a6 murder

[babybird67]

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.

HI Limehouse. I can only assume you have missed some of the postings. I will have a look now and quote some of them for you after i have replied to this, but from memory Reg has accused her of committing a wicked act and of being deliberately false in her witness testimony in order to do just that. I'll check and quote that shortly for you. It may have been on one of the sub threads but i will definitely check for you.

You cannot possibly know that Kerr made an error when he took notes that morning because his original notes were 'lost' by the police.

That is quite true Limehouse, there were no notes therefore we can only go on the following information: Kerr said VS told him her attacker had blue eyes; VS says she never said this and has always maintained her attacker had blue eyes, down to trying to spell that information in stones as she lay possibly dying. It comes down to which witness you believe. VS was there and should know; we already know Kerr misheard VS and believed her to be called Mary, which is demonstrably not the case; my conclusion from this information is that the erroneous information regarding the allegation that VS identified her attacker as having brown eyes comes from Kerr mishearing her.

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".

Yes she could have but she had very recently been raped and shot, and i don't personally think she was thinking rationally as you or I are now as we discuss this from a distance of time and circumstance...conjecture on my part as i don't know what she was feeling, but i would imagine anyone would be stressed in those circumstances. Identity parades aren't just to identify the attacker, by the way, especially when he isn't there to be identified; they are also to rule out suspects. The first ID parade served to rule out a plausible suspect leaving the Police free to pursue enquiries which led to the apprehension of Hanratty.

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.

I am glad you wouldn't call her a liar, but people have. She took a long time because she wanted to be sure. She heard him speak because the situation in which she was attacked and the attacker's method of covering his features rendered her practically "blind"...she had heard her attacker speaking for a long time, and using a further sense to identify him made her idenfication more, not less, secure, imo, unless we go down the road of arguing that blind people can be attacked with impunity since they cannot ever identify anyone by sight.

Incidently, do you believe anyone else should have been standing with Hanratty in the dock?

Possibly...he must have obtained the gun from someone or somewhere; either he stole it from somewhere or someone he knew supplied it. Perhaps if he had confessed, the supplier of the gun would have gone down with him. I am still unsure of my opinion regarding the gun and who supplied it...it could have been France, leading him to feel guilty enough to apologise to Ewer (difficult to see what else he might be apologising for), but to be honest, Hanratty was a criminal with many dubious connections and as we know someone else admitted to having a conversation with him regarding obtaining a gun before the murder, although they deny having eventually supplied it (sorry the name escapes me at the moment). What do you think on this point?

Do you believe anyone else could have faced charges of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?

Yes certainly where it was proven they lied regarding their involvement or what they say: Nudds being the prime example.

Or do you believe that the relationship between Gregten's brother-in-law and Hanratty's friend was just a coincidence?

I believe that was co-incidence.

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?

No, see above, but i believe they were used to testify for him as well; that is one of the drawbacks of moving in criminal circles, i am afraid.

What do you think on those issues?

[babybird67]

for Limehouse

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.

I've highlighted the relevant parts. You may well have missed it as these libellous comments were sandwiched in between about six choice personal insults aimed at me. It's quite clear Reg's opinion is that VS was a lying, unprincipled woman, mysteriously wanting the innocent Hanratty to go down for a crime committed by somebody else, whilst happily swallowing the idea that the career criminal whose DNA proves he raped her was the real victim.

Whilst i would accept and agree Hanratty did not have a trial which observed scrupulously all the correct protocols, for which the officials should bear the blame, i do not accept that VS did anything dishonest or gave dishonest testimony in the witness box, and frankly to accuse her of such is to assault her again, adding insult to injury. What do you think of those accusations against her? Do you think they are in any way, shape or form justifiable?

[babybird67]

Kerr said VS told him her attacker had blue eyes;

This should read brown. Apologies for the error which i only noticed after the edit facility had expired.

[Andrew]

Hello all,
Someone near me likes Morris Minors and has one that's exactly the right type;split windscreen, grey colour, four doors, everything. Edward Blackhall suggested that he identified the murder car by "three strips of red tape on the rear bumper". I can see that the over riders split the bumper into three unequal sections - would the tape form a sort of pin stripe along the chrome?
Photo of the back of 847 BHN from James on page 61.
If MG and VS had been in a two door Minor that night it might have all been different. I seem to remember that it was quite difficult to get in and out of the back on a two-door and they might have had enough time to run off while the gunman was still trapped in the back seat.
Regards
Andrew

[Victor]

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.

