PDA

View Full Version : A6 Murder who wrote the letter to Gregsten's boss complaining of the relationship?


Natalie Severn
11-12-2012, 09:02 PM
By August 22nd 1961 the marriage of Michael and Janet Gregsten had been in difficulties for some time.The 3 year love affair between Valerie Storie and Gregsten had intensified and on 1st August 1961 Gregsten had taken what seemed like an irrevocable step to end his marriage.He took a flat in Maidenhead and told his wife he would be moving in on 27th August 1961.
Gregsten had taken 'digs' before [though not his own flat] both in Slough and in Windsor which he had stayed in during the week returning to the family home in Abbot's Langley every weekend.This was in 1960.He had returned to live at home shortly before the birth of his second son who was born on 12th October 1960 .
However it was while he was lodging in Windsor in 1960 that Gregsten's landlord was visited and advised not to let the flat as Gregsten was a married man.

QUESTION i]: Who was it who visited Gregsten's landlord?[/I]

Meanwhile the Director of the Road Research Laboratory where Gregsten worked received a letter complaining of the relationship which he acted upon by calling the couple in to advise against the liaison.

QUESTION ii]: Who wrote the letter?

There is evidence that this was not Janet Gregsten ---though she may have been behind both events.

EddieX
11-12-2012, 11:35 PM
By August 22nd 1961 the marriage of Michael and Janet Gregsten had been in difficulties for some time.The 3 year love affair between Valerie Storie and Gregsten had intensified and on 1st August 1961 Gregsten had taken what seemed like an irrevocable step to end his marriage.He took a flat in Maidenhead and told his wife he would be moving in on 27th August 1961.
Gregsten had taken 'digs' before [though not his own flat] both in Slough and in Windsor which he had stayed in during the week returning to the family home in Abbot's Langley every weekend.This was in 1960.He had returned to live at home shortly before the birth of his second son who was born on 12th October 1960 .
However it was while he was lodging in Windsor in 1960 that Gregsten's landlord was visited and advised not to let the flat as Gregsten was a married man.

QUESTION i]: Who was it who visited Gregsten's landlord?[/I]

Meanwhile the Director of the Road Research Laboratory where Gregsten worked received a letter complaining of the relationship which he acted upon by calling the couple in to advise against the liaison.

QUESTION ii]: Who wrote the letter?

There is evidence that this was not Janet Gregsten ---though she may have been behind both events.

I don't think I can answer either question. Paul Foot in his book clearly implies that the letter and the visit were the result of the actions of Janet Gregsten and her family "...doing everything in their power to discourage the relationship."

I am not sure how valid the inference is that if you would be desperate enough to write to your husband's boss and to visit your husband's landlord then you would certainly be desperate enough have him abducted at gunpoint.

By the way, Foot has Anthony Gregsten being born in 1959.

Natalie Severn
11-13-2012, 12:44 AM
I don't think I can answer either question. Paul Foot in his book clearly implies that the letter and the visit were the result of the actions of Janet Gregsten and her family "...doing everything in their power to discourage the relationship."

I am not sure how valid the inference is that if you would be desperate enough to write to your husband's boss and to visit your husband's landlord then you would certainly be desperate enough have him abducted at gunpoint.

By the way, Foot has Anthony Gregsten being born in 1959.

But my inference isn't that Janet Gregsten wrote to her husband's boss-and certainly not that it was she who 'visited' the landlord of Gregsten's digs in Windsor---after all she was something like 8 months pregnant when whoever made the visit did so---Gregsten had been in digs in Slough for a few months before and it was when he was in digs in Windsor it happened -
It doesn't matter which year the 2nd son was born really [1959 or 1960], the point is that Gregsten had moved out at the time -and had been away on holiday with Valerie Storie for a week too -all while Janet Gregsten was pregnant- and that it was during her pregnancy that someone from her family made the 'visit'.Its worth bearing in mind that the only people who helped Janet after the murder were Bill Ewer and his wife, ie Janet's half sister -also named Valerie-who took her and her two sons to live with them after the murder.
So I wonder who wrote the letter because by all accounts it was not Janet nor was it Janet who warned off the Windsor landlord.

EddieX
11-13-2012, 03:37 AM
But my inference isn't that Janet Gregsten wrote to her husband's boss-and certainly not that it was she who 'visited' the landlord of Gregsten's digs in Windsor---after all she was something like 8 months pregnant when whoever made the visit did so---Gregsten had been in digs in Slough for a few months before and it was when he was in digs in Windsor it happened -
It doesn't matter which year the 2nd son was born really [1959 or 1960], the point is that Gregsten had moved out at the time -and had been away on holiday with Valerie Storie for a week too -all while Janet Gregsten was pregnant- and that it was during her pregnancy that someone from her family made the 'visit'.Its worth bearing in mind that the only people who helped Janet after the murder were Bill Ewer and his wife, ie Janet's half sister -also named Valerie-who took her and her two sons to live with them after the murder.
So I wonder who wrote the letter because by all accounts it was not Janet nor was it Janet who warned off the Windsor landlord.

If you are going to rule out Janet as being the person who visited the landlord on the grounds that she was eight months pregnant at the time, then it clearly DOES matter which year she gave birth to her second child.

It cannot be right to say "...by all accounts it was not Janet nor was it Janet who warned off the Windsor landlord." because the account of Paul Foot in his book clearly indicates his belief that it was Janet or her family who visited the landlord and wrote the letter. Foot does NOT exclude Janet.

Natalie Severn
11-16-2012, 10:56 PM
If you are going to rule out Janet as being the person who visited the landlord on the grounds that she was eight months pregnant at the time, then it clearly DOES matter which year she gave birth to her second child.

It cannot be right to say "...by all accounts it was not Janet nor was it Janet who warned off the Windsor landlord." because the account of Paul Foot in his book clearly indicates his belief that it was Janet or her family who visited the landlord and wrote the letter. Foot does NOT exclude Janet.

Simon Gregston was born on 12th October 1959.Valerie Storie and Michael Gregsten took a week's holiday together in Devon in the late Summer of 1959-Michael left Janet Gregsten shortly after to live in Windsor where Gregsten's landlord was visited and advised not to let the flat ' as Gregsten was a married man'.My question is :

Who was it who visited Gregsten's landlord in Windsor? Gregsten moved back to Janet soon after their son Simon was born in October 1959......so Janet would have been 6 or 7 or even 8 months pregnant -since he was there for only a short time see above.Paul Foot does not suggest it was Janet btw---nowhere in the book does he suggest this.
I have tried to post a copy of the birth registration but so far haven't been able to ---will try again tomorrow or Sunday.

Limehouse
11-17-2012, 07:35 AM
Hi all,

I would think that whoever wrote the letter may have been the same person who approached the landlord. It is likely that whoever did this knew that MG was in a realtionship outside his marriage and that his marriage was at risk. The people most likely to be aware of this and concerned about it are the people closest to MG, JG and VS.

So, I would conclude that the people most likely are close friends of Janet and MG, members of Janet's family (she was closest to her half sister and her brother-in-law, the Ewers), members of MG's family (his mother and aunt) and members of VS's family (her parents).

I am wondering how much VS's parents knew about her relationship with MG? If VS went on holiday with him, her parents either knew about the relationship, or believed she was on holiday with a girlfriend. If they subsequently found out that she was in this relationship, they may have acted to protect their daughter and to avoid the shame of her possibly moving in with a married man.

On the other hand, with a small son and a new baby to cope with, JG's family may have been outraged at MG's treatment of her and attempted to avoid a marriage break up.

Incidently, employer interference in 'office' relationships extended right into the 1970s. I met my husband at work (first in 1976 but we didn't get together until a couple of years later) and we were both single. He was quite a bit senior to me and we had to keep our relationship secret because it was frowned upon. When we married, I had to resign!

Natalie Severn
11-17-2012, 09:00 AM
Thanks Julie
Amazing it being as recent as 1979 that interference went on like that! Oh yes their bosses at road research had certainly warned them but face to face not as far as is known by warning outsiders like landlords!but mr and mrs storie liked mike gregsten very much apparently and even when told he was a married man continued to have him round for tea etc as they had on the day of the murder I believe.

Stevo7395
11-18-2012, 01:14 AM
There may be more substance in this than we will ever know. A married man having an affair when he had a small child and a pregnant wife would have been very frowned upon back then within a family on either side of the marriage almost like a pregnant teenage girl like my sister became back in 1974.

I was only a kid but I recall the sheer panic on my parent's faces and the looks and remarks by people who lived in our road. It all worked out well and I'm now the proud owner of a nephew, three great nieces and a great nephew but can remember the conversations and tantrums from the time as there was a sense of shame about a young girl being pregnant perhaps like a pregnant married woman with a toddler who's old man had gone over the side with a younger female....If I did that to my wife nobody would be happy in our family but I doubt they would get others to " intervene " but back then who knows ?

