a6 murder

[Victor]

Thanks Victor for the responses...

No problem JP56,

I’m not limiting it to JH, but I'm raising what is, I believe, a valid discussion point… namely, how on earth does someone spend the best part of 5 or 6 hours in a small car and generate NO forensics? It beggars belief. At the very least, hair, muddy footprints, bodily fluids would have been left.

It's a discussion point, but you've made a false assumption, namely, that there were no forensics to be found. No forensics were found but that does not mean that there were none there to be found. On second thoughts - someone mentioned 11 sets of fingerprints taken from the car. There are many possible explanations for this - e.g., Gregstens blood overwhelmed any fingerprint or fibre evidence, or the killer obliterated the evidence cleaning up the blood, &tc.

I raise it not to exonerate JH but to invite debate as to HOW that ‘forensics-free’ situation could have some about. What scenarios suggest themselves as a result? Otherwise how did JH, if it were he, manage to remove all trace of himself? And leave 2 cartridge cases? Makes no sense…

I can't see any inconsistency with JH overlooking 2 cartridge cases in the Vienna - that may have been some way down the back of the seat cushion and the possibility that he may have done a quick clean up on the car - obviously not a deep clean because the 'forensics-free' comment is inaccurate.

Agree I see no reason to doubt VS, but the nature of the VS / MG relationship was hidden from the jury or, at least, not offered to them as part of trial info.

Why is it relevent?

QUOTE “Why are you taking parts of the gunman's story (as relayed by VS) and ignoring others - "call me Jim" for example?”
Rather than ignoring aspects, I’m taking one aspect that suggest new avenues for exploration in reaching some conclusions about the identity of the murderer. I appreciate that you Vic firmly believe that JH wa the perpetrator but others don’t share that opinion and, in order to sustain & develop the forum, I feel that a reported statement from the murderer that he/she’s been on the run for 4 months represents a topic for debate as to the implications. I hope you’ll join in that debate if it kicks off!

Absolutely take one aspect and run with it, but again it's value is minimised by the fact that it was one of a number of things the gunman said many of which are untrue. But why select that specific aspect and not the childhood abuse, or desperate criminal on the run, or "call me Jim"

I agree that simply to walk / run away from the car would put the other occupant in danger but can you see that other avenues open up… asking petrol station attendant to raise the alarm, giving details of the car etc; making a ‘scene’ where others were about to frighten away the gunman; stopping the car at a public spot (petrol station eg) and simply throwing the keys away; … Clearly these kinds of actions would need to be done where the gunman would realise that he would be seen and identified by others and therefore might be spooked into running away.

Or it might spark a bloodbath, with the petrol attendant (or whoever) being an additional victim.

I know all this is a little fanciful but, given the situation, wouldn’t SOME action opportunity have presented itself? After all, the gunman didn’t seem to be too sharp and might therefore be tricked into giving up the whole stupid stunt?

That's all very well to say with hindsight, but would you be able to rationally consider these things when there's a gun pointed at you?

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

But regarding who was in that car that night.
Was it a "he" or a "she"?Such a line of inquiry might not have been over the top in the circumstances--- given that Ruth Ellis had only a few years earlier gone and got herself a gun and shot her lover dead in nearby Hampstead in a "crime of passion"!

Hi Norma,

What a festering heap of bovine faeces! Valerie was raped. Semen was present in her underwear. It was blood typed.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

The man with "carbuncles for eyes "as seen by Bill Ewer

JP56 wrote :Rather than ignoring aspects, I’m taking one aspect that suggest new avenues for exploration in reaching some conclusions about the identity of the murderer. I appreciate that you Vic firmly believe that JH wa the perpetrator but others don’t share that opinion and, in order to sustain & develop the forum, I feel that a reported statement from the murderer that he/she’s been on the run for 4 months represents a topic for debate as to the implications. I hope you’ll join in that debate if it kicks off!

