a6 murder

[larue]

Can't help but think that there's something a wee bit strange with Alphon's story about his trip to Southend to dispose of the gun (to Dixie France) as detailed on pg. 369 of Paul Foot's book. He talks about starting off at Paddington, than starting to feel ill and deliberately getting off the train at Liverpool Street. Now I realize from my time in Westcliff (a Southend suburb) that trains from London to Southend do indeed go from L'Pool St (and Fenchurch Street as I recall) but Alphon spoke as if he was having to get off what would otherwise have been a 'through' train from Paddington (please read said page and see what you make of it). For me, it makes me all the more likely to view Alphon as a 'chancer' (or b.s.'er, as they'd say over here).

Jim

hi Jim

yeah, this section does read a bit strange. my interpretation of the page 369 text is:

[so he says] Alpon travelled to Paddington station, by whatever means, [bus, subway or taxi], to collect his suitcase that he had left there. he then set out to get to Southend. the quickest way would have been to take the subway from Paddington on the Hammersmith line, directly to Liverpool Street mainline station, thence a train to Southend Victoria, stopping at Stratford, to leave the train and swallow a large brandy in a nearby pub.

hope this helps

[larue]

Hi folks,
Lovely to see la Rue posting again. Sorry to hear of your redundancy. I hope it's for a short period only. Please don't stop posting. Your contributions today have been so inspiring.

hi Limehouse

very good of you to say this. i'm sorry it took so long for me to respond...

[Graham]

I never understood why Hanratty just didn't toss the bloody gun into the Thames and have done with it. Surely even PC Plod could see that Alphon's Southend story was just load of old tom...

Cheers,

Graham

[Tony]

Hi Graham,

As always, your points are hard to disagree with! However:

1. VS is convinced that Hanratty was the man who abducted her and Gregsten and she picked him out at the second identity parade. That much cannot be denied. However, she was equally sure that the man she selected on the first identity parade was also the right man. Her evidence must count for a great deal, of course, but she also claims to have only caught a glimpse of the man responsible during the attack and there was a lot of confusion over the description of her attacker in the early hours following her discovery in that lay-by. How is that that the intitial description, even if taken by accident or if mis-heard, just happened to fit quite precisely the first suspect?
2. Learning difficulties of the type that i believe Hanratty suffered do not prevent one from having a fluent and even articulate conversation. However, people with such difficulties do not generally use, or understand, language traits such as metaphor, similie and pun. This is nothing to do with intelligence but more related to the way in which language is decoded and made sense of.
3. Your points about a possible motive - the desire to take his criminality to new heights is a fair one and one that we have discussed previously. I can accept that if, a big if, Hanratty was looking for new challenges, he may have gone out with the intention of 'trying out' the act of armed robbery. I could accept that much more readily if he hadn't just happened to stumble across a man whose brother-in-law was a known associate of a friend of Hanratty's. I could accept it more readily if Hanratty had been somewhere near his own 'manor' and was therefore remotely likely to have randomly picked a couple, one of whom had such an association. What is harder to accept is the idea of Hanratty wandering out into unknown territory miles from anywhere, with a gun and five or six boxes of cartridges bulging from his clothing, hiding out who knows where before the crime and managing to pop up in the cornfield looking immaculate - without drawing attention to himself. Was he invisible immediately prior to the crime? Wouldn't someone have notice this man in a well-cut, made-to-measure suit with considerable bulges apparent rattling like a pinball machine?
4. According to a Horizon Tv programme, available on You Tube, an enormous amount of evidence was witheld. Someone quoted 12,000 documents (although that seemed excessive to me - they would not have had time to compile that amount evidence prior to the trial, never mind withold it).
5. Senior policemen corrupting statements by the accused shows that they were dishonest and it makes me wonder whether other evidence was also corrupted. For example, the cartridges being 'placed' in the hotel room and the hanky being wrapped aroung the gun to incriminate Hanratty. Additionally, as some of the prosecution witnesses were known to the police (Nudds and Langdale for example) it re-enforces the suspicion that some witnesses were 'leaned on' and/or were far too keen to gain favour by giving false evidence. It shows that the whole police investigation stank.

I agree that had Hanratty not changed his alibi and had not testified, he would probably have been acquitted. I wonder what he would have gone on to do with the rest of his life?

