A6 Rebooted

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is very remiss of Stickier for not mentioning Usher's hand.

On p191 of his book Paul Foot clarifies the matter about the withered hand or arm.....

Thanks SH, I’ll have a look in Foot’s book when I get chance as I don’t have it with me at the moment. My Stickler book is the Kindle version.

[NickB]

Yeah it's William Usher - withered hand; Peter Stringer - false arm.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yeah it's William Usher - withered hand; Peter Stringer - false arm.

What’s weird about the Stickler book is that when I searched ‘Usher’ I only got 2 responses.

‘It is almost certain that at some time he deposited his suitcase with William Usher at the left luggage office at Lime Street station, but neither occurred on Tuesday, 22 August.’

and

‘It could have been on this occasion that he spoke to Kempt and Usher.’

So if these are the only two mentions that means he doesn’t mention Usher’s withered hand or even give him any introduction. He just drops his name into the story twice and moves on.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What’s weird about the Stickler book is that when I searched ‘Usher’ I only got 2 responses.

‘It is almost certain that at some time he deposited his suitcase with William Usher at the left luggage office at Lime Street station, but neither occurred on Tuesday, 22 August.’

and

‘It could have been on this occasion that he spoke to Kempt and Usher.’

So if these are the only two mentions that means he doesn’t mention Usher’s withered hand or even give him any introduction. He just drops his name into the story twice and moves on.

I’ve just come to this:

“He now claimed that he had never mentioned the word ‘arm’ – his solicitor must have written it down incorrectly – but instead he had said ‘hand’.”

No mention of Usher though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well I just finished the Stickler book and I’ve been thinking about how I view the case in general. It’s certainly an intriguing one - but was Hanratty guilty? I certainly couldn’t come down on either side with absolute confidence but I’d have to swing the balance in favour of guilty. There’s no point on me giving the arguments for guilt because you all know them far better than I do. But…for me there is definitely room for doubt. Plenty that is unanswered. Maybe if I read the other new book my opinion might skew in the other direction and I wouldn’t bet any money on my getting the verdict correct. As a comparison, I can’t be sure that my opinion on the Wallace case is correct but I’m far more confident of Wallace’s guilt than I am of Hanratty’s.

[Sherlock Houses]

As a comparison, I can’t be sure that my opinion on the Wallace case is correct but I’m far more confident of Wallace’s guilt than I am of Hanratty’s.

Similarly to you HS re. the Wallace case I can't be 100 % sure that my strong belief in Hanratty's innocence is correct. The Wallace case intrigues me and although I have read a few books about it over the years I know next to nothing compared to the vast majority who post on the Wallace threads. For what it may be worth I tend to sway towards Wallace's innocence. Curiously enough for the last year or more I happen to spend most Tuesday afternoons at my friend Steve's, we are both passionate about music. Steve lives in Menlove Gardens West.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Similarly to you HS re. the Wallace case I can't be 100 % sure that my strong belief in Hanratty's innocence is correct. The Wallace case intrigues me and although I have read a few books about it over the years I know next to nothing compared to the vast majority who post on the Wallace threads. For what it may be worth I tend to sway towards Wallace's innocence. Curiously enough for the last year or more I happen to spend most Tuesday afternoons at my friend Steve's, we are both passionate about music. Steve lives in Menlove Gardens West.

On a Tuesday too. I’m glad that you didn’t say that he lived at Menlove Gardens East SH I think it’s fair to say that most favour Wallace’s innocence and he might have been. I strongly favour his guilt but perhaps I’ve been guilty of being a little over-confident in past debates, especially as we had one poster who you could have left in a room with The Pope, The Dalai Lama and Gandhi and after less than 5 minutes they’d have had him on the floor kicking the life out of him. The wind-up merchant of the century. It’s difficult to stay balanced when faced with someone like that.

I don’t know what the split is on here in terms of who goes for guilt and who goes for innocent? I believe that Caz goes for guilty for example (she and I are both go favour a guilty Wallace) The A6 is a fascinating case though SH. I’m going away for a few days on Monday, when I get back I’m thinking of getting the Harriman book although I’m slightly wary of the science-heavy side of it.

[cobalt]

HS,

Having doubts is not really a problem, even in cases which are uncontested. My wife used to lift fingerprints for the police back in the day and she told me that even once when a person was bang to rights for a local murder, the detectives still could not nail down all the details of how he entered the house and when and how he disposed of the weapon, which was never found. Which is my way of saying that even if the police in 1961 could not nail down all the details of the A6 murder I concede that this in no way means James Hanratty was innocent.

