a6 murder

[Victor]

I understand that it wasn't just the newspapers who quoted the eye colour (Burkhilly's last post quotes ..............."We also have the description – a couple of hours after the murder they were looking for someone with “deep set brown eyes”. I’ve seen the old news reels and this is mentioned twice. ..."

Hi Viv,
A lot of media reports, including one from a police officer, mistakenly quote brown (or hazel) instead of icy blue staring eyes, but there is not one scrap of evidence that VS herself ever said anything other than blue eyes. If you add in confusion over brown hair and someone called Brown, then it gets messy.

Additionally the police were sure of Alphon who I understand did not have the icy blue eyes.

Alphon did have hazel eyes.

Moving on from that, I thought I'd try taking, for a short while anyway, the view that maybe Jim did do it by reflecting on your comment in response to one of my posts where in hindsight you (choose to) see the coincidences as just that. I was thinking about the fact he got rid of his Hepworths jacket and it never showed up - if we were looking to find reasons why we should doubt his evidence we might be inclined to dismiss that as very convenient.

Yes, but information about the break-in where he stole an alternative coat didin't turn up for a long time.

Then take the Rhy alibi - it is odd that (as far as I know) he never told anyone about that visit until late in the trial. Is there any reason why he would not have told say, the Frances on his return before he became a suspect?

The Foot line is that he was embarrassed about not meeting up with a fence and getting rid of the jewelry he had, so to save face only told everyone about being in Liverpool. I don't buy that myself.

There seems to be quite a lot of witnesses who'll swear to a dark-haired man with no luggage going about Rhyl that day, so maybe there was, it's just that it wasn't Hanratty because he was raping and murdering at the time.

I also don't buy the "he wasn't that sort of criminal" argument because no first-time killer has killed before. Every one had to start somewhere.

KR,
Vic

[jimornot?]

Burkhilly's last posting

Hi Burkhilly

Wow - a lot of careful thought in that posting.

Just a couple of comments. On DNA there is the separate thread set up by Reg which extends the comments made earlier on this one. I have to say it is all a but too much for me to concentrate on and my ignorance of the subject is world class (I didn't know for example identical twins - of which I am one - share the same DNA). Perhaps there was contamination but then again perhaps not.

For me now at least, LCN DNA testing is not quite so infallible as I would have thought. That said, it seems unlikely surely that even if contamination did occur, JH's DNA would then obliterate all other traces - although I think Valerie's (and MG's?) DNA was also found so it would be even odder that the only DNA wiped out was that of the 'real' rapist

The same document you refer to makes reference to the need to consider a pattern which is wholly consistent with sexual intercourse in which Valerie Storie and James Hanratty were the participants (para 125 ). A you will know, Vic made reference to this in his postings supportring the credence of the DNA test but you will also know that Reg has made very strong arguments to the contrary. On the whole, I (almost reluctantly) feel the DNA tips the case in favour of JH did it although not as conclusively as I thought in 2002.

As regards the inconsistencies on whether the packet was intact or not , it is certainly odd that two apparently contrasting statements should appear to go unchecked. It could be that Mr Greenhalgh was merely giving an opinion that he felt it was sealed / secured sufficiently

Your notes on the eye colour of the suspect seem to be quite telling. The gathering of evidence at the outset appears flawed (leaving aside the retention of records eg John Kerr's notes - wonder where he is now?). All very convenient to lose what maybe significant data or for it to change when no longer appropriate. I personally have doubts about the validity of Nudds' 3rd statement

keep the posts coming

ATB

Viv

[jimornot?]

Hi Viv,
A lot of media reports, including one from a police officer, mistakenly quote brown (or hazel) instead of icy blue staring eyes, but there is not one scrap of evidence that VS herself ever said anything other than blue eyes. If you add in confusion over brown hair and someone called Brown, then it gets messy.


Alphon did have hazel eyes.


Yes, but information about the break-in where he stole an alternative coat didin't turn up for a long time.


The Foot line is that he was embarrassed about not meeting up with a fence and getting rid of the jewelry he had, so to save face only told everyone about being in Liverpool. I don't buy that myself.

