A6 Rebooted

[NickB]

Wasn't it the crime correspondent of the Daily Herald who, according to Foot, was the first to interview Dinwoodie? He claimed she said the visit was on Tuesday in that interview, which would be interesting to see.

[cobalt]

Maybe related to the umbrella Ewer?

Well, W.N. Ewer was born in 1895 so he would be around the right age to be a father or uncle. His name was William Ewer which is the same name as man we know from the A6 Case. And he was originally from North London area. That’s all I know. I’m not sure how common the name Ewer is in London area: in Scotland we tend to spell it ‘Ure’ and it’s not a particularly common name up here.

W.N. Ewer certainly led an interesting life and in terms of his relationship with MI5 he seems to have been a poacher turned gamekeeper. He was still contributing articles to the Daily Herald at the time of the A6 Case so would have been privy to journalistic gossip.

[moste]

Wasn't it the crime correspondent of the Daily Herald who, according to Foot, was the first to interview Dinwoodie? He claimed she said the visit was on Tuesday in that interview, which would be interesting to see.

With questions like this, we would really need to have access to the particular Daily Herald issue from back then. I think we have guys on this thread who pay for the access privilege , I suppose even then it would be hard to find. because its hard to know when the article was published.
If that could be found and given credence, obviously it would be pivotal to Hanrattys innocence.

[ansonman]

Foot, P197:

"There is some independent evidence to suggest that in those early days Mrs Dinwoodie was in grave doubt as to the date of the incident. Mr Don Smith, one of Liverpool's most experienced crime reporters, who was working at that time for the Daily Herald, heard from a police contact that the Liverpool CID had found a lady who appeared to substantiate Hanratty's alibi. At once, Smith went to interview Mrs Dinwoodie at her home. He believes he was the first journalist ever to speak to her. "She told me", he says, "that she was, at first, fairly sure that the man had come into the shop on the Tuesday, the day of the murder; but that now so many people had been asking so many questions, she wasn't so sure". (Interview with me, April 7th, 1970)."

[moste]

And then further down page 197, Foot goes on to explain ‘The Liverpool CID inquiries into the sweet - shop incident lasted for a week when hardly a day went buy without police visits at Mrs.Dinwoodies house , the shop owners , and the young girls homes. I think foot is inferring that the police were messing with the minds of these people especially the old lady. How difficult is it to take a statement from a person which involves a brief meeting with a stranger which lasted only a few minutes? I can only think that Mrs. Dinwoodie was being badgered in order to confuse and confound her into being unsure about the timing of Hanratty’s visit. The wicked scoundrels!
The following page reveals Sherrards disgust at Acotts reluctance to share his knowledge of the events with the defence.
’Sherrard’ : when we’re you proposing to be good enough to tell us , who are defending this man for his life, the result of these police enquiries.’ Clearly as far as the police were concerned , this guy was going to have to hang at all costs.

[NickB]

I can only think that Mrs. Dinwoodie was being badgered in order to confuse and confound her into being unsure about the timing of Hanrattys visit.

This is what Foot is implying, but it does not make sense because the police already had her statement saying that it happened on Monday so there was no need to keep badgering her.

I was hoping Spitfire could find Don Smith's article so we could see what he actually reported at the time, rather than what Foot reports him as recalling 9 years later. Why did Foot rely upon these recollections and not quote from the article itself?

When Kleinman interviewed Mrs Dinwoodie she showed that she would not be intimidated on the question of which day it occured.

[ansonman]

I cannot disagree with that.

I did a search of the Daily Herald for 1961 from the British Newspaper Archive. The're all there but I could not find anything relating to the press interview with Mrs. Dinwoodie. I am not a subscriber and I don't have the time to go though all the papers even if I was.

On 14th October the headline was "A6 Murder Drama - Man will be charged today".

Interestingly, Foot says on P99:

"The party arrived soon after midday. At 4.45p.m. that day (October 13th), Hanratty stood in an identification parade before four witnesses. Mr John Skillet, who was driving down Eastern Avenue at the same time as the murder car, picked out Hanratty as the man in the car. Mr Edward Blackhall, who accompanied Skillet in the car, picked out someone else. Mr. Hirons, the eighty-year-old garage attendant who had filled the murder car with petrol, picked out someone else. Mr. Trower, the man who had been standing in Redbridge Lane on the morning after the murder, picked out Hanratty as the driver of the Morris which had flashed past him. The murder charge at Blackpool was not announced to the press, despite these identifications. Yet there was no denying Mr. Acott's confidence that he had his man in his grasp".

P100:

"A6 MURDER CHARGE IN 24 HOURS" screamed the Daily Mirror, the next day (October 14th)."

"This was all very surprising. The suspect had still to be identified by the only witness to the crime - Valerie Storie".

"Why, then, were the press so confident that Hanratty would be charged?. If Miss Storie failed to identify Hanratty, the case against him would be derisory. How were the Murder Squad so certain on that Friday 13th that their chief witness would not let them down again?"

