a6 murder

[johnl]

Paul Foot

It's patently obvious to me that the gun, ammo and handkerchief were planted underneath the bus seat to incriminate Hanratty. Otherwise why not just throw the gun and ammo in the Thames. Why wrap the bullets in such an incriminating piece of material as a mucus stained handkerchief ? Whoever planted the gun, ammo and hankie under that seat wanted them to be found, which they duly were the day after the murder. Mission accomplished.

Victor
Re my last post.
See what I mean-QED!
My dictionary must have perverse meanings for "patent" and "obvious"

All the best
johnl

[jimarilyn]

Victor
Re my last post.
See what I mean-QED!
My dictionary must have perverse meanings for "patent" and "obvious"

All the best
johnl

You'll have to forgive my lack of eloquence. I ain't as eloquent as what some people am.

[Victor]

It's patently obvious to me that the gun, ammo and handkerchief were planted underneath the bus seat to incriminate Hanratty. Otherwise why not just throw the gun and ammo in the Thames. Why wrap the bullets in such an incriminating piece of material as a mucus stained handkerchief ? Whoever planted the gun, ammo and hankie under that seat wanted them to be found, which they duly were the day after the murder. Mission accomplished.

How about JH is incredibly adjitated because he's just raped a woman and shot her and her partner and isn't thinking straight so he just wants to get rid of it as quickly as possible. He picks it up but can't carry it all in his hands because there's too many bullets so grabs the nearest thing his hanky out of his pocket, wraps everything up and goes to throw it in the Thames, but as he's on the bus his nerves get the better of him so just stuffs the lot under the seat??

Perfectly simple and straightforward, no big conspiracy theory needed.

[jimarilyn]

But that's reverse logic! And maybe JH was basically honest or too stupid to think of a plausible lie.

John - I agree entirely. Big up Foot and Wolffinden, diss Mathers OR read all three and see where they agree!

Hi Victor, what language is that last sentence written in ? Some kind of code perhaps ?

[johnl]

paul Foot

Hi Victor, what language is that last sentence written in ? Some kind of code perhaps ?

I can understand it.

Regards johnl

[jimarilyn]

How about JH is incredibly adjitated because he's just raped a woman and shot her and her partner and isn't thinking straight so he just wants to get rid of it as quickly as possible. He picks it up but can't carry it all in his hands because there's too many bullets so grabs the nearest thing his hanky out of his pocket, wraps everything up and goes to throw it in the Thames, but as he's on the bus his nerves get the better of him so just stuffs the lot under the seat??

Perfectly simple and straightforward, no big conspiracy theory needed.

If this was the case and he wanted to get rid of the gun as quickly as possible he certainly took his time disposing of it as it wasn't under that bus seat on the evening of 23rd August.

[Victor]

Hi Victor, what language is that last sentence written in ? Some kind of code perhaps ?

A few colloquialisms (I can't spell)

I implied that lots of people have come here worshipping the ground that Foot and Wolffinden walk upon, and at the same time denigrate Mathers for his effort.

I further implied that the logical course would be to read all 3 and accept evidence that the three agree with and examine areas where they disagree by reference to the source material.

[Victor]

If this was the case and he wanted to get rid of the gun as quickly as possible he certainly took his time disposing of it as it wasn't under that bus seat on the evening of 23rd August.

I was working on the premise that the only reason he would have the gun is if he was the rapist and murderer, and the knowledge of his actions on that fateful night would impair his thinking and reasoning.

[jimarilyn]

A few colloquialisms (I can't spell)

I implied that lots of people have come here worshipping the ground that Foot and Wolffinden walk upon, and at the same time denigrate Mathers for his effort.

Hi Victor,

Forgive my ignorance but who is Mathers ? That name doesn't ring a bell. have I been in a comatose state or something ?

[Victor]

Hi Victor,

Forgive my ignorance but who is Mathers ? That name doesn't ring a bell. have I been in a comatose state or something ?

I may have slipped up on the name - Leonard Mathers wrote a book basically saying Hanratty did it years before the DNA evidence. He pointed out all the inconsistencies in the various versions of the alibis.

[Tony]

If this was the case and he wanted to get rid of the gun as quickly as possible he certainly took his time disposing of it as it wasn't under that bus seat on the evening of 23rd August.

Hello Jimarilyn.


I also have a lot of trouble with the gun under the seat. If I was Hanratty and had ‘done the crime’ I can’t see myself driving around for hours afterwards with the gun and a load of boxes of ammo and then walking about in public with all this stuff and then think: “Oh I know my trusty hiding place will do under the back seat of the bus. After all the bus gets cleaned every night and the cleaner removes all my unwanted jewellery I’ve checked before. He might be good enough to throw the lot in the river and save me the bother. Can’t imagine him handing it over to the police”.

Now I know some stupid people, and no I’m not looking in the mirror johnl, but I don’t know anybody that stupid.
He might as well have left it on the cop shop doorstep with his name and address on it.

Tony

[jimarilyn]

I may have slipped up on the name - Leonard Mathers wrote a book basically saying Hanratty did it years before the DNA evidence. He pointed out all the inconsistencies in the various versions of the alibis.

