A6 Rebooted

[louisa]

Caz - I apologize for your thinking that I am 'lecturing' you, or anyone else on this thread. I certainly didn't claim that I know Hanratty's mindset - how could I? I am just guessing about it and simply going by what I have read about him, the type of person he strikes me as being.

I am simply giving my opinion on this case. I fully understand that my opinion will be at odds with other peoples' opinions. This is what a discussion, or a debate is all about, surely?

I certainly don't mind other posters disagreeing with my opinions and I hope that they won't mind if I disagree with theirs.

[caz]

Hi Louisa and Limehouse,

The problem is when you both state your opinion of Hanratty's innocence as thought it were 'established' fact.

Obviously if Hanratty was not in Liverpool on the dates he claimed, his presence there could not have been 'established'. And there is still no earthly reason why he could not have admitted to visiting both places, first Liverpool before spending the night in Rhyl, if this was true, thereby giving himself the best possible chance of someone reliable placing him in one or other location.

What was there to lose by mentioning both places if this was the truth? Why lie about spending the night in Liverpool? It seems to have cost him dear, and for no possible gain.

Love,

Caz
X

[louisa]

Hanratty's innocence, as we all know, is not an established fact but, in my opinion, neither is his guilt.

In one of the books (I can't remember if it was the Paul Foot one or the Bob Woffindon one) a reason is given why Hanratty didn't want the truth (the Rhyl visit) to be known. Not being able to sell his stolen items would have seemed like an admission of failure to everyone that knew him. We are told that he was mainly thinking of his friends, people like the France family whom he told that he was going to Liverpool to visit relatives. He had already failed to sell anything in Liverpool and admitting he couldn't sell in Rhyl either would have seemed rather poor for a thief of his (in his own mind) calibre.

[Limehouse]

Hi Louisa and Limehouse,

The problem is when you both state your opinion of Hanratty's innocence as thought it were 'established' fact.

Obviously if Hanratty was not in Liverpool on the dates he claimed, his presence there could not have been 'established'. And there is still no earthly reason why he could not have admitted to visiting both places, first Liverpool before spending the night in Rhyl, if this was true, thereby giving himself the best possible chance of someone reliable placing him in one or other location.

What was there to lose by mentioning both places if this was the truth? Why lie about spending the night in Liverpool? It seems to have cost him dear, and for no possible gain.

Love,

Caz
X

You make a fair enough point Caz, but let us suppose Hanratty had mentioned the Rhyl alibi along with the Liverpool one (For example 'well, first I visited Liverpool and then I got the bus to Rhyl ... ' and so on) the witnesses would still have been the same people and Mrs Jones would still have taken the stand and testified as she did and the outcome is not likely to have been very different.

My point about Hanratty's reason for not mentioning the Rhyl alibi first is not just based 'on my opinion' but on explanations Hanratty himself gave.

Hanratty also told his defence team that when it became clear he would have to go into the witness box to defend himself in light of people such as France and Anderson testifying for the prosecution, he decided it would be best to tell the complete truth. (Woffinden, p199) It is clear to me that Hanratty believed, up to that point, that the 'mistake' and 'misjustice' of his arrest and charge would be revealed and he would not need to rely on a vague alibi based on a night in a guesthouse tucked away in the back streets of Rhyl.

[Natalie Severn]

Hanratty's innocence, as we all know, is not an established fact but, in my opinion, neither is his guilt.

In one of the books (I can't remember if it was the Paul Foot one or the Bob Woffindon one) a reason is given why Hanratty didn't want the truth (the Rhyl visit) to be known. Not being able to sell his stolen items would have seemed like an admission of failure to everyone that knew him. We are told that he was mainly thinking of his friends, people like the France family whom he told that he was going to Liverpool to visit relatives. He had already failed to sell anything in Liverpool and admitting he couldn't sell in Rhyl either would have seemed rather poor for a thief of his (in his own mind) calibre.

I really don't think it had much to do with that-it seems to me he sold his stuff alright or quite a bit--and went back to Liverpool from Rhyl to collect the cash-see page 128 Woffinden. but the point was he feared the people he had done business with---knuckle dustered he had been on 26 July the month before in LIme Street and the ambulance had to be called,so he probably feared knee capping or worse if he grassed on these 'friends' and they ended up in jail because of it.
As soon as he realised the police were after him he got himself involved in ringing Acott at Scotland Yard on October 6th .Acott wanted him to give himself up but JH told him he was completely innocent of the murder but he couldn't give himself up because he was wanted for burglary and knew he could get five years for that.So in between ringing Acott at noon and 11.05 pm that day,he rang Barry Harding,Asst.News editor at the Daily Mirror emphatically stating they were after the wrong man.Harding listened to his insistence that he was innocent of the crime then asked him if hje had an alibi to which he repl;ied he had but that they were Liverpool people and he did business with them and couldn't involve them 'for various reasons' but that he was going to LIverpool the following day to talk to them.He later explained to his lawyer that he could not remember Mrs Jones's name or her address and didn't think he would be able to use her as an alibi but believed his friends would stand alibi for a few hundred quid.At that stage he was convinced his innocence would clear him eventually.
I must say,knowing a few Rhyl people-and in 1961 it was more like a village than it is now,he was quite right in thinking people in general would not have taken kindly to him arriving out of the blue to say he was wanted for questioning over the A6 murder and could they stand alibi for him.
Mrs Dinwoodie was a bit different as the sweetshops in Scotland Road had all been approached by police and her sweetshop was no exception and she distinctly remembered leading him to the door of her shop to explain how to get back , by bus,to the centre of Liverpool.She said she thought the road he was looking for must have been Tarleton Street[near the Cavern]and it was to this street she was encouraging him to try in Central Liverppol--"i told him he was in so and so part of Liverpool nowhere near Tarleton Street [JH said it was Tarleton or Carlton Road not street . Mrs Jones ran a full house with her daughter and was extremely busy that week -why would she remember him particularly he may have reasoned..

[louisa]

Hi Natalie. He sold some of his stuff on the same day that he went into the sweetshop and billiard hall? I don't remember reading that, so my memory is failing me - old age probably.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Natalie. He sold some of his stuff on the same day that he went into the sweetshop and billiard hall? I don't remember reading that, so my memory is failing me - old age probably.

Hi Louisa,
Not exactly no. It appears to me he may well have met a friend or contact in Liverpool on 22nd and possibly been told 'no can do' but left some stuff to be sold.He returned in his own words on the Thursday morning and it appears from page 128 in Woffinden's book that he left his case 'in the flat' and then picked it up later with all the cash As I said in a previous post he was ducking and diving Hanratty.He mentioned Terry McNally to Michael Sherrard by name and said McNally had taken him to meet others in a flat off Scotland Road in June or July[1961] and he was one of the people he had stayed with.Terry McNally and John 'went out to get rid of the stuff' ---and Hanratty had to wait until they sold the goods 'on the Thursday evening they sold the stuff and Hanratty left the flat' and sent a telegram to Charles France---business completed so to speak!Woffinden sticks to this last version on page 128.
McNally was absolutely livid when served with a subpoena during the trial and said he had been at work all week at Dunlop Rubber in Speke and hadn't seen Hanratty since he left Lewes prison four years earlier. However,he made another statement which is quoted in full in Bob Woffinden's book [which I no longer have],and this states quite clearly that Terry McNally had seen him but McNally added ,mysteriously "If he isn't going to open up,why should I?"
It has to be remembered that Hanratty was in serious trouble and his life outside might have been very perilous if he had persisted in dumping his contacts in it to save his own neck.He may not have daredcontinue to implicate these men who could have faced years in prison as a result.
Best
Norma

[louisa]

Thanks for explaining, Natalie. I think I'm going to have to get my books out again and do some re-reading.

It's entirely understandable why Hanratty's 'friends' in Liverpool did not want to be part of his alibi.

[Graham]

Hi Graham,

You suggest that Hanratty 'was not by nature organised' and yet in your previous post you write "I repeat that it is highly suggestive that by his own admission he went to Paddington Station, from where he could get a train to the Maidenhead/Slough area".

This action, if that is what Hanratty did, suggests an element of deliberate planning. Deliberate planning would suggest that there was a reason to head for Slough. Your claim that there were some impressive properties, 'possibly good places to stage a burglary with a shooter' does not satisfy me as a reason because, when Hanratty was talking to his friend about getting a gun, he is supposed to have said something like 'house breaking doesn't bring in real money' and when he was challenged on the stand at his trial about having discussed getting a gun he replied that if he was going to go out and rob somewhere using a gun, he would be looking for hard cash, a petrol station or something similar. My point is that he would not have held up a household using a gun because the results would not have been greater than robbing an empty house and the risk would have been greater. By his own admission, he would have been looking for easy cash - cover his face, wave the gun, demand cash, get away fast. He would not have been looking for high risk 'house' jobs like that described above - or approaching a small car in a field and engaging the occupants for hours in a pointless drive around the country. My point is that Hanratty didn't have a reason to 'plan to go to Slough' but he did have a reason, and he did plan, to go to Liverpool.

