a6 murder

[Tony]

Hello PC49, and a belated welcome to the forum.

You will find, as I have done, that some of the posters have an absolutely phenomenal knowledge of the case.

You might be interested in another case, which is reported on:

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/display.var.1679494.0.0.php?act=complaint&cid=572882

A murder case was thrown out due to a defence objection. No-one knows exactly what the objection was, but given that Dr Whitaker was on the stand at the time, it seems reasonable to assume that there was something wrong with the DNA evidence which the prosecution were relying on.

DM

Hello DM,

I’ve been a bit busy this last weekend and have only just caught up with the thread.

I found your post extremely interesting and can not for the life of me think why there has been no reply from Reg. Methinks it is only a matter of time especially as the Gunners are back to winning ways.

Tony

[Tony]

Hiya Maverick,

Welcome back! Yes, the topic is still alive, but don't know if it's 'well'...

Quick responses to your post:

1] John Kerr was obviously rather 'posh' and not the sort of bloke who would lose his head in circumstances even as horrible as a murder...he seemed to have no doubt at all that JH did it. Not that that proves anything, of course...

2] Leonard Miller (or whatever his real name might be) didn't actually contribute anything new to the case. What he did do, IMHO, was to cut through the rather sanctimonious rhetoric of the Foot/Woffinden take on the case, and lay matters out on the marble slab of reality. And then he went and ruined all his efforts by indulging in that silly 'reality-style' chit-chat towards the end of his book.

3] Dixie may not be the 'key' to the case, but without any doubt at all, in my mind at least, he knew more than he ever told. I'm not sure he actually obtained the gun for JH, but I am convinced that he assisted JH in getting rid of it - and fingered him at the same time. Back then, oddly enough, guns were easier to get hold of than to get rid of - and I can't help but think that had JH taken the obvious step of chucking the thing into The Thames we wouldn't be debating the A6 Case except as a Great British Unsolved Murder.
I think France was, as you say, a tortured soul...he had lived a life of petty crime, saw no way out, and the A6 tipped the scales for him. Fencing was one thing...murder something else.

4] Re: JH's denial. He's not the only one. John Cannan, who murdered Shirley Banks and whose guilt was totally established by forensics, has never ever ceased to deny any responsibility for that crime. Unlike Hanratty, Cannan is educated and resourceful, but nevertheless he is in total denial. Perhaps in Cannan's case it's not so much a mental state as a fear of being done for other unsolved murders (Suzy Lamplugh's being one), but for all that he's held out for years. I've long been convinced that Hanratty was psychologically incapable of coming to terms with what he did, and for that reason alone should have been reprieved...but he wasn't.

5] We'll never know what Hanratty did between leaving the Vienna and turning up in that cornfield. Maybe he spent some time trying to find a suitable empty house to burgle, but failed.

6] As I've said many times, any conspiracy connected with the A6 Case occurred after the murder, not before.

7] Alphon's presence in the case was totally coincidental.

8] Finally - and then I'll belt up - unlike the Ripper Case, in my view the A6 Case is something of a closed book. Ripper enthusiasts can come up with name after name as a potential suspect, and it can be debated until the cows come home, but not so with the A6. I don't think we can ever really move on until:

a] someone repeats the DNA testing on the available exhibits;
b] the last letters of Dixie France are made available - and even if they are, the chances are they wouldn't tell us much;
c] all of the police evidence is made public;
d] Valerie Storie agrees to a further interview - which I don't think will ever happen, and even if it did, I can't see her altering her views. And why should she? She was there, she knows what happened in the Morris Minor.
e] someone, perhaps on his death-bed, utters something completely previously unknown.

That's it! I've got a nice glass of German weiss-bier to sup, and then I'm off to my rest!

Good post, Maverick.

Cheers,

Graham

Good Morning to you Graham,

Excellent post 2370.