Morality and the family was much more of a focus to gossip and in my opinion taken far more seriously back then and yes I know right or wrong we've moved on from those times and I'm not pointing the finger at Mrs G but the more I think about it and the thought's of Alphon (yes I know some think he's a Crank ) and the Matthews report that there were others involved and the killer was helped.

Anyway just thought I'd chuck my 2 penneth worth in, interesting stuff, cheers, Steve

Limehouse
11-18-2012, 08:17 AM
There may be more substance in this than we will ever know. A married man having an affair when he had a small child and a pregnant wife would have been very frowned upon back then within a family on either side of the marriage almost like a pregnant teenage girl like my sister became back in 1974.

I was only a kid but I recall the sheer panic on my parent's faces and the looks and remarks by people who lived in our road. It all worked out well and I'm now the proud owner of a nephew, three great nieces and a great nephew but can remember the conversations and tantrums from the time as there was a sense of shame about a young girl being pregnant perhaps like a pregnant married woman with a toddler who's old man had gone over the side with a younger female....If I did that to my wife nobody would be happy in our family but I doubt they would get others to " intervene " but back then who knows ?

Morality and the family was much more of a focus to gossip and in my opinion taken far more seriously back then and yes I know right or wrong we've moved on from those times and I'm not pointing the finger at Mrs G but the more I think about it and the thought's of Alphon (yes I know some think he's a Crank ) and the Matthews report that there were others involved and the killer was helped.

Anyway just thought I'd chuck my 2 penneth worth in, interesting stuff, cheers, Steve

Hi Steve,

I think there is a lot of sense in what you say. In 1961, a man openly having an affair and leaving his wife and small children would have brought shame on him and visited a stigma on his wife too, even though she was completely innocent.

My family experienced a similar situation to yours. In the mid-60s, my older sister got pregnant and had to marry (aged 17). My parents were terribly upset and the neighbours shunned us, even though my parents had been highly respected prior to this event. My sister is still married to her teenage sweetheart, 47 years later and as a result has three children, six grandchildren and one great grandchild. I wonder how many of those snotty neighbours managed the same?

What makes a family/friend connection to the attack more likely in some people's opinion is the strong possibility that William Ewer (JG's brother-in-law) was at least distantly acquainted with Louise Anderson, stolen goods fence, who got very friendly with Hanratty shortly before the attack. Anderson was introduced to Hanratty, apparently, by Charles France. In the space of a few weeks, Hanratty had been re-acquainted with Charles France (through a chance meeting), newly acquainted with Louise Anderson and became a runner-up suspect in a murder and rape investigation.

Graham
11-18-2012, 10:09 AM
Hi all,

1] regarding the ammunition retained by the City of London police, this is news to me too - first I've heard of it. Nice one Nats to get hold of that document. My initial reaction was that it was unconnected to the A6, but now I'm not so sure. I wonder, as Pete does, if there is further documentary evidence that has never seen the light of day.

I can't see how anyone could carry a number of very heavy boxes of pistol ammunition in their pockets, though. VS never mentioned that the gunman carried a bag, but as we know she did say that he rattled the bullets in his pockets 'like marbles'. I think this new find re: ammunition is highly suggestive that there was someone else involved with Hanratty, even though it could well have been only in relation to the obtaining/disposal of the gun + ammunition. (Incidentally, she also specifically said that the gunman had a 'handkerchief' to cover his face, outlaw fashion, rather than a piece of 'cloth'. As JH was habitually a natty dresser, and as he recognised a hankie in court as being his, I think it safe to assume that a hankie it was, and very likely to be the same one used to wrap the gun + ammo found on the 36A bus.

2] the fact that someone was stirring it with MG and VS was, I suggest, a reason why it has long been thought (by some) that there was some kind of conspiracy at the core of this case. All very odd, when you think about it. MG was certainly a highly personable bloke, bohemian and surprisingly 'modern' in his outlook. VS does not come across as your typical early post-war shrinking violet, either. I can imagine their reaction to anyone who poked into their private affair, whether relations, employers, or nosey-parkers. JG said that she understood her husband's need to have extra-marital affairs, which again, for 1961, is slightly surprising. And it also seems that VS and JG actually liked each other, and were friendly - I'm sure that if VS suspected JG of being behind the A6 Crime, she wouldn't have been so well-disposed towards her.

A male relative of mine, long gone, was also a serial adulterer in the mid- to late-1950's. We all knew about it in the family, his wife put up with it and just carried on running the house and bringing up their kids. It was just never talked about, certainly not in front of us kids. However, years later we found out that a religious spinster great-aunt had written a couple of admonishing letters to him which, remembering what he was like, he probably had a good laugh over and threw away. The spinster great-aunt certainly never considered hiring a gunman to scare the hell out of him....as far as I know....

G

Stevo7395
11-19-2012, 10:00 AM
Hi all, interesting about this city of London ammo find but one or two things I'd like to clear up and this probably old ground but still trying to read all the arguments/debate on both sides.I'm still trying to wade through the posts and I've probably got one or two things wrong but I'm trying to put myself in JH's shoes on that evening and the next day.

1. I'm JH and for my sins a house breaker, car thief and petty criminal and I decide I need to up my game so I get a gun and hitch hike or get the train to the Slough area to check out the posh " drums " out that way.I then walk in broad daylight around houses albeit in a rural area now and NOBODY see's me get off the train at Slough or out of a car that I've just hitched in or walking around ?. I need a lift back to London so I see a car in a field with two people in it and force them to drive to Bedford but all I want to do is get back to London where I come from but decide to bypass it and end up 50 miles north of it ?

2. I've never killed anyone or hurt anyone before but I've just blasted a man to death in the head at point blank range and then raped his passenger and blasted her several times and left her for dead in a field on a main road. I don't break down, throw up or just panic and run off but manage to keep my head and prior to leaving the woman for dead despite being an established car thief I have to get the woman to start the car for me and explain the gears ?

3. I then cool as ice drive in the dead of night either through main roads with Police patrols likely to be about at that time of the morning or I know the lanes like the back of my hands and end up in Redbridge whilst all the time the car is blood stained, I still have the gun on me and the unused ammunition.

4. I end up in Redbridge shortly before 7am at the start of the rush hour but only a few people notice me driving the car and careering down Eastern Avenue ? I abandon the car which I just shot a man and raped a woman in and when found none of my hair, fingerprints or semen are found in it.

5. I then either lay low somewhere nearbye with likely blood stained clothes or get the train to London with the gun and ammo on me in broad daylight in a built up area but nobody sees me walking about or getting on the tube.

6. I manage all this on my own having never killed or raped anyone before but I then have an amazing idea about getting rid of my gun.....why chuck it the Thames or the nearbye River Lea around that area when I can just leave it under a seat of a bus.....simples !

Sorry but these are things I just can't get my head around, probably old ground I know. If JH is the murderer and the court has told us that he is then I honestly believe he did not and could not have acted alone and there must have been others involved and what would have been their motive ?

Cheers for now, Steve

EddieX
11-19-2012, 06:01 PM
1. I'm JH and for my sins a house breaker, car thief and petty criminal and ...

2. ...being an established car thief I have to get the woman to start the car for me and explain the gears ?



I think you may have intended to post on another of the A6 threads as this doesn't seem to have much to do about who wrote the letter to Gregsten's boss etc.

I would advise you to do some research on Hanratty's driving capabilities. His driving seems to have been erratic at best. We know that he pranged the hire car in Ireland. It is probable he pranged the Sunbeam he bought after returning from Ireland. His driving skills had attracted the attention of the police on at least one occasion. Apart from his brother, no one else seems to have recognised JH as anything like a good driver.

Hanratty's driving of the Morris Minor on the morning of 23 August, he had bent the car and had cut people up, was pretty much par for the course.

Stevo7395
11-19-2012, 07:03 PM
Hi Eddie, No I'm on the right thread mate, my point is that I am convinced JH did not act alone, this thread is about Gregsten's boss and perhaps people trying to intervene, if you read the last few lines of my post I do not believe he acted as a lone desperado who just happens to find a courting couple in a remote field in south Buckinghamshire who makes them drive to a place between Luton and Bedford on a main road, why would you do that and kill one, rape the other and shoot her and take the trouble to drive to North east London and dump the car you had just blown a man's head off.....but you've never been convicted or committed a violent crime before. If what we are told about JH 's previous is true then he was a car thief even his brother tells us he was an accomplished one. A morris minor was a fairly basic car in it's day and if he was a bad driver as you suggest he may have been why stop and have a conversation with a couple in Clophill village ( who Beds police dismissed ) .....what would I be doing had I just done that...keep going and stop for nobody and once you get to the bottom of Deadman's hill going south it's a straight run.

I believe that VG complained to others about her predicament with hubby's affair and others decided to " sort " it .....just my opinion, cheers, Steve

Natalie Severn
11-19-2012, 09:38 PM
I think you may have intended to post on another of the A6 threads as this doesn't seem to have much to do about who wrote the letter to Gregsten's boss etc.

