a6 murder

[Tony]

We're back in the car again.

There were three people in a Morris Minor car for nigh on six hours. The only account of those six hours comes from Valerie Storie or if you choose to believe him a second version from Peter Alphon.

If you read Valerie’s statements and court accounts of those six hours it barely amounts to much more than a few minutes. Peter Alphon’s account gives a few more details of what may have happened.
But just what did take place in the car.
We know it arrived at Deadman’s Hill and shortly after Gregston was murdered and then after about twenty minutes or so Valerie was raped, shot and left for dead. Well that’s the last half an hour accounted for but what about the previous five and a half hours. What was going on?

I go to the football and to make sure I get my favourite parking place I arrive about an hour and a half before kick off. I park within spitting distance of the ground. Now I don’t drive a Morris Minor; I have a large comfortable car but I can tell you after an hour and a half I’m pretty fed up with just sitting. What could it have been like on that night?
What do you talk about? Did Valerie and Mike talk to each other while the gunman listened in? The couple and the gunman appear to be complete opposites. Did the gunman make them do certain things as stated by Alphon but which could hardly be substantiated by Valerie?
What could they have talked about? If it was a simple case of ambush to grab some money and the car why not do that in the first five minutes?
If a sexual motive was involved why not get that over with in the first five minutes. He was going to put Mike in the boot. Why didn’t he?
Why would he be concerned if Valerie told him the exhaust was leaking and it might poison Mike? Why would he care? Why not get it over with as soon as possible and have longer through the night to get away. More time to hide the car, dump the gun and get away.
Did not one of them in six hours after spending time drinking in a pub want to go to the toilet?
How did a gunman manage to sit for six hours in a tiny car, shoot the driver twice, rape the woman and yet leave absolutely no trace of himself?


Tony.

[jimarilyn]

[/B]

There were three people in a Morris Minor car for nigh on six hours. The only account of those six hours comes from Valerie Storie or if you choose to believe him a second version from Peter Alphon.

If you read Valerie’s statements and court accounts of those six hours it barely amounts to much more than a few minutes. Peter Alphon’s account gives a few more details of what may have happened.
But just what did take place in the car.
We know it arrived at Deadman’s Hill and shortly after Gregston was murdered and then after about twenty minutes or so Valerie was raped, shot and left for dead. Well that’s the last half an hour accounted for but what about the previous five and a half hours. What was going on?

I go to the football and to make sure I get my favourite parking place I arrive about an hour and a half before kick off. I park within spitting distance of the ground. Now I don’t drive a Morris Minor; I have a large comfortable car but I can tell you after an hour and a half I’m pretty fed up with just sitting. What could it have been like on that night?
What do you talk about? Did Valerie and Mike talk to each other while the gunman listened in? The couple and the gunman appear to be complete opposites. Did the gunman make them do certain things as stated by Alphon but which could hardly be substantiated by Valerie?
What could they have talked about? If it was a simple case of ambush to grab some money and the car why not do that in the first five minutes?
If a sexual motive was involved why not get that over with in the first five minutes. He was going to put Mike in the boot. Why didn’t he?
Why would he be concerned if Valerie told him the exhaust was leaking and it might poison Mike? Why would he care? Why not get it over with as soon as possible and have longer through the night to get away. More time to hide the car, dump the gun and get away.
Did not one of them in six hours after spending time drinking in a pub want to go to the toilet?
How did a gunman manage to sit for six hours in a tiny car, shoot the driver twice, rape the woman and yet leave absolutely no trace of himself?


Tony.

Hi Tony,

A very well thought out post and one in which you ask some very important and searching questions. Nigh on 6 hours is indeed a long time to spend cooped up in a smallish car. As I've mentioned previously, it's the equivalent of watching 3 or 4 good length movies in one sitting.

Like a lot of other people, I suppose, I have often tried to visualise the scene on Marsh Lane that August evening in 1961.....

