A6 Rebooted

[Ed James]

[QUOTE=Derrick;314330]Hi Ed
Mrs Anderson was indeed under severe pressure. That pressure came from her being liable to indictment for fencing, and the police knew it.

In my view there is no other explanation for her sudden change of opinion towards Hanratty.

Hi Del and Dave

Thank you for the warm welcome.

Del, I agree that heavy police pressure led to LA's change of attitude towards Hanratty. But I think there may have been another factor, namely Dixie France , a close contact (he introduced Hanratty to her after all) privately suggesting that Hanratty was the monster responsible for this heinous crime based upon the back of the bus tale and perhaps the gun in the cupboard.

It would seem that she was neurotic and easily led. I have noticed in my limited dealings with the criminal law how close promixity of witnesses leads to changes in evidence , sometimes subtlely, in the often lengthy gap between statements and the trial .

Depending on your viewpoint, France genuinely believed Hanratty to be the murderer or ,if implicated more closely himself,wanted to use a weak and suggestible woman to help put Hanratty further in the frame and to distance his own involvement.

So was the Hanratty having a gun in the cupboard story true? I personally don't think so because Anderson would have revealed this at early stage, this was hardly a hiding place when Hanratty had the option of left luggage lockers, Hanratty would have known that Dixie would have been very angry about bringing a weapon into the family home,the butcher's bag is more closely linked to the France family and Charlotte's brother and the detailed description pink blankets and in named butcher's bag doesn't smack of a Hanratty tale.

So what was the source of the story and why?

Although the wretched Langdale is discredited by all sides including Swanwick, I am interested in what in his evidence seemed to convince the Home Office that Hanratty had confessed to him and furnished details he would not have otherwise known.

regards

Ed

[Derrick]

Hi Ed

...But I think there may have been another factor, namely Dixie France , a close contact (he introduced Hanratty to her after all) privately suggesting that Hanratty was the monster responsible for this heinous crime based upon the back of the bus tale and perhaps the gun in the cupboard.

Your use of the word privately seems to me that you are referring to the last letter of France, after his suicide. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Although the wretched Langdale is discredited by all sides including Swanwick, I am interested in what in his evidence seemed to convince the Home Office that Hanratty had confessed to him and furnished details he would not have otherwise known.

Can you give a reference for where the Home Office relied on Langdale's evidence?

Louis Blom-Cooper (in his book) was positive that Langdale could only have gotten the fact that the crime began at Dorney from Hanratty. Blom-Cooper, to his everlasting shame, should have known that that fact had appeared in every national newspaper from 2 days into the investigation.

Del

[Ed James]

Hi Ed

Hi Del

[B]Your use of the word privately seems to me that you are referring to the last letter of France, after his suicide. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I recognise that two of France's suicide notes(I think) blamed Hanratty for the crime and indicated that France blamed himself for introducing Hanratty to his family. However, my use of the word privately was only intended to suggest that a conversation (or a number of conversations) most likely took place between France and Anderson , once Hanratty was charged by the police, where France contended that Hanratty was the killer/rapist and helped sway Anderson 's hostility (not difficult). Moreover, I am suggesting that , having done this, France could have then easily implanted in Anderson that Hanratty had a gun stored in his airing cupboard , but he (France) couldn't tell the police himselfwithout getting implicated.

While I do not set any credibility by Louise Anderson's evidence or this story , I am seeking to analyse and explain where the story could have come from. If my speculation is right it could be further argument for those who consider that there was a consistent attempt to wrongly implicate Hanratty. Was France seriously conflicted by a need to protect those responsible for the hijack and murder by trying to deflect attention towards Hanratty to muddy the waters?



Can you give a reference for where the Home Office relied on Langdale's evidence?

Louis Blom-Cooper (in his book) was positive that Langdale could only have gotten the fact that the crime began at Dorney from Hanratty. Blom-Cooper, to his everlasting shame, should have known that that fact had appeared in every national newspaper from 2 days into the investigation.

Del

In Wigs & Wherefores ,a biography of Michael Sherrard (quoted in the A6 Murder. Was Hanratty Innocent? by Norma Buddle), Sherrard relates how on a visit to the Home Office in the final attempt to save Hanratty's life 'They had evidence of remarks made by Hanratty on remand things that, in the Home Office view only he could have been known if he was the true murderer. the Home Office were frustrated that these matters had not been used fully at the trial.


Sherrard goes on to say that despite these things not being admissible in court and Sherrard demolishing Eatwell, the prison officer and Langdale in court, the Home Office and Home Secretary could still be influenced by this information.

But Sherrard does not say what this information was. So I was hoping thatwithout need for detailed research, someone might know what the home office were relying on and whether indeed it could have been easily gleaned from the newspaper reports.
regards
Ed

[Derrick]

...the Home Office...had evidence of remarks made by Hanratty on remand things that, in the Home Office view only he could have been known if he was the true murderer. the Home Office were frustrated that these matters had not been used fully at the trial...the Home Office and Home Secretary could still be influenced by this information.

