A6 Rebooted

[NickB]

Yes I think that is what he is implying.

The seller, Clapp, would have noticed the missing labels when he was shown the trousers and waistcoat in court.

[moste]

Hi moste,

In case you hadn't noticed, Valerie Storie is not the one on trial here and it's a criminal, not a moral case, from 1961, not 1861.

If you have nothing nice to say about the victim, and have no sympathy for what happened to her, it would be better if you said nothing at all.

Here. On this forum? she certainly is the one on trial! As far as I'm concerned. She sent an innocent man to meet his maker,
Two so called witnesses, of 'Hanratty turning into a Redbridge street,' were rubbished by their workmates. Storie sent Hanratty to his death on a Whim!
Her ID drawing looked nothing like him. Her first choice pick out, Mike Clark, looked nothing like him, His east end London accent sounded similar to about 1,000,000 other London adult males.
Moral case? of course its a moral case,
My opinion is that Storie was heavily influenced by Acott. There was no reason why she couldn't simply continue with her belief that the memory of the perpetrator, was vague, and that she was unlikely to pick him out.
The police would have been back to square one, and that was very much not in their interest!
I have much sympathy for anyone who suffers her kind of injuries, and I'm sure coping for the rest of her life as she evidently did, speaks volumes for her grit and determination,
but I didn't believe her when she said, 'of course Hanratty was guilty, I was there'. So no, As far as the A6 murder is concerned, I don't have anything nice to say about her, and I wont be taking your advice of saying nothing at all.

[Spitfire]

Moste's theory is that Valerie Storie lied from start to finish.

She lied when she said that she and Gregsten were abducted at Dorney Reach. In fact, according to Moste, they drove by themselves from Taplow to Deadman's hill for skullduggery. At Deadman's Hill, Gregsten was shot dead and Miss Storie was shot and left for dead by the assassin who then donned a plastic suit with rubber buttons and drove the murder car away.

Moste is pretty much on his own on most aspects of the A6 Murder.

[caz]

Storie sent Hanratty to his death on a Whim!

A minor point, moste, but I think you'll find it was the jury who did that, but on a whim by Hanratty to lie about his whereabouts when Valerie Storie was being raped and shot. If he wasn't there, what possible reason could he have had for lying about where he really was, unless he had been committing an even more serious crime there?

Love,

Caz
X

[Alfie]

The gun in the airing cupboard story

The exchange between Louise Anderson and Charlotte France in the witnesses' waiting room at Ampthill is an interesting one to me. The detail Anderson goes into - the cupboard at the top of the stairs, the pink blankets, the carrier bag with Tomkins or Timkins on it - could she have been told all this by anybody other than Hanratty?

I can only assume she wasn't asked about it while in the witness box because it would have been hearsay evidence and therefore not admissible? Can any lawyers out there confirm this?

Of course there's the possibility that the whole scene was concocted by the nefarious Mr Acott as a ploy to turn Charlotte and her family against Hanratty. And you do have to ask yourself why Jim would risk taking a gun into the Frances' house, and if he did, whether he'd have hidden it where he did (presumably he'd have brought it with him in a bag, so why not leave it in that).

It's an intriguing segment of a fascinating case, all the same.

[moste]

A minor point, moste, but I think you'll find it was the jury who did that, but on a whim by Hanratty to lie about his whereabouts when Valerie Storie was being raped and shot. If he wasn't there, what possible reason could he have had for lying about where he really was, unless he had been committing an even more serious crime there?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi there.
One possible reason for lying about where he really was, 'He was doing deals with some of Liverpools most wanted,or, 'he was performing burglaries in wealthy peoples homes, If he had admitted to that he would go down for 5 years. He obviously wanted to protect himself from that eventuality ,and since he never believed for a minute they could hang a murder charge on him short of a major frame up,....'(just off the top of my head)
Any thoughts on the trajectory of the two .32/.36 calibre bullets, since, had Stories explanation been correct, the bullets should have slammed into the centre clock or even bottom of the windshield.

[caz]

Hi moste,

I can't help you with the bullets, but are you suggesting Hanratty didn't realise he was being questioned about the A6 murder when asked where he was that night? If he even suspected as much, he knew a murder charge was as serious as it could get, so it makes little sense to invent an alibi relying on his fellow petty criminals in Liverpool to support it, if he was genuinely in Rhyl, for whatever purpose, being seen and spoken to by all those innocent witnesses, who would have had no evidence he was committing any crime while there.

The usual thinking is that he imagined a false alibi, supported solely by lying criminal associates, would be more credible than a genuine one he believed would fail for lack of any proof or any witnesses who could place him there. So much for all those Rhyl witnesses who came forward to say they saw or spoke to him! If he had so little faith in them, why should the jury, or anyone else?

The significant thing for me was that telegram Hanratty sent from Liverpool, which established his presence there around the same time the gun was found on the London bus. I don't buy the coincidence. No mention of Rhyl that week, only Liverpool. No telegrams sent from Liverpool or Rhyl earlier in the week when they could have given him genuine alibis for the murder and disposal of the weapon.