Well for me its the "he" or "she" that has set me thinking, JP56!
William Ewer told the press that he was the person---not "she" Janet Gregsten, who had seen Hanratty!He noticed him, he said, because his eyes stood out from his head" like two huge carbuncles" and that was why he had contacted the police at once because he knew the police were looking for just such a man "with staring eyes" .
He said he had seen this young man soon after the event-[in late August /early September] going into the photographers or possibly the flower shop "but because the flower shop had its windows steamed he couldnt see inside"-- OK. Hanratty did ofcourse go into the flower shop which was directly opposite William Ewer"s shop late that August in 1961 and sent his mum,Mrs Hanratty, some flowers ,under the name of J. Ryan.Ewer saw the very same carbuncular eyed man going into Burtol"s dry cleaners which was also directly opposite his shop.
Now from here on it all gets very curious indeed .Ewer , in his Sunday Times statement of 16 May 1967 , said that he saw this young man again,this time going into Burtol"s Dry Cleaners "but only after it had all become public that the police were looking for a man called Ryan".Well that simply isnt the case.It didnt all become public until at least early October that police were looking for a man named Ryan.We know that Hanratty went into that dry cleaners on September 4th 1961[the manager testified in court-a full month before he even knew himself the police were after him for the A6 murder].
The other curious event Ewer referred to in his Sunday Times Statement was that William Ewer was visited by his neighbour Charles Dixie France .Now one could accept that as a business man "dabbling" in antiques Ewer might have had one or two visits from Charles France but it apparently had nothing to do with bits and pieces of antiques.It was ,Ewer said, because Charles France wanted to express his condolences to him for what had happened to Michael Gregsten.Lets not forget though that William Ewer later took Janet Gregsten as his lover after it all settled down.Was this simply because he had grown close to her after all she had been through?
One last point;James Hanratty did not have eyes as big as saucers or carbuncles.One only needs to look at his photos to see this.
But regarding who was in that car that night.
Was it a "he" or a "she"?Such a line of inquiry might not have been over the top in the circumstances--- given that Ruth Ellis had only a few years earlier gone and got herself a gun and shot her lover dead in nearby Hampstead in a "crime of passion"!

[Victor]

It was also undoubtedly the case that Hanratty had lied about his whereabouts on that night.

No - it was not 'undoubtedly the case' because I doubt it and so do many others.

Hi Julie,

How do you reconcile the two stories? Did he go to Liverpool and stay with the 3 men, or did he give up the search for them and get on a bus to Rhyl?

One of those stories is undoubtedly a lie.

KR,
Vic.

ps. JP56 - another interesting post which I will reply to when I have the time - just off for a swim.

[JP56]

avenues for debate?

Thanks Victor for the responses...

Some follow up replies…


QUOTE “Lack of evidence is not evidence that nothing happened, why limit your comment to just JH?”

I’m not limiting it to JH, but I'm raising what is, I believe, a valid discussion point… namely, how on earth does someone spend the best part of 5 or 6 hours in a small car and generate NO forensics? It beggars belief. At the very least, hair, muddy footprints, bodily fluids would have been left. I raise it not to exonerate JH but to invite debate as to HOW that ‘forensics-free’ situation could have some about. What scenarios suggest themselves as a result? Otherwise how did JH, if it were he, manage to remove all trace of himself? And leave 2 cartridge cases? Makes no sense…


QUOTE “There is no reason whatsoever to doubt VS version of events, and she made no attempt to hide the nature of her relationship to the police and Janet Gregsten.”
Agree I see no reason to doubt VS, but the nature of the VS / MG relationship was hidden from the jury or, at least, not offered to them as part of trial info.

QUOTE “Why are you taking parts of the gunman's story (as relayed by VS) and ignoring others - "call me Jim" for example?”
Rather than ignoring aspects, I’m taking one aspect that suggest new avenues for exploration in reaching some conclusions about the identity of the murderer. I appreciate that you Vic firmly believe that JH wa the perpetrator but others don’t share that opinion and, in order to sustain & develop the forum, I feel that a reported statement from the murderer that he/she’s been on the run for 4 months represents a topic for debate as to the implications. I hope you’ll join in that debate if it kicks off!

QUOTE “Or guilt that the gun used was his?”
Good point.

