A6 Rebooted

[Derrick]

...

My Dear Houses

Elementary

Del Boy (aka Wat-sup)

[moste]

Good Post, S.H.

Not to mention also as per B.Woffindens book, the prostitute, 'Bet 'or 'Topsey', who sent the letter from Wales, directly to Scotland Yard, claiming she saw Hanratty clear as day, whilst with a business man client, (in consequence Hanratty did not see her). She explains the event of seeing him, and adds" "You are holding James, who had nothing to do with your crime"
I wish someone could explain to me how people who believe in Hanratty's guilt, and say "there is absolutely no evidence to support him being up north at this time", can brush all this under the carpet ,as the prosecution did.
Lets be fair, even this woman of low fame, crushes Stories story, (forgive the pun)about a pale faced, brown eyed, oh! sorry, blue , air force chap, no wait, err? right this will be the one, the cockney sounding fellow with the screwed up hair colour. "Did I do ok Mr.Acott?" "well done Valerie I knew I had settled my score"
Is it just me or does it sound suspiciously like Acott is about to hang someone for robbing houses?.
I think he should have taken early retirement and tried to live with himself.
Hold on, that's what he did do isn't it!

[john]

One of the major mistakes of the Defence was not to insist Michael Clark was brought to Bedford. The credibility of Valerie Storie would have been totally underminded or backed up it we could all see what he looked like. Not just conflicting descriptions from various bodies. Not one of us knows what he looks like I assume. Nor did the defence. Only Acott and mob. If ever a photo of Michael Clark should appear, as I have written before then Stories reliability is truly assessed. And the argument that she was not ready for the first line ups is, as evidenced enough, untrue completely. The Doctors and Police both gave evidence that she was fully recovered and capable of the first line up.

Interesting again in the Appeal no real analysis of Michael Clark and his appearance. Typical QC's and their boys club agreements. A seriously aggressive QC would insists and insists and question the Prosecution about this even now. Either Michael Clark looked like Hanratty or he did not. If he does not, there is no credibility in the identification evidence and questions should be seriously asked about this. If he did look like Hanratty, then in my mind game over.

[Dupplin Muir]

I agree, a very good post from SH. I imagine we'll see the claim that Hanratty was lying low, perfecting his cunning plan to carry out a random and unpremeditated attack on a courting couple encountered entirely by chance.

The police at the time fell into exactly this trap with their suggestion that JH chartered a plane or helicopter to get to an anonymous field, with no particular significance, in order to commit a crime against some random people who just happened to be there.

I will make a bold statement that I feel is unquestionably true: if the gun was put on the bus by anyone other than Hanratty, then this proves that he wasn't the shooter. Consider the alternative. Suppose that France provided Hanratty with the gun, and Hanratty then carries out the shooting, before returning the weapon. This raises a number of questions:

Why would he return the gun to France? Why not just ditch it in the Thames? Without the gun to compare no-one could ever be sure that it was the murder weapon. Giving the gun to France made JH a hostage to fortune.

If Hanratty did return the gun, he would know that it must have been France that put it on the bus, in a place mentioned to him by JH, and that France must therefore be trying to incriminate him.

Hanratty could have landed France in a great deal of trouble if he'd claimed that he bought the gun from France after the shooting, intending to carry out an armed robbery, but that he'd either chickened out, or been alarmed by France's odd behaviour (which is confirmed by several witnesses) in the aftermath of the A6 murder, and had dumped the gun in his favourite hiding-place.

All the evidence suggests that Hanratty did not return the gun to France and therefore did not know that France had put it on the bus. Yes, he'd mentioned hiding unwanted swag there, but this was apparently a common practice among thieves, so it wouldn't point unequivocally to France. Basically there are two possibilities here: either JH gave the gun to someone else, who then gave it to France (which seems unlikely, and would be open to the same objections) or he never had the gun in the first place.

Of course, the same logic would apply if another person had provided the gun.

