a6 murder

[Limehouse]

Is it my eyes, or does he look a bit like Peter Sellers?

[Limehouse]

Greetings

May I wish all A6 contributors, regular and not-so-regular, a very merry Christmas; rest, peace, good health and happiness one and all. Also, my very best wishes to you all for a fruitful and prosperous 2010.

[jimarilyn]

Signs ?

Don't know how many caught this evening's celebrity "Weakest Link" (I'm a sucker for TV quizzes) on BBC1. I found it very interesting, the 9 contestants were all former presenters of Blue Peter. One by one they were eliminated until we got to the last three. They were Peter (Purves), Valerie (Singleton) and Janet (Ellis). Those names remind me of three major players who featured in the A6 Murder Mystery. What made it even more interesting was that when these last three were left standing before Anne Robinson, Miss Singleton made the comment ..."Just in case I get it wrong".

I wonder how many on this thread believe in signs.............(no, not traffic ones)


A happy CHRISTmas and New Year to everyone.

James

[Graham]

Is it my eyes, or does he look a bit like Peter Sellers?

Hi Julie,

by gum, you're right! No sign of a monkey or anyone robbing a bank in the background, though....if you know what I mean!

Best wishes for Christmas and the New Year to all on the A6 Thread.

Regards,

Graham

[Radical Joe]

Politics

Heffer also supports the reintroduction of the death penalty...

Interesting, though hardly surprising.

In August 2002 Heffer blamed "liberal society" for the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman.

Like others of his ilk, Heffer probably blames 'liberal society' for everything from the word 'n*ggr' being considered unacceptable to the poor weather. I wonder if he blames 'liberal society' for creating the social enviroment which allowed his beloved Thatcher to become Britain's first ever female PM?

Perhaps surprisingly, in the mid-1990s he was generally supportive of New Labour, due to his dissatisfaction with John Major and the Conservative Party at the time.

That's principled of him...

In 1999 Heffer financially contributed to Neil Hamilton's unsuccessful libel action against Mohammed Al-Fayed.

Glad to see justice in action. God does indeed work in mysterious ways.

Oh, hang on...what's this?

Heffer believes that Christianity should have a strong role in shaping both the moral foundation of society and public policy, although he is personally an atheist.

He dosen't believe in God - yet would have Christianity taught to children and form the foundation of our society and public policy?

In 2006, Heffer sharply criticised the film The Wind That Shakes The Barley, a movie by director Ken Loach about the Irish War of Independence [4] despite not having watched it, comparing the film to Hitler's Mein Kampf.

So, he compares a film he's never seen to Mein Kampf? On what basis? Still, never mind, I bet his copy of Mein Kampf is well thumbed - probably signed by the author too.

I'm tempted to agree with an earlier poster, who claimed Heffer is the worst type of Tory. However, I'd question the extent to which he can reasonably be called a Tory at all anymore. I suspect his views are closer to Nick Griffin's than David Cameron's. Although I'll readily admit that I haven't the foggiest what Cameron's views on anything actually are.

Anyways, regarding the topic, someone noted earlier in the thread that Foot's article on the case was politically motivated (and thus should be read in this light). Fair point, although surely the exact same argument should be made for Heffer's article too. We are talking about someone who most certainly has a political agenda, not to mention someone who advocates the return of the death penalty. Given the implications for his call for executions, it would hardly become him to argue anything other than that Hanratty's execution was just, would it. We would also do well, when considering his article, to note that this man argues we should teach something to people (Christianity), even though he personally dosen't believe it's validity of its claims as an historical truth. Forsaking what he believes to be the truth for a 'higher' cause, in other words. Couldn't the same be said for his article?

[Limehouse]

Brilliant post Radical Joe, a real tonic for Christmas Eve when thoughts of a more slushy nature usually prevail.

It can be very difficult in today's society, to look around at the terrible deeds humans do to each other and conclude that the only rational course of action is a return to the days when wicked crimes were punished with death. However, a closer look at those times will show that often, the criminal punished with death was one of the weakest in society - not blessed with the best education or greatest intellect. Justice was not always done and not always distributed fairly.

