A6 Rebooted

[Graham]

Hi OR,

back in 1961 murder by firearm had only one sentence for the accused if found guilty - death. I believe I'm correct in saying that if in such a case the person who supplied the gun to the accused, obviously only if that person could be identified, faced a stiff prison-sentence. I can't think off the top of my head of any cases in which this actually occurred. It's like if today someone commits a serious crime when high on drugs, if the supplier of those drugs can be identified then he stands a chance of being charged as an accessory. If I'm wrong, no doubt I'll be put right before too long.

Hanratty did tell Acott of the conversation he had with Slack. He also handed to Slack a file of personal information presumably for safe-keeping; the police took possession of this file when they interviewed Slack, and it was never seen again. (It would, I think, be of some interest to discover its contents). Acott informed Hanratty that he had met Slack who told him about Hanratty's interest in obtaining a gun. However, when Hanratty (in custody) wrote to Slack presumably to get him to confirm the request for a gun, Slack absolutely denied this. Unfortunately, Slack's denial - according to Woffo - wasn't unearthed for another 30 years. And Hanratty's letter to Slack was confiscated by the Home Office.
(Why Hanratty didn't pursue this through his solicitor, I don't know). And then, at the trial, Acott denied ever telling Hanratty that he had been to interview Slack. All a bit naughty, in my opinion. And Hanratty confirmed that he had met Slack about a gun whilst under oath during the trial. The point I'm seeking to make is, that had Acott satisfied himself that Slack had supplied a gun that was subsequently used in a murder, Slack would have been in big trouble. It is a rather unsavoury chain of events.

Moving on, Dixie France committed suicide at the third attempt shortly before Hanratty's execution. Only two (I think) of the suicide letters he wrote were released for publication. The others were confiscated and never saw the light of day again, as far as I'm aware. We've all seen the letter he wrote to his wife, in which he effectively blamed Hanratty for the situation he, France, was now in. France basically states that he was convinced that Hanratty was guilty. Now, I've posted this before, but amongst his other 'employment', Dixie ran a cafe called The Harmony Cafe which was in Archer Street, Soho, close to The Rehearsal Club. The Harmony was a well-known meeting-place for all manner of low-life, as well as jazz musicians and beatniks. It was well-known that Dixie maintained what amounted to an armoury of weapons behind the counter, in case of trouble. If this 'armoury' included a gun, then I've never seen that confirmed, but there is no doubt that Dixie knew a whole lot of unsavoury Soho characters. As he and Hanratty appeared to be fairly close friends, I have long wondered if Dixie supplied the gun to Hanratty, and if as a result he was under suspicion and was perhaps already being questioned by the police. I have also long wondered, assuming he did supply the gun, if this triggered his suicide. He plainly had a huge animus against Hanratty, but would that be a sufficient reason for him to take his own life?

Graham

[NickB]

11-Oct - Acott interviews Lanigan who recounts a discussion with Hanratty about getting guns to do a hold-up in Wembley;

12-Oct - Acott interviews Hanratty;

26-Oct - Acott interviews Slack who says he never had a discussion with Hanratty about guns, and gives Acott the file of personal info.

Hanratty thought that Slack had told Acott about a discussion to get a gun, but anything Acott said was probably based on his interview with Lanigan. Hanratty thereby inadvertently revealed his gun conversation with Slack.

[Graham]

To my mind, Langdale's various statements are a fabrication from start to finish. His sole interest was trying to earn 'Brownie points' for himself. If I recall correctly, a long time after the dust had settled, Woffinden tracked him down to a mini-cab business in Norfolk, but he refused to be interviewed. I don't think there is any doubt that there was dirty work going on where Langdale was concerned.

Lanigan really only recalled a very brief discussion with Hanratty in prison, and I don't think even Acott was too interested. Lanigan merely recounted a discussion he had with Hanratty when they were toying with the idea of a scheme, after their release, to hold up a rent office, and thought that a gun might come in handy. As Woffo rightly points out: prison dreams. And after release Lanigan got a 'proper job' and went straight.

Graham

[moste]

[QUOTE=OneRound;n735537]

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

[moste]

[QUOTE=moste;n735559][QUOTE=OneRound;n735537]

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
Your subscription is in error in my opinion.The killer may have been anxious to get away, but I can’t see panicking.anyway, one opinion v another I guess.

