Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
A6 Rebooted
Collapse
X
-
- Likes 1
-
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.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
What’s weird about the Stickler book is that when I searched ‘Usher’ I only got 2 responses.
‘It is almost certain that at some time he deposited his suitcase with William Usher at the left luggage office at Lime Street station, but neither occurred on Tuesday, 22 August.’
and
‘It could have been on this occasion that he spoke to Kempt and Usher.’
So if these are the only two mentions that means he doesn’t mention Usher’s withered hand or even give him any introduction. He just drops his name into the story twice and moves on.
“He now claimed that he had never mentioned the word ‘arm’ – his solicitor must have written it down incorrectly – but instead he had said ‘hand’.”
No mention of Usher though.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by NickB View PostYeah it's William Usher - withered hand; Peter Stringer - false arm.
‘It is almost certain that at some time he deposited his suitcase with William Usher at the left luggage office at Lime Street station, but neither occurred on Tuesday, 22 August.’
and
‘It could have been on this occasion that he spoke to Kempt and Usher.’
So if these are the only two mentions that means he doesn’t mention Usher’s withered hand or even give him any introduction. He just drops his name into the story twice and moves on.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Yeah it's William Usher - withered hand; Peter Stringer - false arm.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Sherlock Houses View Post
This is very remiss of Stickier for not mentioning Usher's hand.
On p191 of his book Paul Foot clarifies the matter about the withered hand or arm.....
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Stickler only mentions Usher twice (as William) but he never mentions his hand.
On p191 of his book Paul Foot clarifies the matter about the withered hand or arm.....
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Sherlock Houses View Post
I feel sure you won't mind me pointing out a couple of error here HS. Significant ones nonetheless...
Not at all HS. Of course, any errors that I make are entirely deliberate and are placed there to check that you’re paying attention.
Firstly, Hanratty returned to London from Liverpool not on the Monday but on the Friday morning [as he claimed] or the Saturday morning [according to Dixie France].
I haven’t a clue why I put Monday because I’ve just read the section of Stickler’s book that deals with it so I have no excuse.
Secondly, Hanratty claimed to his defence team that he handed his case to a male attendant with a 'withered or turned hand' not one with a 'withered arm'. Such a left luggage office attendant existed, a person by the name of Peter Usher. Usher had two fingers missing from his left hand.
Thanks for pointing this out SH. Stickler says:
“In addition, he claimed that when he arrived in the city, he deposited his suitcase at Lime Street railway station and the man who took it from him had a withered arm.”
He also said:
“It is almost certain that at some time he deposited his suitcase with William Usher at the left luggage office at Lime Street station, but neither occurred on Tuesday, 22 August.”
Incidentally the boxing match was held on the Thursday evening [Aug 24th] at the Liverpool Stadium between Howard Winstone and Aryee Jackson. Hanratty tried unsuccessfully to gain admission to watch the fight.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Hanratty admitted that he stayed at The Vienna on the Monday and that he went to Paddington station on the Tuesday morning before realising that trains didn’t run to Liverpool from there so he took a taxi over to Euston. He then claimed to have caught either the 10.55 or 12.55 (he’d previously said 11.55) and arrived in Liverpool where he stayed with friends, near the Bull Ring, until Thursday before returning to London on the Monday. He refused to name these friends (I want to make a comment and ask about that in a separate post)
He claimed that he deposited his case at Lime Street station with an attendant with a withered arm but he retrieved it from a different man. He also said that he went to see the film The Guns Of Navarone and at some point to a stadium to watch a boxing match ‘between a man named Winton and a coloured man’.
Firstly, Hanratty returned to London from Liverpool not on the Monday but on the Friday morning [as he claimed] or the Saturday morning [according to Dixie France].
Secondly, Hanratty claimed to his defence team that he handed his case to a male attendant with a 'withered or turned hand' not one with a 'withered arm'. Such a left luggage office attendant existed, a person by the name of Peter Usher. Usher had two fingers missing from his left hand.
