a6 murder

[reg1965]

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

Hi Ansonman
The petrol station was a Shell garage called the 584 at Kingsbury Circle NW9. The attendant was called Harry Hirons. He was a witness on the Alphon identity parade but didn't pick anyone out. On the Hanratty parade he picked out an extra parade member. He wasn't called as a prosecution witness at the trial.
Reg

[Tony]

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

Just quickly getting back to Mr Cooke, the bus cleaner, for a moment and obviously the back seat of the bus.

Hanratty never denied the conversation with Dixie about the back seat of the bus being a good hiding place but Hanratty insisted he used it while sorting the good jewellery from the rubbish. He could simply have denied the conversation ever took place if he had wanted to.
I doubt he ever used it. It was just talk to impress Dixie.

One way the prosecution could have reinforced this damaging piece of evidence against Hanratty was to interview all the bus cleaners about their findings underneath the back seat.
If they came across cleaner/cleaners who said: “Junk jewellery? We find it under the back seat all the time. Why we’ve even got a skip back at the depot solely for this stuff.” That would have been a way of linking Hanratty to the back seat apart from the Dixie evidence. I’m sure they must have gone into this. I would be surprised if they didn’t.
Conversely why didn’t the defence call on the bus company and ask them if they had ever found any discarded, worthless jewellery under the seat?

Tony.

[ansonman]

Hi Ansonman
The petrol station was a Shell garage called the 584 at Kingsbury Circle NW9. The attendant was called Harry Hirons. He was a witness on the Alphon identity parade but didn't pick anyone out. On the Hanratty parade he picked out an extra parade member. He wasn't called as a prosecution witness at the trial.
Reg

Many thanks Reg.

I believe that Gregsten also was able to buy the cigarettes at the shop. If that's the case, he had two opportunities to alert two other people to his predicament. In the shop would have been easier but I also assume he would had had to follow Hirons into the garage to pay for the petrol. Why on earth did he not say something to the effect "Please don't look at the car but there is a gunman in it holding me friend and me hostage. I beg you to please phone police as soon as I drive away" ?.

Now before anyone has a go at me, I fully accept that one cannot possibly know what state of mind Gregsten must have been in when he did these transactions and he can certainly be forgiven for saying nothing.

What I do think is less easy to challenge is the fact that the gunman had no way of knowing that Gregsten would not say anything to the shop and petrol assistants. For me, this says a lot about the phsychi of the gunman.

To have ordered Gregsten to buy cigarettes and thereby give him an opportunity to alert someone (and even give them the registration of the car) shows that the gunman must have been a nutter in extremis.

There have been several references on this thread recently about Hanratty having been sharp and quick witted. These attributes were not evident in the gunman on the fateful night.

Regards,

Ansonman

[JamesDean]

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?

Hi Caz

That's a good point but the contamination may not have been from direct contact between the handkerchief and the knickers. Direct contact can result in contamination by a process known as primary transfer. Contamination can also occur by means of secondary transfer when an item is placed on a surface that was used previously to examine another item. So if Hanratty's clothes or Handkerchief had been examined on a bench/table and subsequently the knickers had been placed on the same surface, even at a later date if the surface had not been cleaned, then transfer of Hanratty's DNA could have occurred. In this scenario the transfer of DNA would be from Hanratty's clothes/handkerchief to the knickers and there would be no possibility of VS DNA transferring to the Hanratty items. Far fetched? We do not know how the items were examined and neither do the prosecution or defence so it remains a possibility. It only takes a single cell to be transferred for Hanratty's DNA to show up in the subsequent test.

By the way, the fragment had been cut from the knickers prior to the trial so transfer would have been at an earlier stage and not during the trial.

Love
James
x

[Victor]

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)

From the judgement:-
"That said we should also record that not one of the respondent's witnesses excluded the possibility of contamination"

"Contact could not take place any later than that because, as we know, Dr Grant cut out the fragment from the knickers before the trial took place and the fragment itself was not exhibited"
and
"Mr Greenhalgh, who saw the file and examined the fabric in 1995, told us that he considered the risk of contamination to the fabric to be very low. We quote from his evidence.

"As I examined the item, the piece of blue material from the knickers was in a sealed packet inside the two envelopes. I did not observe any damage to that packaging which I considered likely to be a risk of contamination. As far as I was concerned they were sealed, although the outer envelopes were not sealed there was no indication of any liquid damage on the brown paper envelopes, as might have been expected if a liquid sample had leaked onto them.""

So interestingly the knicker fragment was never handled at the trial!

[Steve]

The petrol station was a Shell garage called the 584 at Kingsbury Circle NW9. The attendant was called Harry Hirons. He was a witness on the Alphon identity parade but didn't pick anyone out. On the Hanratty parade he picked out an extra parade member. He wasn't called as a prosecution witness at the trial.
Reg

Reg

I think I am right in saying that Miss Storie believed the petrol station they stopped at was the Regent near Heathrow airport.

