a6 murder

[Victor]

At the time of the A6 murder William Ewer was listed in the London Phone Book as an "Art Dealer", not as a humble umbrella repair man.

Was there a single "Umbrella Repair Man" in the London Phone Book for 1961? The word Euphemism is coming to mind, but doesn't seem like it's quite right, that sort of thingy anyway.

Sometime between 1961 and 1966 Ewer prospered sufficiently to find the financial means to move from Swiss Cottage to the very posh and upmarket Oxford Street.

What sort of premises on Oxford Street, residential or retail or retail with a flat atop or a warehouse? Was this after he'd sued the papers for libel or before?

Three short years later, acting on behalf of an anonymous person, he bought a (430 year old) one and threequarter square inch Miniature by Hans Holbein for a world record price of £21,000 at Sotheby's

Someone elses money...

And doesn't this add weight to Graham's argument, if he'd spent all his money hiring someone to shoot Gregsten then where did he get the extra to do what you've mentioned that he did?

KR,
Vic.

[larue]

hi all,

whichever way you slice and dice it, 5k was quite a chunk of change in 1961

[jimarilyn]

whichever way you slice and dice it, 5k was quite a chunk of change in 1961

That's quite true Larue. Alphon's unaccounted for £5,000 however was not paid to him in one large chunk but in several instalments over an approximate period of two and a half months.

Makes you wonder if a bit of blackmail entered the equation after the initial deposit into his account of £750.

[bootheven]

re: a6 murder

Hello everyone.

It doesn't altogether surprise me to read of people so prepared to rack their brains and exploit every piece of available evidence simply to satisfy their curiosity in these pages.

What worries me is that 90% of 'a6' enthusiasts including journalists who spectators base their opinions on, are already biased when they write their books which defeats the whole concept of reaching an impartial conclusion which is afterall the whole purpose here.

Books on the subject serve only as a resource and should be read and filtered as such. Writers who go so far as to get involved with victims families make the fatal mistake of approaching the case with empathy whether they admit to it or not.

We should first approach a puzzle like the 'a6 murder' without bias.

Perhaps then, the only alternative and fair way to approach the a6 murder after all these years is to psycho-analyze known the witness statements that we have probably already read, that were made primarily to the police at the time, and secondly in subsequent statements where more detailed forethought might have come into play. These statements are rather telling in my view.

I also believe that an extension of the chronology begun by Bob Woffinden in his book could be helpful. Consequently, I have attempted to begin such a project online. You can find my efforts at http://kinunity.org/hanratty2/

I am particularly keen to make this site as accurate and informative as possible and invite suggestions.

Many Regards.

[Limehouse]

Hello Bootheven and welcome,

I am not going to admit to any bias concerning this case because I have thought long and hard about it for many years and since joining this thread I have sat wobbling on the fence! I am now 99% sure that Hanratty did not simply stumble across these two fated lovers sitting in a remote field, take them on a long and pointless journey and then shoot them - for no other reason than he was bored with raiding empty houses.

I have looked briefly at your site and find apects of it worthy of further exploration. I agree with you fully that the motive for this crime was never properly investigated by the police. The issue of motive has been explored, debated and discussed quite fully on this thread and various members have theories as to the true motive. Several however, believe that there was no other motive than that Hanratty was trying to become a big-shot criminal. I can sympathise with that view - it's simple and it avoids all the somewhat romantic notions of Hanratty have been a 'loveable rogue'. However, there are too many coincidences that were not properly investigated for this theory to be fully convincing for me.

Concerning your approach of 'psychoanalizing' witness statements (and you may have explored this on your site but I have not read that far yet) some of the witnesses were less than reliable. For example, the prisoner who testified that Hanratty had confessed to the murder during an exercise session whilst on remand was a known liar, a police nark and his evidence was contradicted by several other inmates who were never called to give evidence. Additionally, Louise Anderson, Hanratty's 'friend' turned hostile witness, possibly to save herself from being prosecuted for handling stolen goods. Psychoanalysis is hardly needed to reveal the motives of these witnesses whose testimonies contributed to a distorted prosecution case. Pointing out these things is not a product of bias - it is a process of embracing and rejecting evidence and drawing a conclusion.

I feel you will make an interesting and positive contribution to this thread and I hope you continue to post.

Welcome once again.

[Victor]

Hello Bootheven, Julie et al.

I am not going to admit to any bias concerning this case because I have thought long and hard about it for many years and since joining this thread I have sat wobbling on the fence! I am now 99% sure that Hanratty did not simply stumble across these two fated lovers sitting in a remote field, take them on a long and pointless journey and then shoot them - for no other reason than he was bored with raiding empty houses.

