a6 murder

[SteveS]

It is hardly fair to speculate what anyone's reaction might be if the situation was reversed. By all means, express your opinion, disagree with those of us who doubt Hanratty's guilt, point out the error of our logic, but please don't batter us with speculated reactions that have no basis.

I know many of you 'Hanratty did it' brigade look down your noses at us stupid folks who have grave doubts about the case, but do you have to sound so smug all of the time?

Hi Limehouse

I can only sympathise with your dismay at many others views over what is clearly just opinion, however smug one might find its delivery. You are right. These posters put forward views which have no basis in either fact or logic.

The poster Caz clearly wants to ignore the basic facts of LCN testing and interpretation. She ignores world renowned DNA experts and plumps, foolishly, for the opinion of 3 ignorant old men to uphold her view of Hanratty's guilt.

She seems also hell bent on exonerating Alphon but yet again does not seek the guidance of experts. She then, if that wasn't enough suggests that we will never ever prove Hanratty's innocence!

Who is innocent after all?

I would only like to see the original conviction quashed for being unsafe, as it plainly is.

Thnx
Steve

[jimarilyn]

My sentiments exactly Steve, Julie. A fine series of posts from your goodselves.

The world is all the poorer with the passing of such good people. Passionate seekers of truth and justice.
The likes of Sir Ludovic and Paul Foot don't come around too often, alas.

regards,
James

[Victor]

The poster Caz clearly wants to ignore the basic facts of LCN testing and interpretation. She ignores world renowned DNA experts and plumps, foolishly, for the opinion of 3 ignorant old men to uphold her view of Hanratty's guilt.

Hi Steve,

Yes LCN has limitations, but it wasn't the opinion of 3 ignorant old men, it was all the renowned DNA experts save the one employed by the defence and getting paid to (unsucessfully) pick holes in the evidence.

She seems also hell bent on exonerating Alphon but yet again does not seek the guidance of experts.

But there is no evidence against Alphon, even his so-called confessions are full of glaring errors.

I would only like to see the original conviction quashed for being unsafe, as it plainly is.

That was precisely what the CCRC was trying to do, and couldn't. If you check out the "Was Hanratty Guilty?" thread, there's a significant proportion of the people who voted who agreed with the eleven people on the jury that Hanratty was guilty based on the evidence available then. I personally don't agree with them, I think there's enough of a reasonable doubt, but that doesn't make their opinions wrong.

KR,
Vic

[babybird67]

well said Vic and...

let's not forget either that Counsel acting for the Hanratty family themselves now admit Alphon "could not have been" the A6 murderer...no equivocation there, no doubt whatsoever, he "could not have been". Case closed.

I find it quite ironic that these pillars of truth searching for justice have no qualms condemning a man as a murderer without a shred of evidence to suggest that he was!

I admire Paul Foot's sentiments, especially contextually placed at a time when there were serious questions to be asked about the trial Hanratty had, however, his behaviour was far from exemplary...he admits in his own book that he telephoned Alphon, whilst the latter was in Paris, pretending to be someone else, as he knew very well that if he admitted he was Paul Foot Alphon would not have trusted him...pillar of truth and justice? Or rose-tinted spectacles? Everyone can make up their own minds, i think.

There is also much uncomfortable reading as Foot recounts the 'shameful' (to quote Limehouse, regarding Louise Anderson's behaviour) behaviour of Jean Justice in trying to ensnare Alphon in a honey trap...secretly taping telephone conversations and attempting to implicate a man who was clearly infatuated with him in murder. Absolutely disgraceful, in my opinion.

So, despite the fact that even the Hanratty family themselves via the words of their own Counsel admit that Alphon 'could not have been' the A6 murderer, let's review the 'evidence' on which the defence of Hanratty rests to convict Alphon shall we?

Firstly, we have the lack of forensic evidence in the car, eg, Hanratty's fingerprints, hair or fibre samples...if this exonerates Hanratty, it also exonerates Alphon, since none from either man was found. Oh and we have the disingenous claim that nobody can place Hanratty at Dorney Reach that night...conveniently ignoring the testimony of the survivor of the crimes, who placed him there quite firmly.


