A6 Rebooted

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks, Natalie.

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

Best regards,

OneRound

Why on earth should there have to be date bearing cine film?
If thats so how on earth an you believe the ridiculous Trower?Is his 'evidence' only to be believed if cine camera evidence is produced?
What about Skillett?

Whole load of cobblers again--he was driving the car-Blackhall with a much better closer view viz right next to the MM driver in the passenger seat -said the driver looked nothing like Hanratty

And Valerie Storie? who had a three second glimpse and had three weeks previously identified someone else---how would that escape the need of being cine photoed?



Why should all these people escape the detailed backup of a cine camera?c

[Graham]

And weakened even further by the fact that the policeman sent to interview Mrs Dunwoody, the shop assistant, showed her only one photo - that of James Hanratty. The shop owner was Mrs Cowley, who was unable to help as she wasn't in the shop at the time Hanratty said he was. Anyway, Mrs Dunwoody said that the man in the photo was the man who had come in to ask for directions to "Tarleton Road" on Monday 21st August. That is what she said on her official statement which she presumably read, agreed with, and signed.

In fact, whilst on the subject of the Liverpool Alibi, Hanratty did know two men in that city, both of whom agreed that they knew Hanratty. Joe Gillbanks located and interviewed Terence McNally - or tried to. About all McNally said was words to the effect that 'if Hanratty won't open up, why should I?' I've always been puzzled by this. Hanratty also knew Francis Healey in Liverpool, who he'd met in Walton Prison, but Gillbanks didn't get much out of this character, either. As I said, had he stuck to his Liverpool Alibi, even though his 'mates' clammed up, he might have given the jury the opportunity to consider if it were genuine, and that his pals being bad 'uns didn't want to get involved with a murder investigation, just in case some mud stuck - which is what Hanratty himself implied. Again, we'll never know.

Graham

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

There is a heck of a lack of parity here.Why should the prosecution witnesses all be considered 'reliable' and none of the defence witnesses?
Why should the evidence of the two notorious prison grasses, Langdale and Nudds be acceptable,together with Trowers and Skillets but not Mrs Dinwoodie's which even the prosecution accepted-to say nothing of nine people from Rhyl?
It defies all logical explanation!

[OneRound]

And weakened even further by the fact that the policeman sent to interview Mrs Dunwoody, the shop assistant, showed her only one photo - that of James Hanratty. The shop owner was Mrs Cowley, who was unable to help as she wasn't in the shop at the time Hanratty said he was. Anyway, Mrs Dunwoody said that the man in the photo was the man who had come in to ask for directions to "Tarleton Road" on Monday 21st August. That is what she said on her official statement which she presumably read, agreed with, and signed.

In fact, whilst on the subject of the Liverpool Alibi, Hanratty did know two men in that city, both of whom agreed that they knew Hanratty. Joe Gillbanks located and interviewed Terence McNally - or tried to. About all McNally said was words to the effect that 'if Hanratty won't open up, why should I?' I've always been puzzled by this. Hanratty also knew Francis Healey in Liverpool, who he'd met in Walton Prison, but Gillbanks didn't get much out of this character, either. As I said, had he stuck to his Liverpool Alibi, even though his 'mates' clammed up, he might have given the jury the opportunity to consider if it were genuine, and that his pals being bad 'uns didn't want to get involved with a murder investigation, just in case some mud stuck - which is what Hanratty himself implied. Again, we'll never know.

Graham

Graham

Thanks, Graham.

I didn't distinguish properly (or at all!) between shop owners and assistants but you got my drift.

I've seen similar comments in the past from you about what McNally said and didn't - very interesting and worth sharing again. Appreciated.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Natalie Severn]

Graham, I agree with you over the Liverpool 'contacts'.They were on the burglar network and Hanratty believed they would be more reliable to get an alibi from than a landlady whose name he couldnt remember -maybe wasnt even told her surname in the first place---and whose address he had forgotten.
He thought they would be be willing to help him out,---but , understandably in my view,they turned out to be unwilling to perjure themselves at a murder trial and get 12 years inside.
Hanratty miscalculated because he had rung Acott to say he was wanted for burglary and didnt want to give himself up but that he had nothing to do with this murder.He then ,immediiately rang Barry Harding at The Mirror to say he was wanted for questioning over the A6 murder but was completely innocent.Harding then said---Have you an alibi fopr the night? And Hanratty said Yes-in Liverpool--I was in Liverpool-it was the Tuesday wasnt it--I was doing business in Liverpool.He rang Acott from Liverpool too but I think it was after seeing his mates --who said ,Whoah !No Way---notfor all the tea in CHina----kind of thing...

[Natalie Severn]

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?

