Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A6 Rebooted

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

  • Originally posted by Alfie View Post
    Hawser's report really had Woffinden chewing the carpet didn't it.

    Commenting on the death of James Hanratty, Sr, he went so far as to aver that it was in part "the perfidy of the wretched Hawser" that denied the old man justice for his son.

    My dictionary defines perfidy as "the state of being deceitful and untrustworthy". I can only imagine that Mr Hawser had died by then to embolden the perfidious Woffinden to libel him so.
    Cyril Lewis Hawser died aged 93 in 1990.

    His well received report on the Hanratty case still fetches considerable sums of money. At the time of writing, a Lewis Hawser report will set you back anything from £441.36 to £4,780.43.

    On the other hand a Bob Woffinden Hanratty: The Final Verdict can be had for £2.95 plus p&p. Bob's remarks were perhaps actuated by jealousy.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Spitfire View Post
      Cyril Lewis Hawser died aged 93 in 1990.

      His well received report on the Hanratty case still fetches considerable sums of money. At the time of writing, a Lewis Hawser report will set you back anything from £441.36 to £4,780.43.

      On the other hand a Bob Woffinden Hanratty: The Final Verdict can be had for £2.95 plus p&p. Bob's remarks were perhaps actuated by jealousy.
      First with the facts again, thanks Spitfire.

      You couldn't point me to an obit, per chance?

      That's a hell of a price for the Hawser Report. Wonder who's buying it?

      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."
        Hi Tony,

        I can confirm what you say as Michael has spoken about this with me on a couple or so occasions. Jimmy Hanratty might have had some learning difficulties academically speaking but he was certainly no-ones fool.
        *************************************
        "A body of men, HOLDING THEMSELVES ACCOUNTABLE TO NOBODY, ought not to be trusted by anybody." --Thomas Paine ["Rights of Man"]

        "Justice is an ideal which transcends the expedience of the State, or the sensitivities of Government officials, or private individuals. IT HAS TO BE PURSUED WHATEVER THE COST IN PEACE OF MIND TO THOSE CONCERNED." --'Justice of the Peace' [July 12th 1975]

        Comment


        • Ronnie Lofthouse

          Sherrard when cross-examining Valerie at the trial, and after checking with the judge that he might "mention names in open court that may have nothing whatever to do with the case", asked Valerie if she knew a Ronald or Ronnie Lofthouse, to which she replied "No."

          Anybody have any idea what that was about?

          Comment


          • Purely from memory gleaned from this site, I think Ronald Lofthouse was a former boyfriend of Valerie Storie.

            I can only assume that Sherrard was expoliting an obvious loophole in the prosecution case- motive. However it seems a weak line of questioning, unless you can provide supporting evidence to the effect that a (jilted) Ronald Lofthouse had the capacity to arrange a 'frightener' which went wrong for his ex-girlfriend.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by cobalt View Post
              Purely from memory gleaned from this site, I think Ronald Lofthouse was a former boyfriend of Valerie Storie.

              I can only assume that Sherrard was expoliting an obvious loophole in the prosecution case- motive. However it seems a weak line of questioning, unless you can provide supporting evidence to the effect that a (jilted) Ronald Lofthouse had the capacity to arrange a 'frightener' which went wrong for his ex-girlfriend.
              If he was a former boyfriend, Valerie was perjuring herself. Can't see it myself.

              Comment


              • This name was briefly discussed on the Forum a while ago, and there was some albeit tenuous suggestion that Ronald Lofthouse worked for the Road Research Laboratory. If that was the case, then there may not be any reason for Valerie to have known him, as I assume there was a large number of persons employed on the site.

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

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Graham View Post
                  This name was briefly discussed on the Forum a while ago, and there was some albeit tenuous suggestion that Ronald Lofthouse worked for the Road Research Laboratory. If that was the case, then there may not be any reason for Valerie to have known him, as I assume there was a large number of persons employed on the site.

                  Graham
                  Cheers Graham. Seems odd that Sherrard would go through that rigmarole with the judge and Swanwick to ask Valerie about a somebody she'd not heard of. Then again, it's a case full of oddities.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Graham View Post
                    This name was briefly discussed on the Forum a while ago, and there was some albeit tenuous suggestion that Ronald Lofthouse worked for the Road Research Laboratory. If that was the case, then there may not be any reason for Valerie to have known him, as I assume there was a large number of persons employed on the site.

