Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A6 Rebooted

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

  • It would be unfair to compare the alibi evidence of the two, to show either that Hanratty was not in Liverpool on 22 August 1961 or that Wallace, who undoubtedly went towards the Menlove Gardens triangle, did so in an ostentatious fashion so that he would have had alibi witnesses.



    Fair comment Spitfire, but perhaps some cross-fertilisation might shed some insight on the A6 Case.

    The case against Wallace is partly that he telegraphed his movements towards the non-existent address, at one point even asking a policeman for directions, in order to establish an alibi. He certainly seemed to spend a great deal of time and effort in finding a place that simply did not exist. Hanratty did none of this, so could not have been consciously seeking to create an alibi.

    Of course there is one major difference: Wallace was perhaps seeking to create an alibi for a crucial time slot, whereas Hanratty was allegedly attempting to develop one rather late after the event. In such a scenario, Hanratty did not want to draw too much attention to himself regarding times and dates. Better that he was seen in the area around the approximate time, apparently acting normally for his chosen lifestyle.

    Yet there is one witness statement that backs up Hanratty’s alibi, one that is potentially stronger than either the sweetshop or boarding house elements. That is the statement by Mr. Dutton regarding his being approached by a young Londoner in Rhyl and being offered a watch for sale, a meeting he thinks can be time stamped by his subsequent visit to a post office or bank. Unfortunately, neither his identification of Hanratty nor his certainty over the time and date were ever tested in court. So far as I am aware Hanratty himself never offered up a memory of this meeting, which opens up the probability that it was another person who approached Dutton.

    Then again, how many Cockney spivs were operating in Rhyl at that time?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sherlock Houses View Post
      The Julia Wallace case is an intriguing one, Moste. As you will no doubt be aware there was no such thoroughfare as Menlove Gardens East but there were Menlove Gardens West, North and South forming an unusual triangular shape. A stone's throw away from there is a large park on Menlove Avenue where I take my dog most days for his constitutional. There were about 25 to 30 Qualtroughs listed in the Liverpool Electoral Register between 1930 and 1935.
      I hope you you won't mind me pointing out that William and Julia were both born, raised and married in the West Riding of Yorkshire, they moved to Liverpool a few years after their marriage.
      No , that’s fine, I knew there was a connection in Wallace’s life with Millom Cumberland . It was only my questioning of the rarity of the name Qualtrough ,that had me wondering why would the name Qualtrough come to Wallace’s mind.someone on that thread claimed 18 people on the 1931 census for Liverpool. So I checked the population of the Pool for 1931, guess what,a sudden climb to 846,000 . So I figured hmmm, rare name that.
      As for Dutton not being figured in matters in Hanrattys defence ,well. There’s so many question like this aren’t there?

      Comment


      • Then again, how many Cockney spivs were operating in Rhyl at that time?
        Unfortunately, Mr Dutton never described the accent of the man he claimed tried to sell him a watch as having a 'cockney' accent. He said it was 'more like a dialect, Irish or cockney or a mixture of the two'. In fact, Hanratty had a perfectly natural cockney accent without a trace in it of his Irish parentage.
        Also, unlike his mentioning of trying to sell a watch to Mr Kempt on the steps of the Liverpool billiards hall, Hanratty never claimed to have tried to sell a watch to anyone on the street in Rhyl. Had he done so, things may well have gone his way.

        As to your question, Cobalt, when I was a nipper I spent a couple of miserable holidays in Rhyl with my parents in the 1950's, and there were spivs of all breeds and accents all over the shop - you could hardly cross the road without being asked to buy some piece of junk.

        Re: Wallace, I'm not at all well-read on this case, but wasn't there a company called Qualtrough's, a plumber of something like that, not far from Wallace's house? With a large sign on the front of the premises? I'm sure I've seen a photo of that on these very boards.

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

        Comment


        • As to your question, Cobalt, when I was a nipper I spent a couple of miserable holidays in Rhyl with my parents in the 1950's, and there were spivs of all breeds and accents all over the shop - you could hardly cross the road without being asked to buy some piece of junk.


          Interesting snapshot of times past. I think they upped sticks and moved to Tenerife in the 1980s, offering time-share deals from every street corner.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by cobalt View Post
            As to your question, Cobalt, when I was a nipper I spent a couple of miserable holidays in Rhyl with my parents in the 1950's, and there were spivs of all breeds and accents all over the shop - you could hardly cross the road without being asked to buy some piece of junk.


            Interesting snapshot of times past. I think they upped sticks and moved to Tenerife in the 1980s, offering time-share deals from every street corner.
            I'm not sure they did, Cobalt. 25-odd years ago I had a couple of customers in Rhyl, and because of my interest in the A6 Case I usually had a bit of a stroll round when I was there. The spivs were still at it! Before I got out of my car I was asked if I'd like a nice watch! But this bloke wasn't cockney - wasn't English, either. I hope I'm not insulting the good people of Rhyl here...so I'll just go on to add that there as many, if not more, spivs in and around Margate, where we also went for holidays in the 50's and early 60's.