Additionally, is it really progress to move back to such punishments when we should really be moving towards solving the problems that cause such criminality? I more often these days find myself sitting and wondering what drives people to do such things? What makes a group of young men have such anger and hate inside them that they will kick another man to death because he challenges their anti-social behaviour? What drives parents to stand by whilst their offspring torment and taunt a woman and her two disabled children until she locks herself in a car and burns herself and her daughter to death? Have we declined to such depths because we no longer have the death penalty, or has a deeper rift in society occurred? I remember Thatcher saying something like 'There's no such thing as society' so maybe a whole generation of people have grown up believing that, thinking that the only thing that matters is their individual comfort, their individual rights (to do as they like) and their individual survival.

[jimornot?]

Brilliant post Radical Joe, a real tonic for Christmas Eve when thoughts of a more slushy nature usually prevail.

It can be very difficult in today's society, to look around at the terrible deeds humans do to each other and conclude that the only rational course of action is a return to the days when wicked crimes were punished with death. However, a closer look at those times will show that often, the criminal punished with death was one of the weakest in society - not blessed with the best education or greatest intellect. Justice was not always done and not always distributed fairly.

Additionally, is it really progress to move back to such punishments when we should really be moving towards solving the problems that cause such criminality? I more often these days find myself sitting and wondering what drives people to do such things? What makes a group of young men have such anger and hate inside them that they will kick another man to death because he challenges their anti-social behaviour? What drives parents to stand by whilst their offspring torment and taunt a woman and her two disabled children until she locks herself in a car and burns herself and her daughter to death? Have we declined to such depths because we no longer have the death penalty, or has a deeper rift in society occurred? I remember Thatcher saying something like 'There's no such thing as society' so maybe a whole generation of people have grown up believing that, thinking that the only thing that matters is their individual comfort, their individual rights (to do as they like) and their individual survival.

2 very thought provoking posts - and I am interested to learn what posters think could be the answer to these problems.

is it anger and hate or boredom, complete lack of concern for others, thrill seeking also/instead? I don't see how more strict penalties will help other than to totally remove such people from society but sadly there will be plently of others to replace them. You are right Julie that the cause has to be understood and remedied if at all possible but how and where? Since I cannot comprehend how anyone can behave that way I am afraid I have no answers at all. I wonder if concerted revulsion of such behaviours by peers can become a force for initiating change albeit gradually?

I don't think it is all about parenting either. I know from within my family and close friends, how children, brought up the same way as their siblings, can be so different and with totally diverse values and outlooks to those siblings. Sometimes fairly extreme - be it homophobic, racist, sexist, ageist or whatever when no-one else in their immediate family feels that way.

There certainly are some rifts in society and it is worrying how a number of people appear to have no respect for others. To my mind it seems to be more prevalent as each year passes although that may be me focusing on the negatives and not remembering examples of kindnesses and selflessness that still thankfully exist.

But that can wait for later. It's Christmas now - i wish you all a happy one.

Viv

[jimarilyn]

Transcription of PLA's Paris interview, May 1967

The interview that Peter Alphon gave to a reporter days after his Paris press conference in May 1967 was almost 16 minutes long. Only very short portions of that interview, understandably, were screened in Bob Woffinden's very impressive 1992 documentary, "Hanratty, the Mystery of Deadman's Hill". Very recently I accessed a website which showed this Paris interview in it's entirety. The link to that website follows at the end of this lengthy post, for which I make no apologies.

This post is a 99% faithful and accurate transcript of that interview. As anyone who watches that interview in full will discover there are quite a few instances where Alphon and his interviewer interrupt each other and naturally try to make their voice the dominant one. That's why a 100% accurate transcript was nigh on impossible for me to do..............




INTERVIEWER : "Mr Alphon, are you or are you not the A6 killer ?"

PETER ALPHON : "Well I stated that I was at the press conference that I held. I held it for that specific purpose, and when I say something I stand by it"

INT : "So you are the man who fired two shots at Michael Gregsten and killed him, and who raped Valerie Storie and fired seven shots at her ?"

PA : "That's what I said at the press conference and I'm going to stand by it".

INT : "Now there seem to be three different opinions of you. People think that you're either a liar, a killer or that you're mentally disturbed and unbalanced. Which are you ?"

PA : "Maybe it's all three."

