a6 murder

[Victor]

Hi Tony,

Are you seriously trying to say a man on trial for murder would, and you presume him to be guilty, have any problems at all with telling a lie about the ownership of a handkerchief?

I don't have a problem with him lying or telling the truth, he's a manipulative git out for what he can get, if he lies to do it, or tells the truth it doesn't matter to me.

I can just imagine it: “well this is a fine pickle I find myself in. I’ve just killed a man, raped and tried to kill his girlfriend and now they are asking me if that’s my handkerchief. Well I had better own up to that one I don’t want to get myself into any more trouble do I?”

"I wrapped the gun in my hanky and gave it to MrX to get rid of, they can't pin this one on me! There's no evidence that puts me anywhere near that bus, it doesn't matter if I admit this or not, I can always say someone's trying to frame me."

Now are you saying, which it seems to me that you are, that you can not have been framed if you are convicted?

No I'm saying you can't be framed if you are guilty. Guilty and Convicted are slightly different.

But it becomes a bit awkward for the police to say hang on we fitted this man up believing at the time he did it but now we know he didn’t. Can you pass back the evidence we planted on him so that we can throw it away and then everybody can forget it?

Now's the problem, you are talking about a prolonged conspiracy for Oxo and Baz to have manipulated evidence in the 60s, and then for a second bunch of scientist to have manipulated the DNA results. Either that or some well weird coincidences and prescient manipulators.

And just exactly what do you mean by: “a lot more facts have emerged in the last 40 years + such as the DNA evidence”?
Apart from the DNA I know of not one fact that has indicated Hanratty was the murderer and as you know I can’t debate DNA with you or Reg. Not that I don’t want to I just don’t know how to as I said last week I can’t debate how an aeroplane flies across the Atlantic; we are told they are foolproof but sometimes, something goes wrong and they crash.

OK, so there's inconclusive DNA tests, DNA tests saying it was a brother of Michael and a son of Mrs Hanratty (name escapes me), the exhumation and the actual DNA of JH, then the LCN tests. So lots of DNA facts.

I like this forum to Vic.

Tony.

It's great when you don't get sycophants and BullyBoys.

KR,
Vic.

[Tony]

Hi Tony,


I don't have a problem with him lying or telling the truth, he's a manipulative git out for what he can get, if he lies to do it, or tells the truth it doesn't matter to me.


"I wrapped the gun in my hanky and gave it to MrX to get rid of, they can't pin this one on me! There's no evidence that puts me anywhere near that bus, it doesn't matter if I admit this or not, I can always say someone's trying to frame me."


No I'm saying you can't be framed if you are guilty. Guilty and Convicted are slightly different.


Now's the problem, you are talking about a prolonged conspiracy for Oxo and Baz to have manipulated evidence in the 60s, and then for a second bunch of scientist to have manipulated the DNA results. Either that or some well weird coincidences and prescient manipulators.


OK, so there's inconclusive DNA tests, DNA tests saying it was a brother of Michael and a son of Mrs Hanratty (name escapes me), the exhumation and the actual DNA of JH, then the LCN tests. So lots of DNA facts.


It's great when you don't get sycophants and BullyBoys.

KR,
Vic.

Hello Again Vic,

The crime took place in 1961 at least 7 full books have been written about the case in addition to several TV programmes and newspaper/magazine articles. It has been researched thoroughly for crime magazines and sections of miscarriage of justice type books etc etc.

1961 to nearly 2009 nearly 50 years of dedicated research by passionate individuals each and every one of them wanting to ‘prove’ Hanratty did it or did not do it. The most researched case of modern times possibly ever and has anyone in those almost 50 years ever come up with anything in addition to what came out in court to incriminate James Hanratty? I don’t believe anyone has.
Lots of stuff has come out to suggest he had nothing to do with this case; quite the reverse that has happened in the case of Peter Alphon in fact.

Vic, I’m not trying to catch you out here I promise, how many bullets/cartridges have been accounted for and how many are missing?

Tony.

[jimarilyn]

It's great when you don't get sycophants

I know you mean me here Victor (for anyone who is in any doubt read Victor's posting ( post 12 ) on the other thread (the DNA thread).

Sad to say but you've completely lost the plot chum.

I'm sick of ants too, they get everywhere.

[reg1965]

I know you mean me here Victor (for anyone who is in any doubt read Victor's posting ( post 12 ) on the other thread (the DNA thread).

Sad to say but you've completely lost the plot chum.

I'm sick of ants too, they get everywhere.

Hi James
You are right. Victor does seem to get a bit sycophantic about Caz and Johnl and excuses them of their individual prejudices to the point of, in johnl's case of being frustrated rather than angry. Why would this be? It's because they agree with him and not us.
In the previous paragraph Victor tells us "Instead you rashly abuse those who don't agree with your position (despite not being able to form a coherent case for it) and try to force your opinion on us. Just like the worst fundamentalists of every religion."

