a6 murder

[Steve]

In 4 years time it'll be the 50th anniversary of JH's execution, and if the 50-year confidentiality rule holds in this case, then perhaps - and it's a BIG perhaps - we may learn something we didn't know. But I wouldn't hold your breath.

Hi Graham

Dixie's final scribblings? It would be encouraging to think we had that to look forward to! The contents of Oxford and Acott's pocket books would also make interesting reading.

Ewer's & Anderson's business returns would also be intriguing to look at. I don't know how each of them traded, limited company or sole trader. Either way, details of income, expenditure and cash expenses for the 1961 to 1962 period should be in the public domain and would make interesting reading.

Kind regards,
Steve

[Graham]

Hi Graham

Dixie's final scribblings? It would be encouraging to think we had that to look forward to! The contents of Oxford and Acott's pocket books would also make interesting reading.

Ewer's & Anderson's business returns would also be intriguing to look at. I don't know how each of them traded, limited company or sole trader. Either way, details of income, expenditure and cash expenses for the 1961 to 1962 period should be in the public domain and would make interesting reading.

Kind regards,
Steve

Hi Steve,

Until about 5 years ago my wife ran a small business in the antiques market of a certain Midlands town, and she could tell you that a large proportion of people who had stuff to sell were about as on the level as the roller-coaster at Alton Towers. For 'antiques', read 'fencing' - or at least 'attempted fencing' in the case of my entirely above-board spouse, Gawd bless 'er, guv'nor. After a very short time she learned who and who not to trust. JH was perfectly open in his description of his burgaries - he went for good small stuff, silverware, jewellery, and so forth. Easy to nick, easy to carry around, and very easy to fence. Almost every day my wife was offered stuff that 'my gran left to me in her will'. Yeah...

For how long is trading information held at Companies House? Any idea?

Cheers,

Graham

[Brenda]

Problem is, Brenda, that as Steve said earlier, the chance of any new evidence being uncovered is very slim. Anything I (for example) could write would only be a re-hash of what's been written before. Speaking purely personally, I think Leonard Miller's "Shadows Of Deadman's Hill" just about summed up and analysed most of what we know about the A6 Case, and it would be hard to improve on that.

However, as I said in an earlier post, in 4 years time it'll be the 50th anniversary of JH's execution, and if the 50-year confidentiality rule holds in this case, then perhaps - and it's a BIG perhaps - we may learn something we didn't know. But I wouldn't hold your breath.

Cheers,

Graham

Yes, but Graham, when you guys started up this conversation on the old boards, I didn't have any idea what case you talking about, and I would dare to say that there are quite a few Americans at least that do not. I always keep up with this thread, its been quite interesting. As we have about a hundred million JTR books, I think this case is worth a rehash for an internet crime audience. And one of you is just the perfect one to sum it up for us all, I think.

[larue]

She is totally convinced that Hanratty was the man in the Morris Minor. Forget all the other evidence, Valerie Storie’s personal conviction of Hanratty’s guilt is enough to convince anyone.

sorry Steve. not me.

[larue]

question

is there any way of starting a sub topic off this thread? as i think there are several matters arising that would be interesting to discuss, but are a bit off topic

answers on a postcard please to the usual address

[Steve]

Hi Larue

What title would the sub-topic have, and what matters arising would be discussed?

KR
Steve

[Steve]

Hi Steve,

Until about 5 years ago my wife ran a small business in the antiques market of a certain Midlands town, and she could tell you that a large proportion of people who had stuff to sell were about as on the level as the roller-coaster at Alton Towers. For 'antiques', read 'fencing' - or at least 'attempted fencing' in the case of my entirely above-board spouse, Gawd bless 'er, guv'nor. After a very short time she learned who and who not to trust. JH was perfectly open in his description of his burgaries - he went for good small stuff, silverware, jewellery, and so forth. Easy to nick, easy to carry around, and very easy to fence. Almost every day my wife was offered stuff that 'my gran left to me in her will'. Yeah...

For how long is trading information held at Companies House? Any idea?

