a6 murder

[Victor]

This is specifically for you Reg and Tony. I'd ask that you still contribute wherever you both see fit. May I suggest that if either of you don't like the tone of a particualr series of postings or indeed say, Vic's messages, then you purposefully ignore them but still provide for eveyone, the benefit of your knowledge, questions etc.

I am keen to learn more on Reg's talks with Bob Woffinden and hopefully both of you will feel compelled to respond to something soon

Hi Viv,

It's more of the same. Reg is now refusing to make public the information that they find about the A6 murder case, exactly what they're complaining about with the prosecution withholding information from the defence.

What a bunch of hypocrites.

Fair enough, it just means that that information can't be unbiasedly evaluated and is therefore less valid.

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

I find it rather ironic that Victor is dubbed as quarrelsome, a troublemaker, vindictive, etc., etc. To my mind he is a person who has distinct views of his own and is not afraid to state them in clear, sometimes very forthright, terms - in fact, not unlike other people who contribute to this thread, no names no pack-drill. It's also ironic that it seems to me that those who are prepared to dish it out don't like taking it. As someone who has been with this thread right from the start, I know when it started to go downhill in terms of foul language, childishness and plain bad behaviour and it was before Victor joined. The simple fact of the matter is that Victor will not be browbeaten into submission and is perfectly prepared to put up his dukes and fight his corner. And not once to my knowledge has he resorted to the kind of gutter language I've seen from others - and which, I may say, caused me to take my leave, albeit temporarily.

I hope other interested people come here to replace those who say they're leaving - I'm sure there are plenty who look in here from time to time and have an opinion to express or a view to make. The thread will continue, I'm sure of that.

Cheers,

Graham

[Limehouse]

I think it would be a great pity if this thread floundered because of a few disagreements. When I first joined the thread, before the 'great crash' I was 100% convinced of Hanratty's innocence. Kind, supportive posters such as Graham, Steve and LaRue gently pointed out the flaws in my arguments and made me reflect more on the events that night. I never had Hanratty down as a 'lovable rogue' - I thought, and still think, he was a selfish, ungrateful, thieving *hit who could easliy have worked for a living. However, I never believed, and do not wholly believe now, that he was the lone man who killed VS and MG.

This is one of the best threads on the whole site. It has, from time to time, dissolved into shambles but it has always managed to recover. Of course people will disagree about the finer points of the evidence - but what is the point of hurling abuse at each other? People naturally feel sensitive about things they passionately believe in, but nothing can be gained from creating more unhappiness and stress from an already tragic and perplexing story.

Some months ago, on a different thread, I was drawn into conflict with two other posters and I am not proud to say that my responses sometimes fell way below the standard expected of a mature lady. (Although I will defend myself by stating that very often I was driven by extreme provocation). As it happens, the two posters in question were eventually banned due to their offensive attitude to many other posters. On reflection I feel I wasted a lot of time and energy responding to people who could easily have been ignored. Some people are drawn to these forums to give vent to their own rather unfortunate views of the world. No one will listen to them in the pub or in shops or on buses so they force people to 'listen' by posting on forums and sitting back waiting for the tide to rise against them so that they can be eternal victims. I do not think that is the case with this thread. I think people care about what they believe in and because of that I think it is possible for us all to take a deep breath, take a short break, and return when we all feel a little calmer.

Goodnight all.

Julie

[Graham]

Hi Julie,

Yes, it would be a great pity if the A6 thread foundered - I don't think it will, and I really do hope that a few more people will actually post rather than just look in. Threads like this survive on debate and argument, and yes there will be times when things get a bit heated, but I draw the line at personal abuse.

You probably know my take on the case - I was all for JH's innocence until the DNA results which changed everything, and so far I can't be convinced of any fatal flaw in the DNA tests. If JH's guilt is thus established via the DNA, then to my mind it adds even more to the general air of mystery - as in, why did a petty crook suddenly turn into a vicious killer and rapist? There has to be a reason, and I believe it's a psychological reason.