Incidentally the boxing match was held on the Thursday evening [Aug 24th] at the Liverpool Stadium between Howard Winstone and Aryee Jackson. Hanratty tried unsuccessfully to gain admission to watch the fight.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Yes the police did question people at the Regent garage, which shows this part of Valerie's account was not simply overlooked.
I have the impression Acott was uncomfortable when giving evidence. But you can only read about his testimony in the newspaper reports. A few years ago a poster here applied to see the trial transcripts and was told two days were 'missing'. They happened to be the two days Acott gave evidence!
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by cobalt View PostNickB covered this area some years back and is probably best placed to respond. The attendant at the Regent garage was unable to remember the car as described since he was operating a busy site near to Heathrow Airport. No CCTV in these days obviously, so that line of enquiry proved a dead end.
Hirons saw the car in a police garage and claimed that a couple of features on the vehicle chimed with his memory of it. But it appears these features were recognised after the fact and did not comprise part of his initial statement.
Leave a comment:
-
NickB covered this area some years back and is probably best placed to respond. The attendant at the Regent garage was unable to remember the car as described since he was operating a busy site near to Heathrow Airport. No CCTV in these days obviously, so that line of enquiry proved a dead end.
Hirons saw the car in a police garage and claimed that a couple of features on the vehicle chimed with his memory of it. But it appears these features were recognised after the fact and did not comprise part of his initial statement.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by moste View Post
I know your directing your question to Cobalt HS but if I may put my two Pennyworth in .
There seems to have been very little police activity immediately after the 22 nd of August. In areas where you would expect major presence.It appears for example there was no presence at the Old station inn after the event, in my view an interviewing of punters in the pub for a week between say 8 and 10 pm , to see if a memory may be jogged ,something overheard, anything on those lines that might help their inquiry.
houses in Marsh Lane to see if there was vehicle activity in the field across the way.
Oxleys cottages ,top of Deadmanās hill, 3 farm cottages, someone may have heard gun shots!which obviously would set the time of the killing.
unfortunately chief superintendent Acott, placed great store by Valerie Storie as a witness.so much so he allowed his responsibilities to be side lined by his feelings of compassion for Valerie.
And yet however ( and I have never had a satisfactory answer to this question) Why did Acott insist on bringing Mr.Hirons into the mix ,a late night petrol pump attendant at the Shell station at Kingsbury roundabout, when he ,Acott knew full well Valerie had insisted the 2 gallon of petrol was bought from the Regent garage on the A4 by London airport? she even elaborated on remembering it was that filling station ,yet Acott ignored this completely , why?
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by NickB View Post
Foot and Woffinden say she was sure that it was Hanratty but unsure about the date, making it sound likely. In fact it was the other way round. Dinwoodie's evidence was that Hanratty only 'resembled' the man and that she was 'certain' the man visited the shop on Monday. This would lead the jury to conclude that it must have been someone else.
There were two main reasons she gave for being certain it was the Monday. First, her daughter Barbara was with her; second, Cowley's brother John was not with her. On the Tuesday John Cowley was there until 6.00 or 6.30 (when his brother David - the owner- arrived) and said while he was there no-one came in asking for directions. John Cowley was there when Barbara visited the shop on Tuesday: "On the way back from town I called in at the shop about a quarter to five and Mr Cowley's brother was there with Gran".
Mrs D also said it was Monday when she discussed it with the driver, Harding, who said that when he called Barbara "was putting up pop bottles on the shelf" which points to Monday but is not conclusive in itself.
I don't know about the portable radio but suggest he might have put it in a station lock-up.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
I can think of only one answer to that question: Acott did not believe everything Valerie told him. There is a moment in the trial when Acott is flummoxed by Sherrard asking him how, if he believed Valerie's description of the murderer, could he have even considered Alphon.
Hirons came forward claiming to be the attendant and Acott must have thought that he could not turn him away in case he was.
Sherrard was happy to go along with the idea that the attendant was Hirons who he even mentioned in his summing-up. It was only the defence who benefited from his evidence that he did not identify Hanratty which, as he was not the attendant, was hardly surprising!
- Likes 2
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: