a6 murder

[JIMBOW]

Hi All,

It was mentioned ages ago by someone on this thread that there is nothing on YouTube about the A6 murder case.
That situation has now changed.

Well over a decade ago I recorded onto VHS tape Bob Woffinden's documentary " Hanratty - The Mystery of Deadman's Hill "
A couple of years or so ago I transferred this old video tape onto DVD.

Not being very technically minded I was unsure how to go about trying to upload this 62 minute documentary onto YouTube so just let the idea of doing so fade into the background.
A couple of days ago I resolved to give it another go. I googled and googled to find out more info, eventually I came across a program called VLC Media Player which enables a person to copy a DVD onto their PC and then upload it onto YouTube.
To make a short story longer I eventually (through trial and error) was able to suss out how to do it
For all interested parties this documentary is now available for viewing on YouTube in 13 segments ( 12 x 5 minute segments and one 2 minute segment).

regards,
James



http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rNY80h717pk

Well, I must say this is fantastic news and sounds like it will make for a great Friday night's viewing when I get home from work in wintry Calgary. Well done and many thanks, Jimarilyn!!

[Graham]

1) A fair amount of hard scientific forensic evidence that puts Hanratty at the scene of the crime. Hairs, clothing fibres, fingerprints and, if used, DNA profiling using SMG+ or an equivalent system used as per its recommendations.

Trouble is, there is no hard forensic evidence that places Alphon at the scene of the crime, either. I happen to know someone who until his retirement worked in forensics (I didn't know this until about 3 weeks ago), and when I asked him about forensic evidence to prove/disprove a person's presence at a crime-scene he was quite specific that modern techniques if applied to a 1961 scenario would almost certainly have pin-pointed something which would lead to a positive i.d. He is actually aware of the A6 Case, and told me that he finds it 'odd' that no 'tramp' clothing fibres were found in the car. (By 'tramp' I mean fibre that didn't demonstrably belong to any regular and routine users of the car). I wish I'd spoken to this person ages ago.

One of the (many) mysteries of the A6 Case, for me at any rate, is the lack of forensic evidence reference the car.

2) Credible eyewitness testimony from several sources that puts Hanratty in the cornfield at the alleged time.

The same can be said re: Alphon. Witness reports claimed that someone who may have resembled Alphon was seen around Dorney Reach, but prior to 22nd August. All rather vague. No-one claimed to have seen either Hanratty or Alphon or anyone resembling either of them on the evening of the 22nd August.

3) No credible or convincing alibi.

For the n-th time I'm re-reading Paul Foot regarding 'The Alibi', and I just cannot bring myself to accept either the Liverpool or the Rhyl Alibis, for the basic reason that they remain unsubstantiated. The impression I have is that not even Sherrard was able to convince himself that his client was actually in Rhyl at the crucial time. If Hanratty was in Rhyl, and if he stayed at Ingledene and if Mrs Jones got him to sigh the register, then matters would obviously have been very different.

Re: James' YouTube of Woffinden's documentary, will view soon as I can.

Cheers,

Graham

[Tony]

Ingledene.

Good Morning Graham,

What exactly is it that you do not believe about Mrs Grace Jones and her daughter’s versions of the events at Ingledene? Both were respectable people as far as I know. Ok she might have pocketed a bit of cash now and again too avoid tax, but who wouldn’t. I know I have done and I don’t consider myself to be a criminal.

A. For instance do you think they made it all up?
B. Do you think Hanratty was at Ingledene on another occasion?
C. Or do you think someone looking much like Hanratty did stay at Ingledene on the nights in question?

A. Apart from five minutes of fame why would she have made it up? Swanwick all but shopped her to the Revenue in court.
B. I know of no evidence to suggest Hanratty stayed at Ingledene prior to when she says.
C. If it was someone else who stayed in the room with the green bath then it is a remarkable coincidence and why did this person after all the publicity on the news and front page of every paper not come forward and simply say: “My name is Joe Bloggs and I stayed in a boarding house for 2 nights last August in Rhyl. I stayed in a room with a green bath.”


Just a few thoughts on this bright and cold January morning.


Tony.

[Graham]

Hi Tony,

Thanks for your post.