It's about 9.30 pm and Mike Gregsten and Valerie Storie have been parked up in a cornfield for a short period of time, chatting or whatever. Suddenly there is a knock on the driver's window. Mike winds his window down and a man thrusts a gun through and points it at him. He tells them that it's a hold-up, that he's desperate and that he's been on the run for about 4 months. Now what's his agenda in telling them this ? Does he want their humble Morris Minor car, does he want their money, what exactly is he up to ? Mike and Valerie are understandably (I imagine) in a state of shock. Surely things like this only happen in films, they can't happen in quiet, sleepy, rural Dorney on a pleasant summer's evening in 1961. But happen it most definitely did. The beginning of a nightmarish 5 or 6 hours.

It's my considered opinion that the gunman approached the car from Marsh Lane and had not trudged across any cornfields to get to it. It had been raining quite heavily the night before and had the gunman walked across the cornfield surely he would have accumulated mud on his shoes. I have never read anywhere that there were any muddy shoeprints on the floor of that Morris Minor. If there were the police sure have kept quiet about it.

I think it's a strong possibility that Mike and Valerie's movements were closely monitored after they left the car park of the Station Inn pub, and that they were followed [from a safe distance] by another car, the driver of which was an acquaintance of the gunman. According to Valerie, they parked briefly on Huntercombe Lane before moving on to enjoy the much more secluded privacy that the cornfield on Marsh Lane offered. Their privacy however was unexpectedly interrupted a short while afterwards by the gunman who very probably was dropped off by his driver at some point along Marsh Lane.

One can only speculate as to what Mike and Valerie's initial reactions were when they were hi-jacked by the gunman. Was it total surprise and disbelief or had they secretly feared and half expected some kind of external interference ? They had been carrying out a clandestine love affair for quite some time, which must have been frowned upon by certain parties and which must have caused great upset to others. I firmly believe it was the marital status of the two victims which led to the appearance of the gunman in that cornfield that fateful Wednesday evening in August 1961. I believe that if the occupants of that Morris Minor had been two single and unattached people, just a boy and his girlfriend involved in an everyday relationship, there would not have been any gunman walking along Marsh Lane with a loaded gun and ammunition.

Getting back to the scene at 9.30pm in the cornfield, the gunman enters the car, sits in the back, and the car remains in the field for a full two hours. The gunman it appears is not a man of few words, he likes to talk about himself, he's got their attention. It's interesting to note what's written (under the section "Witness testimony of Valerie Storie") on the following website :

http://gov-certificates.co.uk/birth/certificate/James_Hanratty

'The man got in the car and told Gregsten to drive further into the field, then stop. The man then kept them there for two hours, with a constant stream of nagging, mindless chatter.'

What did this constant stream of nagging, mindless chatter consist of ? We have only been fed mere scraps of it. Far too little of the conversation/interaction between the 3 parties in that Morris Minor has been revealed to us, which is a great shame.

Peter Alphon loved to have an audience. He summoned the world's press to listen to what he had to say in Paris in 1967. He could speak for hours on the telephone to Jean Justice. He phoned Lord Russell hundreds of times over a relatively short period of time in the mid 60's. The telephone was a menacing weapon for Peter Alphon. His phone bills must have been enormous. He fits the gunman's profile to a tee.

regards,
James

[reg1965]

Peter Alphon loved to have an audience. He summoned the world's press to listen to what he had to say in Paris in 1967. He could speak for hours on the telephone to Jean Justice. He phoned Lord Russell hundreds of times over a relatively short period of time in the mid 60's. The telephone was a menacing weapon for Peter Alphon. His phone bills must have been enormous. He fits the gunman's profile to a tee.

Hi James
Didn't you know that his mother helped out by paying the odd bill here and there!

But back in the real world.

Was he using his own phone? Or was someone else providing this service for him? I don't recall anywhere that it is recorded that the plod tried to trace the calls. [anyone know anything about it?]

I imagine most of his money had gone by the time he was harassing Lord Russell.