Good Morning to you Julie,

Although I have not been contributing of late I have been reading your own splendid contributions.
If I may I would just like to add to your statement that even though Valerie Storie has maintained ever since that Hanratty was her attacker you rightly point out that she picked out Michael Clark at her first attempt.
It is no use anyone saying she was under pressure to pick someone out on that first parade. She was not.

Put yourself in her position Julie: You had spent several hours in a car, probably scared half to death, unable to see the gunman, finally he shoots the man you are having an affair with orders you into the back seat, rapes you, then gets you to pull your lover’s body out of the car, asks you to show him how to start the car, turn on the lights and how the gears work and finally he shoots you.
Some time later you are invited to view a line of men containing the police’s number one suspect.
You will obviously think your assailant is in that line. You are under no pressure to pick out anyone at all. If you thought you did not recognise anyone would you just pick anyone out at random, hoping you had somehow come up with the eleven to one shot? No neither would I. And anyway you only had the briefest of glimpses of him so it would be understandable if you said “I don’t recognise anyone here Inspector”.

On the second parade, and you may have had a little coaxing from the lovely Mr Acott who is so kind and has really been looking after you, you do pick out the next police number one suspect. Mr Acott gives you a squeeze and says “well done”.
Even if you had the slightest doubt at that moment Mr Acott had removed it for you.

The man is hanged, mainly on your identification. A very serious thing; the man you picked is now dead and it’s down to you. You can’t ever have any doubts. Never again can you think; “I made one mistake, have I possibly made another?”

As the years go by and book after book is written about the case, magazine articles, TV documentaries, questions in Parliament. Even your lover’s widow says she thinks that the man was innocent. What does all this mean? Could you have made a second incorrect identification?
No. You can never again say anything other than: “I got the right man” can you?

Tony.

[Limehouse]

Afternoon Tony,

Good to have you back with us - and an excellent opening post too.

You are absolutely right - Valerie could have stated that she did not recognise anyone on the first line-up. The line-up consisted of Alphon - first suspect, who oddly enough fitted the first description the police collated, and other men roughly complying with that initial description. Valerie did not, at that point, say to the police "there is no one in this line up who fits the description of the man. He had large, icy-blue, staring eyes and fairish hair". No, she instead picked out a man who looked nothing like Hanratty.

You have described well the scenario in which she found herself and I don't blame her at all for her actions. I can't begin to imagine how she must have been feeling during both line-ups - potentially coming face to face with the man who had completely destroyed her life and those of many others. When she was found in that lay-by, bravely clinging to life, all her energies seemed to be directed towards finding the man responsible. I believe that is possibly what saved her - the determination to seek justice. She believes she has done that - and who am I to challenge her - I wasn't there. However, as you point out - Acott was there to reassure her that Hanratty was the man and, for Valerie, he certainly sounded like the man. Remember, she took some considerable time looking at each man - and then she asked them all to speak.

If there was a miscarriage of justice, it is not Valerie who stands accused in my eyes. She has to believe in her heart that Hanratty was the man - not because otherwise it implies that she was instrumental in his conviction - but because justice was so important in helping her come to terms with the terrible events of that night. Seeing justice done was, in all probability, the reason she survived.

Have a nice day Tony.

regards

Julie

[Limehouse]

I never understood why Hanratty just didn't toss the bloody gun into the Thames and have done with it. Surely even PC Plod could see that Alphon's Southend story was just load of old tom...

Cheers,

Graham

That's a good point Graham, and I think the answer is that Hanratty did not dispose of the gun at all. The gun being found in a place that inciminated Hanratty was crucial - as was a piece of physical evidence that linked it to Hanratty - his hallmark hany - being found wrapped around it.

It's strange really because Valerie stated the gunman wore gloves. Now we know that Hanratty didn't usually wear gloves, he usually used a hanky to remove finger prints and to touch articles in the homes he robbed. You couldn't blame him for changing his style if he decided to handle a firearm - after all, it must be difficult to handle a gun well with a hanky wrapped round your hand(s). However, why didn't he wear gloves when disposing of the gun? He could have had them handy in his pocket with the gun, slipped them on, disposed of the gun and slipped the gloves back in his pocket for disposal later. Instead, it appears he was so careless - dropping cartridge cases here, leaving his hanky there - with the gun - and even letting on prior to the crime - that it was a good place to hide unwanted bits and pieces.

