a6 murder

[Tony]

I thought this thread was to debate the facts and fiction in the Hanratty case. There seems to me that there are a lot of uncalled insults going on.

The insults are spoiling the thread for me. I don't mind a bit of heated debate, but insults are childish. Everyone has different opinions on JH. The fact is that we on this thread only know about the A6 Murder because of what we've read about or seen on TV. None of us were involved during the early 60s - we've no idea what people really thought, given the different values at that time.

Some believe without a doubt that JH was guilty, whilst others are convinced of his innocence.

Let's get back to debate and enjoy the thread.

Thanks!

Good evening Mr Burkhilly,

You are quite correct, Sir and thank you for pointing it out. I am aware that this thread is now under serious threat and that is a crying shame.

On another note you say we only know what we have read and seen on TV and you are of course correct again with that statement. But there are some on here who have also done a lot of research on the case and that may very well be from putting bits of one author’s book with another and coming up with a fact that neither author has mentioned. James (jimarilyn) has a fascinating theory about Mr Alphon’s fondness of milk for instance. Others have tried to find information that has neither been written nor televised and to this end we have had some minor successes. I am trying to find a 1961 photograph of Michael Clark for instance. I have also researched the Public Records about Mr Alphon only to find others have been there before me and the files on his hire purchase frauds have been withheld from us as not being in the public’s interest. I have wondered if these HP agreements were anything to do with buying a car.

By the way I notice you watched the Great Trials on the Sky Crime Channel but you might want to go to ‘Youtube’ and enter in the search box James Hanratty or A6 murder and see Woffiden’s docudrama on the case. It really is fascinating and also contains an interview given by the last surviving witness to Hanratty’s execution.

Tony.

[burkhilly]

Thanks for that Tony. Will have a look at the You Tube stuff.

By the way I'm a woman - defo not a sir. Not that I'm offended because my username does look male!

[Victor]

I am trying to find a 1961 photograph of Michael Clark for instance.

Hi Tony,

How do we know that the person VS identified at the first parade was Michael Clark? I know Woffinden mentions a rumour about a Spanish Sailor that he admits is rubbish.

The part that confuses me is that MC is an RAF man, but the RAF guys were on the second (Hanratty) parade, whereas the first (Alphon) parade took civil servants from the Union Jack club as extras. So where does that info come from?

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

Tape-recording drunken conversations and drunken phone calls late at night proves nothing.


The reason that Alphon used those phrases whilst drunk is because he was encouraged to do so by Justice, nothing further can be inferred than that. No court on this planet would accept evidence as corrupt as that, Justice has effectively destroyed the evidential value of that line of enquiry, which is what I meant when I used the phrase "polluted the investigation".

You come out with some outlandish statements Victor that bear absolutely no resemblance to the truth. Where is it ever written or implied that Alphon was drunk when he took part in these conversations and phone calls.

Where is your evidence that he was encouraged to do so by Jean Justice ?

Not to mention your disproven suspicions that Jean Justice was the source of Alphon's unaccounted for £5,000.


James

[Victor]

You come out with some outlandish statements Victor that bear absolutely no resemblance to the truth. Where is it ever written or implied that Alphon was drunk when he took part in these conversations and phone calls.

Hi James,
When discussing Justice's behaviour towards Alphon, both Foot and Woffinden say words to the effect of "many of the conversations are late at night" and mention the babbling and not always coherent nature of the conversations. And this was around the time Justice was drinking heavily. When the Justices', Fox and Alphon meet up the drunken exploits (a parking meter was involved somehow) are openly discussed.

Anyway, you've got the emphasis wrong. I'm calling these conversations heresay, dubious and unreliable - and above all totally inadmissible as evidence in court. Therefore if you want to refer to them and use them then you need to offer some explanation as to why anyone should take any notice of them, specifically addressing these points..

Where is your evidence that he was encouraged to do so by Jean Justice ?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Foot and Woffinden of course.

Not to mention your disproven suspicions that Jean Justice was the source of Alphon's unaccounted for £5,000.

Disproven? You raised a very valid objection to that suspicion, which went along the lines "Justice says he didn't meet Alphon until later". I trust you see the weakness in that argument.

That's not to say I don't agree with you on this point, my major theory on the origin of Alphon's money has always been along the following lines...
1. Alphon gets paid multiple hundreds of pounds by the media - this happens on several occasions keeping the balance "topped up".
2. He pays this money into his bank account.
3. He draws some money out to go gambling.
4. He pays his winnings back in to the account.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 every week.

He was reportedly moderately successful at gambling, and he only needs to win enough to cover his losses and this could go on for a prolonged period with the regular payouts from his mother.

Even Foot concedes that he spends what he gets.

What he should have realised is that it isn't £7,500 in and £7,500 out, it's the same couple of hundred in and out every week.

Now believe this if you like, but I actually want you to criticise the above. Test the theory. Otherwise it's worthless. That's the most important part of this thread for me - someone proposes a theory, everyone tries to break the theory, if it withstands that, then it's workable and might be correct. That's how science and development works.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

PS. I happen to believe that the "kip" tactic Acott used on Hanratty was underhanded, but for Justice to then try the same tactic on Alphon must mean that Justice himself approves of dirty tricks (and by association Foot, Fox and Woffinden).

