a6 murder

[Graham]

Hi Steve,

I've read most of the available books on the A6 Case, but even after all these years I still can't get my head around many of the almost-unbelievable coincidences with which this case is peppered. You couldn't make it up!

Regarding PLA, I think that he had a genuine pants-filling fright when he was named as a suspect - far from being Woffinden's 'manipulator', I think PLA was scared stiff, and remained so until Valerie Storey failed to identify him at the first ID parade. He must've breathed a massive sigh of relief. Once he reckoned he was in the clear, I believe he went all-out to exact revenge and make a profit, an exercise that he continued for years after JH's execution. He was fuelled by Jean Justice (whose motives for getting involved in the first place were not exactly altruistic) and also by the comparative ease with which he found he could make money out of the A6 Case. It's known that he successfully sued the police and at least one newspaper, and without any shadow of doubt he sold his story to other newspapers. When he released his bank-account details (as Miller rightly points out, only after sufficient time had elapsed for his bank to destroy any cheques made out to him) it was seen that not only had he made a small fortune, he had pretty quickly got rid if it, too. Which is absolutely typical PLA - feast or famine, live for the day.

PLA was also a superb actor, as anyone who's seen the filmed BBC interview in Paris will know. He took the interviewer for a ride. I wonder how much PLA was paid for that interview - can't see him doing it for free.

Cheers,

Graham

[larue]

Hi Graham
This is spot-on. His defence team did strongly advise him against changing his alibi so late in the day, the obvious reason being that it would portray him to the jury as someone who didn’t tell the truth all of the time, and also of course because they had so little time to investigate and substantiate the alibi.


It could well be at this point that the jury decided he was guilty.


Kind regards,
Steve

hi Steve

if that were the case, then why was the jury out for nine and one half hours??
and why did they aks for a transcript and clarification of reasonable doubt?. seems to me they did not know their bums from their elbows. in the case of haigue the acid bath killer, the jury was out for fifteen minutes.

atb

larue

[larue]

Most probably melted down and turned into Jade Goody!

then displayed in the chamber of horrors, no doubt?


atb

larue

[larue]

There has never been what you could call a public outrage about Hanratty’s fate.

you are quite right, because the public can only become outraged about what they know. the presentation of the case in the press and tv was one of the police getting the right man. there was no viable alternative presented at the time, so ther was nowt to be outraged about.

The people who came to believe that Hanratty had been innocent were those who listened to the campaigners, and read the Foot and Woffinden books. These were all very persuasive in convincing listeners and readers that a conspiracy had taken place.

this was the alternative view, missing from the time of the trial, that made people wonder just what the truth was

Yes, public outrage would have been appropriate if Hanratty had walked free from the court, the crime had remained unsolved, and DNA evidence later proved that Hanratty had been guilty all along.

yes, it would, but after all these years i guess not many people care

Of course, Hanratty or his family members would have had to have been very stupid to agree to DNA testing.

only if he/they knew he was guilty

In all probability if Hanratty had been acquitted at the trial he would have just gone back to his criminal ways and probably spent most of his life in prison any way.

you are right on the money there.

atb

larue

[Graham]

Changing an alibi half-way through a trial was a not-unknown defence tactic back then, as it instantly placed pressure on the prosecution to disprove it. In JH's case it didn't really work. Such a tactic is not permissable these days.

I believe the core reason why the jury took so long to reach a verdict was that the case against JH rested basically on identification, and I'm convinced that most of the debate in the jury-room was concerned with whether Valerie Storey could be certain of her attacker's identity when all she saw of his face was a brief glimpse in the lights of a passing car. I think the judge went to pains to point this out during his summing-up, which was why many commentators felt that his summing-up was favourable to JH. But obviously the jury chose to believe Valerie Storie rather than JH - and here we must enter the realms of speculation, because who, really, could effectively dismiss the evidence of a young woman who had been raped and shot by the man who murdered her lover, and who was semi-paralysed for life? Had they done so, they would have been labelled as totally heartless and without any human feeling. But - and let's be brutally honest here - had Valerie not picked out JH on the i.d. parade he would never have been charged in the first place, and the A6 Murder may well have gone down as one of the greatest unsolved murder cases in British legal history. But the jury evidently believed her, did not believe JH, and chose not to accept Justice Gorman's apparently-favourable summing-up with all its warning about the pitfalls of identification evidence. I would hate to have been on that jury.

The reason why Haig was despatched so rapidly by his jury was that too many people had seen him with his victims before he did them in, and also that police forensics identified the few bits of body they found as belonging to at least one of his victims. He also had this crazy notion that habeus corpus meant that if there was no body after a murder, there could be no conviction. Hence the drums of acid. Wrong!!!

