a6 murder

[reg1965]

Hi Reg

I'm sitting on the fence because of some of your posts. They are so informative. I like the way you list points and then someone respond disputing what you've said - which is part of this thread!


The only thing I want to know about in the DNA process and unless I go to university for three years and learn the science surrounding it, I've no chance. Like so many people I tend to listen to the "experts" and then agree with their findings.

Keep up the good work!

Hi burkhilly
If I may be so bold may I ask what points I have put forward sways you toward splinter land (fence sitting that is )
No one who has ever posted on here on a regular basis is an expert forensic DNA expert. Some do research and post what they find, It is then up to others to decide what they make of it all. Not many have braved to enter the labyrinth that is the DNA thread. You don't have to post, but my advice would be to read as many of the linked articles about LCN and make your mind up then. You do not need to be a rocket scientist to follow any of them.

Cheers
Reg

[jimarilyn]

Hi peeps,
I was busy painting the shower block in work today and a question popped into my head. Why would the assailant ask VS how to start the car and work the gears, she was the passenger not the driver. Did VS have a driving licence does anyone know.
Not being sexist here but there were considerably fewer drivers in `61 than today and female drivers were even rarer. My Mrs has just asked "How did the assailant know that VS could drive"

Hi Rob,

This is a very good point. They were both employed in road research and by all accounts MG and VS were quite accomplished drivers. They entered rallies, even winning an award for one in June of 1960. They became members of the de Havilland Motor Club and together participated in about 15 car rallies.
I would guess that Miss Storie shared part of the driving responsibility and consequently was at the very least a capable driver. How much (if anything) did the gunman know about all of this ? Had he been genned up accordingly by person/person's unknown. WE can only speculate on this can't WE ?

It's quite obvious (from VS's own testimony) that the gunman was unfamiliar with cars and how to even start one up let alone engage the gears. Much crunching of gears and erratic driving would have been on the cards over the course of the following few hours while the gunman was teaching himself how to drive.

regards,
James

[simon]

Hi James,
I suppose he might have been 'genned up' about her driving ability...on the other hand, he'd been in conversation with the couple for hours on end, so the subject might have arisen.

Regards,
Simon

[jimarilyn]

Hi James,
I suppose he might have been 'genned up' about her driving ability...on the other hand, he'd been in conversation with the couple for hours on end, so the subject might have arisen.

Regards,
Simon

Hi Simon,

You're absolutely correct and this is a definite possibility. Considering that hours of conversation were engaged upon by the 3 occupants of the car it's a great pity that only about 10 to 20% of this conversation/interaction has so far been accounted for.

Nice to see you back posting Simon, I always welcome and appreciate your comments.


regards,
James

[jimarilyn]

Possible sighting of murder car at Birstall

Hi All,

The Court of Appeal judgment of 2002 was rather dismissive of the reported sightings of the murder car at Matlock, Coventry and Birstall (near Leicester), most likely because they didn't fit in with their own pre-conceived notions of the car's movements subsequent to the murder.

Below I will illustrate that the sighting by John Douglas in Birstall is indeed more than possible........

Michael Gregsten apparently kept a meticulous log of what the mileage was whenever he stopped for petrol.
The recorded mileage when he stopped for petrol on 22nd of August was 51875 miles.
Harry Hirons, a petrol pump attendant at the Shell Garage at Kingsbury Circle testified that he put 2 gallons of petrol in the car.
This could well have been the first time that day that MG had stopped for petrol.
VS said that there was already about 2 gallons of petrol in the car at this point in time.
According to Google Earth the distance from Kingsbury Circle to Deadman's Hill is 39.1 miles, and the distance from Deadman's Hill to Birstall is 72.3 miles making a grand total of 111.4 miles.
The approximate 4 gallons of petrol in the car at Kingsbury would get the Morris Minor as far as Birstall before the car's fuel gauge was pointing to near empty and ready for re-fuelling.
John Douglas, a petrol pump attendant at a Birstall garage, made a mental note of the registration number of a blueish-grey car which had stopped for petrol about 12 noon on 23rd of August. The registration number was that of the Morris Minor (847 BHN).
Mr Douglas said the occupants of the car were a man and a woman and that the man spoke with a southern accent.
According to Google Earth the distance from Birstall to Avondale Crescent is 119 miles.
When you add the 2 distances together ( the 111.4 miles and the 119 miles ) one gets a grand total of 230.4 miles.
The covered mileage of the car (which Baz Acott kept hidden from the defence team) from the point at which MG put petrol in it to where it was abandoned in Avondale Crescent was 232 miles. (The odometer read 52107 miles at Avondale)

