a6 murder

[NickB]

It would have taken a degree of pressure or force to trap them between the stuffing of the chair and its back.

But things do fall down the back of chairs.

If Jim's fan club are saying that these spent cartridge cases were planted to frame Jim, then we should bear in mind the serendipitous nature of their discovery.

And also ... how would anyone who planted them know that Hanratty would have a car accident that would trigger him being identified as Ryan through someone he shared a hotel room with and asked to write postcards for who could be traced and remember the name and address of Hanratty's mother on one of the postcards?

[Natalie Severn]

And also ... how would anyone who planted them know that Hanratty would have a car accident that would trigger him being identified as Ryan

How did it trigger him being identified?
He had been staying at Louise Anderson"s throughout September 1961 except for one week when he went over to Ireland on September 4th to obtain a driving licence .He bought a car and showed it off to all his friends---the Frances,Gladys Deacon, Mary Measden and took Louise out for several car rides.They testified that for most of these dates and excursions he wore the same suit,the dark chalk-stripe suit he was wearing on the night of the murder.
He met his cousin in the street,Eileen Cunningham who he had always been friendly with on 22nd September,3 days after he bought his car .She had bad news for him. The police had been to his house inquiring about a burglary in Ruislip.He then realised he must have left his fingerprints in Ruislip and as a consequence knew he was now on the runfrom another five years in prison.As a result he moved from that time on from house to house to hotel etc as well as staying at Mrs Anderson"s.
Up to 25th September 1961,a case had been built up against only one man,Peter Alphon.However on September 24th Valerie identified a volunteer for the parade,a Michael Clark and not Alphon as her rapist and Alphon was "eliminated from their inquiries" as a result!
On 25th September Nudds was hauled into Scotland Yard and once again it was to "assist the police ".Mr Acott began by saying,"that Nudds"s second statement was damaging nonsense".Then,to cut to the chase,Nudds found himself withdrawing completely the statements he had made implicating peter Alphon and to go back to the first statement implicating Ryan [Hanratty].
Miraculously, the very day Alphon was eliminated at Valerie Storie"s identification parade,the identity of Ryan became known to the police.
So how were they able to discover so rapidly the identity of Ryan?

[NickB]

So how were they able to discover so rapidly the identity of Ryan?

As Ron has pointed out, soon after the cartridge cases were reported to the police they would have visited 72 Wood Lane, Kingsbury - being the address against Ryan’s name in the hotel register.

So the timeline would be:

Soon after 11-Sep - Acott & Oxford visit Pratt at 72 Wood Lane and ask if he knows someone called ‘Ryan’. Pratt hands over the letter to Ryan from Ireland. The information is passed to the Irish police who eventually track down Leonard.

25-Sep - Leonard gives the information that he wrote out the card to Hanratty’s mother.

26-Sep am - Acott & Oxford revisit Pratt and ask him if he knows someone called ‘Hanratty’.

26-Sep pm - Acott & Oxford visit Hanratty’s parents and his mother confirms the card was from her son. We know this because, in a phone call with Hanratty, Acott says how pleased his mother was to receive the card from Ireland.

[Natalie Severn]

Well I can see how Mr Pratt may have helped out though both Mr acottandMr Oxford testified on oath that on September 24th they did not know who Ryan was.Sergeant Oxford also testified,"Actually,on the 25th September we had in fact identified the man Ryan as possibly being Hanratty." In one long article in The Sunday Times in December 1966,the journalists had put together a timetable of events relating to the murder.One item ran:

25th September:"Dixie" France goes to police with postcard from Hanratty in Ireland.Police watch France"s house and tap telephone calls.
The journalists saidthe source was Mrs France herself.
If France did go to Scotland Yard that day, Paul Foot says he must either have known something from the inside which connected his friend with the murder or he must have had some motive for making the connection.

Lets not forget either that Acott and Oxford did not fly out to Ireland until Friday 29th September,4 days after they said they had found out that Ryan was Hanratty.

