A6 Rebooted

[OneRound]

That is a distortion of NickB's post. The claim which NickB found bizarre included the assertion that Hanratty had driven a stolen Jag around England for some weeks. In fact a Jag was stolen by Hanratty on 7 October 1961 and abandoned in Manchester before his arrest in Blackpool on 11 October. In the meantime Hanratty had been to Liverpool, a journey which he claimed to have made by train.

Quite right, Spitfire.

Besides Cobalt distorting Nick's post, he has also put up a smokescreen for Moste avoiding my last two posts.

Cobalt - you are better than this.

Moste - you are marginally better than this.

OneRound

[cobalt]

OneRound,

There was no intention on my part to distort or create a smokescreen. From what you have written I now understand that what NickB found ‘bizarre’ was not the Jaguar key itself, but the claim that Hanratty had been ‘driving it around for weeks.’ This was not clear to me from his original post.

I am sure the police investigation spent a great deal of time trying to tie down the movements of James Hanratty around the time of the crime. Nowadays this would be a much easier task, what with CCTV at every garage and railway station, not to mention cameras identifying registration plates on main motorways.

Moste has raised the issue of whether Hanratty was reluctant to admit to stealing cars in court, and manufactured his train journey to Liverpool. The reason for doing so might have been due to the circumstances of the crime, what we might now call a ‘carjacking,’ and Hanratty feeling that being a car thief put him too close to the crime. Perhaps, but then we would then have to discount statements in Hanratty’s favour, such as the man with the withered arm at the railway station. Do we know if Hanratty used trains on an occasional basis, in between his stealing of cars? Did he actually use buses much, or did he prefer hiring a taxi? For me the evidence could be read either way. For example I can understand why some question the credibility of Hanratty’s jaunt by bus up Scotland Road, but on the other hand they readily accept him boarding a London bus to offload a gun and several rounds of ammunition. The reverse applies to those on my side of the argument.

One thing the Matthews report must have been able to scrutinise was the alleged sighting of the murder car during the early hours of the morning in Derbyshire. I think the witness was called Lees. His description of erratic driving certainly tallies with the testimony of Valerie Storie, and he identified a green bobble hat which resembled one later photographed inside the boot of the car. If his statement is correct then the question has to be asked as to how the car was later driven back to London, without attracting any undue attention, and also devoid of forensic evidence.

The timing of Mr Lees’ report to the police is very significant, and would presumably be available to Matthews. If Lees’ statement was made after the registration had been put out over TV and radio, then it may be an understandable error made on his part. This would be less so had he written the registration down at the time. And had he reported the car to the police before any national appeals, then his evidence would be well nigh watertight. This is the type of detail that we do not have to hand, and which I assume Matthews did.

[OneRound]

Thanks, Cobalt. Your comments are noted. Disappointing to have still not heard from Moste although not altogether surprising. Anyway, that's a separate issue. Moving on, a few comments on the detail of your post.

1. I readily admit to having no specialised knowledge of Hanratty's preferred mode of transport although, besides cars, I thought - maybe from comments here - that he favoured taxis whenever possible.
He certainly did use buses though - as per his confirmation of saying to Dixie France that he ditched unwanted swag under the backseats of buses.
That said, I would be surprised if he didn't sometimes use trains. I forget the details of the railway stations concerned (and no longer have the books) but Hanratty claimed to have initially gone to the wrong station from the Vienna before going by taxi to the right one and then on to Liverpool. His detractors claim this was a lie in case anyone saw him at the first station and further suggest he travelled by train from there to the Dorney area. If Hanratty had been zooming around in a nicked car and not travelling by train (regardless of where to) at that time, it seems unnecessarily inventive to have thrown in the episode of a visit to the wrong station.

2. I suspect you and others are expecting a level of detail in Matthews' report that may not be there. As I understand things and for all practical purposes, the report went from Matthews to the Home Secretary, from there to the then newly formed Criminal Cases Review Commission and was then referred to the Court of Appeal where Mansfield argued the case for Hanratty. I may be wrong here but wouldn't Mansfield have had access to the full report just as the CCRC would have done? If so, and if there had been stronger evidence in the report to overturn Hanratty's conviction then surely Mansfield would have used it. As a related point, could Mansfield have called Matthews to confirm his findings at the appeal? I don't see why not. Surely the views of an experienced and senior police officer who had researched the case with a dedicated team would have been worth hearing ''in the interests of justice'' (the importance of which was heavily emphasised by the Court of Appeal)?

