a6 murder

[Natalie Severn]

Do I detect some hostility here or am I being paranoid? I havent yet had time Graham to answer all the points Vic raised thats all.Bob Woffinder's book is on hand and Jean Justice"s.
Having read through much of the former , I was pretty stunned by the criminal CV"s of some of the main witnesses -in particular that of ex Parkhurst inmate "Nudds"[Glickberg], who in 1958 was dubbed "the most hated man in Britain" by the Empire News with specific reference to his long record as a prison grass.Looking more closely at this and his notorious criminal record, he must rank as one of the most corrupt witnesses ever to have graced the Old Bailey! Yet it was he that brought "J Ryan" aka Hanratty in and at a single stroke placed Hanratty "centre stage" with the introduction of the 36A bus story and the "return" of "Ryan" to his room---was it at ostensibly to "drop the cartridge cases" there!
And he totally changed his story-viz :
Nudds:"The statement I have made is a true account.The statements I have made before were inaccurate because I was confused...."
--------"In order to clear up any confusion I want to point out the difference between Ryan[ ie Hanratty] and Durrant [ie Alphon],who entered ROOM 24
[in The Vienna Hotel] at about 1.00 pm on 22 August,after Ryan[Hanratty] had vacated it at about 8.30 that morning."
However Juliana Galves -the manageress of the Vienna Hotel -and she had no criminal past unlike Nudds- also made two different statements to police.In the first one,Sept 6th, she had confirmed Alphon"s alibi at the Vienna Hotel in line with other staff but in the second of Sept 12th in her statement she refuted it and said DID NOT SEE ALPHON at the hotel until noon on 23rd August.
Bear in mind that Alphon was the sole suspect by Police until the end of September.
At that time nobody had heard of "Ryan".
I found it very strange that Janet Gregston ,long before Hanratty was a suspect and while Alphon was the only suspect the Police were interested in,
had a kind of "magical intuition" when she allegedly saw Hanratty a few days after the murder at the Dry Cleaners and "knew he was her husbands killer"!She was with 50 year old her brother in law Mr Ewer, hanging pictures at his "antiques shop" in Swiss Cottage at the time and he was providing much moral support to her throughout the entire ordeal.Mr Ewer went looking for him and at was at this juncture they were told at the Dry Cleaners that the name of this chap was Ryan[Hanratty"s alias].
Now for another " startling coincidence":Another "antiques shop owner" a person named Louise Anderson,was an erstwhile "friend" of Hanratty--he stayed with her on occasion and provided her with stolen goods from his burglaries for her to sell,was a "business colleague" of Mr Ewer.She gave information about her "missing gloves" to police------but Hanratty never wore gloves---his finger prints were always everywhere which was why he so often got caught in his burglaries.

HOWEVER someone who definitely saw a pair of black women"s gloves on top of an open suitcase containing very dirty clothes when she opened the door on a startled Alphon [who wasnt answering her knock at his Vienna Hotel room] was Juliana Galves! Very interesting that!

Graham,I am just trying to piece all this together.

Cheers
Norma

[Graham]

Keep reading the books, Norma.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Keep reading the books, Norma.

Graham

I will if you keep an open mind , Graham.

[CliveEnglish]

Hi Clive,

I am a football fan and I support Peterborough United as I have lived in the city for over 20 years. I formally supported Leyton Orient as I come from north east London.

What I meant when I said that Hanratty may have feareed for his family is that he may have feared they would be harmed physically if he revealed the names of anyone involved in the A6 crime for which he took the whole balme. I am not offering this as a solid theory, just speculating.

Yes, as you say, there is so much more to the crime than is suggested by the evidence offered at the trial.

You seem very convinced that the DNA evidence confirms Hanratty asw the killer but I am not so sure. It does not seem a very reliable from of DNA testing and I feel the Hanratty case is special, in that the outcome of the testing would not have resulted in someone being released from jail. A 'Hanratty did not do it' outcome would still see Hanratty dead and would have caused more trouble than it was worth risking for the perception of British Justice.

Have a good evening.

Good Evening Miss/Ms/Mrs(delete as appropriate) Julie Limehouse
A Posh supporter eh? Barry Fry is a true English eccentric, completely bonkers yet a great football man. Not many like him left in the game, sadly. I understand he is director of football at the mo. It is a shame Darren Ferguson left but the Posh were in the clarts somewhat, I still think he will do quite well in management, yet perhaps not quite as well as his dad has!

I digress, for the umpteenth time!

