A6 Rebooted

[Alfie]

Agreed. But did the police ever claim that it was the form? I thought they just said it was all they could find.

Foot (pp. 107-8) relays this testimony from Inspector Milborrow, the first senior officer on the spot at Deadman's Hill:

"... I could find no-one who had any information concerning that piece of paper at all.
Did you then go to the county surveyor's office at Bedford?
I did. I there made a search.
Did you make a search there and did you find the piece of paper? [My emphasis]
I did.
Apart from that sheet of paper were you ever able to trace any other sheet of paper?
No, I was not."
The 'piece of paper' which Police Inspector Milborrow found ... was a form giving instructions for the traffic census, August 21st to August 27th. On the duplicated form was filled in the name and address of Mr J. Kerr, where he was to stand (near Deadman's Hill, 1¼ miles north of Clophill), and by whom transport was to be provided. On the back of this form, half-way down on the left, was written 'BHN 847' (the murder car's number was 847 BHN) and at the bottom was a jumbled set of multiplied figures.
John Kerr agreed that he had had this form on August 23rd. The prosecution then tried to establish that this was the form he thought he had given to a policeman. To Mr Swanwick's chagrin, however, Kerr denied having anything to do with the writing on the back of the form."

It's not clear to me what's meant by the phrase "duplicated form", but it's significant that Kerr agreed he had the form on August 23.

The questions which the inspector's evidence begs, amongst others, are: how did a form that Kerr passed to a policeman wind up in the county surveyor's office? And if it wasn't Kerr's handwriting on it, whose was it?

To me the most likely scenario is, (1) Kerr returned all his paperwork to the county surveyor; and (2) the police traced this and, selecting one of the forms, attempted to pass off a crude forgery as what Kerr had written down on the murder morning.

[NickB]

'Duplicated form' could mean that they collected the county survivor's copy of what he had sent to Kerr and wrote on the other side of that.

None of it seems to make sense though. They must have known that Kerr would say he didn't write it. And why would the police have passed on the letter anyway, if it was not part of the census report but just an invitation to it?

[Sherlock Houses]

To be fair to Woffinden, he is actually precise about the train. He says the only train that is compatible with Hanratty's evidence (long wait at Euston, train stopped at Crewe) is the one that arrived in Liverpool at 4.54. What he doesn't explain is how Hanratty did all the things he claimed to have done in Liverpool before the bus left at 6.

That's very big of you, being fair to Woffinden.

Ahh, the time factor ! In actual fact when Hanratty was questioned by his defence team after his arrest in October 1961 he said that he arrived at Lime Street Station about 3.30pm on Tuesday the 22nd of August. This dovetails with the arrival time [3.25pm] of the 10.35am train from Euston Station that morning and makes complete sense inasmuch as can anyone really imagine Hanratty dilly dallying at Euston Station for almost 3 hours and squandering the chance of catching two earlier trains ???
Arriving at Lime Street Station around 3.30pm would have enabled Hanratty to have done all the things [leaving his luggage, having a clean/brush up, having a cup of tea in the station buffet bar] he claimed he did before leaving the station and enquiring about a Tarleton, Carlton or Talbot thoroughfare. Catching one of the many buses that travelled along the busy Scotland Road he would have arrived at David Cowley's sweetshop, a little over a mile away, probably sometime between 4.15pm and 4.30pm.

Hanratty was even honest enough to say that he walked back into town which would have taken him about 20 minutes. He could easily have said that he caught a bus back into town which would have saved about 15 minutes. I believe he got back to Lime Street Station around 5'ish, adequately enabling him to have a meal at Lyons's Cafe at 51 Lime Street [literally about a 100-150 yards from the station] and from there cross diagonally over the road a further 200 yards, maybe less, to Reynolds Billiard Hall [situated directly above The Chinese Empress Restaurant] and the encounter with Robert Kempt, before returning to the Station to collect his luggage and catch the 6.00pm bus to Rhyl from Skelhorne Street Bus Station.

