a6 murder

[Graham]

As it's obvious that JH was in the London area for at least 24 hours after the crime, could well be he went to ground at the house of a good friend of his...perhaps until that good friend panicked and sent him on his way.

Pure speculation, as all discussion of JH's movements is.

Graham

[caz]

A picture of Carol France,one of Hanratty"s girl friends.He went to Battersea Fun Fair with her on September 16th.He was wearing his dark,pin stripe Hepworth 3 piece suit and black pointy toed shoes.After having a coffee they went on the Dodgems, Big Dipper,Big Splash Switch back and Big Wheel.

Ah, bless his little cotton socks. I bet he treated her to candyfloss too.

No wonder Dixie topped himself.

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

Juliana Galves and Robert Crocker discovered the cartridge cases nineteen days after the murder on 11 September when Crocker who was the manager went to the Vienna Hotel to sack Nudds for theft.Crocker stated that he initially associated the find with Alphon ,as he had had a telephone call from the police on 27th August asking about the guest Durrant [Alphon] who he knew police were then questioning regarding the A6 murder.It was Juliana ofcourse who claimed that when she had gone to tell Alphon to leave ,as it was almost 12 o"clock,she saw on top of some dirty clothes, in his open suitcase on the bed, a pair of black nylon gloves.
Nudds was "well connected" to the London/Soho underworld and would surely have been in a position to gain "inside information" easily and act according to his interests.

[Natalie Severn]

Ah, bless his little cotton socks. I bet he treated her to candyfloss too.

No wonder Dixie topped himself.

Love,

Caz
X

Well blow me down if it isnt Caz -and minus one of her sickening little winks

[caz]

Originally Posted by caz
One other question: if you think Alphon could have been the man hiding his own murder weapon on the bus, why - and how - did he go to the trouble of wrapping it in Hanratty’s snotty hanky first? It was just a hanky in 1961, proving nothing, and the gunman wore gloves for the actual crime, didn’t he? Was Alphon already anticipating that Hanratty would become a suspect at this point, and did he have reason to think the hanky could be identified as his too?



Caz,

Why you have posed the above question like this?I havent said that thats what I "think" happened.I indicated I thought France might have planted it or Alphon ---or possibly someone else from the Soho underworld of 1961. So I "think" that Alphon "could".in my view "have had something to do with this crime even if he didnt commit it"----ok?.Maybe he committed it or maybe he was implicated in it in some way----I havent said that I definitely think Alphon was the gunman in the car-so please dont keep projecting ideas into my words .

Secondly can you point me to this exact text that states when and ,even more importantly ,where the semen stains were tested and found to have been blood group "O" etc.Who analysed these results and how long after the crime was committed were they analyized?
And will stop this hectoring about how I post and what I say---thanks .

Norma

I will if you will. Thanks.

I posed my question in that way because I got the impression that you think Alphon could have planted the murder weapon on the bus after wrapping it in Hanratty's hanky, and could also have been the rapist and gunman. If I got that wrong, and you don't think he could have done both, then I must have missed the post where you made that clear. Sorry.

There's nothing wrong with entertaining and posting any possibility that takes your fancy (as long as it doesn't have the effect of libelling anyone). But if you want your debating opponents to consider them seriously the onus is on you to think them through in conjunction with the known facts and then demonstrate their viability. If you are not prepared to do that, or cannot do that, how are you going to come up with anything new and compelling enough to have any impact at all on the appeal court's decision? That's what matters here, not what you or I think of that decision.

I can only refer you back to the appeal judgement for the known details about the semen staining and the conclusions reached concerning when and how they arrived on the victim's underwear. Again, I'm not the one raising objections that not even Hanratty's defence team felt they could raise. He has long since lost his 'presumed innocent' status and there will be no further appeal unless you or anyone else can come up with a bit more than idle speculation involving highly implausible alternative explanations.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Caz,

Then you will surely agree that if he could have "planted the gun" he,of all people apart from Louise Anderson would have had an abundance of opportunity to grab one of Hanratty"s used hankies from the dirty linen Hanratty regularly gave to his wife ,Mrs France , and for Dixie France to then wrap it around the gun and nip round the corner to the 36A bus stop!

Of course, Nats. But you need to demonstrate motive as well as means and opportunity, and you haven't done that yet. France had more reasons not to plant it that way if he knew Hanratty was innocent or knew who really did it. Ron and I have provided you with several of those reasons.