3. The alleged Derbyshire sighting was by William Lee in Matlock. After saying this was ''the most impressive'' of the various sightings, the Court of Appeal discounted it due to the discrepancy with Gregsten's last recording of the car's mileage (if Gregsten had recorded correctly, the car could not have been driven as far as to Matlock and then back to where it was abandoned). The Court of Appeal refer to the original defence team not being informed of the car's alleged sightings and especially that by Lee as ''the high watermark of non-disclosure'' but ultimately consider it not to have caused injustice. Purely a personal view but I would have allowed the appeal and this would have been a significant factor in my decision.

Regards,

OneRound

[Spitfire]

2. I suspect you and others are expecting a level of detail in Matthews' report that may not be there. As I understand things and for all practical purposes, the report went from Matthews to the Home Secretary, from there to the then newly formed Criminal Cases Review Commission and was then referred to the Court of Appeal where Mansfield argued the case for Hanratty. I may be wrong here but wouldn't Mansfield have had access to the full report just as the CCRC would have done? If so, and if there had been stronger evidence in the report to overturn Hanratty's conviction then surely Mansfield would have used it. As a related point, could Mansfield have called Matthews to confirm his findings at the appeal? I don't see why not. Surely the views of an experienced and senior police officer who had researched the case with a dedicated team would have been worth hearing ''in the interests of justice'' (the importance of which was heavily emphasised by the Court of Appeal)?

In fact Matthews was called by Mansfield to give evidence in support of his appeal.

In Harriman's book, Hanratty-The DNA Travesty, he supplies most of the transcript of the evidence given at the hearing including the evidence given by Roger Matthews on 24 April 2002.

It is difficult to follow with most witnesses as the witnesses are often being examined or cross-examined on documents, witness statements or reports which we do not see, but Matthews's evidence was directed only to the where the exhibits were kept, the state in which he found them and how he handled them. The evidence seemed to be solely directed to proving contamination was a possibility.

[OneRound]

Thanks, Spitfire.

Apologies for my error. As you can tell, I was too tight fisted to invest in Harriman's book (tend to recall some negative feedback here but probably should still have given it a go) and didn't realise that Matthews had been called by Mansfield to give evidence in support of the appeal.

Your comments though do appear to support my suspicion that there isn't the level of detail in Matthews' report that some were hoping for. Certainly not to succeed in an appeal upon behalf of Hanratty anyway.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Spitfire]

T.

Your comments though do appear to support my suspicion that there isn't the level of detail in Matthews' report that some were hoping for. Certainly not to succeed in an appeal upon behalf of Hanratty anyway.

Thanks O.R.

I think you are right that the Matthews report formed the basis of the grounds of appeal relied upon by Mansfield in the Court of Appeal. It would only be necessary to show that there was evidence that could have been put before the jury and could have affected the verdict. It would not be necessary to show that Hanratty was innocent, only that his trial was unfair due to the withholding of important evidence. However, one has to say that the DNA evidence (at least in the minds of the judges) outweighed all the evidence in Hanratty's favour and to that extent the court was satisfied as to the guilt of Hanratty.

By the by, Harriman has returned to the fray with a follow up book. I don't think I'll bother though.

Regards

S.

[Derrick]

...I think you are right that the Matthews report formed the basis of the grounds of appeal relied upon by Mansfield in the Court of Appeal...

Nonsense.

The CCRC conducted a thorough 2 year multi-million pound re-investigation of the whole case. Matthew's report, like that previously of Woffinden and Bindman were merely submissions to the Home Office to consider a re-investigation leading to appeal.

The grounds of appeal were based on the findings of the CCRC, perfected by the appellant in the light of the Commissions reference.

[Spitfire]

Nonsense.

The CCRC conducted a thorough 2 year multi-million pound re-investigation of the whole case. Matthew's report, like that previously of Woffinden and Bindman were merely submissions to the Home Office to consider a re-investigation leading to appeal.

The grounds of appeal were based on the findings of the CCRC, perfected by the appellant in the light of the Commissions reference.

Have it your own way and I stand corrected.

The CCRC made its findings without consideration of the Matthews Report but after spending millions on the investigation. The grounds of appeal had nothing whatsoever to do with Roger Matthews whom we should regard as being functus officio qua the Hanratty investigation well before the CCRC made its findings which were not based on anything said or written by Matthews.

I think that we can now move on having ditched the notion that anything in the grounds of appeal emanated in any way whatsoever from the Matthews Report.

[Derrick]

Have it your own way and I stand corrected...

Well Spitfire, if you know any better then you should spit it out!

[Sherlock Houses]

The sweetshop incident, etc.,

But Olive Dinwoodie (don't you just love her name?) remembered Hanratty, if not to describe him exactly, but she remembered a man with a London accent coming into her shop and asking directions. The little girl was in the shop on that day as well. And that was Tuesday 22nd at 5pm.