I was thinking earlier of when the 'Ripper Diary' was much more hotly debated than it is these days, and the war of words between John Omlor and others, including myself. But it never got abusive. It got very, very hot at times, but there was never any foul language or truly personal insults. Trolls are usually easy to spot, and the Ripper threads had, and have, plenty of them, but I don't think that the A6 thread has been seriously trolled (with maybe two short-lived exceptions).

A short time back I said that a 'problem' with the A6 Case is that there is simply no new evidence forthcoming - we can't just inject a new theory or a new suspect into the A6 in the same way as you can into the Ripper Case. What we know about the A6 is contained in a very few excellent books on the subject, and until someone out there decides to break his/her silence we can't extend our knowledge and scope for debate. We're therefore left to debate a finite knowledge of the case, and sometimes that finite knowledge is open to more than one interpretation. Hence, I think, the bad vibes that have sullied this thread. My dad used to tell me that there were just two ways of looking at a subject, so far as I was concerned: his way, and the wrong way.

Cheers,

Graham

[jimarilyn]

Hi All,

In 1974 The A6 Murder Committee laid their hands on Valerie Storie's original statement. This statement was not made available to the Defence team at the time of Hanratty's trial nor his appeal. In this original statement she said that the gunman was in his 30's. This was changed to his mid 20's by the time of her second statement, a big difference indeed. What, I wonder, had happened in the meantime to cause her to change her mind ?

It is very significant I feel, to note that later on when Janet Gregsten visited VS in Guy's Hospital on September 20th 1961 Valerie told her that the gunman was in his 30's which confirmed her original statement.

At the time of the murder James Hanratty was 24 years old whereas Peter Alphon was exactly a week shy of his 31st birthday.

Troubling don't you think ?

regards,
James

[Graham]

Hi James,

Can I ask you a very direct, very serious question?

Do you think that, even at the time, even very shortly after the event itself, that there was some kind of conspiracy (for want of a better word) to ensure that James Hanratty was convicted of the A6 Crime?

Cheers,

Graham

[jimarilyn]

Hi James,

Can I ask you a very direct, very serious question?

Do you think that, even at the time, even very shortly after the event itself, that there was some kind of conspiracy (for want of a better word) to ensure that James Hanratty was convicted of the A6 Crime?

Cheers,

Graham

Hi Graham,

I believe that Acott and Oxford conspired to stitch up James Hanratty.

What I will say on the subject of conspiracy is that the vast majority of non-conspiratorial crimes die a quick death and are soon forgotten and cast to the pages of history.

regards,
James

[Graham]

Hi James,

I believe that Acott and Oxford conspired to stitch up James Hanratty.

Why?

Cheers,

Graham

[Limehouse]

Hi James,

Can I ask you a very direct, very serious question?

Do you think that, even at the time, even very shortly after the event itself, that there was some kind of conspiracy (for want of a better word) to ensure that James Hanratty was convicted of the A6 Crime?

Cheers,

Graham

For some months now an idea has been forming in my mind. If Hanratty was 'stitched up' by the establishment, what possible reason could there be? Surely there were much bigger fish to fry in the ocean of criminals on the London scene? And then I started to dig a bit deeper into what was actually going on within 'establishment circles' and who was turning a blind eye because their palms were being greased.

I will not openly express my ideas but I will hint at them.

1) Why did Hanratty, according to his brother, visit his favoured club in Soho when he was short of money - and leave with a pocket stuffed with cash?

2) Which 'establishment' figures were exposed in 1963?

Recently, it has been reported/suggested that several other notorious London criminals were involved in the scandal and were mixing with 'establishment' circles and were protected until they finally stepped too far out of line.

The only flaw with my idea is that it is likely Hanratty would have spilled the beans before his execution - if he was able to make a connection between his arrest for the crime and his involvement in deeper things.

[Victor]

In this original statement she said that the gunman was in his 30's. This was changed to his mid 20's by the time of her second statement, a big difference indeed.

Hi James,
Are you really trying to say that there is a big difference between "mid-20s" and "30s"? Especially when VS didn't have long to form an opinion of him.

