a6 murder

[Victor]

This man was the only person who was alone on the upper deck that day and thereby had an opportunity to deposit the gun and cartridges unseen, as the back seat had to be lifted off for the purpose.

Hi Nick,

I don't have my books with me at the moment so I can't verify, but I believe there was an hour or two when the bus was empty at a depot that could have yielded an opportunity for someone to dump the gun.

There's always the possibility that despite Edwin Cooke's reassurances, he did miss checking beneath the back seat on the previous night, as he wouldn't want to admit to not doing his job properly. I don't think that's particularly likely but it remains a possibility.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

The knicker fragment was cut the day after Hanratty's green suit was examined.

From the judgment, para 116.
It appears from the records that Dr Grant examined the green jacket and trousers on 28 December 1961 and Valerie Storie's slips and knickers the following day. It was on this latter occasion that a portion of the crotch area of the knickers was removed and thereafter, as seems clear, stored separately from the other exhibits including the knickers from which it had been excised.

Contamination could quite easily have happened here. Don't try to deny it, it only takes a cell to transfer for contamination to occur.

It could have, but the what happened to the rapists' DNA if JH wasn't the rapist?

The hanky was handled by all and sundry and stored in the same box as Hanratty's other garments.

That's not proven. Para 115:-
If the usual procedures of the time were followed it would seem doubtful that any one of the exhibits, barring possibly the gun and certain of the cartridges, would ever have been removed from its packaging or container.

Once you have a mixture of DNA, which you must have by what you have said then LCN is totally unreliable in untangling whose profile is which.

That's very disingenious of you, neither SGM+ nor LCN can untangle mixed profiles at all, that's part of the analysis of the results which is completely seperate from the experimental work.

KR,
Vic.

[babybird67]

hi Vic

Hi Jen,

I'm really sorry you've had such a brutal reception from some users on this thread, fortunately Graham and Julie have been more welcoming.

No need for you to apologise. You've been nothing but courteous and welcoming, as have Julie and Graham. The realm of apologies lies in someone else's court, methinks, although getting one, based on the current tone of postings, is about as likely as evidence coming to light which proves Hanratty was innocent (about zero, i would say )

I noted the accusation from Reg that I've given you a biased account of the case and I hope that that isn't so. You did ask for my opinion in the chat room on Friday night and I obviously said I believe the CCRC when they state that the DNA conclusively proves Hanratty raped Storie and therefore killed Gregsten.

Reg has made lots of accusations hasn't he: one, that i am ignorant; two, that Sam must be biased and taking sides and why the hell does Sam think he has a right to come and post on a thread open to ANY member of this messageboard to post on without getting permission from Reg first, and another that you have in some way corrupted me (chance would be a fine thing ).

We discussed the case the other night from most aspects: conspiracy theories, contamination of DNA, France's involvement, the alibiS etc, and a thoroughly interesting discussion it was too. Yes during the discussion i asked for your opinion; i am not so much of a mental deficient that i had to adopt your opinion as my own, as you can attest, we have disagreed a fair bit in the past on other subjects!

You will come to recognise the bizarre tactic of questioning the poster rather than addressing the point, such as Reg questioning Sam's presence on this thread, or James (jimarilyn) recently asking why I was reading the JFK thread, as if it's a crime to read comments posted on a public forum.

Yes, quite bizarre. I note that not a single one of the issues that i have raised regarding the actual case itself has been addressed by Reg; he obviously prefers to spend his time patrolling the thread making disaparaging personal comments about posters with the temerity to disagree with him and interrogating people who post here quite reasonably as to their fitness to post here at all, viz his unwarranted and quite shocking attack on Sam.

It's also quite amusing to hear Reg talking about mixtures of DNA profiles on the hanky, when they only found 1 profile on it, Hanratty's, and only in the places on the hanky where there were visible mucus staining, the other areas gave nothing. This in itself demonstrates that either the contamination was so specific that only JH's DNA transferred out of the supposedly numerous other people who handled it at the committal and trial, and only in the places that were snot stained which is precisely where you'd expect people to AVOID handling a dirty hanky.

