a6 murder

[NickB]

then why did he admit that he had told Charles France that' under the back seat of a bus was a good place to hide unwanted loot from a burglary'? Why - when challenged - didn't he just say 'I never said any such thing'. And why - when shown his hanky in court - didn't he just deny it was his? Surely denying these things would have given the prosecution a much harder time? They would have had a much harder time connecting Hanratty with the crime without that evidence - and yet Hanratty told the truth. Why?

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.”

Surely it was better for Hanratty to accept that he had said it but was talking about hiding jewellery. All Swanwick could do then was move on. Denying something that France had no reason to lie about would look far more incriminating and lead to some awkward supplementary questions.

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.”

The handkerchief appeared to take him by surprise. The thought going through his mind must have been: “Can they prove this is mine?”. If Sherrard had told him beforehand: “If they show you the handkerchief, bear in mind that there is no way they can prove it is yours” – I wonder what his answer would have been.

[Limehouse]

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.”

Surely it was better for Hanratty to accept that he had said it but was talking about hiding jewellery. All Swanwick could do then was move on. Denying something that France had no reason to lie about would look far more incriminating and lead to some awkward supplementary questions.

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.”

The handkerchief appeared to take him by surprise. The thought going through his mind must have been: “Can they prove this is mine?”. If Sherrard had told him beforehand: “If they show you the handkerchief, bear in mind that there is no way they can prove it is yours” – I wonder what his answer would have been.

Fair enough Nick - but France may well have had reason to incriminate Hanratty in the first place by recalling and reporting this conversation. And why should the hanky take Hanratty by surprise if he knew full wqell he had wrapped the gun it it? Surely the surprise would come from the realisation that someone had got hold of his hanky and wrapped it round the murder weapon because they knew full well that the hanky was one of Hanratty's signatures.

[NickB]

Surely the surprise would come from the realisation that someone had got hold of his hanky and wrapped it round the murder weapon because they knew full well that the hanky was one of Hanratty's signatures.

I'm just saying that his surprise shows that this was not something he had been prepared for.

[Natalie Severn]

Hanratty was under huge stress trying to cope with Mr Swanwick ,an eminent lawyer, born into privilege and wealth with all the advantages in law that that brings.Swanwick ,in contrast to Hanratty was thoroughly at ease in the court room,linguistically and socially,an Oxbridge graduate and an experienced prosecutor.He knew exactly what would take Hanratty by surprise who was struggling throughout against the trial"s fatal outcome. Swanwick used the very same attack with Mrs Jones over her guest books, and all but destroyed her testimony.
The hanky business was exactly that;Swanwick engaged in a bit of dirty hanky panky to throw Hanratty off his stroke.

[babybird67]

then why did he admit that he had told Charles France that' under the back seat of a bus was a good place to hide unwanted loot from a burglary'? Why - when challenged - didn't he just say 'I never said any such thing'. And why - when shown his hanky in court - didn't he just deny it was his? Surely denying these things would have given the prosecution a much harder time? They would have had a much harder time connecting Hanratty with the crime without that evidence - and yet Hanratty told the truth. Why?

Because he was thick. He couldn't steal cars properly, he couldnt steal anything properly he was always getting caught. He thought people would fall for the, 'I might be a criminal but i'm no killer trick' and he was right, some people have!

[babybird67]

a]what else was a glass vial with a rubber stopper , of the kind kept in a chemistry lab ,likely to contain in that particular drawer,since we know that a "wash" was done on Hanratty"s trousers by the police pathologist and since other item"s taken from Hanratty such as his trousers were also in the drawer and several "forensic" materials that had been kept viz hair samples etc all such fibres known to have been taken from Hanratty"s person when he was in custody?

And what of those from Alphon? Prove any of Hanratty's DNA was in anything in that vial and you might, might, have a point.

You are mistaken here.The brown paper envelope the fragment of knicker was kept in had been sealed in the normal way and was found to have come apart at the edges "at some time" and then resealed itself----as paper and glue do when brought into contact with water.

No you are mistaken. The experts said there was no evidence of any of whatever was in the tube coming into contact with the envelope or any of the surrounding materials. It would be physically impossible for anything in the vial, whatever it was, to have contaminated the fabric without coming into contact with the materials the fabric was contained in.

But hey you lot are the experts with trying to explain the impossible.

[babybird67]

I am not missing the point at all. You are missing the point. In Bedfordshire and places closer to London - especially at that time - people were more accustomed to hearing London accents than people living further north - who encountered London accents less often. Therefore - it is perfectly possible for a person in Liverpool not to instantly recognise a broad London accent.

Pure conjecture. How do you know what people in general, let alone Mrs Dinwoodie in particular, were used to hearing? I work on the telephones and speak to people all over all the time. I can instantly tell where a lot come from. How do you know Mrs Dinwoodie, working in a shop in a port area, didnt have the same experience?

It is clear that Valerie could identify a broad London accent because she described the attacker as 'having a Cockney accent'. That is why she asked the membvers of the line-up (after deliberating for 20 minutes) to speaK. Now - it is strongly argued (and I think it is mentioned in one of the books - I'll check later) that Hanratty's accent stood out because he was the only London-based man in the line-up.

Please do. Would be interested in what it says.

