a6 murder

[larue]

I think what I was trying to say in my post concerning Dixie France was that if he provided the gun that killed MG and injured VS, his suicide could have been due to guilt about the outcome of the crime for these two, as well as (or maybe instead of) guilt over Hanratty being executed. As you point out, he may well also have feared another long stretch in jail.

hi limehouse et all

this is another very good question you have raised here. people do not commit suicide for trivial reasons, so there must have been some deep underlying reason for what dixie did.

while i am still sitting on the fence, [ouch, the splinters ] i could suggest that if dixie procured the gun for jh, he would probably have needed to change his underwear when he read the papers the following morning, and lived thereafter with the fear of the police knocking on his door aksing awkward questions aboot the gun and ammo. hanratty's conviction and certain death therefore meant that dixie would have had the blood of three people on his hands, two dead, one crippled. maybe that did tip him over the edge?

on the other hand, i don't think dixie had the right to feel guilty, after all, what purpose do guns have??? could he honestly not have forseen the possible outcome of giving a known criminal a pistol and ammunition??? [it's rather like giving a baby an open razor blade to play with. who will be suprised when the baby cuts itself??] when the same man supposedly said that he wanted to become a stick-up man????

[larue]

right

now you have got me going on this subject again ... answer me this:

what did basil acott mean when he said he always thought of this crime as a gas-meter job???

my understanding of this term, is where a person breaks open the gas meter in their own home, then tells the police that they have been burgled and robbed by some person unknown.

did acott mean that he thought someone from either the gregstons or the stories was involved??? and if so, how did he see an outsider like jh fitting in???

[Limehouse]

Hi La Rue,

I think it is a good exercise to explore what Acott meant by the 'gas meter' job because, if he thought it was an 'inside job' why, during the investigation, did he go barking up a completely different tree? Did early investigations include interviewing people such as Ewer (he seems to have kept in close contact with the police - thus his 'she saw him at the cleaners' report to Scotland Yard)?

Did the remark come later, engendered by the realisation that the victim's brother-in-law knew someone who knew Hanratty well? Did the remark also reflect the realisation that this same brother-in-law stepped into the victim's shoes as partner of the widow soon after the crime?

Once Hanratty was banged to rights, did anyone official care whether there was anyone else involved in the background?

[larue]

Did the remark come later, engendered by the realisation that the victim's brother-in-law knew someone who knew Hanratty well? Did the remark also reflect the realisation that this same brother-in-law stepped into the victim's shoes as partner of the widow soon after the crime?

good thought Limehouse.

i am led to believe that most rapes and murders are comitted by someone the victim knew, so the 'he knew someone who knew someone' theory would make it almost a family affair

Once Hanratty was banged to rights, did anyone official care whether there was anyone else involved in the background?

not even close.
i suspect no-one in officialdom even cared if hanratty was the right man. just as long as the conviction could be shown to be 'safe'

as i have been unemployed for the past few months, my ME time has gone up somewhat, so the crime and investigation channels have been taking a bashing, so has abe books. i would have to say, according to my reading, as far as english justice goes, that once someone is in the frame, a conviction is all that matters. perry mason it ain't.

i have recently learned that there is a theory, that crippen was innocent... but i won't go into that. well, not on this thread

[Victor]

i am led to believe that most rapes and murders are comitted by someone the victim knew, so the 'he knew someone who knew someone' theory would make it almost a family affair

Hi Larue, Julie, &tc.,

I believe it's quite a significant proportion that are assaulted by someone they know including family members, their extended families and neighbours. Although the link here is brother-in-law to business associate to criminal associate which is fairly tenuous. Additionally, Ewer may have been investigating the matter through his connections as the dead man was his brother-in-law, and he had legitimate cause. Therefore the "she saw him at the cleaners" may have been his ham-fisted attempt at passing information to the police.

i suspect no-one in officialdom even cared if hanratty was the right man. just as long as the conviction could be shown to be 'safe'

Just like Alphon was before him, until he convinced Acott otherwise.

i would have to say, according to my reading, as far as english justice goes, that once someone is in the frame, a conviction is all that matters. perry mason it ain't.

