a6 murder

[Victor]

Where did I say Hanratty met any of the France's other than Dixie? And he's supposed to be helping Hanratty out isn't he? Telling him how to get an alibi. Being an accomplice. He'd want to lie his way out of that possible charge.

You want Dixie to admit that his gun was the murder weapon. I wouldn't have thought that he'd obtained it legally.

I hate insomnia.

[Victor]

DNA names prime suspect

The real killer of Teresa de Simone has been identified, it really wasn't Sean Hodgson....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6200366/Teresa-de-Simone-murder-David-Lace-named-as-prime-suspect-after-exhumation.html

"Hampshire police said it was only the second time a suspect in a historic murder inquiry had been exhumed.

The first such case was the exhumation of former nightclub doorman Joe Kappen from Goytre Cemetery in Port Talbot, south Wales, in May 2002."

I guess digging up Hanratty doesn't qualify as Hanratty wasn't considered a suspect, he was guilty.

KR,
Vic.

[caz]

Hi All,

Apologies if this has come up before, but when the gunman departed the scene, he must have presumed that he had shot dead both of his victims and that there would therefore be no troublesome witnesses to place him there. That must surely colour all the decisions he made immediately afterwards, at least until he became aware that he had totally bungled it by leaving his rape victim alive to tell the tale. If we knew when the truth hit the gunman it might be quite instructive in relation to the hiding of the murder weapon and so on.

The fact that he didn't think to check that Valerie was actually dead before driving off suggests he was not used to handling a gun, or not thinking straight or just plain incompetent - perhaps all three, which for me makes the argument that Gregston was shot by accident that much stronger. Fannying about for hours with a courting couple, waving a gun around to make them compliant, but leaving them unharmed is a risk that a simple-minded habitual criminal might take to up his game and have some fun. Arguably, if that had happened in this case, the couple might well have chosen not to report it and give away their affair. But fannying about for hours, chatting away all the while, then suddenly shooting the man dead and taking the opportunity to rape the woman, but failing to kill her - the only witness to the whole thing - smacks of a fish very much out of water and pretty low down the fishy food chain. If this was a paid hitman, who on earth thought he was up to the job? "Shoot dead and go"? More like: "Drive around for miles first, so you can get to know their inside leg measurements and where they went on their holidays, making sure they get to know your voice inside out, then before you bore them to death see if you can work out how to make this gun go off pop - don't worry too much whether you hit anything or not".

In short, the man who did this was not all the ticket, was he? I wonder what his reaction was when he first learned that she had survived.

Love,

Caz
X

[reg1965]

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.

It is is a shame Reg that you feel that you have to justify yourself with titles. I would fear that there are not many people who would feel that they have to call themselves experts in a field where there are very few experts, but a lot of of people with opposing views.

Baby Bird is purely and simple stating a matter of fact argument for a case that really reached the end of the line with the DNA results. After all, that is not just the view of the experts but their final decision.

I wish you well.

Hi Hatchett
I wish you well too.

Babybird67's post #4225 which contains:

...i have a first class honours degree and a Masters with distinction so i know a little bit about taking relevant quotes thank you!

and my post #4295 which you quoted above.


As you see If anyone was pulling rank here it wasn't me I was just speaking my mind over what Babybird67 had said FIRST, about HER QUALIFICATIONS and ACADEMIC PROWESS.

I then plainly and tersely stated I was an expert on the case, which I am. I am sorry if that offends you in anyway.

As for the closure of the case, I don't share your opinion and your trust in what the court of appeal and the DNA experts have concluded.

I hope that you continue to post and would perhaps do some research into the facts surrounding LCN DNA the technique used to reach that conclusion. You may be surprised by what you find.

Regards
Reg

[reg1965]

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.

I doubt that she does but I am sure that if pushed she could have a look. Tell you what why don't you contact her and tell her all about what I have said.

She was (in 2002) the secretary of the Old Paludians whose contact details are here:

http://www.cairnsfamily.demon.co.uk/oldpals/r2002.htm

I would be absolutely delighted if she did sue me.

Knock yourself out dear.

[jimarilyn]

Dumping the gun on a London bus? I think it's James who repeatedly mentions how stupid and unpremeditated this is.

You think wrong again Victor and are mistaking me with another poster.
My belief has always been that it was placed in that location, (wrapped in one of his handkerchiefs) deliberately to incriminate James Hanratty.

[Victor]

You think wrong again Victor and are mistaking me with another poster.
My belief has always been that it was placed in that location, (wrapped in one of his handkerchiefs) deliberately to incriminate James Hanratty.

