Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A6 Rebooted

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • One aspect of the case I find interesting is the timings of Hanrattys claimed journey to Liverpool. I like to think deducing the timings could be evidentially more valuable than reference to any other testimony. At one point Woffinden says the timings alone in Liverpool could be a "watertight alibi".

    3 trains have been suggested, 10:20, 10:35 or 12:15. Miller goes into some detail on p. 47.
    'Hanratty said he caught either the 10:55 or the 11:55 a. m. train from Euston to Liverpool. In fact there were no trains at these times. Originally Hanratty had claimed he had arrived in Liverpool at about 3:30 p. m. Later, during his trial, he changed this to between 4 and 5 p. m. Trying to fit Hanrattys testimony against the actual times of trains to Liverpool the most likely one is the 10:35 a. m. train arriving in Liverpool at 3:25 p. m. Attempting to make sense of Hanrattys alibi Paul Foot concluded that he must in fact have caught an earlier train, remarking it is hard to see how, on his own timings, he could have missed the 10:20 and 10:35 and been forced to wait nearly two hours for the 12:15. (PF, 194). Foot thought that Hanratty must have caught the 10:20 [fast train]. However, Bob Woffinden, trying to make sense of the contradiction in Hanrattys testimony in a different way, breezily assures his readers that Hanratty would probably have arrived at Euston about 10:45 (BW, 121).
    ... if Hanratty caught the 10:35 a. m. train that arrived at 3:25 p. m. he could not possibly have been in the sweetshop on Scotland Road forty minutes later... If Hanratty caught the 10:20 a. m. fast train he could then also have been in the sweetshop a little after 4 p. m. However, Hanrattys defence decided he must have caught the 12:15 p. m. train which arrived in Liverpool at 4:45 p. m. ' (Miller, p. 50-51)

    So we have in summary;
    10:20 (arriving 2:22) Foot, Dinwoodie/Ford?, Razen
    10:35 (arriving 3:25) Miller, Buddle/Moore, Swanwick/Acott
    12:15 (arriving 4:45) Sherrard, Woffinden, Stickler

    It would be interesting to see what Nimmo and Mathews thought.

    Comment


    • Hi djw, we had a discussion in June last year concerning the timing of Hanratty's journey from Euston to Liverpool, see post #6211 (page 415) et seq on this thread.

      The train that left Euston at 10.35 am was the Barrow-in-Furness train which would have meant Hanratty detraining at Crewe at 2.04 pm and waiting there for the 2.17 pm to Liverpool Lime Street, arriving at Lime Street at 3.25 pm. Hanratty never mentioned changing at Crewe, and I think he even commented on the fact that his train was less busy after many of his fellow passengers got off at Crewe.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Spitfire View Post
        Hi djw, we had a discussion in June last year concerning the timing of Hanratty's journey from Euston to Liverpool, see post #6211 (page 415) et seq on this thread.

        The train that left Euston at 10.35 am was the Barrow-in-Furness train which would have meant Hanratty detraining at Crewe at 2.04 pm and waiting there for the 2.17 pm to Liverpool Lime Street, arriving at Lime Street at 3.25 pm. Hanratty never mentioned changing at Crewe, and I think he even commented on the fact that his train was less busy after many of his fellow passengers got off at Crewe.
        I’m not sure of any relevance, but in 1967 I caught a train from Newcastle to Carlisle ,travelling through the night ,and then a Manchester train at around 4 30 am. from Carlisle. At about 6. 30am. or so we pulled into Wigan, and at this station the train was divided , the front 4 coaches travelling on to M/C . and the rear coaches with a new locomotive continued on to Liverpool.
        Since Barrow was not a destination of any great significance,(with all due respect) .could this have been a similar situation at crew in ‘61?
        Or, is there historic data showing a train change was required? Otherwise this would allow for Hanratty not mentioning any train change.

        Comment


        • Ok , delete not a significant destination in last post .Just done a google , apologies to Barrow folk.LOL. Anyhow, my point about train splitting is still valid.
          Last edited by moste; 10-15-2021, 06:46 PM. Reason: iPad acting up.

          Comment


          • It does seem that the 10.35 am train from Euston did split at Lancaster, with one part of the train going to Barrow and the other to Carlisle, but between Crewe and Lancaster it remained in tact.

            If you look at the timetable copied on post #6211 it states at the bottom of the page that "Heavy figures indicate Through Carriages from London" meaning that if the timetable shows a heavy or bold type then you can get a "Through Carriage" to your destination. On the other hand, if the type is light then a change of carriage and train is necessary. It can be seen that the timetable shows the 10.35 am departure from Euston is in light type, as is the arrival time at Lime Street at 3.25 pm.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Spitfire View Post
              It does seem that the 10.35 am train from Euston did split at Lancaster, with one part of the train going to Barrow and the other to Carlisle, but between Crewe and Lancaster it remained in tact.

              If you look at the timetable copied on post #6211 it states at the bottom of the page that "Heavy figures indicate Through Carriages from London" meaning that if the timetable shows a heavy or bold type then you can get a "Through Carriage" to your destination. On the other hand, if the type is light then a change of carriage and train is necessary. It can be seen that the timetable shows the 10.35 am departure from Euston is in light type, as is the arrival time at Lime Street at 3.25 pm.
              Ok , fair enough I guess. So regardless though of any acceptable train he may have taken , whether he visited Mrs Dinwoodie or not, (I’m sure he did, but the cops messed with her head)’ and whether or not he jumped on a coach to Rhyl .Here we are discussing possible train availability. The truth of the matter is ,I believe we can all agree , If Jim had a gold watch and jewelry burning a hole in his pocket, and he was up in the province’s trying to unload them. There is absolutely no way he was squeezing in this journey up north, and getting back to Buckinghamshire by mid evening, to try a new area to reconnoiter for the house breaking he normally engaged in in a completely different area of the map.I think also that we understand by now a little bit of the Hanratty mentality. He wouldn’t be bothering himself with train changes when time wasn’t an issue. He certainly wouldn’t be able to sit still long enough to fulfill the requirements of Stories Story. The guy was like the proverbial ‘Jack in a Box’ to all accounts. The 4 1/2 hour train to Liverpool must have been a drag, but at least there was a restaurant car or buffet.