Do some research rather than acting like a lazy ignorant pig.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

My belief has always been that it was placed in that location, (wrapped in one of his handkerchiefs) deliberately to incriminate James Hanratty.

I've been reading back through this thread, and discovered this post where James implies that dumping the gun on the bus by the guilty party is illogical. I admit that it's not "repeatedly" and he does indeed suggest that it was placed there to frame Hanratty.

The placing of the gun under the back seat of that bus is one aspect of the case that really gets the old brain cells working.
Whoever placed it there wanted it to be discovered and knew it would be found sooner or later. A fully loaded gun, some loose bullets and 5 full boxes of ammunition, all conveniently wrapped up in a handkerchief belonging to James Hanratty.
The only reason I can think of for anyone to put a much sought after murder weapon in such a place would be to incriminate someone.
Was it Dixie France who put it there or was it William Nudds or a.n. other ?
I hardly think it was placed there for the true owner to recover at some later date.
The Enfield.38 was duly found around 8.45pm the next day, and according to Edwin Cooke it wasn't there 24 hours earlier. I wonder how many other murder weapons have been found as quickly as this ?
If someone truly wanted the gun to remain undiscovered why not dump it into the River Thames as you say, or even the North Sea off the coast of Southend ?

My assumption is that James is implying that for the actual guilty party to leave the gun on the bus is stupid, because he believes it was deliberately planted so that it would be quickly found.

KR,
Vic.

[reg1965]

I wonder what his reaction was when he first learned that she had survived.

He locked himself in his room at the Alexandra Court Hotel, Finsbury Park.

[Graham]

He locked himself in his room at the Alexandra Court Hotel, Finsbury Park.

And left a newspaper in his suitcase opened to headlines about the A6 Murder to make sure that the visiting police-officers saw it and so placing himself in the forefront of A6 suspects.....

Graham

[jimarilyn]

Hi Everyone,

Can someone, perhaps Admin, enlighten us as to why Reg does not appear to be on these boards anymore ? I might be mistaken but I get the feeling that Victor is involved somehow in all of this. If not, I apologise in advance. I noticed recently on another related thread that Victor has claimed that Reg threatened him with physical violence. I have a very good memory indeed and at no time has Reg threatened anyone, least of all Victor, on this thread with violence. The most he has done has been to react passionately to extremely provocative posts and trade insults with the instigator of those posts. In comparison to the vitriolic comments exchanged by posters elsewhere on these boards, this has been very mild. Has Reg been banned, and if so why ??


James

[Limehouse]

Hello everyone,

I would be very sad indeed if reg has been banned or has left the site. Things have got very heated in recent days and, once again, everyone needs a bit of time to cool down and gather themselves. Reg has made a very valuable contribution to the debate, as most regular posters have, and I hope he returns very soon.

[Victor]

And left a newspaper in his suitcase opened to headlines about the A6 Murder to make sure that the visiting police-officers saw it and so placing himself in the forefront of A6 suspects.....

Hence showing an early interest in the A6 case, perhaps so that he could intimidate people by claiming to be the killer?

KR,
Vic.

ps. Admin have investigated the allegation that I made and have reached a decision, I am unable to add further comment without repercusions.

[babybird67]

is anybody here...

in touch with Reg outside of Casebook? If anyone has his email perhaps they can contact him directly and find out what has happened?

Maybe he has chosen to have a break for a bit, considering things get heated at times...i know i sometimes feel like doing so, especially when things have got nasty.

I am sure he will be back at some point fighting his corner re Hanratty.

[Tony]

in touch with Reg outside of Casebook? If anyone has his email perhaps they can contact him directly and find out what has happened?

Maybe he has chosen to have a break for a bit, considering things get heated at times...i know i sometimes feel like doing so, especially when things have got nasty.

I am sure he will be back at some point fighting his corner re Hanratty.

Don’t think so.

Tony.

[babybird67]

Don’t think so.

Tony.

what do you mean Tony? You don't think he is taking a break or you don't think he will be back? Or you don't think anyone is in contact with him?

[Tony]

what do you mean Tony? You don't think he is taking a break or you don't think he will be back? Or you don't think anyone is in contact with him?

He’s history as far as this board is concerned.

Tony.