A6 Rebooted

[Sherlock Houses]

But Acott did not believe she had seen Hanratty, he believed she had seen someone else visit the shop on 21 August.

But Acott did believe that Mrs Dinwoodie had seen Hanratty. If he had not he wouldn't have made those ridiculous suggestions about a possible early evening air service to ferry Hanratty back down to London and then on to remote countryside in Dorney Reach.

He was ultra careful not to let the defence know about Mrs Dinwoodie. They only got wind of her existence by chance, some 7 weeks after Liverpool police initially tracked her down.

[Sherlock Houses]

Telling the court it was the Monday was a success for the prosecution, not the defence.

It couldn't have been a success for the prosecution because their own witnesses testified to Hanratty being in London that very day. As we all know it's extremely difficult to be in two places at the same time.

[Sherlock Houses]

She changed her mind in order to fit in with what Hanratty said! Why would she do that?

"It was then that the interrogating police mentioned a child. Hanratty, she was told, had mentioned that there was 'a child with her' in the shop. This helped Mrs Dinwoodie to decide that the day on which the incident with the man took place was the Monday - August 21st. For it was on that day that her grandchild, a thirteen-year-old girl called Barbara Ann Ford, had come with her to the shop and stayed with her all day helping her serve. It was the presence of the girl which enabled Mrs Dinwoodie, after some hesitation, to fix the the day of the incident as the Monday -- and thus, apparently, deprive Hanratty of his alibi."

-- Paul Foot book page 196.

[NickB]

But Acott did believe that Mrs Dinwoodie had seen Hanratty.

I could say: “If Mrs Dinwoodie did see Hanratty at 4pm on Tuesday he could still have gone directly by air, train or car and got to Dorney Reach by 9.45.”
That doesn’t mean I believe that is what happened. It is merely to muse that a 4pm alibi would not be as good as, for example, an 11pm one.
You seem to be reading Acott’s statements and knocking the “if” off the beginning.

I have already reported what Acott said in court and it is clear that his stated position was that he believed Mrs Dinwoodie had not seen Hanratty.

It couldn't have been a success for the prosecution

In the prosecution’s summing up, when they came to this incident they cited:
‘The evidence that the sweet shop incident occurred on Monday 21 and not Tuesday 22 August 1961, so not involving James Hanratty.’

As I keep trying to get across, this was the central and overriding point made by Acott and the prosecution on the matter. As Foot says, what Mrs Dinwoodie testified appeared to “deprive Hanratty of his alibi”.

This helped Mrs Dinwoodie to decide that the day on which the incident with the man took place was the Monday

Mrs Dinwoodie’s recollection may well have been prompted by the relay of Hanratty’s remark, but I don’t think it was the “only possible reason” for it. That implies she could not remember whether or not she was accompanied by her grand-daughter, but went along with saying she was because Hanratty said so. My question stands: why would she do that?

If she was an honest witness then surely she did recall that when the visitor came into the shop she was accompanied by her grand-daughter. Not just because Hanratty said so, but because she actually remembered that as being the case. This is how it comes across in her statement. She could identify the day because she recalled that it happened when she was accompanied by her grand-daughter.

[Derrick]

Lets first of all set up three distinct areas of evidence.

The facts on Mrs Dinwoodie's statement/evidence are;

1) She signed a photograph, that of Hanratty, as the man she saw. On this she had no doubt. She picked his image out twice.
2) Barbara Ford also picked out Hanratty.
3) The man asked for Carlton/Tarleton/Talbot Road.
3a) She told him he had come too far and to take a bus back into the centre of town.
4) He wasn't a local.
5) The time was late afternoon.
6) It could have only been the 21st or 22nd August 1961.

Hanratty gave the alibi of going into a sweetshop in the Scotland Road in Liverpool on the afternoon of 22nd August 1961. He saw a woman and a girl behind the counter. He asked for the above roads and was told he had come to far and that he had to take a bus back into the centre of town.

The prosecution had a good number of witnesses who placed Hanratty in London at the material times on the 21st.

Now;

The prosecution made two discreet reasons to explain the anomalies in their case. That Hanratty had either bought the alibi or if he hadn't he made a quick exit from Liverpool to Dorney Reach.

The first means that;

If Mrs Dinwoodie saw someone else on either day that could only mean that that someone was somebody who not only looked remarkably similar to Hanratty that made no difference but was also not a local who asked for the above roads.

So if it wasn't Hanratty then Hanratty would have to have found an exact lookalike non scouser who had done something in Liverpool at that approximate time and gotten the alibi from him.

This obtaining of an alibi could, admittedly, have occurred at any time between the day after the A6 murder and before Hanratty's arrest on October 11th.