I would advise you to do some research on Hanratty's driving capabilities. His driving seems to have been erratic at best. We know that he pranged the hire car in Ireland. It is probable he pranged the Sunbeam he bought after returning from Ireland. His driving skills had attracted the attention of the police on at least one occasion. Apart from his brother, no one else seems to have recognised JH as anything like a good driver.

Hanratty's driving of the Morris Minor on the morning of 23 August, he had bent the car and had cut people up, was pretty much par for the course.

On the 6th October after James Hanratty had attempted to explain his predicament both in the morning and late at night to Supt. Acott about being wanted for a burglary etc he decided to go on the run.He last spoke to Acott at 11.05 pm and got nowhere being told to hand himself to the police and never mind the consequences sort of thing.So he stole a Jaguar car from Great Portland Street in Central London and dashed up North in it.
Take note of how he did this because it reveals a clear understanding of cars and how they function-and I wonder seriously how many of us on here would be capable of acting so rapidly in such circumstances:
He took down the number on the dashboard and sped down to Soho where he knew a chap who would make up a key quickly from it.He then returned to the Jaguar and drove it to Manchester where he abandoned it and took the train to Liverpool.
No messing-
How many of us have had a minor scrape in a car like he had in Ireland early in September---it was minimal-little more than a scratch....

Natalie Severn
11-19-2012, 09:58 PM
Hi all,



2] the fact that someone was stirring it with MG and VS was, I suggest, a reason why it has long been thought (by some) that there was some kind of conspiracy at the core of this case. All very odd, when you think about it. MG was certainly a highly personable bloke, bohemian and surprisingly 'modern' in his outlook. VS does not come across as your typical early post-war shrinking violet, either. I can imagine their reaction to anyone who poked into their private affair, whether relations, employers, or nosey-parkers. JG said that she understood her husband's need to have extra-marital affairs, which again, for 1961, is slightly surprising. And it also seems that VS and JG actually liked each other, and were friendly - I'm sure that if VS suspected JG of being behind the A6 Crime, she wouldn't have been so well-disposed towards her.

A male relative of mine, long gone, was also a serial adulterer in the mid- to late-1950's. We all knew about it in the family, his wife put up with it and just carried on running the house and bringing up their kids. It was just never talked about, certainly not in front of us kids. However, years later we found out that a religious spinster great-aunt had written a couple of admonishing letters to him which, remembering what he was like, he probably had a good laugh over and threw away. The spinster great-aunt certainly never considered hiring a gunman to scare the hell out of him....as far as I know....

G

All very odd indeed Graham----but I don't believe that Janet Gregsten was 'happy' that her husband was leaving her ,leaving the family home in Abbot's Langley and herself and their two children to take up digs he had acquired from 1st August 1961 in Maidenhead miles from Watford and Abbot's Langley! a flat which he was planning to move into on the 27th August.Janet is on record as saying so in fact.
The very fact he had gone on holiday to Dorset with Janet and their sons was to 'try to patch things up'---but it didn't work out and he left half way through.
He did go back to collect them at the end of the holiday and this was just days before he was murdered--as apparently he took two unplanned for days off extra [ie after his annual leave had expired ] going to their flat in Abbots Langley on the afternoon of the 22nd August to take his boys out to the park in Watford -that strangely enough he was to pass again that very night in such very different circumstances with Valerie and the gunman in tow.
I doubt very much indeed either his aunt or his mother would ever have tried to 'get Janet and Michael Gregsten back together-both mother and aunt disliked Janet intensely and called her 'that neurotic woman' and considered Michael was far too good for her[this is on record in BW's book!
But certainly his firm had had them in and complained several times about the affair between VS and MG----but were given very short shrift.However its very unlikely they would have gone so far as to be knocking on Michael Gregsten's landlord's house in Windsor!

Natalie Severn
11-19-2012, 10:06 PM
Some thoughts about who it might have been :
I am not suggesting Charles France or a brother in law of France or even a frequenter pal of his from the Rehearsal or some such Soho Club type went to visit the landlord.But I do suspect it might well have been William Ewer because he was clearly very very fond of Janet--as apparently was his wife,Janet's half sister since they both immediately took her and her young children to live with them after the murder and had apparently been party to the discussions about the way forward for the 'triangle'.

EddieX
11-19-2012, 10:46 PM
On the 6th October after James Hanratty had attempted to explain his predicament both in the morning and late at night to Supt. Acott about being wanted for a burglary etc he decided to go on the run.He last spoke to Acott at 11.05 pm and got nowhere being told to hand himself to the police and never mind the consequences sort of thing.So he stole a Jaguar car from Great Portland Street in Central London and dashed up North in it.
Take note of how he did this because it reveals a clear understanding of cars and how they function-and I wonder seriously how many of us on here would be capable of acting so rapidly in such circumstances:
He took down the number on the dashboard and sped down to Soho where he knew a chap who would make up a key quickly from it.He then returned to the Jaguar and drove it to Manchester where he abandoned it and took the train to Liverpool.
No messing-
How many of us have had a minor scrape in a car like he had in Ireland early in September---it was minimal-little more than a scratch....


I beg to differ.

I have now read Woffinden's book at page 86 (1999 Pan Books paperback edition) he describes how Hanratty " learned" to drive. It seems that when left to his own devices Hanratty got caught when nicking a Humber Hawk. He was convicted and had a second offence taken into consideration. This led to a sentence of 4 months imprisonment given on 3 July 1957. So that's 2 thefts, and caught on one occasion.

Hanratty was back before the beak in March 1958. There were 2 TWOC charges and one TWOC taken into consideration. Woffinden is keen to say that when before the beak Hanratty was willing to admit allo his past demeanours, if that is right then the accomplished car thief had at this stage had stolen five cars and had been caught on either two or three occasions.

I suspect that his high rate of being detected was down to his lamentable driving.

As to the Jaguar he nicked, we only have his word that it was he and only he who stole and drove the car. The Jag was found abandoned in Manchester with several crates of bottles of Chester's Ales in the boot (BW 139). Why Hanratty should buy crates of beer (Chester's was a Salford brewery) and leave them in the boot while he got the train to Liverpool does not make sense. Why not abandon the car in Liverpool without buying any beer? I would not trust Hanratty's account of this episode.

As to the incident in Ireland being little more than a scratch, Woffinden (132) has it that Hanratty had damaged the front wing and both offside doors of the other car by driving too fast and going over the centre white line in the village of Castlemartyr. It is true that the police took no criminal proceedings against Hanratty, but it hardly inspires confidence in his driving.

Natalie Severn
11-19-2012, 11:25 PM
Eddie X
-but then to 'suspect' is not to know something for a fact !
If a man can drive a Jaguar car to Manchester that he has never driven before I would assume that man can drive competently!
Besides,he took Louise Anderson to work each day and out into the country as he did with several of the girls he took out and neither she or they ever makes reference to his driving skills as being anything but ok. Only Charles France's daughter, as a prosecution witness, said he drove differently from that---and Michael Sherrard Hanratty's trial barrister, told the court he thought she was saying it to damage Hanratty!.
The film made by John Lennon and Yoko Ono in 1968 ,[which I have a copy of], is interesting in that Paul Foot interviews a couple of very pretty -and also very respectable looking well spoken young girls and who also clearly liked Hanratty . They talk about the 'posh cars' he picked them up in and how they were taken for drives in the country by him---no mention of anything other than that he drove perfectly normally with those particular girls who didn't appear to have a grudge against hi m or be wanting to damage him---he had been dead by then for 6 or 7 years.

Stevo7395
11-20-2012, 12:54 AM
Eddie, you use phrases like TWOC and TIC....do you work for the law mate ?...coz I do if you can drive a Jaguar you can drive a Morris minor, Ford Mondeo or scenic megane if you can drive a car you can drive a car...end of !....so if he can't drive a car how does he get from rural Bedfordshire to NE London and then dump it driving badly through lanes and villages if he avoided the main roads.....and nobody saw him turn up in Dorney reach or Maidenhead or Slough railway stations on an August summers day.....come on if he killed MG and raped VS he did not act alone....no one man is capable of doing that on his own and then he puts the murder weapon under a seat on a bus to Peckham ...were Del boy and Trigger gonna get rid for him ?.....this is a plot that got too hot and the nicker fragment that was " found " in the early 90's by a Kempston Hq worker....really !

EddieX
11-20-2012, 06:53 AM
Hanratty could drive a car, but drove badly.

If you can drive a Jaguar badly you can drive a Morris Minor badly.

If you can drive a hire car in Ireland badly then you can drive a Sunbeam Alpine badly.

Hanratty drove the Morris Minor from Beds. to east London badly, this is evidenced by the bent front number plate, the bent rear bumper and the Redbridge witnesses who saw the car in motion.

It does not take two people to drive a car badly. One can do it on his own.

It does not take two people to kill a man with a gun. One can do it on his own.

It does not take two people to rape a woman. One can do it on his own.

