a6 murder

[NickB]

But thats what I am saying. He had a rather "confusing " choice.

His version is that he wanted to go to Liverpool to sell jewellery, but went to Paddington instead of Euston by mistake. “I do not know why I made this mistake. Perhaps I was excited by the jewellery and the deal I was going to do.” In Liverpool, after leaving things in ‘left luggage’, he went off in search of his contact for the deal. After failing to find the road, and trying to sell the watch at a billiard hall, he had a ‘change of heart’ and decided to go to Rhyl.

If you are saying it is difficult to believe that he went to Paddington by mistake, as he claims, then I agree with you.

[Limehouse]

His version is that he wanted to go to Liverpool to sell jewellery, but went to Paddington instead of Euston by mistake. “I do not know why I made this mistake. Perhaps I was excited by the jewellery and the deal I was going to do.” In Liverpool, after leaving things in ‘left luggage’, he went off in search of his contact for the deal. After failing to find the road, and trying to sell the watch at a billiard hall, he had a ‘change of heart’ and decided to go to Rhyl.

If you are saying it is difficult to believe that he went to Paddington by mistake, as he claims, then I agree with you.

Hi Nick and all,

If, as I suspect, Hanratty had dyslexia and possibly dyspraxia, it would not be at all surprising for him to have been confused, ending up at the wrong station. I know of people who, when walking in a place they know well, can become disorientated and end up somewhere unexpected. It is a characteristic of these conditions and other conditions too.

I think the reason for Hanratty's change of alibi was his complete belief that someone among his acquaintences in Liverpool would confirm his visit there but, realising that he was not going to get that confirmation from those he expected (due to his reason for being there - to sell them stolen goods) he fell back on Rhyl. The reason he did not mention Rhyl to start with was: a) because he did not think he would need to because of the perceived reliability of his Liverpool alibi, and b) His recall of Rhyl was more vague and he was unsure whether anyone could confirm his presence there.

As for the DNA evidence, we can argue back and forth our particular views on whether the DNA did or did not prove Hanratty's guilt, but the fact is that some of us have much less faith in the scientific process than others. For example, I do not think that testing in 1961 DID prove the presence of the rapist any more reliably than the DNA proves that that 1961 sample was from Hanratty and there are several reasons for me stating this. One of them is too controversial to mention and the other reason is that I simply do not throw my self on my knees in worship just because a scientist says something or the other is so. Just today, I heard of a story whereby a hospital consultant, on examining a scan, confirmed a patient did not have cancer and yet on the next hospital visit, a different consultant thought the first consultant was wrong and gave a diagnosis of cancer.

[Natalie Severn]

Qui Bono?

Yes Julie---some excellent points you make---- and as of this moment there is the case of Baby Lucas on C4 exposing how this child was given 9 times the prescribed dose of the wrong medicine which ofcourse killed him.
I agree with you over the last point.I am very sceptical about all this.I did not know that Michael Gregsten"s semen was on Valerie Storie"s underwear as well.Also I didnt know Valerie had removed her knickers until you mentioned it the other day.Certainly Valerie lost out and so did Mike Gregsten.
So why don"t we look at "who gained" ?
Qui Bono--- in Roman Law this was considered hugely significant and its not difficult to understand why.In this case William Ewer gained Janet Gregsten.He had known Janet Gregsten since she moved in with him and his wife when she was twelve years old and her mother remarried and she and her half sister and her half sister"s husband ,William Ewer all lived happily together for a while in a large Hampstead House.But poor little Janet was "chucked out" at age 14---has anybody ever wondered whether William Ewer had anything to do with her being " chucked out" at such a tender age?
Moreover ,the person "who gained" financially, was Alphon---to the tune of £5,000 [like 250,000 in today"s money]-a man who had no job,no money and nobody knows where he was at the time of the murder!
Cui Bono ? William Ewer and Alphon.
Who lost out? Valerie Storie, Mike Gregsten and ofcourse Hanratty.
What would Roman Law have made of this since everything was predicated on "Qui Bono"!

[NickB]

I thought Norma was suggesting he went to Paddington because it was an alternative route to Rhyl, but he said that Rhyl did not occur to him until he had failed in his exploits at Liverpool.

