Hanratty's and Dixie France's :movements in lead up to 21st August

[Natalie Severn]

So far as we know James Hanratty was not staying at Charles France's flat in the days prior to the murder.From the previous weekend i.e.during the 18th /19th/20th of August 1961 Hanratty stayed with Louise Anderson at Sussex Gardens -he had also stayed there on 13th August the day he was. He went round to collect his 'bespoke' suit from Hepworth's in Burnt Oak on Friday 18th August-and the next day,on Saturday, he went round to the France flat with a suitcase of dirty clothing and asked Charlotte if she could wash it for him and pack his case as he was going to Liverpool he told her.The first place he called at on his way to the France flat that Monday was the Burtol's the Dry Cleaners -3 yards away from and just opposite William Ewer's Antiques and Umbrella shop .There is no record of Hanratty going back to the France flat until he went to collect his case with the laundered clothing in it from Charlotte France on Monday 21st August -for which he gave her £15 and she told him she could now collect the sewing machine from the pawn shop.
note: He then left another £15 for Charles France.But there is no record of the two of them actually meeting that day-21st -nor of actually seeing each other over the weekend.So France was elsewhere it appears? In fact ,on the two days Hanratty called on his flat, France wasn't there!.
Moreover-if you think of it-by going away from London-Hanratty ,as far as France was concerned, was 'out of the way'

I find this intriguing:

[Limehouse]

Hi Norma,

Also in the lead up to the murder, some time BEFORE August 18, Hanratty told Ann Pryce he would soon be going to Liverpool.

Now, this rather rules out a random decision to wander out into the countryside with a gun and ammunition on 22 August, I think.

Additionally, if Hanratty told Ann Pryce this to establish an alibi, it also kind of rules out a 'random attack' scenario and rather suggests a planned event.

Julie

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

Also in the lead up to the murder, some time BEFORE August 18, Hanratty told Ann Pryce he would soon be going to Liverpool.

Now, this rather rules out a random decision to wander out into the countryside with a gun and ammunition on 22 August, I think.

Additionally, if Hanratty told Ann Pryce this to establish an alibi, it also kind of rules out a 'random attack' scenario and rather suggests a planned event.

Julie

Yes Julie-only yesterday I was examining some transcripts from Hanratty's statements to Police[21st/12/61; 30/12/61 ;10/1/62

I n the one dated 30/12/61 there is an intriguing statement about who was in the France flat on 21 /08/61 when Hanratty had called to collect his laundry that had been washed by Charlotte France.Charles FRance is not only not mentioned as being there but he says he had "left" France £15.viz After giving her the£15 for doing it he 'left' another£15 for France.He says 'Mrs France's sister came in just as I was going out"
He had told Mrs France and Carol that he was going to Liverpool -he also says "I only took one case with me to Liverpool [to his solicitor in Bedford during his trial he said he took with him 'a little pig skin case' and I left the big case with them at the flat[France's]

He also adds "Carol said to her [Charlotte France's sister her aunt]"He is going to Liverpool I wish I was going with him" .Then he adds that she came to the top of the road waited with him until he got a taxi."I kissed her and went off in it."
Then he adds: Mrs France asked me to send her a card from Liverpool-I can't write well and so sent her a telegram.

Interesting for the light it throws on the reason behind writing the telegram!

[Limehouse]

Yes Julie-only yesterday I was examining some transcripts from Hanratty's statements to Police[21st/12/61; 30/12/61 ;10/1/62

I n the one dated 30/12/61 there is an intriguing statement about who was in the France flat on 21 /08/61 when Hanratty had called to collect his laundry that had been washed by Charlotte France.Charles FRance is not only not mentioned as being there but he says he had "left" France £15.viz After giving her the£15 for doing it he 'left' another£15 for France.He says 'Mrs France's sister came in just as I was going out"
He had told Mrs France and Carol that he was going to Liverpool -he also says "I only took one case with me to Liverpool [to his solicitor in Bedford during his trial he said he took with him 'a little pig skin case' and I left the big case with them at the flat[France's]

He also adds "Carol said to her [Charlotte France's sister her aunt]"He is going to Liverpool I wish I was going with him" .Then he adds that she came to the top of the road waited with him until he got a taxi."I kissed her and went off in it."
Then he adds: Mrs France asked me to send her a card from Liverpool-I can't write well and so sent her a telegram.

Interesting for the light it throws on the reason behind writing the telegram!

Fantastic stuff Norma. So, we either have a man determined to go to Liverpool and placing that intention on record well before the events of 21/22 August or we have a man cleverly setting up an alibi, in which case the events seemed to have been well-planned and must have included additional parties.