Yes...and considering three people's DNA was quite evident, sufficient to be able to conclude, as agreed by both Hanratty's representatives and the Crown's representatives, that Alphon "could not have been" the A6 murderer, the idea that mixtures of DNA are impossible to untangle is quite untenable given the evidence of the scientists in the case. If not Alphon, who else? And if not Hanratty, why was his semen distributed in such a way that it was possible for the experts to conclude that both VS and JH had had sex with eachother? Where did the 'real' rapist's DNA actually go? Oh, that's right, it was there, right there, on the evidence found at the crime scene. Silly me!

And then you get the "framed" theories of how Dixie France got hold of the hanky out of JH's dirty laundry that his wife was washing, wrapped it around the gun and dumped it on the bus. Although how he got hold of the actual murder weapon is the subject of some twisted theories involving Alphon and Southend pier.

I am becoming less convinced of France's direct involvement the more i read about the case. How could he anticipate Hanratty being suspected in the case at all? The gun was found the day after the murder, right? (Forgive my ignorance if this is not correct and i will revise my opinions accordingly if it is not) That means we must believe that Hanratty went to France after the murders to give him the gun? Or to someone else who then swiftly transferred the gun to France? Hanratty himself was not brought into the frame for the murder for weeks later was he not?

I think it is much more likely that Hanratty's mental state after murdering MG and raping and attempting to murder VS was so unstable he went into some kind of "autopilot" and simply did what he habitually did with goods he no longer wanted, which was to dispose of them the way he admitted in Court that he disposed of his unwanted items...under the back seat of the bus. At that point i don't think he was sufficiently in possession of what little ingenuity he had to conceive of doing anything less risky with the weapon...he just wanted rid and got rid in the same way he got rid of other stuff he no longer had a use for.

Anyway i am hoping some of the other posters here will address some of the points i have made in my previous postings as i would like to discuss the issues with rational people who know how to debate the issues...that way, everyone's understanding of the case progresses, does it not?

thanks once again Vic for getting me interested in the case...i am currently looking into the Rhyl alibi and intend to start a thread on that issue when i have read sufficient information to do so (having submitted my posting to HeadMaster Reg, Thread Moderator, first, so as to have permission so to do, obviously )

keep posting

Jen

[NickB]

I believe there was an hour or two when the bus was empty at a depot that could have yielded an opportunity for someone to dump the gun.

I think there is a greater risk of attracting undue attention by going into a bus depot than boarding a bus en route. I suppose it depends on whether the depot was a public terminus, where passengers were free to roam around.

Some say it is incredible how he was not noticed before the crime. But surely if anyone had talked to him, or ‘eyed him up’, on the way to the corn field - he still had the option not to proceed with the hold-up.

[Victor]

I am becoming less convinced of France's direct involvement the more i read about the case. How could he anticipate Hanratty being suspected in the case at all? The gun was found the day after the murder, right? (Forgive my ignorance if this is not correct and i will revise my opinions accordingly if it is not) That means we must believe that Hanratty went to France after the murders to give him the gun? Or to someone else who then swiftly transferred the gun to France? Hanratty himself was not brought into the frame for the murder for weeks later was he not?

Hi Jen and Nick,

The gun was found on the thursday evening after the crime which happened on tuesday night (abduction) weds morning (rape and killing), so there was all day wednesday and thursday for it to be dumped on the bus. Edwin Cooke the bus cleaner gave evidence that it wasn't there on the weds evening as he once found dead rats under the back seat of a bus so always checked.

The connection that springs to mind for me is that Hanratty had a hanky tied cowboy style over his mouth while he committed the crime, and then the gun is found wrapped in a hanky.

I don't know whether VS was asked how closely the gun hanky (available as evidence) matched the one the gunman had over his face?

It's also been mentioned that the number of bullets would have been bulky and difficult to carry so wrapping them in a hanky seems a reasonable thing to do to contain them.

So the big question is what did JH do after dumping the car on Weds morning, until sending a telegram from Liverpool on Thurs evening?

