a6 murder

[JamesDean]

It makes you wonder whether they actually found the right car (leaving aside correct number plates) and whether somewhere in a river or lake, or locked up in someone's outhouse, lurkes a Morris Minor with a whole lot of forensic evidence inside. Not much use if it's under water though.

That's an intriguing thought. Let's suppose for a moment that the original Morris Minor was replaced by another exact replica that was dumped in Redbridge then we would have a crime that had been planned, not just an opportunistic crime. It sounds a bit far fetched but then so does a lot of other things in this case.

[Dupplin Muir]

What did the gunman intend?

Hello all

One of the crucial questions in the A6 case is what the gunman intended when he first approached the car. I'm probably restating the bleedin' obvious, but there are three main possibilities:

A. He intended to rob the occupants, or get a ride home, or show off his gun, but had no intention of killing anyone.
B. He intended to kill all the occupants, whoever they happened to be.
C. He planned to kill one of the occupants but not the other

Clearly his plans changed during the commission of the crime, but here I am just referring to his initial intentions.

I think most people would agree that we can dismiss B. The fact that the gunman wore a mask and gave misleading information seems to make this pretty certain.

I also believe (more controversially) that we can dismiss A. When the gunman ordered Gregsten to drive farther into the cornfield I think that he intended to shoot him there and then. However, he found that pulling the trigger in reality was a lot harder than he had imagined it would be. Hence the interminable driving around while he summoned up the ruthlessness to do the deed. The attempt to blame Gregsten for his own death is also fairly typical of an inexperienced hit-man. The rape and shooting of VS were on the basis 'might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb' and 'dead witnesses tell no tales'. It is a truism that once you have committed one murder, the next becomes much easier. Psychologically, possibility A makes no sense. If the gunman really wanted 'a kip' or a ride home, why not tie up VS and MG and throw them out of the car in some out-of-the-way place? Why keep them in the car if he had no ulterior motive? Also, graduating from petty burglary and car-theft to armed robbery (with the possibility of a much longer sentence if caught) for the sake of a few pounds seems too foolish even for someone like JH. Had the car been a Jaguar or a Rolls he might have expected rich pickings, but a Morris Minor?

This leaves us with C, but this has a number of implications. The first is that the gunman must have known who was in the car before he approached it, which contradicts the idea of a gunman wandering around and picking on the first car he saw. Secondly, it is unlikely that he was acting on his own initiative because, if he had been, he could have changed his mind and released MG and VS when he found that he didn't have the nerve to shoot. A novitiate hit-man, however, might not want to return to his paymaster and admit that he had been found lacking (and he'd have to repay the money!). Perhaps the gunman allowed Gregsten out of the car hoping that he'd run away or shout for help, giving the gunman a pretext for calling off the hit. Believe it or not, I had considered the latter possibility before I heard about Alphon's complaint that Gregsten 'kept coming back'.

Thirdly, since no-one could have predicted that the couple would go to the cornfield that particular night, the natural assumption is that someone drove the gunman to the field - that they followed the Morris Minor. If the couple's first halting-place was too public for a bit of canoodling, then it was probably too public for a murder. There are two obvious candidates for the driver: Ewer and France, because I think that if it was a planned hit, then the aim would be to involve as few people as possible. If we can pursue this line of argument, then I would envisage the gunman being dropped off near the cornfield and told to wait for a while so that the driver can zoom off to find an alibi. It would be very interesting to know where Ewer and France were on the night of the murder, and even more interesting if one or other of them had an alibi for the time of the gunman's initial appearance, but not for (say) half-an-hour earlier!

Probably, if France was the driver, he was told that the plan was merely to frighten Gregsten, since I can't imagine him being a willing accessory to murder. It might also do much to explain his suicide, which seems excessive even if he did (as seems likely) put the gun on the bus.

Apologies for a lengthy (and somewhat speculative) post.

DM

[JIMBOW]

It makes you wonder whether they actually found the right car (leaving aside correct number plates) and whether somewhere in a river or lake, or locked up in someone's outhouse, lurkes a Morris Minor with a whole lot of forensic evidence inside. Not much use if it's under water though.