If you want a real puzzle regarding the decision reached by a jury about a British murder case, have a look at Dr John Bodkin Adams. An earlier Harold Shipman case, if ever there was one.

Cheers,

Graham

[Steve]

hi Steve

if that were the case, then why was the jury out for nine and one half hours??
and why did they aks for a transcript and clarification of reasonable doubt?. seems to me they did not know their bums from their elbows. in the case of haigue the acid bath killer, the jury was out for fifteen minutes.

atb

larue

Hi Larue

Sorry to disagree with you, but the jury wasn't out for nine and one half hours, it was out for forty years!

KR
Steve

[Steve]

I believe he went all-out to make a profit ...

I have wondered from time to time how many people sought to make a profit from the A6 murder. Yes, Alphon made money. We know that Ewer also made money. But what about the other minor players, perhaps only gaining financially as a result of publicity for their businesses? The Old Station Inn, Ingledene, the sweetshop in Scotland Road. You could take it further, finding gun cartridges in The Vienna, for instance, could possibly have brought business to the door. Just how many people jumped onto the bandwagon is one of this case's many imponderables!

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
Just a quickie.
I have just got in from work[ Yes a sunday] but although I havent got time to get actual reference, I will simply ask the question, 'What is your opinion of the alleged reference made by Hanrattys priest who was in the execution cell minutes before death.?
According to information made public some years now, but after the DNA Tests, a driver taking Hulme[ canon?] to a destination, was passing by the spot, and hulme said 'This Is a relevant place, the A6 murder' I was present at his execution.'
The driver said 'was he a Murderer?
The Answer was ' He confessed to his crimes, and was forgiven'.
The old man[ Hulme] broke his silience, however, where better to cleanse the sin fully,then as they were passing the actual spot.?
I appreciate this sounds like a good tale, to uphold the DNA tests, but what is our good panel reponses?
Regards Richard.

[larue]

I'm convinced that most of the debate in the jury-room was concerned with whether Valerie Storey could be certain of her attacker's identity when all she saw of his face was a brief glimpse in the lights of a passing car. I think the judge went to pains to point this out during his summing-up, which was why many commentators felt that his summing-up was favourable to JH.Graham

this would surely be the peripheral light from the passing car, and not the direct beam, as even if the car has main beam on, the light would have been directed in front of the car, and not off to one side, where the death car would have been. this would have made the matter even more difficult.

The reason why Haig was despatched so rapidly by his jury was that too many people had seen him with his victims before he did them in, and also that police forensics identified the few bits of body they found as belonging to at least one of his victims. He also had this crazy notion that habeus corpus meant that if there was no body after a murder, there could be no conviction. Hence the drums of acid. Wrong!!!
Graham

so, in words of one sylable, that i can understand, there was an overwhelming conclusive body of evidence against him, leaving the jury a no-brainer.

If you want a real puzzle regarding the decision reached by a jury about a British murder case, have a look at Dr John Bodkin Adams. An earlier Harold Shipman case, if ever there was one.

i have seen reference to this case in, i think, keith simpson's book. maybe i'll have another look

atb

larue

[Graham]

I have wondered from time to time how many people sought to make a profit from the A6 murder. Yes, Alphon made money. We know that Ewer also made money. But what about the other minor players, perhaps only gaining financially as a result of publicity for their businesses? The Old Station Inn, Ingledene, the sweetshop in Scotland Road. You could take it further, finding gun cartridges in The Vienna, for instance, could possibly have brought business to the door. Just how many people jumped onto the bandwagon is one of this case's many imponderables!

Hi Steve,

Alphon was totally blatant with regard to his profiteering from the A6 Case - witness how he was royally entertained by Justice, and how he showed his bank-statements to Woffinden. Ewer, I think was less so. He did make money, but only because he was libelled - as, indeed, was Alphon. Not sure about the others you mention. I cannot really accept that Grace Jones, owner of a seedy boarding-house in a seedy seaside resort, deliberately set out to profit by her volunteering to be a witness, no matter how much Swanwick laboured the point. Rather, I think JH's defence put it to her that her evidence could be vital, and she went along with it and was I think misled. Probably the same applies to the sweetshop. But for all that, there was most definitely an A6 bandwagon, and plenty of people jumped on it.

