a6 murder

[reg1965]

Hi Reg,

Similar to the "antiques shop" murder case of five and a half months earlier the prime suspect tried to bring in his mother to corroborate his alibi and in both cases the mother failed to do so. Alphon's mother could only say that she met her son on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday.

Of the three statements William (Billy Liar) Nudds gave to the police the most convincing and detailed one was his second one, which was supported by the Vienna Hotel records, and which strongly implicated Alphon, who as we all know had already been brought in for questioning a couple or so weeks earlier because of his suspicious and attention drawing behaviour at the Alexandra Court Hotel.

Just where Alphon drove to immediately after leaving Miss Storie for dead remains open to conjecture and speculation. My guess is that he slipped into the Vienna Hotel while the hotel staff were busy serving breakfasts.


regards,
James

Hi James
Wasn't that the Edwin Bush case? I think so.
Alphons mother as you say wasn't able to suitably verify his alibi for the time of the murder.
The records were altered as to the time as when Alphon actually returned after initially booking his room. Wasn't a cross put next to guests who had come in late?
Conflicting reports of when this was have still not been satisfactorily resolved.

As to when Alphon first appeared at the Vienna would be just before midday. He abandoned the car at Redbridge some time mid morning (remember that the Redbridge witnesses saw the wrong car), travelled across London in a right old state (covered by his favourite mac) and went straight to the Vienna to pack up and ship out, but just being seen by a member of the hotel staff in a dishevelled state with black gloves on top of his suitcase.

Also weren't there grounds put forward by the appellant in the appeal (2002) that the police had altered the Vienna register? This was quickly abated by the judges who declared that Alphon had no involvement because of the DNA evidence. Convenient or what?

Regarding the cartridge cases found at the Vienna and from the Appeal Court Ruling (2002, para 167)

They were, after all, found at a time before James Hanratty had entered the frame of possible suspects but when Alphon, according to the message recorded on the log of 6 September, appeared to have an alibi and so was about to leave it.

Why was Alphon, if he was just about to leave the 'frame' on 6/9/61, taken to a line-up on the 24/9/61? Alphon was not picked by the reliable Valerie Storie. Why then, 2 days later on the 26th (15 days after the catridge cases were found) does the emphasis change to Hanratty? He stayed in the room that they were found after all! Alphon must have been the man.
Identification was both unreliable yet important to the prosecution then as is DNA evidence today.

All very perplexing!
Take care James
Reg

[Victor]

Hi Vic
Taking your final point first, yes, we do agree on some points. Not the DNA but doubts regarding the original verdict.

Hi Reg,
Well yes those too, but I was refering to your quote about the new blood on this thread.

For the most your post is a just a little rant about how much you want Hanratty's innocence of this crime buried for reasons you have not yet cogently presented.

Really, I wasn't ranting at all and presented several discrepencies in your conclusions and factual evidence. For example, you suggested that VS account was unvalidated and I gave 3 example of direct physical evidence that supports part of her account. And I deliberately gave physical evidence as there is not one scrap of verifiable evidence in support of any of the so-called Rhyl "witnesses".

I have no ulterior motive here, the evidence suggests Hanratty was guilty, I formed the opinion after reviewing the evidence, whereas you seemed to have formed an opinion and then unsuccessfully attempted to discredit the evidence that contradicts your opinion.

Did you believe once, so much, that JH was innocent,

Yes, I once believed that JH was innocent. I swallowed John Lennon's theories on the case and found his arguments convincing.

then along comes all of the whole DNA magic trick (which you don't how it works) to make you feel that you had been fooled all along?

Well it's not magic, it's analytical biochemistry. A topic I studied at University as part of my degree, so I have a greater understanding of how it works than most. But yes I was fooled as were a large number of people, in fact I'd go so far as to say the majority of posters to this thread.

One crumb of comfort though is that you are not alone. The club includes Leonard Miller, johnl, Graham and Maverick90125 or whatever his name is. (No that was a Yes album wasn't it?!)

And you were fooled too. And 90125 is a Yes album.

Seriously though, if I were you, I would avoid using quoted phrases such as "conceded defeat" as to attribute it to a quote of mine because it wasn't. Do it again and I will seek advice from the admin team. Say what you mean but don't try to misquote me pal.

I did not attribute the quote to you, it is an alternative to the "bored arguing the toss" quote of yours and that is quite clear from the context. By all means seek whatever advice from the admin team you need. I said exactly what I meant, but if you need it clarifying, it is my belief that it is your posts that have scared people off because of the aggressive manner in which you express yourself.

