a6 murder

[Graham]

[QUOTE=Tony;136125]

Hello Clive,

- calibre of gun: Simpson made a mistake, that's all. Sherrard never picked him up on this, so it must be assumed that he accepted that Simpson made a mistake.

Hang on a minute, Graham,

How many years later was Simpson still making the same ‘mistake’ in print?

Tony.

Examples please, Tony.

Graham

[CliveEnglish]

My bedtime reading list...

Many thanks for that Graham.

I am giving the sun a break for an hour or so and have a cool shower.

As you asked, I have copies of the following:
Justice (Olympia 1964)
Lord Russell (Tallis 1966)
Foot (Pingu 1988 ed)
Woffinden (Pan 1999)
Miller (Zoilus 2001)
Simpson - 40 Years Of Murder (1978)
Woffinden - Miscarriages (Coronet 1989)

I have read Blom-Coopers book but that was quite a while ago though.

If you are correct then you may agree that Hanratty picked a very dangerous game to play on his first armed robbery outing. Although after the murder he was back into housebreaking, as the Stanmore robberies prove.
Obtaining a gun may have well been easier then, but was mindless gun crime as prevelant then as it is now? The gun availability to murder rates ratio in the States shows that lots of guns = lots of people dying.
The same could be applied to anyone who had supplied the gun. Hanratty only had to dob in him or her as an accessory to the crime. If one is going to swing, wouldn't honour go out of the window? I seem to favour that if Hanratty was not part of a conspiracy then the gun might have come from one of his housebreaking efforts and he may have had it for a little while, hence the slugs in the Vienna which may have been still in the gun when he loaded it for the job. He may have also thought that the owner of the gun would be done instead of him, if it were licensed that is, so he just left it on a bus.
I agree that France's suicide is among the most unfathomable of the events in the case. But I have very little doubt that it was in some way connected to the A6 murder.
My thinking surrounding a ballistics residue test is that if available could have been used on the clothing from the suspects. I would imagine though that such a test couldn't identify a particular firearm having been fired by the wearer of the clothes.
If your are again correct about Simpson making a mistake about the guns calibre then that surely severely dents the Prof's reputation as the top man in his field at the time.

I'm now going back into the furnace to enjoy an ice cold Stella Artois or two, whilst the wife is applying regular sun screen, ice etc!
What is wrong with Englands bowlers. God only knows what the Aussies will be making of it all!
Whilst I'm on my soapbox, I would have taken Dawson to the World Cup to begin with. Both Ferdinand and King were always going to be injury prone. I like Wright-Phillips though, he is unpredictable and opposing teams don't like that. Same goes for Joe Cole, who I think will shine in the next month or so. I hope that both of them start as I feel that they will give Rooney, Gerrard and Lampard more space to play in.

Clive

[Limehouse]

Welcome!

Welcome Clive,

A hard hat is advisable on some days but Julie will look after you I’m sure.

Tony.

Limehouse - she's very reasonable and diplomatic, especially when the Hanratty case seems to polarise opinions.

KR,
Vic.

Gee thanks you two - and a warm welcom to you Clive.

I am not sure I am up to looking after anyone but myself just now as I have just had a great big health scare whilst enjoying a few days visiting my daughter, resulting in a short stay in one of our country's excellent cardiac units. However, it is heart-warming (excuse the pun) to return to find the A6 post in good health!

You have made an excellent impression with your first few posts Clive and I agree toally that much of the evidence concerning the gun is circumstancial and if you look at the forensic evidence at the time of the trial there is very little that links Hanratty to the crime scene.

The suicide of Dixie France is another of the tragedies connected to this crime which has so many victims. I suppose there are four plausible reasons why Dixie did what he did:

- He was, as Graham suggests, instrumental in providing and/or disposing of the weapon and was horrified by its use and consequences
- He had nothing to do with the crime but was convinced of Hanratty's guilt and susequently felt disgust and horror at having welcomed this man into his home and his family
- He was instrumental in concocting evidence against Hanratty and felt guilt and dispair at Hanratty's conviction and execution
-He was just depressed and suicidal due to a clinical condition

Got to go now but will hopefully return to enjoy the possible new direction this thread will take.

