a6 murder

[Limehouse]

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.

Ron

Strange that the cartridges were not discoovered at this point - especially as she states the chair was moved as part of the cleaning process.

[RonIpstone]

Strange that the cartridges were not discoovered at this point - especially as she states the chair was moved as part of the cleaning process.

Not so, according to Foot's account of Galves's evidence. She is reported as having stated that due to staff shortages she cleaned the room without hoovering and dusting and therefore there was no need to have moved the chair.

[Victor]

But who would have thought that,for 31 years,the police would have kept on ice,Valerie Storie"s knickers and the handkerchief that wrapped the gun? Or exhumed him for DNA matches

Hi Norma,

It has been said before, the police didn't keep the knicker fragment nor the hanky on ice, they were left lying forgotten in a drawer in the Police Labs and Bedfordshire Constabulary respectively.

I also cannot see the issue with exhuming him either, the family had already done it themselves.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

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.

Hi Julie,

The difference is that Hanratty would be delibertely avoiding being seen in London, lying-low, burning or binning his ticket stubs - whereas if he were innocent then he would have no need to hide wherever he was. Just because no-one can prove he was on planet Earth, you can bet everything that he was somewhere in the UK. The first definite sighting we have is the France family on the Friday (IIRC).

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?

There is the possibility that Edwin Cooke did not properly check the back seat of the bus, or that someone else (such as Dixie) disposed of the gun later and he wasn't on his own manor.

KR,
Vic.

[NickB]

The difference is that Hanratty would be delibertely avoiding being seen

And how many witnesses reported seeing Hanratty when he was on the run?

He could lie low when he wanted to.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Julie,

The difference is that Hanratty would be delibertely avoiding being seen in London, lying-low, burning or binning his ticket stubs - whereas if he were innocent then he would have no need to hide wherever he was. Just because no-one can prove he was on planet Earth, you can bet everything that he was somewhere in the UK. The first definite sighting we have is the France family on the Friday (IIRC).


There is the possibility that Edwin Cooke did not properly check the back seat of the bus, or that someone else (such as Dixie) disposed of the gun later and he wasn't on his own manor.

KR,
Vic.

Hi Vic,
Having spoken to several people in Rhyl who between them knew most of the Rhyl witnesses ,a few of the witnesses still being alive-there is certainty, even angry certainty ,in several cases,that the people in Rhyl who said they saw Hanratty in Rhyl on Tuesday 22nd August,whose sightings were corroborated were largely ignored .For example, Margaret Walker was seen talking to Hanratty by Ivy Vincent, Betty Davies saw Hanratty and told her mother- in- law,Mrs Margaret Davies about this young man looking for digs and Margaret Walker,who also remembered the same young man asking her about digs when she was at Margaret Davies"s house only a half hour afterwards---all three saying they had directed him towards Kinmel Street during the late evening of Tuesday 22nd August 1961. No "ifs and buts",people were -and still are , adamant about it . Moreover they found it offensive that what they said was more or less ignored .

Contrast this with Nudds , treated with the utmost seriousness and being hurried into Scotland Yard to amend and alter whatever statement Mr Acott and Mr Oxford at the time decided they wanted him to amend or alter about Alphon or Hanratty whichever cap seemed best to fit at the time.
So very clearly, one rule for Nudds,quite another for any of the above --or Mr Larman or Mr Dutton.

[RonIpstone]

Contrast this with Nudds , treated with the utmost seriousness and being hurried into Scotland Yard to amend and alter whatever statement Mr Acott and Mr Oxford at the time decided they wanted him to amend or alter about Alphon or Hanratty whichever cap seemed best to fit at the time.
So very clearly, one rule for Nudds,quite another for any of the above --or Mr Larman or Mr Dutton.

You still have not explained to which bit of Nudds's evidence you take exception.

[Limehouse]

Not so, according to Foot's account of Galves's evidence. She is reported as having stated that due to staff shortages she cleaned the room without hoovering and dusting and therefore there was no need to have moved the chair.

I beg to differ. On page 30 of Lord Russell's book he states that ' the bedclothes of this bed (the one Hanratty slept in) were changed the following day by Mrs Galves and Mrs Snell who said they had to move the chair to make the bed'.

This is confirmed during the trial during an exchange between Sherrad and Nudds when Nudds claims not to have known who cleaned the room and is challenged by SherraRD (P78/79).

[Natalie Severn]

You still have not explained to which bit of Nudds's evidence you take exception.

Hi Ron,
But there is so much!From the false date of birth and false name he gives on his first statement to the insinuation in his court statement that Hanratty could have dropped the cartridge cases when he returned to his room after paying his bill-to take but two examples.
BTW, Sherrard took him through this veiled assertion ,step by step , he demonstrated that Hanratty had done nothing more incriminating than return to his room to collect his luggage after paying his bill.To which Nudds conceded.
Its worth remembering that Nudds had only been out of jail since 5th August -ie barely three weeks.He had only worked in the Vienna Hotel for ten days but was by 22nd August allegedly "helping Hanratty with directions " because Hanratty apparently " didnt know the area "!So according to Nudds, he "directed Hanratty to Queensway" by telling him to take the 36 or 36A bus-.

NB:this is the same Hanratty who, according to Swanwick in his opening address ,could be linked to the infamous 36A bus and the gun precisely because he knew the area so well and therefore knew the bus routes so well!
But Ron,there is so much to go through here .Meanwhile,,may I ask why you dismiss the statements of the people of Rhyl [eleven witnesses in totalaccording to Paul Foot who took statements from each and every one of them]?