QUOTE “Gregsten wouldn't abandon VS to the gunman - that's just stupid and cowardly. It'd also put an extra person in danger.”

I don’t feel able to just dismiss the topic. I agree that simply to walk / run away from the car would put the other occupant in danger but can you see that other avenues open up… asking petrol station attendant to raise the alarm, giving details of the car etc; making a ‘scene’ where others were about to frighten away the gunman; stopping the car at a public spot (petrol station eg) and simply throwing the keys away; … Clearly these kinds of actions would need to be done where the gunman would realise that he would be seen and identified by others and therefore might be spooked into running away. Did VS at any point get out of the car during its 5-6 hour jaunt? I know all this is a little fanciful but, given the situation, wouldn’t SOME action opportunity have presented itself? After all, the gunman didn’t seem to be too sharp and might therefore be tricked into giving up the whole stupid stunt?

Regards
JP56

[Limehouse]

I assume that not all Londoners are, or were in 1961, unable to pronounce the digraph 'th'. It therefore does not follow that all four on the id parade would have said 'fink' rather than 'think'.

There can be no doubt that VS chose Hanratty as the person on the parade who most resembled her recollection of the murderer, in pretty much the same way as she had done in the first parade which featured Alphon.

That VS honestly believed Hanratty to be the murderer would have been apparent to even the dimmest member of that very dim Bedfordshire jury. Likewise it would have been equally apparent that Hanratty was nowhere near Ingledene on the night of 22 August 1961. It was also undoubtedly the case that Hanratty had lied about his whereabouts on that night.

In my opinion the jury took something of a stab in the dark by reasoning that if Jim had not been in Ingledene, the evidence before them being quite clearly that he was not, then he must have been elsewhere, and the only elsewhere on offer was provided by Miss Storie's evidence, to wit the back seat of the Morris Minor.

Fortunately for all concerned the subsequent scientific evidence provided by the boffins has confirmed the jury's theory.

I assume that not all Londoners are, or were in 1961, unable to pronounce the digraph 'th'. It therefore does not follow that all four on the id parade would have said 'fink' rather than 'think'. Londoners are not 'unable to pronounce th' - they just tend not to - but to select a man from an identity parade on the strength of his dialect - one that is shared by many - is always going to be open to objection.

I agree that Valerie genuinely believed she had selected the correct man but I am of the view that she was strongly coached.


It was also undoubtedly the case that Hanratty had lied about his whereabouts on that night.

No - it was not 'undoubtedly the case' because I doubt it and so do many others.

Fortunately for all concerned the subsequent scientific evidence provided by the boffins has confirmed the jury's theory.[/QUOTE]

Well - the FIRST lot of tests didn't confirm anything of the sort. Why do we have to put so much faith in the SECOND lot of tests when many scientists and many courts do not think the science is sound enough?

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

Yes it is an explanation given by Valerie, and there's no reason to doubt that explanation whatsoever.


And we have Valerie repeatedly saying she's positive she had got the right man, and again no reason whatsoever to doubt her.

KR,
Vic.

Can you explain how you know all this for certain?

I doubt Valerie"s explanation because I believe she was taken under Det Supt Acott"s wing and that she was still very convalescent.Her state of mind could well have been highly impressionable with regards to any slight inference from Acott-we know she was dependent on his support and guidance and she herself has written about it in the past.

[Victor]

That is how Valerie explained such a protracted identification process.

Hi Norma,

Yes it is an explanation given by Valerie, and there's no reason to doubt that explanation whatsoever.

Most people accept that either someone os recognised "instantly" or they are not actually recognised at all and the person doing the identification is not at all sure she has the right man.

And we have Valerie repeatedly saying she's positive she had got the right man, and again no reason whatsoever to doubt her.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

I assume that not all Londoners are, or were in 1961, unable to pronounce the digraph 'th'. It therefore does not follow that all four on the id parade would have said 'fink' rather than 'think'.

There can be no doubt that VS chose Hanratty as the person on the parade who most resembled her recollection of the murderer, in pretty much the same way as she had done in the first parade which featured Alphon.