[Graham]

Thinking about it, if the A6 had been perpetrated by a bona-fide and efficient hit-man, Kray-fashion, then Gregsten and Valerie would almost certainly have been dragged into the undergrowth. Not that I'm an expert in such matters, of course. I think panic definitely had a lot to do with Jim's rapid exit from the lay-by. And a professional hit-man, if such existed, wouldn't have taken them all on a long nocturnal ride into the country, either.

Not quite in the same league, of course, but someone I knew was in her car one evening and got rammed by a nutter who was driving way over the speed limit, and probably the alcohol limit too. He just legged it. Luckily, she was not injured, just shaken, and naturally, she phoned the police who turned up refreshingly quickly, and in a few seconds had identified the driver, his address, etc., etc. It did take them two days to actually nab him, and when they spoke seriously to him about the dire consequences of 'leaving the scene of an accident', his only defence was: I panicked. (He got fined, and a short driving-ban).

Graham

[moste]

If panic was to occur ,it would have been at the moment the killer,(supposedly) accidentally shot Gregsten through the head. For me at that point ,if this scenario offered by Storie is to be relied on, The killer would pull both of the victims out of the car and drive off. This is a person in a panic, fair to say.
However given all that has been described by the survivor, I still say he would have acted the way I suggested ,hide the bodies, get rid of car on way to nearest known train station. Lob the gun into the hedgerows en route .Job done. In consequence of this I believe there is a whole host of information not forthcoming from Storie.

[cobalt]

I think Moste has anticipated me here, Graham. There was no rapid exit from the lay-by. According to Valerie Storie.

I agree that this was not a 'professional hit,' as the Americans call it. It was something else.

[NickB]

Graham

The point I was trying to make is that Acott's interview with Slack was after he had interviewed Hanratty. So what Woffinden suggests, that he took Slack's denial and turned it into a confession when he questioned Hanratty, could not be true.

Nick

[moste]

Jim’s rapid exit from the lay- by ???

[moste]

Crossed post!

[Graham]

Graham

The point I was trying to make is that Acott's interview with Slack was after he had interviewed Hanratty. So what Woffinden suggests, that he took Slack's denial and turned it into a confession when he questioned Hanratty, could not be true.

Nick

OK Nick, but here's what Foot says:

According to the police transcript of the interview(s):

Acott: Are you trying to tell me that you tried to get a gun from a man in Ealing? [Fisher/Slack]
Hanratty: Yes. He wouldn't play and never got me one.

Hanratty's version (given at the trial):

We was halfway through (the interview) and Supt Acott put it to me this way: 'Jimmy, I have interviewed a man at Ealing called Fisher [Slack] and he tells me that you had inquired about a gun.' To which Hanratty said he replied, 'This was a very big shock to me. I did not deny it because it was the truth'.

Foot adds: 'When I interviewed Fisher in 1970, he told me that he had explained to Acott that the conversation about the gun was entirely trivial and meaningless; that he had never got a a gun for Hanratty. ...for these reasons, Fisher was not called to give evidence for the prosecution.' Foot adds that if the 'gun conversation' was serious, why was Fisher not called to give evidence?

What I was suggesting initially was that Acott was attempting to make a big issue of the 'gun conversation', but Fisher/Slack wasn't going to play ball with him.

Graham

[NickB]

What Slack told Foot appears to be different to what he actually said in the statement, denying that he had a gun conversation.

I can imagine Kleinman asking his client why on earth he mentioned anything at all about a gun conversation. Just because Hanratty replied that Acott told him Slack said it doesn't make this true. It would have been weak to say: "Well he said he had talked to a friend of mine about a gun conversation and I jumped to the conclusion it was the one with Slack." Hanratty had to come up with a reason (i) why he had mentioned it and (ii) why it was unimportant; neither are necessarily true.

[NickB]

Foot adds that if the 'gun conversation' was serious, why was Fisher not called to give evidence?

If the 'gun conversation' was not serious, why was Fisher not called to give evidence by the defence?

[Graham]

If the 'gun conversation' was not serious, why was Fisher not called to give evidence by the defence?

Not a question that can really be addressed now, Nick. I think it highlights Kleinmann's shortcomings as a defence solicitor. I can only suggest that there was a conversation about a gun between Hanratty and Slack, but precisely what the purpose of that conversation was, and what was said, we can never know. And, of course, why on earth did Hanratty tell Acott about it? Where was Kleinmann?

Graham