A6 Rebooted

[Graham]

Ernie Marples...crazy name, crazy guy. He of the Syd James hair-style (and, I believe, a similar life-style, as they both chased after wimmin).

However, rather more seriously, my mind goes back a few years to the pre-crash Forum, and a few posts from someone....whose name I can't remember.....but....

....my guess is that SH's mystery person is Carole France. Well, if I'm right, then she ought to know what JH looked like close-up....

Regarding Alphon, the guy was in many ways astonishing, and had he chosen to work for a living could probably have made a name for himself in TV or the theatre. He was, as Woffinden (and I think Miller) rightly state, an extremely accomplished mimic, and it would be easy-peasy for him to drop his Home Counties drawl and go into Cockney. If he sounded like Hanratty, then I would venture to suggest that he did so only because he chose to.

Remember that at least one of the poor buggers who were treated to endless phone-calls was never quite sure who was making those calls, even though most of the evidence points to Alphon.

By the way, SH, as far as the classic details of the A6 are concerned, "Mr X" is I believe usually taken to mean William Ewer. Who, although I have never heard him speak, probably did not have a Cockney accent. Further, James Hanratty Snr was Irish and had a distinct Irish accent and doubtless an Irish ear. I would suggest that he may have found it difficult to distinguish between his son's undoubted Cockney accent, and that of Alphon, whose origins were further south. Even further, I am sure I once read that Hanratty's voice was quite high-pitched, and that this sometimes resulted in a spot of mickey-taking.

Graham

[Sherlock Houses]

The title for post 2084 should have read .."Hansard 02-08-1963" of course.

Ansonman.........yes, Derek Nimmo, a funny man.

[Graham]

Sherlock,

to quote an old but still apposite Southern American crudity, please either **** or get off the pot.

Either you know something or you don't.

Graham

[moste]

Absolutely Spitfire, and further more, no one it seams picked up on Hanratty's cleft chin, not a really pronounced cleft chin, but noticeable you would think if you had a close enough look to help say, formulate an identikit picture ?

[ansonman]

Pick up thy pith pot and walk

Sherlock,

to quote an old but still apposite Southern American crudity, please either **** or get off the pot.

Either you know something or you don't.

Graham

It is almost impossible to argue with the "put up or shut up" stance in the context where someone says "I know this for a fact but I cannot tell you why or wherefore". Sherlock is not the only culprit in recent weeks. A far more blatant example was when Norma Buddle told us that a retired policeman she knows told her that three people were involved in the A6 murder but that she couldn't tell us who they were. I can't be bothered to go back to the posting to check it out but it was probably a couple of months ago.

I find this kind of thing more than frustrating because it does no one in the pro or anti Hanratty camps any favours. Quite the contraray. If someone has some real evidence not previously disclosed, and is able to back it up with proof then for gawd's sake let's have it. Otherwise we must continue to speculate/articulate.

Ansonman

[Graham]

AnsonMan,

I couldn't agree more! Over the years we've had lots of this on the A6 Thread - why people do it is slightly beyond me. Over the years loads of people have claimed they know the identity of Jack The Ripper, but can't say more as they're sworn to secrecy. If they're sworn to secrecy, then why say anything in the first place? And we also have the claim that the Ripper Diary definitely came out of Maybrick's house, but we are still waiting (after 3 or 4 years, is it?) for further explanation. I do remember Norma's post about the information from a retired copper, but just moved on. Maybe old Sherlock is just having a bit of a tease, but if he really does have new information, then he really ought to put us all in the know. Just like I would....

I genuinely do await the day when a Hanratty Supporter can place on these boards, or anywhere else, absolutely rock-solid, 100%-watertight, incontrovertible proof that he didn't do it.

Graham

[ansonman]

Graham,

Hanratty's most ardent supporter still alive must be his brother Michael. It follows that over all the years since Hanratty's arrest, Michael (along with his parents and members of the A6 Committe) must have done everything in his power to unearth the truth. This would have included speaking with as many of those involved/concerned as possible plus their friends and relatives. Finding out as much as he could about the likes of Alphon, Nudds, France et al. He must have known that simply saying "I know Jimmy didn't do it" would never be enough and that the chances of an appeal succeeding without significant new evidence were slim. And yet, so far as we are aware, in all that time and throughout all his searches he has found absolutely nothing that we don't already know.

More than half a century later, there is nothing that could be added to Fenner Brockway's (and those of his MP supporters) statement to The House which could prove that Hanratty was inocent.

That's why I am very sad to say that I don't think that incontrovertable truth will ever see the light of day. And, as a fully paid up member of the pro Hanratty brigade, I wish I were wrong.

Ansonman

[Sherlock Houses]

You obviously didn't get my cryptic reply Ansonman, never mind.

For the benefit of the more patient among you I will now name drop.

Over the course of the last couple of years I have had several lengthy and fascinating phone conversations with Jimmy's brother, Michael. A mutual friend put us in touch and I consider Michael, who is a very dear person incidentally, a good friend.