Reg

[Andrew]

Howdy,
That Enfield 38 would be similar to the weapon that Captain Mainwaring carries in a holster; it's an enormous cannon of a gun. Surely it couldn't be carried in a suit, you would need some sort of bag. Whoever left the gun on the bus must have had a bag to carry it and all that spare ammo.
You can now look at Avondale Crecent on StreetView on Google maps.
Regards
Andrew.

[reg1965]

Howdy,
That Enfield 38 would be similar to the weapon that Captain Mainwaring carries in a holster; it's an enormous cannon of a gun. Surely it couldn't be carried in a suit, you would need some sort of bag. Whoever left the gun on the bus must have had a bag to carry it and all that spare ammo.
You can now look at Avondale Crecent on StreetView on Google maps.
Regards
Andrew.

Hi Andrew
I just noticed that you are in Ilford. That means that the car was dumped in your neck of the woods then.

Hi All
The Gun
I am now seriously of the thinking that the murder weapon and the gun on the bus were not the same.
The murderer just had to make sure that only cases from the gun found on the bus were left at the murder scene.
The murder weapon was indentified only by the cases and not by any of the slugs.
Is Simpson wrong? He never amended his view in his book of 1978 (16 years for an opportunity to do so!)
The finding of the cases in room 24 of the Vienna could incriminate both Hanratty and Alphon. But if they were not from the murder weapon what were they doing there?
The Notorious B.A.Z. must have been relieved when Sherrard, Gorman, 11 jurors, and the press missed the point.

Reg

[Tony]

Hi Andrew
I just noticed that you are in Ilford. That means that the car was dumped in your neck of the woods then.

Hi All
The Gun
I am now seriously of the thinking that the murder weapon and the gun on the bus were not the same.
The murderer just had to make sure that only cases from the gun found on the bus were left at the murder scene.
The murder weapon was indentified only by the cases and not by any of the slugs.
Is Simpson wrong? He never amended his view in his book of 1978 (16 years for an opportunity to do so!)
The finding of the cases in room 24 of the Vienna could incriminate both Hanratty and Alphon. But if they were not from the murder weapon what were they doing there?
The Notorious B.A.Z. must have been relieved when Sherrard, Gorman, 11 jurors, and the press missed the point.

Reg

Hello Reg,

I know it started out as a bit of a laugh about the two guns but I am also now having serious misgivings.

Professor Keith Simpson carried out the post mortem on the day of the murder at 5.30 PM and would presumably not have seen Acott on that day. I don’t know how long a post mortem in a murder case takes but I don’t think it’s a five minute job so Simpson would have been working into the evening.
I doubt if he would have had his report typed up for Acott until the following day. That is the day the gun was found.

Now I don’t know if Simpson and Acott met up before or after the gun was found on the bus but which ever was the case something very strange must have taken place between them.
Simpson was going to be the Crown’s expert witness. He was going to swear on oath what he had written in his report: Gregston had been shot with a .32.
If his meeting with Acott took place before the gun on the bus was found I am sure Acott would have said: “Good work Keith, hope to see you in Court soon.”
If when later after the gun on the bus was found and it was a different make than the one that the Crown’s expert witness had noted then surely Acott would have been on the phone to him pretty quickly asking him to have another look.
If he did have another look he was not prepared to change his mind. Acott must have said: “Look Keith we can’t go into Court with two guns we will be torn to shreds by the defence.”

If their meeting took place after Acott’s bus gun was found he must have said: “But hang on Keith, you are telling me he was shot with a .32 but we have found a .38; there’s something wrong here.”

Well there was something wrong but neither Acott nor Simpson decided to put it right and they went to Court with the two different types of gun.

I wonder if Keith Simpson was tempted to contact the Judge and simply say: “My Lord, I know that Gregston was shot with a .32 and the .38 gun which is being offered to you in evidence simply can not be the murder weapon.”

Simpson should certainly have been recalled by the defence to sort it out in any case.

The more I look at it the more I am convinced that the defence failed Hanratty on a number of important points.

Tony.

