A6 Rebooted

[Sherlock Houses]

As has been well noted several times on the A6 threads not one single hair fingerprint, fibre or anything else of Hanratty’s was found in the murder car. No shred of evidence. Uncannily enough, at the very same time that Mike, Val and murderer were cramped together in that small car, a drama was being screened on itv, the title of which was “Shred of evidence”.

[moste]

Wonder if Tony had considered this.or anyone else for that matter, since Jim knew the Frances were working against him appearing for the prosecution, and Mrs France often did Jim’s laundry. and since Jim believed he was being stitched up, may he have come clean about ownership of hanky to thwart any proposal that he was lying by the Frances? It’s the only answer I can come up with. It must have been identifiable as his.
Also Jim must have realised that with the amount of evidence stacked against him ,his only chance was to have the jury believe he was framed.
p.s.hard to believe Cobalt after all these decades that M G and V S could well have been Coronation St. fans.

[Spitfire]

Here it is.

[cobalt]

Remember that the general consensus of Hanratty giving evidence in the dock was of a man rather too cocky for his own good, who gave as good as he got.
Yet this reported exchange resembles a scene some years back from Coronation Street when a simpering Derek Wilton crumbled in the witness box and was described as a 'wet lettuce.'

[OneRound]

That reported exchange in court is highly dubious; it reads like something from a play by Terence Rattigan.

First of all, Hanratty would have known through his barrister the details of the discovery in the backseat of the bus and would also have been aware of the exhibits to be presented in court. Yet he seems blissfully unaware of this evidence, evidence which could send him to the gallows.

Secondly, despite being apparently 'ambushed' about the existence of said handkerchief, Hanratty recovers quickly (we assume) to confirm it is his. A remarkable ability on his part since few of us, even when presented with a patterned, monogrammed snot rag, could in all honesty offer much more than, 'It resembles a handkerchief I once owned.'

But Hanratty does more than this: he actually reveals his surprised astonishment in the response: 'Well yes sir, it is indeed.' An implausible exchange I would suggest.

Hi all,

Yes, that's the reported exchange I was trying to recall.

Highly dubious as cobalt states and explains above. In addition, there's a reference in the alleged exchange to ''exhibit no xx''. If the exchange were from a true trial transcript, then the actual exhibit number would have been quoted and shown.

Tony used to joke - or clown about - making up scenarios and conversations involving some of the participants in the A6 case. Some could be amusing, such as Acott failing to sleep at night and expressing worries concerning his actions to his wife. However, in this instance, he appears to have muddied the waters and unnecessarily added confusion.

Unless Tony or others can show the exchange to be genuine, I will now side with Spitfire and regard Hanratty's admission of the hanky being his as nothing more than a ''myth''.

Best regards,
OneRound

[cobalt]

That reported exchange in court is highly dubious; it reads like something from a play by Terence Rattigan.

First of all, Hanratty would have known through his barrister the details of the discovery in the backseat of the bus and would also have been aware of the exhibits to be presented in court. Yet he seems blissfully unaware of this evidence, evidence which could send him to the gallows.

Secondly, despite being apparently 'ambushed' about the existence of said handkerchief, Hanratty recovers quickly (we assume) to confirm it is his. A remarkable ability on his part since few of us, even when presented with a patterned, monogrammed snot rag, could in all honesty offer much more than, 'It resembles a handkerchief I once owned.'

But Hanratty does more than this: he actually reveals his surprised astonishment in the response: 'Well yes sir, it is indeed.' An implausible exchange I would suggest.

[moste]

Actually looks like the clown had his finger on the pulse so to speak. Lol.

[moste]

Ok. That’s better .

[moste]

new upload

[moste]

Well that didn't work too good.not very clever at this..you may need strong glasses.

anyway from Oneround Miller as the author of this entry regard Hanratty agreeing the hanky being his from April 2014.

[moste]

[Sherlock Houses]

I no longer have access to the various books but don't believe Hanratty was ever asked this at trial, let alone admitted the handkerchief was his. I recall some clown on here years ago producing a purported trial statement from Hanratty about the hanky but that was probably no more than a bad joke.

Somehow I don’t feel that Tony will take kindly to you referring to him as a clown. Tony, a very knowledgeable and perceptive poster who has contributed much to the A6 threads has been a keen student of the case since he first bought Paul Foot’s book when it was published in 1971.

[moste]

Mmh, strange for me because I remember Tony as someone who having sifted through all the relevant facts,as indicated in the spitfire entry , concluded as I do that he was framed.
It seems ,rather than loosening his collar though, if that statement of his accepting ownership of said hanky was factual, he was indicating to the jury what an absolute farce the prosecution case was, and the irresistible conclusion has to be that he is being made a scapegoat. Unfortunately for Hanratty he was in Bedford and not the Old Bailey.

[Spitfire]

Hi moste and all,

I no longer have access to the various books but don't believe Hanratty was ever asked this at trial, let alone admitted the handkerchief was his. I recall some clown on here years ago producing a purported trial statement from Hanratty about the hanky but that was probably no more than a bad joke.

The Court of Appeal certainly made no reference to any such admission by Hanratty in their 2002 judgement which would be surprising if he had.

Other regulars on this thread, such as Spitfire, may know more or better.

Best regards,
OneRound

Hi OR,

I think the originator of the myth that Hanratty admitted ownership of the handkerchief in the witness box, was a poster called “Tony” on the original and closed A6 Murder thread.

Tony wrote as follows

”Of course there is the hanky wrapped round the gun left on the bus which also had Hanratty’s DNA on it. But why would Hanratty do such a stupid thing as risk being caught boarding a bus with boxes of ammunition and a large hand gun when he could simply have dumped it all in the river. I don’t think he would have. Nobody would have.
Did anyone else have access to Hanratty’s dirty washing? Well, of course, we know they did.
But the evidence was presented in court and, despite what people say about Hanratty telling lies; he agreed at once it was his hanky. Well a strange liar indeed; it was just as if he was loosening his collar in readiness for the noose.“

As this thread is closed, it is not possible to do a direct quote or provide a link, but the post was made on 6 July 2009 at 6.24pm at post #4032.

S

[OneRound]

Just a thought in answer to something Caz mentioned.wasnâÂÂt Hanratty asked in the dock âÂÂIs this your handkerchief â to which he answered yes ?

Hi moste and all,

I no longer have access to the various books but don't believe Hanratty was ever asked this at trial, let alone admitted the handkerchief was his. I recall some clown on here years ago producing a purported trial statement from Hanratty about the hanky but that was probably no more than a bad joke.

The Court of Appeal certainly made no reference to any such admission by Hanratty in their 2002 judgement which would be surprising if he had.

Other regulars on this thread, such as Spitfire, may know more or better.

Best regards,
OneRound