The basic problem is that when it's all boiled down there is no absolute proof that Hanratty was in Rhyl when he said he was. OK, certain people said that they had seen someone they thought might be Hanratty but none of them can prove it. Not one of them could offer anything that might have constituted proof that it was he, and more than one of them described his accent wrongly.

I'm not saying that Mrs Jones and her daughter made it up or lied - they had no reason to do either - but again they had no proof that it really was James Hanratty who stayed at Ingledene at the crucial time. Whether he'd stayed there previously, I obviously don't know and now there's no way of telling, but he had been in Rhyl before. Maybe someone resembling him did stay at Ingledene at the crucial time, and maybe Mrs J and her daughter thought this notional person might have been Hanratty. But how many people did they meet during an average holiday season? Dozens? Hundreds? I stay at the same hotel down south quite frequently, yet I'm not always recognised when I walk in, and the receptionist never remembers my name. I'm just one of a very large number of guests that the staff encounter day in, day out.

With regard to the green bath, I know any mention of Leonard Miller makes certain posters prickle, but as he sensibly and correctly points out, how many guest-houses in Rhyl had a green bath? Surely not just Ingledene. Green was a very common colour for bathroom suites in those days. Hanratty wasn't describing Ingledene in particular, but seaside boarding-houses in general.

Finally, and I repeat, had he signed the register.....well, you know.

Cheers,

Graham

[Limehouse]

Evening Graham,

I am not so sure green baths were that common in the early sixties. Ten years later maybe (I remember the height of working class chic was having an avacado bathroom suite!!!)

Although there is, as you say, no absolute proof that Hanratty was in Rhyl, there is also no absolute proof that Hanratty was ever in that car either. Valerie Storie believes he was, and evidence certainly suggests he handled the gun that probably killed Gregsten and shot Storie (although oddly, Keith Simpson seemed to believe that the gun fired at the scene was a diffrerent model form that which was found on the bus) but there is no fresensic evidence that places him at the scene of the murder except for the DNA evidence, extracted forty years after the crime.

However, as you pointed out earlier today, there is also no forensic evidence that places Alphon at the scene either - or, for that matter, Gregsten and Storie. Now that is odd. Many of us contributors to the thread have speculated on the forensic-free state of the inside of the car. There was certainly Gregsten's blood - but no fibres, hair, skin cells, prints or any other human deposit. Now, either the forensic team did a very brief and not very thorough forensic sweep of the car, or someone spent some time removing every possible speck of human evidence.

I wonder why someone so careful to remove evidence of their existence in the car, would be so careless as to leave two spent cartridge cases behind in the hotel they stayed in?

[reg1965]

Hi Graham

I was asked by Vic what would satisfy me as to Hanratty's guilt. You have kindly put forward a reply.

Trouble is, there is no hard forensic evidence that places Alphon at the scene of the crime, either. I happen to know someone who until his retirement worked in forensics (I didn't know this until about 3 weeks ago), and when I asked him about forensic evidence to prove/disprove a person's presence at a crime-scene he was quite specific that modern techniques if applied to a 1961 scenario would almost certainly have pin-pointed something which would lead to a positive i.d. He is actually aware of the A6 Case, and told me that he finds it 'odd' that no 'tramp' clothing fibres were found in the car. (By 'tramp' I mean fibre that didn't demonstrably belong to any regular and routine users of the car). I wish I'd spoken to this person ages ago.

One of the (many) mysteries of the A6 Case, for me at any rate, is the lack of forensic evidence reference the car.

You have stated that no forensic evidence exists to place Hanratty at the scene of the crime and I agree. Therefore irrespective of either of the other two criteria I laid down then I will always have a reasonable doubt as to Hanratty's guilt, irrespective of the original conviction and subsequent inquiry and appeal verdicts.

The same can be said re: Alphon. Witness reports claimed that someone who may have resembled Alphon was seen around Dorney Reach, but prior to 22nd August. All rather vague. No-one claimed to have seen either Hanratty or Alphon or anyone resembling either of them on the evening of the 22nd August.

Again, you state that Hanratty cannot be placed at the cornfield by more than 1 person and this makes my reasonable doubt even more reasonable. As far as Alphon is concerned he was identified by Mrs Mary Lanz, landlady of the Old Station Inn at Taplow as being in the pub (with A N Other) on the night of the murder whilst VS and MG were there.

