A6 Rebooted

[Spitfire]

With regard to Mr Lee's claimed sighting of the Morris in Matlock, I back-tracked a bit through these boards and it seems that the number of the Morris, 847 BHN, was first broadcast by the BBC at about 7.10 am the morning after the murder. Mr Lee claims he saw a Morris Minor with this number at about 6.30am near Matlock, but [I]do we know at approximately what time he reported this claimed sighting to the police?[I]

With regard to the famous green bobble hat which Mr Lee said the driver was wearing (and was never reported by anyone else who claimed to see the murder car), until I see a colour photo of the contents of the boot of the Morris Minor, which clearly includes said headgear, or a police list of its contents specifically mentioning a green bobble hat, I will continue to suspect that this was concocted somewhere along the line by a Hanratty supporter in an attempt to add verisimilitude to Mr Lee's claim.

Derrick and Sherlock Houses (where's he got to?) insist that the statement Lee made referred to a sighting at 8.30am, not 6.30am as stated in the Court of Appeal.

Natalie Severn posted an inventory of the items which found their way into the possession of the Police forensic team led by Lewis Nickolls and that can be found here at post 127.

There is no mention of a bobble or pom-pom hat.

[cobalt]

There is a woollen bobble hat mentioned in the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

At 6.30am on Wednesday 23 August, William Lee saw a grey Morris Minor being driven by a man wearing a woollen pom-pom hat on the A6 near Matlock in Derbyshire. He wrote the registration number down as 847 BHN which was the registration of Gregsten’s car in the boot of which there was such a hat (although there is no evidence that the murderer otherwise was seen wearing it).

As Derrick pointed out, the colour of the hat is not is not specified. To be charitable, this may because it only exists in the form of a black and white photo. To be uncharitable, it would be possible, I imagine, to ascertain the approximate colour by digital analysis but this was not considered helpful by a body wishing to uphold the status quo.

The parenthesis that the murderer was not otherwise seen wearing such a hat is hardly necessary, since there is no undisputed sighting of the murderer between the time of the crime and the discovery of the car.

What we can assume, with absolute confidence, is that none of Hanratty’s distinctive hair follicles were found inside the woollen hat.

[moste]

I would love to know, what would be stopping Bob Woffinden from

writing an updated version of his works, with the co-authorship of retired

Chief superintendent Roger Mathews, 'official secrets act maybe?

I wonder if Bob has approached Roger on this score? And what he would say

if he did? I think we can be fairly certain, from what we've already heard

from Roger, he holds a good few keys that would open locks in this case.

Just checking Bobs website, he invites contact with him, so will give it a shot.

[Alfie]

I would love to know, what would be stopping Bob Woffinden from writing an updated version of his works ...

A wild guess - because he knows the game is up?

[Graham]

A wild guess - because he knows the game is up?

A good guess nevertheless, Alfie. With no new (and positive, reliable) information forthcoming, as it hasn't been for years, little point in Woffo getting down to the tiresome task of updating his book. And to be fair, Matthews himself said that he, Matthews, was not in possession of any relevant information that other inquirers had no access to. Foot, I am fairly sure, realised very late on that he had chased the wrong rabbit, and admitted as much when he said that he wondered if Alphon had led everyone, Foot included, 'a merry dance', or words to that effect. And without any new supportive evidence, there'll be no new appeal, either.

Unless, of course, things are moving that we mere mortals are unaware of....which I genuinely doubt.

Graham

[cobalt]

It’s part of our shared British narrative that, in the long run, common sense prevails. So, ardent republican Martin McGuiness ends up shaking hands with Her Majesty in between cracking jokes with diehard loyalist Ian Paisley; anarchist Johnny Rotten opens a concert in Brixton to the patriotic strains of Vera Lynn; and feminist Germaine Greer tells the ‘Metoo’ campaign to stop whingeing. All very reassuring.

Something of the same is happening on the A6 site. Those believing in Hanratty’s innocence have eventually come around to a common sense point of view. Michael Sherrard declared that, despite legal improprieties, the wrong man was not hanged. Paul Foot, before his death, conceded that he had been given the run around by Alphon and started to have doubts about Hanratty’s innocence. Chief Superintendent Matthews acknowledged that nothing in his report, the one which alleged a conspiracy to convict Hanratty, was not available to those researching the A6 Case over the years. Bob Woffinden has thrown in the towel too, eventually recognizing where the weight of evidence in the case lies. Given that high profile campaigners are abandoning the Hanratty cause, little wonder those espousing his innocence on this site are met with dismay.

