A6 Rebooted

[Graham]

Hi All,

I wasn't going to post on this thread again, as I feel I've said about all I can say about the A6 Case over the past few years, but I do 'drop in' from time to time, just to see what's happening, if anything. Not a lot, to be honest - the debate is still largely circular, which in fairness is inevitable. But something One Round wrote, quoted below, caught my eye as it precisely parallels my own feelings:

Something new has to be produced or shown for the Court of Appeal to act. The restating of old arguments will not work. Scientific advancement discrediting the DNA together with careful review of the 2002 judgment showing the Court's over reliance upon it then might be regarded as both new and sufficient.

I will be extremely surprised if anything new is discovered regarding the A6, but I wouldn't rule it out as impossible. Hanratty's legal team were apparently planning a new appeal early this year, which has never happened as far as I'm aware, and it could well be that they don't actually have anything new to place before the Court. Or perhaps they just don't have the funds - who knows?

With regard to Hanratty's trial, I'll repeat what I said ages ago, that is that if the A6 Case had happened in Scotland, then the chances are that a verdict of 'not proven' would have been passed.

Graham

[louisa]

I don't believe that Hanratty was capable of so much deviousness. He was a street-wise kid from London and being a Londoner myself, I recognise the type.

Although he could just about read a newspaper, he was almost illiterate. Judging from what I have read about Hanratty I would put his IQ at quite a bit under 100. This could be why he was selected to be 'used' by the bigger fish.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Caz

I doubt very much if the person who planted Hanratty's hankerchief was thinking about DNA. The process of analysis wasn't around back then.

I agree that Hanratty must have known that he was being framed but remember - he was a young man with limited thought processes - not the sharpest knife in the drawer (as they say).

He wasn't even bright enough to wear gloves when we went out burgling houses.

But unfortunately his stupidity knew no bounds when he wholeheartedly believed that British justice would prevail

Hi Louisa,
This idea that Hanratty was stupid is dealt with very well by Michael Sherrard in his 2009 biography entitled Wigs and Wherefores.

No doubt aware that pomposities such as Blom- Cooper [on no sound premise] suggested Hanratty wasnt very bright etc, Sherrard contradicts such speculation firmly.He speaks of H's ability to sustain argument and says he was articulate and 'quite up to the mark when it came to repartee'.I have studied several lengthy extracts from his trial where he is being cross questioned by the brilliant Oxford educated QC Graham Swanwick,and Hanratty holds his own extremely well as Sherrard and others have pointed out .Sherrard spent months with him day aftyer day so he should know.I have spent years of my teaching life examining children's linguistic performances and studied them in great depth for an M Phil.
Hanratty was,I am convinced,a fairly bright chap as Sherrard indicates,who I believe came very unstuck at school for some reason as often happens-sometimes due to unseen problems to do with hearing / intermittent hearing loss -sometimes caused by grommets-which used to affect large numbers of children and have a profound affect on their reading skills as they only 'half heard 'the mid vowel sounds in words that they were expected to reproduce etc and indeed could not reproduce them properly.Having looked at his attempts to spell multisyllabic words this is very much what it looks like.
Or
-it could simply have been due to being evacuated at a critical time in his acquisition of such literacy skills.
As Shakespeare noted ,

'There is a tide in the affairs of men,which taken
at the flood leads on to fortune;
Omitted,all the voyages of their life
is bound in shadows and in miseries.'

I have seen so many children struggle once they lost their way- true of poor Hanratty I believe!

[Natalie Severn]

I don't believe that Hanratty was capable of so much deviousness. He was a street-wise kid from London and being a Londoner myself, I recognise the type.

Although he could just about read a newspaper, he was almost illiterate. Judging from what I have read about Hanratty I would put his IQ at quite a bit under 100. This could be why he was selected to be 'used' by the bigger fish.

As I argue below Louisa,Michael Sherrard's assessment is very different from the conventional view and he probably was in a better position than anybody to know as he had to evaluate whether or not to let him go in the witness box.Although he was unhappy to allow this initially ,his conclusion about his performance was that "he was quite up to the mark on reparteee" and 'articulate'. Paul Foot who had access to the entire trial transcript says much the same .He cites a good example of the 'repartee' on page 283 dealing with the contention that he was a 'stick up man'.Here is an extract from his quote:

Hanratty:Sir, are you suggesting to the court that I went out on 22nd August to do a stick up with a gun?