You state that MG and VS moved from Huntercomb Lane to the cornfield, thus making it unlikely that anyone 'planned' to attack them, and this is true, but VS told a colleague that she and MG often visited the cornfield and she even showed him the spot. If it was a regular haunt of theirs, an attacker may have just made for that spot first and struck lucky or they may have just hidden away, waiting for them to arrive. I am 99% certain it was not Hanratty.

Hanratty was keen to sell the ring and other bits he couldn't off load in London. I don't believe Hanratty had intended to stay at the Vienna. He had planned on staying closer to the station that would have taken him to Liverpool. The next morning he just made for the nearest station, not really thinking about much except the cash he was hoping to pick up for the stolen goods he had in his pocket.

Julie

Hi Julie,

I meant to respond to this, but have been side-tracked for a couple of days. You're absolutely correct - JH wouldn't use a gun to rob a house, and I stand corrected on this point. He'd be looking for bigger fish to fry, of course.

Someone years ago on the old forum did in fact suggest something along the lines that maybe JH was looking to nick a getaway car or something like that. This is a very important point you make, Julie, and one which I think has been overlooked by all and sundry - its excellence was reinforced to me very recently by a former poster to this thread (thanks, Vic - we miss you), but unfortunately those who believe in JH's innocence could never accept it as a possibility - as you yourself don't. Maybe after he got into the car he got caught up in a conversation he felt unable to drop, and lost his original intent to pinch the car. Who knows?

I don't think it would've taken much organisation or will-power for even JH to head for Paddington Station and the Slough area, after he left The Vienna. Maybe he'd checked out the Dorney area previously - again, who knows?

Re: the move from Huntercombe Lane to the cornfield, if I recall aright Valerie said thay she and Gregsten had been at Huntercombe only for a very short time before they decided to move, and hadn't been very long at the cornfield before the gunman turned up. OK, he could have studied their previous movements and could have lay hidden, awaiting their arrival, but this isn't a likely scenario to me. However, Valerie did say she thought he might have been waiting for someone, so again - who knows?

I don't like speculating, but a possible scenario could be that JH had decided on armed robbery as his future, and got himself a gun. What kind of place would he rob? A petrol-station would have stacks of ready cash - no credit-cards in those days - and would be easy enough to rob, as most of them only had one or two attendants on duty at night. Where are there lots of petrol-stations? Main roads. JH had been to the dogs at Slough, so presumably knew the A4 and its petrol-stations. Train from Paddington to Slough in the morning, hang around Slough during the day (or even, perhaps, to collect the gun...) then a bus-ride or a walk to a known lovers-lane to pinch a car. It's only 15 minutes from the main road to Dorney Reach (I've walked it myself). Even a Morris Minor is a better getaway car than no car at all. How's that?

Tell you something, the entire A6 Case and its cast of characters is something you couldn't make up, not in a thousand years....

Cheers,

Graham

[caz]

Hanratty's innocence, as we all know, is not an established fact but, in my opinion, neither is his guilt.

In one of the books (I can't remember if it was the Paul Foot one or the Bob Woffindon one) a reason is given why Hanratty didn't want the truth (the Rhyl visit) to be known. Not being able to sell his stolen items would have seemed like an admission of failure to everyone that knew him. We are told that he was mainly thinking of his friends, people like the France family whom he told that he was going to Liverpool to visit relatives. He had already failed to sell anything in Liverpool and admitting he couldn't sell in Rhyl either would have seemed rather poor for a thief of his (in his own mind) calibre.

I'm afraid you are quite wrong, Louisa. It's all over bar the shouting, and Hanratty's guilt has been established as far as the law of the land is concerned. If you want it to be otherwise you will have to do more than debate it on a Jack the Ripper website!

I would put it to you that hanging by the neck was a slightly more drastic way of admitting failure to everyone who knew him than coming clean about a few stolen items he couldn't offload. I'm sorry, but telling the truth about going on to Rhyl and spending the night there could not possibly have hurt him if it was the truth, and there is no plausible explanation for not doing so when he knew his neck was at stake.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

You make a fair enough point Caz, but let us suppose Hanratty had mentioned the Rhyl alibi along with the Liverpool one (For example 'well, first I visited Liverpool and then I got the bus to Rhyl ... ' and so on) the witnesses would still have been the same people and Mrs Jones would still have taken the stand and testified as she did and the outcome is not likely to have been very different.

Hi Limehouse,

You jest, surely?

Love,

Caz
X

[louisa]

In the light of her confused and contradictory statements, I don't think that anything Valerie Store saw or heard should be taken as gospel.