Food for thought perhaps............


regards,
James

[Tony]

Evening Tony,

Yes, nice a warm in my study with the two kitten curled up on my lap too!

I have highlighted a passage of your post above concerning how the cartridges appeared in the hotel room three weeks after the crime and I had exactly the same idea as you but hardly liked to express it.

I don't necessarily accept that the cartidges were 'obviously placed in the room before the murder' but according to the accepted version, they were. My original point was, why would someone be so careless as to leave them there, having taken so much time to ensure no forensic evidence was left in the car? I also asked whether the cartridges were checked for finger prints. Surely the defence would have wanted to know this? If they had Hanratty's prints on, fair enough but if they were clean it does pose the question of whether they were planted because, after all, why would a man wipe his prints from cartridges and then walk away, leaving them in the hotel? Also, if they were fired into a cusion at the hotel as a practice shot (as has been speculated) why didn't anyone hear the gun going off and why wasn't the damaged cushion produced as evidence?

This is all very important because, DNA evidence and VS's testimony aside, the cartridges and the gun (with the hanky) are the only physical things that really tie Hanratty to the crime scene but neither were found at the scene. The crime scene itself was completely clean of Hanratty's presence (except, it seems, Valerie's knickers, if you'll pardon the vulgarity). It would have been difficult for anyone to place fibres from the clothes Hanratty was wearing that night at the scene (although the odd hair would not have been so difficult) but it was not difficult to 'plant' evidence in other places that Hanratty had, or could have, visited.

To me, what it seems to add up to is either a very poor forensic examination of the scene and car (as Graham has plausibly suggested) or a thorough cleaning of the inside of the car (perhaps using sticky tape??) and a few careful plants of evidence to inciminate Hanratty.

However, all that being said, it still does not lead us to the real killer or even an explantion for the crime.

Have a pleasnt evening all of you.

Julie

That’s a very interesting post Julie.

I would say that the cartridges had either had no prints on them or if they did they were certainly not James Hanrattys. If the cartridges were Hanrattys then his prints were not on them because if they were Acott would have been quickly on to it and Hanratty may as well have pleaded guilty at the trial. He would have been well and truly done for.
Now if they were Hanratty’s cartridges then he must have wiped them clean. So if he was being so careful why leave them behind?
So if there were prints on them they were certainly not Hanrattys. Thus we are now left with another of Mr Acott’s withholding of evidence. He would have looked bad in court if he said there were prints on the cartridges but they did not belong to Hanratty. Surely the judge would have asked: “well whose print are they then?” Following on from that we are also left with another one of those situations where we can only wonder why Sherrard did not ask the question of Acott.


Tony.

[Tony]

Hi Tony
Put your non existent hat and your (unknown) hair back on for a moment chummy!
Graham was putting forward that if Hanratty was not the killer then Alphon wasn't either as no evidence exists against either them and cited poor forensic science for this position. I was just saying that it is just as possible that neither did it and some A N Other is culpable and has never been fingered.
There is no real concrete evidence against Hanratty and I believe that there is more evidence against Alphon as you yourself know.
Have you got the Hawser report yet?
Take care mate
Reg

A very good afternoon to you Reg.

Eh it’s bloody cold up here, I’m afraid the Owls will have to cope without me tonight. That’s if the match is still on.
I drive what you probably know as a Chelsea tractor but out of necessity and not vanity, and I really do know how to drive one but last night I couldn’t get it onto the drive the snow and ice were packed so tight and although I pay my rates/poll tax/community charge I have seen nothing of any gritters or ploughs. Anyway I don’t want anyone to worry about me I’ll be OK.

