a6 murder

[NickB]

The omitted sections from Ms Patt's statement mention nothing of where, exactly, the man sat, nor does it actually incriminate anyone

The conductress would not be able to see if the non-regular passenger did anything suspicious if he was upstairs and she was downstairs.

I said in post 6583: “All that can be said is that a young man was alone on the top deck and could have removed the back seat unnoticed.” This is what Woffinden conceals by omitting the “with one exception” section.

Mr Miller missed out the last 2 lines of that interview page

The section that Woffinden cut made it appear that Alphon refused to give the whereabouts of any of his clothes. By having the three dots in the middle of Acott’s dialogue it even conceals the fact that Alphon said anything.

[Victor]

The omitted sections from Ms Patt's statement mention nothing of where, exactly, the man sat, nor does it actually incriminate anyone as Ms Patt says herself:

Hi Derrick,

In addition to Nick's point, you answered that point yourself very recently...

...where only trying to remember events which to all intents and purposes were some months ago and at the time insignificant to all of them as facts that should have been remembered. Timings etc are bound to be wrong to all but those who are so anal as to record every breath they take. Every one makes mistakes thank God, that is what makes each of us human. If we didn't make mistakes we would never have learned anything and moved on to greater things.

Both of these statements were discovered thirty years after the trial by Bob Woffinden and (later Sir) Geoffrey Bindman having been withheld from the jury.

Why is either statement relevent to the jury in Hanratty's trial? Patt could offer nothing to assist the enquiry, and Alphon wasn't on trial.

KR,
Vic.

[NickB]

Patt could offer nothing to assist the enquiry

She was due to appear at the committal but was unwell. The defence could have called her at the trial but decided not to, and may well have found the evidence about the non-regular passenger as unhelpful to their case as Woffinden does.

[NickB]

There are some more comments here by Alexei Sayle about his father’s feelings as a witness at the trial.

“Joe was away for a week attending the trial in Bedford. One night my mother, Molly, spoke to him on the phone, and when I asked how he was she replied that he had told her he was frightened. I asked her what my father was frightened of, and she said he was worried that Hanratty might have criminal friends who could harm him in some way.

When he returned from the trial, Joe told us that what had upset him the most was that he had been the final witness called in the trial. He realised that the last person Hanratty had heard testifying against him, the last person he had seen on the stand, the final person confirming his fate, was Joe Sayle.”

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Nick.I knew Joe Sayle was a prosecution witness and that he was staying in Ingledene on the crucial nights.However if Mrs Jones was talking about 22nd/23rd August ,then few if any guests could have met him since she stated Hanratty would have had breakfast in the family room at the back-and where he would have seen the tiled back yard. But it was not only because there was no room in the main breakfast room,but also, as she wasnt supposed to let the attic room with the green bath in it she wouldnt have wanted such the guest who stayed in this unofficial "bedroom" talking to other guests surely?

[NickB]

Norma,

I note that Alexei Sayle says: "Paul Foot describes Joe as ‘the most important witness from the prosecution point of view’." If you still have Foot's book can you confirm this?

According to the last appeal Mrs Jones said “a young man had stayed at her house for two nights of 22 and 23 August 1961 and she believed that it was James Hanratty; she thought he stayed in room 4.”

So if Mr Sayle gave evidence that actually he had stayed in room 4 on those two nights, he was being called for a more important purpose than just saying that he did not see Hanratty around.

Nick

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Nick,
I had to take the book back to the Rhyl library last Wednesday and am now back in London!But I don"t remember that kind of reference to Mr Sayle in Paul Foot"s book.But Rhyl library had a copy of the Hawser Report as well which I was able to photocopy.In point 229 he refers like that to Mr Sayle"s evidence in connection with Mrs Jones"s testimony that Hanratty stayed in Room 4.Hawser then writes in 229 point e]The most important of these [three]witnesses was Mr Sayle who,it was established, stayed on his own in Room 4 [a small single room ] on the nights of 21st 22nd 23rd August 1961 .
However,Nick, there are others who saw a young man answering Hanratty"s description on 22nd August.MrsDavies for example-who lived next door to MrsJones at Ingledene-who remembered Margaret Walker from Kinmel Street South coming through her door for a chat and while she was there Mrs Davies"s daughter in law ran in through the back door to say a young man had called to ask for digs and she had directed him down the road.Margaret Walker chatting with Mrs Davies said she too had had a chap call and she had had to turn him away because of having no room.Mrs Walker remembered the date this happened exactly because she had a family matter that was settled at the end of the wek on August 25th.
So it seems several witnesses were able to testify as having seen a young man dressed in a dark suit.Which room Habratty was alleged to have stayed in is,however more difficult to work out ,
Cheers
Norma

[NickB]

OK well I think you've cleared up the 'most important witness from the prosecution point of view' mystery.

