a6 murder

[Steve]

Hello Limehouse

As far as I am aware nothing was mentioned at the time about the possibility of the gunman being affected by drugs, prescription or otherwise, but then your own experience with medical practice in the 60s shows how times have changed, and awareness of how people might or might not be affected by drugs would not have been as acute as today. Also, I suppose, most 1950s and 1960s police officers would have not been trained to look for the effects of criminals being narcotics users, so it possibly didn’t cross Acott’s mind to consider this as a possibility.

That said, I still don’t believe that drugs had any bearing on this crime, I think the motivations were probably more basic than a drug-crazed or semi-drug-influenced rampage.

Kind regards,
Steve

[simon]

Hi Steve,
I take your point about JH always being smartly dressed!

My reason for suggesting the rape may have been a red herring is because I've yet to be completely convinced that there wasn't someone behind all this who just wanted Gregsten out of the way. I know that you and others now tend towards the 'random' theory, and perhaps I'll feel the same way in time - especially once I've read Leonard Miller.

Paul Foot was admirable in many ways..(I have several of his investigative books)...but always came across on TV and radio as believing he knew better than anyone else about everything. So if it's true, as an earlier posting said, that towards the end of his life he started to think that maybe he'd got the whole Hanratty business wrong, then I must admit to a slight feeling of satisfaction!! (Especially if he did deliberately mislead with that Sidney Tafler mention).

Best wishes,
Simon

[Steve]

Paul Foot

Hi Simon

The conspiracy theorists came up with the ‘Central Figure’ wanting to end the relationship between Michael and Valerie idea because it provided a motive for the crime and pointed towards Hanratty being innocent, but this line just doesn’t hold water for a number of reasons, most of which have been covered in previous posts.

Yes, I agree about Paul Foot, he was passionate in his beliefs, though some of them have been proven to be misguided with the passage of time, but you have to admire his determination even if he did come across as a little ‘holier than though’ at times.

Kind regards,
Steve

[Graham]

My own reading of JH's personality is that he was very immature, unable to assimilate much in the way of education, and who remained the perennial 'naughty boy' who never did what he was told and was always getting into scrapes. Except that, eventually, 'naughty boys' develope an understand of their wrong-doings and also some sense of shame for them; but JH appears to have developed neither.

I don't think for a moment that the motive for the A6 crime was rape; not in the slightest. JH just let matters get the better of him, as they always had, and found it impossible to extricate himself. The very fact that he committed murder may in itself be the reason why he felt a sudden sexual urge. Murder and rape could have represented the ultimate 'porn movie' for him. I've read that guards attending executions in the USA also felt a huge need for sex afterwards, as did those responsible for operating the gas-chambers in Nazi concentration-camps, all of which had brothels for their 'staff'. All very complex and I ain't no psychologist.

Paul Foot was someone I never quite trusted - he was an old hand at espousing 'lost causes' and rarely, if ever, conceded defeat. I can never quite trust anyone from a privileged and wealthy background who allies himself with the Workers Revolutionary Party (if it still exists). However, I do get the impression, from reading Private Eye, that regarding the A6 Case he was beginning to doubt his previously-held very strong convictions.

Cheers,

Graham

[Steve]

Hi Graham

Regarding his personality, your own theory that Hanratty went into denial after the crime, together with events on the night getting out of control, really says it all.

However, there is a powerful argument to be made that Hanratty shot Gregsten out of hand because of his desire for Valerie. I have to say that I find it difficult to subscribe to your view that the killing prompted sexual excitement; though I do accept that I could be wrong, simply because I personally find violence and sex uneasy bed-fellows (so to speak!) But I do not doubt that it happens …

Foot was an enigma, I think, and became mainstream later in life, though many of us must have had reservations about him dating back to the time his uncle laid tributes at The Cenotaph wearing a designer-label donkey jacket!

I know that it has been suggested here that Paul Foot was beginning to doubt his long-held convictions regarding Hanratty’s guilt towards the end of his life, I think it might have been Savile Close who said this, but in the vast majority of his public statements on the subject Foot was vociferous in his conviction that justice had been miscarried, and the last time before his death that I heard Foot make a statement on the subject he was still convinced of Hanratty’s innocence. (Although I remain open to correction on this point.)

