A6 Rebooted

[NickB]

I think it was always likely that Acott would mention Mrs Dinwoodie at Committal.

MacDermott (DPP dept) accepted that disclosure of her to the defence was his responsibility, not the police’s. He said he did not do so because Mrs Dinwoodie was certain the incident happened on the Monday, so it did not show where the accused was when he claimed to be in Liverpool between 22^nd and 26^th August.

If you think that was bad, what about the actions of Kleinman? He tried to change her statement to say “I am not sure whether it was the Monday or Tuesday that the man called” and it is clear he then fed information about the interview to Hanratty - as revealed in the notes Norma was given.

Then there is the deceptive behaviour of Foot and Woffinden in presenting her evidence ...

When Sherrard asked Mrs D why she was certain it happened on the Monday she replied: “Mr Cowley’s brother was with me all day on the Tuesday.” Both Foot and Woffinden failed to report this, instead both claiming the only reason Dinwoodie gave for saying it was the Monday was Barbara being with her that day. That was untrue.

[Alfie]

An often overlooked or conveniently forgotten [by anti-Hanrattyites] illustration of the under-handedness of the police can be seen with reference to Mrs Olive Dinwoodie. They first became aware of this vital witness in mid-October and had a full 7 weeks in which to work on her, pressurise her and throw seeds of doubt in her mind as to the day [August 21st or August 22nd] the sweetshop encounter with Hanratty had occurred. Hanratty's defence team were left completely in the dark about the existence of such a vital witness who could impressively corroborate Hanratty's story. It was only by sheer chance, near the end of the Committal Proceedings in the December that they finally got to learn about Mrs. Dinwoodie, her 13 year old granddaughter Barbara Ford and Barbara's friend, Linda Walton. Only then were they able to be in a position to carry out their own questioning of these very important witnesses.

It is unclear from my readings just exactly how the matter of Mrs Dinwoodie came up on December 4 at the Committal hearing, but I don't think that it can fairly be described as by "sheer chance".

Sherrard was questioning Acott about Hanratty's Liverpool alibi and was trying to get him to admit that the accused had given Acott certain details concerning it during his interview at Blackpool, as the Glasgow News reported:

