a6 murder

[Victor]

Vic - concerning the cartridges, if we discount Nudd's statement, the remaining evidence you identify - that of 'J Ryan's' signature in the book - is still very weak evidence since it cannot be established that the cartridges date from that signature.

Hi Julie,

I'm sorry but I don't understand how the evidence could be any stronger, other than the proverbial "smoking gun", we have 2 used cartridge cases forensically linked to the murder weapon found down the back of a chair in the hotel room. Hanratty and an Inidan gentleman are the only people to have occupied that room unless you are suggesting that the cartridge cases had been in the room even longer than the couple of weeks between the crime and their discovery.

They are the cause of Hanratty being linked to the crime, and therefore it's hard to see how they could be planted as part of any Police conspiracy, other than an attempt to frame Alphon who had given the Vienna as his alibi for the night of the murder when he was arrested in the Alexandra Court hotel. If that is the case then it's a very botched attempt at framing Alphon because they were placed in completely the wrong room!

I too am astonished that, particulalry the defence, did not persue the issue of the lack of forensics in the car

I think this is again falling into the trap of 'absense of evidence isn't evidence of absence', we know the killer was in that car and was almost certainly the person who drove it to Redbridge, it's just there's no evidence of who that was but it was definitely someone.

KR,
Vic

[caz]

Good points concerning the alibi Ron. Why on earth did Hanratty change his alibi? Had he established the Ryhl alibi to start with, he would have had no problem convincing the jury where he had been because there were people willing to testify that he had been there.

Hi Limehouse,

I'm not quite up to speed with all the posts since my last visit but this observation of yours caught my eye.

I could help you out with a very simple explanation, if you are willing to consider it: Hanratty was not in Rhyl on the critical date and made it up - in which case he had no idea at the time that there would be people willing to say that he was. If his dodgy pals failed him over his Liverpool alibi, what right had he to expect any strangers to materialise and support an invented trip to Rhyl?

Conversely, if he had really been in Rhyl, he'd have known that there were legitimate witnesses who had seen or communicated with him during his visit, and who could testify to that fact. So it makes absolutely no sense that he wouldn't have said so right from the start.

Everything I hear about the crime itself makes me think that the gunman was none too bright, making it unlikely that he'd have been able to lead the coppers a merry dance once they had him under their noses. The notion of the A6 murderer as some kind of criminal genius, laughing at them from the sidelines for hanging a rubbish petty thief in his place, seems rather illogical to me. Isn't it much more likely that this idiotic and senseless crime was committed by a rubbish criminal batting above his league and quickly giving himself away?

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

Hi Limehouse,

I'm not quite up to speed with all the posts since my last visit but this observation of yours caught my eye.

I could help you out with a very simple explanation, if you are willing to consider it: Hanratty was not in Rhyl on the critical date and made it up - in which case he had no idea at the time that there would be people willing to say that he was. If his dodgy pals failed him over his Liverpool alibi, what right had he to expect any strangers to materialise and support an invented trip to Rhyl?

Conversely, if he had really been in Rhyl, he'd have known that there were legitimate witnesses who had seen or communicated with him during his visit, and who could testify to that fact. So it makes absolutely no sense that he wouldn't have said so right from the start.

Everything I hear about the crime itself makes me think that the gunman was none too bright, making it unlikely that he'd have been able to lead the coppers a merry dance once they had him under their noses. The notion of the A6 murderer as some kind of criminal genius, laughing at them from the sidelines for hanging a rubbish petty thief in his place, seems rather illogical to me. Isn't it much more likely that this idiotic and senseless crime was committed by a rubbish criminal batting above his league and quickly giving himself away?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Your explanation is very plausible and an alternative is also possible which runs along similar lines. Hanratty expected an alibi from friends in Liverpool because that is what he had been promised (he went there to get rid of stolen goods) but when it did not materialise (because he had been linked to the murder/rape and his friends did not want to invite an association with that crime) he fell back on Rhyl, knowing that he could describe places where he had been and people he had seen. It is possible he went to both places and I think that Hanratty even gave an explanation for why he had not at first mentioned Rhyl (I'll have to check that bit).



