A6 Rebooted

[Graham]

Yes, those are pylons, but I believe the P is a police station. Wasn't the Old Station Inn west of the new station? I think it was on the little triangle of land where the road goes under the train track. Today the
site is a car dealership, next to the petrol station.

I visited the scene quite a few years ago, after the Old Station Inn had been demolished. The new and large car-dealership was, as I recall, not quite on the site of the Inn, but very close. Speaking to someone who lived in the area, I was advised that 'if you didn't know where the Inn was you could easily drive past it'. Not that this is relevant, but it shows that the Inn was as it were tucked away. As I recall, to get to the new train-station, you had to cross the main road and walk to the right of the dealership, then up the station approach road. So if I am correct, the Inn was slightly to the east of the train station. Interestingly, the day I visited, there were some large trucks parked in the layby on the north side of the Bath Road just before the dealership, and one of them bore the legend 'Lanz' - must have been a descendant of the Mary Lanz who ran the Inn in 1961.

Graham

[Graham]

Thanks, Nick B, Alfie and Cobalt for demonstrating (once again) that the Matthews Daily Mail article is a bundle of errors and false assumptions. And I wouldn't mind betting that this is the main reason why his Report has never been published.

Graham

[cobalt]

I am in agreement with NickB and Graham that what was presented in the Daily Mail was not going to advance the case for James Hanratty. It was a summary, made presumably by a reporter who had interviewed Matthews, and contains more in the way of conjecture than actual evidence.

But it was just that: a journalist's summary of a policeman’s investigation so hardly a document which could look closely at contentious evidence. Mistakes made in conversation, or inaccurately written down by a reporter, do not necessarily invalidate what it is in the report. Now it may be that the Matthews Report is an Emperor’s Clothes of a investigation and was shelved for that reason. I lean more in the other direction: that by having access to how the original investigation was run and the ability, with hindsight, to peruse original witness statements he saw a different picture emerge than the standard version. The answer would be to publish it to settle the matter.

[cobalt]

Before heading off to the Vienna Hotel James Hanratty claimed, according to Dixie France’s daughter, that he was heading for Liverpool. Presumably this was less a social visit to an aunt he had not seen for a number of years but rather a visit to sell stolen property. To that end he would have been carrying a bag of some sort and that information would probably be recalled by staff at the Vienna Hotel since failure to arrive with any sort of luggage was deemed suspicious in the days before paying by credit card.

But if Hanratty changed plan and decided on a spot of speculative housebreaking in the Taplow area then he must still have been carrying some sort of bag. That makes little sense for a man intending to slip through windows and the like. If he hid it outside a potential property there was the chance of it being discovered and that would have been something of a calamity since it contained not just stolen jewellery but, according to the prosecution case, ammunition. I think any burglar would travel ‘light’ rather than lug around stolen goods from previous escapades. There is a time to steal and a time to sell, and combining these activities seems odd.

[NickB]

I see no reason to believe Matthews was interviewed by a journalist who misrepresented him. It is presented as an article Matthews wrote himself and submitted for publication.

Graham - A section of the contemporary map was posted by Spitfire when he entered into the Great Cornfield Entrance Debate. The two little fields at the bottom of Marsh Lane indicate that the entrance was not there (as poster Steve proposed) as the cornfield they entered was described as extending to the river, but was at what is now the Thames Water entrance as you thought. In court it was described as being about 200 yards south of where Marsh Lane crosses the M4; both possible entrances appear to be further than that although obviously the Thames Water one is nearer.

[cobalt]

James Hanratty can be viewed as an educationally limited man who made impulsive decisions or alternatively as a shrewd criminal of low cunning. I think both these opposing views are required in order to explain his Liverpool/Rhyl alibi.

If Hanratty committed the murder he could still have made his proposed journey to Liverpool, after ditching the car at Redbridge. This would have helped, although not solved, his timings greatly in respect of his defence.

However the prosecution case is that Hanratty returned to the north London area, disposed of the gun and only then made his way (if at all) to Merseyside. This is not very smart in terms of creating an alibi. For he either arrives rather late in Liverpool, but given that, should then make his presence known beyond doubt. This he failed to do. Or, if Hanratty did not travel to Liverpool soon after the murder then the idea is even more hare-brained, for no witnesses will surface and he also runs the risk of being spotted where he actually is, presumably London.

Why bother going to Liverpool, or pretending to go to Liverpool, in order to create a false alibi anyway? It’s a natural human impulse when guilty to flee the scene of the crime until the heat dies down, but there was no ‘heat’: Hanratty was not remotely in the frame as a suspect. His best bet, if guilty, would have been to be caught breaking into a property in London as soon after the murder as possible, thereby establishing his normal pattern of behaviour.

[Graham]

Nick, I agree that as a serving, senior police-officer, had Matthews felt that the Daily Mail article had misrepresented him, I am certain he would have said so publicly. That he didn't (as far as I'm aware) suggests that the journalist's article was based upon what Matthews told him, that is, choc-full of errors.

The Great Cornfield Entrance Debate! Wow! Since I 'toured' the area a good many years ago, the lie of the land has dramatically altered. As far as I recall, from the Dorney Court end of Marsh Lane going north, there was more than one entrance to the 'big field', and the one I remember was effectively just a gap in the hedgerows. I believe that when Steve went and took photos, the 'gap' had been fitted with a gate and posts. I'm sure the 'Thames Water Entrance' is the right one, and is certainly more than 200 yards from where Marsh Lane crosses the M4. If only I'd taken a camera with me! However, it has to be said that Steve's locations were very accurate, but I think in this case he was slightly off-whack. Anyone fancy going to check??

Graham

[NickB]

This is the Thames Water entrance on Google Maps ...

