A6 Rebooted

[Graham]

...and seen doing so by whom in particular?

....so could you perhaps please tell us who saw him on the bus from Liverpool to Rhyl on 21 August, and back again on the 24th? Anyone in particular?

Graham

[cobalt]

Come on Graham,

You know you can do better than that. An amateurish effort, from your good self. Hanratty was under no obligation to prove beyond doubt his alibi as the trial judge very properly made clear. He cannot, even in hindsight, be judged to the same tolerance as the prosecution, which is what you are seeking to do. There is no equivalence between the need to prove innocence or guilt as you well know.

The fact is that around a dozen people in Liverpool and Rhyl believe they saw Hanratty around the time of the crime. Some of these witnesses are less than reliable and others may be confused about dates and faces. But in terms of ‘reasonable doubt’ the A6 Case is a no contest. For, in way of contrast, no one saw Hanratty approach the scene of the crime. Not one. Not a passing motorist. Not a fellow walker on the tow path. Not even a sharp eyed ticket collector at Taplow Station? No, no one. Not even Mrs. Lanz at the Taplow Inn. And, Lord knows, I am sure the police were trying their best. They drew an utter blank.

Nor did any reliable witness see him leave the scene of the crime or deposit the car. Not a motorist aware of his crap driving or a frustrated resident. Nothing of substance, unless you buy into the dubious and contradictory evidence of some early morning workers, worth less than the chap in Derbyshire who at least spotted a green pom-pom hat. And the murder/rape car produced, in terms of forensic evidence…nothing! That’s right…nothing! Can anyone of our generation really believe this? Understandably, younger readers assume DNA and CSI began in their lifetimes, but those of us of a certain age know better. There were forensic convictions dating back to the 1930s although many here would rather you did not know that. Fibres and hair samples were, even in the 1960s, at a level considered more than adequate even today. Consider that for moment, given the sexual assault: no hair or fibre evidence. Or perhaps more accurately, no fibre or hair evidence relevant to the conviction of James Hanratty.

Hanratty did not have to produce one witness from Liverpool/Rhyl, although he did. The prosecution DID have to produce a witness and they managed to do so in the form of Valerie Storie. She alone and clearly the most vital witness. The problem with her evidence, well documented here. is the main reason we are all still here. Hanratty, whether innocent or guilty -and I strongly suspect the former- should have walked.

[Spitfire]

The way he could have walked from Maidenhead railway station along the Thames Path to the cornfield is shown on the first map on this pdf ...

https://www.visitthames.co.uk/dbimgs...sor%20Walk.pdf

No one reported having seen a smartly suited twenty-something years old walking along the towpath which means either that route was not taken by Hanratty or, if taken, then he was not noticed by anyone.

[Graham]

1] The inference seems to be that, as no-one actually saw Hanratty during his journey to the cornfield, he was never there.

2] On the other hand, he claimed to have travelled by bus from Liverpool to Rhyl and back again, yet as far as I'm aware nobody claimed to have seen him on either bus or at the respective bus stations. Therefore I think I am justified in applying similar logic per [1] above and say that he never made either journey at the critical time of the A6 Crime. Which he didn't.

FWIW, I've always felt that he arrived at the cornfield by walking down Marsh Lane, possibly from Taplow station, or a bus-stop, which would account for his immaculate appearance, according to Valerie's description. And of course it was dark, or nearly dark, when he tapped on the car's window.

Graham

[Spitfire]

1] The inference seems to be that, as no-one actually saw Hanratty during his journey to the cornfield, he was never there.

I think it is only "moste" with his plastic suit theory who contends that the abduction did not take place at the cornfield in Dorney Reach. Therefore the gunman (to use a neutral term) must have got there by one means or another.

On the other hand, he claimed to have travelled by bus from Liverpool to Rhyl and back again, yet as far as I'm aware nobody claimed to have seen him on either bus or at the respective bus stations. Therefore I think I am justified in applying similar logic per [1] above and say that he never made either journey at the critical time of the A6 Crime. Which he didn't.

