a6 murder

[Graham]

Hi Larue,

What an effort! It'll take me hours to read all those old posts again. But very well done, mate. Everyone with an interest in the A6 Case will be grateful, believe me.

Best regards,

Graham

[Graham]

Hi Jimarilyn.

The car was a four-door Morris Minor, split windscreen, probably dating from around 1956 at a guess (and if I'm wrong I stand to be corrected).

It's always been something of a mystery to me that the car never yielded any forensic evidence. As we know, Hanratty wore gloves on the night of the crime, so that would account for no fingerprints; also, he perhaps had time to wipe the interior of the vehicle before he dumped it. With regard to fibre from his clothes, I thought about this for ages, and then it occurred to me that the Morris could well have been upholstered in that horrible slippy, cheap vinyl material that was used at one time. Maybe this is too slippery to 'tease' fibres off textiles. Don't know. But possibly a point to ponder. The other mystery is what happened to the bullets JH fired. According to Simpson Michael Gregsten was shot 'through and through', i.e., the bullets passed right through him, so they must have gone somewhere. Someone on the old boards (I think it might have been Stan Reid) suggested that the driver's window may well have been wound down, in which case it's possible that the bullets went through it. Certainly the photos of the car show no holes in the glazing.

The car belonged to Gregsten's aunt, so it stands a good chance that it was returned to her - or at least its return was offered. I don't think she'd have been all that interested in the car, to be honest. If she'd put it up for sale then even in 1962 there'd have been a queue of 'collectors' putting in bids for it. Maybe she just had it scrapped. We'll probably never know.

Re: JH's supposed driving skills. As Leonard Miller points out, JH had very little real opportunity to do much driving as he was constantly in and put of nick. By his own admission he said a man he referred to as 'Bill from Bloxwich' taught him to drive. But there is evidence that he was a poor and eratic driver. His own Sunbean Rapier was damaged (Miller correctly states that JH would never have bought a car with damage to the back end and to the gear-box), and he pranged the car he hired in Ireland. Also, Carole France said that she didn't think much of his driving. It's also interesting to ponder that, if JH was illiterate, or even semi-illiterate, he'd have had problems with road signs. I don't think the image of JH as an up-coming Sterling Moss stands up to investigation.

Re: JH in the court-room. There is at least one witness who attested to his total cockiness in the witness-box, as though he was totally confident of an acquittal. And indeed he had good reason to be confident, given the fact that it was a case that rested first and foremost on identification, always the weakest of evidence. I rather think that (a) had he not changed his alibi and (b) had he not insisted on going into the witness-box himself, he'd have got off.

Cheers,

Graham

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
I am so pleased that this case has been re-opened on this site, it is a classic mystery which is [ unlike the Ripper] still remembered by many of us bus pass brigade.
I am sure many of you. have been a driver/passenger in a Morris minor, of that period, I have and I have sat in the back[ like The Killer].
Recollection.
The car was extremely cramped, and to contemplate sexual intercourse on the back seat, would never have entered MY MIND hardly a Consul/Zodiac, which were pullers in those long lost days.
I have never understood How a person sane enough to plead [ as Hanratty was perceived to have been] could after fired two bullets at close range into Michaels head,with the trauma involved, to have then felt the need /desire to order Valerie from the front seat [ already tied] to the back for sexual gratification..
Also the shooting of Valerie was strange.
After firiing the remaining four shots at Valerie from what appears to have been a short distance, he then reloads and continues to fire at the same distance, which several missed, then after kicking her and seeing no response, assuming she is dead, drives of in a manner of a novice car driver, which is so unlike the accused history.
This case is so strange, and the more one examines it, the more ones imagination races.
Regards Richard.

[Graham]

Nunners (if I may so address you),

the mystery of the A6 Case lies not with who dunnit, but why. If I can take your points one by one:

1] When I was about 21 I had a 1953 split-screen 2-door Morris Minor. I also had girl-friends then. I am 6' 3" tall yet I never had any real problem with, er, close contact in that old Moggie. Hanratty was much shorter than I. You're correct in saying that a Moggie was not a fanny-magnet, but you have to take into account my own personal charms, etc., etc....(tongue in cheek).