Kind regards,
Steve

[jimarilyn]

My own reading of JH's personality is that he was very immature, unable to assimilate much in the way of education, and who remained the perennial 'naughty boy' who never did what he was told and was always getting into scrapes. Except that, eventually, 'naughty boys' develope an understand of their wrong-doings and also some sense of shame for them; but JH appears to have developed neither. I don't think for a moment that the motive for the A6 crime was rape; not in the slightest. JH just let matters get the better of him, as they always had, and found it impossible to extricate himself. The very fact that he committed murder may in itself be the reason why he felt a sudden sexual urge. Murder and rape could have represented the ultimate 'porn movie' for him. I've read that guards attending executions in the USA also felt a huge need for sex afterwards, as did those responsible for operating the gas-chambers in Nazi concentration-camps, all of which had brothels for their 'staff'. All very complex and I ain't no psychologist.Paul Foot was someone I never quite trusted - he was an old hand at espousing 'lost causes' and rarely, if ever, conceded defeat. I can never quite trust anyone from a privileged and wealthy background who allies himself with the Workers Revolutionary Party (if it still exists). However, I do get the impression, from reading Private Eye, that regarding the A6 Case he was beginning to doubt his previously-held very strong convictions.Cheers,Graham

Are you for real ? Methinks a disturbed psyche is operating here.

[Steve]

A post from the old thread ....

What makes the A6 murder case so fascinating?

For many years, many people reading the Foot book and later the Woffinden book believed the real possibility that Hanratty had been framed, was innocent and had been murdered by the state. Also, that the true killer, some believed his name to be Alphon, was still a free man.

We have always known of the many coincidences associated with the case; Alphon & Hanratty both staying at the same hotel on consecutive nights, possibly even in the same room. Many other coincidences, of course.

We have also always known that Hanratty’s guilt was put into question by the apparent lack of motive, and the fact that he would not normally be expected to operate in the way that the A6 killer had done on that night in August 1961.

Many people believed there had been a conspiracy against Hanratty, many people believed the killer had been paid to frighten the couple in the Morris Minor.

The DNA evidence silenced most of this speculation and put paid to the belief that Hanratty was a nice young man who had been executed for a crime he hadn’t committed. The truth was out; Hanratty had been a killer and a rapist.

However, what if there had been a conspiracy after all?

Consider this:

We are in London and it is Summer 1961. Harold Macmillan is Prime Minister; Del Shannon’s ‘Runaway’ and Elvis Presley’s ‘Surrender’ vie for Number One spot in the Hit Parade; and no-one has heard of congestion charging or traffic cameras.

Two ladies are shopping on a Saturday afternoon. They pop in to a local antiques shop and chat with the man who owns the shop, he is a neighbour of theirs, has repaired their umbrellas for them on occasion, and the conversation turns to the son of one of the ladies and the nephew of the second lady. The shop owner enquires after the son and the subject of his marriage, the state of which is common knowledge in this part of London. Before his marriage the son was also a neighbour of the antiques shop owner, and there is a family relationship too, the son’s wife is a half-sister-in-law of his.

The ladies chat, you could say gossip, about the fact that the son is having a long-standing affair with a young girl in the office. They wish something could be done about it, something to bring him back to his senses, if only for the children’s sake. The lady really does not want her two grandsons to be brought up in a broken marriage, and second lady feels the same way about her grand nephews.

The antiques shop owner thinks he might be able to help, to do these two ladies a favour. Also, he has a soft spot for the wayward husband’s wife and does not want to see her hurt. He knows a man who might be able to help, so he starts to make enquiries.

The man who he thinks might be able to help lives just around the corner from the antiques shop. He is not a customer, probably can’t afford the prices, but they have exchanged pleasantries at the local café, and he thinks his wife once brought an umbrella into the shop for repair. He is known locally to be a convicted criminal and have been to prison.

The two ladies are Jeanie May Gregsten and Hilda Oulet. Jeanie’s son Michael is married to Janet, nee Phillips and Janet’s half-sister Valerie is married to the antique shop owner William Ewer.

The man who Bill Ewer knows is Dixie France.

Dixie says he knows a chap just out of prison, not too bright, will do anything for money and is looking to progress from housebreaking to stick-up jobs. Might be that this chap will ‘have a word’ with Michael and warn him off seeing Valerie. Perhaps he will do it as a favour, perhaps he won’t want any money, perhaps he just needs to be given a gun as he has been talking about getting a gun anyway.

Things progress, the young villain does as he is asked, takes a train to Slough where Bill has told him the couple do their courting. The information is from Michael’s mother, and Bill’s wife says she has heard that Michael’s girlfriend lives in Cippenham and that the couple often call into a pub in Taplow, The Old Station Inn, for a drink.

Unfortunately the young villain is not up to the task of ‘having a word.’

He finds the couple and forces entry to their car at gunpoint. Asked his name he cannot thing of a name other than his own so says ‘call me Jim’ and he finds himself attracted to the young woman.

You know what happens next that night.