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

            Comment


            • Originally posted by OneRound View Post
              Hi Caz,



              I do not subscribe at all to there having been a deliberate cover up over the DNA results. Just unease as to the short shrift given to there being any doubt as to the findings.

              Hi OR,

              Some time ago I read Harriman's book Hanratty: The DNA Travesty which for some reason is now no longer available. I still have it on my Kindle though and why the book should be withdrawn when there is an "e" version available is puzzling.

              Anyway, the book is pro-Hanratty and does question the DNA evidence relied upon in the Court of Appeal. Harriman's main gripe appears to be that the FSS scientist on the Horizon programme stated on camera that only one DNA profile was found which was that of the blood group "O" secretor rapist, whereas in the C of A a second (minor) profile of an AB blood group, assumed to be that of Mike Gregsten, was referred to as being present.

              However, for the appeal experts for both the appellant (Hanratty) and the respondent (the Crown) had submitted reports and these experts were examined and cross-examined on them. Harriman's book has (most of) the transcript of three days when this took place.

              Harriman has not seen the experts reports and cannot comment on them.

              It is clear from the transcript that there was no issue between Hanratty and the Crown that the AB semen stain was that of the rapist, both sides agreed that it was not. Michael Mansfield QC had ample opportunity to make such a suggestion to the Crown's experts but he never did.

              In para 113 of the Judgement of the C of A the following is stated:

              "There were smaller quantities of seminal fluid of blood group AB assumed to have come at some earlier stage from Michael Gregsten."


              Michael Gregsten's blood group would have been known at least shortly after the murder. Although everyone must have known that he and Valerie Storie were having a sexual relationship, this was never proved in court either at the trial in 1962 or the 1962 appeal or the 2002 appeal. So the above statement could not be made by the court unless both sides had agreed that that was the position. If the appellant had sought to make an issue out of it, then the court would have had to adjudicate upon the evidence. As Mansfield was not arguing that the AB profile was that of the rapist, he conceded that the obvious origin of it was from Michael Gregsten.

              Since 2002 no one on the Hanratty team, with access to the experts reports, has contended that (1) the AB profile was not present (2) that Michael Gregsten was not blood group AB, and (3) that the rapist was anything other than blood group "O' secretor.

              Comment


              • Re: 'The DNA Travesty' is no longer available on Amazon, but there are some reviews of the book which can be seen here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/HANRATTY-TR...ews/B00JI4FZUE

                I started to read it ages ago, but found the writing-style and general level of English very poor, and I quickly lost interest.

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

                Comment


                • J Ryan & the Vienna's register

                  I'm intrigued by the fact that Galves in her second statement says that Room 24, where the cartridge cases were found, "was not occupied from 16 August till today, 13 September."

                  According to Woffinden (p 61) Crocker the hotel manager concurred with her. Woffinden goes on to say (p 62) that it was only "after a closer examination of the books" that "it now emerged that the room was occupied" by a J Ryan on the night before the murder.

                  Why would Galves (and Crocker seemingly) think that the room had not been occupied on the night of August 21? Why would it take a closer examination of the books for the police to come up with Ryan's name? And when did this closer examination take place?

                  Comment


                  • See section 166 of the 2002 Appeal:

                    "Mr Mansfield argues further, that it is legitimate to infer that the hotel register had been altered to conceal the entry in relation to Ryan and that the defence were deprived of the opportunity to submit that the police were prepared to tailor the evidence to fit the theory that Durrant/Alphon was guilty, that someone with knowledge that Alphon was under investigation had planted the cartridge cases; and that the hotel record had been altered in some way."

                    What the defence seem to be saying is that, in order to throw suspicion on Alphon, the books had been altered to conceal the fact that Ryan had stayed in the room on that night.

                    Comment


                    • Thanks Nick.

                      So I assume the "closer examination" only took place once the police found Alphon didn't fit in the frame?

                      Comment


                      • No, it must have happened quite soon.

                        On 15-Sep-61 Nudds said in his first statement: "I have been shown an entry in the register dated 21 August signed J.Ryan, 72 Wood Lane, Kingsbury who was allocated room 24. I remember this booking quite well."

                        It may be because Nudds remembered it anyway that the police thought there was no point in continuing to attempt the concealment. Although I'm sure he could have 'unremembered' it if asked!

                        Comment


                        • Merry Christmas everyone and a Happy New Year


                          Delboy

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Derrick View Post
                            Merry Christmas everyone and a Happy New Year


                            Delboy
                            Same here Ho Ho Ho!

                            Comment


                            • Alfie,

                              Looking back at previous pages I notice that in post 4795 you came to the conclusion that the police had tampered with the hotel records. So Mansfield's claims appear to confirm what you had already suspected.

                              Comment


                              • Thanks Nick.

                                On holiday in NZ at the moment so haven't access to books, notes etc for the next five weeks.

                                Happy New Year to you and other A6 regulars.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X