A6 Rebooted

[ansonman]

So, the photo does not depict a ruddy face, and there are no freckles or dimple chin, VS was right in her ID of Hanratty that he was pale in complexion, and Michael Hanratty has either forgotten what his brother looked like by late summer, or he is not being truthful. Its obvious from the specs remark that you are incapable of conceding a valid point.

The Hanratty family have gone to great lengths over the years to clear James's name. I don't think for one moment that they would resort to lying. Some time ago somebody posted something to the effect that the contributors to this site are a great deal more pleasant and constructive than in the past. I do hope we do not have, in our midst, an exception to this trend.

I also think that in recent weeks, if not months, the pro Hanratty league has been winning the arguement. The absolute discrediting of the DNA, the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever to link Hanratty to the crime and the fact that VS was a totally unreliable witness, as evidenced by the ID fiascos which would be farce were it not for the fact that she sent an innocent man to the gallows. For a member of the "Hanratty did it" brigade to resort to suggesting that Michael Hanratty may be a liar is really beyond the pale in my humble opinion and calls for an unreserved apology. Either that, or go somewhare else to be rude and offensive.

Ansonman

[Spitfire]

It is strange that it has taken Michael Hanratty over 50 years to impart the information that his dear, departed, and infamous relative was of ruddy and freckled complexion and therefore could not have been the gunman and rapist who was, according to Miss Storie, of pale complexion.

It is even more strange that he has chosen to impart this vital information so casually to an anonymous poster on this Jack the Ripper forum, rather than to any one of the several writers on the A6 Murder. As in neither Foot's nor Woffinden's works on the subject does the issue of James Hanratty's not being "pale" arise. Moreover what on earth was Sherrard doing in not directing the jury to the fact, as we are assured it is, that Spotty Hanratty was not pale but ruddy and freckled, hence the "Spotty" cognomen by which he was known throughout the criminal classes in which he moved.

No, the word of an anonymous poster recounting information told to him by a person he claims is the brother of the executed criminal must trump all other evidence. It stands to reason, dunnit?

[Graham]

If, as I suspect, Ansonman's post was directed at me, I have to say that the debate about the A6 Case is not a competition, the winner being the poster who scores the most points. I cannot see ANY evidence of freckles in the photo of JH, and never could. Did the people of Rhyl mention anything about freckles in the various descriptions of someone who may have been JH? No they did not. I am not calling Michael Hanratty a liar, and to suggest that I am doing so is incredibly insulting to me, who has probably forgotten more about the A6 Case than many current posters ever knew. I will not demand an apology, because I know that no apology will be forthcoming.

Perhaps Michael Hanratty has another photo of his brother which will better show the freckles than the one that has been posted? Because there is not the slightest evidence of freckles on the posted photo, as lifted from Paul Foot's book.

I hope that Valerie Storie never sees Ansonman's last post. It is, frankly, appalling and I would be ashamed had I written it. Totally and utterly unjustified and a terrible insult to Valerie Storie.

How dare you accuse me of being a liar, and rude, and offensive.

In all the years I have been posting on the A6 threads I have never felt so bloody angry as I do now.

It so happens that I will not be around for at least the next 2 weeks, but I hope that when (or if) I return to this thread that sanity and politeness to those of an opposing opinion may have returned. But I'm not holding my breath.

This thread has sunk to a new low thanks to Ansonman who has mounted the highest horse of all high horses.

I would just like to say a big and well-meant 'thank you' to Spitfire for bringing back a little common sense to this debate.

Graham

[Limehouse]

I would like to echo Graham's disappointment at the tone the thread has taken. It has been bumping along beautifully for the past few months and the debate has been stimulating, interesting but, above all, polite.

If it helps any, I would like to confirm that it is very likely that certain posters most certainly do have direct access to Michael Hanratty. I do not want to say any more publically about that.

I think the tone of the last few posts result from a misunderstanding of 'moste's' post thus: So, the photo does not depict a ruddy face, and there are no freckles or dimple chin, VS was right in her ID of Hanratty that he was pale in complexion, and Michael Hanratty has either forgotten what his brother looked like by late summer, or he is not being truthful. Its obvious from the specs remark that you are incapable of conceding a valid point.

This seems to me to be a tongue-in-cheek, sarcastic comment which actually supports the notion that Hanratty had a freckled complexion, rather than a pale complexion. I think it is actually moste who is disrespecting Graham's points rather than asonman, who merely quotes moste's comments in the following post and responds to them.

