A6 Rebooted

[Spitfire]

If Hanratty had given evidence that he slept in a room with a green bath, then Ingledene would be a contender. He did not. The room he slept in was on the second floor, at the back, with a sink and with a window with curtains, the curtains being left undrawn.

The room with the green bath was in the attic or top part of the house according to Hanratty. The other evidence given shows that it had a skylight not a window with curtains.

But on any view of the matter, Hanratty never claimed that he slept in this room with the green bath.

[moste]

What difference does it make where he slept? He could have slept in the cellar for all it mattered, he knew about the green bath in the attic and described the house quite accurately, so he must have been there. I don't understand what your saying.

[Spitfire]

I don't think he did describe the house quite accurately.

He did not described the landlady Mrs Jones quite accurately.

If he slept in the attic with the green bath, he did not describe the room he slept in quite accurately.

If he had said that he slept in the room with the green bath, then there might be something in his tale, but he did not and it is clear that his 'recollection' was that he slept in a second floor room at the rear of the house, which had a window with curtains and a sink. As there was no room of that description free at Ingledene on the 22nd August 1961, my view is that he did not stay there.

That must have been the view of the jury. As the Ingledene alibi appears to have been abandoned by Sherrard at the appeal, it would seem that it was his view too.

[Sherlock Houses]

What difference does it make where he slept? He could have slept in the cellar for all it mattered, he knew about the green bath in the attic and described the house quite accurately, so he must have been there. I don't understand what your saying.

Spot on, Moste.
Not only did he know about the uncommon, at that time, green plastic bath......
He remembered the coatstand and the potted green plant.
He remembered the tiled courtyard at the back which was viewable from where he sat down to breakfast
He remembered there was no front garden.
He remembered the price he paid [25 shillings] for two nights b & b.
He did not sign any register.
He could hear [but not see] trains shunting.

For someone who allegedly never stepped foot inside Ingledene [according to those people proclaiming his guilt] he certainly demonstrated amazing psychic powers to accurately describe Ingledene's interior and exterior.

And Mrs Jones and her daughter Brenda remember him sitting down to breakfast in their living room.

[Derrick]

Hi Spitfire

I don't think he did describe the house quite accurately.

He certainly didn't say it was a semi-detached house with a front garden that had a welsh dresser in the hall and a salmon pink bathroom suite did he?

He was spot on about it's general appearance and location. Besides, Ingledene bore no resemblance whatsoever to Terry Evans' house; which the prosecution tried hard to insist that Hanratty was actually describing.

He did not described the landlady Mrs Jones quite accurately.

Again, he didn't describe Mrs Jones as being around 30, 4ft 9in, grossly obese with jet black hair...or aged 80, 6ft tall, skinny as a rake with hair as auburn as his naturally was and wearing a monocle.

He was not far off as it happens.

If he slept in the attic with the green bath, he did not describe the room he slept in quite accurately.

If he had said that he slept in the room with the green bath, then there might be something in his tale, but he did not and it is clear that his 'recollection' was that he slept in a second floor room at the rear of the house, which had a window with curtains and a sink. As there was no room of that description free at Ingledene on the 22nd August 1961, my view is that he did not stay there.

He stayed there for two nights. He could very well have stayed in the attic room on either night and another room on the other night.

Considering that Mrs Jones' record keeping wasn't brilliant, it is still not certain that all of the available rooms were completely occupied that week by other people, despite all of Mr Swanwick's endeavours to make it appear so.

That must have been the view of the jury. As the Ingledene alibi appears to have been abandoned by Sherrard at the appeal, it would seem that it was his view too.

He couldn't have relied on the Ingledene evidence at an appeal anyway as it was not new evidence.

All of this comes done to the fallibility of human memory, the importance of which in criminal cases still seems to elude some people.

Del

[Sherlock Houses]

Some very pertinent points made in your post Derrick and some nice injections of [serious] humour.

[Spitfire]

I am well and truly aware of the deficiencies of the human memory, but if Hanratty had stayed in an attic room with a bath, no windows but a skylight, then I would have expected him to have recalled such a room.

Hanratty's recollection was that his room had a window, with curtains, a sink and was on the second floor at the rear of the property. This is nothing like the attic 'bathroom'.