[Rob63]

I`ve kept quiet over the last few weeks although I`ve been browsing the thread, nice to see things have calmed down a lot. The gun calibre has become a crucial point for me and I`ve recently emailed The British Association in Forensic Medicine to see if they can provide any illumination on the subject. Dr Keith Simpson was a founder member of the BAFM so I`m hoping someone there may have known him or even discussed the A6 murder. I have sent a second email today as the first was not answered, I realise they have important work to do but a simple reply shouldn`t take them long. If anyone else wants to contact them regarding Dr Simpsons take on the calibre their webpage is here http://www.bafm.org/join.php.

[Tony]

I`ve kept quiet over the last few weeks although I`ve been browsing the thread, nice to see things have calmed down a lot. The gun calibre has become a crucial point for me and I`ve recently emailed The British Association in Forensic Medicine to see if they can provide any illumination on the subject. Dr Keith Simpson was a founder member of the BAFM so I`m hoping someone there may have known him or even discussed the A6 murder. I have sent a second email today as the first was not answered, I realise they have important work to do but a simple reply shouldn`t take them long. If anyone else wants to contact them regarding Dr Simpsons take on the calibre their webpage is here http://www.bafm.org/join.php.

Hi Rob,

It’s lovely to see you back.

I think everyone on here sees you as our resident gun expert.

Do you think we and the authors have been missing something that has been staring us in the face all these years? Could a .38 have been fired in quick succession as was described? Could a prosecuting team go to trial knowing that their expert witness was saying it was a different type of gun that fired the shots than the one they had down as that which was used in the murder? Could Simpson have been wrong and made such an ‘elementary’ mistake?
Is any of that possible? Why did not one person pick up at trial on such an obvious ‘mistake’?
Could Simpson say to the Judge that he was wrong? He never corrected himself if he did feel he was wrong.

What do you think Rob?

Tony.

[Rob63]

Hi Tony, I still get the feeling that the .32 was a typo in the book but it would be nice to have that confirmed one way or the other. Its inconceivable that Dr Simpson, the police, the judge and the court would`ve missed such an inconsistency but who knows. Ideally it would be useful to see a copy of MGs autopsy report and the ballistics report but not much chance of that. I can`t bring myself to look at any other part of the investigation until this matter is cleared up, I`ve tried but my mind keeps coming back to this difference in calibres.

[Limehouse]

This gun issue is so crucial because it tips the whole case on its head.

If Keith Simpson was saying in court the gun used was a .32 and the prosecution is waving a .38 around in court claiming "this is the murder weapon and what's more, the man in the dock used it to kill Mr Gregten and then placed under the back seat of the bus" why on earth wasn't the defence team jumping up and down and screaming "No way!"

I am inclined to believe it was a typo error on Simpson's book. However, don't some people on the thread have a transcribe of the court case? What was actually said in court about the calibre of the gun used compared with the gun found??

Additionally, as has been mentioned more than once, how on earth did anyone travel from London to the cornfield with a gun the size of a .38 and six boxes of cartridges in his jacket pocket? Surely this amount of bulk would attract attention - or didn't people use the phrase "is that a gun in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me" back then?? (Sorry guys, couldn't resist that one).

[Tony]

This gun issue is so crucial because it tips the whole case on its head.

If Keith Simpson was saying in court the gun used was a .32 and the prosecution is waving a .38 around in court claiming "this is the murder weapon and what's more, the man in the dock used it to kill Mr Gregten and then placed under the back seat of the bus" why on earth wasn't the defence team jumping up and down and screaming "No way!"

I am inclined to believe it was a typo error on Simpson's book. However, don't some people on the thread have a transcribe of the court case? What was actually said in court about the calibre of the gun used compared with the gun found??

Additionally, as has been mentioned more than once, how on earth did anyone travel from London to the cornfield with a gun the size of a .38 and six boxes of cartridges in his jacket pocket? Surely this amount of bulk would attract attention - or didn't people use the phrase "is that a gun in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me" back then?? (Sorry guys, couldn't resist that one).

Oooh Limehouse,

You are awful. But I do like you.

