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:
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by richardnunweek 9 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Abby Normal 17 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Mary Kellys Inquest - by John Savage 19 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Abby Normal 19 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Abby Normal 21 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Sam Flynn 27 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (34 posts)
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - (11 posts)
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (11 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (5 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Mary Kellys Inquest - (2 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
  #4751  
Old 04-26-2018, 03:19 AM
Alfie Alfie is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 190
Default

Back to the Morris Minor's odometer:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfie View Post
The Court of Appeal judgment says: "... 232 miles had been travelled in the period which elapsed. Depending on when petrol was put in the car, this may have included Michael Gregsten's driving that day (57.4 miles) but must include the drive from the cornfield at Dorney Reach to Deadman's Hill on the A6 (58-65 miles) and, at the very least, the minimum distance from the A6 to Avondale Crescent, Ilford (48.6 miles)."

This left c.60 miles unaccounted for.

My question: how did the court arrive at 57.4 miles as the mileage travelled by Gregsten in the Morris Minor that day?

From what I've read, Gregsten's movements that day were: picked his children up from Sabine House, in Shirley Road, Abbots Langley, took them to Cassiobury Park in Watford and back (c. 7.5 miles), then picked up Valerie at the Road Research Lab in St Mary’s Rd, Langley, and went on to her home in Anthony Way, Cippenham (c.27 miles) and from there on to the Old Station Inn at Taplow (2.7 miles). That is a total of c.37 miles, 20 miles short of what the Court found he travelled. What am I missing?
Nick then pointed out that Gregsten could have started from the flat in Maidenhead, adding approx 30 miles to this total.

But Janet in her statement to the police on the day of the murder makes clear that Gregsten was living with her and the children at this point: "On Tues, 22 August, my husband left home ... he did not return home and I was surprised because earlier he had said he would not be leaving me till the weekend."

So if Gregsten did go to Maidenhead to do a spot of painting that morning it would have entailed a round trip of approx. 60 miles before returning to pick up his two boys.

Which would still leave quite a discrepancy in the numbers discussed by the Court of Appeal. Take out the Maidenhead trip and they seem to be over-estimating Gregsten's driving that day by 20 miles; add it in, and they're under-estimating by 40 miles.

Maths was never my strong point. Can anybody else reconcile these numbers?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4752  
Old 04-26-2018, 04:22 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 888
Default

Natalie posted here that Gregsten set out from Maidenhead that morning, so I think it must be mentioned somewhere. The flat was available to him from 1st August so he could have stayed there for the odd night any time before the planned ‘moving in’ date of the 27th. Janet’s description that he ‘left home’ could have been referring in general to him leaving Sabine House in the afternoon, and he may well have intended returning there that night.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4753  
Old 04-26-2018, 04:28 AM
OneRound OneRound is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 498
Default

[quote=NickB;445825 I don’t know where this idea comes from that overall Hanratty was ‘unlucky', except in the sense that Caz was using the word – that an innocent Hanratty would have been incredibly unlucky to have so many things pointing towards his guilt.

On 23-Sep-61 Alphon said to Acott: “It’s quite clear to me that you’ll never catch him now. It’s over a month old now and if you haven’t caught him now, you never will.” I expect similar thoughts were running though Hanratty’s mind later that day as he drove Gladys to Bedford. He must have felt very lucky that he had got away with it.

I accept that if Crocker only reported the cartridge cases because of the Alphon linkeage, then this was indeed unlucky for Hanratty. But after this had been reported, by continuing to use the ‘Ryan’ alias and the ‘Wood Lane, Kingsbury’ address he was leaving a trail that, I feel, inexorably would have lead to him.[/QUOTE]



Hi Nick - I wasn't suggesting that an innocent man was unlucky to be found guilty but rather that a guilty man got no breaks or luck at all. Many may say ''so what'' and ''it's all he deserved'' to that which is an understandable reaction although not the point I was trying to make.

Besides Crocker reporting the cartridges and off the top of my bonce, Hanratty's bad luck included:

* An incompetent solicitor.

* An inexperienced barrister.

* Police failing to disclose relevant material.

* A local jury.

Even after execution, bad luck continued with:

* The timing of his 2002 appeal. A few years earlier and there would have been no DNA evidence to present to the Court. A few years later and [I believe - I readily acknowledge I'm a very long way from being an expert here] more of an argument could have been presented against the reliability of the DNA findings.

* The attitude of the Court of Appeal. In particular, the judges sitting referred to police withholding material as ''the high watermark of non-disclosure'' but still regarded it as not invalidating the trial and original verdict. Other judges may have taken a different view and reached a different decision. In the Bentley case, it is worth noting that the Court of Appeal commented that ''a properly directed jury would have been entitled to convict'' but nonetheless put aside the conviction as he had ''been denied a fair trial which is the birthright of every British citizen''. Had different judges considered his case and any luck belatedly shone on a hanged Hanratty, he might have received a similar judgement.

Best regards,

OneRound

Last edited by OneRound : 04-26-2018 at 04:35 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4754  
Old 04-26-2018, 05:09 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 888
Default

I believe Sherrard and Kleinman were very competent but, even if they weren't, Hanratty maintained Kleinman and said he wanted Sherrard to conduct the case. I suspect the reason for this is that Hanratty thought that Sherrard and Kleinman believed in him (and I think they did until the Rhyl alibi) and that other solicitors/barristers might not be so gullible.