KR,
Vic.

[Tony]

Hi Jen and Nick,

The gun was found on the thursday evening after the crime which happened on tuesday night (abduction) weds morning (rape and killing), so there was all day wednesday and thursday for it to be dumped on the bus. Edwin Cooke the bus cleaner gave evidence that it wasn't there on the weds evening as he once found dead rats under the back seat of a bus so always checked.

The connection that springs to mind for me is that Hanratty had a hanky tied cowboy style over his mouth while he committed the crime, and then the gun is found wrapped in a hanky.

I don't know whether VS was asked how closely the gun hanky (available as evidence) matched the one the gunman had over his face?

It's also been mentioned that the number of bullets would have been bulky and difficult to carry so wrapping them in a hanky seems a reasonable thing to do to contain them.

So the big question is what did JH do after dumping the car on Weds morning, until sending a telegram from Liverpool on Thurs evening?

KR,
Vic.

The murder car was dumped on Wednesday morning?

[Limehouse]

I would like to help steer this thread back to reasoned and good-natured discussion by considering the evidence (revealed at the appeal) of the bus conductress Pamela Patt.

She said that at 6.10am on 24 August a young man of dirty appearance, wearing a dirty raincoat, got on her bus and went to the upper deck. He was “about 25, 5 ft. 7 ins., medium build, thick wavy hair, mousey colour, clean shaven”.

This man was the only person who was alone on the upper deck that day and thereby had an opportunity to deposit the gun and cartridges unseen, as the back seat had to be lifted off for the purpose.

I realise this is not an accurate description of Hanratty’s hair, although we do know the black was fading because he needed to have it re-tinted black on 26 August.

Otherwise it sounds pretty much like how JH would have looked after a rough night’s sleep, then got up early to make the deposit before the bus became too busy to do it unnoticed.

It certainly does not sound like Charles France, as has been suggested in some posts.

Because someone shouted out “ask the conductress” at the trial it has been assumed that she had evidence in JH’s favour. But it does not look that way.

Hi Nick and welcome to the thread.

Hanratty was an immaculate dresser and would not be seen dead in a dirty raincoat, even if he had slept in it all night. He would have removed it and discarded it.

However, Alphon was known to wear a raincoat. This fact is well documented.

Julie

[Limehouse]

Message for Reg

Hi Reg,

I know you are passionate about this case and loyal to the 'Hanratty didn't do it' faction, but really, your behaviour has been so disappointing. It would be a good idea to take a breather and return when you feel calmer as your contributions are too valuable to be spoilt by abusiveness towards others.

Kindest regards

Julie

[Victor]

Hanratty was an immaculate dresser and would not be seen dead in a dirty raincoat, even if he had slept in it all night. He would have removed it and discarded it.

Hi Julie,

We also know that Hanratty's shoes were so worn and presumably scruffy that he was loaned and subsequently stole Terry Evans in Rhyl earlier that year.

And conversely that he was embarrassed about a tear in the Hepworth's jacket so he stole a replacement from Trevonne in Stanmore.

He seems quite a contradictory character even down to being an "honest" thief.

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Message for Babybird

Hi Jenny,

I would just like to challenge a few of your points from various posts:

In post 4206 you wrote: Also, i have found some of the pro-JH's innocence arguments a little amusing and very contradictory in places...some comments have questioned the veracity of Valerie Storie's accounts of what took place in that Morris Minor and the integrity of her identification...sorry i don't have the actual quote but somebody said something along the lines of, "Well we dont have a lot of information about her character to go on", therefore implying she may well have been economical with the truth. The very same people go on to assert that a known and convicted serial criminal, who had no qualms about lying and robbing people, was essentially someone who was "open and honest" and whom we really should trust when he asseverates that he really did not kill or rape anybody, honest Guv, cos otherwise he would have confessed to it. So it is all right to doubt a woman whose life was totally stolen from her in the most horrific of manners, with no criminal record, and who has led a life of lawfulness and productiveness since; but really we ought to believe a known, convicted serial criminal could not possibly be capable of lying in a situation where not to have lied would have cost him his life! I find these dare i say hypocritical approaches to the veracity of the protagonists involved quite startling, to say the least!