As for your 'rubbish as usual' comment - it is perfectly clear that someone based in Liverpool would hear Welsh particularly - and Scottish accents possibly - more often than they would hear London accents. If the lady in question could not distinguish between Welsh and Scottish - it is reasonably safe to assume she does not have a good ear for accents. That is a perfectly logical conclusion.

Nope. Scots and Welsh are both Celtic accents. They can sound similar. What is clear is that they both sound incredibly DISsimilar to London accents.

Whoever the man in that shop was, it was not Hanratty.

[Natalie Severn]

Because he was thick. He couldn't steal cars properly, he couldnt steal anything properly he was always getting caught. He thought people would fall for the, 'I might be a criminal but i'm no killer trick' and he was right, some people have!

and here Jen is another example of you, making the sort of statement one can expect from idiots who think they are incredibly bright but are actually incredibly stupid.

[Limehouse]

Pure conjecture. How do you know what people in general, let alone Mrs Dinwoodie in particular, were used to hearing? I work on the telephones and speak to people all over all the time. I can instantly tell where a lot come from. How do you know Mrs Dinwoodie, working in a shop in a port area, didnt have the same experience?



Please do. Would be interested in what it says.



Nope. Scots and Welsh are both Celtic accents. They can sound similar. What is clear is that they both sound incredibly DISsimilar to London accents.

Whoever the man in that shop was, it was not Hanratty.

I have studied linguistics at post-graduate level and several times a year I give lectures to teachers training to be literacy specialists on aspects of linguistices - including dialects. I think I am more than qualified to comment on accents and their distribution and distinctions at this particular time in our recent history. If you think that Welsh and Scottish accents sounds similar you'd better get your lugholes examined.

Acott was convinced that Mrs Dinwoodie had indeed met Hanratty. How many people do you think were asking precisely for 'Carlton or Tarlton Road' in sweetshops in Scotland Road in the summer of 1961?

[Graham]

Hello everyone!

And how are we all tonight, eh?

I've just come in from a rather indifferent curry, and I've got a bottle of even less different plonk beside me, so I'm not in the best of moods, but even so I think one or two of us might care to bear in mind Admin's post of a day or two ago. I think Admin meant it.

On the subject of accents, just one small comment: I'm a Brummie and have a Brummie accent. On more than one occasion over the years I've been in the Soft South and have had clueless Southerners take me for a Scouser (which is a terrible insult to a Brummie) because they can't tell the difference. I therefore suggest, meekly, that perhaps Mrs D may not have been able to tell the difference between a Jock and a Taff accent, as she was between the two camps, so to speak.

I would also just like to say that, IMHO, when Hanratty agreed that he'd told France that the back seat of a bus, etc., etc., and also when he identified the hankie as his, poor Sherrard must have, figuratively, held his head in his hands. Cf: an old Blackadder episode:

Blackadder: Baldric, deny everything.
Baldric: OK
Clerk of court: Are you Private Baldric?
Baldric: No!

Perhaps Sherrard advised Hanratty to answer truthfully all the questions put to him....

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Graham,
I know Mr and Mrs Hanratty were devout Catholics and that Hanratty was being visited almost daily by two or three priests and a nun who were convinced of his innocence---the nun even wrote to the pope asking him to intervene over the execution.Reading through his last letters it becomes clear that Hanratty was dealing with his ordeal with growing strength and dignity mentioned by all those who came into contact with him, his warders as well as other officials who had reason to visit him.So its just possible that what he told Micheal Sherrard was the truth and that he was gaining strength from these healing people-his parents, warders and the religious people who were supporting him.If this was so then he was also gaining strength from telling the truth and from his belief in God and therefore anything other than the truth was to be rejected as the trial drew to a close.His conscience clear, he would go with the truth about Rhyl---come what may.
By the way,re Terry Evans ,who you mentioned last night;Evans was out of Rhyl between the 19th and 26th August---the entire and only week he was away that year!That was why Hanratty could find no trace of him.
-not forgetting Michael Sherrard who was no con man and while warning him of the consequences of changing his alibi,nevertheless gave him every support he could throughout.

[Graham]

Hi Norma,

By the way,re Terry Evans ,who you mentioned last night;Evans was out of Rhyl between the 19th and 26th August---the entire and only week he was away that year!That was why Hanratty could find no trace of him

Can you please tell me where you came across this piece of information?

Thanks,

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,



Can you please tell me where you came across this piece of information?

Thanks,

Graham

Yes,Graham---its in "The Mystery of Deadman"s Hill"-Colin Wilson contributed to the article.
Best

[Graham]

Yes,Graham---its in "The Mystery of Deadman"s Hill"-Colin Wilson contributed to the article.
Best

Hmmm - not a mention of it in either Foot or Woffinden. I wonder where Colin Wilson got that from? Mind, old Colin never did let facts get in the way of a decent story!

All I could find was that Evans was no longer parking his taxi-cab at the place known as The Circus, which I think was Woffinden's way of saying that Hanratty had looked but couldn't find him. Yet Hanratty had by his own admission been to his house on his genuine visit to Rhyl, when he'd nicked a pair of shoes, so one must assume that he knew where Evans lived. All of which adds to the general sense of his Rhyl "Alibi" being so much bollocks.... And of course Evans was the bully-boy who frightened the newspaper seller Charlie Jones into saying that he'd seen Hanratty.

Graham

[babybird67]

and here Jen is another example of you, making the sort of statement one can expect from idiots who think they are incredibly bright but are actually incredibly stupid.

LOL!