a6 murder

[babybird67]

James

NO. He didn't .

Yes he did.

No. He most certainly did not !

He most certainly did. He was convicted. The conviction was upheld.

You need to re-read my post more carefully as I suggested no such thing.

Yes you did.

I might add that I find a lot of your posts presumptuous, boastful and ill-informed. With hindsight yes I think Reg's posts were justified. As justified as yours anyhow.

Yep, i will boast of my qualifications and defend my character where it is attacked. You may like to acknowledge you and Reg started it. If you don't like it now you have picked a fight with someone well-equipped to deal with a pair of internet bullies, that's just your tough luck really.

Is it possible to justify something by claiming it was a pre-emptive strike justified by my subsequent response? I think it is pretty well clear that you approve of internet bullying otherwise you wouldn't have joined in yourself.

Let me know where you want me to send my medical records to Dr James.

[Limehouse]

It is one of the enduring mysteries of the case-what Michael Clark looked like. Dd Rennie gives one version. Mr Acott another.
It is mystery why he was not called to the trial. If he did not look like any of the photo fits then one can se the prosecution not being keen, but if he was stocky as Dr Rennie indicates-one could never have called Hanratty stocky-then why did not Sherrard insist on Clark being present. We I fear shall never know.

Babybird-it is not true to say that Ms Storie was groggy etc at the first parade. All from Dr RennIe to the police taking statements from her-you might explain why would the police want to hold back statements- to Acott in testimony have said that she was fit to stand the parade. You cannot argue when it suits you otherwise i.e she was not and how can anyone know what was going on. You write that you cannot know how she was feeling. Equally you cannot dismiss the evidence of the medical team at the time that she was ok for the first parade otherwise anything else is equally conjecture from you. Factually the medical team and the police testified in court that she was not groggy and signifcantly Ms Storie never suggested that at any time. ie any anaesthetic effects had clouded her decision of selecting Clark It would have give a possible defence claim in court if she had been!


As I have said before until anyone of us see a picture of Clark we cannot decide how accurate Ms Storie or Rennie or Acott's opinions are and how accurate was it compared to Hanratty.
If Clark is significantly different in appearance then that must raise questions as to her accuracy, That cannot be disputed surely. If he looks like Hanratty or Alphon then case closed.

Neither side wanted Clark at trial, I wonder why?

Excellent post John. We should hear more of you.

[jimarilyn]

Pathetically sad babybird. To echo the title of a famous Ray Charles song (from the same year that Hanratty was hanged)......"You don't know me".................one iota.

[Limehouse]

Thanks...i will watch that later.

I read fast. I can read a book in a day. I'm intelligent, eager, interested. Yep, i am rather amazing aren't i. Thanks for noticing. You may envy me but we cannot all be as talented as eachother now can we...you'll just have to live with your shortcomings.

Do we have to keep concentrating, by the way, on my personality, or would you like to discuss the case rather than YOUR OPINION ON my suitability to partake in a discussion about it?

Babybird/jenny,

Of course you are entitled to your opinion and you have expressed it forcefully and argued your points well but you are starting to come across as a little arrogant and rather smug.

[reg1965]

Babybird67
You are not going to get an apology out of me, so I would suggest that you stop going on about it. The smell of burning martyr gets right up my, and a few other posters, hooter, you know what I mean.

I stand by my statement that I think that you are ignorant of the case. It is obvious by your handling of the posts of a few others here just recently where you are wriggling like a worm with terms like "maybe", "possibly" or whatever to try to cover your lack of knowledge.

I haven't insulted you, as you keep continually harping on about. By your own admissions you won't be put off of this thread easily. You can dish it out, with smilies, so you can take a bit back. Get over it.

Although you have accused me of not addressing your questons, I replyed to your first post with facts about the case but you seem to have made up you mind already on what little you yourself admitted that you knew.

You came on here and from the outset, set out your "opinion" of Hanratty's guilt and character of serial liar, with very little to back it up.