I know it was one of Baz's "12 points" (I think it was 12) but it's a bit silly because there are plenty of people who'd be unable to correctly place in the right age group the 6 pictures from Foot's Identikit comparison (2xPLA, 2xJH, VS Identikit, other Identikit) that you've previously posted to this thread.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

The only flaw with my idea is that it is likely Hanratty would have spilled the beans before his execution - if he was able to make a connection between his arrest for the crime and his involvement in deeper things.

Hi Julie,
That's an intruiging thought, but it throws up lots of questions such as:-

Do you think he was intelligent enough to work it out?
Do you think he was intelligent enough to be "recruited"? Or was he simply hired muscle?
Do you think he had time to be "recruited"? Foot lists his activities during the 50s and he spent a huge proportion in jail, do you think he was "recruited" inside?

The Hanratty window cleaning family business, was that an attempt by JH Jr to "go straight" and was he silenced to prevent him revealing anything?

What about MG and VS, were they selected (why?) or were they just unlucky to be in the wrong place at the worng time?

KR,
Vic.

[Rob63]

I`ve had the 'conspiracy theory' idea pop into my tiny mind on a few occasions but my thoughts are similar to Vics last post.
I`d be extremely interested if Limehouse could expand on her thoughts/observations.
I`ve discussed the case with my Mrs on a few occassions and she suggested there was more people involved than meets the eye, even suggesting that MG and VS were targetted, but I can`t think of a reason why....

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie,
That's an intruiging thought, but it throws up lots of questions such as:-

Do you think he was intelligent enough to work it out?
Do you think he was intelligent enough to be "recruited"? Or was he simply hired muscle?
Do you think he had time to be "recruited"? Foot lists his activities during the 50s and he spent a huge proportion in jail, do you think he was "recruited" inside?

The Hanratty window cleaning family business, was that an attempt by JH Jr to "go straight" and was he silenced to prevent him revealing anything?

What about MG and VS, were they selected (why?) or were they just unlucky to be in the wrong place at the worng time?

KR,
Vic.

Hi Vic,

1. I don't think Hanratty had a low IQ. I think his reading and writing problems stem from Dyslexia. Looking at the misspellings quoted in Woffendin's book, i would say he had classic auditory Dyslexia (i.e. he had difficulty decoding sound syllable relationships, which would make reading and some spelling difficult.
2. Hanratty might have difficulty realisng he had been framed because he was being slotted into the frame for a random crime committed by someone else. Maybe he did realise but kept quiet to protect others.
3. If he was recruited, it was for his relative ability to turn on the charm and his willingness to be a 'gofa' in return for ready cash. I don't believe muscle was needed. Maybe his gullability was his downfall and he became too greedy or too much of a liability.
4. The amount of time he spent in jail is very relevant. It does narrow down the time he had to network within these circles. However, his association with the Soho club is well known and he did manage to obtain large amounts of cash by, it appears, simply popping his head round the door when he was short.
5. There is so much in this case that doesn't add up that satrts to make sense if you think about what I am suggesting. He stayed at Nudd's hotel around the relevant time, so it was easy to plant the cartridges. The finding of the gun on the bus is just too neat. It fits in too well with what Hanratty is said to have told Charles France. Then there is the switch of his abili - as I have always said, it's almost as if he was expecting someone in Liverpool to pipe up and confirm his story. He seemed so sure that would happen, even though it was probably not true. Why was that? Finally, when the right technology came along (DNA), the perfect opportunity arose to kill the 'Hanratty was innocent' cry stone dead.

If my idea is correct (and it's just an idea, just a wild idea really) VS and MG were not involved. They were murdered by a random, unhinged killer, and Hanratty fitted the frame. It was an opportunity to dispose of him.

Maybe he didn't squeal at the end because he feared for his family.
Think about his letter just before his execution.

It has been strongly speculated of late that the scandal to which I refer hid a lot more secrets than it actually revealed. There were people being paid to keep quiet, people being paid to turn a blind eye, recruiters, indulgers - all sorts of curruption at the top of society and, when everything hit the fan, only a few paid a high price.

[Graham]

Hi all,

It's always intriguing to hope to see a conspiracy behind any case in which there's a bit of mystery. One of the earliest Ripper theories was that 'the highest in the land' were involved, obviously a conspiracy. But I don't honestly believe there was any conspiracy prior to Deadman's Hill - perhaps afterwards, but hard to tell.

