A6 Rebooted

[Graham]

Hi Nick,

Hanratty said that he had seen the man outside the billiard-hall several times during his visits to Liverpool, and also said that he was aware he stood on the spot at a particular time in the late afternoon or evening.

Graham

[NickB]

But when Hanratty said the manager of the billiards hall “is always there” at that time of day standing on the steps outside 12 Lime Street, was he speaking from personal experience (how many times had he been to Liverpool?) or repeating a story he had been given when seeking an alibi from someone who would know that.

The Magee site had a more detailed statement from Kempt:

‘I am the managing licensee of Reynold’s Billiard Hall. It is my custom during the summer evenings when the hall is quiet, to stand at the entrance to have a breath of fresh air. That is any time between 6:00 and 7:30pm. One evening when I was standing at the door, a young fellow in his early twenties came to me and said, “Will you buy a watch?” I replied “No.” He said, “It’s mine, I want some cash to go to the dogs.” I still refused and he went to go up the stairs. I told him he could not go in there to sell that watch, “It’s not a sale room, its licensed premises.” He said, “I’m only going to the toilet.” and went up, and was down again in two minutes and he went away. I have no idea of the day, date or month, except that it was in the evening time. He was small and young and I might know him again.’

The normal identification question is: “Can you see that person anywhere in this room?” often followed by “Are you certain?” This is what Foot indicated had happened with Mrs D.

The defence must have had reason to believe that neither Mrs D nor Kempt would answer positively to the normal question so they introduced the word “resemble”, but Kempt did not even agree to that.

[Graham]

Hi Nick,

Miller repeats most of what you posted. I rather think that Hanratty was no stranger to Liverpool, and had seen Mr Kempt outside the billiard-hall on more than just that one occasion. In those days billiard-halls were popular and busy, so I wouldn't think Mr Kempt had much time, opportunity or interest to closely inspect anyone entering the place, even someone who spoke to him.

Miller also makes the very germane point that when Hanratty fled to Liverpool on 7 October, after he'd heard the police were after him re: the A6 Murder, he very easily and quickly contacted his criminal pals. Yet he had difficulties during the visit he claimed to have made on 22 August. Strange.

By the way, is the Magee A6 Blog still going? Not been able to find it.

Graham

[NickB]

By the way, is the Magee A6 Blog still going? Not been able to find it.
Graham

I don't know. The original went, then it reappeared for a time in a less polished version.

A month or so a Miller book at £20 appeared on Amazon but was snapped up fast.

[Graham]

Hi Nick,

I just looked for it, and got a page saying that it has now been discontinued. Pity.

Some years ago someone started up an independent A6 website, but unfortunately it didn't last long. Does anyone here recall the name of the site or who the webmaster was?

Nick, not so long ago the Miller book 'Shadows Of Deadmans Hill' was going for several hundred quid.....although I very definitely go along with Miller's analysis of the A6, I would suspect that it was a short print-run and hence quite rare. I bought my copy in 2004, and I think it had only one print-run, by Zoilus Press, in 2001.

I believe that first editions of Paul Foot's book can change hands for very significant sums.

Graham

[Derrick]

...not so long ago the Miller book 'Shadows Of Deadmans Hill' was going for several hundred quid.....although I very definitely go along with Miller's analysis of the A6, I would suspect that it was a short print-run and hence quite rare. I bought my copy in 2004, and I think it had only one print-run, by Zoilus Press, in 2001...

Hi Graham

I bought my copy directly from Zoilus in 2007 and paid the dust cover price of, I think, £12.50. The print run as I believe was 1000.

Your declare your adherence to Miller's analysis but I say that he was not in receipt of all of the facts of the case. His book was printed in 2001, a full year before the last appeal, where the details of the Morris' extra mileage and other sightings were first made public.

It cannot be denied that Miller, like Lewis Hawser (in the same position), gives complete leeway to Miss Stories testimony whilst picking as many holes as he could manage in Hanratty's.

Del

[Graham]

Hi Graham

I bought my copy directly from Zoilus in 2007 and paid the dust cover price of, I think, £12.50. The print run as I believe was 1000.

Your declare your adherence to Miller's analysis but I say that he was not in receipt of all of the facts of the case. His book was printed in 2001, a full year before the last appeal, where the details of the Morris' extra mileage and other sightings were first made public.

