The prosecution’s case

the name was false and that the guest’s real name was James Hanratty. The offi cer in charge of the case, Detective Superintendent Basil Acott, also found that there were only fi ve men in Britain who had recently ‘done the lot’ of a corrective training sentence and one of them was James Hanratty. Indeed, Hanratty was a known petty criminal who had previously been convicted of housebreaking, theft and car theft. He had spent time in prison for these off ences, including three years of corrective training ( Miller, 2001 ). The police put out a call for information on Hanratty’s whereabouts and, when he realised that he was a suspect, he telephoned Acott from Liverpool to claim his innocence, saying that he had stayed with three men in Liverpool on the night of the crime. He said that he could not reveal the names of those who could support his alibi because they were criminals who did not want to get involved. Subsequently, on 11 October, Hanratty was arrested in Blackpool. Three days later, he was placed in an identity parade during which each person was directed to repeat the phrase that had been used by the assailant, ‘Be quiet, will you, I’m thinking’. Storie identifi ed Hanratty, and in a separate identity parade two of the witnesses to the erratic driving in the Morris Minor, Trower and Skillett, identifi ed Hanratty although Blackhall did not. Hanratty was charged with the murder of Gregsten, which he continued to deny and, on 22 January 1962, his trial began at Bedfordshire Assizes 4 before Mr Justice Gorman ( Foot, 1971 ). Eighty- three witnesses were called for the prosecution and 15, including Hanratty, for the defence. The trial lasted for 21 days, which at that time was the longest trial in British history ( Moles and Sangha, 2002 ).

The prosecution’s case

The lead prosecutor, Graham Swanwick, QC, focused particularly on Storie’s evidence, which described the appearance of her assailant, including his smart dress, his accent, pronunciation and use of the word ‘kip’, and his indication that his name was ‘Jim’ (which was often how Hanratty was referred to). Additionally, the assailant had off ered her a quite detailed account of his criminal history. Swanwick argued that these descriptions were all consistent with the characteristics of Hanratty ( Moles and Sangha, 2002 ):

He told her he had been to prison, he told her that since he was eight he had been to a remand home and to Borstal, and to CT, corrective training, and that the next one coming up was PD, preventive detention. That might well follow after a sentence of corrective training, but not in a man of the age of the accused. He told her he had done fi ve years for housebreaking, and done the lot, meaning, you may think, that he had served the whole sentence without remission; that he had been on the run for four months and every police force in Britain was looking

for him. ... It will be true of James Hanratty to say that he had been to prison. It would not be true to say he had been to remand home or Borstal. It would be true to say he had done corrective training. It would not be true to say he had done fi ve years for housebreaking but he had in fact been sentenced to imprisonment for housebreaking, to two years for housebreaking. He had ‘done the lot’ not on that occasion, but when serving the sentence of corrective training. (Swanwick, opening statement, cited in Woffi nden, 1997: 175)

Arguably the strongest evidence for the prosecution was Storie’s identifi cation of Hanratty. Although still recovering from her injuries in hospital, Storie attended court to give evidence and verify the positive identifi cation she had made of Hanratty at the identity parade. Swanwick asked Storie if she had any doubt that Hanratty was the man who she picked out as the person who shot her and Gregsten:

Storie: I had no doubt at all that this was the man who shot Mike and myself. Swanwick: Have you any doubt now? Storie: I have no doubt whatsoever. (Direct examination of Storie, cited in Woffi nden, 1997: 183)

Then Storie was asked when she was fi rst sure that Hanratty was her assailant:

Storie: I was absolutely certain as soon as I heard him speak. (Direct re- examination of Storie, cited in Moles and Sangha, 2002 )

Swanwick put to the jury that it was suspicious that Hanratty had removed dye from his hair once he realised the police were looking for him ( Woffi nden, 1997 ). He drew on the identifi cations that Skillett and Trower made of Hanratty, testifying that they witnessed him driving the Morris Minor erratically at around 7 am on 23 August heading in the direction towards where the car was eventually found. Trower testifi ed that he had no doubt that Hanratty was the man he saw driving the Morris Minor. Swanwick also introduced evidence from friends of Hanratty who testifi ed that his driving was erratic ( Woffi nden, 1997 ).

