a6 murder

[jimarilyn]

Again possibly covering old ground.

I have never read in any of the developments of the case whether Trower, Blackhall, Skillett have been interviewed since 1962.

From memory I think that one of them was adamant that Hanratty was not the driver of the murder car.

Are they still alive and available to consult.?

Come to that the same applies to Roy Langdale, the prisoner who claimed that Hanratty confessed.

Is he still alive and has anybody spoken to him since 1962?

Hi Blackwood,

I think that Blackhall, Trower and Langdale may still be alive. When I last used the Ancestry.co.uk website some months ago, amongst other things I discovered the following...

1) A certain John Jellico Skillett (born March 11th 1915) died in January 2005 aged 89.This could well be the same John Skillett.

2) A certain Edward R Blackhall was born in Stepney in the spring of 1930. There is no mention in the deaths register of him. Again this could well be the same Edward Blackhall especially considering the fact that Blackhall's second name was Richard.

3) A certain James R Trower was born in the spring of 1938 in Hackney. Again no mention in the deaths register. Again this could well be the same James Trower, especially bearing in mind that Trower's second name (just like Blackhall's) was Richard.


As for Langdale I never got around to doing an Ancestry search on him.

[caz]

Breath of fresh air? Fetid more like.

This is all so backwards and perverse that it's not funny any more.

So when the next woman is raped and shot after seeing her boyfriend killed in front of her, the courts should presume her to be utterly incapable of providing reliable information about her attacker, even if he was talking non-stop to the couple for hours?

Love,

Caz
X

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Although in agreement that the Hanratty case is an intresting peice of criminal history, I can't see why is is still debated, it has been proven as near as it can be that he was guilty by DNA, not to mention the jury of 1962.
Where as in Jack the Ripper we have no confirmed suspect, and the case remains unopened , and free for discussion.
The media seems reluctant to let open and shut cases remain at just that, even Crippens innocence is being considered.
It was even claimed not to long ago , that Ruth Ellis actually did not shoot Blakeney, she simply mimed the action, whilst her boyfriend shot him with another weapon.
What next Christie was just a misunderstood man, or Haigh had a double.?
We all know common sense tells us that Hanratty was Guilty, he was simply one of countless people finding themselves in a perilous position and having littke option but to appeal , and maintain innocence right to the end.
He knew his family would fight tooth and nail on his behalf, and he maintained his innocence though thick and thin.
But Valerie knows different bless her.
Regards Richard.

[Graham]

Hi Richard,

like you I sometimes wonder if the A6 Case debate is worth continuing with. However, there are some aspects of it that I still find puzzling, even mysterious, and although I don't think we'll ever know for sure everything that happened on that night and in the days following, I still have this naive desire to try and find out more. That's not to suggest that I don't think Hanratty did it - he most certainly did.

Cheers,

Graham

[richardnunweek]

Hello Graham.
I agree, it would be nice to tie up all the loose bits, but as you say with acceptance of his guilt, many on here still believe that he was framed, or his DNA, was contaminated, and many actually believe the nutter Alphons story.
The truth should be acepted, just fill in the gaps for piece of mind.
Regards Richard.

[babybird67]

Apologies for the long delay in addressing the points you've made. I've been reading Graham's books that he leant me, suffering a bout of ill health and distracted by other issues, on here and elsewhere. But i'm back now so let the debate recommence.

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

I am not sure what approach to solving crimes you are advocating here...are you suggesting witnesses shouldn't be listened to at all to establish facts? Especially the only witness to a horrific crime of rape and murder. Or is it just Ms Storie's testimony you seem to have a problem with? You don't seem to have a problem portraying the Rhyl alibi as 'fact' despite its not being corroborated by anything other than witness testimony, so if you are happy to argue on those terms, you really have nothing whatsoever to justify a single doubt regarding Hanratty's conviction.

I understand in your topsy turvey world a woman who had just been raped and shot would have a clear motive for trying to convict someone who hadn't done these things to her, so obviously her testimony is terribly suspect to you, but i am glad you appear to lose all scruple along with your ability to suspend disbelief when it comes to establishing 'facts' from the testimony of a career criminal who said he was in Liverpool...ooops i mean Rhyl...at the time of the murders. One has a motive for lying Steve, the other does not. As you said, later in your posting, we are all quite entitled to make up our own minds about things, but your way of trusting criminals and attempting to discredit innocent witnesses is more deserving of your own appraisal -

That's your privelege I suppose but I don't think that it is very impressive.

