A6 Rebooted

[NickB]

Sherrard did not really have any winnable grounds for the original appeal, since the trial judge had been generous to the defence. His best hope therefore lay with getting a reprieve.

So he would have been foolish to bring up the Rhyl alibi in the appeal and draw attention to its contradictions, thereby making a reprieve less likely.

[NickB]

Hanratty's room was at the back, and had a window with curtains, whereas the attic bathroom had a velox window in the roof on the road side of the roof ridge.

Woffinden tried to square this circle by saying that he stayed in the bathroom on the first night and then a back room on the second. In a subsequent Guardian article, Foot appeared to endorse this theory.

However it is clear from Hanratty's evidence that he stayed in a back room on the first night.

1. “I went up a flight of stairs and it was on the second floor and it was a back room.”

2. “Well it was dark when I eventually entered the house and I did not draw the curtains because it was a back room.”

3. “In the morning I looked out of the window and found a small courtyard.” (Q – Is that the front or the back?) “That is at the back, sir.”

[OneRound]

Sherrard did not really have any winnable grounds for the original appeal, since the trial judge had been generous to the defence. His best hope therefore lay with getting a reprieve.

So he would have been foolish to bring up the Rhyl alibi in the appeal and draw attention to its contradictions, thereby making a reprieve less likely.

Nick - Kleinman though did appear to try and run with both the hare and the hounds in that he didn't pursue the Rhyl alibi in the appeal but he did send all such statements to the Home Secretary (as per his Sunday Times letter).

As I've said before, Hanratty made things a lot harder for himself and his defence team. However, that doesn't excuse Kleinman for some of his own failings.

Best regards,

OneRound

[cobalt]

Cobalt - You and other conspiracy theorists can believe Dixie was involved in the murder if you like. It's a free country after all (well, semi-free at any rate, as Alfie Evans' parents have just found out)


Alfie,

That is a rather condescending, if less than resounding, acknowledgement of an alternative viewpoint which may be held. My original post was sceptical of the motivations for Dixie France’s suicide, which I note you have not responded to. I can add that there have attempts to suggest that Dixie France was a depressed character and that the Hanratty conviction ‘pushed him over the edge,’ so to speak; however contributors on this site have largely discredited this notion and outlined how his suicidal thoughts are specifically linked to his involvement with the A6 Case. I have never heard of a situation where a man committed suicide because he had introduced a murderer into his family circle. If you know better, then I will be happy to be enlightened.

‘Conspiracy theorist’ is a very weak term for a number of reasons. The most obvious one is that conspiracies do actually happen, so that obviously the ‘conspiracy theorists’ must be right, at least some of the time. Hillsboro, a conspiracy by the South Yorkshire police to blame ‘drunk’ Liverpool supporters for a tragedy caused by their own ineptitude, is a good recent example. It took many a long year before that particular conspiracy was exposed. Did you Alfie, at any time, believe the official version of Liverpool fans breaking down a gate to force entry? I very much suspect you did. Let me know if I have wronged you.

Maybe a more pertinent one is the JFK assassination, which after all is the modern progenitor of conspiracy theories. According to the CIA/FBI a Lee Harvey Oswald impersonator, a few weeks before the assassination of JFK, was attempting to secure visas from the Cuban and Soviet embassies in Mexico City. There are photos, tape recordings (lost) and witness statements from embassy staff which show that the man claiming to be LHO was not him. So, this is a conspiracy, whatever you think of the events of 22 November.

The problem is this may not be a conspiracy BEFORE the fact but a conspiracy AFTER the fact. In short, perhaps the FBI/CIA were covering their own backs for having taken their eyes off LHO (a man well known to the security services) so they had to invent a Mr X who was planning his exit after the assassination.

For Dixie France the same. He was either involved in a conspiracy before the fact -setting up a ‘frightener,’ supplying ammunition, driving murderer to scene – or after the fact- ‘concealing weapon, planting ammunition, leading police to Hanratty. We can take our pick. But a man who felt it incumbent upon himself to visit William Ewer (who we are told he did not know) to apologise for the carnage of the A6 Case is more than an accidental bit player in the events. What did he have to apologise for?

[NickB]

he didn't pursue the Rhyl alibi in the appeal but he did send all such statements to the Home Secretary

I think that was the right way round, because it would have been subject to cross examination in the appeal court.

If the defence team had presented the Rhyl alibi to the appeal, which room do you think they should have said he stayed in?