That VS honestly believed Hanratty to be the murderer would have been apparent to even the dimmest member of that very dim Bedfordshire jury. Likewise it would have been equally apparent that Hanratty was nowhere near Ingledene on the night of 22 August 1961. It was also undoubtedly the case that Hanratty had lied about his whereabouts on that night.

In my opinion the jury took something of a stab in the dark by reasoning that if Jim had not been in Ingledene, the evidence before them being quite clearly that he was not, then he must have been elsewhere, and the only elsewhere on offer was provided by Miss Storie's evidence, to wit the back seat of the Morris Minor.

Fortunately for all concerned the subsequent scientific evidence provided by the boffins has confirmed the jury's theory.

Ronipstone,
Regarding the pronunciation of "th".It would simply have depended on whether they were working class or lower/ aspiring middle class.Rod Stewart,Keef Richards et al do exactly the same.Neither are ashamed of their working class origins and both use "f" for "th" in interviews.
People who are bi-dialectal and can and do use both,will lapse into the dialect they are most comfortable with when nervous or feeling threatened.

Can you please explain exactly what you mean by your references to "the Rhyl witnesses"?Which Rhyl witnesses?----there were 11 who came forward altogether from diverse backgrounds.
Please explain /give good reason for the claims you make about all of their statements-"en bloc " so to speak.
Likewise the claims made by these " boffins " as you call them,in 2002.That made me laugh out loud!["bluffers" more likely given the contamination they knew they were dealing with!]

[Victor]

I assume that not all Londoners are, or were in 1961, unable to pronounce the digraph 'th'. It therefore does not follow that all four on the id parade would have said 'fink' rather than 'think'.

Hi Ron,

Up to 4 - Woffinden traced all the others and they were not from London.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

No she didn't - she took 20 minutes to announce her decision.

KR,
Vic.

Nonsense! That is how Valerie explained such a protracted identification process .Most people accept that either someone os recognised "instantly" or they are not actually recognised at all and the person doing the identification is not at all sure she has the right man.Valerie took five minutes to identify Michael Clark as her rapist and that too cannot be called "instant recognition".Time twenty minutes and see exactly how long Valerie took to "announce her decision" , Victor.

[RonIpstone]

I assume that not all Londoners are, or were in 1961, unable to pronounce the digraph 'th'. It therefore does not follow that all four on the id parade would have said 'fink' rather than 'think'.

There can be no doubt that VS chose Hanratty as the person on the parade who most resembled her recollection of the murderer, in pretty much the same way as she had done in the first parade which featured Alphon.

That VS honestly believed Hanratty to be the murderer would have been apparent to even the dimmest member of that very dim Bedfordshire jury. Likewise it would have been equally apparent that Hanratty was nowhere near Ingledene on the night of 22 August 1961. It was also undoubtedly the case that Hanratty had lied about his whereabouts on that night.

In my opinion the jury took something of a stab in the dark by reasoning that if Jim had not been in Ingledene, the evidence before them being quite clearly that he was not, then he must have been elsewhere, and the only elsewhere on offer was provided by Miss Storie's evidence, to wit the back seat of the Morris Minor.

Fortunately for all concerned the subsequent scientific evidence provided by the boffins has confirmed the jury's theory.

[Victor]

Valerie took an extraordinary long time to reach her decision-twenty minutes in all .Surely in most cases a person either recognises someone instantly or they dont?

Hi Norma,

No she didn't - she took 20 minutes to announce her decision.

Valerie needed extra support which she found by hearing his London accent pronouncing "thinking" as "finking".

She used the voice to corroborate her decision, which is entirely understandable considering her earlier mistake. There were up to 4 Londoners on that ID parade (according to Woffinden)

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Hi JP56,

Welcome to the A6 thread.

A couple of things stand out from your post...

4. Why the lack of ANY forensics in the car except for VS / MG. No hair, footprints, mud, fibres etc … but bullets WERE found, indicating possibly a thorough clean but bullets planted at some point after? With the lack of sightings, forensics, there is NOTHING (except the testimony of a terrified young woman) to put JH at the scene.

