A6 Rebooted

[Dupplin Muir]

I've never really understood the claim that Hanratty went to Liverpool to 'get an alibi'. If you can make the journey by public transport then it isn't going to be much of an alibi. For example, if there was a murder in Central London at 9.00 am, it wouldn't be much good for me to say that I couldn't have done it because I was in Dover at 1.00 pm.

[moste]

Hi folks - further to Caz's recent post to Julie, can I ask a question please to all posters about something else I've never understood.

It concerns the telegram sent to the France family. What was the significance and reason that Hanratty's address was shown as The Imperial Hotel, Russell Square, London? Where did that come from and why?

Many thanks,

OneRound

Page 317 of Paul Foots book, mentions Justice and Alphon being at the Imperial hotel in Russell square on May 15th.

[caz]

I've never really understood the claim that Hanratty went to Liverpool to 'get an alibi'. If you can make the journey by public transport then it isn't going to be much of an alibi. For example, if there was a murder in Central London at 9.00 am, it wouldn't be much good for me to say that I couldn't have done it because I was in Dover at 1.00 pm.

Hi DM,

Well the gun and ammo wasn't actually found on the bus until Hanratty was up in Liverpool, sending that telegram - shortly before 9pm wasn't it? So it very nearly worked for him as an alibi for the depositing of same. He may well have reasoned that they wouldn't find it immediately, and if they found it that night they would be unable to determine how much earlier in the day it had been left there.

And there's the rub if an associate had done it that evening, for example, completely unaware that Hanratty was sending word from Liverpool at the same time.

To me, the telegram smacks of a desperate attempt to show he was at least in Liverpool at some point that week, possibly the best he could do in the circumstances. He could hardly have conjured up anything better if he did the crime and was disposing of the evidence in London on the Thursday. Didn't the police think Hanratty initially claimed he sent the telegram on the Tuesday, which would have done him a power of good if true? Naturally he denied claiming this when their enquiries proved it was the Thursday. But it does show he must have volunteered the information about the telegram in the first place, whether he said Tuesday or Thursday, because the police then acted on it.

So you might well ask why he would tell the police about a telegram sent too late to provide an alibi, yet that's precisely what he did.

Love,

Caz
X

[Derrick]

To be honest I find the arguments supporting the idea that if Hanratty was framed then the framers must have needed to know where he was, his blood group and all sorts of other facts to make the frame-up work unfounded.

If you believe that Hanratty was guilty then those arguments are easy to swallow. But if he was indeed the victim of a frame-up then one could look it in a completely different way.

The known facts support this scenario;

France is a supplier of guns, for a price, and an unknown gadgee requires one. This ne'er-do-well perpetrates the A6 murder and then thrusts the gun back in France's hand almost immediately and tells him to put it somewhere that it can be found that won't incriminate the perp.

The perp makes it quite clear that someone else must be sought for this crime.

What does France do. Panic of course. What is he to do. Put it where Hanratty told him a month or so ago. It'll be found and keep the scent off of the perp and himself for a while. Why worry about where Hanratty is/was or anything else like forensics as the gun was wiped anyway. He probably just grabbed one of Hanratty's hanky's just before he went out of the door to plant the gun.

The motive for the crime has surely something to do with Gregsten's work, and Ewer, a known fascist, is involved in the cover up and tries to put the old bill onto Hanratty, which he most certainly did on the 31st August.
This didn't work very well as Hanratty's name didn't get through to Acott and his murder team.

As an aside, during the war the Road Research Lab was involved in the secret development of Barnes-Wallis' bouncing bomb. During the cold war they were also working on defence systems against nuclear attack. It would seem likely that Gregsten, as a physicist there, would have signed the OSA. Gregsten's affair with Storie and his own unstable mental state, as recorded, would have made him, perhaps susceptible to blackmail etc.

France is now having pressure put on him and, knowing where Hanratty stayed in London around the time of the murder, places 2 spent cases in room 24 of the Vienna Hotel which is easily accessible from the public park at the rear.

