a6 murder

[caz]

My only reason for citing Colin Stagg was that he was very clearly being "set up" by the "disguised " policewoman for the murder ,which was why the judge twigged and threw the case out in total disgust!

Hi Nats,

What makes you think I am not equally disgusted with the way Colin Stagg was treated? I already acknowledged the fact that there have been many terrible miscarriages of justice in recent times, so why keep flogging this one to death now the right man - Robert Napper - is where he should be, and the many mistakes in his case have been fully admitted?

Here again it demonstrates that even as recently as the late 1990"s a man totally innocent of the crime [for which Robert Napper is now serving a life sentence] but who police -at the time -were convinced was the murderer , had attempted to frame him or "set him up"---and Stagg could have now been serving a life sentence instead of Robert Napper----and in 1962 he could have been hanged for a crime he did not commit.
In fact,it could be argued that had the wrong man not been so determinedly sought by police,however well intentioned they were in this case, the right man might have been caught earlier and Samantha Bisset and her four year old daughter who were killed later ,would still be alive

You didn’t address my question: why automatically compare Hanratty with Stagg? Why not Alphon, who - to borrow your own argument above regarding Stagg - ‘police at the time were convinced was the murderer’ and could have hanged for it if Valerie had not survived to put him on the reject pile at that first id parade? In fact, borrowing another point of yours about Stagg, it could be argued that had the police been even more determined in 1961 to ‘set up’ their initial major suspect - Alphon, the real killer according to the DNA evidence - Hanratty, would have been left alive and free to rape and kill again.

Napper didn’t stop, did he, when it looked like Stagg was going down for his Wimbledon Common murder. And yet the A6 murderer never did commit another crime of its type. Could the explanation not be quite simple - that he couldn’t because they hanged him?

Like Julie,I fear the cases of Barry George and Colin Stagg demonstrate how easily a miscarriage of justice can occur-or be in the process of happening ,as was the case with Stagg , especially when the person is already considered to be some sort of "oddball".

Once again, Nats, nobody is disputing how easily miscarriages of justice can occur.

Hanratty was not the equivalent of Stagg the “oddball”. He was a career criminal. If you want the 1961 “oddball” equivalent of Stagg, you need look no further than Alphon the Even Odderball. In both cases it was a matter of second time lucky: DNA eventually indicated Napper's guilt (and you are evidently 100% okay with that) and Stagg's innocence, while DNA eventually indicated Hanratty’s guilt and Alphon’s innocence. The police were forced to drop the "oddball" in each case. The only difference is that they couldn't use DNA back in 1962 to determine whether their second choice was the right one.

I will have to bone up on the Hanratty case a bit more.

Indeed you will.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

What is a bit more concerning to me is how they all seem to have turned on Paul Foot. I think to a man they have all said that they agreed with Paul Foot until this DNA.
Now then if they did it stands to reason they seriously doubted Valerie Storie, Nudds, Langdale, France, Anderson, Acott and all the other misfits who JH came up against. They simply must have done but now the 3 letters have made them realise that they were fools all along.

Hi Tony,

I haven’t ‘turned on’ Paul Foot - unless you think he walked on water and could never have backed the wrong horse. That’s all I think happened here.

Until the result of the appeal, there were legitimate concerns about the Hanratty horse. As Vic has explained, the concern was that Hanratty had not been proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt on the evidence that was available at the time. In short, the certainty about his guilt was lacking. One could have been 99% sure he did it, but you will be the first to agree with me that even 1% unsure would have amounted to a legitimate cause for concern. But it would not have amounted to seriously doubting everyone's evidence for the prosecution. That's just silly.

