The attack on Swedish housewife Mrs Meike Dalal on Thursday, September 7th 1961

[cobalt]

Moste,

Quite probably. Many people on here suspect that Hanratty was fitted up. It is not difficult to follow the logic of this argument: police under intense pressure to solve a national murder of unparalleled brutality (which also happened during the quiet season for newspapers) decide to go for a result in order to stave of public criticism. This could happen today as easily as it did then.

But to be fair to Acott ad Oxford, most of the evidence landed in their lap.

They did not plant evidence in the car, which would have been possible to do for them to do in respect of either Alphon or Hanratty.

They most probably did not subvert the first ID parade.

They did not plant the cartridges in the Vienna Hotel, otherwise they would have ‘found’ them themselves during a routine search; leaving them for a chambermaid would have too risky as she might have made off with them or given them to her son. Ditto for any subsequent guest of the infamous Vienna Hotel.

Hanratty’s problem was not so much an Establishment fit up, although I am happy to discuss the possibilities of that, but that his own criminal fraternity ‘put him in the frame.’ The cartridges must have been planted, and not by the police. And France and Anderson both testified against him. His Liverpool/Rhyl contacts were very reticent in coming forward. The word seemed to be out that Jim was expendable.

Yet Jim Hanratty is always described as a likeable character. Maybe he was, but enough people were prepared to see him walk to the gallows without offering the support the they might have been expected to give. What did the wider criminal fraternity make of his execution? We are besieged by books from 1960s cons in our bookstores, but no one ever seems to mention Hanratty.

[Spitfire]

Moste,

Quite probably. Many people on here suspect that Hanratty was fitted up. It is not difficult to follow the logic of this argument: police under intense pressure to solve a national murder of unparalleled brutality (which also happened during the quiet season for newspapers) decide to go for a result in order to stave of public criticism. This could happen today as easily as it did then.

But to be fair to Acott ad Oxford, most of the evidence landed in their lap.

They did not plant evidence in the car, which would have been possible to do for them to do in respect of either Alphon or Hanratty.

They most probably did not subvert the first ID parade.

They did not plant the cartridges in the Vienna Hotel, otherwise they would have ‘found’ them themselves during a routine search; leaving them for a chambermaid would have too risky as she might have made off with them or given them to her son. Ditto for any subsequent guest of the infamous Vienna Hotel.

Hanratty’s problem was not so much an Establishment fit up, although I am happy to discuss the possibilities of that, but that his own criminal fraternity ‘put him in the frame.’ The cartridges must have been planted, and not by the police. And France and Anderson both testified against him. His Liverpool/Rhyl contacts were very reticent in coming forward. The word seemed to be out that Jim was expendable.

Yet Jim Hanratty is always described as a likeable character. Maybe he was, but enough people were prepared to see him walk to the gallows without offering the support the they might have been expected to give. What did the wider criminal fraternity make of his execution? We are besieged by books from 1960s cons in our bookstores, but no one ever seems to mention Hanratty.

So what you are saying is that a group in the criminal fraternity decided to frame Hanratty. Was this to help the police who were being subject to public criticism? Or was it to prevent the actual murderer from being detected?

If Alphon was the murderer, then who in the criminal fraternity would want him exculpated and Hanratty inculpated?

Framing Hanratty by planting evidence in the Vienna could be used, as in fact happened, to bring the case back to Alphon.

Moreover, the framing of Hanratty must have begun at a very early stage after the murder with the planting of the gun on the bus. As the whole exercise (framing Jim) would be pointless if Hanratty had a sniff of an alibi, who knew that Jim would not be able to establish his whereabouts on the 22/23 August 1961?

The easier explanation is that Jim did it. He was careless the night before the murder by loading the gun in his hotel room. He disposed of the gun on the bus by wrapping it in one of his used hankies. A more plausible explanation than a conspiracy to frame him, and one which is backed up by the DNA on the knicker fragment.

[Natalie Severn]

Quite right.

Even in Woffinden's original edition of his documentary "Deadman's Hill" in 1992 he says, erroneously, that the DNA evidence is being withheld by the authorities.

The Crown would obviously, throughout, let sleeping dogs lie. I don't know where Norma has gotten her original idea from because I've never heard the defence camp be anything but in favour of the DNA tests.