[jimarilyn]

Hi James,
When discussing Justice's behaviour towards Alphon, both Foot and Woffinden say words to the effect of "many of the conversations are late at night" and mention the babbling and not always coherent nature of the conversations. And this was around the time Justice was drinking heavily. When the Justices', Fox and Alphon meet up the drunken exploits (a parking meter was involved somehow) are openly discussed.

Anyway, you've got the emphasis wrong. I'm calling these conversations heresay, dubious and unreliable - and above all totally inadmissible as evidence in court. Therefore if you want to refer to them and use them then you need to offer some explanation as to why anyone should take any notice of them, specifically addressing these points..


Are you being deliberately obtuse? Foot and Woffinden of course.


Disproven? You raised a very valid objection to that suspicion, which went along the lines "Justice says he didn't meet Alphon until later". I trust you see the weakness in that argument.

That's not to say I don't agree with you on this point, my major theory on the origin of Alphon's money has always been along the following lines...
1. Alphon gets paid multiple hundreds of pounds by the media - this happens on several occasions keeping the balance "topped up".
2. He pays this money into his bank account.
3. He draws some money out to go gambling.
4. He pays his winnings back in to the account.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 every week.

He was reportedly moderately successful at gambling, and he only needs to win enough to cover his losses and this could go on for a prolonged period with the regular payouts from his mother.

Even Foot concedes that he spends what he gets.

What he should have realised is that it isn't £7,500 in and £7,500 out, it's the same couple of hundred in and out every week.

Now believe this if you like, but I actually want you to criticise the above. Test the theory. Otherwise it's worthless. That's the most important part of this thread for me - someone proposes a theory, everyone tries to break the theory, if it withstands that, then it's workable and might be correct. That's how science and development works.

KR,
Vic.

I think the following Daily Mirror newspaper article of August 23rd 1962 clarifies the parking meter theft.

I have read Paul Foot's and Bob Woffinden's books many times and nowhere do they mention or insinuate that Alphon was drunk while participating in the telephone conversations with Jean Justice.

Jean Justice's own book makes it abundantly clear that Alphon was never drunk in his many meetings with him so I just don't know where you get your information from. I recommend you try and obtain a copy of his book and you then wouldn't make these claims without providing supporting evidence to back you up.

You imply clearly in your post that Jean Justice is lying ( ie. your remark "Justice says he didn't meet Alphon until later") You obviously doubt Jean Justice's word here. I notice you never seem to doubt Miss Storie's word even when the many contradictory statements of hers are brought to light. Do you just pick and choose who to believe, Victor ? Your dislike of Justice is palpable from your recent posts and you never even met the man.

Re. your theory about the origin of Alphon's money I think you need to read Paul Foot (pages 390-392) more slowly and carefully.

KP
James

[Victor]

I have read Paul Foot's and Bob Woffinden's books many times and nowhere do they mention or insinuate that Alphon was drunk while participating in the telephone conversations with Jean Justice.

Hi James,
True it's not explicitly stated, but it's definitely implied pretty strongly.

Jean Justice's own book makes it abundantly clear that Alphon was never drunk in his many meetings with him so I just don't know where you get your information from. I recommend you try and obtain a copy of his book and you then wouldn't make these claims without providing supporting evidence to back you up.

I intend getting it at some point, but it isn't a priority for me. A desperate vigilantee clutching at straws doesn't sound like a thrilling read to me.

You imply clearly in your post that Jean Justice is lying ( ie. your remark "Justice says he didn't meet Alphon until later") You obviously doubt Jean Justice's word here. I notice you never seem to doubt Miss Storie's word even when the many contradictory statements of hers are brought to light.

Yes, I clearly imply that Justice is lying in order to implicate Alphon.

On the subject of VS, I have clearly stated that her minor contradictions are entirely understandable considering the ordeal to which she was subjected. She's the surviving victim here and needs a bit of leeway.

Do you just pick and choose who to believe, Victor ?

Of course - doesn't everybody? I choose to believe those who have no motive to lie, like VS.

Your dislike of Justice is palpable from your recent posts and you never even met the man.

What an amazing assumption. And an incorrect one too! I met the man and I must admit that meeting was the basis of my negative thoughts about him and his motives. I disliked the way he preached at me about Hanratty's innocence, it was like he threw logic away and appealled to emotions, whilst simultaneously ignoring the sympathy for the real victim, VS.

Re. your theory about the origin of Alphon's money I think you need to read Paul Foot (pages 390-392) more slowly and carefully.

I'll give it a look, but I can't remember anything majorly contradictory. Foot clearly states that the money goes in and out fairly regularly which seems to fit with what I suggested.

KR,
Vic.

[burkhilly]

Having read this thread from start to finish - my interest in this case has been reignited. As said previously, I've enjoyed reading the various views on the case.

