a6 murder

[Steve]

Tony

A whole sentence?

KR
Steve

[Tony]

[QUOTE=simon;38873]Dare I mention Lionel Miller without getting howls of rage in return ?

He asserts that VS and MG had only sporadically visited that cornfield, thus making it very unlikely that a hitman would have chosen to lie in wait for them. Do we know if this is true or not ?

Simon,

And just how on earth would Mr Miller know that?
But all he ever does is try to get into character thereby knowing everything without researching anything.

Tony

[Steve]

His name is Leonard Miller. Sorry to be pedantic, but just for the record!

[Tony]

His name is Leonard Miller. Sorry to be pedantic, but just for the record!

Steve,

And I thought it was Max or Mick.

Tony

[Tony]

Tony

A whole sentence?

KR
Steve

Steve,

Yes, might be pushed to stretch it that far.

Tony

[Steve]

Tony

Max Miller? Simply one of the funniest men who ever lived. He was banned from the BBC for telling a harmless gag:

'I met a naked girl on a narrow bridge - didn't know if I should block her passage or toss myself off.'

The BBC didn't see it as harmless!

KR
Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Max Miller? Simply one of the funniest men who ever lived. He was banned from the BBC for telling a harmless gag:

'I met a naked girl on a narrow bridge - didn't know if I should block her passage or toss myself off.'

The BBC didn't see it as harmless!

...it must've been the mime that accompanied it

[Steve]

No mime, Gareth. Max delivered straight to the audience, one foot on the footlights, both hands in fulll view and no rude gestures. He left the innuendo to the audience's mind and it worked every time!

[Sam Flynn]

No mime, Gareth.

I knew that, Steve

[jimarilyn]

To my mind, the key to cracking this case lies in answering the following question:

Who ordered the hit on Gregsten, and why?

Timsta

Hi Timsta,

Colonel Mustard's jealous pal Bill for obvious reasons.

[caz]

Morning All,

I wonder if that’s where we get ‘blue’, as in mucky, from - Max Miller’s blue book? Now there’s a funny thing.

Quoted by Reg:

‘MICHAEL HANRATTY: They were all put in the same box. Jimmy's stuff, Valerie Storie's stuff, all into the same box. Taken away, brought back the next day. The investigating officer had to display it all on a table. He had the underwear, he had the handkerchief. There was nothing about DNA then. He had no gloves, no mask, anything. Now to me the guidelines of all this evidence, which they reckon proves Jimmy's without any doubt, has been done. To me I don't feel it is proper evidence because it hasn't been kept under the guidelines of what DNA is today.’

Hi Reg,

Now here’s a thought. We have been told that a female’s DNA from her own bodily fluids tends to overwhelm the equivalent male DNA, or at least be more prominent, after sexual activity. In addition, most of us are now happy to accept that the only DNA detectable on the hankie was JH’s, from the last time he had used it to blow his hooter, with no discernible trace of any of the people who would have handled it since.

So if there was any chance of JH’s DNA transferring from hankie to underwear, as a result of being stored together during the trial, would we not expect VS’s DNA to have transferred similarly from underwear to hankie, and in detectable amounts?

I doubt anyone trains at King’s College London, or any other highly reputable and demanding university, to go into forensic science, without having sufficient pride in their work to consider and eliminate basic pitfalls like this so no hasty conclusions are reached that could compromise their reputation. Anyone would have to be barking mad to put their career on the line over such a high-profile and controversial case as the A6 murder. It is apparent (as johnl keeps reminding us) that they were presuming contamination and therefore on the lookout for signs of it, but could find no reasonable explanation for the results that did not involve JH having sex with the victim.

The more I read these postings, the more I believe that Steve has got it right, and that Dixie was involved after the crime. It's his suicide - and the reason originally given for it..' shame at having introduced JH to his household'...that has always intrigued me. There simply must have been more to it than that ; I think he was the one who planted the gun, fingered JH, and felt remorse afterwards. (Well, it's as good a theory as any of the others!)

Hi Simon,

I can understand the 'shame' thing. Petty criminals patting each other on the back for a job nicely done and some rich pickings is one thing; finding out that one you have introduced to your household (who goes on to seduce your young daughter) could have held up a courting couple at gunpoint and subjected them to a nightmare ordeal of rape and murder, apparently just for the hell of it, must have been quite another. “Honour among thieves” may have sounded a very bitter note for Dixie after that. “I don’t care if he swings for it” might have sounded a better one.