The knicker fragment was discovered in 1994 as a result of Woffinden's and Bindman's efforts to have Hanratty's case put before the Court of Criminal Appeal, and that their instance was subject to DNA testing which eventually revealed that the one man responsible was James Hanratty.

Graham
11-20-2012, 08:45 AM
Hanratty could drive a car, but drove badly.

If you can drive a Jaguar badly you can drive a Morris Minor badly.

If you can drive a hire car in Ireland badly then you can drive a Sunbeam Alpine badly.

Hanratty drove the Morris Minor from Beds. to east London badly, this is evidenced by the bent front number plate, the bent rear bumper and the Redbridge witnesses who saw the car in motion.

It does not take two people to drive a car badly. One can do it on his own.

It does not take two people to kill a man with a gun. One can do it on his own.

It does not take two people to rape a woman. One can do it on his own.

The knicker fragment was discovered in 1994 as a result of Woffinden's and Bindman's efforts to have Hanratty's case put before the Court of Criminal Appeal, and that their instance was subject to DNA testing which eventually revealed that the one man responsible was James Hanratty.

Excellent post, Eddie. Until I retired I was a technical rep and drove anything from 25000 - 50000 miles a year, both in the UK and Europe. I don't consider myself to be a Lewis Hamilton, but I can state absolutely categorically that I can't understand how some drivers I knew and know could have ever passed their test! A former boss of mine was one of them - he seemed to have no concept of the fact that there are other vehicles on the road, or that things like walls and high kerbs, and parked cars (!), are very hard and unyielding. He damaged car after car almost as a matter of routine! Like my old boss, Hanratty was a bad driver, that's the long and the short of it, but that does not mean to say that he was completely incapable of getting from A to B in a car. From what I recall, he was 'taught' to drive by a bloke he called Bill, who lived in Bloxwich. He certainly had no UK licence, hence his trip to Ireland where apparently you could get a one-year driving-licence without having to take a test; presumably this was a 'provisional' licence.

Graham

Graham
11-20-2012, 09:26 AM
Eddie, you use phrases like TWOC and TIC....do you work for the law mate ?...coz I do if you can drive a Jaguar you can drive a Morris minor, Ford Mondeo or scenic megane if you can drive a car you can drive a car...end of !....so if he can't drive a car how does he get from rural Bedfordshire to NE London and then dump it driving badly through lanes and villages if he avoided the main roads.....and nobody saw him turn up in Dorney reach or Maidenhead or Slough railway stations on an August summers day.....come on if he killed MG and raped VS he did not act alone....no one man is capable of doing that on his own and then he puts the murder weapon under a seat on a bus to Peckham ...were Del boy and Trigger gonna get rid for him ?.....this is a plot that got too hot and the nicker fragment that was " found " in the early 90's by a Kempston Hq worker....really !

Murders comparable to the A6 are the Zodiac and Son Of Sam killers in the USA. Both were without any concrete motive, as was the A6. 'Zodiac' drove to places looking for courting couples in parked cars, and shot them; David Berkowitz, 'Son Of Sam', approached courting couples in parked cars on foot. In neither case has it been suggested, to my knowledge, that both killers could not have acted alone, or had to have an accomplice. Berkowitz was caught by accident via an unpaid parking-ticket; 'Zodiac' was never caught. Accomplices in any criminal activity mean lowered security - I don't believe that Hanratty, for example, carried out any burglaries except on his own.

Graham

Natalie Severn
11-20-2012, 02:09 PM
Accomplices in any criminal activity mean lowered security - I don't believe that Hanratty, for example, carried out any burglaries except on his own.

Graham

This is a very interesting angle on this case Graham-though I am not convinced that this was anything other than a 'gas meter' job ---as Acott is reported to have told the Sunday Times investigative journalist,Lewis Chester-a journalist from that time who strongly believed in Hanratty's total innocence and still working in journalism I understand.
Anyway, I have a rather strong rebuttal here of your speculation that Hanratty 'always burgled alone- clearly he did not 'always burgle alone' .

The following is taken from transcripts from Hanratty to police dated 30/12/1961 and written on a sixties typewriter in courier script!-may try to scan it later:

It begins " I did a job one afternoon in the middle of July in Hendon Way........
.........[he describes how owners were on holiday so :
"I went backto the West End-I went to the Club and asked Dixie if he knew anyone with a motor-I could not steal one that time of day-he[France] said "What have you got?" -[then] "he said he knew someone with a motor-We went to a club-man not there-he then went to another club and saw doorman H-[he is oldish and has a record] he has a green Rover.Dixie and H- came with me-Dixie was desperate then ,he had no money and was out of work-we got to the house about 6pm.H- parked car at bottom of road .Dixie walked up to the house with me and stood on the corner of street......and it describes a joint operation involving-in the end -6 people in total.

Natalie Severn
11-20-2012, 02:18 PM
Hanratty could drive a car, but drove badly.

If you can drive a Jaguar badly you can drive a Morris Minor badly.

If you can drive a hire car in Ireland badly then you can drive a Sunbeam Alpine badly.

Hanratty drove the Morris Minor from Beds. to east London badly, this is evidenced by the bent front number plate, the bent rear bumper and the Redbridge witnesses who saw the car in motion.

.

Can you quote your source for this statement that he drove the Sunbeam or any other car 'badly'---ie apart from the scrape in Ireland?
I can quote sources where girls who went out with him in the car said his driving was fine-only Carol France is on record saying otherwise and -well she would wouldnt she-like Sherrard said-appeared to want to damage him in court ....

Natalie Severn
11-20-2012, 02:22 PM
Hi Eddie, No I'm on the right thread mate, my point is that I am convinced JH did not act alone, this thread is about Gregsten's boss and perhaps people trying to intervene, if you read the last few lines of my post I do not believe he acted as a lone desperado who just happens to find a courting couple in a remote field in south Buckinghamshire who makes them drive to a place between Luton and Bedford on a main road, why would you do that and kill one, rape the other and shoot her and take the trouble to drive to North east London and dump the car you had just blown a man's head off.....but you've never been convicted or committed a violent crime before. If what we are told about JH 's previous is true then he was a car thief even his brother tells us he was an accomplished one. A morris minor was a fairly basic car in it's day and if he was a bad driver as you suggest he may have been why stop and have a conversation with a couple in Clophill village ( who Beds police dismissed ) .....what would I be doing had I just done that...keep going and stop for nobody and once you get to the bottom of Deadman's hill going south it's a straight run.

I believe that VG complained to others about her predicament with hubby's affair and others decided to " sort " it .....just my opinion, cheers, Steve

Excellent post Steve---one can tell instantly you really know what you are talking about viz a viz the police angle

Natalie Severn
11-20-2012, 04:01 PM
Eddie, you use phrases like TWOC and TIC....do you work for the law mate ?...coz I do if you can drive a Jaguar you can drive a Morris minor, Ford Mondeo or scenic megane if you can drive a car you can drive a car...end of !....so if he can't drive a car how does he get from rural Bedfordshire to NE London and then dump it driving badly through lanes and villages if he avoided the main roads.....and nobody saw him turn up in Dorney reach or Maidenhead or Slough railway stations on an August summers day.....come on if he killed MG and raped VS he did not act alone....no one man is capable of doing that on his own and then he puts the murder weapon under a seat on a bus to Peckham ...were Del boy and Trigger gonna get rid for him ?.....this is a plot that got too hot and the nicker fragment that was " found " in the early 90's by a Kempston Hq worker....really !

Great Post Stevo---am very impressed by these posts-you really do know what you are on about---great stuff!

Limehouse
11-20-2012, 06:07 PM
Hanratty could drive a car, but drove badly.

If you can drive a Jaguar badly you can drive a Morris Minor badly.

If you can drive a hire car in Ireland badly then you can drive a Sunbeam Alpine badly.

Hanratty drove the Morris Minor from Beds. to east London badly, this is evidenced by the bent front number plate, the bent rear bumper and the Redbridge witnesses who saw the car in motion.

It does not take two people to drive a car badly. One can do it on his own.

It does not take two people to kill a man with a gun. One can do it on his own.

It does not take two people to rape a woman. One can do it on his own.

The knicker fragment was discovered in 1994 as a result of Woffinden's and Bindman's efforts to have Hanratty's case put before the Court of Criminal Appeal, and that their instance was subject to DNA testing which eventually revealed that the one man responsible was James Hanratty.

I don't think the issue is whether Hanratty drove badly at all. I think the issue is whether he would have needed someone to show him how the gears worked. An accomplished car thief like Hanratty was used to getting into stolen cars and getting away from the scene swiftly. I very much doubt that he would have needed someone to show him how to change gear. I also doubt that, in changing gear, he would have been so incompetent, that a witness heard the gears ginding and saw the car bunny hopping down the road.