I can live without the admiration of a man who follows such logic, believe me, although it is difficult to fight back the tears and i am staving off the agony of my heartbreak like a brave little soldier.

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.

I was not commenting on the appropriateness or otherwise of disclosing those issues to the jury, Steve. I suggest you read what i say more clearly next time. I just suggested that the fact it was not discussed openly was perhaps because it was not considered relevant at the time; i didnt make the decision i was merely trying to posit a reason for it.

Anyway i thought your position was that juries cannot be trusted? If they are the best arbiters of what is and is not relevant, get over their decision to convict Hanratty. They decided what was and what wasn't relevant, right? You can't pick and choose when and when not to trust them.


IF and i know that is a very big IF, you actually read what i say, i think you will find i have consistently argued that ALL the facts, disputed as well as established, all the witness testimony etc should have been before the jury and that the trial at the time had not been fair because of the very reason that disclosures were not made. Unfortunately for the Hanratty -is- Martyr faithful, the DNA evidence that has come to light puts to bed any worries anybody objective could have regarding the safety of the conviction, so the disclosures really become a moot point, since the man was guilty, he was hanged, regrettably, since i do not believe in capital punishment, but at the end of the day justice was done, and Ms Storie and Mr Gregsten's descendants should be able to get on with their lives without this being dragged up interminably and, especially in Ms Storie's case, her veracity being compared unfavourably to a criminal when her only crime was to be raped and shot.

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.

My emphasis.

What a very odd stance to take Steve. Here i am, come to the case new and eager, tell everyone i haven't read the books and am lambasted, called ignorant, told i shouldn't even be able to read the thread or post to it because i havent read the books and cant refer to them and since i allegedly have an illness, and yet you are lambasting Miller for reading and studying the books and appraising that information in his own book?!? This parallel universe sure is wobbly isn't it.

By the way, i have written hundreds of academic essays, not a book yet unfortunately, but whatever subject i wrote about i read and referred to as many books about the subject that i could get hold of that had previously been published. That is how knowledge is built upon and taken forward. Miller's contribution is not the same as Foot's or Woffinden's; Woffinden's book i felt was the most impressive of the three, the most comprehensive (do you mind that he actually had read Foot's book and referred to it? or is it just Miller you have a problem with doing this?); Foot's was very much a book of its time...as such i understood the bias but felt a lot of it was naive. Miller's book was good at the beginning however towards the end where he projected what was going on in Hanratty's mind it lost credibility, but he made some important counterpoints to some previously accepted myths regarding the case as a whole. They all had something to contribute. Unfortunately, if you believe Hanratty innocent, it seems, on this thread, you cannot abide being told he might not have been without throwing round the insults or stamping your foot petulantly like a child and trying to ignore any evidence which doesnt accord with your own view, or trying to malign innocent victims of crimes either. Impressive? I'd say so. Not.

It is also pertinent to note that you did not pull me up on that when replying!

When you address every single point i ever make on this thread when you reply to my posts, without misrepresenting me, i might add, i might worry about addressing every single point you make. I doubt it, but you'd have more of a chance.

It is interesting to note that dear old Len is also a mysoginist.

Steve, you really are hilarious sometimes! Do you think writing a book and contextualising the gender stereotypes of the time is more, or less, misogynistic than raping a woman at gunpoint? Have a think before you answer that.

On page 132 whilst discussing the testimony of Gladys Deacon, he pooh pooh's her veracity by describing the ambitions of young girls

This is what Miller actually says:

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

My emphases in both quotations.

Firstly, how can he possibly be doubting the veracity of Gladys Deacon since he is not examing anything she actually said? He is questioning whether, on the anniversary of the A6 murder, when Hanratty took her back to the scene of the crime in his car and had sex with her in the back of it, an absolutely extraodinary thing for him to have done, she would have comprehended the significance of the location or of Hanratty's return to it. His use of the words 'i suspect' show that he is making a personal assessment of what he believes her knowlegde of the subject would be. He makes a generalisation about young women which is possible because, although a generalisation, it is largely true. When i was studying for my A levels i was one of about 4 girls in the politics group. Girls even today are interested in the same things...music, fashion, etc...i have a daughter and i know she wouldnt be in the least interested at the moment in current affairs or crime. Most people, of whatever gender, are not; the preponderance of male posters on these boards is further evidence, should it be needed, that politics, current affairs, crime etc are of less interest to women and that women are under-represented in these areas...how many female MPS are there? How many high ranking police officials? How many criminologists etc? Some of this can be attributed to sexism; some to the lack of interest women have in the subjects. I don't see your problem with the point, because i agree with his assessment of the general interests of an 18 year old girl and in doing so, in your skewed assessment, i must myself be a misogynist.