Tony.

[john]

Mr Miller in his book argues that Hanratty Rhyl alibi had no substantiating evidence excluding the statements of the boarding house ladies etc. He cites that fact that Hanratty does not mention at all going into the betting shop or the pub opposite Mrs Jones house.

Whilst it is hard to argue from the negative to the positive, there is intriguing evidence still to be resolved. Mr Parry, the Landlord of the Windsor Hotel admits that he made a statement to the Police at the time. But will not reveal what it said and I think that no one has found out what it did say yet. Another example of the Police perhaps holding back evidence. Now this is speculation, but if Mr Parry said in his statement that he had not seen anyone at all looking like Hanratty in his Hotel on the Tuesday night of the murder, it is a reasonable asumption to make, that the Police would have by now, if not then in time have revealed this to belittle the alibi even more. People do not make a statement willingly or forcibly and say nothing!! Thus one wonders what exactly Mr Parry say in his statement at the time. The fact that he did not cooperate with anyone after, to say yeh or nay, does not necessarily reveal that he said nothing that would have helped Hanratty as many people do not want to get more involved in anything, despite justice possibly being skewered. The 'do not get' involved syndrome is often more prevalent than good citizenship.

[Victor]

After your acceptance of the DNA all of the coincedences are starting to get a litlle worrying aren't they?

No. Some coincidences are to be expected. I do think that all this hype about misinformation and typos is funny. Are you really seriously suggesting that the .38 gun found on the bus isn't the murder weapon? Not that it makes any difference to the fact that Hanratty's semen ended up in Storie's knickers so he's guilty of murder whatever weapon he used.

Other irrelevancies include Alphon's money, Fogarty-Waul, the time spent in the car twiddling their thumbs, erroneous newspaper reports.

Anyway, has the Sean Hodgson case worried you JimIsInnocent guys at all? It definitely makes your case for a conspiracy or other cover-up a hell of a lot weaker. What do you all think?

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

Hi Tony, I still get the feeling that the .32 was a typo in the book but it would be nice to have that confirmed one way or the other. Its inconceivable that Dr Simpson, the police, the judge and the court would`ve missed such an inconsistency but who knows. Ideally it would be useful to see a copy of MGs autopsy report and the ballistics report but not much chance of that. I can`t bring myself to look at any other part of the investigation until this matter is cleared up, I`ve tried but my mind keeps coming back to this difference in calibres.

Hi Rob,

As Tony says, it's good to have you back posting. As someone who knows next to nothing about firearms I wonder if you could enlighten people like myself regarding the following :

1) Does a revolver have more kick/recoil than an automatic ?
2) If so, how likely is it for a revolver, fired 'from beyond arm's length', to create 5 bullet holes, all in a line down somebody's shoulder ?
3) How much faster could an automatic hand-gun fire off 5 shots than a revolver ?

I ask these questions in light of Dr Simpson's belief that the 5 shots had been 'fired in quick succession'.

Also, re. Dr Simpson's book wouldn't he have gone to great pains to ensure that no important technical errors (eg bullet calibre) crept in ?

regards,
James

[reg1965]

Hi Rob,

As Tony says, it's good to have you back posting. As someone who knows next to nothing about firearms I wonder if you could enlighten people like myself regarding the following :

1) Does a revolver have more kick/recoil than an automatic ?
2) If so, how likely is it for a revolver, fired 'from beyond arm's length', to create 5 bullet holes, all in a line down somebody's shoulder ?
3) How much faster could an automatic hand-gun fire off 5 shots than a revolver ?

I ask these questions in light of Dr Simpson's belief that the 5 shots had been 'fired in quick succession'.

Also, re. Dr Simpson's book wouldn't he have gone to great pains to ensure that no important technical errors (eg bullet calibre) crept in ?

regards,
James

Hi Rob
Following on from what James just posted.

Would the killer have got off 2 rounds at Gregsten with the .38 to make the wounds that Simspon described; that is both fired before the head had had time to move? Would this be possible with .32?

Reg