"Mr Sherrard, in cross-examination, said to the superintendent: 'The fact of the matter is that according to you he was unwilling to give you the necessary information to enable you to trace the three men to whom he had referred?
Yes.
... You have told us over and over again you were assuring him you would make all proper and possible inquiries from your point of view and his?
Yes.
Do you say you have been told nothing other than you have told us?
Yes.
That is not true is it? You were told two, actually three, other things, Hanratty assures me, about his trip to Liverpool?
Everything I have told you this afternoon is what he told us that day.
If support for his alibi could be found in Liverpool the whole complexion of the case would change?
If it were found, yes.
If he were in Liverpool on the 22^nd, 23^rd and 24^th he could not have committed this outrageous crime, could he?
No, sir.'
The courtroom was hushed as Mr Sherrard went on: 'Mr Acott, I have to take instructions from my client and I must put matters to you and I should appreciate your careful answers to me. Did he not tell you that he had deposited his luggage in the left luggage office at Lime St Station, Liverpool, when he arrived?
No.
And among other things the attendant who took it had either a withered or an artificial left hand?
Not during this interview, sir.
Any time, Mr Acott?
This came through his solicitor, sir.
Did not the defendant tell you that on Thursday night there had been a boxing match at a stadium in Liverpool?
No, sir. His solicitor gave me that information as well.'
Mr Sherrard: 'Don't you think that you have rather concealed from this court evidence that would have established this man's innocence?'
Superintendent Acott replied that this was not so.
Mr E.G. MacDermott, prosecuting, said Mr Sherrard had no reason for making this remark, and was only trying to 'get in at the back door what he was unable to get in at the front.'
The superintendent was also questioned about a sweetshop in Scotland Road, Liverpool. He said it was Hanratty's solicitor who gave the information that Hanratty had gone into the sweetshop during the late afternoon of August 22nd and had asked the way to a place sounding like Carlton Rd. Superintendent Acott agreed that Mrs Dinwoodie, of Liverpool, had picked out photographs of Hanratty as being the man she thought she had seen.
In answer to other questions he said Mrs Dinwoodie was certain the date was August 21st. From August 22nd she was away ill from her shop. He agreed the shop was just where Hanratty said it was in Scotland Road.
Mr Sherrard: 'Is it not clear to you that this man's protestations that he went to Liverpool on the 22^nd and stayed there until Friday are well founded?
I don't agree, sir.'
... Mr MacDermott said he put before the court the evidence he considered it should hear. If he considered the evidence of Mrs Dinwoodie would help the court, he would have put it before them by now. But in his opinion it was not necessary. It did not show where the accused was between August 22nd and August 26th.
'To attack an officer for not communicating such facts does not lie in my friend's mouth.'
Mr Sherrard said he was sorry to hear Mr MacDermott attempting to accept responsibility in a matter as serious as this. It was of the utmost importance that any man, particularly a man on trial for his life, should not be kept in peril or jeopardy for one moment longer than was absolutely necessary. He suggested material of this kind in possession of the prosecution was of the utmost importance. If it had not been for a happy accident from their point of view it might never have been put before the court, and they never have heard about it.
'It is quite wrong. This is not an empty spectacle at which you sit. This is justice being done at the crucial level.'
Mr MacDemott: 'To say at this stage I should hand over all my papers to my learned friend is quite wrong. It has never been the practice and never will be. In my submission it does not profit in the slightest to say where the accused was before nine o'clock on August 22nd.'
Mr Sherrard then asked Superintendent Acott why he had not passed on to Hanratty's solicitor or to him the result of the inquiries. The clerk, Mr A.H. Simpson, intervened to say that the information came after the proceedings had started. He could not see any justification for attacking Superintendent Acott's conduct of the case.

As these exchanges make clear, it is quite wrong to say that Hanratty's team were "left completely in the dark" about the sweetshop. In fact they were the first to be told about it by Hanratty, probably during interviews with him at the time he was charged. According to Hawser, "On or about the 13^th October 1961 information was given to the police either by Mr Hanratty or his solicitor that in the afternoon of 22^nd August 1961 after his arrival at Liverpool from Euston he called in at a sweet shop in Scotland Road where he asked a woman who was accompanied by a child to direct him to Carlton Rd or Talbot Rd. As a result enquiries were made by Liverpool police and on the 17^th October Mrs Dinwoodie made a written statement."

On October 23rd Sherrard hired Gillbanks and set him to work investigating Hanratty's Liverpool alibi. The fact that he wasted most of his time hunting for the three non-existent friends that Jim said he stayed with, and not looking for a sweetshop that was "just where Hanratty said it was", is hardly the fault of the police.

[NickB]

And if you really believe that Hanratty knew the sweetshop was on a corner and opposite toilets, Gillbanks would have made a beeline for Cowley’s.

[Graham]

And if you really believe that Hanratty knew the sweetshop was on a corner and opposite toilets, Gillbanks would have made a beeline for Cowley’s.

I think it is possible, from what Alfie says, that even if Hanratty had claimed to know the location of the sweet-shop, almost certainly from a previous visit to Liverpool, this information did not filter down to the defence - the fault of the prosecution, not the police, it seems. Gillbanks was wasting his time knocking on doors of flats around the Bull Ring area, looking for the three men Hanratty falsely claimed he stayed with.

The other points to make (again) are that Mrs Dinwoodie was shown only one photo, that of Hanratty, by DC Pugh, which straightaway made her evidence weak. She also stated that the man she claimed asked for 'Tarleton Road' seemed to her, by his almost-incomprehensible accent, to be Scots or Welsh. Not a young Londoner's accent at all.