              Comment


              • If Jim got any train to Liverpool on 22 August 1961 then that would be a clear indication of his innocence.

                As the 10.35 am train did not have "Through Carriages" and as Jim did not say he had to change trains at Crewe or anywhere else, then this train could not have been the one on which he travelled to Liverpool. (Also, Jim said he just missed one train (10.20??) and had to wait a long time for the next one. If the train he missed was the 10.20, then a wait of 15 minutes is not a long time.)

                Comment


                • It’s not my intention to go off topic, but there has been a development in what are known as the Clydach killings, an horrific family murder case in 1999 near Swansea that I assume most of us will know of.

                  The case has a number of similarities with the A6 Case, the main one being that there has remained a lingering doubt over the guilt of the man condemned, who died recently in prison. The police initially focused on another suspect, a serving policeman whose wife was in a relationship with one of the victims. After a year they turned their attention to the man convicted who had no obvious motive for the crime but had a weak alibi which was later altered a bit. He also told a few lies to police in the course of being investigated, even ‘ambushing’ his own defence lawyer close to trial. No one was able to place him at the scene of the crime. There was next to no forensic evidence.

                  The recent result has been similar to the A6 Case. A DNA sample has been retrieved from a glove which, if not totally conclusive, makes it likely the real killer was jailed. There the matter might end, but I doubt that it will. There are other exhibits that have not been tested, disputed expert opinion and a couple of eyewitnesses who seem to have been ignored. One eyewitness came up with a fotofit that looked the spitting image of the policeman initially suspected, although this was never released to the public for some reason. Police evidence has been withheld from the defence.

                  Comment


                  • I just read an article of the Clydach killings , with a summary of the case in the magazine Murder most foul . Absolutely incredible story,
                    talk about. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

                    Comment


                    • I was struck with some of the similarities between the two cases. Back in 1961 it seemed odd that no worthwhile forensic evidence could be retrieved from the car which was where the murder and sexual assault took place. That is even truer in 1999 with this Clydach case since you would expect DNA evidence against the accused to be retrievable from a house where there was a triple murder.

                      And Moste, as someone who has queried whether there was a political element to the A6 Case, you might be intrigued that some of the evidence withheld from the defence in the Clydach Case is under a regulation normally reserved for state security.

                      I did spend some time a few years ago trying to find a political link to the A6 Case. I thought of the Berlin Wall (being built at the time of the crime) and possibly Alphon’s father rubber stamping visas for known former Nazis who had been helpful to the UK subsequently. William Ewer’s war time activity remains a closed book. The Cliveden Set of Keeler and Profumo did cavort nearby the murder scene. And road systems and tyres and braking systems were all big money back in 1961, the type of situation where a research scientist might be bribed to alter test results. Or bumped off if he didn’t, as is alleged in the ‘Marconi Murders.’ Sorry to say I never turned up anything worthwhile.

                      Comment


                      • Interesting cobalt, that you spent time checking for a political link with the A6. I thought I was out on a limb, being highly suspicious of the excruciatingly close proximity of the corn field. ,and the Old Station Inn, with the regular and presumably very familiar route, through Taplow, traversed by the likes of Stephen Ward, John Profumo, and their girls. Not to mention Stories lovely memories of her and Michaels enjoyable strolls along the banks of the Thames, watching the barges as they negotiated the locks . I can’t help but wonder, did they meander along the tow path as far as the Spring Cottage (the lent gift from the Astors to Ward) a summer retreat for high Jinx and frivolities , and witnessed what may have been. I put this theory forward as possible, and less fantastic than the farce put out by the prosecution.
                        Political or otherwise, No one jumped into Gregsten car at dusk, have him drive all round Gods creation, before stopping in Bedfordshire and shooting him dead twice by accident, with all the rest of the nonsense patched together to make the story work as best as possible.
                        Gregsten was premeditatedly targeted. Of this I am certain.
                        .

                        Comment


                        • Click image for larger version

Name:	A0F46B2B-D1D8-4BC4-A970-343F3EFA4465.jpeg
Views:	78
Size:	182.0 KB
ID:	771618


                          How the Daily Herald viewed Hanratty on 19th February 1962. A psychopathic, sex-obsessed, vain dandy with expensive tastes.

                          Comment


                          • Once you get past the opening paragraphs this is a reasonably fair, factual summary of Hanratty's short life.

                            Comment


                            • The Daily Herald is, alas, no more having been eventually subsumed into The Sun newspaper. One of its founding members just before WW1 was a W.N. Ewer from North London who later became part of the Communist Party of Great Britain and was harassed by MI5. He was lucky not be charged in respect of treason on one occasion. In later years he was supported financially by presumably MI5 to write anti-soviet articles for the paper.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by cobalt View Post
                                The Daily Herald is, alas, no more having been eventually subsumed into The Sun newspaper. One of its founding members just before WW1 was a W.N. Ewer from North London who later became part of the Communist Party of Great Britain and was harassed by MI5. He was lucky not be charged in respect of treason on one occasion. In later years he was supported financially by presumably MI5 to write anti-soviet articles for the paper.
                                Maybe related to the umbrella Ewer?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X