Having just watched the Leslie Moleseed\Stefan Kiszko\Ronald Castree program on ITV, that certainly did seem to be the case in the past, but the correction in that case (in 2007, 31 years after the crime) offers some hope that things are improving.

i have recently learned that there is a theory, that crippen was innocent... but i won't go into that. well, not on this thread

I've heard something about that too, but there's a thread devoted to that elsewhere.

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

Acott and the 'Gas Meter Job

This has always puzzled me, and continues to do so. This appears to originate, according to Woffinden, with an article in the Sunday Times written by Lewis Chester regarding the 'She Saw Him At The Cleaners' episode. In 1971 Chester went to interview William Ewer and Janet Gregsten and, a little later, the retired Basil Acott. Acott refused to comment, except to say that, quote, "To us it always seemed a simple gas-meter job". That is, to quote Woffinden, 'an inside job, a crime carried out by someone on the inside, a close member of the family'. Woffinden goes on to ask, 'If this is so, why did the Crown case not contain a single reference to this?'

Ewer wrote a very odd response to this article, which the Sunday Times published in full. [See Woffinden, paperback edition, PP 380-2]

In other words, Ewer was apparently concerned that the suggestion that the A6 was an 'inside job' referred back to him. In other words, it seemed that he was of the opinion that the police felt that he had 'arranged' for Hanratty to be at the cornfield at an appointed hour. In other words, that he had 'arranged' for Hanratty to be his, Ewer's, means of applying force to Gregsten and/or Storie to break up their relationship. Ewer must have felt pretty strongly about this, or why his complex (and rambling) rejoinder to Chester's article?

I could go on, but then I might start rambling a bit myself, so I'll end here.

Any ideas, anyone?

Cheers,

Graham

[Dupplin Muir]

Hi Graham

I'm afraid I don't agree that Ewer wanted to put an end to VS's and MG's relationship: on the contrary I believe he was quite happy with it as long as he thought it might lead to the break-up of MG's marriage. However, when he learned that the affair was cooling down (as VS stated) then he may have decided to act. If he had a yen for JG, why would he want her husband to go back to her?

DM

[reg1965]

hi dm
long time no hear, it is always good to hear your voice on here.

I intend to take your argument further and suggest a scenario that explains all of the circumstantial evidence (not id evidence) as known in the case and provides a motive for the crime.

I never did buy Leonard Miller's hypothesis that the motive for the crime lay in JH's pathology; whatever way anyone wants to look it. Plus, even more importantly, there is no concrete, reliable evidence that puts him at the crime scene.

Picture the scene.

William Ewer knows France and Alphon (this has never been proved or disproved) and they are drinking together in a tavern of some sort.

Ewer talks of his disgust over the treatment of his sister-in-law Janet. Alphon discloses his outrage of this immorality and during the revelrie Ewer challanges Alphon (in jest) to sort them out.

Alphon knowing that Dixie has access to firearms s
omehow persuades him (maybe with menaces) to supply a gun.

As the model and make of the actual weapon used has not been legally proved we might suggest that it was an automatic (as Aplhon said during the Paris interview), but it makes no odds either way.

Knowing now what kind of a psychopath Alphon was, he commits murder and gets France to put [the/or a] gun on the bus. It makes no odds as it didn't have any fingerprints therefore wasn't tracable to Hanratty obviously as JH didn't do it. Although one of JH's snotty hankies from his laundry basket, left at the Frances home, would do the job. France later tells the plod that JH talked of such a hiding place.

When Hanratty returns from his travels France has access to Hanrattys movements on the previous Monday night and Tuesday morning.

France is now getting it the ear from not only Alphon but Ewer.

France knows (or knows someone who does know) Nudds and gets him to place the cartridge cases in room 24 to implicate Hanratty now that the conspirators know that JH stayed there.

It is still a mystery, or just the only 'sagging coincidence' left to be explained as to why JH and then PLA stayed at the same doss house 2 nights in succession.

It is now obvious that, discounting the ID evidence and taking into account JH switching alibis, Nudds 3rd statement must have had quite an impression on the jury and led to the hanging of JH.