Graham

[moste]

Graham quote:'I think it is possible, from what Alfie says, that even if Hanratty had claimed to know the location of the sweet-shop, almost certainly from a previous visit to Liverpool, this information did not filter down to the defence - the fault of the prosecution, not the police, it seems.'

Well, you must remember ,to all accounts the police and the prosecution were pissing in the same pot!
Also, If ,as you have always believed , Hanratty was using memories of earlier visits, I.E. Mrs Dinwoodies shop. Who do you think she was alluding to,when she was taxing her memory over a young man coming in on the Monday Aug. 21st. A phantom scoucer who had the enviable task of providing Hanratty with an alibi for the wrong day.

[cobalt]

This is an extract from the Appeal Court judgment in 2002:

1. THE DNA EVIDENCE.
2. We turn to the DNA evidence. As already noted seminal fluid was found on Valerie Storie’s knickers and one of her slips. At the time all that could be shown was that the rapist’s and hence the murderer’s blood group was O secretor. So was James Hanratty’s and Peter Alphon’s together with 40% of the male population. The handkerchief found with the murder weapon bore traces of nasal mucus. Mucus was not capable of being analysed for blood type. Evidence based upon the comparison of hairs and fibres was inconclusive.

The use of the word 'inconclusive'’ is not quite clear to me. Evidence given in a court can sometimes just be indicative.

As we know James Hanratty was believed to be wearing his new suit from Hepworth the tailor, a dark suit with pinstripe, during the week of the A6 Case. I can see nothing to prevent the prosecution pointing out that fibres collected from, presumably, the clothing of Ms. Storie matched those taken from the trousers and waistcoat of Hanratty’s suit. I doubt they could prove the fibres came from the exact same suit, but they were surely entitled to make the general connection.

The same goes for any hair samples found. Prior to DNA they could not prove those belonged to James Hanratty, but given his hair was quite distinct at that time, they were surely entitled to say the hair follicles retrieved indicated a light brown haired man who had recently dyed his hair black.

Yet none of this was offered at trial, which seems astonishing if there was any potential link to Hanratty. I can only assume that far from being ‘inconclusive’ as the Appeal Court claimed, the fibres and hair were not capable of advancing the case against Hanratty in any shape or form. It would be interesting if they turned up in a police basement some day.

[caz]

Oh! Ok apologies. So the handkerchief wasn't necessarily Hanratty's, I was lead into a false memory that It was proven to have been his.

Perhaps Caz would care to rethink the obsession with 'snotty hankies',since nobody had any proof of whom it belong to ,let alone who put it there.

Hi moste,

The hankie wasn't proven to belong to Hanratty, but it was proven to have been used by him. His DNA - and only his - was found to be present. Whoever disposed of it with the murder weapon back in 1961 could have had no idea that it would one day be tied irrevocably to Hanratty by advances in forensic science.

That has always been my point.

Here's a gentle reminder:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/1141.html

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

There are three reasons to question the validity of the handkerchief evidence.

Firstly, it would be naïve not to question the provenance of the handkerchief given the time which had elapsed and the fact that the A6 Case was going to be referred to the CCRC.

Secondly, reservations about the quality of LC DNA have been well made by others on this site.

Thirdly, leaving these arguments aside for the moment, even if the handkerchief did belong to Hanratty and it did contain his DNA it no more incriminates Hanratty than did France’s statement all these years ago. At best, the most we could conclude is that Hanratty was acquainted with a person who deposited the gun on the bus. It is no more indicative of Hanratty’s guilt, as a piece of free-standing evidence, than Desdemona’s handkerchief was proof of her infidelity to Othello. [/FONT][/SIZE]

Hi cobalt,

I agree that on its own the hankie evidence doesn't prove Hanratty was the gunman, but today the boot is on the other foot for those who seek to prove the original verdict, and 2002 appeal judgement, were in error. I would like to think that most of us here agree that Hanratty should not have hanged, but that's another question. This thread is all about putting the case for Hanratty's innocence to those of us who believe the verdict was right, if not for all the right reasons back in 1961. And as there is very little prospect of another appeal in the future, the onus today is on those arguing that the 2002 appeal got it wrong again.

