a6 murder

[RonIpstone]

I’ve said it before, but surely any conspirators would have ensured their hired assassin had a bit of practice in driving a Morris Minor before embarking on the crime. If there was any pre planning, it was rather amateurish.

I’m sure the amounts of money Foot claims were in Alphon’s bank account would have paid for a thoroughly professional job – not a botch up by an attention seeker.

Peter

Good point.

We should also remember that in 1961 £5,000 was a very large amount of money. Houses which now sell for £200,000 could be bought for under £3,000. The brand new super car of the age, the E-type Jaguar was introduced in 1961 with an on the road list price of £2,097.

One has to ask whether the sum of £5,000, or whatever it was, could have been spent more prudently with the aim of separating Gregsten and Storie and driving the former back into the arms of his wife? As Gregsten seems to have been a bit of a petrol head (yoof speak) an offer by Mrs G to the effect that if Mr. G left Valerie Storie and returned to his family, then he could have a brand new E-type Jaguar Roadster might have done the trick. It would have saved nearly £3,000, which Janet or her benefactor could have kept, and if Michael did not return she would have had a new car.

[SteveS]

Hi Ron

I don't see anything wrong with Leonard Miller's book.

I agree inasmuch it is made of paper and cardboard.

He may not have gone back to the original source material to write it, but I don't think that he claimed he had.

I agree totally with that.

Rather he took the arguments expounded by Foot and Woffinden in their respective books and subjected them to reasoned examination.

Fair enough, although I don't agree with the "reasoned" element you expouse.

Miller accepted the facts as found by the researches of Foot and Woffinden, but took issue with their conclusions. What's wrong with that?

Nothing at all Ron.

If anyone had been negligent then it would have been Woffinden for failing to give the complete answer given by Alphon to Acott regarding the whereabouts of the former's clothes and personal effects. In a book the length of Hanratty The Final Verdict there could be no excuse for such selective editing of such a crucial plank of the case against Alphon.

Bob Woffinden and Geoffrey Bindman performed a major investigation of the case from papers held by Bedfordshire Police. The Alphon interview was one such item among them that the defence never saw.

As it was Woffinden who discovered this item he is quite entitled to quote it how he likes, seeing that it was his book after all, and was not negligent in any way. In fact, Ron, he was being fair to Alphon by neither stating the whereabouts of his, probably irrelevant trousers and his bald refusal to say where his case was!

All Woffinden did was to summarise a lengthy interview in a balanced way. Alphon flatly refused to tell Acott and Oxford the whereabouts of his suitcase, you cannot deny this is so.

The "Mystery of Deadman's Hill" documentary fills in the rest as we have seen. This film was also produced before the book was published. There would be no way for Woffinden to include all of the 12000 odd evidential papers that were examined, would there?

Conversely, it was Miller who, having seen the full document page (like all of us here have now) decided to completely mislead the reader and try to discredit Woffinden for the sake of, and in pushing, his [Miller's] own argument. This is quite simply literary fraud, no two ways about it.

I would very much like to hear your arguments for your belief in the credibilty of the DNA evidence given at the appeal in 2002.

Thnx
Steve

[P.L.A]

Miller

One review of the much maligned Mr. Miller’s book.

http://www.parmaq.com/truecrime/Books.htm#Shadows

Peter

[Victor]

Hi Peter,

I particularly agree with this quote from that review...
For many people, Hanratty’s innocence is an article of faith. It is the point from which all investigation begins, and in the light of which all evidence is viewed. They have rejected the DNA results, since, on the assumption that Hanratty is innocent, the tests simply have to be wrong. Dedicated campaigners will not be swayed by this book, but anyone retaining an open mind should read it, and be prepared to reconsider.

KR,
Vic.

[SteveS]

One review of the much maligned Mr. Miller’s book.

http://www.parmaq.com/truecrime/Books.htm#Shadows

Peter

Hi Peter

Yes. And as the reviewer "Linda" says and I quote:

For myself, I was a believer in Hanratty’s innocence, until the DNA tests. A few anomalies still troubled me, but Miller has clarified these to the point where I feel satisfied that Hanratty was indeed the A6 murderer.

Again and again it comes down to the DNA. You all know where I stand on this and I think that the DNA evidence is as stinky as a skunk with a right monk going on.

It would have been insightful of "Linda" to have fessed up to the anomalies that Miller clarified for her/him.

I also find the following quote somewhat puzzling:

Dedicated campaigners will not be swayed by this book, but anyone retaining an open mind should read it, and be prepared to reconsider.

If anyone with an open mind reads it then what difference is Miller's book going to make? The open minded person would without any doubt question the DNA and try to find out if it is indeed as solid as Dr Whitaker purported it to be in court in 2002 rather than just accepting it in blind faith. Miller himself does not question the veracity of the DNA one iota!

In Leonard Miller's own words from pps 131-132

It was Saturday 23 September - precisely one month after the A6 murder. It was the day that all the newspapers had headlines about a man in custody for the crime - a man who was helping the police with their enquiries. And what did James Hanratty do on this most significant of days? He drove his car to Gladys Deacon's house in Stanmore. It was a surprise visit: she wasn't expecting him. And then what? In Woffinden's words: "He took Gladys for a drive in the country. They headed north to Bedford, an area that he knew reasonably well." (BW, 135)
At that my jaw, metaphorically if not literally, dropped. Woffinden seemed blithely unaware of the implications of this sensational revelation. What it seemed to indicate was that James Hanratty drove up the A6. Why would someone who had nothing at all to do with the crime choose to do such a thing on such a stunningly significant date?
The first doubts set in. When I later re-read the book I started to notice odd, troubling details. The killer couldn't remember Valerie Stories name; Hanratty couldn't remember Louise Anderson's name. The killer was someone who was fussy about other people's driving; Hanratty was fussy about Dixie France's driving and anxious about his brother's driving. These were details which someone bent on framing Hanratty by pretending to be him could not possibly know about.
What if the campaigners were wrong and Hanratty was guilty all along? Did it make any kind of sense of the narrative of what happened, especially in the weeks between the crime and his arrest.
Yes, it did. And the significance of that trip to Bedford became starkly obvious.
A man frequently described as "cocky" was visiting (revisiting, in fact) the scene of the crime, secure in the knowledge that the police had someone else in custody for the A6 murder. He was, in short, gloating.

Miller then goes on to speculate further against his strong assertion that Hanratty had used the A6. Miller, in fact, didn't know the exact route because naughty old uncle Bob Woffinden didn't tell him. So Miller just makes it all up without any supporting evidence. Bad form Lenny.

I can imagine Millers scenario about the significance of the date in a way our own beloved Tony might have scripted it: (Tony - sorry that is not quite up to your fine standard)

Acott: All right team gather round. We have this Alfresco character and he is our man. I'd like to bring him in but we must wait until the 23rd so that it will be a month since
the crime and make it a significant date for us.
Oxford: Why's that Guv?
Acott: Come on Oxo you dolt. We haven't done any real work here and if we bollocks it up with this Arpeggio gadgy then we might ferret out some poor sucker taking his uneducated pop music mad bint for a drive to Bedford on the very date in question.
Oxford: What if we can't find Alphon Guv?
Acott: "Funny handshake" Ewer will play ball and locate him.
Oxford: Do you reckon Guv? Do you think it will stick?
Acott: Do I look bothered. Look here Oxo, old chap, some sad author years from now, when both you and me have shuffled off, will surely use it against the same said sucker and make a point of it.
Oxford: Guv, you're the dogs danglies.
Acott: Bollocks Oxo. Now where's my cuppa, I need a lie down after all this exhausting detecting lark.

But serioulsy, can we take Miller at all seriously?

Hanratty, if he was the killer, would hardly be secure in the knowledge that a man was only helping the police with their inquiries. He would be more secure if someone was actually charged with the crime.

As Jimarylin has pointed out Bedford was not the scene of the crime. Another glaring error by Mr Miller.

I bet Bob Woffinden must be kicking himself in not having made the same inspired connection that the literary giant Leonard Miller made. If this was the real reason why Miller went from a JimDidNotDoItite to a JimDidItite then he is making a totally unsupported leap of logic that landed in a whole pile of blind faith.

That blind faith part of the leap was obviously instilled into gullible old Len by the media leaked LCN DNA results. He could not challange the DNA so he shrank his own head to fit his newly found faith. He must have felt so let down by his previous media idols, Foot especially, and turned on them with a vengence. Poor old Lenny Miller, a media lecturer fooled by false propaganda from his own backyard so to speak, a sad case indeed.

Even so, the reviewer "Linda" is entitled to her opinion. I don't find her review particular helpful to the A6 case and that is my opinion.

Thnx
Steve

[jimornot?]

Hi Viv,

Have you realised how ridiculous it is to think that the mysterious Mr X would keep making regular payments to Alphon after the murder and the complete fiasco that it was, including being splashed all over the papers? And to top it all, Alphon had been named as prime suspect on BBC News by Bob Acott, given himself up and been released... and I just can't believe he then managed to menace Mr X into giving him regular weekly payments of a couple of hundred pounds!

KR,
Vic.

Hi Vic

in my previous mode of thinking, it could have been explained away by blackmail / an agreed contract amount? True also that Alphon - the supposed professional - drew attention to himself sufficiently to get police attention.