2] Regarding JH's desire for sex after he killed Gregsten. Distasteful though it may be, I'd say that he was on such a high, adrenaline-rush and so forth, that he fervently desired sex there and then. Remember that by his own admission he visited prostitutes at least 2-3 times a week when he was in London, and that he also had casual sex with his girl-friends. Also remember that even in the 4-door Morris Minor, the front seats folded down, so it would have been easy for Valerie to get into the back seat with him. And also remember that he had a gun....people do tend to obey the demands of other people when a gun is involved.

3] Re: the shooting of Valerie, please remember that it took place sometime between 3.00 and 4.00 am, in the middle of nowhere. It would have been very dark and JH was so far as we are aware a novice with a firearm. The only other comment I can possibly make regarding this is that Valerie Storey was and is made of extremely stern stuff.

4] Re: JH's supposed driving skills, read my last post and also, if you have a copy, Leonard Miller's "Shadows Of Deadman's Hill". JH was not a competent driver - he even crunched the Morris somewhere between Deadman's Hill and where the car was eventually found. The legend of JH being a Stirling Moss or a Juan Fangio was the product of the vivid imaginations of Paul Foot and Bob Woffinden. Valerie said that during the drive from Dorney to Deadman's Hill JH was forever asking what gear are you in, and so forth. And he stalled the car before he shot her. Good driver, like hell.

Cheers,

Graham

[richardnunweek]

Hi Graham,
Great post[ By all means address me as Nunners].
I Am only five feet ten, mayby shunk half a inch since the early sixties, however I was then about Twelve stone and quite bulkyfor those days, and definately prefered a more spacious car for my acrobatic skills, though if one was desperate enough 'Where there's a will etc... i accept.
I still mantain that having shot a man dead in cold blood, even some kind of rush, would hardly bring upon a desperate sexual urge.
Hanrattys driving skills are debatable, however if a Petty car thief, it would suggest that he could have worked out the basic workings of a popular car of that period.
Regards Richard.

[Graham]

Hi Graham,
Great post[ By all means address me as Nunners].
I Am only five feet ten, mayby shunk half a inch since the early sixties, however I was then about Twelve stone and quite bulkyfor those days, and definately prefered a more spacious car for my acrobatic skills, though if one was desperate enough 'Where there's a will etc... i accept.
I still mantain that having shot a man dead in cold blood, even some kind of rush, would hardly bring upon a desperate sexual urge.
Hanrattys driving skills are debatable, however if a Petty car thief, it would suggest that he could have worked out the basic workings of a popular car of that period.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard,

I have to say that in latter years a Lincoln Continental is much more suited to my size and tastes....

With regard to killing and sex. Ted Bundy could do both, no problem. Also, I recall reading the memoirs of a guard at some prison in the USA. Part of his job was to attend electrocutions. He said that after an execution all he wanted to do was rush home and have sex with his wife, he was so fired up. Also, Nazi concentration-camps always incorporated brothels for those who worked in such places, presumably because killing is a sexual turn-on. Maybe not quite the same as JH, but not far off.

Re: JH's car thefts. It's known that he pinched a Jaguar and drove it to Manchester where he abandoned it, but his forte was burglary. If he ever indulged in regular car-theft, he never admitted to it and it's never been recorded. He liked to nick small, valuable things he could carry on his person.

Cheers

Graham

[jimarilyn]

Nunners (if I may so address you),



4] Re: JH's supposed driving skills, read my last post and also, if you have a copy, Leonard Miller's "Shadows Of Deadman's Hill". JH was not a competent driver - he even crunched the Morris somewhere between Deadman's Hill and where the car was eventually found. The legend of JH being a Stirling Moss or a Juan Fangio was the product of the vivid imaginations of Paul Foot and Bob Woffinden. Valerie said that during the drive from Dorney to Deadman's Hill JH was forever asking what gear are you in, and so forth. And he stalled the car before he shot her. Good driver, like hell.

Cheers,

Graham

Hi Graham,


Very interesting that you're very much inclined towards Leopard Miller's assessment of James Hanratty's driving skills and in the process disregard his own brother's assessment. Miller never witnessed Hanratty's driving skills, all he ever seems to do (in his book "Shadows of Deadman's Hill") is speculate and hypothesise on this, that and the other. I've read his book (in fact it was the first book I ever read re. the A6 murder) twice, which in my opinion is two times too many. I would presume ( assuming you've studied Bob Woffinden's 1992 TV documentary "Mystery of Deadman's Hill" ) that you think Michael Hanratty was lying when he spoke of his brother's driving ability. I would take with a pinch of salt anything Miller says, after all he still believes Lee Oswald was the lone gunman in the JFK assassination. Anyone who has studied the JFK assassination (and especially the 26 volumes of evidence, testimony and exhibits of the Warren Commission) knows completely otherwise.

