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

[Alfie]

The florist shop

There is absolutely no need to be smearing the man in the photographers shop and Dorothy Morrell by suggesting its all a bit of a tale they were inventing about the police being telephoned and arriving to question them etc when Ewer himself confirms that he did ring the police on that specific occasion about the man he was chasing after in their shops on the Finchley Road on September 1st 1961 who happened to be James Hanratty.

What seems unclear (to me at least) is whether Mrs Morrell attested to Ewer entering her shop in his search for blue-eyes, and whether the police visited her as the result of Ewer's phone call to them or for some other reason. Anyone?

[Alfie]

Blackmail?

...Alphon had told journalists that £5,000 had been paid into his accounts in about 8 instalments over the course of a couple or so months. It's not as if the whole 5 grand was paid in one lump sum which seems to have been the mistaken perception on this forum over the last several years. These round figured payments smack very much of blackmail payments ...

A blackmailer needs leverage. What was Alphon's? "Pay me the money or I'll tell the world I'm your hired killer"? Yeah, right.

If he was blackmailing anybody it was more likely to be Justice and Fox.

Edit: Darn it, I see Graham beat me to it again.

[Derrick]

...If he was blackmailing anybody it was more likely to be Justice and Fox....

When was the money paid and when did Justice and Fox FIRST meet Alphon?

[uncle_adolph]

But if the cartridges were planted in the hotel room, by someone who knew which room Hanratty had stayed in, why not the gun too, along with the dirty hankie? France took a risk by mentioning his knowledge of the hiding place if he could have been seen by anyone boarding the bus that day. The weapon had to be found first, and then connected directly to Hanratty. The fact that Hanratty was provably in Liverpool at the time the weapon was unconvered could have backfired on anyone attempting to frame an innocent man. What if Hanratty had been able to prove he was in Liverpool the whole day (if not on the actual murder night)? The police would have turned their attention to who could have planted any of the evidence pointing to him.

The only way I can see France incriminating Hanratty is if he knew - or strongly suspected - that his 'friend' was the gunman. If he was getting Hanratty to carry the can for anyone else, he'd have been better off pleading total ignorance, not saying a word about anything and letting the planted 'evidence' do all the work.

Love,

Caz
X

Yet how convenient the lengths to which Hanratty seemed to go to put himself in the frame.

First, he tells Dixie that the back seat of a bus is a convenient place to dump unwanted stolen goods....then he leaves the gun there. Second, he dumps it not just on any old bus but on a 36A bus which links to the Vienna Hotel and Nudds statement. Third, just in case the police can't work out who dumped it he stuffs it in one of his hankies. Fourth, he leaves the cartridge cases at the Vienna where he's stayed.

I think we all know Hanratty wasn't the brightest spark but even he could work out the difference between being tried for petty theft and being tried for murder. Even he could think of a thousand better ways of disposing of a weapon for it to remain untraceable....perhaps en route back from the A6 in some dense woods or even the broad expanse of the Thames.

The gun wasn't disposed of by someone wanting it to be hidden; it was disposed of by someone who wanted it to be found. And by someone who knew that there would be no trace of Hanratty at the murder scene.

[moste]

Yet how convenient the lengths to which Hanratty seemed to go to put himself in the frame.

First, he tells Dixie that the back seat of a bus is a convenient place to dump unwanted stolen goods....then he leaves the gun there. Second, he dumps it not just on any old bus but on a 36A bus which links to the Vienna Hotel and Nudds statement. Third, just in case the police can't work out who dumped it he stuffs it in one of his hankies. Fourth, he leaves the cartridge cases at the Vienna where he's stayed.

I think we all know Hanratty wasn't the brightest spark but even he could work out the difference between being tried for petty theft and being tried for murder. Even he could think of a thousand better ways of disposing of a weapon for it to remain untraceable....perhaps en route back from the A6 in some dense woods or even the broad expanse of the Thames.

The gun wasn't disposed of by someone wanting it to be hidden; it was disposed of by someone who wanted it to be found. And by someone who knew that there would be no trace of Hanratty at the murder scene.

,Thank You,Uncle A. I Couldn't have put it better myself.
It's interesting to me how incredibly incriminated in the crime Hanratty was. I mean to say they framed him so thoroughly it makes the mind boggle ,
I'm always reminded of the piece in ' Murder on the Orient Express' where Poirot looks around the railway sleeper compartment , and make the statement "Has anyone noticed, there are too many clues in this room?
There is certainly much much more about this whole affair that at first is apparent. I think that's why we're all here.