This is still not quite enough and France takes his postcard to Scotland Yard, and as a known police informer is taken straight in and Acott's search of Ireland for Hanratty started.

France attempts suicide just before he is due to give evidence at the trial and finally does the business just after Hanratty's appeal is dismissed.

His last writings are being kept secret and I don't believe he killed himself because he allowed Hanratty into his family's home. France wasn't the innocent family man depicted in the inquest but another low life waster who was being pressed by the perp to keep his mouth shut, hence the nasty anonymous calls that Mrs France talked about.

Just a plausible scenario and one which demonstrates that the circumstantial evidence against Hanratty could easily point in another direction when one considers France's and Ewer's actions.

Del

[cobalt]

France Police Informer

The spectre of police informers hangs heavy over many of the alleged miscarriages of justice.

France was almost certainly a police informer, as are many individuals involved in criminal activity. Christie, the Rillington Place serial killer, was also a police informer, albeit the police did not know he was a killer. Ditto Fred West, who led a charmed life given his proclivities. He should have been bang to rights years before he was actually apprehended. The claims that Gloucester police visited West's domestic brothel have never been fully addressed.

So France's steering of the police towards Hanratty has to be regarded with great scepticism. He was almost certainly a nark. The back seat of the bus information is classic nark speak. As if the police did not know of this favoured hiding place from their own experience! Why would they have needed France to tell them what they already knew?

[moste]

Hi DM,

Well the gun and ammo wasn't actually found on the bus until Hanratty was up in Liverpool, sending that telegram - shortly before 9pm wasn't it? So it very nearly worked for him as an alibi for the depositing of same. He may well have reasoned that they wouldn't find it immediately, and if they found it that night they would be unable to determine how much earlier in the day it had been left there.

And there's the rub if an associate had done it that evening, for example, completely unaware that Hanratty was sending word from Liverpool at the same time.

To me, the telegram smacks of a desperate attempt to show he was at least in Liverpool at some point that week, possibly the best he could do in the circumstances. He could hardly have conjured up anything better if he did the crime and was disposing of the evidence in London on the Thursday. Didn't the police think Hanratty initially claimed he sent the telegram on the Tuesday, which would have done him a power of good if true? Naturally he denied claiming this when their enquiries proved it was the Thursday. But it does show he must have volunteered the information about the telegram in the first place, whether he said Tuesday or Thursday, because the police then acted on it.

So you might well ask why he would tell the police about a telegram sent too late to provide an alibi, yet that's precisely what he did.

Love,

Caz
X

Just a point of interest Caz.A telegram in the 60s (I'm not sure about these days) is useless as an alibi, because its just so many lines of ticker tape. The date, and maybe the time, is on the back but its not signed or anything. so what I'm saying is Hanratty could easily phone a mate in Liverpool to send the telegram to Frances home. I think its fair to assume the telegram in JHs mind was just that, simply a message not intended to prove anything. Cheers
Steve .
P.S just looking at our wedding day telegrams from 1968.

[moste]

Good synopsis Derrick. Actually according to Bob W. Gregsten joined the road research lab in Oct 1956. Before that he was with the fire research lab, where according to a co-worker he became involved with a girl . He fell very much in love with her and contemplated leaving Jean even then, to move in with her.
He had actually admitted he could have made more of himself, but for his compulsive desire to pick up women, amongst other things. Quite the lad though it seems.
I have often wondered if Mr.Gregsten didn't possibly ( inadvertently ) have a hand in his own destiny

[Derrick]

...As if the police did not know of this favoured hiding place from their own experience! Why would they have needed France to tell them what they already knew?...

It wasn't the police that needed to know that but the jury!

[cobalt]

It wasn't the police that needed to know that but the jury!

Exactly. Stuffing unwanted swag under the back seat of a bus would have been a ploy used by a number of criminals back in the day.

The testimony of France was helpful to the prosecution case since it appeared to link Hanratty to the murder weapon. Did Hanratty ever admit having made the statement to France about hiding loot under the back seat of a bus?

