A6 Rebooted

[Semper_Eadem]

Hi Spitfire,
Thanks for your reply, Interestingly my Mom turned 16 on August 20 1961. I've noticed that this case was a pretty big deal over in the UK and Europe but our News Papers were full of the Cuban Missile Crisis of course. For while there we were getting ready to duck and cover. So it would of passed completely over my Mom. My dad who has passed on might of heard of it though as he was interested in Murder Cases and stuff of that nature.

I wouldn't be surprised that John Lennon was involved given that he is English and this was a British Case. He might of have been very interested in the Case back in 1961. Yoko was probably being supportive. I know they had their own run ins with the Government in the UK and the US. So it wouldn't surprise me at all their questioning of the Verdict given concerning Hanratty.

I remember reading in another topic on this forum concerning Hanratty about Ms Storie's misidentification during that first line up where she as you said picked out the wrong guy. I think it was the topic about that Swedish Lady being attacked while she was showing a room to a prospective boarder. I'm sorry as I am horrible with names.. I think the perpetrator who attacked her though was probably the guy who later claimed in Paris that he was the A6 Murder.

That misidentification is what makes me not really believe Stories account. For some reason her testimony is a bit off because as I said before you would think that the face of her rapist would of been etched in her mind. Yet she identifies an innocent man as the culprit. How ever this has happened before in other cases. Maybe Storie had started blocking what had happened out of her mind before the cops could get to her to get her statement.

I still want however since I can't even remember the names of all the participants I will hold my tongue. I do want to thank you Spitfire for the link though to the court documents.

[OneRound]

Maybe 5 years ago we were being assured that there would be another - a third - appeal on behalf of Hanratty, but as we know it has never happened. For a start, who would be prepared to fund such an appeal, which would have only a minimal chance of success, particularly after the findings of the Court Of Appeal following the last one? I also note that on the website of Bindman & Partners, the lawyers representing the Hanratty family, all links to the case have been removed, and there are only two very short paragraphs referring to it. Are we to assume that this practice no longer represents the Hanratty family? If so, are we also to assume that the family will no longer be considering the mounting of a further appeal? I'm sure that our Natalie will have something to say about this.....but in the meantime I do feel that "don't bother us again" just about sums up the official attitude to a further appeal.

Something I've been meaning to mention for a while (and sorry to go on):

In one of his telephone conversations with Hanratty, prior to the arrest in Blackpool, Acott mentioned to him something to the effect that cartridges had been discovered in the room he, Hanratty, had occupied at The Vienna the night before the crime. On hearing this, Hanratty, rather than denying most vehemently that he had ever possessed a gun, asked Acott what 'size' (calibre) these bullets were; Acott declined to tell him. In retrospect, this must have been a "dohhhhhh!" moment, and I would bet a bob or two that on hearing this Acott was totally satisfied that Hanratty had indeed possessed a gun. This episode seems to have gone largely un-noticed by most people interested in the A6 Case.

This reminds me of an obscure case in the 1930's, when a woman called Ethel Major did in her violent husband by means of dosing his dinner with strychnine which she had stolen from her gamekeeper father. The uneaten part of the meal was thrown out, and ended up being fed to a neighbour's dog, which also died. The day prior to the funeral, when Mr Major was neatly ensconced in his coffin, the police received anonymous information that the poor dog's last meal had come from Mrs Major. The police stopped the funeral, carried out a post-mortem on Mr Major and took in Mrs Major for questioning. One of the first things she said was along the lines, "I never possessed any strychnine!" and this was before the police interrogator had even mentioned it! That was all they needed, and Mrs Majors, after her "dohhhhhh!" moment, had an early appointment with Mr Pierrepoint.

Sorry to go a little off-thread, but you'll see what I'm getting at.

Graham

Graham,

Oh yes. Not conclusive but again probably telling.

Best regards,
OneRound

[OneRound]

PS Graham - I've not read Miller's book. Does he make much of the ''what size of bullets'' question? I would have thought he well might.

Thanks,
OneRound

[Graham]

PS Graham - I've not read Miller's book. Does he make much of the ''what size of bullets'' question? I would have thought he well might.

Thanks,
OneRound

Hi OR,

No, not conclusive at all, but interesting none the less. Miller, as far as I can recall, doesn't mention this revealing little episode at all, but does make something of JH's apparently low-key denials of the A6 crime in his conversations with Acott. I don't know if full transcriptions still exist of those phone conversations, but if so I'm sure they'd be great interest.

Graham

[moste]

I did (Honest Graham)take note of the Hanratty' come back' "What calibre were the hotel room shells"? then as I read more of Acotts skullduggery decided either(a) Hanratty was THAT stupid, or (b) Acott was lying.I decided on the latter.
For fence sitters. Could it be Hanratty ,being involved in some way, was aware as per the eminent Dr. Keith Simpson that .32,and .38 calibre were involved?

[Graham]

I did (Honest Graham)take note of the Hanratty' come back' "What calibre were the hotel room shells"? then as I read more of Acotts skullduggery decided either(a) Hanratty was THAT stupid, or (b) Acott was lying.I decided on the latter.
For fence sitters. Could it be Hanratty ,being involved in some way, was aware as per the eminent Dr. Keith Simpson that .32,and .38 calibre were involved?

