a6 murder

[Tony]

Hi All
Just having a poke around the net and found the (auto?)biography of Michael Sherrard @

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wigs-Wherefores-Biography-Michael-Sherrard/dp/0854900306

I think it will be the next addition to my A6 library.

Reg

Good afternoon to you Reg,

Thank you for that link I have ordered my copy a few minutes ago.

What do you think he will reveal about the case or his thoughts on Acott’s behaviour?
I have read that he was relieved when the DNA tests came out but if he now thinks, because of that, that JH was guilty how long did he hold the belief that he was innocent?
Did he think all along that we had hanged an innocent man or did he have a sneaky suspicion about JH?
Or did he think post DNA: “Well bugger me JH did it after all and he’s had me fooled for 40 years.”

Let’s have your thoughts before we get stuck into his book.
I would be very interested in your forecast.

Tony.

By the way Steve is there any of the books you don’t have.

[reg1965]

Good afternoon to you Reg,

Thank you for that link I have ordered my copy a few minutes ago.

What do you think he will reveal about the case or his thoughts on Acott’s behaviour?
I have read that he was relieved when the DNA tests came out but if he now thinks, because of that, that JH was guilty how long did he hold the belief that he was innocent?
Did he think all along that we had hanged an innocent man or did he have a sneaky suspicion about JH?
Or did he think post DNA: “Well bugger me JH did it after all and he’s had me fooled for 40 years.”

Let’s have your thoughts before we get stuck into his book.
I would be very interested in your forecast.

Tony.

By the way Steve is there any of the books you don’t have.

Hi Tony
Who's this Steve bloke? You'll be calling me Oxo next!

I hope that he is candid about the work done by Kleinmann and comments on the overwhelming advantage the police have in resources that the prosecution benefits from.
I am sure that his view of Acott wouldn't have changed. He thought at the time that Acott was not telling the whole truth.
I think, like a good few did at the time that the evidence against Hanratty was not good enough to convict. Changing alibi's did for Hanratty.
Yet Sherrard may have held a few doubts and feels relieved that the case perhaps now has some closure.
I wonder how many of the books on the case he has read and what he made of them would be interesting.

The only book I don't have is Le Crime de la Route A6 by Justice. I tracked down a copy from a book search in Hay on Wye but they wanted nearly £80 quid for it. I even have a pal who is a graduate in French who offered to translate it a bit at a time for me!

Reg

[Graham]

Re: Sherrard's book, I'll be interested in what you guys think of it. From the very brief interview he gave on the TV documentary, I always had the impression that he thought all along that Hanratty was guilty. Not that that should matter, of course, as he was being paid to defend his client and as a conscientious barrister would do it to the best of his ability, same as Swanwick did his best to get a guilty verdict. (Referring again to the Tony Mancini Case, Norman Birkett never had an doubts at all that Mancini was guilty, but as he said he was paid a handsome fee by the State to defend someone and he did it as best he knew.)

I've also wondered about the efficiency of Sherrard's back-up team. Maybe they were stretched to the limit, but they always seemed to be one step behind the police. That, and Hanratty's crazy performance loaded the dice against Sherrard.

Said it before and I'll sat it again, the verdict astonished just about everyone connected with the A6 Case, but it wasn't the first and it won't be the last surprising outcome of a major trial.

By the way, isn't Justice's "Murder vs Murder" more or less an English translation of "Le Crime de la Route A6"?

Cheers,

Graham

[Graham]

Gun killing at Deadman's Hill starts 40 years of controversy
1961 On August 23, a gunman, said to be hitch-hiking to Leeds, shot a couple in a layby at Deadman's Hill, on the A6 in Bedfordshire. Police found them at 6.45am. The man, physicist Michael John Gregsten, 34, from Abbots Langley in Hertfordshire, had been shot twice in the head with a 38-calibre revolver. His companion had been seriously wounded.
It led to one of the most celebrated murder cases in Britain which lasted for 40 years. This is how we reported it.
"A grey Morris Minor car – BHN 847 – in which a highway gunman shot dead a man and wounded his girl friend on Deadman's Hill, Bedfordshire, was found abandoned last night in Avondale Crescent, Ilford, Essex.
It was found only 50 yards from the main road to Southend and near the Central Line railway which could have taken the killer to any part of London after abandoning the car. Police cordoned it off as the nation-wide hunt for the gunman was increased. Police issued a warning the killer might still be carrying the .38 calibre revolver with which he shot the man and girl before driving off in their car.
Until the car was found it had been thought the killer was hitch-hiking to Leeds. Before shooting the couple he told them he would try to get a lift in a lorry to Leeds where he was hoping to get a job

.

