Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A6 Rebooted

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ......and the gun which was forensically proven to be the murder-weapon and which was found in a place that Hanratty admitted was where he somethimes dumped unwanted articles.

    Graham
    We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

    Comment


    • Woffinden says (p.148) in regards to Louise Anderson telling Charlotte France at Ampthill about the gun in her airing cupboard: "... the conversation was directly engineered in order to disconcert Charlotte immediately before she was due to give evidence. ... if it was true, then it was highly relevant, probably admissible and certainly persuasive evidence. So why was it never given in evidence by Anderson herself, either at the magistrates’ or the assize court? The explanation can only be that the Crown did not regard it as true."

      Would such evidence have been admissable? Or would the court have held it to be hearsay evidence and therefore not allowed?

      And if it wasn't Hanratty who told Anderson about wrapping the gun in a Tomkins carrier bag and hiding it under pink blankets in an airing cupboard at the top of the stairs, who did she hear it from?

      Anderson said that Hanratty "used to keep it in a cupboard at the top of the stairs" [my italics]. If she was being truthful, this suggests that he hid it there on more than one occasion, which further suggests that he'd had the weapon for some time, perhaps even before he resumed his friendship with Dixie in mid-July.
      Last edited by Alfie; 05-22-2018, 07:43 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Graham View Post
        ......and the gun which was forensically proven to be the murder-weapon and which was found in a place that Hanratty admitted was where he somethimes dumped unwanted articles.

        Graham
        Hello Graham, I've not spoken to you for a long time now but I am still around.

        I used to have Michael Hanratty's phone number and we spoke on some occasions and this was a point I brought up with him.

        This was his reply: "When I went to see Jimmy in prison I mentioned about hiding stuff under the back seat of the bus." Jimmy said: "Look Mick I know I am not the brightest in the world but do you or anyone else seriously think I would shoot and kill someone and then leave the murder weapon on a public service vehicle where it was bound to found. I would have chucked it in the river somewhere. Yes I admit I did used to hide unwanted or worthless jewellery under the back seat but that is all."

        Now if Hanratty habitually used to dump stuff under the back seat of the bus was any of it ever found before?
        I have never seen or heard of any cleaners or conductors finding or handing in any such loot.
        Has anybody else? If it was such a regular habit somebody must have reported it at least once.

        Tony.

        Comment


        • Hi Tony,

          good to see you back. Julie Limehouse was I believe in contact with Maureen Hanratty at one time, so maybe if you dropped her a PM she could help.

          Re: the 'back seat of a bus', my own feeling is that JH told France about this hiding place well before the A6 Murder. I don't suppose bus-cleaners even bothered to report any findings under the back seat, but a gun + ammo was a different matter. If JH is adamant that he didn't dispose of the gun there, then either he was not being truthful (given the dreadful predicament he was in that would be understandable) or someone else planted it. Any suggestions as to who that 'someone' might have been?

          Rgds,

          Graham
          We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Alfie View Post
            Would such evidence have been admissable? Or would the court have held it to be hearsay evidence and therefore not allowed?
            I think that if the gloves were inadmissible evidence the gun was likely to be too.

            A problem with Anderson is that she revealed increasingly incriminating things about Jim like a dance of the seven veils, culminating in what she told the News of the World reporter, each of which prompted the question:”Why didn’t she say that before?”.

            Also, the idea he’d had the gun a long time did not fit in with the prosecution suggestion that it was because of the gun’s recent acquisition that he was playing with it in the Vienna. Although this was not a crucial point.
            Last edited by NickB; 05-23-2018, 08:49 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tony View Post

              I used to have Michael Hanratty's phone number and we spoke on some occasions and this was a point I brought up with him.

              This was his reply: "When I went to see Jimmy in prison I mentioned about hiding stuff under the back seat of the bus." Jimmy said: "Look Mick I know I am not the brightest in the world but do you or anyone else seriously think I would shoot and kill someone and then leave the murder weapon on a public service vehicle where it was bound to found. I would have chucked it in the river somewhere. Yes I admit I did used to hide unwanted or worthless jewellery under the back seat but that is all."

              I recall that one of the pro-Hanratty arguments was that he would not have used the word "institutions" as used by the gunman in the car according to Valerie Storie, yet here we have a well authenticated instance of Jim using the phrase "a public service vehicle" rather than what most folk would say, namely "a bus".

              Maybe Jim was not as linguistically backward as some would have us believe.

              Comment


              • I would think that as he spent a lot of his earlier life in such places, the word 'institution' would be one that JH would have known only too well.

                Woffinden (P 91) illustrates what he describes as JH's basic inarticulacy when he describes France as 'someone who learned me previous occasions when I was younger'. I don't think this brief passage is all that inarticulate, to be honest, certainly no worse that what I hear kids shouting at each other these days. I don't recall anyone in any of the books being referenced as saying that they couldn't understand him or what he was talking about. He may well have stumbled over his words when under the severe and unimaginable pressure of the court-room, but I don't get the basic impression that in everyday life his diction and use of English was anything out of the ordinary. I may be wrong, of course.....as a Midlander I have always had trouble in fully understanding the modern-day London accent, something which the BBC and southern English people in general may well find difficult to understand in turn.

