a6 murder

[Limehouse]

Thanks Steve, that's what I thought. It seems there were many dishonest witnesses in this case!

[Graham]

Mrs Grace Jones may genuinely have wanted to help, and there is no doubt that Sherrard & Co saw her as potentially very helpful to the defence, but it backfired. Swanwick effectively took her to the cleaners and exposed her, rightly or wrongly, as not entirely honest in her book-keeping and a bit confused as to who she saw and when.

About the only way the Rhyl alibi could have been corroborated was for JH to have signed the guest-book at a hotel or B&B, and/or to have described and subsequently identified someone he spoke to, and who in turn could verify what JH said. Plenty of Rhyl people claimed to have seen someone who resembled JH, but all their descriptions are too vague to be accepted by a court of law. JH himself likewise was extremely vague in his various descriptions of people he'd spoken to, both in Liverpool and Rhyl, and for my money these and his descriptions of the interiors of buildings were memories of previous visits to both these places.

Cheers,

Graham

[Steve]

Hi Limehouse

Yes, honesty is the best policy!

Hi Graham

I agree with you, I too believe that Hanratty was patching together several memories gained on his travels when he dreamed up his alibi stories. There is no doubt that he had been to Liverpool (he was in prison there, of course) and there is undisputed evidence that he had been to Rhyl earlier that year. He could well have stayed at Ingledene for a night on that or another occasion, or he could just have been lucky (or unlucky) in that his description of an imaginary guest house fitted Ingledene. Some of things he mentioned would have fitted many guest houses at that time.

Kind regards,
Steve

[Tony]

room 24

There is no dispute that Hanratty occupied room 24 at the Vienna Hotel on 21st August. He freely told Acott in his very first interview. He slept in the single bed in the alcove. Also in the alcove was a chair on which were found 2 cartridges on the 11th September. The bed was made up the following morning; I presume the sheets and pillow cases etc were changed. It would be almost certain that the chair would have been moved to allow for this to happen. I would imagine the bed itself would be pulled out to be made up. Where were the cartridge cases when this was taking place? Could they have been placed there on a later date?

Tony.

[Steve]

Hi Tony

I think it's a safe bet to assume they were put there sometime after the murder. In one of his statements the hotels' group general manager, Robert Crocker, said he very nearly threw them away, probably thinking it would be a lot less trouble all round if the police didn’t get to know about them. If that had happened it would have weakened the case against Hanratty considerably.

Kind regards,
Steve

[Graham]

Hi Tony

I think it's a safe bet to assume they were put there sometime after the murder. In one of his statements the hotels' group general manager, Robert Crocker, said he very nearly threw them away, probably thinking it would be a lot less trouble all round if the police didn’t get to know about them. If that had happened it would have weakened the case against Hanratty considerably.

Kind regards,
Steve

Hi Steve,

Robert Crocker and Mrs Galvez said it was dark in the alcove, and the cartridge-cases were only noticed when Crocker moved the chair to remove some material that was hanging down from it.

If the cases were put on the chair some time after the murder, then who put them there? The only plausible person would seem to be Dixie France, and if he did put them there, it must have been for one reason and one reason only - to implicate Hanratty. (OK, and maybe to divert attention from himself). If it wasn't Dixie who put them there, then we really do have some kind of conspiracy.

For my money Hanratty just didn't bother to pick them up after he'd re-loaded his gun.

Cheers,

Graham

[Steve]

Hi Graham

I hear what you are saying, and common sense would tell us that it’s most likely Hanratty did leave them behind. That’s what the jury would have believed.

I just feel it unlikely that Hanratty would have been so careless as to leave cartridges behind. And where in Central London could he have fired the bullets without being noticed? The room was occupied by the Indian Rapur between Hanratty staying there and the cartridges being found, so the chambermaid must have been into the room twice. You would also have thought the room would perhaps have been cleaned in between times too.

