a6 murder

[Graham]

Yes, James, Sara is absolutely right about the A6 Case. Sherrard got it right when he said that it 'dripped with coincidence'. I've been interested in true crime, especially murder and unsolved murder, ever since I can remember, and nothing comes even close to the A6 in terms of unanswered questions, mystery and plain blanks where there should be information on record. Why this is, I still don't know...a combination of mistakes, incompetence, untruths and, as Sherrard said, coincidence? Whatever the reasons, I have to say that so far I haven't seen any solid proof of conspiracy or anything intentionally sinister going on in official circles. But I can see police obfuscation, particularly where the last writings of Charles France are concerned, and I would dearly love to know why most of his letters were seized, never to be seen again nor even any hint given of their content. Or were they just taken, looked at, and then filed in the big round wicker filing-cabinet?

Cheers,

Graham

[Victor]

But I can see police obfuscation, particularly where the last writings of Charles France are concerned, and I would dearly love to know why most of his letters were seized, never to be seen again nor even any hint given of their content. Or were they just taken, looked at, and then filed in the big round wicker filing-cabinet?

I believe that Paul Foot got to see them... James will have more info on this as I think he mentioned it on this thread first.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

You very conveniently forget (or weren't aware) that James Hanratty wore the striped Hepworth's suit from the day he collected it, August 18th 1961, all the way through to the night of September 30th 1961, when he tore the jacket badly on breaking into a bedroom window at Trevone.

Hi James,

How much of that was independantly verified? In other words I'd like a source that's more reliable than Hanratty's word.

I'm aware of the details of the robbery, but there's no confirmation that Hanratty hadn't obtained another replacement jacket before Trevone, so when was the last time someone saw him wearing it for definite.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Really glad I've got the hang of this quote thing now (cheers Vic)

Hi Viv, glad it works for you.

I have doubts about Alphon myself. He may just be something of a chancer and shrewd enough to milk the opportunities infamy provided.
But for a few examples

1. his behaviour early on drew attention to himself

In the Vienna. The police received reports of several others who "drew attention to themselves", I wonder if anyone knows how many.

2. , I'm not convinced that which of the 3 stories given by Nudds etc is truly right and one definitely implicated Alphon. A's alibi was given by his mother I believe?

Nudds 2nd statement (the one implicating Alphon) was volunteered after Nudds had had opportunity to collude with Snell and give matching statements, the 3rd was taken without the chance for the "couple" to collude therefore must be more reliable.

Also, and I know this is working backwards and unacceptible to some, if you take the DNA as conclusive proof of Hanratty's guilt and Alphon's innocence then the 2nd statement must be wrong. In fact I'd use it as evidence of the "establishment" having undue influence on Nudds and coercing him to make that statement.

3. Alphon looks (to me) very much like both identikits esp one of them.

It's subjective, but I think the image on the cover of Foot is closer than any image of Alphon. And of course Foot is trying to make that point, so his bunch of 6 comparison photos (2xPLA, 2xJH, 2xIdentikit) were chosen by him specifically for that purpose.

4. In his 'confession' he gives a plausible reason as to why he took on the job.

Really? You think it more likely that there was a conspiracy or at least a group of people who planned this attack rather than a lone gunman? Those people have successfully kept the news out of the papers for 48 years, no significant leaks. The more people involved means more opportunity for the story to come out, therefore logically the most likely scenario is the one with the fewer or fewest involved.

5. The payments into his account have not been explained satisfactorily enough for me

Come on, that was Alphon playing a game with Foot. Alphon specifically gave Foot sight of his bank account, why do that unless he wanted to stir things up, prolong his involvement, make more money for himself.

6. He may have been seen in the area beforehand (or not, I know) and so on.

So he's a dog gambler, there's a track nearby... He has a reason to be there, not that I'm conceding that he necessarily was.

None of these 6 points and others is anywhere near as firm as Valerie's I/d of Hanratty or the DNA evidence and that is why I really don't know but if H is innocent then I feel Alphon would have deserved a bit more investiation.

Or as firm as VS failure to pick Alphon out at an ID parade, she didn't just not chose him, she chose someone else. It is possible to say that according to Storie, Michael Clark is more guilty than Alphon.

KR,
Vic

[Victor]

Some aren't convinced he's a murderer but none can legitimately describe him as "innocent", maybe he deserved to die as a consequence of his other criminal activity.

Shameful.

Why?

I think you've taken this statement the wrong way, but I can easily see why you'd do that.

