday and also that of Muhammad Ali.
It was Keith Chegwin’s as well but I won’t mention that.

Tony.

[Graham]

A very good evening Graham,

I happen to go to the States very often; after the re-introduction of the death penalty the first man who had a claim to fame was Gary Gilmour (not the Australian all rounder)). He was executed by firing squad in Salt Lake City.
Strangely enough it was on 17th Jan 1977 the anniversary of my birthday and also that of Muhammad Ali.
It was Keith Chegwin’s as well but I won’t mention that.

Tony.

Hi Tony,

Gilmore was a thorough bad egg who disgusted even himself with the way he murdered a store-keeper (I think to steal money for drugs). If I remember aright, he pleaded guilty at his trial and there was only one sentence possible. His story was the subject of Norman Mailer's book "The Executioner's Song", and also a good movie starring Tommy Lee Jones as Gilmore. He donated his corneas for transplant and urban legend says he was pissed out of his mind when he was executed. His last words were "Let's do it!" and when I lived in the US you could buy a T-shirt with those words printed on it, and five bullet-holes over the heart...yeah, well. For those with an interest in social history, the union activist Joe Hill was also executed by firing-squad in Utah in 1915 - the subject of a famous song by Joan Baez (words taken from a song written in the 1920's). I won't say a word about Keith Chegwin, mate...

Another notorious legal bumping-off was Ted Bundy in Florida, who apparently was still conducting an interview with a journalist as he was being led to the chair. Yanks, eh?

Incidentally, for the ghouls amongst us, last week some bloke was executed in Ohio using only one lethal drug instead of the three normally used. I wonder what that drug was...? Can you get it on the NHS?

For the even more ghoulish, I was taken to some museum in New Jersey where they had the actual electric chair used to knock off Bruno Hauptmann, the (supposed) kidnapper of Charles Lindbergh's son (my all-time favourite murder-case after the A6).

Sleep well...don't have nightmares.

Cheers,

Graham

[Victor]

Hi Graham,

As I think I've stated before I personally think that there are some crimes that deserve the death penalty such as multiple murder, for example Peter Sutcliffe, and I have little sympathy for the likes of Shipman and West.

Michael Portillo did an interesting program on the Death Penalty and concluded that Carbon Monoxide was the most humane way of executing somone, as the victim is put to sleep and then dies painlessly, and it would be this method that I would chose, although the Americans in the program wanted the victim to suffer for justice. I would call it revenge and I don't think it's appropriate.

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

When I was young, I was violently (methaphorically speaking) opposed to capital punishment under any circumstances. As a young and passionate socialist (and in those days also a Christian believer), I believed everyone was deserving of forgiveness.

I am a bit older now, I've been round the block a few times and I am not so 'green'. There are many people for whom I would throw away the key for a good few years (one of them is an ex-student of mine, sadly). However, I do not support capital punishment under any circumstances.

A small part in me still believes people are worthy of forgiveness - even of the most horrific crimes - if they are truly sorry. However, that does not mean I want to see them go free. People like Sutcliffe must stay locked up for the whole of their lives and must do something worthy for society.

I remember the uproar over the Gary Gilmore execution. Wasn't there a record - Looking Through Gary Gilmor's Eyes (does that refer to his donation???). What I find sickening in the US is the guest list of people invited to view the execution, often including, I believe, the relatives of their victims.

[larue]

ahhhhh! hi all

the thread's livening up nicely. some really good posts lately, especially the views on capital punishment. i know that the european court of human rights will not allow it's re-introduction, but i wonder what the british public would say, if there were to be a referendum???

although public opinion goes up and down like a fiddler's elbow, my guess is that it would be rejected, and i would reject it too, not on moral grounds, but for the reason this thread was started, the possibility of a miscarriage of justice.

i do not believe the british justice system is anywhere near good enough to deserve a death penalty, not when one learns of the number of overturned verdicts and pardons that have happened in the last few decades.

however, having said that, in my opinion, for what it's worth, [79p per kilo in asda] the moors murderers, shipman, west et al, deserved to forfiet their lives for the crimes they committed, rather than live at the public expense in [relative] comfort. i just don't think we really need people like that in the gene pool...

[Graham]

I think it was Clinton Duffy, a long-ago warden of San Quentin clink in California, who once observed that there are no guilty people on death row. He also once said (I think it was him) that the only people to benefit from capital punishment are the lawyers.

Vic, it was pure nitrogen that Michael Portillo was looking at. You peg it from anoxia, just like dozing off. A few years ago two workers in the aircraft industry were using nitrogen to purge the atmosphere of a clean-room, and they both died without a sound. Not good enough for the Yanks, though; they like a bit of drama and Hollywood when they're bumping someone off legally.