Just a bit about your last few points a,b,c,d, and e.

a/ Nothing will happen on that one because it’s not in the public’s interest. It might be very interesting to us but money will not be made available to satisfy our curiosity

b/ These letters will not be seen during our lifetime again because it’s not in the public’s interest. Again they might be very interesting to us but we don’t count. The only reason they exist at all is because the owner of the doss house saw them and handed them to the police and unlike the John Kerr document the cops simply couldn’t say that the owner made a mistake and the papers never existed.

c/ That again will never happen for the same reasons as above.

d/ Like you I doubt if Valerie Storie will give another interview. Again for the reasons above. One thing though you say she was there she knew what happened in the Morris Minor but she has actually told very little of it over the years. And once again if she had picked the police’s man, Alphon, out on the first ID parade she would be convinced to this day that she had settled her score with Alphon.

e/ Well I don’t know if someone might reveal something on his deathbed and I don’t know who will be at his bedside. But is a tantalising thought that the particular person might just happen to say: “Nurse just in my bedside drawer you will find a medicine bottle; there are no pills in it but there are a couple of cartridge cases could you send them to Mr Michael Hanratty. The police will know where to find him.”
I think Michael would be waiting a long time because it would not be in his or the public’s interest to know of such things.

Tony.

[P.L.A]

Alphon’s Alibi

Alphon’s Alibi

In response to the report from the Alexandra Court Hotel, Alphon told police that he had arrived at the Hotel Vienna just before midnight on the Tuesday evening – whilst the car was on its way from Marsh Lane to Deadmans Hill.

This claim was apparently borne out by his signature (as Durrant) being the last for the day in the hotel register. The alibi is further supported by there being an asterisk by the entry. Juliana Galves, the hotel manager, attested that it was her routine to mark the last entry in the register for each day in this way. She did this first thing after coming on duty the next morning – which was at the time breakfasts were being prepared and served. She added that she couldn’t recall ever being late in marking the entry. She also confirmed that the asterisk against Durrant’s name in the register was in her hand.

From this, it would seem that the latest Alphon’s entry could have appeared in the register was at breakfast time on the Wednesday – about five hours after the gunman drove away from the scene of the crime.

In his second statement (the one implicating Alphon), Nudds gave a weak and unconvincing reason as to why Alphon failed to sign the register on his supposed midday arrival on Tuesday. If he had signed at this time, his entry would probably have been the first for the day.

Snell’s second statement said that Alphon went to the hotel reception just before noon on the Wednesday, handed in the keys to rooms 6 and 24, signed the register and left. If this had been the case, then Galves’s asterisk wouldn’t have been against his entry.

Acott must have appreciated the significance of the signature and ensured that Nudds and Snell covered the point in their respective second statements.

Apart from George Oldfield in the Yorkshire Ripper enquiry, the police tendency is not to place total reliance on any one piece of evidence. My guess is that as soon as the cartridge cases were found at the Vienna, Alphon’s name was brought back into the active investigation. His Criminal Records Office picture bore an uncanny resemblance to the identikit portrait – so signature in the register or no signature in the register, here was a man of great interest to the investigation team.

Don’t know why Acott didn’t give this in his list of reasons to eliminate the first suspect, but Henry Brooke alluded to it in his speech to Parliament as Home Secretary in 1963.

One wonders what would have happened if the police who initially interviewed Alphon after the report from the Alexandra Court Hotel had had the identikit portrait available to them. It seems that they didn’t report back that Alphon resembled the wanted man’s description.

Peter

[Victor]

a/ Nothing will happen on that one because it’s not in the public’s interest. It might be very interesting to us but money will not be made available to satisfy our curiosity

b/ These letters will not be seen during our lifetime again because it’s not in the public’s interest. Again they might be very interesting to us but we don’t count. The only reason they exist at all is because the owner of the doss house saw them and handed them to the police and unlike the John Kerr document the cops simply couldn’t say that the owner made a mistake and the papers never existed.

c/ That again will never happen for the same reasons as above.

d/ Like you I doubt if Valerie Storie will give another interview. Again for the reasons above. One thing though you say she was there she knew what happened in the Morris Minor but she has actually told very little of it over the years. And once again if she had picked the police’s man, Alphon, out on the first ID parade she would be convinced to this day that she had settled her score with Alphon.

e/ Well I don’t know if someone might reveal something on his deathbed and I don’t know who will be at his bedside. But is a tantalising thought that the particular person might just happen to say: “Nurse just in my bedside drawer you will find a medicine bottle; there are no pills in it but there are a couple of cartridge cases could you send them to Mr Michael Hanratty. The police will know where to find him.”