Woffinden, one should note, doesn't mention the "what size were the bullets?" conversation at all, as far as I can tell. I think this is significant.

Foot, on the other hand, goes into it in some detail - and here I must confess that I made a mistake and thought this was a telephone conversation whereas Foot states clearly that it was part of Acott's questioning of Hanratty after his arrest. I'm honest, too, Mr Moste. I'll quote it in full:

Acott: I can't make it too clear how desperate your position is. I must tell you now. After your leaving Room 24 on the 22nd of August and before it was occupied again, two empty cartridge cases were found at the end of the bed you tell me you slept in that night

Hanratty: what size were the bullets, Mr Acoot?

Acott: I can't tell you that

Hanratty never denied that he had asked about the 'size' of the bullets, so I think we can take it as read that he actually asked the question. However, according to Foot, his version of this interview included Acott telling him that they had found some bullets and a gun. This cannot possibly be true, as the manager Robert Crocker found only cartridge cases, and as we all know the murder weapon was found on a 36A bus some time prior to this. Hanratty said that he asked Acott 'if he was kidding me', and then said that 'this is the end for me now - I have not had no bullets or any gun at any time'. And he states that after making this statement, he then asked Acott what size were the bullets found in the Vienna Hotel.

So you takes your choice: Hanratty never denied that he asked Acott what size the bullets were. So was Acott lying? I very much doubt it. On the contrary, if anyone was telling porkies about this interview, it was Hanratty.

I don't think that there is any reason whatsoever to question the plainly obvious fact that Prof Keith Simpson, in his report, made a mistake regarding the calibre of the bullets. The gun found on the bus was a .38 and forensically proven to be the weapon that inflicted the injuries upon Valerie Storie. I have read that the bullets that killed Gregsten were actually found in the footwell of the car, but I cannot be 100% certain of that.

Graham

[Spitfire]

I have got the 1999 Pan paperback edition of Woffinden and the 'size of the bullet point' is covered on page 207 with the cross-examination of Acott by Sherrard and on page 224 with Sherrard's examination of Hanratty.

There seems to be no doubt that Hanratty and Acott were agreed that Hanratty had asked about the size of the bullets.

For my part, I am not sure why this question should be so damming of Hanratty's defence. By asking the question he did not reveal any information which would only be known by the murderer (as opposed to Ethel Major's disclosure that her hubby had died by strychnine poisoning). . It might be seen as a bit of an odd thing to ask but then again Hanratty was a bit odd. Far from bringing home the charge of capital murder as suggested by Sherrard, it merely brings home the undoubted fact that his client was not quite a full shilling.

[OneRound]

Hi again Graham, Moste and all,

Yes, Graham is correct in his most recent post that the ''size of the bullets'' conversation took place in interview between Hanratty and Acott rather than over the phone.

Paragraph 52 of the Court of Appeal's judgment in 2002 confirms, ''There were two interviews.'' Whilst paragraph 53 recognised that there were ''a number of areas of dispute'', paragraph 52 also states -

''Other aspects of the interview which James Hanratty accepted he he had said included the following facts:
...
ii) His response to being told that the cartridges found on the chair in the Vienna Hotel was to ask what size the bullets were''.

Unfortunately, the exact context and background to Hanratty's agreed response remains unclear. This is perhaps unsurprising as the content of the interviews and, in particular, the recording of them formed part of the basis for the last appeal and involved ESDA testing of the interview notes (by a Dr Baxendale).

In my opinion - and, Natalie, you might want to pin back your lug holes here - worth listening to how the Court of Appeal made light of the potential significance of the ESDA test results; especially paragraph 183 (the emboldening is mine) -

''If at the trial the defence had been aware of the rewriting, then no doubt this would have been explored in cross-examination. However, it is unlikely that this would have been a matter of any significance since it was accepted by D S Acott that nothing said by the appellant could be considered a confession. We do not accept that Dr Baxendale's evidence demonstrates, as is suggested in the perfected grounds of appeal, that the evidence given at the trial by each officer was, at least in part, untrue.''

To my mind, the significance was not whether Acott considered anything said / recorded to be a confession but whether the jury considered it to be incriminating in respect of Hanratty and whether the jury might have doubted the integrity of Acott and Oxford if they had been aware of the rewriting.

Best regards,
OneRound

[Graham]

Strewth, I think I must have had a senior moment re: Woffinden. Sorry about that, guys. Past my bed-time.

The point I'm making is that by asking 'what size are the bullets?' Hanratty is not, prima facie, denying that he had possessed a gun. In my opinion, his knee-jerk response to Acott's advising him that cartridge cases had been found in the room he occupied, ought to have been along the lines, "So what? Nothing to do with me". Obviously, Sherrard also thought that Hanratty's question was damning, and tried to trip up Acott, but failed to do so.