But it surely couldn't have happened before the sweetshop encounter actually happened. So it would have had to been, if that is the case, after the 22nd.

A great window of opportunity for this, from the prosecutions point of view, would be on the 24th when Hanratty was in Liverpool (sending the telegram to the Frances').

But one can only imagine the problems with this. The first is Hanratty himself. He would have got bored and given up. The second is that in any given time frame how easy would it have been to find a emigre lookalike with a tale to tell.

Repeat the above paragraph for any other day until October 11th.

The second means that;

The A6 murder was planned in advance.

And that means some wider conspiracy because Hanratty did not have the time to put the gun on the bus and send a telegram from Liverpool, according to the available evidence.

But why would Hanratty, if the murderer, tell a cohort to place the gun where he himself had described to France as being a good place to get rid of unwanted jewellery.

Remember that the A6 killer had left no trace of himself in the car, or on the gun, or on the bullet casings found in room 24. Not one hair, not one fingerprint, not one fibre.

Del

[NickB]

This current discussion of the sweetshop incident started when I was asked to explain why I thought the original jury believed the prosecution case. To understand the jury’s decision you have to look at the actual prosecution case that was presented to them. Fundamentally this was that the incident happened on the Monday and therefore did not involve Hanratty. Their contention that it occurred on the Monday was supported by Mrs Dinwoodie in her evidence.

Of course if one wants to make out how stupid the jury were to come to their conclusion, you can ignore this and replace it with some peripheral issue like the air flight. (I would be interested to see the verbatim exchange on this subject and the context in which it was raised.) But anyway the prosecution case was that the incident happened on the Monday – so that trumps all the peripheral issues.

Since the trial Foot has come up with a theory of how it could have happened on the Tuesday. Personally I think his explanation is rather strained.

First he prefers to use Linda Walton’s timings rather than Mrs Dinwoodie’s and Barbara’s timings. Then he has Hanratty happening to enter the shop on an occasion when Barbara went behind the counter to serve children.

But the biggest assumption he makes is that Barbara popping behind the counter in this way would be regarded by Mrs Dinwoodie as ‘when I was accompanied in the shop by my grand-daughter’. I’ve always understood that she meant by this the day that Barbara was serving with her. If she meant at any moment that Barbara was serving, surely she would have said the incident could have happened on either the Monday or the Tuesday.

[Victor]

Hi Del,

1) She signed a photograph, that of Hanratty, as the man she saw. On this she had no doubt. She picked his image out twice.

I don't think she did "pick" his image out twice because the first time she was shown a single photograph and agreed that that was him.

2) Barbara Ford also picked out Hanratty.

Same issue here.

4) He wasn't a local.

He had a Welsh or Scottish accent.

If Mrs Dinwoodie saw someone else on either day that could only mean that that someone was somebody who not only looked remarkably similar to Hanratty that made no difference but was also not a local who asked for the above roads.

The qualifiers above mean "remarkably similar" needn't be so remarkable and "not a local" should be 'probably Welsh or Scottish'.

The A6 murder was planned in advance.

Alternatively, any crime for which an alibi might be needed was planned for that night. With Hanratty's house breaking record that isn't too hard to believe, but admittedly it's not his style except if he was planning something special, like his first job with a gun, perhaps?

And that means some wider conspiracy because Hanratty did not have the time to put the gun on the bus and send a telegram from Liverpool, according to the available evidence.

This depends on how narrowly you tie down the gun disposal. There are good reasons to say it was during the time the bus was working on Thursday but it remains a possibility it just might have been on Wednesday.

I think it likely France disposed of it on the Thursday.

But why would Hanratty, if the murderer, tell a cohort to place the gun where he himself had described to France as being a good place to get rid of unwanted jewellery.

I think Hanratty hid it at the Frances, or asked France to just get rid of it for him, which may contribute to France's feelings of guilt and ultimate suicide.

KR,
Vic

[NickB]

She signed a photograph, that of Hanratty, as the man she saw. On this she had no doubt.

What happened in court when she saw Hanratty in the flesh?

After identifying him in the dock she would have been asked (at least by Swanwick) if she was certain that the man she had seen was Hanratty. Did she say, like Valerie Storie, that she was certain it was him? Or did she just say it was a man looking like him?

The Appeal Judgment (section 69) says Mrs Dinwoodie testified:
“that a man who looked like James Hanratty did call at the sweet shop”

Foot in his Guardian article says:
“Mrs Olive Dinwoodie gave evidence to say
a) that she recalled a man looking like Hanratty calling at her shop and asking the way to Tarleton or Carlton Road and
b) that she was only serving in the shop for two days - on August 21 and 22, 1961 - the day of the murder.”