I must say that that is indeed an intriguing thought and one that's never occurred to me. It would, as they say over here in the colonies, 'open up a whole new can of worms'. I could never understand how no forensic evidence was ever found other than that, as someone else speculated, forensic analysis circa-1961 was far behind where it is today.

Jim

[Graham]

With reference to the intriguing notion that the cars may have been swapped, then how did Storie's and Gregsten's forensics get onto and into the 'second' car?

There is also good evidence (ref: Steve's posts) that there was indeed another grey Moggie Minor parked in Avondale Crescent, but it was owned by a resident. Let's hope that the rozzers checked the correct car...

Off onto a different subject, it occurred to me whan watching "Hanratty - The Whole Truth" the other night that the silly 'reconstruction' portrayed the gunman as not wearing a handkerchief over his face. The fact that he did so, 'outlaw-style', is something I don't see mentioned too often, either in the various books or on this thread. Woffinden definitely mentions that Valerie's evidence was that the gunman wore a hankie, but I can't remember if any other writer does. I think this is a very important point, especially to anyone who finds it hard to accept that Storie and Gregsten never saw the man's face during their six-hour ordeal - providing the gunman kept the hankie in place, then they wouldn't. He must have removed it when he ordered Valerie to kiss him, and he obviously was bare-faced when she caught the brief glimpse of him in the headlights of a passing car. The point I'm making here is that in my opinion it makes the identification evidence even thinner than it was - if I were asked to describe someone I saw yesterday for just a few seconds, I'd be hard put. I'm trying to be fair here - I'm still a Jimdiditite!

Re: Hanratty being driven to the cornfield, the Morris being followed, a conspiracy to break up the relationship - nah. I stick to my thesis that Hanratty happened to be in the Slough area looking for 'business' - burglary, that is - was frustrated for whatever reason, and decided to hold up a couple in a car. And it all went very, very badly wrong. I think to understand just how wrong it went, you have to apply your imagination with regard to what went on in that car for those six hours - I shall say no more (except to add that Justice's version is hugely and massively wrong).

Cheers,

Graham

[Tony]

With reference to the intriguing notion that the cars may have been swapped, then how did Storie's and Gregsten's forensics get onto and into the 'second' car?

There is also good evidence (ref: Steve's posts) that there was indeed another grey Moggie Minor parked in Avondale Crescent, but it was owned by a resident. Let's hope that the rozzers checked the correct car...

Off onto a different subject, it occurred to me whan watching "Hanratty - The Whole Truth" the other night that the silly 'reconstruction' portrayed the gunman as not wearing a handkerchief over his face. The fact that he did so, 'outlaw-style', is something I don't see mentioned too often, either in the various books or on this thread. Woffinden definitely mentions that Valerie's evidence was that the gunman wore a hankie, but I can't remember if any other writer does. I think this is a very important point, especially to anyone who finds it hard to accept that Storie and Gregsten never saw the man's face during their six-hour ordeal - providing the gunman kept the hankie in place, then they wouldn't. He must have removed it when he ordered Valerie to kiss him, and he obviously was bare-faced when she caught the brief glimpse of him in the headlights of a passing car. The point I'm making here is that in my opinion it makes the identification evidence even thinner than it was - if I were asked to describe someone I saw yesterday for just a few seconds, I'd be hard put. I'm trying to be fair here - I'm still a Jimdiditite!

Re: Hanratty being driven to the cornfield, the Morris being followed, a conspiracy to break up the relationship - nah. I stick to my thesis that Hanratty happened to be in the Slough area looking for 'business' - burglary, that is - was frustrated for whatever reason, and decided to hold up a couple in a car. And it all went very, very badly wrong. I think to understand just how wrong it went, you have to apply your imagination with regard to what went on in that car for those six hours - I shall say no more (except to add that Justice's version is hugely and massively wrong).

Cheers,

Graham

Hello everyone,

Some good posts on here from Limehouse, Dupplin Muir and Graham.

