A6 Rebooted

[cobalt]

It’s not my intention to go off topic, but there has been a development in what are known as the Clydach killings, an horrific family murder case in 1999 near Swansea that I assume most of us will know of.

The case has a number of similarities with the A6 Case, the main one being that there has remained a lingering doubt over the guilt of the man condemned, who died recently in prison. The police initially focused on another suspect, a serving policeman whose wife was in a relationship with one of the victims. After a year they turned their attention to the man convicted who had no obvious motive for the crime but had a weak alibi which was later altered a bit. He also told a few lies to police in the course of being investigated, even ‘ambushing’ his own defence lawyer close to trial. No one was able to place him at the scene of the crime. There was next to no forensic evidence.

The recent result has been similar to the A6 Case. A DNA sample has been retrieved from a glove which, if not totally conclusive, makes it likely the real killer was jailed. There the matter might end, but I doubt that it will. There are other exhibits that have not been tested, disputed expert opinion and a couple of eyewitnesses who seem to have been ignored. One eyewitness came up with a fotofit that looked the spitting image of the policeman initially suspected, although this was never released to the public for some reason. Police evidence has been withheld from the defence.

[Spitfire]

If Jim got any train to Liverpool on 22 August 1961 then that would be a clear indication of his innocence.

As the 10.35 am train did not have "Through Carriages" and as Jim did not say he had to change trains at Crewe or anywhere else, then this train could not have been the one on which he travelled to Liverpool. (Also, Jim said he just missed one train (10.20??) and had to wait a long time for the next one. If the train he missed was the 10.20, then a wait of 15 minutes is not a long time.)

[moste]

It does seem that the 10.35 am train from Euston did split at Lancaster, with one part of the train going to Barrow and the other to Carlisle, but between Crewe and Lancaster it remained in tact.

If you look at the timetable copied on post #6211 it states at the bottom of the page that "Heavy figures indicate Through Carriages from London" meaning that if the timetable shows a heavy or bold type then you can get a "Through Carriage" to your destination. On the other hand, if the type is light then a change of carriage and train is necessary. It can be seen that the timetable shows the 10.35 am departure from Euston is in light type, as is the arrival time at Lime Street at 3.25 pm.

Ok , fair enough I guess. So regardless though of any acceptable train he may have taken , whether he visited Mrs Dinwoodie or not, (I’m sure he did, but the cops messed with her head)’ and whether or not he jumped on a coach to Rhyl .Here we are discussing possible train availability. The truth of the matter is ,I believe we can all agree , If Jim had a gold watch and jewelry burning a hole in his pocket, and he was up in the province’s trying to unload them. There is absolutely no way he was squeezing in this journey up north, and getting back to Buckinghamshire by mid evening, to try a new area to reconnoiter for the house breaking he normally engaged in in a completely different area of the map.I think also that we understand by now a little bit of the Hanratty mentality. He wouldn’t be bothering himself with train changes when time wasn’t an issue. He certainly wouldn’t be able to sit still long enough to fulfill the requirements of Stories Story. The guy was like the proverbial ‘Jack in a Box’ to all accounts. The 4 1/2 hour train to Liverpool must have been a drag, but at least there was a restaurant car or buffet.

[Spitfire]

It does seem that the 10.35 am train from Euston did split at Lancaster, with one part of the train going to Barrow and the other to Carlisle, but between Crewe and Lancaster it remained in tact.

If you look at the timetable copied on post #6211 it states at the bottom of the page that "Heavy figures indicate Through Carriages from London" meaning that if the timetable shows a heavy or bold type then you can get a "Through Carriage" to your destination. On the other hand, if the type is light then a change of carriage and train is necessary. It can be seen that the timetable shows the 10.35 am departure from Euston is in light type, as is the arrival time at Lime Street at 3.25 pm.

[moste]

Ok , delete not a significant destination in last post .Just done a google , apologies to Barrow folk.LOL. Anyhow, my point about train splitting is still valid.

[moste]

Hi djw, we had a discussion in June last year concerning the timing of Hanratty's journey from Euston to Liverpool, see post #6211 (page 415) et seq on this thread.

The train that left Euston at 10.35 am was the Barrow-in-Furness train which would have meant Hanratty detraining at Crewe at 2.04 pm and waiting there for the 2.17 pm to Liverpool Lime Street, arriving at Lime Street at 3.25 pm. Hanratty never mentioned changing at Crewe, and I think he even commented on the fact that his train was less busy after many of his fellow passengers got off at Crewe.