He also made no mention of having to move rooms.

The jury heard the evidence and decided that Hanratty had not stayed at Indgledene on the night in question. They were quite right to do so. IMHO.

[Derrick]

...The jury heard the evidence and decided that Hanratty had not stayed at Indgledene on the night in question. They were quite right to do so. IMHO...

But that wasn't what got him hanged was it?

[Spitfire]

But that wasn't what got him hanged was it?

It should not have.

But if the jury had decided he was at Ingledene he would have been acquitted.

[propatria27]

Interior car light

I've not posted since October 2012, and I've enjoyed catching up. Below is a question I posed on one of the other threads and I'd like people's opinions (I'll add a few others shortly that didn't really get much discussion back in 2012). Also good to see some of the original posters still going strong!

"I've been reading some of the old threads from 2008 and there was much discussion about lighting at the scene of the crimes and how much VS would have seen of the assailant. It occurred to me that there was considerable coming and going from the car after MG was killed, which would have involved the car doors being open for some time. Therefore, and Graham you may be able to assist here, would not the internal courtesy light have been on? Would not this have assisted VS a little in identifying her attacker? If we accept the account of David Henderson (BW page 32) that he saw the car in a field in Hunterscombe Lane South, "There was a light on inside the car. I think it was a fitted interior light..." - then we know the courtesy light was working,

Regards,

Pete"

[propatria27]

Additional cloth and ammunition handed in by City of London Police

This is another post from the "Scene of Crime and 2nd Appeal" post in 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by propatria27 View Post
Natalie, regarding the scanned list you posted, there is one entry that I don't properly understand:

On 25th August, Det Sgt Parrish of 'L' Division, Peckham handed over the revolver, containing 6 rounds, a handkerchief and 5 boxes of ammunition

On 1st September, Det Sgt Long of the City of London Police, Snow Hill, handed in "an number of boxes of .38 ammunition, wrapped in a piece of material".

Do we have an explaination for the items handed in by Det Sgt Long? Are they the same boxes of ammunition handed in on 25th August? Is the piece of material the handkerchief? Why would the City of London Police have these items? Are they even related to the crime or were they sent in because they are the same calibre as the murder weapon?

Regards,

Pete
Regarding my post above, I've been giving this matter some thought and I'd like people's opinions if possible. As many of you will know, the City of London Police is distinct from the Metropolitan Police and is a small force (currently 850) that covers the square mile of the City of London - this is broken up into force areas, and Snow Hill covers the West area, that includes Smithfield Market and St Bartholomews Hospital. The force has no forensics capability of its own and crime is very low due to the small number of people who actually live there - around 7000, which has been constant for a number of years (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Po...n_over_time.pn g). This swells to around 300,000 during normal working hours. They are mostly involved in financial crime and are world famous for their abilities. Why then, on 1st September 1961 did Det Sgt Long of Snow Hill hand into the Metropolitan Police forensics department "a number of boxes of .38 ammunition, wrapped in a piece of material"? The document Norma posted at #127 is evidence, therefore, to maintain the chain of evidence, there must have been a statement from Det Sgt Long and from whoever found the boxes of ammunition and piece of cloth, which would include where they were found and under what circumstances. They could not have been the items found in the Morris 1000 - what possible reason could there be for that - they were already with the Met Police forensics branch? Therefore, they were found separately from those found on the bus. Hopefully, if Norma can get a copy of the forensics report, then we may have an explanation, but I would just like to point out a couple of things:

1. Redbridge Station is on the Central Line as are the following stations in the City of London - Bank, St Paul's, Chancery Lane - Bank has a Northern Line service to King's Cross (Mrs Willis was attacked in Old Knebworth at about 11am on 23rd August and there is a line from King's Cross to Knebworth)

2. Ilford overground station services terminate at Liverpool Street station in the City of London (Alphon stated in one of his confessions that he walked to Ilford Station after abandoning the car)

Were these boxes of ammunition and piece of cloth dumped in the City and handed in to the City Police?

Were they linked to the gun used in the crime?

Was the cloth the one used as a face mask by the gunman? I've always thought a regular handkerchief is too small for the purpose - try it yourself.