[Derrick]

Hi Julie,

Not necessarily true. Proving a negative is pretty difficult (no fingerprints were on the cartridge cases) unless you can guarantee that they were looked for appropriately, and that the tests used were sensitive enough to find them if they were there.

It's the same mantra - Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

KR,
Vic.

Hi Victor
But none were found. None were found on the ordnance discovered on the bus. None were found in the Morris car.

You have to accept fully that originally no forensic evidence existed against Hanratty. The original case against Hanratty was purely one of identification and circumstantial evidence.

Your Carl Sagan like mantra is all very well but, as far as we know, all of this evidence has been destroyed (cases, the gun and ammo and the car) and is now irrelevant to any future argument.

Hopefully the FSS have not destroyed their LCN data from 1998.

Derrick

[RonIpstone]

You have to accept fully that originally no forensic evidence existed against Hanratty. The original case against Hanratty was purely one of identification and circumstantial evidence.

Not true. The knickers revealed that the rapist was blood group O, Hanratty's group. It is true that this blood group is shared by about 44% of the population, but it would still tell against Hanratty.

Jim's Appreciation Society has this ability to ignore individual pieces of evidence by saying that they do not prove Jim's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. One should look at all the evidence in the round and see where the finger of culpability points. A sensible person looking at all the evidence would at least conclude that there was a real possibility that Jim did it.

[Natalie Severn]

A sensible person looking at all the evidence would at least conclude that there was a real possibility that Jim did it.

But its not a question of "being sensible" Ron.Its about questioning what we are told about the case against Hanratty when there are more holes in it than a sieve.As Abelard said in the year 1122 ,"By doubting we come to questioning and by questioning we perceive the truth."

Regarding the Blood Group; Alphon was also Blood Group O.And 44% leaves a lot of men --something like 25 million men in the UK alone who could have done it in 1961.

[NickB]

Oxford also testified, "Actually, on the 25th September we had in fact identified the man Ryan as possibly being Hanratty."

This ties in with what I am saying. The 2002 appeal, which presumably had access to police files, said that the information came from Leonard on this day. Also “possibly being Hanratty” correlates better with Leonard than France – who would have known for certain the postcard was from Hanratty.

Lets not forget either that Acott and Oxford did not fly out to Ireland until Friday 29th September, 4 days after they said they had found out that Ryan was Hanratty.

At 11am Peter Alphon was placed on another identity parade in connection with assaulting Meike Dalal and then brought before Mortlake magistrates and released on bail. I imagine Acott and Oxford wanted to deal with this before going to Ireland. They now knew Ryan was Hanratty, but thought he might still be in Ireland.

At 8.30pm James Hanratty senior learns from newspaper reporters that his son is the new ‘A6 murder’ suspect.

The following Tuesday ‘Express’ reporters drive James Hanratty senior to Scotland Yard and then drive him and his son Michael to the Rehearsal Club where Michael asks France if he knows the whereabouts of JH and tells France: “They’re after him for this a6 business”.

[Natalie Severn]

This ties in with what I am saying. The 2002 appeal, which presumably had access to police files, said that the information came from Leonard on this day

Thanks Nick.

[Limehouse]

Jim's Appreciation Society has this ability to ignore individual pieces of evidence by saying that they do not prove Jim's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. One should look at all the evidence in the round and see where the finger of culpability points. A sensible person looking at all the evidence would at least conclude that there was a real possibility that Jim did it.

Please quite using childish pseudonyms for those of us who doubt Hanratty's guilt.

We have all made it quite clear that we disapporove of his criminality. Despite this we have a genuine concern that justice may not have been done. This concern extends not only to Hanratty and his family - but to MG and VS and their families.

[Natalie Severn]

Please quite using childish pseudonyms for those of us who doubt Hanratty's guilt.

We have all made it quite clear that we disapporove of his criminality. Despite this we have a genuine concern that justice may not have been done. This concern extends not only to Hanratty and his family - but to MG and VS and their families.

