A6 Rebooted

[moste]

Hi Moste - given Mrs Dinwoodie said the sweetshop incident occurred on Monday 21st August, that rock doesn't seem too solid to me. I do though take your point about the prosecution witnesses (a major reason why I have always maintained that Hanratty should not have been convicted even though I have very considerable doubts as to his innocence).

I'll repeat here a question I've asked before but which has never been fully answered to my anorak satisfaction.

Hanratty's supporters state that as Hanratty was demonstrably in London on Monday 21st August and as no one else could have invented such a unique story, then it has to have happened on Tuesday 22nd August.

My question is - why did the incident have to occur on one of those two dates? I appreciate that Mrs Dinwoodie was not around later that week but why did the incident have to occur that actual week? Could it not have occurred in an earlier or later week? If Mrs Dinwoodie was wrong about Monday 21st August (as Hanratty's supporters claim), does it really follow that Tuesday 22nd August is the only alternate date?

Apologies if I'm missing something obvious here (suspect I am - not helped by no longer having the Foot and Woffinden books) but would much appreciate someone, regardless of their side of the fence, clarifying this.

Best regards and many thanks,

OneRound

Well, I have always considered the occasion of 21/22 Aug , traceable ,in much the same way as Carol France visiting the dentist.
Mrs Dinwoodie related the incident of this young man coming into her shop asking directions ,with the occasion of her becoming unwell.

[OneRound]

Well, I have always considered the occasion of 21/22 Aug , traceable ,in much the same way as Carol France visiting the dentist.
Mrs Dinwoodie related the incident of this young man coming into her shop asking directions ,with the occasion of her becoming unwell.

Hokey doke, Moste. Thank you.

OneRound

[NickB]

Jim seemed to have a thing about Scotland Road.

On 9-Oct-61 he visited the flower shop on Scotland Road. Two days later he was arrested and told police officers he lived in Scotland Road. Two days after that he told Kleinman about the sweetshop alibi in Scotland Road. Then he said his friends flat was (variably) in or just off Scotland Road.

[OneRound]

Jim seemed to have a thing about Scotland Road.

On 9-Oct-61 he visited the flower shop on Scotland Road. Two days later he was arrested and told police officers he lived in Scotland Road. Two days after that he told Kleinman about the sweetshop alibi in Scotland Road. Then he said his friends flat was (variably) in or just off Scotland Road.

Staying with or around Scotland Road, Hanratty stated he got off the bus late afternoon on 22nd August near the much discussed sweetshop following an unproductive conversation with the conductor as to the road he was seeking.

If the conductor could have been traced to verify this conversation, Hanratty would almost certainly have been in the clear. I would have thought all parties at the time and subsequently would have wanted to follow this up. Did the police, defence, Foot, Woffinden etc do so and, if so, did they get anywhere at all?

Many thanks,

OneRound

[Graham]

If the conductor could have been traced to verify this conversation, Hanratty would almost certainly have been in the clear. I would have thought all parties at the time and subsequently would have wanted to follow this up. Did the police, defence, Foot, Woffinden etc do so and, if so, did they get anywhere at all?

Hi OR,

When discussing JH's fictitious journey from Paddington to Euston stations on the morning of 22 August, Woffinden confidently states that he took a cab - indeed, what other mode of transport would JH consider, says Bob? Yet he makes no mention of JH's claimed use of a bus when he got off the train at Lime Street Station in Liverpool, when a cab was his 'usual' mode of transport in cities. All he had to do was ask a cab driver to take him to Tarleton Street (or wherever), and job done. Mind, it would have been difficult seeing as he was nowhere near Liverpool at the time......

Graham

[OneRound]

Hi OR,

When discussing JH's fictitious journey from Paddington to Euston stations on the morning of 22 August, Woffinden confidently states that he took a cab - indeed, what other mode of transport would JH consider, says Bob? Yet he makes no mention of JH's claimed use of a bus when he got off the train at Lime Street Station in Liverpool, when a cab was his 'usual' mode of transport in cities. All he had to do was ask a cab driver to take him to Tarleton Street (or wherever), and job done. Mind, it would have been difficult seeing as he was nowhere near Liverpool at the time......