Hi Ed
I find this quite extraordinary. How can the Home Office pull such a stroke?

Admissible or not, the jury may have come to the conclusion that the rest of Langdale's evidence was a complete fabrication (or the product of collusion with the authorities) given the testimony of Blyth and Emery who were Hanratty's regular remand companions and Langdale's lenient treatment on his latest court hearing.

Where does that leave the Home Office's decision?

Del

[Ed James]

Hi Ed
I find this quite extraordinary. How can the Home Office pull such a stroke?

Admissible or not, the jury may have come to the conclusion that the rest of Langdale's evidence was a complete fabrication (or the product of collusion with the authorities) given the testimony of Blyth and Emery who were Hanratty's regular remand companions and Langdale's lenient treatment on his latest court hearing.

Where does that leave the Home Office's decision?

Del

Del

Just spent 30 minutes on a reply and lost it !!!

We leave until tomorrow after a night Of europen football

regards

Ed

[Ed James]

Hi Ed
I find this quite extraordinary. How can the Home Office pull such a stroke?

Admissible or not, the jury may have come to the conclusion that the rest of Langdale's evidence was a complete fabrication (or the product of collusion with the authorities) given the testimony of Blyth and Emery who were Hanratty's regular remand companions and Langdale's lenient treatment on his latest court hearing.

Where does that leave the Home Office's decision?

Del

Hi Del
Refreshing my reading, I seethat Paul Foot in his 1971 book effectively demolishes the contention that Langdale could not have got his information from published Press reports. I think that HO didn't want to encourage the Home Secretary to grant a reprieve - regardless of the arguments put forward - against the backdrop of a brutal crime and the need to hold someone culpable.

Turning to another point, I am intrigued that no one to my knowledge has looked more deeply into the significance of the duffle bag of laundry. You wouldn't expect that normally to be positioned in the small passenger footwell of the Morris Minor. Valerie Storie's basket with personal items that she might want access to was already there. You would expect the duffle bag to be in the back of the car. I recall Valerie's account (not sure of the source) was the vague that at some point the duffle bag was passed to the front.

I can't see why the gunman would pass it to the front. So it would seem that the couple may have moved it to the front themselves to have more space for what Louis Bloom Cooper termed 'embracing'. This suggests the gunman disturbed the couple while they were in the back seat or before they had time to return the duffle bag to the back.

If the couple were in the back seat the following points are relevant: further indication of VS's understandable desire to hide the the true relationship, the possibility that sexual intercourse had taken place then and not 2 just days previously as the FSS and Court of Appeal maintained,it might lend greater support to those who place credence on Alphon's account reported by Jean Justice that he forced the couple to have sex. But it would seem further to undermine the sexual lust motivation of the gunman, if haven't encountered the scene of the couple in the rear of the car, he postponed his lust for approaching 4 hours.

Finally, if the duffle bag had remained in the back of the car, it is interesting to speculate whether events would have turned out differently.

regards
Ed

[NickB]

Some interesting points. I’d assumed the duffle bag had been moved to the front to get it out of the way of the gunman.

I think this is the court evidence to which you refer:
"Somehow or other the duffle bag containing the washing had got into the front of the car. I cannot remember at exactly what stage it was moved from the back into the front, but it was done by Mike.”

Valerie always maintained that when the tap on the window occurred they were sitting in the front seats. At court she said they were discussing the motor rally. Even in Today magazine, where she talked openly about the affair, she said that when the window-tapping happened: “We were parked with our backs to the roadway.”

[Derrick]

...I think this is the court evidence to which you refer:
"Somehow or other the duffle bag containing the washing had got into the front of the car. I cannot remember at exactly what stage it was moved from the back into the front, but it was done by Mike.”...

Hi Nick

That is correct

Del

[Ed James]

Hi Nick and Del

Thank you Nick for the quote and to Del confirming it as correct.

Can you confirm by use of the term 'court evidence' whether it was part of Valerie's oral testimony ( at the committal or trial? Or from one of her many statements? If oral testimony, was she responding to a question from Swanwick or Sherrard? Valerie was clearly bright , quick witted and not intimidated. I think the first part of her reply was deliberately evasive, but she does confirm that MG moved the bag.

Why would MG move a bag of the Gregsten family washing into the front of the car - other than to make space in the rear. And he clearly did so before the gunman appeared and no doubt he would have moved the bag back into the rear seat once the purpose for moving in the first place was concluded.

I think my contention that the couple were in the back of the car before the gunman arrived is soundly based and that , the fact that the bag had not been returned to the back means it is more probable than not they were still there when the gunman disturbed them.