I get it now. You mean Leonard Miller and his novel "Shadows of Deadman's Hill" Have you perchance read it ?

[Graham]

It's patently obvious to me that the gun, ammo and handkerchief were planted underneath the bus seat to incriminate Hanratty. Otherwise why not just throw the gun and ammo in the Thames. Why wrap the bullets in such an incriminating piece of material as a mucus stained handkerchief ? Whoever planted the gun, ammo and hankie under that seat wanted them to be found, which they duly were the day after the murder. Mission accomplished.

In the pre-DNA days of 1961, was it possible to identify an individual via mucus? I don't think so, so the hankie can't really be considered as incriminating. But the gun can be. It was easily established that it was the gun that fired the bullets that maimed Valerie Storie and killed Gregsten.

Either

JH deposited the gun under the seat himself as an expedient may of getting rid of it as he used to get rid of other unwanted stuff;

or

He gave the gun + ammo to a third party to get rid of, and that third party, for whatever reason, decided to stitch JH up by depositing the gun in a known JH hiding-place.

Cheers,

Graham

[jimarilyn]

Hello Jimarilyn.


I also have a lot of trouble with the gun under the seat. If I was Hanratty and had ‘done the crime’ I can’t see myself driving around for hours afterwards with the gun and a load of boxes of ammo and then walking about in public with all this stuff and then think: “Oh I know my trusty hiding place will do under the back seat of the bus. After all the bus gets cleaned every night and the cleaner removes all my unwanted jewellery I’ve checked before. He might be good enough to throw the lot in the river and save me the bother. Can’t imagine him handing it over to the police”.

Now I know some stupid people, and no I’m not looking in the mirror johnl, but I don’t know anybody that stupid.
He might as well have left it on the cop shop doorstep with his name and address on it.

Tony

Hi Tony,

Yet another very perceptive post from your goodself. You said all that needs to be said regarding this matter. By the way congratulations on your 100th post, you've certainly earned your Detective status.

[caz]

However, the circumstances of the distribution of the DNA proved beyond doubt that JH had indulged in sexual intercourse with VS.
As for the FSS falsifying the data, they had no axe to grind, they weren't bringing in to disrepute work previously done by their colleagues, additionally a piece of the crotch of the knickers was made available to JH's legal/forensic team...

All the best
johnl

Hi johnl,

Pretty much says it all for me.

I just cannot see the scientists and the establishment conspiring together and the former having the expertise or opportunity to stage manage not only the presence of an innocent Hanratty's DNA-on- gusset-in-perfect-intercourse-pattern, but also the total absence of any trace of the real rapist's DNA-on-rape victim's gusset, before supplying a piece of this miracle cake to the opposition to check out.

I think some people are trying to have their cake and eat it here. They have to decide whether the scientists involved were incompetent to judge what they were seeing here, or so far in advance of the field that they could walk on water if the establishment required them to.

Hi All,

I have thoroughly enjoyed catching up with this magnificent thread, and anyone who has been upset by any of the mild rebukes here had better not leave this sunny conservatory to test the heat in the ripper kitchen - a raging inferno by comparison.

Along with several other posters, I do think it's odd that a petty thief who suddenly commits murder and rape would take total leave of his senses and leave the murder weapon where it was sure to be found, and not just chuck it in the Thames. It seems even more stupid to use an habitual dumping place, which you have previously told someone else about - especially when that someone is the father of the sixteen year-old you have been knocking off! In those days the spectre of the shotgun wedding was only just beginning to fade. I doubt many men today of Hanratty’s age would recognise the term or take it seriously.

Another point is that while petty criminals in the 1950s and 60s may have got along together well, helped one another out and never contemplated grassing each other up under normal circumstances, it could be - and often still is - a very different matter indeed when one of their kind was believed to have committed violence, especially sexual violence, against a woman or a child. If a father believed, or even suspected, that a man he knew as a petty thief had taken his daughter’s virginity and then gone on to rape a stranger in a car at gunpoint after shooting her boyfriend dead in cold blood, one can only imagine how powerful and immediate his desire for revenge might be. So I can certainly see why Dixie France would have a strong motive for wanting the guilty man convicted, by fair means or foul, and planting the gun himself, wrapped in a hankie belonging to Hanratty, if he could have had access to both.

Having said that, I can also see Hanratty needing to get back to ‘normality’ after his foray into rape and murder, and either dumping the gun in a ‘normal’ hiding place as part of this aim, or from sheer force of habit: “It feels right and it’s worked for me before”, if he gave it any thought at all beyond: “Must get rid”. I doubt he would have given a second thought in 1961 to the possibility of a used hankie being traceable back to him, particularly if it didn’t occur to him that the gun itself could be a problem if anyone could have recognised it as his. The hankie may have been left round the weapon to prevent any fresh fingerprints getting onto it as he slipped it under the bus seat (assuming he’d left his gloves off of course - might be a bit conspicuous to wear gloves on a bus in August, even in those hat-wearing days).

Love,

Caz
X