A6 Rebooted

[cobalt]

Hawser is certainly excellent at confirming his view that Mrs. Lanz is not a reliable witness.

1. He mentions three statements made by Mrs. Lanz to the police. He provides dates for statement 1 and statement 3: 24^th August 1961 and 27^th March 1962. The other one? He does not seem to think the date matters much for some reason although we can assume it was soon after Hanratty’s verdict.

2. He quotes from statement 1 to give us the full impact of her words. In statement 1 there is little to place Alphon at the Station Inn save her description of ‘strangers.’ Rather than give us this description verbatim, Hawser has decided to pass his own judgment on the matter. As to why Mrs. Lanz was not given the opportunity to identify Alphon officially, Hawser decides it best not to comment.

3. Statement 3 is also quoted verbatim in places and is interesting in that it does confirm Mrs. Lanz’s earlier comment about Alphon being an occasional patron of the Station Inn. Except that after confirming this, she then slightly retracts her conviction it was him. At no point does Hawser pause to consider the internal contradiction of this statement.

4. As for Alphon’s propensity for popping up in Taplow this is reduced to the enigmatic comment: The statement refers to other visits to her public house and does not carry the matter any further. Other visits made by Alphon presumably, but Hawser does not want to mention him by name at this point. But this surely contradicts her earlier ambiguity about Alphon. Once again without offering any evidence to support his judgement Hawser merely closes the topic down.

5. These alarm bells ringing within statement 3 are of no concern to Hawser. In fact for him statement 3 is proof positive that Mrs. Lanz cannot place Alphon in the Station In around the time of the crime.It is clear that in March 1962 Mrs. Lanz had no idea when Mr. Alphon had previously been there. A slight slip by Hawser that he probably regretted . He apparently concedes in this final flourish that Alphon had, on some previous occasions, been in the Station Inn.

4. There remains the problem of the earlier, undated statement 2 in which Mrs. Lanz can place Alphon as a customer very close to the time of the murder. Hawser does not see fit to produce one single verbatim extract from this statement and actually links her statement as appearing in a newspaper. Small tricks that lawyers learn to weaken information that is unhelpful to their case. Rather like Nudds, Mrs Lang is credible in statements 1 and 3 but unreliable in statement 2.

At least Nudds gave a reason for his contradictory statements. Hawser seems uninterested in exploring the reasons for this regarding Mrs. Lanz. There are several possibilities. Mrs. Lanz may have been unduly influenced by Fox; she may have had strong feelings against the death penalty; perhaps she felt contesting the verdict would have been hurtful to Valerie Storie; or perhaps her third statement was coerced by a police force keen to draw a line under the A6 Case for it was made on 27^th March 1962- one week before the execution of James Hanratty. After the execution Mrs. Lanz seems to have gone back to her statement 2. Did Mr. Hawser, in his excellent report, ever speak to Mrs. Lanz to clear the matter up?

[moste]

Hawser is certainly excellent at confirming his view that Mrs. Lanz is not a reliable witness.

1. He mentions three statements made by Mrs. Lanz to the police. He provides dates for statement 1 and statement 3: 24^th August 1961 and 27^th March 1962. The other one? He does not seem to think the date matters much for some reason although we can assume it was soon after Hanratty’s verdict.

2. He quotes from statement 1 to give us the full impact of her words. In statement 1 there is little to place Alphon at the Station Inn save her description of ‘strangers.’ Rather than give us this description verbatim, Hawser has decided to pass his own judgment on the matter. As to why Mrs. Lanz was not given the opportunity to identify Alphon officially, Hawser decides it best not to comment.

3. Statement 3 is also quoted verbatim in places and is interesting in that it does confirm Mrs. Lanz’s earlier comment about Alphon being an occasional patron of the Station Inn. Except that after confirming this, she then slightly retracts her conviction it was him. At no point does Hawser pause to consider the internal contradiction of this statement.

4. As for Alphon’s propensity for popping up in Taplow this is reduced to the enigmatic comment: The statement refers to other visits to her public house and does not carry the matter any further. Other visits made by Alphon presumably, but Hawser does not want to mention him by name at this point. But this surely contradicts her earlier ambiguity about Alphon. Once again without offering any evidence to support his judgement Hawser merely closes the topic down.

5. These alarm bells ringing within statement 3 are of no concern to Hawser. In fact for him statement 3 is proof positive that Mrs. Lanz cannot place Alphon in the Station In around the time of the crime.It is clear that in March 1962 Mrs. Lanz had no idea when Mr. Alphon had previously been there. A slight slip by Hawser that he probably regretted . He apparently concedes in this final flourish that Alphon had, on some previous occasions, been in the Station Inn.