... realising that he was not going to get that confirmation from those he expected (due to his reason for being there - to sell them stolen goods) he fell back on Rhyl.

If he was not in Liverpool those two nights he could not have expected anyone to give him an alibi. Is that not a more likely reason the people there didn’t, rather than that he went there to sell them stolen goods? When Evans in Rhyl was asked if he knew why JH would have any reason to expect him to buy stolen goods he simply said he didn’t know.

Had he got a false alibi from criminals in Liverpool, would you have believed it?

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Neil,
No I wouldnt trust those sort of alibis at all .Back to that later.
Cheers Norma

[Victor]

My point was about the known fragility of the cloth sample,its possible contamination,its known and unknown history not having been provided with the 2002 test . The fact that it was described as a "fragment of cloth' attached to a staple and meaning that its possible the semen stains had already disappeared with the disintegration of the cloth..

Hi Norma,

I don't follow this. Fragility of cloth? I also don't know where the reference to a staple comes from and I do not believe that is the case. From the judgment...
"It appears from the records that Dr Grant examined the green jacket and trousers on 28 December 1961 and Valerie Storie’s slips and knickers the following day. It was on this latter occasion that a portion of the crotch area of the knickers was removed and thereafter, as seems clear, stored separately from the other exhibits including the knickers from which it had been excised. As also seems clear, a fragment of the excised portion was retained by the laboratory having first been placed in a small envelope made of cellophane and sellotape which was in turn put into a small brown envelope and the small envelope into a larger envelope before being treasury tagged to a laboratory file. It was so placed when rediscovered in 1991."

I do not believe that cloth would disintegate over 40 years. I quoted the Forensic Institute because they are the major scientific organisation that oppose LCN, and if they say that basically there is absolutely no reason for the DNA in the semen to disintegrate, then I find it very difficult to challenge that.

The point about the test itself is that whatever you choose to believe about the LCN DNA"s 2002 test vis a vis its reliability it is very controversial and is considered by the FBI and most European judiciaries too unreliable to use.

I am sorry, that statement is absolutely wrong. There was controversy, but now LCN results cannot be challenged in the UK in cases where the DNA is quantified (which is now routinely done) and is greater than 100-200pg. The Reed\Reed & Garmson judgment I quoted from 2009 explicitly states this.

The FBI and European police forces can and do use LCN as an investigative tool, but they cannot use the results in court. There is a massive difference between the position you have stated several times, and what actually happens.

I am sorry Victor but I prefer to believe Woffinden on this--he is a journalist and documentary maker of the utmost integrity and his latest quote on the tests "unreliability" is in last month"s "The Oldie".

Woffinden is an investigative journalist deeply involved in alleged miscarriages of justice - Sion Jenkins for example. To me he is vastly more interested in proving miscarriages occur than the truth. I sincerely question his integrity.

I will re-read "The Oldie" article tonight as I don't have it with me at the moment, just to see exactly what he says regarding the FBI.

You comment about Editors rarely publishing inaccurate information is easily disproved by the huge number of libel cases, especially for Ingams previous employer Private Eye.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

I did not know that Michael Gregsten"s semen was on Valerie Storie"s underwear as well.Also I didnt know Valerie had removed her knickers until you mentioned it the other day.

Hi Norma,

Valerie was raped, exactly how did you expect this to occur without the removal of her knickers?

Also what relevence does the Gregsten\Storie intercourse have? The only thing I can think of is that it may have been observed by the gunman and precipitated the rape.

Certainly Valerie lost out and so did Mike Gregsten.
So why don"t we look at "who gained" ?

Cui Bono ? William Ewer and Alphon.
Who lost out? Valerie Storie, Mike Gregsten and ofcourse Hanratty.
What would Roman Law have made of this since everything was predicated on "Qui Bono"!

You are making a lot of assumptions in compiling your list of who benefitted and who lost out. For example Gregsten's and Storie's families lost out. Janet lost her husband, even if he wasn't great at that role. Their boys lost their father and he appearred to be much better in that role.

Ewer lost his brother-in-law and had to comfort his sister-in-law. To say he "gained" Janet is technically correct, but at the cost of his wife and their marriage. Any speculation on their lives is unhelpful because it could just as easily be the opposite of your suggestion - his wife grew jealous and resentful of the support he was giving to Janet and abandoned him. On the whole he probably lost out.