I don't see how complete disclosure could have saved him, and doubt that the level of nondisclosure was abnormal for that time, and he didn't murder a 'local'.

After the execution he had the luck of people like Foot/Woffinden presenting his case in a highly biased way. The Court of Appeal said that even without the DNA it would have upheld the guilty verdict.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4755  
Old 04-26-2018, 05:16 AM
Alfie Alfie is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 190
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB View Post
Natalie posted here that Gregsten set out from Maidenhead that morning, so I think it must be mentioned somewhere. The flat was available to him from 1st August so he could have stayed there for the odd night any time before the planned ‘moving in’ date of the 27th. Janet’s description that he ‘left home’ could have been referring in general to him leaving Sabine House in the afternoon, and he may well have intended returning there that night.
I wonder what Natalie's source was? I've seen only an abridged version of Janet's statement so she may have mentioned it there I suppose.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4756  
Old 04-26-2018, 05:43 AM
OneRound OneRound is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 498
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB View Post
I believe Sherrard and Kleinman were very competent but, even if they weren't, Hanratty maintained Kleinman and said he wanted Sherrard to conduct the case. I suspect the reason for this is that Hanratty thought that Sherrard and Kleinman believed in him (and I think they did until the Rhyl alibi) and that other solicitors/barristers might not be so gullible.

I don't see how complete disclosure could have saved him, and doubt that the level of nondisclosure was abnormal for that time, and he didn't murder a 'local'.

After the execution he had the luck of people like Foot/Woffinden presenting his case in a highly biased way. The Court of Appeal said that even without the DNA it would have upheld the guilty verdict.
Hi again Nick - thanks for your response.

Why do you say that Kleinmann was ''very competent''? It's a genuine question. I particularly feel he let his man down badly on the identification parade.

Sherrard was undoubtedly hardworking and dignified but I'll hand over on this aspect to my cyber pal Graham and let him regale us about the Brighton Trunk Murder or something equally grisly from the past where a murderer got off due to a canny brief.

Complete disclosure may not have saved Hanratty but should he have been denied it going in the mix to the jury? I don't have time to check now but I'm pretty certain the Court of Appeal in 2002 referred to such disclosure as being required ''even by the standards of the day'' or something very similar.

I take your point about the blinkered approach of campaigners like Foot and Woffinden. With regard to your last sentence, the Court of Appeal were very astute in ensuring that their judgement could not be challenged.

Best regards,

OneRound
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4757  
Old 04-26-2018, 08:07 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 888
Default

“His industry in this case knew no bounds” said Sherrard of Kleinman (Woff, page 235). He seems to have been very diligent throughout, and indeed sometimes overstepped the boundary of what was legally permitted in his client’s interests. On the id parade the claim that anyone would have picked Hanratty because of his hair colour is demonstrably untrue; Hirons and Blackhall picked other people.

I don’t think Hanratty took the advice of his brief as diligently as Toni Mancini. I have always thought that the line about being ‘a thief not a murderer’ was tutored by Sherrard, because it is a recurring theme and was very well expressed. But sometimes he went off script and showed his callous side. The excerpt below (if you can read it) demonstrates this where he was tempted by Swanwick to deviate from the “thief not murderer” answer that he gave first.

To me the big question is whether they should have pursued with the Rhyl witnesses in the appeal. But we do not know what their client had told them so it is difficult to judge.
Attached Images
 
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4758  
Old 04-27-2018, 01:49 AM
Graham Graham is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 3,313
Default

From the relatively little I've read about Norman Birkett, it appears that his courtroom manner and that of Sherrard's were very similar, i.e., courteous, patient, quiet.

The major difference between the Mancini and Hanratty cases is that in the former the experts could never agree just what the precise cause of the death of the victim (Mancini's girlfriend) actually was. Some said a blow to the head with a weapon, others trauma caused by a fall; one pathologist gave the cause of death as a morphine overdose. Birkett grabbed these differences of opinion and built his entire defence-case around them, leading the jury to accept his argument that the woman died as a result of either falling downstairs or falling and hitting her head on the grate, and not as the result of a deliberate blow to the head. Birkett also coached Mancini how to perform in the witness box - he was plainly a keen pupil as his life was at stake. Not until 40 years later did he confess that he had actually killed his girlfriend.

The cause of Gregsten's death was only too plain.

I still think that Sherrard made an error of judgement in allowing Hanratty to change his alibi mid-trial. But he did, and his client took the consequences.

Graham
__________________
We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

Last edited by Graham : 04-27-2018 at 02:11 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4759  
Old 04-27-2018, 04:44 AM
Alfie Alfie is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 190
Default A modified exhaust?

Trower when interviewed by the Sunday Times in Dec 1966 said amongst other things: "I saw this grey Minor tearing down the road. I noticed it because it had such a loud exhaust – a modified rally job – without that it wouldn’t have struck me."

As far as I can tell, Trower previously only talked about a grinding of gears drawing his attention to the car. Was he now embellishing his story, or did the Morris in fact have a "modified rally job" for an exhaust?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4760  
Old 04-27-2018, 07:16 AM
Spitfire Spitfire is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 605
Default Hanratty's Hankie

Came across this article from May 1971, from which it can be inferred that Mrs France was in a position to identify Jim's hankie but at Dixie's urging she did not do so.
Attached Images
  
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 05:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.