I admit I'm not a scientist, but I'd like an 'innocent' explanation for the DNA match found between the mucous staining on the hankie and Hanratty's remains, and the absence of DNA from any other individual. I'm not seeing the relevance here of 'reservations about the quality of LC DNA'. The result could not have been more conclusively black and white, could it? There was no suggestion that a false match was a possibility in those circumstances, or presumably the defence team would have created merry hell.

It comes down to whether you are arguing for gross incompetence or dishonesty having produced a miraculous DNA match which was no match at all, or you accept that the hankie was indeed handled and used by Hanratty, but believe - with no real evidence - that someone associated with him handled it last, by taking it with the murder weapon and putting it on the bus, in the hope of incriminating Hanratty.

Incidentally, could they detect someone's blood group from nasal mucous in 1961? Even if so, I can't imagine anyone framing Hanratty would have had this in mind at the time. They'd have had to know that his blood group matched that of the rapist first, or the plan would have gone tits up.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Of course we all judge a case in the round, not on one element alone. However since forensic evidence supplies the main case against James Hanratty I thought it worthwhile to focus on that particular area and put it in some kind of perspective.

Isn't that a matter of opinion, cobalt?

The 2002 appeal judgement suggested that the forensic evidence served to make a strong case even stronger, didn't it? In 1962 it seems to have been more a combination of Valerie's positive identification, the cartridge cases found in the hotel room occupied by Hanratty, plus his own proven lies about his whereabouts that convinced the jury. Forensically, he shared the same blood group with the rapist, but little else was found to establish his presence at the scene beyond all doubt.

For me, in 2019, the main case would be Hanratty's DNA having turned up on the knicker fragment and hankie, where it had no right to be if he had no connection with either the crime or the person who committed it, together with his total inability to tell a straight story about where he was and why it was impossible for him to have been in the car, leaving his DNA on the victim, and later on a London bus, leaving his hankie with a gun he had recently acquired to try "stick-ups".

When everything is taken together, Hanratty would have had to be the unluckiest - if not the most stupid - criminal on the planet if he was not involved.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

'Mucus was not capable of being analysed for blood type. Evidence based upon the comparison of hairs and fibres was inconclusive.'

The use of the word 'inconclusive'’ is not quite clear to me. Evidence given in a court can sometimes just be indicative.

Ah, just saw this, cobalt. That answers the question about whether anything left on the hankie could have been tested in 1961 and found consistent or inconsistent with Hanratty having used it.

The intent of the word 'inconclusive' in the above context is, we could say, inconclusive.

Normally, I'd assume it just meant that the comparison of hairs and fibres was not capable of ruling Hanratty out, or proving anything against him.

Love,

Caz
X

[cobalt]

Hi Caz,

I have been picked up by both yourself and Alfie over my loose language in relation to the case against James Hanratty. It would be more accurate for me to say that the whereas there was some unease over his conviction in 1962, the DNA evidence submitted as part of the 2002 appeal has satisfied most persons that the conviction was correct.

I agree that the handkerchief itself was not intended to ‘frame’ Hanratty since there was at the time no way of connecting it forensically to Hanratty. By the way, I am not convinced it was actually a snotty hanky; it may have been washed recently and simply retained some evidence of mucus.

I also agree with your understanding of the word ‘'inconclusive.'’ It’'s just that since fibres and hair follicles were obtained then they should point either towards or away from the guilt of James Hanratty; I don'’t see how they can be neutral. Hanratty’'s hair in particular was quite distinct at the time of the crime. Since the prosecution were relying on a circumstantial case for the most part, had there been any possible connection between the forensic evidence and James Hanratty it would surely have been put in as part of the mix. I think the word ‘'inconclusive'’ is a useful euphemism used by the appeal court in preference to admitting there was actually no forensic evidence in respect of fibres or hair against James Hanratty at the time of the trial, and that none has been established since.