However I think there are great holes in the prosecution narrative that have never been filled in over the years. I will focus on one small area: the time between Hanratty leaving the Vienna Hotel sometime before noon and arriving in a cornfield in Taplow some time after 9pm. He had a prized new revolver that had been fired at least twice- we don't know by whom. If it was by Hanratty then there is no record of when and where he took his practice shots. No one seems interested much in this detail, although the finding of the same weapon under a bus seat is considered a highlight of the case. JH broke the gun in his basement room. Yet he was extraordinarily careless when reloading the weapon since two cartridge shells fell out, unnoticed by him, and were later found tucked inside a chair. Maybe JH was a careless person. His fingerprints were often found after his burglaries and his driving was less than gentleman of the road type. But to be so careless with a new toy- it seems remarkable he did not notice his error.

What is also remarkable is that once apprehended JH did not deny being in the basement room of the Vienna. Hanratty was no great reader of newspapers it seems but if guilty, he could not have been unaware of the predicament of Peter Alphon and the link to the cartridges in the Vienna Hotel. Why not swear point blank he had never been in the basement and claim any paperwork was erroneous? Via the criminal grapevine he must have been aware that he could use Alphon as a 'patsy.' Yet this murderer/rapist decides to do the decent thing in the knowledge that it places him nearer to the gallows.

Hanratty then sets out from the Vienna Hotel to pursue his criminal activities but in what fashion? He is a burglar, a man who slips in and out of houses and cars and such a man travels light. A suit is an unusual uniform I should think but in a posh area maybe a smart move. So he heads off to Taplow, perhaps an area a criminal acquaintance has alerted him to, to size up some likely properties. So far so good. Except we are told he went there, initially carrying a bag and a portable radio, to commit armed robbery. There are late night cafes, bars, petrol stations all over North London, but JH decides to go to a small town to hold up a property that cannot really exist. The prosecution were riding two horses here and Sherrard should have made more of this: when Hanratty went to Taplow did he go as a burglar or an armed robber? A simple 'either - or' shall suffice.

And how did Hanratty arrive in Taplow? By train it is suggested, yet there is no witness to him ever arriving there either by fellow passengers or by platform staff. He then had to walk some quiet roads and again he remains unseen, despite walking around in a suit carrying a bag. Exactly when he arrived in Taplow has never been sketched in. A man needs water, food and a place to urinate over 9 hours so he cannot easily remain invisible, yet JH managed to do all three unnoticed. There are 9 missing hours in this narrative that some try to fill by Hanratty breaking his journey to meet a criminal acquaintance. But that only raises the possibility of his being seen at railway stations. Others have him sleeping rough in the afternoon for reasons unexplained but that was not the impression Valerie Storie had of her attacker.

And whether intent on burglary or robbery, how did Hanratty intend to leave Taplow? Train seems unlikely if he was carrying swag and maybe he was running short of time to catch a train back to London anyway. As a car thief he might have relied on his criminal skills, but then why was he seeking out a car in a cornfield? And if indeed he did strike lucky, why on earth did he not simply order the couple out of the car at gunpoint and head back to the Big Smoke?

The prosecution is not obliged to 'dot the i's' and 'cross the t's' as I concede, but there are large improbable gaps in the narrative presented.

[Herlock Sholmes]

HS,

Having doubts is not really a problem, even in cases which are uncontested. My wife used to lift fingerprints for the police back in the day and she told me that even once when a person was bang to rights for a local murder, the detectives still could not nail down all the details of how he entered the house and when and how he disposed of the weapon, which was never found. Which is my way of saying that even if the police in 1961 could not nail down all the details of the A6 murder I concede that this in no way means James Hanratty was innocent.

However I think there are great holes in the prosecution narrative that have never been filled in over the years. I will focus on one small area: the time between Hanratty leaving the Vienna Hotel sometime before noon and arriving in a cornfield in Taplow some time after 9pm. He had a prized new revolver that had been fired at least twice- we don't know by whom. If it was by Hanratty then there is no record of when and where he took his practice shots. No one seems interested much in this detail, although the finding of the same weapon under a bus seat is considered a highlight of the case. JH broke the gun in his basement room. Yet he was extraordinarily careless when reloading the weapon since two cartridge shells fell out, unnoticed by him, and were later found tucked inside a chair. Maybe JH was a careless person. His fingerprints were often found after his burglaries and his driving was less than gentleman of the road type. But to be so careless with a new toy- it seems remarkable he did not notice his error.

What is also remarkable is that once apprehended JH did not deny being in the basement room of the Vienna. Hanratty was no great reader of newspapers it seems but if guilty, he could not have been unaware of the predicament of Peter Alphon and the link to the cartridges in the Vienna Hotel. Why not swear point blank he had never been in the basement and claim any paperwork was erroneous? Via the criminal grapevine he must have been aware that he could use Alphon as a 'patsy.' Yet this murderer/rapist decides to do the decent thing in the knowledge that it places him nearer to the gallows.