The following needs spelling out in no uncertain terms .....
In effect what the proponents of Hanratty's guilt are claiming is :-

1] James Hanratty's look-alike and sound-alike double [whoever he may be] entered David Cowley's sweetshop at 408 Scotland Road on Monday August 21st 1961 sometime between 4 and 4.30 pm. The same time that Hanratty said he was in the shop on the following day.

2] This doppelganger then enquired of the sweetshop assistant, Mrs Olive Dinwoodie, if she could direct him to a Tarleton or Carlton Road.

3] Somehow or other, when Hanratty visits Liverpool again [October 7th to 10th] he hears from his Liverpool contacts that someone they knew who looked and sounded exactly like Hanratty, popped briefly into a certain Scotland Road sweetshop 7 weeks earlier on a Monday [August 21st infact] enquiring about some thoroughfare called Carlton or Tarleton. These Liverpool friends then suggest to Hanratty that he could buy this alibi from them and pretend to be that doppelganger. Regardless of the fact that this potential alibi for the A6 murder could hold absolutely no water for obvious reasons.


Now anyone with half a brain or any common sense can see the utter absurdity of all this. It is all truly ludicrous. No Liverpudlian doppelganger has ever stepped forward to claim that he was the young man in question who entered Cowley's sweetshop on Monday, August 21st 1961 enquiring of a Tarleton or Carlton Road. How very strange indeed, especially considering the circumstances of a young Londoner fighting for his life in a well publicised and very serious murder trial.

It is also obvious to anyone with half a brain or any common sense that the sweetshop incident involved Hanratty and could only have happened on Tuesday, August 22nd. It is beyond any question whatsoever that Hanratty was in London all day that Monday. Mrs Dinwoodie originally believed that the incident occurred on the Tuesday. It was external pressure and other factors which caused her to have doubts, leading to her changing her mind and settling for the Monday. Mrs Dinwoodie was simply mistaken. Understandable given the pressure she must have been under at the time.

Even Acott knew the sweetshop incident could only have happened on that Tuesday, which speaks volumes on behalf of Hanratty's innocence.

[j.kettle1]

Blood in MM.

It has always baffled me how the blood in the footwell of the MM failed to yield any forensic evidence. How did the driver not leave any footprints, and why were there no traces of blood leading away from where the car was parked? Surely you cant drive a car without putting at least one foot down, or have I missed something?
Did Nickolls? pick up nothing, or was it that nothing was revealed?

[cobalt]

It is certainly baffling that no valid forensic evidence was apparently retrieved from the car. The ability to match hair and fibre samples was well enough developed in 1961, something which might have been conclusive given that Hanratty's hair was (probably) dyed at the time of the crime.

As another contributor pointed out previously, given the contact between the murderer and Valerie Storie, it would have been expected that some evidence of transferred hairs or fibres would have been found on her clothing as well.

It has been suggested that the car was cleaned before being dumped, but it is hard to conceive of this being done so thoroughly as to leave no traces whatsoever. And of course Miss Storie's clothing could not have been subject to cleaning.

[j.kettle1]

Due to unfortunate circumstances it's been a while since I last posted, and I haven't revisited my books. I may be a bit rusty, so apologies.
I believe there were thirteen? fingerprints found in the car. I forget who they belonged to now. Does anyone know whether any of these fingerprints were found on the steering wheel? If so then Im pretty sure that the driver could not have been wearing gloves, as surely the gloves would have erased them, and if the driver wasn't wearing gloves, then his fingerprints must be amongst those found. You can't selectively remove fingerprints.

[uncle_adolph]

Due to unfortunate circumstances it's been a while since I last posted, and I haven't revisited my books. I may be a bit rusty, so apologies.
I believe there were thirteen? fingerprints found in the car. I forget who they belonged to now. Does anyone know whether any of these fingerprints were found on the steering wheel? If so then Im pretty sure that the driver could not have been wearing gloves, as surely the gloves would have erased them, and if the driver wasn't wearing gloves, then his fingerprints must be amongst those found. You can't selectively remove fingerprints.

The killer was wearing black gloves. Valerie had to pull one of them off before she was raped as the killer couldn't get them off himself.

And yet wasn't it accepted at the trial that Hanratty never wore gloves when housebreaking; this being one of the reasons why he was always being caught? Perhaps he'd learned his lesson but it does seem odd that we are expected to accept that someone who was habitually so careless in his criminal activities suddenly managed to commit, in terms of traces, a near perfect crime.