[OneRound]

One of the major mistakes of the Defence was not to insist Michael Clark was brought to Bedford. The credibility of Valerie Storie would have been totally underminded or backed up it we could all see what he looked like. Not just conflicting descriptions from various bodies. Not one of us knows what he looks like I assume. Nor did the defence. Only Acott and mob. If ever a photo of Michael Clark should appear, as I have written before then Stories reliability is truly assessed. And the argument that she was not ready for the first line ups is, as evidenced enough, untrue completely. The Doctors and Police both gave evidence that she was fully recovered and capable of the first line up.

Interesting again in the Appeal no real analysis of Michael Clark and his appearance. Typical QC's and their boys club agreements. A seriously aggressive QC would insists and insists and question the Prosecution about this even now. Either Michael Clark looked like Hanratty or he did not. If he does not, there is no credibility in the identification evidence and questions should be seriously asked about this. If he did look like Hanratty, then in my mind game over.

Hi John - perhaps worth also flagging that Valerie Storie was so sure Michael Clark was the guilty man she didn't even need to hear him speak.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Sherlock Houses]

One of the major mistakes of the Defence was not to insist Michael Clark was brought to Bedford. The credibility of Valerie Storie would have been totally underminded or backed up it we could all see what he looked like. Not just conflicting descriptions from various bodies. Not one of us knows what he looks like I assume. Nor did the defence. Only Acott and mob. If ever a photo of Michael Clark should appear, as I have written before then Stories reliability is truly assessed. And the argument that she was not ready for the first line ups is, as evidenced enough, untrue completely. The Doctors and Police both gave evidence that she was fully recovered and capable of the first line up.

Interesting again in the Appeal no real analysis of Michael Clark and his appearance. Typical QC's and their boys club agreements. A seriously aggressive QC would insists and insists and question the Prosecution about this even now. Either Michael Clark looked like Hanratty or he did not. If he does not, there is no credibility in the identification evidence and questions should be seriously asked about this. If he did look like Hanratty, then in my mind game over.

What you say is very true, John. I think Sherrard's inexperience told on him. He was very remiss in not demanding that a photograph of Clark [or Clark in person] be produced to the court for comparison purposes with Hanratty. My own opinion, for what it may be worth, is that Michael Clark bore not the slightest resemblance to James Hanratty.

Paragraph 140 of the much to be desired 2002 Court of Appeal [not all that appealing imo] judgement very revealingly states..........

The fourth ground of appeal concerns the failure by DS Acott to disclose a note which he had made in his notebook to the effect that the man identified by Valerie Storie on the first identification parade (on which Peter Alphon was standing) had ‘dark eyes’. A note to that effect was written in the back of his notebook (that is, not in the sequence of events that he recorded whether for evidential purposes or otherwise). Mr Mansfield also submits that this feature is relevant to the attack on the Superintendent’s credibility because when asked to describe the man, the officer only said: “I can tell you this from my own knowledge: 5ft 9in, dark short cropped hair, about 27 years of age and he was heavily built”. Other aspects of the noted description also omitted from his evidence included ‘long round face, square chin, pale complexion, … born 7.12.35’.

Courtesy of someone who occasionally posts on these boards I have seen a copy of Acott's entry [about Michael Clark] in his notebook. Underneath Clark's full name are nine short details [on separate lines] beginning with his rank and Service Number. The 3rd, 4th, and 8th details are all underlined by Acott [which the court judgement conveniently omits to mention] indicating I would suggest their importance to him.

They read ...
Dark short cropped hair
Dark eyes
Heavily built

Whatever happened to those icy blue, staring, saucer like eyes I wonder ?

[OneRound]

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.

Hi Sherlock - as others have said, a good post.

Probably only fair to firstly restate my own view concerning the A6 crimes. Whilst I have little belief in Hanratty's innocence, I have serious doubts that his guilt was proved fairly and beyond reasonable doubt.

Your post does not cause me to change that view. It does not prove innocence but goes some way to re-affirming doubt.

My cards put on the table, a few thoughts - some general and random, others more specific to certain of the ''many witnesses''.

* Your list of witnesses suffers through the inclusion of Charlie Jones. I don't criticise you at all for that as he did at one time claim to be a witness; indeed, it would be disingenuous for you to exclude him. However, he subsequently renounced that and made clear that he had been pressurised into making his earlier claim.

* Following on from the above point, Jones cannot be classed as a true witness and by lumping his name in with others, it perhaps casts doubt on their claims, whether that is fair or not.