Well I've been interested in the case for years too, but I've actually swapped from thinking Hanratty was in Rhyl at the time of the murder, to he definitely did it, and all because of the DNA evidence.

The problem with the "there must be a motive" argument, is that we know that motiveless crimes DO sometimes happen, and secondly that there are some minor things that could be a motive for someone of limited intelligence like Hanratty, for example, maybe he'd recently picked up the gun and wanted to try it out so went for an easy target, a couple of lovers pre-occupied with eachother in a car in the middle of nowhere.

I agree with you fully that the motive for this crime was never properly investigated by the police. The issue of motive has been explored, debated and discussed quite fully on this thread and various members have theories as to the true motive. Several however, believe that there was no other motive than that Hanratty was trying to become a big-shot criminal. I can sympathise with that view - it's simple and it avoids all the somewhat romantic notions of Hanratty have been a 'loveable rogue'. However, there are too many coincidences that were not properly investigated for this theory to be fully convincing for me.

When you have the situation that motiveless crimes do exist, then it's sheer folly to expect the police to investigate and discover the motive in every case, however, I fail to see that someone who repeatedly deprives people of their property, and when convicted behaves so appallingly in prison so as to lose all remision can be described as "loveable", that's just spin.

Concerning your approach of 'psychoanalizing' witness statements (and you may have explored this on your site but I have not read that far yet) some of the witnesses were less than reliable. For example, the prisoner who testified that Hanratty had confessed to the murder during an exercise session whilst on remand was a known liar, a police nark and his evidence was contradicted by several other inmates who were never called to give evidence.

I agree that initial impressions of Langdale and Nudds would cast doubt upon their evidence, however, armed with the DNA evidence there's reason to believe that they may have both been telling the truth. But that's the problem with liars, and I include Hanratty in this, they soemtimes tell the truth.

Additionally, Louise Anderson, Hanratty's 'friend' turned hostile witness, possibly to save herself from being prosecuted for handling stolen goods.

Or the police had enough information to prosecute Anderson and offered her the choice "Tell the truth or face prosecution".

Psychoanalysis is hardly needed to reveal the motives of these witnesses whose testimonies contributed to a distorted prosecution case. Pointing out these things is not a product of bias - it is a process of embracing and rejecting evidence and drawing a conclusion.

But analysing Aplphon and his dodgy confessions could be very interesting.

I feel you will make an interesting and positive contribution to this thread and I hope you continue to post.

I echo those sentiments.

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Hi Victor,

We have had these discussions before and always end up saying the same things but I'll say it again anyway. Yes, motiveless crimes happen but this one happened to a couple sitting in a field miles from anywhere. The perpetrator, we are expected to believe, just happened to stumble across them. He also happened to have a bulky gun and cartons of bullets bulging from the pockets of his immaculate suit and yet no one out that warm sunny evening saw this distinctive looking man prowling around. The perpetrator also happened to have remote links to the brother-in-law of one of his victims. This coincidence might have been acceptable had the perpetrator been prowling around his own manor, but we are asked to believe he randomly selected a remote area of Berkshire and just happened to pick this couple.

Fast forward to the trial, several of the key witnesses produced by the police had reasons to testify against Hanratty and could only profit from that testimony.

Of course, Hanratty played a large part in his own fate by changing his alibi mid-trial - but he was, to my reckoning, expecting back-up from Liverpool that never came.

My theory is that Hanratty was framed because he was much more deeply involved in dark, murky goings-on that linked all the 'victims' in this case but also external events that were entwined.

The DNA evidence does nothing to convince me because it does not answer any of the other issues surrounding this case.

[Graham]

Hi All, and welcome to Bootheven.

The one thing that proves to me that Hanratty happened upon the car at random is the fact that the car was parked elsewhere that evening (not too far away, as it happens) prior to being parked in 'the' field. Either JH was tracking the car - in which case why did he wait for it to be parked in 'the' field, or he knew it was going to be in 'the' field. Both of these possibilities are, to my mind, extremely unlikely.

With regard to the police not investigating the motive, what in reality could they have done that they didn't do? I take it as read that they interviewed Valerie Storey and Janet Gregsten regarding whether either/both of them were aware of anyone meaning to harm VS or MG because of their affair. Equally, I take it as read that no-one gave the police any credible evidence concerning any 'conspiracy' or pre-planning of the crime, otherwise I feel sure that there'd have been more than just Hanratty in the dock.

All the DNA proves is that JH left his DNA on the underwear thus proving beyond any reasonable doubt that he dunnit!