                    Graham
                    But then had Ronnie worked for the RRL, Sherrard must have had a good reason to ask if she knew him.

                    Comment


                    • A search for ‘Lofthouse’ shows that the only time he was mentioned here before was 2 years ago on this page ...
                      http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=383480

                      Comment


                      • There was a J.A. Lofthouse who was the principal author of a report entitled "Efficiency in Road Construction" which was published in 1966 but I can't find any evidence of a Ron / Ronnie / Ronald Lofthouse in this area.

                        Graham - in 2016 you posted:
                        "I've just had a scoot around the net, and found a Ronald Lofthouse who was in some way associated with road research, but I don 't think the chronology matches up."

                        I don't suppose you can remember the details of this can you?

                        Comment


                        • Albert Harding settles the day of the Tarlton Rd incident.

                          Doesn't the following settle once and for all that the man asking about Tarlton Road could only have called into the shop on the Monday, when numerous witnesses placed Hanratty in London?

                          Hawser (pp. 42-3): “There was, however, further evidence as to the date. Mr Albert Cecil Harding was a friend of the Cowleys. He regularly went to the shop, morning and evening. Sometimes in the evening he helped to sell. He was called by the Prosecution. His evidence was that he had driven Mrs Cowley to her place of holiday on the Saturday 19th August and that when he went into the shop on the Monday and saw Mrs Dinwoodie, he saw: ‘the little girl putting up pop bottles on the shelf. I said ‘Aye, Aye do you not want me tonight’’. (42) He said that he was there both on the Monday and the Tuesday afternoons: in the former case at an earlier time than on the Tuesday. He saw Mrs Dinwoodie on the Monday and had a conversation with her – which was not admissible in evidence at that stage. He did not see her or the girl when he arrived at the shop on the Tuesday – Mr David Cowley was there then. Mrs Dinwoodie was asked about the conversation with Mr Harding. She agreed that there was a conversation and was definite that it took place on the same day the man called. She said this: Q. ‘Did you have a conversation with Mr Harding that day?’ A. ‘I asked him if he had ever heard of Tarlton Road’. Q. ‘Do you remember what he said?’ A. ‘He just said ‘the only Tarlton road I know is off Southport Rd – not in Liverpool’.’ Q. ‘Did he ask you why you wanted to know about Tarlton Road?’ A. ‘He just said ‘yes where are you going?’ Q. ‘What did you say?’ A. ‘I said, ‘there is someone enquiring for it’ and I would have liked to have known in case anybody else might ask’. As has already been stated, Mrs Dinwoodie became ill on the Tuesday but remained in the shop until Mr David Cowley arrived at about 6.0-6.30 pm. Mr Harding who made no mention of Mrs Dinwoodie’s feeling ill when he came to the shop, said he arrived at about 7.0 pm on the Tuesday. Apparently the Prosecution did not consider it necessary to recall Mr Harding as to the conversation he had with Mrs Dinwoodie.”

                          Foot and Woffinden try to discredit Harding's testimony with blather about his time sheets and knock-off times, but the fact remains that the only day that his conversation with Mrs Dinwoodie could have taken place was the Monday. Both he and Mrs D were adamant about that. Interestingly, neither Foot nor Woffinden mention Mrs D's trial testimony given above. I wonder why not?

                          Comment


                          • Gallicrow,

                            I said originally that the link between Lofthouse and the RRL was tenuous, and so it has proved to be....I regret to say that I think I linked the wrong Lofthouse with the RRL.......

                            Which leaves us still with the question of who this myserious Ronnie Lofthouse was, and why Sherrard asked Valerie in open court if the recognised the name.

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

                            Comment


                            • As explained on the ‘Mrs Dinwoodie’ thread, I am as certain as she was that the incident occurred on the Monday. But I’m doubtful that Harding adds much.

                              If he saw Olive Dinwoodie there on one day and David Cowley on the other, the two days must have been Monday and Tuesday respectively. But how do we know that he saw them each on the two days? If his log book had shown him knocking off about 7pm on the Tuesday it would have been strong supporting evidence - but it said 5.45.

