A6 Rebooted

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[caz]

I think there's a massive difference between disposing of unwanted stolen jewellery and disposing of a revolver used in a murder. Bus cleaners would have regarded items found under the back seat (presumably loose coins, earrings, cigarette lighters etc) as a 'perk' of the job and were unlikely to call in the Old Bill if they were to come across some cheap jewellery.

Disposing of a murder weapon is a completely different game. It's easier to dump the gun if the bus is not too busy upstairs, but that also increases the likelihood of the conductor remembering who you were. Trying to lift the seat and slip in not just a gun but boxes of ammunition would be a tall order if the bus was busy. None of it makes much sense. The risk of being spotted/remembered might see you with a noose round your neck. And of course the gun is going to be discovered soon afterwards when surely the better option is to make it disappear from sight.

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

[OneRound]

Hi Cobalt,

I had several very illuminating phone conversations with Hanratty's brother Michael and his dear wife Maureen over the course of several years.

Back in March 2017 Michael told me of an incident concerning his son Michael jr. About a week prior to our conversation Michael jr was on his way home from work and decided to stop off for a drink at some pub. He was standing at the bar having a drink when three men came in. He was looking at the men interestedly and couldn't help but hear some of their conversation. By what they were saying he thought to himself that they must be villains. One of them was talking about the justice system and somehow Michael got involved in their conversation. One of the men, aged about 80, said that he was in prison with Harry Roberts [who murdered two policeman in 1966]. He started talking about the 'Old Bill'. Michael replied "You don't have tell me anything about the 'Old Bill', they executed my uncle." The man said "What, who are you then ?"
Michael told him his name and the chap was gobsmacked. The man replied " I'll tell you what, I was in prison with Harry Roberts and Frankie Fraser. I'm terribly sorry but your uncle didn't commit that murder." Michael said "Well I know that !". The man went on to add that when he was in the prison with all the villains the talk was constantly, almost every day for a long time, about how Jimmy had been stitched up by the 'Old Bill'. Michael was shaking upon hearing all this and had to go outside for a smoke. When he got back the three men had gone. The underworld knew that Hanratty was innocent.

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

[caz]

Apologies for butting in Caz but you’ve reminded me of a point that I’ve wanted to put to ‘The A6 Crew.’ In Stickler’s book he writes:

”‘Dixie’ France told of the occasion when Hanratty had pointed out to him where he hid his unwanted jewellery underneath the seat of a bus and although the exact date and words used were challenged, his story remained as he had told it when he was first spoken to by the police.”

I recall reading this in the two other books that I’ve read but i can’t recall how it was worded in those books but it sounds like a pretty poor idea. If he was trying to get rid of it why not someone’s dustbin, a canal, a river? But a bus, where it’s going to be discovered fairly soon by cleaners? I’m not saying that’s not actually what Hanratty was in the habit of doing but.. if we hadn’t got the suggestion from France and we were asked how Hanratty might have disposed of unwanted jewellery wouldn’t we all have made the same suggestions - bin, canal, river etc?

Yes, Herlock, I think most of us have made that same point before, that it's a funny place to put anything you want to get rid of permanently.

That's why I wondered if someone could have put the gun there because they knew it would be found and might be identifiable as the A6 murder weapon. I can't guess what the reasoning would have been as there was no way to connect the gun to Hanratty - unless that was the point. Hanratty could have done it to send the police off on time-consuming enquiries which were only possible because the gun had not been effectively disposed of.

I'm not sure why else Hanratty would have thought it a good idea to use a bus seat, especially if he had previously told France about doing the same with unwanted jewellery. But we also need to remember that he wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer if he thought it was anything but a terrible idea to change his alibi from Liverpool to Rhyl. That was what may well have got him hanged. So maybe he had several bad ideas along the way, including the bus. I think we could find other examples directly related to the events of that fateful drive, with a character like Hanratty in control.

If it wasn't for bad ideas he'd have had no ideas at all.

Love,

Caz
X

[cobalt]

I think there's a massive difference between disposing of unwanted stolen jewellery and disposing of a revolver used in a murder. Bus cleaners would have regarded items found under the back seat (presumably loose coins, earrings, cigarette lighters etc) as a 'perk' of the job and were unlikely to call in the Old Bill if they were to come across some cheap jewellery.