[Graham]

Hi Limehouse,

In answer to your arguments - all cogent - I would ask this simple question: if Hanratty wasn't the A6 killer then why is it his DNA on the underwear, and why is there no trace of PLA's or any other male's (apart I believe from Gregsten)?

Cheers,

Graham

[Limehouse]

Hi Limehouse,

In answer to your arguments - all cogent - I would ask this simple question: if Hanratty wasn't the A6 killer then why is it his DNA on the underwear, and why is there no trace of PLA's or any other male's (apart I believe from Gregsten)?

Cheers,

Graham

Hi Graham,

That's an excellent question and one that tips this whole case on its head. It is possible, despite what some people argue, that Hanratty's DNA was desposited on to Valerie's clothing when all garments where shoved together in a box after each day of the trial. A scientist on the Horizon programme explained how even a tiny amount of Hanratty's DNA could have produced a strong DNA reading on other garments. However, this does not explain the absence of another man's DNA - the guilty man's. I would point out though, that neither was other forensic evidence was left in the car. No sign of the killer, Hanratty or otherwise, was found. Not a hair, a fibre, a skin cell or a drop of body fluid. This is astonishing.

Another thought is that the DNA tests were carried out on a small portion of Valerie's knickers. We don't know what evidence was left on the rest of her clothes. Were they available for analysis when the most up-to-dat DNA tests were done?

[Victor]

That's an excellent question and one that tips this whole case on its head. It is possible, despite what some people argue, that Hanratty's DNA was desposited on to Valerie's clothing when all garments where shoved together in a box after each day of the trial.

Hi Julie,
As I've stated before, the piece was cut out of the knickers BEFORE the trial, and was never there.

A scientist on the Horizon programme explained how even a tiny amount of Hanratty's DNA could have produced a strong DNA reading on other garments. However, this does not explain the absence of another man's DNA - the guilty man's. I would point out though, that neither was other forensic evidence was left in the car. No sign of the killer, Hanratty or otherwise, was found. Not a hair, a fibre, a skin cell or a drop of body fluid. This is astonishing.

Completely true, on the DNA thread I worked out it would take something like 10 cells from Hanratty to have survived the 40~ish years and still give a signal, however, the "it would have to be semen" comment limits the possibilities of contamination further.

The lack of forensics from the car is surprising, but there's no guarantee that it was investigated as thoroughly as it would be today.

Another thought is that the DNA tests were carried out on a small portion of Valerie's knickers. We don't know what evidence was left on the rest of her clothes. Were they available for analysis when the most up-to-dat DNA tests were done?

No. The rest of the clothes were destroyed after the trial. The small fragment was the semen stained area of the crotch, which was cut out specifically for testing, and they managed to get the blood-type from it and this was part of the evidence at the trial.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

You are absolutely right - Valerie could have stated that she did not recognise anyone on the first line-up. The line-up consisted of Alphon - first suspect, who oddly enough fitted the first description the police collated, and other men roughly complying with that initial description. Valerie did not, at that point, say to the police "there is no one in this line up who fits the description of the man. He had large, icy-blue, staring eyes and fairish hair". No, she instead picked out a man who looked nothing like Hanratty.

She should have said that the gunman wasn't there, but didn't and all the speculation about her motives at the time is just that, speculation. Worst of all is the highlighted part, how can you say that Michael Clark "looked nothing like Hanratty" when you don't know what Michael Clark looks like?

If there was a miscarriage of justice, it is not Valerie who stands accused in my eyes. She has to believe in her heart that Hanratty was the man - not because otherwise it implies that she was instrumental in his conviction - but because justice was so important in helping her come to terms with the terrible events of that night. Seeing justice done was, in all probability, the reason she survived.

Valerie is an incredibly brave woman and I do agree that seeing justice done might have given her some extra resolve to cling on to life, but it wasn't her who convicted Hanratty and sentenced him to hang, it was those eleven people on the jury who found him guilty, and the judge who passed the sentence. They may have mainly based their decision on her evidence, but it was still their choice not hers.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

If I may I would just like to add to your statement that even though Valerie Storie has maintained ever since that Hanratty was her attacker you rightly point out that she picked out Michael Clark at her first attempt.
It is no use anyone saying she was under pressure to pick someone out on that first parade. She was not.