The only scenario that has anything going for it so far is the one whereby Hanratty was the A6 killer and France knew or suspected as much.

You have yet to provide a single good reason for France planting it in any other circumstance.

So it's over to you.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Well blow me down if it isnt Caz -and minus one of her sickening little winks

Gratuitous personal attack! Gratuitous personal attack! I demand my rights! Boo hoo. I've never felt so insulted.

Nats, just get over yourself. We are having what is called a debate. If it's all too much for you, go and have a little lie down.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

How about this for a suggestion?

Hanratty turns up at the France abode as the news is breaking about the A6 horror. Something is said or heard and France says:

"I hope to God you had nothing to do with this, Jim. If you have anything to be worried about, I suggest you have your alibi ready sharpish and get rid of anything that the cops could find and use against you."

"But I ain't done nuffing, Dix. Hold on, I'm finking. You're right. Maybe I'd best cover me tracks anyway, just in case."

When the murder weapon turns up on that bus, in the dim Hanratty's usual hiding place, wrapped in a snotty hanky, what is France naturally going to think?

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

I will if you will. Thanks.

I posed my question in that way because I got the impression that you think Alphon could have planted the murder weapon on the bus after wrapping it in Hanratty's hanky, and could also have been the rapist and gunman. If I got that wrong, and you don't think he could have done both, then I must have missed the post where you made that clear. Sorry.

There's nothing wrong with entertaining and posting any possibility that takes your fancy (as long as it doesn't have the effect of libelling anyone). But if you want your debating opponents to consider them seriously the onus is on you to think them through in conjunction with the known facts and then demonstrate their viability. If you are not prepared to do that, or cannot do that, how are you going to come up with anything new and compelling enough to have any impact at all on the appeal court's decision? That's what matters here, not what you or I think of that decision.

I can only refer you back to the appeal judgement for the known details about the semen staining and the conclusions reached concerning when and how they arrived on the victim's underwear. Again, I'm not the one raising objections that not even Hanratty's defence team felt they could raise. He has long since lost his 'presumed innocent' status and there will be no further appeal unless you or anyone else can come up with a bit more than idle speculation involving highly implausible alternative explanations.

Love,

Caz
X

Do you not realise how this post reeks of arrogance ? Who exactly do you think you are going around insulting people"s intelligence and intentions on here?
Yes,we all know full well what the Crown appeal judgment said.We all know too how unhappy Michael Sherrard QC was with the initial trial and execution of Hanratty.
Given there was dirty play from the moment Nudds was wheeled on to make his three statements to police ,the second in total contradiction of the first and third,and how those statements were used to ensure Hanratty"s execution, what reason have we to believe the truth about the forensic history of a forty year old fragment of cloth?

Dirty Tricks abounded then apparently---what has changed? Maybe quite a few of us need to know more about the "evidential integrity" of these items and contamination has in fact been accepted as a possiblility.But ofcourse while the judges may have accepted this what they clearly and above all refused to accept was the possibility of contamination regarding the hanky.What I was questioning above is whether the Hanratty hanky was put round the gun by Hanratty or by someone who wanted to frame him.If this happened ,then the Hanratty DNA on the hanky should not allow the DNA on a fragment of 40 year old cloth, whose evidential history is uncertain * to have been such a decisive factor in the judgment .[see Whitaker -number 125 of the judgment] It was these two items taken together that appear - to have swayed the judges regarding the conclusiveness of the DNA evidence.

By the way,I hope you won"t be "emboldening" too many more of my posts--like you just have done with the 16th September date in the Carol France quip above ? MOre importantly ,I hope that it wont be thrown back insultingly by you ,along with a few of my earlier posts -for good measure- to "illustrate" how I am allegedly always shouting at you!

[Graham]

Probably familiar to most, but still interesting from an A6 viewpoint, even though not totally accurate with regard to Dixie France's suicide.

Also note the reference to the 'arsenal of weapons' under the counter...possible source of the .38 Enfield?

http://www.classiccafes.co.uk/confessional_harmony.ht

Graham

[Graham]

How about this for a suggestion?

Hanratty turns up at the France abode as the news is breaking about the A6 horror. Something is said or heard and France says:

"I hope to God you had nothing to do with this, Jim. If you have anything to be worried about, I suggest you have your alibi ready sharpish and get rid of anything that the cops could find and use against you."

"But I ain't done nuffing, Dix. Hold on, I'm finking. You're right. Maybe I'd best cover me tracks anyway, just in case."