Seeing as a number of people claim to have seen Hanratty in Liverpool/Rhyl over the crucial perio and 'sightings' of him further south are 'conflicting' it seems more than likely, in my opinion, that Hanratty went north.

[Natalie Severn]

and the most astonishing thing that happened was that the police suggested along with Swanwick QC that the crime was a 'lust crime' ---and we are expected to believe that this stranger was so overcome with this 'lust' that he had rushed up to Liverpool and back on the Monday-21st- to establish an alibi in a sweetshop up the Scotland Road then he returned to London to bide his time until the following night [22/23rd].OR they suggested possibly he did go to the sweet shop on Tuesday 22nd and then,after establishing his alibi between 4 and 5 pm ,he took a helicopter or a plane from Speke Airport to get to Slough for 9.30 pm[and lets please not forget that the prosecution believed Mrs Dinwoody's account and their words are on record over this fact---they took her account very seriously indeed].A helicopter or a plane? Seriously ????
So this 'Lust killer" and actually the accused,25 year old Hanratty, had several very pretty girlfriends of his own -yet we are told helusted so excessively after Valerie Storie -young and pretty she may have been but not exactly a Brigitte Bardot much more of the' thinking man's' type of dresser-yet this gunman we are told was so consumed with lust that he hired a gun to hold the couple up and then,once inside the car with them waited some 5 or 6 hours to commit a lust crime and murder on the object of his desire !It makes no kind of sense whatsoever.

[caz]

-yet this gunman we are told was so consumed with lust that he hired a gun to hold the couple up and then,once inside the car with them waited some 5 or 6 hours to commit a lust crime and murder on the object of his desire !It makes no kind of sense whatsoever.

Well Nats, Valerie Storie was raped, and in those exact circumstances. My guess is that the gunman simply took advantage of the fact that her fella was out of the way - shot dead - to relieve himself sexually before turning his gun on her.

It would make more sense that this was a reckless and immature young criminal on a 'jolly' with a new toy - the gun - and was experimenting with the power it gave him - not some professional hitman or contract 'frightener' who was daft enough to rape the woman then drive off without making sure he had silenced his only witness for good.

Love,

Caz
X

[EddieX]

I do not think that we will ever discover why this feckless and worthless individual, James Hanratty, did what he did in the early hours of 23 August 1961 when he ceased to be just an incompetent and opportunist burglar and rose through the criminal hierarchy to become an incompetent murderer and opportunist rapist.

[Cogidubnus]

I'm sorry EddieX but, I was literally brought up (b1953) believing in Hanratty's guilt, but reading through the Hanratty-related posts in the past couple of years has really made me think otherwise...but regardless of whether he did it or not (which I honestly don't think he did), I really don't think he had a fair trial...there is so much militating against....

All the best

Dave

[EddieX]

I'm sorry EddieX but, I was literally brought up (b1953) believing in Hanratty's guilt, but reading through the Hanratty-related posts in the past couple of years has really made me think otherwise...but regardless of whether he did it or not (which I honestly don't think he did), I really don't think he had a fair trial...there is so much militating against....

All the best

Dave

No need to apologise, everyone is entitled to his own opinion. I subscribe to the view expressed by Michael Sherrard QC that the wrong man did not hang or to put it another way, the right man did hang. Mr Sherrard had believed in Hanratty's innocence, but has now changed his mind. There is nothing wrong with changing your mind, except perhaps when it comes to the question of where you were on the night of the capital murder of which you have been charged. It then becomes very dangerous to change your mind.

[Graham]

I've stated this a few times in the past, but I've always believed that had the A6 Case happened in Scotland, the verdict at Hanratty's trial would have been 'Not Proven'. In other words, we think you did it, me old mate, but can't prove it.

Not that it much matters, but I used to believe that Hanratty was innocent, and a poor working-class victim of the nasty powers-that-be; I was an avid reader of that anti-Establishment organ Private Eye, and Paul Foot was one of its most distinguished contributors and someone for whom I had (and still have) a great deal of respect (apart, that is, from his ridiculous politics). But when I 'came back' to the A6 Case about 15 years ago, and re-read all the books (especially Woffinden's and, a little later, Leonard Miller's) it seemed to me that the case for Hanratty's innocence just didn't hang together. It was peppered full of holes. What I once saw as water-tight facts were, in fact, not at all water-tight, but very much open to other, and more logical, interpretation. There is, for example, absolutely no concrete proof whatsoever that Hanratty was in Rhyl at the crucial time. I could go on at length, but as I have done so a fair few times over the past 7 or 8 years on this thread, I'll leave it at that.