In relation to the murder weapon found on the bus, the prosecution argued that it must have been put there on the morning of 24 August. The 36A route passed Sussex Gardens, which was very close to the home of one of Hanratty’s friends with whom he occasionally stayed. Furthermore, the route also passed along the bottom of Sutherland Avenue, Maida Vale, which was very close to the Vienna Hotel. This evidence was combined

with Hanratty’s comment to a friend, Charles France, that the back seat of a bus was a good place to dispose of unwanted stolen goods, to suggest that it must have been Hanratty who placed it there ( Moles and Sangha, 2002 ). Furthermore, the two cartridge cases from the gun were found in room 24 at the Vienna Hotel which Hanratty had occupied on the night of 21/ 22 August. Not only had he used the name ‘J Ryan’, but he had also given a false address. Moreover, the room had been occupied only once between Hanratty’s stay and the discovery of the two empty cartridge cases, and that occupant had been eliminated from the list of suspects. Additionally, prior to the trial, a prison offi cer claimed to have heard Roy Langdale, a prisoner, telling another inmate that Hanratty had admitted that he was the gunman responsible for the crime. Langdale said that he exercised with Hanratty, who was in custody awaiting trial, and they became friendly. According to Langdale, during one of their conversations in the exercise yard Hanratty admitted that he was the murderer ( Moles and Sangha, 2002 ).

The prosecution also brought in evidence from Storie describing how, at one point during the long drive, the assailant warned Gregsten about some roadworks round the next corner. This was in Harrow, not far from where Hanratty’s parents lived in Kingsbury, and could be used to infer that he was the assailant because of his familiarity with the roadworks. The prosecution also pointed out that Hanratty had admitted that he was making inquiries about obtaining a gun and wanting to be a ‘stick- up’ man. Following his release from a previous prison sentence in 1961, he had contacted a man called Fisher about a gun: ‘a shooter to do some stick- ups’ ( Hanratty v Regina , 2002 : para 52). Hanratty acknowledged that he knew where to get a gun if he wanted one, but said that he had never owned one and that the whole thing was ‘just talk’.

Hanratty’s original alibi was that he was in Liverpool at the time of the murder and had been staying with three men on the nights of 22 and 23 August, who he refused to name because of their criminal activities. In his opening statement, Swanwick expressed strong doubts about the men’s existence. Hanratty had previously claimed that the men would not come forward because their fl at contained stolen jewellery and gelignite (an explosive material), and that they were wanted for non- payment of a fi ne for having televisions on hire purchase. Swanwick argued that those circumstances were not suffi ciently serious to prevent the men from coming forward to support Hanratty’s alibi as witnesses in a murder case ( Woffi nden, 1997 ). He added:

All warrants outstanding in the Liverpool area (something over 3,000) were checked, including around Scotland Road, which is an area that abounds in thieves. No trace was found of a man who had a warrant outstanding to do with television or hire purchase. So there was

no trace of the three men. (Swanwick, opening statement, cited in Woffi nden, 1997 : 174)

The prosecution’s doubts proved correct when, halfway through the trial, Hanratty admitted to lying about staying in Liverpool and changed his alibi to claim that he was staying at a guesthouse in Rhyl, North Wales, on the night of 22 August. His explanation for the lie about Liverpool was that he did not think he would be able to remember the exact location of the guesthouse in Rhyl. The prosecution countered that this explanation was implausible (Miller, 2001). To summarise, the prosecution’s evidence against Hanratty included Storie’s identifi cation of him; the details the gunman off ered about himself while in the Morris Minor; Skillett and Trower’s identifi cation; the discovery of the murder weapon on the bus in the precise location where Hanratty admitted to telling an acquaintance that he liked to discard unwanted objects from burglaries; the cartridge cases from the murder weapon found in the hotel room in which Hanratty had stayed; Hanratty’s admission to a fellow inmate, Roy Langdale, that he had committed the murder; and the lack of a solid alibi for the night on which the crime occurred. Swanwick argued that by a process of elimination, all the evidence pointed to Hanratty’s guilt ( Woffi nden, 1997 ). To this, he added claims about Hanratty’s motivations for committing the crimes:

Gregsten was shot through the head – twice, deliberately and in cold blood, for no better reason than that man wished to possess himself of Gregsten’s companion in that car, Valerie Storie. (Swanwick, opening statement, cited in Woffi nden, 1997 : 175)

Referring to the assailant’s demand for the victims’ wristwatches and then returning them, Swanwick posited:

That, you may think, possibly supports the view that the principle motive for this crime was perhaps sex rather than money. (Swanwick, opening statement, cited in Woffi nden, 1997 : 176)

Finally, Swanwick suggested other motives for Hanratty’s shooting of Gregsten:

The gunman said that he had got scared because Gregsten had moved too quickly. I suppose that might be true. Or was he lusting after Miss Storie at this time and did he want Gregsten out of the way? Or was the urge to use his new and exciting toy to shoot someone for the fi rst time too much for him? Or did he think that Gregsten had seen him and might recognise him? (Swanwick, opening statement, cited in Woffi nden, 1997 : 176)