a6 murder

[Tony]

Either the reviewer very quickly withdrew their comment, reasons known only to themselves but one would assume because it was crap or it never existed in the first place, the latter of which seems most likely to me.

reg

To be fair and I am being fair I can only offer the following evidence:

When I first came upon this discussion board I had never heard of Leonard Miller or his ‘Shadows of Deadman’s Hill’ and as in common with most A6 fanatics wanted to read it.

Well the first place I went to as always was Amazon. It was out of stock on their site but there were 5 (five) reviews. One as we all know was from our very own superhero the one and only Reg1965. I read all 5 (five) reviews and for the following few weeks visited Amazon at least every day to locate this book. I have never seen 6 (six) reviews.
At that time Reg was not a contributor to the discussions on here but when he came on some time later, in his own inimitable style, he quickly condemned the book and referred us to his review of it. I looked again and re-read Reg’s review along with the other four. There were still 5 (five) reviews.
On the forum I asked the question if anyone knew how I could get hold of a copy and one of our regular contributors kindly sent me the book and would accept nothing for it or for the postage costs.

Since that day I have periodically visited the Amazon site to once again locate Miller’s book so that I could buy it and send it back to the contributor who gave me his own copy and told me it was a gift. On no occasion have I ever seen 6 (six) reviews.

And by the way the donator of the book to me was not Reg if you think I am trying to stick up for him.

Tony.

[Victor]

Since that day I have periodically visited the Amazon site to once again locate Miller’s book so that I could buy it and send it back to the contributor who gave me his own copy and told me it was a gift. On no occasion have I ever seen 6 (six) reviews.

Hi Tony,

All I can say is that on Friday I finally decided that I had actually lost my copies of the Hanratty books when I moved, so went to amazon to get replacements and there were 6 reviews, one of which was understandably very critical of Reg's biased review, so I had a small chuckle about it and then posted here.

Woffinden arrived last night (thanks Walsall Library) so I'll stat reading it shortly.

From the judgment, on the subject of hair colour...

More information about his appearance was provided by Charles France's daughter, Carol. She was a trainee hairdresser who, on the Bank Holiday weekend of Saturday 5 August, at James Hanratty's request, tinted his auburn coloured hair black; his concern was apparently that it was too conspicuous for a housebreaker. Miss France said she re-tinted it black on Saturday 26 August as the colour was fading and there was some re-growth showing at the back. On 3 October 1961 (at a time when he knew the police were looking for a dark haired man in respect of the killing) he had the dye removed from his hair in an endeavour to restore it to its original auburn. On 9 October 1961, he had had his hair bleached in Liverpool. The dying and re-dying and bleaching had caused his hair to take on a vividly unnatural colouring.

Sounds like Reg has got it wrong again, as there's nothing about his hair being conspicuous at the time of the crime.

KR,
Vic.

[P.L.A]

Statutory Rape

Statutory rape is having sex with a girl who is under 13. Not sure that this applied to Hanratty and Miss France, but I don’t know how the law stood in 1961.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/02/99/e-cyclopedia/437789.stm

Peter

[Tony]

Vic Miller's Book.

A very good morning to you Vic,

You mention the elusive reviewer being “understandably very critical of Reg's biased review, so I had a small chuckle about it and then posted here”.

Well I have read all the books on this case and I have read and searched for newspaper articles, I have researched the case for years but I am still of the opinion that each and every one of us is entitled to our own view.

You think Hanratty guilty; I don’t, but you are entitled to that view as I am to mine. I go out Thursdays with seven mates and they all believe Hanratty to be guilty. Good for them.

With regards to the various authors and their books each is also entitled to their own views and I respect equally Blom-Cooper as I do Foot. I believe all the books are excellent in their own right but I have an exception to make and that is Miller’s and I do it for one reason and one reason alone and that is research.
It is a really poor effort and adds absolutely nothing to the debate. I would imagine he has done far less research than even me and certainly less than a lot of other people on here. It appears almost a work of fiction.
Apart from you my friend I can not recall objecting to or criticising anyone on here for their opinions but if Mr Miller entered I might have to review that position.
Blom-Cooper wrote that he thought Hanratty to be guilty but should not have hanged he has the opposite view to Reg but I don’t recall any criticism of Mr Blom-Cooper from Reg’s direction.

I don’t for the life of me know how I missed the publication of the Miller book and for years knew nothing about it. But for me that shows there was little support for it from the critics.

Tony.

[Tony]

I take your point Jim, but we have to be careful when using such an argument. For example, Peter Sutcliffe, shortly after battering a young woman to death with a dozen hammer blows, went home and made his mother-in-law a cup of tea. He then joined his wife in bed. He went to work the next day. He went to visit his mother the following weekend. In fact, he returned to a normal life every time he battered a woman to death (or left them with fearful injuries from which they took years to recover). He did this more than a dozen times.

A fond hello to you Limehouse as always,

As always a very thought provoking post from you.

Have you by chance read about the theory that Sutcliffe may not have been responsible for some of the murders he was convicted of?

I don’t know if there is anything in it and I haven’t bothered too much with researching it but nevertheless it is interesting.

http://www.yorkshireripper.co.uk/

Look after yourself Limehouse your contributions are too few.

Tony.

[jimarilyn]

A very good morning to you Vic,

You mention the elusive reviewer being “understandably very critical of Reg's biased review, so I had a small chuckle about it and then posted here”.

Well I have read all the books on this case and I have read and searched for newspaper articles, I have researched the case for years but I am still of the opinion that each and every one of us is entitled to our own view.

You think Hanratty guilty; I don’t, but you are entitled to that view as I am to mine. I go out Thursdays with seven mates and they all believe Hanratty to be guilty. Good for them.

With regards to the various authors and their books each is also entitled to their own views and I respect equally Blom-Cooper as I do Foot. I believe all the books are excellent in their own right but I have an exception to make and that is Miller’s and I do it for one reason and one reason alone and that is research.
It is a really poor effort and adds absolutely nothing to the debate. I would imagine he has done far less research than even me and certainly less than a lot of other people on here. It appears almost a work of fiction.
Apart from you my friend I can not recall objecting to or criticising anyone on here for their opinions but if Mr Miller entered I might have to review that position.
Blom-Cooper wrote that he thought Hanratty to be guilty but should not have hanged he has the opposite view to Reg but I don’t recall any criticism of Mr Blom-Cooper from Reg’s direction.

I don’t for the life of me know how I missed the publication of the Miller book and for years knew nothing about it. But for me that shows there was little support for it from the critics.

Tony.

Hi Tony,

As usual a very well thought out and written post. Your knowledge, insight and understanding of this very enigmatic case is most impressive ( I'm not being sycophantic by the way, Vic, just truthful ).

I endorse your comments entirely. Re. Louis Bomb-Cooper's book, it is indeed a good read and was the very first book published about the case. I've mentioned this before several months ago but pages 54 and 55 of his book are (IMO) very interesting. Although he thought Hanratty was guilty I wonder just why he chose this particular photo of Peter Alphon to be published on page 54. Just two or three inches away (P55) is the second identikit picture which was compiled by Edward Blackhall and a couple or so other witnesses. I know I'm not the only one who sees a very striking resemblance (Steve, who no longer posts and who is a Jimdiditite, admitted that the resemblance was remarkable ) between these two images.

I wonder if any of your mates can see the resemblance Tony and what their opinion is.


regards,
James

[Tony]

Hi Tony,

As usual a very well thought out and written post. Your knowledge, insight and understanding of this very enigmatic case is most impressive ( I'm not being sycophantic by the way, Vic, just truthful ).

I endorse your comments entirely. Re. Louis Bomb-Cooper's book, it is indeed a good read and was the very first book published about the case. I've mentioned this before several months ago but pages 54 and 55 of his book are (IMO) very interesting. Although he thought Hanratty was guilty I wonder just why he chose this particular photo of Peter Alphon to be published on page 54. Just two or three inches away (P55) is the second identikit picture which was compiled by Edward Blackhall and a couple or so other witnesses. I know I'm not the only one who sees a very striking resemblance (Steve, who no longer posts and who is a Jimdiditite, admitted that the resemblance was remarkable ) between these two images.

I wonder if any of your mates can see the resemblance Tony and what their opinion is.


regards,
James

Hello James,

Well for what it’s worth I would have to get their opinions pretty sharpish because after the first pint of Mr Frederick Robinson’s best bitter I wouldn’t trust any of their opinions on what day it was never mind the A6 case. But I’ll go out armed this Thursday as you suggest.

Tony.

Whoops by armed I mean with a copy of the book not a .38 Enfield. Sorry Bas if you’re watching.

[jimarilyn]

I'm saying that Hanratty had sex with Carole France whilst she was underage, so technically he raped her.

KR,
Vic.

Hi Victor,

Carole France was 16 years (and a few months) old in September 1961 when Hanratty claimed to have been "intimate" with her.

The link that Peter provided in his recent post states clearly the age at which girls can lawfully have sex is 16.

I strongly imagine this was the position in 1961 too.


regards,
James

[Victor]

Statutory rape is having sex with a girl who is under 13. Not sure that this applied to Hanratty and Miss France, but I don’t know how the law stood in 1961.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/02/99/e-cyclopedia/437789.stm

Peter

Hi Peter,

From the link you posted "The age at which girls can lawfully have sex is 16, but there are extra rules applying to the under-13s." so as far as I can work out, Hanratty and Miss France were behaving illegally, but not stautory rape.

And of course that's by 1999 rules (the date of that webpage).

KR,
Vic.

Hi James, our posts crossed - I don't know when the age of consent changed, but in 1927 girls were allowed to get married at 12. More research necessary.

[Victor]

A very good morning to you Vic,

Good afternoon Tony,

Like James, I thought your post was good, and I completely agree that we're all entitled to our own opinions. In fact I'd go so far as to say that you are one of the few people who seems happy to disagree with people whereas others are prone to forcing their opinions down others throats.

As far as amazon reviews are concerned, there's nothing more to be gained by talking about it, they'll have to stand.

