a6 murder

[SteveS]

Oh well, we really are back to square one on these threads.

Both camps are so entrenched that they are not going to change their minds based on the evidence currently available.

I for one will not be posting anymore until something new comes to light. Just arguing the toss for the sport is not my idea of fun really.

Jim, Tony, Julie
I'll keep in contact via PM etc.

[Victor]

Hi all,

Now Steve has conceded that his arguments aren't strong enough to convince anyone I guess it's down to DM and his revelations...

I did note the Faithful will still get their updates though.

Live long and prosper,
Vic.

[Tony]

Hi all,

Now Steve has conceded that his arguments aren't strong enough to convince anyone I guess it's down to DM and his revelations...

I did note the Faithful will still get their updates though.

Live long and prosper,
Vic.

If black is black and somebody told me it was white then I might just try to enlighten them once and after that I would allow them to think whatsoever they liked. I would perceive them as fools but what would be the point in my getting involved? I would obviously be wasting my time.
You think Hanratty was/is a done deal. You have told us as much so many times that your head must be ready to explode. Exactly why are you wasting your time on an issue that only fools argue the opposite to you? Have you nothing better to do in your life than try to convince those idiots that they were wrong?
You would no doubt fare better with the black is black and not white argument.

Considering the depths and lengths of your arguments it would not surprise me one bit if there were not something else in this case, or on this message board, that is known only to you.

Your second sentence was typical and a wonder to behold.

Tony.

[caz]

Pot kettle, Tony?

Or are you admitting that your mission here is to convince the non-believers that black is white?

Love,

Caz
X

[Victor]

You think Hanratty was/is a done deal. You have told us as much so many times that your head must be ready to explode.

Hi Tony,

On the contrary, my head is fine and dandy thank you. I tend not to get wound up about things in general, and have no problem explaining the facts to people over and over again. If you get all emotional about things then maybe you should try googling some relaxation techniques.

Exactly why are you wasting your time on an issue that only fools argue the opposite to you? Have you nothing better to do in your life than try to convince those idiots that they were wrong?

I don't think I'm wasting my time. I'd love to get to the bottom of exactly why Hanratty chose to hold up an impoverished couple in a moggie in the middle of nowhere. But we've had this topic raised before many times, the "who" is sorted for me, the "why" is still very much a mystery and that's why I'm still here.

Considering the depths and lengths of your arguments it would not surprise me one bit if there were not something else in this case, or on this message board, that is known only to you.

Nice paradox. How can anything posted on this public message board be known only to me?

Your second sentence was typical and a wonder to behold.

Deliberately attempting to arouse others curiosity about clandestine conversations is a juvenile game, so I responded in kind.

KR,
Vic.

[Black Rabbit]

A6 Pics Taken Today

Photo's taken of the A6 scene a couple of hours ago. Just a sort of then and now thing.

[Black Rabbit]

A6 pics pt 2

just another comparison.

[jimarilyn]

If black is black and somebody told me it was white then I might just try to enlighten them once and after that I would allow them to think whatsoever they liked. I would perceive them as fools but what would be the point in my getting involved? I would obviously be wasting my time.
You think Hanratty was/is a done deal. You have told us as much so many times that your head must be ready to explode. Exactly why are you wasting your time on an issue that only fools argue the opposite to you? Have you nothing better to do in your life than try to convince those idiots that they were wrong?
You would no doubt fare better with the black is black and not white argument.

Considering the depths and lengths of your arguments it would not surprise me one bit if there were not something else in this case, or on this message board, that is known only to you.

Your second sentence was typical and a wonder to behold.

Tony.

I think Victor would argue that Black is merely a dark shade of White and vice-versa, Tony, just for the halibut. He always wants the last word. I've lost count of the numerous errors and innacuracies I've pointed out to Victor in his posts over the past couple of years but he just either ignores them completely or comes up with some nonsensical counter argument. Maybe it's down to his insomnia, I don't know.

Victor claims to have met Jean Justice (what a very apt name by the way) in his younger years ( it's 20 years since Mr Justice passed away ). Frankly, I don't believe him. I think if anyone on this thread had met Jean Justice he/she would have a lot more to say on the matter than the meagre few words that Victor came up with. And those few words were far from complimentary. He kind of reminds me of Hans Christian Anderson or the brothers Grimm.


regards,
James


PS. Many thanks for the very interesting comparison photographs, Black Rabbit. Are those houses still there ?

[Black Rabbit]

[QUOTE PS. Many thanks for the very interesting comparison photographs, Black Rabbit. Are those houses still there ?[/QUOTE]

As can be seen in my previous post(& below). These houses are known as Oxley Farm Cottages.

The attahed pic was taken this afternoon at approximately the exact location where the incident took place.