Yes-but then the motive Mr Swanwick gave the court-an impulsive lust murder-made no sense either-

I would make one suggestion.Nudds and Nudds alone introduced Hanratty intop the equation long before the police were remotely interested in Hanratty as they had their beam fixed firmly on Alphon after lengthy discussions with people at the Alexandre Ct Hotel.it seems. This statye ofaffairs continued until the 24th September when Valerie identified MIchael Clark as her rapist.Police knew it couldnt be Clark and started to loseinterest in Alphon after 24th September as she had not identified him either---though she later said she thought Clark looked like him.....so returning to Nudds he had given Alphon an alibi for the night 23/24 August---though Alphon said to Acott he had only seen women at the VIenna and never Nudds.But Nudds insisted that Alphon had an alibi and told police that Hanratty[Ryan] had gone down to the basement on 22nd -he didn't know what for---[it was for his case!]and that he had asked how to get to Queensway and been told he needed the 36A bus] so here we have Nudds directly introducing Hanratty into the frame implicating him but exonerating ALphon.

Now Juliana Galves had stated to Highbury police on 6th September that Alphon had come in at 11 pm-confirming his alibi.But she retracted that on September 13th to Scotland Yard police saying she had not been on duty.......
that the only time she had seen Alphon was at 11.45 on 23rd when she had knocked on his door to ask him to leave and he had been at the sink but moved quickly over to a suitcase open on the bed a full of dirty washing on top of which were a pair of black ladies gloves.So Galves removed Alphon's alibi---
But up until the 15th September Nudds had implicated Hanratty and seemingly got nowhere fast!
But the police hauled Nudds in again on 15th September and the next thing we know is that Nudds had changed his story completely in several crucially important respects.On 15th Srptember he totally removed Alphon's alibi

So I wonder----Nudds as well as France told police about the 36A bus business and the gun had been found long before on 24th August---some kind of strange stuff here from Nudds.I am not saying Louisa that Nudds planted the gun,just that the 36A bus stop was at the end of Sutherland Ave so he could have done.

[Natalie Severn]

There is a heck of a lack of parity here.Why should the prosecution witnesses all be considered 'reliable' and none of the defence witnesses?
Why should the evidence of the two notorious prison grasses, Langdale and Nudds be acceptable,together with Trowers and Skillets but not Mrs Dinwoodie's which even the prosecution accepted-to say nothing of nine people from Rhyl?
It defies all logical explanation!

Has anybody got a satifactory answer to this?

[OneRound]

Hi Natalie,

I do not deny there is a lack of parity and understand your feelings about it.

However, like it or not (Caz does, you won't), the starting point for this case is now the 2002 Court of Appeal judgment which upheld Hanratty's conviction of murder. Not Foot. Not Woffinden. Not the Matthews Report etc.

In upholding Hanratty's conviction, the Court effectively stated their belief and trust in those who testified directly or indirectly against him. The onus is now clearly on Hanratty's defenders to show that his last appeal and original trial are ''unsafe''. Those convinced of Hanratty's guilt need do nothing more than admire the judgment. That is how matters are now legally and thus the apparent absence of parity.

That may seem harsh and unfair but that is the way it is. Unless something new in evidence or ''unfair'' as to the 2002 Appeal can be clearly shown, the last judgment will stand for the rest of time. The restating of long established arguments about Rhyl and the sweetshop can serve no practica purpose at this time. If you wish to debate them, that's obviously fine but they will never be for anything more than discussion purposes which are probably pretty circular by now anyway. By all means, bring them into the mix once more if a new appeal is ever granted. They may have some practical benefit then. However, they will not by themselves bring about a new appeal, however strongly you feel about them.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Natalie Severn]

For me,One Round, the crucial issue is the DNA.Nothing much else matters.
But the case is a fascinating one for itself.

[OneRound]

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

Thanks for the welcome, Graham.

All ''incredibly strange'' about the hanky as you say.

I'm still inclined to think the gun and ammo were left on the bus in a panic rather than in an attempt to frame Hanratty. If Hanratty had just denied the hanky was his, that would have been the end of that part of the frame up. Clearly, chucking the gun etc in the Thames would have been more sensible but some people aren't always sensible and probably even less sensible if worried about being arrested for murder, attempted murder and rape.

I agree with your conclusion. The Liverpool alibi was always going to be weak but in my view it was better than introducing a new one (Rhyl) because Liverpool was starting to come apart.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Graham]

There are lots of questions to ask regarding the Liverpool Alibi, and I have to say that its investigation both by the police and Hanratty's defence don't strike me as being particularly competent. I'm sure that his defence could have made a hell of a lot more of it than they appear to have done, especially with respect to the two men (and maybe there were others) Hanratty knew in Liverpool. The impression is given that Gillbanks, after locating them, didn't question them in a sufficiently aggressive and searching manner. OK, he was a private investigator without police powers, but surely in an investigation of murder, Hanratty's known pals would have been closely questioned by the police. Or maybe they were, and the interview notes weren't handed to the defence, but I can't find any evidence of this. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Graham

[Limehouse]

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

Hi Graham, a very warm welcome back to you. It's always good to hear your views and ideas.