Disposing of a murder weapon is a completely different game. It's easier to dump the gun if the bus is not too busy upstairs, but that also increases the likelihood of the conductor remembering who you were. Trying to lift the seat and slip in not just a gun but boxes of ammunition would be a tall order if the bus was busy. None of it makes much sense. The risk of being spotted/remembered might see you with a noose round your neck. And of course the gun is going to be discovered soon afterwards when surely the better option is to make it disappear from sight.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sorry, moste, it's quite hard to read your posts! But I assume you are not trying to argue that a corrupt police force could have engineered the discovery of the murder weapon on a London bus, with a hanky used by Hanratty, in order to make him a scapegoat for someone else's capital crime.

What I'm asking is why anyone other than Hanratty could have hoped to frame him using his hanky and the real killer's gun. It makes even less sense than Hanratty doing it, when he could have tossed the gun in the Thames. The only alternative I can think of is if a worried Hanratty asked an associate to take care of the gun for him, and this associate left it under a bus seat without telling him, using the hanky to avoid leaving his own prints on the weapon. Didn't Dixie France drop him in it later by telling the police that Hanratty had used the bus trick before when he needed to get rid of stuff? That would surely have played on his mind, one way or another.

Love,

Caz
X

Apologies for butting in Caz but you’ve reminded me of a point that I’ve wanted to put to ‘The A6 Crew.’ In Stickler’s book he writes:

”‘Dixie’ France told of the occasion when Hanratty had pointed out to him where he hid his unwanted jewellery underneath the seat of a bus and although the exact date and words used were challenged, his story remained as he had told it when he was first spoken to by the police.”

I recall reading this in the two other books that I’ve read but i can’t recall how it was worded in those books but it sounds like a pretty poor idea. If he was trying to get rid of it why not someone’s dustbin, a canal, a river? But a bus, where it’s going to be discovered fairly soon by cleaners? I’m not saying that’s not actually what Hanratty was in the habit of doing but.. if we hadn’t got the suggestion from France and we were asked how Hanratty might have disposed of unwanted jewellery wouldn’t we all have made the same suggestions - bin, canal, river etc?

[caz]

Hi Caz .You wouldnÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂìÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂât consider the corrupted police force as guilty of using him as scapegoat? As for DNA, If Herlock reads Harrimans book on the DNA surrounding the Hanratty case, maybe he could enlighten us further. I found it somewhat baffling, though the general feeling was that Harriman thought that the so called specialists were saddled with an unfair task. The outcome though , the perfect answer for the Home Secretary and all previous Home Secretaries .After all once theyâÃÂÃÂd hanged an innocent manâ¦â¦

Sorry, moste, it's quite hard to read your posts! But I assume you are not trying to argue that a corrupt police force could have engineered the discovery of the murder weapon on a London bus, with a hanky used by Hanratty, in order to make him a scapegoat for someone else's capital crime.

What I'm asking is why anyone other than Hanratty could have hoped to frame him using his hanky and the real killer's gun. It makes even less sense than Hanratty doing it, when he could have tossed the gun in the Thames. The only alternative I can think of is if a worried Hanratty asked an associate to take care of the gun for him, and this associate left it under a bus seat without telling him, using the hanky to avoid leaving his own prints on the weapon. Didn't Dixie France drop him in it later by telling the police that Hanratty had used the bus trick before when he needed to get rid of stuff? That would surely have played on his mind, one way or another.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I'm fairly confident that Wallace murdered his wife, but even more confident that Hanratty was the A6 killer, because I have seen no plausible explanation for his DNA turning up on the hanky that was found with the murder weapon if anyone else was guilty. There was nothing at the time that could have positively identified the hanky as Hanratty's and lead the police to him that way, and yet he had undoubtedly used it.