Hanratty himself made no bones about his criminality. He did not try to excuse his behaviour and was well aware that it fell well below the standards of most respectable people. However, his career as a burglar was not on trial at this particular time. He was accused of murder and rape and his character as a previous criminal deserved no consideration anymore than Gregten's dishonesty as a serial adulterer deserved no consideration. Do you see the point I am driving at? Consider this, when news of this crime was first broken, it was widely reported that MG and VS had 'picked up a hitchhiker'. It was also widely reported that MG and VS had been in the car together 'planning a car rally for their workplace'. Why do you think those stories were circulated? Quite simply, to show sensitivity towards the families of VS and MG. It would not have been at all fair to report that MG, a married man with two children, was (to put it rather commonly) shagging VS in the back of a car in a cornfield. Can you see what I am saying about 'truthfulness'? Hanratty's career as a burglar, in terms of the scale of this crime, were as irrelevant as MG and VS's own moral behaviour. As a burglar, Hanratty did not deserve to be branded a rapist and murderer if he was innocent.

That's it for this post - but there's more to come!

Julie

[Victor]

The murder car was dumped on Wednesday morning?

The evidence of Doris Athoe suggests so.

[Victor]

I think there is a greater risk of attracting undue attention by going into a bus depot than boarding a bus en route. I suppose it depends on whether the depot was a public terminus, where passengers were free to roam around.

Hi Nick,
That's true, but we know for sure it was dumped by someone between the car driving away at 3am on Weds morning (or 9pm Weds if you completely believe Edwin Cooke) and it being found at 9pm on Thurs without anyone spotting whoever did it.

Some say it is incredible how he was not noticed before the crime. But surely if anyone had talked to him, or ‘eyed him up’, on the way to the corn field - he still had the option not to proceed with the hold-up.

Meaning as an experienced burglar, he trusted his instincts and only went through with the crime because he was fairly confident he had not been seen.

KR,
Vic.

[babybird67]

hi Julie

Hi Jenny,

I would just like to challenge a few of your points from various posts:

no problem at all, Limehouse! Thanks for actually engaging with some of the points i was making...that is how i will learn and develop, who knows maybe even change my opinions!

Hanratty himself made no bones about his criminality. He did not try to excuse his behaviour and was well aware that it fell well below the standards of most respectable people. However, his career as a burglar was not on trial at this particular time. He was accused of murder and rape and his character as a previous criminal deserved no consideration anymore than Gregten's dishonesty as a serial adulterer deserved no consideration.

As far as i know, Gregsten had not been accused of a crime. There is a difference imo between ethics and law. Gregsten's morality may well have been questionable however it was not germane to the material facts of the case since he had not been accused of a crime and was not on trial. As for Hanratty not making any bones about being a career criminal...well he couldn't really deny it. It was on record that he had been in prison for breaking the law on numerous occasions. I don't think he should be given credit for admitting something he could hardly have denied.

I don't know if i agree with you about not giving consideration to someone's previous criminal history...as far as i can recall Huntley, guilty of the Soham murders, had several accusations of sexual assault at his door...although he was never convicted of anything, and therefore i understand why none of this was revealed which led to him being able to work with young girls in a school, perhaps if it had been made public knowledge, two girls might be alive today. It's a thorny issue...but it still stikes me as odd that some defenders of Hanratty remain adamant he could not possibly have been lying about his involvement in the A6 murder, yet he was demonstrably a career criminal and frequent liar, by his own admission and by the testimony of his record...in a situation where the result of him NOT lying would cost him the ultimate price of his life, to suggest that in that sort of situation he would somehow have been incapable of telling a lie strikes me as a little odd as an argument to adopt.

