a6 murder

[Alfie]

Motive

Hi Peter

That's a good point about Gregsten and Storie being in the front seat when Hanratty knocked on the window; having owned a Morris Minor in my (much) younger days, I know it would be a stretch to do anything remotely athletic in that confined space!

However: we only have VS's word for what happened between the time H knocked on the window and when she was found in the layby. They may have been in a clinch on the back seat when H interrupted but VS might have been too scrupulous to admit to this. Or H may have waited till they'd finished and regained the front seat before knocking on the window.

I just can't imagine her and MG driving into a dark cornfield if all they wanted was a chat. They could have had that in the comfort of the pub.

Regards

Alfie

[Alfie]

Motive

Hi again Peter

Further to what took place in the cornfield: You make the point that the car was just inside the gate; do we know for sure how far Gregsten and Storie had driven into the field? We can be pretty sure it was dark enough that on that stretch of road they'd have next to no chance of being seen even if they were only just inside the field. Hanratty may have ordered them to drive further in thinking the field was extensive enough to put them out of earshot if he wanted to dispatch MG.

One source I read said they'd been in the field for 20 minutes before H knocked on the window. Others with greater stamina than me may disagree, but in my book that's time enough for more than a prostitute-style quickie.

You also say that if H got worked up watching them it would be rather unnatural to wait as long as he did to rape VS. But if he had a healthy sense of self-preservation, as all the evidence I've read suggests he did, he would postpone gratification till the most low-risk moment, which happened to occur on Deadman's Hill. After all, he thought he could afford to wait as the gun ensured VS wasn't going anywhere.

Regards

Alan

[Victor]

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.

Hi Julie,

The "Faithful" quote was intended to imply faith in the innocence of Hanratty despite the evidence to the contrary. There is just no solid evidence that Hanratty was elsewhere at the time, hence I believe you are taking his word on faith.

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.

There is also the issue of Hanratty's promiscuity, his numerous visits to prostitutes - none of whom indicated any sexual violence from Hanratty, but still frequent use of prostitutes indicates a high sex drive.

The lack of forensics in the car is an interesting subject, however, there were 11 sets of fingerprints recovered (I believe), and there are comments about the quantity of blood, so the possibility exists that the car was contaminated and none of the forensic information recovered was useful rather than there being no evidence at all.

You know that I consider the cartridge case evidence fairly strong simply because the gun and spare cases were in police possession within 2 days of the crime, and the cases were found in the Vienna before Hanratty was linked to the crime, therefore the possibility that they were planted by the police to incriminate him is negligible, which only leaves some convoluted conspiracy theory, such as the Central Figure\Mr X\Ewer theories raised by Foot\Alphon.

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.

I absolutely agree with the last part, there will always be some who won't accept the truth. See Steve's signature - arguing with him is like medicating the dead.

KR,
Vic.

[Tony]

Hi again Peter

Further to what took place in the cornfield: You make the point that the car was just inside the gate; do we know for sure how far Gregsten and Storie had driven into the field? We can be pretty sure it was dark enough that on that stretch of road they'd have next to no chance of being seen even if they were only just inside the field. Hanratty may have ordered them to drive further in thinking the field was extensive enough to put them out of earshot if he wanted to dispatch MG.

One source I read said they'd been in the field for 20 minutes before H knocked on the window. Others with greater stamina than me may disagree, but in my book that's time enough for more than a prostitute-style quickie.

You also say that if H got worked up watching them it would be rather unnatural to wait as long as he did to rape VS. But if he had a healthy sense of self-preservation, as all the evidence I've read suggests he did, he would postpone gratification till the most low-risk moment, which happened to occur on Deadman's Hill. After all, he thought he could afford to wait as the gun ensured VS wasn't going anywhere.

Regards

Alan

Hello Alfie,

Your motive or theory, call it what you will relies on one person’s word: that of Valerie Storie.

Almost everyone accepts that there is only one version of the events in that car on that fateful night and that is Valerie’s evidence. Well we can’t rely on Gregston he’s dead; JH says he wasn’t there so could say nothing; we don’t know of anyone else except for Peter Alphon who has offered another version of events.
As you say VS could really have said anything there was nobody to contradict her. If the gunman did catch them having a leg-over in the back of the car she might have decided it was not in her best interests to say anything about that.

PLA in reply to you accepts that MG and VS were in the front of the car. He can only say that because VS said so. He can not understand therefore how and when MG’s semen found its way onto VS’s knickers. Funny stuff this semen. I could say it gets everywhere but I won’t.

Peter Alphon’s version of what happened is that he forced MG to have sex with VS while he watched them. She has never spoken about this as far as I know.
But here is part of her evidence to the court:

“After we passed Silsoe, he (the man in the car) saw a turning off to the left. He said to Mike, ‘Turn down there’, and we turned down this little lane. I saw a post with a notice on it which said ‘Private, no parking’. I said to the man, ‘We can not stop here. This is a private road and we shall only draw attention to ourselves’. So he agreed we should turn round and continue northwards on the A6. A little while after he saw another little turning off to the left and he said, ‘Go down there’. After 50 or 100 yards down this little turning there were some houses. Mike stopped by the houses and I again said, ‘We can not stop here, someone will see us’. And so, for the second time he agreed we should turn round and continue going North.”