Limehouse, your second-to-last paragraph intrigues me immensely. Care to enlarge upon it?

Cheers,

Graham

[Limehouse]

Hi Graham,

I'll PM you with my theory. It came about as a result of an obituary I read a few months ago and it got me thinking.

Agree with a lot of what you say, as usual, except the bit about MG and VS and the field. They may have been somewhere else earlier that night, but they had parked in that field before that night, on previous occasions. Also, although I reject Hanratty stumbling across them by accident, I don't rule out someone lese having done so.

[caz]

Having it Both Ways?

And that is one thing that puzzles me; if you accept the DNA results why would you bother posting on here at all? Your one and only answer to me would only have to be: “DNA”.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=68362&postcount=3324

Hi All,

Long time no see.

I’ve spent a bit of time recently catching up with all the posts since late 2008, and Tony explains rather neatly above why I had previously been keeping my distance. People don’t tend to like it when they regard a case as being wide open and someone else keeps popping in to say it’s all over bar the shouting. I felt I was in the latter category and therefore should bow out of the game.

That said, even though I would have to say “case closed”, I do still find it a fascinating one, for a hundred-and-one reasons. So here I am again, sticking my unwelcome oar in. But you already knew that life was unfair.

How closely did Michael Clark resemble Hanratty? He must have been closer in resemblence to Alphon because the police would have been obliged to find similar looking men to the suspect.

Hi Limehouse,

But logically, if all the men were picked for that first parade for their basic physical similarity to the suspect - Alphon - then Michael Clark would have been no exception and VS, if asked, would have had to concede a similarity on the most basic level between any two of the men on that parade if she was being scrupulously honest. Ultimately it’s a meaningless comparison, whether or not the police chose men who all had the same colour eyes as Alphon. If they did, it wouldn’t single Clark out as necessarily any more like Alphon than any of the others; if not, Clark could have had any eye colour at all and still fit whatever criteria the police had for a broadly similar appearance. In short, the truth could be rather boring and unpalatable for most posters here: for all you know Clark could have been the poorest of all the Alphon look-alikes and the one who was the most like - or least unlike - the absent Hanratty. That had to apply to one of the men on that first parade, so why not Clark? Incidentally, if the police were 'obliged' to find similar looking men when Alphon was their suspect, they would have had to do the same for Hanratty, or hope that such an awkward and transparent departure from their obligations would not blow their chances with a second suspect.

I also think VS would have put the pressure on herself to pick out the suspect first time round. Assuming the police had done their job and found her rapist for her and he was standing there, what if she failed to single him out from the others? She would be letting her murdered lover down, herself down and everyone investigating this horrific crime down. Anyone who says there was no pressure on her to pick anyone if she couldn’t be sure is being a tad unrealistic I think. She couldn’t do anything about it if her rapist wasn’t even there. But in that event the innocent suspect would be very unlucky to be picked out by mistake (and even unluckier to have no way of clearing himself subsequently), and obviously it would be no problem for any of the innocent look-alikes. The worst scenario facing VS was not to pick anyone out and her rapist going free as a direct result. It stands to reason that she didn’t recognise her attacker in that first parade because the man she plumped for was only there to make up the numbers. So my guess is that she felt she had no choice even if it meant taking her own stab in the dark, rather than admit defeat and take the very real risk of watching the killer walk away from it.

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...

Hi Tony,

As has been mentioned, someone took the trouble to board that bus and hide the evidence on it, risking being seen by driver or passengers. Was he a dead ringer for Hanratty or did he look nothing like the man he was meant to be framing?

Who assumed the evidence would be found and successfully incriminate Hanratty - especially if the planted gun wasn’t even the murder weapon? If it was, and Hanratty’s snotrag was wrapped round it to frame him, how did the gun get from Alphon in that cornfield to the bus? What is the least number of individuals who would need to have been involved in a plan to fit up Hanratty for a rape and murder committed by Alphon? And who knew that these two men even shared the same blood group? Group A is almost as common as group O, and the fact remains that the overall majority of men would not be group O.

How would such a plan, whether it involved just one or two criminal minds right at the start, or a whole network of corrupt policemen and their informers, unhindered by an establishment who just needed someone to swing for it, have enjoyed so much luck for so many years, failing to come crashing down at any point under the searching and passionate gaze of investigators experienced in exposing genuine miscarriages of justice? Moreover, how could accident or design have produced the icing on the cake of the initial corruption in 1961, with those exceptionally supportive and very specific DNA results some forty years later?

The problem with seeing umpteen holes in the case against Hanratty is that most if not all of them would seem to apply equally to any hypothetical case against Alphon. What about his fair trial?