As you say Moste, "This guy was going to hang at all costs".

[ansonman]

My comment was in response to Moste's and not NickB

[moste]

This is what Foot is implying, but it does not make sense because the police already had her statement saying that it happened on Monday so there was no need to keep badgering her.

I was hoping Spitfire could find Don Smith's article so we could see what he actually reported at the time, rather than what Foot reports him as recalling 9 years later. Why did Foot rely upon these recollections and not quote from the article itself?

When Kleinman interviewed Mrs Dinwoodie she showed that she would not be intimidated on the question of which day it occured.

So what your implying Nick is that Foot is misreporting the weight of the police activity in Liverpool

[OneRound]

This is what Foot is implying, but it does not make sense because the police already had her statement saying that it happened on Monday so there was no need to keep badgering her.

I was hoping Spitfire could find Don Smith's article so we could see what he actually reported at the time, rather than what Foot reports him as recalling 9 years later. Why did Foot rely upon these recollections and not quote from the article itself?

When Kleinman interviewed Mrs Dinwoodie she showed that she would not be intimidated on the question of which day it occured.

Hi all,

I may be wrong but ...

... whilst Don Smith was certainly entitled to interview Mrs Dinwoodie and understandably attempt to get a better understanding of what had gone on and when, I think he would have been significantly restricted in what he could report at the time (i.e. pre trial).

As for Mrs Dinwoodie sticking to her (eventual) guns when interviewed by Kleinman, well ... was that her truly remembering or perhaps being influenced by what the police might have said during their visits about not changing her mind?

Best regards,
OneRound

[Spitfire]

The Daily Herald from 6th December 1961. It will be noticed that there is no byline attributing this piece to any particular journalist. It will also be noticed that Sherratt absolves Acott from deliberately withholding Mrs D's name from the Defence.










The second of the reports relates to the trial of Hanratty. Other than in these two reports there is no mention in the Daily Herald of Mrs Dinwoodie's involvement in the Hanratty case.

I cannot find any report or article attributed to "Don Smith", at the time the chief crime/court reporter for the Daily Herald was Don Cassell. Has Foot confused the names?

[Spitfire]

As to Mrs Dinwoodie fixing the date, it seems that Barbara Ford, Mrs D's granddaughter, was involved in trying to solve the request for directions. Barbara Ford assisted Mrs D on Monday 21 August but not on the following day. However Barbara did visit the shop on the Tuesday 22 August with her friend Linda Walton. As far as I can ascertain Linda never heard or saw anyone ask for directions when she was in the shop with Mrs D.

[moste]

Hi all,

I may be wrong but ...

... whilst Don Smith was certainly entitled to interview Mrs Dinwoodie and understandably attempt to get a better understanding of what had gone on and when, I think he would have been significantly restricted in what he could report at the time (i.e. pre trial).

As for Mrs Dinwoodie sticking to her (eventual) guns when interviewed by Kleinman, well ... was that her truly remembering or perhaps being influenced by what the police might have said during their visits about not changing her mind?

Best regards,
OneRound

Yes, one of the deal breakers for me is Hanratty remembering an elderly lady serving , and a little girl also involved. If , as is the case Hanratty knows, and can prove he was in London on the Monday , and Mr Foot most emphatically insisted , it had to be the Tuesday. For me that had to instill in the jury ‘ Reasonable doubt, it did not, and the judge had to explain as we may recall what in fact reasonable doubt is . For the love of Pete , if Gorman had any conscience and insight he would have immediately closed up shop ,and called for a new trial.( this time with 12 jurors,Mr Sherrard! ). or even fairer, right from the get go, Just as the appeal judges had done in the Wallace case 30 years before , squashed the whole proceedings with the decision, ‘No case to answer’ Gorman will have remembered that case because I believe he was a member of the prosecution.

[moste]

Sorry for the weird additional letters in my posts, My IPad like myself is getting a bit long in the tooth,Lol.

[OneRound]

Yes, one of the deal breakers for me is Hanratty remembering an elderly lady serving , and a little girl also involved. If , as is the case Hanratty knows, and can prove he was in London on the Monday , and Mr Foot most emphatically insisted , it had to be the Tuesday. For me that had to instill in the jury â Reasonable doubt, it did not, and the judge had to explain as we may recall what in fact reasonable doubt is . For the love of Pete , if Gorman had any conscience and insight he would have immediately closed up shop ,and called for a new trial.( this time with 12 jurors,Mr Sherrard! ). or even fairer, right from the get go, Just as the appeal judges had done in the Wallace case 30 years before , squashed the whole proceedings with the decision, âNo case to answerâ Gorman will have remembered that case because I believe he was a member of the prosecution.

Hi moste,

I'm genuinely not sure about that. He was though definitely the prosecuting counsel in the Cameo Murders case where George Kelly was hanged and Charlie Connolly was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment largely in part due to the lies and non-disclosures (as subsequently determined by the Court of Appeal) of your old bete noire Bert Balmer.

Best regards,
OneRound