I’m not sure of any relevance, but in 1967 I caught a train from Newcastle to Carlisle ,travelling through the night ,and then a Manchester train at around 4 30 am. from Carlisle. At about 6. 30am. or so we pulled into Wigan, and at this station the train was divided , the front 4 coaches travelling on to M/C . and the rear coaches with a new locomotive continued on to Liverpool.
Since Barrow was not a destination of any great significance,(with all due respect) .could this have been a similar situation at crew in ‘61?
Or, is there historic data showing a train change was required? Otherwise this would allow for Hanratty not mentioning any train change.

[Spitfire]

Hi djw, we had a discussion in June last year concerning the timing of Hanratty's journey from Euston to Liverpool, see post #6211 (page 415) et seq on this thread.

The train that left Euston at 10.35 am was the Barrow-in-Furness train which would have meant Hanratty detraining at Crewe at 2.04 pm and waiting there for the 2.17 pm to Liverpool Lime Street, arriving at Lime Street at 3.25 pm. Hanratty never mentioned changing at Crewe, and I think he even commented on the fact that his train was less busy after many of his fellow passengers got off at Crewe.

[djw]

One aspect of the case I find interesting is the timings of Hanrattys claimed journey to Liverpool. I like to think deducing the timings could be evidentially more valuable than reference to any other testimony. At one point Woffinden says the timings alone in Liverpool could be a "watertight alibi".

3 trains have been suggested, 10:20, 10:35 or 12:15. Miller goes into some detail on p. 47.

'Hanratty said he caught either the 10:55 or the 11:55 a. m. train from Euston to Liverpool. In fact there were no trains at these times. Originally Hanratty had claimed he had arrived in Liverpool at about 3:30 p. m. Later, during his trial, he changed this to between 4 and 5 p. m. Trying to fit Hanrattys testimony against the actual times of trains to Liverpool the most likely one is the 10:35 a. m. train arriving in Liverpool at 3:25 p. m. Attempting to make sense of Hanrattys alibi Paul Foot concluded that he must in fact have caught an earlier train, remarking it is hard to see how, on his own timings, he could have missed the 10:20 and 10:35 and been forced to wait nearly two hours for the 12:15. (PF, 194). Foot thought that Hanratty must have caught the 10:20 [fast train]. However, Bob Woffinden, trying to make sense of the contradiction in Hanrattys testimony in a different way, breezily assures his readers that Hanratty would probably have arrived at Euston about 10:45 (BW, 121).
... if Hanratty caught the 10:35 a. m. train that arrived at 3:25 p. m. he could not possibly have been in the sweetshop on Scotland Road forty minutes later... If Hanratty caught the 10:20 a. m. fast train he could then also have been in the sweetshop a little after 4 p. m. However, Hanrattys defence decided he must have caught the 12:15 p. m. train which arrived in Liverpool at 4:45 p. m. ' (Miller, p. 50-51)

So we have in summary;
10:20 (arriving 2:22) Foot, Dinwoodie/Ford?, Razen
10:35 (arriving 3:25) Miller, Buddle/Moore, Swanwick/Acott
12:15 (arriving 4:45) Sherrard, Woffinden, Stickler

It would be interesting to see what Nimmo and Mathews thought.

[moste]

Being an ex CID man, I wonder if Stickler attempted to avail himself of Chief Superintendent Roger Mathews words of wisdom ?
since this is a work of Stories posthumous autobiography, probably not. Even so, it would be hard to imagine a cop taking on a work of this kind, without at least referencing or acknowledging the massive efforts of Mathews and his crew.

[cobalt]

Since the author has chosen the word 'established' then he should indeed expand upon his point.

[NickB]

However, rather than Kerr having handed it to a police officer, as he had testified, Barron (Det. Super.) established that he had in fact given it to his supervisor,

Yeah this is an example of where I would have liked to be given more information to justify the claim.

Also with the question of where Evans was at the time Hanratty claimed he went to Rhyl searching for him. Stickler says he was serving at a cafe near Dixie's, but what is his source? If this was part of Evans testimony it would be a strange omission by Woffindon.

[ansonman]

What struck me very early into the book is that Stickler begins with a great deal of detail but makes no reference to John Kerr until Part 2 of the book, 51 pages in. Indeed, I had to look up Kerr in the index to see if he'd been omitted altogether. I have since concluded that whereas Stickler's intention was to brush Kerr under the carpet, if not out of the picture, he has in fact achieved the opposite and shone a headlight on police corruption which began at the very start of the investigation and continued throughout.