When the murder weapon turns up on that bus, in the dim Hanratty's usual hiding place, wrapped in a snotty hanky, what is France naturally going to think?

Love,

Caz
X

And we know that Charlotte France remarked to JH how much one of the photofits resembled him...

Graham

[Limehouse]

Do you not realise how this post reeks of arrogance ? Who exactly do you think you are going around insulting people"s intelligence and intentions on here?
Yes,we all know full well what the Crown appeal judgment said.We all know too how unhappy Michael Sherrard QC was with the initial trial and execution of Hanratty.
Given there was dirty play from the moment Nudds was wheeled on to make his three statements to police ,the second in total contradiction of the first and third,and how those statements were used to ensure Hanratty"s execution, what reason have we to believe the truth about the forensic history of a forty year old fragment of cloth?

Dirty Tricks abounded then apparently---what has changed? Maybe quite a few of us need to know more about the "evidential integrity" of these items and contamination has in fact been accepted as a possiblility.But ofcourse while the judges may have accepted this what they clearly and above all refused to accept was the possibility of contamination regarding the hanky.What I was questioning above is whether the Hanratty hanky was put round the gun by Hanratty or by someone who wanted to frame him.If this happened ,then the Hanratty DNA on the hanky should not allow the DNA on a fragment of 40 year old cloth, whose evidential history is uncertain * to have been such a decisive factor in the judgment .[see Whitaker -number 125 of the judgment] It was these two items taken together that appear - to have swayed the judges regarding the conclusiveness of the DNA evidence.

By the way,I hope you won"t be "emboldening" too many more of my posts--like you just have done with the 16th September date in the Carol France quip above ? MOre importantly ,I hope that it wont be thrown back insultingly by you ,along with a few of my earlier posts -for good measure- to "illustrate" how I am allegedly always shouting at you!

Hi Norma

I think it's a really important point you make about the difference between evidence recovered from the scene of crime and evidence recovered at distance from the crime.

For me - and for many others who doubt or doubted Hanratty's guilt - the emergence of the external evidence - the gun and hanky and the cartridges - pointed strongly to a third party. The results of the DNA evidence could not just make those doubts go away. If some forensic evidence had been recovered from the car - or from under Valerie's nails - the suspicions that other evidence may have been planted would not be so strong.

Do you know that the prosecution urgted the jury to 'accept what fits and reject what doesn't fit' in concluding whether Hanratty was guilty. That was a quote from Lord Russell's book and I'll find the page number and the full quote when I next have the book to hand.

Julie

[Limehouse]

As it's obvious that JH was in the London area for at least 24 hours after the crime, could well be he went to ground at the house of a good friend of his...perhaps until that good friend panicked and sent him on his way.

Pure speculation, as all discussion of JH's movements is.

Graham

Obvious? How is it obvious? Who saw him after the alleged sightings at around 7am on 23 August?

[Graham]

Obvious? How is it obvious? Who saw him after the alleged sightings at around 7am on 23 August?

Yeah, well, all right - maybe 'obvious' wasn't quite the right word, but if it's accepted, as it is by most, that JH left the gun on the bus, then he must have been around for at least the day after the crime.

Plus it is by no means certain that the car was abandoned on the morning of the 23rd; even Woffinden supports the possibility that it wasn't left at Redbridge until much later in the day, possibly early evening.

Cheers,

Graham

[jimarilyn]

Do you know that the prosecution urgted the jury to 'accept what fits and reject what doesn't fit' in concluding whether Hanratty was guilty. That was a quote from Lord Russell's book and I'll find the page number and the full quote when I next have the book to hand.

Hi Julie,

You're absolutely right.

The paragraph in Lord Russell's excellent book from which Michael Sherrard's quote comes is on page 134. It came during Mr Sherrard's summing up to the jury. and the said paragraph reads in it's entirety as follows............

Mr Sherrard then mentioned a number of things upon which the Crown were relying and which "just did not fit" Hanratty. "There is so much that does not fit," counsel said, "and that is why the prosecution are driven to saying in as serious a matter as this ; 'Take what fits and let it fit : take what does not and discard it -- a bluff, a blind.' If we are going to have an approach of that kind, then in my submission the system of trial by jury is a waste of time. It would be a bad thing that we should get down to trial by police, because that is what the approach would mean in a case of this gravity. You cannot just brush everything aside and say : 'Where it does not fit it just does not : it was a blind; it was a bluff'."