Hi Tony/Graham,

For point (a), there can't be any more DNA tests because it's a destructive test - the sample is destroyed during the testing. Actually the DNA is extracted from the material with a solvent, so the material is not destroyed, but the DNA on it is washed out and examined.

For (b), there's nothing to say that France's papers contain anything relevant, and wasn't it Paul Foot who saw them and confirmed this?

For (c), how are you ever going to know that you have seen all the police evidence? At some point you have to trust that you have seen everything (or everything relevant)

For (d), when is the ordeal going to end for the poor woman? Surely after 47 years she can draw a line under it and not ever have to think about it again.

And (e) is just a bit of wishful thinking.

I'm with PLA...

Over the years we have witnessed the Appeal Court quashing convictions in such high profile controversial cases as Derek Bentley (executed), George Kelly (executed), Barry George, Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, Carl Bridgewater case, etc.

In so doing, the Establishment has acknowledged police malpractice, contaminated exhibits, doubtful expert witness testimony, dubious scientific claims, biased judges, etc.

Just what is it about James Hanratty and the A6 murder that leads countless people to believe that the Appeal Court and numerous Home Secretaries over the years have deliberately swept the truth under the carpet, knowingly upholding a conviction they know to be incorrect?

What is being hidden in this case that is so important and so different to all the successful appeals?

It can’t be just down to the funny handshake brigade – surely some of these must have been involved in a few of the high profile cases whose verdicts were quashed.

Peter.

KR,
Vic.

[P.L.A]

Hi Peter,

Two very good questions. In answer to your first question I can think of several reasons why this should be the situation, not least of which is that the exalted reputations of several very prominent people connected with the case would be in absolute tatters if it ever came to light that James Hanratty was wrongly executed.

regards,

James

Hi James
Thanks for your response. Who are the people with exalted reputations?
The Appeal Court wording in the Derek Bentley verdict didn't do Lord Goddards reputation much good - and they don't come much more exalted than him.

Also, the recent posting about Dr. Whitaker and the Glasgow case is yet another example of where the establishment is willing to say there is an issue - so why continue with the deception over Hanratty?

[Victor]

Hello PC49, and a belated welcome to the forum.

You will find, as I have done, that some of the posters have an absolutely phenomenal knowledge of the case.

You might be interested in another case, which is reported on:

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/display.var.1679494.0.0.php?act=complaint&cid=572882

A murder case was thrown out due to a defence objection. No-one knows exactly what the objection was, but given that Dr Whitaker was on the stand at the time, it seems reasonable to assume that there was something wrong with the DNA evidence which the prosecution were relying on.

DM

Hi DM,

I've found this link -> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/sep/16/dna

Which says "Two other key pieces of evidence were not put forward. One showed that two knots were used to tie up the girls, indicating that two men committed the crime. Sinclair's defence was that his semen was found on Helen's coat because they had had consensual sex and that his brother-in-law must therefore be solely responsible for the murders. But it was found that Helen had been a virgin, while Christine had only slept with her boyfriend. These girls were very unlikely to have had sex willingly with Sinclair.

The non-admission of the evidence regarding the knots and ligatures allowed Sinclair's defence counsel to argue that there was nothing that indicated his client had tied up the girls or had murdered them. The case was dismissed."

So it looks to me like the case was dismissed for a legal/procedural reason and had nothing to do with Dr Whitaker or the DNA analysis.

There are lots of glowing references concerning Whitaker in the rest of the text.

KR,
Vic.

[P.L.A]

Lord Gorman

If the prosecution’s case at Bedford was as weak as some commentators believe, then it is surprising that the judge didn’t throw it out.

Peter

[Tony]

If the prosecution’s case at Bedford was as weak as some commentators believe, then it is surprising that the judge didn’t throw it out.

Peter

I think that, at the time, there were strong feelings that the case should not have gone to trial based on what happened at the committal proceedings. But it did go to trial and, Peter, you are right Gorman could have kicked it out but didn’t.

But he might well have done had he known about Acott’s knowledge of Gregston’s mileage log which he forgot to tell Hanratty’s defence team about.
This would have all but discredited the Redbridge witnesses for the prosecution.


