A6 Rebooted

[john]

There is no evidential statements that are known about excpeting Trower and Hogan that place the car being there at 7 in the morning. And indeed Trower and Hogan disgareed about what and who they actually saw. The Police took statements from a lot of the residents, not just from Avondale Crescent. Matthews saw these in his enquires but never made available and regrettably at the Appeal hearing, the Defence did not seek to pursue the car busines as thoroughloy as they shoukd have donhe. Sherrard was of course not aware of the statements even from Doreen Milne. Hanratty could not have driven the car there to be there late afternoon as he sent a telegram on Wednesday evening 2040 from Liverpoool to the France's. of course he could have caught the famous plane back again which Acott. and Swanwick suggested. Of course that does not preclude Hanratty from being the murderer, but it suggests strongly that he could not have delivered the car to Avondale Cresecent. And also what did the resident's statements not revealed say? You can bet that if they had claimed to seen an Hanratty look alike etc they would have been produced for the Prosecution. It is an assumption but I bet they support the car was not there in the mnorning scenario.

We then come to the statements of the bus conductor on the Liverpool/Rhyl day. These have never been made available by Liverpool Police at the time (now Merseyside). of course who became CC of Merseyside. Why one Sgt Oxford as he was in 1962 when the bag man of Acott. I wonder why they have never been available and still sit in the depths of Liverpool Police. Again if the conductor had said something negative against Hanratty, or even there was no one with dyed hair on the bus that day, they would have been produced. Oxford was not going to sanction anyone getting permission to see these statements. Even now, only a Court can actually make a Police force produce these. The CCCR do not have the powers to insist to a Police Force they give all evidence ie statements to them.

I have again always felt that Foot etc were wrong in an assumption that when the 'elderly woman' stood up in the original Appeal hearing' and shouted ask the Bus Conductor etc, it was the 36A Conductors. I feel not. I think that the reference she was making was to the Liverpool/Rhyl bus. Foot and even Wolffenden were working blind in many respects. Non Disclosure of all statements still haunts this case. And if you, be it the Police or even Defence hide statements then it must lead to distortions of the actuality of the truth.

[john]

To continue

If the bus conductor on the Liverpool/Rhyl bus had in their statements indicated that there wa sno man with dyed hair etc that day on the bus, they would have been produced as hard evidence against Hanratty's stry.

[Graham]

......afternoon as he sent a telegram on Wednesday evening 2040 from Liverpoool to the France's.

The telegram was sent on Thursday 24th August.

Graham

[Sherlock Houses]

Hanratty could not have driven the car there to be there late afternoon as he sent a telegram on Wednesday evening 2040 from Liverpoool to the France's.

I've long been under the impression John that the telegram to the France's was sent on the Thursday [24th] evening. According to Woffinden's book at any rate. Do you have information to the contrary ? To refresh reader's memories the postcard read "Having a nice time, be home early Friday morning for business. Yours sincerely, Jim"

Are you implying that Hanratty only stayed the one [Tuesday] night at Mrs Jones's guesthouse in Rhyl and returned the following day [Wednesday] to Liverpool ? It would seem to make more sense, given the wording of the telegram, that it was sent a couple of days before the Friday, otherwise the most natural thing to say would have been ..."be home tomorrow morning for business."

[Graham]

According to Woffinden (pp 289 - 290 paperback edition 1999), Allan Lofts, reporting the appeal for The Sheffield Telegraph, wrote:

An elderly, slightly built woman wearing an olive-green coat and flowered straw hat had stood up in the crowded public gallery and screamed, "It is not true. He didn't do it. You ought to ask the conductor on the 36 bus".

She carried on shouting, then walked out of the court and disappeared. Lofts specifically mentions 'the 36 bus' (OK, it was actually the 36A). Who the conductor actually was has never been properly established. It apparently wasn't Pamela Patt who was on the 36A's morning run, and Woffinden doesn't mention if the conductor on the afternoon run saw something. Mystery.

Graham

[Spitfire]

According to Woffinden (pp 289 - 290 paperback edition 1999), Allan Lofts, reporting the appeal for The Sheffield Telegraph, wrote:

An elderly, slightly built woman wearing an olive-green coat and flowered straw hat had stood up in the crowded public gallery and screamed, "It is not true. He didn't do it. You ought to ask the conductor on the 36 bus".

She could have had valuable information, or could have been a nutter.

That she chose an unconventional means of advocating Hanratty's innocence tends to suggest the latter.

[NickB]

Woffinden doesn't mention if the conductor on the afternoon run saw something. Mystery. Graham

Ernest Brine was the conductor in the afternoon who gave evidence at the trial that the upstairs was crowded then so the back seat could not be lifted unnoticed.

According to Woffinden, Pamela Patt’s statement said the bus was busy in the morning also. But in the 2002 Appeal version of her statement there was a man who went upstairs alone: “about 25, 5 ft. 7 ins., medium build, thick wavy hair, mousey colour, clean shaven”.