Lack of evidence is not evidence that nothing happened, why limit your comment to just JH? There's only VS testimony (and the body\semen on her knickers\&tc) that anyone was at the scene, but I agree with you that there is even less evidence pointing towards Alphon.

9. I find the 5 hr ordeal inexplicable. Except … some unidentified individual who let it go badly wrong, waiting & waiting for an opportunity to end it, or enjoyed the control, or wanted some kind of response from his victims. VS story really doesn’t stack up – all due respect but so many things seem wrong, but this is probably due to the stress of the event. What would she be looking to do in NOT telling truth? Could she have been lookng to hide the real nature of her relationship with MG?

Why not a panicked JH, completely out of his depth, coping the best he can with the stu[pid situation he'd got himself into?

There is no reason whatsoever to doubt VS version of events, and she made no attempt to hide the nature of her relationship to the police and Janet Gregsten.

11. Regarding JH’s testimony, perhaps the Liverpool and Rhyl stories were BOTH true. As the trial moved on, Liverpool looked a thin alibi & the prosecution had managed to damage it so JH introduced the later trip to Rhyl. Unfortunately this looked shifty. If he’d told full story in one, he might have survived.

The two stories are mutually exclusive, he either stayed with the 3 men in Liverpool or quickly abandoned the search for them, and got on a bus to Rhyl. He couldn't have done both.

15. Who was the gunman? Another WHO WAS ON RUN for 4 MONTHS (as reported from the scene by VS)?? So what crimes were being pursued from MAR – JUN 1961 in the area, perhaps another assault / rape / murder? Are there Police records/newspaper reports from the Bedfordshire area, perhaps with France connections? Perhaps there WAS an unknown gunman, being sought for crimes 4 months prior, who committed this act?

Why are you taking parts of the gunman's story (as relayed by VS) and ignoring others - "call me Jim" for example?

16. Personally I tend to think that Alphon’s presence in the enquiry was a massive coincidence, and post exclusion, he acts in character as a chancer. I tend to think he has nothing to do with the crime.
17. JH’s entanglement is also a coincidence & just unlucky for him. Witness his actions when the call went out for Ryan. Immediately he responded, openly, to clear himself. Not the actions of a guilty man??

Alphon was certainly a coincidence - they both stayed in the Vienna a night apart. I completely disagree about JH involvment, he did contact Acott, but he then went hunting for an alibi in Liverpool.

18. France’s ‘apology’ to Gregsten family.. he knew who did it & knew his own small part in it (perhaps in letters) – apology was more like sorry, in the same way you might express sorrow “I’m sorry for your loss…” but his peripheral involvement drove him to the edge. Involvement conjecture …he knew the killer but was threatened if he revealed it, also he felt guilt at not doing anything about it.

Or guilt that the gun used was his?

6. During the night of the murder, why no attempt to get away at petrol station etc?

Gregsten wouldn't abandon VS to the gunman - that's just stupid and cowardly. It'd also put an extra person in danger.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Thankyou for your post, JP56, and welcome.You make excellent points and ask some searching questions and I will get back to you ,as Julie has, but I need to give it some more thought.
My own thinking at the moment is about the role Charles France may have played in the case.He had worked in the Rehearsal Club as a bouncer before he was sacked .Apparently he presided over the gambling that took place at the Rehearsal Club [was it later renamed the Harmony Club as referred to in the article Julie posted?]. Gambling was something of a weakness -maybe an addiction for France and throughout the 1930"s through to the sixties he had collected a number of criminal convictions for gambling.[Alphon too was another who lived and breathed "the Dogs" and gambling].Among the gamblers in Soho"s clubland were characters like the North London gang chief, Billy Hill who ran protection rackets amongst other things and is said to have initiated the Krays etc etc.Its therefore unlikely that Nudds ,a North London villain himself and keen horse- racing man,would not have known these gangsters.So a scenario can easily be envisaged where a "patsy" was sought and quickly found for the messed up job in Slough!
I think Valerie was "discouraged" from being open and frank about her affair with Gregsten.Who knows what she may also have been discouraged from revealing publicly about exactly what went on in that car apart from the killing of Gregsten ---her other evidence was given "in camera" after all.