A6 Rebooted

[Graham]

That dialogue does not ring true to me. A moment of such significance would have been reported elsewhere.

And I don't think Swanwick would ask Hanratty if he had a conversation with Mr France about the back seat of a bus when he had already explained it in some detail in answer to Sherrard.

Hanratty: “We sat in the back seat and I explained to Mr France that if I had a large amount of jewellery in my pocket I used to sort it out upstairs on the bus. I used to put the good stuff in one pocket and I explained to Mr France the rubbish I used to put under the back seat because if I was to put it on the floor people would notice it.”

Sherrard: “Is that practice of putting stuff in that sort of place common or uncommon in that sort of world?”

Hanratty: “It is a very common hiding place for a man in my position.”

Nick,

I don't see why Tony should make it up, if that's what you're implying. Why should he? He was as I recall pro-Hanratty. Why should anyone make it up? I agree that it's hard to understand why this interrogation seems not to have been reported elsewhere, given its potential consequences for the defendant. But if Tony didn't obtain it from the trial transcription, then where did he get it from? The trial transcription is a huge document, one that I certainly would have a great problem reading in a reasonable passage of time.

I've never had any doubt at all that JH openly admitted that the upstairs back seat of a bus was a good place to get rid of unwanted goods; it is very likely that Swanwick was merely seeking corroboration from Hanratty.

Graham

[Limehouse]

How on earth did you know that, Derrick? I've always had problems trying to locate a particular post on this Forum, but that could be down to me or my computer or both.

I went to the post, copied and saved it, but the Forum tells me it's an invalid document and I can't upload it. God knows why.

But Tony's post was essentially from the trial transcript, a dialogue between Swanwick and JH, who definitely identified the hankie as his but without explaining, or being asked, how he knew. At this stage, I wonder if Michael Sherrard put his head in his hands.

Interestingly, Tony was essentially a Hanratty supporter, but posted this piece of what could have been damning evidence anyway, for which I thank him.

I've never read the transcript in full, have to admit.

Anyway, good to know I didn't dream it, and thanks very much, Del.

Graham

I can kind of understand why Hanratty might have admitted that the hanky was his. I think he believed that if he told the truth, he was bound to be found innocent because he was innocent. I suppose that when he was small and got himself into a bit of trouble, his mother would have said 'tell us the truth now, and it will save you more trouble'. He knew he was guilty of more robberies and was prepared to own up to those, and he believed that being truthful about that piece of evidence was perfectly sound because surely the real truth of the events would be revealed.

Does that make sense?

[NickB]

I thought that a psychiatric examination of Hanratty described him as a 'pathological liar'.

[j.kettle1]

I thought that a psychiatric examination of Hanratty described him as a 'pathological liar'.

Nick,

in the context of the hanky it doesn't really matter - unless you think that he lied about it being his.

Thanks

John

[NickB]

John,

My position is that I don’t think he said in court that the handkerchief was his.

There must be quite detailed Times/Telegraph/Guardian reports of his evidence. Perhaps they can throw some light on this.

[Graham]

I thought that a psychiatric examination of Hanratty described him as a 'pathological liar'.

In which case the Liverpool and Rhyl 'alibis', his protestations of innocence, etc., etc., can be taken as complete falsification...............as I always suspected!

Graham

[OneRound]

John,

My position is that I don’t think he said in court that the handkerchief was his.

There must be quite detailed Times/Telegraph/Guardian reports of his evidence. Perhaps they can throw some light on this.

Thanks for the replies about the hankie, folks. Particular credit to Del for digging out the post from Tony (a pro-Hanratty supporter and even more ardent one of Limehouse if I remember correctly!).

However, I have to side with Nick and also say that the purported transcript ''doesn't ring true''. Not to my ears at least.

Besides providing no source for his material, Tony includes a quote that refers to exhibit ''xx''. Surely if the quote really came from the transcript, then the actual number of the exhibit would be given?

Also, I'm doubtful that Hanratty would have used in court the word ''rubbish'', as attributed to him in describing stolen items of little value. Hanratty has always come across to me when he was in the dock as being polite and respectful of people and possessions. The term ''rubbish'' and the context of its use here reminds me more of Tony's often down to earth approach when posting.

I would emphasise that I'm not suggesting anything devious or even underhand on Tony's part. I suspect he was posting about what he genuinely believed happened and manufactured some quotes for colour. It should be noted that Tony has form in this regard. I remember him bringing humour to this board by poking fun at Acott with a cleverly and clearly made up interview containing various quotes.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Limehouse]

I thought that a psychiatric examination of Hanratty described him as a 'pathological liar'.