As to Dixies suicide it is obvious he was driven to it by Alphons persistent phone calls, for which he is now infamous.

Ewer might not have been able to get Alphons blackmail money in one go and that would explain the instalments paid into Alphons account.

As soon as PLA was cleared of the crime and JH was in the frame the paymemts stopped.

Obviously no evidence existed against Ewer so he was always confident in libel and slander cases, which must have brought some recompense for the money he had to cough up to PLA.

PLA was in the clear. The chancer as he was, allowed him to play the media for all it was worth.

As far as I am concerned any 'sagging coincidences' that remain concern the events that unfurled after the execution of JH and the kid gloves that were put on whenever PLA appeared before the courts of justice. Was Ewer a Freemason and therefore had some additional weight?

I would like to see the papers held by the government which relate to France, Alphon and Ewer; but pig's may fly eh?

The ID evidence as always should be taken with a pinch of salt. It is not empirical because people make mistakes.

As you all know I am not convinced by the Crowns DNA evidence for the same reasons and additional reasons that I have already stated.

Good to hear from you again.
Reg

ps hi to Jim and Tony. I'm still around.

[Limehouse]

Hi Folks,

Nice to see some old friends returning - Reg, Dupplin.

Yes, the more I think about the events that night the more I think that there was far more to it than a small-time crook roaming the countryside looking for a stick-up.

I am not sure what Alphon's role was - I've never been convinced he was the actual murderer but he certainly capitalised on the events.

One thing I do not believe for one moment is that Hanratty, guilty or innocent, left those cartridges behind in the hotel.

Now I will tell you a story about DNA that really shocked me - but first it involves a little confession. I was doing a 'big clean' in my living room recently after having had a new fireplace installed. I switched on the TV and happened across a Jeremy Kyle chat show. Two women were on the show claiming that one man was the father of both their babies, conceived only weeks apart. The women, once friends, were deadly enemies, this man having switched between the two of them variously. DNA evidence was carried out on both women, the man and both babies and it was proved that he had indeed fathered both babies. Then came the shock - the DNA evidence showed there was a 98.8% chance that the women were sisters! They had no idea. They could not explain how it could be because, as far as they knew, there was no common link between their families - no evidence that their respective parents had even met before. More tests were done on other members of the women's families and it was found that they were not, in fact related at all - yet they shared 98.8% common genes. It was explained that possibly, generations back, they had common ancestors.

So, that is a tale about how DNA can throw up unexpected results, out of the blue.

[simon]

Hi,
La rue - to say that ' no-one in officialdom even cared if Hanratty was the right man' is surely taking cynicism a step too far. Quite apart from the morality of that, if he was the wrong man they might soon have another similar crime on their hands.

Regards,
Simon

[Tony]

hi dm
long time no hear, it is always good to hear your voice on here.

I intend to take your argument further and suggest a scenario that explains all of the circumstantial evidence (not id evidence) as known in the case and provides a motive for the crime.

I never did buy Leonard Miller's hypothesis that the motive for the crime lay in JH's pathology; whatever way anyone wants to look it. Plus, even more importantly, there is no concrete, reliable evidence that puts him at the crime scene.

Picture the scene.

William Ewer knows France and Alphon (this has never been proved or disproved) and they are drinking together in a tavern of some sort.

Ewer talks of his disgust over the treatment of his sister-in-law Janet. Alphon discloses his outrage of this immorality and during the revelrie Ewer challanges Alphon (in jest) to sort them out.

Alphon knowing that Dixie has access to firearms s
omehow persuades him (maybe with menaces) to supply a gun.

As the model and make of the actual weapon used has not been legally proved we might suggest that it was an automatic (as Aplhon said during the Paris interview), but it makes no odds either way.

Knowing now what kind of a psychopath Alphon was, he commits murder and gets France to put [the/or a] gun on the bus. It makes no odds as it didn't have any fingerprints therefore wasn't tracable to Hanratty obviously as JH didn't do it. Although one of JH's snotty hankies from his laundry basket, left at the Frances home, would do the job. France later tells the plod that JH talked of such a hiding place.