[Derrick]

...Did Hanratty ever admit having made the statement to France about hiding loot under the back seat of a bus?...

Absolutely...it was one among a few of Hanratty's admissions to incriminating evidence against himself.

[caz]

Just a point of interest Caz.A telegram in the 60s (I'm not sure about these days) is useless as an alibi, because its just so many lines of ticker tape. The date, and maybe the time, is on the back but its not signed or anything. so what I'm saying is Hanratty could easily phone a mate in Liverpool to send the telegram to Frances home. I think its fair to assume the telegram in JHs mind was just that, simply a message not intended to prove anything. Cheers
Steve .
P.S just looking at our wedding day telegrams from 1968.

That's fine Steve, but it wouldn't explain why Hanratty thought to volunteer the Liverpool telegram information to the police, when they were questioning him in connection with the terrible events that had happened two nights before he sent it. What was he intending to prove by mentioning it at all? Guilty or innocent, he must have hoped it would help his chances, not hinder them.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Absolutely...it was one among a few of Hanratty's admissions to incriminating evidence against himself.

Hi Derrick,

I suppose you have to put yourself in Hanratty's position when he finds out his 'friend', Dixie France, has been blabbing to the police about their recent conversation, in which Hanratty happened to mention his method for disposing of incriminating evidence. If he didn't put the gun on the bus himself (or leave the cartridge cases in his room at the Vienna), even he was bright enough to realise that someone else did, and to suspect he was being set up by someone who knew him and his methods. How wretched must that have made him feel, to be sent to the hangman by one of his own? And what if he was guilty? He could not point the finger at the associate(s) doing the dirty on him if they knew he was guilty and would be forced to give even more evidence against him.

What other damaging things might France have told the police as far as Hanratty was aware? And if he lies and denies the bus conversation, how many other 'friends' might come out of the woodwork to reveal having had a similar one? At least by admitting this much, he is being truthful and merely counting himself among the many who know of this method and have used it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Dupplin Muir]

caz wrote:

That's fine Steve, but it wouldn't explain why Hanratty thought to volunteer the Liverpool telegram information to the police, when they were questioning him in connection with the terrible events that had happened two nights before he sent it. What was he intending to prove by mentioning it at all? Guilty or innocent, he must have hoped it would help his chances, not hinder them.

But did Hanratty leap forward and say "I sent a telegram from Liverpool" when the police started questioning him, or did the police ask him what he did and he replied "Well, I went here, and did this, and then I went there and I did something else, and - oh yes - I did send a telegram while I was there"?

Additionally, if you allow (for the sake of argument) that JH wasn't guilty, perhaps he didn't really grasp when exactly the crime took place. Some people seem to go by the days of the week - they'll say "Last Wednesday I did so-and-so", while others go by dates: "On the 7th I did such-and-such". Cast your mind back several weeks and think about something you did that wasn't tied to a particular day or date. Can you swear when this happened?

[caz]

Fair points, DM. It would be useful to know what line of questioning led to Hanratty recalling the telegram and telling the police about it.

The trouble is, we don't even know for certain when Hanratty claimed he sent it. If we accept the police version, he initially tried to claim it was on that crucial Tuesday evening, until their enquiries showed it was actually two days after the murder. On the face of it, that would suggest he knew exactly which night the murder was committed and was cynically trying to shift the telegram back in time to coincide with it. But if we believe Hanratty, he told the police Thursday all along, not Tuesday, which would show he did remember his days and got this one right.

Still seems to me a most convenient, inconvenient telegram - if that makes sense.

Here's the relevant bit from section 53 of the 2002 judgement:

According to the officers, James Hanratty told them that the telegram had been sent on the Tuesday 22 August, the same day that he said he had arrived in Liverpool. His account (put to them and repeated in his evidence) was that he had told them at the first interview that the telegram was sent on the Thursday but that subsequently DS Acott said to him: “We have enquired about this telegram Jimmie. You said to me it was Tuesday. It was not you know.” He had replied: “You have misunderstood me DS Acott. I said Thursday.”