[Spitfire]

The gun wasn't disposed of by someone wanting it to be hidden; it was disposed of by someone who wanted it to be found. And by someone who knew that there would be no trace of Hanratty at the murder scene.

But who knew that Hanratty had worn a plastic boiler suit with rubber buttons and/or velco fastenings to commit his despicable crime?

[uncle_adolph]

But who knew that Hanratty had worn a plastic boiler suit with rubber buttons and/or velco fastenings to commit his despicable crime?

Please don't misinterpret my thoughts as being in agreement with that sort of nonsense!!

[OneRound]

Yet how convenient the lengths to which Hanratty seemed to go to put himself in the frame.

First, he tells Dixie that the back seat of a bus is a convenient place to dump unwanted stolen goods....then he leaves the gun there. Second, he dumps it not just on any old bus but on a 36A bus which links to the Vienna Hotel and Nudds statement. Third, just in case the police can't work out who dumped it he stuffs it in one of his hankies. Fourth, he leaves the cartridge cases at the Vienna where he's stayed.

I think we all know Hanratty wasn't the brightest spark but even he could work out the difference between being tried for petty theft and being tried for murder. Even he could think of a thousand better ways of disposing of a weapon for it to remain untraceable....perhaps en route back from the A6 in some dense woods or even the broad expanse of the Thames.

The gun wasn't disposed of by someone wanting it to be hidden; it was disposed of by someone who wanted it to be found. And by someone who knew that there would be no trace of Hanratty at the murder scene.

Hi Uncle - just a couple of points on the wording I've put in bold.

I don't believe that at the time there was any known connection between the hanky and Hanratty. That only came decades later with advances in DNA and could not have been foreseen.

If the gun was disposed of by someone wanting it to be found, that does not automatically rule out Hanratty. He could have hidden the gun on the bus hoping that it would be found and retained by another criminal. That other criminal would then have been first in the frame if the gun had ever been found on him. Even though it was a known hiding spot for criminals to check, the excuse, ''I found it under the backseat of a bus'' would have been unlikely to wash given the clamour to charge someone.

Best regards,

OneRound

[moste]

Known connection between Hanky and Hanratty

Hi Uncle - just a couple of points on the wording I've put in bold.

I don't believe that at the time there was any known connection between the hanky and Hanratty. That only came decades later with advances in DNA and could not have been foreseen.

If the gun was disposed of by someone wanting it to be found, that does not automatically rule out Hanratty. He could have hidden the gun on the bus hoping that it would be found and retained by another criminal. That other criminal would then have been first in the frame if the gun had ever been found on him. Even though it was a known hiding spot for criminals to check, the excuse, ''I found it under the backseat of a bus'' would have been unlikely to wash given the clamour to charge someone.



Best regards,

OneRound

Hanratty identified a hanky as his in court,

[OneRound]

Hanratty identified a hanky as his in court,

Hi Moste - I know that has been said in the past on these threads but I believe it is another myth which has grown up around this case. I have not been able to find reference to any such identification in any of the recognised books or contemporary press reports.

I would be genuinely grateful if you could provide anything to show I am wrong here.

Thanks,

OneRound

[moste]

Just a theory

This tosh would be deeply offensive to the family and friends of the victims - particularly in Valerie's case - if it wasn't so obviously a conspiracy fantasy dreamed up by someone with an unhealthily overactive imagination.

Nobody was 'assassinated' here and this is not something from one of the weirder 60s Avengers scripts. The gunman was a very naughty boy with a new toy and the courting couple were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sorry if that's not exciting enough for you, moste, but there it is. And you do the remaining genuine Hanratty supporters no favours at all. In fact, you are doing a nice little job for the opposition.

I'd urge you to think about that.

Love,

Caz
X

It's only one persons opinion of what may have been,try and keep some sense of proportion, nothing I have posted with regards to what really happened that night is impossible, only improbable, I happen to believe ,less improbable, than the status quo.Sorry if it offends,Ps where is your sparring partner you loved to taunt so much, I liked her.

[uncle_adolph]

Hi Uncle - just a couple of points on the wording I've put in bold.

I don't believe that at the time there was any known connection between the hanky and Hanratty. That only came decades later with advances in DNA and could not have been foreseen.

If the gun was disposed of by someone wanting it to be found, that does not automatically rule out Hanratty. He could have hidden the gun on the bus hoping that it would be found and retained by another criminal. That other criminal would then have been first in the frame if the gun had ever been found on him. Even though it was a known hiding spot for criminals to check, the excuse, ''I found it under the backseat of a bus'' would have been unlikely to wash given the clamour to charge someone.