Swanwick:Indeed I am

Hanratty:
Well it is not 'quite obvious' -if I did that I would not be looking for a car in a cornfield,as you put it to the court.I will be looking for some cash,a bank,a shop,something to that effect.I would not be looking for a car in a cornfield for some cash for a stick up
[vol.X1V,p37]

Foot:So it went on the rasping dual between the brains of Mr Swanwick,trained at Winchester,University College,Oxford and the Inner Temple, and the untrained wits of James Hanratty.No one can say that Swanwick came off the best.All his questions were answered directly.There was from Hanratty no evasion and no sign at any stage of break-down.
Foot adds:
Np one in court then,and no one reading the two volumes of transcript today,can argue that Hanratty answered like a mental defective or a psychopath.On the contrary,the most striking aspects of Hanratty's response
are consistency and coherence.[Who Killed Hanratty? by Paul Foot [page 282]

[caz]

Hi Caz,

First of all, the part of your post dealing with my earlier query.

I'll take your questions at face value.

Yes, Caz, it is a very big ''if'' for the trial now to be shown as ''unfair''. In my view, the only way to do that - and it will still be incredibly hard and lengthy with no guarantee of success - is to discredit the 2002 Court of Appeal judgment and get things back to where they were just before that; ie a new hearing to be held by the Court of Appeal to rule on the ''unfairness'' of the original trial.

In turn, the only way that the 2002 Appeal can be discredited is to conclusively show that the Court then overly and unreasonably relied upon what is now discredited DNA findings in supporting Hanratty's guilt. If the campaign to quash Hanratty's conviction is to travel any further, this is the road that must be taken. However sincerely the beliefs are held, comments by his defenders that, for example, ''Hanratty was in a sweetshop at a crucial time'' will just be met by a chorus of ''Oh no, he wasn't!'' by those convinced of his guilt and the whole thing will sound more and more like a grisly pantomime.
Something new has to be produced or shown for the Court of Appeal to act. The restating of old arguments will not work. Scientific advancement discrediting the DNA together with careful review of the 2002 judgment showing the Court's over reliance upon it then might be regarded as both new and sufficient.

As I suggest, it will be incredibly hard to do this and even get the case back on the starting blocks but I see no other way. Whilst I refer above to the Court of Appeal, it is in fact the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) who would have to first suggest referring the case once more to the Court. Unfortunately, the CCRC are unlikely to be keen to do so. At the end of their 2002 judgment,the Court delivered a veiled rebuke to the CCRC for the expenditure incurred on a case of this age. It will therefore take something significant for the CCRC to risk increasing and incurring the Court's wrath again.

I actually still think it's a fight worth fighting. Despite my doubts as to Hanratty's innocence, his guilt has never been proved reasonably or fairly. I maintain he deserves a fair appeal at the least given he had an unfair trial [any accusation of hypocrisy as to a likely different view if Michael Gregsten or Valerie Storie had been my son or daughter would probably be valid!]. I suspect you disagree - that's fair enough as you are fully satisfied as to his guilt. I find it more surprising and disappointing that Natalie seems hardly interested in this possible avenue despite her total belief in Hanratty's innocence.

As you say, someone did it. That at least is certain. I have no problem with others being put forward as possibly involved but I do strongly believe that speculation should be clearly stated and not presented as established fact. That is one of the many difficulties in reviewing this complex case.

My own thoughts are that the police were keen to gild the lily to ensure a guilty man in their view did not get away with it. I'm far from convinced that there was a deliberate, highly cunning (but only in some parts!) and ultimately incredibly lucky frame up conducted by other criminals for Hanratty to take the rap.

As for the possibility of others being involved, I think it was Victor some time ago who commented along the lines of - Hanratty couldn't provide details without revealing ''his own starring role''. I'll keep my own powder dry for now but I did think that comment was rather clever.

Morning OneRound,

You have highlighted above pretty much all my own views on how tough it would/will be to get this case looked at again by the powers that be.

