A6 Rebooted

[caz]

It very much seems like the prosecution team were trying to have their cake and eat it.

And how did that go?

Rather too well, eh?

Full of cake, fed to them by a jury who didn't appreciate being lied to by the man in the dock. The prosecution team didn't have to try very hard after that.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sherlock Houses]

It very much seems like the prosecution team were trying to have their cake and eat it. They were trying to get around the enormous problem that Mrs Dinwoodie's revealing evidence posed. They must have found themselves in a real quandary. The sweetshop incident with Hanratty [or his double] must have occurred on Monday August 21st. But wait a minute, it must have been Hanratty's double who was in the shop enquiring about Tarleton Road since Hanratty was in London all day Monday............

"How do we get around this dilemma Geoffrey, how on earth did Hanratty get wind of this sweetshop incident involving his doppelganger " ?

"Don't ask me Graham, you're supposed to be the main man. Perhaps Hanratty was able to buy an alibi from one of his friends when he was back in Liverpool in early October. A friend who heard that a Hanratty lookalike had been enquiring about a Tarleton Road when he popped into Dave Cowley's shop six or seven Monday's earlier, lol."

"That's enough of that Geoff, cut the joking and pass me the paracetamol. You'll never become Lord Chief Justice one day"

[cobalt]

I asked last week about what James Hanratty was carrying when he left the Vienna Hotel but nobody seems very sure of the answer. It may have some significance to the Prosecution case, which I will try to explore. With the caveat that we generally accept on this site that even in the most uncontested of cases there are often small unexplained details, and that a desperate man may not always act logically.

JH left the Vienna Hotel around midday in possession of a revolver and some ammunition. It is possible he was carrying these items on his person but unlikely for two reasons. First of all Valerie Store mentioned her attacker carrying a bag. Secondly, JH had created a Liverpool alibi in advance (to the France family and Louise Anderson) so was presumably headed there to fence some of his ‘swag’ which would require a bag. However, consumed by his desire to make the criminal big time, JH was set on adding to his meagre bag of swag by stopping off en route. He could then later impress the Liverpool criminal fraternity with the fruits of his labours earned as an accomplished burglar/stick up man. That is how I understand the Prosecution case.

We don’t know how or when JH arrived in Taplow- there were no witnesses. This is a gap in the Prosecution case but not insurmountable. A criminal associate may have driven JH there shortly before dusk and subsequently remained silent in the aftermath of what happened. If JH was ‘casing’ houses for burglary it is very difficult to imagine he would have been lugging around 5 boxes of extra ammunition. In fact even a stick up man would have settled for a full revolver plus a few extra bullets. So if JH was the attacker in the corn field then the Prosecution cannot really avoid this problem, although it seems they did.

The crime is botched badly and JH must now ditch the murder weapon and the car to avoid detection. However time is on his side: he has around 4 hours until daylight, and even when the victims are discovered (he assumes they are both dead) it may take time to identify them and link the car back to Malcolm Gregsten. His best option would surely be to dump the weapon and ammunition in some forlorn spot, abandon the car in a railway station car park, then catch an early train to Liverpool in order to establish his alibi. JH does none of this.

Instead he drives back to London, perhaps in panic seeking familiar territory. Even then he could have dumped the weapon en route and caught a train to Liverpool. This poor decision leads to him being identified as a bad car driver in early London traffic and he was rather lucky not to have been seen exiting the stolen car. What JH does next makes absolutely no sense. He either personally collected his extra ammunition boxes from his supplier- hardly necessary since a phone call could have tipped off the armourer- or he was carrying them throughout the crime and decided the best hiding place was in the back seat of a London bus. A place he must have known the items would be swiftly discovered. JH also ran the risk of being seen as a man occupying the back seat of that bus although in the event luck was on his side.

