a6 murder

[Rob63]

Good evening Reg,

Hey this is brilliant stuff. I’ve tried to get hold of Bob for ages for an update with no success. You are a better detective than me. Congratulations, Sir. He sounds like a really nice bloke.

Can you enlarge on the dialogue/emails between the two of you?

I certainly wouldn’t expect you to break any confidences but this is the most interesting development in years. Well apart from John Russell that is.

Tony.

Thats an interesting breakthrough Reg, be interesting to hear the chaps views on here.

Tony, I think Blue Moon posted the name John Russell a few days ago, is there any more news on this name, or have I missed a few posts ?

edit: I`ve just re read Blue Moons theory of what went on and he sounded just like Alphon when he was relaying the sequence of events that fateful night to Mr Foot...old Peter isn`t posting on here as BM is he ?

[Andrew]

Evenin' all.

First post - sorry to barge in...
Let me explain how I became interested. About 10 weeks ago my friend told me that he is related, by marriage, to Carole France. I've known him for 30 years and he hasn't mentioned it before (I think he regards her as a distant relation). Anyhow I've spent weeks trying to catch up on all the old posts and I have a question for you good people who are 'better read' than I am on this subject.

IT ISN'T AN ORDINARY ENFIELD 38

The murder weapon isn't an ordinary Enfield 38 it's a Tank Crew Enfield 38. The story is that tank crews used an open top holster (unlike the Captain Mainwaring type which completely covered the gun). This holster allowed easier access to the weapon but, unfortunately, part of the mechanism called the Hammer Spur (which has a hook shape) would often foul on other equipment inside the tank. To prevent this happening a new spur-less hammer was developed. This type was only issued to tank personnel.

Attachment is a picture from 'Unsolved-was James Hanratty innocent?'


My question is - did any of the main players in this mystery serve in the army, perhaps in an armoured vehicle unit?

Regards
Andrew

[Rob63]

Hi Andrew,
Interesting point. I`ve looked up the enfield and quite a few were converted to the spurless type after 1938 so they might`ve been reasonably common plus there must`ve been a fair few floating around during the post war years especially in London.
Enfield link here http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg92-e.htm

Personally I`ve wondered about Mr Gregston being shot by accident as the spurless Enfield is double action only with quite a long trigger pull. Mr Simpson who was the forensic pathologist who examined Mr Gregstons body stated that the two bullet holes to the head were almost on top of one another so they must`ve been fired very quickly in succession. If someone was scared they might loose off one round by accident but carrying out an almost perfect double tap with a double action revolver isn`t something which an untrained shooter can do, if it was an automatic pistol being used then I would think yep no problem.

I`m pretty sure I read in Mr Foots book that two cartridge cases were found in the back of the car. I think they found the two bullets which killed Mr Gregston in the front wheel well. If this is the case then its the first time I`ve ever heard of anyone reloading a revolver before all 6 shots have been fired, the enfields break open action pushes the remaining cartridges upwards out from the cylinder to ease removal, a very dodgy practise as you`ve got to locate the empty cartridges and remove them without knocking any of the loaded ones out of the cylinder. Not something you want to do in the dark back seat of a car. If the weapon used was an automatic then I could understand the cartridges being ejected automatically.

And...Mr Simpson listed the wounds as coming from a .32 calibre...the ballistics lads did get their job right did they. I believe that the Police ballistics unit was newly formed and in its infancy in `61, previous to this most ballistics work was carried out by Robert Churchill.

Damn I`m beginning to speculate

[Graham]

Reg,

I can only congratulate you for contacting Woffinden, and it's of huge importance to learn that he still takes an interest in the A6 Case. If he can offer further input, by any route, then I would read it and analyse it with alacrity. I wish I had your energy.

However, on a rather negative note, is it really necessary for you to resort to rather puerile vindictiveness apropos Leonard Miller? He, like you and I, is entitled to his opinions, and if you don't agree with what he says - and I for one have never held him up as a model of investigative journalism - then I'm sure that criticism can be made in a more adult fashion.

Regarding the gun and how it was obtained, it may seem strange to modern ears, but back then guns were almost 'ten a penny'. There were still huge stocks of guns available second-hand, both legally and otherwise, following WW2, Suez, etc. I hadn't realized until Andrew pointed it out that 'the' gun is a tank-crew model. As it's double-action, it must have been a very light action for two shots to be fired in such quick succession - I've fired other double-action revolvers and they can be rather slow.

Were the bullets that killed Gregsten found in the seat-well of the car? I can't recall reading this, and it's too late to wade through my books. On the old threads it was speculated that the driver's window was wound open and the bullets went off into the Bedfordshire countryside. If the two bullets were found in the seat-well, then they must have both taken a rather strange route to get there.