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

Michael Hanratty

Hi All,

Reg mentioned a couple or so weeks ago that Michael Hanratty and his wife emigrated to Spain shortly after the appeal of 2002 was turned down.

Michael has fought heroically for the past 4 decades in trying to clear his brother's name and prove his innocence. He will be 70 years old in just over a week's time. I hope he has a great birthday. I wonder what his current feelings are and if anything more is going on behind the scenes that we're not aware of.

I know it's wishful thinking on my part but I live in hope that one day he (or James's other brothers, Peter and Richard ) will become aware of this website and consider contributing their thoughts and knowledge to the thread. Now that really would be something to look forward to.


regards,
James

[reg1965]

Hi All,

Reg mentioned a couple or so weeks ago that Michael Hanratty and his wife emigrated to Spain shortly after the appeal of 2002 was turned down.

Michael has fought heroically for the past 4 decades in trying to clear his brother's name and prove his innocence. He will be 70 years old in just over a week's time. I hope he has a great birthday. I wonder what his current feelings are and if anything more is going on behind the scenes that we're not aware of.

I know it's wishful thinking on my part but I live in hope that one day he (or James's other brothers, Peter and Richard ) will become aware of this website and consider contributing their thoughts and knowledge to the thread. Now that really would be something to look forward to.


regards,
James

Hi James
I believe that at Paul Foots funeral, in Michael and Maureen Hanratty's absence their son and daughter-in-law attended. From this I also am lead to believe that they will carry forward the family campaign in the same capacity in memory of his uncle.
I will try to find out more when I speak to Bob Woffinden next time.

Best wishes
reg

[reg1965]

Hi Tony,

All I can say is that on Friday I finally decided that I had actually lost my copies of the Hanratty books when I moved, so went to amazon to get replacements and there were 6 reviews, one of which was understandably very critical of Reg's biased review, so I had a small chuckle about it and then posted here.

Woffinden arrived last night (thanks Walsall Library) so I'll stat reading it shortly.

From the judgment, on the subject of hair colour...


Sounds like Reg has got it wrong again, as there's nothing about his hair being conspicuous at the time of the crime.

KR,
Vic.

Good afternoon Tony,

Like James, I thought your post was good, and I completely agree that we're all entitled to our own opinions. In fact I'd go so far as to say that you are one of the few people who seems happy to disagree with people whereas others are prone to forcing their opinions down others throats.

As far as amazon reviews are concerned, there's nothing more to be gained by talking about it, they'll have to stand.

KR,
Vic.

You may think that there is nothing to be gained by talking about your sightings of UFO's (uncorroborated fleeting opinion) over Amazon but I do. You are, at best, making unnecessary mischief to discredit everything I post and at worst, a liar. As for my review being biased, of course it was biased. All reviews have bias. You must be a very academically challanged individual not to have been able to make that distinction. As for this UFO being understandably critical of my views; that is your bias coming into play as it is your opinion, not that it is worth much around here by all accounts recently.

If Hanratty's hair wasn't conspicuous, at the time of the murder, according to your bible, then it must have been jet black. Not quite the fairish to dark brown as given by Valerie Storie. Would Miss Storie have allowed a photofit of someone who wasn't her attacker to be circulated to all media as the person she said closely resembled him.

Also; why did the police persue Alphon when he plainly didn't have saucer like blue eyes and his name wasn't Jim?

[Limehouse]

A fond hello to you Limehouse as always,

As always a very thought provoking post from you.

Have you by chance read about the theory that Sutcliffe may not have been responsible for some of the murders he was convicted of?

I don’t know if there is anything in it and I haven’t bothered too much with researching it but nevertheless it is interesting.

http://www.yorkshireripper.co.uk/

Look after yourself Limehouse your contributions are too few.

Tony.

Hi Tony,

Thank you for your kind comments.

Yes, I have heard about the theory that Sutcliffe may not have worked alone. I don't think much of it myself. Neither do I believe that Sutcliffe was a schizophrenic. I think he was a killer who behaved very much like JtR and that understanding the behaviour of Sutcliffe could help us understand what sort of person JtR was.

Kind regards

Julie

[reg1965]

Hi Tony,

Thank you for your kind comments.

Yes, I have heard about the theory that Sutcliffe may not have worked alone. I don't think much of it myself. Neither do I believe that Sutcliffe was a schizophrenic. I think he was a killer who behaved very much like JtR and that understanding the behaviour of Sutcliffe could help us understand what sort of person JtR was.

Kind regards

Julie

Hi Julie
I don't think Hanratty's personality matches that of serial killers. In fact it should be obvious how many serial killers did not get caught for so long because they did manage to mix in so called normal society between fixes.
He was a professional criminal, not big scale, but enough to get by from day to day on....and nothing else.
It was originally suggested by Hanratty supporters such as Lord Russell and Fenner Brockway that he shouldn't have stood trial because he was in some way a mental defective. This came from a succinct comment on some medical report.
I just don't buy any of the personality traits of Hanratty leading to him committing cold blooded murder, especially in the case of the A6 murder.
Take care
reg