In one of the latter calls Michael pointed out to me the very important fact that in no way whatsoever could Jimmy be described as having a pale complexion. His face was full of freckles which became even more pronounced during the summer months when exposed to the rays of the hot sun, resulting in one of those mixed tans that fair skinned people often acquire.

Black and white photographs don't bring out this prominent facial feature as much as colour photographs do.

[ansonman]

You obviously didn't get my cryptic reply Ansonman, never mind.

For the benefit of the more patient among you I will now name drop.

Over the course of the last couple of years I have had several lengthy and fascinating phone conversations with Jimmy's brother, Michael. A mutual friend put us in touch and I consider Michael, who is a very dear person incidentally, a good friend.

In one of the latter calls Michael pointed out to me the very important fact that in no way whatsoever could Jimmy be described as having a pale complexion. His face was full of freckles which became even more pronounced during the summer months when exposed to the rays of the hot sun, resulting in one of those mixed tans that fair skinned people often acquire.

Black and white photographs don't bring out this prominent facial feature as much as colour photographs do.

Sherlock,

I think I deserve a bonus point for deducing that you were talking about Michael. What you say is most interesting and certainly adds weight to the pro-Hanratty brigade. Appropos my last posting, is there anything else you would be able to either share with us or share with me?

Regards,

Ansonman

[ansonman]

The following link:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wrongly-hanged-hanratty-is-found-innocent-1285402.html

is from an article in The Independant dated 21 January 1997 under the headline:

"Wrongly hanged: Hanratty is found innocent"

The article ends:

"The Home Secretary will have to announce his decision on the Hanratty case by the end of March when the new independent Criminal Case Review Commission takes over the role of resolving claims of miscarriage of justice from the the Home Office's C3 department. It would be unusual for a Home Secretary to go against the advice of his officials in such cases."

The advice of his officials was that Hanratty was innocent. Does anyone know why the HS decided not to make a decision until five years later?

Ansonman

[ansonman]

Answering my own question

The following link:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wrongly-hanged-hanratty-is-found-innocent-1285402.html

is from an article in The Independant dated 21 January 1997 under the headline:

"Wrongly hanged: Hanratty is found innocent"

The article ends:

"The Home Secretary will have to announce his decision on the Hanratty case by the end of March when the new independent Criminal Case Review Commission takes over the role of resolving claims of miscarriage of justice from the the Home Office's C3 department. It would be unusual for a Home Secretary to go against the advice of his officials in such cases."

The advice of his officials was that Hanratty was innocent. Does anyone know why the HS decided not to make a decision until five years later?

Ansonman

I see from Woofinden that the reason was "the widespread assumption that it (the appeal) had been had been thwarted by the intransigence of the Home Secretary himself, Michael Howard. This view appeared to be confirmed when it was learned that before the case papers could be passed to the CCRC, officials had to delete all references to the recommendations made to the minister". (P 451)

The recommendations being that Hanratty was innocent.

Ansonman

[Spitfire]

The recommendations being that Hanratty was innocent.

What was meant by "innocent"?

Did it mean that Hanratty should not have been convicted on the basis that the prosecution had not established its case beyond all reasonable doubt?

Or did it mean that on the balance of probabilities that Hanratty did not commit the murder?

Or did it mean that there was no possibility that Hanratty had committed the murder?

[ansonman]

What was meant by "innocent"?

Did it mean that Hanratty should not have been convicted on the basis that the prosecution had not established its case beyond all reasonable doubt?

Or did it mean that on the balance of probabilities that Hanratty did not commit the murder?

Or did it mean that there was no possibility that Hanratty had committed the murder?

According to the article:

"Home Office officials are understood to have concluded that Hanratty was innocent. This follows an unpublished police inquiry which concluded last year that he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice and that the murder was probably part of a wider conspiracy."

Ansonman

[ansonman]

definitive definitions

What was meant by "innocent"?

Did it mean that Hanratty should not have been convicted on the basis that the prosecution had not established its case beyond all reasonable doubt?

Or did it mean that on the balance of probabilities that Hanratty did not commit the murder?

Or did it mean that there was no possibility that Hanratty had committed the murder?

Your third definition is spot-on.

However, in case of doubt here are some more for you to choose from, courtesy of The Concise Oxford Dictionary.

1. Free from moral wrong; sinless
2. Not guilty (of a crime etc)
3a) Simple; guileless; naive
3b) Pretending to be guileless
4. Harmless
5. Without, lacking

Ansonman

[OneRound]

Following on from Spitfire's post, I have doubts as to whether the word ''innocent'' would actually have been used in the Matthews report.

I appreciate that several of the contemporary press articles use the word but none that I've ever seen contain any quotes at all from this report. Far more likely in my opinion that Matthews, with the professional caution associated with a senior policeman, would have referred to Hanratty's conviction as being unsafe or something similar.

If there really had been proof of innocence, that surely would have been served up at the 2002 Appeal with the result that Hanratty would have posthumously had his conviction overturned and we would all have been left with extra time on our hands.