A6 Rebooted

[cobalt]

‘Panic’ is one of these catch all terms that we are all likely to resort to when we struggle to find a logical explanation for human behaviour. It has a long and undistinguished history in murder cases, those ones where the accused claims to have panicked upon seeing a dead body for which he was not responsible, then proceeded to dismember the body before stuffing it in a suitcase. Juries are rightly sceptical of this interpretation of ‘panic’ when it is in stark contrast to the supporting actions of the accused.

This same stark contrast is visible in the JFK prosecution case against Lee Oswald, a man cool enough to shoot dead the President of the USA before nipping down for a bottle of coke and brushing off a policeman who had raced into the building. He then sauntered out of the building, directing a reporter to a payphone in doing so and when questioned by police after arrest impressed them with his calm demeanour. In between times though we are told he panicked, shot a policeman and dashed into a cinema.

The A6 Case prosecution seems to have the same anomalies. Hanratty panicked when Gregsten passed back the bag, yet he pulled the trigger twice in what seems like a cold blooded execution. The shooting of Valerie Storie was even more cold blooded- I think the gunman had to reload his weapon- so not much panic visible there. Far from panicking, the murderer did not leave the scene immediately after his killing but stayed around to sexually assault Miss Storie. He was also cool enough to dispose of the car and slip into anonymity for some time.

I think the idea of panic is required to cover the gaping hole at the centre of the A6 Case. There was no purpose to this crime so it has to be made the act of an irrational person. It’s not good enough. Even a drunk man has an idea of his route home, however badly he might execute it. Even a political lunatic like Hitler works within the parameters of his own perverted logic. And even the most pathetic, weak minded criminal has some sort of tawdry, misguided purpose to his actions. At the centre of the A6 Case we have nothing that stands examination.

[NickB]

At the centre is the desire of a burglar to upgrade to doing armed hold-ups.

After his nerve broke or something went wrong with the original plan, he hijacks a car. From then on he is winging it. When they get to the A4 he decides to head towards London. Then he has the idea to head for a late night cafe near Northolt. (I seem to recall someone saying that they knew the cafe he must have been referring to, but cannot find that post.) When they get near Northolt he decides against the cafe and they continue through an area he knows well.

I don't think Deadman's Hill was a pre-planned destination because if it was he would have known about the loop lane, which is the layby today, and gone in there instead where it was completely isolated.

[caz]

That’s an intriguing find, Graham. Assuming the man was in his 60s when he received his lifetime award in 2001 that would put him in the same age range as Valerie Storie. Since he was working in Merseyside at the time of his award all we now have to do is find out if he ever had any connection with Tarleton Avenue!

Yes, but Tarleton Avenue or Tarleton Road didn't and don't exist in Liverpool! Mrs Dinwoodie came up with one or the other of these names when interviewed by the police following her highly-dodgy 'recognition' of Hanratty when a not-too-bright policeman showed her just the one photo. If in fact Hanratty actually was in Liverpool during that week, then chances are the guy he'd have been to see was Terence McNally, whom he knew from prison - but he had a flat in the Bull Ring, not Tarelton Anywhere. And I somehow can't quite connect a chap who was awarded an OBE with the scallywags who resided in that particular area of Liverpool. But you never know.....

As far as I'm concerned, the introduction by Sherrard of the name Ronnie Lofthouse into his cross-examination of Valerie must remain a mystery. She said she didn't recognise the name and I think we have to accept that. And as far as I'm aware the name was never raised at all, by anyone, after the trial.

Graham

Hi Graham,

Not that I believe for one second that Hanratty was asking for directions in that sweet shop, but there is actually a Tarleton Street in Liverpool city centre, and coincidentally another Tarleton Street in Rhyl, just up from the beach front.

I have been to both, not on a Hanratty trail, but on holiday at various times. When I last stayed in Liverpool, we had a splendid, very reasonably priced breakfast every morning at a cafe on Tarleton Street. I don't know what the street would have been like back in the early 60s, but these days it is mostly cafes and small shops, with the back entrance to an M&S Food Hall opposite the cafe we frequented.