Secondly, we have the idea of Hanratty as an 'honest crook' (hahaha)...yes, he stole and lied and was generally running his life against the law, but he wasn't violent therefore he couldn't possibly have murdered MG or raped and attempted to murder VS. This argument also exonerates Alphon, who hadn't been to prison, nor had he ever been convicted of anything violent.

Thirdly, we have the alibi situation. Hanratty was in Rhyl wasn't he...the ever so honest Mrs Jones remembers him! Alphon was at the Vienna, sleeping in his room, vis a vis Nudd's first, and only acceptable, statement to the Police, and the testimony of his mother who met him that evening (not at home before anyone says she confirmed he hadn't been to their home for some months). So, alibis exonerate both men, following this logic.

Fourthly, we have the, Hanratty was framed by this huge conspiracy to either split up MG and VS or drive them together, depending on whose conspiracy theory most grabs your attention, that's why it must have been France who put the gun on the bus because the France's knew Hanratty's hiding place and had access to his laundry. Yes, they also must have had premonitions of the advancement of DNA and therefore used a handkerchief that Hanratty had blown his nose on, so that 40 years later this could come back to bite him! There is no evidence whatsoever implicating anybody leaving the gun on the bus; speculation that it was anyone is just that, speculation. All we know is it was found with Hanratty's handkerchief, as admitted by Hanratty, and as proven by DNA all these years later; we also know he stayed in the same room that spent cartridges were found which match this murder weapon? Co-incidence? Or clever conspiracy? As scientists will tell you, where there are a variety of explanations for something, the simpliest explanation is usually the best and most likely to be true.

All the arguments which are put forward in defence of Hanratty can equally apply to Alphon, and are usually stronger when applied to Alphon. Alphon was not a career criminal who stayed in the room where the cartridges were found, whose personal possessions were found with the murder weapon in a place where he had openly confessed to friends to hiding things, but perhaps most tellingly....none of his DNA was found on the victim's knickers!

This enables us to conclude, quite clearly, and in this we are in agreement with all the DNA experts and Counsel for the Crown and for the Hanrattys, that Alphon "could not have been" the A 6 murderer. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that suggests that he was. It is perverse to keep insisting he could have been at this point in time...leave the poor man alone. If you will keep insisting on a convicted man's innocence, find someone else to pin the crime on, because it was not Alphon...FACT!

[Limehouse]

I have never suggested that because I have doubts about Hanratty, the murderer must therefore have been Alphon.

[SteveS]

Gregstens deposit

Hello

I think it is in general agreement that a motive for the A6 murder was not at all satisfactorily elicited at trial in 1962. Even Leonard Miller (he of the right riveting read that is not Shadows of Deadman's Hill) tried to find one to shrink his own head (and repudiate his long held belief in James Hanratty's innocence) to fit his faith in the newly found DNA evidence.

The major element of the case that was not revealed to the defence and therefore the jury, which could have provided a motive for the crime, was the extremely intimate relationship between Mr Gregsten and Ms Storie. It was not until June 1962 when Ms Storie actually admitted that she and her dead companion were in fact, and had been for about 3 years, to put it bluntly, knocking each other off!

My question therefore is:

How the bloody hell was Mr Gregstens deposit on Ms Stories underwear, identified by his blood group (AB) by forensic scientists in 1961, when it was fresh, not discussed in open court in 1962?

It was after all discovered by Dr Nickolls and reported by the Court of Appeal at paragraph 113.

The knickers arrived at the Metropolitan Police Laboratory (MPL) on 23 August 1961 where they were examined by Dr Nickolls, the director and his assistant, Henry Howard. They were found to be stained with seminal fluid in the area of the crotch and at the back for five inches upwards from the crotch. Vaginal fluid from Valerie Storie was also present. There were smaller quantities of seminal fluid of blood group AB assumed to have come at some earlier stage from Michael Gregsten. Although the laboratory records are not dated, the notes are numbered sequentially and we are confident that the knickers were examined almost immediately and in any event no later than 23 September 1961 when the notes show that certain samples taken from Peter Alphon were examined at the laboratory. The handkerchief came to
the laboratory on 25 August, was screened for blood and semen and, none being found, seems to have been put to one side.