To suggest that Valerie Storie didn't know that she was lying in the witness box is beyond comprehension. She didn't have a clue who MG's killer was any more than you do. That was why her uncertainties were withheld from the jury and completely hobbled the defence. If you are any sort of half decent academic you would realise the implications of this wicked act by the plod and Valerie Storie. An innocent man was hanged after all is said and done. And to throw around accusations of hypocracy, in one's first post, is tantamant to mischief making or as I said ignorance, you chose which one, makes no odds to me.

If you want to talk about netiqutte then, then most people new to the thread make tentative moves, usually explaining their thoughts on the case (as I did) and making gentle in roads. But not you, you come straight in, admit you haven't read any of the pertinent literature on the case and then start accusing those who oppose your view of taking a hypocritical stance. Is that the way a trained academic approaches a subject; jump in headfirst, state prejudices, insult peer group and then cry wolf. You must have a degree in one of the useless subjects like psychology, sociology etc. I don't think that you are much of a journalist or scientist.

Not a very good start by anyones litmus test, I don't think.

Anyway I don't really give a rats arse how many degrees you have because I have a double first degree and am a double prize winning graduate who is currently studying for an MSc. I am also an expert in the A6 murder and know more about this case than you ever will.

I count Bob Woffinden as being among my [b]many good friends[b] along with good people who still post on this thread including James, Tony, Julie and Dupplin Muir who have provided original incisive insight into this most perplexing case. Nice people who have fallen by the wayside like JamesDean, Sara, Yvonne(birkhilly), among others, have been bullied, not by me, but by saddo's like Victor and that other lowlife JohnL who thankfully hasn't reappeared but caused such a storm through his ignorance of the case.

So get off of your high horse, stop feigning injury and actually tell us something about the case that we don't already know.

But, in summing up, I would like to know why are you here at all. Hanratty was found guilty, lost an appeal, had his plea for clemency turned down, hanged, dug up (along with his aunt) and postumously lost yet another appeal. What do you actually want? To kill him again. To uphold Valerie Stories good name? Or what?

To say it sickens me is an understatement.

You can have as nice a day as you like.

Reg

Ps My twin bruv Ron thinks he fancies you...he goes for the hard nosed type. Strange bloke!

[Victor]

You continually describe Hanratty as a criminal and liar. In fact in one of your posts Babybird you describe him as a "serial liar" (first time I've ever come across that expression incidentally) but you don't list these lies.

How about the promises he made to his father to take care of their business whilst his parents took a holiday?
How about the promise to Dixie France to take care of his daughter and not have sex with her?
How about the promise to Terry Evans to go to work? to return his shoes?
How about the promises to his parents to "go straight", to not get into trouble again? and again? and again?
And what about the appalling behaviour in prison so he "did the lot", I bet he promised his family, and probably the prison governer and\or officers that he'd behave himself?

And that's deliberately avoiding his constant denial about killing Gregsten and raping Storie.

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

How about the promises he made to his father to take care of their business whilst his parents took a holiday?
How about the promise to Dixie France to take care of his daughter and not have sex with her?
How about the promise to Terry Evans to go to work? to return his shoes?
How about the promises to his parents to "go straight", to not get into trouble again? and again? and again?
And what about the appalling behaviour in prison so he "did the lot", I bet he promised his family, and probably the prison governer and\or officers that he'd behave himself?

And that's deliberately avoiding his constant denial about killing Gregsten and raping Storie.

KR,
Vic.

I'm sorry but this is the most ridiculous and inaccurate post I've read in a long time. Total fabrication from start to finish. I was right Victor, you make it up as you go along, shame on you .

[Victor]

You came on here and from the outset, set out your "opinion" of Hanratty's guilt and character of serial liar, with very little to back it up.

Apart from a conviction, and a confirmation of the reliability of that conviction by the CCRC.

To suggest that Valerie Storie didn't know that she was lying in the witness box is beyond comprehension.

To deny the fact that Valerie Storie had had her life completely devastated through no fault of her own and that her evidence was remarkably consistant is beyond comprehension. A couple of slight amendments in the huge volume of details is hardly significant.