[simon]

Hello all,
Quite a while ago, when I was contributing more regularly to this debate, I referred to an article in the Guardian by Paul Foot in which he described a meeting he'd recently had with Janet Gregsten - she having suddenly phoned him out of the blue. I'd kept the cutting but couldn't find it...and still haven't. However, I was looking through an old diary and came across the fact that the article in question appeared in the paper on Feb 25th 1995.

Nowadays I only dip into this site from time to time, so maybe this is information you already know. But if not, and if anyone's interested in reading the piece for themselves, that's the edition to seek out.

Regards,
Simon

[Victor]

Having spoken to several people in Rhyl who between them knew most of the Rhyl witnesses ,a few of the witnesses still being alive-there is certainty, even angry certainty ,in several cases,that the people in Rhyl who said they saw Hanratty in Rhyl on Tuesday 22nd August,whose sightings were corroborated were largely ignored.

No "ifs and buts",people were -and still are, adamant about it. Moreover they found it offensive that what they said was more or less ignored.

Hi Norma,

That's easy to answer with your own words...

But believing you have identified your rapist and actually having identified him are two different matters.Unfortunately for both victims and their rapists , the history of eye witness testimony in this area particularly,is littered with "fatal" errors and wrong convictions--215 in one count alone recently ,in just one state in America.

And the other quote about them not lying, just being mistaken. They are identification witnesses and notoriously unreliable, especially after 6 months have past - can you remember what a complete stranger you met 6 months ago looked like?

Contrast this with Nudds , treated with the utmost seriousness and being hurried into Scotland Yard to amend and alter whatever statement Mr Acott and Mr Oxford at the time decided they wanted him to amend or alter about Alphon or Hanratty whichever cap seemed best to fit at the time.
So very clearly, one rule for Nudds,quite another for any of the above --or Mr Larman or Mr Dutton.

I read it very differently, Acott had no choice other than to have to rely on Nudds as the cartridge cases were the only significant lead in the case at that time, and his superiors, the media and the public at large were putting him under heavy pressure to make some progress.

KR,
Vic.

[RonIpstone]

It would seem that Sherrard too ignored the Rhyl witnesses for the purpose of Jim's appeal. I assume that after the Mrs Jones debacle it was a case of once bitten.

The whole problem with the Rhyl 'witnesses' is that Jim's evidence does not back them up. Mrs Jones and then Mrs Harris are eventually saying that Jim stayed in an attic bathroom; Jim says he stayed in a room with a sink which was at the rear of the building. No mention of bath or attic other than the property in which he stayed had a green bath. If he had said that the bath was in the room in which he slept, then we might have something.

As to the other rag tag and bobtail who have jumped on the bandwagon, one has to say that they did not impress Sherrard enough to call those whose statements he had for the appeal. Mrs Betty Davies turned away a man who had no luggage, Hanratty had luggage. It is now said on Jim's behalf that he went searching for better digs and left his bag at Ingledene, but Mrs Jones never said this and neither did Hanratty. There was a note that he left his bag at Ingledene, but not that he went searching for better digs after finding Ingledene.

In my view Sherrard was right to ignore the nonsense spouted by the Rhyl witnesses, and it is right that we should likewise ignore them in pretty much the same way as we would ignore the local 'sightings' of the Loch Ness Monster (Nessie).

[NickB]

Jim stayed in an attic bathroom; Jim says he stayed in a room with a sink which was at the rear of the building.

I thought Mrs Jones, trying to explain how Hanratty could have stayed there on the first night when Ingledene was full, said he stayed in the attic bathroom the 1st night and then was moved to room 4 on the 2nd night.

Presumably room 4 does fit the description he gave. But Alexi Sayle's dad then scuppered that by saying he stayed in room 4 on 21, 22 and 23 August.

[julie q]

Hello all,
Quite a while ago, when I was contributing more regularly to this debate, I referred to an article in the Guardian by Paul Foot in which he described a meeting he'd recently had with Janet Gregsten - she having suddenly phoned him out of the blue. I'd kept the cutting but couldn't find it...and still haven't. However, I was looking through an old diary and came across the fact that the article in question appeared in the paper on Feb 25th 1995.

Nowadays I only dip into this site from time to time, so maybe this is information you already know. But if not, and if anyone's interested in reading the piece for themselves, that's the edition to seek out.

Regards,
Simon

Hi Simon
I have posted recently regarding this article It is actually in a magazine called The Guardian Weekend , which was supplied free with the newspaper on the 25th feb.1995. The article is entitled The Murder That Will Not Die ,and is based on series of interviews with Janent Gregsten, but also includes interviews with William Ewer and Peter Alphon
hope this is of some help
kind Regards
Julie q

[Victor]

I thought Mrs Jones, trying to explain how Hanratty could have stayed there on the first night when Ingledene was full, said he stayed in the attic bathroom the 1st night and then was moved to room 4 on the 2nd night.

Presumably room 4 does fit the description he gave. But Alexi Sayle's dad then scuppered that by saying he stayed in room 4 on 21, 22 and 23 August.

Hi Nick,

the Foot\Jones collaberation that came up with the moving rooms scenario, and then Fot says something of the lines "obviously he stayed in the attic for the first night and then moved" whereas Hanratty says nothing about 2 different rooms. It would be interesting to read everything that Hanratty had to say on the subject of his stay in Rhyl without Foot's rose-tinted glasses to see how much actually does corrolate, rather than only the supportive snippets that Foot has chosen to quote.

I gave a list of questions a few pages back which highlight the hoops that have to be jumped through. Ignoring them or leaving them unanswered for so long indicates that the alibi is falling to pieces.

KR,
Vic.