Certainly Hanratty may have been a careless driver, but he could master the basics of gear changing etc. That much is proven.

propatria27
11-22-2012, 09:07 PM
(Incidentally, she also specifically said that the gunman had a 'handkerchief' to cover his face, outlaw fashion, rather than a piece of 'cloth'. As JH was habitually a natty dresser, and as he recognised a hankie in court as being his, I think it safe to assume that a hankie it was, and very likely to be the same one used to wrap the gun + ammo found on the 36A bus.

Graham, just seen this post on this thread. Although VS said she thought it was a handkerchief around the gunman's face, I don't think a normal sized hanky will fit around an adult male head - I've tried it with some of mine and it doesn't reach. My opinion is, that if this piece of cloth is connected to the crimes, then it may be the one worn by the gunman and may have had DNA evidence on it i.e. saliva. This is only speculation, but it also leads you to conclude some planning, as the gunman would need to have picked a piece of cloth that fitted around his face.

Pete

Natalie Severn
11-22-2012, 09:21 PM
- I've tried it with some of mine and it doesn't reach. My opinion is, that if this piece of cloth is connected to the crimes, then it may be the one worn by the gunman and may have had DNA evidence on it i.e. saliva. This is only speculation, but it also leads you to conclude some planning, as the gunman would need to have picked a piece of cloth that fitted around his face.

Pete
Good points Pete!

EddieX
11-23-2012, 09:21 AM
I don't think the issue is whether Hanratty drove badly at all. I think the issue is whether he would have needed someone to show him how the gears worked. An accomplished car thief like Hanratty was used to getting into stolen cars and getting away from the scene swiftly. I very much doubt that he would have needed someone to show him how to change gear. I also doubt that, in changing gear, he would have been so incompetent, that a witness heard the gears ginding and saw the car bunny hopping down the road.

Certainly Hanratty may have been a careless driver, but he could master the basics of gear changing etc. That much is proven.

But that is just the point, Hanratty was not an accomplished car thief, he was as incompetent at thieving cars as he was at burgling houses.

Is there any evidence that he drove at any time between leaving prison in March 1961 and driving the Morris Minor on 23 August 1961? I stand to be corrected, but the answer to that question seems to be 'none'. Indeed all the evidence points to Hanratty travelling by bus, train or taxi.

If that be the case, then it would have been nearly three and a half years since Hanratty drove a car. As Hanratty had never been properly taught to drive, coupled with his 'learning difficulties' and the fact that he had never been inside a humble Morris Minor, then I could well imagine his need of instruction as to the operation of the gears. My impression is that Hanratty would have been aware that the clutch pedal had to be depressed, but would be unsure as to the direction of the gear shift for the various gears.

Limehouse
11-23-2012, 10:59 AM
Eddie, you state as 'fact' that Hanratty had 'never been inside a humble Morris Mionor'. How on earth can you possibly know this as 'fact?'

EddieX
11-23-2012, 11:08 AM
There was certainly no evidence adduced by the conscientiousness Mr Sherrard that Hanratty had driven a Morris Minor, nor does there seem to have been any evidence that he had actually been in one. Do you say different?

If Hanratty had had experience of the marque, I am sure that we would have heard about it.

Natalie Severn
11-25-2012, 12:09 AM
The debate about the Morris Minor is a curious one for anyone who knows anything at all about cars.The Morris Minor shares with the old mini the honour of having been the most basic,simplest engine on the road -and an extremely easy simple car to drive.
Hanratty could drive a number of cars as testified in the John Lennon film by his very pretty girl friends who he took out in several different cars he had 'borrowed' [to put it euphemistically]---and not one suggested he was anything other than a competent driver.

EddieX
11-25-2012, 06:44 AM
The debate about the Morris Minor is a curious one for anyone who knows anything at all about cars.The Morris Minor shares with the old mini the honour of having been the most basic,simplest engine on the road -and an extremely easy simple car to drive.
Hanratty could drive a number of cars as testified in the John Lennon film by his very pretty girl friends who he took out in several different cars he had 'borrowed' [to put it euphemistically]---and not one suggested he was anything other than a competent driver.

What cars had Hanratty driven between leaving prison in March 1961 and getting behind the wheel of 847BNH in the early hours of 23 August 1961 and on which occasions had he driven them? And what evidence was given at the trial on this?

I can only find reference to a black Consul being stolen by Hanratty and Terry in July 1961 which led to the latter being arrested in Shrewsbury town centre while the former ran away. When on his own, Hanratty, the supposedly accomplished car thief, travelled by hitch hiking from lorries or by public transport. He went from Shrewsbury to Newport, from there to Cardiff, both by lorry; Cardiff to Liverpool by lorry and then Liverpool to Rhyl by bus.

When the Jag was stolen in October 1961, Hanratty again had an accomplice with whom he separated in Manchester where the stolen Jaguar was found. Hanratty again when on his own was reduced to travelling by public transport and had to get a train from Manchester to Liverpool.

From the above we can conclude that Hanratty stole cars when assisted by an accomplice (or perhaps that should be the other way round), when Hanratty was left to his own devices then his preference was for public transport or hitched lifts. The reason for this is not far to seek when we look at what happens when Hanratty was legitimately in possession of a motor car, to wit the Irish hire car and the Sunbeam, he crashed them. And what happened to 847 BHN? It got crashed.

The two cars which we know that Hanratty did drive, rather than the accomplice driving, both suffered damage in a fairly short period of time. The same happened to the Morris Minor.

Natalie Severn
11-25-2012, 02:53 PM
When the Jag was stolen in October 1961, Hanratty again had an accomplice with whom he separated in Manchester where the stolen Jaguar was found.


Please try to get your facts right because everything in his story about the car theft was checked by police and defence.
Neither prosecution or defence have ever claimed Hanratty had an " accomplice " when he stole the black Mark V11 Jaguar from Hallam Street near Portland Place, Great Portland Street, just behind BBC Broadcasting House on the evening on 6/7 October .He took the registration number of the dashboard,and dashed to see a man he knew who had a garage in Soho where he bought a key to fit it -I can supply further details if need be .
In fact Hanratty's account was verified down to the last detail by Kleinman including his description of its floor gear change,overdrive and maroon upholstery.
There was never any claim by anyone other than you that he had any 'accomplice' so please don't muddy the waters further---lets just keep to what has been recorded about this event.

Hanratty drove this car ,on his own ,from London to Manchester on the evening of October 6/7 1961 .
This alone supplies all the evidence needed that he was quite expert at such 'ventures' and could drive cars with quite sophisticated mechanics-he was a car thief for goodness sake. Also the evidence given by several of his friends about being taken out in expensive cars plus the lifts and drives into the countryside in the Sunbeam Sports car e.g. Louise Anderson,witness for the prosecution and several girl friends named at the trial [the evidence by the girls is provided by Paul Foot in the John Lennon film entitled "Did Britain Murder Hanratty? " where Foot interviews those girls each of whom testified at the trial apparently.[I hope to be able to provide a 'you tube 'clipping from the film in the next month or so ]

Natalie Severn
11-25-2012, 03:19 PM
for EddieX Some Information about Leo McKinstry ..........!!!!!

http://stevehynd.com/2012/09/06/leo-mckinstry-should-be-glad-there-isnt-a-fit-for-work-test-for-journalists-if-there-was-hed-fail/

Leo McKinstry the article claims is well known for not checking his facts and for presenting "Fact as fiction and fiction as fact!

Natalie Severn
11-25-2012, 03:35 PM
More on Leo McKinstry---famous for peddling nonsense without any requirement to provide evidence for his bigotry---he is of course quoted with approval by the BNP !


http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/vile-rhetoric-of-leo-mckinstry.html

Natalie Severn
11-25-2012, 03:43 PM
http://atosvictimsgroup.co.uk/tag/leo-mckinstry/

Have more on this man who,it appears is happy to 'make up quotes'---and there is a particularly famous one where he misquotes Herbert Morrison........

EddieX
11-25-2012, 03:48 PM
A competent driver wanting to go to Liverpool would have driven all the way to Liverpool, not just to Manchester. Hanratty had to train it from there. Hanratty's modus operandi was to have an accomplice when thieving cars. I believe that Hanratty and friend parted company in Manchester, with the latter left in possession of the Jag. He (the accomplice) probably bought the Chesters Ales which were found in the Jag's boot, and had not intended to abandon the car when it was found.

For one reason or another, there was little point in Hanratty shopping his mate and partner in crime, and to the police it probably seemed unimportant in the overall scheme of things.

EddieX
11-25-2012, 03:52 PM
http://atosvictimsgroup.co.uk/tag/leo-mckinstry/

Have more on this man who,it appears is happy to 'make up quotes'---and there is a particularly famous one where he misquotes Herbert Morrison........

We've been over this ground in another thread in which I had posted a link to a report of Sherrard addressing a City of London Law College after the Court of Appeal's decision and in which he is reported as saying "..the wrong man was not hanged." Whatever else Sherrard may have thought of the original trial and verdict, after the Court of Appeal's decision he has satisfied himself that the wrong man was not hanged.

