A6 Rebooted

[Dupplin Muir]

I haven't followed the case much over the last few years, but I was just watching a crime documentary on YouTube, and one comment reminded me of the case against Hanratty:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZpab2FrR5c

This shows that even in 1979-80 nearly two decades after the A6 murder, evidence was still not stored securely, leading to DNA contamination. It also mentions that some items were stored in paper bags that broke, again resulting in them coming into contact with each other.

[Sherlock Houses]

Also available for ‘borrowing’ on the Internet Archive website (for anyone who might be interested) is a copy of Jean Justice’s 1964 book “Murder vs Murder”.

[Sherlock Houses]

Just to let anyone (who might not be aware) know that there are four books about the murder available for viewing on the excellent Internet Archive website. They are the Paul Foot, Bob Woffinden, Louis Blom-Cooper and Norma Buddle books. Also available is the 1975 Hawser Report. To read them in their entirety you just have to register with the website and then ‘borrow’ (for an hour) and re-borrow them until you have read them.

[djw]

The pages of the Hawser Report missing from the above images (thanks SH) have been obtained and placed (in order) in a PDF you can access at https://archive.org/details/hawser-report

2025 being 50 years from the publication of the Hawser Report (under Crown Copyright in 1975) it is now legally in the public domain.

[cobalt]

I don't think Valerie Storie set out to convince us Hanratty was the gunman: she was led to believe he was the gunman at an ID parade and identified him as such.

The ID parade was obviously what Bob Dylan described in another crime as a 'pig circus.' Hanratty's dyed hair had alerted the authorities to the legitimacy of the parade and they suggested hats should be worn. This speaks volumes to the fairness of the visual identification. His solicitor presumably stayed mute.

The verbal ID made by Valerie Storie would not probably have been anticipated by the police so they would have made no effort to present a cross section of Londoners who spoke with a working class accent. When the request for a verbal ID was made then Hanratty's lawyer should have objected to the procedure. I understand he stayed mute.

The second ID parade, not admissible today on technical grounds, failed on its own merits in 1961. It was, indeed, a pig circus. Sherrard made a few mistakes but he was given a poor hand of cards.

[moste]

Hi Ed ,Welcome back. Happy new year.yeah have often wondered about the importance of the timing issue of the abductor, especially his alluding to ‘there’s plenty of time’ not sure about his wearing a watch, and Stories confusing statements on the two courtroom sessions.however the wallets and watches I believe were supposedly taken from them, and given back later ,so they would not have a problem with knowing the time.The whole scenario smacks of some intention of rendezvous.

on my post, I would be grateful if I could have people agree with the truth that since we now have a picture ,though not pristine ,indicates that Stories entire efforts to convince us that Hanratty was the gunman, are completely unfounded and consequently he was hanged because of how she perceived his voice.

[Ed James]

Hi
Back on the site after many years absence. A point I have often wondered about. Did Hanratty possess and wear a wrist watch at the time of the hijacking? At the Commitall Valerie Storie said the gunman was always looking at his watch. But under examination by Sherrard at the full trial, she said I believe that she didn't recall whether the man had a watch . I also understand the gold watch that Hanratty was attempting to sell didn't work. Valerie said the gunman repeatedly said there was plenty of time.

I would be most interested in others thoughts and views.

Ed James

[moste]

Obviously of earlier years than that which confronted Storie. But nevertheless clearly is nothing like Hanratty or Alphon for that matter. Actually a young Gene Pitney comes to mind.
I had not remembered this photo or the letter that came with it. This clearly highlights the regrettable decision of Sherrards not to pursue seeking out, and subpoenaing Clark at once ,in order to convince the court and jury that Storie had no idea whatever of her assailants identification.

[moste]

Uploaded from 2 1/2 yrs ago after Sherlock house’s correspondence with Michael Clark’s step sister. I had forgotten about this .

[cobalt]

The ex-policeman angle is a new one on me as well. Anonymous ex-policeman and his missus, 35 years after murder, come up with revelation? Less than convincing.

Not for me, so far as I can judge. And I am in the 'Hanratty was most likely innocent' camp. If I could see their claimed initial statements from the day after the murder I might be happy to revise my opinion: that is if such statements actually exist. Up till then all I can see is attention seekers.

[moste]

Remember the story of couple trying to assist what may very likely have been the killer, didn’t remember it as having been an ex policeman!

[cobalt]

This sighting seems a variation of a sighting many of us will have come across before. The version I came across was about a couple who saw a dramatisation of the A6 Case in the (early?)1970s and realised they had probably witnessed vital evidence in relation to the crime. Why they had been unaware of their vital evidence up till that point was always a problem with the reliability of their evidence.

This newspaper account contains the same details as I recall them, but adds one very important detail that removes the problem of delay: it is claimed that the couple made statements to the police the very day after the crime was committed. Taken at face value such statements would be as significant as other contemporary statements that have never seemed to surface: the notes taken by Kerr, the student who first spoke to Valerie Storie; the first statement made by Mrs. Lanz, proprietor of the Station Inn.

However I remain a little sceptical of the account. The couple preferred to remain anonymous. There is no explanation offered as to why they were driving through the area at around 3am in the morning. There is no explanation of why they stopped to offer assistance; the driver was not standing underneath an upturned bonnet so why did they assume the car was occupied? Would many couples have stopped to offer a stranger help at that time in the morning? Would they have been able to see much of a man's face in what was presumably an unlit area? Would Alphon not have politely rejected their offer of help instead of being abusive and drawing unnecessary suspicion on himself? Given the obvious potential importance of their alleged sighting it is hard to believe the couple would have remained schtum given the high profile reporting of the crime in 1962.

[Sherlock Houses]

This newspaper article from June 1996 certainly makes for very interesting reading.....

[Sherlock Houses]

Recently I came across a very revealing letter that Jeremy Fox wrote to a Bedfordshire newspaper in April 1987.......

[moste]

Always had it my mind that although Hanratty dealt with Anderson for moving on treasures , it would always be smaller stuff. If for example a Wilson Steer needed finding a new home ,Ewer would be your man.No doubt Hanratty knew of him but allowed Anderson to do her stuff, no need to involve himself or contact Ewer unnecessarily. Mind you France being in the mix and Hanratty being so IN with that family , you never know.