* I saw for the first time about a year ago the Panorama programme originally broadcast in 1966 which did so much to heighten and galvanise concerns over Hanratty's conviction and execution. What really struck me was how very heavily based upon Jones' claims this programme was.

* A massively unfortunate element for Hanratty [that can be read as seriously or as sarcastically as you please] is that whilst all these witnesses apparently saw him, he had little or no memory of seeing them. By way of particular and important example, if only he had supported Larman's sighting with an early comment along the lines of, ''I asked directions for a B and B from a cabbie who was setting off to go on a bender before moving down south the next day.'' If he had said that, the case might not even have got to court.

* Something which is based upon a lie or a mistake does not become the truth regardless of how many people repeat it. That is indisputable.

* Does the point immediately above apply to the alleged sightings of Hanratty? That of course is what matters. Different posters will have different views. None of these individual witnesses provide me with a compelling case for Hanratty's innocence. However, their cumulative effect is to at least maintain some doubt and why I feel that if all such claims had been presented to a jury in 1962 then a different verdict might have been reached.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Graham]

Hi OR,

your points are all very valid. Charlie Jones was indeed pressured, and admitted as much to Nimmo.

What has been repeated many times on these boards is that JH's defence team did themselves no favours by showing only one photo - that of JH himself - to Mrs Jones. This in itself seriously dilutes any claims to having a distinct memory of seeing JH. The police incredibly made the same basic error with Mrs Dinwoodie.

Mr Sherrard was also wary of what he saw as attempts by certain potential witnesses to 'get on the bandwagon'. Quite simply, as far as Rhyl is concerned, there were just too many 'witnesses', and I can well understand Sherrard's concerns regarding their veracity. He was also suspicious of the claims made by "left luggage office" staff. In fairness to him, he had some extremely difficult decisions to make with regard to calling as witnesses anyone who claimed to have seen JH either in Rhyl or Liverpool; perhaps with the benefit of hindsight he didn't get this aspect of the defence absolutely right, but of course he had the added difficulty of his client changing his alibi part way through the proceedings.

Another point worth repeating is that JH himself did not identify Ingledene as the place he claimed to have stayed in; Joe Gillbanks considered that, based on JH's statements, Ingledene satisfied at least some of the descriptions made by JH.

I still say that had JH stuck to his Liverpool alibi - and without a doubt he certainly knew people in Liverpool - he might have greatly improved his chances of a verdict in his favour. Unfortunately, we'll never know.

Graham

[Derrick]

...By way of particular and important example, if only he had supported Larman's sighting with an early comment along the lines of, ''I asked directions for a B and B from a cabbie who was setting off to go on a bender before moving down south the next day.'' If he had said that, the case might not even have got to court...

OneRound, ask yourself precisely the same question about any time you have stopped a stranger in the street for directions. Have you interrogated them for their occupation, their current intentions and what they are doing tomorrow? No of course not. The stranger would, likely as not, tell you to **** off.

Del

[OneRound]

Hi Del - that might explain why I often struggle to get given directions! ;-)

More seriously, whilst it may have been reasonable for Hanratty to have forgotten even making his request of Larman, it was not inevitable that he would have done. It doesn't help that he did (assuming the conversation happened) - tough but true.

Best regards,

OneRound

[OneRound]

Hi OR,

your points are all very valid. Charlie Jones was indeed pressured, and admitted as much to Nimmo.

What has been repeated many times on these boards is that JH's defence team did themselves no favours by showing only one photo - that of JH himself - to Mrs Jones. This in itself seriously dilutes any claims to having a distinct memory of seeing JH. The police incredibly made the same basic error with Mrs Dinwoodie.

Mr Sherrard was also wary of what he saw as attempts by certain potential witnesses to 'get on the bandwagon'. Quite simply, as far as Rhyl is concerned, there were just too many 'witnesses', and I can well understand Sherrard's concerns regarding their veracity. He was also suspicious of the claims made by "left luggage office" staff. In fairness to him, he had some extremely difficult decisions to make with regard to calling as witnesses anyone who claimed to have seen JH either in Rhyl or Liverpool; perhaps with the benefit of hindsight he didn't get this aspect of the defence absolutely right, but of course he had the added difficulty of his client changing his alibi part way through the proceedings.