She didn't have a clue who MG's killer was any more than you do.

After picking him out at an identity parade, she has never waivered from her complete conviction that Hanratty was guilty.

That was why her uncertainties were withheld from the jury and completely hobbled the defence.

She expressed self-doubt on one occasion, prior to being tested, and that self-doubt was confirmed at the first ID parade.

If you are any sort of half decent academic you would realise the implications of this wicked act by the plod and Valerie Storie.

As there was no wicked act, then there are no implications and Jen's academic standing is unaffected.

An innocent man was hanged after all is said and done.

I'll let Michael Sharrard, Hanratty's barrister, answer this one..."The wrong man was not hanged. That was an immense relief to me."

I am also an expert in the A6 murder and know more about this case than you ever will.

You certainly know more biased misinformation than anyone else, bit like David Irving really.

But, in summing up, I would like to know why are you here at all. Hanratty was found guilty, lost an appeal, had his plea for clemency turned down, hanged, dug up (along with his aunt) and postumously lost yet another appeal.

I noticed you missed out "Dug up at the request of his family, re-buried"

What do you actually want? To kill him again.

Usual tactic, make a ridiculous suggestion and attribute it to your opponent, it's getting rather stale, try something new.

To uphold Valerie Stories good name? Or what?

Well redressing the balance to account for the 40 years of inaccurate accusations of having condemed an innocent man to death, of having viciously and deliberately lied and manipulated facts to achieve that. That'd be a good start.

To say it sickens me is an understatement.

I don't know how you can live with yourself with the despicable way you treat an innocent victim, and then you have the gaul to call people who disagree with you bullies.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

I'm sorry but this is the most ridiculous and inaccurate post I've read in a long time. Total fabrication from start to finish. I was right Victor, you make it up as you go along, shame on you .

Other than assuming in a couple of cases that he promised to do things, rather than merely saying he would which amounts to the same thing, breaking his word or lying, which bit is inaccurate?

He abandoning the family window cleaning business.
He said he had sex with Carol France (Oops, maybe that was the lie!)
He said he'd go to work with Terry Evans.
He stole Terry Evans shoes.
He told his parent's he try to behave and yet was imprisoned without remission multiple times.

KR,
Vic.

[babybird67]

hi Julie

Babybird/jenny,

Of course you are entitled to your opinion and you have expressed it forcefully and argued your points well but you are starting to come across as a little arrogant and rather smug.

I'm not arrogant at all. I was called ignorant, which strikes me as an arrogant assertion by someone who does not know me. I am entilted to state that i don't consider myself ignorant, in fact quite the opposite.

My points were made facetiously hence the plethora of smilies, but perhaps if you were under a sustained and inexplicable character assassination yourself you might view the matter a little differently.

Jen

[Limehouse]

Other than assuming in a couple of cases that he promised to do things, rather than merely saying he would which amounts to the same thing, breaking his word or lying, which bit is inaccurate?

He abandoning the family window cleaning business.
He said he had sex with Carol France (Oops, maybe that was the lie!)
He said he'd go to work with Terry Evans.
He stole Terry Evans shoes.
He told his parent's he try to behave and yet was imprisoned without remission multiple times.

KR,
Vic.

Yes, Hanratty certainly did some things no one could be proud of. The list above shows that Hanratty was essentially self-centred and untrustworthy BUT that does not add up to murder and rape. It takes a completely different character to shot a man almost point-blank through the head and, having done so in front of his girlfriend, to rape the girl and follow this by emptying a gun into her.

Carol France was 16. She was over the age of consent and, although at 24 Hanratty could be accused of taking advantage of her and even abusing the trust of her father in having sex with her, there is no implication that he in any way forced himself on her. In fact, Hanratty himself admitted that he and Carol had been 'intimate' in the back of his car.

The theft of Terry Evan's shoes is again, evidence of Hanratty's light-fingeredness and his lack of concern for other people's feelings concerning their possessions but it is hardly the crime of the century. It is hardly evidence of a tendency to rape and murder.