JH was an oddball in many respects. He was educationally backwards, lacked social responsibilty and was violent when he needed to be, but he led a strangely complex life. He made his living via crime in the main, wasn't ashamed about it (but didn't like his mother to know), had underworld contacts and later in his life seemed able to lay hands on money as and when required. He seems to have enjoyed his lifestyle and very obviously lived from one day to the next.

My belief is that he was a highly impressionable person, and he knew and admired some of his underworld contacts to the extent that he aspired to their higher living-standards courtesy of their bigger, more profitable crimes. He told a friend that 'burglary was played out', and he was going to try his luck as a stick-up man. He obtained a gun (not difficult) but once he'd got it probably didn't quite know what to do with it. If he went down towards Slough with a view to a bit of armed robbery, he made a proper balls-up of it. The general area around Dorney is both quiet and affluent, and maybe on a previous visit he'd seen large, expensive cars parked in the fields; but on the fateful night all he could find was a humble Moggie Minor.

The idea that 'someone' connected with the Gregsten family hired a gunman, either directly or indirectly, to break up an illicit affair, just doesn't ring true. Nothing to do with its being 'not the done thing' or anything like that, but Janet Gregsten was perfectly aware of Michael's many infidelities and accepted that they were down to her lack of interest in sex, and they were living apart at the time of the A6. Also, she had known William Ewer for years before and had even lived in the same house, so I'm sure that if Ewer lusted after Janet he'd have been at it long before the A6 (Janet makes no mention at all of any affair with Ewer prior to the A6, but they lived together afterwards for a number of years of which she made no secret).

I honestly think that the overwhelming odds are that JH acted absolutely alone, made a real balls-up of it, and was eventually nailed courtesy of a series of coincidences and strange circumstances.

Limehouse, is the mention of 'establishment figures' in either Foot or Woffinden or both, because I can't remember any reference?

Cheers,

Graham

[Graham]

I'm supposed to be at work....

Hanratty might have difficulty realisng he had been framed because he was being slotted into the frame for a random crime committed by someone else. Maybe he did realise but kept quiet to protect others.

If the 'someone else' was Alphon, he had a good alibi that was accepted by the police.

.

If he was recruited, it was for his relative ability to turn on the charm and his willingness to be a 'gofa' in return for ready cash. I don't believe muscle was needed. Maybe his gullability was his downfall and he became too greedy or too much of a liability.

If someone somewhere really wanted to lean on Gregsten and/or Storie, to the extent of badly frightening them or even killing them, and if that someone somewhere had underworld connections, I don't think a bloke like Hanratty would have been recruited. As Alphon said, laughing up his sleeve, it was no job for an East End tiddler. (I reckon Alphon would've made a bloody good crime novelist...)

However, his association with the Soho club is well known and he did manage to obtain large amounts of cash by, it appears, simply popping his head round the door when he was short

He knew the Rehearsal Club very well, and a lot of its clientele (such as France) but I'm sure I read somewhere that he was a bit of a laughing-stock and not really taken very seriously. Maybe he wanted to impress someone. As to the money, he must've paid it back, otherwise it might have been him found dead at the side of a road...

the switch of his abili - as I have always said, it's almost as if he was expecting someone in Liverpool to pipe up and confirm his story. He seemed so sure that would happen, even though it was probably not true.

There was a bloke in Liverpool (can't recall his name) who genuinely did know Hanratty, but who refused to have anything to do with the investigation. One reason why I've always thought that had he stuck to his Liverpool Alibi he stood a pretty good chance of acquittal.

It has been strongly speculated of late that the scandal to which I refer hid a lot more secrets than it actually revealed. There were people being paid to keep quiet, people being paid to turn a blind eye, recruiters, indulgers - all sorts of curruption at the top of society and, when everything hit the fan, only a few paid a high price.

Scandal was almost a way of life at the top of society in those days - the Profumo Affair for a start and the 'Masked Man' too. Juicy stuff, and what Private Eye was all about!

Back to work for 45 mins,

Graham