(my bold)

More non-disclosure of evidence by the police and prosecution to cover up this most telling aspect of the case. In fact the Court of Appeal back this up at paragraph 106 with the following:

We turn to the DNA evidence. As already noted seminal fluid was found on Valerie Storie’s knickers and one of her slips. At the time all that could be shown was that the rapist’s and hence the murderer’s blood group was O secretor. So was James Hanratty’s and Peter Alphon’s together with 40% of the male population. The handkerchief found with the murder weapon bore traces of nasal mucus. Mucus was not capable of being analysed for blood type. Evidence based upon the comparison of hairs and fibres was inconclusive. Apart from some seminal staining on James Hanratty’s striped trousers, said to be part of the Hepworth suit, that was the extent of the scientific evidence at trial.

(my bold)

Thnx
Steve

[Limehouse]

Interesting post Steve. Also of interest is a passage in Lord Russell's book Deadman's Hill: Was Hanratty Guilty? in he he quotes Valerie Storie as saying of the rape "...then he said 'Take off your knickers'. I said no. Again, he threatened to shoot me if I did not agree. So I was forced to take them off."(p25)

There has been some debate on this thread about the position of VS's panties when she reached hospital and also the position of seminal staining on the knickers. As VS seems to have removed her knickers, this would obviously affect where on the knickers the rapist's seminal fluid ended up, it being more likely that staining occurred by the fluid leaking out rather than by ejeculation into the back of the knickers (sorry, this is very indelicate, I know).

Of course, the part of the knickers examined for DNA was only a portion cut from the whole garment. We cannot know what was on the remaining bit of the knickers, which was destroyed. There may have been valuable evidence on that portion.

[babybird67]

Hello

I think it is in general agreement that a motive for the A6 murder was not at all satisfactorily elicited at trial in 1962.

So? Some things which happen don't have a logical reason for happening. Sometimes things just happen. Whoever the gunman was that night took watches and money so ostensibly the apparent motive was robbery. The gunman himself stated his 'motive' for shooting Gregsten was because Gregsten moved quickly and frightened him. It was, to all intents and purposes, an accidental murder. It is ironic, in that Hanratty, pulling the trigger accidentally, becoming an accidental murderer, also became an accidental suicide, in signing his own death warrant as a consequence of his crime. It may surprise you to know i have a modicum of sympathy for Hanratty up to this point. I don't think he intended to kill anybody. It doesn't unfortunately detract from the fact that he did kill someone. After that, all sympathy evaporates for him, since he then CHOSE to compound his crime by raping Valerie and then trying to kill her so there would be no witnesses to his crime.

The major element of the case that was not revealed to the defence and therefore the jury, which could have provided a motive for the crime, was the extremely intimate relationship between Mr Gregsten and Ms Storie. It was not until June 1962 when Ms Storie actually admitted that she and her dead companion were in fact, and had been for about 3 years, to put it bluntly, knocking each other off!

This only becomes relevant if you believe, against all the evidence, that there was some great conspiracy afoot (no pun intended)...either to split them up or drive them together...which one do you favour, Steve? There is no evidence of course of either. Juries deal with evidence, not fairy tales.

My question therefore is:

How the bloody hell was Mr Gregstens deposit on Ms Stories underwear, identified by his blood group (AB) by forensic scientists in 1961, when it was fresh, not discussed in open court in 1962?

Presumably because it wasn't considered relevant.

It was after all discovered by Dr Nickolls and reported by the Court of Appeal at paragraph 113.

More non-disclosure of evidence by the police and prosecution to cover up this most telling aspect of the case.

my bold. Which most telling aspect of the case is this, Steve? What evidence, evidence, mind, not pure speculation, do you have which leads you to suspect that there was a conspiracy to drive apart/together MG and VS? Who was behind this evil plot? What evidence is there of this plot other than imagination and speculation? If in fact you do believe there was this conspiracy, who was the man with the gun in the car that night? How did anyone know the couple would be in that cornfield at that time, when the couple themselves had not decided to go there until just before they travelled there? If not Hanratty in the car that night, who do you think it was? How was this person able to eradicate all DNA evidence of himself from VS's knickers, anticipating the progress in DNA that would made over a forty year period, yet leave VS's and MG's and JH's DNA all extant? That was an amazing feat, you must agree, to have been able to eradicate all scientific evidence of him even being there, don't you think? Or are you someone who believes VS was lying about practically everything and there isnt enough room to have sex in the back of a Morris Minor anyway? Don't forget, progress in knowledge has ruled out Alphon as being the gunman/rapist. So if not Hanratty, who was it?