Now then the couple were very afraid, naturally, and presumably would have wanted to draw attention to themselves. They had been flashing the reversing lights at one time.
They needed to alert someone to their plight in some way; well in any way.
So just why did Valerie say under oath that she said she did not want to draw anybody’s attention to them?
Why did she insist the gunman take them back from where they might be discovered to the A6?

They eventually arrived at Deadman’s Hill. Is it possible that this is where MG’s semen arrived on VS’s knickers?

Tony.

[Alfie]

PLA in reply to you accepts that MG and VS were in the front of the car. He can only say that because VS said so. He can not understand therefore how and when MG’s semen found its way onto VS’s knickers. Funny stuff this semen. I could say it gets everywhere but I won’t.

Peter Alphon’s version of what happened is that he forced MG to have sex with VS while he watched them. She has never spoken about this as far as I know.
But here is part of her evidence to the court:

“After we passed Silsoe, he (the man in the car) saw a turning off to the left. He said to Mike, ‘Turn down there’, and we turned down this little lane. I saw a post with a notice on it which said ‘Private, no parking’. I said to the man, ‘We can not stop here. This is a private road and we shall only draw attention to ourselves’. So he agreed we should turn round and continue northwards on the A6. A little while after he saw another little turning off to the left and he said, ‘Go down there’. After 50 or 100 yards down this little turning there were some houses. Mike stopped by the houses and I again said, ‘We can not stop here, someone will see us’. And so, for the second time he agreed we should turn round and continue going North.”

Now then the couple were very afraid, naturally, and presumably would have wanted to draw attention to themselves. They had been flashing the reversing lights at one time.
They needed to alert someone to their plight in some way; well in any way.
So just why did Valerie say under oath that she said she did not want to draw anybody’s attention to them?
Why did she insist the gunman take them back from where they might be discovered to the A6?

They eventually arrived at Deadman’s Hill. Is it possible that this is where MG’s semen arrived on VS’s knickers?

Hello Tony

If I follow you correctly, you're saying VS's evidence fits in with PLA's version of events, and that when they stopped on Deadman's Hill it was for MG to have sex with her, not the gunman?

I'm learning something new every time I read this website; I hadn't heard that PLA claimed to have forced the couple to have sex.

A couple of objections immediately come to mind: MG would have to have been some kind of stud if he could perform in that situation, literally with a gun at his head. I think it's more likely that his semen found its way into VS's knickers after intercourse in the cornfield.

As for VS's evidence, another explanation may be that she was fearful of stopping anywhere off the beaten track where the car wouldn't be in view of passing traffic.

If the gunman had ordered her and MG to 'have it off', and she objected to the first two stopping points because she and MG might be seen, surely she'd also have objected to pulling up in a layby next to the A6? Their doings would be far more likely to be seen there.

It's all very intriguing, and I'm beginning to see why the people frequenting this board have become addicted to trying to fit the pieces of the jigsaw together!

Regards

Alfie

[Alfie]

Hair dye

I find it extremely interesting that John Kerr said he wrote down "light fairish hair" on that important piece of paper which tallies fully with what Valerie's doctor (Dr Rennie) said. He said that Valerie picked out a man on that parade who had light fairish hair.

Still working my way through the posts and this one from Jimarilyn on page 129, post no. 1282 set me thinking about Hanratty's hair colour and what a bone of contention it is.

A lot of the doubt thrown on VS's testimony - what she said about the gunman's hair colour to the car census bloke at Deadman's Hill, her picking out the wrong man at the first i.d. line up - hinges on the assumption that H's hair at that time was died black. But do we know for certain that it was?

One sequence of events I read had Carole France dying H's auburn hair black at the France house on Saturday August 5, and then Carole re-dying it on Saturday August 26 after he returned from Liverpool, she having noticed that his hair at that time was "all different colours".

Did anyone else but the France family verify that he'd had dyed hair from August 5? What if he didn't have it dyed till he'd arrived back from Liverpool, having decided that after what happened on the night of the 22nd he'd better disguise his auburn hair? Is it out of the question that he could have spun the France family a story that would have persuaded them to tell the police that he'd had his hair dyed black three weeks earlier than he did?

If his hair was its natural colour on the night of the 22nd then VS's looking for a gunman with 'fair' or 'brownish' hair would make more sense.

Just an idea; I haven't fully thought through the implications of this yet.

Regards

Alfie

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie,

There is also the issue of Hanratty's promiscuity, his numerous visits to prostitutes - none of whom indicated any sexual violence from Hanratty, but still frequent use of prostitutes indicates a high sex drive.
KR,
Vic.

It is important to remember that rape is crime of violence and is concerned with exercising power over a vulnerable victim. It is less concerned with needing sex, and more concerned with violence and power.

It is therefore incorrect to assume that because a man is promiscuous or highly sexed he is a potential rapist.