I don't see how Hanratty could be successfully framed after the event, when his unpredictable movements that week would be unknown to whoever was trying to frame him, and he could in all likelihood have a cast iron alibi up his sleeve in the event that the police set their sights on him. I'm also wondering how anyone framing him could guarantee that he would become a suspect, and that police attention would not turn to his associates and potential enemies if he could clear himself [either with an alibi, or if Valerie failed to pick him out because he looked nothing like the man who had raped her]. Would he not have been livid if he suspected someone he knew of setting him up for a horrific crime he had not committed? Would he have given this person - possibly the actual gunman - an easy ride by lying about his whereabouts at least once and sending himself to the gallows?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Maybe I’m wrong but I see some parallels with the Peter Falconio/ Bradley Murdoch case in Australia a few years ago. Although my memory is a bit hazy they had a DNA match to Murdoch which convicted him but there seemed a significant amount of evidence pointing away from him (albeit from a documentary supporting his innocence) Likewise I find doubts with Hanratty but, and it’s a huge but, we have the DNA. Can his proposed alibi’s in Liverpool and Wales be explained away? I tend to think that they can but I can’t be certain. Maybe I need to read the Harriman book but I’m wary of being confronted by a mudslide of science that I can’t pick my way through.

[moste]

Hi Caz .You wouldnâ€Ã ¢Â„¢t consider the corrupted police force as guilty of using him as scapegoat? As for DNA, If Herlock reads Harrimans book on the DNA surrounding the Hanratty case, maybe he could enlighten us further. I found it somewhat baffling, though the general feeling was that Harriman thought that the so called specialists were saddled with an unfair task. The outcome though , the perfect answer for the Home Secretary and all previous Home Secretaries .After all once they’d hanged an innocent man……

[caz]

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.

Hi Herlock,

I'm fairly confident that Wallace murdered his wife, but even more confident that Hanratty was the A6 killer, because I have seen no plausible explanation for his DNA turning up on the hanky that was found with the murder weapon if anyone else was guilty. There was nothing at the time that could have positively identified the hanky as Hanratty's and lead the police to him that way, and yet he had undoubtedly used it.

I don't see how Hanratty could be successfully framed after the event, when his unpredictable movements that week would be unknown to whoever was trying to frame him, and he could in all likelihood have a cast iron alibi up his sleeve in the event that the police set their sights on him. I'm also wondering how anyone framing him could guarantee that he would become a suspect, and that police attention would not turn to his associates and potential enemies if he could clear himself [either with an alibi, or if Valerie failed to pick him out because he looked nothing like the man who had raped her]. Would he not have been livid if he suspected someone he knew of setting him up for a horrific crime he had not committed? Would he have given this person - possibly the actual gunman - an easy ride by lying about his whereabouts at least once and sending himself to the gallows?

Love,

Caz
X

[moste]

I had 42 anomalies surrounding this case which, read consecutively makes for an extremely week and flimsy reason to hang someone .Alas They disappeared in our move to a new house.You are correct that I have always been very sceptical regarding Valerie as a witness .The fact that her statements are entirely infallible due to her terrible injury irks me the most . She makes the statement in her newspaper 3 page supplement,’I can be led, but never pushed’ I do believe in order for superintendent Acott to get his man put this case to bed, and add more feathers in his and Oxfords hats, Valerie had to be tutored quite expertly.
p.s. I think she said he could flash a light on the back of the car ,not the headlights which would certainly have been clocked by any assailant present.

[cobalt]

Hi Moste,

I know that you remain sceptical about Valerie Storie's account but the one you propose, if valid, could have been acknowledged by her without seriously changing our opinions about the case.

Instead of a madman appearing in a cornfield in Taplow she could merely have explained that as they took a break during their planning for the upcoming car rally, a madman approached them in a layby near Deadman's Hill. I don't see what she gains by not telling this version if it were true.

Incidentally, I think there is corroborated evidence of Mike Gregsten flashing his headlights in an attempt to alert other drivers to his predicament although they did not respond as he hoped. That would indicate a third party inside the vehicle.

Furthermore, if the bullets were indeed .32, then why did some person panic and bung a revolver and some .38 ammo under the back seat of a London bus? How could they have anticipated the police tampering with the forensic evidence?

Sorry to pour cold water on your theory. Like you I think there was more logic to the fatal meeting of the three persons involved than has been revealed.