Well, if he was, he would hardly have admitted (as alleged) that the handkerchief was his. Moreover, he would not have confirmed the conversation he had with France concerning the back seat of the bus being a good hiding place for unwanted loot - after all, there were no known witnesses to this conversation and it was very incriminating.

Besides, diagnoses such as those were made on very shaky grounds, just like the diagnosis of him being 'mentally defective' when he was probably just dyslexic.

[Sherlock Houses]

I thought that a psychiatric examination of Hanratty described him as a 'pathological liar'.

If you seriously thought this then I'm afraid [I don't know what of] you thought erroneously.

Perhaps you were thinking of Billy Nudds.

[Derrick]

If you seriously thought this then I'm afraid [I don't know what of] you thought erroneously.

Perhaps you were thinking of Billy Nudds.

Hi Houses ol' chap

You may be right as I always believed that any diagnosis that may have been made of Hanratty's mental disposition was that of psychopath and not pathological liar.

Whether or not that particular diagnosis would be valid today is open to debate.

I agree with Julie Limehouse's last post.

Del

[OneRound]

... Moreover, he would not have confirmed the conversation he had with France concerning the back seat of the bus being a good hiding place for unwanted loot - after all, there were no known witnesses to this conversation and it was very incriminating.
...

I wouldn't give Hanratty too much credit for his honesty here. I feel it had as much or more to do with him being streetwise. If Hanratty had denied the conversation, he would have faced the near impossible task of having to offer an explanation as to why France was saying the opposite.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Limehouse]

I wouldn't give Hanratty too much credit for his honesty here. I feel it had as much or more to do with him being streetwise. If Hanratty had denied the conversation, he would have faced the near impossible task of having to offer an explanation as to why France was saying the opposite.

Best regards,

OneRound

Oh come on! It would not have been impossible at all. It would have been one old lag's word against another's and, should Hanratty have completely denied the conversation ever took place, it might very well have put France into a very difficult position.

[OneRound]

Limehouse - if I had been on the jury and Hanratty had denied such a conversation took place, I would have wanted to know why France was therefore lying. I feel that's an entirely reasonable viewpoint which in all likelihood would have been shared by the actual members of the jury. Unlike Langdale on another matter, there was no apparent justification or personal benefit for France to lie here. The fact that France was an "old lag" would not have changed that.

Anyway, as we know, Hanratty did not lie on this matter. I feel that's mainly because he saw no other option although others may put it down to his ingrained honesty.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Ed James]

Was Hanratty a liar? Most probably but not sure where it gets us.Others connected to the case didn't always tell the absolute truth.

I think Hanratty was naive , boastful ,and surprisingly candid at times. I consider his account of what he did on arrival on the train at Liverpool before taking the bus was 'embellished'. But that does not cast decisive doubt on Mrs Dunwoodie's evidence.

A difficulty we all face is around the selectivity and interpretation of evidence,which tends to be influenced by our leaning . A bit like Acott.

In this context, I would genuinely be interested in what observations (if any) posters would make on the photo of the Morris Minor abandoned in Avondale Crescent?
regards
Ed

[Graham]

Ed,

I know you and other JH supporters will disagree as a matter of principle, but JH was nowhere near Liverpool, or Rhyl, during the critical period of the A6 Crime. After he left the murder scene in the Morris Minor, he abandoned it in Avondale Crescent, and then for the next few days simply disappeared. We will never know where he was, but I repeat: he was in neither Liverpool nor Rhyl, but he used his previous visits to both places to construct what he felt were plausible alibis. There never was, never is, and never will be now, any concrete proof that he was in Liverpool or Rhyl at the time he claimed.

If anything, JH was a confabulist. That is, a person who has a basic problem with the memory, and uses vague memories of past actions without any genuine attempt to deceive, and indeed may not even be aware that his memories of a particular time or incident are incorrect. Confabulists usually believe totally in their recollections of a particular time or event, as indeed did JH; or at least he gave the impression that he did. I have read that confabulists almost unconsciously "trim" their memories of past evens to how they wish those past events to have occurred, and they do it without any malice or intention to deceive.

I have also read that the tendency towards confabulation can sometimes be the result of physical brain-damage, and that is precisely what JH suffered in his youth. I might even go so far as to suggest that 50 years on, in this perhaps (and hopefully) more enlightened day and age, James Hanratty would have been deemed unfit to plead.

Unfortunately for JH, he was no match whatsoever for the intellect of Basil Acott, or later for the trained legal mind of Graham Swanwick, no matter what Bob Woffinden might think.

Ed, I'm not sure I understand your question concerning the Morris Minor in Avondale Crescent, unless I'm missing something?

Graham