There seems to be quite a lot of witnesses who'll swear to a dark-haired man with no luggage going about Rhyl that day, so maybe there was, it's just that it wasn't Hanratty because he was raping and murdering at the time.

I also don't buy the "he wasn't that sort of criminal" argument because no first-time killer has killed before. Every one had to start somewhere.

KR,
Vic

Hi Vic

I think the first Identikit picture looked very much like Alphon (and even the later one looked very similar to a picture of Alphon James posted ages ago). I know you don't agree with that though

But continuing to play devil's advocate for the JH did it case, much of the police investigation might be seen as contrived and maybe they unduly influenced the identikit pics?

Re Rhyl, I just don't see why Hanratty wouldn't have made reference to say extra business undertaken. He needn't have said anything about not being able to sell the jewelry.

Re the jacket - as I mentioned it could all have been convenient that he ripped the Hepworths one. I understand that a jacket was reported as stolen though so part of the story seems to have been validated.

re his past criminal activity, if he was the guilty party, he seems to have decided to go for broke and try for two murders and a rape to boot. There is nothing I know that indicates any previous form in that regard - the Carole France underage sex matter is not comparable really

what's your take on the gun being found on the bus? Not very plausible he placed it there surely? If not who and why (France? - disgusted with him?)

I recall you now live in Brighton - I was born there. Have you tracked back to see where Alphon's mother lived there (I think it was his mother).

ATB

Viv

[jimarilyn]

while trying to find the post by Steve (re Valerie Storie's pic) I saw this one. Did this ever get any further - Paul only posted this one but there were later posts by someone who knew Carole France

ATB

Viv

Hi Viv,

About 4 days before he submitted this post Paul sent me a Private Message. He'd come across this thread by chance and read my post (post 295) concerning Carole France from a few months earlier. We exchanged a couple or so PM's and he then submitted his post on the main thread. There hasn't been anything further from him unfortunately. Likewise with BlueMoon. Hopefully one or both of them will post again in the future. Their posts would be most welcome.


regards,
James

[jimarilyn]

Moving on from that, I thought I'd try taking, for a short while anyway, the view that maybe Jim did do it by reflecting on your comment in response to one of my posts where in hindsight you (choose to) see the coincidences as just that. I was thinking about the fact he got rid of his Hepworths jacket and it never showed up - if we were looking to find reasons why we should doubt his evidence we might be inclined to dismiss that as very convenient.

Then take the Rhy alibi - it is odd that (as far as I know) he never told anyone about that visit until late in the trial. Is there any reason why he would not have told say, the Frances on his return before he became a suspect?

Hi Viv,

The very important point to keep in mind is that Hanratty wore the Hepworth suit (and various witnesses, including even Louise Anderson testify to this) all the way through from August 21st to September 30th/October 1st 1961, when he tore the jacket badly committing the Stanmore burglaries.

He had told the France's that he was travelling to Liverpool on the Monday (August 21st) ostensibly to visit his auntie (hiding his real reason for going which was to sell stolen jewellery). Who knows, perhaps he did tell Dixie of his detour to Rhyl. He certainly sent them a telegram from Lime Street, Liverpool at 8.40pm on the Thursday evening.

regards,
James

[jimornot?]

Hi Viv,

About 4 days before he submitted this post Paul sent me a Private Message. He'd come across this thread by chance and read my post (post 295) concerning Carole France from a few months earlier. We exchanged a couple or so PM's and he then submitted his post on the main thread. There hasn't been anything further from him unfortunately. Likewise with BlueMoon. Hopefully one or both of them will post again in the future. Their posts would be most welcome.


regards,
James

Hi James

Thanks for this. It is starnge that anyone would post info that is bound to excite the imagination and then to go silent again. Perhaps BlueMoon was deterred by the cautious reaction from many of us to his (her?) posts. I agree, it would be good to hear from either or both of them again

ATB

Viv

PS I looked at your 'Your Tube' posts - fantastic work, well done

[jimornot?]

Hi Viv,

The very important point to keep in mind is that Hanratty wore the Hepworth suit (and various witnesses, including even Louise Anderson testify to this) all the way through from August 21st to September 30th/October 1st 1961, when he tore the jacket badly committing the Stanmore burglaries.

