a6 murder

[Limehouse]

Found an article by Dick Taverne who looked into the case as minister at the Home Office under Roy Jenkins.

One of the points he makes is that Langdale (who he calls Langley) was believable because he said Hanratty told him the hold-up started in a field, which had not been made public. An earlier post here says that Foot (p408) showed this wasn’t true, but Taverne mentions the Foot book in his article so he must have read it.

I wonder when this conversation between Hanratty and Langdale could have taken place since - despite Langdale's claim that he and Hanratty took exercise regularly together each day - othjer inmates and warders testified that Hanratty and Langdale hardly exchanged a word and certainly spent no significant time together at all.

Additionally - it makes no sense at all for a man who protests his innocense so vehemently to everyone around him - to have 'confessed' to a man like Langdale - a well-known grass.

It's also slightly worrying for a man given the task of examining the case on behalf of the Home Office to have got the name of one of the key witnesses wrong in making a conclusion about the integrity of his testimony.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks for the link Graham.Yes, Sherrard refers to Graham Swanwick having been scrupulously fair in his closing speech.He adds the prosecution simply used the evidence provided by the police.
The chapter covering the trial of James Hanratty and the appeals that followed isnt very long but its very carefully worded and very succinct.
Norma

[Limehouse]

That's exactly what I was referring to, thanks Vic. It never ceases to amaze me how Nudds is spoken of as unreliable because he was a criminal (a point with which i utterly agree) but the same standards of reliability are not equally applied to Hanratty. It's the inequity of the situation that always strikes me as rather odd.

And thanks for the welcome back, to you, Graham, Norma and everyone else who has welcomed me.

I base my assessment of Nudd's unreliability as a witness for the prosecution not on the fact that he was a former criminal - but on the fact that he made three statements to the police concerning the events of that night. At least two of these statements were lies.

[Graham]

Hi Julie,

I think most people are agreed that Nudds Statement No 2 was conceived and authored by one Basil Acott, who at the time was still trying to pin the crime on Alphon.

Graham

[Limehouse]

Of course, it all depends on what you mean by "concrete" evidence.

Regrettably there is no ticket stub or guest book signature.....perhaps someone should have mentioned to Hanratty at the time that he was about to be accused of murder and then he might have made more of an effort at covering his tracks. Let's face it, we all keep ticket stubs ad infinitum don't we.....

Let me ask you this. If you were guilty of a crime such as this and you decided to switch alibis would you have come up with a story like this? Of course you wouldn't.

Quite so uncle - and no one - as far as I know - has actually produced a witness who can testify that Hanratty was in London - or anywhere else other than Liverpool and Rhyl - in the days following the murder. Where is the guestbook signature or ticket stub proving he was not in Liverpool or Rhyl? There are ample wintesses willing to testify they saw him on the days in question in those places - but no one at all who saw him after the disputed sightings near Ilford on the day following the attack.

Who saw him cross London to dispose of the gun? No one. If he arrived in east London on the morning following the murder - why did he cross to the west side of London two days later to dispose of the gun? Why risk being seen and recognised on his own manor?

[RonIpstone]

What evidence did Nudds give that led to the conviction of Hanratty?

Even Hanratty and his appreciation society admit that he occupied Room 24 on the night before the murder. Even in the minds of the notoriously dim Bedfordshire jurymen the fact that Nudds had told Jim how to get to Queensway by using a No. 36 bus on the Tuesday could not be evidence that he had stashed the gun away on a No. 36A bus on the Thursday.

As much as the Hanrattyites might not like Nudds for his retraction of the second statement, his evidence was not required to secure Jim's just conviction.

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie,

I think most people are agreed that Nudds Statement No 2 was conceived and authored by one Basil Acott, who at the time was still trying to pin the crime on Alphon.

Graham

Hi Graham

Quite possibly. And if he was willing to get Nudds to lie about Alphon and his movements - what reliability can we place on Nudd's statements concerning Hanratty? And if Acott was willing to get Nudds to lie to secure a conviction - who else was leaned on to lie? And how much did Acott lead Valerie in his quest to secure a conviction? How much did Acott really care about justice for Valerie if he was willing to fit up a man for the crime?

Julie

[Limehouse]

Even Hanratty and his appreciation society admit that he occupied Room 24 on the night before the murder.

How childish you are. And how offensive.

[Graham]

Hi Julie,

Hi Graham

Quite possibly. And if he was willing to get Nudds to lie about Alphon and his movements - what reliability can we place on Nudd's statements concerning Hanratty? And if Acott was willing to get Nudds to lie to secure a conviction - who else was leaned on to lie? And how much did Acott lead Valerie in his quest to secure a conviction? How much did Acott really care about justice for Valerie if he was willing to fit up a man for the crime?

Julie

I think Nudds No 1 is the genuine article - there was no reason for him to lie when he made that statement. At the time Acott needed to prove that Alphon didn't return to The Vienna until the next morning, and Nudds No 1 didn't fit in with this. In the event, I don't think that anything Nudds said had much effect upon the outcome of the trial. Equally, I don't think that Acott influenced Valerie at all - she was not the type of person to be manipulated for any reason whatsoever. Yet quite obviously she was Acott's main witness; and she knew it. Regarding your final question, obviously I don't think Acott did actually fit someone up for the crime. I believe that he believed he had collared the A6 Killer, and I also believe that there really was a genuine possibility that Hanratty could have been acquitted.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

What evidence did Nudds give that led to the conviction of Hanratty?