Limehouse

[Graham]

What is wrong with Englands bowlers. God only knows what the Aussies will be making of it all!

Nothing wrong with our bowlers on today's performance, I'd say!

Re: Charles 'Dixie' France:-

He was a rogue in his own right, though apparently not a violent one. He frequented a caff somewhere around Soho (I used to know the name of the place, but have forgotten it) and was known as a bit of a fence, a bit of a fixer. He was also a regular at the Rehearsal Club, amongst the clientele of which were rather more big-time no-gooders than ordinary burglars. It seems that he took Hanratty under his wing, so to speak, and it would appear that JH was more than somewhat influenced by the type of baddie that frequented the Rehearsal. That he was at least part-way accepted at the Rehearsal is confirmed by his brother Michael's assertion that he, JH, could usually and very quickly get a loan from one or more of the regulars. I never saw France as an actual hands-on crook, more of a go-between; a man who knew people. It also seems that his family weren't totally aware of how he made his living.

I am almost convinced that JH confessed to France about the A6 Crime. It is known that he told France something to the effect that he, JH, had 'done something that scares'. This was said to France some time after 22 August.

Perhaps JH did indeed obtain the gun during a house-breaking. If he didn't, then sure as eggs no-one was going to actually admit to supplying it to him.

If France did not actually supply the gun, I am equally almost convinced that he was instrumental in getting rid of it, and in a fashion that he knew would incriminate JH; i.e., under the back seat of a bus. JH amazingly never denied that he'd told France about this place to get rid of unwanted goods. Until France's entire collection of last writings is made public we'll never know for sure why he committed suicide, but I believe it was overwhelming guilt that he was peripherally involved in a terrible crime; it could be that he seriously feared prosecution as an accessory to murder, but I believe that it is more likely because he had harboured as a friend a man capable of an almost unbelievably violent crime. I can't believe that France killed himself because he was sad his good friend James Hanratty had been found guilty of murder; France himself was a Soho-based crook of long standing and doubtless pretty hard-boiled. He was almost certainly involved, one way or the other, in the A6Crime, but obviously not as an active participant in a pre-meditated murder.

What of course links the gun to JH is the hankie that it was wrapped in, although at the time of the trial this couldn't be proven.

Glad to hear you're doing well, Julie.

Graham

[Victor]

calibre of gun: Simpson made a mistake, that's all. Sherrard never picked him up on this, so it must be assumed that he accepted that Simpson made a mistake.

Hang on a minute, Graham,

How many years later was Simpson still making the same ‘mistake’ in print?

Hi all,

Didn't Simpson only make the mistake in print many years later? And why can't it be a simple typo?

What's wrong with ethnically authentic heroes?
I don't know what you mean by the emboldened statement above.

Hi Clive,
Sherlock Holmes is quintessentially English and there are plenty of English actors who could have played the role.

My thinking surrounding a ballistics residue test is that if available could have been used on the clothing from the suspects. I would imagine though that such a test couldn't identify a particular firearm having been fired by the wearer of the clothes.

Unfortunately, it was a long while before Hanratty was arrested and he'd got rid of his Hepworth's jacket.

What of course links the gun to JH is the hankie that it was wrapped in, although at the time of the trial this couldn't be proven.

I believe Hanratty admitted the hanky was his when asked during his evidence, so that's a definite link to the crime, and when added to the cartridge cases found on the chair next to the bed he slept in at the Vienna, both of which were known in 1962.

