A6 Rebooted

[caz]

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.

Morning cobalt,

No worries. Your observations here are entirely reasonable. Whoever had those highly incriminating items on his or her person immediately before boarding the bus would have been on high alert for anyone looking at them "in a funny way", or finding their behaviour suspicious. It would have been the most natural thing in the world. As soon as they were safely alone upstairs, their best bet would have been to lift the seat, dump the evidence and get off at the next stop.

While reading your post, it crossed my mind that the person choosing this method was likely to have been a regular bus user, and may not have had easy access to private transport at the time. With a car or van, it would have been so much easier to drive to a remote and unfamiliar spot to dispose of the items where they would be found, if that was the object, or where they might never be found, if that was preferable.

If you had to hop on a bus to get a murder weapon from A to B - any B - as quickly as possible, I could see how the nerves might set in on the journey and lead to what happened in this case.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

That might have worked, moste, if the hanky had Hanratty's monogram on it, or some other distinguishing feature, but I have seen no evidence for it.

If the only evidence was some unidentifiable snot on the hanky, and France's word for it that Hanratty hid unwanted stolen goods under bus seats, he either wasn't very bright, or wasn't trying very hard to frame him. He'd have been inviting suspicion on himself, if anything, for saying this about a known associate, if he knew Hanratty had nothing to do with the crime and therefore might have been able to prove it.

There must have been a hundred more effective ways of throwing Hanratty under the bus, so to speak, innocent or otherwise, if that was the purpose. I'm not buying it.

Next!

Love,

Caz
X

[cobalt]

Yes, I do.

The murderer must have had somewhere to stash his ammunition. He could not have been carting around 5 boxes of ammo whether involved in burglary or even armed robbery as the prosecution case suggested. Common sense suggests otherwise, something that should have been exposed more at trial by Sherrard..

Therefore on returning to London by means of the murder car, he on return to London either decided or was ordered to dispose of the revolver and any ammunition as fast as possible. From his stash. This he did under the back seat of a London bus.

Dixie France or even Louise Anderson may have been involved in this exercise, as possible holders of his stash. This theory neither incriminates nor absolves Hanratty from the crime.

[OneRound]

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.

No problem, cobalt. It's a forum of facts, thoughts and theories.

I take your point about a couple being involved to aid concealment but, there again, if going to that sort of trouble, wouldn't the chosen hiding place have been better? Do you have two people at all in mind?

Best regards,
OneRound

[ansonman]

The text of one of his last letters is perplexing. What could he have meant by "They are going to crucify us all"?

Why write "I have done what was honestly right, but will be so twisted as to make it as though I was an associate of this filthy act"?

Whatever was meant was enough to make him take his own life.

[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.

[moste]

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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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

[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.

[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]

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?