Hi Graham

I would guess that the outlets for stolen merchandise are few and far between, and that if you have something to sell you will try to offload it wherever you can. Hanratty was certainly in the situation of having stuff to offload, and in those days he didn’t even have the option of eBay!

We know that his liaison with Louise Anderson involved disposing of stolen goods, but it is almost certain that he would have put his head around the door of other London shops. We know that Hanratty used the cleaners shop and the flower shop in Finchley Road, just around the corner from Dixie’s home. He was undoubtedly familiar with the area and would have been aware of Ewer’s shop in the arcade, possibly even popping in from time to time to look at the items for sale and to research going prices. It is even possible that he offered some of his items to the shop’s owner.

I doubt Companies House would be any help, only limited companies are required to make an annual return and I would have guessed that Ewer and Anderson would have operated as sole traders. It would have been the taxman who looked at their books and checked they were not on the fiddle.

Kind regards,
Steve

[larue]

Hi Larue

What title would the sub-topic have, and what matters arising would be discussed?

KR
Steve

hi Steve

the title could be something simple, like, 'off the tracks' or somesuch. the latest candidate would be the subject of car radios in morris minors

just a thought

[Steve]

Hi Larue

OK, I'd contribute to that.

KR
Steve

[Limehouse]

The DNA evidence

Hi everyone,

Something struck me this morning. If Hanratty's DNA was found on Valerie's underwear and on a hanky used to wrap around the gun, and there is doubt about whether cross-contamination has occurred due to the items being stored together, why not test the hanky for Valerie's DNA?

[Steve]

Hi Limehouse

Would Valerie have come into contact with the hankie?

KR
Steve

[Limehouse]

Hi Steve,

No, Valerie is not likely to have come into contact with the hanky, but if the hanky and her underwear were store together and pro-Hanratty campaigners claim that her underwear became contaminated through contact with the hanky then, test the hanky for Valerie's DNA to see if the cross-contamination argument is stron enough to work both ways. It's not full-proof but it would be interesting.

[ansonman]

Dismiss the DNA

Good Morning Everyone,

Went out with my mates as usual this week and told them I’d found this discussion forum I’ve even bought a couple of them Foot’s book. They cost a penny each on Amazon. I was almost laughed out of the pub for even discussing Hanratty’s possible innocence.

P L A’s post 796 about the framing couldn’t have been an option because for all the framers knew “Hanratty could have been sat at home having a cup of tea with his mum”
Well first of all I doubt if Hanratty sat around any evening drinking tea. He was either out robbing or socialising. But, and I’m sure somebody will correct me here, didn’t Dixie know where Hanratty would be that week. Hadn’t he told Dixie he was off to Liverpool on some half baked scheme of finding a fence to sell stolen property to? Or maybe even Dixie suggested it to Hanratty knowing that there wasn’t a great chance of any alibi.
Ewer is alerted. “This week is a possibility will they be out together on Tuesday?” “Yes they probably will”. They definitely were.
As I say I might be wrong so I’ll wait for Graham/Steve and the rest to shoot me down.

Everybody now says: “Well he shouldn’t have been convicted on the evidence at the time, but the DNA, the jury managed to get it right”
Well I don’t know anything about DNA although the Colin Pitchfork case certainly made everyone think it was foolproof. But Madeline’s DNA was found in the boot of the McCann’s car and that has appeared to have been ruled out as suspect because of deterioration after 5 months not forty years. Also when Eddie the dog reacted as though it could smell a body in the boot it was dismissed as a circus or pantomime dog. Eddie later went to Jersey and smelt the remains of a child buried several feet under a concrete floor after 20 odd years. The police this year have had a dog on Saddleworth Moor looking for Keith Bennett and the result is that they are now convinced they will find his body after 44 years.
I suppose what I am trying to say is that in certain cases the authorities want or require a particular result. Hanratty’s samples were kept with Valerie’s in the same box at the trial and for forty years since. No possibility of contamination it’s him. Yes general public we right all along. No you still can’t see Dixie’s letters. Hanratty was a no good thief and dead. Perhaps if he had been alive and was a doctor; well who knows.

Tony.

Not for the first time Tony makes some excellent points.
I have been convinced of Hanratty's innocence for longer than I can remember and had misgivings about the DNA results as soon as they were announced.

