Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - by Sam Flynn 22 minutes ago.
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - by Jeff Leahy 1 hour and 4 minutes ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - by Joshua Rogan 2 hours ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - by Joshua Rogan 2 hours ago.
Non-Fiction: Elizabeth Stride and Jack the Ripper: The Life and Death of the Reputed Third Victim. - by The Station Cat 3 hours ago.
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - by S.Brett 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Shades of Whitechapel: Caught!? Long Island Serial Killer suspect - (13 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (7 posts)
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - (7 posts)
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - (5 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: How about the "Bad Cop" ??? - (4 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (3 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Social Chat > Other Mysteries > A6 Murders

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #4201  
Old 11-21-2017, 08:15 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 750
Default

Yes I think that is what he is implying.

The seller, Clapp, would have noticed the missing labels when he was shown the trousers and waistcoat in court.
Attached Images
 
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4202  
Old 11-21-2017, 03:31 PM
moste moste is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Vancouver Island British Columbia.
Posts: 392
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Hi moste,

In case you hadn't noticed, Valerie Storie is not the one on trial here and it's a criminal, not a moral case, from 1961, not 1861.

If you have nothing nice to say about the victim, and have no sympathy for what happened to her, it would be better if you said nothing at all.
Here. On this forum? she certainly is the one on trial! As far as I'm concerned. She sent an innocent man to meet his maker,
Two so called witnesses, of 'Hanratty turning into a Redbridge street,' were rubbished by their workmates. Storie sent Hanratty to his death on a Whim!
Her ID drawing looked nothing like him. Her first choice pick out, Mike Clark, looked nothing like him, His east end London accent sounded similar to about 1,000,000 other London adult males.
Moral case? of course its a moral case,
My opinion is that Storie was heavily influenced by Acott. There was no reason why she couldn't simply continue with her belief that the memory of the perpetrator, was vague, and that she was unlikely to pick him out.
The police would have been back to square one, and that was very much not in their interest!
I have much sympathy for anyone who suffers her kind of injuries, and I'm sure coping for the rest of her life as she evidently did, speaks volumes for her grit and determination,
but I didn't believe her when she said, 'of course Hanratty was guilty, I was there'. So no, As far as the A6 murder is concerned, I don't have anything nice to say about her, and I wont be taking your advice of saying nothing at all.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4203  
Old 11-22-2017, 02:32 AM
Spitfire Spitfire is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 517
Default

Moste's theory is that Valerie Storie lied from start to finish.

She lied when she said that she and Gregsten were abducted at Dorney Reach. In fact, according to Moste, they drove by themselves from Taplow to Deadman's hill for skullduggery. At Deadman's Hill, Gregsten was shot dead and Miss Storie was shot and left for dead by the assassin who then donned a plastic suit with rubber buttons and drove the murder car away.

Moste is pretty much on his own on most aspects of the A6 Murder.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4204  
Old 11-22-2017, 06:15 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moste View Post
Storie sent Hanratty to his death on a Whim!
A minor point, moste, but I think you'll find it was the jury who did that, but on a whim by Hanratty to lie about his whereabouts when Valerie Storie was being raped and shot. If he wasn't there, what possible reason could he have had for lying about where he really was, unless he had been committing an even more serious crime there?

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4205  
Old 11-22-2017, 10:06 AM
Alfie Alfie is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 99
Default The gun in the airing cupboard story

The exchange between Louise Anderson and Charlotte France in the witnesses' waiting room at Ampthill is an interesting one to me. The detail Anderson goes into - the cupboard at the top of the stairs, the pink blankets, the carrier bag with Tomkins or Timkins on it - could she have been told all this by anybody other than Hanratty?

I can only assume she wasn't asked about it while in the witness box because it would have been hearsay evidence and therefore not admissible? Can any lawyers out there confirm this?

Of course there's the possibility that the whole scene was concocted by the nefarious Mr Acott as a ploy to turn Charlotte and her family against Hanratty. And you do have to ask yourself why Jim would risk taking a gun into the Frances' house, and if he did, whether he'd have hidden it where he did (presumably he'd have brought it with him in a bag, so why not leave it in that).

It's an intriguing segment of a fascinating case, all the same.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4206  
Old 11-22-2017, 09:14 PM
moste moste is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Vancouver Island British Columbia.
Posts: 392
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
A minor point, moste, but I think you'll find it was the jury who did that, but on a whim by Hanratty to lie about his whereabouts when Valerie Storie was being raped and shot. If he wasn't there, what possible reason could he have had for lying about where he really was, unless he had been committing an even more serious crime there?

