A6 Rebooted

[Spitfire]

Perhaps Dixie did the laundry and ironing and the wife simply returned same.

As my old boss used to say, you never know what goes on behind closed doors. Or who irons the drawers (and hankies).

Ansonman

Good point. And this would provide a reason for Dixie to want to have Hanratty hanged in order to get out of doing Hanratty's laundry, particularly if Dixie was not being paid and Charlotte was. The plot thickens, if that were at all possible.

[Dupplin Muir]

With DNA unimagined in 1961, no one could have foreseen it assisting any frame up. So why would Dixie or anyone else have chosen to leave Hanratty's hanky there?

The handkerchief is one of the most intriguing aspects of the case. I would really like to :-

a) See a photo of it

and

b) Find out if Hanratty really did identify it as his

Recently I was speaking to an old lady who worked for an upmarket tailor back in the late 50's and early 60's, and she said that it was quite common to ask customers if they'd like their handkerchiefs monogrammed. Sometimes this would be just the first initial, in which case the shop would usually have them in stock (unless your name happened to be Xavier or Zachariah) and sometimes they would ask for both initials (in which case this lady would embroider the handkerchiefs). Since Hanratty dressed well, it's far from impossible that he would have had handkerchiefs with his initial on. Of course, just having the letter 'J' wouldn't be of much use to the prosecution given the number of male names beginning with that letter, but Hanratty might well have been able to identify it based on the colour of the thread and the font used.

Also, while DNA testing didn't exist at the time, it's not impossible that France (or someone else) knew that you could determine blood-group from mucus. A handkerchief with Hanratty's initial and with Hanratty's blood-group, would certainly help to cement the idea of his guilt.

[OneRound]

Hi Dupplin - as far as I am aware, Hanratty did not identify the handkerchief as his. I believe the view that he did is just an urban myth, particularly encouraged on this site a few years ago by Tony.

That said, I am always happy to learn and so be corrected if my belief is not the case. However, Nick recently researched press coverage of the trial; I am sure he would have mentioned coming across any admission concerning the handkerchief if it had been reported (which it surely would have been) at the time. Perhaps Nick would be so kind to confirm or advise otherwise.

I take your point about Hanratty liking to dress well but feel certain the prosecution would have sought to make use of any monogram possibly linking the handkerchief to him. Again, as far as I'm aware, they didn't.

I can't comment on what Dixie knew (or thought he knew) about determining blood group from mucus but personally don't buy into that idea.

Best regards,

OneRound

[NickB]

Nick recently researched press coverage of the trial; I am sure he would have mentioned coming across any admission concerning the handkerchief if it had been reported (which it surely would have been) at the time. Perhaps Nick would be so kind to confirm or advise otherwise.

There is no mention of Hanratty identifying the handkerchief in the newspaper reports of the trial, and surely something of this significance would have been reported had it happened.

Incidentally I have been unable to upload cuttings because the forum only accepts pdf files up to 293kb. To illustrate how restricting this is, the file below is 194kb.

[OneRound]

Nick - thanks for your post and the confirmation.

Best regards,

OneRound

[uncle_adolph]

Hi again Del,

Whilst not totally damning, the hanky is still pretty damaging for the Hanratty camp, isn't it?

I assume from the reference to the laundry (and some of your other posts) that you believe Dixie France planted the hanky with the gun and bullets on the bus.

With DNA unimagined in 1961, no one could have foreseen it assisting any frame up. So why would Dixie or anyone else have chosen to leave Hanratty's hanky there?

Best regards,

OneRound

Put the question the other way round....if Dixie was trying to frame Hanratty then why wouldn't he choose one of his hankies particularly as he (Dixie) had access to them? If he chose anyone else's, especially one of his own, and it had been identified then that would have taken a fair amount of explaining, don't you think?

[Spitfire]

Put the question the other way round....if Dixie was trying to frame Hanratty then why wouldn't he choose one of his hankies particularly as he (Dixie) had access to them? If he chose anyone else's, especially one of his own, and it had been identified then that would have taken a fair amount of explaining, don't you think?