Having worked with children who have failed in the education system in some of the most economically deprived areas of London, I have seen time and again how a good teaching can make or break a child,especially in the area of literacy.Hanratty"s brothers appear to have all held good jobs in the print whereas Hanratty was offered work only as a dustman or a window cleaner.Now there is nothing wrong with either job but in the print his brothers would eventually have earned very good salaries and whereas window cleaning or dustcart work did not provide either a good income or any opportunities .It appears to me that as a fifteen,sixteen year old ,Hanratty saw only one way ahead to break free from the daily drudge of life offered to him and have any opportunity at all to lead the "fun" life as he seems to have seen it at 15/16--going to fair grounds,getting on the big dipper etc then later being able to buy himself sharp suits and a car and go out to the Palladium with girls.In other words, housebreaking 'paid" for him and serving time in jail for theft was a great apprenticeship for petty crime .Yes it was wrong but I refuse to condemn him outright .Hanratty had no record for violent behaviour --- thats far from condoning his housebreaking behaviour but I believe he needed help at 15 when he left school to set him on the straight path of recovery from an educational experience that had failed him utterly .Reading some of the trial transcripts you can see he was,as Sherrard said ,quite able to hold his own against the trained wits of Oxford educated Graham Swanage .He was very clearly a mixture of defiance and vulnerability but quite up to the repartee of the cross questioning,even in the stressful court condition of being in the box and on trial for his life.Had he been given access to teaching tailored to his needs , as at least some pupils with special needs such as dyslexia ,now have, and have been in the last decade, he may never have contemplated a life of crime in any shape or form.

[NickB]

Had he been given access to teaching tailored to his needs ...

The school doctor of his primary school recommended he be sent to a special school for backward children, but his parents overruled this.

Hanratty had no record for violent behaviour.

Was Hanratty ever disturbed during a burglary? That would be the only way of testing whether he would use violence to assist his robbery.

Miller says there were “two medical diagnoses prior to the crime that he was a latent psychopath.”
According to Magee one was:
‘August 1955: Hanratty is convicted of his second offence for housebreaking. He is remanded in custody and attempts to slash his wrists. The prison medical officer concludes that Hanratty is a potential psychopath.’

[Limehouse]

The school doctor of his primary school recommended he be sent to a special school for backward children, but his parents overruled this.


Was Hanratty ever disturbed during a burglary? That would be the only way of testing whether he would use violence to assist his robbery.

Miller says there were “two medical diagnoses prior to the crime that he was a latent psychopath.”
According to Magee one was:
‘August 1955: Hanratty is convicted of his second offence for housebreaking. He is remanded in custody and attempts to slash his wrists. The prison medical officer concludes that Hanratty is a potential psychopath.’

A school for 'backward children' as they were then described would not have met Hanratty's needs. It is almost certain that he was dyslexic. This means he had normal intelligence (perhaps even above average intelligence) but would have had difficulties with reading and producing written language. It is a very frustrating learning difficulty because the normal outlets for enquiry - expression and creativity are made difficult or impossible. It is particularly frustrating if it remains undiagnosed.

I think I mentioned before quite some time ago that I believe Hanratty's housebreaking became a habit he found hard to break because it gave him a degree of controll over things and he believed he was good at it. You can tell this by the way he expresses himself when describing his housebreaking exploits.

As Normas states - it also gave him a reasonable standard of living -= thew standard to which he aspired.

I have also been wondering about the effect of the war on criminals such as Hanratty - Craig & Bentley - Brady and Hindley and others like them who were children when war broke out and who suffered a degree of dysfunction during their formative years. This is something that has occupied my thoughts for some time and I believe that some children were profoundl;y affected by air raids and the constant threat of having their family and homes blown to pieces. '

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Julie and Nick,

The school doctor of his primary school recommended he be sent to a special school for backward children, but his parents overruled this.

