A6 Rebooted

[JamesMac]

Dna

Dear all,

Following on from my previous post I had intended to comment separately with regard to the DNA results from the handkerchief but wanted to split them to avoid one becoming too lengthy.

The DNA results from the handkerchief were not, apparently, from a mixed source but I wondered how confident we could be that the handkerchief tested was actually the handkerchief found wrapped round the gun? I note from the 2002 judgement that the handkerchief was originally tested on 25th August 1961 but was put to one side given that no traces of blood or semen could be found. On 9th October 1961 some of Hanratty’s clothing, taken from Louise Anderson’s flat, were submitted to the lab for tests. Hanratty would also no doubt have had a handkerchief in his possession when arrested (he habitually carried one as do most males of my acquaintance) so the lab could have been responsible for testing several.

Bearing in mind that the handkerchief eventually found by Bedfordshire Police was held within an open HMSO envelope I wonder what certainty there can be that two handkerchiefs were not transposed at some point? In particular I imagine that the police, possibly the lab as well as the jury might have taken the opportunity to compare the similarities between them. If so how confident can we be, whether the handkerchiefs were similar in appearance or not, that the right handkerchief was returned to the right envelope?

James Mac

[Derrick]

Bearing in mind that the handkerchief eventually found by Bedfordshire Police was held within an open HMSO envelope I wonder what certainty there can be that two handkerchiefs were not transposed at some point? In particular I imagine that the police, possibly the lab as well as the jury might have taken the opportunity to compare the similarities between them. If so how confident can we be, whether the handkerchiefs were similar in appearance or not, that the right handkerchief was returned to the right envelope?

Hi JamesMac

The envelope discovered by Beds police in 1997 was marked as "exhibit 37" as it was described at the trial.

Your views might undermine that, but I would like to TRY to give the prosecution EVERY benefit of the doubt based on the AVAILABLE evidence.

My view is is that the hanky was Hanratty's because the MtDNA tests done in 1997 found an extremely strong link to his brother Michael and mother Mary.

Happy New Year, welcome to the thread and ATB
Delboy

[JamesMac]

Hi Derrick,

Thank you for the welcome.

I note that the exhibit number for the handkerchief was actually 37 rather than the 35 mentioned in the 2002 appeal judgement which makes me slightly more doubtful of its provenance and less inclined to be as generous to the prosecution in terms of benefit of doubt!

I assume that the handkerchief was not tested for gunshot residue subsequent to its discovery by Bedfordshire Police in 1997? Whilst I appreciate that this would not definitively link the handkerchief to the gun (the Barry George case comes to mind regarding transfer of gunshot residue) it would at least provide greater certainty that the correct item had been tested.

My main concern is that it would have been completely natural for the handkerchief found with the gun to be closely compared to handkerchiefs found on Hanratty’s person or amongst his clothing (by the lab, police, jury etc.) and the items mistakenly transposed. Whilst I can imagine that both the lab and the police would have taken greater care to ensure this did not happen I am doubtful that there would have been any such worries in the jury room with the items passed round for examination with no great concern that they were returned to the correct evidence bag. Having said that I do not know whether any other handkerchiefs formed part of the material evidence, which was all taken into the jury room for the jury to examine if desired, or whether the exhibit ids simply refer to Hanratty’s clothing. Do you happen to have a full list of the exhibits?

Best wishes,

JamesMac

[Derrick]

...I note that the exhibit number for the handkerchief was actually 37 rather than the 35 mentioned in the 2002 appeal judgement...

Hi JamesMac
My mistake, the judgement is right on this.
Del

[Derrick]

...Do you happen to have a full list of the exhibits?...

I certainly do!

But I have just moved and my papers are still packed away in storage.

It may take a good few weeks before I can get them out again.

Bear with me until then.

Derrick

[JamesMac]

Hi Derrick,

Many thanks for clarifying the position regarding the exhibit number. I was beginning to think that there was a material discrepancy!

It would be great to see a list of the exhibits and will certainly bear with you. I hope that the move was not too traumatic.