As I wrote before it was a ridiculous sum to be paid over (or indeed won on gambling as well particularly as it doesn't seem to have been a regular occurrence to pay such monies in - but I don't think any of us know that for a fact, if it was something he did regularly it would surely have been noticed by Paul Foot et al)

I love Ron's alternative pay off to MG as the Jag car.

ATB

Viv

PS When we talk of speculation causing pain to innocent victims one can only imagine the distress caused to Mrs Gregsten and her sons over stories someone close to the family paid off someone to scare off the lovers. An awful thought, truly. I believe Anthony (the younger of the 2 boys who would now be about 48 & 54) felt there was closure when the DNA results were announced but what a legacy they had to endure too

Likewise the horrors for the Hanratty family who genuinely believed in his innocence. An awful thing for them to be asked by JH to clear his name. The only person who seems to have gained anything was Peter Alphon - it seems he not only got paid off, he got away with all kinds of despicable behaviours - I just can't fathom out how he never seemed to face charges for that.

[Graham]

SteveS,

I've been out all friggin' day in the freezin' cold at a feckin' antiques market in the middle of nowhere, Worcestershire, and I just dropped into this here thread to see what's going on, and what do I find?

That you, my friend, are in great danger of assuming the mantle of the much unloved and unregretted Reg1965. State you case, my mate, but please, please don't do it in such a patronising and pseudo-aggressive manner. You may find people will react much more sympathetically to your statements if you were to present them somewhat more rationally. I can't help but notice that your latest rant has gone, well, largely un-noticed by subsequent posters.

Graham

[jimornot?]

Hi Jimornot,

I think you are right, he was too small time, although became slightly more notorious when he became a murderer. At least in the big picture he was small time but its all about small fish in a small pond. He was probably big amongst his associates because of his house breaking escapades and flash dressing. He reminds me of a small time drugs dealer who lived near me in the 60s, he had a flash car and clothes and was a Mr. Big locally and could attract some quite nice looking girls and some admiration from young men until he took too much of his own wares.

Paul Foot was a socialist from a socialist family even though more of the champagne socialists who like to patronise the lower orders possibly to make him feel better about his priviledged position, someone like Hanratty being wrongly hung really fitted his agenda, must have been a blow to him when it became obvious his prodigy really was a very nasty criminal. Even before the DNA results it wasn't a case deserving attention such as Evans or Bently and really undermined real injustices.

Hi Ron

re para 1 , it could explain why he declared an interest moving on to bigger jobs

re para 2 I don't know much about Paul Foot but he did some great work in fairness to him and his book (even if flawed now - perhaps) fired many imaginations and I certainly thought it a gross injustice worthy of attention.

Interesting too (but a complete sidenote) how Timothy Evans who was pardoned via inquiry in 1966 was still considered by that same enquiry most likely to have been responsible for the death of his wife. If true, an even more staggering coincidence of two unconnected murderers living 'together' than anything in the A6 case

atb

viv

[larue]

SteveS,
I've been out all friggin' day in the freezin' cold at a feckin' antiques market in the middle of nowhere, Worcestershire
Graham

middle of nowhere???? worcestershire????

you cheely little divil... it's the middle of sh*tsville that's where it am... i ought to know

dr larue prescribes 1/2 a bottle of scotland's finest as an anti freeze...

stay warm

[jimornot?]

SteveS,

I've been out all friggin' day in the freezin' cold at a feckin' antiques market in the middle of nowhere, Worcestershire,
Graham

hi Graham

ah but if you had spotted an absolute bargain it wouldn't have felt so cold eh?

I know it's not Worcestershire but I wonder what shops now occupy the ewer, Anderson (etc) shops in london now - in fact was looking up to remind myself where Louise Anderson's shop was and found this link

http://paul-magee.com/2009/11/louise-anderson/

some good stuff here and on other links but on the Louise Anderson link she talks of Hanratty's rather high pitched voice which I would think would be pretty memorable.


happy antique hunting

viv

[jimornot?]

middle of nowhere???? worcestershire????

you cheely little divil... it's the middle of sh*tsville that's where it am... i ought to know

dr larue prescribes 1/2 a bottle of scotland's finest as an anti freeze...

stay warm

Hi Larue

last time I was up there the New Road cricket Ground was completely under water (a couple of summers ago). hope it's drier now

only half a bottle - he did get very cold????