He had told the France's that he was travelling to Liverpool on the Monday (August 21st) ostensibly to visit his auntie (hiding his real reason for going which was to sell stolen jewellery). Who knows, perhaps he did tell Dixie of his detour to Rhyl. He certainly sent them a telegram from Lime Street, Liverpool at 8.40pm on the Thursday evening.

regards,
James

Hi again James

I think I had forgotten that there were witnesses to his wearing the jacket way after the event. Thanks for updating me on this

Been thinking about the jacket a little. Even if he did decide to get rid of it because the heat was on and thought it may incriminate him; it beggars belief that he would so casually dispose of the gun on the bus. If one 'fact' is correct it seems to rule out the possibility of the other being so.

re Rhyl it is a pity he didn't mention in the telegram of his visit there. It makes you think what might have been IF small, seemingly insignificant events had been slightly different - eg existence of a signed guest book, Alphon hadn't attracted attention in the first place etc etc

But hey -ho that's the attraction

ATB

Viv

[Victor]

I think the first Identikit picture looked very much like Alphon (and even the later one looked very similar to a picture of Alphon James posted ages ago). I know you don't agree with that though

Hi Viv,
Identikits are very subjective, I'm reading "Wicked beyond Belief" at the moment, and there's a big series of Identikits in the middle, including 2 photos of Sutcliffe, now some of those Identikits are really similar to the photos, but the beards and hair vary considerably - some even have him bald! Identikits aren't that reliable really.

But continuing to play devil's advocate for the JH did it case, much of the police investigation might be seen as contrived and maybe they unduly influenced the identikit pics?

I don't see that anything good can be achieved by doing that.

Re Rhyl, I just don't see why Hanratty wouldn't have made reference to say extra business undertaken. He needn't have said anything about not being able to sell the jewelry.

I think he's just accustomed to not being completely honest about his whereabouts and business. Oops does that contradict the normal "honest thief" impression most people seem to have of him. Oh dear maybe one of them could comment.

Re the jacket - as I mentioned it could all have been convenient that he ripped the Hepworths one. I understand that a jacket was reported as stolen though so part of the story seems to have been validated.

As James has pointed out, he continued to wear the suit for a long time after the murder, so I think he didn't get any blood on it (or managed to clean it off) and the Stanmore robbery was truthfully related.

re his past criminal activity, if he was the guilty party, he seems to have decided to go for broke and try for two murders and a rape to boot. There is nothing I know that indicates any previous form in that regard - the Carole France underage sex matter is not comparable really

According to some, he was trying to break into armed robbery and had just got hold of a gun, and this was an inexperienced bungled first attempt, although going for a car in the middle of nowhere is an unusual choice for a first attempt, although the isolation might be the significant factor. There are logical arguments for and against on this point.

what's your take on the gun being found on the bus? Not very plausible he placed it there surely? If not who and why (France? - disgusted with him?)

I suspect France may have planted the gun, especially if Hanratty met up with him and asked him to put it back in it's usually hiding place, the France's linen cupboard. France probably chickened out and planted it on the bus instead of taking it back into his family home, and was shaken up at being asked to be an accessory to murder, which lead to his suicide.

I recall you now live in Brighton - I was born there. Have you tracked back to see where Alphon's mother lived there (I think it was his mother).

I am in Brighton, just off Marine Parade, although I haven't gone checking out where exactly the Alphons lived.

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

Hi James

Thanks for this. It is starnge that anyone would post info that is bound to excite the imagination and then to go silent again. Perhaps BlueMoon was deterred by the cautious reaction from many of us to his (her?) posts. I agree, it would be good to hear from either or both of them again

ATB

Viv

PS I looked at your 'Your Tube' posts - fantastic work, well done

Hi Viv,

Thanks for your kind comments about the YouTube videos. Someone (I think it may have been Steve, who sadly hasn't posted for ages) mentioned last year that there were surprisingly no A6 Murder related videos available for viewing on YouTube. A couple or so years ago I had transferred onto DVD an old video tape I had of Bob Woffinden's 1992 documentary "Hanratty -- The Mystery of Deadman's Hill". I'd wanted to put this on YouTube for some time but didn't have the technical know-how to do so.