And more reason to use one of Hanratty's used hankies if, as now seems to be the current pro-Hanratty thinking, it was Dixie's job to do Jim's laundry as it would be one less item for Dixie to wash, dry and iron.

[OneRound]

Put the question the other way round....if Dixie was trying to frame Hanratty then why wouldn't he choose one of his hankies particularly as he (Dixie) had access to them? If he chose anyone else's, especially one of his own, and it had been identified then that would have taken a fair amount of explaining, don't you think?

Hi Uncle - even if Dixie was trying to frame Hanratty, I see no point in him (Dixie) using a hanky belonging to Hanratty when the hanky could not be traced back to Hanratty. At least, not for another forty years.

I readily acknowledge though that I'm far from the best person for you to ask here. For some of the reasons alluded to by Spit (ok, you can forget about washing duties!), I cannot buy into the idea of Hanratty being framed by France or others of his ilk. If some were attempting that, they were taking an enormous gamble that Hanratty would not have been able to satisfactorily prove where he was at the relevant time and were equally as fortunate he couldn't.

Once Acott got his mitts on Hanratty, disclosures and conduct were not satisfactory but that's a different matter.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Limehouse]

Hi Uncle - even if Dixie was trying to frame Hanratty, I see no point in him (Dixie) using a hanky belonging to Hanratty when the hanky could not be traced back to Hanratty. At least, not for another forty years.

I readily acknowledge though that I'm far from the best person for you to ask here. For some of the reasons alluded to by Spit (ok, you can forget about washing duties!), I cannot buy into the idea of Hanratty being framed by France or others of his ilk. If some were attempting that, they were taking an enormous gamble that Hanratty would not have been able to satisfactorily prove where he was at the relevant time and were equally as fortunate he couldn't.

Once Acott got his mitts on Hanratty, disclosures and conduct were not satisfactory but that's a different matter.

Best regards,

OneRound

Hi folks,

I have not caught up with the whole of the most recent debate but, just in response to the above, the most obvious reason I can find for using one of Hanratty's hankies to frame him is not to link it to him forensically as it was not then possible, but to link it to Hanratty because he was known to use a hanky rather than gloves when committing burglaries. It was well documented, and Dixie knew this.

With regard to the risk that Hanratty might be able to prove where he was that night, there was very little risk because Dixie knew why Hanratty was going to Liverpool - to sell loot from burglaries that he had difficulty selling for the right price in London - and also that the items were too 'hot' in London.

It is interesting to note that Hanratty had come out of prison in around April 1961 with the intention of 'going straight' - as much as he could ever have managed to. Not long after this, after an unexpected meeting with his old prison lag Dixie, he is consorting with fences such as Louise Anderson and soon returning to his old tricks. I wonder what would have happened if he had never bumped into Dixie?

Kind regards to all,

Julie

[OneRound]

Hi folks,

I have not caught up with the whole of the most recent debate but, just in response to the above, the most obvious reason I can find for using one of Hanratty's hankies to frame him is not to link it to him forensically as it was not then possible, but to link it to Hanratty because he was known to use a hanky rather than gloves when committing burglaries. It was well documented, and Dixie knew this.

With regard to the risk that Hanratty might be able to prove where he was that night, there was very little risk because Dixie knew why Hanratty was going to Liverpool - to sell loot from burglaries that he had difficulty selling for the right price in London - and also that the items were too 'hot' in London.

It is interesting to note that Hanratty had come out of prison in around April 1961 with the intention of 'going straight' - as much as he could ever have managed to. Not long after this, after an unexpected meeting with his old prison lag Dixie, he is consorting with fences such as Louise Anderson and soon returning to his old tricks. I wonder what would have happened if he had never bumped into Dixie?

Kind regards to all,

Julie

Hi Julie - good to hear from you.

I see your point about Hanratty using a hanky for burglaries but it was still a very long way from being a compelling piece of evidence. The prosecution could hardly suggest it must have been Hanratty's as he was the only criminal to have a hanky.