The following day there is a plan in place to dispose of any evidence. Dixie is in charge and over the next days he puts the gun on the 36A bus, in a place he knew he could link to the young villain. When this failed to point the police in the correct direction he went to The Vienna and left spent cartridge cases in the room he knew had been occupied by the young villain. To be completely certain he then went to the police with the young villain’s name, Jim Hanratty.

The rest is history.

Is this fact or fiction.

Most of it is fact!

For the part of this story that is speculation, I can only say that it could well have happened this way.

Kind regards,
Steve

[richardnunweek]

Hi Steve,
A excellent scenerio if I may say, it certainly uses what is known rather well, and yes, you are correct in the guilt of Hanratty being more or less accepted now by all parties, and because of this suggestions such as yours, are fair play.
The picture of Janet at Valeries bedside is a classic, one can only assume it was requested by the paper concerned, and clearly both ladies agreed to it being taken.
I can only describe the situation as if say for instance, my wife was having a affair with a man, and one evening my wife and lover were accosted by a gunman, and the events that followed resulted in the death of my wife , and the survival of the man.
Would I feel a compulsion to visit my wifes wounded lover in hospital? answer 'No'
I would proberly have a desire to visit him with the soul purpose to finish him off...
Although to be fair to Janet, she proberly swallowed her pride, and realized that Valerie would have been able to inform her of Michaels last moments, and that may have in some way help to overcome her obvious grief, even if anger must have been present over their affair.
Or as a alternative.
She wanted to present a picture to the world that she was not a bitter woman, or even possibly accepted a offer of money from the newspaper to appear as a caring soul.
Best Regards,
Richard.

[Graham]

Are you for real ? Methinks a disturbed psyche is operating here.

Yeah? So let's hear YOUR reasons for how someone could committ murder followed immediately by rape. And you seem to have missed my stating quite clearly that what I wrote was merely suggestion, hence the use of 'may', 'could have', etc, in my post.

Not a disturbed psyche, pal; just a long-time interest in solved and unsolved murder, murderers and the reasons why people committ murder. Such an interest does tend to bring one on contact with reading-matter that is not exactly coffee-table stuff.

Graham

[Limehouse]

Hi Steve,

Your scenario is very plausible. I can also see the following happening. Same scenario with the ladies in Ewer's shop, but Ewer knows Hanratty because he has 'bought' a bit of stuff from Hanratty now and then to stock his shop. He knows Hanratty through Louise Anderson and Charles France. Hanratty does the crime, it goes tragically wrong, and they frame him to take the blame. Look at the evidence - Hanratty never wears gloves on a job but Anderson testifies that she 'lost' a pair of gloves around the time Hanratty was visitng her just before the murder. Charles France testifies Hanratty told him about the back seat of a bus being a good place to hide unwanted loot from robberies. It all fits.


Regards

Limehouse

[jimarilyn]

May 1967

Alphon admits to crime.

[Steve]

Complete with spelling mistakes, and those were the days - when £5,000 was worth $15,000!

[jimarilyn]

Yeah? So let's hear YOUR reasons for how someone could committ murder followed immediately by rape. And you seem to have missed my stating quite clearly that what I wrote was merely suggestion, hence the use of 'may', 'could have', etc, in my post.

Not a disturbed psyche, pal; just a long-time interest in solved and unsolved murder, murderers and the reasons why people committ murder. Such an interest does tend to bring one on contact with reading-matter that is not exactly coffee-table stuff.

Graham

You change your mind/opinion as often as the weather. You never even met the man (Hanratty) yet you come up with all these half baked theories to support your current viewpoint. His family and friends knew him intimately and I'm sure if they thought for just one moment that James was even capable of such a horrible crime they would not have expended all that time and energy over the past few decades in trying to prove his innocence.

Take for instance his Rhyl alibi. All those genuine and honest folk who claim to have seen or spoken to him on the evening of 22nd August and during the course of the next day, were they all Billy Liars like the repulsive and reprehensible William Nudds and Roy Langdale ? I remember reading a post (it may have been one of yours) a few months back stating that Hanratty's activities in Rhyl on the 22nd and 23rd August 1961 were in fact his activities/actions from exactly one month previously the 25th of July. Hanratty's previous trip to Rhyl was indeed on the 25th of July 1961. He couldn't have encountered those witnesses then for obvious (and documented) reasons. For example he couldn't have stayed at Ingledene that July night as he stayed the night at Terry Evans's flat ( he stole a pair of Evans's shoes in fact) and left Rhyl the next day.

[jimarilyn]

Complete with spelling mistakes, and those were the days - when £5,000 was worth $15,000!

A bit like posts 559 and 564 perhaps ?

[jimarilyn]

May 1967

Another newspaper clipping. Sunday 14 May 1967.