INT : "Now if you really are the killer and having confessed why didn't you go to the police and give yourself up ?"

PA : "That's erm, I think it's a law of self-preservation, which would stop anyone doing that."

INT : "Can I ask you, why do you think the police haven't arrested you since your last public confession here in Paris ?"

PA : "Why do I think that ? Well I think they'd very much like to arrest me and I don't think that it's because of the A6 murder. I think they'd like to arrest me if they could trump up another little charge and get me. And I think at the moment it may take a little time, by the time they get themselves together, because they're very very stupid you know."

INT : "Isn't it more likely that the police haven't arrested you because they are satisfied that you are not the killer and isn't it the case that you've made your confession because you know that the police know that you are not the killer ?"

PA : "That is not the real reason why I have confessed. The real reason why I have confessed, and I said it at the press conference, is I want to drag the name of British Justice in the mud, where it belongs. I think I neglected to say that at the press conference, where it belongs, in the mud. I'm saying now that I've done it, but I don't like other people saying it, you see ? Does that make sense to you ?"

INT : "No....it doesn't make the slightest sense."

PA : "Well then let's put it this way, I've done it, now I want to forget about it, you see. If you'd done the murder, you'd probably want to forget about it, you wouldn't want to go on thinking about it the whole time. Now there are these people, you don't want me to name them...I will if you want me to. They are saying that I have. "

INT : "It was you who called the press conference here in Paris."

PA : "It was me here. But it's the only time after six years. I've been forced to do it by the actions of these people, to bring it out in the open."

INT : "Mr Alphon, I still find it hard to believe that you really would confess to being the killer if you were the killer, because you'd be inviting a possible life sentence "

PA : "I might be inviting a lynching, I might be inviting a lynching, but I think, you see the thing is this. This murder happened six years ago and they've hanged someone wrongfully, they've hanged him wrongfully. Are they going to hang..., say fifteen years..capital punishment is finished. Are they going to lock someone up for fifteen years now ? That's two people they've done."

INT : "You're gambling on the fact that they wouldn't lock you up."

PA : "I think it is a...when you say gamble, naturally when you say this thing. I made this statement and I've weighed the chances of being locked up, I've weighed the chances of being locked up."

INT : "If you were charged in the future, how would you take that ?"

PA : "With the A6 Murder ?"

INT : "Yes"

PA : "I should be....well, let me....if I said I'd be delighted...well that may be a little bit hard for your audience, the general public, to appreciate. But as I've been charged with so many things that I haven't done, I would at last like to see the British Police charge me with something I have done.

INT : "Now before I talk to you about some aspects of the murder itself, I'd like to get some sort of impression of you, the man. How do you regard yourself ?"

PA : "How do I see myself ? You mean basically ?

INT : "Yes. What sort of guy do you think you are, yourself ?"

PA : "I think I'm a Nazi"

INT : "A Nazi ?"

PA : "Mmm. That's the beginning and end of my life."

INT : "What do you believe in ? What are the pillars of your faith ? If you have any faith."

PA : "Well my faith is in common decency."

INT : "Now before the A6 Murder in August 1961, you're said to have been studying Philosophy and I believe you called it Occult Philosophy. And that you said that your aim was to find your purpose in life. Did you reach any conclusions ?"

PA : "I didn't say that my aim in studying it was to find my purpose in life. What I said was that I was asked why I studied it. And I felt that people, the basic thing they had to do was to find their aim in life, and to do that one has got to study Philosophy."

INT : "But having asked yourself this question what answers....."

PA : "I felt that I knew my aim in life all along"

INT : "Which is what ?"

PA : "Let's say it's a Messianic Mission."

INT : "What do you mean ?"

PA : "What I say."

INT : "Well I don't understand what you mean."

PA : "Well....if you want a dictionary......Everybody knows what a Messianic Mission is."

INT : "Well I don't, for a start."

PA "Well Messianic means... pertaining to a Messiah, and you know what a mission is. And a Messiah's a Messiah."

INT : So you had a crusade of some sort ?"

PA : "Exactly."

INT : "And what was this crusade ?"

PA : "The crusade was against indecency, immorality, those two things, that's enough isn't it ?"

INT : "How have you lived since the A6 Murder ?"