Natalie Severn
11-25-2012, 04:01 PM
[QUOTE=Natalie Severn;247373]http://atosvictimsgroup.co.uk/tag/leo-mckinstry/[QUOTE]

For those on casebook interested to know the background on the man who is credited with the unsourced,undated quote alleged to have been made by Michael Sherrard QC RE ' the wrong man not being hanged ' ---I have supplied a few links----apparently this Leo McKinstry hack is absolutely notorious for issuing a long list of "unverifiable quotes"including one about Herbert Morrison so outrageous it was the subject of a prize giving for anyone who could find any source for it whatsoever ---and guess what------ The prize has never been claimed!!

Have more on this man who,it appears is happy to 'make up quotes'---and that is a particularly famous one where he misquotes Herbert Morrison......

Natalie Severn
11-25-2012, 04:08 PM
We've been over this ground in another thread in which I had posted a link to a report of Sherrard addressing a City of London Law College after the Court of Appeal's decision and in which he is reported as saying "..the wrong man was not hanged." Whatever else Sherrard may have thought of the original trial and verdict, after the Court of Appeal's decision he has satisfied himself that the wrong man was not hanged.

Look its absolutely fruitless and meaningless to keep on issuing 'alleged quotes' such as this unless you can provide the a LINK to a FULL STATEMENT ? Can't you see how a 'quote" such as this needs to be dated ,contextualised ,substantially sourced ?Can't you get his Autobiography for pity' sake written in 2009 and find out exactly what he thought about Acott,Oxford and the lies,fiddling and altered statements he talks of etc etc ?Just presenting this meaningless 'quote' does nothing to further the debate -its just shoddy research

EddieX
11-25-2012, 04:36 PM
Look its absolutely fruitless and meaningless to keep on issuing 'alleged quotes' such as this unless you can provide the a LINK to a FULL STATEMENT ? Can't you see how a 'quote" such as this needs to be dated ,contextualised ,substantially sourced ?Can't you get his Autobiography for pity' sake written in 2009 and find out exactly what he thought about Acott,Oxford and the lies,fiddling and altered statements he talks of etc etc ?Just presenting this meaningless 'quote' does nothing to further the debate -its just shoddy research


I gave you a link on another thread

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=7097&page=6

my post is 174.

Sherrard has definitely been reported giving talks in which he has said the wrong man was not hanged. He may have thought that Acott and Oxford did not play the game in the original trial, and may still believe this but that is a different point.

Natalie Severn
11-25-2012, 06:44 PM
I gave you a link on another thread
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=7097&page=6
my post is 174.
.
That link is not available now for some reason .I want to know the name of the reporter-its important-an anonymous quote is useless as anyone can make anything up they feel like and have it bandied about.I need to be able look it up and cross reference it and whoever it was who reported it.

Stevo7395
11-25-2012, 06:54 PM
Hi Eddie, everyone is entitled their opinion and I'm new to the forum but from what I've read there are some well reasoned and researched arguments both ways. My Dad was a bit of a " Jack the lad " before he settled down and he grew up in Wembley, not far from where JH knocked about. My Dad was never a thief but was a regular at the local dance halls and used to frequent the West End as well. He'd never heard of JH until it happened. One thing he did say that struck me was there was a lot more " respect out of fear " for the Police back then, in his words " if they wanted you or to solve something, they would do whatever to get a result "......that is from someone who was a young man in those days who also got in trouble but more for fighting over girls in bars etc.

I have experienced Police collusion I'm sure when I was a Special constable back in the day, people who had just dealt with an incident all sitting together in one corner of the collator's office or the parade room with pocket notebooks out and writing statements together, I'm not saying they are all liars but there was collusion I'm sure and it no doubt happens to this day. You only have to look at the Derek Bentley case for more evidence of altered statements, gaps in evidence, Police "lingo " or way of taking and writing a statement to make it look like the prisoner had said that to them to strengthen what the jury "needed " to hear on the day.

In the documentary from 1992 by Wolfenden I'm sure there is a bit in there that says there are boxes of papers that the crown will not release into the public domain for fear by doing so it would endanger living people.....who may they be then ?........I don't believe JH was the murderer, that's not to say he may not have had some involvement somewhere in the crimes but acted with others and they used him as the fall guy and again I believe there's enough evidence within those boxes of paperwork that the crown won't release to show that. Langdale grassing him up and an uncorroborated conversation in a prison exercise yard why would he want to do that ?......The France woman's testimony in court....old man France topping himself just before the execution....why would he do that ?......coz JH was sleeping with his daughter ?....anyway again, just my opinion, cheers.

EddieX
11-27-2012, 07:43 AM
That link is not available now for some reason .I want to know the name of the reporter-its important-an anonymous quote is useless as anyone can make anything up they feel like and have it bandied about.I need to be able look it up and cross reference it and whoever it was who reported it.

Reading through the DNA thread it would seem that someone had beaten me to the Sherrard quote.


Hi Norma,

The same Michael Sherrard who said "The wrong man was not hanged" (http://web.archive.org/web/20050212101709/http://www.clsg.org.uk/hanratty.htm)

I guess that means Yes, him included.

KR,
Vic.

EddieX
11-27-2012, 07:54 AM
In case the link breaks again. This was a short report of a talk given by the late Michael Sherrard to the members of the University of the City of London Law Society, it reads as follows:-



JAMES HANRATTY'S BARRISTER TAKES THE STAND


Michael Sherrard QC, the barrister who defended James Hanratty in one of the most controversial trials of the 20th century, came to City to talk to members of the Law Society about his experiences during the famous Hanratty trial.

The case was tried 40 years ago, and Hanratty was hanged for murder. In 1999 the Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case to the Court of Appeal as DNA taken from members of Hanratty's family was analysed to test its compatibility with DNA samples collected from the crime scene. The results were inconclusive, and Hanratty was exhumed so that samples could be taken directly from his body.

Mr Sherrard's talk was fascinating, and touched on some of the most fundamental precepts of the law. He discussed the circumstances surrounding the original trial, and remarked, "If police officers choose what they'll disclose and what they won't, it becomes trial by police".

The recent DNA tests would seem to prove conclusively that Hanratty did in fact commit the crime for which he was executed. Mr Sherrard said, "The wrong man was not hanged. That was an immense relief to me." However, his opinion of the original prosecution remains unchanged. "The evidence was too weak to justify conviction. I still hold that view."

So, have things changed for the better since that infamous trial 40 years ago? Mr Sherrard believes that the legal system has been substantially improved: "I've got more faith in the police today than I did then."

Natalie Severn
11-28-2012, 12:16 AM
In case the link breaks again. This was a short report of a talk given by the late Michael Sherrard to the members of the University of the City of London Law Society, it reads as follows:-



JAMES HANRATTY'S BARRISTER TAKES THE STAND


Michael Sherrard QC, the barrister who defended James Hanratty in one of the most controversial trials of the 20th century, came to City to talk to members of the Law Society about his experiences during the famous Hanratty trial.



I know what the above says .I know too that anybody else at all who reads what Michael Sherrard actually wrote in his published book of 2009 totally contradicts the above words.So why would he say or make such a contradictory statement ?

On 16 May 1961 Sherrard spoke on camera AFTER the 2002 appeal and everything he said on camera contradicts this statement above that you allege came from him.

So please Eddie X if you want this to be taken as anything but a fabrication ,provide the source i.e. tell us who the journalist or author was ie who reported it i.e. the name of the author of the report and its date so it can be checked out -

Natalie Severn
11-28-2012, 01:07 AM
Error: 2nd paragraph above post should read May 16th 2002 not 1961
Norma

caz
11-28-2012, 11:55 AM
Hi Nats,

If that was a misquote, and a serious misrepresentation of Sherrard's views, I'm sure the man himself must have issued a public denial that he had said - or thought - any such thing.

So could you point me to where he did this? What he buried somewhere in his book about it doesn't really change anything if it was not in the form of a strongly worded denial of this specific statement that: "The wrong man was not hanged. That was an immense relief to me."

If there was no subsequent denial it would make it very difficult to prove he never actually said it, and much more likely that he did.

Love,

Caz
X

Natalie Severn
11-28-2012, 08:40 PM
Caz,
Michael Sherrard suffered from a severe form of Parkinson's disease in the last two or three years so I doubt very much he was well enough to be issuing a denial about anything---if indeed he had heard anything about the nonsensical 'quote'.
However in 2009 his autobiography was published ,written with the help of another lawyeracting as the scribe I would imagine as Parkinson's sufferer's often have difficulty holding a pen steadily .Anyway -Ms Goldman ,his friend and co-scripter is a lady who discussed several of the sort of issues we discuss quite often with a journalist I have been in contact with recently.Everything in Sherrard's chapter in his 2009 autobiography was his own view of the A6 case and there is no mention of anything remotely like this quote in it ---the absolute opposite in fact.So it is a very strange alleged 'quote' to be bandied about containing the antithesis of everything he said in his book and everything said about the case on camera after the 2002 appeal results.