[Graham]

Hi Jimarilyn,

Well, I DO accept much of what Miller says regarding JH and his driving skills, etc. Neither Foot nor Woffinden witnessed JH driving a car, either, I should think. And regarding what Michael says of his brother, I think if I were in a similar situation I'd also be extreme supportive of my brother.

I agree that parts of Miller's book are a little fanciful, and he does put words into JH's mouth, but by and large I think the bulk of his facts are correct and unlike Foot and Woffinden he does approach the case in the cold light of dawn. Woffinden, in particular, is prone to invention, especially with regard to JH's character.

When all's said and done about JH, the fact remains that the DNA proves beyond any reasonable doubt that he did it. My own personal interest in the case now rests with "why?" and to a lesser extent how Peter Alphon, Jean Justice, Jeremy Fox and others became entangled in it.

Re: JFK, have you had a look at the JFK Assassination thread in Pub Talk? If not, do so - your conspiracy theory will be of huge interest to many of the posters.

Best regards,

Graham

[Limehouse]

Hi all,

Thanks once again, La Rue, for restoring the previous Hanratty posts. This is, possibly, the most rationally and politely argued thread on the whole site!

Firstly, to address doubts about whether sex in the back of a Moggie is possible. Well, it seems that Gregston and Valarie managed it! As to whether sex after such a killing is likely - well, I've raised these doubts before but the only barrier I could see would be the amount of blood present and the fact that a man with his head blown away was prostate a few yards away. However, it has been shown that violent death can indeed provoke a sexual urge in certain people and Hanratty does seem to have been particularly highly sexed.

This is such a mystery. To many people Hanratty seemed incapable of such a crime and for many years I believed this to be the case but we have only had the testimony of people who new and loved him well and may have been blind to his hidden flaws.

As an example, my dear parents are buried in Chingford cemetery, just a few yards away from the Kray family. I don't get to visit often, but whenever I do there are people taking photographs of the Krays' resting place. Sometimes, when I've passed the grave, people have asked me to take a photograph of them beside the grave. I always refuse. To me they were violent thugs. Other people see it differently - they were East End heroes who only killed their own (I don't believe this excuses them - the dead had families). I just see a pair of bullies who, from a young age, robbed their own people by demanding protection money from hard-working neightbours but to others they were a nice pair of boys who kept the East End free of undesirables. It just depends on what books you read and who you speak to.

I was a tiny toddler when Hanratty was hanged and perhaps I have been inspired by the 'romance' of the case over the years. I still can't decide fully because I do want to think the best of him but when all's said and done, he could have lived an honest life, got an honest job and lived a respectable life but he didn't. He should never have hanged - guilty or innocent, but he was certainly ripe for a good long stretch.

[Graham]

Hi Limehouse.

When I was young and impressionable a girl I knew started going out with this character who although about seven feet tall and built like Sonny Liston was gentle as a mouse and never failed to buy pints for his mates. Not my type at all, but he seemed harmless enough. Only later did I find out that he ran a protection racket in the car trade, and had had several stays in the Queen's Hotel getting a striped sun-tan, courtesy of using some of his 'clients' as a punch-bag. Just like the Krays and the Corleones he made a big deal of being 'respectable'...

Re: Hanratty, I honestly think he was the architect of his own downfall in court. Had he not changed his alibi or gone into the witness-box, I really do think he'd have been acquitted. Even the judge was visibly shaken by the verdict. I believe Sherrard actually advised JH not to go in the witness-box, and when he insisted made him sign a statement absolving the defence of any responsibility for the consequences.

Cheers,

Graham

[jimarilyn]

Hi

This certainly remains a very fascinating and intriguing case. So much just doesn't add up. Armchair detectives that we all are, we are only as good as the information, testimony and evidence that is presented to us. We may well interpret that information slightly differently ( according to our own personal persuasions ) to one another but I think at the end of the day (midnight perhaps) we're all after the same thing, namely the whole (and very elusive) truth of what happened the night of August 22nd/23rd 1961.