Anyway, all good stuff.

Cheers,

Graham

[Rob63]

Hi Graham,
I`ve handled an enfield at a pistol club many years ago and the trigger pull is very much like a 586 smith and wesson, its very long compared to single action and trying to fire two shots one handed makes the gun kick slightly upwards, as far as I can remember Mr Simpson stated that the shots went in just above the left ear and exited around the right cheek area. If Mr Gregston was leaning into the passenger well to grab the duffel bag this would seem about right. I`m surprised that the spent rounds were found in the footwell as they should`ve still had enough force to penetrate the steel floor. Another thing was that the doctor who operated on Miss Storie found some rounds just under her skin, whilst the .38 isn`t exactly the manstopper that the old .455 was, the penetration aspect of those specific wounds sounds more like a small calibre cartridge.

[Tony]

Hi Graham,
I`ve handled an enfield at a pistol club many years ago and the trigger pull is very much like a 586 smith and wesson, its very long compared to single action and trying to fire two shots one handed makes the gun kick slightly upwards, as far as I can remember Mr Simpson stated that the shots went in just above the left ear and exited around the right cheek area. If Mr Gregston was leaning into the passenger well to grab the duffel bag this would seem about right. I`m surprised that the spent rounds were found in the footwell as they should`ve still had enough force to penetrate the steel floor. Another thing was that the doctor who operated on Miss Storie found some rounds just under her skin, whilst the .38 isn`t exactly the manstopper that the old .455 was, the penetration aspect of those specific wounds sounds more like a small calibre cartridge.

Hello Rob63,

Your post about the gun is fascinating. You obviously are used to guns and using them; hopefully in a legal situation. Me, on the other hand; well about the only time I have used a gun is when the travelling fun fair arrived in town. I won several coconuts and a couple of goldfish over the years and I suppose if I did the economics I spent enough in lead pellets to buy a palm tree full of coconuts and a medium sized lake full of goldfish but I enjoyed myself nonetheless.

However, back to matters in hand:

Do we know where the gunman was sitting in the car at the time of the shooting; was he sat behind Valerie or behind Mike? Do we know if James Hanratty or Peter Alphon were left or right handed?

If he was sat in the back passenger seat and was left handed when he fired you could expect the bullets to go through Mike’s head and away from Valerie perhaps through the passenger window if it was open, because when the car was found the window was intact. Unless, only for Victor’s sake, the gunman took the car for a replacement window at Autoglass before having it valeted. Oh nice to see you have safely returned to this family, Vic.
Wouldn’t the gunman have had to be virtually stood up for the bullets to end up in the driver’s foot well, Rob63? Don’t forget it was a tiny car.
If he was sat behind Valerie and was right handed then Mike would have had a much better chance of knocking the gun away from him I would have thought.
If he was sat behind Mike and shot left handed the result of the bullets trajectory would be much the same. On the other hand if he was sat behind Mike, tight to the door, and was right you can’t see the bullets going through the left hand side of Mike’s head and out of his right cheek. But Mike would have had little chance of disarming him if he was sat there. So I presume he was sat in the back passenger seat.
But Rob63 if the gun was a .38, and I’m certain it was, just how much damage would it have done from a range of, let’s say a foot? Would Gregston’s head have exploded as in the films? Would there have been flesh, blood, bits of bones and the inside of his head all over the car and the occupants?
I don’t see, from how you describe the entry and exit wound, that he would have had his brains blown out. In fact the gunman and Valerie argued for twenty minutes as to whether he was dead or not. But how much of the damage to Mike’s head would you expect to have landed on Valerie and the gunman?
Please understand Rob63 I am not for one moment suggesting you have ever shot anybody in the head at close range, or any range come to that. I would just like your opinion as someone who is obviously familiar with guns.

Tony.

[Victor]

Your post about the gun is fascinating.

Hi all,
I thought that post was interesting too.

Do we know where the gunman was sitting in the car at the time of the shooting; was he sat behind Valerie or behind Mike?

What's the problem with sitting in the middle? Assuming it has one long back seat.

Unless, only for Victor’s sake, the gunman took the car for a replacement window at Autoglass before having it valeted. Oh nice to see you have safely returned to this family, Vic.

Well they manage it in Pulp Fiction - I don't know how realistic it is, but it can't be impossible.

And thanks for the welcome back - much appreciated.

Wouldn’t the gunman have had to be virtually stood up for the bullets to end up in the driver’s foot well, Rob63? Don’t forget it was a tiny car.