A lot of the arguments want it both ways. If - and it’s a big IF - VS had picked out Alphon, the same corrupt system that supposedly convicted an innocent man would surely have run with this identification and proceeded to do all in its power to get a conviction against Alphon, guilty or not, without a second suspect ever needing to enter the picture. With the right blood group, no forensics from the car and only this liar’s mum giving him an alibi, the outcome could have been pretty much identical. One can only imagine the cheers if the same journalists, smelling the same whiff of corruption and campaigning equally strongly for an appeal, finally got Alphon exhumed and the single DNA profile from the knickers (and hanky if applicable) did not match his.

The irony of not accepting the DNA results that caused Hanratty’s appeal to fail, and arguing that the presence of his profile on both items does not make him guilty, while the absence of Alphon’s profile from both does not make him innocent, is that logically you'd have had to reject an opposite result as well, meaning that even if Alphon’s DNA had turned up and not Hanratty’s, you could not have concluded that Alphon was guilty and Hanratty innocent. If you really think about this, can you honestly say, hand on heart, that you would find it in any way a reasonable argument if the boot were on the other foot and people were now insisting that Alphon's DNA on those knickers still didn't prove that Hanratty could not have been the rapist?

And still nobody can explain the mechanics of how three DNA profiles from the early 1960s - and only three: Hanratty’s, VS’s and the one attributed to MG - could have been obtained from a knicker fragment that was stained with the rapist’s blood group O semen, without Hanratty being the rapist. How would a contamination event produce such an extraordinarily specific and unlucky result for a man who was originally set up forty years previously by unscrupulous individuals who knew him to be entirely innocent? Alternatively, how could such a clear result have been achieved by manipulation and accepted as conclusive beyond reasonable doubt, taking the corrupt work of those in 1961 to a whole new level of deception?

The point is that whatever you do with the DNA evidence - reject it outright or treat it as less than 100% reliable - it doesn’t indicate Hanratty’s innocence and will never indicate Alphon’s guilt. The same applies to the shortcomings of the original investigation. Even if the police used all the corrupt tricks under the sun to make sure of a conviction, it still wouldn’t follow that they hanged the wrong man, or knew he wasn’t the right one. Without enough hard evidence against Hanratty or Alphon, they would have had to manipulate what they had or manufacture the rest, making for an unsafe conviction in either case. Assuming one of them was genuinely guilty, they could have tossed a coin and had a 50-50 chance of taking the right man out of society for all the wrong reasons.

In short, all the arguments for Hanratty’s conviction remaining unsafe would make a conviction in Alphon’s case unsafe with knobs on, given the DNA results. And I have yet to see any tangible evidence for Hanratty’s innocence or Alphon’s guilt. To my mind these are separate issues from the safety of the original verdict against a man whose voice VS recognised as the one she had been forced to listen to throughout her lengthy ordeal. If Hanratty had genuinely been in Rhyl at a critical time, and had really come into contact with all those witnesses, what on earth possessed the twit not to say so right from the start, even if he thought he could rely on friends to say he was in Liverpool at some earlier point? It makes no sense if he was innocent of rape and murder and desperate to account for his whereabouts.

Love,

Caz
X

[Andrew]

Hello All
In the Spring of 1975 I was out for a walk at lunch time when two CID men approached me and asked if I would help out and take part in an ID parade. I agreed and was directed to the Police station where the parade was to take place in an underground car park or storage area. There were about 30 people present and I suppose that we were all about the same age and similar stature but otherwise not very similar. At this point someone said that a lady had been attacked and that it was proposed that the victim would try to pick out the suspect from the line-up. The suspect then appeared, handcuffed to a policeman, and he was asked to pick out those he wanted on the parade with him. He did actually pick me out but as he had chosen more than enough already (are there 10 or 12 on an ID parade?) I and the other spare bodies were thanked and asked to leave. The interesting thing is that I didn't look anything like the suspect, but some people do say that I have a suspicious appearance (no jokes please).
It occurs to me that the suspect must volunteer to appear in a parade because it would be too easy to spoil things by, say, screaming and shouting in front of the witness. The fellow in this case may have had legal representation but I couldn't tell who was who because most of the police types were wearing suits.
Regards
A

[Graham]

Hi Caz,

I think your post just about summarises the ins and outs of the A6 Case. My own interest is no longer who dunnit, but why. No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but there's an itch at the back of my mind (ants in the brain, probably) that keeps suggesting that there could well be something lurking in the background that so far we don't know about. For example, I never cease to be surprised at the sheer number of people associated with this case, and the sometimes astonishing coincidences attached to it. My Brummie logic tells me that JH got bored with burglary, got hold of a gun, and for whatever reason had fun and games with a completely innocent couple who just happened to be where he happened to be that night.