Cheers,

Graham

[Graham]

Hi Guys,
Just a quickie.
I have just got in from work[ Yes a sunday] but although I havent got time to get actual reference, I will simply ask the question, 'What is your opinion of the alleged reference made by Hanrattys priest who was in the execution cell minutes before death.?
According to information made public some years now, but after the DNA Tests, a driver taking Hulme[ canon?] to a destination, was passing by the spot, and hulme said 'This Is a relevant place, the A6 murder' I was present at his execution.'
The driver said 'was he a Murderer?
The Answer was ' He confessed to his crimes, and was forgiven'.
The old man[ Hulme] broke his silience, however, where better to cleanse the sin fully,then as they were passing the actual spot.?
I appreciate this sounds like a good tale, to uphold the DNA tests, but what is our good panel reponses?
Regards Richard.

Hi Nunners,

I always thought that anything revealed in the confessional was a secret for ever. My brother used to be an Anglican priest, and I once asked him what he'd do if someone confessed to him a murder or some other serious crime, and his reply was immediate: he could not in conscience reveal anything said to him in the confessional, and that the Law accepted that.

Plenty of people have used JH's last letters to point up his innocence, but plenty of people - me included - maintain that JH went into some kind of total denial, a kind of blanking-out of his actions, which enabled him to dictate letters such as the ones he wrote from Bedford Prison. He always maintained that he would do anything rather than upset his mother, and it seems he kept his promise.

Can I ask where you heard or read the story about Hulme? It's news to me.

Cheers,

Graham

[Steve]

Hi Guys,
Just a quickie.
I have just got in from work[ Yes a sunday] but although I havent got time to get actual reference, I will simply ask the question, 'What is your opinion of the alleged reference made by Hanrattys priest who was in the execution cell minutes before death.?
According to information made public some years now, but after the DNA Tests, a driver taking Hulme[ canon?] to a destination, was passing by the spot, and hulme said 'This Is a relevant place, the A6 murder' I was present at his execution.'
The driver said 'was he a Murderer?
The Answer was ' He confessed to his crimes, and was forgiven'.
The old man[ Hulme] broke his silience, however, where better to cleanse the sin fully,then as they were passing the actual spot.?
I appreciate this sounds like a good tale, to uphold the DNA tests, but what is our good panel reponses?
Regards Richard.

Hello Richard

I read this ‘recollection’ some time ago and, whilst it is tantalising to believe such a conversation as being true and accurate I personally disbelieve it for two main reasons:

 The sanctity of the Confessional – no Catholic priest, especially not one as eminent as Cardinal Hulme, would have betrayed that fundamental principle of the Catholic Church

 The very real possibility that Hanratty went to the gallows in full belief that he was innocent of the crime with which he was charged; murder, for he could well have believed that he shot Gregsten in self defence

Kind regards,
Steve

[larue]

Hi Larue

Sorry to disagree with you, but the jury wasn't out for nine and one half hours, it was out for forty years!

KR
Steve

i guess they'll be wanting more sandwiches then???


atb

larue

[Steve]

No, more sandwiches not necessary, they have all died of starvation!

[larue]

speaking of coincidences

here's a couple that intrigue me...

john kerr document

a physical description of the gunman, taken by john kerr, on a traffic census form, from valerie stories' lips as she lay where she was shot.
as vs did not know at that time if she would survive her injuries, [nor for that matter did anyone else], this description would have had almost the same gravitas as a deathbed confession.

had vs died from her wounds, then this description would have been all the police had with which to pursue their enquiries. it's very existance has been disputed, but at one stage of the proceedings, a rather amateurish facsimile was produced, which john kerr flatly denied as being the document in question.

how then was this vital, possibly decisive piece of evidence allowed to become "lost". was it a simple case of carelessness? or something else?
perhaps one should aks the question "who would benefit most from the loss"?
if this description had stated blue eyes, then this would be a major piece of prosecution evidence, which, one would assume, the police would be at great pains to safeguard.
on the other hand, should the description have stated brown eyes, then this would be a major piece of supporting evidence for the defence.
given the paucity of hard evidence for the procecution, this description would hardly have been held back, but would surely have been paraded before the jury with all the theatrical flourishes that counsel often employ.
therefore, one can easily assume, that if it was better for the prosecution that the john kerr description did not appear in court, then credibility is lent to the notion of it powerfully supporting the defence.




michael gregsten's mileage log

mg was alleged to have kept a "meticulous" log of the mileage covered by 847BHN. one could assume that a record of the amount of petrol purchased and the dates of the purchases would be included.
this document too, mysteriously dissapeared from the police evidence storage. another incident of carelessness?
again, one should aks the question "who would benefit most from the loss"?
and again, the benefit to the prosecution or the defence would be evident if the milage shown in the log tallied or otherwise with the odometer. one can draw one's own conclusions.