a6 murder

[NickB]

Didn't JH admit that he had been talking about getting a gun to be a hold-up man? Subsequently he claimed that this was fantasy, but it showed that he had at least been thinking in some fashion about going that way. In that context it could be viewed as a Huntley-like progression.

As for the raincoat, it may have been needed to conceal the weapon and ammunition. In previous posts it was asked how he concealed this beforehand and I thought the best answers were that the gun was in his carried/folded jacket, as it was a warm day, and some ammunition was loose in his pocket (rattling like marbles) – meaning the other boxes may have been collected afterwards making for a more bulky load.

… 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.

I just think that if staff at the depot had spotted someone boarding an out of service bus without good reason they would have taken more than usual notice of who it was.

[Victor]

Didn't JH admit that he had been talking about getting a gun to be a hold-up man? Subsequently he claimed that this was fantasy, but it showed that he had at least been thinking in some fashion about going that way.

Hi Nick,

Yes, that's the Donald Fisher incident which Hanratty admitted. Although Fisher denied supplying the murder weapon, and it was never discovered where Hanratty got the gun.

I just think that if staff at the depot had spotted someone boarding an out of service bus without good reason they would have taken more than usual notice of who it was.

Yes they would, but was the depot staffed between Cooke leaving Weds night, and the bus being collected the following morning? Although that's way more unlikely than a passenger slipping it under when the bus was relatively empty.

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Didn't JH admit that he had been talking about getting a gun to be a hold-up man? Subsequently he claimed that this was fantasy, but it showed that he had at least been thinking in some fashion about going that way. In that context it could be viewed as a Huntley-like progression.

As for the raincoat, it may have been needed to conceal the weapon and ammunition. In previous posts it was asked how he concealed this beforehand and I thought the best answers were that the gun was in his carried/folded jacket, as it was a warm day, and some ammunition was loose in his pocket (rattling like marbles) – meaning the other boxes may have been collected afterwards making for a more bulky load.


I just think that if staff at the depot had spotted someone boarding an out of service bus without good reason they would have taken more than usual notice of who it was.

Sorry Nick but you are still ignoring the issue that Hanratty was never seen in , and was not known to own, a raincoat. Alphon, however, was well known for wearing one so your point about it being used to conceal the gun etc could equally apply to him (or anyone other suspect for that matter).

Hanratty was probably bragging when he spoke of taking his criminality up a notch by obtaining a gun to do 'hold ups'. He was among fellow criminals and wanted to 'big himself up'. There is a world of difference between bragging and carrying out this type of crime.

[Tony]

The evidence of Doris Athoe suggests so.

Later revelations from the notes of Basil Acott would suggest not.

Tony.

[Victor]

Later revelations from the notes of Basil Acott would suggest not.

What revelations? Are you talking about other reported sightings of the car later that day? Or the mileage?

Woffinden seems to accept the early morning dump theory as he discusses evidence from the staff at Redbridge underground station that morning.

Blackhall, Trower and Skillett place the car in the area on the Weds morning too, and the identifications of the first two leave little room for doubt.

KR,
Vic.

[babybird67]

Am up to page 300....phew...just wanted to comment on this part of a posting:

Hanratty was always fairly candid about certain elements of the case that eventually told against him. Hanky, back seats of buses etc. Even the change of alibi was candid enough to show that he was trying to tell the truth.

He was certainly guilty of being naive enough to believe that fences in Liverpool would stand him an alibi. Being innocent he didn't think that he would even stand trial let alone be convicted at that time. As the case started to turn against him he changed it to the truth of being in Rhyl.

why would he need anybody to stand him an alibi if he had one which was true? And why would anyone who was allegedly being candid about those aspects of the case which were true, such as the handkerchief being his, be deliberately decpetive by introducing an alibi that he knew to be false? If he had an alibi which was true, this was by far his best way of proving he was not available to have committed the crime, was it not? Why would he not have told the Police immediately where he actually was so that proper investigations could be made into his claims...after all, his life was at stake. His alleged 'honesty' also has to be called into question by his willingness to rely on an alibi originally that he knew very well to be false, but was presumably hoping someone as 'honest' as he was would corroborate for him.