There has to be a source---somewhere but if there is no way of me or anyone else finding out who the reporter/author actually was of the article containing the alleged quote ---then its a good bet it is either a 'misquote'--- or it has been 'made up' either way it appears to be a' total fiction'---and should be binned asap----I will continue to delve into this btw
Norma

Natalie Severn
11-30-2012, 03:04 PM
Still haven't had any detective work on who visited gregstens landlord in Windsor to warn him about Gregstens marital status and the danger of harbouring a married man. Who do you think it was ? If it had been the 7 or 8 months heavily pregnant Janet Gregsten then I reckon we would have heard a out it properly as it is it remains an undisclosed statement but on police files.

Natalie Severn
12-07-2012, 05:21 PM
Interesting everybody ducking this.

Let us not forget that William Ewer ,by his own confession, [see Sunday Times May 16th 1971 ],was racing round Swiss Cottage 'after Hanratty" panting outside the steamed up windows of Dorothy Morrell's flower shop, making a pest of himself demanding to be 'let into the back' of a photographer's shop in Swiss Cottage a few doors away from the flower shop-bringing police to the scene having phoned Scotland Yard to say he thought he had 'caught the killer'!Not content with all this he said he also went into Burtol's Dry cleaners just opposite his very own 'antiques''umbrella' 'art' shop where reporters swore Janet Gregsten gave them a story on the 2nd day of September 1961about having had an 'intuitive sighting' of the A6 killer.[by the way she had told reporters,according to them,that she had been hanging a William Steer painting in the window----just for the record---anyone dare guess what that would be worth today? 26 million -give or take a few thousand pounds----some 'umbrella shop' this---that belonged to one William Ewer---who was listed in the 1961 phone business directory as an Art Dealernot an umbrella shop man !

So this is the man -William Ewer,who Charles France visited just days before he committed suicide--to 'apologise' for his brother -in - law , Michael Gregsten's death!WHAT?????

One has to admit its odd---the flower shop/dry cleaner/photographer events ---was Ewer desperate to deflect attention from someone else, someone other than Hanratty ---doing so by pointing this very big finger at Hanratty?

I believe it might help to know who called on Michael Gregsten's landlord in Windsor in either August or September 1959--- just a month or two before Janet Gregsten delivered her second child on October 4th 1959---to say the landlord should not be giving lodgings to this 'married man'-who was having an affair?

And the jury in Bedford were told nothing whatever about any affair Valerie Storie and Michael Gregsten were having of course!

caz
12-10-2012, 04:22 PM
Interesting everybody ducking this.

To be fair, Nats, I do find your 'stream-of-consciousness' posts hard to follow at times, and when I can follow them I wonder how relevant the information would be, either towards getting a further appeal, or indeed as part of that appeal.

It strikes me that you'd need a much stronger and more concise argument, if the evidence simply isn't there to overturn the DNA results, or otherwise demonstrate the impossibility of Hanratty committing the crime.

Suspicious characters were bound to show up in a case like this one, muddying the waters and allowing for all sorts of conjecture from those who believe an innocent Hanratty must have been set up from start to finish, apparently by everyone else directly or indirectly involved, from his friends and associates and the real killer, to the police, the forensics people and the entire justice system.

Love,

Caz
X

Limehouse
12-10-2012, 05:39 PM
To be fair, Nats, I do find your 'stream-of-consciousness' posts hard to follow at times, and when I can follow them I wonder how relevant the information would be, either towards getting a further appeal, or indeed as part of that appeal.

It strikes me that you'd need a much stronger and more concise argument, if the evidence simply isn't there to overturn the DNA results, or otherwise demonstrate the impossibility of Hanratty committing the crime.

Suspicious characters were bound to show up in a case like this one, muddying the waters and allowing for all sorts of conjecture from those who believe an innocent Hanratty must have been set up from start to finish, apparently by everyone else directly or indirectly involved, from his friends and associates and the real killer, to the police, the forensics people and the entire justice system.

Love,

Caz
X

It has already been demonstrated how a completely innocent man WAS convicted of murder and it did not involve a 'set up' from a whole group of collaborators. First, it took a group of girls to falsely and maliciously identify Kiszco as having 'flashed' them. Secondly, it took a group of police officers applying pressure to obtain a 'confession' after endless hours of questioning. Thirdly, those same police officers withheld crucial forensic evidence from the defence and finally, this resulted in the jury rejecting an alibi that was true, resulting in a conviction.

It is unlikely a whole group of people set out to purposefully secure a conviction against Hanratty but I believe evidence was planted, I believe evidence was withheld, I believe some witnesses made false statements, I believe some witnesses gave evidence to prevent themselves facing criminal charges and I believe statements were altered.

Regardless of who asked for the forensic tests, because of all the reasons I have outlined above, I believe the DNA evidence to be unreliable.

Natalie Severn
12-10-2012, 06:26 PM
Hillsborough:an ongoing example of what is meant by a set up and in this case one that is fully followed up by heads of state -ie a cover up reaching the very top of government , the Prime Minister of the time to be precise ,and successive PM's and government figures since. Hillsborough is an ongoing case of great national magnitude of course and it is quite clear the ' setting up' involved not just a couple of policemen because upwards of 162 altered statements were proven by the Hillsborough Independent Inquiry to have been 'fiddled with ' by policemen --ALL these 162 fiddled with statements pertaining to the victims of the disaster and all this took place ,apparently, in order to make it look as though the victims of Hillsborough were responsible for their own deaths;
The smearing of the victims and the fabrication of evidence was set in motion within a few days of the disaster by Sir Kenneth Oxford,then serving Margaret Thatcher in an 'advisory capacity' and as Chief Constable of Merseyside.Yes-the same Kenneth Oxford who was due to have to explain to the 2002 appeal court on the Hanratty case how the notes he had taken during the night he and Acott arrested Hanratty without a solicitor present came to have been 'altered' or ' fiddled with' .


And Caz,can you try for just once to follow other people's reasoning-to see what such links might indicate ?

I am also actually sick and tired of your sarcasm and innuendo ---do us a favour and act with some good manners and courtesy for once.

Natalie Severn
12-10-2012, 07:13 PM
The Sunday Times on 23rd May 1971 carried a full page spread --one of a sequence .It was written by three investigative journalists the lead journalist being Lewis Chester with Alex Finer and Nelson Mews assisting. Their conclusion was that the prosecution case omitted more of the background to the murder than it revealed and that had it been full known at the time,it is improbable that Hanratty would ever have hanged. Most of their case rests on the anomalies and inconsistencies in the statements made by William Ewer but also the role played by Charles France.

Paul Foot another investigative journalist of much integrity -another honourable journalist it needs to be said ,also carried out much research into William Ewer and Charles France with much the same conclusions.

This,they insisted was where the concealment and deceptions began.

caz
12-18-2012, 04:27 PM
And Caz,can you try for just once to follow other people's reasoning-to see what such links might indicate ?

I am also actually sick and tired of your sarcasm and innuendo ---do us a favour and act with some good manners and courtesy for once.

Hi Nats,

I'm sorry you feel that way. I always try to follow other people's reasoning, or I wouldn't be here debating it, asking questions about it, or saying how difficult I find it to follow at times.

Obviously if Hanratty was innocent of this crime, it all went badly wrong from the start, and kept on going wrong right through to the DNA testing, which Hanratty defenders had called for and had expected to show that someone other than him had committed the rape and murder.

But he could have been guilty and still 'set up' by people who knew or suspected it, or even by people who didn't care if he was guilty or not. And there's the rub, because sadly the emphasis has changed since the 2002 appeal, and the only way you can ever hope to clear Hanratty's name now is if you can come up with clear evidence that he did not commit the crime, or that someone else did. It doesn't matter how much corruption you can uncover in high or low places relating to this or any other case, because that in itself cannot lead logically or evidentially to the conclusion that Hanratty - like Kiszco and all the Hillsborough victims - must have been innocent. Kiszco and every one of those football supporters were provably not responsible for the related deaths.

Demonstrating that the DNA results were unsafe, and that the original conviction was unsafe, would be a first step, but would it be enough to get a further appeal off the ground? I can't see it myself.

I hate to sound so negative and cynical, but I really struggle with how the original verdict is ever going to be seriously undermined, let alone overturned, by anything posted so far on these boards about the case.

Love,

Caz
X

caz
12-19-2012, 11:55 AM
Kiszco and every one of those football supporters were provably not responsible for the related deaths.

Carrying on from this, I wonder why you and Limehouse unhesitatingly accepted that the DNA evidence 'proved' Kiszco innocent and Castree guilty instead, while totally rejecting the DNA evidence 'proving' Alphon innocent and Hanratty guilty? How old were the samples when they were tested in the Kiszco case? Why would you trust the methods that were used or the people using them, if they are supposed to be so notoriously flawed and unreliable?

How are you picking and choosing?