You asked me about my surety over the DNA confirming Hanratty's guilt.

Hanratty was tried and found guilty by jury of capital murder. He had an appeal and a plea for clemency turned down and was executed by hanging. 2 inquiries were held into the case and both found no reason to doubt the original conviction. A second appeal was turned down because DNA evidence proved that Hanratty was the A6 murderer.

There is not much that I can do about any of this. Yet I except these decisions in much the same way as Noam Chomsky does when he analyses political events. Chomsky always gives the powers that be the absolute benefit of any doubt concerning decisions they make and then works from there with any other available facts to determine if the powers that be are correct.

The DNA may say that Hanratty was guilty, once and for all, but the DNA still does not explain any of the extremely strange events that bewitch this extraordinary case. In fact it appears to introduce more complications in some cases.

I can only think that if Hanratty is guilty he must have worked alone. But too many other people seem to have got involved in one way or another to make this case not so much less clear cut than a rather bloody mess.

Clive

The mighty Essex Eagles seem to have shot their bolt in the T20 for this year...bummer.
BUT...The moment of truth approaches for Capello's troops. Go for it lads. No fear. Come on ENGLAND.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Clive,
Where you conclude, after writing of the complex web of baffling and contradictory statements that make up this case ,that "if Hanratty was guilty he must have worked alone" ,I have come to the exact opposite conclusion.Hanratty was either "framed" which I think is most likely,or he played his part in it all, what that part was is anyones guess but he wanted money !
Alphon I think, possessed the intelligence to give Gregston and Storie "some grief"---had he been employed to put the frighteners on them by someone with a vested interest,willing to pay him.True it all went very pear shaped -"if" this was the original intention.But Hanratty? given that his exploits as a petty thief and burglar had nearly always landed him in the nick,he would surely have been a silly choice for such a dangerous game!
But you know there were others on brief jobs at this now notorious "Vienna Hotel "that August.Not just William Nudds who began his job at the Vienna exactly three days after getting out of jail---[so how come he knew about the 36 bus detail so soon when he was new to the area?].But there was also the man in charge,the man who found the two cartridge boxes,recognising their significance immediately as he himself had been a gunner during the war? He too began only a few days into August and was off out of it by the end of September! We dont hear much about this mystery man,Robert Crocker-why?I mean given the unscrupulous behaviour of so many in this case, maybe he too should be looked into more carefully.
Best
Norma

[Victor]

However Juliana Galves -the manageress of the Vienna Hotel -and she had no criminal past unlike Nudds- also made two different statements to police.In the first one,Sept 6th, she had confirmed Alphon"s alibi at the Vienna Hotel in line with other staff but in the second of Sept 12th in her statement she refuted it and said DID NOT SEE ALPHON at the hotel until noon on 23rd August.

Hi Norma,

Juliana Galves first statement was made after discussions with the rest of the staff, including Nudds and Snell. Her second statement was her personal account and she confirms she did not personally see Alphon arrive, but this isn't a refuting her first statement about Alphon's alibi.

Bear in mind that Alphon was the sole suspect by Police until the end of September.
At that time nobody had heard of "Ryan".

Alphon was the sole identified suspect, "Ryan" was also a suspect at the same time because the police had visited the address he had given in the Vienna Guest Book.

I found it very strange that Janet Gregston ,long before Hanratty was a suspect and while Alphon was the only suspect the Police were interested in,
had a kind of "magical intuition" when she allegedly saw Hanratty a few days after the murder at the Dry Cleaners and "knew he was her husbands killer"!

The "She saw him at the cleaners" story is a myth, for which the only evidence is the word of a newspaper journalist. It's highly dubious to say the least.

Now for another " startling coincidence":Another "antiques shop owner" a person named Louise Anderson,was an erstwhile "friend" of Hanratty

Some newspaper sources call Anderson Hanratty's girlfriend.

was a "business colleague" of Mr Ewer.

There is no proof Ewer and Anderson were acquainted, and Ewer specifically denied it.

Where you conclude, after writing of the complex web of baffling and contradictory statements that make up this case ,that "if Hanratty was guilty he must have worked alone" ,I have come to the exact opposite conclusion.Hanratty was either "framed" which I think is most likely,or he played his part in it all, what that part was is anyones guess but he wanted money !

I completly agree with the emboldened statement, as Sherrard commented it is a case "dripping with coincidences".

