a6 murder

[jimarilyn]

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

Hi Simon,

Are you sure about this ? I know that both Janet Gregsten and William Ewer denied that the newspaper article was true but I can't recall reading anywhere that Paul Foot believed Janet's denial of the story. Did Paul say this in a magazine article do you know ?

I've just done a quick search in his book for any mention of it but can't find anything about his believing Janet's version.

Incidentally I did come across something quite interesting which I'd forgotten about or overlooked on previous readings and that concerns Janet's first hospital visit (she made three altogether) to see Valerie Storie. I will quote the second paragraph on page 63 of Paul's book :-

Mrs Gregsten revealed for the first time the inside story.
'Valerie [Mrs Gregsten was quoted as saying] told me what happened. They were parked on the roadside when this man tapped at the window, Mike, my husband, wound the window half down and the man stuck a gun in and told them : "Open the door". The man was in his thirties and reasonably dressed. He spoke with a Cockney accent, but the most important feature was his eyes. They were blue and staring.' (Daily Mail, September 22nd, 1961.)

So Valerie told Janet that the man was in his thirties and reasonably dressed. This contrasts starkly with other accounts stating that the man was in his twenties and immaculately dressed.

I find it difficult to reconcile these two varying descriptions of the gunman.


regards,
James

[simon]

Hi James,
Janet gave Foot one of the surprises of his life by suddenly contacting him to discuss the case. A few months ago I quoted here from one of his Guardian columns of around that time. She'd told him her side of that 'sighting' story - "And I believe her", is what he wrote.

Regards,
Simon

[Victor]

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.

Hi James,

I read the pages of Foot again over the weekend, and I managed to work out that he does try to explain why my theory wouldn't work. He does seem to express this part in very clumsy and convoluted terms when he could have just given the details in a concise and readable tabular form as he does to the payments side.

Having a different format for payments and receipts suggests to me that Foot was being deliberately vague and intended to confuse the issue. Woffinden doesn't follow up this work does he? That suggests that Woffinden disagrees with Foot on this very matter.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Hi James,

Isn't it amazing what can happen if you pick a couple of sentences from different posts by the same person and put them together.

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

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 ?

The second quote suggests that everyone should "pick and choose who to believe" Gregsten\Ewer or Duffy\Jordan, yet the first forms the basis of a criticism of me for doing exactly that for conflicting information from a different set of people.

KR,
Vic.

[reg1965]

Hi All
Here's a unusual theory that puts together several known facts about the case which have never been satisfactorily explained away.

Dr Keith Simpson the pathologist who examined both VS and MG stated in his book "Forty Years of Murder" (1978 p163)

...He [MG] had two .32 calibre bullet wounds of the head, shot 'through and through' from left ear to right cheek. The skin was tattooed round the entry wounds, and the range could not have been more than an inch or two; the shots had evidently been fired in rapid succession, before the head had moved.

and

...She [VS] had similar calibre through and through wounds, one of the neck and four drilled-in holes in over her left shoulder and down over her arm. I thought probably all five shots, which were in a line, had been fired in quick succession and from beyond arm's range.

I don't think that the slugs that killed MG were ever found and furthermore, I cannot find any report as to the actual calibre of the slug that was extracted from VS's neck.

At the trial it seems that Dr Simpson's evidence of .32 calibre wounds went unchallenged.

The .38 that was found on the bus was declared to be the murder weapon the very next day, the 25th. One assumes that this was established by firing a round off and then checking the cases that were found at the scene of the murder. Dr Simpson first saw VS on the following Sunday (27th) and the slug removed some weeks later.

From what has been said on this thread before, a .38 is a heavy actioned tool that would have made it very difficult to make the wounds that Dr Simpson observed. Even if Alphon was frightened by MG's movements with the duffel bag would the .38 have been able to be fired twice in succession and make the wounds that Dr Simpson says in the first quote "before the head had moved."? Following on would Alphon had been able to fire a neat volley of shots along VS's upper body with the .38 and in keeping with Dr Simpsons observations and indeed VS's testimony that a volley of 5 shots were fired at her?

If the gun was a .32 it would also explain why Alphon reloaded after the five shots at VS; because it held 7 bullets as opposed to the 6 that a .38 carried. Also, VS didn't say that she heard the killer reload the gun after killing MG.

Dr Simpson's book was published in 1978. If he was wrong about the calibre of the gun he certainly had plenty of time to correct what would have been an error, don't you think?

If all of this is true then what did the .38 found on the bus have to do with the murder?

Perhaps Alphon was given a number of spent cartridges by France to drop at the scene that would tie in with the gun held by and then dumped on the bus by France. Alphon could then just dump the actual weapon. Whichever way you look at it, France is the number one suspect for putting the gun on the bus. For Alphon and France to take the chance of meeting up to get rid of the gun would have created a greater risk in the framing of Hanratty.

The fact that the calibres were different may not have occurred to the conspirators as long as .38 cases alone were found at the scene of the murder. Police forensics at that time were not so advanced and could have been set to the backs of the minds of the perpertrators, who were watching Hanratty by the 31st August anyway! (Woffinden, 1997. p279

It is just a theory.