It does not mean of the prosecution overall, but of the Ingledene guest witnesses. This was because Joe Sayle said he stayed in room 4 whereas the others simply said they hadn't seen Hanratty around.

[Alfie]

The hanky

Hi folks

A couple of queries: how did the authorities know the handkerchief wrapped around the murder weapon had belonged to Hanratty? Did he confirm to them that it was his, and if so why?

Kind regards

Alan

[Victor]

A couple of queries: how did the authorities know the handkerchief wrapped around the murder weapon had belonged to Hanratty? Did he confirm to them that it was his, and if so why?

Hi Alan,

I believe that Hanratty was asked if it was his in the witness box and confirmed that it was.

Why? There are many possibilities, but no-one knows exactly why, some suggest he was basically honest so confirmed it, Foot and Woffinden quote passages of his evidence to attempt to support this position - such as the 'I'm not someone the court would generally approve of...' quote. Another possibility is he was too slow to concoct a plausible lie so told the truth instead of being caught out.

To me it's an important piece of evidence which directly links Hanratty to the murder weapon, or indicates that someone (most probably France as he had access to Hanratty's dirty washing) was deliberately trying to frame him. A 3rd possibility is that the Police or other authority figures were trying to gain more evidence to connect him to the crime, but this is implausible because the gun was found before Hanratty's name was linked to the crime.

In my opinion there is no motive for France to deliberate frame his friend, especially at that early stage in the enquiry.

KR,
Vic.

[Alfie]

Thanks Victor.

The 'he was too slow to concoct a lie' option rings truest to me.

I agree that the 'Hanratty wuz framed' argument doesn't hold water.

KR

Alan

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Vic,

In my opinion there is no motive for France to deliberate frame his friend, especially at that early stage in the enquiry.

There is the possibility that France obtained the gun in the first place.
For example, I have often wondered why Alphon who was the first suspect wanted by police not only arrived at the Alexandra Hotel the following day in a state of great nervousness- if not nervous debility- as thats what drew the attention of other guests there and caused them to call the police but also he,like Hanratty had gone first to the Broadway House hotel and they had both then been sent on to The Vienna Hotel within less than twelve hours of each other,Hanratty arriving first,followed by Alphon not long after he "allegedly left for Paddington.So there could well have been a pre-arranged plan for Alphon to pick up the gun from Hanratty.The fact that two cartridge cases were found indicates to me that the gun was taken back to the hotel after the murder---not that the cartridge cases were left there before the murder.
So I believe either Alphon put the gun under the back seat of the local 36a bus after leaving the Vienna [at noon on 23rd August as described by Galves and Snell] or that since everything had gone so badly wrong regarding the gun actually being fired, France put it there as a red herring to throw the scent away from himself and Alphon and onto Hanratty---who couldnt be shown to have done it as France believed he had gone to Liverpool.
If France was the man who supplied the gun and Hanratty simply the conduit, then France ,like Alphon would have been either panicking or pretty distraught about it all.He did commit suicide after all and he was a police informer- he definitely told them stuff about Hanratty that implicated him to some extent.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Victor.

The 'he was too slow to concoct a lie' option rings truest to me.

I agree that the 'Hanratty wuz framed' argument doesn't hold water.

KR

Alan

Alfie,before you decide that James Hanratty was "slow" you need to refer to what his barrister, at the trial,Michael Sherrard , said about him in his biography of last year .He found him "articulate" and "certainly up to the mark" on repartee---this refers to when Hanratty was defending himself against the formidable training , education and wits of the prosecuting QC ,Mr Swanwick.

[Natalie Severn]

A couple of queries: how did the authorities know the handkerchief wrapped around the murder weapon had belonged to Hanratty? Did he confirm to them that it was his, and if so why?

Kind regards

Alan

from Vic,

Hi Alan,

I believe that Hanratty was asked if it was his in the witness box and confirmed that it was.

Hi Vic,

I tried to find a source for the above statement but couldn"t.Do you know where Hanratty"s reply might be found ?
Thanks,
Norma

[NickB]

Do you know where Hanratty"s reply might be found ?

Norma - this is from earlier in the thread ...

Swanwick: “Mr Hanratty did you have a conversation with Mr France about the back seat of a bus?”

Hanratty: “Yes Sir but only as a place to hide rubbish jewellery not to hide a gun.”

Swanwick: “Be that as it may Mr Hanratty you know, do you not, that the gun was found under the back seat of the bus?”

Hanratty: “Yes Sir I know the gun was found there as you say but I am a thief not a murderer. I have never had a gun.”

Swanwick: “Mr Hanratty the gun was found wrapped in a handkerchief. Did you know that?”

Hanratty: “No, Sir.”

Swanwick: “Clerk of the court will you show Mr Hanratty exhibit no xx please.”

Swanwick: “Now Mr Hanratty tell My Lord and the jury, is that your handkerchief?”

Hanratty: “Well yes Sir it is indeed.”