[Alfie]

Ahh, the time factor ! In actual fact when Hanratty was questioned by his defence team after his arrest in October 1961 he said that he arrived at Lime Street Station about 3.30pm on Tuesday the 22nd of August. This dovetails with the arrival time [3.25pm] of the 10.35am train from Euston Station that morning and makes complete sense inasmuch as can anyone really imagine Hanratty dilly dallying at Euston Station for almost 3 hours and squandering the chance of catching two earlier trains ???
Arriving at Lime Street Station around 3.30pm would have enabled Hanratty to have done all the things [leaving his luggage, having a clean/brush up, having a cup of tea in the station buffet bar] he claimed he did before leaving the station and enquiring about a Tarleton, Carlton or Talbot thoroughfare. Catching one of the many buses that travelled along the busy Scotland Road he would have arrived at David Cowley's sweetshop, a little over a mile away, probably sometime between 4.15pm and 4.30pm.

Hanratty was even honest enough to say that he walked back into town which would have taken him about 20 minutes. He could easily have said that he caught a bus back into town which would have saved about 15 minutes. I believe he got back to Lime Street Station around 5'ish, adequately enabling him to have a meal at Lyons's Cafe at 51 Lime Street [literally about a 100-150 yards from the station] and from there cross diagonally over the road a further 200 yards, maybe less, to Reynolds Billiard Hall [situated directly above The Chinese Empress Restaurant] and the encounter with Robert Kempt, before returning to the Station to collect his luggage and catch the 6.00pm bus to Rhyl from Skelhorne Street Bus Station.

The problem is that according to Hanratty's own testimony, he couldn't have arrived in Liverpool at around 3.30pm.

Here, according to Woffinden (p. 121), is what he told his defence team about the train he caught at Euston:

"He called a black cab off the Paddington taxi rank and asked the driver to take him to Euston. He would probably have arrived at about 10.45, and had a long wait for the next train. He purchased a single ticket, which cost him just under £3. He bought some magazines from a newspaper stall at the front, and looked through them while having a coffee on the station. When he finished, Hanratty walked down to the platform. The train still wasn’t in, so he went back and had another drink, tea this time. He bought a tube of toothpaste and spoke to a porter. By the time he returned to the platform the train was not only in, but rapidly filling up."

The Aug 22 railway timetables show trains for Liverpool departed Euston at 10.20 and 10.35 am, too late for Hanratty, and in any case the 10.20 was direct whereas Hanratty told his lawyers his train stopped at Crewe. The only train which fitted Hanratty's timings and stopped at Crewe left Euston at 11.37 and pulled into Lime Street at 4.54 pm.

[Graham]

The fact is that Hanratty was nowhere near Liverpool or Rhyl on 22 August. Is it really just coincidence that he based both of his 'alibis' on his experience of places that he'd visited previously? Of course not - he needed his recollections of previous visits to both places to construct alibis that he plainly felt would be believed. As I and others have said before on many occasions, had he stuck with his original Liverpool 'alibi' there was a chance, a very slim one, that he might have got away with it. And I hope and trust that Sherrard earnestly counselled him thus before agreeing to support his change of 'alibi'.

Graham

[cobalt]

The fact is that Hanratty was nowhere near Liverpool or Rhyl on 22 August.

Come on Graham, it’'s somewhat less than a fact. A number of people believed they saw Hanratty in both Liverpool and Rhyl at that time as he claimed. Some gave sworn testimony to that.

Is it really just coincidence that he based both of his 'alibis' on his experience of places that he'd visited previously? Of course not.

If they were genuine alibis then it is hard to see wherever else he was going to base them.