Vic - the catridges were not found 'down the back of the chair' but rolled off the chair when it was tipped forward. They could easily have been planted after the crime. I would argue until I am stone dead that the cartridge evidence is weak, weak, weak.

[larue]

please forgive the failing memory, but did anyone positively identify jh as being the man in the vienna at the time in question?

[Graham]

please forgive the failing memory, but did anyone positively identify jh as being the man in the vienna at the time in question?

Hi Larue,

I don't think it would've mattered, because JH claimed he was in Liverpool or Rhyl at the time of the crime.

Cheers,

Graham

[Victor]

please forgive the failing memory, but did anyone positively identify jh as being the man in the vienna at the time in question?

Hi Larue,

He told the France family and showed them a receipt.
He admitted it on the phone to Acott.
Nudds gave a statement, and showed the Guest Book with the J Ryan name, and Wood Lane, Kingsbury address.

KR,
Vic.

[RonIpstone]

Hanratty expected an alibi from friends in Liverpool because that is what he had been promised (he went there to get rid of stolen goods) but when it did not materialise (because he had been linked to the murder/rape and his friends did not want to invite an association with that crime) he fell back on Rhyl, knowing that he could describe places where he had been and people he had seen. It is possible he went to both places and I think that Hanratty even gave an explanation for why he had not at first mentioned Rhyl (I'll have to check that bit).

Hi Julie,

Hanratty can only have been promised an alibi if he had asked these 'friends' in Liverpool for one, and he would only ask if he needed an alibi. The only thing he would need an alibi for would be for the A6 murder on the night of 22/23 August 1961.

If Hanratty had been innocent of any involvement in the crime, he would not have thought he needed any alibi until he was aware that the Police wanted him for questioning about the A6.

Three scenarios are possible:
1. That JH contacted his Liverpool friends who agreed to alibi him;
2. That JH contacted his Liverpool friends who refused to alibi him;
3. That JH did not contact his Liverpool friends.

If scenario 1 above applies, then why did Hanratty not tell Acott who these friends were? Bob Woffinden tells us that JH became aware of the Police interest in him on 5 October 1961 and that he phoned Acott the following day. If correct, then JH must have been promised his alibi on 5 or 6 October, which would give anyone daft enough to have given such a promise no time to change his mind.

Moreover for either 1 or 2 to apply above JH would have to have, as we say these days, 'contact details' for his friends yet if his eventual story is correct, we know that he could not find any friends in Liverpool before going to Rhyl. To illustrate this he was reduced to trying to sell a stolen watch in a billiard hall.

If he did not contact his friends then we must assume that JH when he spoke to Mr Acott in the early hours of 6 October 1961 had decided to make up his alibi, and had decided that the 'other place' should be Liverpool rather than Rhyl. That JH should prefer at this stage of the game the Liverpool alibi rather than the 'real' Rhyl alibi should tell us much as to the strength of the Rhyl alibi.

[NickB]

In court, when asked why he did not give the Rhyl alibi when arrested he said:
“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.”
I doubt that went down well with the jurors.

I am not aware that Hanratty ever disputed he was in the Vienna. Earlier on this thread it is explained that the Indian gentleman used one of the other beds; only Hanratty used the bed next to the chair on which the cartridges were found. So if they were planted to incriminate him, the person planting them would need to have known which bed he used.

Regarding the cleaning of the car, I notice that the blanket is still over the driver’s seat upon recovery. If the car had been taken somewhere to be vacuumed and cleaned properly, isn’t it likely the blanket would have been disposed of at that time?

[Graham]

Hanratty named a Terence McNally as one of his Liverpool contacts, who admitted to Joe Gillbanks that he did indeed know Hanratty. However, McNally (according to Woffinden) refused to be of any further assistance in the investigation, telling Gillbanks that, quote "if Hanratty won't open up, then why should I?" I never quite understood the meaning of this question.

I would guess that JH knew McNally and others from previous visits to Liverpool, but that once they suspected that he, JH, had something to do with a serious crime, they quite understandably backed away and refused to sell him an alibi.