Best regards,

OneRound

I may be mistaken here (and I can't check it as my book fell apart and has not been replaced!) but I was under the impression that Paul Foot's book confirmed Hanratty accepted it as his in court. The question must surely have been asked; it would have been extraordinarily remiss of the prosecution not to have pursued the point. But if I am incorrect then I apologise!

But that actually is not quite the point. If you are trying to cover up your guilt why conceal the weapon in your own hankie? It could have been stuffed in a paper bag, or a newspaper or any old rag....it is just nonsense to suppose that a criminal who knew the ropes would use something that could well be traced back to him.

On the other hand, if your motive is to fit someone up.....

[Graham]

I've thought for some time that Dixie France's part in the A6 wasn't simply as a friend and mentor of JH; who, as we know, did once say that Dixie had in effect taught him all he knew about illegality. As I said recently, Dixie was a more well-known underground figure than the books give him credit for, and I have very little doubt that getting hold of firearms was easy for him.
I would suggest (even perhaps suspect) that JH badgered Dixie to get him a gun - purely for stick-ups... - and so Dixie did just that. It seems that JH kept the gun, well wrapped up, on top of a cupboard in Dixie's flat. I don't like speculating, but one plausible scenario is that, although the A6 was not planned and happened purely by accident, so to speak, JH panicked and on his return to London sought out Dixie and gave him the gun back. Whether this was a crude attempt on JH's part to implicate Dixie, or just to try and wash his hands of the whole grisly affair, I don't know. For his part, Dixie soon realised what had happened, and made sure that the gun would be found and could be traced to JH - JH did indeed agree that the hankie the gun was wrapped in was his, so was it monogrammed, or what? Dixie could have gone down for a long time as accessory to murder had it been discovered he had supplied the gun, and perhaps it was fear of this that drove him to suicide. They're going to crucify us all - so was France involved in the A6? If he was, then in my view this would shift the goalposts somewhat...but perhaps more on that at another time.

Graham

[moste]

Proof

I've thought for some time that Dixie France's part in the A6 wasn't simply as a friend and mentor of JH; who, as we know, did once say that Dixie had in effect taught him all he knew about illegality. As I said recently, Dixie was a more well-known underground figure than the books give him credit for, and I have very little doubt that getting hold of firearms was easy for him.
I would suggest (even perhaps suspect) that JH badgered Dixie to get him a gun - purely for stick-ups... - and so Dixie did just that. It seems that JH kept the gun, well wrapped up, on top of a cupboard in Dixie's flat. I don't like speculating, but one plausible scenario is that, although the A6 was not planned and happened purely by accident, so to speak, JH panicked and on his return to London sought out Dixie and gave him the gun back. Whether this was a crude attempt on JH's part to implicate Dixie, or just to try and wash his hands of the whole grisly affair, I don't know. For his part, Dixie soon realised what had happened, and made sure that the gun would be found and could be traced to JH - JH did indeed agree that the hankie the gun was wrapped in was his, so was it monogrammed, or what? Dixie could have gone down for a long time as accessory to murder had it been discovered he had supplied the gun, and perhaps it was fear of this that drove him to suicide. They're going to crucify us all - so was France involved in the A6? If he was, then in my view this would shift the goalposts somewhat...but perhaps more on that at another time.

Graham

Hi Graham, One round was asking where it was suggested that Hanratty made the statement that he owned the Hanky. I've been looking in my books,can't find anything on it, I know we were discussing it on here quite a long time ago ,and I took it as a given that.he had made that statement in court ,any thoughts?

[OneRound]

Hi Graham, One round was asking where it was suggested that Hanratty made the statement that he owned the Hanky. I've been looking in my books,can't find anything on it, I know we were discussing it on here quite a long time ago ,and I took it as a given that.he had made that statement in court ,any thoughts?

Hi Moste and Graham - it has often been referred to on this forum that Hanratty made such a statement at his trial but I have been unable to find anything to substantiate that. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal in 2002 attributed considerable significance to Hanratty's DNA being found on the hanky. That would very much be at odds with Hanratty having acknowledged that the hanky was his - if he had done so, his DNA would reasonably have been expected to be found on the hanky and would not therefore have been significant.

Genuinely happy if details can be supplied to show I am wrong. Such details would certainly call into question the Court of Appeal's reasoning.

Best regards,

OneRound