Why then is Victor trying to force his opinion on us without very much referenced material to back it up. Victor is always too busy to be bothered with actually putting any of his views to the test outside of Victor Land. He rejects the Rhyl alibi witnesses totally because JH changed his alibi!!!

Tell us Victor about all of the material that you have looked through to try to overturn the DNA evidence at the 2002 appeal so that I can judge it for myself rather than just taking your word for it. I suppose you cant be bothered to do that either!

Cheers
Reg

[jimarilyn]

Mystery of the hands

Hi

Picture the scene....

Michael Gregsten is in the process of turning to his left to pass the duffel bag (over his left shoulder according to Valerie Storie) to the gunman when he is struck down by 2 bullets fired (at point blank range) into the left side of his head. Is he using one or two hands to do this ?

The reason I ask this relates to Miss Storie's evidence (page 25 of Lord Russell's book) where she states :-

"We opened the driver's door of the car and the man turned to me and said, 'You will have to get him out; I must not get blood on me'. Mike's hands were gripping the steering wheel. When I touched them, they were stone cold."

Anyone any ideas how, after being shot in the head twice (while holding a duffel bag in his hands) Mike Gregsten's hands were somehow able to grab hold of the steering wheel ?
Something doesn't add up here.


regards,
James

[Victor]

Hello Again Vic,

The crime took place in 1961 at least 7 full books have been written about the case in addition to several TV programmes and newspaper/magazine articles. It has been researched thoroughly for crime magazines and sections of miscarriage of justice type books etc etc.

1961 to nearly 2009 nearly 50 years of dedicated research by passionate individuals each and every one of them wanting to ‘prove’ Hanratty did it or did not do it. The most researched case of modern times possibly ever and has anyone in those almost 50 years ever come up with anything in addition to what came out in court to incriminate James Hanratty? I don’t believe anyone has.
Lots of stuff has come out to suggest he had nothing to do with this case; quite the reverse that has happened in the case of Peter Alphon in fact.

Vic, I’m not trying to catch you out here I promise, how many bullets/cartridges have been accounted for and how many are missing?

Tony.

Hi Tony,

You mean apart from the DNA results, which exonerated Alphon and condemned Hanratty.

Hanratty's semen was found on the fragment of VS' knickers which was kept by the scientists and never produced at the original trial.

The only conclusion is that Hanratty raped her, and if he did that then he tried to murder her too, and did murder MG.

I don't know the details about the bullets as I'm at work and my books are at home, and to make matters worse I've not been able to find them since I moved.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Hi

Picture the scene....

Michael Gregsten is in the process of turning to his left to pass the duffel bag (over his left shoulder according to Valerie Storie) to the gunman when he is struck down by 2 bullets fired (at point blank range) into the left side of his head. Is he using one or two hands to do this ?

The reason I ask this relates to Miss Storie's evidence (page 25 of Lord Russell's book) where she states :-

"We opened the driver's door of the car and the man turned to me and said, 'You will have to get him out; I must not get blood on me'. Mike's hands were gripping the steering wheel. When I touched them, they were stone cold."

Anyone any ideas how, after being shot in the head twice (while holding a duffel bag in his hands) Mike Gregsten's hands were somehow able to grab hold of the steering wheel ?
Something doesn't add up here.

regards,
James

Hi James,

An example of a little inconsistency which can be easily explained without having to resort to all the usual comments about VS' condition and state of mind - and all you have to do is read the words I've highlighted in your message above.

KR,
Vic.

[Tony]

Hi James,

An example of a little inconsistency which can be easily explained without having to resort to all the usual comments about VS' condition and state of mind - and all you have to do is read the words I've highlighted in your message above.

KR,
Vic.

I’m sorry Vic but I have absolutely no idea what your response to Jimarilyn’s post means.

Explanation required, Sir.


Tony.

[Victor]

I’m sorry Vic but I have absolutely no idea what your response to Jimarilyn’s post means.

Explanation required, Sir.

Tony.

Hi Tony,

James wrote "Michael Gregsten is in the process of turning to his left to pass the duffel bag..." which does not mean that he had necessarily taken his hands from the steering wheel and grabbed the bag...YET...but that was his intention, however as he turned his head to his left, he was shot.

Anyone any ideas how, after being shot in the head twice (while holding a duffel bag in his hands) Mike Gregsten's hands were somehow able to grab hold of the steering wheel ?

Therefore the assumption that he was actually holding the bag whilst shot isn't valid, neither is the assumption that his hands had left the steering wheel.

It's also highly likely that as his muscles spasm as he dies they automatically grab, so if he was just removing his hands from the wheel then the natural grasping would clamp them onto it.

How far can you turn to the left whilst still holding the steering wheel with both hands? Most people often do it to "check their blind spot" or whatever.

And of course we're discussing a woman who had just been raped, shot and left for dead so her state of mind and thought-processes wouldn't be optimal, to say the very least.