Having carried out these futile exercises in concealment, JH at some point does eventually board a train bound for Liverpool although the Prosecution is vague about the day he did this, far less the time. The Prosecution accepted JH’s phoned telegram message from Liverpool on Thursday 24 September as being genuine although there is surely the possibility of impersonation. (I have no idea if such messages were voice recorded in 1961.) It actually bolstered the Prosecution case to have Hanratty scouring around for an alibi in Liverpool after the event so I can see why they did not contest this evidence. Yet it also opens up the question of why Hanratty, if guilty, bothered to go there in the first place. Having decided to return to London and abandon the murder car in Redbridge it would have made as much sense, more in fact, to have gone about his day to day criminal lifestyle in London and acted accordingly.

Any Prosecution case has the luxury of imputing motive to the accused where it suits, while ignoring any motive which undermines its case. Since I am not the Prosecution I remain unconvinced on these three points. Was JH carrying the 5 boxes of ammunition when he committed the crime- in which case they could only have hindered his activities as either a burglar or a robber? If he was not carrying these boxes how did he, as a member of the NFA community, later retrieve them and from whom? And why did JH, having opened up a Liverpool alibi, not only return to London in order to incriminate himself but later revert to a Liverpool alibi that ran the risk of discovery before he arrived in that city?

[caz]

If only Hanratty had stuck with Liverpool and his local knowledge of the sweet shop, and not foolishly changed his alibi to Rhyl, I suspect the jury might have found it tough to deliver a guilty verdict, considering that he would hang.

Whether or not Hanratty would have considered he'd had a very lucky escape in that event, and done his best to go straight after that - and definitely not try a "stick-up" in the future - we will never know.

The irony is that by the time DNA evidence was proving the guilt or innocence of so many suspected murderers, capital punishment was thankfully way back in the bad old days - at least on my side of the pond.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sherlock Houses]

That's quite true One Round, in a legal sense, but when combined with the following facts it does provide, in my view at least, persuasive indicators that Hanratty did enter the sweetshop that Tuesday afternoon/early evening and spoke with Mrs Dinwoodie......

1] Mrs Dinwoodie was only serving in the sweetshop on the 21st and 22nd of August that week.
2] It was proved that Hanratty was undeniably in London all day on the 21st of August.
3] Mrs Dinwoodie remembered the brief conversation she had around 4.00pm to 4.15pm [on one of those two days] with a young man enquiring about a Tarleton [or similar sounding] Road .
4] When shown a single photo of Hanratty by Liverpool police she thought it looked like the man who came into the shop.
5] Subsequently, when shown a series of photographs she picked out the one of Hanratty, a different photo of him this time, as resembling the man who came into the shop.
6] Her granddaughter, Barbara Ford, also remembered the sweetshop incident and identified Hanratty from a profile photo shown to her.
7] Mrs Dinwoodie pointed to Hanratty at the trial as resembling the man who called at the sweetshop.

[cobalt]

I think OR has stated clearly the stumbling block to Hanratty's Liverpool alibi.

The more thoughtful supporters of the status quo have never denied that Hanratty visited Liverpool, nor do they really buy into the fanciful notion that he 'bought' an alibi. They conclude, reasonably in my view, that he visited Liverpool both shortly before and very soon after the A6 murder and used that as the basis of a false alibi.

But that still leaves the uncanny coincidence of Mrs. Dinwoodie's testimony - despite all the problems with exact timing and the accent of the enquirer. Assuming that Mrs. Dinwoodie was herself not 'bought,' how could Hanratty have concocted such an alibi at a crucial time for himself even with criminal help?

[OneRound]

Hi Sherlock - whilst that shows Hanratty knew the location of Cowley's shop, it still falls down as an alibi due to not being time specific.

Striking photos btw.

Best regards,
OneRound

[Sherlock Houses]

For anyone who disbelieves [or harbours doubts] that Hanratty was in David Cowley's shop at 408 Scotland Road the following just might give some cause for a re-think on the matter. .....
During an interview with his defence team on December 30th 1961 Hanratty said that the sweet shop was.....'a corner shop by traffic lights and gents toilets and ladies toilets. Mrs Dinwoodie was by the cigarettes in far counter'.
This statement of his accurately describes the location of the sweetshop on Scotland Road.