As for luck, well far from being unlucky James Hanratty must have enjoyed exceptionally good fortune if he was indeed the killer. No one ever saw him travel to Taplow and no independent witness ever saw him there, or at a petrol station en route, or at the scene of the crime. Incredibly, he left no forensic evidence in the car despite carrying out a murder and a sexual assault. More astonishingly still, he made no forensic transfer of fibre or hairs on to his victims. He managed to ditch the murder weapon on a bus without being seen and his surviving victim even picked out someone else at the first ID parade. To make things even better the police arrested an apparently innocent man which must have convinced Hanratty the Gods were smiling on him. This luck continued in respect of Liverpool and Rhyl where independent witnesses must have either misidentified him, or been mistaken about the dates on which they saw him.

As for stupidity, much the same applies. Anyone who can arrive unnoticed at the scene of a crime and leave no forensic ‘footprint’ in respect of hair and fibres is close to being a Napoleon of crime. Like a man who can slip cartridge shells into a revolver without leaving any fingerprints. A man crafty enough to change his alibi, sensing that there were misguided witnesses in Rhyl who would likely support him. This man, if guilty, was no fool.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

I have been picked up by both yourself and Alfie over my loose language in relation to the case against James Hanratty. It would be more accurate for me to say that the whereas there was some unease over his conviction in 1962, the DNA evidence submitted as part of the 2002 appeal has satisfied most persons that the conviction was correct.

I agree that the handkerchief itself was not intended to ‘frame’ Hanratty since there was at the time no way of connecting it forensically to Hanratty. By the way, I am not convinced it was actually a snotty hanky; it may have been washed recently and simply retained some evidence of mucus.

I also agree with your understanding of the word ‘'inconclusive.'’ It’'s just that since fibres and hair follicles were obtained then they should point either towards or away from the guilt of James Hanratty; I don'’t see how they can be neutral. Hanratty’'s hair in particular was quite distinct at the time of the crime. Since the prosecution were relying on a circumstantial case for the most part, had there been any possible connection between the forensic evidence and James Hanratty it would surely have been put in as part of the mix. I think the word ‘'inconclusive'’ is a useful euphemism used by the appeal court in preference to admitting there was actually no forensic evidence in respect of fibres or hair against James Hanratty at the time of the trial, and that none has been established since.

Hi cobalt,

No problem with anything you say here. Of course it would have been far more satisfactory had they been able, using forensic techniques available in 1961, to connect any fibres or hair follicles to Hanratty - or indeed Alphon. Remind me - where were the fibres and follicles obtained from? While it should have been made clear to the jury if no forensic evidence was found that could indicate Hanratty's presence in the car, or his handling of the murder weapon, it was not the prosecution's job to point this out. His defence should surely have run with this absence of evidence [inferred from the prosecution's silence on the matter] and milked it for all it was worth.

As for luck, well far from being unlucky James Hanratty must have enjoyed exceptionally good fortune if he was indeed the killer. No one ever saw him travel to Taplow and no independent witness ever saw him there, or at a petrol station en route, or at the scene of the crime. Incredibly, he left no forensic evidence in the car despite carrying out a murder and a sexual assault. More astonishingly still, he made no forensic transfer of fibre or hairs on to his victims. He managed to ditch the murder weapon on a bus without being seen and his surviving victim even picked out someone else at the first ID parade. To make things even better the police arrested an apparently innocent man which must have convinced Hanratty the Gods were smiling on him. This luck continued in respect of Liverpool and Rhyl where independent witnesses must have either misidentified him, or been mistaken about the dates on which they saw him.