Anyway enough of my sob story let’s get on to your post:

First of all I am surprised that you, a fellow detective, needs to question my hair or lack of it. You should have noticed within the brief flirtatious interlude between myself and Limehouse that I proposed smartening myself up a bit and a trip to the barbers was next on the agenda. Sadly Limehouse I have still not been.

I agree with you and I think most others that there was little evidence to convict James Hanratty; in fact if Acott had come clean on some things he must surely have been found not guilty. As you say there was/is more evidence against Peter Alphon.
I suppose there is a possibility of a third person being the murderer but where do we start with that one?

Yes I’ve got the Hawser report but have only glanced at it briefly. I intend reading it in depth very shortly. If you haven’t got a copy I’ll lend you mine when I’ve read it. I do have other things to do by the way and at the moment I’m reading a very funny cricket book.
Bet that’s finally put Limehouse off me.

Tony

[Tony]

The Hawser Report

Incidentally Reg,

If you haven’t got a copy of the Hawser report and would like your own copy you need to search under the following:

Case of James Hanratty (Command 6021)

There is one on Amazon this afternoon.

Tony.

[Limehouse]

That’s a very interesting post Julie.

I would say that the cartridges had either had no prints on them or if they did they were certainly not James Hanrattys. If the cartridges were Hanrattys then his prints were not on them because if they were Acott would have been quickly on to it and Hanratty may as well have pleaded guilty at the trial. He would have been well and truly done for.
Now if they were Hanratty’s cartridges then he must have wiped them clean. So if he was being so careful why leave them behind?
So if there were prints on them they were certainly not Hanrattys. Thus we are now left with another of Mr Acott’s withholding of evidence. He would have looked bad in court if he said there were prints on the cartridges but they did not belong to Hanratty. Surely the judge would have asked: “well whose print are they then?” Following on from that we are also left with another one of those situations where we can only wonder why Sherrard did not ask the question of Acott.


Tony.

And leading on from all that, why didn't the defence follow up this point about the prints? If the cartridges were clean of prints, the defence team could justify arguing that a killer would never wipe clean evidence and then leave it to be found later. Given that the cartridges were found at the hotel weeks after the crime, why didn't the defence team argue this down? Thee must have been some prints on them - how many people handled them ? Did they ALL wipe them clean afterwards?

[Limehouse]

Hi All,

The Court of Appeal judgment of 2002 was rather dismissive of the reported sightings of the murder car at Matlock, Coventry and Birstall (near Leicester), most likely because they didn't fit in with their own pre-conceived notions of the car's movements subsequent to the murder.

Below I will illustrate that the sighting by John Douglas in Birstall is indeed more than possible........

Michael Gregsten apparently kept a meticulous log of what the mileage was whenever he stopped for petrol.
The recorded mileage when he stopped for petrol on 22nd of August was 51875 miles.
Harry Hirons, a petrol pump attendant at the Shell Garage at Kingsbury Circle testified that he put 2 gallons of petrol in the car.
This could well have been the first time that day that MG had stopped for petrol.
VS said that there was already about 2 gallons of petrol in the car at this point in time.
According to Google Earth the distance from Kingsbury Circle to Deadman's Hill is 39.1 miles, and the distance from Deadman's Hill to Birstall is 72.3 miles making a grand total of 111.4 miles.
The approximate 4 gallons of petrol in the car at Kingsbury would get the Morris Minor as far as Birstall before the car's fuel gauge was pointing to near empty and ready for re-fuelling.
John Douglas, a petrol pump attendant at a Birstall garage, made a mental note of the registration number of a blueish-grey car which had stopped for petrol about 12 noon on 23rd of August. The registration number was that of the Morris Minor (847 BHN).
Mr Douglas said the occupants of the car were a man and a woman and that the man spoke with a southern accent.
According to Google Earth the distance from Birstall to Avondale Crescent is 119 miles.
When you add the 2 distances together ( the 111.4 miles and the 119 miles ) one gets a grand total of 230.4 miles.
The covered mileage of the car (which Baz Acott kept hidden from the defence team) from the point at which MG put petrol in it to where it was abandoned in Avondale Crescent was 232 miles. (The odometer read 52107 miles at Avondale)

Food for thought perhaps............


regards,
James

This is fantastic work James, and it should have been done by the defence team at the trial to show that the car didn't simply drive straight to London.

