Mail's feature of 1999 on Hanratty by Roger Matthews

[Graham]

Unfortunately for Hanratty's supporters, thorough though Roger Matthews' investigation doubtless was, it didn't carry much weight with the Appeal Court at the time of the 2002 appeal.

I think, and for long have thought, that unless and until there is concrete evidence of Hanratty being in Rhyl on the night of 22 August 1961, he can never be posthumously cleared. By concrete evidence I mean, for example, a signature in a hotel or B&B register, or a bus-ticket stub - something to physically link Hanratty to the place. I also should mention the fact that the newspaper-seller, Charlie Jones, eventually admitted that Terry Evans, Hanratty's contact in Rhyl, had "put the arm" on him to state that he had seen Hanratty about the time of his supposed arrival in Rhyl.

Natalie quotes various people in Rhyl as being absolutely sure that they saw Hanratty there on the evening of the 22nd August. This evidence, unfortunately, is just heresay. Before I retired, I stayed in a particular hotel in Wiltshire probably twice a month for perhaps 10 years, yet even though I'm 6' 4" tall and sport a bushy moustache, nine times out of ten the receptionist didn't recognise me! Mrs Jones' B&B was popular and busy, and I really can't accept that she would have remembered a particular guest who claimed to have stayed there about 6 months before her appearance in court.

I honestly cannot accept that there was any conspiracy involving two or more persons behind the A6 Case. Valerie Storey said that on the evening of the 22nd August, after she and Gregsten left the Old Station Inn, they went at first to a field-gate in Hunterscombe Lane, but left after about 10 minutes to go to the field-gate in Marsh Lane, which if I recall correctly my walking of the area many years ago, is about 3/4 of a mile away. If the A6 gunman was expecting them to be at Marsh Lane at around the time he held them up, he must have been possessed of ESP.

Can I ask Natalie if, to her best knowledge, Roger Matthews ever named anyone else he considered to be a party to this crime?

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Can I remind you Richard that this thread is about the article in the Daily Mail in 1999 written by Roger Matthews about the report he submitted as the then ' Detective Chief Superintendent' , Roger Matthews in 1996 , after an entire year of leading a team of 20 police and detectives .These went through all the files available to Scotland Yard with a fine tooth comb and came to the conclusion that Hanratty should never have been charged and was entirely innocent of anything whatever to do with the A6 murder.Matthews report was made after the Home Office requested Scotland Yard to review every aspect of the case remember ---as the Home Office needed to know if the case should go back to the appeal courts .Matthews recommended that it should---and of course in due course it did.
A word about Roger Matthews: He was a very senior ranking detective in Scotland Yard ,very highly regarded by his colleagues both as an academic and as a high flying detective who had dealt with many cases of murder.Matthews was educated at Cambridge University and had extensive experience in the murder squad in the met and was one of their most highly regarded and trusted senior detectives.
If you are saying you don't believe him or think he was unqualified in some way to make such judgments and reach the conclusion he did from his extensive investigation it really beholds you to explain where you feel he has fallen short in his duties.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Limehouse,
But that is what happened, unless you go with the hit theory, which I do not subscribe to, some cases are open and shut, and this one has been blown out of proportion .
Nothing Hanratty did that night made sense,he was not thinking clearly, he said he was a desperate man, and for some reason was, and events escalated , into the bloodbath that was inevitable.
Like many men that have been arrested for murder, he protested his innocence,which included to his parents, who he knew would fight tirelessly on his behalf, even right to the end he protested that, even when he knew it was over, at the very least he could leave his family believing he was innocent, and not leave them in shame.
Regards Richard.

[Limehouse]

Hi,
looking at this case we have a gunman, which we will call Hanratty, sitting in the back seat, of a car he had just hi-jacked, pointing a gun at the terrified couple.
In this circumstance, the gunman would have been nervous, and close to the diminished responsibility stage, if not already there.
Any sudden movement from the couple in front of him, could have sparked off a self preservation fear, which could result in the gun be discharged..
Precisely what happened...
The gunman would have then been in a state of panic, and totally confused on what to do next...
He had already killed a man, the remaining person, would be a witness to that, and even despite his reluctance, the only thing left left to him to do was to kill again...the noose would have been less likely that way, providing he could make it back to London ..
Again no conspiracies , but nothing in the above scenario, is alien to the personality of one James Hanratty.
Regards Richard.

Yes, but why would Hanratty hijack a Moggie Minor in a field in the middle of nowhere? Why would anybody? Hanratty had stolen cars before - but he would not have gone out with a gun in order to steal such a car. No one in their right mind would steal such a car at gun point or, for that matter, attempt to rob a couple sitting in such a car.

It beggars belief that he travelled that far out of London and wandered round deserted lanes and fields looking for a couple/car to hijack.

There is a strong possibility that the couple were pursued to that spot for a reason.

[GUT]

G'day Richard

Hi,
looking at this case we have a gunman, which we will call Hanratty, sitting in the back seat, of a car he had just hi-jacked, pointing a gun at the terrified couple.
In this circumstance, the gunman would have been nervous, and close to the diminished responsibility stage, if not already there.
Any sudden movement from the couple in front of him, could have sparked off a self preservation fear, which could result in the gun be discharged..
Precisely what happened...
The gunman would have then been in a state of panic, and totally confused on what to do next...
He had already killed a man, the remaining person, would be a witness to that, and even despite his reluctance, the only thing left left to him to do was to kill again...the noose would have been less likely that way, providing he could make it back to London ..
Again no conspiracies , but nothing in the above scenario, is alien to the personality of one James Hanratty.
Regards Richard.