Well I think it might at least have helped him,Julie, if only because because of class size. During and after the war ie during Hanratty"s formative years, class size was often 50+ and in a school for backward children he would have at least been placed in a smaller class with possibly more individual attention.However to me having read about his abilities with car theft and the cross questioning he sustained so ably with Swanwick ,I doubt very much indeed he was of low intelligence. I was in charge of the Educational assessment work of children in a West London Borough for over twelve years.The pupils were bilingual or developing bilinguals and were frequently misdiagnosed as "backward" or "slow learners" by their teachers and schools during the 1980"s and 1990"s and it was my job in liaison with educational psychologists and sometimes with child psychiatrists to determine the reality of the diagnosis by the child's school.This was in West London and involved multi disciplinary liaison with Educational psychologists,teachers and schools catering to children with special educational needs. Additionally my mother was an art therapist in a large psychiatric hospital in the North West and often worked with people diagnosed as psychopaths, schizophrenics etc and I was seconded to her hospital to do similar work during a special study in my teaching and also worked for several months with people with those disorders.Hanratty may have been profoundly disaffected by his experiences of failure as a working class child in the crowded state classrooms of the 1940"s and early 1950"s and by the widespread ignorance at the time of how to treat children experiencing learning or literacy difficulties,as Julie rightly points out .Many male teachers were serving in the war when Hanratty would have reached five or six--- the optimal time to teach reading skills ,so huge classes,disquiet about the war and schools that were often ill-equipped and understaffed.Women teachers left as soon as they married or became pregnant.Actually , I think Hanratty was evacuated until 1946 making him nearly ten years old when he was settled in a school near his home--so heavens knows what disruption he experienced as a result.
Hanratty was assessed for mental illness or sub-normality by several prison doctors after his arrest and there is no record of any doctor suggesting insanity,psychopathy or feeble mindedness,the former and latter both being mitigating factors in a capital case where the death penalty was involved. Anyway ,you have only to appraise his competence in those exchanges with Graham Swanwick in the court room to see that he is certainly of normal reasoning and intelligence---at the very least,Sherrard in fact found him to be "articulate and quite up to the mark in repartee".Julie is quite correct in suggesting he may have suffered from dyslexia the diagnosis of which only evolved during the 1980"s and 1990"s .

[RonIpstone]

Anyway ,you have only to appraise his competence in those exchanges with Graham Swanwick in the court room to see that he is certainly of normal reasoning and intelligence---at the very least,Sherrard in fact found him to be "articulate and quite up to the mark in repartee".

This, if anything, must confirm Hanratty's guilt.

Ultimately Jim's defence, at trial and as now expounded by Jim's Appreciation Society, depended on him being able to persuade the jury that there was a possibility that he was in Mrs Jones's guest house on the night of the murder. For if it had been possible that he was there, then it must follow that it could not be established beyond reasonable doubt that he was the abductor 200 miles away.

Two things stand out. First, that Jim, a man of normal reasoning and intelligence, when asked where he was, made no mention of being in the Rhyl guest house. In fact he only introduced the subject of Rhyl and its part in his alibi when his lies about spending the night of 22/23 August 1961 in Liverpool were about to be exposed by the prosecution at his trial. Anyone of normal reasoning and intelligence would have worked out (1) that casual criminal acquaintances would not have given him a fraudulent alibi for such a high profile crime which had caused universal revulsion and (2) that it would be necessary for his defence to be effective for his defence team to have as much warning of his proper alibi as could be given.

The second is that for Jim to have stayed in Ingledene he must have slept in an attic room which was not lit by an ordinary window but by a skylight and in which stood the famous green bath. Yet Jim, of normal reasoning and intelligence, when describing the guest house room in which he sojourned said his room was a rear room (not an attic room) with a window (not a skylight) and with a sink (not a green bath).

I agree that Jim had the necessary mental faculties to describe a hotel or B&B room. This is evidenced by his description of Room 24 at the Vienna Hotel, a description which was entirely accurate.

The jury must have taken note of this and concluded that Jim did not stay at Ingledene. If he had not stayed there, then, in the mind of the jury, his Rhyl alibi for the night of 22/23 August was as bad as his Liverpool one had been.