[Graham]

I think another word of appreciation to Spitfire and NickB for posting press cuttings. The recently-posted articles on Dixie France in particular are very interesting, and demonstrates that Woffinden and Foot were somewhat selective in their assessments of him. Dixie may have been a bit dodgy, but 'abject'? Don't think so. More cuttings, please!

I don't think that Dixie was involved in any direct way with the A6 crime, but I have long suspected that he knew somewhat more than he was prepared to admit, even in his last letters. My own feeling is that, aside from his stated remorse, he was terrified he might have been accused of being an accessory to the crime, even though this was never suggested during the trial or its aftermath.

Graham

[OneRound]

I think that was the right way round, because it would have been subject to cross examination in the appeal court.

If the defence team had presented the Rhyl alibi to the appeal, which room do you think they should have said he stayed in?

Nick - you (? choose to) misunderstand my point. There has been no argument from me that Hanratty stayed in Rhyl at the time or that the defence should have asserted he did, let alone any particular room.

My issue was the hare and hounds one of not raising Rhyl at the appeal but chucking stuff about it to Butler. Given it hadn't been considered worth raising by the defence at appeal, there was no way he was going to act on it.

Let me ask you a question, Nick. Was Kleinman right to raise no objection about Hanratty's id parade?

OneRound

[NickB]

But it is only when you try to put yourself in the defence's shoes, and answer specifically what they might have done on things like what room he could have stayed in, that you fully understand the difficulty they were in.

I think it is debatable about whether Kleinman should have asked for skullcaps. The usual objections to voice identification do not apply to a case where the gunman spoke for as long as 6 hours. In any case I believe Hanratty would still have been identified by Valerie.

[Graham]

I think it is debatable about whether Kleinman should have asked for skullcaps.

As I posted recently, and included his memo on the subject, it was actually Acott who suggested that the ID members should wear surgeons' skull caps, because of JH's stand-out hair. Kleinman decided against this apparently on the grounds that if JH's hair was not visible it would draw attention to his equally stand-out eyes. I'm not sure if this really would have been the case.

Graham

[Spitfire]

My issue was the hare and hounds one of not raising Rhyl at the appeal but chucking stuff about it to Butler. Given it hadn't been considered worth raising by the defence at appeal, there was no way he was going to act on it.

Let me ask you a question, Nick. Was Kleinman right to raise no objection about Hanratty's id parade?

The Home Secretary would advise that the death sentence be commuted to one of life imprisonment where there was "a scintilla of doubt" concerning the condemned man's guilt. In those circumstances, it seems not unreasonable to throw everything and anything at the Home Secretary in order to create the necessary doubt.

Having said that, one is forced to ask the question, what was the purpose of the appeal? The summing up by Gorman J was widely regarded to be the epitome of fairness and even favourable to Hanratty. To have appealed on questions of errors in the summing up was futile so why not add more futility with the Rhyl witnesses?

With the benefit of hindsight, Kleinman should have been a bit more pro-active on Hanratty's behalf at the identification parade.

[NickB]

it was actually Acott who suggested that the ID members should wear surgeons' skull caps

It is unclear whether Acott suggested this. My interpretation is that Acott ordered them to be available in case Kleinman made an objection.

[Graham]

It is unclear whether Acott suggested this. My interpretation is that Acott ordered them to be available in case Kleinman made an objection.

Splitting hairs a little here, I think, Nick. The important thing is that it was Acott and not Kleinman who first said that skull caps should be obtained, if not worn. Also, Kleinman was more than an hour late arriving for the second ID parade, which doubtless didn't go down too well.

By the way, was Kleinman specifically a full-time criminal lawyer? Does anyone know? He knew Sherrard and recommended him, and also obtained legal aid for JH, so I would suspect he was.

Graham

[NickB]

Sunday Times magazine comments on the id parade ...

(For some reason they think he was the only man in shirtsleeves and had black hair.)

[Graham]

According to Woffo, JH had objected that he was the only man on the second parade wearing a suit, so he was loaned a sports jacket and a pair of cord trousers. Where the shirtsleeves idea came from I haven't a clue.

Also according to Woffo, another member of that parade, Brian Oliver, described JH's hair as 'Very strange. Carrotty. The nearest thing I've seen to it is Wee Willy Harris'. (If you remember who he was!). And at the trial Sherrard described his hair 'like a carrot in a bunch of bananas'.

Even though Valerie always claimed she recognised JH by his voice, I still find it odd that Kleinman didn't take up Acott's suggestion of wearing surgical caps.

Graham

[OneRound]

Hi Spitfire - where does your ''a scintilla of doubt'' quotation come from?

When was a reprieve ever granted for this reason?

Many thanks,

OneRound