Viv

[Graham]

middle of nowhere???? worcestershire????

you cheely little divil... it's the middle of sh*tsville that's where it am... i ought to know

dr larue prescribes 1/2 a bottle of scotland's finest as an anti freeze...

stay warm

Larue, old pal,

let me be a little more specific. My wife (Gawd bless 'er, guv) flogs small antiques and jewellery. Last week she signed up for an antiques fair/Christmas bazaar/excuse for a piss-up at a place Domesday Book calleth Bretforton, yea, in the shire of Worcester in the parish of God-alone-knows-where. Her usual partner couldn't take her, so I did. We were in a barn, it was ball-breakingly cold, there were few punters, she took the grand total of £57, the only eyesome female anywhere near was already spoken for, and lo, by 4.00 of the clock I was sore fecked off and we goeth home, where I openeth a fresh flagon of Ye Faymousse Grousse and as I writeth this I still imbibeth of the spiritous liquor therein in order mayhap to restore the circulation of my blood. Thy prescription be noted and duly taken.

Graham

[Graham]

hi Graham

ah but if you had spotted an absolute bargain it wouldn't have felt so cold eh?

I know it's not Worcestershire but I wonder what shops now occupy the ewer, Anderson (etc) shops in london now - in fact was looking up to remind myself where Louise Anderson's shop was and found this link

http://paul-magee.com/2009/11/louise-anderson/

some good stuff here and on other links but on the Louise Anderson link she talks of Hanratty's rather high pitched voice which I would think would be pretty memorable.


happy antique hunting

viv

Hi JorN,

good link, one I've not seen for yonks, and it gives the lie to Uncle Bob Woffinden's fanciful description of JH as a 'gentle fugitive'. It appears that the bloke was a common thug.

Cheers,

Graham

[RonIpstone]

Hi Ron




I would very much like to hear your arguments for your belief in the credibilty of the DNA evidence given at the appeal in 2002.

Thnx
Steve

This is how I see the DNA evidence at the appeal.


1. The surviving exhibits which provided the DNA were (1) a sample or fragment of VS’s knickers which had been excised from the rest of the knickers on 29 December 1961 by the pathologist, Dr. Grant who was examining the exhibits at the request of Hanratty’s solicitors and (2) the hanky in which the murder gun was found on the No. 26A bus.

2. I concentrate on exhibit (1) above which was rediscovered in 1991. The evidence of the DNA of the hanky is only determinative that the hanky had been used by Hanratty, and not that he had placed the murder gun in it, still less that he had used it on the morning of 23 August 1961.

3. The knickers fragment (and the knickers of which it had formed part) had been examined and found that they contained semen stains and stains produced by vaginal fluid. The seminal fluid stains had been produced by (1) a blood group O secretor and, (2) to a lesser amount a blood group AB secretor. (JH was blood group O, and MG was blood group AB).

4. The knickers fragment was packed away separate from the other exhibits of knickers and slips belonging to VS, which were eventually destroyed after the trial. The packaging consisting of an envelope of cellophane and sellotape put inside a larger brown envelope. When discovered in 1991 the file in which this packaging was stored contained two plastic bags, one of which had contained pieces of broken glass and a small bung.

5. The possibility that there had been contamination of the knickers fragment could not be ruled out by the Crown’s expert witness, who described the possibility of contamination as remote; the Hanratty family’s expert witness put it higher as a realistic possibility.

6. But showing that there was a chance of contamination is not enough. The difficulty is that if Hanratty’s DNA had contaminated the exhibit, the DNA profile of the rapist/murder would still be present on the knickers. In this case not only has Hanratty, possibly posthumously, contaminated the knickers, or fragments thereof, he has removed the DNA of the real rapist/murderer and substituted his own.

7. The only explanation is that Hanratty caused the seminal fluid stains on the knickers of Valerie Storie when he raped her in the early hours of the morning of 23 August 1961.

8. Michael Mansfield, counsel for Michael Hanratty, conceded that the DNA evidence excluded Peter Alphon as being the murderer.

[Victor]

in my previous mode of thinking, it could have been explained away by blackmail / an agreed contract amount? True also that Alphon - the supposed professional - drew attention to himself sufficiently to get police attention.

Hi Viv,

How would that blackmail work? Give me money or I'll tell everyone what happened and put a noose around my own neck? Alphon has nothing to bargain with, without implicating himself. It just wouldn't work.

As I wrote before it was a ridiculous sum to be paid over (or indeed won on gambling as well particularly as it doesn't seem to have been a regular occurrence to pay such monies in - but I don't think any of us know that for a fact, if it was something he did regularly it would surely have been noticed by Paul Foot et al)

It was a ridiculous amount, and Foot did all he could to make the most of the zero he had... For example, what happened the year before with Alphon's account? How much was he making gambling that year for comparison?

I love Ron's alternative pay off to MG as the Jag car.

That makes far better sense.

KR,
Vic.