For the n-th time I'm re-reading Paul Foot regarding 'The Alibi', and I just cannot bring myself to accept either the Liverpool or the Rhyl Alibis, for the basic reason that they remain unsubstantiated. The impression I have is that not even Sherrard was able to convince himself that his client was actually in Rhyl at the crucial time. If Hanratty was in Rhyl, and if he stayed at Ingledene and if Mrs Jones got him to sigh the register, then matters would obviously have been very different.

Lets qualify the term unsubstantiated.

Hanratty said that he asked 5 or 6 times for B&B before eventually coming upon Ingledene.

Those 5 or 6 certainly included Mrs Walker, Mr Larman, Mrs Vincent and Mrs Davies. Between them they noticed he was smartly dressed, had no luggage, and had unusual coloured hair. Other people declined to get involved.

Hanratty gave his description of the boarding house and what he paid.

Miller would not be hedging his bets too far to say that many boarding houses in the early 60's had green baths somewhere in the house. But Millers problem starts when Hanratty describes the bath and its position, the lobby of the house, its rear courtyard, the fact he had breakfast away from other guests and its proximity to the trian lines.
Miller is also in trouble because Mrs Jones and her daughter were never swayed from their insistence that it was Hanratty who had stayed there those 2 nights. For it could have only been those 2 nights; as his whereabouts immediately before and after are well known and documented. Mrs Walker and Mr Larman are both certain of the date due to independent facts.

Hanratty also said that he tried to sell a man a gold watch the following day.

Mr Dutton said that on that day, which he had proof of, a young man tried to sell him a gold watch.

As Tony so forthrightly mentions; these 6 people were only together in Rhyl on those days and those days only.

I also find it hard to believe that Terry Evans would have got involved (where McNally refused to) in helping the defence find alibi witnesses if he held a grudge over his stolen shoes. He would also have placed himself in danger with the police over his criminal connections. He must have placed great faith in Hanratty's character as not being one of a killer.
Evans got involved, I believe, through the newspaper seller Mr Jones who later contacted Evans saying that Hanratty was asking for him. Mr Jones later refused to have any further involvment in the case after a TV documentary about the case in the mid 60's. (More info on this anyone?)

Cheers
Reg

[reg1965]

I wonder why someone so careful to remove evidence of their existence in the car, would be so careless as to leave two spent cartridge cases behind in the hotel they stayed in?

Good thinking Julie...truly inspired.

Cheers
Reg

[Graham]

Reg, Tony, Julie.

I'm somewhat replete with braised beef and a pretty good Cabernet as I write this, so it'll be short (for me).

As I understand it, the forensic people found plenty of evidence that MG and VS (and perhaps others?) had used the car, which is understandable - finger-prints on the steering-wheel, gear-stick, etc., I should think. But to find no evidence linking either Hanratty or Alphon to the car rather suggests that either (a) their investigation wasn't all that thorough and/or (b) forensic techniques in 1961 were not that great. My ex-forensic friend says that even something as simple as a sticky-tape removal of fibres from the back seat should have found something - and that was apparently a known technique in those days. VS said that her attacker wore gloves, which would take care of any fingerprints, but what about mud and soil and other detritus from the cornfield adhering to shoes? Was none found on the floor of the car? Even Sherlock Holmes was able to finger a criminal or two by identifying a particular type of soil from shoes! Again, I would have to say that if it wasn't Hanratty but Alphon in the car, then there is nothing linking the latter to the car, either. My friend also said that under 'normal' conditions, it is virtually impossible for anyone to remove 100% of the evidence of his or her presence in a car, even though he or she may be in the car for only a few hours. On balance, I'd have to say that the forensic investigation of the car was lacking (and I'd love to know, by the way, how many times the car was checked over, and what finally happened to it).

Regarding Mrs Jones, yes, she was ripped to shreds by Swanwick (who after all was only doing what he was engaged to do) but I wonder why it wasn't possible to arrange (yet another) i.d. parade for her with Hanratty in the line-up? Was there a legal reason why this was never done? Could you positively identify someone who knocked your door three months ago trying to sell you something? And the real cruncher for me is that Joe Gillbanks showed her only one photo - that of Hanratty. Had he shown her a few more and she'd then identified Hanratty, then her evidence may have been much more credible. Oh, and Hanratty got the colour of her hair wrong, as it happened - he said it was grey when it was actually fair. I think Sherrard took a massive gamble when he called Mrs Jones for the defence, and he lost it badly.