If Hanratty didn't put the gun under the seat of that bus before haring up to Liverpool to try and sort an alibi, I suspect it was France, as insurance against being dragged into Hanratty's mess. If France had given the gun to Hanratty, who took it back to him in a panic after the murder, I can see France's need to act fast:

"For God's sake, Jim, get yourself up to Liverpool and send us a telegram when you get there, so I'll know you're there and you can prove it if things get hot. Then sort yourself out an alibi from Tuesday. Go on, I'll see to the gun."

Hiding it on the bus and telling the police this was something Hanratty did with unwanted gear, would have been risky if he could have been identified, but Hanratty could not have accused him openly of doing so without dropping himself in it, and there would be no proof.

But then I always come back to the hankie. Nobody thought in 1961 that a plain dirty hankie could ever positively identify its owner, so was Hanratty's just used to wipe the weapon etc of any fingerprints before transporting the incriminating bundle to the bus? Someone thought it was okay to leave the hankie with the other stuff, but I can't see any actual purpose in doing so, apart from not wanting to keep the thing.

Love,

Caz
X

[NickB]

The trajectory of ‘through and through’ bullets cannot be predicted accurately, but it seems to me that if possible there would have been a general intention to aim downwards because shattering the windscreen would have jeopardised his only means of getaway.

With regard to the other bullets, the only description we have is that four bullets were ‘from scene’ and then one bullet ‘from bank’. There was also a ‘piece of bullet casing’ which I presume came from one of the bullets accounted for.

Jim never came up with a satisfactory explanation about why he lied and in this way was effectively a witness against himself. Swanwick made this point in his summing up (extract below).

The same applies to Valerie’s identification. Jim must have realised that Valerie could identify him by sight and sound and that he had let slip his name to her. (If you hear someone for 6 hours you remember their voice in all sorts of ways other than it being cockney.) That is he why he shot her.

[OneRound]

Moste - I'm slightly surprised you appear to give little or no credence to the Rhyl alibi. A burglary confession and a 5 stretch doesn't seem too high a price to pay to avoid a rope around your neck*.

I'm on record as doubting the credibility (although not the integrity) of Valerie Storie as an eye witness given she picked out a clearly innocent man on the first parade she attended. However, I don't understand the significance you seem to attach to where the bullets ended up. The firing of the gun was surely shockingly horrific and unexpected to her. I don't see how you can reasonably expect to plot the trajectory of the bullets from her recall in those circumstances or why it matters so much to you.

* I've recently been reading up about the Cameo Murders and also the Burns & Devlin case. Think it was Cobalt who flagged those in the past - jeepers, Bert Balmer of the Liverpool police makes our Acott look like a boy scout! Anyway, following a plea bargain in a re-trial, Charlie Connolly was sentenced to 10 years after pleading guilty to a secondary role in the Cameo Murders so as to avoid the noose. He spent the rest of his life asserting his innocence. The Court of Appeal overturned his conviction (and that of his alleged partner George Kelly who was hanged) posthumously on ''unsafe'' grounds more than fifty years later. Apologies for going off topic but fascinating reads.

OneRound

[NickB]

Surely that could not be the same rotten Court of Appeal that one year earlier had upheld Hanratty's conviction?

[OneRound]

Surely that could not be the same rotten Court of Appeal that one year earlier had upheld Hanratty's conviction?

Hi Nick - yes, indeed it was. In my humble opinion, a remarkably fair and well constructed judgement in respect of Connolly, especially as he had pleaded guilty to the charge.

Different judges, mind you. Including Leveson (of subsequent press freedom / gagging fame) for Hanratty's appeal in 2002.

Best regards,

OneRound

[cobalt]

I raised the Bert Balmer link to the A6 Case because it may well be relevant. Hanratty wanted, initially at least, a Liverpool alibi, yet seeking an alibi when Bert Balmer held sway in the Merseyside Police was probably something of a fool’s errand.

The Liverpool criminal fraternity believed in 1961 (with some justification if you read about the controversial cases) that Bert Balmer had sent three innocent men to the gallows. Not just ‘fitted them up’ for robbery- as payback for the half dozen which they had committed and escaped detection- but had actually conspired to legally execute them for crimes they had not committed. That was the perceived power of the man in some quarters.

Balmer had spent at least 10 years as a younger policeman assigned to the Liverpool magistrate’s court, so was very familiar with taking statements, arranging witnesses, ensuring that prosecutions obtained a result. The feeling was that, through bullying, threats and and deals, he could elicit damning (if dubious) testimony from associates and gang members which would stand up in court, even in a capital crime. As a result, he was loathed, but also feared by the Liverpool underworld. Balmer was very much old school and would have taken Hanratty’s claim of a Liverpool alibi as a personal affront, since he viewed himself as Lord of his Merseyside Manor and did not want cheapskate Cockneys queering his pitch.

Therefore, it would have been a brave Merseyside villain who supported Hanratty’s alibi. If he had, he might have shared the same fate as Kelly, Burns and Devlin, and ended up swinging from a rope. These executions had happened ten years earlier when Balmer was merely a leading detective. He was, by1961, pretty much unchallenged as the senior policeman in the Merseyside area.