Reg

[jimarilyn]

Dr Keith Simpson

Hi Reg,

A very thought provoking post . Like most people I suppose, I have automatically presumed that the murder weapon was indeed the Enfield.38 revolver which was found on that 36A bus by Edwin Cooke.

Dr Simpson seems (wittingly or unwittingly) to have thrown a spanner in the works by saying that Mike Gregsten had two .32 calibre bullet wounds of the head. By the time of the A6 murder Dr Simpson had acquired over 20 years experience of being a pathologist so one would presume that he'd have known the difference between .32 calibre bullet wounds and .38 calibre bullet wounds. Was he subconsciously trying to tell us something here ?
I know next to nothing about guns so I'm in the dark about all this.

In his book Dr Simpson devotes ( very disappointingly IMO ) only 5 pages to the A6 murder and as a Home Office pathologist very much takes the official line. This makes the .32 calibre remark all the more puzzling.

As you highlight in your post Reg, Dr Simpson said in his book that 'the shots had evidently been fired in rapid successsion, before the head had moved'. If this is true then this would strongly suggest that the shooting was deliberate and that the gunman was left-handed. It would also suggest that the murder weapon was more likely to have been an automatic rather than a revolver. Perhaps Dr Simpson just got it all wrong.


regards,
James



PS. Does anyone know how often Home Office pathologists are brought in to perform autopsies on murder victims ? Is it the exception rather than the rule ?

[jimarilyn]

Position of Mike Gregsten's dead body

Hi All,

On the subject of Keith Simpson's book, for those who haven't got a copy there's a very interesting photograph in the middle of the book. This particular photo must have been taken fairly soon after the discovery of Michael Gregsten's body, before the white tents were erected screening it off.

Thought it might prove of some interest.

Incidentally for anyone who's ever wondered about the name Deadman's Hill, it was, ironically, the place where highwaymen of olden times were hanged

regards,
James

[jimarilyn]

"Thread's gone dead" said Fred to Father Ted.


regards,
James

[Tony]

"Thread's gone dead" said Fred to Father Ted.


regards,
James

Hello James,

I think the thread is always quiet at weekend.

However we know what responses to expect come Monday morning.

I have read Reg’s theory and it is an intriguing one. As you say Professor Keith Simpson had years of experience at murder scenes and presumably in mortuaries so why would he say in his written evidence and then again under oath in court that Gregston was shot with a .32 gun and why this was not challenged again by the defence is inexplicable.
Presumably Sherrard had only to say to Simpson: “Are you absolutely sure he was shot with a .32?”
And Simpson replied “Definitely” then the gun could not have been introduced as evidence.
I think all of us over the years have seen this apparent mistake by the Prof but why over those years has he not corrected it? And why has there been hardly any mention of it by the campaigners?

Let us just suppose for a moment that the Hanratty’s won the lottery or found a wealthy benefactor (OK I know it isn’t going to happen) but just suppose they did and they could reinvestigate the case without interruption or restraints.
Let’s also suppose, just as in the case of James Hanratty, Michael Gregston’s body was exhumed for tests. And let’s further suppose that a new post mortem showed that the prosecution expert the eminent pathologist Mr Simpson, the man of the day for these occasions, was right all along and he had two .32 bullet holes in his skull. Where would that leave the case?

I also assume that at the investigation stage Acott would have read Simpson’s post mortem report and would have interviewed him and said: “Listen Pal are you sure that it was a .32 because we have now found a .38 gun on the bus and we say that is the murder weapon. You had better go back and have another look because this might look bad in court”
If that did happen obviously the Prof wasn’t for turning and Acott got away with another one.

I’d like to hear from Rob on this one if he still looks in.

Tony.

[burkhilly]

I've now re-read Paul Foot's book. I have also done other bits of research and some things do not add up, in relation to the timings in Liverpool and Rhyl.

JH apparently arrived in Liverpool at 4.45pm. He then got a bus to Scotland Road, asked around for a road he was looking for, couldn't get the info, and returned to Liverpool Lime Street, where he had a wash, had something to eat (as well as having a chat to someone at a Snooker Hall). The only bus going to Rhyl, left Liverpool at 6pm. How did he manage to do so much in such a short space of time? I haven't been able to find out if there were other buses that evening - could there have been? Does anyone have an answer to this?

As everyone on this thread is into correct details I thought I'd let you know that in Paul Foot's book it states that JH's supposed Liverpool friends lived in the Bullring, off Scotland Road. The Bullring (one of the few tenement blocks still to survive in Liverpool, now student accomodation, incidentially a Grade 11 Listed Building) is about five minutes walk from Lime Street Station, with Scotland Road being about a mile away. I've checked that there were tenements off Scotland Road, and there were, but none called the Bullring. The only Bullring (St Andrews Gardens) is off Brownlow Hill.

I've also read loads on DNA - but I'm still none the wiser really. What is clear is that cross contamination can happen unless care is taken. However, if this is the case in the A6 Murder, where is the rapist's DNA? Am I also correct in thinking that if the rapist did not produce sperm, then there would be no DNA on the knicker sample? Another issue is how much DNA degrades (skin and hair degrade very quickly, compared to say bones) and also what do they mean when someone's DNA covers another DNA. I found reading about DNA really interesting, but I cannot claim to really understand the process and found the whole science confusing.