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

Hi Tony,

James wrote "Michael Gregsten is in the process of turning to his left to pass the duffel bag..." which does not mean that he had necessarily taken his hands from the steering wheel and grabbed the bag...YET...but that was his intention, however as he turned his head to his left, he was shot.

Therefore the assumption that he was actually holding the bag whilst shot isn't valid, neither is the assumption that his hands had left the steering wheel.

I don't know what you're trying to say here Victor. Mike Gregsten had hold of the duffel bag (containing laundry) in his hands when he was shot, his hands were not on the steering wheel at all.

Here are Miss Storie's own words on the episode....

"Somehow or other, the duffle bag containing the washing had got into the front of the car. I cannot remember at exactly what stage it was moved from the back into the front, but it was done by Mike. He turned to Mike and said, 'Give me that bag up.' Mike picked the bag up WITH BOTH HANDS, turned towards the centre of the car, that is to his left, and just as he was lifting it over the back of the seat, the man fired two shots in very quick succession at Mike's head."

[Tony]

Hi Tony,

James wrote "Michael Gregsten is in the process of turning to his left to pass the duffel bag..." which does not mean that he had necessarily taken his hands from the steering wheel and grabbed the bag...YET...but that was his intention, however as he turned his head to his left, he was shot.


Therefore the assumption that he was actually holding the bag whilst shot isn't valid, neither is the assumption that his hands had left the steering wheel.

It's also highly likely that as his muscles spasm as he dies they automatically grab, so if he was just removing his hands from the wheel then the natural grasping would clamp them onto it.

How far can you turn to the left whilst still holding the steering wheel with both hands? Most people often do it to "check their blind spot" or whatever.

And of course we're discussing a woman who had just been raped, shot and left for dead so her state of mind and thought-processes wouldn't be optimal, to say the very least.

KR,
Vic.

Hello Vic,

Well you really have amazed me on this occasion. I know full well that you are far more intelligent than to seriously post that. I really don’t know why you have done it. It is complete nonsense and I suspect you know it.

Tony.

[reg1965]

Therefore the assumption that he was actually holding the bag whilst shot isn't valid, neither is the assumption that his hands had left the steering wheel.

No one is actually making an assumption here, it is just being pointed out what VS testified.

And of course we're discussing a woman who had just been raped, shot and left for dead so her state of mind and thought-processes wouldn't be optimal, to say the very least.

I am not sure that the VS statement that James quoted was made just after being raped do you? She had months to recollect the happenings and she is plainly contradicting herself with regard to the position of MG's hands. Unless, after being shot, MG dropped the bag and swung round and clutched the steering wheel!

In Woffinden (1997, p8) VS is quoted as saying "Mike fell forward over the steering-wheel and I could see the blood pouring out of his head."

If MG fell forward over the steering wheel how could he also be possibly clutching it? His arms would have had to have made an upward movement and his hands becoming attached to the underside of the steering wheel. Possible but bloody unlikely.

xxxx
Bully Beef

[reg1965]

If I were you Victor I would find your Hanratty books damn quick and read them again. You have made yourself look a bit of a berk with your offerings today.

Plus read the 2 articles I have posted links to on planet DNA today.

If you should find any personally perceived bias then please reference page/slide number and give your reasons for it.

xxxxx
your friendly neighbourhood bully.

[Victor]

I don't know what you're trying to say here Victor. Mike Gregsten had hold of the duffel bag (containing laundry) in his hands when he was shot, his hands were not on the steering wheel at all.

Here are Miss Storie's own words on the episode....

"Somehow or other, the duffle bag containing the washing had got into the front of the car. I cannot remember at exactly what stage it was moved from the back into the front, but it was done by Mike. He turned to Mike and said, 'Give me that bag up.' Mike picked the bag up WITH BOTH HANDS, turned towards the centre of the car, that is to his left, and just as he was lifting it over the back of the seat, the man fired two shots in very quick succession at Mike's head."

Hi all,
I was just commenting on what your post said, that's all - and you've gone and added an extra piece to the puzzle.

How do you chose what part of VS statements to believe?

As for this...

I am not sure that the VS statement that James quoted was made just after being raped do you? She had months to recollect the happenings

Does anyone believe it? How long do you think someone needs to recover from being raped, shot and crippled FOR LIFE?

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

How do you chose what part of VS statements to believe?

But this is the whole point Victor.
We are all at a great disadvantage here and have only VS's version of events to go on.
Theoretically speaking, she could have come up with any story of what happened in the Morris Minor that fateful night.
Mike Gregsten obviously couldn't speak up and the gunman was not likely to come forward and give his version. We are then left with only one version. Upon closer examination of that version we find inconsistencies and puzzling statements which just don't add up. We are justified in drawing attention to these and challenging them to try and arrive at the truth.
I've said this before but there must have been an awful lot more conversation and interaction between the 3 occupants of that car that night than has been revealed. What has been revealed, in my opinion, only scratches the surface.

regards,
James