The Mary Lanz evidence I've never been sure about. Like Mrs Jones and others who run boaring-houses and hotels and pubs, why should she be able to accurately identify one or more person in her doubtless busy pub unless he or she was a regular, as were MG and VS? Alphon came out with some rubbish about going into the Old Station Inn with a heavily-disguised Janet Gregsten on the night of the murder, but I'm afraid that if you believe that, you'll believe anything. According to Paul Foot, Alphon told Justice and Fox that the Old Station Inn was not the pub where MG and VS had been prior to their abduction. And also according to Foot, Mary Lanz told Justice that she had seen Alphon in her pub 'on more than one occasion the previous summer', without specifically mentioning the evening of August 22nd. All a bit vague, if you ask me. Could she honestly and truthfully describe everyone who'd been in her pub over the previous few months?

Terry Evans obviously felt that JH couldn't be the killer, and then along comes Mrs Jones who spoiled everything by being seen talking to him during the trial, strictly against judges' rules. Also, I believe that Charlie Jones the newspaper seller admitted to Nimmo that he'd been 'leaned upon' by Evans to say that he'd seen JH in Rhyl, which obviously makes his, Jones', evidence somewhat unreliable. Did Evans 'lean on' anyone else, one wonders? He was a hard man...

Simpson got the calibre, not the model, of the gun wrong. The gun found on the 36A bus was without any doubt whatsoever the 'A6 gun', whether it was placed there by Hanratty or whoever. Simpson had only the wounds to use to make his statement, and there can't be too much difference between wounds caused by a .32 and a .38 calibre bullet, at point-blank range.

Catch you all soon,

Cheers,

Graham

[Tony]

Reg, Tony, Julie.

I'm somewhat replete with braised beef and a pretty good Cabernet as I write this, so it'll be short (for me).

As I understand it, the forensic people found plenty of evidence that MG and VS (and perhaps others?) had used the car, which is understandable - finger-prints on the steering-wheel, gear-stick, etc., I should think. But to find no evidence linking either Hanratty or Alphon to the car rather suggests that either (a) their investigation wasn't all that thorough and/or (b) forensic techniques in 1961 were not that great. My ex-forensic friend says that even something as simple as a sticky-tape removal of fibres from the back seat should have found something - and that was apparently a known technique in those days. VS said that her attacker wore gloves, which would take care of any fingerprints, but what about mud and soil and other detritus from the cornfield adhering to shoes? Was none found on the floor of the car? Even Sherlock Holmes was able to finger a criminal or two by identifying a particular type of soil from shoes! Again, I would have to say that if it wasn't Hanratty but Alphon in the car, then there is nothing linking the latter to the car, either. My friend also said that under 'normal' conditions, it is virtually impossible for anyone to remove 100% of the evidence of his or her presence in a car, even though he or she may be in the car for only a few hours. On balance, I'd have to say that the forensic investigation of the car was lacking (and I'd love to know, by the way, how many times the car was checked over, and what finally happened to it).

Regarding Mrs Jones, yes, she was ripped to shreds by Swanwick (who after all was only doing what he was engaged to do) but I wonder why it wasn't possible to arrange (yet another) i.d. parade for her with Hanratty in the line-up? Was there a legal reason why this was never done? Could you positively identify someone who knocked your door three months ago trying to sell you something? And the real cruncher for me is that Joe Gillbanks showed her only one photo - that of Hanratty. Had he shown her a few more and she'd then identified Hanratty, then her evidence may have been much more credible. Oh, and Hanratty got the colour of her hair wrong, as it happened - he said it was grey when it was actually fair. I think Sherrard took a massive gamble when he called Mrs Jones for the defence, and he lost it badly.

The Mary Lanz evidence I've never been sure about. Like Mrs Jones and others who run boaring-houses and hotels and pubs, why should she be able to accurately identify one or more person in her doubtless busy pub unless he or she was a regular, as were MG and VS? Alphon came out with some rubbish about going into the Old Station Inn with a heavily-disguised Janet Gregsten on the night of the murder, but I'm afraid that if you believe that, you'll believe anything. According to Paul Foot, Alphon told Justice and Fox that the Old Station Inn was not the pub where MG and VS had been prior to their abduction. And also according to Foot, Mary Lanz told Justice that she had seen Alphon in her pub 'on more than one occasion the previous summer', without specifically mentioning the evening of August 22nd. All a bit vague, if you ask me. Could she honestly and truthfully describe everyone who'd been in her pub over the previous few months?

