A6 -location of scene and 2nd appeal

[Limehouse]

My point is that if Hanratty had a valid alibi, then Dixie, who had access to Hanratty's laundry, would be incriminating himself by disposing of the gun in this way. It was suggested above by another poster that France was trying to frame Hanratty. My argument was intended to refute that suggestion.

Fair enough point Eddie, but France knew that Hanratty would very likely not have a solid alibi because he knew Hanratty was going up north to sell stolen loot from his robberies and would be meeting people who would not want to give him an alibi because of their criminality. He knew Hanratty well enough to know he would drift from place to place, leaving false names and keeping a low profile.

Far from incriminating himself, France was incriminating Hanratty by placing the gun (or having in placed) where he knew Hanratty disposed of unwanted loot and he even went on to testify against Hanratty on this point in court.

[Natalie Severn]

For anyone in any doubt about what Michael Sherrard thought about the case -watch the Horizon programme of 16 May 2002.I can probably provide a link in a day or two.
I really can't believe that you,Graham, can possibly put the interpretation you have on Sherrard's words.Ok he writes in legalese ,a little,-by that I mean he covers himself legally ,when writing about the decision of the 3 judges who took the 2002 LCNDNA tests at face value ,ofcourse they would as representatives of the crown.Sherrard is not willing to contradict them outright in public about the DNA result ofcourse not ---how could he possibly have done that as a lawyer? But he points to the queerness of police having kept knickers 'on ice' [his words] for 42 years and everything he says otherwise about the trial and the appeal on the 2002 Horizon programme and in his 2009 autobiography is intended to show that,in his view,had Hanratty had a more experienced barrister than himself, Hanratty would never have hanged-and ought not to have hanged.In addition he found certain police tampering and withholding activities 'wicked'---its on record him saying this----and ,crucially that for him-for Sherrard that is ,Mrs Dinwoody's alibi -the perfectly respectable church going lady in the Liverpool sweetshop , her evidence alone was sufficient to prove,for him, that Hanratty was on Scotland Road between 5 and 6pm on 22 August 1961 so Sherrard believed Hanratty did not need the Rhyl alibi of the following days and those late witnesses, for him, Mrs Dinwoody was a perfectly strong enough alibi that Hanratty had and all the nonsense about him taking a helicopter or a plane from Speke to the Cornfield suggested by the prosecution to get him from Liverpool to Buckinghahshire for 9.30 was just that,nonsense! I dont have the book with me or the DVD of the horizon programme but when I get back I can show chapter and verse on this matter re Sherrard and his views .
The DNA issue is ongoing.

[Graham]

Natalie,

I am very mindful of Admin's post earlier today, so all I will say to you at this stage is that Michael Sherrard is on record as saying that the wrong man did not hang. Twist this all you like, this is what he said.

G

[Natalie Severn]

Natalie,

I am very mindful of Admin's post earlier today, so all I will say to you at this stage is that Michael Sherrard is on record as saying that the wrong man did not hang. Twist this all you like, this is what he said.

G

If you are so mindful why are you using an abrasive word like 'twist" ?

[propatria27]

A couple of things that I'd like people's view on:

1. I've been looking at the 1966 Panorama programme and 2 things strike me:

a. James Trower, the witness in Redbridge Lane, appears to be lying or, at least, being economical with the truth (no surprise to some people!). My reason for saying this is his body language. I was trained in identifying body language and used these skills over many years as an investigator in the RAF. He touches his face on a number of occassions and will not look the interviewer in the eye - these are classic responses of someone with something to hide.

b. In the interview with Charlie White, he states that when he saw the person believed to be Hanratty, he felt sorry for him because "His shoes were very bad". My understanding is that Hanratty's shoes were indeed very bad and he was given a new pair by Terry Evans - but this happened on 25th July 1961 - which was also a Tuesday. Two other things White mentions in the interview are the directions he gives to the man to the funfare and the fact he knew it was a Tuesday when the meeting happened as someone had asked him for a copy of the Rhyl Advertiser, but it didn't come out until the Wednesday. In BW's 1997 hardware book, page 94, he states that JH headed immediately for the funfair - just like Wilson said. I would suggest that White is confused about the date and the meeting, and he actually saw JH in July, not August. It also appears (BW page 348) that the interview with White happened at short notice, almost by accident, and he would have had no time to compare notes with anyone but actually had to rely on his own recollections of the meeting.