I let the idea pass by until one day I decided to have another go at it. I eventually figured out how to do it ( by installing the VCL Media Player ). Disappointingly, you can only upload it onto YouTube in small segments (which is why there are 12 five minute chapters and one 2 minute chapter).

I thought it would be a good idea to put it on YouTube permanently, especially for those people who might not have a video copy of the documentary or who may never have even seen it (it hasn't been screened on Channel 4 since 1996).

regards,
James

[Victor]

Hi Burkhilly

Wow - a lot of careful thought in that posting.

I agree, that's quite a summary.

(I didn't know for example identical twins - of which I am one - share the same DNA).

That depends monozygotic twins are usually completely identical but there is this paper...http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=111

For me now at least, LCN DNA testing is not quite so infallible as I would have thought. That said, it seems unlikely surely that even if contamination did occur, JH's DNA would then obliterate all other traces - although I think Valerie's (and MG's?) DNA was also found so it would be even odder that the only DNA wiped out was that of the 'real' rapist

The point where the JimIsInnocent brigade start inventing conspiracy theories or dud semen or other implausibilities.

As regards the inconsistencies on whether the packet was intact or not , it is certainly odd that two apparently contrasting statements should appear to go unchecked. It could be that Mr Greenhalgh was merely giving an opinion that he felt it was sealed / secured sufficiently

Apparently is the right word. There is no contradiction unless you only read half the second sentence, which reads in full..."I did not observe any damage to that packaging which I considered likely to be a risk of contamination."

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Hi burkhilly,

There is also the statement “thought to have come from Alphon” thought is just not good enough; this should have been conclusively checked. Two anomalies? Evidence of contamination? A resounding yes from me!

It's talking about "hairs" and it is mentioned for completeness, otherwise it's irrelevent. So that reduces down to Zero anomalies. And no evidence of contamination.

Interesting that the knicker fragment DNA profiling showed that it came almost certainly from JH, whilst the hankie showed a much lower level of probability. Interesting point as the hankie was without doubt JH’s. Can anyone explain this anomaly?

Semen is more robust, and would be expected to survive more intact, and that's what the results are saying happened.

What always bothered me was that no other DNA was reported at the time of the 2002 Court of Appeal Hearing. Were they looking for any other DNA? There is no mention of the DNA of VS or MG in the 2002 Report. Given that the hankie was handled by absolutely loads of people – interesting that they only found JH’s DNA. You see what I’m getting at – were they only looking for one person’s DNA?

That question is a bit silly. They find a DNA profile and compare it to the profiles for a known sample, and say how closely they match. It's easier to visualise with fingerprints because you can see the pattern, but essentially it's the same thing.

I think that LCN DNA testing is ultimately based on professional opinion on the results.

I've said this many times, virtually all testing depends upon experts giving their opinion on the results obtained. All results need interpretting.

I do not believe VS was lying when she identified JH as the murderer – but as we now all know witness identification is notoriously unreliable, particularly 8 weeks after an event.

Then I look back to the Liverpool/Rhyl alibi – why did so many people identify JH? They can’t all have been jumping on the bandwagon. The Rhyl alibi has been unbreakable. Why did JH state he had been in Liverpool on the night on the murder, instead of telling the truth? Perhaps because he thought his mates would back him up, whereby in Rhyl he didn’t know anyone and couldn’t be sure they would remember him.

Those two paragraphs together highlight the hypocrisy concerning the two events, they are essentially similar, only VS identification was much closer in time than all the Rhyl ones. All the Rhyl witnesses are Identification witnesses, so every time someone criticises VS Identification the same applies to all the Rhyl witnesses.

Furthermore, although JH wasn’t the brightest tool in the box, why tell VS to call him “Jim” (which she believed was not his real name).

Because he though she was going to die. It was pure luck and determination and medical skill that kept her alive, if the bullets had gone through a major organ, she'd be dead.

As I’ve stated in previous posts, I do not think that JH was a likeable rogue – I suspect he was a thug. He was selfish and arrogant and thought only of himself – but I do not think he committed this crime.