Hanratty did lose his life, but I consider that to be justice although I won't say it was just. He certainly deserved to lose his freedom for the rest of his life.

Alphon was falsely accused of a crime, and publically named by the police. You cannot categorically state that his financial gains were not entirely due to recompense for this slander.

The entire "Qui Bono" case cannot be fairly evaluated unless you know who is responsible for the crime.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Emphatically No Victor. Ewer,Alphon"s "central figure" did indeed later attempt, with Janet Gregsten, to deny the story.[Ewer became Janet Gregsten"s lover not long after the trial --and Hanratty"s execution].

Emphatically Yes Norma. Ewer and Janet Gregsten did deny the story. The press did print incorrect information, such as "Hitch-hiker murder". There is no corroboration for the story.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

As for the DNA evidence, we can argue back and forth our particular views on whether the DNA did or did not prove Hanratty's guilt, but the fact is that some of us have much less faith in the scientific process than others. For example, I do not think that testing in 1961 DID prove the presence of the rapist any more reliably than the DNA proves that that 1961 sample was from Hanratty and there are several reasons for me stating this. One of them is too controversial to mention and the other reason is that I simply do not throw my self on my knees in worship just because a scientist says something or the other is so. Just today, I heard of a story whereby a hospital consultant, on examining a scan, confirmed a patient did not have cancer and yet on the next hospital visit, a different consultant thought the first consultant was wrong and gave a diagnosis of cancer.

Hi Julie,

Scientists and Doctors are human and occasionally make mistakes.

I emphatically believe that in 1961 blood group O semen was detected in the underwear the victim was wearing, this semen could not have come from blood group AB Gregsten so must have come from the rapist.

If you challenge this blunt fact then you can only be implying that nothing is true unless you see it for yourself. For example the wonderful images of Saturn and it's rings might as well be the Mona Lisa, meaning painted by an artist rather than a photograph.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Emphatically Yes Norma. Ewer and Janet Gregsten did deny the story. The press did print incorrect information, such as "Hitch-hiker murder". There is no corroboration for the story.

KR,
Vic.

I seriously doubt your own research here Victor.Why bring up the hitch hiker story? This was an understandable initial interpretation of what happened based
on the understanding of what Valerie Storie had told the student who found her and who was conducting a traffic census.
My ex worked for many years as a journalist on a Fleet Street newspaper so I actually know quite a lot about what goes on and have met a lot of the national press men who make headline stories today-as well as Paul Foot actually ! And yes,they are a mixed bunch and mistakes do happen and lies get through---or rather " sins of omission" that distort the truth from time to time , but there are always lawyers to guide them about whether they should publish and be damned !Private Eye took big risks and nearly went out of business!
But retuning to the "sighting"-there were no mistakes here ----her story was investigated by police and followed up by police---who properly dismissed it as not of any consequence.Just because Janet Gregston and William Ewer denied it doesnt mean it didnt happen.Neither were above reproach---in fact none of them were by the standards of the day and in in many circles that would still be the case today. They were all involved at some point in extra marital affairs.Ewer had an affair with Janet Gregsten not long after all this---which like Valerie Storie"s and Mike Gregsten"s affair was kept under wraps . Ewer had known Janet Gregsten since she was 12 when she went to live where he was living with his wife-Janet"s half sister.Janet was "apparently chucked out" at the age of 14 from this big family home she lived in in Hampstead,with them and her mother and new step father .Janet was apparently a very beautiful woman .I will leave it at that for the moment, but it was an unusual set of affairs in those days by all accounts.
Will return to your other points later.
Norma

[Victor]

Why bring up the hitch hiker story? This was an understandable initial interpretation of what happened based on the understanding of what Valerie Storie had told the student who found her and who was conducting a traffic census.

Hi Norma,

I consider it a one-sides-word-against-the-other situation and I used the "Hitch-hiker" example to highlight the fact that newspaper articles are sometimes completely wrong. Some journalists invent sensational stories to increase their circulation, and others are scrupulously honest. I view the "she saw him at the cleaners" story to be predominantly embellishment of the truth with a small kernel of facts and that's as far as the evidence goes.