Julie

[reg1965]

Incidentally Reg,

If you haven’t got a copy of the Hawser report and would like your own copy you need to search under the following:

Case of James Hanratty (Command 6021)

There is one on Amazon this afternoon.

Tony.

Cheers Tony
but at nearly 60 quid...that is taking this piss!
I would like to take up your offer of a lend when you are done.
Best wishes as always
Reg

[burkhilly]

Hi burkhilly
If I may be so bold may I ask what points I have put forward sways you toward splinter land (fence sitting that is )
No one who has ever posted on here on a regular basis is an expert forensic DNA expert. Some do research and post what they find, It is then up to others to decide what they make of it all. Not many have braved to enter the labyrinth that is the DNA thread. You don't have to post, but my advice would be to read as many of the linked articles about LCN and make your mind up then. You do not need to be a rocket scientist to follow any of them.

Cheers
Reg

Reg

There's are some points I'd like to know related to DNA testing and the matter they use in the tests.

1. When they use matter to identify DNA, how "fresh" does the matter need to be? In particular I'm thinking of the famous hankie which seems to have been handled by everyone in the Courtroom, however, the DNA identified on the Hankie is only JH. Clearly mucus lasts for a long time, but sweat and tiny skin samples evaporate - or do they?

2. Can you explain to me the broken vial which contained liquid related to JH's trousers. What was this? What was the process?

3. To get things clear in my mind, am I correct that the broken vial and the knicker fragment were kept together in the same box, and the vial got broken at some point? However, the knicker fragment was in a cellophane wrapper, inside a paper envelope.

If you can reply without "too much science" I'd be really grateful.

Thanks!!!

[Tony]

Hello Burkhilly

Good evening Burkhilly,

It has been very remiss of me not to have welcomed you before now. I apologise.

As Reg says you can ask anything on here and everyone will try to help and assist you. We do tend to go over old ground quite a bit but sometimes you forget things and need to be reminded; that in itself can spark something else.
I personally believe James Hanratty to be innocent of the crime but I enjoy reading the other point of view. Indeed if we did not have different views there would be no point to this thread. Some contributors have a vast knowledge of the case and have done a tremendous amount of research. That is to their credit. I have spent hour upon hour researching and reading about the case and I know little compared to some on here.
I don’t take myself or life in general too seriously but this is a serious subject and will never go away.

I believe you come from the village of Liverpool is that right?
Well living close by is Jimarilyn and if you really want to know what this is all about read some of his contributions. You might start with his post 3200 which was complimented by no less than Limehouse.
Jimarilyn is on the same side as I am but I am sure he appreciates the opposite point of view as do I.

Stick with us my friend it’s absorbing, compulsive and sometimes a laugh.

Welcome,

Tony.

[reg1965]

I agree with you and I think most others that there was little evidence to convict James Hanratty; in fact if Acott had come clean on some things he must surely have been found not guilty. As you say there was/is more evidence against Peter Alphon.
I suppose there is a possibility of a third person being the murderer but where do we start with that one?

Hi Tony aka hairy lurv machine! (albeit on a good wicket eh!)

To truly solve the A6 murder a motive would be good; along with some real evidence.

I have always had a suspicion that Gregstens work had something to do with it but again it is finding any evidence that prevents that avenue of investigation to advance.

France was certainly involved somewhere but who was really pulling the strings. Why did Alphon get such easy treatment from the police and the courts for so long?

Cheers mate
Reg

[Tony]

This is fantastic work James, and it should have been done by the defence team at the trial to show that the car didn't simply drive straight to London.

Julie

Hello Julie,

I agree James’ post was very enlightening but the defence could not have followed it up at the trial because it was hidden from them by Acott and Oxo.

Tony