It is highly likely that Michael Sherrard, who is a good and distinguished man, still hopes in his heart of hearts that Hanratty was innocent, but he seems to me big enough to accept that the evidence is against this.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Mr Sherrard had believed in Hanratty's innocence, but has now changed his mind.

1] If you read Michael Sherrard's autobiography written in 2009 you will see that Michael Sherrard has stayed absolutely true to the belief that Hanratty was not only innocent but should never even have been charged ! There is nothing whatever in what he wrote to show he had changed his mind from what he said in the Woffinden film ,or later i.e. in 2002 on the Horizon programme where he totally rubbished everything the police had presented as evidence and told TV viewers they had only to look at Mrs Dinwoody's evidence and her granddaughter's confirmation of it -in which Sherrard put his total trust ---to know he was in Liverpool between 4 and 5 pm on 22nd August and therefore could not have been in a Buckinghamshire field at 9.30 pm !And he pours scorn on the police and prosecution suggestion that he may have taken a plane from Speke airport or or possibly a helicopter.
What you keep on quoting is totally false and a total misrepresentation of what MIchael Sherrard believed in 2002 and 2009 and is actually on dated record with complete reference points as having been what he believed.

[EddieX]

1] If you read Michael Sherrard's autobiography written in 2009 you will see that Michael Sherrard has stayed absolutely true to the belief that Hanratty was not only innocent but should never even have been charged ! There is nothing whatever in what he wrote to show he had changed his mind from what he said in the Woffinden film ,or later i.e. in 2002 on the Horizon programme where he totally rubbished everything the police had presented as evidence and told TV viewers they had only to look at Mrs Dinwoody's evidence and her granddaughter's confirmation of it -in which Sherrard put his total trust ---to know he was in Liverpool between 4 and 5 pm on 22nd August and therefore could not have been in a Buckinghamshire field at 9.30 pm !And he pours scorn on the police and prosecution suggestion that he may have taken a plane from Speke airport or or possibly a helicopter.
What you keep on quoting is totally false and a total misrepresentation of what MIchael Sherrard believed in 2002 and 2009 and is actually on dated record with complete reference points as having been what he believed.

I am sorry but on several occasions Mr Sherrard has expressed the opinion that the wrong man was not hanged, which in my view means the right man was hanged. http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...ller-all-along

[EddieX]

Additionally, if Hanratty told Ann Pryce this to establish an alibi, it also kind of rules out a 'random attack' scenario and rather suggests a planned event.

The attack which was planned was probably not the attack which happened.

If he put the word about that he was off to Liverpool he would not be suspected of the armed robbery of whatever institution he planned to hold up. Hanratty probably feared being shopped more than being detected by the police.

Why he did not rob a post office or bank and chose to hold up a courting couple in a humble Morris Minor I cannot answer. That this was not the planned course of action, however, is evidenced by Hanratty's frequent pleas for time to 'fink'.

[Natalie Severn]

I am sorry but on several occasions Mr Sherrard has expressed the opinion that the wrong man was not hanged, which in my view means the right man was hanged. http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...ller-all-along

EddieX
you keep quoting this same tired old hack from the Express Leo McKinstry and his ill-researched nonsense in the Daily Express.He quotes no source,no date, no context for this alleged,and ridiculously false claim.Let us have the the exact date and the exact number of times he is supposed to have said it date and detail and please ---- why dont you look at what he actually says in his 2009 book" Wigs and Wherefores" [/B]where he doesn't say what you quote but which would presumably have been the very platform on which to say it. While we are at it you might too research Leo McKinstry in the Daily Express and conceivably put together where they are coming from!

[caz]

The gunman's behaviour in this case reminds me in some ways of Christopher Craig's, a decade previously, which resulted in the shameful and wrongful hanging of his innocent sidekick Derek Bentley.

Both killers appear to have been young men who allowed the power of having a loaded gun go to their heads on one fateful night, making them commit crimes that were as senseless as they were horrific. If the original intention in both cases was robbery, and the weapon taken more for defence or threatening purposes than for shooting anyone down in cold blood, it's clear that both 'jobs' were badly botched or otherwise aborted, and nothing was gained from the experience, which might explain why the A6 killer was left with a good deal of frustration, which he took out on Valerie by raping her before shooting her too.

The psychology just seems all wrong to me for a conspiracy of any kind, involving this gunman being sent off in search of that couple.

Love,

Caz
X