It cannot be denied that Miller, like Lewis Hawser (in the same position), gives complete leeway to Miss Stories testimony whilst picking as many holes as he could manage in Hanratty's.

Del

Hi Del,

I got mine direct from Zoilus, too. Apart from a couple of letters concerning the A6 to newspapers, it seems he hasn't been heard from since. I once e-mailed him to ask his opinion on a particular matter, but heard nowt.

Indeed, Miller's book was pre-2002 Appeal, but in all honesty I don't think he would have changed his opinion at all. You mention the extra mileage on the Morris, but were any of the claimed sightings ever proven beyond doubt? Then there was the couple who claimed to have seen the Morris on Deadman's Hill, headlights blazing, in the very early morning after the murder, and were sworn at by the driver - interesting, but even though it could have been Hanratty it was never proved.

I refer to Miller fairly frequently as he gives what I believe are acceptable and sensible views on certain aspects of the case, in particular Hanratty's alibis.

Re: your last paragraph, all I can say is that for those who support Hanratty's innocence, the exact opposite is true!

Graham

[Derrick]

...Re: your last paragraph, all I can say is that for those who support Hanratty's innocence, the exact opposite is true!...

Hi Graham

I support Hanratty's innocence wholeheartedly but I pick holes wherever holes are to be found.

Yes there are holes in Hanratty's alibi that could act as a colander but enough people seem to corroborate aspects of his alibi to make it something that cannot be dismissed out of hand.

We all know that even a watertight alibi can be picked apart by fault finding in discrete elements of it.

Miller, like Hawser before him, ignores every inconsistency in Miss Storie's testimony, accepting every aspect of it without question. That to me is no fair analysis but an unevenhanded one.

But as Gorman J said explicitly in his summing up; lack of alibi certainly does not indicate culpability.

Del

[ansonman]

Heads and tails

Hi Graham

I support Hanratty's innocence wholeheartedly but I pick holes wherever holes are to be found.

Yes there are holes in Hanratty's alibi that could act as a colander but enough people seem to corroborate aspects of his alibi to make it something that cannot be dismissed out of hand.

We all know that even a watertight alibi can be picked apart by fault finding in discrete elements of it.

Miller, like Hawser before him, ignores every inconsistency in Miss Storie's testimony, accepting every aspect of it without question. That to me is no fair analysis but an unevenhanded one.

But as Gorman J said explicitly in his summing up; lack of alibi certainly does not indicate culpability.

Del

Very well put Derrick.

It seems to me that for those who believe in Hanratty's guilt it's a case of "heads I win, tails you lose". By way of example we have the watch selling in Liverpool and Rhyl. Now, if the police had been looking for someone who had been attempting to sell a watch, then Hanratty was most certainly the man attempting to sell the watch. Because Hanratty mentions the Liverpool attempted sale, and another witness mentions Rhyl, these instances cannot possibly involve Hanratty.

The most striking example of the coin tossing win/win, concerns, of course, Stories selection of an innocent man from the ID parade. For the anti Hanratty's, in no way does this call into question her ability to accurately identify her assailant because "she knew him (Hanratty) when she saw him".

Ansonman

[Derrick]

...For the anti Hanratty's, in no way does this call into question her ability to accurately identify her assailant because "she knew him (Hanratty) when she saw him"...

Hi ansonman

I agree. Furthermore any Johnny could have picked Hanratty at that time. The fact that the National Press were all over the notion that the police were looking for a man who dyed his hair would guarantee that. Is it any wonder that Skillett and Trower picked him out so quickly even though neither of them got a good look at the time.

Del

[Spitfire]

"The witness may be perfectly honest, absolutely convinced that he or she has identified the right man or woman and you're not going to be able to cross-examine them to show that they're lying "cos they're not lying, they're telling the truth as they see it."

Michael Sherrard on BBC's The A6 Murder 2002.

[Derrick]

"The witness may be perfectly honest, absolutely convinced that he or she has identified the right man or woman and you're not going to be able to cross-examine them to show that they're lying "cos they're not lying, they're telling the truth as they see it."

Michael Sherrard on BBC's The A6 Murder 2002.