The suicide of Dixie France is another of the tragedies connected to this crime which has so many victims. I suppose there are four plausible reasons why Dixie did what he did:

- He was, as Graham suggests, instrumental in providing and/or disposing of the weapon and was horrified by its use and consequences
- He had nothing to do with the crime but was convinced of Hanratty's guilt and susequently felt disgust and horror at having welcomed this man into his home and his family
- He was instrumental in concocting evidence against Hanratty and felt guilt and dispair at Hanratty's conviction and execution
-He was just depressed and suicidal due to a clinical condition

Hi Julie,

I hope you are fully recovered now, and I'm happy to reiterate my comments, you've frequently calmed the thread down after heated exchanges.

Your 4 options seem to cover all the bases, the first would include possibilities arising from Louise Anderson's comments that the gun was France's and Hanratty stole it from the airing cupboard, and so he could have feared prosecution as an accomplice.

The second would include any suspicions he had about Hanratty and his daughter, and the guilt over introducing them.

The third feels less believeable to me, if he had planted evidence and testified against Hanratty then why would that destabilise him? Surely he'd be relieved that he'd been instrumental in getting a criminal out of his family life. The regret that he'd done it would surely be much less than the relief that his family was now safe.

KR,
Vic.

[caz]

The suicide of Dixie France is another of the tragedies connected to this crime which has so many victims. I suppose there are four plausible reasons why Dixie did what he did:

- He was, as Graham suggests, instrumental in providing and/or disposing of the weapon and was horrified by its use and consequences
- He had nothing to do with the crime but was convinced of Hanratty's guilt and susequently felt disgust and horror at having welcomed this man into his home and his family
- He was instrumental in concocting evidence against Hanratty and felt guilt and dispair at Hanratty's conviction and execution
-He was just depressed and suicidal due to a clinical condition

The third feels less believeable to me, if he had planted evidence and testified against Hanratty then why would that destabilise him? Surely he'd be relieved that he'd been instrumental in getting a criminal out of his family life. The regret that he'd done it would surely be much less than the relief that his family was now safe.

Added to that, Vic and Julie, if Hanratty had been innocent, there'd have been a limit to how far concocting the evidence could have got anyone. France could not, for instance, have 'concocted' either the semen (blood group) or DNA evidence to incriminate Hanratty and - crucially - only Hanratty. Once again, there was a real rapist in the picture who left real evidence of his crime on the victim's underwear. Nobody on the outside could have expected that evidence to a) match a man they were hoping to frame, or b) do a complete vanishing act, and be replaced by traces of the man they were hoping to frame.

Hanratty only had to dob in him or her as an accessory to the crime. If one is going to swing, wouldn't honour go out of the window?

Hi Clive,

Except that would have meant a rather drastic change of tack after claiming he was in Rhyl and insisting that he had had nothing whatsoever to do with this ghastly crime. Right up to his dying moment, Hanratty appeared to cling on to the hope that he would somehow escape the rope and reassure his family that he was a (half) decent son and brother after all.

Would he really have abandoned all hope by admitting everything and adding "rotten grass" to his final CV, just so he could dob in someone who had played a much more minor role?

Love,

Caz
X

[CliveEnglish]

A few points...

Evening all.....

Graham, I just got back off of posting that comment about Englands bowlers when they started to get results...sod's law aint it! 10 wickets each in 2 consecutive sessions. That Tamim Iqbal is a bit of a prospect though. If the Bangras had another 5 or 6 like him I could see us really struggle against them. I see Finn isn't going to face the Aussies in the IDO's!

I digress...a few points I have about the recent debate.

If France was involved and did dispose of the gun for Hanratty, on that bus, wasn't France taking a big chance when wrapping it between one of his wifes laundry client's soiled hankies? And if France was prepared to go to that length he could easily go further and drop 2 cartridge cases in room 24. I have not found in any of the books any transcript of the trial where Hanratty admitted that the hanky was his.
Seeing as France said in his last letter "crucify US", why did he then kill himself and leave the US (ie his family) to face it alone? Does that make much sense to anyone?
If Hanratty had confessed to France about the A6 murder as Graham suggests as being over something that scared Hanratty then I disagree as I think it was more than likely to be because Hanratty knew he had left his fingerprints at a burglary and faced a five year sentence as much as anything else. It has also been mentioned by some such as being because Hanratty feared knocking Carole France up. I cannot imagine Hanratty going to France and giving his scared speech because he had had unprotected sex with his daughter. Hanratty would have kept mum, as Carole must have done. It must have been about burglary and doing five years porridge .
As there is little evidence of much of this and the fact that Hanratty pleaded his innocence to the end then isn't France's suicide in this case all the most peculiar?