Personally speaking, I believe in James Hanratty's innocence for many and varied reasons, not least of which are his letters from prison to various family members. What does any of us know about DNA profiling, it's a very specialised field and a law unto itself. How can a lay person challenge any DNA findings without acquiring the necessary knowledge and wherewithal to do so. We find ourselves in a position (due to our complete lack of knowledge and understanding on the subject) where (unless we bow down to our so called superiors) we are considered loopy and ridiculous if we dare challenge any establishment findings.

best wishes

[Limehouse]

Hi JiMarilyn,

I do take your point about the DNA. When I heard the verdict on the DNA I was certainly sceptical that it was 100% accurate. Even now I wonder how carefully the garments were stored to avoid cross contamination.

Add to that the not-absolutely-corruption-free nature of the metropolitan police force at the time and the possible involvement of Charles France in an at least part frame-up of Hanrattty - and you have a dubious case to build a murder case on.

However, as Graham points out and as has been mentioned before, Hanratty changed his allibi and in doing so destroyed any possibility of saving himself. I am half-convinced that he stuck by his original statement-of-whereabouts for so long because he expected someone to collaborate his story. However, that person - or group - did not do so because the crime had possibly gone beyond what was intended. It's probably a fanciful idea but it does explain why he changed his allibi. After all, if he had used his Rhyl allibi to start with, he would probably have got off - so why didn't he??

[Graham]

Hi Jimarilyn,

Yes, I agree that the samples of underwear and the hankie were not stored in conditions such as would be required today for DNA testing, but as there was no DNA testing in 1961 the forensic lab kept them as they kept all other such evidence. Like you, I know sod-all about DNA and its test procedures, but from what I've read about it, it is generally viewed in legal circles as virtually fool-proof. On the old boards, a poster to the Hanratty Thread, whose name escapes me, sent in A LOT of information about DNA - most of it went right over my head. I think he/she put the pro's and con's of DNA testing. Now that good ole Larue has salvaged the old posts the DNA stuff may well be there to be found.

As to what happened in the Morris Minor, we have the testimony of only one person - she gave her evidence at the trial and I think with possibly only one or two exceptions she has since refused to discuss the case.

Limehouse,

The thing about the Rhyl alibi, had he propounded this right from the start, without any reference to Liverpool, it would still not have stood up to investigation. Even though Foot and Woffinden reel off a whole list of names of people who claimed to have seen JH in Rhyl at the critical time, not one of their statements would have stood up in court. Look what happened to Grace Jones. I think JH really was in Rhyl, but during the week of the murder. I feel certain he was referring to a past visit, and used details from this past visit.
Not even his defence felt secure with the Rhyl Alibi; given the short time available to investigate it, they found no corroboration. They also made a terrible amateurish error in showing only one photo - that of JH himself - to Mrs Jones. Had they shown her several pics, and had she picked out JH, then matters might have been very different. It also seems to me that many of the so-called 'Rhyl Witnesses', once the trial ended, faded back into the woodwork and kept their mouths shut until such time as Foot and Woffinden appeared on the scene.

Sherrard himself stated that he was concerned that some potential friendly witnesses seemed to want their 15 minutes of fame via the JH case, and unless their evidence was rock-solid he was having none of it.

Cheers,

Graham

[jimarilyn]

Hi Limehouse,

Good post. As to your very valid question why did Hanratty not maintain his Rhyl alibi from the start I can merely speculate. I would guess that the gravity of his situation truly sunk in halfway through the trial. He knew inside that he was innocent and naively perhaps thought that the real murderer would either be found or own up to it. Up until that time he had maintained an alibi that was a mixture of truth and lies. He realised he was now fighting for his life and only by telling the full truth (and abandoning the lies he had allowed himself to get tangled up with) could he hope to convince the court and jury of his innocence. By then a full 5 months had elapsed since the murder and perhaps he'd maintained the original alibi because he thought nobody in Rhyl would have remembered seeing or meeting an ordinary, average bloke in the middle of a busy holiday season. How wrong he was proved to have been if he'd thought this, as very reliable witnesses (who had no axes to grind with anyone) came forward to testify to having either seen or spoken with Hanratty in Rhyl on the evening of Tuesday 22nd August or during the course of Wednesday 23rd of August.

By that time however it was too late for Hanratty. British justice seemed to be in an undue hurry for an execution.

[Graham]

Hi Jimarilyn,

Re: your last comment, British Law stated that 'three clear Sundays must pass between sentence and execution'. Yep, the law took its course pretty damn fast.

Cheers,

Graham