Although I agree with practically everything you say here, one observation I would add is the fact that at the 2002 Appeal it was stated that the DNA evidence only made a 'strong' case even stronger. Now regardless of how we feel personally about the truth or otherwise of this statement, it is one that would presumably need to be overturned along with the DNA evidence before the original conviction could ever be declared 'unfair', 'unsafe' or based on a 'weak' case, ie the polar opposite of strong! I have long suspected that was the point of the statement - a cynical yet effective belt and braces job, in anticipation of the DNA results being trashed by a small army of astonished, bitterly disappointed and deeply sceptical Hanratty supporters: "Don't like the DNA results? Tough titty, the case was strong enough without 'em. They are just the icing on the rightful conviction cake. Get over it."

My point about a potential frame-up was essentially the same as Victor's, albeit not as neatly expressed: only a guilty Hanratty would have had to keep quiet about anyone else's involvement.

Guilty or innocent, he'd have guessed immediately who had arranged for the gun to be hidden on the bus, if Dixie was the only one he had told about his hiding place. If innocent, he'd have screamed it from the rooftops to prove to his family, if nobody else, that he had been set up and hadn't murdered or raped anyone. Every Hanratty supporter insists that above all he wanted his family to believe in his innocence.

If guilty, he could hardly reveal this sort of conversation:

"Can you take care of it for me, Dixie? We don't need the cops sniffing round here and finding this gun do we?"

"Leave it to me, kid."

Why it wasn't just tossed in the Thames is anyone's guess. Maybe it was another belt and braces job: wrap it in Hanratty's hanky and hide it on the bus so if and when it's found it can only be connected back to Hanratty, who would be unable to deny it or drop the framer in it. Maybe an explanation for Dixie's suicide, if he realised that tossing it in the Thames could have made all the difference - and made a strong case weak.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Another thought on Dixie's suicide - maybe he couldn't live with Hanratty's knowledge that he must have been behind the clumsy 'disposal' of the murder weapon.

By distancing himself from the crime in this way, he had helped put the rope round Hanratty's neck and Hanratty would have been aware of it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

Hello All,

I never really doubted Hanratty's guilt (put it this way - I'm 99.9% certain that he did it...) and don't see much in the way of concrete evidence that he was fitted up for the crime. However, I do suspect that France knew more than he ever said in public - there is the strong suggestion that it was he who identified Hanratty to Acott, and also the bulk of his suicide notes were never made public and probably never will be. For some of his time, France worked in a cafe (sorry, I can't remember its name, but it's been posted before) where he was, apparently, known to keep a variety of weapons under the counter. No specific mention of guns, I believe, but I would suggest that when Hanratty decided he needed a gun he turned to his mate Dixie France. Obviously this is speculation. Further, after the crime, Hanratty was desperate to rid himself of the gun and handed it back to France, probably with a threat or two of violence, for France to dispose of. Again, speculation, but perhaps France saw the distinct possibility of being charged as an accessory to murder, which would have meant him going down for a long, long time, and took the decision to ensure that Hanratty and only Hanratty stood in the dock, by dumping the hankie-wrapped gun on the bus.

It may also be the case (and very likely was) that France was feeling Acott's hot breath on his neck, even after Hanratty had been found guilty, and took the easy way out via a gas-ring in a sleazy flat.

As for William Ewer, not much more can be said about him that hasn't been said already, but I do not believe he was 'behind' the A6 Crime in any way.
If he wanted Janet Gregsten, and it seems that he did, then all he had to do was to wait with as much patience as he could muster until her marriage permanently broke up. It should be borne in mind that he did receive out-of-court damages, more than once as I recall, regarding suggestions that he was tied up in the case, and I would think that these suggestions in themselves would have been sufficient for Acott to undertake some serious probing. Which, of course, he may well have done. We have never had access to allof the police notes and records in this case.

Forgive the above speculation, something I prefer not to indulge in. There's nothing new in what I've written, but from time to time, in a debate such as this, speculation is inevitable (and not unenjoyable!)

All the best,

Graham

[louisa]

I can't see any reason why Hanratty would have given the gun back to Dixie France.

If Hanratty put the gun under the seat then that would be the work of a idiot wouldn't it? and as has been pointed out Hanratty (in many ways) wasn't stupid. If he was panicking he would have chucked it in the Thames.

In my opinion the person who left the gun under the seat was Dixie France - who else?