I hope you will forgive me if I say I do not think much of some aspects of your 'specualtion'. I agree that there is a real possibility that France was far more involved than has been so far established but I doubt whether he disposed of the gun because he was threatened with a bit of voilence from Hanratty. For a start, Hanratty had no known history of violence and france must have known this. Secondly, although small fry as a criminal, I am sure France could have rallied some pretty heavy types if Hanratty had promised violence because it is likely that France had supplied weapons to such heavies and they would want to 'look after' him.

I find it highly unlikely also, that Hanratty would have had problems disposing of the gun himself if he drove from the murder scene to London in that car. Who on earth would risk being found in a car full of another man's blood with a weapon that was used to kill the man? Who in fact, would risk all that AND take the trouble to drive in such a way that attention was drawn to himself? Surely Hanratty was have disposed of the weapon en route, when the light was still poor? There were rivers and ponds and numerous places he could have hidden the weapon.

And with reference to your most recent post suggesting Hanratty should have stuck to hi original alibi, why on earth would an innocent man not introduce a late alibi ? He was convinced his first alibi would be verified because he was innocent, he was not near Slough on that night! When it seemed doubtful he would convince people of his Liverpool alibi, despite the details he provided, he introduced Rhyl, an alibi he thought was weak (and that is why he failed to mention it at first - he thought it would be hard to verify and he would be branded a liar).

Regards

Julie

[Natalie Severn]

Hi OneRound,


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.


Graham

Paul Foot:Who Killed Hanratty ? from chapter on The confessions of Peter Alphon, page 363
The Sunday Times May 14th 1967 :I took the tube from Oxford Circus, changed and went East to Southend on Sea. I met France at Southend Station and gave him the gun.We had drinks and a meal and then left separately about 5 oclock,I came backand booked in at the Alexandra National Hoel,Finsbury Park.

reprinted from the Sunday Times of MMay 14th 1967.
....

[louisa]

Somebody correct me if I am wrong - but Alphon didn't say that he had tossed the gun off Southend pier. What he said (if my memory serves me) is that he told Dixie France (when he met him in Southend the day after the murder) that they could go onto the pier and toss the gun off the end but Dixie didn't want to and took it back with him to London.

Actually, for my money, Alphon's account of the way things happened sounds very plausible to me. With a few little mistakes put in - as he always did.

Re: the handkerchief. Dixie France's wife did Hanratty's laundry so it would have been easy for France to obtain a hanky.

I think Hanratty knew he was being set up but couldn't figure it out. All these years later we ourselves are still wondering why. At the time of the trial he thought that Dixie France was a good friend of his so probably did not connect him with the 'frame up'.

I don't really understand why Michael Sheridan didn't see there was a frame up going on though.

Between Acott, the bent prosecution evidence and Hanratty's turncoat 'friends' (plus very dodgy eye witness accounts which the jury wholeheartedly believed) he didn't really have much chance did he?

[OneRound]

[/B]

.... Now Juliana Galves had stated to Highbury police on 6th September that Alphon had come in at 11 pm-confirming his alibi.But she retracted that on September 13th to Scotland Yard police saying she had not been on duty.......
that the only time she had seen Alphon was at 11.45 on 23rd when she had knocked on his door to ask him to leave and he had been at the sink but moved quickly over to a suitcase open on the bed a full of dirty washing on top of which were a pair of black ladies gloves.So Galves removed Alphon's alibi--- ....

I wonder if the defence, at least for the 2002 appeal, missed a trick regarding Juliana Galves. I think she could have been of immense help to the Hanratty camp. Does anyone know what happened to her? I assume she is now dead.

More than once in their written judgment, the Court of Appeal voiced possible doubt over Acott's conduct but then dismissed it along the lines of ''there may be a ground reason and, as Acott is now dead, he can't be here to explain it''. In terms of career reputation, death was probably a good move for Acott.

Unlike Nudds and so many of the other grubby characters in this case, Juliana Galves was of ''good character'' - to use that old fashioned phrase. Certainly, as far as I'm aware, she had no criminal record. This would have made her a more credible witness in the eyes of the Court.

I would have liked the Court of Appeal to have heard from her - ideally in person or, failing that, in a sworn affadavit which could have been prepared years before the hearing and her (presumed) death - as to why she made such conflicting statements. If she had confirmed it was because of undue pressure by the police, that would have raised serious concerns over their actions and the whole integrity of their conduct throughout the case which in turn would have increased the chances of the original trial being judged ''unfair'' and Hanratty's conviction being overturned.

Best regards,

OneRound