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

Hi Caz,

I knew there's a Tarleton Street in Liverpool, but as far as I recall Mrs D said the caller asked for a Tarleton Road. She added that the caller was insistent it was the Road he wanted.

Regarding Rhyl, I went there once - it was closed. When I was 9 or 10 I had the most dreadful 'holiday' of my life in Rhyl, in an awful B&B somewhere or the other. My old man was in a vile mood the whole time, and it rained the whole time. But I've been back several times since, as I had customers in the area, and have obviously visited the B&B and the streets behind it. I didn't know there's a Tarleton Street in Rhyl - strange coincidence.

Graham

[cobalt]

The upgrade theory does not hold much water for a number of reasons.

Armed robbery might pay better than burglary but there is an almighty difference between nipping into a house to steal objects and confronting a person with a loaded weapon. There was nothing in Hanratty’s troubled past to suggest that violence was a feature of his character. If he had wanted to upgrade it would have been more credible if he had first demanded money with menaces, proceeded to using a knife and then only later upgraded to a gun. Hanratty was probably an impulsive character with little sense of consequence but it still seems an almighty leap to move from burglary to armed robbery.

Upgrading to armed robbery in a cornfield is clearly ludicrous. So we are told Hanratty had planned to burgle houses in the area (although there is no record of him ever being there previously) and when that fell through, chanced upon the Morris Minor. But why would a burglar be carting a gun and a bag load of cartridges on his person? Burglars travel light so far as I know. And they have transport ready for a quick exit.
Anyhow he hijacks a car. Maybe an accomplice took cold feet and left him stranded without wheels so that is a reasonable explanation, although carrying the gun remains a problem. But the bigger problem is he doesn’t hijack the car: he could have turfed Gregsten and Miss Storie out, even demanded a few valuables, and made his merry way back to the smoke. Instead he plays what might be called a cat and mouse game with his victims, except that there is apparently a purpose to why the cat plays with the mouse. The cat is not winging it.

There is nothing we know of Hanratty’s character that would support this sadistic behaviour, so we are told that he is enjoying the sense of power that the gun brings. He is a nobody who for once in his life feels like a somebody. But for five hours? That is a long time to enjoy the thrill of dominance and rather out of keeping from what we know of Hanratty, a man governed by his instincts who preferred short term gratification.
As a motive for the A6 case the upgrading theory is weak.

[moste]

Mmhh ! Bit like when folks say,‘ Oh Yes , well we knew he smoked weed fairly regularly, it’s no wonder he wound up as a heroin addict.

[moste]

Yes Cass , There is a Tarleton in Ardwick Manchester too( my old stamping ground) , which I know Hanratty visited , but that was street also . Funny you should mention it though, I was just checking the various Tarletons the other day ,and recalled the fact that it had to be road. Strange eh? I think he may have got that name wrong. I mentioned a couple of years back ‘Talisin Street, was only one block along from the newsagents Cowleys, on Scotland road, and would Mrs Dinwoody not have mentioned ‘ are you maybe looking for Talisin street? ’.

[NickB]

When Hanratty was released from prison in March 1961 he went straight to his fence Donald Slack who asked him what he was going to do now. Hanratty said that screwing was all played out and that he was going to get a shooter to do stick-ups. There is no doubt that he said this. He told it to Acott, then Kleinman, wrote a letter to Slack about it and then admitted it in court.

Why did he tell Acott? He thought that Slack had already told him about it. Why he thought this has not been explained in the books, but just before travelling up to Blackpool Acott interviewed Lanigan who told him he had discussed with Hanatty getting guns to do a hold-up in Wembly. This would have been fresh in Acott's mind and he may have dropped a few hints about it and Hanratty presumed that he was talking about Slack. In any case he felt that he had been tricked into admitting it.

After repeating it to Kleinman he came up with the idea that he had only said it for bravado, that he didn't really mean it. But on 26-Oct Acott interviewed Slack and he point blank denied that the conversation had taken place. "I have certainly never spoken to him about firearms." If Hanratty had only said it for bravado Slack would have had no difficulty in admitting it.

[OneRound]

If the murderer ordered the car to be turned round in the lay-by then he must have had some sort of plan in his mind. Was he already considering an execution? Or maybe he going to turf the couple out in the middle of nowhere and drive south himself? Or was it his intention for everyone to drive back to where they had come from, after his ‘kip,’ as if nothing much had happened?

Even if we accept the view that the murderer was some kind of mentally disturbed criminal there still remains a massive problem in relation to his actions. Hanging around a cornfield with a gun. Kidnapping a couple for no gain. A self-pitying monologue. The length of time spent considering his next move. Stopping for petrol and refreshments. The apparent aimlessness of the journey. The absurd decision to have a ‘kip.’

You would think that anyone with this degree of psychosis would be under medical supervision, but apparently not. The murderer is able to deposit the car, avoid leaving any forensic material inside, dispose of the murder weapon and pretty much carry on life as normal.

Hi Cobalt - certainly large inconsistencies in the murderer's actions and capabilities. I have speculated in the past whether he could have been experimenting with drugs. Pill popping could perhaps explain some of his bizarre and erratic behaviour. Then sleeping it off prior to cleaning the car, abandoning it and carrying on life.

Best regards,
OneRound

[OneRound]

The upgrade theory does not hold much water for a number of reasons.

Armed robbery might pay better than burglary but there is an almighty difference between nipping into a house to steal objects and confronting a person with a loaded weapon. There was nothing in Hanratty’s troubled past to suggest that violence was a feature of his character. If he had wanted to upgrade it would have been more credible if he had first demanded money with menaces, proceeded to using a knife and then only later upgraded to a gun. Hanratty was probably an impulsive character with little sense of consequence but it still seems an almighty leap to move from burglary to armed robbery.

Upgrading to armed robbery in a cornfield is clearly ludicrous. So we are told Hanratty had planned to burgle houses in the area (although there is no record of him ever being there previously) and when that fell through, chanced upon the Morris Minor. But why would a burglar be carting a gun and a bag load of cartridges on his person? Burglars travel light so far as I know. And they have transport ready for a quick exit.
Anyhow he hijacks a car. Maybe an accomplice took cold feet and left him stranded without wheels so that is a reasonable explanation, although carrying the gun remains a problem. But the bigger problem is he doesn’t hijack the car: he could have turfed Gregsten and Miss Storie out, even demanded a few valuables, and made his merry way back to the smoke. Instead he plays what might be called a cat and mouse game with his victims, except that there is apparently a purpose to why the cat plays with the mouse. The cat is not winging it.

There is nothing we know of Hanratty’s character that would support this sadistic behaviour, so we are told that he is enjoying the sense of power that the gun brings. He is a nobody who for once in his life feels like a somebody. But for five hours? That is a long time to enjoy the thrill of dominance and rather out of keeping from what we know of Hanratty, a man governed by his instincts who preferred short term gratification.
As a motive for the A6 case the upgrading theory is weak.

Hi again Cobalt - didn't Hanratty spit in the faces of his prison warders and wasn't that a major reason why he was denied remission (''did the lot'')? You could argue that's very different behaviour to that outlined in your post and even that it's not ''sadistic''. However, it is deeply unpleasant and suggests - more in the jargon of the era than today - that he was not right in the head.

Best regards,
OneRound

[OneRound]

I have to be honest, Moste, it's quite a long time since I tied anyone up in a Morris Minor....or any other vehicle, for that matter.

Your question re: why Jim didn't hide the bodies is a good one. However, I think anyone who had murdered (as he thought) two people and raped one of them, and had stolen their car, had but one thought in his mind - scarper, and quick. I would suggest panic set in. Seems to me that a better plan would have been for him to head to Bedford, as you suggest, throw the gun into some handy scrubland, dump the car within walking distance of the station, and head back to London. However, was there blood on his clothes? If so, that may have convinced him to keep the car.

...

Graham

Hi Graham - if there has ever been a better opening line to an A6 post than yours here, I have yet to read it!

As you rightfully acknowledge, a very fine question by Moste as to why the murderer didn't move and hide the bodies in the nearby woodland. It could have been some days or more before the bodies were discovered - after all, there was no known reason for anyone to be looking for them in that area. However, we all have to accept that he didn't do that. In the absence of any other evidence and in spite of Cobalt's reservations, I have to subscribe to your panic theory.