4. There remains the problem of the earlier, undated statement 2 in which Mrs. Lanz can place Alphon as a customer very close to the time of the murder. Hawser does not see fit to produce one single verbatim extract from this statement and actually links her statement as appearing in a newspaper. Small tricks that lawyers learn to weaken information that is unhelpful to their case. Rather like Nudds, Mrs Lang is credible in statements 1 and 3 but unreliable in statement 2.

At least Nudds gave a reason for his contradictory statements. Hawser seems uninterested in exploring the reasons for this regarding Mrs. Lanz. There are several possibilities. Mrs. Lanz may have been unduly influenced by Fox; she may have had strong feelings against the death penalty; perhaps she felt contesting the verdict would have been hurtful to Valerie Storie; or perhaps her third statement was coerced by a police force keen to draw a line under the A6 Case for it was made on 27^th March 1962- one week before the execution of James Hanratty. After the execution Mrs. Lanz seems to have gone back to her statement 2. Did Mr. Hawser, in his excellent report, ever speak to Mrs. Lanz to clear the matter up?

Brilliant post!

[moste]

I can’t believe people continue to quote Hawser . Clearly he was extremely biased.

[Graham]

Michael Sherrard once observed that there were certain persons 'trying to get in on the act' with regard to the A6 Case. I rather suspect this can be applied to Mrs Lanz. I ought also to refer to Foot (P 314) in which he has Alphon telling Justice and Fox on the evening of their visit to the Old Station Inn and the general area, that the pub was not the pub which Gregsten and Valerie had visited on the evening of the crime. Foot does not develop this.

It seems to me that if Acott & Co saw in Mrs Lanz a reliable witness, then surely they would have called her in for an ID parade in which Alphon took part. As far as I'm aware, this didn't happen. And as for Alphon being seen in the Station Inn prior to the murder, then maybe he had popped in there for a drink prior to August 22 1961 - he was a free man and it's a free country.

By the way, it was Justice and not Fox who had a 'quiet word' with Mrs Lanz at the time of their visit. And whilst on the subject of that visit to Taplow by Justice, Fox and Alphon, Fox later recalled that as their car (which he was driving) passed a certain spot in Marsh Lane, someone yelled "Stop!" Which he did, but stated later that he never knew if it was Alphon or Justice who shouted. And Justice, to show what a stable well-balanced chap he was, went ape and ran to a nearby cottage where he woke up the occupiers and began gabbling to them. Maybe there was method in his madness.

I visited the area twice over the years, the first time in/around 1995 on a stinking hot day (as I've mentioned before) when I walked down to the cornfield. By then, the Old Station Inn was no more. Parking was not at all easy. I don't know what the area was like in 1961, but certainly it was very busy that day, with a high volume of traffic along the A4 Bath Road. In fairness, The Old Station Inn was located well back from the main road, so perhaps it was more a pub for 'locals' than passing trade. Woffo also says it was once used as a location-setting for an Agatha Christie film, which probably gives us an idea of what the place was like.

Graham

[Spitfire]

I can’t believe people continue to quote Hawser . Clearly he was extremely biased.

You might disagree with Hawser's conclusions but if you had read his report you would know that Mrs Lanz did make a statement to the Police shortly after the murder.

No police statement from Mrs. Lanz? Well the thundering question should be why not? Why on earth not? Her pub was the last place the victims were seen before being shot. And there is no statement. Does this not strike even a thumbsucker as odd? Are we awake on this crime?

[cobalt]

I am very happy to be corrected on my understanding of Mrs. Lanz and her statements. Perhaps they are mentioned in standard books commenting on the A6 murder, but as someone who has followed this site for a good few years I was completely unaware of statements 2 and 3. Naturally, I would very much like to see transcripts of all three of her statements which I presume Matthews did.

Hawser’s lack of curiosity regarding the contradictions in Mrs. Lanz’s statements is odd for a man leading an enquiry, as I assume Mrs. Lanz was available to clarify matters at the time.

I cannot accept Graham’s reasoning regarding Acott not considering Mrs. Lanz a reliable witness. Maybe that is why he messed the case up. On the basis of her first statement he could have tested her credibility at an ID parade. By the time Mrs. Lanz had made her second statement, the one that alludes directly to Alphon, there would have been the difficulty of Alphon’s photograph appearing in national newspapers so any ID she might have made would have to be seen in that context.

[OneRound]

Hi folks,

Regardless of whether you agree with Hawser's conclusion or not, I am surprised anyone would consider his report to be ''excellent''. It was vitally important that Hawser convincingly explain and justify his finding. The resultant and continued public disquiet make it self-evident that the report failed badly on that score.

Best regards,
OneRound

[Alfie]

Regardless of whether you agree with Hawser's conclusion or not, I am surprised anyone would consider his report to be ''excellent''. It was vitally important that Hawser convincingly explain and justify his finding. The resultant and continued public disquiet make it self-evident that the report failed badly on that score.