[reg1965]

why would he need anybody to stand him an alibi if he had one which was true? And why would anyone who was allegedly being candid about those aspects of the case which were true, such as the handkerchief being his, be deliberately decpetive by introducing an alibi that he knew to be false? If he had an alibi which was true, this was by far his best way of proving he was not available to have committed the crime, was it not? Why would he not have told the Police immediately where he actually was so that proper investigations could be made into his claims...after all, his life was at stake. His alleged 'honesty' also has to be called into question by his willingness to rely on an alibi originally that he knew very well to be false, but was presumably hoping someone as 'honest' as he was would corroborate for him.

I draw you attention to your post (#4206) which part quoted Jimarylin's post (#1572) that states more fully and to my mind more interestingly, the situation than the one you quoted and are now questioning:

....Paul asks the question "Why did Hanratty not talk of Rhyl from the outset ? Why, when he knew he was wanted for the A6 murder, did he not go to Rhyl to check on the boarding house in which he said he stayed ? Here is Hanratty's own answer* :
Mr. Swanwick : Why did you never go back (to Rhyl) to try to pinpoint it (the boarding house) ?
James Hanratty : Because at this stage when I spoke to Mr Acott over the phone I know I had already told Mr Acott a lie about Liverpool and it was quite obvious to me inside that I never committed this crime and I had nothing at all to fear. But--let me finish-- as this case eventually went along I got so frightened with the evidence what was being brought forward to me, with the lies and such things as what has happened in this witness box-- well, it is disgraceful to talk about them. But I am just trying to suggest at this stage when I spoke to Mr Acott I did not fear any danger, because I knew in my heart and soul I did not commit this crime.
Mr Swanwick : But you had from 7th to 11th of October, and you were in Liverpool or Blackpool-- in that area-- when you could have gone along and tried to find this boarding house, and if you had found it all your troubles would have been over, would they not ?
James Hanratty : Yes, in that sense, yes, but in the state I was in at that time i was very depressed and with the tension in the papers, it is very hard to say how your mind will react at that stage. I was a wanted man by Mr Acott. He wanted me to interview me. It was in the papers and the police wanted to interview me. I could not go and knock at houses in Rhyl and ask if I stayed there on 23rd and 22nd August. I was a wanted man. I had to check and those houses I had to go to.....

(my emboldening)

I think James Hanratty answers your uncertainties quite satisfactorily himself.

I think that it is a shame that you did not reveal more of that post and discussed, then, the full implications of the situation that James Hanratty found himself in.

Hi all

I may be a complete dinkleheimer but I would like to bring everbody's attention to a new sub-thread started by Babybird67 entitled "Alphon did not do it...".

My apologies to anyone who found it under their own steam.

Regards
Reg (aka The Raging Bull)

ps Tony...Bruv Ron sends his regards...I think he has taken a bit of a shine to you.

[reg1965]

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

Julie
I agree that the fact that VS and MG's relationship is not an issue that warrants any blame at all on them personally but consider the effect that the public view of the relationship between VS and MG had on the case.

Initially, as has been discussed on numerous occasions, it was reported that they had picked up a hitch-hiker and he was described as a moon maniac.

A little later the truth came out that they had been waylaid whilst parked in a cornfield. Even at trial the true nature of this relationship was confined to being described as one of fondness and a mutual interest in car rallies.

This placed the context of the crime within that of being motiveless.

Even though Janet Gregsten visited VS in hospital on more than one occasion the affair was not mentioned in the press. Even in the Daily Mirror of 9th April 1962, five days after Hanratty's execution, when VS finally went home from hospital, her relationship to MG was described as "car companion".

With many of the major actors in this drama being so stranglely closely associated by one way or another, the true nature of the relationship coupled with the state of the Gregstens marriage can provide a motive for the crime which makes sense and is backed up by the evidence known at the time and that which has come to light through the work of the A6 commitee and the CCRC investigation of the 1990's.

See my post here

....

where I explain this. I arrived at this through the discussions that I have had recently with Bob Woffinden.

If Hanratty did do it then there are a number of points which should be considered within the context of his actions and behaviour after he turned up at chez France the weekend after the murder.

1) The Frances' didn't make any public comment about his general demeanour beyond the fact that he was still wearing the Hepworth suit; and nothing was said about what would have been obvious blood staining. Charlotte France did his laundry for goodness sake.

2) If he had committed murder why did he dump the gun and return to his old haunts, associates and housebreaking? Why didn't he just steal a car and go on the run, taking the gun with him for protection?

3) He had Carole redye his hair the same jet black. Why not have it dyed some other colour, just like he eventually did when he finally knew he was wanted for the murder (carrot orange by all accounts).