By the way, is it misogynistic to make disgraceful personal comments about me as Reg did when i joined this thread? Comments such as only someone sexually unattractive to him, someone hard nosed i think he said, could possibly be posting an independent view to him? What did his ridiculous comment regarding his brother allegedly fancying me have to do with this case? If you are looking for misogyny, dear Steve, there it is, in black and white, from one of the Hanratty faithful...i notice you didnt pull him up on it though...funny that isn't it.

Is it misoygnistic for Hanratty to have been sleeping with prostitutes, to then take advantage of a 16 year old girl of a family friend, a family that had helped him out and welcomed him into their home, having intercourse without using protection, behind the back of Victoria coach station??? She could have got pregnant or caught something from him...celibacy wasnt his strong point was it? Then he was also having sex with Gladys! Then also proposing to the other girl he was being matched with by the antiques lady (sorry, mid-rant and can't remember her name)! He doesnt say whether he had sex with her too, but perhaps he 'respected' her and didnt ask as he wanted a 'nice' girl to marry and 'nice' girls didnt have sex before marriage did they...misogynistic haha! And then the old chestnut about the women in his life all saying he treated them with respect! Yes, very respectful, sleeping with prostitutes, children and other women, without protection. I am sure they all knew about eachother and therefore would all have confirmed the view that he was ever so respectful towards women. Phew, i am glad you save all your vitriol for Miller...how could he be so immoral and misogynistic to make a social generalisation! Hilarious! Priceless!

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

Whoever said he was? How could he possibly be that when Saint Foot is cast firmly in that role? You know, the upright journalist who approves of recording private conversations, approves of processes of entrapment, approves of someone lying to someone else to try to get them to confess to a crime they havent committed, who approves of, and actually did, phone someone up and pretend to be someone else so that person would trust him and tell him things he wouldnt otherwise have said.

Glad you have your moral priorities right there Steve. All of the above is patently much less risible than Miller speculating what Hanratty might have been thinking at the time he raped and murdered that night.

For a so called historian

I didn't realise i was a historian, Steve, thanks for that.

you seem to place a lot of faith in an author who has done no original research

I don't place 'faith' in him. I'm not into placing 'faith' anywhere, unlike the religious devoted Hanratty said he didnt do it so i believe him brigade. I assess the evidence as far as i can and then make up my own mind. As assessed above, i have learned something from Foot, Woffinden, and Miller. I don't have this incredible inability to acknowledge anything that challenges any unfounded 'faith' as i am a non-believer. I believe in the importance of reading and evaluating everything i can that is relevant. I don't merely dislike or dismiss something because it doesn't confirm the view of the flat-earthers.

and doesn't like women much

Lol...see points above about Hanratty's treatment of women. Save your condemnation for the rapist, Steve, it might be slightly more impressive.

and a forensic technique that is not fit for evidential purpose.

Here's a challenge for you, Steve, see if you can 'knock yourself out' by addressing it. This very same technique is apparently not fit for purpose, right? Hanratty is dead, right? You can argue all you like but nothing is going to bring him back, right? If you are so fired up about the unfitness of this tool for securing convictions, there are child abductors and murderers and rapists in prison RIGHT NOW convicted on the basis of

a forensic technique that is not fit for evidential purpose

. Why, pray, are you not fired up about the injustice of this to be fighting to get these poor innocent accused criminals released? You can make a difference to them, Steve...Hanratty's gone, hasn't he...why don't you devote your life to undermining developments in forensics which allow monsters like Huntley to be put behind bars for sexually assaulting and murdering our children? Why don't you campaign to get these poor innocent rapists released because their convictions aren't fit to be upheld? Make a difference, Steve, if you feel so passionately that forensic techniques should be trapped in the dark ages and the streets be more dangerous for us all.