In the early 1970's I served on a jury in a murder trial. Pretty horrible it was too, but unlike the A6 trial it was all over in 4 days, and as far as I can recall only 3 or 4 members-of-the-public witnesses were called. In fairness, it was so bloody obvious that the defendant was guilty - we on the jury gave him a full 12 out of 12 thumbs-down on the first ballot, ate a decent lunch courtesy of the state, and then did our duty. Hard to imagine a murder trial lasting nearly a month.

It's also occurred to me that the A6 Case happened at a time when the general public were beginning to give the old 2-fingers to the Establishment and Authority, reference the Lady Chatterley trial, the Profumo Affair, Margaret Duchess of Argyll, spy-rings and all that. The conditions were ripe for someone like Jean Justice to start stirring things - whether he was totally genuine or basically an upper-crust mischief-maker I leave to the individual to decide. And I suppose the ultimate testimonial was when John and Yoko came out in support of JH, but how odd when their eagerness to see justice done kind of withered away. I suspect it was when Lennon realised that it was impossible to prove JH's innocence.

Hi Andrew,

Ref: your i.d. parade experience, when I was on that jury I refer to above, the selection-process was also an experience. The defendant objected to every woman up for selection, which turned out not to be a surprise as the victim was female. He also objected to anyone who seemed much above the age of 30. Until then, I never realised that jury-selection was carried out in open court (but not in the presence of the judge).

Cheers,

Graham

[Limehouse]

Hi Caz,

Brilliant post, can't argue with a word of it. It may be time to hang up my 'Hanratty was probably innocent or otherwise framed' banner.

Graham,

Again, another brilliant post - and I agree totally about 'something lurking in the background' - but then you know that.

Andrew,

A valuable contribution and insight inot the methods used on identity parades.

Have a good summer folks.

Julie

[Graham]

Hi Julie,

Have a good summer folks.

We've got this week off and were looking forward to day-trips around and about, stately-home visits, etc. But instead I'm sitting here listening to the pouring rain and the howling wind, the central-heating was on earlier, and as far as we're concerned the car stays on the drive. Will it ever stop raining??? Barbeque summer? Who were they kidding?

ATB,

Graham

[Victor]

YouTube Documentaries

Hi all,

I've just watched the documentaries kindly put on by James (jimarilyn) and I just can't shake the feeling that there might be a bit of bias...

1. Superintendent Morgan's description includes "erm... brown eyes"
2. James Hanratty on being found guilty says after a false start "I am innocent", when this is a bit of a distortion and actually he said "I am not... innocent" [Woffinden P261]

Anyone else think that these two slip ups are so similar in nature that to treat them differently is a tad naughty? Woffinden even goes on to presumptuously say "No one considered this a belated admission of guilt" and then gives a load of excuses about "terrible distress", blah, blah, blah, "Yet only someone in absolute and unanticipated turmoil could have made such a potentially catastrophic mistake."

I wonder what qualifies as "absolute and unanticipated turmoil", how about being kidnapped at gunpoint, being manipulated and ordered to drive around for 6 hours, watching your lover being murdered, being raped, being repeatedly shot, left for dead in a remote rural location, emergency life-saving hospital treatment and then still being told that you're paralysed for life, yet having to relate the ordeal to several different police officers, then having to face the attacker in court whilst they lie their backside off and deny it outright, &tc. Oh and just to put the cherry on the top, once you think it's all over.....nope, it won't go away for the next 45 years...

On a slightly different note, Woffinden says John Kerr thinks VS is called "Mary" [see Page 11 - The Final Verdict] and has to check with her to get it right, yet he repeatedly says in the documentaries that he definitely gave his notes on the back of a census form to a police officer, and THEY lose it.

And still nobody can explain the mechanics of how three DNA profiles from the early 1960s - and only three: Hanratty’s, VS’s and the one attributed to MG - could have been obtained from a knicker fragment that was stained with the rapist’s blood group O semen, without Hanratty being the rapist.

Actually Caz, the documentaries all clearly say that only one male profile was found, but as you note the judgment also mentions "the DNA attributed to Michael Gregsten" (para 125) which does seem a bit unsatisfactory to me, although the important point is that the type O semen was identified in 1961 as the rapist's even if all they could say was it could be 30-40% of men (definitely not Gregsten's, maybe Alphon's or Hanratty's).

KR,
Vic.