PA : "How do you mean, how ? Just breathe the air in and breathe it out again ? Or do you mean.......

INT : "How have you got money to pay hotel bills and how do you have money to eat and sleep and do what you want to ?"

PA : "I've got a private income."

INT : "If you really are the A6 killer, the details of the murder are as presumably strong in your mind today as they were in August 1961. Will you describe to me how you killed Michael Gregsten and how you raped and nearly killed Valerie Storie ?

PA : "Just the actual shooting do you want ? You want the actual shooting ?"

INT : "I want what you say you did on that night."

PA : "What, from start to finish ?"

INT : "Yes."

PA : "Well, I went along to the cornfield. As regards to the papers, it's all just hazy in my memory. I don't know what they say. I can only remember what I remember....and in this context....I went along to the cornfield about nine o'clock. Tapped on the door of the car, got in and I sat there. That's the way I felt."

INT : "How did you kill Michael Gregsten ?"

PA : "Put a bullet in his head. One bullet."

INT : "Alright......can I quiz you on this ?"

PA : "Yes"

INT : "The police prosecution said you fired two bullets at him."

PA "Well I only put one bullet in his head."

INT : "So here is a contradiction."

PA : "Well it's not my contradiction."

INT : "The Prosecution, on the opening day of the trial of Hanratty, said you fired two bullets."

PA : "At him ?"

INT : "At Gregsten ?"

PA : "I put one bullet at him. One."

INT : "So the Prosecution and the police were wrong ?"

PA : "I don't know what they said there. I hadn't followed ... the.....I'd read it at the time, but really...I'm......it's not a case of writing everything down and memorising it. I fired one bullet."

INT : "And how many bullets did you fire at Miss Storie ?"

PA : "Well I emptied the rest.....it was an automatic and I emptied the rest of the bullets eventually into her, I'm afraid. I'm sorry about it but there you are. What were left of them, he was dead, obviously. I mean it didn't take a doctor to see that. And the rest of them, this was in the dark outside. I couldn't see too very well and I'm not a very good shot. I'd never handled a gun before. It was put into my hand by somebody that said they knew something about guns. But maybe that they could have given me better equipment. Probably a gun that was bought in Woolworth's or somewhere like that."

INT : "Is that all you did ? You fired the remaining bullets in the gun ?"

PA : "I fired the remaining bullets. I didn't count them. I'd read in the press since that it was six. Well, it may well have been, it could have been five, it could have been seven."

INT : "Well in fact, on the opening day of the trial, the prosecution said you emptied the rest of the gun, which was four shots and then you re-loaded and fired three more shots at Miss Storie.

PA : "Well they weren't there so they don't know."

INT : "But forensic evidence would have proved all this. But you would say this is nonsense ?"

PA : "Well all that I would say was that the gun .....I don't understand guns....I said to you earlier on about television cameras, I'm not technically minded. All that I know was that a gun was put into my hand, which was sufficient if the need came to to destroy both of the people. And Gregsten had gone with one shot. And as regards Miss Storie....I'm afraid she had to go....as a vital witness. I don't think she......as it turns out she wasn't, but we're not to know that. And I'm afraid she went with the others. But we don't keep count you know. I don't keep a notebook and write these things down."

INT : "But you would know whether you re-loaded the gun or not."

PA : "I didn't re-load the gun. Certainly not. I wouldn't know how to re-load a gun anyway."

INT : "So here is a major clash. The prosecution say you re-loaded and fired three more shots. You say you did not re-load the gun."

PA : "I didn't re-load my gun, no."

INT : "According to Miss Storie's evidence the killer was uneducated and hesitant. You're neither of those."

PA : "You say so, you say so."

INT : "You don't appear to be."

PA : "I don't know, I don't know."

INT : "That's my impression and other people's impressions."

PA : "Is it ? Is it ? I don't know...I don't know."

INT : "Also the killer had an East London accent. You don't."

PA : "Well, you say so.

INT : "Also, the killer was immaculately dressed. You were not on that evening. Also, the killer was in his twenties, you were in your thirties. Also the killer said his name was Jim or James. Yours is Peter. Also, the killer, according to Miss Storie had very large icy blue eyes."

PA : "Mmm, according to her, yes."

INT : "Yours are brownish."

PA : "Mmm."