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5042475,-0.6725368,3a,75y,144.89h,99.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slVZxPuXtTM2N__Ufp7wccw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

You can compare with what I presume is a photo of Valerie at the scene in her wheelchair, in the Telegraph obituary ...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2016/05/13/valerie-storie--obituary/

The photo is cropped; a wider version of it appears a couple of times in the Dinenage documentary.

[Graham]

Thanks, Nick. Unless the hedges have been removed since my visit (somewhere around 20 - 25 years ago), then Photo 2 is much more as I recall how it looked when I was there. The photo is grainy, but there does appear to be a bollard kind-of-thing in the gap, again much as I recall. I was on foot, and it was a stinking-hot day and I was tired , otherwise I might have chanced my luck and had a wander round the field, which may not have been too well-received had I been spotted. But as I said earlier, the whole area has undergone very considerable change and development since I was there. I don't recall the paved footpath, but not to say it wasn't there.

Graham

[Alfie]

It was a summary, made presumably by a reporter who had interviewed Matthews, and contains more in the way of conjecture than actual evidence.

It was written in the first person. It was Matthews' big chance to persuade readers that, in his own words, "a grievous miscarriage of justice had almost certainly taken place." And he blew it.

[NickB]

Graham

Yes if that is the entrance a hedge must have been removed and a paved footpath built since.

One clue that it is not at the end of Marsh Lane is the road speed sign beside Valerie - not what you would expect just before the sharp turn into Court Lane! It appears to have been replaced by a smaller one that says 40 on both sides to be safer.

Incidentally, when I zoom in on the gates a Thames Water logo clearly visable a few years ago is no longer there.

Nick

[cobalt]

It’s true that the Matthews article says it was written by him, rather than reported to a journalist. It’s a poor piece of writing in my view and not just for the amount of errors it contains, some of which are petty: for example does it matter so much in an article of this kind what name Alphon used to sign in at the Vienna Hotel? The real problem for me is that it reads so emotionally, like the kind of article a tabloid reporter would produce when trying to elicit sympathy for someone. This example reflects the hyperbole and condescension that occurs quite often and reads like something from ‘Disgusted Tunbridge Wells’:

These days, sadly, we are used to horrific killings by gunmen and the appalling litany of brutal sexual assaults. However, in that more innocent age, the bizarre evil of this attack shocked the entire nation.

Yes, in that more innocent age when the Berlin Wall was being erected and just before a nuclear stand-off in Cuba. The article is indeed a load of guff. If the Matthews Report is of that standard it was a waste of everyone’s time, but it would be good to find out. Why the secrecy? I am still curious as to why police showed up at Swiss Cottage making enquiries leading to a Mr. Ryan a week before any cartridge cases were discovered in the Vienna Hotel and maybe the report sheds some light on this.

[NickB]

Cobalt

I suggested the police would have visited Caters the flower shop after visiting Hanratty's parents on 27th August and seeing the flowers there. You said they would not have bothered because they would not have discovered anything new, but if it was the only lead they had I think they would have done. A visit for this reason is consistent with what the shopkeeper Mrs Morell said.

I don't believe Ewer's claim that he phoned the police from the photographer's shop. The shopkeeper Edmund King did not recall that when the Sunday Times tracked him down, and I think he would have done so if it had happened.

Nick

[moste]

Stating as you suggest that Mr Matthews concluded that Hanratty was innocent is one thing; in which case, would he have named the person he believed was the actual murderer?

Graham

Certainly not! to Joe public, But he would have had meetings with his superiors outlining all he had concluded from his year long fresh investigation, and invite them to ‘Take It From Here’. We have to Assume they took it to the shredder. Ludicrous eh? What a total waste of our hard earned tax dollar!

[Graham]

Certainly not! to Joe public, But he would have had meetings with his superiors outlining all he had concluded from his year long fresh investigation, and invite them to ‘Take It From Here’. We have to Assume they took it to the shredder. Ludicrous eh? What a total waste of our hard earned tax dollar!

Over the years, several posters on here (the 'Hanrattyistas' as I used to call them) were mega-confident that Jim did not do it. Not a single one of them, as far as I know, proferred one iota of a suggestion as to who the 'real' killer was - apart, of course, from the ludicrous suggestion that it was Alphon. With regard to Matthews' article, I am saying the same thing: if he is so confident that it wasn't Jim, then as a policeman he must have at least had an inkling who the 'real' killer was. But he hasn't. I think it's a fair question.

Alphon came into the case via sheer coincidence. He volunteered the information to the police that he stayed at The Vienna on the murder night. He gave them his real name. As far as the police were concerned, he was in the clear until the cartridge-cases were found at the Vienna, when Acott naturally enough felt a strong desire to interview him again. Alphon surrendered himself to the police at Scotland Yard, and was grilled. He said afterwards he was scared stiff. So onto an ID parade he went, and lo and behold Valerie Storie failed to pick him out. That, so far as Acott was concerned, was that - Alphon was not the A6 killer.

Yet, if Acott was as bent and corrupt as is suggested by those who are convinced of Hanratty's innocence, why did he not disregard the ID failure and concentrate on the cartridge cases at The Vienna? There was no-one else 'in the frame' at the time so far as we know - just Alphon. (Yet I understand that Acott had interviewed another man at some length before releasing him. That man's identity has never been revealed). Had Acott truly been bent, he could, I believe, have got Alphon into the dock. But he didn't. He knew that there wasn't a cat in hell's chance of a jury finding Alphon guilty. So Acott had to move on. Valerie's failure to ID him, and the fact that the cartridge cases were not found in a room in which Alphon had stayed, effectively eliminated him as far as Acott was concerned. It was only Alphon's weird personality that kept his name linked to the case.

Graham