[moste]

Hi Ansonman. Thank you so much for this. It certainly does help, I will go ahead with a purchase. The detail of Mr. Kerr actually recalling the pips on the uniform and brown gloves ,plus identifying Webster as the cop he handed the clipboard to, is for me highly indicative of a person who, far from being traumatized by the event, so as to misremember issues, can for me be regarded as a solid witness, and a sound starting point for the investigation.
Along with many other occurrences where the A6 police investigations sounded oh so iffy ,the information above goes hand in hand with the state of the Met, at the zenith of its corruption.

[ansonman]

Hi Moste,

Yes I have read it.

Stickler joined Hampshire Constabulary in 1978 and spent the majority of his time in CID. As it says on the cover notes, The Long Silence is, in essence Storie's posthumous autobiography. That has to mean that it's one sided, which it is. It's well written and summarises the case well. It tells us very little about what we already know. One thing that is new, to me at any rate, concerns John Kerr. Stickler writes:

"What Kerr did next would be subjected to extreme scrutiny for the next forty years and would result in one of the principal criticisms to be levelled at the police" (p51)

Later, on page 123 he writes:

"Kerr's supervisor, John Carrington, and another colleague, Jeffrey Claughton, reported that it was obvious that Kerr had been understandably extremely distressed when they arrived on the scene, and he was attempting to give his clipboard to anyone who would take it so that he could leave the scene as quickly as possible. One witness thought he had seen Kerr writing notes when he was talking to Valerie as she lay in the road, so it was imperative to trace the clipboard. However, rather than Kerr having handed it to a police officer, as he had testified, Barron (Det. Super.) established that he had in fact given it to his supervisor, but had said nothing about making any notes. The clipboard had been taken back to County Council offices in Bedford. Barron's investigation report concluded that any notes that Kerr may have made had been mislaid there, and a letter on which Kerr had incorrectly noted the registration number of the Morris Minor was found in Claughton's desk drawer. Claughton had subsequently used it as scrap paper to make some calculations. Barron further concluded that if there had been any further notes, they too would have been used as scrap paper in the Council Office and probably later discarded".

That is certainly news to me. I don't buy a word of it. I accept that Kerr was distressed but I do not believe that he gave his notes to anyone but the police.

P138:

"Witness number eleven for the prosecution was John Kerr, the Oxford undergraduate who had spoken to Valerie in the layby that morning and now said he had made notes on a piece of paper that he subsequently handed to a senior, uniformed police officer."

"Kerr went through his story again, saying that he had been told by Valerie that they had been held up by a gunman around 9.30 the previous evening. He had written down her name and address and the man's description as having large starring eyes and light-fairish hair. Swanwick handed to him the document that had been recovered from Bedford County Council and asked him to confirm that it was the piece of paper he had with him that morning. He was able to confirm it, but when he was asked to comment on the incorrect registration number written on the rear of the form he said that it was not his writing".

"In cross-examination, Sherrard picked up on the issue of a piece of paper that Kerr said he had handed to a police officer. It contained the first description of the assailant as given to him by Storie and it had gone missing".

I have absolutely no doubt that he did give the notes to the police, as did Kerr, and he should know.

P123:

"The incident at the committal hearing when John Kerr announced that he had passed some notes to the police was of considerable concern. McDermott immediately recognised the implications, as had detective Superintendent Barron, who was sitting in court when the drama unfolded. The position was made even worse when Kerr told the court that he handed the piece of paper to a uniformed, senior officer who had pips on his shoulder and was wearing brown gloves. The three uniformed officers who had been at the scene in August - Chief inspector Oliver and inspectors Edward Milborrow and Robert Webster - were paraded before Kerr and he identified Webster. Webster had no knowledge of such an incident and said so."

For me, this confirms that Kerr did indeed hand his notes to the police. Stickler says the opposite.

Is the book worth the money or trouble? On balance I think it is and for two reasons. Like you, I had four books on the case before I bought it and so it makes sense to keep the collection up to date. Secondly, you are as expert on the case as anyone and I would be surprised if, having read the book, you didn't pick up on other issues in addition to the above.

I hope this helps.

Ansonman

[moste]

Quite.

I have Stickler's book but I haven't read it yet. Some very interesting photographs which I haven't seen before.

The 20 minutes was taken from Woffinden. Foot says she looked up and down the line for some ten minutes before asking them to say the sentence. She looked at them again and finally spoke. Be it 11 or 20 it's still rather a long time.

Hey Ansonman. I wondered if you had read the Stickler book yet? I have 4 books on the A6 case and wondered if this latest effort was worth the money or trouble. From what Nick is saying it sounds like the author has access to facts we have not been party to. Could this guy be an ex cop, maybe it’s worthwhile if only for the photographs. What do you think?