Love,

Caz
X
Hi there.
One possible reason for lying about where he really was, 'He was doing deals with some of Liverpools most wanted,or, 'he was performing burglaries in wealthy peoples homes, If he had admitted to that he would go down for 5 years. He obviously wanted to protect himself from that eventuality ,and since he never believed for a minute they could hang a murder charge on him short of a major frame up,....'(just off the top of my head)
Any thoughts on the trajectory of the two .32/.36 calibre bullets, since, had Stories explanation been correct, the bullets should have slammed into the centre clock or even bottom of the windshield.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4207  
Old 11-23-2017, 04:43 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,435
Default

Hi moste,

I can't help you with the bullets, but are you suggesting Hanratty didn't realise he was being questioned about the A6 murder when asked where he was that night? If he even suspected as much, he knew a murder charge was as serious as it could get, so it makes little sense to invent an alibi relying on his fellow petty criminals in Liverpool to support it, if he was genuinely in Rhyl, for whatever purpose, being seen and spoken to by all those innocent witnesses, who would have had no evidence he was committing any crime while there.

The usual thinking is that he imagined a false alibi, supported solely by lying criminal associates, would be more credible than a genuine one he believed would fail for lack of any proof or any witnesses who could place him there. So much for all those Rhyl witnesses who came forward to say they saw or spoke to him! If he had so little faith in them, why should the jury, or anyone else?

The significant thing for me was that telegram Hanratty sent from Liverpool, which established his presence there around the same time the gun was found on the London bus. I don't buy the coincidence. No mention of Rhyl that week, only Liverpool. No telegrams sent from Liverpool or Rhyl earlier in the week when they could have given him genuine alibis for the murder and disposal of the weapon.

If Hanratty didn't put the gun under the seat of that bus before haring up to Liverpool to try and sort an alibi, I suspect it was France, as insurance against being dragged into Hanratty's mess. If France had given the gun to Hanratty, who took it back to him in a panic after the murder, I can see France's need to act fast:

"For God's sake, Jim, get yourself up to Liverpool and send us a telegram when you get there, so I'll know you're there and you can prove it if things get hot. Then sort yourself out an alibi from Tuesday. Go on, I'll see to the gun."

Hiding it on the bus and telling the police this was something Hanratty did with unwanted gear, would have been risky if he could have been identified, but Hanratty could not have accused him openly of doing so without dropping himself in it, and there would be no proof.

But then I always come back to the hankie. Nobody thought in 1961 that a plain dirty hankie could ever positively identify its owner, so was Hanratty's just used to wipe the weapon etc of any fingerprints before transporting the incriminating bundle to the bus? Someone thought it was okay to leave the hankie with the other stuff, but I can't see any actual purpose in doing so, apart from not wanting to keep the thing.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov



Last edited by caz : 11-23-2017 at 04:49 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4208  
Old 11-23-2017, 05:17 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 750
Default

The trajectory of ‘through and through’ bullets cannot be predicted accurately, but it seems to me that if possible there would have been a general intention to aim downwards because shattering the windscreen would have jeopardised his only means of getaway.

With regard to the other bullets, the only description we have is that four bullets were ‘from scene’ and then one bullet ‘from bank’. There was also a ‘piece of bullet casing’ which I presume came from one of the bullets accounted for.

Jim never came up with a satisfactory explanation about why he lied and in this way was effectively a witness against himself. Swanwick made this point in his summing up (extract below).

The same applies to Valerie’s identification. Jim must have realised that Valerie could identify him by sight and sound and that he had let slip his name to her. (If you hear someone for 6 hours you remember their voice in all sorts of ways other than it being cockney.) That is he why he shot her.
Attached Images
 
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4209  
Old 11-23-2017, 05:26 AM
OneRound OneRound is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 407
Default

Moste - I'm slightly surprised you appear to give little or no credence to the Rhyl alibi. A burglary confession and a 5 stretch doesn't seem too high a price to pay to avoid a rope around your neck*.

I'm on record as doubting the credibility (although not the integrity) of Valerie Storie as an eye witness given she picked out a clearly innocent man on the first parade she attended. However, I don't understand the significance you seem to attach to where the bullets ended up. The firing of the gun was surely shockingly horrific and unexpected to her. I don't see how you can reasonably expect to plot the trajectory of the bullets from her recall in those circumstances or why it matters so much to you.

* I've recently been reading up about the Cameo Murders and also the Burns & Devlin case. Think it was Cobalt who flagged those in the past - jeepers, Bert Balmer of the Liverpool police makes our Acott look like a boy scout! Anyway, following a plea bargain in a re-trial, Charlie Connolly was sentenced to 10 years after pleading guilty to a secondary role in the Cameo Murders so as to avoid the noose. He spent the rest of his life asserting his innocence. The Court of Appeal overturned his conviction (and that of his alleged partner George Kelly who was hanged) posthumously on ''unsafe'' grounds more than fifty years later. Apologies for going off topic but fascinating reads.

OneRound
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4210  
Old 11-23-2017, 06:25 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 750
Default

Surely that could not be the same rotten Court of Appeal that one year earlier had upheld Hanratty's conviction?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.