The above was from the Yorkshire Post, August 23 1961, and the first I've heard of the claim that the killer quote, "was hitch-hiking to Leeds".

Any ideas, anyone, where this came from? I'm aware that there was some early notion of a hitch-hiker, reference John Kerr, but the first I've heard that he was trying to get to Leeds.

Cheers,

Graham

[Graham]

I've got a idle hour or two, so I've been a-Googling, as you may well guess from my previous post.

Take a look at this article from The Spectator in 2002, especially reference the source of Alphon's new-found wealth.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/print/the-magazine/cartoons/9984/hanratty-deserved-to-die.thtml

Cheers,

Graham.

PS: not sure if the above link has come over 'live', but well worth a look, in my opinion.
PPS: yep, it's live!

[jimornot?]

.

The above was from the Yorkshire Post, August 23 1961, and the first I've heard of the claim that the killer quote, "was hitch-hiking to Leeds".

Any ideas, anyone, where this came from? I'm aware that there was some early notion of a hitch-hiker, reference John Kerr, but the first I've heard that he was trying to get to Leeds.

Cheers,

Graham

Hi Graham

Happy New Year

No idea on this at all. You are right about John Kerr who apparently quoted Valerie stating that they picked the gunman upbut this was denied by her later as you know. As I come to think of it in the earlier thread I seem to recall this may have been mentioned before and Steve (possibly) indicated that he felt the paper were trying to make it seem that much more local (or words to that effect) - does that ring a bell?

re your next post, it's an interesting article. It implies money was paid in 1967 but I thought money was in Alphon's account shortly after the murder and I recall (Bob Woffinden I think) that Justice / Fox indicated they had only given Alphon some fairly minimal expenses.


All the best

Viv

[Graham]

Here's another bit of interesting stuff gleaned from my happy Googling:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/may/11/ukcrime1

Check out the bit concerning a claim that JH confessed all to "someone" while he was awaiting execution. His spiritual advisor, Can Anthony Hulme, was (naturally) sworn to secrecy under the rules of the confessional (or so we hope), so who might that "someone" have been?

Having said that, there were I believe rumours doing the rounds that Hanratty had admitted guilt in the confessional, but even though I'm a total agnostic I do hope that these rumours aren't true, because if they are then one of the most venerable tenets of the Roman Catholic Church is put into severe doubt.

Cheers,

Graham

[jimornot?]

[QUOTE=Graham;60266]Here's another bit of interesting stuff gleaned from my happy Googling:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/may/11/ukcrime1

Check out the bit concerning a claim that JH confessed all to "someone" while he was awaiting execution. His spiritual advisor, Can Anthony Hulme, was (naturally) sworn to secrecy under the rules of the confessional (or so we hope), so who might that "someone" have been?

Having said that, there were I believe rumours doing the rounds that Hanratty had admitted guilt in the confessional, but even though I'm a total agnostic I do hope that these rumours aren't true, because if they are then one of the most venerable tenets of the Roman Catholic Church is put into severe doubt.


Hi Graham

could that someone have been Langdale? Am I right in thinking he supposedly admitted guilt to someone like Dixie France?

I recall again previous threads referral to Can. Hulme supposedly revealing all to a member of the public but I can't see that as being true.

All the best

Viv

[jimornot?]

Hi all
Just back to the article Graham gave us the link for.

I was interested in the views about the A6 Committee possibly being a Trojan Horse for some people (presumably the writer mainly means Jean Justice). Perhaps that is true but at first reading of the article I was sure that as Capital Punishment had been abolished by 1967 (the time of the supposed payment to Alphon) one of the key ulterior motives (if indeed there were any at all) had been achieved. So apart from further embarrassment to the establishment initially thee would seem to be less need to pay Alphon 25K for a confession.

