A6 Rebooted

[ansonman]

[QUOTE=OneRound;323202]

Hi again Anson,

To finish my own off topic contribution, with apologies once more for the diversion.

I'm not too surprised by Read's view. I emphasise that my dealings and conversations with Edwards were certainly limited but your reference to ''decent bloke'' is very much how he came across. He was clearly popular with the locals, especially the Evening Standard vendors (always good judges of character in my experience). The only thing I would add is that, rather than friendly, he could sometimes be better described as not unfriendly. Never unpleasant but as if distracted thinking back to other matters or times.

Unless I'm confused, I suspect you're out with your dates. I'm pretty sure Edwards was banged up for about ten years from the late '60s after he came back from hiding abroad and handed himself in. I don't think it would have been until the late '70s at the earliest that he got his Waterloo flower stall under way.

Totally concur with your views on the crime itself. Meticulously planned in respect of the build up and execution but abysmal as regards the aftermath. Surely hiding out immediately following the robbery and not being anywhere to be seen would only have raised suspicions when the Old Bill was looking to pull in almost anyone with some form as a possible suspect? Given all the money obtained, I would have thought the robbers would have been better off heading home sharpish having already bought a decent alibi.

Best regards,

OneRound

One Round,

You are absolutely right re the dates. No wonder I didn't see him!

I don't feel inclined to bring this discussion to a halt unless and until someone pulls me up for attempting to derail or hijack the A6 thread.

Cannot agree more regarding why they didn't get away sharpish. I seem to recall that some of the robbers favoured getting away in fast cars straight after the crime. It's almost as though they adopted an approach that was bound to fail. I'll have another read of some of my books to see why they thought it was better to sit tight. If they didn't want to head for the smoke they could have driven far North. I don't suppose the police would have anticipated such a move. It does confirm to me that there was certainly no "Mr Big" in the brains dept but they could certainly have done with one.

Goody says at the start of his book that though he and Reynolds were very close, he takes exception to being referred to as Reynold's number 2. He refutes that Reynolds was in any way the leader. If he's right, then they were all the weaker for not having a leader. Goody also hates Biggs with loathing. He says that he does't even qualify to be referred to as a train robber in that the only reason he was there was to baby sit with the guy who was supposed to drive the train but couldn't.

Ansoman

[NickB]

Reynolds said he had wanted to take the money initially to a remote location in Norfolk and distribute it later, but the rest of the gang insisted upon having their share immediately. For some reason, there was a lack of trust!

I suggest that any further discussion of this could transfer to the 1961 Landscape thread.

[OneRound]

Reynolds said he had wanted to take the money initially to a remote location in Norfolk and distribute it later, but the rest of the gang insisted upon having their share immediately. For some reason, there was a lack of trust!

I suggest that any further discussion of this could transfer to the 1961 Landscape thread.

Alternatively as a topic in its own right in the Other Mysteries section which is wide ranging in nature and covers several famous crimes.

[Derrick]

Found this today:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu-QnH_G3dY

It's not much but it shows that interest in the A6 murder is still alive and that the murder itself is still a shockingly emotive subject.

I am not sure that it is entirely factually accurate a la Storie's account.

Del

[Derrick]

Hi to everyone who posts and/or looks on in the A6 threads.

As I probably won't be looking in much over Xmas, I would like to take this early moment to wish everyone a very Merry Xmas and a Wonderful Happy New Year.

All the Best
Del

[Cogidubnus]

Thanks Del...and the same to you and yours

Dave

[Limehouse]

A very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all Asixers.

May the thread continue to thrive.

God bless all.

Julie

[Graham]

The thread's in one of its periodic quiet patches just now - for a few weeks prior to this it was getting very interesting. I hope it continues.

A very Happy Christmas and a prosperous 2015 to one and all!

Graham

[JamesDean]

I have been away from this thread for a long time and have some catching up to do before I post again. I would, however, like to take the opportunity to wish you all a very peaceful Christmas and a Happy New Year. There is more to come from this investigation; I am sure of that.

Regards
James

[Limehouse]

Welcome back James. Looking forward to more stimulating A6 debate in 2015.

[Ed James]

Hi Julie
I wholly support your desire for more, stimulating future debate.

There are so many contentious issues arising from the A6 murder that it is difficult to know which to focus on as we enter the new year.

I expect for individuals there are some differing pivotal points which suggest Hanratty was or was not guilty. Obviously , the DNA results are decisive for many, but what of other areas?

I am particularly interested in what can be discerned about the motive for this apparently pointless crime. Blom Cooper commented on the need for a powerful motive to enter a car armed with a gun.

I recognise the strength of many of Miller's arguments but I am not totally persuaded by the thesis of a random attack based on exerting 'power and control' which went badly wrong. I am intrigued ,as indicated in my last post (2114), in the possible role of William Ewer. I wonder why the police interviewed him on 11 September 1961 and whether they gave him notice of the intention to interview. Frustratingly, Woffinden tells as little about Ewer's statement. If Ewer did have a commissioning role that does not of course preclude Hanratty's guilt but it raises yet more questions.

In the interests of being even handed, the other big issue currently concerning me is what Miller terms as Hanratty going missing for two days.

In descibing Hanratty's alibi as implausible and vague, Miller raises a challenge. Why was there no evidence of Hanratty having had more firm contact with individuals when away from his London haunts? After all he was quite gregarious and befriended individuals on going to Ireland in September and to Rhyl in July.

kind regards

Ed

[Graham]

Hi Ed,

can't stay here long, as I'm about to be dragged off by the ear into New Year celebrations.