Tony.

[PC49]

More fascinating responses and yet a myriad of questions linger.
If so many contributors to this forum are now so convinced of Hanratty's guilt, why were most lawyers of the opinion that, on the basis of the evidence presented to the jury, Hanratty should not have been convicted.
Have those people based their opinions of the DNA findings which, as Reg has seriously questionned, may not be so concluisve after all. Or, have they become convinced courtesy of Miller's book? Surely not?
The lack of transparency of certain information kept under wraps by the police must surely have cast a major dark shadow over the outcome of the case. The vehicle log being just one example.
Equally, how anyone can be totally convinced by Valerie Storie's testimony when she was already certain that she'd picked out the offender from the first i.d.parade?
I believe that the final seal on Hanratty's fate was the transferral of the trial from the Old Bailey to Bedford. If Alphon had been in the dock, who is to say that he wouldn't have been convicted?
I really fail to see how anyone can ever be compeltely certain, one way or the other, about this case.
Regards to all.

[Victor]

More fascinating responses and yet a myriad of questions linger.
If so many contributors to this forum are now so convinced of Hanratty's guilt, why were most lawyers of the opinion that, on the basis of the evidence presented to the jury, Hanratty should not have been convicted.

Hi PC49,

I believe that most people who contribute to this thread are of the opinion that JH should never have been convicted on the evidence presented at the trial.

Have those people based their opinions of the DNA findings which, as Reg has seriously questionned, may not be so concluisve after all. Or, have they become convinced courtesy of Miller's book? Surely not?

The majority seem to believe that the DNA evidence is conclusive, but there are a few who question its validity. Miller's book doesn't seem to have convinced anyone.

Personnally I don't believe Reg's doubts about the DNA evidence undermine it at all, there's just no way round the 'pattern consistent with JH and VS having had sex'.

The lack of transparency of certain information kept under wraps by the police must surely have cast a major dark shadow over the outcome of the case. The vehicle log being just one example.

Now that's a different issue, the two seperate bits are:-
1. The original trial was seemingly massively flawed and the non-disclosure abysmal.
2. The DNA evidence and the 2002 appeal. No matter how flawed the original trial was the DNA evidence is completely seperate.

Equally, how anyone can be totally convinced by Valerie Storie's testimony when she was already certain that she'd picked out the offender from the first i.d.parade?

Well that's where you factor in:-
1. Noone was asked to speak at the first parade and VS based her judgment on speech rather than the short view she got of her attacker.
2. Hanratty wasn't on the first parade.

I believe that the final seal on Hanratty's fate was the transferral of the trial from the Old Bailey to Bedford. If Alphon had been in the dock, who is to say that he wouldn't have been convicted?

If he hadn't had his alibi he probably would have!

I really fail to see how anyone can ever be compeltely certain, one way or the other, about this case.
Regards to all.

So what evidence would you accept of someone's guilt? I'm happy to accept the DNA evidence as certain proof, and of course the lack of other similar unsolved crimes that Hanratty would have committed if he hadn't been hung.

KR,
Vic.

[Tony]

Hi PC49,

I believe that most people who contribute to this thread are of the opinion that JH should never have been convicted on the evidence presented at the trial.



The majority seem to believe that the DNA evidence is conclusive, but there are a few who question its validity. Miller's book doesn't seem to have convinced anyone.

Personnally I don't believe Reg's doubts about the DNA evidence undermine it at all, there's just no way round the 'pattern consistent with JH and VS having had sex'.



Now that's a different issue, the two seperate bits are:-
1. The original trial was seemingly massively flawed and the non-disclosure abysmal.
2. The DNA evidence and the 2002 appeal. No matter how flawed the original trial was the DNA evidence is completely seperate.



Well that's where you factor in:-
1. Noone was asked to speak at the first parade and VS based her judgment on speech rather than the short view she got of her attacker.
2. Hanratty wasn't on the first parade.



If he hadn't had his alibi he probably would have!



So what evidence would you accept of someone's guilt? I'm happy to accept the DNA evidence as certain proof, and of course the lack of other similar unsolved crimes that Hanratty would have committed if he hadn't been hung.

KR,
Vic.