A few months ago while doing some further newspaper research about the A6 murder I came across a piece of evidence which Hanratty gave at his trial that I'd never seen before in all the newspapers I'd had access to. This trial evidence appeared in the February 8th 1962 issue of the Liverpool Daily Post [Welsh Edition] and speaks volumes, as can be seen when studying the three [one an enlargement] enclosed photographs taken in the early 1960's. The traffic island, ladies and gents toilets, sweetshop and metal railings are all visible within the two photos.

[djw]

What do you make of that, djw?

The 'public interest' defence is a catch all for anything embarrassing, and that embarrassment may extend beyond family members. The main players in the A6 Case- James Hanratty, Valerie Storie and Peter Alphon- left no issue. Malcolm Gregsten did so perhaps that was a consideration, although whatever information would cause them further distress can only be conjecture.

The notion that the Hanratty family could be any further discomfited after the events of the last 60 years is risible.

I notice 'redaction' was considered at the end of your reply. There would be little problem if we discovered that ''Mr X- a well known robber and occasional sex attacker- was interviewed over several hours and cleared as a suspect.'' But apparently this cannot be done. So who are the suspects and voluntary witnesses whose names cannot even be redacted? I have to assume we are talking police informers here, at the very least.

Something doesn't smell right, especially since I believe the Hawser report is available publicly.

[cobalt]

SH,
I have to confess to having watched Call Northside 777 a couple of months ago so that was no doubt in my thinking. It’s a film I first saw as a boy on TV but never quite forgot.

According to the A6 prosecution case, it was established that JH reloaded a revolver inside his room at the Vienna Hotel. He must therefore have taken that weapon out of the hotel along with some other cartridges. Do we have any confirmation that JH was carrying a bag when he left the hotel? (This would not have been the ubiquitous plastic bag we see today but one made of cloth/canvas.) Valerie Storie mentioned seeing the attacker carrying a bag I think but I don’t remember the ever helpful Nudds saying that he did.

Did the prosecution try to establish whether the 5 boxes of ammunition were being carried by JH at the time of the crime, or whether he collected them later upon his return to London?

JH may have being trying to create an alibi in advance of armed robbery when he told two parties of his plan to visit Liverpool. Did the prosecution try to explain JH’s motive in returning to London after the crime instead of heading up north? It was an exercise in futility since JH not only undermined his alibi by failing to dispose of incriminating material, but he was (debatably) remembered by members of the public.

[Sherlock Houses]

The Rhyl alibi has long since run its course in terms of available information. One day an amateur photographer’s snapshot of Rhyl town centre might turn up in some attic that is being cleared, and there will be discovered a photo of James Hanratty chatting to a newspaper vendor, whose local evening editions (under microscopic enlargement) are established as dated 22^nd August 1961. The town clock in the background and the shadows in the photo confirm the time as being near dusk. Biometric experts will opine that the man in the Hepworth suit is indeed James Hanratty, so far as they can judge from contemporary photos.

Yet none of this will be enough. Suspicions of ‘photo shopping’ will not unreasonably be voiced, as they still are in respect of the controversial Lee Harvey Oswald backyard photos. It will be claimed that since the Rhyl photo directly contradicts DNA evidence then it must be a fake. Some might even suggest the photo was staged as a kind of student prank/hoax after the A6 murder trial, by persons who then thought better of the deed. We will be no closer to agreement in such a hypothetical situation than we are today. I have long thought that the Rhyl alibi, so diligently pursued by Paul Foot, is now a blind alley in so far as it can never be proved as authentic or false to the satisfaction of either camp.

Since an accused has no need of an alibi anyhow, this is no great loss. Liverpool and Rhyl are totally unconnected to the crime. I would question whether the Vienna Hotel, Swiss Cottage, the Rehearsal Club Soho, the 36A bus or Redbridge are worthy of the significance they have been afforded over the years. This crime has its roots in Taplow, a village of barely 2,000 people, and the answer to the enigma that is the A6 Case must lie somewhere close to there.