As you quoted, "I think it's James", so who is it that keeps mentioning that it should have been thrown in the Thames? Tony? Reg? Graham? The exact identity of the poster is not important to me, the fact that the idiocy of dumping the gun on a bus rather than throwing it in the river is the significant point.

[jimarilyn]

Misinformation? Woffinden page 343 On 17 february 1966 the new Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, signed the licence allowing the [Hanratty] family to remove the remains of their son from Bedford Prison. At noon on 22 February 1966 Jimmy was reburied in Carpenters Park, Watford.

Now you apologise for your total ignorance and disrespect towards the Hanratty family.

If you had read Reg's post carefully enough Victor you would know that he was not referring to the removal from Bedford Prison and reburial in Carpenders Park. He was referring to the exhumation of Hanrattys body (by order of the Court of Appeal) in 2001. Hanratty had been re-buried in 1966 in the same grave as his Auntie Anne at Carpenders Park.

Reg's post read....

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.

[Limehouse]

As you quoted, "I think it's James", so who is it that keeps mentioning that it should have been thrown in the Thames? Tony? Reg? Graham? The exact identity of the poster is not important to me, the fact that the idiocy of dumping the gun on a bus rather than throwing it in the river is the significant point.

Lots of us have said it was a stupid thing to do but a few of us think that it was placed under the back seat of the bus, not by a stupid killer, but because it incriminated Hanratty.

Several posters have alluded to Hanratty's perceived stupidity and concluded that, because he could not read and write very well, he must have been mentally defective. In fact, doctors told his parents this was the case. However, we know better nowadays about learning difficulties. Just because a person finds it difficult to read and write, it does not mean they are of low intelligence. Hanratty may well have got rid of unwanted loot from robberies this way, but it is highly unlikely he would have disposed of the gun in this manner. I don't think any killer would have. I believe 100% that someone placed than gun there because they thought there was a good chance it would be traced back to Hanratty.

I would like to return again to the issue of the gun being loaded when found. Re-loading a gun after using it to kill and maim seems to point to a very determined and callous killer - unless the person who re-loaded wanted to frame someone else for the killing and thought the gun could only be traced to the crime if the bullets in the gun and at the crime could be compared. Perhaps that is why the gun was dumped with the cartridges and why the gun was re-loaded?

[Victor]

I would like to return again to the issue of the gun being loaded when found. Re-loading a gun after using it to kill and maim seems to point to a very determined and callous killer - unless the person who re-loaded wanted to frame someone else for the killing and thought the gun could only be traced to the crime if the bullets in the gun and at the crime could be compared. Perhaps that is why the gun was dumped with the cartridges and why the gun was re-loaded?

We know the gunman re-loaded during the shooting of VS before firing more shots at her.

So he could have re-loaded again, with a motive of reassurance, or protection on that long, meandering drive. And then there's the Skillet incident - hardly low-profile.

So I ask again, why would anyone unload the gun prior to dumping it?

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

If you had read Reg's post carefully enough Victor you would know that ...

I did read Reg's post and I know he deliberately avoided mentioning the fact that the Hanratty family had JH dug up and reburied in 1966, in some vain attempt to make the Court of Appeal seem callous when they asked to do the same thing.

It was Reg's mistake by mis-reading or mis-interpretting MY post that is the issue here.

[reg1965]

As you quoted, "I think it's James", so who is it that keeps mentioning that it should have been thrown in the Thames? Tony? Reg? Graham? The exact identity of the poster is not important to me, the fact that the idiocy of dumping the gun on a bus rather than throwing it in the river is the significant point.

If the original poster is unimportant to you then why did you pick on James in particular?

To add insult to injury you have just thrown names about willy nilly viz "Tony? Reg? Graham?" Do some research rather than acting like a lazy ignorant pig.

If you are going to make significant points then just make them without accusing innocent people. Don't quote Valerie Storie's name back to me either. I know your methods better than that.

The vast majority of us on here when unsure of the identity of a post would, without hesitation quote it anonymously, probably only after trying to search for the original source.

PS I am watching you Victor and waiting for your explanation of your accusation of the threat of physical violence I am supposed to have made against you. If I were you I would get my finger out and act on this now! You have been warned.

[reg1965]

I did read Reg's post and I know he deliberately avoided mentioning the fact that the Hanratty family had JH dug up and reburied in 1966, in some vain attempt to make the Court of Appeal seem callous when they asked to do the same thing.

It was Reg's mistake by mis-reading or mis-interpretting MY post that is the issue here.

(my Bold and italic)

You do not know anything of the sort. Are you a mind reader. No of course you aren't, no one is. Not only are you liar but you are an insulting and ignorant pig who is beyond comprehension.