A very good morning to you Vic,

Can I just ask you two questions about your reply to PC49 in your post 2380?

If you would just clear up the final two answers you give.

Firstly can you tell me what was the alibi that Alphon had that you refer to?

Secondly are you saying that had Hanratty not been hanged, not hung by the way, he would have gone on to commit equally horrendous crimes as the A6 murder. I don’t know of any evidence that suggests that everyone who commits a murder becomes a serial killer.

Have a nice day.


Tony.

[P.L.A]

I think that, at the time, there were strong feelings that the case should not have gone to trial based on what happened at the committal proceedings. But it did go to trial and, Peter, you are right Gorman could have kicked it out but didn’t.

But he might well have done had he known about Acott’s knowledge of Gregston’s mileage log which he forgot to tell Hanratty’s defence team about.
This would have all but discredited the Redbridge witnesses for the prosecution.


Tony.

Hi Tony

I think more is being made of the car’s mileage than is possibly there.

On the Tuesday, at a time and place unknown, Gregsten put three gallons of petrol in the car and recorded the mileage. Nobody knows how many of the so called extra miles were put on by Gregsten before he arrived at Miss Storie’s house.

It isn’t known whether the car was refuelled first thing in the morning, or just before he arrived at Val’s in the early evening.

Although the mileage question throws up some possibilities, it answers very little with certainty.

Can’t understand why the defence didn’t ask questions about the mileage – they must have all watched Tom Lockhart in No Hiding Place. The issue is so basic.

Peter

[P.L.A]

Nice Mr. Nudds

Hi

Nudds’s second statement is so fishy.

He claims to have told Alphon that single occupancy of room 24 would cost £2 15s 0p, and then takes £1 7s 6p from him as a deposit. But Hanratty was the sole occupant of the very same room twentyfour hours before, and was only charged £1 7s 6p.

Nudds also says that a single room became free, and thus available for Alphon, when Mr. Bell cancelled his reservation. But Bells signature can clearly be seen in the hotel register, having occupied room number nine.

On the topic of asterisks against the last entry for each day – there is such a mark against Hanratty’s entry for the Monday. This would be expected, because he too, arrived just before midnight. But it was Mrs. Galves’s day off on Tuesdays, so someone else must have marked the register –it appears to have been quite a ritual in the hotel.

[PC49]

Good day one and all.
I too have a similar degree of confusion, to Tony, over Victor's last two points in his response to my post yesterday.
Surely Alphon never had what could be described as a watertight alibi?
On what possible basis could a theory be put forward to suggest that, if Hanratty was the murderer, that he would have embarked on a series of further killings, if he'd not been executed?
Also, if the testimony of VS was mainly based on the offender's accent, what chance did Hanratty have being the only person on the line-up with a london accent? Surely, he was at a major disadvantage anyway, being the only person with bright orange hair!
I must say that Reg's theories on the DNA findings are impressive. He seems very knowledgeable on the subject, and certainly doesn't appear to be making things up. Who can ever say that the Establishment would ever admit that the wrong person was hanged, in this case? It was such a high profile case that it is surely not beyond the realms of possibility that the supposed DNA findings were made to suit a purpose, in a similar fashion to so many other disturbing aspects of the ultimate convinction.
Best regards to all.

[Victor]

A very good morning to you Vic,

Can I just ask you two questions about your reply to PC49 in your post 2380?

If you would just clear up the final two answers you give.

Firstly can you tell me what was the alibi that Alphon had that you refer to?

Secondly are you saying that had Hanratty not been hanged, not hung by the way, he would have gone on to commit equally horrendous crimes as the A6 murder. I don’t know of any evidence that suggests that everyone who commits a murder becomes a serial killer.

Have a nice day.

Tony.

Morning Tony,

I may be getting myself confused here, but didn't Alphon have an alibi from his mother? I'm sure it has been referred to before on this thread.

As to the second point, take a look back to the recent post by PLA about the character of JH and the trouble he was repeatedly in. I'm of the opinion that if he hadn't have been hanged (thanks for that correction) then it was only a matter of time before he did something to warrant being locked up for further prolonged periods, and the possibility of something as horrendous as the A6 murder is likely.

Have a good day yourself.

KR,
Vic.