A6 Rebooted

[Sherlock Houses]

Yes, that's correct Limehouse. This day in 1962 a legalised state murder took place.

[Sherlock Houses]

Today also marks the 47th anniversary of another murder. The assassination of the inspirational and much missed Martin Luther King. A truly good man who posed too much threat to those with the real power in America. So much of a threat that he had to go.

[Spitfire]

I think that we should regard the fact that Jim Hanratty and Martin Luther King breathed their last on the same calendar day, but separated by six years, as one of those coincidences with which this case is heavy, rather than an indication that the death of the former was in any way wrongful.

[OneRound]

Hi All,

Some interesting posts of late. I am pleased the thread is bumping along amicably and so many posters are joining in the debate.

Concerning the most recent posts about Hanratty trying to buy an alibi - precisely what could he offer in return? Attempting to pervert the course of justice is a very serious crime now and it almost always results in a prison term. How much more severe would the penalty have been back then - given that the original crime was cold-blooded murder, rape and attempted murder? I can't imagine anyone being willing to provide an alibi in return for anything Hanratty could afford to offer.

Today marks the 53rd anniversary of JH's judicial hanging.

Hi Julie - good to read your comments.

I did try to emphasise the difficulties of buying an alibi in the opening paragraphs of my post #2744. In particular, revulsion at the crime and fear of the severe penalties for anyone found to be connected with it.

However, if Hanratty was the culprit (and I made clear that my previous post was on that basis), obtaining an alibi was important, if not essential, to him. I note you, Julie, couldn't imagine anyone being prepared to offer an alibi in all the circumstances. You may be right. There again, that may say more (commendably) about you than the murderer and certain of his associates.

As for what Hanratty could offer in return - I accept that's hard to convincingly answer. Maybe, the promise of money. Perhaps, calling in a favour or appealing to misguided loyalty. Any alibi may have been as much begged as bought. I certainly accept he was up against it. It most definitely was not a buyer's or beggar's market. That's almost certainly why no one was prepared to come forward and support Hanratty's original claim of being in Liverpool at the time of the A6 murder. If they had, I'm sure Hanratty would have snatched their hand off for that offered alibi and never introduced Rhyl into the mix.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Sherlock Houses]

The Vienna Hotel Register. Not a lot of people might know this...........

In 1997 the former Chief Constable of Hertfordshire, Baden Skitt, chaired the recently formed CCRC [Criminal Cases Review Commission] investigation into the A6 Murder case. During this investigation he discovered that on the day after James Hanratty's execution, Thursday, April 5th 1962, Acott's assistant, Kenneth Oxford, signed for and took away the Vienna Hotel Register. It was never returned and it's whereabouts were never discovered. When pressed on this by Skitt, Oxford's reply was that he couldn't remember what happened to it. Truly unbelievable.

The obvious question one should ask oneself about this is "Why, when trial, appeal and Hanratty's subsequent execution are all done and dusted would a senior police officer feel the need to take away the Hotel's Register, never return it and not be able to account for it's permanent loss ? What, I wonder, was so important about the Hotel Register to warrant Oxford's actions ? Was there something in that register that needed to be kept hidden from impartial eyes forever ?

[Spitfire]

The obvious question one should ask oneself about this is "Why, when trial, appeal and Hanratty's subsequent execution are all done and dusted would a senior police officer feel the need to take away the Hotel's Register, never return it and not be able to account for it's permanent loss ? What, I wonder, was so important about the Hotel Register to warrant Oxford's actions ? Was there something in that register that needed to be kept hidden from impartial eyes forever ?

If the Vienna Hotel register had been an exhibit in the trial, which I think it must have been, then it would have been open to inspection by the defence at the trial and for the purposes of the appeal. Therefore anything of any use to Hanratty's defence would have been made available to the defence.

Once the appeal had been determined the register should have been returned to the Vienna Hotel whose property it was. There was no obligation on anyone's part to make it available for inspection by 'impartial eyes'.

By the application of the principle of omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta Detective Sergeant Kenneth Oxford can be assumed to have returned the volume to its rightful owners, that is the owners of the Vienna Hotel. I would ask them if they still have it.

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie - good to read your comments.

I did try to emphasise the difficulties of buying an alibi in the opening paragraphs of my post #2744. In particular, revulsion at the crime and fear of the severe penalties for anyone found to be connected with it.

However, if Hanratty was the culprit (and I made clear that my previous post was on that basis), obtaining an alibi was important, if not essential, to him. I note you, Julie, couldn't imagine anyone being prepared to offer an alibi in all the circumstances. You may be right. There again, that may say more (commendably) about you than the murderer and certain of his associates.

As for what Hanratty could offer in return - I accept that's hard to convincingly answer. Maybe, the promise of money. Perhaps, calling in a favour or appealing to misguided loyalty. Any alibi may have been as much begged as bought. I certainly accept he was up against it. It most definitely was not a buyer's or beggar's market. That's almost certainly why no one was prepared to come forward and support Hanratty's original claim of being in Liverpool at the time of the A6 murder. If they had, I'm sure Hanratty would have snatched their hand off for that offered alibi and never introduced Rhyl into the mix.

Best regards,

OneRound

Hi OneRound,
Thanks for your comments. Some interesting points. I am actually re-reading The Final Verdict and have just read Hanratty's conversations with Acott on the telephone when he was on the run. He makes several references to re-visiting Liverpool in order to convince his 'friends' there (actually receivers of stolen goods) to admit that he was there on that Tuesday night in August. He even admits to Acott that he offered them money!