[P.L.A]

Forty years of campaigning and unearthing new evidence and non-disclosures resulted in a submission that failed to cause many ripples in the Court of Appeal. The Hanratty family grounds for appeal weren’t a success by any stretch of the imagination when presented there.

I feel Woffinden is misleading his readers when writing articles such as the one recently discussed on this forum.

In my opinion, there is an extremely low probability of a third appeal. I can’t see that future legislation on the reliability and admissibility of LCN DNA would have any bearing on the A6 case.

Upholding the conviction was based on the strength and fairness of what happened at Bedford Assizes in 1962 – the Appeal Judges only cited their interpretation of the DNA evidence to support this view. Paragraph 105 of the Judgment say “...if the appellant is able to show that because of lack of disclosure or the misdirections in the summing up the trial was still fatally flawed the DNA evidence will not rescue the conviction.”

An important principle is quoted in paragraph 91 of the Judgment – “Trial by jury does not mean trial by jury in the first instance and trial by judges of the Court of Appeal in the second....”

This is what the Judges had to say about the various grounds for Hanratty’s appeal:

Ground 1 (paragraph 132) - Neither, in all the circumstances, do we accept that DS Acott's answer that Valerie Storie had always been consistent in her description throws doubt upon his honesty. There is nothing to show this was anything other than an innocent mistake.

Ground 2 (paragraph 135) - The defence did not doubt Valerie Storie's honesty (nor could they) and cross-examining her against an account within 12 hours of the horrific events to which she was a witness, while she was in hospital gravely ill, is unlikely to have had any serious impact on anyone's view of her reliability. As to consistency, it should be noted that after referring to the "real proper glimpse" from the front of the car, the deposition does record other, albeit less significant, sightings in these terms: ....

Ground 3 (paragraph 139) - Given that the photograph she picked out was apparently of a man with blue eyes and light brown hair, this point is unlikely to have advanced the defence case.

Ground 4 (paragraph 143) - The most important feature (namely that Valerie Storie had identified a volunteer on the parade who could not have been involved) was fully deployed before the jury.

Ground 5 (paragraph 147) - It was conducted in the presence of James Hanratty's solicitor who made no complaint at the time and the fairness of the parade was fully explored at the trial.

Ground 6 (paragraph 149) - In the circumstances of this case, we do not believe that the questions asked on the parade caused any unfairness.

Ground 7 (paragraph 157) - Having said that, none of this evidence was without its difficulties for the defence and although this represents the high watermark of non-disclosure in this case we do not consider that, on its own, this feature reveals such fatal unfairness as itself to render the conviction unsafe.

Ground 8 (paragraph 167) - Whereas there was a failure to disclose material to which we shall have to return, we do not accept that the events bear this construction, or give rise to the possibility of that type of submission. ..... The circumstances in which they were found (and the discrepancies involved) were fully ventilated at the trial.

Ground 9 (paragraph 168) - The next ground of appeal concerning the Vienna Hotel relates to undisclosed inconsistent interviews of William Nudds and Florence Snell (although inconsistent statements were disclosed and were the subject of detailed cross-examination at the trial). Mr Mansfield argues that this failure deprived the defence of material affecting the credibility of two important prosecution witnesses.

Ground 10 (paragraph 173) - More significantly, we do not accept that this material impugns the integrity of the evidence relating to the cartridge cases in any way.....Whatever coincidence this was, there is nothing in this error to support any theory of fabrication or plant.

Ground 11 (paragraph 162) - In any event, her description of the man (about 25, 5 ft. 7 ins., medium build, thick wavy hair, mousey colour, clean shaven) is unlikely to have taken the defence very far and it would have been remarkable had they sought to call this witness to make a positive non identification and risk her cross-examination on the various features of similarity.

Ground 12 (paragraphs 180 and 184) - We accept Dr Baxendale's evidence, but we do not consider that his evidence establishes that it is probable there was anything improper about the manner in which the notes were recorded..... Reduced to its proper significance this ground of appeal is of peripheral, if any significance.

Ground 13 (paragraph 201) - In the circumstances, we do not accept that the failure to disclose such material as the police had in relation to Rhyl would have made any difference to the way in which the trial was conducted.

Grounds 14 and 15 (paragraph 208) - In our judgment if the non-directions stood alone, even without the DNA evidence, they would not justify the quashing of the conviction.

Ground 16 (paragraph 209) - We do not consider this ground of appeal is of any substance.

Ground 17 (paragraph 210) - The other evidence that he was in London on that date, as he said, is overwhelming and, in common with the views of the Court of Criminal Appeal before whom this point (with others) was taken, we consider that there is nothing in it.

I know that Hanratty’s supporters reject this as a biased ridiculous judgment. Nevertheless, it is what the Judges said. For this reason, I wouldn’t have thought that changes in the admissibility of LCN DNA evidence would lead to yet another appeal.