Graham

[Andrew]

The chair

Greetings to all,
If I were JH’s defence barrister then I’d have made the case that a chair is a portable object and argue that perhaps things tend to gravitate down to the basement. The shell cases were only found when the chair was turned over so it could have been moved. The prosecution would then argue their corner and perhaps call a witness who could swear that the chair was always at the bedside in that room and had not moved for years.
Because these things do not seem to have been argued out in court we will never run out of things to talk about and there will always be an element of mystery in the A6 murder.
Regards
Andrew

[Graham]

According to Robert Crocker he saw a 'piece of material' hanging down from the armchair, and he bent down to rip it off; as he did so something fell off the chair and he saw it was a cartridge case. Mrs Galves, who was with him on his tour of inspection of the hotel's rooms, saw another case on the chair.

All this in Foot Hardback Edition, Page 56.

Within hours the cases were forensically linked to the gun found on the 36A bus which, previously, had been forensically linked to at least one of the bullets fired during the A6 Crime.

Nothing about the chair being 'turned over'. Sounds to me that the cases had rolled down between the back and the seat of what was probably an overstuffed armchair, and were dislodged when Crocker tugged at a loose piece of the upholstery. Had Crocker not made that inspection and spotted the loose material, those cases could still be there.

Graham

[Andrew]

Greetings,
Unsolved magazine: ‘Was James Hanratty Innocent?’ has it that the chair was turned over. The article was written by Foot. We don’t seem to have a definitive answer.
Regards
Andrew

[RonIpstone]

Greetings,
Unsolved magazine: ‘Was James Hanratty Innocent?’ has it that the chair was turned over. The article was written by Foot. We don’t seem to have a definitive answer.
Regards
Andrew

Hello Andrew,

That's not how Foot put it in his book. He wrote:


They [the cartridge cases] were not buried in the chair, or hidden under it. They were resting on top of it. One of them was resting so precariously that when Mr Croker bent to tear a piece of material from the bottom of the chair, a cartridge case fell off. The other was then seen instantly by Mrs Galves.

Woffinden has a similar tale, but says that Mrs Galves had to run her hand over the seat of the chair before she discovered the second cartridge case, which was on top of the seat towards the back.

Why Foot altered the account for his Unsolved magazine article one will now never know.

[NickB]

Or as Foot might have put it:

“No one has been able – or prepared - to explain why he changed his evidence.”

[babybird67]

myths

The contention that Valerie Storie changed her evidence is myth. One can understand this erroneous information being cited as truth in research that is over forty years old, but the idea of learning is that knowledge progresses and it is really sad to see myths such as these still being regurgitated time after time when there is no evidential basis for them whatsoever.

The discrepancy in eye colour was NOT Valerie Storie’s. It either came from Kerr, whom we already know told Police Valerie had told him her name was Mary, or from confusion on the part of the Police briefing the media.

The Court of Appeal, which had access to all the evidence in the case, states quite clearly that there is no record of Miss Storie ever having described her attacker’s eyes as brown. (see paragraphs 131/132
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/j...6/HANRATTY.htm)

Miss Storie has always been consistent that her attacker’s eyes were large and blue. That confusion arose somewhere is not her fault; she was lying in a hospital bed fighting for her life at the time, and was in no fit state to go over statements with a fine tooth comb to eliminate any confusions that may have arisen.

Not only is there no evidence that Miss Storie changed her description of the man who attacked her, but it would also not make sense in terms of trying to explain such an action in terms of attempting to put forward a “Hanratty was framed” scenario, since Hanratty himself was not implicated or connected with the crime at all until much later in the investigation and was completely unknown to Police at that time as an A6 suspect. If anything, the detail of the blue eyes must have frustrated the Police, since their preferred suspect was Alphon, who clearly did not have blue eyes.

Valerie Storie was the victim of a terrible crime, and had no reason to lie about her attacker’s appearance. Like any victim of crime, she would have wanted the perpetrator caught and brought to justice, and she did her best to ensure that he was.