Hanratty was, indeed, a prolific burglar and car thief. His criminality did, indeed, cause his parents great distress. I have expressed the opinion in the past that Hanratty continued to break into homes because he believed it was something at which he excelled (although clearly he was deluding himself because he was frequently caught and jailed!). It gave him a thrill and a buzz and it provided him with the wads of cash he loved to spend on his idea of 'the high life'. This in no way excuses his behaviour, but it goes a long way to explaining it. In many ways he was callous because he failed to grasp the effect that his burglaries had on his vicitms. He saw them only as 'well-off, with insurance' but I believe that this aspect of his character was symptomatic of his impetuousness. Hanratty himself was essentially 'honest' about the nature of his criminality but I believe he had boundaries that he would not cross and he would have regarded rape and murder of this type way over those boundaries. He expected to profit from his crimes and crimes of this sort offered no profit and were the actions of a madman.

[babybird67]

Babybird67
You are not going to get an apology out of me, so I would suggest that you stop going on about it. The smell of burning martyr gets right up my, and a few other posters, hooter, you know what I mean.

I realise that Reg. Your parents obviously did not bring you up very well but i can hardly blame you for that i suppose.

I stand by my statement that I think that you are ignorant of the case.

You can stand by what you like. As i pointed out before, my alleged ignorance will be dispelled the more i read; sadly you are a lost case.

It is obvious by your handling of the posts of a few others here just recently where you are wriggling like a worm with terms like "maybe", "possibly" or whatever to try to cover your lack of knowledge.

Er, nice try, but in a case where there is so much dispute over the facts one has to be extremely careful what one asserts as proven and what one asserts as not. I am careful with my terminiology and if people are going to misrepresent both me and my postings then i have the right to correct them, as i will.

I haven't insulted you, as you keep continually harping on about.

Yes you have. But hey, I'm a big girl. I can take it.

You came on here and from the outset, set out your "opinion" of Hanratty's guilt and character of serial liar, with very little to back it up.

Apart from it being proven in a court of law and upheld at a court of appeal you mean? Yes...very little.

To suggest that Valerie Storie didn't know that she was lying in the witness box is beyond comprehension. She didn't have a clue who MG's killer was any more than you do.

Wow but she just happened to pick out the man who raped her, as proven in a court of law, and upheld at the court of appeal. I really hope she reads this messageboard and sues you. Your blind devotion to the cause of a murderer/rapist is sickening, Reg, it really is.

If you are any sort of half decent academic

More personal insults Reg? I am flattered you find me so threatening that you have to resort to them.

You must have a degree in one of the useless subjects like psychology, sociology etc. I don't think that you are much of a journalist or scientist.

Must I indeed? Well if you say so Reg it must be true mustn't it. And more personal insults? Not like you to be so nasty...have you eaten something that disagrees with you?

Anyway I don't really give a rats arse how many degrees you have because I have a double first degree and am a double prize winning graduate who is currently studying for an MSc. I am also an expert in the A6 murder and know more about this case than you ever will.

And do i look like I care?

I count Bob Woffinden as being among my [b]many good friends[b] along with good people who still post on this thread including James, Tony, Julie and Dupplin Muir who have provided original incisive insight into this most perplexing case. Nice people who have fallen by the wayside like JamesDean, Sara, Yvonne(birkhilly), among others, have been bullied, not by me, but by saddo's like Victor and that other lowlife JohnL who thankfully hasn't reappeared but caused such a storm through his ignorance of the case.

Tell yourself that if it helps you sleep at night Reg. I can see who the bully is (or bullies are), the little gang members that cannot answer points rationally so persist in making unwarranted personal comments and nasty attacks on other posters.

So get off of your high horse, stop feigning injury and actually tell us something about the case that we don't already know.

I've made plenty of points you have avoided addressing. I can only assume you either don't have credible answers or are too interested in attacking my character.

But, in summing up, I would like to know why are you here at all.

because i want to be and because it is none of your business, Headmaster Reg. I've applied to Dr James for my medical certificate...please may i have your joint permission to be here now?