I have no strong feelings about anyone's guilt for this crime, but just offer these observations for comment,

Regards,

Pete

[Graham]

Hi Pete,

nice to see you back. I've been absent from the threads myself for a while, having had surgery, but hopefully now up and running again as of today.

Yes, I would think that the interior light would have been on for a good deal of the time that the Morris was parked at Deadman's Hill. My old Moggie (1953) had an interior light but I can't remember if it was mounted in the roof or between the doors. Anyway, as far as I can recall, it was either 'off' or 'on', the only way to illuminate it being to open a door. Maybe someone will correct me on this. But I would find it difficult to accept that the gunman, amidst all the trauma of kidnap, murder and rape, was all that bothered as to whether the light was on or off, given that he intended to kill Valerie Storie anyway.

The Hunterscombe Lane sighting is often played down (or even forgotten) by JH supporters, as it does lend strength to the Marsh Lane abduction being unplanned and random - unless the gunman followed the car from Hunterscombe Lane to Marsh Lane, which I don't accept.


Re: the Rhyl 'Alibi', I don't want to get into yet another circular debate and repeat everything I've been saying for years and years, but there remains no absolute proof that JH was in Rhyl at the critical time. If someone can produce such proof, I'll listen. So far, no-one has.

Graham

[propatria27]

Thoughts on the number of shots fired

Another post from 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalie Severn View Post
At last Pete I think I can give you some specific information:

inventory from Forensics [Lewis Charles Nickolls-met police lab]

from DC B*** [Bedfordshire]

under property from scene:
1. six cartridge cases.
2. One bullet
3.Three bullets and piece of bullet casing
-
-
-received from Detective Sergeant A****** [Barkingside ]24th August 1961
29.Morris Minor car 847 BHN
-
30.Bullet from floor
31 Bullet from glove pocket
-
-
on 25th August I [Nickolls] received from Det Constable B*** [Bedfordshire ]Constabulary:
34.Bullet recovered from bank

1st September from Det Sgt L*** [City of London Police]

35.Number of boxes of .38 ammunition,wrapped in a piece of material

on 25th August from Det Sgt P****** [Peckham]
36. .38 revolver containing six rounds of ammunition
37. one handkerchief
38. five boxes of ammunition
------
11th September 1961

[X Division Harrow Road]
42 Envelope containing two cartridge cases found in Vienna Hotel *

rest pertains to Alphon-pillow case/blood /saliva/etc

hope this helps!
Natalie - great work!

To summarise:

1. 6 cartridge cases found at scene of the shooting - consistent with the gun being emptied and reloaded

2. 5 (6 if you conclude the piece of bullet casing was not from one of the other 5) bullets found at the scene of the shooting - one in the bank, 3 others (no information where found) and one piece of bullet casing (probably caused by round missing VS and hitting concrete) and one just listed as a bullet (no further information)

3. 2 bullets found in the car - these must be the ones that killed MG - so they didn't fly out of the window as has been suggested previously (posts from 2008)

4. 2 bullets were removed from just under VS's skin in hospital on 23 September 1961

5. I make that 9 (or 10, see 2. above) bullets recovered from 10 that were fired according to VS - so, quite possibly, all, or parts of all, the bullets were actually recovered.

6. The gun, when discovered on the bus was fully loaded - therefore the gunman added 2 (or 3, see below) rounds to the chamber at some point after the shooting (6 were fired - 2 into MG, 4 into VS, then a reload, 1 more into VS (she had 5 bullet wounds), then 3 missed her. But I actually think only 9 rounds were fired - I believe that after reloading, the gunman did fire 3 shots at VS, but one hit her although she didn't realise it at the time due to the paralysis that had already taken effect.

I would still like to see the forensic report carried out on the gun and bullets/cartridges to ascertain how it was conducted and what the conclusions were.

Regards,

Pete

[propatria27]

Graham, nice to hear from you again. As I said in 2012, I think the interior light would have been on several times during the time in the lay-by; whilst they were getting MG out of the car and a least twice whilst VS was showing the gunman how to start the car and use the gears - they were either sitting next to each other in the front or one of them was sitting in the driver's seat and the other stood right next to them.

Pete

[propatria27]

Interesting photo of Peter Alphon

Just found this picture comparison on my hard drive,

Pete