[Graham]

Hi Nick,

Quite right - I'd forgotten about Mr Brine! Woffinden doesn't say much about him, but Paul Foot does. Mr B as you say gave evidence at the trial but wasn't questioned by the defence. However, according to Foot, the Evening News of 25th August carried an article called 'Murder On My Route' in which Mr B said that for no stated reason he noticed one of his passengers on the Thursday afternoon run at about 6.30pm and claimed he could pick him out on an i.d. parade. His description of this man doesn't sound like Hanratty.

However, that passenger couldn't have been Hanratty, as he was in Liverpool at that time, ref: his telegram to France; so if indeed it was Hanratty who placed the gun under the back seat of the 36A it must have been on the Wednesday evening, or possibly very early on Thursday morning.

On the old boards it was suggested that Hanratty had obtained the gun from France in the first place, and forced him to take it back after the crime. France, who by then must have been one scared bunny, put the gun on the 36A bus in exactly the place Hanratty admitted describing to him. Don't know - can't be proved. But I always felt that France was involved much more than he ever admitted, even if only peripherally.

Graham

[NickB]

[Spitfire]

Hi Nick,

Quite right - I'd forgotten about Mr Brine! Woffinden doesn't say much about him, but Paul Foot does. Mr B as you say gave evidence at the trial but wasn't questioned by the defence. However, according to Foot, the Evening News of 25th August carried an article called 'Murder On My Route' in which Mr B said that for no stated reason he noticed one of his passengers on the Thursday afternoon run at about 6.30pm and claimed he could pick him out on an i.d. parade. His description of this man doesn't sound like Hanratty.

However, that passenger couldn't have been Hanratty, as he was in Liverpool at that time, ref: his telegram to France; so if indeed it was Hanratty who placed the gun under the back seat of the 36A it must have been on the Wednesday evening, or possibly very early on Thursday morning.

On the old boards it was suggested that Hanratty had obtained the gun from France in the first place, and forced him to take it back after the crime. France, who by then must have been one scared bunny, put the gun on the 36A bus in exactly the place Hanratty admitted describing to him. Don't know - can't be proved. But I always felt that France was involved much more than he ever admitted, even if only peripherally.

Graham

If France had supplied the gun to Hanratty, then he would have a vested interest in Hanratty getting away with it. So that if Hanratty had forced France to retake custody of the gun with a view to the latter disposing of the same, then France would have an interest in ensuring that the gun was NOT found. France would have thrown it in the Thames rather than under the back seat of a bus.

As to what part France played in this tragedy, we will never know. I am always doubtful when rational motives are used to explain the irrational act of suicide. The suspicion that Hanratty was supplied with the gun by France is a reasonable one, and France may have thought that the deaths of Gregsten and Hanratty, and the injuries to Valerie Storie were a direct consequence of that act.

[Graham]

I don't think that even Hanratty would have run the risk to himself by planting the gun on the bus - he admitted that he'd told France about this hiding-place.
I agree - any 'normal' person (if such exist under such circumstances) would have tossed the gun into the Thames. If France did place the gun on the bus, then it must have been for a reason, and I can only think that it was to place the blame for the A6 firmly on Hanratty. France doubtless felt that he was running the risk of being accused as an accessory for murder. OK, maybe the logic here isn't fully waterproof, but I still feel that there is a lot of doubt as to who did plant the gun.

Another puzzling aspect is that although the police admitted that prior to his suicide France had written many notes, lettes, etc., only one was ever released for publication. This letter contains the phrase, "They're going to crucify us all" which, if France was not involved in the A6, is puzzling. Anyway, we'll never know now precisely what he meant.

Graham

[NickB]

Isn’t the most likely candidate the man in Pamela Patt’s statement of 26 August 1961?

I don’t know the exact wording but (from the Appeal) the relevant part of her statement appears to have gone something like this:
In the first journey to Kilburn the passengers were all regular ones with one exception. At 6.10am a young man of dirty appearance, wearing a dirty raincoat got on near the Grosvenor Hotel and went to the upper deck, where he was the only passenger for a time. He was about 25 years old, 5ft. 7 ins. tall, medium build, with thick wavy hair of a mousey colour and clean shaven.
I did not see anything suspicious during the whole of this journey.

Or if you prefer Woffinden’s version:
"In the first journey to Kilburn the passengers were all regular ones ... I did not see anything suspicious during the whole of this journey."

[Derrick]

..."In the first journey to Kilburn the passengers were all regular ones ... I did not see anything suspicious during the whole of this journey."...

Nick

On the 24th August Hanratty's hair was most streaky looking, all sorts of colours, certainly not mousey coloured. This was corroborated by Carol France some two days later. So Ms Patt's testimony about this individual would seem to eliminate Hanratty as Woffinden obviously appreciated.

Del

[Spitfire]

The Court of Appeal said this about this aspect of the case:

"In any event, her description of the man (about 25, 5 ft. 7 ins., medium build, thick wavy hair, mousey colour, clean shaven) is unlikely to have taken the defence very far and it would have been remarkable had they sought to call this witness to make a positive non identification and risk her cross-examination on the various features of similarity."

I don't think Michael Sherrard said anything subsequently to gainsay the above.

[Derrick]

...I don't think Michael Sherrard said anything subsequently to gainsay the above...

And how much, in the circumstances, would that have been worth?