I am now re-reading Paul Foot's book - very slowly! What I'd like to know is other views on Mrs Gregsten seeing JH, after the crime and stating something like "it's him". I read this book years ago and had totally forgotton about this.

I'd be interested to hear other opinions.

Thanks!!!

[jimarilyn]

What an amazing assumption. And an incorrect one too! I met the man and I must admit that meeting was the basis of my negative thoughts about him and his motives. I disliked the way he preached at me about Hanratty's innocence, it was like he threw logic away and appealled to emotions, whilst simultaneously ignoring the sympathy for the real victim, VS.

I apologise profusely Victor for having made this erroneous assumption. I never had the foggiest notion that anyone on this thread had met a major figure in the A6 Murder case. You must be older than I thought. Jean Justice passed away almost 20 years ago. You've never even hinted on this forum that you met the man, which I find puzzling to say the least. I'm sure a lot of posters would be very interested to hear more from you on this subject.

I must say also that this lack of sympathy you say he had for Valerie Storie does not come across in his book. On the contrary he describes her as a very brave and determined woman.


KP,
James

[Victor]

What I'd like to know is other views on Mrs Gregsten seeing JH, after the crime and stating something like "it's him". I read this book years ago and had totally forgotton about this.

I'd be interested to hear other opinions.

Hi Ms burkhilly,

"I met him at the cleaners" is most likely a media invention. Janet Gregsten and Bill Ewer both denied it, although the journalist involved swears it's true.

Lots of people reported supposed "sightings" of a wanted man on a nationwide murder hunt - the overwhelming majority were false. It's likely that the press merged a multitude of stories and came up with the most newsworth article they could - a preposterous "coincidental" meeting of murderer and victim's wife.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

I apologise profusely Victor for having made this erroneous assumption. I never had the foggiest notion that anyone on this thread had met a major figure in the A6 Murder case. You must be older than I thought. Jean Justice passed away almost 20 years ago. You've never even hinted on this forum that you met the man, which I find puzzling to say the least. I'm sure a lot of posters would be very interested to hear more from you on this subject.

I must say also that this lack of sympathy you say he had for Valerie Storie does not come across in his book. On the contrary he describes her as a very brave and determined woman.

Hi James,
It was in the early-eighties and I was young, but my parents were interested in the case and wanted to hear what Justice had to say on the matter, and I went with them. My mother believed everything he said, but my father always was an argumentative so-and-so and picked holes in everything. There was probably a big dose of party politics, and homophobia from my arch-Tory father, which coloured his views, and it was him I argued with most and forged my interest in the case....until the DNA blew my arguments apart...

...and since then I've taken the opposite tack to you, I accept the DNA and try and review the evidence in the light of Hanratty's guilt, because it just doesn't flow seemlessly, whereas you seem to go with that flow to see if you can surmount the massive DNA hurdle.

KR,
Vic.

[Tony]

Having read this thread from start to finish - my interest in this case has been reignited. As said previously, I've enjoyed reading the various views on the case.

I am now re-reading Paul Foot's book - very slowly! What I'd like to know is other views on Mrs Gregsten seeing JH, after the crime and stating something like "it's him". I read this book years ago and had totally forgotton about this.

I'd be interested to hear other opinions.

Thanks!!!

Hello Mrs Burkhilly,

Firstly apologies from me to you on my mistake regarding your gender. It’s not the first time this has happened to me on here and I’m sure it will happen again.

I am glad that you are enjoying this fascinating thread and hope you continue to support it.

I have not any more time at the moment to talk to you, even though I would like to, but there does appear to have been a major development on here this afternoon and we need to see what happens.

With your kind permission I will speak with you over the weekend.

Tony.

[jimarilyn]

Having read this thread from start to finish - my interest in this case has been reignited. As said previously, I've enjoyed reading the various views on the case.

I am now re-reading Paul Foot's book - very slowly! What I'd like to know is other views on Mrs Gregsten seeing JH, after the crime and stating something like "it's him". I read this book years ago and had totally forgotton about this.

I'd be interested to hear other opinions.

Thanks!!!

Hi Burkhilly,

This particular aspect of the case is very intriguing indeed. I have no reason to disbelieve Peter Duffy, the author of that newspaper article "She saw him at the cleaners". Janet Gregsten and William Ewer both denied the story but another newspaper reporter (Bernard Jordan) independently corroborated the story. Clearly someone is not telling the truth but for what reason ?

If the story was false and these newspaper reporters concocted it out of thin air then why didn't Janet and Bill sue ?

One thing is very significant and that is that the "incident" which allegedly happened on the 31st of August, coincided with the day that the murderer's eyes had magically changed colour from the brown of 8 days previously to a pale, icy blue. From that moment on the police were looking for a suspect with icy blue, staring eyes yet became convinced over the following few weeks that the hazel-eyed Peter Alphon was their man. Very Strange.

Never mind "She saw him at the cleaners", somebody it seems well and truly "took James Hanratty to the cleaners". I suspect William Ewer had a very big hand in it.

regards,
James

[simon]

Hi James,
I think this has been discussed before, but Paul Foot did say he believed Janet G's denial of the sighting story.

Regards,
Simon