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:
General Suspect Discussion: Was Ernest Dowson Jack the Ripper? - by ChrisGeorge 35 minutes ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - by Mayerling 3 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Was Ernest Dowson Jack the Ripper? - by Richard Patterson 4 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Was Ernest Dowson Jack the Ripper? - by Pcdunn 4 hours ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - by GUT 4 hours ago.
Thompson, Francis: Francis Thompson. The Perfect Suspect. - by Abby Normal 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (26 posts)
General Discussion: Collaboration on Mitre Square and GSG? - (11 posts)
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - (10 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Was Ernest Dowson Jack the Ripper? - (9 posts)
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - (7 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: A theory about some injuries! - (5 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
  #3661  
Old 11-12-2016, 02:23 AM
OneRound OneRound is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 403
Default

Moste - I speculated about the perpetrator of these crimes being on drugs as a possible explanation for his actions. Michael Gregsten's health is of no relevance.

OneRound
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3662  
Old 11-12-2016, 05:31 AM
j.kettle1 j.kettle1 is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 64
Default Blackpool telephone conversation with Acott.

During one of his telephone conversations with Acott from Blackpool, Hanratty asked (not verbatim) 'What size was the gun'. What a strange question if he'd committed the crime. It makes no sense, unless he'd actually had a connection with the gun - let's say as a middle man, and was trying to ascertain if the murder weapon was the same calibre as the one he had handed over.
If that was the case then the most obvious recipient was Alphon during their stay at the Vienna.
However, if this was indeed the case, and he knew who had committed the crime, why did he not tell someone (Mick?) when he asked him to clear his name?
All very strange.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3663  
Old 11-12-2016, 08:10 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 738
Default

This was in Hanratty's interview after capture, at the point when Acott revealed that two cartridge cases had been found in the hotel room. In evidence Hanratty admitted the question, but claimed that he asked it after denying he had ever had a gun or bullets rather than before.

Hanratty version:
“That is the end for me now. I have had no gun or bullets at any time. What size were the bullets?”

Police notes version:
“What size were the bullets, Mr Acott?” (Acott says he cannot tell him.) “Well that is the end for me isn’t it? I told you I have never had any bullets and never fired a gun.”
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3664  
Old 11-12-2016, 08:15 AM
j.kettle1 j.kettle1 is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 64
Default

Thanks, Nick.
I've been away a while and I think a bit of refresher reading is in order. ��
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3665  
Old 11-12-2016, 11:47 AM
Limehouse Limehouse is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Cambridgeshire, England.
Posts: 1,874
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moste View Post
Hhmmm. Also ,not to be totally excluded, given the something of a fog around Gregstens past.The apparent hopelessness of his mental condition. The famous Tavistock clinics inability to treat him and only when, the intense headaches and depression,were becoming so unbearable ,did he deny his religious teachings ,and seek out medical help)
Watford memorial hospital could not fare any better even after seeing him for a year.His own doctor simply prescribed tranquilizers.
According to Dr.John Sutherland,of the Tavistock Clinic,'Gregsten was worried about financial matters,and had a general feeling he ought to be dead.
Looks like someone else thought the same thing!
Could Gregsten have decided to take his health problem into his own hands ,but find himself in dire straights financially, because he was feeding a serious drug habit?
Doing the math, on the surface of things,money wise, he should have been better off than he was.

Hello everyone,

I have been away from the boards for a few months as I needed a break for all sorts of reasons.

I have been catching up today and I must say, it is really good to see so many posters contributing to the A6 threads again.

However, I have to heave just a small sigh over the quality of some comments, including the one above. What has MG's medical history got to do with him being attacked and shot? The man clearly had a few disagreeable character traits but to add complete speculation about possible serious drug abuse adds nothing to the mystery.

I have also been disappointed to read highly disrespectful comments about VS. However much one might disapprove of her relationship with MG, she was not on trial for her morals and, even if she had had relations with a dozen men, married or not, it would not justify the terrible indignity and violence she suffered at the hands of her attacker. This was a very young girl whose life was ruined forever by events that night.