That little girl, the one who was raped, where semen was found on the cellotape and has been DNA matched with the man who was previously getting away with her rape...come on, stand up for him, get him released...maybe the little girl wasn't 'classically raped'...maybe her knickers weren't replaced properly and the semen didn't go exactly where it should have gone...maybe contamination blah blah blah...maybe...just maybe...standing up for Hanratty, a murderer and rapist, proven, upheld, by evidence, in a court of law, and a court of appeal, and by extension arguing that the scum currently serving time should also be exonerated from their crimes against others - is -in my opinion as a woman - just about the most misogynistic thing anyone could do. I wouldn't be too worried about Miller if i was you, 'dear'.

[jimarilyn]

Hi,
Although in agreement that the Hanratty case is an intresting peice of criminal history, I can't see why is is still debated, it has been proven as near as it can be that he was guilty by DNA, not to mention the jury of 1962.
Where as in Jack the Ripper we have no confirmed suspect, and the case remains unopened , and free for discussion.
The media seems reluctant to let open and shut cases remain at just that, even Crippens innocence is being considered.
It was even claimed not to long ago , that Ruth Ellis actually did not shoot Blakeney, she simply mimed the action, whilst her boyfriend shot him with another weapon.
What next Christie was just a misunderstood man, or Haigh had a double.?
We all know common sense tells us that Hanratty was Guilty, he was simply one of countless people finding themselves in a perilous position and having littke option but to appeal , and maintain innocence right to the end.
He knew his family would fight tooth and nail on his behalf, and he maintained his innocence though thick and thin.
But Valerie knows different bless her.
Regards Richard.

Fancy that, I mention a couple of Richards in my last post and up pops another Richard.

You're entitled to your opinion of course Richard but I couldn't disagree with you more.

Firstly you say that you can't understand why the A6 Murder Case is still debated. Well, in common with lots of other people, I most certainly can. Are you annoyed that it is still being debated and that it is the most widely viewed and posted upon thread on this entire website ? You even contradict yourselfy by joining in the debate. No one is forcing you submit posts, feel free to ignore the thread and move on if you so desire.

Secondly, re Jack the Reaper, I thought the case remained open.

Thirdly, so according to you "WE all know common sense tells us that Hanratty was guilty". Come again, how do you work that one out ? If you've studied any of the books etc., on the case you'd come to the opposite point of view. What you should have said was "WE should all know, but we don't all admit it, that common sense tells us Hanratty was Innocent".

Fourthly, the reason why his family fought his corner so passionately was because they knew him inside out and knew he was Innocent.

[babybird67]

thank goodness for Miller...

here, for information for those who state Miller has made no contribution to the A6 debate, is precisely an occasion on which being aware of his book is important:

Well, if everything else remained the same, then I would indeed consider it more conclusive, simply because Alphon (rather revealingly) refused to hand over his clothes for testing, so there was no plausible way for contamination to occur.



DM

This is based on Woffinden, I presume, who relates this: Acott asked Alphon if he had any clothes anywhere else: Woffinden then quotes the exchange thus:

"Alphon: Yes, but they're in hotels and pawnbrokers and i'm not telling you where they are.

Acott: I shall have every pawnbroker visited and i shall probably find them...Have you got any bags or cases?

Alphon: No.

(BW, 419)

Thus DM you are able to state that Alphon "quite revealingly" refuses to surrender his clothes.

Miller goes back to the original interview to reveal there are important omissions from this exchange, which actually transpired thus:

"Alphon: Yes but they're in hotels and pawnbrokers and I'm not telling you where they are.

Acott: I shall have every pawnbroker visited and i shall probably find them.

Alphon: All right, I've a pair of trousers in Thompson's in the Uxbridge Road.

Acott: Have you got any bags or cases?

Alphon: No."

Miller p 37

So Miller did no original research, eh Steve? There's one bit right there for you. One very important bit which debunks the oft-repeated mistaken view that Alphon 'very revealingly' refused to give up his clothes or their whereabouts.

I don't expect you to acknowledge it though, as it goes against the Hanratty is innocent Bible which must be adhered to at all times. But very very important in my opinion.

DM...were you aware that Woffiden had selectively quoted the exhange in that way? Will you reappraise what you know of this aspect of the case with this in mind?

[Victor]

Perhaps it is significant that towards the end of her life (she died from a heart attack in January 1995) Janet became convinced that Hanratty was innocent of the murder of her husband. Could this belief have had something to do with what was written on that card ?