I can understand why you did it. You feel that you are right and we are wrong and thus because we haven't posted for so long we have conceeded defeat. I have a surprise for you sunshine. The posters here who do understand the LCN/LT technology are trying to do you a favour if only you would read what they have written and also read the linked articles that they have placed in your lap.

See above...It is quite clear now that you have failed in attacking the technique, so have resorted to attacking me personally in some weird hope that by doing so you will indirectly discredit my arguments.

We are not doing this to argue the toss, we believe that a grave miscarriage of justice has ocurred and are trying to explain it to those who will listen.

That's all well and good if you can coherently explain why the LCN evidence is invalid, but you have not done this, repeated vague accusations that the technique always gives conflicting results are unconvincing, I need some actual evidence.

The technique is legally accepted in this country despite the judicial reviews, and nothing you have said nor any of the biased links you have provided have convinced me otherwise.

In my opinion, in your particular case, you are deaf!

Reg

In my opinion you are a bully!

KR,
Vic.

[simon]

The tone has become quite unpleasant, hasn't it ?

[PC49]

The tone has become quite unpleasant, hasn't it ?

Totally agree, Simon.
Using terminology such as "bully" is hardly necessary. Since I've been reading the posts, albeit relatively recently, I can't recall any bully-boy tactics. After all, it is an open forum, and everyone is entitled to their own opinions, whether one agrees with them or not.
Let's hope peace will reign in future

[Victor]

Totally agree, Simon.
Using terminology such as "bully" is hardly necessary. Since I've been reading the posts, albeit relatively recently, I can't recall any bully-boy tactics. After all, it is an open forum, and everyone is entitled to their own opinions, whether one agrees with them or not.
Let's hope peace will reign in future

Ah I see "bully" is unnecessary but calling me "deaf" is fine?

And "sunshine" and "pal" aren't condescending and bully-boy tactics?

[PC49]

Ah I see "bully" is unnecessary but calling me "deaf" is fine?

And "sunshine" and "pal" aren't condescending and bully-boy tactics?

Reading those particular posts, from the standpoint of someone who didn't compose them, I interpret it as meaning "deaf" to the arguments being put forward - as in "turning a deaf ear."

In tandem with this, I would regard "sunshine" and "pal" as tongue in cheek remarks that hardly constitute verbal abuse.

Anyway, Reg is the only person who can explain the exact intention behind the words!

Regards

[reg1965]

Hi PC49
Cheers for your common sense attitude to what is, as you said, an open debate forum.

Victor
As PC49 has pointed out, I said that you were deaf to the arguments some of us are putting forward about LCN DNA. Does that make me a bully? It's not as if I have nicked your sweets and punched you on the hooter or some such vindictive act!

My use of the words pal and sunshine were driven by exasperation over your inability to see beyond your blind faith in the Court of Appeal judgement (2002) which has closed your mind (along with so many other previous JH was innocent merchants) off to any other arguments which contradict your new found belief. All you do is pooh pooh anything else put forward by a contra view by quoting from your aforementioned bible.

As for validation then there is not a lot I can say to you if you believe that the Rhyl alibi witnesses were wrong or mistaken, despite the evidence to the contrary. (you did once believe in JH innocence) This is juxtiposed with your Sherlock Holmes like brilliance in discovering that VS had been shot and raped and MG had been shot dead which thus validates the surety of JH being the killer! You will have to explain that one to me in a little bit more detail.

The truth of the issue is that you just cannot get over the fact that you feel that you were fooled all along into believing JH was innocent (by Foot et al) for the DNA results in 2002 to totally polarise your mindset. 'We Don't Get Fooled Again' (Townshend, 1971). Also please explain how you figure that I was fooled and in what way?

You may have studied DNA as a topic at university, and you certainly should know more about it that most people; but I don't think that you appreciate the LCN/LT DNA anaylsis technique's severe shortcomings for usage in this countries criminal justice system (or any other one for that matter). This is because you don't know anything about LCN/LT. As for the biased information that others and myself have linked to, could you explain which ones are biased and why? Further could you please point to one reference to a judicial review that you qouted "The technique is legally accepted in this country despite the judicial reviews." (post #2582) that has disputed its validity.

Cheers all
Reg

[JIMBOW]

The tone has become quite unpleasant, hasn't it ?