Do you see the point I am driving at? Consider this, when news of this crime was first broken, it was widely reported that MG and VS had 'picked up a hitchhiker'. It was also widely reported that MG and VS had been in the car together 'planning a car rally for their workplace'. Why do you think those stories were circulated? Quite simply, to show sensitivity towards the families of VS and MG. It would not have been at all fair to report that MG, a married man with two children, was (to put it rather commonly) shagging VS in the back of a car in a cornfield. Can you see what I am saying about 'truthfulness'?

I can see what you're saying, but as above, it was irrelevant what they were doing in the car. Their behaviour was a matter of private ethics; neither had been accused of committing a crime. I understand what you are trying to say, but Gregsten and Storie were not on trial, nor had anything they had done been illegal. It is a far cry from suggesting that VS may have been unethical in choosing to date a married man, to suggesting that she was the sort of person that would be deliberately dishonest in choosing someone whom she knew had not attacked her to hang for the crime so at least someone was punished. Whatever they were doing in the car was their own business and was not in any way a reason why they should have been attacked (not that i am suggesting this is your contention).

Hanratty's career as a burglar, in terms of the scale of this crime, were as irrelevant as MG and VS's own moral behaviour. As a burglar, Hanratty did not deserve to be branded a rapist and murderer if he was innocent.

While i agree the fact of his previous criminal history did not necessarily mean he was guilty, it went to the issue of his character, and whether his claims to have been elsewhere at the time of the murder could be trusted, which it obviously could not since he changed alibis whilst the trial was in progress, thereby admitting to the jury that they were dealing with a demonstrable liar. Thus imo it was relevant and a serious mistake on his part to change his alibi at that stage.

I'd also like to make a general point about a person having no previous history of violent or sexual crime; this is patently true of every sexual/violent offender until the moment they commit the first crime of this sort. Before that time there is no history of such offences attributable to the individual offender: following this logic nobody would ever become a sexual or violent offender, since they would have no history of being so. The first occasion of the offence has to occur at some point does it not? Not having done something before never logically precludes it being done in the future.

My own position at this moment in time is that Hanratty's unfamiliarity with the gun led him to shoot Gregsten accidentally...he did not mean to become a murderer,hence obscuring his features, but nevertheless he did become one because he shot Gregsten. In this way, nobody could have predicted him becoming a murderer, and but for those split seconds that fateful night he most likely wouldnt have become one. But Gregsten was shot and Hanratty shot him, then cast off his disguise and raped and attempted to murder Valerie, as by then he had realised there was no going back and he would have to prevent VS identifiying him and sending him to his death.

Hope that deals with some of your well-made points which have made me think! Look forward to your next contribution.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Jenny,
I would agree with your assessment one hundred per cent, .
Not familiar with the gun.... 'I feel like a cowboy' is how the gunman described himself also remarking on the size of the weapon..
The act of rape, and need for sexual release, is a response to having committed such a act of hostility.
And the realisation that he had nothing to lose by killing the witness, is summed up by his actions.
'I shall have to hit you over the head i suppose' but he turned and walked away a bit , before turning round and shooting.
A classc case of a event that went completely out of hand.
Richard.

[Limehouse]

Hi Jenny,

An excellent and reasoned response to my points - although I dislike the comparison of Huntley and Hanratty since Huntley's previous convictions were totally relevant to the crimes for which he was on trial whereas Hanratty's were not.

I would not like you to think I am putting VS and MG on trial for their morality - I was just trying to make a point about truthfulness in relation to the case.

In no way do I believe that Valerie set out to blame an innocent man for the crimes against her and Mike. She would have had nothing to gain from that. However, her description of the attacker and her account of the events was understandably vague to start with, and became more certain after what some people believe to have been firm leading from detective Acott [U]after[U] Hanratty became a stronger suspect. Remember, the police were almost certain they had the right man when they identified Alphon and only after Valerie failed to pick him out of the line-up did they cast around for another suspect. This was almost four weeks after the crime.

There are several significant weaknesses in the case against Hanratty but it is certainly true that he signed his own death warrant when he changed his alibi.

Have you considered the possibility that Hanratty was hired to disrupt the relationship between MG and VS?

Julie