Several earlier postings have shown that DNA results are not foolproof. If one accepts that in Hanratty's case the the DNA results are not foolproof then the results should be dismissed out of hand. Supporters of Hanratty's guilt cannot have it both ways. Either the DNA analysis is absolutely foolproof or it is not. If it is not we can dismiss it. Dismissing the DNA this takes us right back to where we were before Hanratty's remains were exhumed.

One thing which is certain is that whoever murdered Gregson and raped and attempted to murder Storie was a Grade A nutter. His behaviour on the night in question, from the minute he came upon the car to when he left Storie for dead, confirms he was a madman. I don't think many would argue with that.

For me, this raises the question, 'was, or is there any evidence to show that Hanratty was a Grade A nutter?'. I have read most of the books on the case and do not recall any reference to his having demonstrated the behaviour of a madman at any point in his short life. Hanratty may not have been at the head of the line when they handed out IQ's but that does't make him a madman. And if he wasn't a madman, he wasn't the murderer.

Ansonman

[Steve]

Mental Defective

Hello ansonman

Yes, Gregsten’s murderer was a nutter, only a nutcase would abduct a courting couple in a cornfield at gunpoint and go on to shoot them both.

You ask if there was any evidence to show that Hanratty was a nutcase, well he had certainly been categorised as a mental defective. Is that the same thing? Probably not, but it does demonstrate that Hanratty was not a normal person and not someone who behaved normally.

Yes, he was a criminal, and no he didn’t have any previous history of violence, sex crime or using a gun or any other kind of deadly weapon. That said, his mental defective status must have made him more likely than the average man in the street to commit an inexplicable crime such as the A6 murder.

I have to say that even discounting the DNA evidence there is a very powerful argument pointing towards Hanratty’s guilt. The DNA evidence merely provided the final proof that the A6 murderer was James Hanratty.

Kind regards,
Steve

[ansonman]

Back to the beginning

Hello ansonman

Yes, Gregsten’s murderer was a nutter, only a nutcase would abduct a courting couple in a cornfield at gunpoint and go on to shoot them both.

You ask if there was any evidence to show that Hanratty was a nutcase, well he had certainly been categorised as a mental defective. Is that the same thing? Probably not, but it does demonstrate that Hanratty was not a normal person and not someone who behaved normally.

Yes, he was a criminal, and no he didn’t have any previous history of violence, sex crime or using a gun or any other kind of deadly weapon. That said, his mental defective status must have made him more likely than the average man in the street to commit an inexplicable crime such as the A6 murder.

I have to say that even discounting the DNA evidence there is a very powerful argument pointing towards Hanratty’s guilt. The DNA evidence merely provided the final proof that the A6 murderer was James Hanratty.

Kind regards,
Steve

Hi Steve,

Being mentally defective doesn't make Hanratty a candidate for the a6 murder, at least not in my book.

The important thing for me, and on which you seem to agree, is that we can discount the DNA evidence. And if we do that, we reach the point we were at when Hanratty's remains were exhumed. That is the main point I am trying to make.

There may be a very powerful arguement pointing towards Hanratty's guilt (though I don't see it) but nowhere in that arguement is there any evidence. And evidence is, of course, everything. In the absence of evidence we have to ask 'what do we know about the murderer?'. The answer is that we know quite a lot about the sort of person he was as evidenced by his behaviour on the fateful night. His behaviour was that of a madman. There is absolutely no evidence that Hanratty was a madman.

In terms of mental defects, parallels could, perhaps, be drawn between Hanratty and Barry George who, as you know, is currently being retried for the murder of Jill Dando. From what I have read George too is mentally defective but there are many, including the law lords, who do not regard that as sufficient grounds for judging him guilty of murder. I believe that George's defence team will put up a pretty strong case for his aquital and I would not be at all surprised if he is released, albeit after 9 years in the slammer.

The point I am trying to make is that there is not a shred of evidence to convict Hanratty (if one dismisses the DNA, which one should) and being a mental defective does not make him a madman, and not being a madman makes him innocent.

Regards,

Ansonman