It is perfectly understandable that VS would maintain her account of the tap on the driover;s window when they were sitting in the front. Incidentally, I can't recall whether in my 1954 Morris Minor, you could lock the driver's door from the inside or whether it could only be locked with a key?

regards

Ed

[Derrick]

Hi Ed

...Can you confirm by use of the term 'court evidence' whether it was part of Valerie's oral testimony ( at the committal or trial?...

Miss Storie only gave public testimony at the trial. The defence requested that Miss Storie give evidence in camera at the hearing.

Why would MG move a bag of the Gregsten family washing into the front of the car - other than to make space in the rear. And he clearly did so before the gunman appeared and no doubt he would have moved the bag back into the rear seat once the purpose for moving in the first place was concluded.

Miss Storie told Acott that the pair of them had sex on the Sunday previous. It would seem that they may have been preparing to do so again.

I think my contention that the couple were in the back of the car before the gunman arrived is soundly based and that , the fact that the bag had not been returned to the back means it is more probable than not they were still there when the gunman disturbed them.

There is no evidence whatsoever for that assumption.

It is perfectly understandable that VS would maintain her account of the tap on the driover;s window when they were sitting in the front. Incidentally, I can't recall whether in my 1954 Morris Minor, you could lock the driver's door from the inside or whether it could only be locked with a key?

The gunman ordered Gregsten to lock all of the doors. This he must have been able to do without leaving the car according to Miss Stories account. If someone knows different about a 1956 Morris Minor then please let us know.

Del

[Ed James]

Hi Ed

Hi Del - apologies for delayed reply

Miss Storie only gave public testimony at the trial. The defence requested that Miss Storie give evidence in camera at the hearing.

Apologies, Del. I overlooked that point , but the defence will still have received a transcript.


Miss Storie told Acott that the pair of them had sex on the Sunday previous. It would seem that they may have been preparing to do so again.
When did she tell Acott? If sex did take place in the back of the car (and I accept that this can't be proved from my contentions), I would assume that she was wanting to be discreet.


There is no evidence whatsoever for that assumption.

The direct evidence is that the duffle bag was originally in the back of the car and, according to VS, MG moved it. The failure to probe VS 's vague answer (similar to Swanwick's failure to follow up VS's description of the relationship as 'we were fond of each other') shows the Crown had no interest in the truth. At this distance, it is only possible to draw inferences from the direct evidence and the position of the bag. I accept it could be preparatory to 'embracing' in the rear (though moving the bag to front might be pat of moving to the rear).

I seem to recall from my sometimes random and sometimes systematic reading of posts on the A6 murder threads that you questioned the original forensics surrounding the rape. Please correct me if I am wrong. I don't wish to go into detailed DNA issues - partly because I need to re -read Rob Harriman's book and partly because I are sympathetic to the view that DNA should not be simply used to override other evidence.





The gunman ordered Gregsten to lock all of the doors. This he must have been able to do without leaving the car according to Miss Stories account. If someone knows different about a 1956 Morris Minor then please let us know.

Del

This could prove interesting.
regards
Ed

[Graham]

I had a 1952 Series 2 split-screen Moggie similar to attached photo. If I remember correctly, to open a door you pulled the handle upwards and it then returned to 'central' position once the door was open. To lock a door from the inside, you pushed the handle downwards, where it stayed. So yes, you could lock all doors from the inside, and I can only assume that the same method still applied to 1956 models. The only reason I can think of why Hanratty asked Gregsten to lock all the doors was that he, Hanratty, didn't know how to do it. Also maybe he didn't want to run the risk of taking his eyes off Gregsten and Storie. And his later antics at Deadman's Hill demonstrate to a degree that he wasn't familiar with Moggies.

Re: Gregsten and Storie's position in the car, Valerie said that the gunman tapped the driver's window; had they been on the back seat then surely the gunman would have tapped a rear window.

BTW, my Moggie met its inevitable demise when its inadequate brakes failed to prevent it whacking into an Austin Cambridge. I did try!

Graham

[Spitfire]

Re: Gregsten and Storie's position in the car, Valerie said that the gunman tapped the driver's window; had they been on the back seat then surely the gunman would have tapped a rear window.

Indeed, but I think that the suggestion is that the tapping on the driver's window was an invention of Acott.

[Graham]

Indeed, but I think that the suggestion is that the tapping on the driver's window was an invention of Acott.

I don't recall reading anything about that, Spitfire, and only Valerie knows, but sorting truth from out-and-out fiction in this case is getting harder and harder as time goes on.

Graham

[Derrick]

This could prove interesting.
regards
Ed

Hi Ed
Now...no offence intended but just a little pointer as to how to post replies..

...Don't include your new post in quote form along with someone else's (even your own) previous post....

.... it is blooming confusing and I only just realised what you had done when I read through the quote and realised that that was not quite what either of us had originally written.

Quoting is conventionally for past posts that you wish to...strangely...quote!

I hope that you follow me.

Best wishes and keep up the posting (following my advice on etiquette!)
Del