I was surprised though to find that contrary to my thoughts on Cap Punishment, Parliament ‘only’ voted to abolish the death penalty for murder for a five year experiment in 1965. It was finally abolished in 1969 so maybe there is greater credibility to the Trojan Horse concept than I thought .


All the best

Viv

[Graham]

Hi Graham

Happy New Year

No idea on this at all. You are right about John Kerr who apparently quoted Valerie stating that they picked the gunman upbut this was denied by her later as you know. As I come to think of it in the earlier thread I seem to recall this may have been mentioned before and Steve (possibly) indicated that he felt the paper were trying to make it seem that much more local (or words to that effect) - does that ring a bell?

re your next post, it's an interesting article. It implies money was paid in 1967 but I thought money was in Alphon's account shortly after the murder and I recall (Bob Woffinden I think) that Justice / Fox indicated they had only given Alphon some fairly minimal expenses.


All the best

Viv

Hi Viv,

The hitch-hiker theory came about within a very short time (like hours) after the discovery of the crime, and I believe it's always been assumed that it was via some kind of misunderstanding by John Kerr of what Valerie told him as they were waiting for the ambulance to arrive. As I said not so long back, he actually mis-heard her name. However, the mention of 'Leeds' sounds pretty definitive to me. How did this come about (if it ever did?) - a journalistic embroidering, or what? Hanratty got about quite a bit, and could well have been to Leeds previously, but Alphon seems not to have been so peripatetic and stuck around Greater London. I can't recall Steve mentioning anything about Leeds, but I could well be mistaken on this. It certainly isn't mentioned by either Foot or Woffinden.

Neither do I recall Foot or Woffinden mentioning anything about the payment by Justice to Alphon of £25000 in 1967 for 'his confession'. Even in 1967 that was serious dosh when the average salary was probably only £1500 a year.
So where did that come from, we asks? I refer to Woffinden Page 435 in the paperback who states, quote, 'no-one had heard anything of him [Alphon, that is] for almost twenty years until Jeremy Fox met him by accident in Brighton in 1972'. So where did The Spectator reporter come by this information? I'd have to say that the only source must be Justice himself, but, if that's the case, how reliable would that be? And if indeed Justice did fork out £25000 in 1967 for Alphon's confession, it seems that he did nothing with it...

Mystery piles upon mystery...lovely stuff!

Cheers,

Graham

PS: Happy New Year to you, too!

[Graham]

[QUOTE=jimornot?;60271]

Here's another bit of interesting stuff gleaned from my happy Googling:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/may/11/ukcrime1

Check out the bit concerning a claim that JH confessed all to "someone" while he was awaiting execution. His spiritual advisor, Can Anthony Hulme, was (naturally) sworn to secrecy under the rules of the confessional (or so we hope), so who might that "someone" have been?

Having said that, there were I believe rumours doing the rounds that Hanratty had admitted guilt in the confessional, but even though I'm a total agnostic I do hope that these rumours aren't true, because if they are then one of the most venerable tenets of the Roman Catholic Church is put into severe doubt.


Hi Graham

could that someone have been Langdale? Am I right in thinking he supposedly admitted guilt to someone like Dixie France?

I recall again previous threads referral to Can. Hulme supposedly revealing all to a member of the public but I can't see that as being true.

All the best

Viv

Hi Viv,

Our posts are over-lapping.

I think that Charles France said that JH told him, quote, 'he had done something that scares', but this is really only heresay.

There were rumours that Hulme had told someone that JH had confessed to the A6 Crime, but like you I find that hard to accept, otherwise the secrecy of the Catholic Confessional becomes a total farce.

As far as Langdale is concerned, I believe he was a police plant - and I say that as a 'Jimdiditite'!

Cheers,

Graham

[Graham]

The last executions in the UK were in 1965. However, by 1967 it was pretty obvious that the death-penalty was no longer an option. Still, having said that, Alphon could not be placed on trial for a crime for which someone else had been found guilty and executed. And this, I have to say, is somewhat crucial when we examine Mr Alphon's so-called 'confessions' - he made them only when he was quite sure there would be no legal repercussion. He had been perilously close to being nailed for the A6 Crime - viz-a-viz the ID parade when Valerie Storie didn't pick him out. I think any "normal" man would have cut and run following a scare like that, but dear Peter seems to have been 'never a normal man' (a due nod to Daniel Farson's autobiography here...) and continued to milk his accidental involvement for all it was worth.
Simply, he didn't do it.