Simple explainations to the above gratefully received.

Thanks!

[Tony]

Reg's gun.

Hello everyone,

You know what the more I think about Reg’s theory the more disturbing it gets.

I don’t think witness interrogation or court proceedings have changed all that much from 1961 to the present day.

But can you imagine what would happen today if Keith Simpson’s evidence were to be repeated now.

“I have examined Mr Gregston’s body and I determine he was killed by two shots from a .32 calibre gun. I am the leading man on this subject in Britain.”

Mr Acott’s evidence: “We offer in evidence what we believe to be the murder weapon. It is a .38 calibre Enfield hand gun.”

Nothing from the defence. Nothing from the learned judge. Were they all asleep when Simpson had Gregston shot with a different gun from Acott’s?

Could Simpson be wrong? Were the judge and Sherrard not paying attention? And Acott said that when he first interviewed Hanratty almost the first thing that Hanratty said to him was: “What size were the bullets?”
Hanratty always denied saying this but if he did why did he say it and if he didn’t why did Acott say such a thing?

Answers on a postcard please to Reg.

Tony.

[jimarilyn]

.32 or .38 ????

Hi Tony,

You make very valid and important points in your last two posts.

Bob Woffinden it would seem was very perplexed by the matter and didn't know how to resolve the issue ( p396 of his book).

Keith Simpson wrote his book 17 years after the murder. Being highly involved in the case I would imagine that by 1978 he'd read (via books and newspaper/magazine articles) plenty about the case. He'd have known from a very early stage in the investigation that the police had claimed the murder weapon was an Enfield .38 revolver. He'd have known also that such a revolver could not fire .32 calibre bullets. Was he in effect trying to say that the police were lying ?

I can't believe that his mention of .32 calibre bullet wounds was a typo error, he must have proof read his book carefully to ensure that no important errors crept in.

Perhaps Sherrard was having a snooze while Dr Simpson was giving his trial testimony.

You're right to be disturbed by all this, Tony.


regards,
James

[Victor]

What is clear is that cross contamination can happen unless care is taken.

Quite easily, but unpredictably. Skin flakes and hairs drop off you fairly regularly and then get blown around in the wind (or air con).

However, if this is the case in the A6 Murder, where is the rapist's DNA?

That's the really important question that noone has been able to satisfactorily answer.

Am I also correct in thinking that if the rapist did not produce sperm, then there would be no DNA on the knicker sample?

Pubic hairs or skin cells may be present especially as excessive friction is typically a factor of rape, but unlikely to be of significant quantities.

This is not relevant in this case because O-secretor semen was detected in 1961, therefore the rapist did produce sperm.

Another issue is how much DNA degrades (skin and hair degrade very quickly, compared to say bones)

Blood spots on card are routinely detected after 40 years, and normally DNA is an inherently stable molecule and needs something to trigger the degredation such as light or bacteria.

and also what do they mean when someone's DNA covers another DNA.

Who knows? They are probably trying to imagine a fantasy scenario where something like that could happen, with little basis in reality.

Simple explainations to the above gratefully received.

Well I hope I have.

KR,
Vic.

[burkhilly]

Thanks Vic for your responses - very clear.


I'm sure I'll have more questions in the future, but I'm taking a few weeks off from the evidence minefield which is the A6 murder, going back to read some rubbishy novels and clear my mind.

Keep up the good work you contributors!

[PUPPYKINS]

Welcome to the thread VS,

Well I certainly never anticipated starting a post off in that manner. Whenever we get a new contributor with a pseudonym I always immediately go to the signature before reading the content; I don’t know why it’s just what I do. It possibly has something to do with Puppykins who later became Alan. Where is he by the way?
Anyway can you imagine a contribution from Jimornot and the author is VS? Well it was smelling salts, a stiff drink and straight to bed. I dread to think what happened to Jimarilyn who is James from Liverpool when he read it. Are you OK James?
So I have had to read your post this morning and I see you, despite your title, are slightly on the side of Jim did it. Well you are in the majority there but if you read Sara you will see she came on here as a 100% Jim did it but now appears to have changed her

As I say a warm welcome and from my point of view everyone on here is of sound stock and you will always get an answer to anything you might ask or any points you put forward. I know that on occasions some of the contributors have got a bit excitable and indeed have gone over the top. They know who I mean but they also know that I think they are OK really. It’s mainly our own Superhero Reg and then only after he’s seen Arsenal loose and been out for a few drinks with his brother Ron. Only kidding Reg; you may not be Superman but you are a star when it comes to information on here. You haven't really got a brother called Ron have you?

Anyway, VS, it is up to us to police this forum and a good telling off from Limehouse usually calms everyone down. So enjoy yourself on here; it’s brilliant.

Tony.

Hi Tony. Yes I'm still around! I haven't contributed much lately cos I'm not really as knowledgeable or intelligent as wot most of the contributors on this forum are. Super stuff though.
Ian [Puppykins]