MY POST was MY OWN ORIGINAL COMMENT and I said what I WANTED TO SAY. You, therefore could have only implied, with the benefit of any doubt, that I had made a mistake over the circumstances surrounding the exhumation in 2001 (which was stated unequivocally because I mentioned his aunt) which as I futher stated was by order of the Crown.

You therefore wanted to add his exhumation and reburial in 1966, which is your right, but was not missed out by me because I never mentioned it or never did, indeed, intend to include it. Your own personal addendum of that fact is ghoulish as I have already said.

The original post was in fact pointed quite squarely at Babybird67 and that quote went on to ask what HER (note: her and not your) motives were for posting on these threads. I then went on to ask her whether she wanted Hanratty killed again or whether she was upholding Stories good name and then enquired if not, then what could it possibly be.

I can just imagine the drivel that you will post in reply to this, if you in fact do.

[babybird67]

i havent read all of the replies...

since the arguments yesterday...to be honest it's a waste of time, but i will say i am happy for anyone to attack my arguments robustly, but if any further personal acts are forthcoming (such as going to my profile, listing off personal information and using it to imply i am a liar) i shall respond by letting admin deal with them.

One thing i would like to say regarding mentioning my personal qualifications: this was not to be arrogant. It was in response to a sustained and two pronged attack of a quite vicious nature, and most people who know me will appreciate that most of what i said was tongue in cheek and mostly an act of bravado in response to being accused of being ignorant. People tend to big themselves up a little when someone else is denigrating them...it's human nature. That's all i am going to say on the matter and would like the matter dropped. This is not the place for personal discussions. We should be talking about the A6 murder which is what i came to the thread to discuss.

Anyway, i am going to relate a relevant personal incident before moving on to the theoretical issues which underpin it.

When my son, who is almost 18 now, was 15, he as doing his paper round after school when he was approached close to the local canal and drawn by the arm down there, by someone who smelled of alcohol; this person proceeded to mug him, taking his money and some of his papers before running away. My son went into the library and announced, "I've just been mugged." The library phoned us, and, totally shocked, we went to collect him.

The library had phoned the local police who arrived shortly after we did. The Police were interviewing my son, who began describing his assailant...someone browsing in the library then approached us and said, "There was a man with that bag, and beer cans, and matching that description waiting at the bus stop a few minutes ago."

We all went outside but he had gone; however we knew he must still be in the area, so we began to look for him. Myself, my husband and son drove around one way; the Policeman another. After a few circular journeys around the local area, we spotted a man answering the description, opened can of beer in his hand, same bag my son said he had, sitting under a tree near the vets. We drove quickly around to find the Policeman and advised him of where we had seen the man. We all drove back and the man spotted us, got up, and began to leg it down the highstreet...by that time the Policeman had got out of his car to apprehend him, and gave a fantastic chase, finally catching up with him and hauling him back to where we were. My son identified the man as his mugger and he was taken into custody. Funnily enough once we had seen this man, myself and my husband recognised him since earlier that day we had been going shopping when we both noticed a strange man, drinking beer in the middle of a roundabout, and had both said, "How odd, what does he think he is doing?"

The case took around eight months to come to court. During that time, the offender maintained his innocence. When it came time to come to court, my son was told the prosecution rested upon him as he was the only witness to the crime, and would have to identify his attacker in court once more. He was counselled about how traumatic this might be, but he was determined to go through with it because of what he had gone through. I certainly was not looking forward to him going into court to come face to face with his mugger once again: it was later proven that this person was high on both drink and drugs and i could only speculate about what might have happened to my son had this person had some sort of weapon. As it was he had to give up his paper-round.

Just before the case was due to be heard and my son due to be called, we received notice that the defendent had in fact finally admitted his guilt, thereby sparing my son the added trauma of reliving the attack once again. I did not discuss with him what he felt about the prospect of giving evidence and being cross examined, however i myself had begun to doubt just how accurately i could remember this man's facial features only weeks afterwards, and i had seen him twice that day, albeit for a matter of minutes at separate times. I doubt if the testimony my son would have given would have been a carbon copy of his first statement eight months previously, because small details most likely would have been misremembered by then...which brings me on to the theory...

Scientific studies have shown that memory does not operate as most people conceive of it operating...which is, as a video camera. This is why two witnesses to the same events will not give carbon copy testimony...one may notice something the other does not, or give priority to one details over another. Subjective elements are always present where human beings and interpretation is present; some people might describe my hair as fair, some as dark.

Human memory is constructive in the same way experience is constructive. It isn't a robotic recording of every event, without omissions, nor is it free from bias. People recounting events will sometimes forget a certain detail which may occur to them much later when they are going over the events once again in their own mind. They might misremember small details. This is the nature of memory and there is nothing sinister about it.