Love,

Caz
X

[Sherlock Houses]

The Visible and Invisible Man.........

I've never really understood the claim that Hanratty went to Liverpool to 'get an alibi'. If you can make the journey by public transport then it isn't going to be much of an alibi. For example, if there was a murder in Central London at 9.00 am, it wouldn't be much good for me to say that I couldn't have done it because I was in Dover at 1.00 pm.

This post of yours DM leads me to ruminate along the following lines.......

Proponents of the guilt of James Hanratty would have us believe that at some point on Thursday, August 24th, [before 3.00pm] he boarded the number 36A bus carrying a fully loaded .38 Enfield revolver, a handkerchief, loose bullets and 5 boxes of ammunition. His objective ? To dispose of these bulky items underneath the upstairs back seat. His next move ? To dash off in full haste to Euston Station to catch an afternoon train to Liverpool in order to send a telegram to the Frances at 8.40pm.. Not one solitary witness has come forward to testify to seeing him boarding this bus or travelling on it that day. In fact no one has come forward to place Hanratty anywhere in London that day. Just like the previous day and a half [half of Tuesday and all of Wednesday]. For some strange reason Hanratty has become invisible to family, friends, acquaintances, B & B landladies, hoteliers and strangers alike. No one bumps into him or spots him anywhere on the streets of London between 10.00 am Tuesday and 9.00 am Friday when he turns up at Dixie France's house. One witness, Michael da Costa, testifies to seeing Hanratty [or a look-alike] at Euston Station on the Tuesday morning. Similarly no one has ever come forward to place Hanratty [or even a look-alike] anywhere near the Slough/Dorney area on Tuesday, August 22nd. Stanley Cobbs, his wife, Elsie, and their neighbour Frederick Newell, all residents of the Dorney area, testified to seeing a dark-eyed, dark haired [brushed back] stranger around 2.30 that Tuesday afternnon who looked remarkably like the ident-kit photo.

Contrast this, if you will, with the flip side of the coin.....the visibility of James Hanratty [or a look-alike] in the Liverpool and Rhyl area on the Tuesday and Wednesday [22nd/23rd of August]. So many witnesses claiming to have encountered Hanratty or someone remarkably like him and corroborating important aspects of Hanratty's testimony. Chronologically [as much as can be ascertained anyhow] and without going into any detail about their statements at this juncture..........

Firstly, William Usher, the left luggage attendant at Lime Street Station, Liverpool.
Secondly, Mrs Olive Dinwoodie, shop assistant at David Cowley's sweetshop, Liverpool.
Thirdly, Barbara Ford, Mrs Dinwoodie's granddaughter who was in the shop late Tuesday afternoon.
Fourthly, Robert Kempt, manager of Reynolds Billiard Hall, 12 Lime Street, Liverpool.
Fifthly, Charlie Jones [aka White] newspaper vendor, Rhyl.
Sixthly, Mrs Grace Jones, landlady of Ingledene guesthouse, Kinmel Street, Rhyl.
Seventhly, Mrs Brenda Harris, daughter of Mrs Jones and living at Ingledene.
Eighthly, Christopher Larman, taxi driver, living in Rhyl at that time.
Ninthly, Mrs Margaret Walker, resident of South Kinmel Street, Rhyl.
Tenthly, Mrs Ivy Vincent, resident of South Kinmel Street, Rhyl.
Eleventhly, Mrs Betty Davies, resident of South Kinmel Street, Rhyl.
Twelfthly, Trevor Dutton, poultry farmer from Kinmel Bay, near Rhyl.

Not to mention the unnamed elderly lady of River Street, Rhyl, and all the other undisclosed [to us] Rhyl witnesses who came forward to make statements to police.

And thus we have the visible and invisible Hanratty. Surely the simple and obvious explanation for his invisibility in London between the Tuesday and Friday morning of that week is that he was elsewhere.