Very interesting about the car being changed but Graham must be right because although they found no forensic evidence of a third party, they did find evidence of VS and MG. So it must have been the same car. Unless?

One thing Graham can you tell me, as I wasn’t in the car and presumably you weren’t and possibly Alphon was, how you “can add that Justice’s version is hugely and massively wrong”.

Could you also, and please be assured I am not wanting to fall out with you or cause an argument but civilly debate an issue, let me know what you thought about my recent post that Alphon is known to say ‘fink’ and ‘fing’ and Acott said on oath (for what that is worth) that Jimmy was well spoken.

See you later on here.

Tony.

[jimarilyn]

Off onto a different subject, it occurred to me whan watching "Hanratty - The Whole Truth" the other night that the silly 'reconstruction' portrayed the gunman as not wearing a handkerchief over his face. The fact that he did so, 'outlaw-style', is something I don't see mentioned too often, either in the various books or on this thread. Woffinden definitely mentions that Valerie's evidence was that the gunman wore a hankie, but I can't remember if any other writer does. I think this is a very important point, especially to anyone who finds it hard to accept that Storie and Gregsten never saw the man's face during their six-hour ordeal - providing the gunman kept the hankie in place, then they wouldn't. He must have removed it when he ordered Valerie to kiss him, and he obviously was bare-faced when she caught the brief glimpse of him in the headlights of a passing car.

He must also have removed it earlier on that night when they stopped for petrol, otherwise this would have drawn the attention of Harry Hirons.
It's very interesting I think, to note that Alphon said he wore dark glasses that night.

I think to understand just how wrong it went, you have to apply your imagination with regard to what went on in that car for those six hours - I shall say no more (except to add that Justice's version is hugely and massively wrong).

Can you elaborate on why Jean Justice's ( it's really Peter Alphon's ) version is hugely and massively wrong Graham ? Do you know something that we don't ? Personally I find Alphon's version of events ( I know he was very careful to fabricate parts of his story for obvious reasons ) very persuasive indeed.


regards,

James

[jimarilyn]

Good morning Tony,

How about that for good timing. Our posts crossed at exactly the same time.

regards,

James

[jimarilyn]

Hi All,

Going off topic very briefly, does anyone know why the "multi quote" icon in the bottom right corner appears and disappears at will ? I'd be very interested to know.

regards,

James

[Graham]

Can you elaborate on why Jean Justice's ( it's really Peter Alphon's ) version is hugely and massively wrong Graham ? Do you know something that we don't ? Personally I find Alphon's version of events ( I know he was very careful to fabricate parts of his story for obvious reasons ) very persuasive indeed.

Hi JM,

If there was even the slightest hint of truth in what Jean Justice suggested happened in the car, don't you think Valerie might have mentioned it? With regard to an application of imagination, consider two well-educated, brainy, well-spoken people, albeit frightened, in the company of an ill-educated, inarticulate person for 6 hours.

I can't find Alphon's version of events persuasive in the slightest, for the simple reason I can't be persuaded that he was ever in the car.

Cheers,

Graham

[Tony]

Hi JM,

If there was even the slightest hint of truth in what Jean Justice suggested happened in the car, don't you think Valerie might have mentioned it? With regard to an application of imagination, consider two well-educated, brainy, well-spoken people, albeit frightened, in the company of an ill-educated, inarticulate person for 6 hours.

I can't find Alphon's version of events persuasive in the slightest, for the simple reason I can't be persuaded that he was ever in the car.

Cheers,

Graham

Good afternoon to you Graham,

Valerie Storie was embarrassed enough by the situation she unfortunately found herself in. Remember that initially she had said they gave the gunman a lift and in court to spare her further embarrassment the reason given for being parked in the semi darkness, after a visit to the pub, was that they were planning a car rally. I wonder if any of the jurors were street-wise enough to question this point. If the situation was so delicate in 1961/62 she would hardly then or subsequently mention what Alphon said happened in the car, if indeed it did.
Don’t forget if it is true only Alphon and Valerie would know about it and the revelation came out after Hanratty had been hanged.
It would be more than a little surprising if Valerie did then come out and say: “Oh yes that did happen and here’s me thinking I’d settled my score with Hanratty”.
If it happened she would never have mentioned it.