Yes, I quite agree, Simon. Accusing someone of 'ranting' seems quite confrontational to me. When I first partcipated on this thread I commented that one of its attractions was the level of civility that prevailed at the time but, alas, of late a trend seems to have developed whereby posters are pigeon-holed into one of two camps, either 'Them' (JH is guilty) or 'Us' (JH is innocent), with all the attendant doctrinaire and dogmatic staements that that implies.

Little wonder that many of the veterans appear to have lost interest.

Jim

[jimarilyn]

More food for thought..........

Hi All,

About 11 am on Saturday, October 14th 1961 James Hanratty was one of 13 men lined up on an identification parade before Valerie Storie at Stoke Mandeville Hospital.
A good 5 or so hours earlier the morning edition of the Daily Mirror was on the streets. It's front page headlines make extremely interesting reading indeed........

Day of drama at police headquarters

A6 MURDER CHARGE IN 24 HOURS

10 men in
identity
parade

"DETECTIVES investigating the A6 gun-killing of scientist Michael Gregsten, 34, decided last night that a man would be charged with murder in the next 24 hours.

The man is now being detained by the police.

He may appear later today at a special sitting of the magistrates' court at Ampthill, Beds.

If a special sitting cannot be arranged, the man will still be charged with murdering Gregsten, who was shot in his car last August, on the A6 at Deadman's Hill, near Bedford.

Then he will be kept in a cell at Ampthill police station, to wait for a court hearing on Monday.

Handcuffed

Last night, a special conference was held at the county police headquarters in Bedford. Senior Bedfordshire police officers were there. So was Detective Superintendent Bob Acott, of Scotland Yard's Murder Squad, who has been leading the hunt for the A6 killer.

It had been a day of drama at the county police headquarters....

During the afternoon, a handcuffed man, his head covered with a raincoat, arrived with a police escort. He had travelled 200 miles from Blackpool, Lancs, where he was detained by police on wednesday night.

Soon after the hooded man arrived, four other men were smuggled in.

Then, one by one, they were called into a yard behind the headquarters to see an identity parade of ten young men.


Parents

There were two other callers at the police station .....the hooded man's middle-aged mother and father.

They had already driven from North London to Blackpool, where they were allowed to see their son yesterday at the Central Police Station.

And after their son left for Bedford, they drove to Bedford, too.

TODAY, the son will be taken to Stoke Mandeville Hospital, near Aylesbury, Bucks. There, he and nine other men will stand in an identity parade at the bedside of Valerie Storie, 23, who was shot and badly hurt when Michael Gregsten was killed."

__________________________________________________ ___________________


I wonder what would have happened had Valerie not picked out Hanratty, the man the police had already decided ( the night before ) was their man ?................


regards,
James

[Victor]

As PC49 has pointed out, I said that you were deaf to the arguments some of us are putting forward about LCN DNA. Does that make me a bully? It's not as if I have nicked your sweets and punched you on the hooter or some such vindictive act!

But that's the point isn't it, I'm not deaf to the arguments, I have "listened"/read "your side" of the story and don't accept your conclusions. I'm not blindly ignoring your arguments, your arguments are flawed.

And if your narrow-minded definition of "bully" is limited to theft of sweets or physical assaults then you really are out of touch. Have you never heard of verbal abuse?

My use of the words pal and sunshine were driven by exasperation over your inability to see beyond your blind faith in the Court of Appeal judgement (2002) which has closed your mind (along with so many other previous JH was innocent merchants) off to any other arguments which contradict your new found belief. All you do is pooh pooh anything else put forward by a contra view by quoting from your aforementioned bible.

I don't think I've seen a more blatant piece of pure hypocrisy than the above quote. I don't have to invent conspiracy theories about the FSS being coerced into publishing falsified results, or misrepresenting those results. None of your links have cast any doubts on the published conclusions of the DNA tests, you have only criticised the technique with vague comments about LCN always being contaminated.

What about PLA's post a while ago about miscarriages of justice which have been admitted to, like Derek Bentley - that's a definite example of where you selectively ignore posts which contradict your theories.

As for validation then there is not a lot I can say to you if you believe that the Rhyl alibi witnesses were wrong or mistaken, despite the evidence to the contrary.

What evidence to the contrary?

This is juxtiposed with your Sherlock Holmes like brilliance in discovering that VS had been shot and raped and MG had been shot dead which thus validates the surety of JH being the killer! You will have to explain that one to me in a little bit more detail.

Nice moving of the goalposts there. You asked for some validation of VS account of the night, I gave you some. Now you ask for some validation of JH being the killer, but I can give you an answer for that too - the DNA results.