Stress plays a major part in affecting memory, as does the passage of time.

It is with these elements in mind that the testimony of VS in relation to the case of the A6 murder should be approached in my opinion.

Looking at details of the case, the Judges at the Court of Appeal stated that VS never gave conflicting evidence about the colour of the eyes of the man who attacked her. The discrepancy about eye colour was not hers; it was Kerr's (who already thought she had told him her name was Mary, which inicates she was not speaking very loudly/clearly, hardly surprising as she had just been shot and raped) and then this misinformation was dessiminated by the media. The evidence shows that Valerie Storie always maintained the man who attacked her had blue eyes, since she was trying to form the words "blue eyes" with stones as she lay wondering whether she would actually live or die like her lover beside her. This is what they say:

"In fact, there was little room for challenging Valerie Storie: the best evidence of what she had first said contains nothing about the colour of the eyes and, from 26 August 1961, she had certainly been consistent. In addition, it will be remembered that at the scene she had attempted to write blue eyes and brown hair on the ground and as her veracity was never in dispute this really reduces the point to no more than a breach of the rules."

article 132, Judgement of Appeal 2002

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j1166/HANRATTY.htm

Sadly i think the accusation against Ms Storie of giving conflicting eye colours is one of the myths of the case unsupported by evidence: one of those things that people accept at face value without looking at the evidence. The Appeal judges had all the original evidence at their disposal and were able to come to the above conclusion, which not only exonerates VS from giving conflicting evidence regarding eye colour, but also accepts her veracity and honesty in the matter, which i think is important. We must remember she was the victim of a vicious crime, whoever was responsible.

My second point again related to the incident of my son being mugged. When the Policeman was bringing the suspect back to where we were all parked, i looked at that man as hard as i could, trying to commit his features to my memory...i wanted him punished...i wanted HIM punished...he had psychologically hurt my son, frightened him, scared him, and done the same to me and my husband...we were terrified and couldn't even contemplate what might have happened down by that canal had that man had a weapon...he was off his face on substance abuse, anything could have happened.

There is absolutely NO motive whatsoever for the victim of a crime to actively seek the prosecution, or persecution, of someone innocent of that crime. It runs completely counter to common sense and to human experience, and, as some wise lady once said, "if something doesn't make sense, it usually ain't true."

Now it could be argued that media pressure on the Police exerted an influence on the individuals involved to secure a conviction for what was a shockingly violent and apparently motiveless crime; certainly, there were documents and information which should have been disclosed to the defence which weren't, and that is regrettable. One can certainly ask questions in those areas. What i cannot accept on the evidence available is the implication, sometimes the outright accusation, that VS would have knowingly chosen an innocent man to identify as her attacker, or that she would have deliberately falsified evidence merely to secure the conviction of just anybody...this would not make sense, and, from the reading i have done so far, i can see no evidence for it...and, before my views are rubbished and denigrated, neither could the Judges in the Court of Appeal. A little bit of respect for the only surviving victim and witness to an horrific crime would not go amiss, i don't think.

For the record, I am and always have been against the death penalty; murder is wrong, and just because it is the state doing the murdering does not make it right. In fact, the state should set an example, and not engage in killing people whilst telling Joe Public that killing is wrong. That would be hypocritical.

[Limehouse]

Hi Babybird,

As far as I am aware, nobody has suggested VS deliberately gave false evidence about the identity of her attacker simply to secure a conviction. In fact, in earlier posts I have made the very same point - that VS would have wanted her attacker caught - the real attacker.

You cannot possibly know that Kerr made an error when he took notes that morning because his original notes were 'lost' by the police. In the first identity parade, she picked an innocent man. She didn't ask this man to speak so it is clear that she believed him to be the attacker. If she was in any doubt, she could have told the police "none of these men was my attacker". In the second identity parade, she took a very long time to pick Hanratty - and even then - only after hearing him speak. In both cases, Valerie was being reassured and guided by the police - that her attacker was almost definitely in the line up. She believes to this day that she picked the right man and I would never call her a liar but that does not mean she could not have been mistaken.

Incidently, do you believe anyone else should have been standing with Hanratty in the dock? Do you believe anyone else could have faced charges of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice? Or do you believe that the relationship between Gregten's brother-in-law and Hanratty's friend was just a coincidence?

Talking of liars, are you happy with the fact that Nudds lied and lied, for no apparent reason, about the comings and goings of Peter Alphon that night and the following morning? Are you happy that known and proven liars were used by the prosecution to testify against Hanratty?