KR
Steve

[reg1965]

From the judgement:-
"That said we should also record that not one of the respondent's witnesses excluded the possibility of contamination"

"Contact could not take place any later than that because, as we know, Dr Grant cut out the fragment from the knickers before the trial took place and the fragment itself was not exhibited"
and
"Mr Greenhalgh, who saw the file and examined the fabric in 1995, told us that he considered the risk of contamination to the fabric to be very low. We quote from his evidence.

"As I examined the item, the piece of blue material from the knickers was in a sealed packet inside the two envelopes. I did not observe any damage to that packaging which I considered likely to be a risk of contamination. As far as I was concerned they were sealed, although the outer envelopes were not sealed there was no indication of any liquid damage on the brown paper envelopes, as might have been expected if a liquid sample had leaked onto them.""

So interestingly the knicker fragment was never handled at the trial!

In my opinion johnl's 'presuming contamination' means that contamination was presumed to be there and taken into account when testing was done as opposed to the judges comments that the respondents could not rule out contamination which I think means that there is still a chance of contamination however small.

Thus even a single cell is contamination when using powerful DNA magnification techniques such as PCR and LCN.

I was referring to contamination of the Hanky by the knickers (which was exhibit #26 at the trial and destroyed after the trial).
I suggest that a whole lot of DNA must have been on the knickers. Not just stains but microscopic pieces. The same goes for the Hanky. They were brought to trial in a box of other exhibits all mixed together. Handled at the trial, as Michael Hanratty forthrightly states, by a man not wearing gloves or a face mask and for that matter also by the witnesses. Where has this DNA gone to? Not one single mention?

Reg

[Steve]

Petrol Station

I believe this is the petrol station they stopped at. It has been rebuilt several times since 1961.

[reg1965]

Reg

I think I am right in saying that Miss Storie believed the petrol station they stopped at was the Regent near Heathrow airport.

KR
Steve

Steve
You are quite correct.
Read Woffinden (1997. pps 254-257) for a deeper treatment of this.

Cheers mate
Reg

[Victor]

In my opinion johnl's 'presuming contamination' means that contamination was presumed to be there and taken into account when testing was done as opposed to the judges comments that the respondents could not rule out contamination which I think means that there is still a chance of contamination however small.

I take it to mean that they considered the possibility of contamination, examined the mechanism by which such contamination would have occured and dismissed it as highly unlikely.

Thus even a single cell is contamination when using powerful DNA magnification techniques such as PCR and LCN.

Yes, provided that such contamination exists and persists - and it was looked for and not found.

I was referring to contamination of the Hanky by the knickers (which was exhibit #26 at the trial and destroyed after the trial).
I suggest that a whole lot of DNA must have been on the knickers. Not just stains but microscopic pieces. The same goes for the Hanky. They were brought to trial in a box of other exhibits all mixed together. Handled at the trial, as Michael Hanratty forthrightly states, by a man not wearing gloves or a face mask and for that matter also by the witnesses. Where has this DNA gone to? Not one single mention?

Reg

The point is that only the bodily fluids have persisited for 40 years - nasal fluid (on hanky) semen and vaginal fluid on knickers!

[Steve]

Steve
You are quite correct.
Read Woffinden (1997. pps 254-257) for a deeper treatment of this.

Cheers mate
Reg

Reg

So this would explain why Harry Hirons picked out parade extras - he didn't serve Gregsten at all, and therefore didn't see the gunman!

KR
Steve

[JamesDean]

Reg

So this would explain why Harry Hirons picked out parade extras - he didn't serve Gregsten at all, and therefore didn't see the gunman!

KR
Steve

Hi Steve

It makes you wonder how many other sightings of the gunman were incorrect. I'm thinking particularly of the driver of the Morris Minor on the morning after the murder.

Do we know if anyone actually verified whether there was a sign at the roadworks or not? Valerie said that the gunman knew that roadworks were coming up but there was no sign; the assumption being that the gunman must be very familiar with that area.

Regards
James

[Steve]

Hi James

I think we can be pretty sure that the sightings of the Morris Minor the following morning were of a different Morris Minor, and that the gunman was not driving that particular car.

I believe that Valerie Storie confirmed that there were roadworks round the corner and near to the Hanratty family home, but I don't think this really helps prove the case against Hanratty. He rarely went home!

Kind regards,
Steve

[Tony]

Hi James

I think we can be pretty sure that the sightings of the Morris Minor the following morning were of a different Morris Minor, and that the gunman was not driving that particular car.

I believe that Valerie Storie confirmed that there were roadworks round the corner and near to the Hanratty family home, but I don't think this really helps prove the case against Hanratty. He rarely went home!

Kind regards,
Steve

Good Afternoon Steve,

Obviously you and I disagree on many aspects of this case but thank you for your always considerate replies to my posts.

On this I feel we can agree. The Redbridge witnesses can now be ruled out because as you say it is most unlikely they even saw the murder car.

So now two identification witnesses against Hanratty have gone.

Tony.

[Victor]

So now two identification witnesses against Hanratty have gone.

Tony.

Hi Tony,

I think the important point about identification witnesses is that you are never going to be able to shake the most important one. She's convinced and has now been proved right.