Best wishes,

James Mac

[NickB]

Below is the Louise Anderson article, by a ‘News of the World reporter’, dated 27-Nov-66:


HANRATTY TOLD ME HE WAS A KILLER

A former woman friend of James Hanratty, hanged four years ago for the murder of Michael Gregsten near Deadman’s Hill on the A6 trunk road, has stepped into the recent ‘was he really innocent?’ controversy.

She told me: “There is no question of a miscarriage of justice. He was guilty. A day or so after the murder he told me he had killed a man."

The woman, 54 year old Mrs Louise Anderson, first told me a year ago she knew Hanratty was the real killer when I met her in the antique and curio shop she ran in Greek Street, Soho.

In view of the reactions prompted by a recent BBC Panorama programme about the Hanratty case I again asked her to describe the occasion when Hanratty said he had killed a man.

“It was shortly after the A6 murder,” she said. “He told me he had killed a man. He didn’t say it was Gregsten, but he said he might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb. He was very worried.”

“I also know that between the murder and his arrest he had new dentures fitted so that his face was slightly altered and that he dyed his hair.”

Two of the men who appeared in the BBC programme had visited her at her shop, Mrs Anderson went on. One, she said, was Jean Justice who supplied the BBC with a tape-recording and the other was introduced to her as Peter Louis Alphon the man whose voice was taped.

Mrs Anderson, who lives in Paddington, says she was asked to appear on the Panorama programme but declined because she had been ill. Mrs Anderson was a witness at the trial of Hanratty at Bedfordshire Assises.

[Derrick]

HANRATTY TOLD ME HE WAS A KILLER

Hi Nick
When Paul Foot visited Mrs Anderson in the late 1960's he found her to be in, er, reduced circumstances.
I imagine she did the News of the Screws piece for a nice fee and refused to appear in the TV show for fear of being asked too many awkward ?'s on camera.
Besides, her testimony at trial was inconsistent with the above. Her reason's for pairing Hanratty with Mary Meaden does not square with her article. Why would she set up a young girl with whom she knew to be a deranged killer!
Del

[Graham]

My own take on Louise Anderson remains that anything she said at or after the trial has to be treated with caution. Paul Foot deals with her News Of The World article of November 27 1966 (Foot, hardback, Pgs 169 - 171). Foot went to see her about 4 years after this article, when he found her living in 'appalling conditions' and had recently suffered two strokes. She was obviously in 'reduced circumstances' at the time of Foot's visit, but that doesn't mean she was in such circumstances when the NOTW published her story. Yet it has to be said that it seems she very likely lived a hand-to-mouth existence, so maybe whatever the NOTW paid her was very welcome at that time.

I also can't recall reading anywhere else that Hanratty wore dentures, let alone tried to alter his appearance with a new set. His photos, IMHO, tend to suggest that his gnashers were natural.

This isn't to say that I'm coming round to thinking he might have been innocent....

Graham

[NickB]

A somewhat disappointing visit to the British Library.

I was hoping the Anderson article would be a big juicy interview covering several columns.

Then I got out The Guardian for 25-Feb-95. The front page was promising: ‘Weekend magazine EXCLUSIVE: Paul Foot uncovers new evidence in the Hanratty case.’ But at the point where the weekend magazine should have been, there was simply a note saying ‘section missing’.

I also wanted to look at the Sunday Times issues with the Kleinman letter and the articles leading up to it, but was told they were down in the basement and would take time to retrieve.

However I did look through the Daily Telegraph reports of the committal and trial.

To pick up on some issues we have been discussing recently ...

- The Telegraph says when the Ingledene guests (Williams, Such and Sayle) gave evidence “two of the men produced receipts from the proprietress Mrs Grace Jones” – but it does not say which two!

- Nudds did indeed leave the Vienna on 5-Sep. On 9-Sep he became a temporary caretaker at a mosque. Crocker said his 11-Sep visit was “to assist Mrs Galves after the Glickbergs had left”.

- There is some more detail on Dinwoodie’s evidence.

Sherrard: “Can you say now with certainty which of the two days it was it happened , the Monday or the Tuesday?”

Dinwoodie: “The Monday.”

Sherrard: “Why do you say the Monday?”

Dinwoodie: “Mr Cowley’s brother was with me all day on the Tuesday.”