The truth of the issue is that you just cannot get over the fact that you feel that you were fooled all along into believing JH was innocent (by Foot et al) for the DNA results in 2002 to totally polarise your mindset. 'We Don't Get Fooled Again' (Townshend, 1971).

Done, dealt with, moved on. I was fooled into believing JH was innocent before the DNA results convinced me I was wrong. It's you who is dogmatically sticking to "JH is innocent" without appropriately accounting for the DNA evidence - in other words You are still fooling yourself!

Also please explain how you figure that I was fooled and in what way?

As above - you are still fooling yourself that JH is innocent.

You may have studied DNA as a topic at university, and you certainly should know more about it that most people; but I don't think that you appreciate the LCN/LT DNA anaylsis technique's severe shortcomings for usage in this countries criminal justice system (or any other one for that matter). This is because you don't know anything about LCN/LT.

Utter rubbish. I do know about the shortcomings, it's just that I can appreciate that "shortcomings" doesn't mean "fatal flaws" whereas you don't seem to be able to tell that difference.

As for the biased information that others and myself have linked to, could you explain which ones are biased and why?

The links are all there, if you can't work out the bias for yourself then there's no point me wasting my time doing it for you.

Further could you please point to one reference to a judicial review that you qouted "The technique is legally accepted in this country despite the judicial reviews." (post #2582) that has disputed its validity.

Blah. Now you're just being argumentative... The one where they suspended the use of LCN and then re-instated it as a valid technique - I'm just waiting for the semantic argument to come back now..."It wasn't a judicial review, it was a review for the judiciary"

Accusing someone of 'ranting' seems quite confrontational to me.

To me too JIMBOW.

[Victor]

I wonder what would have happened had Valerie not picked out Hanratty, the man the police had already decided ( the night before ) was their man ?................

regards,
James

Hi James,

A newspaper article which, as you pointed out, is speculating and gets it wrong about the number of people on the parade....could it be that it's speculating a bit more?

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

Hi James,

A newspaper article which, as you pointed out, is speculating and gets it wrong about the number of people on the parade....could it be that it's speculating a bit more?

KR,
Vic.

Hi Victor,

You're reading something that isn't there. Where did I say or imply that that this newspaper article was speculating ?
The article did contain two factual errors regarding the ages of Michael Gregsten and Valerie Storie. Gregsten was 36, not 34, and Storie was 22, not 23.
It would seem very likely that in the interim period a further 3 men were added to the line-up for some reason. 13 people for an identity parade does seem an unusual number especially as the parade of the previous day had only 10 men in it.
One thing was for sure...it proved devastatingly unlucky for some as a bingo caller might term it .....


James

[Victor]

Hi James,

You pointed out in the first line of your post that there were 13 people on the parade, then quoted the article which says 10, and I took that as implying that they got one bit of information wrong so were speculating. As you pointed out there were other errors, therefore it casts a shadow over the rest of the article so I see it as largely irrelevant.

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

Hi James,

You pointed out in the first line of your post that there were 13 people on the parade, then quoted the article which says 10, and I took that as implying that they got one bit of information wrong so were speculating. As you pointed out there were other errors, therefore it casts a shadow over the rest of the article so I see it as largely irrelevant.

KR,
Vic.

Hi Victor,

Paul Foot and Bob Woffinden both state in their highly impressive books on the case that there were 13 men on the identity parade of October 14th at Stoke Mandeville. The Daily Mirror article rolled off the presses in the early hours of that morning ( probably about 8 or 9 hours before the 11am parade ) and was obviously written sometime prior to that. The Mirror, in common with the rest of the Press, were kept reliably informed (by the police) of any progress made in the murder investigation and would have been told that 10 men were to appear on a line-up at Stoke Mandeville. It turned out however that a further 3 men were to be added to the line-up.

The relatively minor errors about Gregsten's and Storie's ages were not corrected until the Magistrates Court Hearing at Ampthill the following month. During my research I have read many dozens of newspaper articles from The Times, The Guardian and the Daily Mirror and for the first couple of months or so of the investigation their ages were erroneously given as 34 and 23.

In closing I have to say that your last sentence truly amazes and astounds me. You see this important newspaper article as largely irrelevant ????.


James

[Victor]

Hi James,

In common with the Ripper investigation there are large number of press reports, some of which are wildly innaccurate.

You have made an assumption that "[the Press] were kept reliably informed (by the police)" and extrapolated that to the equivalent of the press are always correct.

This article contains demonstrable errors, has no acknowledged source and must therfore be taken with a large pinch of salt... or is largely irrelevant.

KR,
Vic.