In fact, MG himself was highly sexed which is why he conducted extra-marital affairs. In that sense, sexually, MG is no better than Hanratty. Hanratty consorted with prostitutes and MG had affairs to satisfy his sex drive.

If the motive was rape, then a violent sexual offender is the offender, not someone who simply enjoyed sex. Hanratty was known as a gentle and considerate lover.

[Limehouse]

Hello Alfie, Welcome to the thread. What a brilliant start you have made. It's nice to have some new contributions. Hope you stick around.

[Victor]

It is important to remember that rape is crime of violence and is concerned with exercising power over a vulnerable victim. It is less concerned with needing sex, and more concerned with violence and power.

Hi Julie,

Generally that is true, but not always.

It is therefore incorrect to assume that because a man is promiscuous or highly sexed he is a potential rapist.

In fact, MG himself was highly sexed which is why he conducted extra-marital affairs. In that sense, sexually, MG is no better than Hanratty. Hanratty consorted with prostitutes and MG had affairs to satisfy his sex drive.

I wasn't assuming that every promiscuous man is a potential rapist, rather that a rapist would have a high sex drive. Therefore someone who was "quite vulnerable due to his learning difficulties" and highly sexed, might seek comfort in sex if they'd just done something extreme like accidentally shooting someone twice through the head and killing them.

If the motive was rape, then a violent sexual offender is the offender, not someone who simply enjoyed sex. Hanratty was known as a gentle and considerate lover.

As you say... If the motive was rape... which is something I strongly doubt.

Kr,
Vic.

ps. I concur, welcome Alfie, you've raised some interesting points and I hope you stick around.

Tony's comments...

So just why did Valerie say under oath that she said she did not want to draw anybody’s attention to them?
Why did she insist the gunman take them back from where they might be discovered to the A6?

...seem strange to me, surely the A6 was a busier road and they were more likely to be discovered there than down a private road. As for the first question... Because she's a smart woman and was obviously trying to dupe the gunman into getting them from a secluded private road onto the busier A6.

[Alfie]

Hello Alfie, Welcome to the thread. What a brilliant start you have made. It's nice to have some new contributions. Hope you stick around.

Thanks for your kind words, Limehouse. And yours Vic.

I've got a few hundred pages of the thread to wade through yet so I'll be here for a while I suspect. I still feel like a rank novice regarding the facts of this case cf you regulars, but as I said before, studying it is very habit forming!

Regards

Alan

[jimarilyn]

Did anyone else but the France family verify that he'd had dyed hair from August 5? What if he didn't have it dyed till he'd arrived back from Liverpool, having decided that after what happened on the night of the 22nd he'd better disguise his auburn hair? Is it out of the question that he could have spun the France family a story that would have persuaded them to tell the police that he'd had his hair dyed black three weeks earlier than he did?

If his hair was its natural colour on the night of the 22nd then VS's looking for a gunman with 'fair' or 'brownish' hair would make more sense.

Hi Alfie/Alan,

Jimmy bumped into his cousin Eileen in Willesden on August 18th. To quote Eileen..."He called over to me across the street. I did not recognise him. His hair was dyed, absolutely jet-black. You would not have been able to tell he was really ginger."

[Alfie]

Hi Alfie/Alan,

Jimmy bumped into his cousin Eileen in Willesden on August 18th. To quote Eileen..."He called over to me across the street. I did not recognise him. His hair was dyed, absolutely jet-black. You would not have been able to tell he was really ginger."

Hi Jimarilyn

Yeah, Alfie's an old nickname, real name's Alan, and signing off I've automatically typed -l-a-n after starting with A. I'm happy being called either.

So the hair-dye conspiracy looks like a dead-end, unless our friend H persuaded one or two others to swear that he was black-haired at the time of the murder. When and to whom did cousin Eileen attest this?

Regards

Alan

[jimarilyn]

So the hair-dye conspiracy looks like a dead-end, unless our friend H persuaded one or two others to swear that he was black-haired at the time of the murder. When and to whom did cousin Eileen attest this?

Hi Alan,

Eileen attested to this in a sworn deposition to the defence team prior to the trial.

[P.L.A]

Hi

It is of course impossible to verify much of Storie’s account of what happened in the field. What has been corroborated is:

The car’s tyre marks show the Morris Minor had parked just inside the gate.

The tyre marks show the car then moved further into the field and turned round , stopping facing the exit.

Storie claimed that after some time, a person in the house to the north of where the abduction took place went outside and put a bicycle in an outhouse. This was confirmed by an occupant of the house.

From this, I have difficulty believing the couple had sex in a car parked just inside the gate when they had the rest of a huge field to choose from. Then again, that is just my opinion – and anybody’s guess is as good as mine on the issue.

Peter.

[Alfie]

I have difficulty believing the couple had sex in a car parked just inside the gate when they had the rest of a huge field to choose from. Then again, that is just my opinion – and anybody’s guess is as good as mine on the issue.

Greetings Peter

Didn't I read somewhere that it had rained recently. Perhaps MG was worried about getting stuck if he drove too far into the field.

I can't imagine why they'd park in the field at that time if not for some sort of hanky panky? What's your theory?

Regards
Alan