A6 Rebooted

[Graham]

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

OK, change "court of law" to "jury". The jury plainly didn't believe JH's claim that he was in Rhyl at the crucial time for lack of concrete evidence.

Having done jury service (and on a murder case as well...) I'm aware that a defendant does not have to prove his alibi - it's up to the jury to accept it or reject it.

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.

I've never really accepted the London witnesses who claimed they saw the Morris Minor being driven wildly through London by someone who was identified by at least one of the witnesses as JH. They may well have seen a Morris being driven by a nut-case, but I don't believe it was being driven by JH who, I'm sure, would never have drawn attention to himself in such a manner.

The lack of forensics in the car is one of this case's unsolved mysteries. Obviously, the car's interior must have been cleaned very thoroughly, but when, where, and by whom? It must have been wiped down and, possibly, the floor brushed or sponged, and to avoid being spotted the process of cleaning may well have been carried out before it was fully daylight. Such a thorough cleaning could only be carried out if the car was stationary and, presumably, hidden from sight of busy roads. Was there sufficient material already available in the car to very effectively clean it?

The adhesive-tape technique was known to Scotland Yard at the time, and this was (and is) fairly standard practice to collect individual hairs, etc. Yet 'legitimate' hair was found, but no 'third party' hair. No fibre from the third party's clothing? No non-local mud, grass, dirt, etc., from his shoes? Lack of third-party finger-prints I can understand.

Assuming that the car received a thorough valeting, then why wasn't the gun disposed of at or around the same time? Sensible I'd have thought to dump the gun in dense undergrowth or preferably water somewhere away from the crime-scene.

As an aside, the Great Train Robbers claimed to have paid someone to clean up Leatherslade Farm after the robbery - this was either never done, or was poorly done, as the police found abundant forensics to link most of the accused to the farm.

Graham

[Derrick]

Hi Graham

...The lack of forensics in the car is one of this case's unsolved mysteries. Obviously, the car's interior must have been cleaned very thoroughly, but when, where, and by whom? It must have been wiped down and, possibly, the floor brushed or sponged, and to avoid being spotted the process of cleaning may well have been carried out before it was fully daylight. Such a thorough cleaning could only be carried out if the car was stationary and, presumably, hidden from sight of busy roads. Was there sufficient material already available in the car to very effectively clean it?...

As I said in my previous post and in a few others recently, I have seen Lewis Nickolls lab notes and have read his full testimony at the trial. He examined the car thoroughly, and, after all, it was a Morris Minor and not the Albert Hall. So was a small discrete area to examine.

If, as you say, the interior must have been cleaned very thoroughly then how does this explain the abundance of forensic evidence that shows that Miss Storie, Gregsten and his family had been in the car along with 2 fingermarks that are unknown.

This thorough cleaning you mention must have been so thorough as to eradicate everything bar the above.

Like you I also find the lack of forensic evidence of the assailant to be a mystery. Yet I find it hard to except in the time frame/circumstances/forensic results that are available, that the car was cleaned up to any great extent if at all.

Del

[Graham]

Now I think about it, it was suggested long ago that there was a blanket on the back seat of the car, and JH discarded this after using it to clean the interior, and with it went at least some forensic evidence. But other than that, I'm as stumped as you are.

Graham

[cobalt]

absence of forensics

Tartan travelling rugs were, along with thermos flasks, an integral part of the early 1960s motoring experience, so that might explain how the murderer struck lucky regarding forensics on the rear seat.

But unless he moved any such blanket to the driver's seat (and this was not mentioned when he was being shown the gears) then you would expect some fibre/hair evidence of his having been there.

No cigarette stubs either? The car did stop for cigarettes, so I presume the murderer smoked. He might have turfed the stubs out of an open window, but cars then had ashtrays for both the front and back seat drivers which in my experience were crammed full half the time.

[Graham]

No cigarette stubs either? The car did stop for cigarettes, so I presume the murderer smoked.

James Hanratty is described by most writers as a non-smoker. (If he was, he'd have been very much in the minority in those days). I thought that according to Valerie it was Gregsten who asked the gunman for 'permission' to stop for cigarettes.

Graham

[NickB]

Before starting the car the gunman took the rug from the boot of the car and placed it over the driving seat saying he didn’t want to get blood on him. Pictures of the car’s interior afterwards ('A6 - location of scene and 2nd appeal' post 158) show this rug still over the driving seat.

[Sherlock Houses]

Before starting the car the gunman took the rug from the boot of the car and placed it over the driving seat saying he didn’t want to get blood on him. Pictures of the car’s interior afterwards ('A6 - location of scene and 2nd appeal' post 158) show this rug still over the driving seat.

Below are the three images of the Morris Minor's interior from that particular post. I've enlarged the images slightly [the sharpness diminishes as a result] but they're still very small, alas.

[caz]

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.

Er, a third possibility being that Hanratty acquired the gun, decided to try his first stick-up with it, which went horribly out of control, then put everything on the bus himself (with or without France's advice) before heading straight up to Liverpool to send that harmless necessary telegram (also with or without France's advice).

France may not have known initially what Hanratty had been up to, but putting the pieces together he may well have become horrified and overwhelmed by the consequences.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

This really does beg the question why the defence was unable or unwilling to revisit any of the Rhyl witness testimony for the 2002 appeal. Hanratty clearly couldn't have committed the crime for which he was hanged if just one of these witnesses really did see him when he said he was there. Equally clearly, not one of the surviving statements could have been considered strong enough - or consistent enough with Hanratty's own account - to make the difference. Yet surely - surely - it should have been worth a try.

Unless the defence felt the umpteen Rhyl witnesses, individually or collectively, had done more harm than good by exposing damaging, if not fatal inconsistencies.

Love,

Caz
X

[Dupplin Muir]

caz wrote:

Er, a third possibility being that Hanratty acquired the gun, decided to try his first stick-up with it, which went horribly out of control, then put everything on the bus himself

Well, I did say if Hanratty didn't put it there himself, so I did account for the third possibility.

[Derrick]

...This really does beg the question why the defence was unable or unwilling to revisit any of the Rhyl witness testimony for the 2002 appeal...

Hi Caz

But they did. Mr Mansfield put forward the statements of Mr Larman, Mrs Walker and Mrs Vincent as detailed in paragraphs 185-202 of the 2002 ruling which I believed that you were well acquainted with.

Del

[caz]

Well, I did say if Hanratty didn't put it there himself, so I did account for the third possibility.

Yes you did - in an earlier paragraph. Apologies, DM.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz

But they did. Mr Mansfield put forward the statements of Mr Larman, Mrs Walker and Mrs Vincent as detailed in paragraphs 185-202 of the 2002 ruling which I believed that you were well acquainted with.

Del

Oh dear, I'm not doing too well, am I? Apologies to you too Del.

Was it at an earlier stage then that the defence (Sherrard?) decided not to use the Rhyl witnesses? I know I have read this on the boards many a time.

Love,

Caz
X

[Derrick]

...Was it at an earlier stage then that the defence (Sherrard?) decided not to use the Rhyl witnesses? I know I have read this on the boards many a time...

Hi Caz

Yes it was, at Hanratty's original appeal heard on 12th and 13th March 1962.

Sherrard went with an appeal based, primarily, on the judges summing up, which was, in all honesty, a complete and utter disaster.

He, and most importantly Hanratty, had absolutely nothing to lose by calling at least Mr Larman, Mrs Walker and Mrs Vincent.

Del

[NickB]

But Sherrard said their statements "did not find support from Hanratty" so there was no point in presenting them. What they had to lose was the prospect of clemency.