When Hanratty returns from his travels France has access to Hanrattys movements on the previous Monday night and Tuesday morning.

France is now getting it the ear from not only Alphon but Ewer.

France knows (or knows someone who does know) Nudds and gets him to place the cartridge cases in room 24 to implicate Hanratty now that the conspirators know that JH stayed there.

It is still a mystery, or just the only 'sagging coincidence' left to be explained as to why JH and then PLA stayed at the same doss house 2 nights in succession.

It is now obvious that, discounting the ID evidence and taking into account JH switching alibis, Nudds 3rd statement must have had quite an impression on the jury and led to the hanging of JH.

As to Dixies suicide it is obvious he was driven to it by Alphons persistent phone calls, for which he is now infamous.

Ewer might not have been able to get Alphons blackmail money in one go and that would explain the instalments paid into Alphons account.

As soon as PLA was cleared of the crime and JH was in the frame the paymemts stopped.

Obviously no evidence existed against Ewer so he was always confident in libel and slander cases, which must have brought some recompense for the money he had to cough up to PLA.

PLA was in the clear. The chancer as he was, allowed him to play the media for all it was worth.

As far as I am concerned any 'sagging coincidences' that remain concern the events that unfurled after the execution of JH and the kid gloves that were put on whenever PLA appeared before the courts of justice. Was Ewer a Freemason and therefore had some additional weight?

I would like to see the papers held by the government which relate to France, Alphon and Ewer; but pig's may fly eh?

The ID evidence as always should be taken with a pinch of salt. It is not empirical because people make mistakes.

As you all know I am not convinced by the Crowns DNA evidence for the same reasons and additional reasons that I have already stated.

Good to hear from you again.
Reg

ps hi to Jim and Tony. I'm still around.

Bloody good to see you back my mate,

I tune in every day to see what is going on. It has been very remiss of me not to have PM’d you or emailed you. I apologise. I know you will be happy to see your team make such a good start and I am happy about that as well.

I do have some information for James about Nimmo, Swanwick and Lane that I have dug up. I will email it to him and send you a copy and for good measure I shall also copy it for my good friend Julie.

I can’t do it just now as I am celebrating the Ashes win.

Tony.

[Victor]

Then came the shock - the DNA evidence showed there was a 98.8% chance that the women were sisters! They had no idea. They could not explain how it could be because, as far as they knew, there was no common link between their families - no evidence that their respective parents had even met before. More tests were done on other members of the women's families and it was found that they were not, in fact related at all - yet they shared 98.8% common genes. It was explained that possibly, generations back, they had common ancestors.

So, that is a tale about how DNA can throw up unexpected results, out of the blue.

Hi Julie,

From http://genome.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD020881.html
Humans share up to 99.2 per cent of our genetic make-up with our closest relative, the chimpanzee, although it has been difficult to pinpoint the genetic factors that define the human species

Obviously the statistics must be calculated differently for the two comparisons because that just doesn't make sense.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-Much-DNA-Do-We-Share-With-the-Chimps-40594.shtml

Says we share 93-94%.

The point is that like fingerprints and snowflakes it is possible to find matches if you sample enough, but there are so many possible variations that the chance of getting a match like the one you mentioned is very very remote.

And then there's the (in)famous - If you have an infinite number of monkeys hitting random keys on typewriters one of them will almost surely produce the entire works of Shakespeare.

KR,
Vic.

[reg1965]

Bloody good to see you back my mate,

I tune in every day to see what is going on. It has been very remiss of me not to have PM’d you or emailed you. I apologise. I know you will be happy to see your team make such a good start and I am happy about that as well.

I do have some information for James about Nimmo, Swanwick and Lane that I have dug up. I will email it to him and send you a copy and for good measure I shall also copy it for my good friend Julie.

I can’t do it just now as I am celebrating the Ashes win.

Tony.

Hi Tony
Thx for the welcome back.

I, too have looking in regularly but have been mulling over the stuff I've been discussing with Bob Woffinden. It is slow going on the Hanratty front at the mo.

Brilliant performances from England...especially Broad, Swann and Trott who were fantastic. Good captaincy from the lad Strauss.
Arsenal were due to start firing sooner or later with all the young talent now a bit wiser and experienced. The older players staying fit will bring some sucess at last I feel. We look set up for a really good run on all fronts.

