A6 Rebooted

[caz]

Hi Sherlock, Herlock and all,

I make no claim that anything in the above post is wrong.

However, a decade ago in post #1868, Nick B quoted the now late John McVicar - convicted armed robber, prison escapee and later journalist and broadcaster - as saying Hanratty was ''guilty as hell'' and referring to Hanratty speaking in prison of having raped Valerie Storie.

I make no claim concerning the accuracy or otherwise of McVicar's assertion. However, it is one more in a case of so many contradictions.

Btw, Herlock - you were asking recently about reading materials for this case. As also mentioned by Nick, I would strongly suggest the Court of Appeal's 2002 judgement. It contains a lot of detail, is well structured and not difficult to read. I consider some of the Court's reasoning to be overly prejudicial against Hanratty and particularly dismissive of police non disclosures but it is of course the final and definitive ruling from which arguments should be supported or challenged.

Best regards,
OneRound

Afternoon OneRound, Herlock, All,

Is this the one?

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/1141.html

Love,

Mrs. Lopsided
X

[OneRound]

Afternoon OneRound, Herlock, All,

Is this the one?

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/1141.html

Love,

Mrs. Lopsided
X

Hi Mrs. Lopsided,

Yep, that's it!

Best wishes,
OneRound

[OneRound]

I agree with this, cobalt, but there must have been some reason for it, even if not much thought went into it, or the reasoning was poor.

I try to look at this from as many angles as possible: if Hanratty dumped it on the bus, why? If someone else did it, were they trying to help Hanratty? Or were they hoping to frame him for a murder he didn't commit? Did they do it because they suspected him? And why was his hanky found with the gun, long before DNA could prove he had used it?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz, cobalt and all,

As cobalt said, ''None of it makes much sense.'' And that's probably the kindest assessment!

Anyway, I'll throw this in as a possibility (no more) for the question from Caz which I've highlighted. Just maybe Hanratty was hoping / expecting (there was often little difference between the two for him) for the gun and ammo to quickly be found and taken by a petty criminal as he looked for any discarded swag in what was probably not a unique hiding place. Thus, the cleaner would never have seen the gun etc and an innocent guy (of the A6 crimes at least) would be in the frame if picked up by the police for some other misdemeanour but with the murder gun or if he was spotted trying to dispose of it having by then realised its significance. A petty criminal would not want to go the police saying, ''It's not really mine, Mr. Acott. I just found it at the back of a bus.''

Best regards,
OneRound

[cobalt]

OR,

Yes, it's interesting how we have been encouraged to think that disposing of unwanted loot in the back seat of a bus was unique to James Hanratty. I know that pickpockets often dispose of the wallet in a toilet cistern and I wouldn't be surprised if the back seat of a bus has been employed for the same purpose.

Animal instinct, never mind criminal instinct, would scream at the murderer to get rid of the gun and ammunition as soon as possible. They are as good as a noose round his neck. He has around 5 hours driving time from Deadman's Hill to Redbridge (at the least: these sightings have been questioned) to dispose of the items en route under cover of darkness. If he had time and a place to wipe the car clean of fingerprints then he had the same opportunity regarding the gun.

As a last resort he could have simply left the gun and any spare ammo he was carrying inside the car. What's the difference between leaving it in the car or leaving it inside a bus? It's going to be traced to the murder either way.

There may have been other boxes of ammunition that the murderer was not carrying, ones which he decided he had to retrieve from a stash or criminal associate. But unless these boxes could be linked forensically to the exact same batch that provided the bullets which killed and maimed, I don't see why there was such a panic to get rid.

[NickB]

when I get back Im thinking of getting the Harriman book although Im slightly wary of the science-heavy side of it.

Herlock,

You might like to read Spitfire's review of the Harriman book ...

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/social-chat/other-mysteries/a6-murders/8358-rob-harriman-hanratty-the-dna-travesty-kindle-e-book?p=459020#post459020

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock,

You might like to read Spitfire's review of the Harriman book ...

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/soc...020#post459020

Thanks Nick. I might still give it a go. I have a book to finish, then a new book on the Bible John case so I could slip it in at number three.

What is the split on here Nick, in terms of guilty/innocent?

[Spitfire]

Harriman has vanished

I was seeing if Harriman had updated his book recently but have found that almost every trace of him and his book has vanished from the web.

Strange?!

Herlock,

You might like to read Spitfire's review of the Harriman book ...

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/soc...020#post459020

Thanks Nick, I reviewed the first Harriman book which came out in 2014 or 2015, as Derek’s post quoted above indicates this book was withdrawn from sale. I do however still have this version on the Kindle app.

Harriman’s new book published in August 2023 claims in the Amazon blurb:

“This book is the first to review this court's worrying deliberations and subsequent events and will no doubt prove unpopular with our political and judicial authorities.”