It just seems so convenient for the police and prosecution that they were found in the room Hanratty slept in, and the last known place he spent a night before the murder.

Remember also that room 24 had outside access to a public area at the back of the building, and that Dixie France could have walked there from his flat in no time at all.

Kind regards,
Steve

[Graham]

Hi Steve,

Hmmm...dunno. If Dixie did place the cases on the chair, then obviously he must have had access to The Vienna...which possibly suggests he may have had help in that respect. From Nudds, maybe? As far as I'm aware there's no evidence that the pair of them were acquainted, but you never know. If Dixie did place the cases, then how would he have known without assistance from someone in The Vienna which room to put them in?

In the absence of a photo of the chair, I wonder if it might have been one of those horrible over-stuffed vinyl-covered monstrosities in which items larger than .38 cartridge cases could roll down the seat and disappear in the depths of the upholstery between the seat and the back. Crocker said he moved the chair to tear off some loose material - I wonder if he tipped it on its side thus allowing the cases to fall to the floor?

Cheers,

Graham

[Tony]

Hi Steve,

Robert Crocker and Mrs Galvez said it was dark in the alcove, and the cartridge-cases were only noticed when Crocker moved the chair to remove some material that was hanging down from it.

If the cases were put on the chair some time after the murder, then who put them there? The only plausible person would seem to be Dixie France, and if he did put them there, it must have been for one reason and one reason only - to implicate Hanratty. (OK, and maybe to divert attention from himself). If it wasn't Dixie who put them there, then we really do have some kind of conspiracy.

For my money Hanratty just didn't bother to pick them up after he'd re-loaded his gun.

Cheers,

Graham

Hello Graham,

Are you then saying that if Dixie could put his hands on spent cartridge cases then he also had access to the gun as well? Is that why it was found under the back seat of the bus and in the witness box the hankie it was wrapped in was shown to Hanratty who immediately said it was his. Hanratty left his washing at Dixie’s.

Very strange.

Tony.

[Steve]

Hi Graham

Your description does sound plausible, especially if Crocker tipped the chair further than the chambermaid had done when cleaning the room previously.

I don’t know either if Nudds and France knew one another. It’s possible, both having been in prison, but France would have known which room Hanratty stayed in from the time he saw the bill later in the week. Identifying room 24 from outside the hotel is of course another matter, so he would have had to have wandered inside to pinpoint the room’s location within the building. And then gone back outside and gained access through an open French door or window, assuming one was left open to air the room. It’s all speculation and your version of events is a lot more plausible.

Kind regards,
Steve

[Graham]

Hi Tony,

I once suggested that it was France who got the gun for Hanratty and that when the latter had 'finished with it', and was doubtless panicking, maybe he gave it back to France for disposal. It's known that he stored the gun in the Frances' flat, unknown maybe to all but Dixie himself, and it's also known that he admitted the the Frances that he had done something that scared him.
Pure speculation, though. I still lean towards the idea that Hanratty himself left the cartridge cases at The Vienna.

Hi Steve,

Not sure if the bill would've had the room number on it - Hanratty showed it to Dixie to let him know the cost of the room. But it's possible that France obtained the room number from the bill.

Cheers,

Graham

[reg1965]

Hi Tony,

I once suggested that it was France who got the gun for Hanratty and that when the latter had 'finished with it', and was doubtless panicking, maybe he gave it back to France for disposal. It's known that he stored the gun in the Frances' flat, unknown maybe to all but Dixie himself, and it's also known that he admitted the the Frances that he had done something that scared him.
Pure speculation, though. I still lean towards the idea that Hanratty himself left the cartridge cases at The Vienna.

Hi Steve,

Not sure if the bill would've had the room number on it - Hanratty showed it to Dixie to let him know the cost of the room. But it's possible that France obtained the room number from the bill.