It would be asking a lot of the passengers and conductors on the Liverpool - Rhyl bus to recall in February the identity of one fellow traveller over five months after the journey in question. Whereas, given the publicity which the crime generated, one would have expected anyone sighting a smartly suited twenty-something year old walking along to towpath in the early evening of 22 August to have gone to the police in the days immediately following the murder.

FWIW, I've always felt that he arrived at the cornfield by walking down Marsh Lane, possibly from Taplow station, or a bus-stop, which would account for his immaculate appearance, according to Valerie's description. And of course it was dark, or nearly dark, when he tapped on the car's window.

But why go tooled up for an armed robbery starting out from Taplow Station and ending up in a cornfield?

My own opinion is that Hanratty had joined forces with an accomplice or accomplices one of whom had a get away car. For one reason or another the target of the armed raid was abandoned and it was decided to burgle one of the opulent drums (and basses) on Harcourt Road. Before the burglary could be completed Hanratty's chum or chums scarper taking the getaway car with them.

Hanratty, carrying a gun and ammunition, is now alone. His solution is to hijack Gregsten's car but this presented other problems which Jim never properly resolved.

[Alfie]

The "clerky gent" writes?

Have just received Justice's book 'Murder vs. Murder' via Amazon and reading it found it included (p.11) a letter from Hanratty in Bedford Prison to his Mother, dated March 7, that Foot and Woffinden omitted.

The interesting bit reads ...

"... I wanted to write to you straight away and inform you and tell you about the good news I have just received, it could not have come at a better time.

I will not keep you in suspense any long, it is about a letter which I received at the same time as yours, it came from a man who states that he was absolutely sure, that he was the man whom I sat next to on the train to Liverpool on the 22nd August, that is the man who I described with the gold cuff links.

You know the importance of this and it has made me feel most confident now regarding my appeal ..."

Sensational if true ... but as no further mention was made of this letter-writer, I can only assume it was a false alarm.

Anyone have any info on who it was that caused Hanratty's hopes to soar? Or was the letter simply a cruel hoax?

[NickB]

No one reported having seen a smartly suited twenty-something years old walking along the towpath which means either that route was not taken by Hanratty or, if taken, then he was not noticed by anyone.

I think there is a difference between being noticed and remembered. If you had been walking along the towpath you might have noticed several other people also walking along it, but normally would have no reason to remember any of them in particular.

Now if you had an encounter with someone – for example had stopped and spoken to them – then it is more likely you would have remembered details about them and may even have been able to identify them in future. But if this had happened to Hanratty he would have known the danger of that and therefore would not have proceeded with the crime.

[Alfie]

I think there is a difference between being noticed and remembered. If you had been walking along the towpath you might have noticed several other people also walking along it, but normally would have no reason to remember any of them in particular.

More especially so if it was dusk and the passer-by's features were only dimly discernible.

Anyone walking from Maidenhead towards the field would have had the setting sun behind them.

[Graham]

But why go tooled up for an armed robbery starting out from Taplow Station and ending up in a cornfield?

My own opinion is that Hanratty had joined forces with an accomplice or accomplices one of whom had a get away car. For one reason or another the target of the armed raid was abandoned and it was decided to burgle one of the opulent drums (and basses) on Harcourt Road. Before the burglary could be completed Hanratty's chum or chums scarper taking the getaway car with them.

Hanratty, carrying a gun and ammunition, is now alone. His solution is to hijack Gregsten's car but this presented other problems which Jim never properly resolved.

All your points are good points, Spitfire. However, I'm positive that Acott made certain that all Jim's known accomplices (which I rather think were few) were located if possible, and interviewed. In those days, the police were highly adept at applying 'pressure' on suspected persons, as there was little in law to stop them. I'm sure that if anyone interviewed in connection with the A6 was even suspected of being an accomplice, or aiding Hanratty before or after the crime, we'd have known about it.

We'll obviously never know for sure, but I feel 99% certain that Jim acted alone, (I believe he stated during interrogation that he preferred to act alone) and what he doubtless saw as an opportunity for a simple hold-up and robbery went tragically wrong.

