a6 murder

[Victor]

There is the possibility that France obtained the gun in the first place.

Hi Norma,

Yes I happen to believe that the gun was France's and Hanratty stole it from the airing cupboard in the butcher's bag as he was putting his bedsheets away on the Monday morning. The evidence comes from the Louise Anderson\Charlotte France encounter in the car where Mrs France was amazed that Anderson knew the name of her butcher.

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.

Did Alphon arrive in a state of great nervousness? He was reported by other guests for making a lot of noise in his room and "behaving strangely" which may be an indication of a guilty consciousness, but is definitely not illegal.

All I get from the Broadway House incident is that that is standard practice for the hotel, and it makes sound business sense too.

as for Hanratty passing the gun to Alphon, there's no evidence that the two knew eachother beforehand, nor that Alphon knew France, so that's just over-complicating things.

I do agree that the presence of the cartridge cases would imply that they were left after the murder rather than before, but it doesn't completely exclude the latter.

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.

There is significantly less evidence connecting Alphon to the crime rather than Hanratty, so I believe that speculating that he was involved is unnecessary complicating matters.

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.

If France supplied the gun, then that alone is sufficient reason for him to feel guilty\distraught\panicked and kill himself no matter who actually committed the crime. He did give the police some information, but then James Hanratty Sr took his birthday card from his son to the police so could equally be considered an informer, although grassing on his own son would be a greater disloyalty.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Nick thats helpful. I do still wonder though a] how he knew it was his own handkerchief?b] what he had to say about the gun having his handkerchief wrapped round it?
I mean if it had his initials on it and that is why he recognised it, does"nt that look like somebody had deliberately "labelled" the gun with his initials on a hanky wrapped round it?
My husband has about 20 handkerchiefs bought either from M&S or a similar store selling mass produced handkerchiefs.If one was produced and showed to him unexpectedly like it was to Hanratty , surely he wouldn"t be able to just claim ownership, since every other Tom Dick or Harry might have one exactly the same? I am not suggesting here that it wasn"t Hanratty"s---it surely was,but how on earth could he identify it as his unless it has his initials on or a badge of some kind?

Norma

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Vic,

There is significantly less evidence connecting Alphon to the crime rather than Hanratty, so I believe that speculating that he was involved is unnecessary complicating matters.

Well thats your view Vic,but its not mine.
The first identikit picture Valerie helped to compose looks nothing like Hanratty.The man has swept back hair with a clear brow -like Alphon"s but unlike Hanratty which had an unruly tuft or "widows peak",the eyes were very differently set and he has a totally different shaped face and head.To me the features resemble Alphon a little in that regard.Valerie also is said to described her attacker as having brown deep set eyes---that was the first description that was given of the man.
Not only that but several witnesses from the vicinity of the cornfield saw a man "aged between 27 and 30 who was respectably dressed in a dark coloured suit, 5ft 6 ins tall and didnt look like a labourer.Medium build,very pale complexion.His hair dark brown or black,brushed back and inclined to recede at the temples-Mr Stanley Cobb,--- his wife added ,"his eyes were very dark brown" .This was sometime in the afternoon of 22nd August -he was carrying a carrier bag with the top rolled down and he caused the dog to bark.The couple reassured the man that he wouldnt bite, and he answered with a normal type of voice.
Mr Frederick Newell was yet another man living next door to the Cobbs and he described the man in the same way,dark hair dark eyes - but added that his hair was brushed right back -but not tidy and it seemed to be receding from his temples .He had seen the same man three weeks previously ,close by .
Unfortunately they were never called to an identity parade.And then there was the sighting of a man who very much resembled Alphon by Mr Fogarty- Waul.

This was evidence that was never called at the trial.

Finally, I am mindful that Juliana Galves said Alphon looked nervous on the 23rd and in a state of disarray and moved to hide his open case on top of which lay a pair of "Black nylon gloves"----

[NickB]

how on earth could he identify it as his unless it has his initials on or a badge of some kind?

Yes there must have been something recognisable about it. I think Hanratty’s reasoning was that the connection might be provable. In fact it was, but not for several years.

Saying he did not know the gun had been wrapped in a handkerchief indicates that he had not discussed the matter with Sherrard. Had they done so Sherrard might have reassured him that, even if it was his handkerchief, it could not be proven to be so. I wonder what Hanratty’s answer would have been then!

[Derrick]

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.”

Hi Nick
Could you do me a favour and say where, exactly, on the thread you got this.
Derrick

[NickB]

Could you do me a favour and say where, exactly, on the thread you got this.