I tend to agree with Clive that Hanratty did it alone, otherwise other details would have emerged from the other co-conspirators. I'm not convinced by either Foot's breaking Storie and Gregsten apart theory, nor Woffinden's pushing them together leaving Ewer free to marry Janet Gregsten theory. They just don't seem plausible nor achieveable.

KR,
Vic.

[CliveEnglish]

Hi Clive,
Where you conclude, after writing of the complex web of baffling and contradictory statements that make up this case ,that "if Hanratty was guilty he must have worked alone" ,I have come to the exact opposite conclusion.Hanratty was either "framed" which I think is most likely,or he played his part in it all, what that part was is anyones guess but he wanted money !

Good afternoon Norma
I am not sure that you have quite grasped what I put forward. If Hanratty was guilty then I think he must have worked alone. If as you suggest he was most likely framed then the DNA seems to prove otherwise. But if he was a part of some wider conspiracy then where is the evidence to back this up? He certainly didn't have much money after the crime which is shown by Louise Anderson and Anne Price standing as surety on the HP for his Sunbeam car. Hanratty also very quickly went back to housebreaking as the Stanmore robberies show. If Hanratty did have money from the killing then he could have very easily bought a decent alibi rather than poncing around for one from McNally in Liverpool.

All I am trying to show is that if the DNA is correct then a great many things in the case are just plain wrong or don't have a logical explaination. Until the DNA came along I was absolutely convinced of Hanratty's innocence but that doesn't mean to say that I stopped looking at the case in much the same way as before. The DNA does not give a motive, nor does it resolve the actions of Hanratty, Alphon, France, Nudds, Anderson, Langdale etc or the need of the police to withhold so much evidence in the first place.

In fact it appears that the police managed to get the right man despite a very tenuous case indeed.

I have read the Woffinden article in The Oldie, whilst standing in WH Smiths! It suggests that Hanratty's lawyers seem to have looked at the possibility of some problem with the DNA. Woffinden also writes that the Hanratty family need a fair amount of money to have the DNA examined afresh. This is the first real news from the Hanratty camp in 8 years, since the last appeal.

Clive

Decent weather has returned at last.
The mighty Eagles snatched defeat from the jaws of victory again yesterday. Still Ryan Tendo is giving good six appeal at the mo:-)
I am putting myself forward as Englands goalie for the Algeria game on Friday. I will bring the caravan and park it in front of the goal, whilst the good lady and myself have a nice BBQ and watch the fellas knock a few in the other end!!

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Vic,
But above here you raise another of the major conundrum"s of the case viz :How did the police get from A to B? That is how did they find out Ryan was Hanratty?
When the case against Alphon collapsed after Valerie Storie failed to identify him,the police,two days later ,ie on the morning of 26th September,Acott and Oxford went to the address "Ryan" had given in the Vienna Hotel register, 72 Wood Lane ,Kingsbury.Mr Pratt -an upright citizen, who had lived there for 25 years ,said nobody named Ryan had ever lived there,but he said that he could help them in so far as a" Mr Ryan " had been written to by a car hire firm in Dublin recently at his address and he showed them the correspondence.
Yet that very afternoon the police went to Hanratty"s home at 12 Sycamore Grove and told his parents he was wanted for car theft!
As these same policemen,Acott and Oxford, had been tete a tete in long interviews with the infamous William Nudds [ the over- seasoned jail bird and notorious police informer] and his lady friend Mrs Snell, about Alphon in particular and the other guests who stayed at the Vienna ,the previous Monday-----just a thought!
But just how did the police discover "Ryan" was "Hanratty" so rapidly that Tuesday?
BTW "Hanratty" was wanted by police but for robberies [not for the A6 murder] in Northwood.Because he usually never wore gloves they had identified him from his fingerprints.But neither then, 2-3 August, nor when they visited his parents on 27th August ie 4 days after the A6 murder did they want him for anything other than housebreakings/robberies. To all intents and purposes they still had no idea he was "Ryan" -in fact "Ryan"/Hanratty" was not a murder suspect- until after William Nudds made his third statement which contradicted his previous two concerning the occupents of Room 24 etc .It was at this juncture that Acott and Oxford visited Mr and Mrs Hanratty again-ie 26 th Sept and later [29th September] learnt from press that their son was the new A6 murder suspect !
Similarly Juliana Galves statement of 12th September confirmed she did not see Alphon at the Vienna Hotel until "nearly noon on 23rd August".
Best
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Clive,
I just caught your post and have to go out for a while.Briefly though, re the DNA,the basic point regarding contamination is that if the exhibits tested were contaminated with the items connected with Hanratty the results are meaningless.The more sensitive the tests the greater the liklihood of their picking up a contaminant.
Now if the fragment of DNA found on the handkerchief and knickers were stored with material taken from Hanratty and in the same locker,they most certainly could have been contaminated.Nobody was able to find out the current evidential integrity of the examples.For example---what was in the vial,known to have been stored among exhibits and broken? It has been asked several times whether it contained fluid from a wash of Hanratty"s trousers -also kept as exhibits and known to have contained some of his semen. There has been a noticeable lack of any positive responses from the judges to these questions---nothing specific or detailed regarding the questions asked.
Best
Norma