Nobody has come up with the answer to this question yet:-

Hanratty was in the Liverpool sweetshop at 5pm on the 22nd. Agreed? Even the prosecution agreed on that.

So.....how did he manage to get down to Slough by 9pm?

Also - if Hanratty knew that he had to be in Slough by 9pm why on earth would he still be in Liverpool at 5pm casually trying to flog his stolen loot?

[OneRound]

Graham - a warm welcome back to an old boy from a newcomer.

As it is ''not unenjoyable'', can I ask you to engage in a little more speculation.

Why in your view did Hanratty admit at trial that the hanky was his?

This to me is one of the most bizarre elements of the case. A different answer from Hanratty at the time (''No, sir. That hanky is not mine.'') would surely have considerably increased Hanratty's chances of an acquittal. He obviously told the truth then (as now supported by the DNA evidence) even though it was clearly not in his interests to do so.

If he had lied at trial about this and denied the hanky being his, I would confidently say now that he was ''bang to rights'' with traces of his mucus being subsequently identified on it. However, and I've tried to make this point before without much impact, all the DNA on the hanky proves is that Hanratty was honest in his admission of owning the hanky.

In my view, the Court of Appeal greatly overegged the significance of Hanratty's DNA being found on the hanky. That finding established nothing further. It was already known that the hanky was his once he admitted it at trial. The admission should have counted against with the jury (and almost certainly did) but the DNA finding was nothing extra. It was no more significant than if, for example, Hanratty's DNA could have been traced in the same room of the Vienna Hotel that the spent cartridges were found in; this was well known and readily admitted so it also would have added nothing new.

Some have speculated that the hanky must have been monogrammed and so Hanratty could not credibly deny it being his. I find that hard to accept. If it had been monogrammed, I would have expected Acott to reveal details to the press as soon as it was found and ask them to shout details from the rooftops.

Sorry that my comments about the DNA on the hanky and its (over) significance to the Court of Appeal go further than my opening question to you seeking a bit of speculation. I'm just keen to explain my interest in this particular aspect.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Graham]

Hi OneRound,

first of all a welcome to this debate.

Regarding the hanky, I don't know how Hanratty recognised it as his unless it was monogrammed, a distinct pattern, or what. I also don't know why he admitted it was his - unless he thought that by doing so it connected the planting of the gun with someone else - like the France family. It seems he had the nous (or someone did) to clean the gun of fingerprints, and had he not identified the hanky then I think it would have been very difficult for the prosecution to absolutely link the gun with Hanratty. Obviously, by denying the murder he also denied that the gun was his. An incredibly strange event in this strange case.

I agree that the fact it was his hanky wrapped around the gun proves nothing with regard to who put it on the bus. I've always thought that France saying Hanratty told him about the back seat of a bus as a hiding-place very contrived, and as a result I always felt that the gun was planted there, very likely by France. Why Hanratty didn't dispose of the gun himself - the Thames being the most likely place - has always astonished and puzzled me. Even Alphon, in his loony 'confession', said he tossed the gun into the sea off Southend Pier - at least, that's what he seems to imply.

Frankly, in my opinion, had Hanratty denied ownership of the hanky, and had also stuck to his Liverpool alibi, he may well have got off. We'll never know.

Graham

[OneRound]

Morning OneRound,

You have highlighted above pretty much all my own views on how tough it would/will be to get this case looked at again by the powers that be.

Although I agree with practically everything you say here, one observation I would add is the fact that at the 2002 Appeal it was stated that the DNA evidence only made a 'strong' case even stronger. Now regardless of how we feel personally about the truth or otherwise of this statement, it is one that would presumably need to be overturned along with the DNA evidence before the original conviction could ever be declared 'unfair', 'unsafe' or based on a 'weak' case, ie the polar opposite of strong! I have long suspected that was the point of the statement - a cynical yet effective belt and braces job, in anticipation of the DNA results being trashed by a small army of astonished, bitterly disappointed and deeply sceptical Hanratty supporters: "Don't like the DNA results? Tough titty, the case was strong enough without 'em. They are just the icing on the rightful conviction cake. Get over it."

Hi Caz,

We are certainly in agreement on any appeal process involving the powers that be. It will be incredibly tough.