Criminal activity is risky, and there are consequences if the perpetrator is caught, one of which is death, whether it's being shot by an irate farmer (whatever the guys name was), falling through a roof, or even getting blinded by being pelted with chicken excrement from a massive catapult and staggering in front of a bus.

If someone choses to continue an unlawful risky activity then they must accept that one consequence is death.

He deserved it. QED.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

“Some aren't convinced he's a murderer but none can legitimately describe him as "innocent", maybe he deserved to die as a consequence of his other criminal activity.”
It seems that your question: “Such a statement is wholly baseless, unless you have absolute proof that Acott and Oxford viewed JH in this manner.”
It is possibly answered for you by Vic with that offering.

No it isn't, see my reply to James above.

Ambivalence towards whether criminals live or die, isn't the same as wishing someone dead, and is miles away from conspiring to frame someone and bringing about their death.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

I will let my post (#2753) from last December speak for me........

Interesting that you didn't quote Graham's reply #2757 to that post where he corrected you for spreading mis-information. Mis-information that you've started to spread yet again recently.

5) She originally stated that they picked up a hitch-hiker, inferring that the gunman was 'thumbing' a lift. In stark contrast of course to being hi-jacked by a dangerous gunman.

No she didn't. John Kerr said that VS told him that she and MG 'picked up a man at about 9.30pm last night near Slough'. It was the press who spread the hitch-hiker story. Let's just get facts straight, eh?

As for Sara's post...Dis-information followed by a declaration that it's the truth?

It's not denigrating Storie in any way to remark that her testimony on several things, inc the sequence of events and the description of the victim, chaged radically. That's just stating the truth!

Oops and I'm assuming she meant "gunman" not "victim" as VS description of herself hasn't been publicised.

And before anyone thinks I'm nit-picking, I will agree that the publicised description of the gunman changed, but that is not proof that VS description of him changed.

James, as you quoted and reaffirmed your believe of it, could you give us examples of VS "testimony on several things"..."cha[n]ged radically", and please note testimony being specifically cited.

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

That's just more slander.

You obviously believe the police are above the law and wouldn't dream of any wrongdoing such as for example planting incriminating evidence to obtain a conviction. You also need to look up the meaning of the word slander.

That is distorted in favour of Hanratty again. Using your logic, we can conclude "Hanratty's version of events was not 100% true, because the Hepworth jacket wasn't where he said he'd left it."

Absolute rubbish. Hanratty's version of those events was verified and corroborated by Stanmore police and the householders involved. Hanratty had discarded his torn (and bloodless) jacket two weeks before he was interviewed by Acott about it. The jacket had obviously been removed by person/persons unknown in the interim period.

The Stanmore burglaries episode could just as easily have an innocent explanation...The householder didn't notice that his jacket had been stolen and therefore couldn't confirm Hanratty's version of events.

.

The householder confirmed that the described jacket had been stolen from his wardrobe.

That sentence could be taken as absolute proof that James is in league with... well, you know.

What rot !!

[Victor]

You obviously believe the police are above the law and wouldn't dream of any wrongdoing such as for example planting incriminating evidence to obtain a conviction. You also need to look up the meaning of the word slander.

No, I do not believe the police are above the law.

From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slander

slander
Noun
1. Law a false and damaging statement about a person
2. the crime of making such a statement

Definition 1 fits where "a person" is Acott. Although I note the point that slander is usually spoken.

Absolute rubbish. Hanratty's version of those events was verified and corroborated by Stanmore police and the householders involved. Hanratty had discarded his torn (and bloodless) jacket two weeks before he was interviewed by Acott about it. The jacket had obviously been removed by person/persons unknown in the interim period.

Yes, thank you, the jacket was not found, therefore that part of Hanratty's statement was unverified.
The bloodless part is also unverfied.

Your suggestion of what happened to the jacket "obviously been removed by person/persons unknown" is one possible explanation, but one of the alternatives (it being left in a different location) is equally possible.

The householder confirmed that the described jacket had been stolen from his wardrobe.

Yes, he eventually confirmed that the described jacket had been stolen, but that's a small part of Hanratty's story.

What rot !!

The evolution:

Your orignal statement:
I trust Hanratty's word over Acott's and Oxford's every time.

Could be written as:
I trust a convicted murderer and rapist over policemen.

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

Definition 1 fits where "a person" is Acott. Although I note the point that slander is usually spoken.

Wrong. Slander is always spoken. Libel is written defamation.

Yes, thank you, the jacket was not found, therefore that part of Hanratty's statement was unverified.
The bloodless part is also unverfied.