As I read it, that is exactly what happened and I see nothing unusual in such behaviour for a car thief.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
looking at this case we have a gunman, which we will call Hanratty, sitting in the back seat, of a car he had just hi-jacked, pointing a gun at the terrified couple.
In this circumstance, the gunman would have been nervous, and close to the diminished responsibility stage, if not already there.
Any sudden movement from the couple in front of him, could have sparked off a self preservation fear, which could result in the gun be discharged..
Precisely what happened...
The gunman would have then been in a state of panic, and totally confused on what to do next...
He had already killed a man, the remaining person, would be a witness to that, and even despite his reluctance, the only thing left left to him to do was to kill again...the noose would have been less likely that way, providing he could make it back to London ..
Again no conspiracies , but nothing in the above scenario, is alien to the personality of one James Hanratty.
Regards Richard.

[GUT]

G'day Limehouse

A fair enough point Richard - but it also shows that, despite his disgraceful dishonesty, which he never denied or excused, there is nothing in Hanratty's character that suggests he was capable of rape and murder.

But that could be said of many murders and rapists, it was said of Gacy, Bundy and Bryant those being just three that spring to mind.

[Limehouse]

Hi,
Surely that article referring To Hanratty's father, gives a insight into the mind of James..
'He never brought his shady friends, or stolen goods home with him, or talked of it''
In other words he would not intentionally bring shame upon his parents, in their presence.
Is that the real reason, apart from self preservation , that he maintained his innocence..to spare his families feelings, and that legacy he left his parents, with ''I am innocent ''.
Makes sense to me...very basic, and does not involve conspiracies , and false convictions, or a confused witness ...
Regards Richard.

A fair enough point Richard - but it also shows that, despite his disgraceful dishonesty, which he never denied or excused, there is nothing in Hanratty's character that suggests he was capable of rape and murder.

[Limehouse]

Louise Anderson, giving evidence on Monday 29th January 1962, was asked if she had been approached in a hotel at lunchtime on Friday by a man. She said she had. She was then asked: “Was that the man sitting behind my learned friend?” and she replied “Yes”. The judge then stopped any further questioning about him.

Who was the mystery man? The answer may be in a paragraph in the 1971 Sunday Times article:

Another point in Mr Ewer’s statement was that he did not know Mrs Louise Anderson though he conceded she might have known him. Mrs Anderson told us last week that she did indeed know Mr Ewer before the murder and furthermore that Mr Ewer told her of the intuitive sighting when they met during the trial. She has a clear recollection of this.

So if it was William Ewer, I wonder what the line of questioning was going to be.

I notice that Ewer's libel proceedings against The Times will not be released by National Archives until 2040.

Yes, Ewer is a very dark character in this tragedy. He did, of course, have a long affair with Janet, the victim's widow, following the A6 crime.

Anderson too was a very disagreeable character. It is almost certain that she lied on oath and lied to Frances' wife (about the origins of the gun) in order to create false evidence in exchange for not being prosecuted for all the stolen goods found on her premises.

[Limehouse]

Hi Limehouse,

I was particarly interested by your post on the views of Mr. Mathews. But if there were three people involved, then you would think that there was a clear motive involved, Did he said what he thought the motive could be? And also why the abductor, killer, and rapist was in such a nervous and bickering state when he entered the car?

Best wishes.

Hi Hatchett - I think you mean Natalie's post? I haven't posted anything about Mathews.

Kind regards

[GUT]

G'day Limehouse

Thank you for posting this Sherlock. It's a very moving piece and shows how this terrible crime caused ripples of heartache and tragedy that would be felt by all those involved for many years to come.

Almost all crime causes ripples of heartache to those not only around the victim, but the perpetrator as well. Think of the innocent wife and children left with no income and sometimes shunned by those around as just one example.

I can't even begin to imagine what it must be lke to have a son executed.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Surely that article referring To Hanratty's father, gives a insight into the mind of James..
'He never brought his shady friends, or stolen goods home with him, or talked of it''
In other words he would not intentionally bring shame upon his parents, in their presence.
Is that the real reason, apart from self preservation , that he maintained his innocence..to spare his families feelings, and that legacy he left his parents, with ''I am innocent ''.
Makes sense to me...very basic, and does not involve conspiracies , and false convictions, or a confused witness ...
Regards Richard.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Nick….very important points .Return to them later.
Regarding Roger Matthews .He makes a very specific point in the Mail article about Charles France and the fact that the 36A bus passed his address-and comments ,"I couldn't interview him though." Matthews 'finds it strange' that a killer would dispose of a murder weapon in such a fashion…….when the Thames was available!So we are meant to read between the lines here I think……..

[NickB]

Louise Anderson, giving evidence on Monday 29th January 1962, was asked if she had been approached in a hotel at lunchtime on Friday by a man. She said she had. She was then asked: “Was that the man sitting behind my learned friend?” and she replied “Yes”. The judge then stopped any further questioning about him.

Who was the mystery man? The answer may be in a paragraph in the 1971 Sunday Times article:

Another point in Mr Ewer’s statement was that he did not know Mrs Louise Anderson though he conceded she might have known him. Mrs Anderson told us last week that she did indeed know Mr Ewer before the murder and furthermore that Mr Ewer told her of the intuitive sighting when they met during the trial. She has a clear recollection of this.

So if it was William Ewer, I wonder what the line of questioning was going to be.

I notice that Ewer's libel proceedings against The Times will not be released by National Archives until 2040.

[Hatchett]

Hi Limehouse,

I was particarly interested by your post on the views of Mr. Mathews. But if there were three people involved, then you would think that there was a clear motive involved, Did he said what he thought the motive could be? And also why the abductor, killer, and rapist was in such a nervous and bickering state when he entered the car?

Best wishes.