Graham

Thanks, Graham.

It does seem remarkably strange that a regular taxi user such as Hanratty should get on a bus without knowing if it was going where he wanted rather than ask one of the cabbies outside the train station.

The failure to locate the conductor with whom Hanratty claimed to have spoken with on the bus and which was therefore said to be the precursor to the sweetshop incident does not help Hanratty's case. I don't see that anyone can argue with that.

Best regards,

OneRound

[OneRound]

Some might regard the sweetshop incident as having a similarity with Hanratty's claimed visit to Rhyl the same day.

In both cases, there is no verification from the conductor, driver or other passengers of him being on the bus concerned. This despite his unusual hair colouring and him allegedly talking to the conductor near the sweetshop about a road which was not known to the conductor.

It is as if he just materialised in both places.

Best regards,

OneRound

[NickB]

And both were places he visited at another time.

‘Steve’ posted a photo on here of the flower shop he went into and said it was opposite the sweetshop and, according to one description, the flat he stayed in:
“The flat is right opposite the flower shop on Scotland Road, a phone box on the right side, a post office on the other side, second floor with a green door.”

On his real visit to Rhyl he went from the coach station to the funfair and back again the following day. He must have noticed that the area he passed through was teeming with boarding houses.

[Graham]

JH also said that on the other side of Scotland Road from the sweet-shop at which he claimed to have stopped for directions, was a cinema; as I understand it, there was at one time, but it was bombed flat during the War. Right opposite the sweet-shop in 1961 was, if I correctly recall previous posts to this Forum, a kind of wide central-reservation with an underground public lavatory. I can't recall any mention of a 'flower shop' opposite the sweet shop, but could have been.

The other odd area is the journey on the bus he claimed he took from Liverpool to Rhyl. I believe this scheduled journey took something like 1 hr 20 mins, maybe a bit more. One would think that, had he been on that bus, what with his odd-coloured hair, the conductor and at least some of the other passengers would have remembered him. But apparently not. There was - and this is a very vague memory - some suggestion a long time ago on these boards that the conductor of that bus was in fact contacted either by JH's defence or the police; if so, nothing came of it.

Graham

[OneRound]

The conductor of the bus from Crosby to Rhyl holds the key. I remain convinced that the appeal outcry from the woman after the failure of the appeal was reference from her to that conductor, not the conductors of the Peckham bus.

It is quite simple-if Hanratty as on the Crosby/Rhyl bus there and back then the conductor would surely have remembered him with his hair etc. If he wa s not on the bus equally a damning statement could have been made to that effect. A conductor would have been in more contact time wise than any of the Rhyl claimants. However what have we got ?

Neither prosecution or defence referred at all at any time then or now to the conductor. None of the 'experts' authors- pro or against, mention a word ever about the conductor. The police make no reports about the conductor at all. Silence all round. Yet to state the obvious. If he was on the bus, the conductor would know either way If he was not on that bus the conductor would know. Equally as I write, I think so would passengers on that bus, yet silence from both sides.

The Rhyl alibi would be strengthened beyond argument if yes he was on the bus or virtually buried if conductor said no on at all like that on the bus.

I do believe that the conductor does hold an important key but what key?

Very very mysterious.

Hi Graham - the above is post number 2220 from John in January last year which raises issues of the Rhyl conductor. I was very taken by it then and still am.

I'll separately post in a minute my own reply from the time.

Best regards,

OneRound

[OneRound]

Hi John - that's a cracking post.

My guess - and I don't claim it's anything more - is that the Prosecution considered the details supplied at trial (particularly the bus timetable) had already rubbished Hanratty's claim of when he arrived in Rhyl. If the Prosecution had then proceeded to check with the conductor as to whether or not he was on the bus, it might have suggested to the jury that the Prosecution needed reassurance that he couldn't have been. Shades of trying to ride two horses, as I suggested recently about a part of the Bentley defence.