Cheers,

Graham

[jimornot?]

hi Graham

I agree with you about Langdale. His involvement and motives seem to be pretty clear - as you say, a plant by the police. But Alphon, he is something different isn't he? I am not entirely convinced about his innocence and initially the police were sure of his involvement.

Irrespective of that, you are spot on - why not just fade away? (well he may have been paid, he certainly got some infamy). He is an enigma really, apparently offering to compensate the Hanratty's, allegedly hitting the mother, making all kinds of nuisance calls and confessing when all was safe. Weird to say the least. I'd love to know what he did from the early 70's till say 1999 - he was still only 40 in 1972. (I recall Steve seemed to have had some kind of contact with him in the relatively recent past and I assume he is still alive)

all the best

Viv

[Graham]

hi Graham

I agree with you about Langdale. His involvement and motives seem to be pretty clear - as you say, a plant by the police. But Alphon, he is something different isn't he? I am not entirely convinced about his innocence and initially the police were sure of his involvement.

Irrespective of that, you are spot on - why not just fade away? (well he may have been paid, he certainly got some infamy). He is an enigma really, apparently offering to compensate the Hanratty's, allegedly hitting the mother, making all kinds of nuisance calls and confessing when all was safe. Weird to say the least. I'd love to know what he did from the early 70's till say 1999 - he was still only 40 in 1972. (I recall Steve seemed to have had some kind of contact with him in the relatively recent past and I assume he is still alive)

all the best

Viv

Hi Viv,

It seems that he was still alive in 2007 and living somewhere in NW London. I think Steve did actually trace him, but never managed to speak with him.

God alone knows what motivated him as far as the A6 Case is concerned - money, doubtless, but that couldn't have been the only reason....or could it?

Cheers,

Graham

[Tony]

The last executions in the UK were in 1965. However, by 1967 it was pretty obvious that the death-penalty was no longer an option. Still, having said that, Alphon could not be placed on trial for a crime for which someone else had been found guilty and executed. And this, I have to say, is somewhat crucial when we examine Mr Alphon's so-called 'confessions' - he made them only when he was quite sure there would be no legal repercussion. He had been perilously close to being nailed for the A6 Crime - viz-a-viz the ID parade when Valerie Storie didn't pick him out. I think any "normal" man would have cut and run following a scare like that, but dear Peter seems to have been 'never a normal man' (a due nod to Daniel Farson's autobiography here...) and continued to milk his accidental involvement for all it was worth.
Simply, he didn't do it.

Cheers,

Graham

A very good morning to you Graham,

Well the thread has been mighty busy over the last day or so and there are so many things that need to be replied to. No match this afternoon and so I’m free and will give it a shot. I’ll quote your posts because so many have come on that they may be a couple of pages back by now.

This one, though, I have to reply to this morning as I have got a bit of spare time before chores.

I have had this discussion with you before you are mixing up the double jeopardy scenario when a person could not be re-tried after having been found not guilty. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a law which would stop the prosecution of an offender simply because some one else had been found guilty. And it’s as simple as that.

With regards to Viv the ending of the death penalty was as she says 1965 after a 5 year suspension and as you say Graham there was no way back for it after that suspension. One of the main reasons at the time was that Brady and Hindley, although they carried out their crimes during a period for which they could have received the death penalty, they were tried during the suspension period and so could not hang. The public would have viewed it very badly if later someone was hanged for a ‘lesser’ murder and they were still simply locked up; watching their colour televisions. Isn’t it funny how the term ‘colour televisions’ only ever comes up when referring to prison inmates?

Incidentally Viv the death penalty did not disappear completely in Britain in 1969. In 1993, I think a Mr William Tearre, again I think, was sentenced to hang for murder in the Isle of Man. The island with its own parliament retained the death penalty but Tearre appealed, lost but had his sentence reduced to life because in the intervening period the Manx Parliament had itself repealed the death penalty.

Hope that’s not too boring.

Tony.