INT : "Now all this contradicts you being the killer. What do you say to that ?"

PA : "I think that what you've done, you've just put Acott's twelve points to me, which I think have been destroyed by people that are not my friends, admittedly, but I think they have destroyed them adequately. And what you are saying is absolute rubbish."

INT : "But Miss Storie's description doesn't fit you in any respect."

PA : "Let us go through the points again, one by one. I would like to do that."

INT : "Alright, you want to go over the points. The first one, the killer had an East London accent. You do not."

PA : "Well, so you say. I wouldn't have thought so."

INT : "Do you think you have an East London accent ?"

PA : "I.....let's put it this way. I can put a certain veneer on my voice if I want to. And when I don't want to I don't. But I think it's a London accent and I don't think there's very much difference in an East London and a West London accent."

INT : "Point two, according to Miss Storie and the evidence the killer was immaculately dressed on the night of the murder. You were not."

PA : "I don't think anyone is immaculately dressed when they're going to do a murder, anyway. I think it's a load of rubbish. I'm never immaculately dressed anyway."

INT : "Point three, the killer was said to be in his twenties. You were in your thirties."

PA : "I was just....what was I, thirty one, and I looked a lot younger than I was. I may not now, but I did then."

INT : "Point four, the killer said his name was Jim or James, yours is Peter."

PA : "Well, the killer would hardly give his real name, unless he was a complete idiot and I don't even think Hanratty was that. And I'm certainly not so I gave another name."

INT : "And according to Miss Storie, she was very definite about this, the killer had very large, icy blue eyes, yours are brown."

PA : "Nobody's got large, icy blue eyes anyway. I never seen it. I never seen it at all."

INT : "It's a rather foolish view to say nobody has."

PA : "Well I never seen anyone, I don't know what it means, you know large icy blue eyes.

INT : "It means what she said, big eyes and they're blue."

PA : "With ice in them ? What does it mean ? You got blue eyes... but I wouldn't....they may be large, but large ice......? It sounds like a police formula, you know. This sounds very much like a police formula."

INT : "How did you feel on the day that Hanratty was hanged ?"

PA : "Erm, I......well I didn't feel too good, I can tell you. Up to that day as well, I tried my damnedest in every way possible and in ways that were unconstitutional, you know. France committed suicide....I needn't say more."

INT : "But why didn't you come forward when you knew that he was going to be hanged ?"

PA : "This is a case of self preservation. I didn't frame him, it wasn't me. I didn't frame him, why should I come forward ? If I came forward, well maybe they'll hush it up. Maybe they'll hang me."

INT : "But how can you say in one breath that you did everything to stop Hanratty being hanged and in the other breath self preservation stopped you ?"

PA : "Well.......when I say everything and you said why didn't you come forward, then I better qualify that and say that I did everything but come forward."

INT : "Can I put it to you squarely, that you are, Mr Alphon, a mentally sick exhibitionist ?"

PA : "Well I'm hardly going to go along with that, am I ? But if I am a mentally sick exhibitionist I would want to know what happened to the other mentally sick exhibitionists that have been doing this before. Not with my authority, but they have been doing it and causing me pain and our friend Miss Storie, as you put it to me just now. I would want to know what they were, you see. If I am sick, then Lord Russell is sick as well, isn't he ? And Mr Justice."

INT : "Can I ask you one last question ?"

PA : "You can ask me what you like."

INT : "Would you like to kill again ?"

PA : "Certainly not ! Certainly not. Got no blood lust on me whatsoever. It was somethjing I would probably never do again, unless of course this was something to do with war and it was something I wanted to do. And I felt I was preserving something that was decent to me, then I would go to war. I'm not a pacifist but private murder is out. I would do it in self-defence. But we've got no blood lust on us."

http://video.aol.co.uk/video-detail/itn-reporting-67-peter-alphon-claims-to-be-a6-murderer/3569086803/?icid=VIDURV01

PS. When accessing this website just click on the tab "Play Clip". You can view the six segments for free, don't pay the £149 to buy the clip !!

[Limehouse]

Thanks for this Jim,

A good way to kick off the new year.