I am perlexed as I believe that Hanratty must have carried out the A6 murder without any help whatsoever. The DNA proves it was Hanratty after all.

Yet so many other names come into the picture that cannot be disconnected.

Didn't France go to William Ewer's shop and apologise to Mr Ewer about his loss? Didn't France get threatening telephone calls from Peter Alphon just before he killed himself? Didn't France take a postcard, he recieved from Hanratty in Eire, to the police before Hanratty was ever wanted for the A6 murder?

So who, actually, was going to crucify the Frances' at or around the time of the execution of James Hanratty? It wouldn't have been Hanratty's family I think you would all agree?

Or was France connected to an altogether different crime?

And as Caz (hi there Caz) as said why would Hanratty want to be painted as both a pyschopathic killer and a grass? Completely incomprehensible.

Clive

Ps I originally missed this comment by Victor.

I'm also a Fundamentalist Atheist, and massively admire the late Douglas Noel Adams (the original DNA) and Bill Hicks, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Fry, so that immediately annoys those who have faith that Hanratty is innocent.

I too am a great fan of the above named persons. Dawkins is a treasure. Victor, you mention Bill Hicks. I also am a big fan of Dennis Leary. Funny man and not a bad actor, although American. As is Noam Chomsky (also American that is) who is the greatest intellectual alive IMHO.

[Alfie]

Dixie's suicide

Hello Clive

My hunch is that Dixie's suicide was due to the fact that he and his family unwittingly helped alibi a murderer when they backed up JH's story that he'd had his hair dyed by Carole France before the murder, and had gone to Liverpool on the day of the abduction.

VS didn't at any time describe the gunman's hair as black, and Louise What'shername only noticed it had changed colour after the event.

The only people attesting that JH said he was going to Liverpool beforehand, and that he'd had been in Liverpool when he arrived back on the Friday, were the France family.

My theory is that they agreed to alibi him by having him send them a telegram when he set off for Liverpool on the Thursday after he'd hidden the gun on the bus.

I don't believe Dixie needed to have anything to do with procuring the gun or getting rid of it for him to become suicidal.

I don't know what story JH spun the Frances to get them to do this - perhaps that he'd left his prints in a house he'd burgled and would go down for five years if he couldn't prove he'd been somewhere else at the time.

Then as events unfolded it dawned on Dixie that he'd been protecting the most vicious killer of his era. Then if we can believe our enigmatic poster who claims to be a relative of the Frances, shortly before he topped himself Dixie's daughter gave birth to a child who was the spitting image of the killer.

I imagine Dixie was convinced the true story would come out and society would "crucify" him and his family for fostering and trying to protect a monster.

It's a theory, anyway.

Regards

Alan

[Alfie]

Had a blonde moment there - if JH had left his fingerprints at a job it wouldn't matter how good his alibi was, would it? However, he'd want one if he thought he'd been seen or disturbed while going about his business, or was going to be shopped by somebody.

Alan

[simon]

Bob Woffinden writes about the case in the new issue of The Oldie.

[CliveEnglish]

More about France etc...