There have been several books written since 2002, Len Miller has two, Norma Buddle had a book and so did Paul Stickler. Harriman’s fist book must also count as a review of the “court’s worrying deliberations” yet all reference to it has vanished.

The book I reviewed in 2015 is not the one now being touted by Harriman. I cannot say whether the new book is worth reading as I have no intention of paying Harriman any more money.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m not being filled with the desire to dash out and part with my ‘hard-earned’ here but I’m always grateful for the opinions of those that know their stuff.

I was thinking what it would be like if I had to give you guys a list of JtR books to avoid like the plague…….now THAT would be a long list.

[caz]

Hi Caz, cobalt and all,

As cobalt said, ''None of it makes much sense.'' And that's probably the kindest assessment!

Anyway, I'll throw this in as a possibility (no more) for the question from Caz which I've highlighted. Just maybe Hanratty was hoping / expecting (there was often little difference between the two for him) for the gun and ammo to quickly be found and taken by a petty criminal as he looked for any discarded swag in what was probably not a unique hiding place. Thus, the cleaner would never have seen the gun etc and an innocent guy (of the A6 crimes at least) would be in the frame if picked up by the police for some other misdemeanour but with the murder gun or if he was spotted trying to dispose of it having by then realised its significance. A petty criminal would not want to go the police saying, ''It's not really mine, Mr. Acott. I just found it at the back of a bus.''

Best regards,
OneRound

That seems like a reasonable possibility, OneRound, in the event that Hanratty dumped the stuff himself. Once again, the gun was provably used in the A6 murder, but nothing about its discovery on the bus could have been linked directly to Hanratty, whether or not he was guilty, which makes it an odd way for anyone to seek to incriminate him, but by the same token Hanratty would not have been incriminating himself either. It would only have taken the next random dodgy character to peak under that seat before the cleaner could get to it and any risk would have been transferred away from Hanratty and on to the finder. It would arguably have been a smarter method of disposal on Hanratty's part than it would have been on anyone else's, unless their purpose was not to frame him.

Love,

Caz
X

[cobalt]

Hanratty was a low level criminal. Why would any thief think of looking under the backseat of a corporation bus to find a pot of gold that had already been judged as junk? The whole concept is laughable.

[caz]

Isn't that a bit of a non-sequitur, cobalt?

Anyone peaking under the seat and finding what was undoubtedly stashed there by someone, for whatever reason, would not have known who had put it there, but would soon have guessed the level of criminal by what he found! The finder could have been any opportunist - a tramp or school boy for example - looking for anything there that might be worth something to him - like a half-eaten burger or can of pop, or any low-value items discarded by someone who had his sights set higher.

Anyway, it was OneRound's suggestion, as a possible explanation if Hanratty dumped it, hoping to transfer the risk to the finder, whoever that turned out to be. I was merely running with it, but if you have a less laughable suggestion I'm all ears, as King Charles would say.

Love,

Caz
X

[cobalt]

Caz,

Apologies if I came across as being rude to you or OneRound. I read the original concept as suggesting that the person who disposed of the gun was carrying out some devilishly crafty plan to ''frame' a random fellow criminal who would know all about stashing goods in the back seats of buses. Read that way, it seemed an outlandish idea. The way you have presented it here is a fairer interpretation, I can see.

My own musings on this important aspect of the A6 Case are as follows. It is unclear why the killer decided not to jettison the weapon shortly after the crime. One possibility might be that he felt duty bound to return the weapon which he had hired, lest he fall victim to a vicious punishment beating gangland style. However when offering to return the weapon he was told in no uncertain terms to get rid: immediately. By now it would be known that the female victim had survived and was being questioned in hospital, adding to the panic.

The killer might have feared being snitched on, or in his paranoia, fearful that detectives were closing in on him swiftly. Maybe they already had him under observation? In that febrile state of mind, ditching the weapon and other ammunition under the seat of an an omnibus in the Big Smoke made as much sense as anything else. We tend to assume it was done by one man but there may have been two involved in order to aid concealment. Or a man and a woman.

[moste]

Or as has been mused on before France stashed the weapon and ammo plus hanky with Jimmies monogram on it,then tells the cops that Hanratty liked that place for getting rid of stuff. Simple as.

[moste]

I don’t think the France suicide and a link with Hanratty’s appeal being turned down can be overstated.

[cobalt]

I can see that Dixie France could have been pressured into making the statement he did about James Hanratty's favourite method of disposal. He wasn't even telling a lie since Hanratty himself acknowledged this.

But in the immediate aftermath of the crime I can see no reason for France (if he did dispose of the murder weapon) making any connection with Hanratty at all. They were known to associate in criminal circles so any police link to Hanratty was likely to rebound back on France himself. Surely France could have disposed of the weapon in such a manner that it would remain undiscovered.