Best regards,
OneRound

[Graham]

Hi Graham - if there has ever been a better opening line to an A6 post than yours here, I have yet to read it!

Ah well, OR - I'm nothing if not po-faced.....

But Moste and yourself are quite right. It's doubtful if the bodies would have been discovered for some time, and so it's also very doubtful if Valerie would have survived. And yes, I do believe he panicked. Who wouldn't? And yes, I agree with NickB that he acquired the gun to move up to more lucrative crime - or so he hoped. I also believe he spoke to Slack about obtaining a gun, in which case it's hardly surprising that Slack denied it - but Jim had already told Acott of this conversation. Did Slack supply the gun? We'll never know for sure, but my suspicion is that Jim acquired the gun 'closer to home'. It's significant that the police didn't haul in Slack after the murder with a view to charging him with being an accessory - this would confirm that they were satisfied that Slack hadn't supplied the gun. And talking about guns is hardly a criminal offence, even if Slack had admitted the claimed conversation with Jim took place.

Graham

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Regarding Rhyl, I went there once - it was closed...

Graham

Ha ha, same here! What a hole. I stayed in a shabby, run-down hotel there for a week, must have been ten years ago now, but luckily we were out every day, driving to some wonderful beauty spots in North Wales, so it was just a base.

Love,

Caz
X

[NickB]

I've found the post I was thinking of about the cafe at Northolt. It is post 1608 on the original thread by Steve. If the cafe was on the Western Avenue the car crossed this on the way north.

[OneRound]

Ah well, OR - I'm nothing if not po-faced.....

But Moste and yourself are quite right. It's doubtful if the bodies would have been discovered for some time, and so it's also very doubtful if Valerie would have survived. And yes, I do believe he panicked. Who wouldn't? And yes, I agree with NickB that he acquired the gun to move up to more lucrative crime - or so he hoped. I also believe he spoke to Slack about obtaining a gun, in which case it's hardly surprising that Slack denied it - but Jim had already told Acott of this conversation. Did Slack supply the gun? We'll never know for sure, but my suspicion is that Jim acquired the gun 'closer to home'. It's significant that the police didn't haul in Slack after the murder with a view to charging him with being an accessory - this would confirm that they were satisfied that Slack hadn't supplied the gun. And talking about guns is hardly a criminal offence, even if Slack had admitted the claimed conversation with Jim took place.

Graham

Hi Graham and all - I'm actually inclined to think on balance that Slack did supply the gun. I'll try to explain my reasoning. Almost needless to say, this is on the basis that Hanratty was guilty and so I'm not expecting plaudits from all quarters.

As mentioned in other recent posts (particularly by Nick) and despite Slack's denial, it seems clear from Hanratty's various admissions that he and Slack did talk about acquiring a gun albeit Hanratty claimed this was nothing more than bravado. It would have been helpful to Acott and the prosecution case for Slack to not only confirm the conversation but also more particularly that Hanratty appeared totally serious in the request. I'm sure Acott pressured Slack in this regard. It would have been out of character for him not to do so.

Why then didn't Slack acknowledge the conversation and Hanratty's apparent real desire to obtain a gun if he (Slack) didn't supply the gun? To be fair, there are several possible reasons (or combination thereof) - an inbred tendency not to help the police; not wanting such a conversation becoming public down the line; not wanting to be ''a grass'', etc.

However, if Slack had emphasised he did not supply a gun whilst acknowledging he had been a party to a serious conversation about guns, this would have undoubtedly aided Acott and probably got him off his back at the time; after all, Acott was after the murderer far more than any supporting player. I feel that would have been quite an incentive for Slack. Why then not take it? One possible answer I tend to favour is that Slack did supply the gun and he feared that the more he dropped Hanratty in it, the more desperate and talkative Hanratty might become, particularly after conviction, compelling the police to further investigate Slack's role.

I know you, Graham, favour Dixie supplying the gun and so I don't expect you to accept this but I hope you and all can see my reasoning.

Along the lines of something said by former poster Victor, without Hanratty coming clean about his own starring role, we will never know the full story.

Best regards,
OneRound