[NickB]

On 26th September if Acott and Oxford contacted the Irish police and were told they had never heard about the incident before, I agree it was pretty impressive that they managed to track down Gerrard Leonard by the afternoon.

But I expect that when Mr Pratt had received the letter from the car hire firm (about the crash on 7th September) he told them a Mr Ryan did not live there. The matter would have been referred to the Irish police at that point.

[Natalie Severn]

2 points of information

Hi Vic,
Picking up two more of your points:

1] I believe you are in error saying that the story of Janet Gregsten and the sighting at Swiss Cottage was a myth.

2] My understanding from the following in that Ewer and Louise Anderson were in fact "acquainted"*

Regarding the first,this story was investigated in depth by Bob Woffinden.
It was not an isolated report -The Daily Sketch and Daily Mail previously carried versions of it but the really interesting bit began when George Hollingbery ,a journalist of the Evening News and Bernard Jordan were having a drink together in the King"s Head-several jouralists therefore became involved in it .Anyway, William Ewer walked in and buttonholed them and regaled them with the story.They had already noted that William Ewer "was always there [at the trial] and forever fussing and taking an extremely keen interest in the trial the entire time Later Duffy from the Sketch was let in on it -he being the original journalist to report in the Sketch the Gresgsten and Ewer "sightings" of Hanratty aka Ryan at Swiss Cottage---a few days [8] after the murder and long before Hanratty became a suspect for the A6 murder.
Apparently Duffy asked Ewer and Janet to "re-enact " it for him with a photographer in the arcade-which they agreed to do.
Five years later Duffy was questioned on BBC1"s "Panorama" about the story.Duffy explained that the police actually went back to those shops and questioned every single shop keeper on the block .Later in 1971 The Sunday Times reported that Edmund King in the photographers shop, remembered Ewer going in-very excited!
Nontheless, no significance was put on it,at the time,by the police-even though they looked into it.

Three significant facts emerged from all this:

First,that Mr Ewer knew one of the most controversial witnesses at the trial -"Ewer walked into the shop of a business associate-58 year old Mrs Louise Anderson who has an antiques business in Soho*
Now Louise was apparently Hanratty"s "fence"-he stole and she apparently sold the stolen goods for him and used to let him stay at her place so this is really remarkable.Paul Foot investigated all this as well as Woffinden and discovered the story of the "business associate" was true.
Second
Mr Ewer seemed to be very "au fait" with the police.First with the owner of the photographers shop who was himself an ex -policeman but also being able, when trying to find the killer going to Petticoat Lane and "spotting a number of plain clothes detectives posing as street photographers in Petticoat Lane"----looking for the killer.Hanratty was apparently there too that day-buying himself a suit.In fact Hanratty was to say about that day that "he thought he was being followed" -and it seems to bear out the fact he was being followed.
Even though William Ewer was Janet Gregsten"s brother in law and looking out for her ,all this involvement seems over the top and curious.

[Natalie Severn]

0n LSD etc

I am surprised that the suggestion of drugs should crop up in respect of the A6 murder. I think it was suggested on the old thread, someone from the USA I think, and drug-taking criminals were a feature of 1960s America. I don’t believe, though, that drug-taking featured in serious crimes in the 1961 UK. (If I’m wrong I’m sure I’ll be told quickly.) I am sure that drugs only featured in the public eye with The Beatles and Rolling Stones. One thing is for certain is that drugs were not so easy to get hold of in 1961, I would go so far as to say that for someone like Hanratty it would have been easier to lay hands on a gun and ammunition than drugs.

If drugs had been a feature of the crime in any way it would have cropped up as a motive or other factor at the trial.