Hope this helps to clear things up.

[Graham]

Just to set the record straight as far as Moste and Ansonman are concerned, herewith my Post 2168. In an earlier post I accepted Michael Hanratty's assertion (via Sherlock Houses) that James had freckles, but then added in a slightly later post:

By accepting that JH had freckles doesn't necessarily imply that they were a prominent aspect of his appearance. Otherwise don't you think that they would have been mentioned by all the various A6 writers down the years? Do the photos of JH in Paul Foot's book suggest that he had prominent freckles? I don't think so.

Not at all convincing, I'm afraid.

Graham

Can't be fairer than that, can I?

Graham

[ansonman]

If, as I suspect, Ansonman's post was directed at me, I have to say that the debate about the A6 Case is not a competition, the winner being the poster who scores the most points. I cannot see ANY evidence of freckles in the photo of JH, and never could. Did the people of Rhyl mention anything about freckles in the various descriptions of someone who may have been JH? No they did not. I am not calling Michael Hanratty a liar, and to suggest that I am doing so is incredibly insulting to me, who has probably forgotten more about the A6 Case than many current posters ever knew. I will not demand an apology, because I know that no apology will be forthcoming.

Perhaps Michael Hanratty has another photo of his brother which will better show the freckles than the one that has been posted? Because there is not the slightest evidence of freckles on the posted photo, as lifted from Paul Foot's book.

I hope that Valerie Storie never sees Ansonman's last post. It is, frankly, appalling and I would be ashamed had I written it. Totally and utterly unjustified and a terrible insult to Valerie Storie.

How dare you accuse me of being a liar, and rude, and offensive.

In all the years I have been posting on the A6 threads I have never felt so bloody angry as I do now.

It so happens that I will not be around for at least the next 2 weeks, but I hope that when (or if) I return to this thread that sanity and politeness to those of an opposing opinion may have returned. But I'm not holding my breath.

This thread has sunk to a new low thanks to Ansonman who has mounted the highest horse of all high horses.

I would just like to say a big and well-meant 'thank you' to Spitfire for bringing back a little common sense to this debate.

Graham

Graham,

My post was most certainly not directed at you. It was directed at Moste, which is why I quoted his post immediately above my own.

Ansonman

[ansonman]

I would like to echo Graham's disappointment at the tone the thread has taken. It has been bumping along beautifully for the past few months and the debate has been stimulating, interesting but, above all, polite.

If it helps any, I would like to confirm that it is very likely that certain posters most certainly do have direct access to Michael Hanratty. I do not want to say any more publically about that.

I think the tone of the last few posts result from a misunderstanding of 'moste's' post thus: So, the photo does not depict a ruddy face, and there are no freckles or dimple chin, VS was right in her ID of Hanratty that he was pale in complexion, and Michael Hanratty has either forgotten what his brother looked like by late summer, or he is not being truthful. Its obvious from the specs remark that you are incapable of conceding a valid point.

This seems to me to be a tongue-in-cheek, sarcastic comment which actually supports the notion that Hanratty had a freckled complexion, rather than a pale complexion. I think it is actually moste who is disrespecting Graham's points rather than asonman, who merely quotes moste's comments in the following post and responds to them.

Hope this helps to clear things up.

Julie,

Many thanks for recognising to whom I was responding. I rather think I might be owed an apology but am happy to let that drop.

Ansonman

[Spitfire]

I spoke with Michael and his wife Maureen as recently as 4 weeks ago. During that phone conversation they both confirmed to me the fact that James's face was very freckled, even more noticeably so during the summer. Hanratty worked with his father as a window cleaner for the three month period from about mid April to mid July 1961. Maureen told me that she was seventeen that summer and that James cleaned her family's windows regularly and that she would pay him the half crown [ equivalent to 12.5 pence] that he charged. The facial feature of his which struck her most and which she remarked to him on was how fully freckled his face was, it was covered in freckles.

This is in stark contrast of course to Valerie Storie's description of the gunman having a pale face. A vital distinction.

It might be of assistance if Mr Michael Hanratty could be asked if he has mentioned this to Woffinden or Foot.

If not, why not?

If so, then why did neither canvass this point in their respective books? The blue eyes/brown eyes point was covered extensively but neither seems to have covered the pale face/ruddy freckled face point.