My understanding is that although the family agreed to do them,it entailed Baden Skitt going to the Hanratty family home where Mrs Hanratty lay seriously ill.Skitt was most solicitous and regretful to trouble Mrs Hanratty with the swabs needed from the family and I understand apparently firmly believed,from having seen all the evidence compiled by Roger Matthews and his Scotland Yard team of detectives that he too believed in Hanratty's innocence which he believed would be supported by the DNA tests.Mrs Hanratty was happy to comply with his request. If I am wrong over my understanding that the testing was required by the prosecution my apologies.
Just for further clarification : Can anyone explain why Hanratty's body was exhumed---presumably this was at the request of the crown ?

[Natalie Severn]

So why, oh why, did Hanratty not mention seeing or speaking with all these good, law-abiding people, and instead initially rely on fellow criminals in Liverpool to lie about him staying there and, when that went tits up because they were naturally deaf to his pleas, finally try desperately to describe an inanimate object - 'a house' - that had no ears, eyes or mouth to help him out? You claim to see inside his head, so what was he "finking"?

Love,

Caz
X

Hanratty ,like many who stop at B&B's for a couple of nights neither knew the names of the landlady or other guests or those people whose doors he had knocked on earlier nor could he recall their exact addresses.
Regarding that first conversation on the phone to Acott on 6th October, Hanratty was completely taken aback to learn he was wanted for the A6 murder.He had the confidence of a person who had nothing whatsoever to do with it and believed he only had to get his friends to say he had stayed with them and that would be that.More important to him at the time was that he did not get put inside for the Burglary which he had been told by his cousin the police were after him for. Sadly he realised too late he had been fitted up.Clearly if he had gone straight to Rhyl to knock on the doors again of strangers he had spoken to only to pass the time of day ,to explain to then he was wanted for murder ,he ran the risk of being shopped to the police by them---.Its my personal belief that Hanratty was still confident he could prove his innocence right up to the day he told Sherrard about the Rhyl alibi. He bluffed his way through because he never thought he would be found guilty ---neither did any of the journalists or bookmakers btw who were following the trial!

[ansonman]

From the Telegraph

Just for further clarification : Can anyone explain why Hanratty's body was exhumed---presumably this was at the request of the crown ?

By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor

12:00AM BST 18 Oct 2000

THE body of James Hanratty, who was hanged in 1962 for the notorious A6 murder, should be exhumed in the interests of justice, three Appeal Court judges said yesterday.

James Hanratty: exhumation would be 'rather a pointless exercise', said the family's solicitor

The Crown believes that DNA tests on Hanratty will provide conclusive proof that he shot and killed the scientist Michael Gregsten and raped and shot Valerie Storie, his mistress, leaving her for dead. Hanratty's relatives have always maintained his innocence and claimed that DNA tests on trial exhibits linking him to the crime were unreliable and should be disregarded.

Members of his family did not oppose yesterday's appeal by the Crown Prosecution Service, although Tamsin Allen, their solicitor, said the exhumation was "rather a pointless exercise". However, Hanratty's aunt is buried in the same plot at Carpenders Park cemetery in Watford, Hertfordshire, and her daughter objected to the grave being disturbed.

After a brief hearing in the Court of Appeal, Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, sitting with Mrs Justice Steel and Mr Justice Richards, concluded that Hanratty's exhumation would be "desirable" in the interests of justice. Prosecution lawyers will now ask Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, formally to authorise the exhumation in advance of a new appeal hearing against the safety of Hanratty's conviction, expected to be heard next May.

[Natalie Severn]

Moste,

Quite probably. Many people on here suspect that Hanratty was fitted up. It is not difficult to follow the logic of this argument: police under intense pressure to solve a national murder of unparalleled brutality (which also happened during the quiet season for newspapers) decide to go for a result in order to stave of public criticism. This could happen today as easily as it did then.

But to be fair to Acott ad Oxford, most of the evidence landed in their lap.

They did not plant evidence in the car, which would have been possible to do for them to do in respect of either Alphon or Hanratty.

They most probably did not subvert the first ID parade.

They did not plant the cartridges in the Vienna Hotel, otherwise they would have ‘found’ them themselves during a routine search; leaving them for a chambermaid would have too risky as she might have made off with them or given them to her son. Ditto for any subsequent guest of the infamous Vienna Hotel.