Terry Evans obviously felt that JH couldn't be the killer, and then along comes Mrs Jones who spoiled everything by being seen talking to him during the trial, strictly against judges' rules. Also, I believe that Charlie Jones the newspaper seller admitted to Nimmo that he'd been 'leaned upon' by Evans to say that he'd seen JH in Rhyl, which obviously makes his, Jones', evidence somewhat unreliable. Did Evans 'lean on' anyone else, one wonders? He was a hard man...

Simpson got the calibre, not the model, of the gun wrong. The gun found on the 36A bus was without any doubt whatsoever the 'A6 gun', whether it was placed there by Hanratty or whoever. Simpson had only the wounds to use to make his statement, and there can't be too much difference between wounds caused by a .32 and a .38 calibre bullet, at point-blank range.

Catch you all soon,

Cheers,

Graham

And that’s short? I would take my hat of to you Graham if I was wearing one.

Before we go off the Rhyl alibi Graham you seem to me to sway from one side to the other. A few months ago I sensed you were about to join us in the minority camp but now you have your feet firmly planted once more with the majority.

Now can I ask you a question and I only ask it of you because you, I feel, would welcome a further enquiry if anything new came to light. And this is totally and completely hypothetical (I’ve put that bit in so that you can copy and paste it in your reply) but just suppose when Uncle Peter leaves the land of the living, and I wish him no harm by the way, just suppose he leaves a .38 cartridge and ‘they’ can prove it matched the murder gun.
What effect would that have on your opinion of the case? I do believe there are either one or two cartridges that were unaccounted for.

By the way Julie Limehouse as Reg says excellent posting.

Tony.

[Graham]

Hi Tony,

And that’s short? I would take my hat of to you Graham if I was wearing one.

I got carried away a bit...

Before we go off the Rhyl alibi Graham you seem to me to sway from one side to the other. A few months ago I sensed you were about to join us in the minority camp but now you have your feet firmly planted once more with the majority.

Since the DNA I've never had any real doubt about Hanratty's guilt, but what I did once say that I could never be 100% certain - only 99%.

Regarding 'Uncle Peter' and the possibility of his leaving a .38 cartridge-case, this would really have to be a complete latter-day miracle, because of the total lack of his DNA on any of the forensic exhibits. (By the way, whilst on the subject of the cartridge cases, with reference to Limehouse's post I'd have to say that if Hanratty had left the cases at The Vienna then that would have had to be prior to the murder, and one has to assume that he didn't set out on 22nd August with the intention to commit murder. He left his father's window-cleaning equipment down the side of someone's house, so I'm pretty sure a couple of cartridge-cases never bothered him too much).

While we're on the subject of hypotheticals, what if someone suddenly emerged today with a statement along the lines: "I was in Dorney Reach on the night of 22nd August and I did see a man who I recognised from later published photos as being James Hanratty in the vicinity of the cornfield. I should have come forward at the time, but I was frightened. Now that I'm near death I see no point in keeping this a secret any longer". What effect would that have on you? I think there's more chance of this than there is of 'Uncle Peter' leaving us a memento of the A6 Crime....

Cheers,

Graham

[burkhilly]

I have been reading the various posts within this thread for the past two weeks - and am up to page 205. Absolutely facinating! You lot are insightful, articulate and so knowledgeable. I know a lot more about the case now - thanks!

I'm not an expert like many of the posters on this thread, but know more than the average person about JH. I am facinated by miscarriages of justice, mainly due to miscarriage of justice surrounding George Kelly. I found this site via the Yo Liverpool site, which has a thread on the Cameo murders, which are the murders GK was hanged for.

With regards to JH, this is a case I was interested in for years, having seen the case featured at various times on TV as well as reading Paul Foot's book. I for one was convinced that JH was innocent and was yet another victim of our country's justice system. However, I believe that the DNA evidence is conclusive and JH is the A6 murderer. When I heard the results in 2004, I was stunned, and really felt for his family.