Hi James,

I can't think of anything that Alphon could have written that would cause Janet to believe him. Your speculation is completely unfounded.

KR,
Vic.

[babybird67]

Breath of fresh air? Fetid more like.

This is all so backwards and perverse that it's not funny any more.

So when the next woman is raped and shot after seeing her boyfriend killed in front of her, the courts should presume her to be utterly incapable of providing reliable information about her attacker, even if he was talking non-stop to the couple for hours?

Love,

Caz
X

Caz. in reading this thread it becomes so blindingly obvious why only 5% of rape cases secure convictions. It is a shameful state of affairs but you can see the very views which perpetuate it.

MISOGYNISTIC views that a rape victim's evidence is to be less trustworthy than a criminal's. I don't know...it's a really topsy turvey world isn't it! Like you say, simply not funny anymore.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Jimarilyn ,
I am certainly not envious of the huge amount of debate on the subject of Hanratty, i did agree that it is a historical case, and a lot of people enjoy the challenge of filling in the parts of the puzzle still missing, my point was I do not consider that there are as many pieces still to fit, as some members believe.
Hanratty was a crook, albeit petty, he certainly was no angel to his parents, they did however accept his word that he was innocent of the charge, my point being, he needed them to fight for him tooth and nail, he did not want to hang after all.
I have read many of the books , and I remember the case well , I had just left school when the trial was on, so i am no novice.
Regards Richard.

[babybird67]

As for innocence, every defendent is, surely, innocent until proven guilty. The presumption of innocence is paramount to our system of justice. (Although Jack Straw and his band of elves will probably destroy that too) The jury foreman is not asked whether they find the defendent guilty or innocent but guilty or not guilty. A subtle difference though and I am sure that you would agree with it. Innocence therefore is presumed unless the jury find otherwise.

Oh this is priceless. I couldn't resist quoting this.

You've stated the situation brilliantly. Can we now conclude you accept that Hanrarry was guilty, as convicted by the jury? Or are you advocating that the presumption of innocence should continue even after the jury's conviction?

[Victor]

Hi Richard,

Don't worry about James, he still questions whether most people think Hanratty is guilty, when the "Was Hanratty Guilty?" Poll shows 13 Yes vs 9 No, not a large majority, but still the majority.

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

Firstly, how can he possibly be doubting the veracity of Gladys Deacon since he is not examing anything she actually said? He is questioning whether, on the anniversary of the A6 murder, when Hanratty took her back to the scene of the crime in his car and had sex with her in the back of it, an absolutely extraodinary thing for him to have done.

That's truly amazing as I was under the impression that Hanratty was executed on April 4th 1962, a full four and a half months before the anniversary of the A6 Murder.
Hanratty did not take Gladys Deacon to the scene of the crime. He drove her to Bedford which is about 9 miles away
Hanratty and Gladys had sexual intercourse in his car in Stanmore, North London, nowhere near the scene of the crime.

Please, in the name of truthfulness and honesty, get your facts correct so as not to mislead other posters.

[babybird67]

That's truly amazing as I was under the impression that Hanratty was executed on April 4th 1962, a full four and a half months before the anniversary of the A6 Murder.
Hanratty did not take Gladys Deacon to the scene of the crime. He drove her to Bedford which is about 9 miles away
Hanratty and Gladys had sexual intercourse in his car in Stanmore, North London, nowhere near the scene of the crime.

Please, in the name of truthfulness and honesty, get your facts correct so as not to mislead other posters.

I was referring to the month anniversary of the murder James, but you were quite right to correct that, as anniversary usually means a yearly event. Are you aware this is a recognised trait of murderers? To revisit the scenes of their crimes in this manner? Why did Hanratty take one of his girlfriends there on that momentous date? I'd be interested in your thoughts.

By the way, it cannot be factually proven where they went during that drive, can it? We only have the witness testimony to go on, which Steve has kindly established is insufficient for establishing facts.

Perhaps you'd care to address my concern that there are scumbags...ooops i mean, others convicted by the unjust use of an inappropriate forensic technique out there, for those of you so admirably concerned with the upholding of truth and justice to make a real difference to? You can't bring back Hanratty but you perhaps can bring a little respite to those families of those convicted by getting them released...of course you might then need to balance this with the distress you cause the victim's families in doing so. But then, victims aren't the priority here are they?