[babybird67]

Of course, the part of the knickers examined for DNA was only a portion cut from the whole garment. We cannot know what was on the remaining bit of the knickers, which was destroyed. There may have been valuable evidence on that portion.

Are you seriously suggesting forensic experts at that time would have removed and discarded a piece of evidence with semen on it? Surely common sense would suggest they discarded unstained and therefore irrelevant parts of the knickers, retaining the bits which showed semen stains, from which they were able to establish at that time the blood group of the rapist. To suggest they would have discarded evidence in this way beggars belief imo.

[Limehouse]

Are you seriously suggesting forensic experts at that time would have removed and discarded a piece of evidence with semen on it? Surely common sense would suggest they discarded unstained and therefore irrelevant parts of the knickers, retaining the bits which showed semen stains, from which they were able to establish at that time the blood group of the rapist. To suggest they would have discarded evidence in this way beggars belief imo.

Forensic experts at that time could not find a single spec of the murderer in the car. Not a hair, not a skin cell, not a fibre, not even a drop of seminal fluid - even though VS removed her knickers. I would not put my faith in them at all.

[NickB]

It is ironic, in that Hanratty, pulling the trigger accidentally, becoming an accidental murderer, also became an accidental suicide ...

I agree that the murder appears to be accidental.

But I wonder how conscious the killer was that he might easily be identified by Mr Gregsten if left alive. The driver would have seen the killer every time he looked in the rear view mirror. It is not clear for how long the killer kept the handkerchief over the lower part of his face. Presumably it was not worn when they both went to look at the back of the car.

[SteveS]

The gunman himself stated his 'motive' for shooting Gregsten was because Gregsten moved quickly and frightened him.

That is a fact is it? Or is just what a witness said what happened?

My question therefore is:

How the bloody hell was Mr Gregstens deposit on Ms Stories underwear, identified by his blood group (AB) by forensic scientists in 1961, when it was fresh, not discussed in open court in 1962?

Presumably because it wasn't considered relevant.

I can't believe that. I would have thought that the jury would be the best test of was relevant and what wasn't. But I concede that relevant is what you want it be.

By the way I didn't quote your dear old Lenny Miller, a few posts back, because the man is an idiot. He lifted all of the facts for his book from the other books written about the case and therefore Millers contribution is, well, negligent. It is also pertinent to note that you did not pull me up on that when replying!

So I will post it again:

Even Leonard Miller (he of the right riveting read that is not Shadows of Deadman's Hill) tried to find one to shrink his own head (and repudiate his long held belief in James Hanratty's innocence) to fit his faith in the newly found DNA evidence.

There you go dear. Knock yourself out. Again.

It is interesting to note that dear old Len is also a mysoginist. On page 132 whilst discussing the testimony of Gladys Deacon, he pooh pooh's her veracity by describing the ambitions of young girls as, and I quote.

How much did Gladys Deacon know of the A6 murder? Not much, one suspects. On the whole eighteen your old girls tend to be interested in pop music, boys, movies, clothes, fashion - not current affairs, politics or crime.

earlier on page 126 he gets into even more difficulty. I say that because when one is putting the words into another's head, it is, after all, ones own words that are being put there. Dear old Len says when proposing that Hanratty had got away with murder:

That stupid cow was still alive.

Oops. Not quite the savoury character who is the champion of truth and logic in the A6 case after all.

For a so called historian you seem to place a lot of faith in an author who has done no original research (and doesn't like women much) and a forensic technique that is not fit for evidential purpose. That's your privelege I suppose but I don't think that it is very impressive.

Thnx
Steve

[Graham]

That is a fact is it? Or is just what a witness said what happened?

Don't be ridiculous, Steve. That's what VS said and you know it. Or do you want to rubbish everything she said about what happened that night? And if you do, by the way, you wouldn't be the first.