The mistake that is made time after time on this thread is to translate reasonable concerns into serious doubts that he could have been guilty. It’s no coincidence that this mistake is made by people who have always been 100% certain he was innocent. They didn’t have mere ‘concerns’ over whether the case against him was airtight; they were not looking for reassurance that the right man was taken out of society. Quite the reverse if this thread is anything to go by. They would not have been satisfied with anything short of confirmation that an innocent man had been hanged. Nothing was ever going to introduce the tiniest element of doubt into their certainty that Hanratty didn’t do it.

Tell me I'm wrong, Tony.

And tell me you didn't mean to imply that Valerie is a 'misfit'.

Love,

Caz
X

[Victor]

There is actually a difference between a man serving life today and cases like Hanratty or Timothy Evans who were hanged by the state.In any case not all cases end with justice being done.

Hi Natalie,

What about Derek Bentley? He was pardoned after being hanged by the state, so the establishment will act if someone is truly innocent.

KR,
Vic.

[P.L.A]

Hi Natalie,

What about Derek Bentley? He was pardoned after being hanged by the state, so the establishment will act if someone is truly innocent.KR,
Vic.

George Kelly and Mahmood Hussein Mattan can be added to the list.

http://forejustice.org/wc/george_kelly.htm

http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/georgekelly/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmood_Hussein_Mattan

What is so different about Hanratty that he can’t be added to the list?

Peter

[P.L.A]

Hi
Just came across this on the web. It shows how much a hit man was paid for a particular job in 1965.

Ronald gave a gun and Ł100 to Jack "The Hat" McVitie with instructions to murder Leslie Payne and the promise of a further Ł400 when the murder had taken place. Payne remained alive, but it was Reginald who went to collect the Ł100. He was moved by McVitie's tale of sorrow and gave McVitie Ł50. This infuriated Ronald, and led to a stand-off between the Krays and McVitie, culminating in the Krays inviting him to a "party" where Reginald, egged on by Ronald, murdered him. McVitie's was another body not recovered.

http://www.met.police.uk/history/krays.htm

It may help to put Alphon’s bank account into context.

Peter

[CliveEnglish]

Motive?

Afternoon
Nice and sunny here today, makes up for the poor Bank Holiday. But that's Whit Bank Holiday for you.
I'll introduce myself. I'm Clive and I have read a fair deal of literature about this case.
The A6 murder is certainly a very perplexing case.
I have read all manner of opinion as to a motive for why Hanratty should have killed Michael Gregsten and then to rape and attempt to murder Valerie Storie. I have yet to hear anything approaching something that is at all convincing. The DNA may have proved that Hanratty did it but as we all know it cannot tell us why he did.
Does anyone know how common motiveless killings were then as opposed to say now? I know that the A6 murder was quite shocking by 1961 standards.

I'm off now for a sunbathe out the back with a long cool beer and some restful tunes.
Clive

[Tony]

Afternoon
Nice and sunny here today, makes up for the poor Bank Holiday. But that's Whit Bank Holiday for you.
I'll introduce myself. I'm Clive and I have read a fair deal of literature about this case.
The A6 murder is certainly a very perplexing case.
I have read all manner of opinion as to a motive for why Hanratty should have killed Michael Gregsten and then to rape and attempt to murder Valerie Storie. I have yet to hear anything approaching something that is at all convincing. The DNA may have proved that Hanratty did it but as we all know it cannot tell us why he did.
Does anyone know how common motiveless killings were then as opposed to say now? I know that the A6 murder was quite shocking by 1961 standards.

I'm off now for a sunbathe out the back with a long cool beer and some restful tunes.
Clive

Welcome Clive,

It’s a hot day up here in the Peak District.

Like you I have been out in my very private garden and I have been admiring my beautiful pink hollyhocks. At this time of the year, as the sap rises, the bigger they get.

As I say it’s hot here today but not half as hot as it gets on this site from time to time.

A hard hat is advisable on some days but Julie will look after you I’m sure.

Welcome once again to you.

Tony.

[CliveEnglish]

Hollyhocks

Evening Tony

Thank you for you cautioning welcome!