Finally, the debate over Hanratty's mental state has got me thinking. I think it was Graham who suggested that Hanratty had been diagnosed as a 'psychopath'. However, I wonder whether he was actually diagnosed as 'psychotic'? They are two quite different, but similar-sounding conditions.

Some people with psychotic disorders suffer paranoid delusions that people are plotting against them or that they are receiving messages telling them to behave in certain ways. However, psychotic disorders also cause people to chat incessantly and in rather incoherent ways. Psychotics also tend to indulge in highly risky behaviour (burglaries?), are often prolific liars and tend to live chaotic lives. People with psychotic disorders find it difficult to settle and form stable, permanent relationships. Psychosis has a number of causes, but one of them is head injuries.

Psychopaths, on the other hand, are usually cold (but sometimes personable) people who are incapable of feeling human warmth and empathy towards others.

To me, if Hanratty had been diagnosed with a mental illness, it seems much more likely that it was psychosis (and he had suffered a head injury).

This, coupled with his learning difficulties, would explain much of his behaviour, especially his inability to give a coherent and consistent account of his movements at the crucial time.

Just a few thoughts. I'm off the watch 'Strictly' now.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3666  
Old 11-12-2016, 12:28 PM
moste moste is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Vancouver Island British Columbia.
Posts: 388
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRound View Post
Moste - I speculated about the perpetrator of these crimes being on drugs as a possible explanation for his actions. Michael Gregsten's health is of no relevance.

OneRound
Yes I know you did.
I'm speculating about the victims past actions inadvertently creating a motive for his own murder,
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3667  
Old 11-12-2016, 02:07 PM
Graham Graham is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 3,067
Default

Hi Julie,

nice to see you back, even though the A6 Thread has, as it does periodically, 'gone circular'.

I couldn't agree more with what you say about posters (well, a poster) digging the dirt about Gregsten's past and medical problems. And in particular about calling Valerie a liar and describing her as a 'wretched woman' and her evidence as being 'a figment of her imagination'. This particular poster perhaps should re-read his own posts. She most certainly was not on trial for her morals. Such an approach doesn't advance by one jot the discussion of this perplexing case.

If I remember correctly Hanratty was described by one of the several medicos who examined him as having 'psychopathic tendencies', rather than being an out-and-out psychopath. We're in the middle of trying to put some order into our thousands of books in this house, so as soon as I can drop on my A6 books I'll check them again.

I hope you're keeping well and I look forward to further input from you.

Graham
__________________
We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3668  
Old 11-12-2016, 03:08 PM
cobalt cobalt is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 194
Default

Anything which is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. Moste at least understands that.

If you think that Hanratty was guilty then you have a predisposition towards double standards, and your concept of what is appropriate is more limited. Moste, on the other hand, does not believe Hanratty was guilty, and therefore he affords all the other players in this unfortunate drama the same scrutiny as the prosecution side does to Hanratty. I welcome his approach, even if the conclusions he draws do not always convince me.

We were asked to consider that Hanratty was acting under the influence of drugs. No one on this site took offence at this outlandish theory; rather it was accepted as a plausible motive for an inexplicable crime. Yet where is the evidence? Did anyone ever see Hanratty take Purple Hearts? Did anyone ever report him begging Dixie France for some Uppers before going on a job? No absolutely nothing. Purely idle conjecture. Did anyone, in his entire life, ever see James Hanratty with a gun? No. Yet we, on this site, were prepared to argue from that conjecture.

However the minute the same scrutiny regarding mental well being is asked of Gregsten, we are told this should be off limits. Why? Because he was a victim? That is not a good enough reason, not if we are seeking the truth. In any case James Hanratty may well have been a victim himself, and he has not been afforded the same protection. For all we know Gregsten’s mental state may have been central to what took place that night, so I am not prepared to support any voice which wants to close this debate down.

I want the debate to be opened up to try and shed some light on what actually took place. Was Gregsten on Purple Hearts or Uppers? Or Valerie Storie? Might that explain her confused statements? Is anyone offended by these questions? If so, no more than I would be if you ask them of Hanratty.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3669  
Old 11-12-2016, 04:01 PM
moste moste is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Vancouver Island British Columbia.
Posts: 388
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cobalt View Post
Anything which is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. Moste at least understands that.