If Dixie believed JH was guilty of such a horrendous crime, he could indeed have felt ashamed of being associated with him, and made amends by making it easier for the police to get their man. He could have felt remorse if he was instrumental in making JH swing, especially if he had any doubts about his guilt. Equally he could have felt horrible for having associated himself and his family with such an evil crime.

Love,

Caz
X

[reg1965]

To my mind, the key to cracking this case lies in answering the following question:

Who ordered the hit on Gregsten, and why?

Timsta

Hi Timsta
My view is that there appears to no motive for the killing whatsoever based on evidence at the trial and anything subsequently obtained.

Artefacts including a few of Frances very last letters to his family are witheld from public scrutiny...why?

If, as many people have put forward, it was a plot by Ewer and possibly Mrs Gregsten to split up MG & VS then it could well have had the opposite effect. It could have easily forced them closer together. Which I would have thought was what Ewer possibly wanted anyway so he could be with Janet Gregsten.
Why then go to all that trouble of a half-assed plot for no gain which could quite easily backfire and end in a long stretch at her majesty's pleasure.

Alphon was later quoted as saying something along the lines of 'the motive in this case is more mundane that you think'. Why would he know? After all of his lies and games, a bucket full of salt should be taken with that!

I still think that an investigation into Gregstens work at the time is at least worth following up.

Even so, irrespective of who could have done the killing and why, who has had the power to cover up intriguing portions of it for so long and for waht purpose. Most of us feel that something stinky is going on but can't quite put our collective finger on it.

Maybe, afterall, it was a motiveless moon maniac attack that ended horribly wrong. If so then why weren't other (before or later) attacks carried out, although there were the incidents involving Mrs Dalal (she picked out Alphon) and Mrs Willis (she said it was not Hanratty.)

As for Hanratty, I believe his interest would be to just get into a house, grab some bling, get away as quick as possible and flog the best bits. He liked having money, flash suits and driving flash cars.
His brother Michael said that James would never use the word 'institutions' (as was used against him at the trial) and would blush uncontrollably when confronted with something he had done wrong.

Any other comments anyone?

Reg

[ansonman]

Regarding Gregsten

Hi all,

I do not have access to my books on the case and would appreciate it if anyone could clarify the following for me.

The gunman made Gregsten stop and buy milk at a vending machine, then made him stop at a shop to buy cigarettes and still later made him stop to refuel with petrol.

I know it was late at night when they stopped at the shop. Does anyone know if Gregsten actually went into the shop and was served?

Am not sure if petrol stations were self service in those days but almost certainly he would have had to pay for the petrol, in cash, to a person. Was this the case?

I am keen to know if Gregsten had contact with anyone other than Valerie and the gunman between the latters arrival and the shooting.

Thanks in advance.

Ansonman

[reg1965]

........
So if there was any chance of JH’s DNA transferring from hankie to underwear, as a result of being stored together during the trial, would we not expect VS’s DNA to have transferred similarly from underwear to hankie, and in detectable amounts?
........
It is apparent (as johnl keeps reminding us) that they were presuming contamination and therefore on the lookout for signs of it, but could find no reasonable explanation for the results that did not involve JH having sex with the victim.
........
If Dixie believed JH was guilty of such a horrendous crime, he could indeed have felt ashamed of being associated with him, and made amends by making it easier for the police to get their man. He could have felt remorse if he was instrumental in making JH swing, especially if he had any doubts about his guilt. Equally he could have felt horrible for having associated himself and his family with such an evil crime.

Hi Caz
Yes we should have VS's DNA on the hanky along with a few others (Mr Cooke the cleaner for one). Where did it go? If PCR and LCN (first used in 1999) is that powerful at detecting the smallest amounts of DNA what has happened? The other DNA would be part of the mixture.

Where is it reported that they were presuming contamination as johnl keeps reminding us? (my italics)

Why would France commit suicide when 'having done the right thing' and testified against him. He would have had nothing to be 'that' ashamed of then surely? I also believe that the Sunday Pictorial was going to buy the France family story after the appeal was turned down (Woffinden 1997. p378).
Unless of course his involvement was more fundamental.

Just my thoughts
Reg

[Tony]

Hi Timsta,

Colonel Mustard's jealous pal Bill for obvious reasons.

Told you Timsta one sentence would do it.

Tony.