A6 Rebooted

[Alfie]

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 !!

Never heard of a villain buying an alibi? What a shame the seller got the days mixed up.

Oh, and Hanratty maintained that he'd asked for directions to Carlton or Talbot Road - until he learned that Mrs Dinwoodie said the inquiry was for Tarlton Road.

[Spitfire]

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 !!

The defence should have called Barbara Ford who was the young girl serving in the sweetshop with Mrs D.

Barbara served in shop on the Monday but only visited briefly on the Tuesday when she and her friend Linda Walton popped in to see Mrs D.

The defence could also have called Linda as she must also have witnessed the stranger asking for directions.

Unfortunately for Jim, Barbara also reckoned the incident happened on the Monday and Linda witnessed nothing on the Tuesday.

Barbara and Mrs D both agreed the stranger had an accent a mixture of Welsh and Scottish according to Mrs D and possibly Scottish according to Barbara.

Mr John Cowley was also in the shop for part both days. On Monday afternoon he was there from about 3.45 (not sure what time he left) and on Tuesday from from 3.00pm till 6.00 to 6.30 when his brother, David, arrived. John gave a statement that no one asked for directions whilst he was in the shop on Tuesday.

As against the above, Mrs D did identify the caller from the one photograph initially shown to her and further picked out a photograph of Hanratty when a selection of 16 different photos were shown to her. It is not how the jury resolved all this, either Hanratty must have called on Monday, which is pretty well impossible if the other prosecution evidence is accepted as to Jim's Monday wanderings, or the person who called for directions did so on the Monday and was not Hanratty. If they had had any doubt that Hanratty was in the shop on Tuesday, then would have had to acquit him.

The jury decided the issue on the evidence which they had heard, and I don't blame them.

Jim was on the Scotland Road in the company of another man on 9th October 1961 when he sent his mum some flowers. It seems there two flower shops owned by Mrs Margaret Ash and Mrs Alice Ash situated at 417 and 67 Scotland Road and it seems that from the latter of the two Hanratty sent flowers, although I am not sure if he visited both as he appears to have met both ladies!

The point is that Hanratty was on the ScotLand Road and knew that he was wanted for the A6 Murder yet he seems to have made no attempt to identify which shop it was that he claimed to make his directions inquiry.

[Alfie]

Mr John Cowley was also in the shop for part both days. On Monday afternoon he was there from about 3.45 (not sure what time he left) and on Tuesday from from 3.00pm till 6.00 to 6.30 when his brother, David, arrived. John gave a statement that no one asked for directions whilst he was in the shop on Tuesday.

I haven't seen any reference to this statement. Would you be able to post its contents or a source for it please?

[Spitfire]

I haven't seen any reference to this statement. Would you be able to post its contents or a source for it please?

It is dealt with in paragraph 196 of the Hawser report:-


196. Nor did Mr. John Cowley who made a statement to the police on

1st November 1961. He had to attend hospital on Monday the 21st August.

He was examined and left at about 3.30 p.m. He walked very slowly to the

shop and this took him about 10-15 minutes. When he arrived Mrs. Dinwoodie

and her grand-daughter were there. He said:

“I do not remember any person calling in the shop asking for directions

that day”.

On the Tuesday he went to the shop about 3.0 p.m. and assisted Mrs. Dinwoodie:

“Her grand-daughter was not there on that occasion”.

“About 5.0 p.m. Mrs, Dinwoodie complained about not feeling well

but she remained there until my brother arrived about 6.0 to 6.30 p.m.

Once again no person called at the shop asking for directions”.

If Mrs. Dinwoodie’s original recollection of the time was correct, Mr. John

Cowley could well have missed the enquiring caller on the Monday. In her

statement to the Defence Mrs. Dinwoodie put the time at:

“ . .. just gone 4 o’clock, the Echo’s had just arrived”.

None of her times are consistent with Mr. Hanratty’s account.

[Alfie]

Thanks Spitfire. Do recall reading that now, but it had disappeared down the (very wide) memory hole.

If J Cowley didn't arrive at the shop until about 3.45 and had no recollection of our Tarlton Road inquirer, that would tie in with Mrs Dinwoodie's original statement to the police, on October 17, when she placed the caller's arrival at some time between 3.30 and 4.00 pm. It was almost two months later, on December 16, that she made the "just gone 4 o'clock" statement to the defence team (after some harassment, perhaps?).

[NickB]

Barbara Ford provided further verification that John Cowley was serving on the Tuesday:

"On the way back from town I called in at the shop about a quarter to five and Mr Cowley's brother was there with Gran."

[Graham]

Hanratty was, as usual, very unclear and confused about his Liverpool 'alibi'. He stated that he caught from Euston either the '10.55 or the 11.55am train to Liverpool'. He also originally said that he arrived in Liverpool at 'about 3.30pm'. There were no trains from Euston to Liverpool at either 10.55am or 11.55am. However, there was a 10.35am train which arrived in Liverpool at 3.25pm. Both Foot and Woffinden were somewhat confused and confusing about the times of the trains from Euston to Liverpool. Hanratty said that when he arrived at Liverpool he went for a wash-and-brush-up and also to the station buffet for a cup of tea, and then dropped his case at the left-luggage office. He said he was at the left-luggage at around 5.00pm. Mrs Dinwoodie said that she thought the man who came in asking for directions called at some time between 3.30pm and 4.00pm on the Monday. She was also very definite about the time the man came into the shop as being 'just after 4.00pm, as the evening newspapers had just been delivered. If Hanratty had arrived at Lime Street at 3.25pm, gone for a wash and a cup of tea and to the left-luggage office at 'around 5.00pm', there was no way he could have been in the sweet-shop at 'just after 4.00pm'.