I assume also that the point was not debated before the jury at the trial. Presumably James Hanratty could have given instructions to his Counsel and Solicitor that at the time of the commission of the offence, his face was not only in Liverpool or Rhyl but was ruddy red, covered with lentigines and resting on a guest house pillow.

[Spitfire]

I wonder when the penny will drop and ansonman and moste will both realise that they are on the same side of the debate.

Only Sherlock Houses's claim to have recently spoken to Mike Hanratty and his wife Maureen seems to have been called into question.

[Sherlock Houses]

Yes that's the photo I referred to. There are one or two other snaps which similarly depict the obviously tanned, freckled, face of Hanratty .Cobalt mentioned previously, that the jury had the opportunity to observe Hanratty's features throughout the trial. But I must point out that the deep tan and heavy freckles, by the time the trial began on Jan 22nd, would have diminished drastically, note: dimpled chin more noticeable in some shots than others, as in B.W.s book after page 244. (can't believe more pressure wasn't put on the so called Identifiers, with respect to what they say they saw, versus what he actually looks like, by the defence.

You're absolutely correct, Moste. The trial was held smack in the middle of a cold winter and the photographs of Hanratty which appeared on the front covers of the Foot and Woffinden books were taken outside the Bedford Court on February 5th 1962. His freckled tan from 6 months earlier would have well faded by then.

Attached are three images of a younger James Hanratty I have obtained from the Internet. They are copied images of the same photograph and bring out Hanratty's ruddy and freckled complexion. The middle image was taken from a CI Channel documentary and has clearly been doctored.

[Sherlock Houses]

Only Sherlock Houses's claim to have recently spoken to Mike Hanratty and his wife Maureen seems to have been called into question.

Only by the likes of doubting Thomas's such as yourself Spitfire. Oops, I very nearly hit the 'h' key there.

[Spitfire]

You're absolutely correct, Moste. The trial was held smack in the middle of a cold winter and the photographs of Hanratty which appeared on the front covers of the Foot and Woffinden books were taken outside the Bedford Court on February 5th 1962. His freckled tan would have well faded by then.

Attached are three images of a younger James Hanratty I have obtained from the Internet. They are copied images of the same photograph and bring out Hanratty's ruddy and freckled complexion. The middle image was taken from a CI Channel documentary and has clearly been doctored.

Was this point raised at the trial?

Has this point been raised by Woffinden or Foot?

[Spitfire]

Only by the likes of doubting Thomas's such as yourself Spitfire. Oops, I very nearly hit the 'h' key there.

Not me governor. I am keen for you to find out from Mike why he has kept this important info quiet for such a long time.

[Ed James]

Freckled or not? Overheated argument benefits no one. The key question is does it take us further forward.

Personally, I am prepared to accept that someone with naturally ginger hair had a propensity for freckles and that Michael Hanratty has made known an honest point. And in such an intriguing case it is thought provoking for armchair detectives like ourselves to have a new point.

But clearly it was not so distinctive as to be noticed by Mrs Dinwoodie, Grace Jones or others in Rhyl. And to my mind the brief glimpse of the gunman's face in the headlamps that Valerie Storie had would not allow her to discern his complexion . Did the headlamps shining in the gunman's face make the complexion appear 'washed out' and even the eyes 'staring'.

Talking of new points, I am interested in Hanratty's watch. According to Valerie's contradictory evidence, the gunman was always looking at his watch, then she did not recall whether or not he had a watch. Woffinden tells us the gold watch, which Hanratty was seeking to sell , did not work.

[john]

The conductor of the bus from Crosby to Rhyl holds the key. I remain convinced that the appeal outcry from the woman after the failure of the appeal was reference from her to that conductor, not the conductors of the Peckham bus.

It is quite simple-if Hanratty as on the Crosby/Rhyl bus there and back then the conductor would surely have remembered him with his hair etc. If he wa s not on the bus equally a damning statement could have been made to that effect. A conductor would have been in more contact time wise than any of the Rhyl claimants. However what have we got ?

Neither prosecution or defence referred at all at any time then or now to the conductor. None of the 'experts' authors- pro or against, mention a word ever about the conductor. The police make no reports about the conductor at all. Silence all round. Yet to state the obvious. If he was on the bus, the conductor would know either way If he was not on that bus the conductor would know. Equally as I write, I think so would passengers on that bus, yet silence from both sides.

The Rhyl alibi would be strengthened beyond argument if yes he was on the bus or virtually buried if conductor said no on at all like that on the bus.

I do believe that the conductor does hold an important key but what key?

Very very mysterious.