It all depends upon the angle of the barrel, if MG was bent over (to get the bag from the footwell) then the gun could be pointing close to straight down. We know it went through his left-forehead and out the right cheek but that doesn't tell us the angle of his head when the shot was fired.

KR,
Vic.

[Tony]

Hi all,
I thought that post was interesting too.


What's the problem with sitting in the middle? Assuming it has one long back seat.


Well they manage it in Pulp Fiction - I don't know how realistic it is, but it can't be impossible.

And thanks for the welcome back - much appreciated.


It all depends upon the angle of the barrel, if MG was bent over (to get the bag from the footwell) then the gun could be pointing close to straight down. We know it went through his left-forehead and out the right cheek but that doesn't tell us the angle of his head when the shot was fired.

KR,
Vic.

Well my post was really addressed to Rob63 but how did I know you would answer Vic?
Very welcome and enlightening all the same. Vic you never did let us know how the ‘move’ went. I trust all went fine but I have had terrible dreams, due to your long absence, of a calamity occurring whilst you were taking your piano upstairs.
Pulp Fiction? What’s all that about then?

Tony.

[Victor]

Well my post was really addressed to Rob63 but how did I know you would answer Vic?

Well I'm back at work and need something to do inbetween things...

Very welcome and enlightening all the same. Vic you never did let us know how the ‘move’ went. I trust all went fine but I have had terrible dreams, due to your long absence, of a calamity occurring whilst you were taking your piano upstairs.

It was absolutely exhausting, but we eventually got everything up to the 4th floor!! Very nice converted townhouse on the Brighton seafront! The settled snow yesterday morning was awful, and it's colder today, but no snow.

The absense was because I had to entertain the family and wasn't at work for 2 weeks, so no internet access.

Pulp Fiction? What’s all that about then?

Tony.

It's about John Travolta accidentally shooting someone in the back of a car, and then him and Samuel L Jackson cleaning up the mess within a very short time-scale - now do you see the similarities?

KR,
Vic.

[reg1965]

It's about John Travolta accidentally shooting someone in the back of a car, and then him and Samuel L Jackson cleaning up the mess within a very short time-scale - now do you see the similarities?

That would be a film, like gattaca is a film, isn't it? Do you see the similarities?

[Victor]

That would be a film, like gattaca is a film, isn't it? Do you see the similarities?

I don't see any rockets or space launches in Pulp Fiction though.

One set in the real world, the other is in FantasyLand, which may never evolve that way...

[Limehouse]

The gun on the bus

I want to back track a bit to the evidence on the bus. Hanratty apparently told Dixie France that a good place to hide unwanted loot from burglaries was under the upstairs back seat of a London bus. I assume Hanratty had no reason to suppose a cleaner would look under the back seat of a bus when cleaning. I assume he also thought that this information would be safe with his old mate and therefore felt secure enough to do exactly that with the murder weapon. To us, it seems a completely foolish thing to do - but Hanratty evidently thought this was safe - or so the evidence suggests. Perhaps the cleaner who took it upon himself to look under that back seat had done so before and been lucky enough to find some of Hanratty's booty - or maybe one of his colleagues had.

So, moving on, is there any record of the bus conductor(s) on that route being questioned about passangers who fitted Hanrrty's description being seen occupying that seat? The timespan within which the gun was deposited must be small enough to make it possible to have questioned conductors on that route at the relevant times? After all, Hnaratty's appearance is said to have been so distinctive - so why is there no record (to my knowledge) of conductors being questioned? No evidence (apart from the gun) that places Hanratty on that bus route at the relevant times? No record of him being seen getting on/off a bus or occupying a seat on the bus? I would have thought the police would have taken these simple measures to build the case against Hanratty - wouldn't you?

[Tony]

I want to back track a bit to the evidence on the bus. Hanratty apparently told Dixie France that a good place to hide unwanted loot from burglaries was under the upstairs back seat of a London bus. I assume Hanratty had no reason to suppose a cleaner would look under the back seat of a bus when cleaning. I assume he also thought that this information would be safe with his old mate and therefore felt secure enough to do exactly that with the murder weapon. To us, it seems a completely foolish thing to do - but Hanratty evidently thought this was safe - or so the evidence suggests. Perhaps the cleaner who took it upon himself to look under that back seat had done so before and been lucky enough to find some of Hanratty's booty - or maybe one of his colleagues had.

So, moving on, is there any record of the bus conductor(s) on that route being questioned about passangers who fitted Hanrrty's description being seen occupying that seat? The timespan within which the gun was deposited must be small enough to make it possible to have questioned conductors on that route at the relevant times? After all, Hnaratty's appearance is said to have been so distinctive - so why is there no record (to my knowledge) of conductors being questioned? No evidence (apart from the gun) that places Hanratty on that bus route at the relevant times? No record of him being seen getting on/off a bus or occupying a seat on the bus? I would have thought the police would have taken these simple measures to build the case against Hanratty - wouldn't you?