I think he probably was a bit of a rogue who tried to make it big and made a complete pigs ear of his first job with a gun, and paid the price for messing it up so badly.

Phew - I now need to lie down in a darkened roomfor a couple of hours!!!

I love a dark room lit by flickering candle-light. Nice, subtle and subdued. Enjoy.

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

Who knows, perhaps he did tell Dixie of his detour to Rhyl. He certainly sent them a telegram from Lime Street, Liverpool at 8.40pm on the Thursday evening.

regards,
James

Hi everyone,

Further on this point about Hanrattys sending of the telegram from Lime Street. Prosecuting counsel Mr Graham Swanwick suggested (he was very suggestive throughout the trial it seems) amongst other things that Hanratty travelled to Liverpool earlier that day (Thursday August 24th) with the express purpose of sending a telegram (time stamped at 8.40pm) to the Frances. This was the second visit, Swanwick would have us believe, that Hanratty made to Liverpool in less than 3 days (he suggested that Hanratty had gone to Liverpool on Monday, the 21st, when it was demonstrably proven that he was in London all day).

For argument's sake let's suppose for a moment that Swanwick is correct in his theory of Hanratty catching a train up to Liverpool on Thursday, the 24th..........

The telegram was sent at 8.40pm (incidentally just 5 minutes before the Enfield .38 was found by Edwin Cooke on the 36A bus).

Hanratty phoned this telegram through from a phone box on the forecourt of St George's Hall, Lime Street, a large, very impressive building on the opposite side of the street from the station.
Sometime earlier that evening a porter at the GPO (probably the main Post Office in Victoria Street, a few hundred yards away) had written out the telegram for Hanratty and it was him who advised Hanratty to phone it through.
In 1968 the Victoria Street Post Office (the main one in all of Liverpool) closed at 6pm.
I presume it would have closed at the same time in August 1961.
If so, then James Hanratty would have been in that Post Office at 5.50pm ('ish) at the very latest.

From Lime Street Station to Victoria Street Post Office it is approximately a 5 minute walk.
Still assuming that Swanwick is correct, and also assuming that Hanratty went directly to the Post Office from the train station, this would mean that the latest possible arrival time at Lime Street Station would have to have been about 5.40 or 5.45pm. This would then have meant a mad dash to make it to the Post Office before it closed at 6pm.

I don't know the times of the trains from London to Lime Street that day.
I'd guess that a 1.30pm or 1.45pm train (if there was one) from Euston Station might get into Lime Street Station by 5.45pm.

In effect Swanwick's theory would require Hanratty leaving London for Liverpool at the very, very latest 1.45pm. Just for the purpose of sending a telegram to the France's. Sent from Liverpool but with the sender's address given as the Imperial Hotel,Russell Square, London. The telegram could not even have formed part of an alibi, because it was almost 42 hours after Mike Gregsten's murder. Swanwick was obviously clutching at straws in his ludicrous efforts to incriminate Hanratty.

Nobody even saw Hanratty in London that Thursday. In fact nobody, family, friends, acquaintances, strangers saw Hanratty anywhere near the London area from Tuesday morning (22nd) to Friday morning (25th). The reason why nobody saw him is because he was a couple of hundred miles away.


regards,
James

[Victor]

Swanwick's ramblings

Hi James,

I've seen this so many times now, Foot and Woffinden both do it in their books... all Swanwick was doing is demonstrating that it is possible that Hanratty could have travelled to Liverpool on the Thursday, or could have caught an aeroplane back to the field on the Tuesday. He's not saying it did happen just that it could have.

Woffinden rambles on about how Hanratty was teleporting round the country according to Acott, which is just rubbish. Hanratty is the one who has to prove he was somewhere else, Swanwick just has to prove he wasn't somewhere else and could have been raping and murdering.

Try working out where Hanratty was, instead of fabricating, according to Acott, or according to Swanwick, (if we mix up all the various possibilities) Hanratty was in two places at the same time.

KR,
Vic.