Exactly

The moment Acott placed his hand on Miss Storie's shoulder and said "Well done", Miss Storie was convinced that the police had got the A6 murderer and that she had identified him.

[moste]

Exactly

The moment Acott placed his hand on Miss Storie's shoulder and said "Well done", Miss Storie was convinced that the police had got the A6 murderer and that she had identified him.

And from that moment Storie became unimpeachable.

[OneRound]

Hi Graham

I support Hanratty's innocence wholeheartedly but I pick holes wherever holes are to be found.

Yes there are holes in Hanratty's alibi that could act as a colander but enough people seem to corroborate aspects of his alibi to make it something that cannot be dismissed out of hand.

We all know that even a watertight alibi can be picked apart by fault finding in discrete elements of it.

Miller, like Hawser before him, ignores every inconsistency in Miss Storie's testimony, accepting every aspect of it without question. That to me is no fair analysis but an unevenhanded one.

But as Gorman J said explicitly in his summing up; lack of alibi certainly does not indicate culpability.

Del

Hi Del,

What Gorman J said there was clearly correct and he was right to emphasise it.

However, lack of alibi certainly does not indicate innocence either which is why I find your wholehearted support of that of Hanratty so surprising.

By all means, come down on the side - as I do - that guilt was not reasonably and fairly proven. Indeed, Gorman J's statement here and other of his comments may be interpreted as a steer in that direction.

However, concerns as to Hanratty's guilt being proven do not equate to innocence on his part being shown. It is a mistake to suggest they do.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Derrick]

Hi Del,

What Gorman J said there was clearly correct and he was right to emphasise it.

However, lack of alibi certainly does not indicate innocence either which is why I find your wholehearted support of that of Hanratty so surprising.

By all means, come down on the side - as I do - that guilt was not reasonably and fairly proven. Indeed, Gorman J's statement here and other of his comments may be interpreted as a steer in that direction.

However, concerns as to Hanratty's guilt being proven do not equate to innocence on his part being shown. It is a mistake to suggest they do.

Best regards,

OneRound

Not only was guilt not proven at the trial but the set of so-called incriminating circumstantial evidence does not lead ultimately and solely to Hanratty being the A6 murderer.

In fact the circumstantial evidence can be shown to involve at the centre Charles France. He had access to guns, he knew that Hanratty had stayed in room 24 of the Vienna Hotel and where Hanratty would dispose of unwanted booty. Not only that his wife was doing Hanratty's laundry. France's letters are locked away somewhere safe by the Government for many more years to come, after his suicide in March 1962.

The murder car wasn't abandoned in Avondale Crescent until tea-time that Tuesday evening so Blackhall, Skillet and Trower weren't true identification witnesses at all. Mr Lee did see the car that morning and when questioned by the CCRC in 1998 was reminded that he had in fact written the correct reg number on the back of his work-papers folder. That combined with the bobble hat corroborates fully his sighting. I have seen these statements.

That only leaves Miss Storie as the sole identification witness and her testimony is so contradictory that it is less than useless.

As for the DNA evidence dredged up in the 90's there are too many unanswered ?'s as to it's veracity. Especially as the profile elicited is a mixed one and no reference profile for Gregsten is available.

I don't know who the A6 killer is or was and I very much doubt whether anyone will find out. But one thing is for certain it was neither Hanratty nor Alphon, but someone who requested a gun from Charles France and handed it back to him after the event. The extent of Ewers involved may never be known either.

It is obvious that most of the prosecution's main witnesses, bar Miss Storie of course, had something to gain from giving evidence;
Acott, France, Anderson, Nudds and Langdale.

Acott got his man and promotion, France appeared as a kindly uncle type yet spilled enough beans to prop up the Crown's hypothesis, Anderson should have done time for receiving as should Langdale (for similar misdemeanors). Nudds was just a nasty piece of work and a notorious police informant as was France.

No one can ever be shown to be one hundred per cent innocent of any charge but the rule is innocent until proven otherwise and no-one has proved to me otherwise so I believe Hanratty is innocent, completely. I am not going to get into a semantic wrangle over this. Until someone comes up with evidence that proves Hanratty guilty beyond any reasonable doubt then I'm not budging.

Del