Really? I totally and utterly disagree that she was not under pressure to pick someone out.

On the second parade, and you may have had a little coaxing from the lovely Mr Acott who is so kind and has really been looking after you, you do pick out the next police number one suspect. Mr Acott gives you a squeeze and says “well done”.
Even if you had the slightest doubt at that moment Mr Acott had removed it for you.

I completely agree with this though. AFTER she had selected Hanratty, Acott's reassurance would completely consolidate her resolve that she had selected his suspect, but what does that mean other than the fact that his suspect is the person who raped and shot her?

The man is hanged, mainly on your identification. A very serious thing; the man you picked is now dead and it’s down to you. You can’t ever have any doubts. Never again can you think; “I made one mistake, have I possibly made another?”

Why blame her for the jury and judge's decision? Or remove their part in the process, if they'd found him innocent then he wouldn't have hanged, they are as responsible as she is.

KR,
Vic.

[Tony]

Hi Graham,

That's an excellent question and one that tips this whole case on its head. It is possible, despite what some people argue, that Hanratty's DNA was desposited on to Valerie's clothing when all garments where shoved together in a box after each day of the trial. A scientist on the Horizon programme explained how even a tiny amount of Hanratty's DNA could have produced a strong DNA reading on other garments. However, this does not explain the absence of another man's DNA - the guilty man's. I would point out though, that neither was other forensic evidence was left in the car. No sign of the killer, Hanratty or otherwise, was found. Not a hair, a fibre, a skin cell or a drop of body fluid. This is astonishing.

Another thought is that the DNA tests were carried out on a small portion of Valerie's knickers. We don't know what evidence was left on the rest of her clothes. Were they available for analysis when the most up-to-dat DNA tests were done?

Good stuff as always Julie. But were they really looking for anyone else’s DNA? Once they had found Hanratty’s was it a case of we’ve proved it once again. The Establishment can breathe easily once more.

Of course there is the hanky wrapped round the gun left on the bus which also had Hanratty’s DNA on it. But why would Hanratty do such a stupid thing as risk being caught boarding a bus with boxes of ammunition and a large hand gun when he could simply have dumped it all in the river. I don’t think he would have. Nobody would have.
Did anyone else have access to Hanratty’s dirty washing? Well, of course, we know they did.
But the evidence was presented in court and, despite what people say about Hanratty telling lies; he agreed at once it was his hanky. Well a strange liar indeed; it was just as if he was loosening his collar in readiness for the noose.

If you state that Michael Clarke looked nothing like Hanratty and some one says how can you know.
Well the answer to that is simple and comes from Valerie herself who said Michael Clark looked very much like a Mr Peter Alphon; and we do know that Hanratty did not look at all like Mr Alphon.

Tony.

[Victor]

But were they really looking for anyone else’s DNA? Once they had found Hanratty’s was it a case of we’ve proved it once again. The Establishment can breathe easily once more.

Hi Tony,
That's a very strange question, you can't look for DNA for a specific individual, you get a profile from the sample which will sometimes be mixed from several people, and then compare that to profiles from known people.

Of course there is the hanky wrapped round the gun left on the bus which also had Hanratty’s DNA on it. But why would Hanratty do such a stupid thing as risk being caught boarding a bus with boxes of ammunition and a large hand gun when he could simply have dumped it all in the river. I don’t think he would have. Nobody would have.

That says it all really... Someone did.

But the evidence was presented in court and, despite what people say about Hanratty telling lies; he agreed at once it was his hanky. Well a strange liar indeed; it was just as if he was loosening his collar in readiness for the noose.

OK, so he was an inconsistent liar.

If you state that Michael Clarke looked nothing like Hanratty and some one says how can you know.
Well the answer to that is simple and comes from Valerie herself who said Michael Clark looked very much like a Mr Peter Alphon; and we do know that Hanratty did not look at all like Mr Alphon.