Cheers,

Graham

[Tony]

I think it was Clinton Duffy, a long-ago warden of San Quentin clink in California, who once observed that there are no guilty people on death row. He also once said (I think it was him) that the only people to benefit from capital punishment are the lawyers.

Vic, it was pure nitrogen that Michael Portillo was looking at. You peg it from anoxia, just like dozing off. A few years ago two workers in the aircraft industry were using nitrogen to purge the atmosphere of a clean-room, and they both died without a sound. Not good enough for the Yanks, though; they like a bit of drama and Hollywood when they're bumping someone off legally.

Cheers,

Graham

Try watching The Green Mile and see how the invited guests reacted to the electric chair that went wrong (on purpose).

Tony

[caz]

...as the victim is put to sleep and then dies painlessly, and it would be this method that I would chose, although the Americans in the program wanted the victim to suffer for justice. I would call it revenge and I don't think it's appropriate.

Well we should be all right then, Vic, since the posters to this thread are in the main Brits and therefore will not make us suffer for justice for Hanratty.

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.

How about thanking Stewart for becoming a little less cryptic then?

It infuriates me when people are criticised or insulted for not providing enough information and then, when they do provide something more, it's ignored because it's unwelcome news and the criticism just moves on to something else.

You have now learned that Hanratty had material in his room indicating he was ‘very highly sexed in a perverted way’; and if, for argument’s sake, France's suicide notes were to reveal one day that he had inside knowledge of Hanratty's involvement (and perhaps his 'tastes'), would you be prepared to reconsider your belief in this man’s innocence?

Interesting use of the word ‘scenario’; the speculation required to deflect focus away from the evidence we have of Hanratty’s involvement onto innocent onlookers always reminds me of a fictional dramatisation.

Indeed, bb. And I think the point here is that we can hardly be expected to treat the material found in Hanratty's room as though it never existed, and not to discuss its nature and relevance, when unsupported speculation about faulty - even faked - DNA results, and the criminal involvement of other players in the case, has been allowed to run riot and indeed is why this thread exists at all. If the rule is that anything that would have been inadmissible in court, or is not fully documented, must be ignored and forgotten, so be it. But the rule has to apply across the board or not at all. In short, if it’s not fair to the convicted man’s memory to speculate about certain material found in his room, then it’s certainly not fair to speculate about other individuals, who were never on trial, being guilty in Hanratty’s stead.

When Foot told his readers that if the man Storie picked out on the first identity parade hadn’t had a good alibi, he could well have hung, I knew what sort of book I was reading.

That is pretty inexcusable. If people asked to make up the numbers in identity parades were in any danger of being fingered themselves for the crime, they'd never get anyone to volunteer. Foot could not possibly have believed what he was saying here unless he was a total idiot. So he must have been hoping that his readers would be total idiots. If his aim was to show up genuine pitfalls in our legal system, it was rather foolish to imply that identity parade volunteers were regularly executed when mistakenly picked out by a witness.

Love,

Caz
X

[larue]

You have now learned that Hanratty had material in his room indicating he was ‘very highly sexed in a perverted way’

him, and several thousand other men i would guess!

remember, that in 1961 male homosexuality was a criminal offence, widely regarded by the moral majority as 'perverted'

the exact nature of this material is of interest, you know... 'one man's meat is another's poison' and all that. what was it, i wonder, mucky books???

around aboot that time, i remember seeing a copy of what was then considered a 'dirty magazine' namely 'parade' [ hehehe anyone else want to 'fess up to knowing that one???? ] nudie ladies with all their bits and pieces airbrushed out. i think the vicar could look at that mag without embarrasement. [ i know our's did. come to that, i think he may have been in it!!!] nah, just kidding

top shelf 'male interest mags' were a rare bird in 1960, more like under the counter 'nudge nudge, wink wink, know wot i mean squire?'

i think we all worked out for ourselves that james h was highly sexed, that's no crime, but i don't know how the law stood in them days re the possession of 'adult literature'

maybe it was home made stuff, indicating the individual's inner fantasies????

[jimornot?]

[QUOTE=babybird67;110395]........Several contributions of yours to this thread have given us a list of what you term ‘shady’ witnesses; I’m happy to be corrected, but from recollection, you have only ever included in this list witnesses for the prosecution such as Nudds, Langdale and Anderson, even Ewer who did not even appear as a witness. I’d like to ask you why you deem Anderson ‘shady’, presumably for receiving stolen goods, yet never, to my knowledge, refer to Hanratty himself as ‘shady’ in terms of his witness testimony, even though he was the provider of those stolen goods? They were surely two halves of one whole aspect of a shady encounter, and if we are going to point out shady activities, we really need to apply the same standards to both sides, do we not?

Why do you consider Langdale, a convicted criminal, ‘shady’, yet you do not refer to Hanratty himself or his testimony as shady or doubtful, even though he too was a convicted criminal in much the same league as Langdale?