It should be remembered that about 30% of CCRC cases that reach appeal are rejected by the court. Paragraph 9 says “Having conducted further enquiries (including obtaining DNA evidence), on 26 March 1999, the Commission referred the conviction to this Court pursuant to section 13 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. The Commission stated, in accordance with the statutory provisions, that there was a real possibility that the conviction would not be upheld.” It seems that a case needs a 70% chance of success before the CCRC will refer it to appeal.

Paragraph 215 of the judgment is interesting – “Finally we appreciate the immense amount of diligence shown by the Commission. We do not consider it would be right to attempt to judge the Commission with the benefit of hindsight in relation to this case”. .......

The Court of Appeal quashed Derek Bentley’s conviction because of the unfairness of his trial – and this case was ten years older than Hanratty’s. The Judgment concluded that Bentley’s trial was flawed, but there was still a case for him to answer.

Peter.

[Limehouse]

Hello all,

I have been out of contact for a while as I now have limited access to a computer and the internet and I have also been swamped with work and family concerns.

However, I have been able to catch up with recent posts and must say I am fairly impressed with contributions on both sides of the fence.

I am particularly impressed with the work done by Steve to raise concerns about the validity of the type of DNA testing carried out on the A6 samples after such a long passage of time. I am not a scientist – far from it – so I don’t understand all the technicalities and chemistry involved, but I do know that several respected scientists have raised doubts over this type of testing.

The evidence against Hanratty as presented at the trial still causes grave doubts for me. Here was a man with an extensive criminal past, a self confessed house-breaker and car thief whose criminality caused his victims and his family a great deal of grief. However, here also is a man with no history of violence, with no history of sexual depravity, and, despite his criminality, a man who was quite vulnerable due to his learning difficulties. I am not going to go through all the things that bother me about this case once again. All regular posters know I have grave doubts about the cartridges and the gun and I am very suspicious about the lack of forensic evidence in the car itself. I cannot simply set those doubts aside due to scientific evidence that is less than sound.

Steve, you have made a huge contribution to this thread and it would be a great shame if you did not continue.

Victor, you referred to the group of doubters as ‘the Faithful’. That for me is a problematic phrase. To whom am I faithful? It makes me sound like a rabid fanatic, obsessed by Hanratty in a messianic way. I am, in fact, concerned that justice may not have been done and that there is at least a possibility that another man may have been responsible for the murder and rape (though probably not, I feel, Alphon). There is also a strong possibility that other people were involved in this crime who have escaped justice and that there is the possibility of corruption that has not been investigated.

It is highly unlikely that the full truth of the events of that night all those years ago will ever be fully known and it is equally unlikely that what ever the truth is, it will be wholly accepted by all sides.

Take care all.

[P.L.A]

Hi Julie

From what I understand, there was very little indication during the five hours or so the gunman was with Storie and Gregsten that he was a violent person.

Why would he be looking for ways to tie them up if he intended to shoot them?

Peter

[jimarilyn]

Why would he be looking for ways to tie them up if he intended to shoot them?

Hi Peter,

It's my understanding that the gunman was feeling rather tired, physically and mentally (it was around 2 am'ish don't forget) from the strain, and did this so he could get his head down for a "kip". For what it's worth, it's my own personal opinion that he fully intended to use the gun on them at some stage, otherwise just brandishing an intimidating and unloaded gun at them would have been enough to scare them half to death. There would have been no need for a loaded gun, it wasn't as if Storie and Gregsten were some sort of Bonnie and Clyde.

From all that I've read and learned on the subject I somehow get the impression that Mike Gregsten was half expecting something like this to befall him.

[Alfie]

The motive

Hello all

I'm researching the main outline of the A6 murder since it comes up peripherally in a work I'm writing - a sort of travel piece.

I only began reading this thread a couple of days ago and am only up to page 45, so I may be repeating something covered later in the thread, but to that point at least, the one thing that seemed to be stumping everybody was Hanratty's motive, and as no-one had advanced my theory I thought I'd put it out there for others with far greater knowledge of the case than I to comment on.

I haven't really got a a theory as to why he was in the Dorney Reach area. It doesn't seem credible to me that he'd get on a train at Paddington and only find when he'd got to Slough or Taplow or Maidenhead that he was on the wrong train and disembark.

It seems more likely that as a dog-racing regular he was reasonably familiar with Slough and its environs and had decided this would be a good area into which to expand his house-breaking work (he was familiar with the Bear Hotel in Maidenhead, so that town may have been his target). Why he chose to tell the Francis's that he was off to Liverpool is anyone's guess. But his alibi that he went to Paddington that morning before going to Euston and on to Liverpool is suggestive of his taking the train to Maidenhead or thereabouts.