Ewer seems at first sight to be the Mystery Man in the A6 goings-on, but don't forget that he successfully sued Paul Foot (via the publisher Jonathan Cape) and The Sunday Times for libel. Woffinden says he got £1000 from Cape and a hell of a lot more from The Sunday Times. So here was a man who many still think was up to his knees in the A6, but who was able to prove that he wasn't, amongst other things, Mister X. A strange bloke, and if he was just a humble umbrella repair man as has been claimed, then I'm Basil Acott. I mean, who could ever make a living out of repairing brollies? Even so, I never believed, and never will believe, that he had anything to do with the A6 Crime. Perhaps he had lots to do with the aftermath of the crime, and that in itself could support a new study.

As to JH going missing, if someone can come forward with new and inarguable information and proof that he was in either (a) Liverpool or (b) Rhyl at the time of the crime, then that problem will be neatly solved. He was in neither place, and after his return to London he did what would be expected of him - he lay low. With whom, and where, nobody knows, but it wouldn't surprise me if Dixie France could have answered this question.

All the very best to everyone for 2015!

Graham

[OneRound]

...

As to JH going missing, if someone can come forward with new and inarguable information and proof that he was in either (a) Liverpool or (b) Rhyl at the time of the crime, then that problem will be neatly solved. He was in neither place, and after his return to London he did what would be expected of him - he lay low. With whom, and where, nobody knows, but it wouldn't surprise me if Dixie France could have answered this question.

...

Graham

Hi Graham et al,

Dixie France may well have known the answer here but, if so, it's something else I find strange and contradictory about this case.

If Dixie aided Hanratty in any way before or after the crime, I would have expected Dixie to want to reveal as little as possible. It was always likely that such revelations would help secure a guilty verdict against Hanratty. Even though it didn't happen, Dixie must have been aware that this in turn may have led to a full confession from Hanratty in a final attempt to earn a reprieve from his death sentence or simply to make peace with his maker. Whatever the reason, any confession would have sent Dixie down for a long time.

I accept that Dixie was under pressure from Acott and had to confirm certain aspects. However, did he really need to go as far as he did? In particular, making the comment about Hanratty favouring the back seat of a bus as a hiding place for unwanted items? That seems a rather reckless and unnecessary disclosure if Dixie was concerned about saving his own skin.

Just doesn't seem logical but perhaps I am trying to apply too much logic here. It of course shouldn't be overlooked that Dixie committed suicide following Hanratty's conviction but before his execution. That suggests a confused mind. Maybe a mix of fear, loathing and disgust? I can't tell and certainly not from this distance. All I can say is that once more things don't really add up.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Graham]

Hi all,

I've long thought that Dixie knew much more about the A6 and JH's involvement than he ever admitted to. If I were a gambling-man I'd lay good odds that it was Dixie who supplied the gun - it has been written that he kept a virtual armoury of weapons under the counter at the Harmony Cafe in Archer Street, where he was manager. Had it ever been shown that Dixie had supplied the gun, then he'd have gone down as accessory to murder before his feet could touch the ground, and would have been looking at a very long jail term. Maybe this is what he was scared of - and scared he was, to the point of taking his own life and leaving a close family to fend for themselves. I would also love to know what happened to his various writings that were found in the room where he died, and what they contained. The police apparently took most of them, doubtless because they felt the letters contained important information, but allowed at least one to be published - the one which contained the phrase "they are going to crucify us all", the meaning of which I always thought is fairly obvious. However, this letter does read like a plea on France's part that he had little or nothing to do with the A6 Case, yet felt that the police were out to pin something on him.

Things in this case certainly do not add up, that's for sure.

Graham

[Limehouse]

Hi Graham et al,

Dixie France may well have known the answer here but, if so, it's something else I find strange and contradictory about this case.

If Dixie aided Hanratty in any way before or after the crime, I would have expected Dixie to want to reveal as little as possible. It was always likely that such revelations would help secure a guilty verdict against Hanratty. Even though it didn't happen, Dixie must have been aware that this in turn may have led to a full confession from Hanratty in a final attempt to earn a reprieve from his death sentence or simply to make peace with his maker. Whatever the reason, any confession would have sent Dixie down for a long time.

I accept that Dixie was under pressure from Acott and had to confirm certain aspects. However, did he really need to go as far as he did? In particular, making the comment about Hanratty favouring the back seat of a bus as a hiding place for unwanted items? That seems a rather reckless and unnecessary disclosure if Dixie was concerned about saving his own skin.

Just doesn't seem logical but perhaps I am trying to apply too much logic here. It of course shouldn't be overlooked that Dixie committed suicide following Hanratty's conviction but before his execution. That suggests a confused mind. Maybe a mix of fear, loathing and disgust? I can't tell and certainly not from this distance. All I can say is that once more things don't really add up.

Best regards,

OneRound

Happy New Year everyone.

Dixie was known as a police informer. He was also rumoured, as Graham has pointed out, to have provided guns at various times. The police possibly 'overlooked' some of Dixie's activities in exchange for useful information that helped the police nail certain criminals.

Perhaps, as he was also an associate of Hanratty, the police leaned on him very hard to come up with something to pin on Hanratty. Just like they did with Ms Anderson. 'Come up with something, or we will find something to charge you with'. Also, if he was an informer, the police would have been in a position to put Dixie in a very vulnerable position re the people he had informed on and their associates. So Dixie gave them the 'back seat of the bus' conversation - which was true.

Perhaps he was hoping that would not be enough to convict Hanratty. He delivered what was necessary to save his skin but it was enough to send his friend to the gallows.

Just a thought.