Hi Derrick - Post 2,726 by Tony on page 273.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Nick,
Looking at it from here it seems an extraordinary thing for Hanratty to have said the handkerchief was his.
But reading Michael Sherrard in his biography certainly gave me a much better understanding of Hanratty"s personality.
Hanratty,its very clear, once he came to trust Sherrard, felt safe with nobody but Sherrard .At one point Sherrard implored him to have a silk or "leader" with more experience than he then had to help to defend him but after Sherrard"s first suggested man fell through, Hanratty was adamant that nobody but Sherrard should defend him---and to this day Sherrard believes that had he agreed to letting him have a leader ,it would have led to Hanratty being acquitted .
Sherrard looked after Hanratty with great care but he was still young and relatively inexperienced for such a major case.
When Hanratty was sentenced to death the subject of an appeal led one ofthe best QC"s in the country to be willing to take it on-Gerald Gardiner.But Hanratty again refused to let anyone but Sherrard defend him ,"If I"m going down," he said to Sherrard ,"I"m going down with you."
In the end Hanratty appears to have decided to do it his way -albeit with Michael Sherrard firmly at his side giving all the support he could muster .And Hanratty"s way,as the handkerchief incident well illustrates, was to play it straight down the line--on a wing and a prayer.

[NickB]

I feel rather sorry for Sherrard. No-one who disagreed with the verdict could blame the judge, so he must have felt all the responsibility on his shoulders.

At the Paul Magee site there are some trial quotes of Hanratty's about the changed alibi which, if accurate, must have had Sherrard in despair:

‘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.’

‘At that stage I made up a lie, and to cover that lie I made up other lies to cover up the lies which I had already said.’

[Natalie Severn]

Yes, but he enjoyed Hanratty.He described him as a "likeable. articulate character "-and states that in fact he didnt do too badly at all on the alibi question stating straightforwardly in court ---"I told the first lie and it led to another and then another " .Sherrard appears to have understood the initial dilemma before the murder charge when Hanratty was wanted solely in connection with burglary charges ---and he seems to imply others also understood .

[Jonathan H]

Norma,

I find your arguments about this infamous murder, about which I knew little, fascinating. More than that, compelling and convincing.

[Limehouse]

Hi Norma,

Yes I happen to believe that the gun was France's and Hanratty stole it from the airing cupboard in the butcher's bag as he was putting his bedsheets away on the Monday morning. The evidence comes from the Louise Anderson\Charlotte France encounter in the car where Mrs France was amazed that Anderson knew the name of her butcher.

Vic.

I am amazed that these two women had a conversation about Mrs Frances' butcher on the way to a murder trial.

The throwing together of two trial witnesses in this way was another ploy to use Louise Anderson who - unlike Mrs France - had everything to gain from testifying against Hanratty - to strengthen a conviction against Hanratty.

If - as is suggested - Hanratty had stolen the gun - which was placed inside a butcher's bag - from the Frances' home - isn't it more likely he would have disposed on the gun inside the same bag under the back seat of that bus rather than wrapped in his own hanky?

Think aabout it. Two women who knew Hanratty in different ways are driven to court in the same vehicle and one - who is more than likely going to have charges of receiving stolen goods from the defendent against her dropped if she testifies - tells the other - who had welcomed the defendent into her home many times and considered him almost a member of the family - that the defendent had [B]told her[B] he stole the gun from his friend's house and that it was inside a butcher's bag in the airing cupboard under some pink blankets. It totally stinks.

All of the evidence concerning the gun and Hanratty is circumstancial. Nobody positively saw Hanratty dispose of the gun. The hanky evidence proves it was Hanratty's hanky and that it was wrapped around the gun but it does not prove Hanratty wrapped the hanky around the gun and physically placed it under the back seat of that bus. The cartridges were certainly found in the hotel room where Hanratty slept but there is no proof that he placed the cartirdges there and it is not even well established when the cartridges arrived in the room - before or after his stay? All the linkls from Hanratty to the gun could easily have been manufactured and the 'conversation' between Anderson and Mrs France was a ploy to undermine Mrs France's faith in her friend and introduce another false link between Hanratty and the gun.

[Natalie Severn]

Norma,

I find your arguments about this infamous murder, about which I knew little, fascinating. More than that, compelling and convincing.

Well thankyou ----do stick around Jonathan!
I must say that if anyone convinces me of Hanratty"s innocence is has to be his trial barrister,Michael Sherrard.
I know some here object to him talking publicly about what he called modern conclusive proof of "police fiddling with witness statements"--ie that is that modern tests now proved that the evidence presented to the court had been "tampered with "but he says so in his book ,"Wigs and Wherefores" and doesn"t shy away from implicating DS Acott and DS Oxford of foul play of "manoeuvering behind the scenes" to get a conviction---so he obviously felt very strongly about it.Added to which Michael Sherrard,CBE, QC actually went on to become one of the foremost advocates of his generation-- became a great influence on the legal profession and in the bar.Lord Denning,in particular regarded him as "the best of advocates"---so we are not talking about some second rate barrister here,deliberately picking on the police to dodge out of the fact that he couldnt save Hanratty,his client, from state execution.
Sherrard still challenges the verdict at every point in his biography.Soon after the DNA result was made public he is at it:
Even today he remains doubtful despite the DNA .Instead he places it in the overall context of the extraordinary practice of the police throughout ,viz "who would have thought the police would have kept ,on ice,Valerie Storie"s knickers and a handkerchief wrapped round a gun?"---and adds the "the Buts"are and were many in this extraordinary matter .[2009]

MICHAEL SHERRARD: No hair, no blood, no fibres, nothing at all was found that linked Hanratty to that motor-car.[May 2002]

And one could add "nor were any of Hanratty"s finger prints found anywhere else either---neither on the gun, or the 60 cartridge cases found wrapped in Hanratty"s clearly identifiable hanky on the bus nor on the used cartridge cases found in the Vienna Hotel 19 days after the murder"!
Cheers Jonathan---you have made my day!
Norma

[Victor]

I am amazed that these two women had a conversation about Mrs Frances' butcher on the way to a murder trial.