The gun - why he was carrying it and how he concealed it - is more problematic, but he strikes me as the kid-adult type who, having obtained a new toy, would take it along because it made him feel a foot taller and with the vague idea that 'it might come in handy'. Although he had some bullets in his pocket that rattled like 'marbles', I don't think there's any evidence that he had the boxes of ammunition with him. They could have been retrieved later when he set out to dispose of the gun.

I don't know what time he arrived in or near Slough, or what he did prior to ending up at Dorney Reach, but the latter is a locale with some wealthy residents (Hanratty's preferred targets) - eg, Dorney Court just up Court Lane, a short distance from the cornfield - and it's feasible that somebody had informed him of its suitability and he went there to prowl around - either with the idea of doing a job, or as a reccy for a later visit.

On his way he saw the Morris parked in the cornfield. We know what time of the evening approximately that Gregsten and Storie arrived there - 8.45/8.50 - and I've tried to find out how dark it would have been at that time on August 22. Apparently the sun set at 7.15 pm GMT, which I take it would mean 8.15 BST, so half an hour later it would have been getting dark, if not already dark (The Court of Appeal transcript noted that it was dark at 8pm in Rhyl which being further west would have gotten dark later). I don't know what phase the moon was in. But in any case, I don't imagine MG and VS would have left the pub at Taplow and gone for a park-up while it was still light enough for their activity to be seen by any passerby.

My theory is that the prowling H came across them in flagrante dilecto, as they say, and spied on them as they had intercourse (I think MG's semen was found on VS's knickers afterwards, as well as H's?) before tapping on the window and brandishing his gun at them.

H was known to be quite promiscuous and I think his primary motive when he entered the car was to have VS himself. The locale, the time, and the age difference between VS and MG would have told him that they were acting illicitly, and signalled that VS was 'easy'. VS & MG offered him their money and the car and the chance to drive away but he refused. Robbing her and Gregsten was incidental to his desire to have intercourse her. The problem he faced after hearing the noise from the neighbouring cottage was where to do the deed, and what to do with Gregsten.

The two hours or so the trio spent in the cornfield may be accounted for by H's quandry. He couldn't have VS while MG was present without putting him in the boot or tying him up and gagging him. If he put MG in the boot he couldn't stop him making a hullabaloo and attracting attention unless he tied him and gagged him. And to do that he'd have to put down the gun - presenting MG, a bigger man, with the chance of overpowering him, or VS with an opportunity to abscond. If he got VS to tie up MG there's every chance MG wouldn't be securely bound. He couldn't truss up MG and leave him there and drive off with VS without risking MG getting free and raising the alarm. He couldn't shoot MG without being heard (during that two hours MG and VS probably judged it would be more dangerous to try and abscond and risk getting shot than to sit tight, but if it came to H raping VS there's a chance she or MG might have taken that risk, in which case H's chances of getting away with the deed without alerting the neighbourhood would have been slim). And anyway if he was to drive away with VS he would have difficulty covering her with the gun at the same time (there is evidence that VS could drive but did H know that? If he asked her she was have been smart to deny it). Driving around wearing a cowboy-type mask would also be a risk, but the alternative would be to expose his face and risk being identified later.

So, slow-thinker that he was, H appears to have eventually made up his mind to have MG do the driving and to find some other place to do the deed. His many questions along the way about how to drive the car may have been prompted by the knowledge that after he'd done with MG and VS he'd have to drive it himself. The fact that he directed MG along a route he was familiar with suggests he may have had a locality or two in mind but for whatever reason decided none was suitable until he pulled into the layby on Deadman's Hill. There he tied up VS, perhaps with the idea of having her trussed up when he raped her, and then shot MG. Time passed while they argued over whether MG is dead or whether he needs help, and H passed the "Be quiet, will you. I am thinking" comment, which suggests to me that he was trying to decide whether he could get away with raping VS but not killing her. Later when he has raped her and tells her his name he has obviously answered this in the negative. So he shoots her and leaves her for dead before driving off.

Does this sound a plausible reconstruction of what happened or not?

Alfie

[P.L.A]

Hi Alfie

Welcome to the thread.

The motive behind the abduction and eventual murder, rape and attempted murder will almost certainly never be known for sure. So your guess is as good as anybody’s. The prosecution case at the trial gave sex as the motive.

The fact that Storie and Gregsten were in the front seat of the car when the gunman approached suggests they had not just had sex. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that the car was just inside the field – the gunman forced them to drive further in, presumably to be less conspicuous from the road. This doesn’t explain when the semen that is assumed to have come from Gregsten got onto Storie’s underwear. Don’t know the answer to that. From what we are told of their movements, there doesn’t appear to be much of a window for sex to have taken place that evening. I would have thought love between the two would have been a session and not a prostitute style quickie.

Also, if the gunman got all worked up by watching them, it seems rather unnatural to be able to wait five to six hours before venting his urge.

A few questions for you Alfie. Must say that I don’t know the answers.

Peter