[Tony]

Hi everyone,

Further on this point about Hanrattys sending of the telegram from Lime Street. Prosecuting counsel Mr Graham Swanwick suggested (he was very suggestive throughout the trial it seems) amongst other things that Hanratty travelled to Liverpool earlier that day (Thursday August 24th) with the express purpose of sending a telegram (time stamped at 8.40pm) to the Frances. This was the second visit, Swanwick would have us believe, that Hanratty made to Liverpool in less than 3 days (he suggested that Hanratty had gone to Liverpool on Monday, the 21st, when it was demonstrably proven that he was in London all day).

For argument's sake let's suppose for a moment that Swanwick is correct in his theory of Hanratty catching a train up to Liverpool on Thursday, the 24th..........

The telegram was sent at 8.40pm (incidentally just 5 minutes before the Enfield .38 was found by Edwin Cooke on the 36A bus).

Hanratty phoned this telegram through from a phone box on the forecourt of St George's Hall, Lime Street, a large, very impressive building on the opposite side of the street from the station.
Sometime earlier that evening a porter at the GPO (probably the main Post Office in Victoria Street, a few hundred yards away) had written out the telegram for Hanratty and it was him who advised Hanratty to phone it through.
In 1968 the Victoria Street Post Office (the main one in all of Liverpool) closed at 6pm.
I presume it would have closed at the same time in August 1961.
If so, then James Hanratty would have been in that Post Office at 5.50pm ('ish) at the very latest.

From Lime Street Station to Victoria Street Post Office it is approximately a 5 minute walk.
Still assuming that Swanwick is correct, and also assuming that Hanratty went directly to the Post Office from the train station, this would mean that the latest possible arrival time at Lime Street Station would have to have been about 5.40 or 5.45pm. This would then have meant a mad dash to make it to the Post Office before it closed at 6pm.

I don't know the times of the trains from London to Lime Street that day.
I'd guess that a 1.30pm or 1.45pm train (if there was one) from Euston Station might get into Lime Street Station by 5.45pm.

In effect Swanwick's theory would require Hanratty leaving London for Liverpool at the very, very latest 1.45pm. Just for the purpose of sending a telegram to the France's. Sent from Liverpool but with the sender's address given as the Imperial Hotel,Russell Square, London. The telegram could not even have formed part of an alibi, because it was almost 42 hours after Mike Gregsten's murder. Swanwick was obviously clutching at straws in his ludicrous efforts to incriminate Hanratty.

Nobody even saw Hanratty in London that Thursday. In fact nobody, family, friends, acquaintances, strangers saw Hanratty anywhere near the London area from Tuesday morning (22nd) to Friday morning (25th). The reason why nobody saw him is because he was a couple of hundred miles away.


regards,
James

Good detective work James as always and a tremendous posting from Burkhilly a couple of days ago that I have not had time to respond to but intend doing so.

I did particularly like the: “Tony, voice of reason” bit. I’ll print that out for Thursday night and see what sort of response it gets from the boys. I can almost hear the laughing now. But thank you anyway Burkhilly.

Tony.

[Tony]

Hi James,

I've seen this so many times now, Foot and Woffinden both do it in their books... all Swanwick was doing is demonstrating that it is possible that Hanratty could have travelled to Liverpool on the Thursday, or could have caught an aeroplane back to the field on the Tuesday. He's not saying it did happen just that it could have.

Woffinden rambles on about how Hanratty was teleporting round the country according to Acott, which is just rubbish. Hanratty is the one who has to prove he was somewhere else, Swanwick just has to prove he wasn't somewhere else and could have been raping and murdering.

Try working out where Hanratty was, instead of fabricating, according to Acott, or according to Swanwick, (if we mix up all the various possibilities) Hanratty was in two places at the same time.

KR,
Vic.

What!!!

When has the law changed since 1961?

Just read Vic’s sentence on the matter:

“Hanratty is the one who has to prove he was somewhere else, Swanwick just has to prove he wasn't somewhere else and could have been raping and murdering.”

It was never up to Hanratty to prove he was somewhere else. It was up to the prosecution to prove its case. Hanratty needed to say nothing if he did not want to. “Swanwick just has to prove he wasn’t somewhere else and could have been raping and murdering.” Could have is not quite good enough for me.

Tony