Tweet
Thanks to Graham and NickB for fleshing out the planting of the gun on the 36A bus. The level of knowledge on this site is often quite humbling for dilettantes like myself. I know some of this ground has been gone over before, but sometimes being reminded of details helps to clarify our thoughts.
The appearance of the elderly woman at the Appeal is like something out of a Thomas Hardy novel, rather like the furmity tent woman who accuses Michael Henchard in The Mayor of Casterbridge. High drama indeed, although we have no way of knowing if, like Henchard’s nemesis, she actually had any valid information at all.
For all that, and even allowing for the foibles of human nature, it does seem odd that a woman made the effort to attend the appeal, make her outburst and then disappear. Was she encouraged to do so by the defence, so sow some seeds of doubt? Was she an attention seeker? Had she read the newspaper reports and felt there was some kind of injustice? Maybe any one of these, but she is quite specific about her apparent source of information: the bus conductor. Or conductress as might be. Was she on the bus herself? Did she know the conductor/conductress? Or had she just heard some gossip down the local pub?
Had the ID of the possible gun planter been useful to the prosecution then surely the conductress would have been called as a witness. The case against Hanratty was weak enough to require the inclusion of ‘courtyard confessions,’ so any ballast would have been useful. Her statement is ambivalent really, since the age and height seem pretty accurate but the attire of the suspect seems to clash with Hanratty’s dapper appearance, and as mentioned the hair. Presumably the defence thought there was no advantage in calling her as a witness, although they might have made more strenuous efforts to trace the unknown woman. Or maybe more to the point, take their own depositions from the conductor/conductress rather than rely on police statements.
The appearance of the elderly woman at the Appeal is like something out of a Thomas Hardy novel, rather like the furmity tent woman who accuses Michael Henchard in The Mayor of Casterbridge. High drama indeed, although we have no way of knowing if, like Henchard’s nemesis, she actually had any valid information at all.
For all that, and even allowing for the foibles of human nature, it does seem odd that a woman made the effort to attend the appeal, make her outburst and then disappear. Was she encouraged to do so by the defence, so sow some seeds of doubt? Was she an attention seeker? Had she read the newspaper reports and felt there was some kind of injustice? Maybe any one of these, but she is quite specific about her apparent source of information: the bus conductor. Or conductress as might be. Was she on the bus herself? Did she know the conductor/conductress? Or had she just heard some gossip down the local pub?
Had the ID of the possible gun planter been useful to the prosecution then surely the conductress would have been called as a witness. The case against Hanratty was weak enough to require the inclusion of ‘courtyard confessions,’ so any ballast would have been useful. Her statement is ambivalent really, since the age and height seem pretty accurate but the attire of the suspect seems to clash with Hanratty’s dapper appearance, and as mentioned the hair. Presumably the defence thought there was no advantage in calling her as a witness, although they might have made more strenuous efforts to trace the unknown woman. Or maybe more to the point, take their own depositions from the conductor/conductress rather than rely on police statements.
Comment