Excellent post. Strangely enough a classic James Stewart movie from 1948 "Call Northside 777", based on a true story, deals with the scenario you suggest in the first paragraph. For anyone unfamiliar with the movie the following Youtube link might prove useful and interesting.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIwdQOoy4-g

[cobalt]

What do you make of that, djw?

The 'public interest' defence is a catch all for anything embarrassing, and that embarrassment may extend beyond family members. The main players in the A6 Case- James Hanratty, Valerie Storie and Peter Alphon- left no issue. Malcolm Gregsten did so perhaps that was a consideration, although whatever information would cause them further distress can only be conjecture.

The notion that the Hanratty family could be any further discomfited after the events of the last 60 years is risible.

I notice 'redaction' was considered at the end of your reply. There would be little problem if we discovered that ''Mr X- a well known robber and occasional sex attacker- was interviewed over several hours and cleared as a suspect.'' But apparently this cannot be done. So who are the suspects and voluntary witnesses whose names cannot even be redacted? I have to assume we are talking police informers here, at the very least.

[djw]

"...Section 38(1)(a)1 exempts information from disclosure if that disclosure would, or
would be likely to, endanger the physical or mental health of any individual.
This exemption has been applied to information pertaining to the murder of Michael
Gregsten and attack upon Valerie Storie, as well as other sensitive information
relating to other identifiable individuals, the disclosure of which would impact upon
living individuals. We are unable to provide any detail concerning the nature of this
other information, as that would in itself be disclosing exempt information.
For section 38 to be engaged it is necessary to prove that disclosure would involve a
level of harm. The harm/prejudice test for this exemption involves the consideration
of the risk that mental endangerment of an individual ‘would or would be likely’ to
occur2. In consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), The National
Archives has determined that the release of the aforementioned material ‘would be
likely’ to significantly distress the individuals concerned. ..."

"...Family members of the individuals concerned, who would be impacted by disclosure
into the public domain, have been identified and can be presumed living. After
reasonable consideration it has been determined that they are likely to be impacted
by the release of information in this record. Thus the release of this material and its
availability to members of the public is likely to cause shock, harm and distress to
such an extent that mental endangerment may be rendered to these individuals. To
release information, which potentially exposes members of the public to a risk of
mental endangerment, would not be in the public interest. The specific arguments
considered in the public interest test have previously been supplied to you.
Having reviewed and reconsidered these arguments, it is my view that the original
decision was correct. The release of this information into the public domain would be
likely to have a detrimental effect on the mental health of surviving immediate family
of individuals referenced within the record. To disclose distressing information
concerning the events recorded in this file has the potential to endanger their mental
health and as such is not considered to be in the public interest. Therefore it has
been determined that the risk of endangerment outweighs the reasoning for
disclosure in this specific case and the exemption at section 38(1)(a) of the Freedom
of Information Act applies to the information...."

Some more excerpts

Please note that, as you have stated in your request for an internal review, I am
satisfied that Michael Gregsten, James Hanratty, Charles France, Valerie Storie and
Peter Alphon can be considered deceased. It is well known that James Hanratty was
executed in 1962.
Nonetheless the majority of information in the record remains exempt under either
sections 38, 40, or 41 of the FOI Act, or a combination of these exemptions. Many
other third parties referenced in these records, who were suspects, or provided
witness statements voluntarily to the police, can still be presumed living. This means
that the amount of sensitive personal information in the record remains substantial
and extensive, and therefore it must remain exempt from disclosure.
Additionally, the immediate family members of some of the victims and defendant
are presumed living. The disclosure of some information in the record, that may only
relate to deceased individuals, and is therefore not covered under the personal data
exemption (section 40) is nonetheless covered by the section 38 exemption, due to
the capacity to endanger their mental health through public disclosure.