The Owls have had a bit of a so so start although Newcastle are a good side in this League, which can be difficult to get out of.

Regarding the A6 case one of the disturbing elements that is still a mystery is why no telling forensic material was ever gleaned from the Morris 1000. I mean people make mistakes, that's for sure; but to find nothing at all is unbelievable. (although Professor Simpsons evidence regarding the calibre of the gun has never been challanged!!!! Alphon referred to an automatic in Paris.)
I can't see a scenario where the car could be forensically cleaned before abandonment; taking into account the amount of blood reported by the plod and giving the crown the benefit of the doubt over the time the car was left in Avondale Crescent.
The killer must have known he had left a small deposit of his jungle juice on one of the victims, so why clean the car.
Not one hair, fibre or print...what is that all about.

Looking forward to seeing the stuff you mentioned above.

Cheers
Your mate Reg

[reg1965]

......People close to Hanratty would be best qualified to decide whether they thought he was guilty or not. You might say Louise Anderson had an axe to grind because she was a fence, but she may also have been justifiably convinced of Hanratty's guilt.....

Hi Boot
I meant to reply sooner as it was your posts and yourwebsite that sparked my return here. It was DM's post that pushed me back in though.
I agree that there is no evidence against Hanratty but I am not so sure that PAing every witness statement is of much use. By this I mean that there seems to have been a lot of, as yet, undocumented shinanigans between major players in the case. To PA without taking into account the full context is a mistake I believe.
I too am biased. For one I don't hold too much sway with psychology on the whole. During my degree (Computer science), areas dealing with usability leaned heavily on ideas from phychology which to me was just plain old common sense dressed up with some flowery language, a few formulas and the letters PhD at the end!
Sorry to sound negative but I like your site and add my welcome to you here. I'll PM you a bit later about some ideas I have for the website.

Take care
Reg

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie,

From http://genome.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD020881.html
Humans share up to 99.2 per cent of our genetic make-up with our closest relative, the chimpanzee, although it has been difficult to pinpoint the genetic factors that define the human species

Obviously the statistics must be calculated differently for the two comparisons because that just doesn't make sense.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-Much-DNA-Do-We-Share-With-the-Chimps-40594.shtml

Says we share 93-94%.

The point is that like fingerprints and snowflakes it is possible to find matches if you sample enough, but there are so many possible variations that the chance of getting a match like the one you mentioned is very very remote.

And then there's the (in)famous - If you have an infinite number of monkeys hitting random keys on typewriters one of them will almost surely produce the entire works of Shakespeare.

KR,
Vic.

Hi Vic,

Yes, I am well aware that chimpanzees share 99.2% of our genetic make-up and I was almost waiting for someone to point that out. However, in the case I quoted the DNA strongly indicated that the women were almost certainly sisters, sharing 98.8% of particular human, family orientated genes - and yet further tests revealed they were not, in fact even nearly directly related. Obviosuly, the material they were dealing with was fresh DNA and it indicated a very high chance of them being related. The point I am trying to make is that DNA seems to behave in ways we do not always expect. The DNA taken from VS's panties was very old and a minute sample at that. There is also still a strong possibility of cross contamination from other exhibits - so - how do we know that any other DNA that possibly existed on those panties didn't disappear, evaporate or something and how do we know that a similar result to the case of the two women didn't occur - after all, if such cases are so rare - we are talking about two cases well over forty years apart.

Am I making sense??

Re The Ashes - I'm thrilled for all the cricket fans out there. I am afraid I don't understand cricket but only because I haven't given it enough attention.
I am a footie fan. These days I support Peterborough United who have just been promoted to the Championship and who are sadly disgracing themselves with only one point from four games! However, the totally amazing thing for me to come to terms with is Leeds United being in Division One!! Also - Norwich!! But - I mean Leeds?? I can remember going to matches in London in the 70s (Spurs, West Ham and Leyton Orient) and when Leeds United came to town we trembled with fear! Poor old Billy Bremner must be looking down in disgust!