2. I've been reading some of the old threads from 2008 and there was much discussion about lighting at the scene of the crimes and how much VS would have seen of the assailant. It occurred to me that there was considerable coming and going from the car after MG was killed, which would have involved the car doors being open for some time. Therefore, and Graham you may be able to assist here, would not the internal courtesy light have been on? Would not this have assisted VS a little in identifying her attacker? If we accept the account of David Henderson (BW page 32) that he saw the car in a field in Hunterscombe Lane South, "There was a light on inside the car. I think it was a fitted interior light..." - then we know the courtesy light was working,

Regards,

Pete

[propatria27]

One other thing about the 1966 Panorama - VS states in it that, at the first identity parade, she picked out someone who she thought resembled Hanratty, but at the trial she stated she had picked out someone who resembled Alphon (BW 1997 page 183).

Pete

[Graham]

Hi Pete,

1] re: the Charlie White interview, I believe I am correct in saying that he admitted afterwards that he'd been told by Terry Evans to say that it was in August he saw Hanratty in Rhyl.

2] re: Trower and the sightings in London, to be honest I've never given a great deal of credence to any of them.

3] my old Moggie had an interior light that came on when a door was opened, and went off as soon as it was closed again. Not like modern cars where the light stays on for a time. Interior lights are brighter than they appear - only last week we were at a place where the car-park was in pitch darkness, and someone's interior light was on, and very visible from, at a guess, 50 yards away. (There was something wrong with the timer on the light, and it stayed on after the doors were closed, as we were informed).

Graham

[propatria27]

Hi Pete,


3] my old Moggie had an interior light that came on when a door was opened, and went off as soon as it was closed again. Not like modern cars where the light stays on for a time. Interior lights are brighter than they appear - only last week we were at a place where the car-park was in pitch darkness, and someone's interior light was on, and very visible from, at a guess, 50 yards away. (There was something wrong with the timer on the light, and it stayed on after the doors were closed, as we were informed).

Graham

So, during the time it took to get MG out of the car- and I believe this was not a simple operation - the interior light would have been on, including when the gunman had to help with getting MG's legs out. Where was VS when this was happening? Equally, the 2 or 3 times she started the car or showed him how the gears and lights worked - they were either sitting next to each other or she was in the drivers' seat and he was standing next to her - possibly with the door open.

Pete

[EddieX]

Thanks for the reminder that the 1966 Panorama program is viewable on line. One would expect that the memories of the witnesses were better in 1966 than later in that decade when Foot came on the scene, and certainly better than when the later writers on the murder came on the scene.

Mr White's (the newspaper seller) account is clearly made up. Hanratty only knew Terry Evans by the name 'John' up until the trial, he could not have asked Charlie White where Terry was in 1961.

Mrs Jones's account is interesting, in that she was quite clear that she had Room 4 available, but was in two minds as to whether to let Hanratty have that room as he only wanted to stay two nights. Mrs Jones seems to have forgotten that the prosecution showed that all her letting rooms were fully occupied.

Foot and Woffinden suggest that Hanratty was offered the attic room with a green bath on a take it or leave it basis. The argument runs that Hanratty left his case to see if he could find better accommodation elsewhere which accounts for the sightings in South Kimnel St. Unable to find anything better he returns to spend one night in the attic and another night in a proper letting room.

Hanratty (and Mrs Jones in 1966) make no mention of Hanratty leaving Ingledene to look elsewhere or of this game of musical rooms. Hanratty's description of the room is that it was a rear room with a window and with a sink. Nor does Hanratty mention the need to swap rooms.

Moreover, the accounts of Terry Evans and Mrs Jones that they were told to keep there answers to 'yes' or 'no' does not ring true and sounds like another of Terry Evans's inventions. No solicitor would ever tell his witness to only answer with just a yes or a no. Sherrard would not be able to ask leading questions and so most answers would have to be other than yes or no.

[Limehouse]

So, during the time it took to get MG out of the car- and I believe this was not a simple operation - the interior light would have been on, including when the gunman had to help with getting MG's legs out. Where was VS when this was happening? Equally, the 2 or 3 times she started the car or showed him how the gears and lights worked - they were either sitting next to each other or she was in the drivers' seat and he was standing next to her - possibly with the door open.

Pete

Hi Pete,

If VS did see Hanratty clearly at this point, it is surprising that the 'brown eyes' description ever happened.

Interested to read your quote about VS's comments concerning whether the first man she picked looked like Alphon or Hanratty. He certainly did not look like Hanratty because at that stage the suspect was reported to have had 'brown eyes'.