Hi Julie,

Yes, me too, but the account does contain specific information that Anderson couldn't know beforehand.

The throwing together of two trial witnesses in this way was another ploy to use Louise Anderson who - unlike Mrs France - had everything to gain from testifying against Hanratty - to strengthen a conviction against Hanratty.

Or it was cost-cutting exercise to get witnesses from London to Bedord.

If - as is suggested - Hanratty had stolen the gun - which was placed inside a butcher's bag - from the Frances' home - isn't it more likely he would have disposed on the gun inside the same bag under the back seat of that bus rather than wrapped in his own hanky?

That assumes that the bag wasn't discarded. The gun was removed from the bag to be used, so there's no reason to assume the bag was retained, although if it was then yes your suggestion makes sense.

Think aabout it. Two women who knew Hanratty in different ways are driven to court in the same vehicle and one - who is more than likely going to have charges of receiving stolen goods from the defendent against her dropped if she testifies - tells the other - who had welcomed the defendent into her home many times and considered him almost a member of the family - that the defendent had told her he stole the gun from his friend's house and that it was inside a butcher's bag in the airing cupboard under some pink blankets. It totally stinks.

It stinks of guilt.

All of the evidence concerning the gun and Hanratty is circumstancial. Nobody positively saw Hanratty dispose of the gun. The hanky evidence proves it was Hanratty's hanky and that it was wrapped around the gun but it does not prove Hanratty wrapped the hanky around the gun and physically placed it under the back seat of that bus. The cartridges were certainly found in the hotel room where Hanratty slept but there is no proof that he placed the cartirdges there and it is not even well established when the cartridges arrived in the room - before or after his stay? All the linkls from Hanratty to the gun could easily have been manufactured and the 'conversation' between Anderson and Mrs France was a ploy to undermine Mrs France's faith in her friend and introduce another false link between Hanratty and the gun.

I can't see how Hanratty's hanky wrapped round the gun is circumstantial, nor how it could be manufactured to implicate Hanratty when his name hadn't been linked to the investigation at that time - the only way is for someone with access to Hanratty's laundry, which basically means the France family, to deliberately and specifically frame him, and where's the motive for that?

And then there's the DNA on the knicker fragment...

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Vic,

Quote:
Think aabout it. Two women who knew Hanratty in different ways are driven to court in the same vehicle and one - who is more than likely going to have charges of receiving stolen goods from the defendent against her dropped if she testifies - tells the other - who had welcomed the defendent into her home many times and considered him almost a member of the family - that the defendent had told her he stole the gun from his friend's house and that it was inside a butcher's bag in the airing cupboard under some pink blankets. It totally stinks.[written by Limehouse]

Vic"s response :It stinks of guilt.

from The Daily Telegraph, October 10th 1961 :
re Louise Anderson
"I rather liked him" Mrs Anderson went on,..."He was very pleasant to talk to .....we used to sit up very late talking....he never wanted to discuss his family or background....I realised I could be his mother....I was astonished when they [the police] told me the nature of their inquiries"

I think Julie is pointing out the complete contradiction between what Louise Anderson had to say to The Daily Telegraph on October 10th about James Hanratty , and what Louise Anderson is alleged to have said to Mrs France about him telling her he stole the gun.

[Limehouse]

Absolutely right Norma - a very great contrast bewtween attitudes. And if Hanratty HAD told Anderson he stole a gun from the Frances' home - how was she so shocked when the police told her what their enquiries concerning Hanratty were about? Moreover - why did she carry on her friendship with him - knowing he was the sort of man who would steal a gun and perhaps use it in an armed robbery?

Additionally - can you imgaine the coversation:

Jim "Guess wot I did today Lou?"

Louise "No - what did you do Jim?"

Jim "I nicked a gun! Yea - I did - I nicked a gun from old Dixie!"

Louise "Wot you do that for Jim?"

Jim "I'm gonna do a bank. All this nicking and knacking don't bring in nuffin. I was putting my blankets back in the airing cupboard. Pink ones they wos. Very nice pinky fluffy ones. Anyhows - I sees this brown paper carrier bag. It was from Choppems the butchers. And I thinks - 'why is old Dixie keeping 'is tripe in the airing cupboard?' So I 'as a butchers - an' it wos a gun! And I fort to myself - I'll 'ave this 'ere gun that I found under pink blankets in a Choppem Butcher's bag"

Louise " Oh Jim! You do 'ave a nice eye for detail. Naw - you got anyfing nice for me today? I could do wiv changing my window display".