In the cross examination with Swanwick she agrees she has always been certain that the conversation took place on the Monday, that she didn’t get a good look at the man and that when she was shown the single photograph she thought it resembled the chap who had come into the shop and that is as far as she could go. To clarify, this is in the form of Swanwick putting the points to Dinwoodie and she agreeing; for example -

Swanwick: “You thought it resembled the chap who had come into the shop, and that is as far as you could go.”

Dinwoodie: “Yes.”

[NickB]

Below is the Telegraph’s report of Mrs D’s evidence ...

The next witness for the defence was Mrs Olive Dinwoodie of Buckingham Street, Liverpool. She said she knew Mr Dave Cowley, who owned the sweetshop in Scotland Road, Liverpool. She also knew his wife Stella, who had gone on holiday on August 19 last year.

Mrs Dinwoodie said she went to the shop on the Tuesday. She did not go there on the Wednesday, the 23rd, because she was ill.

She agreed that the Liverpool police had visited her and shown her a photograph, and on a second occasion had shown her a number of photographs of different people. She thought that the first photograph resembled the man who had come into the shop.

Sherrard: What happened, so far as you can remember, when the chap whose picture that resembled came into the shop?”

Dinwoodie: “He came into the shop. He asked me if I could tell him where Tarleton Road was. He said Tarleton as far as I could make out. I said I knew where Tarleton Street was. It was in the town. But I never heard of Tarleton Road.

Mrs Dinwoodie, questioned about what had happened in the shop, said:
“I started to get busy and I said: ‘I can’t help you, perhaps this gentleman can.’ Someone came in and I just had to go.”

Sherrard: “You were there just those two days that week – August 12 and 22.”

Dinwoodie: “Yes.”

Sherrard: “When the police came to make inquiries was anything said to you in assisting you which of these two days you thought it was?”

Mrs Dinwoodie stated that it had been said that she had a girl with her. Mr Cowley has sent her a note asking her to come down to the shop on the Monday and bring the girl, her granddaughter, with her.

Dinwoodie: “Barbara, my granddaughter, was with me on the Monday.”

Sherrard: “Did that assist you at that time in fixing which of those two days it was – the fact that there had been reference to the child?”

Dinwoodie: “Yes.”

Sherrard: “Which of the two days do you think it was?”

Dinwoodie: “The Monday”

Sherrard: “If it had not been for your fixing the date by reference to your grandchild, do you think you would have been able to remember which of the two days it was?

Dinwoodie: No, sir.”

Sherrard: “On the Monday was Barbara, in fact, serving there in the shop?”

Dinwoodie: “Yes.”

Sherrard: “Did Barbara come into the shop at any time on the Tuesday?”

Dinwoodie: “Not the whole day. She called in at 4.45.”

Sherrard: “Can you say now with certainty which of the two days it was it happened, the Monday or the Tuesday?”

Dinwoodie: “The Monday.”

Sherrard: “Why do you say the Monday?”

Dinwoodie: “Mr Cowley’s brother was with me all day on the Tuesday.”

Sherrard: “What time of the day was it that this man came in and had this conversation with you?”

Dinwoodie: “About 4.15 to 4.30.”

Asked to examine a photograph, Mrs Dinwoodie agreed that she had signed it as being the person whom she had seen in the shop.

Sherrard: “Do you see anyone in court that looks like that man?”

Dinwoodie: “Yes.”

Mrs Dinwoodie nodded towards the dock.

Mr Swanwick, cross-examining asked:

“Would I be right in saying that there has always been one thing which you have been certain about, or two things? First, that this conversation took place on the Monday.”

Dinwoodie: “Yes sir.”

Swanwick: “Secondly, that it took place between about 4.15 and 4.30.”

Dinwoodie: “Yes sir.”

Swanwick: “Thirdly, your granddaughter Barbara was serving in the shop when he came in.”

Dinwoodie: “Yes”

Swanwick: “Fourthly, that there was no-one else in the shop except customers.”

Dinwoodie: “That is right sir, yes.”

Swanwick: “When first asked about the man you were shown a single photograph.”

Dinwoodie: “Yes.”

Swanwick: “You thought it resembled the chap who had come into the shop, and that is as far as you could go.”

Dinwoodie: “Yes.”