Hanratty then sets out from the Vienna Hotel to pursue his criminal activities but in what fashion? He is a burglar, a man who slips in and out of houses and cars and such a man travels light. A suit is an unusual uniform I should think but in a posh area maybe a smart move. So he heads off to Taplow, perhaps an area a criminal acquaintance has alerted him to, to size up some likely properties. So far so good. Except we are told he went there, initially carrying a bag and a portable radio, to commit armed robbery. There are late night cafes, bars, petrol stations all over North London, but JH decides to go to a small town to hold up a property that cannot really exist. The prosecution were riding two horses here and Sherrard should have made more of this: when Hanratty went to Taplow did he go as a burglar or an armed robber? A simple 'either - or' shall suffice.

And how did Hanratty arrive in Taplow? By train it is suggested, yet there is no witness to him ever arriving there either by fellow passengers or by platform staff. He then had to walk some quiet roads and again he remains unseen, despite walking around in a suit carrying a bag. Exactly when he arrived in Taplow has never been sketched in. A man needs water, food and a place to urinate over 9 hours so he cannot easily remain invisible, yet JH managed to do all three unnoticed. There are 9 missing hours in this narrative that some try to fill by Hanratty breaking his journey to meet a criminal acquaintance. But that only raises the possibility of his being seen at railway stations. Others have him sleeping rough in the afternoon for reasons unexplained but that was not the impression Valerie Storie had of her attacker.

And whether intent on burglary or robbery, how did Hanratty intend to leave Taplow? Train seems unlikely if he was carrying swag and maybe he was running short of time to catch a train back to London anyway. As a car thief he might have relied on his criminal skills, but then why was he seeking out a car in a cornfield? And if indeed he did strike lucky, why on earth did he not simply order the couple out of the car at gunpoint and head back to the Big Smoke?

The prosecution is not obliged to 'dot the i's' and 'cross the t's' as I concede, but there are large improbable gaps in the narrative presented.

Good points Cobalt.

A lot of unanswered and unanswerable questions. A couple of points/questions..

Couldn’t the gun have been fired before Hanratty acquired it?

As the cartridges were found on the chair isn’t it more likely that they fell out of a jacket pocket draped over the back of the chair?

[cobalt]

That's a fair point about the cartridge cases falling out of his jacket draped over a chair. We've all lost coins and car keys in that manner I'm sure.

It would however indicate that Hanratty himself had fired the revolver prior to its use in the A6 Case. The police attempted to link the weapon to Hanratty on the basis of a comment he had made to Dixie France about hiding unwanted items underneath the back seat of a bus. (I'll omit the later DNA handkerchief link.) A much stronger link would have been to establish when and from whom Hanratty had acquired the revolver. They could not do so, despite I assume great pressure being put upon underworld figures such as Dixie France. Nor did they attempt to offer any narrative as to when and where Hanratty took his practice shots with this new acquisition.

If we remove the identification evidence of Valerie Storie which has long been contested, there is no evidence that James Hanratty ever handled a revolver before or after the crime.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's a fair point about the cartridge cases falling out of his jacket draped over a chair. We've all lost coins and car keys in that manner I'm sure.

It would however indicate that Hanratty himself had fired the revolver prior to its use in the A6 Case. The police attempted to link the weapon to Hanratty on the basis of a comment he had made to Dixie France about hiding unwanted items underneath the back seat of a bus. (I'll omit the later DNA handkerchief link.) A much stronger link would have been to establish when and from whom Hanratty had acquired the revolver. They could not do so, despite I assume great pressure being put upon underworld figures such as Dixie France. Nor did they attempt to offer any narrative as to when and where Hanratty took his practice shots with this new acquisition.

If we remove the identification evidence of Valerie Storie which has long been contested, there is no evidence that James Hanratty ever handled a revolver before or after the crime.

If it was Hanratty we appear to have 3 possible scenarios.

1. That he fired the gun at some undisclosed location then emptied the cartridges but kept them on his person for some unknown reason before leaving them on the chair at The Vienna as they fell from a jacket pocket after he’d hung it over the back of a chair. Alternatively he just carelessly dropped them on the chair. We would also have to ask where he could have fired a gun twice without drawing attention to himself?

2. That he fired the gun etc and only emptied out the cartridges in room 24 of The Vienna where he left them on a chair. We still have the question of where he could safely have discharged a gun twice.

3. Someone else fired the gun, didn’t empty the cartridges, then hand it to Hanratty.

Out of curiosity does the building that was The Vienna still exist?

From experience you know that I’m not one to favour conspiracy Cobalt but I can’t help thinking that if 3 was the case the keeping a couple of cartridges then dropping them in Hanratty’s room would have been an easy way of framing him. And let’s face it, Hanratty was hardly the brightest spark.

[NickB]

The Vienna is now up-market residential housing.

Part of the 2002 Appeal findings not disputed (like Alphon being innocent) is that the handkerchief with the gun was Hanratty's. I believe defenders of Hanratty say this was part of a conspiracy to frame him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Vienna is now up-market residential housing.

Part of the 2002 Appeal findings not disputed (like Alphon being innocent) is that the handkerchief with the gun was Hanratty's. I believe defenders of Hanratty say this was part of a conspiracy to frame him.

Thanks Nick.