Except it is not like that. Sherrard never made any such claim. Paul Foot’s last written word on the A6 Case was his utter belief in the Rhyl alibi. Woffinden cannot really develop his view until more evidence become available. And did Matthews really only have access to papers in the public domain? Almost certainly not, otherwise there would have been little purpose to his enquiry in the first place.

Matthews rightly cautioned that he had no ‘magic bullet’ with which to prove the case either way. Yet he still reached an opinion that flies in the face of later DNA testing and would be all the better for being aired publicly.

There are three areas of the crime which I would have been interested to be taken through with Inspector Matthews. First is his access to the detailed forensic report on the car. Did he identify any weaknesses in the collection of evidence, such as the apparent failure to test the bobble hat in the boot despite Valerie Storie’s testimony that the boot was opened during their kidnap and the possible sighting in Matlock? Or was he aware of unattributed forensic evidence which never saw the light of day?

Secondly, did he have access to the police notes made following their visit to the Swiss Cottage shopping arcade on September 1st, 1961? What prompted this enquiry and is it clear why no link was made between the name Ryan (apparently obtained by officers on the day) and the name Ryan in the Vienna Hotel register once cartridge cases were found in the Vienna Hotel? How was it possible for William Ewer (if he indeed was the source of their enquiry at Swiss Cottage) to be a fortnight ahead of the police in their enquiries?

Finally, there is the Vienna Hotel register itself which, to an experienced eye, may have suggested more than it stated.

[Alfie]

... did he have access to the police notes made following their visit to the Swiss Cottage shopping arcade on September 1st, 1961? What prompted this enquiry and is it clear why no link was made between the name Ryan (apparently obtained by officers on the day) and the name Ryan in the Vienna Hotel register once cartridge cases were found in the Vienna Hotel? How was it possible for William Ewer (if he indeed was the source of their enquiry at Swiss Cottage) to be a fortnight ahead of the police in their enquiries?

I haven't seen it made clear exactly when and for what reason the police visited the Swiss Cottage florist.

Foot writes: "... the crucial aspect of the [Daily Sketch's 'She Saw Him at the Cleaners'] story – that the police were put on the trail of James Hanratty – is confirmed in both the Daily Sketch and the Daily Mail by the woman in the Finchley Rd flower shop, Mrs Dorothy Morrell. Mrs Morrell, who was still the manageress at Caters when I interviewed her in August 1970, remembers the visit of Hanratty very well, and confirms that, soon afterwards, inquiries were made about him by two plainclothes policemen." [my italics]

In a recollection nine years after the fact, "soon afterwards" could denote days, even a week or more.

The Sketch merely says, "A report was made to Scotland Yard. But the Murder Squad had never heard of Jimmy Ryan."

Do we have firm evidence of WHEN the police called on Mrs Morrell, and WHY?

[cobalt]

Do we have firm evidence of WHEN the police called on Mrs Morrell, and WHY?

Not to the level we would wish, which is why I hoped Matthews might have tied these matters down more accurately.

The date of September 1st is given by William Ewer himself. It must have been by September 4th since this is when it was established Hanratty collected his trousers from the dry cleaners before decamping to Ireland.

Regarding the 'Why' there were three shopkeepers who recalled police making enquiries regarding a customer- a florists, a photogrophers and the dry cleaners. Mrs Gregsten said in 1995, in The Guardian I think, that William Ewer had followed a man and phoned the police afterwards.

[NickB]

On 27th August the police visited Hanratty’s parents and told them Jim was wanted for burglaries in Northwood. They would have shown the police the flowers he had sent from Caters, 15 Northways Parade, Finchley Road.

(Similarly on 26th September when Acott and Oxford visited Hanratty’s parents they were also shown some flowers received from Jim.)

I am not aware the police made any enquiries at the photographers or the dry cleaners. Ewer claims to have contacted the police from the photographer's shop, but the photographer's shop manager who attended Ewer did not verify this.

The whole Ewer story could have been built around only 2 facts:

1. On 31-Aug-61 Janet visits Ewer’s shop and together they study the identikit pictures in the paper.

2. On 1-Sep-61 Ewer thinks he sees someone resembling the man depicted enter a photographers shop and goes in to make enquiries.