I don't agree with your middle para. If Hanratty went to Liverpool to sell stolen swag, he needed to keep hidden what he was doing but not where he was. He had to stay somewhere when there. He might have signed a hotel register (as he did at the Vienna). He might have had his Liverpool mates (them again!) to vouch for his whereabouts. He might have kept a receipt from the visit. He might have met someone who remembered him and the day (a Mark II reliable version of Mrs Dinwoodie!). Ok, he just might not have done any of these things but it was a heck of a risk to plan a murder banking on him not doing so and being the patsy in consequence.

Dixie and Anderson were far from positive influences upon Hanratty although it is likely he was always going to be susceptible to that sort of person. In line with a recent post, the innocent person they probably caused most harm to and for whom I have the most sympathy was James Hanratty senior.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Spitfire]

Hi folks,



It is interesting to note that Hanratty had come out of prison in around April 1961 with the intention of 'going straight' - as much as he could ever have managed to. Not long after this, after an unexpected meeting with his old prison lag Dixie, he is consorting with fences such as Louise Anderson and soon returning to his old tricks. I wonder what would have happened if he had never bumped into Dixie?

According to Paul Foot, Hanratty was released from Strangeways on 24 March 1961 and committed his next serious offence by burgling a house in Ruislip during the Easter weekend, which that year was 31 March to 3 April 1961.

[Spitfire]

[ATTACH]17946[/ATTACH]

I have found this photo from Slough Library online which shows the Neville and Griffin dairy on Osbourne Street, Slough in 1980.
Slough History

Is this where Hanratty and the abducted couple tried to buy milk from a vending machine, but were frustrated as none of them had the necessary tanner?


The dairy has been demolished and houses have been built on the site.

[NickB]

It may have been. Osbourne Street would have required a short detour from the High Street.

However in the Sunday Times magazine article of 1966 there is a photograph of a Neville and Griffin shop in what looks like the High Street, in between Tesco and a wool shop. It looks quite a large shop with the 'VG' logo either side of the name, indicating it was a general store. The caption indicates this is where they stopped: '[clock sign - 11.45] First stop at dairy in Slough where gunman wanted them to buy milk and chocolate from machines. No sixpences, so drove on.'

----

Another thing I noticed in the Telegraph was this excerpt from one of Hanratty's phone calls ...

“I went to Ireland and hired a car. That’s right. I left it at London Airport."
The policeman asked him to confirm that he left the car at London Airport and he replied: "Yes, London Airport.”

I thought this might be a mistake, but the Glasgow Herald also reports this.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Wt09AAAAIBAJ&sjid=LUgMAAAAIBAJ&pg=6348%2C4583928

Could it be that he came back on the ferry with the car and drove across England?

[NickB]

From the Slough History website:

"The dairy founded at the Mill House, Salt Hill, by William Neville in 1857 was bought by E. Griffin in 1899, and re-opened as the Park Dairy at 21, Park Street, on the site now occupied by R.G. McCormick, the newsagent. Four years later, the office removed to 84, High Street (now 136), where it has remained ever since, and the premises in Albert Street became the Upton Dairy.'

So it does appear they were in the High Street.

[Spitfire]

Thanks for that Nick, it would make more sense to have the machine on the High Street rather than the backwater which is and was, Osbourne Street. Looking at Companies House (Beta) entries for Neville and Griffin Ltd, it seems that the company was incorporated in 1947. The accounts filed for 1984 indicate that the company's main activities were still the sale of dairy products but 10 years later, the dairy products had been dropped and the company now operates in the property and hotel management markets.

As to London Airport, I have access to the Digital Times archive and the report for the committal hearing is identical to the Telegraph and Glasgow Herald reports, which suggests that all three (and probably more besides) were using agency reporters. However when we get to DI Holmes's (some relation to our Sherlock perhaps?) evidence at trial reported in the Times on1 February 1962 the account is given as follows:

"The caller said, "I went to Ireland and hired a car. That's right.I went from London Airport."