The fact- I think it must be since Hanratty acknowledged this- that he went to Paddington railway station initially has often puzzled me. I admit that a street wise person like Hanratty would not be likely to make such a mistake. From memory, there have been suggestions that Hanratty actually did leave from Paddington Station, dropped off to meet a criminal associate, then for reasons unexplained decided to move on to Taplow lugging his gun and cartridges. Yet given that he left in the late morning, that gives him rather too much spare time to hang around Taplow where at some point he would presumably need to be fed and watered. There are no independent witnesses who came forward to claim they saw Hanratty in Taplow- not even a sharp –eyed ticket collector. That would suggest he was nowhere near Taplow on 22^nd August. The case for Hanratty not being in Taplow, indeed never having been near the place, is stronger than the case for him not being in Liverpool or Rhyl at the relevant times.

[Alfie]

The fact- I think it must be since Hanratty acknowledged this- that he went to Paddington railway station initially has often puzzled me. I admit that a street wise person like Hanratty would not be likely to make such a mistake. From memory, there have been suggestions that Hanratty actually did leave from Paddington Station, dropped off to meet a criminal associate, then for reasons unexplained decided to move on to Taplow lugging his gun and cartridges. Yet given that he left in the late morning, that gives him rather too much spare time to hang around Taplow where at some point he would presumably need to be fed and watered. There are no independent witnesses who came forward to claim they saw Hanratty in Taplow- not even a sharp –eyed ticket collector. That would suggest he was nowhere near Taplow on 22^nd August. The case for Hanratty not being in Taplow, indeed never having been near the place, is stronger than the case for him not being in Liverpool or Rhyl at the relevant times.

Louise Anderson, who lived near Paddington, testified that Hanratty visited her on the Tuesday morning. It's my belief that he tried to head off the possibility that Louise would foul up his Liverpool alibi by saying that he went to Paddington by mistake before going on to Euston.

Nor do I think Taplow was his original destination. I think it's more likely he was headed for Maidenhead (lunch at the Bear Hotel?) to stick-up some bank or betting shop in that town, but got cold feet and ended up in Dorney looking for a house to burgle.

Of course these are only theories. I think it's long past the time when anybody will ever find out where Hanratty did go that day - and why. But, like Graham, I've no doubt the Liverpool/Rhyl alibi was a fabrication.

[NickB]

to stick-up some bank or betting shop in that town, but got cold feet

Swanwick: "I am suggesting that you had this new toy and that you went out and used it."

Hanratty: "If I did, why did I go to a car parked in a cornfield? I would be looking for a bank or a shop or somewhere where there was cash."

He may have been letting slip his original intention here, and note the echo of "If you want to get rich these days, you've got to have a shooter and go after cash."

[gallicrow]

I always assumed that the reason Hanratty was in the middle of nowhere with a gun was that he wanted to practice shooting it.

[cobalt]

If we accept the cartridge case evidence from the Vienna Hotel then Hanratty had already enjoyed some practice with his weapon, presumably in the London area. There was no obvious need to visit Taplow to practise some more.

Arriving in Taplow by way of a fall back plan seems to make more sense; it would explain why there were no sightings of him in the area. However if he had been intending to inaugurate his ‘stick-up’ career in say Maidenhead, he does not seem to have had an escape plan. I suppose he might have planned to steal a car before any robbery, but it would make more sense to do this from a car park on the outskirts of London and drive up. Bank Robber Escapes by Train is not a likely scenario.

Having taken cold feet in Maidenhead, Hanratty returning to his default mode as a burglar seems a reasonable proposition. The problem I see with this is that he was carrying a gun and a fair few boxes of ammunition so was not exactly travelling light, and since burglary is a crime which must require being nimble and agile he was ill-prepared.

As a footnote to the Liverpool alibi, Hanratty'’s wild goose chase up Scotland Road has been discredited by many who believe in his guilt. For me, his confusion regarding Carleton or Talbot is exactly the kind of mistake I have often made myself with unfamiliar names. I would suggest that despite his apparent vagueness, Hanratty actually had a house number and the name of a criminal contact to whom he hoped to sell stolen goods. He never elaborated on these after being arrested since they would not advance his alibi and might possibly incriminate a local villain.