Then after Hanratty’s arrest Ewer would have come across information, from police interviews and during the trial, that could be imaginatively connected to these facts in such a way as to make a scintillating story.

In particular:

a) He hears that the day before the abduction Hanratty had taken a suit into the dry cleaners opposite his shop. What if after he and Janet had studied the identikit pictures they had looked out of the window and seen Hanratty go into the cleaners?

b) He hears that the police had visited the florists asking about Hanratty. What if after going into the photographers shop he had phoned the police and this had caused them to visit the florists?

[cobalt]

I can see that William Ewer could have embellished his story to fit with what he discovered from trial evidence.

However, the police enquiries in early September, whether instigated by Ewer or not, did not seem to be routine enquiries about shoplifters or someone passing dud cheques. As remembered by Mrs. Murrell they did seem to be specific to identifying a suspicious character, although so far as I am aware there was no explicit reference to the A6 Case. Nonetheless this type of enquiry fits remarkably well with the later claims of Mr. Ewer, as well as his earlier actions of asking other shopkeepers about a possible customer.

The crucial issue here is the question: if these were police making enquiries into the A6 murder- which they seem to have been- why were they drawn to a shopping arcade in Swiss Cottage?

[moste]

A good guess nevertheless, Alfie. With no new (and positive, reliable) information forthcoming, as it hasn't been for years, little point in Woffo getting down to the tiresome task of updating his book. And to be fair, Matthews himself said that he, Matthews, was not in possession of any relevant information that other inquirers had no access to. Foot, I am fairly sure, realised very late on that he had chased the wrong rabbit, and admitted as much when he said that he wondered if Alphon had led everyone, Foot included, 'a merry dance', or words to that effect. And without any new supportive evidence, there'll be no new appeal, either.

Unless, of course, things are moving that we mere mortals are unaware of....which I genuinely doubt.

Graham

‘Enquirers’ You meant ‘ Investigators’ I believe, major diff!

[moste]

A wild guess - because he knows the game is up?

I have been taken to task on these boards for wild guessing more than once. Now it would appear , ‘your good to go’as they say
Well done.

[Alfie]

On 27th August the police visited Hanratty’s parents and told them Jim was wanted for burglaries in Northwood. They would have shown the police the flowers he had sent from Caters, 15 Northways Parade, Finchley Road.

(Similarly on 26th September when Acott and Oxford visited Hanratty’s parents they were also shown some flowers received from Jim.)

I am not aware the police made any enquiries at the photographers or the dry cleaners. Ewer claims to have contacted the police from the photographer's shop, but the photographer's shop manager who attended Ewer did not verify this.

The whole Ewer story could have been built around only 2 facts:

1. On 31-Aug-61 Janet visits Ewer’s shop and together they study the identikit pictures in the paper.

2. On 1-Sep-61 Ewer thinks he sees someone resembling the man depicted enter a photographers shop and goes in to make enquiries.

Then after Hanratty’s arrest Ewer would have come across information, from police interviews and during the trial, that could be imaginatively connected to these facts in such a way as to make a scintillating story.

In particular:

a) He hears that the day before the abduction Hanratty had taken a suit into the dry cleaners opposite his shop. What if after he and Janet had studied the identikit pictures they had looked out of the window and seen Hanratty go into the cleaners?

b) He hears that the police had visited the florists asking about Hanratty. What if after going into the photographers shop he had phoned the police and this had caused them to visit the florists?

As comprehensive as ever, Nick. Thanks.

So from this I'm inferring that Mrs Morrell was recollecting a visit in early Sept from cops investigating the Northwood burglaries, not from cops seeking the A6 killer?

[Alfie]

I have been taken to task on these boards for wild guessing more than once. Now it would appear , ‘your good to go’as they say
Well done.

Sorry, I was being ironical but couldn't find the right emoji.

[NickB]

So from this I'm inferring that Mrs Morrell was recollecting a visit in early Sept from cops investigating the Northwood burglaries, not from cops seeking the A6 killer?

Yes. Hanratty’s parents told the police they did not know where he was, so the florists would be the only clue about his whereabouts they could follow up.

Incidentally ‘she saw him at the cleaners’ was another aspect of the case that Foot changed his mind about after interviewing Janet - he believed her denial “utterly”.