                              Comment


                              • the lunchtime meeting between Evans and Mrs Jones at Bedford

                                Re-reading reports of the trial I'm reminded that Mrs Jones did enough unaided to discredit herself as a witness, but I'd forgotten that she was helped along this path by Terry Evans.

                                The Glasgow Herald recounts the events of Friday, Feb 9:

                                "When the court reassembled after lunch, a member of the 11-man jury told Mr Justice Gorman that the jury had seen Mrs Jones talking to an earlier witness, Mr Terence Michael Evans ... and would like to know if anything was said about the case. The judge recalled Mrs Jones to the witness-box. She said she and Mr Evans had discussed how they were going to get to the hotel for lunch. When Mr Evans re-entered the box, Mr Justice Gorman asked him about his conversation with Mrs Jones. He replied: ‘Yes, sir, I asked her if she recognised Mr Hanratty.’ Mrs Jones, recalled to the witness-box, agreed with Mr Justice Gorman that Mr Evans had asked ‘if I knew the gentleman and I said I am almost sure of him.’ The Judge: ‘I told you you must not let anyone talk to you and if they did you were to let me know.’ Mrs Jones: ‘Yes, well he was the only one there.’ The Judge ordered that Mrs Jones should continue with her evidence."

                                Innocuous enough, you'd think.

                                That afternoon Mrs Jones was recalled to the box to be cross-examined by Swanwick. The QC didn't make many mis-steps during the trial, so when he seemed to during this examination Foot was ready to pounce on him:

                                "Once, Mr Swanwick went too far:
                                ‘Q. It would not be quite right, would it, to say that when you were shown the photograph, you recognized it?
                                A. Well, no.’
                                Mr Swanwick should have left it there, but he was too eager for overkill:
                                ‘Q. It would not. Then why did you say it in answer to my learned friend when you were asked.
                                A. Well, he had different colour hair to begin with.
                                Q. What?
                                A. If he had had dark brown hair, I would have known him straightaway.’
                                Still Mr Swanwick could not leave the point:
                                ‘Q. Why did you say this morning in court, when you were first asked about being shown the photograph and asked about when you were first shown the photograph – why did you say: ‘I recognize him’ when in fact what happened was that you said you could not remember whether you had seen the person or not.
                                A. No, I got muddled – the hair. He had not got that coloured hair when he was in our house.’ (Vol XV, p 46)
                                Thanks to Mr Swanwick’s enthusiasm the jury now knew that the man who had been in Mrs Jones’s house looked like the accused with dark hair – or, in other words, looked exactly like Hanratty looked at the time of the A6 murder." (pp. 228-9)

                                But on the following Monday ... the Daily Telegraph takes up the story:

                                "A fairground worker, Terry Evans, returned to the witness box. He gave more details of the conversation he had with Mrs Grace Jones … during the lunch adjournment on Friday. Mr Graham Swanwick … said he had been told Evans had made several efforts to get in touch with police at Rhyl over the weekend. 'They rebuffed those efforts until he actually waylaid a senior police officer outside the police station and he then informed him there was something he must communicate to somebody.' At this point the jury left the court and Evans was brought in. Eight minutes later Mr Justice Gorman ordered the jury to return and Evans then told them of the lunch-time conversation. He said: “When Mrs Jones came back into the room I asked her if she recognised Mr Hanratty and she said ‘I am almost sure.’ I said ‘Well, I suppose the reason why you might not have recognised him straight away was the colour of his hair.’ ‘I asked Mrs Jones what was the colour of his hair when she was supposed to have known him. She said it was dark brown. I said it was probably right because his hair was dark brown.’ Mr Justice Gorman told Evans that he appreciated his reasons for getting in contact with the police."

                                So the jury now knew that Mrs Jones's testimony about the changing colour of Hanratty's hair was a regurgitation of her conversation with Evans, about which she'd first lied, then been less than forthcoming.

                                What I'm left wondering is: what prompted Evans to decide the court should hear the full story and to travel from Rhyl to Bedford to make sure it did? Surely he must have realized that by doing so he'd be damaging Mrs Jones's credibility and thus Hanratty's chances of an acquittal?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X