I read very early on in the thread, that perhaps JH had convinced himself he wasn't involved in the crime - I think perhaps this was right, particularly if he wasn't the brightest of people.

Like a lot of others on this thread, although I believe JH is guilty, perhaps 5% of me still believes in his possible innocence.

I look forward to continuing to read all your posts, as the whole subject is totally absorbing.

[Limehouse]

Hi Burkhilly,

Nice to read your post. A new poster is always welcome.

Many people were shocked by the DNA findings including me. I was more than convinced Hanratty was innocent when I joined this thread, despite the DNA evidence. However, I am much less certain now - although I seem to swing this way and that everytime I read a few posts! I think there will always be a little bit of me that believes he was innocent.

Graham - good point about the cartridges. They were obviously left at the hotel before the murder and it is possible Hanratty did not actually set out to kill anyone. However, if that is the case, why bother loading the gun?

Does anyone know if any prints were found on the cartridges? Would anyone wipe them clean then leave them behind?

[Graham]

Hiya Burkhilly,

Welcome to the A6 Thread. Never a dull moment, here...

Your feelings regarding JH are in line with mine - I think that for all practical purposes he done it, but to be completely rational about the thing, we do have to accept that there could be just a slight doubt....if nothing else, it keeps the pot boiling.

As you say, totally absorbing.

Regards,

Graham

[Graham]

Hi Julie,

Graham - good point about the cartridges. They were obviously left at the hotel before the murder and it is possible Hanratty did not actually set out to kill anyone. However, if that is the case, why bother loading the gun?

Well, yes, good point. But what's the use of a gun if it's not loaded? You may as well go in with a hammer. As I've said before, I think JH set out that day to burgle a posh house or two, failed in that endeavour, so thought that he'd hold up a couple in a car. Maybe he thought that it'd be easy, as he had a gun.

Does anyone know if any prints were found on the cartridges? Would anyone wipe them clean then leave them behind?

Another very good point. I can't recall reading that the cartridges were ever subjected to any examination other than that they'd been fired by the "No 36A" gun. This probably strengthens my belief that the forensic work apropos the A6 Case wasn't of the highest order. The only possibility of their being wiped clean was that someone other than JH had planted them at The Vienna.

Cheers,

Graham

[Victor]

Hi Vic
You are very gracious. Thank you.

As for Hanratty's guilt then all of the following together would be a compelling case that would leave very little room for a reasonable doubt.

Hi Reg,
OK, I'll have a go at answering your criteria:-

1) A fair amount of hard scientific forensic evidence that puts Hanratty at the scene of the crime. Hairs, clothing fibres, fingerprints and, if used, DNA profiling using SMG+ or an equivalent system used as per its recommendations.

Now obviously the DNA part of this is going to be an issue between us because LCN is a legally reognised system in the UK, whereas you question it's results. In addition the lack of forensic evidence generally has been noted by several other posters and is a source of concern.

2) Credible eyewitness testimony from several sources that puts Hanratty in the cornfield at the alleged time.

As there were only 3 people in the car, and 2 are now dead, then your "several" request is obviously not possible.

3) No credible or convincing alibi.

Again, subjective words like "credible" and "convincing" render this difficult because judging from the posts this weekend some view Hanratty's Rhyl alibi as credible and convincing, whereas others of us don't.

As for a public inquiry, so many other cases like this one are deserving of one such as;
Stefan Kisko
The Birmingham 6, Guildford 4 and the Maguire family
The Luton Post Office murder of Reg Spencer
Barry George

And then there are those such as Jean Charles de Menzes where people scream "whitewash" anyway.

I read Foot again over the weekend, and he says that at the first ID parade where VS failed to identify PLA that the other participants were (mainly) Civil Servants from the Union Jack club, so Michael Clark is likely to be a civil servant not an RAF man. He says that the second parade where VS identified JH was the one with RAF people. I haven't got to that bit in Woffinden yet, so can anyone else confirm?

I also noticed the number of liars involved in this case:- Hanratty, Alphon, Nudds, Langdale, &tc. It was noticable how critical Foot was of the latter 3 and how lenient he was towards Hanratty.

The reverse logic of the changing alibis was particularly bizarre too - JH changed his alibi, if he'd been guilty then that would have been a suicidal move so he must be innocent! (There's a tautology example Tony)

KR,
Vic.