4) When in the Republic of Ireland (to get a driving licence) and after getting involved in a road accident, why did he then get someone else, who could have identified him to write postcards back home for him?

5) It was only after he knew he was wanted in connection with the murder did he then steal a Jaguar car (for which he had recently bought skeleton keys against his Irish driving licence for 3s 6d) and went to Liverpool to try to establish an alibi. If his was guilty why didn't he go sooner to try to establish his Liverpool alibi or his lodgings in Rhyl? My previous post explains this in Hanratty's own words.

The criminal amount of police non-disclosure together with the change of alibi totally crippled the defence. The general disparity in the resources afforded to each side doesn't help; yet even on a level playing field of resources the non-disclosure issues would still remain.

The introduction of PACE in 1984 tried to assuage the issue of disclosure and other aspects of evidence; but I am afraid that under this so called Labour government, justice is being eroded by the allowance of, inter alia, bad character evidence to be admitted by the prosecution.

Best wishes
Reg

[Hatchett]

A6

I am new to this, but is it a consideration that if Hanratty had not been tried and hung, and then all these years later the DNA evidence had been matched and he had been found guilty, as others have been, that this controversy would be over?

[babybird67]

I think James Hanratty answers your uncertainties quite satisfactorily himself.

hi Reg

sorry but, and with respect (a novel idea around these parts i know ), i don't think it does answer my questions satisfactorily at all. Those answers may satisfy you, but not me. He was going on trial for his life. If the truth was that he was in Rhyl, whether he had doubts about whether he could prove it or not, and if, as you and others argue, he was telling the truth even about things such as would incriminate him (witness the handkerchief), why would he choose to lie about the single most important aspect of his defence, which was where he was at the time of the murder?

If he was telling a lie by originally stating he was in Liverpool, he must have known there was no objective proof of him being there, which, he states, was precisely the reason which prevented him from saying where he truly was, which was in Rhyl (so he says). So no objective proof allows him to state a lie, but the very same lack of objective proof would lead him to eschew stating the truth? Sorry but that does not wash.

It would have been down to the Police to investigate claims of his having been in Rhyl; instead, a man fighting for his life, CHOSE to send them off wasting time investigating a knowingly FALSE alibi until his defence were about to start defending him, at which time he scored the amazing own goal (don't mention Almunia ) of completely changing his story about where he actually was that night.

I think that it is a shame that you did not reveal more of that post and discussed, then, the full implications of the situation that James Hanratty found himself in.

I commented on something that interested me in what Hanratty had said. What you wish i had or had not commented on is irrelevant. I am following the interests of my own mind, not yours. You are perfectly at liberty to highlight and comment upon anything about the case which interests you without being made to feel ignorant or somehow wanting because another poster thinks you should have done differently; I shouldn't need to point out to you that i should also be afforded the very same courtesy.

Hi all

I may be a complete dinkleheimer but I would like to bring everbody's attention to a new sub-thread started by Babybird67 entitled "Alphon did not do it...".

My apologies to anyone who found it under their own steam.

I am sure most people can read and see new threads as they appear Reg: after all, i managed to create it, and find the A6 thread itself, and that's for someone who is "ignorant" (allegedly); I am sure other less ignorant posters are quite capable of finding my thread and commenting upon it, if it interests them, and if they so wish to.

[reg1965]

I am new to this, but is it a consideration that if Hanratty had not been tried and hung, and then all these years later the DNA evidence had been matched and he had been found guilty, as others have been, that this controversy would be over?

Hi Hatchett
wow, that opens a whole different can of worms.
You say that had JH not been tried. You would have to accept that he would have had to have had his DNA added to the NDNAD somewhere along the line for him to be caught.
That still does not explain how the use of LCN DNA with all of its flaws in obtaining reliable profiles from small amounts of original DNA template which existed on the remaining exhibits at the time of the tests in the late 1990's would have helped.
Reg

[Hatchett]

A6

Well of course. Isn't that obvious? Like I say, or hoped that you would have assumed, if a sample of Hanratty's DNA had been available all of those years ago and it had been matched last week, and proven to be a match, would there have been a controversy now?

There was no controversy, as far as I can recall, with the Yorkshire Ripper Hoaxer.

Best wishes.

[babybird67]

hello Hatchett

welcome to the thread and to Casebook, as i see it is your first posting.