What a strange person Alphon was. He say's he's a Nazi - then in the next breath he says his faith is in 'common decency'. How much 'common decency' did he detect in the Nazi aims? He claims his crusade was against 'indecency and immorality' but most people would find rape and murder indecent and immoral.

If you were going to find evidence to convict a man, you wouldn't look for it in this interview. However, that's probably Alphon taking out a little insurance - his cliams completely fly in the face of the proven evidence. Apparently, the tapes that Justice made were much more revealing.

Alphon was a crank and I think the police knew this. However, there is much more to him than that. It is fairly well established that he escaped with very scant punishment (and in some cases with no punishment at all) for some very unpleasant behaviour indeed and it has to be wondered why?

[Graham]

Ive got that Alphon interview on video somewhere. As Julie says, if you were looking to convict someone of a murder you wouldn't be looking at this particular interview... However, he ran rings around the somewhat useless interviewer, but without actually saying anything. He also inserted his little 'get-out clause' by claiming that 'he' had shot Gregsten only once, when it had long been established that Gregsten had been shot twice. I don't know how much Alphon was paid for that interview - he was without doubt paid - and as I've always maintained if and when Alphon saw profit, or even a free lunch, he'd go for it.

It does indeed seem that he got off very lightly for certain of his misdemeanours, and when I get some time I intend to re-read the literature most carefully to try and establish if this indeed was the case. Or if, in fact, his misdemeanours were more imagined that actual...

As an aside, over the holiday I read a very interesting book - "Voodoo Histories" by David Aaronovitch. In it, he outlines various well-known conspiracy theories and hoaxes. Although not, interestingly, anything to do with the Royal Conspiracy and Jack the Ripper, or even the Ripper Diary Hoax. He deals with, for example, the JFK Assassination, the death of Marilyn Monroe, the Holy Blood And Holy Grail hoax, Princess Diana and Hilda Murrell.

Of some interest to me is his mention of the 'In Cold Blood' case, as immortalised by Truman Capote, in which a pair of feckless drifters wander into a small US town and murder a family purely for gain. Having killed, the drifters wander off again and it takes some years before they're finally caught. Aaaronovitch states that in a short time after the murders there was already talk in that small town that the murders were the result of some kind of conspiracy, even though there was no evidence whatsoever for that assumption. It seems that for whatever reasons, we don't like to see what we perceive as loose ends and unanswered questions, and must therefore devise our own explanation(s) for what happened - the death of Princess Diana also falls into this category.

I rather think something similar could be applied to the A6 Case, in which at the time (and later) certain parties who, for their own reasons, were and are unable to accept the straightforward and most logical explanation for the crime, devised a conspiracy (in this case, of course, aided and abetted by one P L Alphon, who just happened to be in town that day, so to speak).

Cheers,

Graham

[Limehouse]

Hi Graham,

Interesting and level-headed post to start the new year!

I am not usually given to conspiracy theories. For example, for me, Princess Diana got into a car driven by a man who had been drinking. She did not fasten her seat belt and, as a result of the driver going to fast (probably not helped by the press on his heels) there was an accident and she died. A sad but common-enough story.

However, in the A6 case there are grounds, I feel, to question the verdict and these are:

1. The line of enquiry seemed limited. Quite reasonably, the police asked hotel keepers and landladies to identify anyone acting strangely. Logically, they believed the killer would, after such a crime, behave strangely. They found such a man, became convinced he was 'the man' and although he was not, low and behold, up popped another man, staying in the same hotel, who fitted the bill. If it was not for the cartridges, would they have looked any closer at the Vienna Hotel? The cartridges were found, what, three weeks after the crime? Three weeks after the gun and other cartridges had been handed in? Can anyone be blamed for thinking that strange?

2. Gregsten's brother-in-law was known to shady characters who were known to Hanratty. When I say 'shady' I mean, of course, Anderson. I stand by everything I have written about her. She turned against Hanratty because she was under pressure from the police. I would bet my bottom (it once won a prize for equalling that of Felicity Kendall!!!) that the story Anderson told about Hanratty and the gun stored at Dixie's house was codswallop. People have said that she was forced to accept stolen goods from Hanratty because she was scared of him. Evidence she gave in a press interview AFTER Hanratty's arrest does not support this. 'I soon discovered he could not read and write, but that made no difference to me' she told the interviewer ' That sounds very much like someone expressing genuine warmth, not fear. Next, Anderson thinks what Hanratty needs is a 'nice steady girlfriend' so she fixes Hanratty up with her friend! How many people would palm a friend off with someone who acred them to bits? Although I am digressing, what I am strying to establish is that there were thin but significant connections between the victim, the accused and people they both knew, even though the crime was supposed to be random, and happened dozens of miles away from the common ground they shared. Again, you can't blame people for suspecting a conspiracy.