I think you'll find the "continued public disquiet" barely exists outside of a handful of posters on this forum. The DNA evidence and the 2002 Court of Appeal finding put the final nail in that coffin.

[OneRound]

I think you'll find the "continued public disquiet" barely exists outside of a handful of posters on this forum. The DNA evidence and the 2002 Court of Appeal finding put the final nail in that coffin.

Alfie - I deliberately stated ''continued public disquiet'' (rather than ''continuing''). That was intended to allow for the concerns of many - rightly or wrongly - having finally been put to rest by the Court of Appeal's finding in 2002. Whatever way you look at it though, Hawser's report in 1975 had done nothing to end public disquiet. Hence, my surprise that anyone should consider it ''excellent''.

Regards,
OneRound

[Graham]

It's always slightly surprised me that the A6 Case has but rarely featured in any of TV's 'true crime' documentaries. At least, not for years. In particular, I would have thought that the Case would be a natural for 'Murder, Mystery and My Family'. It was a pretty sensational case at the time, but little doubt that the vast majority of the general public did not feel that the wrong man had been hanged. It was mooted that a fresh appeal was going to be launched in 2011 or thereabouts, but nothing happened, I suspect because no fresh evidence to support Hanratty's case was available.

Graham

[Alfie]

Morning of Tuesday Sept 26 Acott and Oxford visited George Pratt in Wood Lane, Kingsbury, and in the afternoon, seemingly having made the Ryan-Hanratty connection, called on Mr and Mrs Hanratty in Sycamore Grove to ask if they knew anything about son Jim running cars to Ireland. Nick, following Forsdyke, surmises that the Ryan-Hanratty connection may have been made when the Hanrattys gave the police the postcard Jim mailed to them on Sept 7. But the accounts of Acott's visit make no mention of a postcard, and Woffinden says (p. 101) that the Hanrattys were unable to help Acott, "not having heard from him [Jim] since early July."

To me, this leaves the damaged rental car that Jim abandoned - which I'm guessing was the subject of the letter from the rental car company that Pratt handed over - as the most likely means for Acott making the Ryan-Hanratty connection. The "Dixie took a postcard to the police" connection I discount for two reasons: (a) Acott seems not to have known who Dixie was when he asked the Hanrattys if they knew the name (Mary H thought he was asking about one of Jim's girlfriends); and (b) why would Acott and Oxford dash off to Ireland when Dixie knew that Jim was back in London?

The snag is that Oxford and Acott both insisted that the connection was made the day before, on Sept 25. Acott's solicitor, writing to Hawser in 1974, said "The first time that Mr Acott heard of the name 'Hanratty' was at 6.00 pm on 25 September when, in consequence of the extraordinary memory of Gerrard Leonard, he learned from Dublin police that Mr Leonard had shared a room with James Ryan at Flynn's Hotel, Cork ..."

That the Dublin police gave Acott the lead fits with my rental car theory - the rental car company would have gone to the police when their efforts to trace James Ryan failed. But quite what prompted the contact between Acott and the Dublin police at 6.00 pm on Sept 25 I can't say. Would Acott have circulated the J Ryan, 72 Boundary Road, Kingsbury clue to police stations as far afield as Ireland?

[Alfie]

That last sentence should have read 72 Wood Lane, not Boundary Road.

[NickB]

Woffinden says (p. 101) that the Hanrattys were unable to help Acott, "not having heard from him [Jim] since early July."

Clearly untrue. The parents had received flowers (gladioli in August, roses at the beginning of September) and at least one postcard from Ireland. I seem to recall Louise said she received four.

[Alfie]

Reading further, I see that Acott during the telephone conversation he had with Jim on Oct 6 did confirm that he saw the postcard at the Hanrattys: "By the way Jimmy, when I saw your parents the other day your mother told me you had sent her some flowers and she was very pleased and wanted me to thank you for them if I should see you. She also showed me a card you had sent her from Ireland and she was very pleased with that."

If by "the other day", Acott is referring to the Sept 26 visit to Sycamore Grove, then that would have confirmed the reliability of Leonard's memory. But it still leaves moot the question of how Acott and Oxford came to hear about the Ryan-Hanratty connection on Sept 25. The Nick/Forsdyke thesis remains a possibility, but so, I believe, does the Dublin police/hire car firm theory.

[Alfie]

Posts crossed, Nick. Yes, chalk up another in the lengthy list of (deliberate?) mistakes by Woffinden.

Thinking more about Mr Pratt at Wood Lane, it seems highly likely to me that Acott and Oxford's visit to him on Sept 26 was the first by the police. Because if police following up the Wood Lane address in the Vienna's register had visited him earlier looking for a J Ryan, surely he would have contacted them when he later received mail addressed to that person.

If correct, this to me is one of the blackest marks against Acott's inquiry - that it was 15 days after the cartridge cases were discovered in Ryan's room that they bothered to check on the address he'd registered under.