[Graham]

Hanratty's default mode of transport in London, and presumably elsewhere, was taxi. If he really needed to know where Tarleton or Carleton or Whatever Rd was, all he had to do was go to the taxi-rank outside Lime Street Station and ask to be taken there. But no - he claims he walked up and down Scotland Road asking at shops.

Graham

[gallicrow]

The cartridge case evidence from the Vienna Hotel is probably the most confusing part of the case. It screams "plant!", but why would anyone be planting evidence to incriminate the completely unknown (at that stage) Hanratty? The only explanation I can come up with is that the cartridges weren't planted.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve just started reading Paul Foot’s book which arrived today after the ‘disappearance’ of the one that I’d previously ordered. Your discussing the minutiae so apologies for the amateur hour question but...

The location of the ‘hold up’ just seems so strange to me. The location doesn’t appear to be a route that someone might have been taking to get to somewhere (I could be wrong on that of course) and so I have to assume that our gunman was there for a reason? As a non-local it’s surely unlikely that Hanratty would have known that it was a ‘lovers lane’ and even if he’d found this out somehow he wouldn’t have simply stood around on the off chance of a car turning up (in the dark.) Is it feasible that he could have been at some nearby location when he saw the car enter and decided to follow it? I’m unsure of the distances involved here or was the location just too ‘out of the way?’

There maybe nothing significant in the location but it’s just something that nags at me. Why would Hanratty have been there at that time of night? It doesn’t appear to me as a kind of spur-of-the-moment ‘‘oh there’s a car I’ll go and hold them up’’ type situation.

[cobalt]

Hanratty's default mode of transport in London, and presumably elsewhere, was taxi.

That is probably correct, but he certainly did not make use of a taxi in the Taplow area of 22^nd August, 1961. The police would not even have had to put out a call for taxi drivers to report any suspicious characters, such was the revulsion at the crime. A taxi driver would have been a very welcome identification witness in relation to Hanratty as well.



The cartridge case evidence from the Vienna Hotel is probably the most confusing part of the case. It screams "plant!", but why would anyone be planting evidence to incriminate the completely unknown (at that stage) Hanratty?

There are a number of theories in regard to this. One is that those criminal elements involved in the A6 Case were trying to distract the police enquiry and created a temporary ‘patsy’ although, as you suggest, that ‘patsy’ was more likely to be Alphon at that stage in the enquiry since his presence in the Vienna Hotel had already been established by police.
However it is arguable that James Hanratty was known to the murder enquiry by the 11^th September when the cartridges were discovered, for plain clothes police had been conducting enquiries in the Swiss Cottage area around the 1^st September, and had made a link between J.Ryan and the Hanratty household as a result of flowers he had sent to his mother. What we do not know is whether these police at Swiss Cottage were connected to the A6 Case or simply engaged in routine duties, or if any connection was made between the name Ryan in the Vienna Hotel register and Hanratty.


There may be nothing significant in the location but it’s just something that nags at me. Why would Hanratty have been there at that time of night? It doesn’t appear to me as a kind of spur-of-the-moment ‘‘oh there’s a car I’ll go and hold them up’’ type situation.

That question has been around since the earliest days of the crime being committed. For what was supposed to be an impulsive crime the killer seems to have taken great care to arrive at the cornfield without attracting any attention beforehand. He did bring a gun and boxes of cartridges however so there must have been some intent. Beginning a career as a ‘stick-up’ man in Taplow of an autumn evening seems a decidedly odd choice; most shops, back in these less consumerist days, used to close at 5.30 in the evening.

[Alfie]

Having taken cold feet in Maidenhead, Hanratty returning to his default mode as a burglar seems a reasonable proposition. The problem I see with this is that he was carrying a gun and a fair few boxes of ammunition so was not exactly travelling light, and since burglary is a crime which must require being nimble and agile he was ill-prepared.

We don't know how many boxes of ammo the gunman was carrying. The fact that five boxes were found under the bus seat doesn't mean the gunman was carrying them all at the time of the hold-up. He may have left four boxes stowed somewhere to be retrieved after the killing.