That is open to debate. Hanratty said that Acott had found the jacket when he asked Acott if the torn jacket had been found. Perhaps all the people who saw Hanratty wearing the jacket during that 6 week period were blind (or partially sighted ) and couldn't see the bloodstains on it.

The evolution:

Your orignal statement:
I trust Hanratty's word over Acott's and Oxford's every time.

Could be written as:
I trust a convicted murderer and rapist over policemen.

Stop trying to distort and take out of context everything I've written Victor. You need to re-read the preceding paragraph in that particular post to understand why I wrote that sentence.

More appropriately you should have typed "I trust a wrongly convicted murderer and rapist over two particular policemen."

[jimarilyn]

Interesting that you didn't quote Graham's reply #2757 to that post where he corrected you for spreading mis-information. Mis-information that you've started to spread yet again recently.

Absolutely wrong. I did not and unlike yourself have never spread mis-information. John Kerr said on camera that Valerie Storie told him that they had "picked up a man at Slough". She did not say that they had been hijacked in a cornfileld by a dangerous gunman. Do you think it was a male streetwalker they picked up or a man thumbing a lift (ie. a hitch-hiker).

Oops and I'm assuming she meant "gunman" not "victim" as VS description of herself hasn't been publicised.

.

Nitpicking again Victor ? Big deal, Sara inadvertently typed victim instead of gunman.

James, as you quoted and reaffirmed your believe of it, could you give us examples of VS "testimony on several things"..."cha[n]ged radically", and please note testimony being specifically cited.

I assume you meant to type "belief" Victor instead of "believe". You do really need to read my posts more carefully. What did I type just before I quoted Sara's post ??
Besides, the extremely intelligent Sara is well qualified to give you the examples that you're looking for.

[Graham]

Guys,

The mistaken identifying of the killer as a hitch-hiker came from a headline in a paper (maybe The Daily Mail), something like 'Hitch Hiker Murder - Man Sought' or words to that effect. It's featured in one of the TV documentaries which I've got on video. As far as I'm aware no-one, John Kerr and VS included, ever made any recorded reference to a hitch-hiker. Probably this doesn't seem all that important, but it goes to show how myth can form around something like the A6 Case, because it was being referred to as a 'hitch-hiker murder' years afterwards - not long ago I happened to come across a website about old English roads which mentioned Deadman's Hill and the 'hitch-hiker murderer'.

Cheers,

Graham

[Victor]

That is open to debate. Hanratty said that Acott had found the jacket when he asked Acott if the torn jacket had been found. Perhaps all the people who saw Hanratty wearing the jacket during that 6 week period were blind (or partially sighted ) and couldn't see the bloodstains on it.

What debate? The jacket was not found.

Seeing the bloodstains would depend upon the stains being visible.

More appropriately you should have typed "I trust a wrongly convicted murderer and rapist over two particular policemen."

Definitely not the first part because the conviction was confirmed by the Court of Appeal, and then we hit the tautology of assuming he's innocent to justify trusting him when he says he's innocent.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Absolutely wrong. I did not and unlike yourself have never spread mis-information.

You repeated the mis-information in post #3749 point 5.

John Kerr said on camera that Valerie Storie told him that they had "picked up a man at Slough". She did not say that they had been hijacked in a cornfileld by a dangerous gunman. Do you think it was a male streetwalker they picked up or a man thumbing a lift (ie. a hitch-hiker).

Squirm away, we all know the hitch-hiker reference is a press invention.

Nitpicking again Victor ? Big deal, Sara inadvertently typed victim instead of gunman.
I assume you meant to type "belief" Victor instead of "believe". You do really need to read my posts more carefully. What did I type just before I quoted Sara's post ??

What? You actually dare berate me for mixing "belief" and "believe", when Sara's monumental error of mixing up a killer with the victim is "inadvertent".

Besides, the extremely intelligent Sara is well qualified to give you the examples that you're looking for.

You quoted the post and expressed support for it, so what are you supporting?

I think it's more sycophantic twaddle, but I wanted to give you the opportunity to defend yourself before I highlighted that.

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

What debate? The jacket was not found.

Where is your proof/evidence that the jacket was not found ?

Definitely not the first part because the conviction was confirmed by the Court of Appeal, and then we hit the tautology of assuming he's innocent to justify trusting him when he says he's innocent.

That proves absolutely nothing. The Court of Appeal leaves a great deal to be desired. A million and one things (or is it a million and two ??) lead me to trusting his claims of innocence.