Cheers,

Graham

JH's admission that 'he had done something that scared him' may be somewhat more mundane than committing murder. He may have been sensing out Dixie's possible reaction to having had unprotected sex with his daughter.
Also why make this admission if JH had got a gun from Dixie. What was he going to do with it? Go for some target practice? Why not join a shooting club? If he had an underworld sourced firearm then it would make sense that it was going to be used for a job. Statement therefore in the latter doesn't make much sense. If JH had done the A6 would he trust anyone else to dispose of it, who would, I wouldn't. Certainly not in a place that would be found so easily and also carefully place cartridge cases on an armchair in the last place I would have found to have been b4 the murder.
JH's dirty washing was at the France's house on several occasions, so the ability for CF to grab one of JH's snotty hankies was almost like taking candy from a baby, so to speak.
I also think it very likely that the Vienna Hotel bill had the room number on it. Even a real **** hole like the Vienna would have to follow basic hotel conventions. So CF had the gun from the real killer (maybe the killer was even CF himself) (DNA tests probably only looking for DNA match with JH mucus on hanky.) and the hanky to wrap it in and the place to hide it! Just phone the busy's and drop JH right in it. Job done.
Regards
Reg1965

[Steve]

maybe the killer was even CF himself

I believe in keeping an open mind Reg, old chap, but Dixie the killer! This is the first time I have heard of that theory!

[Graham]

JH's admission that 'he had done something that scared him' may be somewhat more mundane than committing murder. He may have been sensing out Dixie's possible reaction to having had unprotected sex with his daughter.
Also why make this admission if JH had got a gun from Dixie. What was he going to do with it? Go for some target practice? Why not join a shooting club? If he had an underworld sourced firearm then it would make sense that it was going to be used for a job. Statement therefore in the latter doesn't make much sense. If JH had done the A6 would he trust anyone else to dispose of it, who would, I wouldn't. Certainly not in a place that would be found so easily and also carefully place cartridge cases on an armchair in the last place I would have found to have been b4 the murder.
JH's dirty washing was at the France's house on several occasions, so the ability for CF to grab one of JH's snotty hankies was almost like taking candy from a baby, so to speak.
I also think it very likely that the Vienna Hotel bill had the room number on it. Even a real **** hole like the Vienna would have to follow basic hotel conventions. So CF had the gun from the real killer (maybe the killer was even CF himself) (DNA tests probably only looking for DNA match with JH mucus on hanky.) and the hanky to wrap it in and the place to hide it! Just phone the busy's and drop JH right in it. Job done.
Regards
Reg1965

Hi Reg,

1] Course he could've been referring to having it off with Dixie's daughter - we can only speculate upon what he actually meant. But JH's character suggests to me that a sexual affair with his good friend's daughter probably wouldn't bother him over-much.

2] JH had to have got the gun from someone, somewhere, and Dixie had been around the London underworld far longer than he had, and doubtless had many more contacts. Again, I was only speculating. JH also said he talked guns with a man called Donald (can't recall his surname - I haven't got my books to hand), who naturally enough denied to Acott that he'd ever offered to get JH a gun.

3] You're right - if I'd done the deed, the gun would've ended up in the bottom of the Thames. I've always felt that the cartridge-cases on the armchair were a result of JH's lack of concentration - he just put them on the chair and promptly forgot about them.

4] You're also right about JH's snotty hankies, but if Dixie had appropriated one to wrap around the gun, then ergo, Dixie had possession of the gun after the murder, so he could only have got it from JH.

5] Re: the DNA on the hankie, one and one only male DNA was found on it, and that was JH's.

To conclude, I think the 'evidence' (or more accurately speculation, since we'll never know) is that JH dropped the cases in The Vienna, and got rid of the gun himself in the place he'd described to Dixie France. I honestly don't think Dixie was the kind of petty-crook character who'd want anything to do with shooters - outside of his little illegal foibles he was a good family-man, apparently. Not that that proves anything, but I think it holds him in good stead, in a perverse kind of way.