But you can view it in the light of her sworn evidence in court that on the fateful journey the gunman ordered Gregston twice to turn off to the left down side roads and twice Valerie persuaded the gunman that both places were to open or public and they might be seen or draw attention to themselves.

Odd that. I think as Limehouse once said if she couldn’t understand why Valerie was insistent the car and the occupants must not be seen by anyone.

Tony.

[simon]

What exactly did Jean Justice suggest ? I can't be the only person here who hasn't read his book !

[Graham]

Hi Tony,

Had matters occurred how Alphon & Justice claimed, then I think there must have been a strong possibility of Gregsten's leaving his DNA where it might have been found 40 years later.

Regarding why Gregsten and Storie went to the cornfield, I'm with Miller on this - he says that the visit may have been perfectly innocent, as the car was initially parked only just inside the entrance to the field in sight of anyone passing on the road, and with the interior light on. Also, at this time Gregsten was living apart from Janet, in his own flat in Windsor. But in those days even criminal proceedings were conducted in a slightly puritanical fashion where sex was concerned, to avoid possible embarrassment to innocent parties...

Simon,

the suggestion was that Alphon forced the couple to couple...whether this was thought up by Alphon or Justice I couldn't say.

Cheers,

Graham

[simon]

Thanks Graham : actually I'd presumed that was it, but couldn't work out why - after SOME of the details that have been discussed - it was a theory we were being so coy about.

[Tony]

Hi Tony,

Had matters occurred how Alphon & Justice claimed, then I think there must have been a strong possibility of Gregsten's leaving his DNA where it might have been found 40 years later.

Regarding why Gregsten and Storie went to the cornfield, I'm with Miller on this - he says that the visit may have been perfectly innocent, as the car was initially parked only just inside the entrance to the field in sight of anyone passing on the road, and with the interior light on. Also, at this time Gregsten was living apart from Janet, in his own flat in Windsor. But in those days even criminal proceedings were conducted in a slightly puritanical fashion where sex was concerned, to avoid possible embarrassment to innocent parties...

Simon,

the suggestion was that Alphon forced the couple to couple...whether this was thought up by Alphon or Justice I couldn't say.

Cheers,

Graham

Hello again for the second time this afternoon Graham,

Well wasn’t Gregston’s DNA found on Valerie’s knickers?
She and Michael left the Old Station Inn at around 9.00 and they parked up somewhere but were disturbed so they went to the cornfield. They were then accosted by the gunman at about 9.30. Now I don’t know about the geography or time taken to go from The Old Station Pub (A) to park up somewhere and start preparing for a car rally or whatever (B) and then arrive at the cornfield to carry on with the car rally (C)
But it doesn’t seem long enough to me for any back seat shenanigans to have taken place. So when do you suppose Mike’s ‘DNA’ got on Valerie’s underwear

Point 1: In my day you went to the pub and then after a bit of the amber nectar or whatever then you looked for an isolated spot to do the deed.
Point 2: If when at location (B) and they were simply planning a car rally what disturbed them so much that they had to move and don’t tell me there are brass bands out in the evening in that area.
Did they lock the car’s doors or not?

Tony

[Graham]

Hi Tony,

Hang on a bit - if I recall aright, the DNA blokes on the 'Horizon' programme I watched the other night said that there was only one male DNA on the knickers and that it matched the DNA on the hankie, the DNA from Hanratty's family, and the DNA from his remains. I won't even pretend to know owt about DNA, and only drop in on the other thread for a look-see once in a while. But that's how I've always understood it re: the DNA. No Gregsten's, no Alphon's. Just Hanratty's.

Been a long time since I visited Dorney - I once walked from Taplow Station to the cornfield and back on a hot day and it nearly did me in. But by car from the Old Station to the cornfield can't be more than about 5 minutes. I believe that they originally parked in Hunterscombe Lane, which isn't far from the entrance to the cornfield in Marsh Lane.

Cheers,

Graham