Stop admiring your pink hollyhocks you shameless exhibitionist. Too much sun and your hocks will start to droop, however much sap may rise.

I have a hard hat at the fore. I have only read the last month or so posts so will be forewarned. The DNA would have seemed to have put a cap on the case but it is still a very contentious issue here according to the posts I have read.

It all come's down to motive and identification as far as I'm concerned, as no forensic information, bar the killer's blood group originally became aware. Also as far as I'm concerned all the other evidence in the case is very circumstantial. As I said the DNA may identify but does not provide a motive for the killing.

I am sure looking forward to meeting Julie whoever Julie is!

Time for supper and the mighty Essex Eagles in the 20:20 on Sky. Go on the Eagles.

Clive

[Victor]

Hi Clive,

Welcome to the thread(s)...

The DNA would have seemed to have put a cap on the case but it is still a very contentious issue here according to the posts I have read.

The DNA is only contentious if you believe in nonsensical far-reaching conspiracies that spans 5 decades, and that these shadowy conspirators would deliberately manufacture evidence implicating Hanratty.

It all come's down to motive and identification as far as I'm concerned, as no forensic information, bar the killer's blood group originally became aware.

Well you also have the ballistics that links the weapon used on Gregsten and Storie to the gun found on the 36A bus, and to the cartridge cases found in the Vienna Hotel. That's a definite link which some explain with the excuse that evidence can be planted, but I can see no motive for whoever is supposed to have done that.

Also as far as I'm concerned all the other evidence in the case is very circumstantial. As I said the DNA may identify but does not provide a motive for the killing.

After the events in Cumbria yesterday, 12 people can be killed over a family feud, some did have links to the perpetrator, but some were just in the wrong place at the wrong time - just like Gregsten and Storie.

I am sure looking forward to meeting Julie whoever Julie is!

Limehouse - she's very reasonable and diplomatic, especially when the Hanratty case seems to polarise opinions.

KR,
Vic.

[CliveEnglish]

Reply to Victor

Hello there Victor
Isn't wireless broadband great? Here I am under the shade of a large brolly on the lawn and surfing the web...brilliant!
Thanks for your welcome, I have not delved into the other (s)'s.
Anyway, your comment on the contentious issue of the DNA backs up my view of what I have read from the posts thus far; that there are differing views on its worthiness. The reasons given by both sides cover a wide range than may or may not include conspiracy theories. I must accept though that if the DNA evidence is correct then Hanratty must be the A6 killer.
You mention the ballastics. For sure the gun on the bus was the murder weapon and the slugs from the Vienna were fired by that gun. But no trace of forensic evidence was ever given up by the gun on the bus or the slugs at the Vienna. Planted or otherwise this evidence is purely circumstantial. It is a shame that the gun and the Vienna slugs were not kept on file. I, for one, would like to know the results of DNA tests done on them.
I fail to see a connection between the A6 murder and, from your anology to yesterdays outrage in Cumbria, a motive for the A6 murder. The perp, a Mr Derrick Bird, may have had a few issues that sent him doolally. I fail to see why Hanratty had a reason to go out that day with a loaded firearm. He told France the previous day that he was going to Liverpool. France didn't see him again until the following Saturday. The France family seem to agree that he was still wearing the same gear as the day before the murder.

As an aside. Great game of cricket last night. The mighty Eagles got off to a poor start but Ryan Tendo's Errol Flynn-like heroic's got us to a competitive target. The Spitters though were just too good on the night. Great entertainment. But test cricket still rules...it sorts out the men from the boys. Bring on the Ashes in November.

Tell you what people, if you want a bit of a giggle have a watch of the film Sherlock Holmes. The guys playing Holmes and Watson are great fun and the pace of the film is very well judged. I wouldn't mind seeing a sequel and maybe more of this kind of stuff.
Clive

[Victor]

Hey Clive,

Wireless broadband is great.