It is reasonable to assume that family members would be distressed by publication of
this material, which we would not be able to prevent, or control once published
online. By withholding the record from public access, family members are being
protected from shock and distress. Disclosure of the distressing content held within
the file would place in the public domain detailed and intimate accounts of traumatic
events, which would force these individuals to confront this information in
inappropriate circumstances. The content in this file retains the capacity to cause
such distress, despite the passage of time.
We acknowledge that some of the closure arguments in this letter may therefore
seem rather arbitrarily or insensitively applied. Unfortunately, we are only able to
consider your request for access to this file under the terms of the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) 2000, as set out in section 5(3) of the Public Records Act
1958. Our decision is based entirely on the content of the record, and whether any of
the information is exempt from disclosure using the categories defined in the Act
The public needs the reassurance of knowing that FOI access rights are not going to
be allowed to be exercised to their detriment. We must continue to protect public
confidence that family members are allowed to be given privacy. To release
information, which potentially exposes members of the public to a risk of mental
endangerment, would not be in the public interest.
I acknowledge that the criminal case to which this record refers was highly publicised
in its day and widely reported in the press, as any serious crime will likely be a key
focus of media interest. Details concerning this case can be found within the public
domain by researching sources such as newspapers.
However, the level of detail in a record such as this, which contains a substantial
quantity of personal information from lesser known third parties is far more in depth
than that which can be found reported within newspapers. Although, information in
the public domain may cover the crime which this record refers to, it is substantially
not the same information.
In re-reviewing the record I have also given consideration as to whether it can be
released in part via redaction. Redaction is always given very careful consideration
when we are reviewing any file. Achieving the appropriate level of access to public
records is crucial for The National Archives. We must ensure that public access to
records within our collections is appropriate and to protect sensitive information until
it can be placed into the public domain.

[caz]

One thing we can be thankful for is that this horrendous crime would appear to have been unique, suggesting that whoever was guilty was either unwilling or unable to commit anything like it ever again.

I do not think the DNA found on the hanky can easily be explained unless Hanratty was either the gunman, or had a close enough association with whoever was involved and/or framing him to account for how his hanky could have ended up on the bus with the murder weapon. It has to be remembered that it was solely the choice of hiding place that could have pointed to Hanratty at that time. The gun itself and the hanky could not have been linked to him forensically, and nobody could have predicted that this might one day become possible, if the hanky survived.

Another consideration is that nobody involved could have done anything about it if Hanratty had been able to prove he was either in Liverpool or Rhyl. If the man they were seeking to frame had gone free because of this, questions would then have been asked of anyone who had tried to point the finger at him.

Love,

Caz
X

[cobalt]

The Rhyl alibi has long since run its course in terms of available information. One day an amateur photographer’s snapshot of Rhyl town centre might turn up in some attic that is being cleared, and there will be discovered a photo of James Hanratty chatting to a newspaper vendor, whose local evening editions (under microscopic enlargement) are established as dated 22^nd August 1961. The town clock in the background and the shadows in the photo confirm the time as being near dusk. Biometric experts will opine that the man in the Hepworth suit is indeed James Hanratty, so far as they can judge from contemporary photos.

Yet none of this will be enough. Suspicions of ‘photo shopping’ will not unreasonably be voiced, as they still are in respect of the controversial Lee Harvey Oswald backyard photos. It will be claimed that since the Rhyl photo directly contradicts DNA evidence then it must be a fake. Some might even suggest the photo was staged as a kind of student prank/hoax after the A6 murder trial, by persons who then thought better of the deed. We will be no closer to agreement in such a hypothetical situation than we are today. I have long thought that the Rhyl alibi, so diligently pursued by Paul Foot, is now a blind alley in so far as it can never be proved as authentic or false to the satisfaction of either camp.

Since an accused has no need of an alibi anyhow, this is no great loss. Liverpool and Rhyl are totally unconnected to the crime. I would question whether the Vienna Hotel, Swiss Cottage, the Rehearsal Club Soho, the 36A bus or Redbridge are worthy of the significance they have been afforded over the years. This crime has its roots in Taplow, a village of barely 2,000 people, and the answer to the enigma that is the A6 Case must lie somewhere close to there.