Fair points, but assuming he was indeed the killer, his luck ran out when the jury accepted that Valerie knew it too, and recognised his broken alibis for the desperate and foolish lies they were. I wouldn't call it exceptionally good fortune to end up dangling from a rope, essentially because he screwed up by leaving Valerie alive after spending hours in her presence and chatting to her, and then screwed up again by claiming to have been in two other places at the time.

As for stupidity, much the same applies. Anyone who can arrive unnoticed at the scene of a crime and leave no forensic ‘footprint’ in respect of hair and fibres is close to being a Napoleon of crime. Like a man who can slip cartridge shells into a revolver without leaving any fingerprints. A man crafty enough to change his alibi, sensing that there were misguided witnesses in Rhyl who would likely support him. This man, if guilty, was no fool.

And yet not smart enough to fool the jury and escape the hangman.

If Hanratty didn't leave those cartridge cases in the room he occupied at the Vienna, and didn't leave the gun on the bus, because he was innocent of this horrendous crime, he knew he was being stitched up for it, and would surely have appreciated just how precarious this made his position, whether he thought the police had a hand in it, or suspected one of his criminal associates. He could narrow the list down to those who knew which room he had stayed in and anyone who knew his habit of hiding stuff on buses. And yet he confined himself to simple denials, imagining that somehow he'd be believed and everything would turn out okay in the end. How does that work? Would he not have been beside himself with fury, frantically protesting that he was being framed, if he knew that was the case? When admitting to a conversation about acquiring a firearm, and to his habit of hiding stuff on buses, why didn't it occur to him that the person who was framing him was using this knowledge against him? If it did occur to him, why did he not say so? How many of his cronies had he told about his hiding place? How many had he told about staying at the Vienna? How many had he told about his idea of getting a gun?

Of course, if he was guilty, but one of his associates had put the murder weapon on the bus - someone like Dixie France - he could hardly have said so without implicating himself. But he didn't do much to help himself if he was innocent and knew he was being set up. He was facing the death penalty after all, so why would he have kept silent if he had any idea who was behind it? Another example of his rotten luck if he was innocent was the ease at which it was established exactly how and where he had spent the night before the murder, followed by a total inability by anyone to establish the same for the murder night. Anyone framing him could not possibly have anticipated that this would turn out to be the case.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sherlock Houses]

As these exchanges make clear, it is quite wrong to say that Hanratty's team were "left completely in the dark" about the sweetshop.

You need to re-read my post much more carefully as I said no such thing.

[Sherlock Houses]

Also, If ,as you have always believed , Hanratty was using memories of earlier visits, I.E. Mrs Dinwoodies shop. Who do you think she was alluding to,when she was taxing her memory over a young man coming in on the Monday Aug. 21st. A phantom scoucer who had the enviable task of providing Hanratty with an alibi for the wrong day.

Possibly a phantom scouser, Moste, who spoke with nothing like a scouse accent, looking remarkably like James Hanratty and who entered the sweetshop around the same time as Hanratty claimed he did 24 hours later, on the Tuesday. This Hanratty look-alike phantom, just like Hanratty, was enquiring about the whereabouts of a Carlton or Tarleton thoroughfare. How strange that this phantom scouser never came forward to reveal that it was he who was in the sweetshop that Monday afternoon.

Anybody with an ounce of common sense who understands anything about the sweetshop encounter and Hanratty's undeniable presence in London on the Monday can see that Mrs Dinwoodie was honestly mistaken when she said at the trial that the sweetshop incident happened on the Monday. Struth !!

[Alfie]

You need to re-read my post much more carefully as I said no such thing.

"Hanratty's defence team were left completely in the dark about the existence of such a vital witness who could impressively corroborate Hanratty's story."

The point is, it was entirely the defence team's fault that they "were left completely in the dark" about Mrs Dinwoodie. They knew about the sweetshop, Hanratty's description of it made it easy to find, and yet they didn't even bother to visit it before the committal hearing. Their ignorance was a self-inflicted wound, not the outcome of some under-hand police plot.