By the way I didn't quote your dear old Lenny Miller, a few posts back, because the man is an idiot. He lifted all of the facts for his book from the other books written about the case and therefore Millers contribution is, well, negligent. It is also pertinent to note that you did not pull me up on that when replying!

And where, pray, did YOU get all YOUR facts from concerning the A6 Case, if not from Justice, Russell, Foot, Woffinden et al? As I've said before, long ago on this thread before you graced us with your presence (most welcome, incidentally), Miller's book is not a great work of literature, but should be taken as proposing the opposite view to those authors who supported Hanratty. I confess I lost patience with Miller when he went off into fantasy-land with his supposed JH 'dialogues' or whatever you want to call them, but he serves a purpose. I'd really like to know who the bloke is, actually.

Regards,

Graham

[Victor]

The major element of the case that was not revealed to the defence and therefore the jury, which could have provided a motive for the crime, was the extremely intimate relationship between Mr Gregsten and Ms Storie. It was not until June 1962 when Ms Storie actually admitted that she and her dead companion were in fact, and had been for about 3 years, to put it bluntly, knocking each other off!

Hi Steve,

How do you conclude that the relationship between VS and MG was "extremely intimate"? Why can't it be purely sexual or physical with no emotional commitment? VS had dates with another colleague as did MG according to Woffinden.

We turn to the DNA evidence. As already noted seminal fluid was found on Valerie Storie’s knickers and one of her slips. At the time all that could be shown was that the rapist’s and hence the murderer’s blood group was O secretor. So was James Hanratty’s and Peter Alphon’s together with 40% of the male population. The handkerchief found with the murder weapon bore traces of nasal mucus. Mucus was not capable of being analysed for blood type. Evidence based upon the comparison of hairs and fibres was inconclusive. Apart from some seminal staining on James Hanratty’s striped trousers, said to be part of the Hepworth suit, that was the extent of the scientific evidence at trial.

Interestingly, the sentence that I've highlighted suggests that there was forensic evidence available and Woffinden mentions several sets of fingerprints in the car. It's just that there was no positive match to anyone, possibly because Hanratty had (as usual) tried to wipe them off and had smudged them.

KR,
Vic.

[caz]

Hi All,

What's the point of praising or rubbishing the personalities of the various A6 commentators? It's the evidence that counts, surely? Campaigners against the evils of injustice are absolutely essential in my view, but it doesn't mean they will always be right when they think they are defending yet another innocent 'underdog'.

One can just imagine the reaction if the DNA result had been t'other way round and one of us had dared to suggest that Hanratty was still the rapist despite none of his DNA showing up, while Alphon's DNA must have resulted from a contamination event.

It is hardly fair to speculate what anyone's reaction might be if the situation had been reversed. By all means, express your opinion, disagree with those of us who doubt Hanratty's guilt, point out the error of our logic, but please don't batter us with speculated reactions that have no basis.

I know many of you 'Hanratty did it' brigade look down your noses at us stupid folks who have grave doubts about the case, but do you have to sound so smug all of the time?

I rest my case, Limehouse.

But I don't know why you reacted so strongly to the reverse scenario, considering that you later posted this:

I have never suggested that because I have doubts about Hanratty, the murderer must therefore have been Alphon.

My point was obviously directed at those who are quite happy to blacken Alphon's soul in the process of trying to whiten Hanratty's.

It's quite telling that they recoil in horror and don't even want to think about how they would have reacted to the same DNA arguments being made in the event that Alphon's DNA had shown up and not Hanratty's.

Instead I got personal insults about my motivation for posting. I have news for you - I too expected the DNA evidence to clear Hanratty, after all the fuss made on his behalf by good and caring people. So it's hardly 'smug' of me to have to admit that I was wrong and the evidence proves beyond any reasonable doubt that he was the rapist all along. I actually find it far more smug for armchair detectives to insist that the experts must have mucked it up big time because the result didn't match with their personal expectations. That smacks of an excessive emotional investment in one's own beliefs and an inability to assess fresh evidence with total objectivity. The various excuses given for not accepting the DNA evidence have not been nearly strong enough to make me question it myself.

Can anyone say, with hand on heart, that they would have rejected the reverse DNA result for the same reasons they are rejecting the actual result?

No, of course not. Hardly speculative, is it?

Love,

Caz
X