Love,

Caz
X

Limehouse
12-20-2012, 02:48 PM
Carrying on from this, I wonder why you and Limehouse unhesitatingly accepted that the DNA evidence 'proved' Kiszco innocent and Castree guilty instead, while totally rejecting the DNA evidence 'proving' Alphon innocent and Hanratty guilty? How old were the samples when they were tested in the Kiszco case? Why would you trust the methods that were used or the people using them, if they are supposed to be so notoriously flawed and unreliable?

How are you picking and choosing?

Love,

Caz
X


The answer to that is simple Caz. There WAS no DNA testing in the Kiszco case. The forensic evidence in the Kiszco case was there to be identified when he was arrested but the police ignored it and witheld the evidence from the defence. The truth is, the semen found on Lesley contained sperm. Kiszco produced no sperm due to his medical condition.

caz
12-21-2012, 04:42 PM
Kiszco produced no sperm due to his medical condition.

And you know this because - you trust the people who established this and you trust the methods they used.

That is my only point, although Castree was finally nailed for this crime by his DNA. It was found to match a 30 year old semen sample from the victim's underwear. I take it you don't dispute the reliability of that particular result and are not campaigning for Castree's conviction to be looked at again?

So again, how are you picking and choosing what forensic evidence is reliable and what isn't, if it's not purely down to which results match your personal beliefs?

Why, for instance, would you or Nats not question the evidence that got Peter Sutcliffe banged up in the 80s for the Yorkshire Ripper murders, given that Hillsborough was in the same decade and is constantly being brought up to show just how corrupt and indiscriminate the authorities can be in 'setting up' entirely the wrong people?

Love,

Caz
X

Limehouse
12-21-2012, 06:21 PM
And you know this because - you trust the people who established this and you trust the methods they used.

That is my only point, although Castree was finally nailed for this crime by his DNA. It was found to match a 30 year old semen sample from the victim's underwear. I take it you don't dispute the reliability of that particular result and are not campaigning for Castree's conviction to be looked at again?

So again, how are you picking and choosing what forensic evidence is reliable and what isn't, if it's not purely down to which results match your personal beliefs?

Why, for instance, would you or Nats not question the evidence that got Peter Sutcliffe banged up in the 80s for the Yorkshire Ripper murders, given that Hillsborough was in the same decade and is constantly being brought up to show just how corrupt and indiscriminate the authorities can be in 'setting up' entirely the wrong people?

Love,

Caz
X


Caz, you only have to put a sample of semen under a poweful enough microscope to see whether it contains spermatoza. I could have done that as an O Level Human Biology student.

Castree's DNA sample is irrelevant and I don't even have to think about it since it had nothing whatever to do with Kiszco being cleared of Lesley's murder.

Kiszco's conviction was quashed and he was relased from prison long before Castree was identified as the possible murderer. After almost two decades in prison, his case was looked at again and the forensic evidence came to light. It was there to be found in 1975 - but it was ignored because of the false evidence given by the teenage girls who claimed Kiszco had exposed himself to them. This was a completely malicious and untrue accusation. It led to police arresting Kiszco and subjecting him to hours and hours of questioning until he finally confessed. He later said:

"I started to tell these lies and they seemed to please them and the pressure was off as far as I was concerned. I thought if I admitted what I did to the police they would check out what I had said, find it untrue and would then let me go".

caz
01-02-2013, 04:51 PM
Caz, you only have to put a sample of semen under a poweful enough microscope to see whether it contains spermatoza. I could have done that as an O Level Human Biology student.

Hi Limehouse,

But the point is that you didn't do it in this case. Others did. You were not asked to examine or confirm any of the evidence, or to be an observer, yet you happily accepted without question that a sample of semen was indeed put under the microscope; the sample indeed came from Kiszco; and it indeed contained no sperm. I expect there are many qualified to say "I could have done the DNA tests that indicated Hanratty's guilt and Alphon's innocence", but it's meaningless if they were never asked to do so and were not there to see the results for themselves.

The case was eventually solved when Castree's DNA was found on the victim's underwear and positively identified after 30 years. So yes, I'm afraid you do have to think about that - very hard - unless you can give a good reason why your concerns about the honesty and reliability of the evidence - forensic and otherwise - used to implicate Hanratty and Kiszco did not and do not extend to Castree. How do you know he was not similarly 'set up' and every bit as deserving of your concern as Kiszco was?

Nothing that happened to Kiszco is remotely relevant or comparable unless you can demonstrate that Hanratty was similarly innocent. Their treatment and their reaction to it could have been identical, but it would still prove absolutely nothing about the latter's guilt or innocence.

Love,

Caz
X

Limehouse
01-06-2013, 11:33 AM
Hi Limehouse,
The case was eventually solved when Castree's DNA was found on the victim's underwear and positively identified after 30 years. So yes, I'm afraid you do have to think about that - very hard - unless you can give a good reason why your concerns about the honesty and reliability of the evidence - forensic and otherwise - used to implicate Hanratty and Kiszco did not and do not extend to Castree. How do you know he was not similarly 'set up' and every bit as deserving of your concern as Kiszco was?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Kiszco was released YEARS before Castree was identified as the murderer. It was not any identification of Castree's DNA that prompted the release of Kiszco.

Kiszco was incriminated by false evidence, by evidence withheld from the jury, by a confession that was forced from him and by the non-acceptance of his alibi. The re-examination of the sample found at the scene was not the only reason Kiszco was released. It was a re-examination of all of the evidence.

Obviously, I cannot demonstrate to you that Hanratty was innocent because you do not share the same doubts about the evidence offered at his trial as I do.

The comparisons I made between these cases was based on their reactions to being arrested and their behaviours when under police questioning.

Happy New year to you. :)

caz
01-08-2013, 05:01 PM
Hi Caz,

Kiszco was released YEARS before Castree was identified as the murderer. It was not any identification of Castree's DNA that prompted the release of Kiszco.

I know that, Limehouse, and never suggested otherwise.


Kiszco was incriminated by false evidence, by evidence withheld from the jury, by a confession that was forced from him and by the non-acceptance of his alibi. The re-examination of the sample found at the scene was not the only reason Kiszco was released. It was a re-examination of all of the evidence.


I know that too. That is precisely why I am asking you why you would trust the same justice system to have got it 'right' in the end (albeit too late for Kiszco), and not convicted another wrong man, through similarly false evidence, incompetence or dishonesty.


Obviously, I cannot demonstrate to you that Hanratty was innocent because you do not share the same doubts about the evidence offered at his trial as I do.


No, the reason you cannot demonstrate to anyone that Hanratty was innocent is because you cannot prove he was elsewhere, or that anyone else committed this crime. I could share your doubts about the evidence for his guilt, but doubts do not demonstrate innocence.


The comparisons I made between these cases was based on their reactions to being arrested and their behaviours when under police questioning.


Exactly - that was the very point I was making to you. Their reactions and behaviours could have been identical, while their motivations could have been quite different. Just because one was proven innocent doesn't mean the other is any less likely to have been guilty. Only evidence can decide that.

If anything, the Kiszco case is a poor one to use for comparison purposes with Hanratty because it demonstrates what happened in a genuine miscarriage of justice - the wrongs were admitted and all the evidence was re-examined, and proof emerged beyond all reasonable doubt that Kiszco could not have been guilty, and eventually Castree was found to fit the bill instead.

Why would the A6 case be any different if the same kind of mistakes were made, and a similar miscarriage of justice really had taken place, along with the evidence to demonstrate the fact beyond doubt?

Happy new year to you too. :)

Love,

Caz
X

Alfie
07-21-2016, 09:07 AM
Hanratty drove this car ,on his own ,from London to Manchester on the evening of October 6/7 1961 .
This alone supplies all the evidence needed that he was quite expert at such 'ventures' and could drive cars with quite sophisticated mechanics-he was a car thief for goodness sake. Also the evidence given by several of his friends about being taken out in expensive cars plus the lifts and drives into the countryside in the Sunbeam Sports car e.g. Louise Anderson,witness for the prosecution and several girl friends named at the trial [the evidence by the girls is provided by Paul Foot in the John Lennon film entitled "Did Britain Murder Hanratty? " where Foot interviews those girls each of whom testified at the trial apparently.[I hope to be able to provide a 'you tube 'clipping from the film in the next month or so ]

Just re-watched the Lennon doco, and nowhere in it could I find Foot interviewing the girls about JH's driving ability.

What I did find though is this interesting snippet concerning JH's Liverpool alibi, specifically his bus-ride up Scotland Road while supposedly looking for Tarlton or Talbot road:

Foot tells his Watford audience: "He gets in a bus and he goes up the Scotland Road. And he gets some of the way up the Scotland Road and he asks the conductor, 'I want to get off at Tarlton Road', and the conductor says 'I've never heard of it, get off here.'"

I can't remember hearing about this conductor before and Foot doesn't seem to mention him in his book. Anybody know anything about this exchange or is it a figment of Foot's imagination?