Hello Limehouse,

I see Reg and Vic are at it again. Tell them off will you please.

Yes the back seat of the bus: Hanratty agreed that he had spoken to France about this as a hiding place. However, if you were Hanratty and you knew that the gun had been found on the bus when you were still free to come and go as you please. When you were finally arrested why wouldn’t you say, even if you were guilty or innocent, “I have had no such conversation with Mr France.” And when the handkie that the gun was wrapped in was produced in court and Hanratty when asked if it was his, innocent or guilty, why did he not say: “Not mine. Looks like any other handkie to me”
It seems to me that Hanratty was trying to be absolutely truthful on both points no matter that his admissions made things worse for himself. And make no mistake he would have realised this.

As far as I know no bus conductor ever said they found anything of a dubious/stolen nature under the back seat of the bus. Maybe they did find some stuff and simply took it home. If it was a habitual thing for Hanratty to do it wouldn’t be surprising if on occasions he got on a bus and thought: “I’ll have a look under the back seat. Hmm that’s funny all that stuff I left has gone”

He would then have known it was not a good hiding place and at the end of the day he never said it was a hiding place he said it was a disposal place. That is to get shut of stuff you don’t want again.
The gun could hardly come into that class. No murderer would walk on to the bus and leave the murder weapon under the seat. It would have been at the bottom of the Thames and the next time he wanted to do a stick-up he would have got a new gun.

The gun must have been planted.

Tony.

[Tony]

Wigs and Wherefores (part1)

These are a few snippets taken from Michael Sherrard’s new book about his career. There is just one chapter on the A6 Case:

The case was committed for trial from the Bedford Magistrates. It had been touch and go whether they would find there was no case to answer but the huge press interest in the horrific events meant that they must have felt the world was waiting for the outcome of a full trial.

I advised Hanratty that I wanted a leader. I wanted Victor Durand. Hanratty was almost in tears about that. “why can’t you do it?” he asked?

Even today I am morally certain that Victor would have secured an acquittal.
I said: “He is better than me he is a star.”

But Victor was suspended from practice and could not take the case.

The tale unfolded before a jury called from the Burghers of Bedford or something similar; all male, middleclass, white, property owning gentry. From the outset, they appeared to be all to likely to live up to the Bedford reputation of being of the notoriously hard-nosed hang-‘em, flog-‘em school of justice.
We had been given a delightful judge, Mr Justice Gorman.

I went to the cells on my routine visit. “I want to go into the box, sir.” Hanratty insisted. I was not happy about that.
I said: “Look Jim, you’ll have to explain why you were in Liverpool. You’ll be asked questions and you will have to reply.”
“I can tell that, sir” he answered. Then he looked down and said: “Well actually, I wasn’t in Liverpool.”

The judge worked very hard to reduce the consequences of Hanratty’s introduction of a new version.
He said: “He does not have to prove his alibi. The failure or otherwise of the alibi does not make him guilty. You do not have to rely on it.”
He gave the jury a perfectly good direction.
He was bursting himself to indicate to the jury that he did not think the case was strong enough.

Graham (Swanwick) and I had been invited to several lunches in the Judge’s Lodgings throughout the long weeks of the trial. Our last invitation was to tea during the ten hour wait for the verdict. Part of the waiting time was spent drinking whisky.
The judge said: “Well, Michael, I think I’ve looked after you pretty well.”

Going down to see him in the cells after the verdict was very hard. What do you say to someone who has been sentenced to die in a matter of weeks? My first thought was “he looks so young”.

Within days of the verdict it had become plain there was a groundswell of heavyweight protests. Views were expressed by Lord Russell, Paul foot and Blom-Cooper: they all believe that there was something wrong with the conviction.

I told Hanratty that Gerald Gardinier could do the appeal. He said “I don’t want anyone else.”

When he went to the appeal:
Sir James became quit affable. “May I say, I think you have put up a very good show.” He smiled. “Another sherry?”

The response came. “Clemency is refused.”
It was the end.
The warders were in tears when they heard. They had got to know him and liked him.

I went to the prison and said goodbye to Hanratty. The High Sheriff attended: he was still unconvinced by the evidence.
It was my wedding anniversary on April 5th, the day after the hanging. We were too sad to celebrate

[reg1965]

I don't see any rockets or space launches in Pulp Fiction though.

One set in the real world, the other is in FantasyLand, which may never evolve that way...

I hate to tell you this Vic but neither the tooth fairy or father christmas are real and Pulp Fiction is a film.