Julie

[propatria27]

Hi Pete,

If VS did see Hanratty clearly at this point, it is surprising that the 'brown eyes' description ever happened.

Interested to read your quote about VS's comments concerning whether the first man she picked looked like Alphon or Hanratty. He certainly did not look like Hanratty because at that stage the suspect was reported to have had 'brown eyes'.

Julie

Does that at least show some reflection on her part - at least between 1961 and 1966?

Pete

[EddieX]

Hi Pete,

If VS did see Hanratty clearly at this point, it is surprising that the 'brown eyes' description ever happened.

Interested to read your quote about VS's comments concerning whether the first man she picked looked like Alphon or Hanratty. He certainly did not look like Hanratty because at that stage the suspect was reported to have had 'brown eyes'.

Julie

Most likely when taking a note of VS's description of the gunman, a bobby had used either poor handwriting or an abbreviation e.g. "bl" and blue later became brown in transcription.

In any event, by 1st September 1961 the description given by VS of the wanted man included blue eyes.

At the Guy's Hospital parade on 24th September Alphon's was not identified. The only reference I can find as to the colour of the eyes of the man identified comes from Dr Rennie who recalled that he had bluish eyes (and fairish hair).

After this ID parade VS is reported to have told a doctor and possibly Acott that the man she identified looked like Alphon. This would indicate that she had some idea what Alphon looked like, either it had been pointed out to her that Alphon was number whatever or she had seen photos of him in the press.

No one can now say with certainty who the identified man more closely resembled Hanratty or Alphon, or indeed whether he looked nothing like either of them.

[Natalie Severn]

Most likely when taking a note of VS's description of the gunman, a bobby had used either poor handwriting or an abbreviation e.g. "bl" and blue later became brown in transcription.

In any event, by 1st September 1961 the description given by VS of the wanted man included blue eyes.

At the Guy's Hospital parade on 24th September Alphon's was not identified. The only reference I can find as to the colour of the eyes of the man identified comes from Dr Rennie who recalled that he had bluish eyes (and fairish hair).

After this ID parade VS is reported to have told a doctor and possibly Acott that the man she identified looked like Alphon. This would indicate that she had some idea what Alphon looked like, either it had been pointed out to her that Alphon was number whatever or she had seen photos of him in the press.

No one can now say with certainty who the identified man more closely resembled Hanratty or Alphon, or indeed whether he looked nothing like either of them.

The identikit Valerie helped to compose on 26th August was of a man with an oval jawline,a long nose, a smooth receding hairline ,fairish hair and hooded DARK eyes.We know the intention was to depict a man with DARK eyes because Valerie would have been asked to select from a series of tones from light to dark and its very clear that she selected a slide that gave the identikit man Dark eyes!
Hanratty had a squarish jawline ,a short nose ,a widows peek ,hair dyed black and wide, light blue eyes .
Valerie chose the features of her assailant on 26th August and they did not match the features of James Hanratty or his eye colouring.
NB BOTH identikits composed on 26th August,one by Valerie + helper ,one by Blackhall + helper -give a man with DARK eyes

[propatria27]

Natalie, regarding the scanned list you posted, there is one entry that I don't properly understand:

On 25th August, Det Sgt Parrish of 'L' Division, Peckham handed over the revolver, containing 6 rounds, a handkerchief and 5 boxes of ammunition

On 1st September, Det Sgt Long of the City of London Police, Snow Hill, handed in "an number of boxes of .38 ammunition, wrapped in a piece of material".

Do we have an explaination for the items handed in by Det Sgt Long? Are they the same boxes of ammunition handed in on 25th August? Is the piece of material the handkerchief? Why would the City of London Police have these items? Are they even related to the crime or were they sent in because they are the same calibre as the murder weapon?

Regards,

Pete

Regarding my post above, I've been giving this matter some thought and I'd like people's opinions if possible. As many of you will know, the City of London Police is distinct from the Metropolitan Police and is a small force (currently 850) that covers the square mile of the City of London - this is broken up into force areas, and Snow Hill covers the West area, that includes Smithfield Market and St Bartholomews Hospital. The force has no forensics capability of its own and crime is very low due to the small number of people who actually live there - around 7000, which has been constant for a number of years (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Po..._over_time.png). This swells to around 300,000 during normal working hours. They are mostly involved in financial crime and are world famous for their abilities. Why then, on 1st September 1961 did Det Sgt Long of Snow Hill hand into the Metropolitan Police forensics department "a number of boxes of .38 ammunition, wrapped in a piece of material"? The document Norma posted at #127 is evidence, therefore, to maintain the chain of evidence, there must have been a statement from Det Sgt Long and from whoever found the boxes of ammunition and piece of cloth, which would include where they were found and under what circumstances. They could not have been the items found in the Morris 1000 - what possible reason could there be for that - they were already with the Met Police forensics branch? Therefore, they were found separately from those found on the bus. Hopefully, if Norma can get a copy of the forensics report, then we may have an explanation, but I would just like to point out a couple of things:

1. Redbridge Station is on the Central Line as are the following stations in the City of London - Bank, St Paul's, Chancery Lane - Bank has a Northern Line service to King's Cross (Mrs Willis was attacked in Old Knebworth at about 11am on 23rd August and there is a line from King's Cross to Knebworth)

2. Ilford overground station services terminate at Liverpool Street station in the City of London (Alphon stated in one of his confessions that he walked to Ilford Station after abandoning the car)

Were these boxes of ammunition and piece of cloth dumped in the City and handed in to the City Police?

Were they linked to the gun used in the crime?

Was the cloth the one used as a face mask by the gunman? I've always thought a regular handkerchief is too small for the purpose - try it yourself.

I have no strong feelings about anyone's guilt for this crime, but just offer these observations for comment,

Regards,

Pete

[Limehouse]

Regarding my post above, I've been giving this matter some thought and I'd like people's opinions if possible. As many of you will know, the City of London Police is distinct from the Metropolitan Police and is a small force (currently 850) that covers the square mile of the City of London - this is broken up into force areas, and Snow Hill covers the West area, that includes Smithfield Market and St Bartholomews Hospital. The force has no forensics capability of its own and crime is very low due to the small number of people who actually live there - around 7000, which has been constant for a number of years (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Po..._over_time.png). This swells to around 300,000 during normal working hours. They are mostly involved in financial crime and are world famous for their abilities. Why then, on 1st September 1961 did Det Sgt Long of Snow Hill hand into the Metropolitan Police forensics department "a number of boxes of .38 ammunition, wrapped in a piece of material"? The document Norma posted at #127 is evidence, therefore, to maintain the chain of evidence, there must have been a statement from Det Sgt Long and from whoever found the boxes of ammunition and piece of cloth, which would include where they were found and under what circumstances. They could not have been the items found in the Morris 1000 - what possible reason could there be for that - they were already with the Met Police forensics branch? Therefore, they were found separately from those found on the bus. Hopefully, if Norma can get a copy of the forensics report, then we may have an explanation, but I would just like to point out a couple of things:

1. Redbridge Station is on the Central Line as are the following stations in the City of London - Bank, St Paul's, Chancery Lane - Bank has a Northern Line service to King's Cross (Mrs Willis was attacked in Old Knebworth at about 11am on 23rd August and there is a line from King's Cross to Knebworth)

2. Ilford overground station services terminate at Liverpool Street station in the City of London (Alphon stated in one of his confessions that he walked to Ilford Station after abandoning the car)

Were these boxes of ammunition and piece of cloth dumped in the City and handed in to the City Police?

Were they linked to the gun used in the crime?

Was the cloth the one used as a face mask by the gunman? I've always thought a regular handkerchief is too small for the purpose - try it yourself.

I have no strong feelings about anyone's guilt for this crime, but just offer these observations for comment,

Regards,

Pete

A fascinating post Pete, posing some thoughts and questions that have not been previously explored on these threads.

If there were a number of boxes of ammunition and these were linked to the crime it seems to suggest the owner of the gun intended to go on quite a crime spree considering five or six boxes were found on the bus.

The Central line that links Redbridge with the City of London is an interesting aspect because if the ammunition is linked to the crime, and the killer abandoned some of the ammunition in the city and some on the bus he most probably had all of the boxes and the gun with him when the crime was carried out and when he abandoned the car in Redbridge. This paints a picture of a gunman almost staggering around rural Berkshire with possibly seven or eight boxes containing many rounds of ammunition and a gun. (Unless he was given a lift to the area?) He would also then have had the same burden when leaving the car and travelling around London to deposit the ammunition and gun in two places.

VS does not mention the gunman having any sort of bag or parcel with him - only that he rattled some cartidges or bullets in his pocket to convince them that the gun was loaded.

However, I am intrigued by the idea of the material being the mask used to cover his face.

My feeling is that the gunman took only a few rounds of ammunition with him to the location and retained the rest of the ammunition somewhere else - possibly in London.

Julie