A very good early evening to you all.
The sun has run for cover and we are in summer thunder and lightning mode (cue ELO). I can still enjoy a cold beer beside the pool although it is not so much a pool as a nylon and steel contraption with clean water in it, I hope!!
Hello Alan (Codename Alfie! What's it all about Alfie, is it just for the moment we live eh! :-))
You argue that France's suicide was due to giving Hanratty an alibi about his hair and the Liverpool trip. Yet the France family said this in court in January, 2 months or so prior to France's suicide. Also Carole France stated that she had dyed Hanratty's hair some 3 weeks or so before the murder and again on the Saturday after the murder. This was all given in court for the prosecution and not for the defence. I would have thought that France and his family would have got the public's sympathy having done their part to see that justice was done. Having said that though, it could have all gone wrong for the prosecution because a defence witness suggested that Hanratty was in Liverpool on the Monday the same time he was with the Frances. But he was definitely in the Vienna at around 11pm so this witness, Mrs Dinwoodie, was wrong about Hanratty being in Liverpool that Monday.
Genral stuff.
In my last post I made a few points about France etc which I would like to perhaps clarify and expand upon.
As the DNA evidence shows, Hanratty was the A6 killer and Alphon was shown not to be.
If I reason correctly, then Hanratty must have carried out the A6 murder alone and Alphon had no part in it whatsoever. I would have thought that if Hanratty had any accomplices then he would have named names just before he swung. I believe this quite strongly. Yet he didn't waiver from his innocent protestations. That is my reasoning for thinking he worked alone and hoped to get away with it. The DNA evidence though cannot explain some of the more worrying aspects in the case which remain completely inexplicable.
And here are some facts about the case which either don't quite add up or remain unexplained.
Where did Hanratty go up until he ambushed Michael Gregsten and Valerie Storie?
Where did Hanratty go after being seen at Redbridge at 7am-ish on Tuesday and before the Saturday when he turns up at the France's. Noone sees him at all!
France alerts the police about one of Hanratty's Eire postcards perhaps before Hanratty is actually publicly wanted.
France goes to see Ewer to apologise for Ewer's "loss".
Louise Anderson, Hanratty's fence and girlfriend, completely changes her attitude towards Hanratty to give evidence against him. What favours did she receive from the police for this tack change?
Alphon telephones France with threats immediately prior to France's suicide.
Alphon goes to the Hanratty family offering compensation. And what was he doing with his cheque book? Why not offer cash? I find it hard to believe that Alphon's mother would be expected to cough up a suitable sum. If he had money where did it come from? Did Alphon have a sudden win on the horses? Why risk a criminal record even for harrassment? He later assaulted Mrs Hanratty and got away scot free! Who was this man and what connections did he have that he could call on top barristers to handle cases for him?
Who did the Liverpool and Rhyl witnesses see that week that persuaded them it was in fact Hanratty. No such person has ever come forward but that might be understandable if he too was a Londoner out to fence gear in the North West at the same time. Possible and a huge coincedence indeed.
Here's hoping that Wayne Rooney doesn't lay out some petulent American on Saturday and therefore end up with a 2 match ban! I have a sneaking feeling that Milner may start for England on Saturday.
Clive

[Limehouse]

Hi Clive - a great post withj some thought-provoking issues.

I too have wondered where the killer was immediately prior to the attack on MG and VBS. It has been mentioned before that, if the killer took all of the cartridges with him that night, he must have had quite a bulge in his pockets, what with the gun and six boxes of cartridges. Come to think of it, why would anyone carry so many cartridges with them? Did they come with the gun as a whole package, and if so, did the killer pick this up from somewhere just before the attack? If the killer did not carry all of the cartridges found on the bus around with him that night, where did he hide them and how did he collect them again afterwards for disposal? Is this where France fitted into the picture?

I have also wondered before why the killer went out with a loaded gun. He could have acheived quite a convincing armed raid with an empty gun and then rattle a few cartridges around in his pocket or show them to his captors in order to ensure compliance. Then there is the issue of the gun beiong loaded when found. The killer, quite obviously, re-loaded the gun just before, or sometime after, driving away from the layby. Or did he? If he did, this indicates that the events (a double killing for all he knew, and a rape) did not unduly bother him as he was willing to re-load the gun for further use. But did he??