Anyway, your comment on the contentious issue of the DNA backs up my view of what I have read from the posts thus far; that there are differing views on its worthiness. The reasons given by both sides cover a wide range than may or may not include conspiracy theories. I must accept though that if the DNA evidence is correct then Hanratty must be the A6 killer.

I don't believe that there are many alternatives with the DNA really, and certainly no conspiracy theories concerning the DNA being genuine, it's only:-
1. The DNA is correct - Hanratty is guilty.
2. LCN works, but there was contamination of the samples by genuine Hanratty DNA.
3. LCN is a flawed technique - the results wrongly implicate Hanratty.
4. LCN is flawed, and the scientists (FSS Ltd) lied about the results and framed Hanratty. [Conspiracy Theory]

And that's about it as far as the DNA is concerned, I'd welcome any alternatives to those 4 basic scenarios.

Personally I'm convinced that LCN works and furthermore that option 4 is a complete joke option akin to the Faked Moon Landings theories, JFK assasination theories, 9-11 and 7-7 were inside jobs theories, Flat-Earth beliefs, and Holocaust deniers like David Irving.

I'm also a Fundamentalist Atheist, and massively admire the late Douglas Noel Adams (the original DNA) and Bill Hicks, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Fry, so that immediately annoys those who have faith that Hanratty is innocent.

You mention the ballastics. For sure the gun on the bus was the murder weapon and the slugs from the Vienna were fired by that gun. But no trace of forensic evidence was ever given up by the gun on the bus or the slugs at the Vienna. Planted or otherwise this evidence is purely circumstantial.

That's a paradox, the cartridge cases at the Vienna and Deadman's Hill were forensically linked to the gun on the bus and the bullets lodged in Storie by ballistics. But neither gave additional forensic evidence, but in the early 60s is that a surprise? I fail to see how this can possibly be described as circumstantial.

It is a shame that the gun and the Vienna slugs were not kept on file. I, for one, would like to know the results of DNA tests done on them.

Now those DNA results would be suspect, so called touch-DNA basically looks for those skin cells that you shed continually and is inherently dubious. Compare that to nasal mucus and semen that we have in the A6 case samples.

I fail to see a connection between the A6 murder and, from your anology to yesterdays outrage in Cumbria, a motive for the A6 murder. The perp, a Mr Derrick Bird, may have had a few issues that sent him doolally. I fail to see why Hanratty had a reason to go out that day with a loaded firearm.

"Doolally" would be considered a massive understatement. In fact I'd consider "Apesh*t" to be a massive understatement too, you don't murder 12 people without a major initiator. But the point was that something set Bird off, and that it probably blew up from a disagreement with his twin brother, and the end result was 13 corpses. Where's the "motive" for mass-murder? Hanratty probably had the opportunity to leave the France home with a gun and lots of ammunition - and lots of scope to try it out.

Tell you what people, if you want a bit of a giggle have a watch of the film Sherlock Holmes. The guys playing Holmes and Watson are great fun and the pace of the film is very well judged. I wouldn't mind seeing a sequel and maybe more of this kind of stuff.
Clive

Downey Jr and Law? What's wrong with ethnically authentic heroes? Well done to JK Rowling for insisting upon it.

KR,
Vic.

[CliveEnglish]

Scorchio

Blimey Charlie it's hot out there. God knows what it will be like if we have a decent summer. Pass the factor 1000 please.