Another point worth repeating is that JH himself did not identify Ingledene as the place he claimed to have stayed in; Joe Gillbanks considered that, based on JH's statements, Ingledene satisfied at least some of the descriptions made by JH.

I still say that had JH stuck to his Liverpool alibi - and without a doubt he certainly knew people in Liverpool - he might have greatly improved his chances of a verdict in his favour. Unfortunately, we'll never know.

Graham

Thanks, Graham. Certainly fine points from you in reply.

With regard to your final paragraph, I tend to agree. Hanratty's change of alibi must have harmed his credibility. However, the lack of an actual address - whether for Liverpool or Rhyl (and, as you say, he never identified Ingledene) - was always going to be a handicap.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Graham]

OneRound, ask yourself precisely the same question about any time you have stopped a stranger in the street for directions. Have you interrogated them for their occupation, their current intentions and what they are doing tomorrow? No of course not. The stranger would, likely as not, tell you to **** off.

Del

Unfortunately, in the absence of more tangible proof such as a bus-ticket stub, a restaurant receipt, or a signature in a guest-house visitors' book, this is precisely the kind of information a court of law would require of someone who was trying to prove his whereabouts in a given place at a given time.

Graham

[cobalt]

Unfortunately, in the absence of more tangible proof such as a bus-ticket stub, a restaurant receipt, or a signature in a guest-house visitors' book, this is precisely the kind of information a court of law would require of someone who was trying to prove his whereabouts in a given place at a given time.

I think you are incorrect. As the trial judge made clear, there was no requirement on the part of Hanratty to prove his alibi. The onus of proof was on the prosecution, which, as Sherlock Houses has rousingly made clear, made a poorer job of proving Hanratty was near Bedford than the defence did of claiming he was in Liverpool/Rhyl.

What about the forensics from the car where the murder took place? What about the forensics from the car where a sexual assault took place? Is this not the dog which did not bark in the night? There was nothing, apparently. No blood. No semen. No cordite. No saliva. No hair follicles. No fingerprints. No fibres.

Has anyone seen the forensic report on the car? Has anyone seen Acott's notebook regarding the forensic report on the car? Why have we had on this site police information regarding Hanratty's room which suggested he was some kind of sexual pervert, but, as far as I am aware, nothing regarding the more pertinent issue of the car which was at the centre of the appalling crime.

[cobalt]

I hope I am not being tiresome to those on this site who have far greater knowledge than myself, but I can only reiterate the obvious. And no doubt this point has been raised before.

If the car was effectively wiped clean of substantive evidence then that suggests a pretty clinical operation took place. None of this is compatible with the prosecution version of a car being driven erratically through North London after the crime had been committed by a gear-crashing road hog.

The killer, who may even have been Hanratty, must have had assistance of some sort to wipe the car clean. At the very least.

[Derrick]

Hi Cobalt

...I think you are incorrect. As the trial judge made clear, there was no requirement on the part of Hanratty to prove his alibi. The onus of proof was on the prosecution, which, as Sherlock Houses has rousingly made clear, made a poorer job of proving Hanratty was near Bedford than the defence did of claiming he was in Liverpool/Rhyl...

I completely agree with you on this one, that is exactly what the judge directed the jury to take into account.

...What about the forensics from the car where the murder took place? What about the forensics from the car where a sexual assault took place? Is this not the dog which did not bark in the night? There was nothing, apparently. No blood. No semen. No cordite. No saliva. No hair follicles. No fingerprints. No fibres.

Has anyone seen the forensic report on the car? Has anyone seen Acott's notebook regarding the forensic report on the car? Why have we had on this site police information regarding Hanratty's room which suggested he was some kind of sexual pervert, but, as far as I am aware, nothing regarding the more pertinent issue of the car which was at the centre of the appalling crime...

I have and it seems unlikely that the car was cleaned per se. There was an abundance of fingermarks, hairs etc from Gregsten and Storie and various members of the Gregsten family but only two fingermarks which couldn't be identified. These though clearly did not match either Alphon or Hanratty.

Del