                Graham
                We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

                Comment


                • I know next to nothing about the Hanratty case so id like a bit of advice about books from those that do. Just a couple of quick reviews would be helpful

                  Hanratty: The Final Verdict - Woffinden.

                  Hanratty: The Inconvenient Truth - Razen

                  Who Killed Hanratty? - Foot.

                  Thanks all
                  Regards

                  Herlock






                  "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                    I know next to nothing about the Hanratty case so id like a bit of advice about books from those that do. Just a couple of quick reviews would be helpful

                    Hanratty: The Final Verdict - Woffinden.

                    Hanratty: The Inconvenient Truth - Razen

                    Who Killed Hanratty? - Foot.

                    Thanks all
                    Foot and Woffinden together will give you almost all the available background info on the case, but keep in mind that both were convinced of Hanratty's innocence and their analysis carries this bias. Foot is the more even-handed but Woffinden was able to use sources unavailable to Foot so is more comprehensive.

                    I wasn't aware of Razen's short book and have just finished reading it. He makes a few errors of fact (eg, Hanratty's breeze block job being in Bedford, Dixie committing suicide after Hanratty's execution) but he gives a useful if very abbreviated overview of the case.

                    One puzzling thing for me: Razen refers on a couple of occasions to an apparent acquaintance between Alphon and Hanratty. I haven't read anything that even hints at a connection between these two men. What have I missed?

                    Comment


                    • One puzzling thing for me: Razen refers on a couple of occasions to an apparent acquaintance between Alphon and Hanratty. I haven't read anything that even hints at a connection between these two men. What have I missed?
                      Because they both stayed at The Vienna, it has been suggested by conspiracy theorists that this was no coincidence but was a planned meeting between the two. Tempting, I concede, but there is absolutely no evidence let alone proof that the two knew each other. They moved in totally different circles and I doubt if they could have stuck one another's company for more than a minute or two.

                      I think Foot did allude to a suggestion that they were acquainted, but he didn't pursue it so I assume he dismissed it.

                      Graham
                      We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                        I know next to nothing about the Hanratty case so id like a bit of advice about books from those that do. Just a couple of quick reviews would be helpful

                        Hanratty: The Final Verdict - Woffinden.

                        Hanratty: The Inconvenient Truth - Razen

                        Who Killed Hanratty? - Foot.

                        Thanks all
                        I agree with Alfie's quick summary above that Woffinden's book is the most comprehensive of the three you have named, and the most comprehensive of all books written on the subject.

                        I would recommend that you add the judgement of the Court of Appeal in 2002 to your reading list. Indeed I would be inclined to begin reading with that.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Spitfire View Post
                          I agree with Alfie's quick summary above that Woffinden's book is the most comprehensive of the three you have named, and the most comprehensive of all books written on the subject.

                          I would recommend that you add the judgement of the Court of Appeal in 2002 to your reading list. Indeed I would be inclined to begin reading with that.
                          Hi Herlock - not for the first time Spitfire has beaten me to it. I was going to recommend the Court of Appeal's 2002 judgement not only as reading material but also as a starting point. Whilst some here can and do quibble with the odd bit, it sets out known facts and background pretty methodically.

                          Although the Court make a strong case for Hanratty's guilt, they leave me unconvinced that it was fairly proven. Anyway that's just my humble opinion. I'll leave you to your own reading and conclusions.

                          Btw, I don't know the Razen book.

                          Best regards,

                          OneRound

                          Comment


                          • A few comments on the Razen Book (more of a pamphlet, actually) can be found here: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=309811. It's OK, but I wasn't impressed. His standard of English I thought rather poor, too.

                            Another (now rare) book is Shadows Of Deadman's Hill by Leonard Miller, who is convinced that Hanratty was guilty. He refutes many of the standard arguments, especially regarding the Liverpool and Rhyl Alibis, but of course there are posters to these boards who may not agree with him! I think it was Derrick who said that the publisher (Zoilus Press) printed only 1000 copies. At one time a few years ago copies were being advertised on the net for over £600! I wonder if anyone ever paid that sort of money. I wasn't tempted to sell my copy, have to say.

                            I agree that the Court of Appeal Judgment should also be on your reading list.

                            Graham
                            We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Alfie View Post
                              Foot and Woffinden together will give you almost all the available background info on the case, but keep in mind that both were convinced of Hanratty's innocence and their analysis carries this bias. Foot is the more even-handed but Woffinden was able to use sources unavailable to Foot so is more comprehensive.

                              I wasn't aware of Razen's short book and have just finished reading it. He makes a few errors of fact (eg, Hanratty's breeze block job being in Bedford, Dixie committing suicide after Hanratty's execution) but he gives a useful if very abbreviated overview of the case.

                              One puzzling thing for me: Razen refers on a couple of occasions to an apparent acquaintance between Alphon and Hanratty. I haven't read anything that even hints at a connection between these two men. What have I missed?
                              I appreciate the info Alfie.

                              Cheers
                              Regards

                              Herlock






                              "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Spitfire View Post
                                I agree with Alfie's quick summary above that Woffinden's book is the most comprehensive of the three you have named, and the most comprehensive of all books written on the subject.

                                I would recommend that you add the judgement of the Court of Appeal in 2002 to your reading list. Indeed I would be inclined to begin reading with that.
                                Thanks for that Spitfire.

                                Iíll take your advice
                                Regards

                                Herlock






                                "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X