Hanratty’s problem was not so much an Establishment fit up, although I am happy to discuss the possibilities of that, but that his own criminal fraternity ‘put him in the frame.’ The cartridges must have been planted, and not by the police. And France and Anderson both testified against him. His Liverpool/Rhyl contacts were very reticent in coming forward. The word seemed to be out that Jim was expendable.

Yet Jim Hanratty is always described as a likeable character. Maybe he was, but enough people were prepared to see him walk to the gallows without offering the support the they might have been expected to give. What did the wider criminal fraternity make of his execution? We are besieged by books from 1960s cons in our bookstores, but no one ever seems to mention Hanratty.

Expendable is correct! Hanratty was expendable and his Liverpool friends did not want to serve time through perjuring themselves.

I also agree with most of what you say here Cobalt .The police were under intense pressure especially after they abandoned their prime suspect Peter Alphon after putting out a nationwide search for him etc. When they switched to Hanratty they were able to bank on the full co-operation of Nudds which suited everybody - from those in the know in the Soho criminal fraternity-and those living near the Vienna Hotel like France who Hanratty had been lodging with.

[Natalie Severn]

By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor

12:00AM BST 18 Oct 2000

THE body of James Hanratty, who was hanged in 1962 for the notorious A6 murder, should be exhumed in the interests of justice, three Appeal Court judges said yesterday.

James Hanratty: exhumation would be 'rather a pointless exercise', said the family's solicitor

The Crown believes that DNA tests on Hanratty will provide conclusive proof that he shot and killed the scientist Michael Gregsten and raped and shot Valerie Storie, his mistress, leaving her for dead. Hanratty's relatives have always maintained his innocence and claimed that DNA tests on trial exhibits linking him to the crime were unreliable and should be disregarded.

Members of his family did not oppose yesterday's appeal by the Crown Prosecution Service, although Tamsin Allen, their solicitor, said the exhumation was "rather a pointless exercise". However, Hanratty's aunt is buried in the same plot at Carpenders Park cemetery in Watford, Hertfordshire, and her daughter objected to the grave being disturbed.

After a brief hearing in the Court of Appeal, Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, sitting with Mrs Justice Steel and Mr Justice Richards, concluded that Hanratty's exhumation would be "desirable" in the interests of justice. Prosecution lawyers will now ask Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, formally to authorise the exhumation in advance of a new appeal hearing against the safety of Hanratty's conviction, expected to be heard next May.

Thankyou so much for providing such unequivocal clarification and confirmation of what I needed to know . Norma Buddle

[Natalie Severn]

Inaccurate in what way, Nats?

Graham

-inaccurate because of what you left out! .Being imprecise in your number 1 statement Graham. What Roman Catholics refer to as a 'sin of omission' .......

[Natalie Severn]

Quite right.
The Crown would obviously, throughout, let sleeping dogs lie. I don't know where Norma has gotten her original idea from because I've never heard the defence camp be anything but in favour of the DNA tests.

I hope you are quite clear now that the Crown,far from 'letting sleeping dogs lie'
went to the quite horrific and some would say inhuman lengths of exhuming Hanratty's corpse in this instance to bolster the 1962 verdict.

[Natalie Severn]

If Mr Sayle was out by 7.30 and they were full, there would have been a breakfast table free for Hanratty by 7.30, so why would he have had to eat in the back room ?
Caz
X

Mrs Jones' daughter gave an interview on television explaining that her mum was full that week and would have told Hanratty that he could only stay in the attic room which was private and for which he paid 12 shillings and sixpence

here are extracts from the notes Hanratty dictated minutes after telling Sherrard about Rhyl in the midst of his trial for murder on 29th January 1962 at Bedford Jail :
Hanratty's answers in following way on being questioned by Kleinman his solicitor :
[Questions -what did he have with him and what was he wearing and who answered the door to him ?

Answers -that he had with him when he arrived at the guest house the little leather hyde case and that he was wearing the double breasted striped suit . The landlady answered the door who was about 50 and like his mother.
[he asks her if he can leave the case and he would pick it up later ]
I originally booked for one night and then booked for another

Asked if he could describe the house he gives the following:
Front of house was living room;green bath surround,sink green to match ,bath not enclosed.
stated that in the bedroom was a small sink.