Your observation about the Court of Appeal's comment that the DNA findings made ''a strong case even stronger'' are spot on. This was an astute (sneaky?) and clever (from their perspective anyway) move by the Court to give two pegs on which to hang their finding on. Exactly as you suggest, ''a cynical and effective belt and braces job''.

To overturn this judgment, not only will the DNA findings themselves have to be discredited but it will also need to be shown that the Court overly and unreasonably relied upon them in considering other aspects of the appeal.

Very, very hard although I do think it could be attempted. I'll have a go some time soon in highlighting possible key aspects if you're interested.

That said, there still remain severe practical aspects of any further appeal. The CCRC will need considerable guts to put the case back to the Court of Appeal once more having been rebuked for doing so the first time. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal would need to be prepared to consider admitting fault in its 2002 judgment.

I am sorry to all if this seems a very academic and legalistic approach. However, unless date bearing cine film of Hanratty in a Liverpool sweetshop or Rhyl can be found, I do not see any other path to take if his name is still sought to be cleared.

Best regards,

OneRound

[OneRound]

Hanratty was in the Liverpool sweetshop at 5pm on the 22nd. Agreed?

Not by the lady who ran the sweetshop which rather weakens the argument.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Natalie Severn]

Not by the lady who ran the sweetshop which rather weakens the argument.

Best regards,

OneRound

Not quite true OneRound,
Mrs Dinwoody was certain Hanratty came into her shop 'on either the Monday or the Tuesday,I can't remember which'.This was her first statement.She was then visited by others from the prosecution side[and the defence] who pressed her about the
exact day and decided it must have been when her granddaughter Barbara Taylor was with her,which Mrs Dinwoody remembered as Monday---so thought it must have been Monday and fixed the day by that.However Barbara Taylor was interviewed too, later,by prosecution and defence and shown photos full face [which she did not recognise ]and then one in profile of Hanratty who she recognised/picked out immediately.Barbara it turned out had been in the shop on the Tuesday too---between 4 pm and after 5 pm-a peak time for Mrs Dinwoody serving because of the delivery of the Liverpool Echo.Barbara's friend fully corroborated the Tuesday visit and said her friend had served behind the counter on several occasions-she had,she said served sweets and lollyices to children coming in and out at what was a busy time.
The prosecition were ofcourse eager to seize on the Monday-even going so far as to say Hanratty must have gone to Speke Airport and got to Buckinghamshire in time because Acott believed Mrs Dinwoody was a very reliable witness!

for exact quotes and times see Foot and Woffinden.
Norma

[OneRound]

Not quite true OneRound,
Mrs Dinwoody was certain Hanratty came into her shop 'on either the Monday or the Tuesday,I can't remember which'.This was her first statement.She was then visited by others from the prosecution side[and the defence] who pressed her about the
exact day and decided it must have been when her granddaughter Barbara Taylor was with her,which Mrs Dinwoody remembered as Monday---so thought it must have been Monday and fixed the day by that.However Barbara Taylor was interviewed too, later,by prosecution and defence and shown photos full face [which she did not recognise ]and then one in profile of Hanratty who she recognised/picked out immediately.Barbara it turned out had been in the shop on the Tuesday too---between 4 pm and after 5 pm-a peak time for Mrs Dinwoody serving because of the delivery of the Liverpool Echo.Barbara's friend fully corroborated the Tuesday visit and said her friend had served behind the counter on several occasions-she had,she said served sweets and lollyices to children coming in and out at what was a busy time.
The prosecition were ofcourse eager to seize on the Monday-even going so far as to say Hanratty must have gone to Speke Airport and got to Buckinghamshire in time because Acott believed Mrs Dinwoody was a very reliable witness!

for exact quotes and times see Foot and Woffinden.
Norma

Thanks, Natalie.

You'll perhaps forgive me for not quite equating that with date bearing cine film.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Natalie Severn]

Iam sorry to all if this seems a very academic and legalistic approach. However, unless date bearing cine film of Hanratty in a Liverpool sweetshop or Rhyl can be found, I do not see any other path to take if his name is still sought to be cleared.

Best regards,

OneRound

This is nonsense, One Round. The Scotland Yard report which Matthews compiled demonstrated unequivocally that the verdict should be quashed.There was no evidence against him.