Kind regards,

Julie

[Limehouse]

In 1997 the former Chief Constable of Hertfordshire, Baden Skitt, chaired the recently formed CCRC [Criminal Cases Review Commission] investigation into the A6 Murder case. During this investigation he discovered that on the day after James Hanratty's execution, Thursday, April 5th 1962, Acott's assistant, Kenneth Oxford, signed for and took away the Vienna Hotel Register. It was never returned and it's whereabouts were never discovered. When pressed on this by Skitt, Oxford's reply was that he couldn't remember what happened to it. Truly unbelievable.

The obvious question one should ask oneself about this is "Why, when trial, appeal and Hanratty's subsequent execution are all done and dusted would a senior police officer feel the need to take away the Hotel's Register, never return it and not be able to account for it's permanent loss ? What, I wonder, was so important about the Hotel Register to warrant Oxford's actions ? Was there something in that register that needed to be kept hidden from impartial eyes forever ?

And of course, Oxford went on to become a very controversial Chief Constable of Merseyside and presided over some very questionable practices. His crowning glory was his involvement in peddling the myth that Hillsborough victims were responsible for their own deaths.

[Natalie Severn]

1961 EXHIBITS FROM CRIME SCENE and from James Hanratty's clothing and from Valerie Storie regarding A6 murder -committal and Trial :- surfed the internet for evidence -[especially look at stuff from old publications] I found these last week.How on earth can anyone not admit gross contamination of those LCN DNA tests ? They were done on cloths that had been kept in a police lab for 42 years -after being handled like this...bare hands/no gloves from crime scene and/or suitcases to police station to Committal Hearing for ten days in November/December 1961 ,containing underclothing from Valerie Storie and trousers from James Hanratty - in and out of cardboard boxes by police and clerks of the court -to be viewed as 'exhibits' from the crime scene and items of the accused ,same thing happening during the jan/feb 1962 trial over an even longer period of time. If you conduct LCN DNA tests on anything these days everything must be kept completely sterile from crime scene to lab and any person entering the crime scene or the lab has to be covered from head to foot with sterile protection,likewise the lab cannot be entered without stringent anti contamination procedures being followed.

[NickB]

Welcome back Natalie!

While you were away a question came up about your post 1387 where you refer to “police notes taken on 30.12.1961 recorded during an interview with Hanratty”.

The police would not normally interview someone who had been charged and committed for trial. Is it possible these are some other kind of notes?

[Spitfire]

In discussing Hanratty's (disastrous) change of alibi half way through his trial we should be mindful that such a shoddy trick as the one played by the anti-hero in this drama was prohibited by the provisions of section 11 the Criminal Justice Act 1967 which provides for an accused to give a notice of alibi and he may only deviate from that with the permission of the court.

As to Hanratty's alleged meanderings in Liverpool on the afternoon of 22 August we have above considered whether Hanratty could have had time to get to Cowley's shop on the Scottie Road by the time Mrs Dinwoodie said her encounter with the directions seeker occurred, to wit about 4.00pm just after the Echos had arrived.

The next problems with Hanratty's Liverpool alibi are after he leaves Cowley's shop. He now has to make some more 'desultory inquires' as to the whereabouts of his Tarlton/Carlton Av before making the decision to abandon his search. He has to have a meal and a cuppa at a Lyons restaurant and make a visit to the billiard hall on Lime Street to raise funds selling his stolen watch. He then has to catch the bus to Rhyl, this we are informed leaves Liverpool at 6.00pm.

Unfortunately for Jim, Robert Kempt, the billiard hall manager, says that it is his custom is to take his afternoon smoking break any time between 6.00pm and 7.30pm. This would seem to rule out Hanratty catching the bus and trying to flog Kempt the watch on the 22 August, he could not do both.

[OneRound]

In 1997 the former Chief Constable of Hertfordshire, Baden Skitt, chaired the recently formed CCRC [Criminal Cases Review Commission] investigation into the A6 Murder case. During this investigation he discovered that on the day after James Hanratty's execution, Thursday, April 5th 1962, Acott's assistant, Kenneth Oxford, signed for and took away the Vienna Hotel Register. It was never returned and it's whereabouts were never discovered. When pressed on this by Skitt, Oxford's reply was that he couldn't remember what happened to it. Truly unbelievable.

The obvious question one should ask oneself about this is "Why, when trial, appeal and Hanratty's subsequent execution are all done and dusted would a senior police officer feel the need to take away the Hotel's Register, never return it and not be able to account for it's permanent loss ? What, I wonder, was so important about the Hotel Register to warrant Oxford's actions ? Was there something in that register that needed to be kept hidden from impartial eyes forever ?

Hi Sherlock - well, I for one certainly didn't know that. Especially odd and intriguing that Oxford should take away the Register at this particular time.

Can I ask where you learned this [not doubting you, just very interested].

Many thanks,

OneRound

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Nick-will do my best to find the reference tomorrow Cheers!

[OneRound]

Hi Natalie - a warm welcome back.

Those photos are highly effective in showing how contemporary exhibits were treated together with the obvious lack of safeguards that would have to be applied today.

With such an approach adopted at the time and the absence of any meaningful audit trail for the particular items which were given such weight at the 2002 Appeal, I would need a lot of persuading that all possibility (including even a slight one) of contamination could be safely ruled out.

Best regards,

OneRound

[OneRound]

PS Natalie - some useful product placement for the manufacturers of Lucozade in those photos!