[my bold in both cases]

[Spitfire]

I think that Valerie Storie's certainty of identification should be considered against the background of her earlier identification of an undoubtedly innocent man. If she had been certain that Hanratty was the murderer at the second identification, then she must have been equally certain that Michael Clark, who she identified at the first ID parade, was NOT the murderer, yet she still identified him as the murderer.

Mrs Dinwoodie's evidence that the man who asked for directions looked like Hanratty is suggesting that she is not certain, this is correct and honest, as when it comes to identifying strangers, that is about the level of reliance one can place on the fallible human memory.

There should have been a doubt cast in the minds of the jury that Miss Storie was possibly wrong and Mrs Dinwoodie was possibly right. Mrs Dinwoodie's evidence may have been tarred with the same brush that tarred Mrs Jones's evidence, and jury may well have come to the conclusion that they could not believe a word Hanratty and Jones said, and so they should treat Dinwoodie's evidence similarly.

[Derrick]

I think that Valerie Storie's certainty of identification should be considered against the background of her earlier identification of an undoubtedly innocent man. If she had been certain that Hanratty was the murderer at the second identification, then she must have been equally certain that Michael Clark, who she identified at the first ID parade, was NOT the murderer, yet she still identified him as the murderer.

Mrs Dinwoodie's evidence that the man who asked for directions looked like Hanratty is suggesting that she is not certain, this is correct and honest, as when it comes to identifying strangers, that is about the level of reliance one can place on the fallible human memory.

There should have been a doubt cast in the minds of the jury that Miss Storie was possibly wrong and Mrs Dinwoodie was possibly right. Mrs Dinwoodie's evidence may have been tarred with the same brush that tarred Mrs Jones's evidence, and jury may well have come to the conclusion that they could not believe a word Hanratty and Jones said, and so they should treat Dinwoodie's evidence similarly.

An excellent post Spitfire

[NickB]

Mrs Dinwoodie's evidence that the man who asked for directions looked like Hanratty is suggesting that she is not certain, this is correct and honest, as when it comes to identifying strangers, that is about the level of reliance one can place on the fallible human memory.

Yes but then she testifies that she is certain the visitor called on the Monday. (Appeal section 69)

So it is not simply a matter of ‘Was Mrs Dinwoodie right?’ but what you think she was right about.

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
Valerie Storie stated that in the first identification she made a mistake. but Hanratty was not in that, but he was in the second...and she recognised her attacker..no mystery ...that's it.
Regards Richard.

[Derrick]

From the Guardian 9th February 1962

Mr Sherrard) If it had not been for your fixing the date by reference to your grandchild, do you think you would have been able to remember which of the two days it was?
Mrs Dinwoodie) No sir.
S) On the Monday was Barbara in fact serving there in the shop?
D) Yes
S) Did Barbara come to the shop at any time on the Tuesday?
D) Not the whole day. She called in at 4:45
S) Can you say now with certainty which of the two days it was it happened, the Monday or he Tuesday?
D) The Monday.
S) What time of day was it that this man came in and had this conversation with you?
D) About 4:15 to 4:30.
Mrs D was shown a photo that she had signed.
S) Do you see anyone in court that looks like that man?
D) Yes. [nodding towards Hanratty in the dock]

Interesting
Del

[Derrick]

Hi.
Valerie Storie stated that in the first identification she made a mistake. but Hanratty was not in that, but he was in the second...and she recognised her attacker..no mystery ...that's it.
Regards Richard.

Hi richardnunweek

I don't understand your argument at all. it makes no sense.

Miss Storie was certain that the first man she picked out was her assailant.

Sherrard asked Miss Storie at the trial if she was aware that if the assailant wasn't present then she shouldn't pick anyone out. She said that she was completely aware of that.

She then picked out Michael Clark.

She then admitted in court that she had said that Michael Clark bore a certain resemblance to Peter Alphon to a doctor and Mr Acott.

Alphon and Hanratty look nothing like each other.

Now I don't think either Alphon or Hanratty was the A6 murderer but Miss Stories identikit picture, which she herself said was a good likeness, looks a bit like Alphon.

Must just be a mistake eh?

Maybe she didn't really know what her assailant looked like at all really eh?

Del

[Limehouse]

Hi.
Valerie Storie stated that in the first identification she made a mistake. but Hanratty was not in that, but he was in the second...and she recognised her attacker..no mystery ...that's it.
Regards Richard.

Well, with respect Richard, I have to slightly take issue with the claim that 'she recognised her attacker' in that second ID parade. She spent some 20 minutes studying the men, after which she asked each of them to speak. She didn't exactly march into the room and slap her hand on his shoulder.