I may not have put my initial points forward at all well so I will have another stab.
When I said that the DNA evidence was a contentious issue on here I meant that it divides peoples opinion quite markedly. It always seems hard to understand that others may hold contrary views when one is so convinced oneself. We all hold views that others disagree with such as religion or politics. I don't think that anyone should claim victory for themselves, victory is bestowed on one by others which can be a poison chalice in itself, as it is treading water or downhill from there. There are but a few great champions mythinks. I hope that Theo Walcott will learn a few lessons from being dropped from the England World Cup squad.
I think the gun on the bus and Vienna slugs are circumstantial because no fingerprints or other primary forensic residue was found on either of them to link them definitely to any one individual. Where they were found and the associations of certain comments are also circumstantial. Victor mentions the slugs removed from Valerie Storie as matching those fired from the gun found. Is this actually correct? I understood that Keith Simpson declared the rounds to be of .32 calibre in both Michael Gregsten and Valerie Storie. I am also unsure whether this was challanged at the trial at Bedford. The gun on the bus was a .38.
I was wondering if gun discharge residues were detectable in 1962. Does anyone here have anything to disclose about this?
As for motive I reiterate my original position which is that I don't think that a believeable motive has ever been put forward to explain Hanratty's actions. I see that many have tried but each falls short when challanged with the evidence. Without exception, all of these explanations use terminology such as probably, may have, was likely to et al.
The crucial point in constructing a motive is Hanratty having access to a gun. Donald Fisher denied that Hanratty was at all serious about actually getting a gun. No one else made any noises connecting Hanratty with a gun apart from Louise Anderson (to Mrs France) whilst waiting to give evidence.
So I have a few points and questions about the availability of guns for Hanratty to use.
If Mrs Anderson was at all serious about a gun being kept at the Frances house the poilce did nothing about it that I'm aware of.
As France was a well known West End lowlife why didn't the police investigate his dealings with Hanratty further?
If Hanratty was a lone killer and not part of a conspiracy to kill then what evidence exists to place a gun in his possession?
But, as the DNA proves Hanratty was the killer, he must of gotten a gun from somewhere and what was his initial motive for doing so?

Clive

[CliveEnglish]

Downey Jr and Law? What's wrong with ethnically authentic heroes? Well done to JK Rowling for insisting upon it.

Dear Victor

I don't know what you mean by the emboldened statement above.

Clive

[Graham]

Hello Clive,

welcome to the A6 thread....even without getting involved with arguments about the DNA there's plenty of scope for discussion. May I ask you what books you've read about the case?

Ever so briefly:

- JH said that burglary was 'all played out' and he wanted to get into armed robbery. Hence the gun.

- obtaining a gun was probably easier in those days than it is now, loads of ex-service revolvers still available.

- Donald Fisher did deny supplying the gun to JH, and evidently the police believed him. Had they not, they could have done him as an accessory to murder, a very serious charge.

- France's suicide is (to me at least) a key and so-far unexplained factor in the case. Why did he kill himself? Why did one of his last letters say that 'they're going to crucify us all'? Could it be that he was the one who obtained the gun for JH and, possibly, got rid of it for him? JH never denied that he told France about the back seat of a bus being a good place to get rid of stolen goods; also Charlotte France sometimes did JH's laundry for him, so perhaps that was the source of the soiled hankie (which without dispute carried JH's DNA) in which the gun was wrapped. My own personal feeling is that JH gave the gun back to France, who then got rid of it in the precise place that he hoped would incriminate JH. Anyone can argue against this, and doubtless will.

- there was (and is) a test which I think is called the Wax Test which can determine whether or a not an individual has recently fired a gun. This test was applied to Lee Harvey Oswald (but I can't remember if the results were ever made public). If it was applied to JH, then likewise. Maybe the test has to be carried out very soon after the suspect firing of the gun.

- calibre of gun: Simpson made a mistake, that's all. Sherrard never picked him up on this, so it must be assumed that he accepted that Simpson made a mistake.

You're right - it's hot tonight. Enough's enough. Another Staropramen, I think.

Regards,

Graham

[Tony]

[QUOTE=Graham;136117]Hello Clive,

- calibre of gun: Simpson made a mistake, that's all. Sherrard never picked him up on this, so it must be assumed that he accepted that Simpson made a mistake.

Hang on a minute, Graham,

How many years later was Simpson still making the same ‘mistake’ in print?

Tony.