Cheers,

Graham

[reg1965]

Hi Reg,

1] Course he could've been referring to having it off with Dixie's daughter - we can only speculate upon what he actually meant. But JH's character suggests to me that a sexual affair with his good friend's daughter probably wouldn't bother him over-much.

2] JH had to have got the gun from someone, somewhere, and Dixie had been around the London underworld far longer than he had, and doubtless had many more contacts. Again, I was only speculating. JH also said he talked guns with a man called Donald (can't recall his surname - I haven't got my books to hand), who naturally enough denied to Acott that he'd ever offered to get JH a gun.

3] You're right - if I'd done the deed, the gun would've ended up in the bottom of the Thames. I've always felt that the cartridge-cases on the armchair were a result of JH's lack of concentration - he just put them on the chair and promptly forgot about them.

4] You're also right about JH's snotty hankies, but if Dixie had appropriated one to wrap around the gun, then ergo, Dixie had possession of the gun after the murder, so he could only have got it from JH.

5] Re: the DNA on the hankie, one and one only male DNA was found on it, and that was JH's.

To conclude, I think the 'evidence' (or more accurately speculation, since we'll never know) is that JH dropped the cases in The Vienna, and got rid of the gun himself in the place he'd described to Dixie France. I honestly don't think Dixie was the kind of petty-crook character who'd want anything to do with shooters - outside of his little illegal foibles he was a good family-man, apparently. Not that that proves anything, but I think it holds him in good stead, in a perverse kind of way.

Cheers,

Graham

Hi Graham
In response to your points:
1) Most people who knew Hanratty and the women he dated recall he was kind and courteous towards them. Carole France apparently admitted years later that she and JH had had a sexual liaison but would this change JH's general attitude. I think he would have been bothered at CF's reaction, seeing as he was a so called mate and that she might be pregnant!

2) Are you implying here that CF obtained the weapon or at least put JH onto someone? JH, remember, had been inside for a long stretch and had a string of known fences at his disposal, it would not be unlikely that JH could have had plenty of opportunites to enquire about a gun from any number of contacts (including and aside from this Don character).

3) Agreed about the dumping of the gun. Why though would he take it out in room 24 and leave empty cartridges lying about. Surely the gun would have stayed (wrapped up, perhaps) in JH's luggage until he really needed it, namely the next day. Even if he did take it out what would he do it for (a bit of a Robert deNiro ponce about in front of the mirror!?). I would feel that he would wait at least until he got to Paddington Station (if he did do it), went for a wash and brush up, disappeared into a cubicle and then secreted the weapon about his person, before going to left luggage. Even then he would probably be carrying at least 5 boxes of live ammo and a large shooter about whilst on foot for most of the day dressed only in a lightweight lounge suit! The chances of concealing that amount of gear for so long would have been difficult to avoid suspicion. Just doesn't add up.

4) Totally disagree here. Why MUST CF had gotten the gun from JH. In a perverse scenario JH may have handed it to another third party who then handed it onto CF without JH or CF knowing each others involvement. The 'Scares Me' statement would make more sense if this were the case. The third party may have ascertained the room number inadvertantly from CF. It may also explain CF's suicide and William Ewers involvement? (didn't CF later go and see Ewer?) Maybe, maybe not!!

5) Where are the cleaners sweaty paw print DNA residue? What was the chain of the hanky evidence's journey to the forensic lab? Via a supervisor and then onto several police officers etc? All wearing rubber gloves?? Unlikely.

6) In summing up you suggest that CF wouldn't have got involved in shooters but you seem to imply in point 2 that CF aquired the gun for JH.

What this case needs is a full and open public inquiry, with all of the police and government documents and exhibits (especially the DNA sample materials) made available for scrutiny, by all interested parties. The clothing fragments obviously must be handled with great care, but several truly independent tests could then be carried out. If selective cutting of evidence had been carried out then it will be made known.

Regards
Reg1965