Finally, we know that Hanratty used a hanky to wipe away prints from homes he raided and we know that he disposed of unwanted loot under the back seat of a bus. Why do we know this? Because he told people. It was known. You could say that the location of disposal and his hanky were typical Hanratty 'signatures'. So, anyone wanting to point evidence Hanratty's way would know how to do so if they knew him well. Moreover, the gun and cartridges were in police care soon after the attack - but the cartridges did not turn up at the Vienna hotel until several weeks after the attack. Now, ask yourself, did Hanratty ever leave his hanky at the scene of a crime prior to these events? Did he ever leave a hanky with loot he had abandoned on a bus prior to the attack? No. So, why should he do so after a major, major crime?

Clive, I was interested to note your comments about Hanratty keeping quiet rather than hang and take the blame for everything alone. Well, what if he was terrified that speaking up would put his family in danger? By the time of the trial and conviction, his family had suffered terrible shame and stress. Keepoing quiet, but begging his family to get at the truth, may have been his way of saving them from a possible revenge attack if, and I stress, if, he had been part of a criminal gang involved in the crime.

[Victor]

Bob Woffinden writes about the case in the new issue of The Oldie.

Hi Simon,

Just got the issue and the article is quite dull, here's a couple of quotes...

Concerning VS ID parade adn the skull caps...
"Unfortunately, as Hanratty's solicitor failed to raise the matter of his hair, the parade went ahead without the use of the caps."

"Hanratty could be gulled by almost anyone. He would have been unable to assert authority over the couple for six hours - he simply didn't have the mental equipment"
But he did have a loaded gun! That must have given him some confidence and authority.

It also mentions that the underwear sample was DNA tested in 1997 - presumably by SGM, which includes a quantification step - and then after 1999 by LCN which didn't quantify the DNA on the sample. True it might have degraded inbetween, but that must be a fair assessment of the DNA present.

The prize quote has to be...
"Yet in the Hanratty case, there is nothing else. [other than LCN DNA evidence] Every area of evidence has been discredited in one way or another. If the 2002 appeal were held today it is difficult to see how the judges could uphold the conviction."
Absolute poppycock, he doesn't even bother to mention what weird and wonderful contradictions have to be entertained to discredit the evidence, yet accept other identification evidence from the Rhyl witnesses.

Woffinden is clutching at straws. Again.

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

Woffinden in The Oldie

The Oldie is, of course, edited by Richard Ingrams, who was editor of Private Eye in the great days of that rag, when Paul Foot was going hammer and tongs at The Establishment. Ingrams stated at the time of Alphon's death that he always supported Foot in his assertion that Hanratty was innocent. Hence the article by Woffinden, but I wonder why he chose to publish it at this time?
There is very little interest (at least outside this thread) in the A6 Case these days - nothing heard from the Hanratty family or his legal representatives (assuming they're still active - it was Geoffrey Bindman & Co the last time I looked) for ages. I also wonder if Ingrams will publish an article putting the opposing view, that Hanratty was guilty. I rather doubt it, to be honest.

Graham

[caz]

And as Caz (hi there Caz) as said why would Hanratty want to be painted as both a pyschopathic killer and a grass? Completely incomprehensible.

I would have thought that if Hanratty had any accomplices then he would have named names just before he swung. I believe this quite strongly. Yet he didn't waiver from his innocent protestations.

Hi Clive,

I'm confused.

While I agree that Hanratty - for whatever warped reason - took it upon himself to see what a shooter could do for him (and France, as a known associate, may have gone into damage limitation mode after the event, if the murder weapon had had anything to do with him, for example), I think it's fairly clear that he was never going to admit to this hideous crime, no matter what. He may even have been in a state of denial if his experimentation had gone way beyond his initial intentions.

Even if he could have 'named names just before he swung', what possible advantage could it have been to him to do so, knowing he would be admitting to rape and cold-blooded murder in the process and letting down everyone who had ever thought better of him?

Love,

Caz
X