The Prosecution may have concluded they were probably best off leaving this matter alone and particularly if the conductor couldn't give a definitive answer as to Hanratty not being on the bus.

Similarly, unless the Defence were to receive confirmation from the conductor that Hanratty was definitely on the bus, questions from them along this line probably wouldn't have helped their client either. A reply amounting to ''Not sure'' or ''Can't remember'' might have been more harmful than helpful if asked by the Defence.

I don't suggest the above is satisfactory. I think it was Ed who posted that a trial is more of a contest than a search for the truth.

Best regards,

OneRound

Hi again Graham - my reply to John's post of January last year.

Best regards,

OneRound

[uncle_adolph]

The other odd area is the journey on the bus he claimed he took from Liverpool to Rhyl. I believe this scheduled journey took something like 1 hr 20 mins, maybe a bit more. One would think that, had he been on that bus, what with his odd-coloured hair, the conductor and at least some of the other passengers would have remembered him. But apparently not. There was - and this is a very vague memory - some suggestion a long time ago on these boards that the conductor of that bus was in fact contacted either by JH's defence or the police; if so, nothing came of it.

Graham

And yet whilst Valerie saw enough to say that the gunman had "...brown hair combed back, no parting..." she too failed to mention this "odd-coloured hair". This despite the fact that Hanratty was so concerned about his appearance that he had Carole France re-dye his hair just a few days later.

That's a strange one too, don't you think?

[Graham]

Thanks for posting those old messages, OR - I knew that the Liverpool-Rhyl bus had been mentioned before.

As for that woman in the appeal court, obviously she could equally have been referring to the conductor/tress on the 36A bus. We'll never know.

One thing does occur to me - back in the early 1960's I used to travel by bus fairly regularly to London from Birmingham Coach Station. In those days there was no speed limit on the motorways, so the Midland Red buses would be foot down all the away along the M1 non-stop and could do the journey quicker than the train. Anyway, there wasn't a conductor on those buses - you paid before you got on. I don't know if Liverpool - Rhyl would have been considered long-distance or merely local, but I wonder now if there was a conductor on that route. The lack of investigation by the defence would perhaps suggest there wasn't.

Graham

[NickB]

I believe this was the type of bus so it looks like there would have been a conductor. But newspaper reports said the lady shouting at the appeal specified the 36 bus.

The 36 bus conductress Pamela Patt was due to appear at the committal proceedings, but was unwell. Her statement was made on 26-Aug-61 only 2 days after the incident, and therefore would have carried more weight than a Rhyl conductor’s statement made nearly 6 months later. Yet the prosecution did not bother bringing her to trial (perhaps she was still unwell) even though she described a young man going to the upper deck who resembled Hanratty apart from the hair.

There are different descriptions of what Hanratty’s hair looked like at the time of the crime.

In any case the prosecution already had enough evidence to discredit the Rhyl alibi, as the witnesses accounted for all the rooms. The infamous green bath – the only thing Jim had specified about the location or the inside of the guesthouse that could distinguish it from many others – was nullified when Mrs Jones admitted there was a double bed between the door and the bath which Hanratty would have noticed.

[Graham]

But newspaper reports said the lady shouting at the appeal specified the 36 bus

.

That's what I always understood. It always seemed to me that the 36A bus evidence was somewhat confused and perhaps a bit 'thin' - the only thing known for sure is that the A6 murder weapon was found on it.

I'd have thought, given that his client's life was in danger, Sherrard would have instructed Gillbanks to check out the Liverpool-Rhyl bus, and make an effort to contact both passengers and crew. If he did, then I can't recall reading anything about it. Of course, Hanratty's claim to have taken this bus is weakened by the simple fact he got his arrival-time in Rhyl wrong. Still, if the bus that ran on that day was never fully investigated, then I do find that slightly odd.

Graham