They were all involved at some point in extra marital affairs.Ewer had an affair with Janet Gregsten not long after all this---which like Valerie Storie"s and Mike Gregsten"s affair was kept under wraps .

Yes but how is infidelity at all relevent? Hanratty had a string of affairs and was a regular prostitute client, but what does this matter? I suppose you could say that as Alphon rarely had sex and shows many characteristics of being a repressed homosexual it makes Hanratty much more likely to be a rapist than Alphon.

KR,
Vic.

[CliveEnglish]

Yes but how is infidelity at all relevent? Hanratty had a string of affairs and was a regular prostitute client, but what does this matter? I suppose you could say that as Alphon rarely had sex and shows many characteristics of being a repressed homosexual it makes Hanratty much more likely to be a rapist than Alphon.

Victor
Rape is not about sexual urge or sexual enjoyment but completely and utterly about power and control over the victim. I have an inkling that some people like to play act rough sex games but don't ever confuse that with the act of rape. And as for a profile of someone who may be more prone to be a rapist it is plainly Alphon who fit's that persona. Indeed a repressed homosexual, with Nazi tendancies who made many hundreds of menacing phone calls and on one occasion public assaulted 2 people because he lost control. All in all Alphon is the classic psychopath. His was recorded (under advisement by the police by Justice) using phrases such as "I'll count to five" and "I'll have to hit you over the head". Valerie Storie made statements that both of these phrases were used by the A6 killer.

Clive

Boring boring Brazil. Didn't think I'd ever say that. Bring on the Germans!

[CliveEnglish]

Also, a gunman who thought someone in the area had got a good look at him would be foolhardy to proceed with the attack.

Hanratty may have thought someone had got a good look at him on his way to or at Paddington, as he admitted having gone there.

Good evening Nick

As for Hanratty being seen at or around Paddington Station that morning, I don't know. But an actor Michael Da Costa thought he saw a man who was Hanratty on the train Hanratty said he caught from Euston that day. Mr Da Costa's recollection was due to the fact that the man he saw plainly had dyed hair which was, by Mr Da Costa's opinion, at that time quite unusual.

Clive

The mighty Essex Eagles are back on track in the FpT20 after some monster results. Go the Eagles against Surrey tonight.

[RonIpstone]

But an actor Michael Da Costa thought he saw a man who was Hanratty on the train Hanratty said he caught from Euston that day.

What train did Hanratty say he caught from Euston that day?

[Natalie Severn]

Hi All,
I got The Hawser report today from Rhyl Local Studies and Paul Foot"s book ,"Who killed Hanratty?".The people I have spoken to in Rhyl have been unanimously adamant that Hanratty stayed there on 22nd August 1961 and 23rd too.
Victor it is generally agreed and indeed it is referred to in the Hawser report,that Hanratty had a normal sex drive for a twenty four year old.Hawser even went so far as to say he was reputed to behave in a proper manner with his girl friends and to be well mannered in his sexual behaviour with them. There had never been the lightest suggestion he had ever raped any of the women he had slept with.It was not common in 1961 for young women to be having affairs with married men with children and it was not common either for young women to automatically go to bed with their boyfriends.So many young men did pay prostitutes for their early sexual experiences.
Hawser draws attention to how chivalrous Hanratty was said to be by the young women he dated,so lets not invent stuff about his everyday sexual behaviour that is certainly not true.
Now I have these items from the library I must read them because I am being surprised by just how many people claim they saw Hanratty on the train to LIverpool [two at least on the train as well as De Costa] also several in Rhyl.But Mr Dutton and the watch story has been left out on the grounds that Hanratty didnt refer to trying to sell a gold watch in court.Apparently he did to Supt.Oxford. Indeed Hawser completely accepts that Hanratty was in Liverpool on 21st August and was seen by the sweet shop lady and the child who was with her.She was able to give the date because that was when the child was with her.A man who looked after left luggage also remembered him.Anyway,it is accepted that he was in LIverpool on both 21st August and 24th August when he sent France his telegram.
But France and his daughter claimed he was at their house on 21st didnt he?Must double check.
Cheers
Norma