Graham

[NickB]

Also, I think he caught a train that day as he admitted going to Paddington - most likely because he thought someone did get a meaningful sighting of him there.

[Alfie]

Also, I think he caught a train that day as he admitted going to Paddington - most likely because he thought someone did get a meaningful sighting of him there.

Didn't Louise Anderson testify that he called on her that morning? She lived close enough to the station to cause him to invent the story that he went to Euston via Paddington as a cover.

[Spitfire]

Have just received Justice's book 'Murder vs. Murder' via Amazon and reading it found it included (p.11) a letter from Hanratty in Bedford Prison to his Mother, dated March 7, that Foot and Woffinden omitted.

The interesting bit reads ...

"... I wanted to write to you straight away and inform you and tell you about the good news I have just received, it could not have come at a better time.

I will not keep you in suspense any long, it is about a letter which I received at the same time as yours, it came from a man who states that he was absolutely sure, that he was the man whom I sat next to on the train to Liverpool on the 22nd August, that is the man who I described with the gold cuff links.

You know the importance of this and it has made me feel most confident now regarding my appeal ..."

Sensational if true ... but as no further mention was made of this letter-writer, I can only assume it was a false alarm.

Anyone have any info on who it was that caused Hanratty's hopes to soar? Or was the letter simply a cruel hoax?

I don't know how much credence one should give to anything Mr Justice writes on matters concerning the A6 Murder. My inclination is to give it none.

I cannot believe for one moment that Joe Public could write to condemned prisoners, so any information regarding the clerky gent would have to come to the attention of Hanratty via his solicitor.

Didn't Louise Anderson testify that he called on her that morning? She lived close enough to the station to cause him to invent the story that he went to Euston via Paddington as a cover.

She did indeed say that Hanratty visited her on the morning of 22nd August, Hanratty told her that he was on his way to Liverpool. I am not sure why Hanratty would lie about going to Paddington Station by mistake, making a short detour to see Miss Anderson would not be that incriminating, would it?

[Graham]

I am not sure why Hanratty would lie about going to Paddington Station by mistake, making a short detour to see Miss Anderson would not be that incriminating, would it?

You wouldn't think so, but let's not forget that Paddington Station was and is the London terminus for trains to and from Slough, Maidenhead, etc.....

Graham

[Alfie]

I don't know how much credence one should give to anything Mr Justice writes on matters concerning the A6 Murder. My inclination is to give it none.

I cannot believe for one moment that Joe Public could write to condemned prisoners, so any information regarding the clerky gent would have to come to the attention of Hanratty via his solicitor.


She did indeed say that Hanratty visited her on the morning of 22nd August, Hanratty told her that he was on his way to Liverpool. I am not sure why Hanratty would lie about going to Paddington Station by mistake, making a short detour to see Miss Anderson would not be that incriminating, would it?

I too read Justice with a jaundiced eye, but I doubt he'd fabricate a death-cell letter when Hanratty's parents could so easily call him out about it.

I can't think what he'd have to gain by inventing a clerky gent letter, can you?

As for Hanratty and his Paddington station story, I can only guess that he was wary of saying he went directly from the Vienna to Euston when the possibility existed that somebody might report seeing him at the former station that morning.

[NickB]

making a short detour to see Miss Anderson would not be that incriminating, would it?

There is a time issue here.

According to Woffinden (page 121) he woke up in the Vienna at about 9am, went down to breakfast at about 9.30 and therefore probably would have arrived at Euston about 10.45. He deduces (page 163) the only train that fits Hanratty’s evidence (long wait for the train, it stopped at Crewe) was the 11.37 that arrived in Liverpool at 4.54.

Foot realised that this did not allow enough time for his Liverpool activities before 6pm and suggested that he took a much earlier train. But if you opt for an earlier train you have to ignore Hanratty’s evidence about it (long wait & Crewe) and it would be difficult to fit in a visit to Anderson.