To say it sickens me is an understatement.

Ditto, but at least i am not libelling and slandering the innocent victim of a rape and attempted murder whilst upholding the "honour" (pmsl) of the nasty piece of work who stole her life away.

You can have as nice a day as you like.

Thanks. I will.

Reg

Ps My twin bruv Ron thinks he fancies you...he goes for the hard nosed type. Strange bloke!

Oh and you went and spoilt it all with yet another personal insult...back to the drawing board!

[Victor]

Yes, Hanratty certainly did some things no one could be proud of. The list above shows that Hanratty was essentially self-centred and untrustworthy BUT that does not add up to murder and rape. It takes a completely different character to shot a man almost point-blank through the head and, having done so in front of his girlfriend, to rape the girl and follow this by emptying a gun into her.

Hi Julie,

Do you think shooting Gregsten was deliberate? I think that there is a fair chance that it was an accident.

Undoubtedly he was utterly ill-equipped to handle the aftermath.

I think it's possible he sought the comfort and reassurance of sex, something he often did with prostitutes. But there was only 1 other person there.

Then he had more problems to deal with, and the hesitation before shooting Storie highlights his indecision and ineptitude.

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie,

Do you think shooting Gregsten was deliberate? I think that there is a fair chance that it was an accident.

Undoubtedly he was utterly ill-equipped to handle the aftermath.

I think it's possible he sought the comfort and reassurance of sex, something he often did with prostitutes. But there was only 1 other person there.

Then he had more problems to deal with, and the hesitation before shooting Storie highlights his indecision and ineptitude.

KR,
Vic.

Vic,

The issue over whether Gregten was shot deliberately or by accident is a very important one. Let's look at it this way. According to the evidence, the killer shot Gregsten through the head, raped Valerie and then shot her five or six times as she lay on the ground. When the gun was found, it was loaded. If the killer abandoned the gun on the bus, we can safely say that he reloaded the gun after shooting Valerie (either soon after or some time after, it makes no difference). To me, if the events followed this pattern, then it is unlikely that Gregsten was killed by accident. Why did the killer need to load the gun in first place? He could have had an empty gun, rattled a few cartridges around in his pocket and still have scared them into doing what he wanted. If the gun had gone off by accident, or by knee-jerk reaction, where di his nerve come from in rapoing and shooting Valerie and then re-loading the gun as if he was prepared to use it again? Doe this sound like the action of a man who shot someone by accident?

I wonder who really did re-load that gun before dumping it - and why did they do so???

[jimarilyn]

Vic,

The issue over whether Gregten was shot deliberately or by accident is a very important one. Let's look at it this way. According to the evidence, the killer shot Gregsten through the head, raped Valerie and then shot her five or six times as she lay on the ground. When the gun was found, it was loaded. If the killer abandoned the gun on the bus, we can safely say that he reloaded the gun after shooting Valerie (either soon after or some time after, it makes no difference). To me, if the events followed this pattern, then it is unlikely that Gregsten was killed by accident. Why did the killer need to load the gun in first place? He could have had an empty gun, rattled a few cartridges around in his pocket and still have scared them into doing what he wanted. If the gun had gone off by accident, or by knee-jerk reaction, where di his nerve come from in rapoing and shooting Valerie and then re-loading the gun as if he was prepared to use it again? Doe this sound like the action of a man who shot someone by accident?

I wonder who really did re-load that gun before dumping it - and why did they do so???

Excellent post Julie. That's why I too believe the shooting was a calculated event, to remove Mike Gregsten from the scene permanmently. Brandishing an unloaded gun itself should have been enough to frighten anyone, there would have been no need for any ammunition. It wasn't as if the occupants of the car were Bonnie and Clyde. The only reason for carrying a loaded weapon (and extra ammo) in this situation would have been for it's intended use sooner or later. In my opinion anyhow.

James


PS. Great fightback this evening by the Gunners, Reg. We were awful against that Hungarian side even though we scraped a 1-0 win.