A6 Rebooted

[Natalie Severn]

Well Graham I have found out more since then and I was meaning that France was involved in the Soho underworld.He seems actually to have been on the periphery of that scene .He had just lost his job as a bouncer in the nightclub that Summer .After that he oversaw the gambling in the rehearsal club.So he knew all the characters who frequented the club and there were some big names in crime there. Hanratty said:'I met him when I was a teenager and didn't know the ropes.I had lots of dealings in bits and pieces'.[France was 36 at the time].And he also said "he learned me on previous occasions when I was younger."By the time Hanratty got going himself in that scene he seems to have been nicking cars for people at the club and leaving them to be picked up in an agreed place etc.But France definitely is mentioned as helping him to sell his bits and pieces of jewellery.
He is also definitely mentioned as having apologised to William Ewer about Michael Gregsten's murder.But I wonder if that was just something he said to cover himself for having been seen popping into Ewer's shop?The dry cleaning people opposite may have seen him there for example and so Ewer and France agreed to say he was there expressing his condolences.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma

Yes - I think France was much more involved in all ths than has actually been revealed (perhaps the truth went to the grave with him and no one else knoew his full involvement). As I have said before - Hanratty came out of prison in March 1961 determined not to go back. That summer he became reacquainted with Charles France and was introduced to Louise Anderson. Suddenly he becomes a rapist and murderer. It's all very odd indeed.

Well Julie I took the 31 bus which follows close to the 36 bus route to Camden last week.At one stretch we were right behind the 36 for about 15 mins. I couldn't believe how close Boundary Road is to Swiss Cottage AND how the 36 bus passes both ,while Swiss Cottage is just down from Boundary Road.
In his statement to the Sunday Times [16 May 1971]Ewer admits he was an 'acquaintance' of Louise Anderson "being in the same line of business'.

[Graham]

I don't think Charles France was a bouncer anywhere, let alone the Rehearsal Club. He was certainly a denizen of the Soho underworld, though. I've been trying to locate the name of the cafe where he spent a lot of his time, and where he was supposed to have kept an array of weapons under the bar. He was undoubtedly a fence for stolen property.

What intrigues me is that it would appear that his family didn't have much of an idea of how he spent his time or earned what money he made. He did not seem to be your average petty crook.

I have long felt that, if there is a key to the A6 Crime, then Charles France held it.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Graham,
Yes,something very strange about his role.And the strangeness is multiplied when you see the locations so close to each other.
[btw I read in one of the books he was a bouncer].
I have thought that he must have been under a lot of pressure from the police over Hanratty and possibly from Ewer.He seems to have compartmentalised his life.His family didn't know about his secret life in Soho .But then there seem to have been a lot of secrets all round.Nobody knew Ewer was in love with Janet either.Thats another bizarre twist.He immediately took her under his wing after Gregsten's death and before you could say Jack Robinson had become her lover!Quite a big leap for them both to take given his wife was Janet's half sister.
And quite a leap for Hanratty just out of jail to suddenly be given a roof over his head with the France family ,bestowed the affectionate title of 'Uncle Jim'....and bedding down in the living room while his 16 year old daughter dyed Hanratty's hair and went off to Battersea Fair with him when dad wasn't looking etc.It seems to me Hanratty was useful to him and he to Hanratty.

[Limehouse]

I don't think Charles France was a bouncer anywhere, let alone the Rehearsal Club. He was certainly a denizen of the Soho underworld, though. I've been trying to locate the name of the cafe where he spent a lot of his time, and where he was supposed to have kept an array of weapons under the bar. He was undoubtedly a fence for stolen property.What intrigues me is that it would appear that his family didn't have much of an idea of how he spent his time or earned what money he made. He did not seem to be your average petty crook.

I have long felt that, if there is a key to the A6 Crime, then Charles France held it.

Graham

It was the Harmony Inn Graham. Here is the link to Classic Cafes - my favourite website:

http://www.classiccafes.co.uk/confessional_harmony.htm

[Graham]

Thanks Julie. I thought I'd bookmarked that website, but hadn't. I have now, because it's a great site.

Graham

[Hatchett]

Hello Natalie,

Yes, it certainly was an emotionally tangled web.

Best wishes.

[jimarilyn]

Harmony Inn

It was the Harmony Inn Graham. Here is the link to Classic Cafes - my favourite website:

http://www.classiccafes.co.uk/confessional_harmony.htm

Yes, an intriguing website Julie.

Spot the deliberate mistake in this paragaraph from the website.........

The caff was presided over by Dixie France who was allegedly a police informer who gave evidence at the Hanratty murder trial (and mysteriously committed suicide shortly after Hanratty was hanged in 1962.)

[Derrick]

On the DNA are you trying to say that the Hanratty family never asked or petitioned for DNA evidence to be looked into and considered?

I agree with the point that you are now making that the Hanratty family did seek to have the knicker fragment tested. The Home Office stalled on doing it because the amount of DNA was so minute it wasn't possible until STR testing had matured, that is via SGM in 1995.

But if you reread your initial post and then my reply you will see that you have got the wrong end of the stick.

You said;

The Appeal was requested by the Hanratty family and their followers to consider the DNA eveidence.....

And as I said in my reply, you are wrong. The DNA evidence formed no part of the appellants grounds.

The DNA evidence was brought by the Crown, the first time fresh evidence had ever been brought by the respondent in the CACD.

If you are then I suggest that is a little re writing of history.

As you can see I wasn't.

I hope that that clarifies the situation.

Regards
Derrick

[Graham]

Yes, an intriguing website Julie.

Spot the deliberate mistake in this paragaraph from the website.........

France committed suicide before Hanratty's execution.

Grahan

[Hatchett]

Hi Derrick,

You are rewriting history if you say that the Hanratty family did not petition or request the DNA evidence to be tested.

Point re clarified I think.

Best wishes.

[babybird67]

until...

they realised that it was going to further prove Hanratty's guilt, after which they began to argue that it shouldn't be relevant.

[Derrick]

Hi Derrick,

You are rewriting history if you say that the Hanratty family did not petition or request the DNA evidence to be tested.

Point re clarified I think.

Best wishes.

Have it your own way mate, but everyone else can see what I posted in reply to your erroneous comments.

I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone who misrepresents my posts.

Derrick

[Derrick]

Re-writing of history is, I grieve to say, rather endemic amongst those who claim that James Hanratty was innocent.

Hi Graham

I believe Hanratty is innocent and am not re-writing history as you seem to suggest.

I only have access to the same available documents that you do and can only work from them.

What good would trying to rewrite history do anyway eh? That would do more damage to ones argument than probably anything. Take David Irving for example.

Perhaps you should have used the word interpret instead of rewrite and made a better case for your argument. We all interpret history in different ways. If we didn't then there wouldn't be such diverse opinions such as here on the A6 forum.

Derrick

[Hatchett]

Hi Derrick,

Like you say these posts are published to the outside world. The outside world can judge on representation or misrepresentation. I do not have the time or the ego to argue with you on semantics. History is history. It is recorded. A fact is a fact. A gamble is a gamble. Once a gamble is played (and I do accept that the Hanratty family genuinely believed in their cause) then the result has to be accepted.

Best wishes.