Graham

[moste]

I must take exception to this statement."I don't think that there is any reason whatsoever to question the plainly obvious fact that Prof Keith Simpson, in his report, made a mistake regarding the calibre of the bullets. The gun found on the bus was a .38 and forensically proven to be the weapon that inflicted the injuries upon Valerie Storie. I have read that the bullets that killed Gregsten were actually found in the footwell of the car, but I cannot be 100% certain of that." There is every reason to challenge the statement Simpson made as a so called mistake. As a retired electrician, to give an example of such an error .When being asked what size fuse wire had been reconnected into a particular carrier, mistaking a five amp for a 15 amp would simply not happen. Then to say the electrician confused these fuse wire ratings while making at the scene notes step by step of his findings, and still to err, would be well, impossible to accept. I'm not sure if you could follow this analogy, but basically , as has been previously mentioned Dr. Keith Simpson was a ballistic expert, as part of his position as a top pathologist. I believe that the moment Dr. Simpson, let it out ,the fact that the slugs removed from Ms. Storie were .32 calibre. Well his first name may well have been.... Homer!
I can't recall bullets being found IN the car, isn't that why people muse that the bullets may have disappeared through the open window, and into into the night.

[Graham]

Prof Keith Simpson was, first and foremost, a forensic pathologist and not an expert in ballistics. His principle task was to assess the wounds inflicted upon Valerie Storie. The bullets removed from her body would have been distorted, and if any detailed examination of them took place then this would have been done by ballistic experts at Scotland Yard, not by Prof Simpson or any other medic. Prof Simpson made a simple error, that is the long and short of it. I cannot recall any responsible, published author taking issue with this in an attempt to exonerate James Hanratty - and that includes Bob Woffinden.

I spent a large part of my career as a development and analytical chemist, and I can assure you that mistakes can be made at any level of scientific investigation and reporting. However, next time I need some fuse-wire checking, I'll apply to you.

Graham

[NickB]

Simpson gave evidence that “the wounds were sustained by successive discharges of a firearm fired in quick succession”. It does not sound like he was describing an automatic weapon.

Two spent bullets were found in the car, one wedged in the floor and the other embedded in the glove compartment.

Sherrard had raised the issue about Hanratty asking what size the bullets were with Acott, saying that it was a frightened reaction to a devastating remark.

Acott replied: “In this particular sentence this is something I never wished to disclose ... it was only because my persistence throughout the day had failed as regards this man giving names and addresses, that I thought to put it to him ... there was no reason for him to stop giving details of his alibi.”

[Spitfire]

I think that the reference to .32 calibre bullets comes only in Keith Simpson's 1978 autobiography, 40 Years of Murder which I believe was first published in 1978 when the learned professor would be in his seventies. A number of explanations are possible. First, the bullets that killed Gregsten were in fact .32 calibre and no one spotted that the gun found on the bus and the spent cartridges at the Vienna were the larger .38 calibre. Second, that Keith Simpson wrote from memory and got it wrong in 1978. Third, there was a typo at the printers and the proof readers did not spot it.

The above three examples are not exhaustive.

[NickB]

When considering whether the Rhyl alibi would have been effective at the first Appeal, I think it is worth looking at what Ingledene’s landlady Mrs Jones said in the in the 1966 Panorama interview.

Mrs Jones had testified that only one room, number 4, was available that week for visitors who hadn’t booked. In the Panorama interview she went further, saying that she remembered Hanratty arrived on Tuesday 22nd August because someone else had vacated room number 4 that morning.

"We had one gentleman staying here. He came in on the Sunday and he left on the Tuesday morning so the room was empty. Room number 4 was empty, there was no-one there.”

But Joe Sayle testified that he was in room 4 on the 21st, 22nd and 23rd of August.
Also, room 4 is at the front of the house - whereas Hanratty said his room was at the back.

“This gentleman came to the door at about 7 o'clock at night, between 7 and half-past, and he says 'Could you take me in for bread and breakfast?'

This timing contradicts the evidence that Hanratty arrived in Rhyl at 8.19 and, before appearing at the guest house, spent some considerable time wandering around seeking accommodation.

“I said: 'How long did you want to stay?'

'Well just 2 nights, that's all.'

And of course I considered a while, I thought 2 nights wasn't much but then I felt sorry for the fellow because he looked really lonely, he wanted somewhere to stay so I said: 'Alright, I'll take you in."

This contradicts Hanratty’s claim that he asked to stay for one night initially.

Mrs Jones said she couldn’t say these things in court because “I was asked questions and I was there just to say yes or no and that's all."

This is not only untrue, but had she said all this in court she would have been open to even more ridicule than she was.

[OneRound]

Hi Nick - good points about Mrs Jones and the Panorama interview from 1966.

Where I might be tempted to be a little more sympathetic to Mrs Jones is about her claim of being told to say ''yes or no'' to questions in court. In one of the tv documentaries, I recall Terry Evans, Hanratty's pal from the funfair, claiming much the same. Not the ideal supporting witness I grant you but I feel it's possible they were both directed to keep it simple.

I watched this Panorama programme a couple of years or so ago. What stood out for me was how much the case for Hanratty being in Rhyl at the relevant time was originally built upon the testimony of the newspaper vendor Charlie Jones. As Jones himself later confirmed, that was a pack of lies.

Best regards,
OneRound