[OneRound]

The following needs spelling out in no uncertain terms .....
In effect what the proponents of Hanratty's guilt are claiming is :-

1] James Hanratty's look-alike and sound-alike double [whoever he may be] entered David Cowley's sweetshop at 408 Scotland Road on Monday August 21st 1961 sometime between 4 and 4.30 pm. The same time that Hanratty said he was in the shop on the following day.

2] This doppelganger then enquired of the sweetshop assistant, Mrs Olive Dinwoodie, if she could direct him to a Tarleton or Carlton Road.

3] Somehow or other, when Hanratty visits Liverpool again [October 7th to 10th] he hears from his Liverpool contacts that someone they knew who looked and sounded exactly like Hanratty, popped briefly into a certain Scotland Road sweetshop 7 weeks earlier on a Monday [August 21st infact] enquiring about some thoroughfare called Carlton or Tarleton. These Liverpool friends then suggest to Hanratty that he could buy this alibi from them and pretend to be that doppelganger. Regardless of the fact that this potential alibi for the A6 murder could hold absolutely no water for obvious reasons.


Now anyone with half a brain or any common sense can see the utter absurdity of all this. It is all truly ludicrous. No Liverpudlian doppelganger has ever stepped forward to claim that he was the young man in question who entered Cowley's sweetshop on Monday, August 21st 1961 enquiring of a Tarleton or Carlton Road. How very strange indeed, especially considering the circumstances of a young Londoner fighting for his life in a well publicised and very serious murder trial.

It is also obvious to anyone with half a brain or any common sense that the sweetshop incident involved Hanratty and could only have happened on Tuesday, August 22nd. It is beyond any question whatsoever that Hanratty was in London all day that Monday. Mrs Dinwoodie originally believed that the incident occurred on the Tuesday. It was external pressure and other factors which caused her to have doubts, leading to her changing her mind and settling for the Monday. Mrs Dinwoodie was simply mistaken. Understandable given the pressure she must have been under at the time.

Even Acott knew the sweetshop incident could only have happened on that Tuesday, which speaks volumes on behalf of Hanratty's innocence.

Hi Sherlock,

This was definitely a valuable card played by Hanratty. It perhaps should have been taken more into account by the Court of Appeal in 2002; I'll elaborate on that in my final two paragraphs. However, I still feel you overegg this pudding. For me, the following factors particularly apply:

1. You overstate the case about Hanratty being a 'doppelganger'. I think it's fair to say that Mrs Dinwoodie's evidence was more along the lines that Hanratty looked like the man in the shop rather than he was identical to the man, let alone confirming that they were one and the same. As previously discussed here, the ways in which she was separately asked by the police and Sherrard if Hanratty was the man concerned were far from satisfactory and convincing. Also, I don't know where you get your 'sound-alike' comment from. Mrs Dinwoodie said she struggled to understand the man in the sweetshop due to whatever accent he had whilst Hanratty seemed to do just fine in making himself understood at trial.

2. You do want to pick and choose here as to where to place emphasis. You write, 'It is .. obvious to anyone with half a brain or any common sense that the sweetshop incident could only have happened on [the] Tuesday'. Meanwhile, Mrs Dinwoodie, who was in and running the sweet shop at the time of the incident and upon whom you want to rely when it suits you, asserted at trial that it was the Monday. Rather than being someone 'with half a brain' or devoid of 'any common sense', you state she is 'simply mistaken'.

3. I no longer have the main books but I believe Mrs Dinwoodie was supported by Albert Harding, a lorry driver and customer of the shop, as to the incident occurring on the Monday. I would be grateful if you or any other poster could remind me about Harding's evidence - it tends to get overlooked.

4. Was there really enough time for Hanratty to have visited the sweet shop and to have done all the other things he claimed between arriving in Liverpool by train and catching the coach to Rhyl?

My four points above are clearly for the prosecution and why I so much doubt Hanratty's innocence. However, in interests of balance and fairness, I would also make the comments below.

Very short shrift was given by the Court of Appeal in 2002 to any consideration of this possible alibi in 2002 and, despite my misgivings as to its validity, I feel that was harsh on Hanratty and his campaigners. The Court noted that non-disclosure was not complained of by Mansfield as to this incident and it had been for the jury 'to evaluate the evidence of Olive Dinwoodie and Albert Harding' (para 185). Yes, that's right and fair enough as far as it goes but it doesn't go very far.

The Court also referred in the opening and closing remarks of their judgement to the need to see things 'in the round'. The sweet shop incident was a substantial plank of the defence case and certainly merited consideration by the jury. My concern is that the Court were content to regard this matter 'not in the round' but in isolation as evaluated by the jury forty years earlier. If the jury had been aware of other separate concerns (I'm particularly referring to non-disclosures) at that time, the impact of the sweet shop alibi may have weighed more heavily with them.

Regards,

OneRound