If you think that Hanratty was guilty then you have a predisposition towards double standards, and your concept of what is appropriate is more limited. Moste, on the other hand, does not believe Hanratty was guilty, and therefore he affords all the other players in this unfortunate drama the same scrutiny as the prosecution side does to Hanratty. I welcome his approach, even if the conclusions he draws do not always convince me.

We were asked to consider that Hanratty was acting under the influence of drugs. No one on this site took offence at this outlandish theory; rather it was accepted as a plausible motive for an inexplicable crime. Yet where is the evidence? Did anyone ever see Hanratty take Purple Hearts? Did anyone ever report him begging Dixie France for some Uppers before going on a job? No absolutely nothing. Purely idle conjecture. Did anyone, in his entire life, ever see James Hanratty with a gun? No. Yet we, on this site, were prepared to argue from that conjecture.

However the minute the same scrutiny regarding mental well being is asked of Gregsten, we are told this should be off limits. Why? Because he was a victim? That is not a good enough reason, not if we are seeking the truth. In any case James Hanratty may well have been a victim himself, and he has not been afforded the same protection. For all we know Gregsten’s mental state may have been central to what took place that night, so I am not prepared to support any voice which wants to close this debate down.

I want the debate to be opened up to try and shed some light on what actually took place. Was Gregsten on Purple Hearts or Uppers? Or Valerie Storie? Might that explain her confused statements? Is anyone offended by these questions? If so, no more than I would be if you ask them of Hanratty.
At least someone understands where I'm coming from.
Thanks Cobalt, for a very well explained post,
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3670  
Old 11-12-2016, 04:19 PM
OneRound OneRound is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 403
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by cobalt View Post
Anything which is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. Moste at least understands that.

If you think that Hanratty was guilty then you have a predisposition towards double standards, and your concept of what is appropriate is more limited. Moste, on the other hand, does not believe Hanratty was guilty, and therefore he affords all the other players in this unfortunate drama the same scrutiny as the prosecution side does to Hanratty. I welcome his approach, even if the conclusions he draws do not always convince me.

We were asked to consider that Hanratty was acting under the influence of drugs. No one on this site took offence at this outlandish theory; rather it was accepted as a plausible motive for an inexplicable crime. Yet where is the evidence? Did anyone ever see Hanratty take Purple Hearts? Did anyone ever report him begging Dixie France for some Uppers before going on a job? No absolutely nothing. Purely idle conjecture. Did anyone, in his entire life, ever see James Hanratty with a gun? No. Yet we, on this site, were prepared to argue from that conjecture.

However the minute the same scrutiny regarding mental well being is asked of Gregsten, we are told this should be off limits. Why? Because he was a victim? That is not a good enough reason, not if we are seeking the truth. In any case James Hanratty may well have been a victim himself, and he has not been afforded the same protection. For all we know Gregsten’s mental state may have been central to what took place that night, so I am not prepared to support any voice which wants to close this debate down.

I want the debate to be opened up to try and shed some light on what actually took place. Was Gregsten on Purple Hearts or Uppers? Or Valerie Storie? Might that explain her confused statements? Is anyone offended by these questions? If so, no more than I would be if you ask them of Hanratty.
No, you were not.

Partly in response to your own post doubting either a financial or sexual motive, I asked whether ''the murderer'' or ''perpetrator'' of these crimes may have been under the influence of drugs. I deliberately used such terms in a (naive) hope that Hanratty supporters would not take dramatic offence and would still give serious consideration to the question.

Graham is fully convinced of Hanratty's guilt and so responded with direct reference to him. I can understand that. I could also understand it if Moste did not accept the references to Hanratty but instead gave some consideration to the actual murderer (whoever he was) being on drugs. That is what the question was. And after all, there was a murder unless that is also to be disputed.

OneRound

Last edited by OneRound : 11-12-2016 at 04:21 PM. Reason: typo
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 10:24 PM.


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