I know a Dr Rennie (I think) said MC looked similar to PLA, but I can't recall VS saying that. And it's very subjective, you think PLA and JH are not at all alike, I think they're fairly similar in some photos which are obviously black and white. Much like the identikit photos one of which is a dead ringer for Hanratty in my opinion (and Mrs France according to Foot's book).

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Hi Victor,

I'll reply to both of your posts in one go if iImay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Limehouse
That's an excellent question and one that tips this whole case on its head. It is possible, despite what some people argue, that Hanratty's DNA was desposited on to Valerie's clothing when all garments where shoved together in a box after each day of the trial.

Hi Julie,
As I've stated before, the piece was cut out of the knickers BEFORE the trial, and was never there.

The fact that the stanied piece of knicker was removed before the trail does not rule out the possibility of Valerie's and Hanratty's intact garments being stored together prior to the trial.

Originally Posted by Limehouse
You are absolutely right - Valerie could have stated that she did not recognise anyone on the first line-up. The line-up consisted of Alphon - first suspect, who oddly enough fitted the first description the police collated, and other men roughly complying with that initial description. Valerie did not, at that point, say to the police "there is no one in this line up who fits the description of the man. He had large, icy-blue, staring eyes and fairish hair". No, she instead picked out a man who looked nothing like Hanratty.

She should have said that the gunman wasn't there, but didn't and all the speculation about her motives at the time is just that, speculation. Worst of all is the highlighted part, how can you say that Michael Clark "looked nothing like Hanratty" when you don't know what Michael Clark looks like?

Michael Clark was asked to join an identity parade, along with others, including Alphon, the prime suspect. Not only was Alphon the prime suspect, he fitted the original description circulated by police. By habit, when selecting men for line-ups, those chosen somewhat resemble the suspect. Michael Clark must have been closer to Alphon in looks than Hanratty. My comment is therefore logical and justified.

Quote: Limehouse
If there was a miscarriage of justice, it is not Valerie who stands accused in my eyes. She has to believe in her heart that Hanratty was the man - not because otherwise it implies that she was instrumental in his conviction - but because justice was so important in helping her come to terms with the terrible events of that night. Seeing justice done was, in all probability, the reason she survived.

Valerie is an incredibly brave woman and I do agree that seeing justice done might have given her some extra resolve to cling on to life, but it wasn't her who convicted Hanratty and sentenced him to hang, it was those eleven people on the jury who found him guilty, and the judge who passed the sentence. They may have mainly based their decision on her evidence, but it was still their choice not hers.


Read my comment carefully and you will clearly see that I am not blaming Valerie at all. In fact, I am doing the opposite. The quote 'it is not Valerie who stands accused in my eyes' makes it clear enough that I do not blame her.

[Limehouse]

Good stuff as always Julie. But were they really looking for anyone else’s DNA? Once they had found Hanratty’s was it a case of we’ve proved it once again. The Establishment can breathe easily once more.

Of course there is the hanky wrapped round the gun left on the bus which also had Hanratty’s DNA on it. But why would Hanratty do such a stupid thing as risk being caught boarding a bus with boxes of ammunition and a large hand gun when he could simply have dumped it all in the river. I don’t think he would have. Nobody would have.
Did anyone else have access to Hanratty’s dirty washing? Well, of course, we know they did.
But the evidence was presented in court and, despite what people say about Hanratty telling lies; he agreed at once it was his hanky. Well a strange liar indeed; it was just as if he was loosening his collar in readiness for the noose.

If you state that Michael Clarke looked nothing like Hanratty and some one says how can you know.
Well the answer to that is simple and comes from Valerie herself who said Michael Clark looked very much like a Mr Peter Alphon; and we do know that Hanratty did not look at all like Mr Alphon.

Tony.

Hi Tony,

It is possible that once they obtained a DNA proflile from the knicker fragment, they stopped looking for any other. It is possible too that someone else's DNA was on the other portion of Valerie's knickers and on the rest of the clothes she was wearing that night - but they were not tested.

It is obvious to both of us that MC looked more like Alphon than Hanratty for the reasons we have both explained. Several posters deny that the police were ever looking for a man with brown eyes and yet it is clear that the men in that first line-up fitted that original description. It was after that first line up and after she had wrongly selected MC that Valerie mentioned 'icy blue staring eyes' and the search took a new turn.