I think it's highly unlikely that Hanratty would have taken a train all the way down south to Slough (to a place where he had never been before, as far as anyone knows) and then wandered around in the hope of finding somebody to rob.

The idea of anyone using a Morris Minor as a 'getaway car' is quite frankly, laughable.

By what I have read, Hanratty watched all the movies and fancied himself as a bit of a gangster and probably did quite like the idea of a 'stick up'. A petrol station would have been a better bet, I would have thought, than hijacking a courting couple. However, there is no proof that he would ever have put this fantasy into practice. As far as anyone knows, he never even owned a gun.

[Graham]

In the light of her confused and contradictory statements, I don't think that anything Valerie Store saw or heard should be taken as gospel.

Oh yes? And what about Grace Jones' statements? Who did the jury believe - her or Valerie Storey (who by the way is still alive...)

I think it's highly unlikely that Hanratty would have taken a train all the way down south to Slough (to a place where he had never been before, as far as anyone knows) and then wandered around in the hope of finding somebody to rob.

He didn't have to 'take a train all the way down south to Slough' because he was in The Vienna Hotel, only a few miles away. And he had been to Slough before, to the dog-track (or so I understand).

The idea of anyone using a Morris Minor as a 'getaway car' is quite frankly, laughable.

Please read my post above.

As far as anyone knows, he never even owned a gun.

He certainly did - he used it to kill Michael Gregsten and seriously injure Valerie Storey and it was found on a No 36A bus with his hanky wrapped around it, the very gun that had been used in the A6 crime.

Louisa, I do honestly try to keep my cool on this thread, but I would just like to echo what Caz said earlier: please do NOT take Hanratty's presence in either Liverpool or Rhyl as established facts, because he was NEVER able to prove it, and it has NOT been proved since then by anyone. It matters not one jot if a few Rhyl people claimed (after the event, I might add) to have seen him at the crucial time - there is simply no tangible proof.

Graham

[caz]

You make a fair enough point Caz, but let us suppose Hanratty had mentioned the Rhyl alibi along with the Liverpool one (For example 'well, first I visited Liverpool and then I got the bus to Rhyl ... ' and so on) the witnesses would still have been the same people and Mrs Jones would still have taken the stand and testified as she did and the outcome is not likely to have been very different.

My point about Hanratty's reason for not mentioning the Rhyl alibi first is not just based 'on my opinion' but on explanations Hanratty himself gave.

Hanratty also told his defence team that when it became clear he would have to go into the witness box to defend himself in light of people such as France and Anderson testifying for the prosecution, he decided it would be best to tell the complete truth. (Woffinden, p199) It is clear to me that Hanratty believed, up to that point, that the 'mistake' and 'misjustice' of his arrest and charge would be revealed and he would not need to rely on a vague alibi based on a night in a guesthouse tucked away in the back streets of Rhyl.

Hi Limehouse,

You deserve a fuller response - sorry.

Not sure what you mean by the outcome not being 'very' different, had Hanratty told the whole truth about his whereabouts instead of telling lies. It was going to be hanging or acquittal, and the jury had to decide if Hanratty was telling the truth about his movements when the rape and murder were taking place. Obviously if he was guilty and told the whole truth, the outcome would have been the same. But if he was innocent and had never wavered from a full account of his movements, there is every chance that a reliable witness could have been found early on who would have turned up trumps for him and given the jury something to indicate his honesty and therefore a reasonable doubt about his guilt.

But once you admit that he did lie, on oath, about overnighting in Liverpool, it's not very sensible to base your opinions on any explanations he may have given himself. I expect the jury felt the same. Having caught himself in this lie, he effectively made any other evidence for the prosecution appear that much sounder. Of course, he was only obliged to lie about his whereabouts if he had been committing the A6 murder at the relevant time.

A genuine alibi is all Hanratty should have needed to show up a 'mistake' or 'misjustice', and telling the police about a genuine stay in a reasonably respectable guest house in Rhyl has got to be head and shoulders above a bogus stay in Liverpool, with fingers crossed that his criminal mates will lie for him too. Rhyl could hardly be called a 'vague' alibi by comparison, unless you too have doubts that he was actually there on the right night.

Once again, what was there to lose by admitting outright to a night in Rhyl if that's where he was?

Love,

Caz
X

[louisa]

Graham - I don't know why you need to 'keep your cool' - after all this is a friendly discussion forum and differences of opinion are to be expected. Speaking for myself, I am quite all right with being disagreed with

By the way I am not totally convinced of Hanratty's innocence - or his guilt for that matter.

Slough is a fairly a long distance from London. I speak as a Londoner, born and bred. Judging by what I have read, Hanratty preferred to rob people on his own 'turf'.