There was, in fact, a fast train from Euston to Lime Street, leaving Euston at 10.20am and arriving at Lime Street at 2.22pm. Had Hanratty caught this train, then the above might not be applicable; unfortunately, Hanratty himself stated that he caught 'either the 10.55 or the 11.55 train from Euston', but at neither of those times did a train leave Euston for Liverpool.

Graham

[NickB]

In any case, the encounter that Mrs Dinwoodie said she had with the visitor does not match the account given by Hanratty. For example ...

Dinwoodie said “Several others, customers, came into the shop and I said perhaps they could help him and I went on serving and did not even notice him go out.”

But Hanratty said she “came to door of the shop and showed me the bus-stop”.

[NickB]

Both Foot and Woffinden were somewhat confused and confusing about the times of the trains from Euston to Liverpool.

To be fair to Woffinden, he is actually precise about the train. He says the only train that is compatible with Hanratty's evidence (long wait at Euston, train stopped at Crewe) is the one that arrived in Liverpool at 4.54. What he doesn't explain is how Hanratty did all the things he claimed to have done in Liverpool before the bus left at 6.

[Alfie]

Just re-reading John Kerr's evidence at the trial and mulling over the controversy about his missing notes and about the notes that the police presented as his at the trial.

Woffinden tells us: "A police officer had conducted a search of the county surveyor's office in Bedford and 'found' the document. It was, in fact, a formal letter written about the census by the surveyor and sent to John Kerr."

Kerr of course denied that the hand-written notes on the back of this form were in his hand-writing, but a question that I haven't seen answered is: how did the police come by this letter? Was it a forgery?

Advocates of Hanratty's innocence naturally would like us to believe it was and, understandably, hint darkly at a conspiracy designed to hide the fact that Valerie's initial description of her killer didn't fit Jim.

Lord Russell, for example, says: "The fact that it [Kerr's note] subsequently disappeared, apart from being most disturbing, must surely cast some doubt on the accuracy of her memory or observation, for Hanratty's hair was not 'light, fairish'."

And Foot writes: "If Mr Kerr's insistence that Valerie Storie had thus described her assailant's hair had been backed up by notes made at the time it would have made nonsense of the prosecution's contention that Valerie Storie's identification and description had been consistent throughout."

But aren't their fears undercut by the fact that the first description of the killer that mentioned his hair colour described it as "dark brown"? Why would Valerie tell Kerr that the gunman's hair was "light, fairish", then just a hour or two later inform police that it was a completely different colour and shade? Isn't it more likely that Kerr was mistaken in what he thought Valerie said?

[Graham]

To be fair to Woffinden, he is actually precise about the train. He says the only train that is compatible with Hanratty's evidence (long wait at Euston, train stopped at Crewe) is the one that arrived in Liverpool at 4.54. What he doesn't explain is how Hanratty did all the things he claimed to have done in Liverpool before the bus left at 6.

I am certain that Hanratty's somewhat over-detailed description of his train journey to Liverpool came from his memories of a previous journey. This isn't the only example of his inserting into his alibis details of previous experiences. The 4.54pm arrival of course conflicts with Hanratty's own timings on that he did during the course of that afternoon.

Graham

[NickB]

Kerr of course denied that the hand-written notes on the back of this form were in his hand-writing, but a question that I haven't seen answered is: how did the police come by this letter? Was it a forgery?

A pertinent line of questioning would have been whether Kerr had given that letter to the policeman.

[cobalt]

It’s possible that John Kerr misheard Valerie Storie’'s description of her attacker; he did write her name down wrongly. However he did, I think, manage to get the car registration and her address correctly. Given Ms. Storie’'s desperate position and John Kerr'’s state of shock I think they both showed great presence of mind in achieving what they did.

The claimed forgery is a much murkier piece of evidence. John Kerr, in his interview, comes across as an earnest young man, committed to his civic duty as a citizen. I wish we had more like him in parliament these days. So far as I am aware his he has lived a blameless life since 1961 and his integrity has never been questioned. So why on earth would he claim the writing on the census form was not his? A young man with sharp eyesight and clear memory knows his own handwriting for good goodness sake.

If a policeman had decided to tidy up Kerr’s statement on another piece of paper that would be understandable: but that is not what apparently happened here. There was a clear attempt, according to Kerr, to pass off another statement -written on the back of another census form- as his. Why was this necessary for the prosecution case?

[Alfie]

There was a clear attempt, according to Kerr, to pass off another statement -written on the back of another census form- as his. Why was this necessary for the prosecution case?

I can't see that it was necessary; they could have just admitted to losing Kerr's evidence and called on D.C. Woodin, D.S. Rees and D.C.I. Whiffen to testify to the consistency of Valerie's description once she arrived at the hospital. But throughout this case the police seem to have had an alarming propensity to act as a law unto themselves.

[NickB]

Agreed. But did the police ever claim that it was the form? I thought they just said it was all they could find.

Wodin said on the Channel 4 documentary about Valerie that she had all the way through said the killer's eyes were blue. If the police interviewers had appeared in the way you suggest to confirm what she had said about the hair colour they could have, at the same time, put on record what she said about the eye colour too.