Even Hanratty and his appreciation society admit that he occupied Room 24 on the night before the murder. Even in the minds of the notoriously dim Bedfordshire jurymen the fact that Nudds had told Jim how to get to Queensway by using a No. 36 bus on the Tuesday could not be evidence that he had stashed the gun away on a No. 36A bus on the Thursday.

As much as the Hanrattyites might not like Nudds for his retraction of the second statement, his evidence was not required to secure Jim's just conviction.

Hi Ron,
Well according to Juliana Galves nobody used Room 24 since August 16th! She insisted that even the Indian gentleman Mr Rapur was only in room 24 while they sorted out and cleaned Room 25.
There is no evidence ,that Hanratty was anywhere near the Vienna Hotel at anytime after 9 am on 22nd August.So as Julie says why would he cross London to put a gun on the 36 bus?It wasnt even on the France home"s Swiss Cottage bus route.

[Graham]

Hi Julie,

Who saw him cross London to dispose of the gun? No one. If he arrived in east London on the morning following the murder - why did he cross to the west side of London two days later to dispose of the gun? Why risk being seen and recognised on his own manor?

No-one was looking for Hanratty at the time. There was no reason for him to conceal himself. Regarding his crossing London after dumping the car, I would suggest that he went to see his close friend and advisor Dixie France. Who may or may not have been around. This is obviously conjecture and speculation, but a suggestion all the same.

Graham

[RonIpstone]

Hi Ron,
Well according to Juliana Galves nobody used Room 24 since August 16th! She insisted that even the Indian gentleman Mr Rapur was only in room 24 while they sorted out and cleaned Room 25.
There is no evidence ,that Hanratty was anywhere near the Vienna Hotel at anytime after 9 am on 22nd August.So as Julie says why would he cross London to put a gun on the 36 bus?It wasnt even on the France home"s Swiss Cottage bus route.

Hello Norma (or Natalie)

My understanding of Mrs Galves's evidence was that she went into detail, admittedly in Spanish, which is not the language of choice where precision is necessary, as to the cleaning arrangements regarding Room 24 after the departure of Hanratty. This seems to indicate that for Hanratty to have departed Room 24, at some stage beforehand he must have occupied that room.

Therefore, as Hanratty admitted his occupation of Room 24, why was Nudds's evidence in this regard controversial?

It seems that Hanratty abandoned the car near Redbridge tube station, took a Central Line tube into the centre of London and booked himself and his gun into digs. The following day (Thursday) on his way to Euston and Liverpool he disposed of his shooter. The only person who could have said why the No. 36A bus is no longer with us.

Ron

[Natalie Severn]

My understanding of Mrs Galves's evidence was that she went into detail, admittedly in Spanish, which is not the language of choice where precision is necessary, as to the cleaning arrangements regarding Room 24 after the departure of Hanratty

Hi Ron,

Juliana Galves gave a sort of "composite statement" on behalf of the Vienna Hotel on 6 September.In this she appeared to give Alphon a cast iron alibi but that was totally destroyed when she gave a statement on 13 September to the police."The only time I saw the man about whom I have already been asked by police,was around 11.45 am on the day he left [ie 23rd August].Tuesdays were the one day she and her husband had a day off and theyusually went to the cinema."Unusually they were in the hotel in the evening,but were not on duty to see who arrived].The police who took the first statement should have appreciated that it contained almost no personal testimony.The second one did; and that gave Alphon no alibi at all.

Therefore, as Hanratty admitted his occupation of Room 24, why was Nudds's evidence in this regard controversial?

Because Julian Galves said nobody had used room 24 for "sleeping" since August 16th until mid september.

It seems that Hanratty abandoned the car near Redbridge tube station, took a Central Line tube into the centre of London and booked himself and his gun into digs.

Pure speculation ,Ron.Blackhall said he never saw Hanratty.The man he saw---and he was sitting with the window wound down right next to him at the roundabout,looked "nothing like Hanratty" .Skillett sitting in the drivers seat was the only man who saw the driver and "identified" Hanratty.But as julie q explained the other night ,other witness statements were ignored /withheld from the two other witnesses : one who parked her identical Morris Minor car there that morning at 8.15 and insisted the murder car was not there then [in her old spot where it was later found]The other who saw the parked car after returning from the shops when it obstructed her path and insisted to police it was not there earlier at about 5.30 when she went out with child in her push chair to the shops----so not there when Skillett and Blackhall claimed they saw it.

[RonIpstone]

Hello Norma (Natalie)

We may be at cross purposes here. What I am saying about Nudds is that his evidence against Hanratty amounted to him saying that Jim stayed in Room 24 and on leaving asked for directions to Queensway, which directions were given by Nudds with the helpful nugget of advice that Jim could catch a No. 36 bus.

Now, Jim admitted he stayed in that room, and the hotel register, admittedly compiled with the assistance of Nudds, confirmed this. So Nudds's evidence on this cannot be controversial. In other words if you were to remove it from the case then the evidence against Hanratty is still as strong or, if you prefer, as weak.

It is the Hanrattyites (formerly known as the Hanratty Appreciation Society) who want to rely on Nudds, and in particular the 'facts' which Nudds gave in his second statement and which implicated Alphon.

Ron

[NickB]

Juliana Galves gave a sort of "composite statement" on behalf of the Vienna Hotel on 6 September. In this she appeared to give Alphon a cast iron alibi but that was totally destroyed when she gave a statement on 13 September to the police.

Not quite.

2 days later Alphon’s alibi was restored in Nudds 1st statement.

Then it was removed again in Nudds 2nd statement.

Then it flip-flopped back in Nudds 3rd statement.