I am new to this, but is it a consideration that if Hanratty had not been tried and hung, and then all these years later the DNA evidence had been matched and he had been found guilty, as others have been, that this controversy would be over?

There are a lot of people in that situation now because the technology has allowed for new information to be retrieved from the scene of the crime...quite a few criminals are being caught for rapes and murders they thought they had got away with, and DNA is catching them.

I think the continued support of Hanratty's innocence rests on several factors, some of which are:

1/ the Romanticism of championing the underdog against a system known to be capable of corruption, and the very salient point that Hanratty did not have a trial where all relevant information was honestly disclosed;

2/ conspiracy theories;

3/ his maintaining his innocence right to the end (personally i don't see he had any other options if he wanted to keep the good regard of his family, and i pay less heed to these protestations of innocence because they come from a known career criminal and serial liar);

4/ the coincidences Sherrard referred to and unexplained elements of the case such as France's involvement etc.

I think your point is excellent, and if Hanratty had evaded capture in 1961 and had only now been found guilty of the crime, i don't think there would be many people standing up protesting his innocence, to be honest.

Hope you enjoy posting here.

[Victor]

if a sample of Hanratty's DNA had been available all of those years ago and it had been matched last week, and proven to be a match, would there have been a controversy now?

Hi Hatchett and welcome,

If Hanratty had not been found guilty then the first question is would Dixie France have killed himself? I think he probably would, but not as early as he did.

As for Hanratty himself, the chances of him "going straight" are negligible, so his DNA would undoubtedly be in the National Database, and if he'd survived until the DNA results, and not been incarcerated for another serious crime, then he would for the A6 murder. Just like Ronald Castree.

What would be interesting would be the details of the DNA evidence especially as it would be presented before a jury and cross-examined.

KR,
Vic.

[reg1965]

Hi Hatchett (like the name by the way...much more butch than Reg probably...although Ron wouldn't agree I suspect)

Well of course. Isn't that obvious? Like I say, or hoped that you would have assumed, if a sample of Hanratty's DNA had been available all of those years ago and it had been matched last week, and proven to be a match, would there have been a controversy now?

Well of course that is obvious if you are counting on others (including myself) to assume the semantics behind what you stated. I hope that that is obvious?

The trouble with what you have stated is that the number of loci of STR's tested has increased over the years.

For instance in 1962 Watson, Crick and Wilkins (without Rosalind Franklin as she had passed away previously) were only just recieving the Nobel Prize for actually discovering the structure of DNA.

It wasn't until the early mid 80's when Alec Jeffreys developed what was called genetic fingerprinting.

A decade later still only 6 loci recognition was the norm.

Nowadays 15 loci plus the sex attribute loci are thought to be a realistic standard, although not a true standard implemented by all practioners.

So even if Hanratty's DNA was available then he would have had to have been recalled on numerous occasions to have his profile updated to meet modern standards of profile discovery. Unless of course you are inferring that an actual sample of his DNA had been deep frozen all this time.

Unfortunately this does not occur with the NDNAD which to all intents and purposes for a lot of entries is way out of date. (The NDNAD just records the STR values for whichever loci were tested at the time)

Lots of problems I think you will agree.

Anyway, the government dug Hanratty up and obtained an SGM+ profile so I think that can safely allay any of your fears.

Plus LCN DNA at best, and I can assure you that Victor agrees with me here, should be evaluated on a case by case basis as was stated by the CPS, and an opponent of LCN, Professor Allan Jamieson, after the debacle of the Hoey case and the Caddy review which was a major setback for the FSS. Beside that, strict caveats must be applied to the actual evidential value of any results obtained via LCN

In fact the FSS lost 20 million pounds in revenue whilst the Caddy reveiw was sitting. See the FSS annual report at:

http://www.forensic.gov.uk/userfiles/annual-report-2007-08.pdf

In fact their risk management strategy involves facing up to "the developing role of the Forensic Science Regulator" and securing a new extension to the lease on their London facility which is owned by the Metropolitan Police no less among other concerns which you can read for yourself.

In conclusion, who am I to say whether there is any controversy. You seem to think so, so I am with you my man.

There was no controversy, as far as I can recall, with the Yorkshire Ripper Hoaxer.

I bow to superior knowledge on that one. Perhaps you can enlighten us all by saying what type of DNA analysis was used to elicit the evidential profile and I may be able to comment further

Regards
Reg