Similar pressure may have been applied to Joe Gillibanks (right spelling I hope), the private investigator who was detailed to confirm Hanratty’s alibi in Rhyl. He was an ex-policeman whose path must have crossed that of Balmer at some point in his career. His careless method of showing photographs of Hanratty to potential alibi witnesses has been criticized on this forum, and it is possible he was warned off by Balmer not to obtain an alibi. Then again, for all I know, Joe Gillibanks perhaps loathed Bert Balmer and was so keen to embarrass his reputation that he was too enthusiastic in his actions.

In conclusion, there were better places to seek alibis than Bert Balmer’s Merseyside.

[cobalt]

Caz makes two points, one about the telegram and the other about the handkerchief.

She is not convinced by the coincidence of the telegram arriving around the time of the gun being found on the bus. However, she is as selective as the rest of us, from differing sides of the argument, in deciding which coincidences she chooses to accept and which to reject. Indeed, those of us doubtful of Hanratty’s guilt, are probably more spoiled for choice in this area.

She also assumes, I think, that the gun was placed on the bus on the morning of the 24th August, being discovered later that evening around the time the telegram arrived. It may be that the gun was planted on the morning of the 23rd August, as the killer made his way back through London after dumping the car, and was not discovered until the following evening. This would not exonerate Hanratty as the killer, but it does take some of the sting out the alleged coincidental timing.

In other words, there is a possible scenario whereby the gun could have been discovered a day before the telegram. Even if it was dumped on the 24th it might have been discovered by some nosy schoolboy hours before Hanratty’s telegram arrived.

Caz’s highlighting of the handkerchief is a much more solid point and one that supporters of Hanratty have to address. After all, finding DNA linking Hanratty to the handkerchief years later could hardly have been part of any conspiracy in 1961. Assuming the DNA evidence can be trusted, then this shows a direct connection between the murder weapon and France or Hanratty. Possibly both. But certainly not neither. I still lean towards France.

[cobalt]

I can understand Moste remaining sceptical regarding Valerie Storie’s account of what transpired before and during the apparently pointless drive around Slough. However, one part of her testimony which I do not think has ever been challenged, is that the gunman was smartly dressed yet claimed to have been on the run for four months.

It has been assumed that this was simply a fabrication by the killer, perhaps to impress upon his hostages that he was a dangerous outlaw with nothing to lose. That seems a reasonable interpretation, but do we know if the police investigated any suspects who would have matched this description? And why four months? It seems a very specific time to choose, even off the top of one’s head. In fact, four weeks would actually sound better, since a man on the run for four months sounds like he has been forgotten about by the police as not worth pursuing.

[OneRound]

Caz makes two points, one about the telegram and the other about the handkerchief.

She is not convinced by the coincidence of the telegram arriving around the time of the gun being found on the bus. However, she is as selective as the rest of us, from differing sides of the argument, in deciding which coincidences she chooses to accept and which to reject. Indeed, those of us doubtful of Hanratty’s guilt, are probably more spoiled for choice in this area.

She also assumes, I think, that the gun was placed on the bus on the morning of the 24th August, being discovered later that evening around the time the telegram arrived. It may be that the gun was planted on the morning of the 23rd August, as the killer made his way back through London after dumping the car, and was not discovered until the following evening. This would not exonerate Hanratty as the killer, but it does take some of the sting out the alleged coincidental timing.

In other words, there is a possible scenario whereby the gun could have been discovered a day before the telegram. Even if it was dumped on the 24th it might have been discovered by some nosy schoolboy hours before Hanratty’s telegram arrived.

Caz’s highlighting of the handkerchief is a much more solid point and one that supporters of Hanratty have to address. After all, finding DNA linking Hanratty to the handkerchief years later could hardly have been part of any conspiracy in 1961. Assuming the DNA evidence can be trusted, then this shows a direct connection between the murder weapon and France or Hanratty. Possibly both. But certainly not neither. I still lean towards France.

Hi Cobalt - some good and interesting points in this and other of your recent posts. That said, I don't share your understanding towards Moste who, in my opinion, does no favours to the Hanratty cause.

As regards the post above, a couple of points.

I don't have the books to check but I'm pretty sure that Edwin Cooke stated he cleaned under the backseat of the same bus on the night of the 23rd August. Assuming he said that and it was correct, the gun must therefore have been left there some time on the 24th when it was found. [This may also be confirmed in the 2002 Court of Appeal judgement.]

You are right to acknowledge the strength of Caz's point about Hanratty's DNA being on the handkerchief. Although that by itself does not prove guilt, it is still a very significant problem for his supporters. In some ways, that is even more of an issue to me than the apparently damning evidence of the knicker fragment for which I can at least find possible excuses. However, why would anyone discard a murder weapon wrapped in someone else's handkerchief when the handkerchief's ownership could not be traced or it ever be envisaged that it would be?

Best regards,

OneRound