This suggest to me that he may have stayed in the attic room first -which was the overflow room but that when a room became free the following night he stayed in the room with the sink
2 tables in room at back where I had breakfast -describes breakfast etc etc only saw the woman in the house-did not see the man---this then was what they had to go on + a surprisingly accurate map attached of the road the house was in.
[I myself once stayed in an 'over flow ' private room in a B&B in Stratford on Avon arriving rather late on way back from parents in North Wales .I was asked to pay cash as they didn't normally rent the room out etc]

[moste]

Mrs Jones' daughter gave an interview on television explaining that her mum was full that week and would have told Hanratty that he could only stay in the attic room which was private and for which he paid 12 shillings and sixpence

here are extracts from the notes Hanratty dictated minutes after telling Sherrard about Rhyl in the midst of his trial for murder on 29th January 1962 at Bedford Jail :
Hanratty's answers in following way on being questioned by Kleinman his solicitor :
[Questions -what did he have with him and what was he wearing and who answered the door to him ?

Answers -that he had with him when he arrived at the guest house the little leather hyde case and that he was wearing the double breasted striped suit . The landlady answered the door who was about 50 and like his mother.
[he asks her if he can leave the case and he would pick it up later ]
I originally booked for one night and then booked for another

Asked if he could describe the house he gives the following:
Front of house was living room;green bath surround,sink green to match ,bath not enclosed.
stated that in the bedroom was a small sink.

This suggest to me that he may have stayed in the attic room first -which was the overflow room but that when a room became free the following night he stayed in the room with the sink
2 tables in room at back where I had breakfast -describes breakfast etc etc only saw the woman in the house-did not see the man---this then was what they had to go on + a surprisingly accurate map attached of the road the house was in.
[I myself once stayed in an 'over flow ' private room in a B&B in Stratford on Avon arriving rather late on way back from parents in North Wales .I was asked to pay cash as they didn't normally rent the room out etc]

A point to remember which some people choose to ignore it seems. The fact that it was getting fairly late on when she agreed to let that room to this young fellow, who (a) she probably felt sorry for as he was getting desperate to find somewhere .(b)It would fetch in an additional 12/6d, and(c) and here is the most pertinent point. It would not be acceptable by the authorities for her to be putting someone up in an attic bathroom ,therefore she would be slow, and shy to admit she had done so, not to mention very embarrassed at the possible outcome. This answers the often discussed question ,why other guests don't remember seeing JH , and why( even though Mrs. Jones maintained that there wasn't room in the breakfast room ) why, I believe she wanted to keep him low profile.

[Spitfire]

A point to remember which some people choose to ignore it seems. The fact that it was getting fairly late on when she agreed to let that room to this young fellow, who (a) she probably felt sorry for as he was getting desperate to find somewhere .(b)It would fetch in an additional 12/6d, and(c) and here is the most pertinent point. It would not be acceptable by the authorities for her to be putting someone up in an attic bathroom ,therefore she would be slow, and shy to admit she had done so, not to mention very embarrassed at the possible outcome. This answers the often discussed question ,why other guests don't remember seeing JH , and why( even though Mrs. Jones maintained that there wasn't room in the breakfast room ) why, I believe she wanted to keep him low profile.

Why didn't Hanratty say in evidence that he slept in two different rooms, one of which was the bathroom?

[Natalie Severn]

Why didn't Hanratty say in evidence that he slept in two different rooms, one of which was the bathroom?

Possibly because Mr Swanwick had tore into Mrs Jones and thrown her books at her in court? If Hanratty had added to the pandemonium caused by this by confirming in any way what Swanwick had been getting at viz that Mrs Jones in some way fiddled her books with these 'overflow attic lets' he would have been letting down the only Rhyl witness they had found in time for the trial. Hanratty doesn't actually mention which room he slept in in his statement to Kleinman but he definitely talks about two bedrooms-one an attic room with a green bath in it ,the other a bedroom with a sink in it.

[NickB]

Hanratty gave evidence on 7/8th February long before Mrs Jones appeared. He only had his photo taken on the 6th for Gillbanks to take to Rhyl and look for the landlady.

In the statement to Kleinman I cannot find anywhere that he talks about two bedrooms. There is the bathroom, which he describes only as a bathroom, and there is the bedroom in which was a small desk.

[Natalie Severn]

Yes Nick .I realised after I had posted it.Nevertheless Hanratty endured similar aggressive questioning from Swanwick on the 7th February which was just before the guest house with the green bath had been located in Rhyl and just before Mrs Jones agreed to be a defence witness.