Of course I may be wrong and you may well have said that you approach the testimony of Hanratty with the same reservations as that with which you approach the prosecution witnesses that you list, and if so and I have missed it, can you please point it out for me; if you have not, could you please explain the logic and reasoning behind this approach so that I might try to understand it? ...
QUOTE]

Hi Jen

You are right that all debate should be balanced, but in this particular issue it is also important to consider the effect of the evidence by said 'shady' characters. IF (and I am merely hypothesising) H was actually innocent it is conceivable that the evidence of Nudds etc helped to hang him. I don't think many of those contesting Hanratty's guilt would see him as a pleasant person and his record speaks for itself. In this case Hanratty's lies were ultimately of no help to him - likely as not, they helped seal his fate.

Hanratty paid the full price and either that was just or it wasn't: if it was sound then it really doesn't matter one jot how much he or his friends wriggled or lied to get him off (apart from the extra pain he caused Valerie, the Gregstens and his own family) - indeed it is understandable they should do so. If Nudds etc wilfully lied they did so in the full knowledge it would do him no good at all. If he was innocent then it is fair for those who sincerely believe in that innocence to feel indignant about these characters and the part they played in things.

It would seem that Nudds, Langdale and Anderson all potentially had something to gain from testifying against Hanratty and it is surely that which makes their credibility doubtful (is it a fact that Langdale served significantly less time inside than expected and Anderson never faced charges for handling stolen goods?) I did previously make a point that Anderson's apparent change of stance towards Hanratty might have been because she really believed in his guilt and was angry that he had conned his way into her home and made herself vulnerable to attack (?)

As a matter of interest, were any of those speaking up for Hanratty likely to benefit from doing so? Can't think of anything other than fleeting moments of fame?

Just on the DNA I really can't go along with any thought it could have been faked (sorry SteveS). Absolutely no reason to do it all those years later especially when other miscarriages of justice have been admitted... why would this case be any different?

atb

viv

[jimornot?]

Try watching The Green Mile and see how the invited guests reacted to the electric chair that went wrong (on purpose).

Tony

Hi Tony

great minds and fools....... I thought of that same scene! I suppose allowing the victim's family the opportunity of seeing justice done could be considered cathartic but for me, I think I'd be content to be told it had been done

On the subject of Capital Punishment I agree with most that it is rather good that West and Shipman are no longer with us albeit by their own hands. I have to say I would gladly assist in putting away Ian Huntley and Roy Whiting so, for me, I feel there are cases where it should apply. But do we have that right anyway? if it could be introduced (I know it will never happen) for certain cases what should these be and who decides that?

If it was ever to be reintroduced, I do agree that it shouuld be as humanely and painless as possible.

atb

Viv

[jimornot?]

Caz's recent post

.......How about thanking Stewart for becoming a little less cryptic then?

It infuriates me when people are criticised or insulted for not providing enough information and then, when they do provide something more, it's ignored because it's unwelcome news and the criticism just moves on to something else.

You have now learned that Hanratty had material in his room indicating he was ‘very highly sexed in a perverted way’; and if, for argument’s sake, France's suicide notes were to reveal one day that he had inside knowledge of Hanratty's involvement (and perhaps his 'tastes'), would you be prepared to reconsider your belief in this man’s innocence?



Indeed, bb. And I think the point here is that we can hardly be expected to treat the material found in Hanratty's room as though it never existed, and not to discuss its nature and relevance, when unsupported speculation about faulty - even faked - DNA results, and the criminal involvement of other players in the case, has been allowed to run riot and indeed is why this thread exists at all. If the rule is that anything that would have been inadmissible in court, or is not fully documented, must be ignored and forgotten, so be it. But the rule has to apply across the board or not at all. In short, if it’s not fair to the convicted man’s memory to speculate about certain material found in his room, then it’s certainly not fair to speculate about other individuals, who were never on trial, being guilty in Hanratty’s stead.


Love,

Caz
X

hi all

Caz is quite right, thank you Stewart for letting us have the information. It fuels the thought processes as to what it might have been and it may well be less lurid and sordid than we might imagine but we may never know.

I would hope any new 'evidence' - hearsay or not - could be taken on board with a view to seeing the extent to which it tips the scales either way -however tiny that shift. I seem to recall Carole France wasn't damning in her assessment of Hanratty's behaviour towards her so maybe that should have more significance? [I know he was hardly virtuous towards her though]

Caz, you are quite right that we need to be consistent in deciding what can or can't be discussed. It seems to me worthwhile to consider all matters reasonably fair to debate albeit with some regard to those who are directly affected by this case esp Valerie and the sons of MG. I think this thread is pretty well self regulating even if emotions do run high sometimes.

Looking forward to more hot issues

all the best

Viv
PS Vic please tell me again how to capture quotes better than repeating the text