3. Nudd's statements were variable and unreliable. What is the real truth? Hanrattydidn'tdoitittes have been accused of fitting their stories around what they believed to have happened but it could equally be said of the police investigation. Nudd's 'truthful' statement seems to rule out Alphon and the testimonies of France, Langdale and Anderson incriminate Hanratty but are they the truth??.

4. In line-ups involving Hanratty, he was disadvantaged by 'standing out' because of his hair colour or his accent. Particularly concerning the accent, in days when the London accent had not spread as far as it has now, Hanratty must have been the only man in that line-up that pronounced 'thinking' as 'finking'.

5. It can be argued that the police and prosecution knew they had a shaky case. It was expected that the trial would be at the Old Bailey, or at least away from the area where the crimes were committed. However, the trial was held locally where, naturally, feelings about the crime were stronger. This was unfair to Hanratty.

All these little things add up. They make you wonder how much care was taken over ensuring a safe conviction was been secured, or whether the police were so keen to get a conviction they manipulated the evidence and some of the witnesses because they had a known criminal in the frame and nothing much else.

[Graham]

Hi Julie,

no time just now for a proper reply to your post, but I just want to say that Aaronovitch's book debunked hoaxes and conspiracy theories rather than support them. The only one mentioned in his book that I still have doubts about is JFK's assassination.

More later - off to shops!

Cheers,

Graham

[Hatchett]

Hi Limehouse,

I think your post sums up the problem with the arguments on this thread. The issues, as I see it, are that there clearly appears to have been a lack of substantial evidence at the trial to have convicted Hanratty of murder, attempted murder, and rape. I think that that is undeniable.

Because of that there are grounds to support that he could have been innocent.

The problem however is that the DNA evidence, which to my satisfaction, proves that he was guilty, no matter what lack of real evidence was presented or established at the trial.

The difficulty with the two opposing sides on this issue seem to be that the people who believe that Hanratty is innocent won’t accept the DNA evidence and are still pouring through the lack of evidence presented at the trial, while the people who believe that Hanratty was guilty, because of the DNA evidence, are trying to justify that view by looking at the evidence that was undoubtedly thin, and even lacking at the time Hanratty was convicted.

On that basis neither side will ever be able to convince the other.

For this reason, I can see this thread going on forever.

Who knows, in time the thread itself may even become the story line for an episode of Dr. Who.

Happy New Year to everyone by the way. Both to pro and anti Hanrattyites.

[Limehouse]

Hi Hatchett,

Yes, you are absolutely right.

However, as another poster pointed out recently, those who were convinced of Hanratty's innocence prior to the DNA results were so convinced because the evidence was so thin and appeared, in places, to be contrived. To have doubted the evidence, they must have then doubted the testimony of crucial witnesses such as Valerie Storie. Many of these people then simply accepted the DNA evidence as proof, showing a great deal of faith in the science and the skill of those who state that the DNA evidence is sound.

I do not share that view. I do not think that in this case the DNA evidence is sound. If I can have doubts about all the things I have previously mentioned, they cannot be removed by the DNA evidence. I think, given the evidence and testimony given by Valerie Storie, there should have been much more forensic evidence in the car. She removed her knickers and replaced them after the rape. There should have been much more forensic evidence on the car seat and there was none. I accept that no other DNA profile was found but that does nothing to convince me on the grounds that if the killer's forensic evidence can be missing from the car, it can be missing from the knicker fragment tested.

[Hatchett]

Hi Limehouse,

This is what I am saying. And so it goes on, infinitum. Never ending. Either the DNA is accepted or not accepted, which has to be a personal assessment. The rest will always be disputed.

It would be interesting to see how these arguments have developed in a hundred years from now. My guess is that they will still revolve around the same issues.

Best wishes.