In re-examination by Mr Sherrard, Mrs Dinwoodie said she was sure it was the Monday and she was sure that her granddaughter was serving at the time.

--------

So Mrs D is certain that when the visitor asked for directions the only people in the shop were herself, Barbara and the customers. Barbara’s friend was not in the shop and –crucially – neither was Cowley’s brother. She knew that it was the Monday not only because Barbara was there but because Cowley’s brother was not serving with her.

[OneRound]

Nick - thanks for posting the findings from your recent research. All interesting and informative. Much appreciated.

I presume Dave Cowley's brother was a local man. On that basis and given Mrs Dinwoodie tried to help the person asking about Tarleton Road, it seems reasonable to think she would have asked Cowley's brother if he knew the whereabouts of the road concerned. That she didn't (and, furthermore, that Hanratty never claimed she did) has to be a pointer that the incident did not occur on the Tuesday.

Best regards,

OneRound

[OneRound]

Hi Anson,

Yeah, it is a tough call but also, I believe, a fair one in view of Derrick's belief in Hanratty's innocence based upon as he put it 'all the facts of the case'.

I would like to hear Derrick's take. I assure him and all I would give it serious consideration.

I'll respond to the main thrust of your own post a bit later today.

Best regards,

OneRound

Hi Del - I hope your move has gone well and that you will shortly be able to share with us your take and belief in Hanratty's innocence based upon 'all the facts of the case'.

Looking forward to that and the full list of exhibits as per your posts last month with JamesMac.

Best regards,

OneRound

[NickB]

There is one thing to add about the Telegraph’s report on Mrs D’s evidence.

In the opening paragraphs they summarise it thus:

‘Evidence that she thought Hanratty resembled “a chap” who came into a sweet shop in Scotland Road, Liverpool, she was looking after in August was given by Mrs Dinwoodie.

She said she only had a glimpse of the man who came into the shop on Monday Aug 21, between 4.15 and 4.30, asking for directions. She was certain it was on the Monday and not the following day.’

The account of Mrs D’s evidence that follows later in the report (as transcribed in my previous post) does not include her saying she “only had a glimpse of the man”. I presume that they were short of space and cut out this bit.

[Derrick]

Hi Nick

I have seen contemporary newspaper reports with much of the same content as the Torygraph.

To me the most important aspects are that Mrs Dinwoodie stated, in reply to Mr Sherrard's question, that she was sure it was the Monday because her granddaughter was serving with her and that the man asked for directions to places that Hanratty himself had put up in his alibi.

There was no mention of Cowley serving at all, he might have been around on the Tuesday but I doubt he was behind the counter or in the shop at all for that matter all day, everyone needs a break.

Besides, Mrs Dinwoodie was an extremely reluctant witness. Her husband complained to the police of harassment by defence agents and made 2 statements to that effect, which I have seen.

Furthermore, we all know how unreliable human memory can be. Miss Storie and the Rhyl witnesses have all been shown to be fallible whether Hanratty was guilty or not. This is especially true when trying to recollect exact times of events.

On top of that Mrs Dinwoodie was taken ill and her recollections of the material day may have become confused if she didn't realize that Miss Ford did indeed serve behind the counter on the Tuesday afternoon, which Miss Ford is adamant she did. Mrs Dinwoodie may not have known who Miss Walton was and assumed she was another child customer. And also I am not sure whether Miss Ford mentioned that Mr Cowley was actually in the shop on the Tuesday whilst she was there.

So, if Miss Ford was needed to serve that Tuesday afternoon then Mr Cowley must have vacated the shop for a period of time.

Both Mrs Dinwoodie and Miss Ford picked out photographs of Hanratty and signed them as such. Firstly one photograph (naughty police) and then from a set of 13 or so.

So it comes down to the impossibility of it being Hanratty if it was a Monday and it was a useless bought alibi versus Hanratty being correct and Mrs Dinwoodie having gotten her days mixed up.

Did Hanratty go into another shop that Tuesday and ask for Tarleton Road, a non-existent throughfare? It would seem not as the police must have inquired in every sweet shop in the Scotland Road.

So what are the odds of 2 different men asking for Tarleton Road in 2 different shops on consecutive days in that week in August. Much, much, longer than Leicester winning the title again this year, I'll bet.

Del