Kind regards,
Steve

Before addressing this post, Steve, I wanted to say that I have been gradually reading through some of the previous posts on this baffling case and I must say I am v ery impressed at the wide knowledge and understanding of the case displayed by yourself and many others in so many of the posts.Also the really interesting photos posted by yourself and others - the one by another poster very clearly showing the undercurrent of hostility and mistrust between Janet Gregsten and Valerie Storie -taken while Valerie was in hospital is a real eye-opener---confirming that one picture is sometimes worth a thousand words!.
Incidently, does there happen to be a photograph of the Vienna Hotel anywhere on here does anyone know?

Regarding the matter of drugs.They were becoming very popular at this time. My mother began work as a teacher in the Art Therapy dept of a large psychiatric hospital in Chester in the Summer of 1961.I remember her telling us of the dramatic influence RD Laing* had on psychiatric thought at the time which had several of the leading psychiatrists at the hospital considering -and I think one or two actually taking, LSD, in order to better understand both schizophrenia and the "outerbody" experiences produced by LSD on the growing numbers of young patients that had taken the drug---sometimes leading to violence-eg knife attacks and shootings ,[ in the USA there was a famous case about it at the time].I know Mum also said that it was being sold to young people by drug dealers and that some of these young people had attended her Art Class and had had breakdown"s etc.
So it is a possibility that Hanratty "could" have taken the drug----so could Alphon-especiallly since he was the sort of drifter given money by mum [ both Hanratty and Alphon could even have got the substance from the very same secret "dealer" at the Vienna Hotel].Moreover,if either Hanratty ot Alphon did take LSD ,their recollection of what had happened on the A6 could would certainly have been very very "distorted" when their conscious memory returned, if not totally erased!
Best
Norma

*RD Laing was leading 60"s psychiatrist ,with very some unconventional ideas about the treatment of patients with mental illness.He took LSD himself on several occasions "to better understand schizophrenia" since the effects on the mind of LSD were very similar to the effect of the mental illness termed schizophrenia.It was also known that LSD was a lot more harmful than other drugs in that it could lead to totally distorted and delusional thinking,hallucinations and sometimes extreme out of character violence.

[Victor]

re the DNA,the basic point regarding contamination is that if the exhibits tested were contaminated with the items connected with Hanratty the results are meaningless.The more sensitive the tests the greater the liklihood of their picking up a contaminant.

Hi Norma,

The point about contamination, especially with a very sensitive test, is that extra peaks due to the profiles of the source of the contaminant would be detected, there is no plausible mechanism for a profile to be removed or vanish. The results show profiles from Storie, Gregsten and Hanratty but no other, so if Hanratty's profile is derived from contamination, then what has happened to the profile of the actual rapist? We know it was there in 1961 when they found blood type O semen, so where has it gone to?

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

How were exhibits stored?

Hi Norma,

The point about contamination, especially with a very sensitive test, is that extra peaks due to the profiles of the source of the contaminant would be detected, there is no plausible mechanism for a profile to be removed or vanish. The results show profiles from Storie, Gregsten and Hanratty but no other, so if Hanratty's profile is derived from contamination, then what has happened to the profile of the actual rapist? We know it was there in 1961 when they found blood type O semen, so where has it gone to?

KR,
Vic.

Thanks Vic,
Well its a fact that blood type "O" is shared by 50% of the population so that tells us little.
The point about contamination that I made and the broken vial of "liquid" is that if the cloth samples were stored with other exhibits from the case,in particular Hanratty"s semen stained trousers or the broken vial, it is impossible to draw a conclusion as to the DNA"s current evidential integrity.What is needed is for the DNA information about the exhibits of cloth to be weighed in the balance of known [and unknown] aspects of the history of these items-stored in the locker and handled previous to storage.
And it remains the case that the greater the sensitivity of the tests,the greater the liklihood of their picking up contaminants.

[caz]

Hi Nats,

Are you not trying to have it both ways? You began by saying that the DNA evidence is inherently unreliable and therefore can't be used to identify Hanratty's profile on the hanky and knickers. But now you are arguing that they correctly identified Hanratty's profile on both, but it got there innocently via contamination events and not because he was the rapist and gunman.

The question remains: where did the rapist's DNA profile - and his alone - disappear to if Hanratty was not the rapist, given that there were four significant stains left at the time of the crime: two semen and one vaginal fluid on the knickers; mucous on the hanky, and four corresponding DNA profiles found 40 years on: Hanratty, Gregsten, Storie on the knickers and Hanratty again on the hanky?

Not every case that looks "iffy" on the surface is automatically going to be rotten to its core on closer inspection.

Love,

Caz
X