a6 murder

[RonIpstone]

William Nudds's first statement to the police, where he claimed Hanratty had asked him how to get to Queensway, was obviously designed to incriminate him and forever associate him with the 36 bus [he'd no doubt forgotten that the alleged murder weapon was found on a 36A bus]. Even if this incident did take place how can it have incriminated Hanratty ? The 'murder weapon' was placed on the 36A bus on the Thursday, a full two days after Hanratty had left the Vienna Hotel and the London area.. Besides all else, Queensway is only a mile and a half from Sutherland Avenue and I feel sure that Hanratty, with his knowledfge of the London area, would have easily known how to get there.

1. Agreed, the statement of Nudds to the effect that he directed Hanratty towards the No 36 could not be probative of Hanratty placing the gun on a No 36 or No. 36A bus two days later.

2. The No 36 and No 36A differed in route in that the latter did not run south of Victoria Station. For Hanratty's purposes of getting to Queensway either bus would have served his purpose equally well, or more accurately, equally badly, for while both buses went along the Harrow Road neither went near Queensway (or so I understand).

3. I do not find it strange that Hanratty asked for directions. He arrived late at night by taxi to the Vienna Hotel and, as far as we know, he had never stayed there before. I find it quite credible that he should want to start walking in the right direction and why not ask Nudds, the personable night/day porter?

4. As mentioned above the No36 (or 36A) would not have been any use to Hanratty for getting to Queensway; it would have got him to Paddington, where Hanratty admitted going to on Tuesday morning.

5. So did Hanratty ask for directions to Paddington or to Queensway? Did Nudds give those directions as asked and then latter embellish with the bit about advising getting a No 36 bus in the belief that this could be of assistance to the cops, which would prove ultimately to be for his benefit?

6. If Hanratty wanted to go to Queensway, why and for what purpose? Or perhaps Hanratty asked for directions to Paddington and Nudds's recollection as to the precise destination asked for by Hanratty failed him when making his first statement to the police. Therefore Nudds improvised with the Queensway destination, but the bit about the No36 was accurately remembered by him.

7. A jury could not rely on much that Nudds said in view of the tampering with his statement by D.S. but even if they had accepted what Nudds eventually said, as mentioned above, his evidence would not be proof that Hanratty left the gun on the No. 36A on Thursday 24 August 1961.

[Natalie Severn]

The number 36 bus goes to Paddington. It goes down the Edgeware Road and when gets to Bayswater it turns to go to Paddington.However Queensway is only half a mile from Paddington Station and there are fewer bus routes to Queensway than Paddington so in fact the 36 bus would have been a good enough bus from the Vienna Hotel.The number 70 bus can be picked up from Paddington to Queensway but it is only one or two stops.
I am pretty sure that had Hanratty wanted to go to Paddington he would have stated Paddington ,not Queensway.The Vienna Hotel is in the Paddington area anyway, so it makes more sense that he walked there as he said he did.
There is a 27 bus that can be picked up from either Paddington Station or Queensway which goes to Euston.Its just a short walk from Euston and is the bus I take sometimes from Notting Hill to Euston.
Norma

[RonIpstone]

The present day route of the 36 seems to be the same as it was back in 1961 and on further investigation Nudds's directions to Queensway were not as daft as I first thought.

From the Harrow Rd/Sutherland Av junction the 36 travels along Harrow Rd turning right into Porchester Rd and then turns left onto Bishops Bridge Road. The junction at Bishops Bridge Rd/Porchester Rd is only about 100 yards from the top (northern end) of Queensway. If Hanratty had wanted to go the tube station 'Queensway' then that is at the southernmost end of the road Queensway.

As to the distances involved, the Harrow Rd/Sutherland Av distance to Paddington is 1.1 miles, and to Queensway (tube) is the same 1.1 miles. The evidence was that the Vienna was half a mile from the Harrow Rd. I calculate that the Vienna Hotel was about 2.4 miles on foot from Euston Station.

[Natalie Severn]

I often consider that, in 2010, Hanratty would sport a shaved head, tattoes, and go to the gym - he was most definitely a macho type, and given that he made a living out of crime was doubtless prepared, willing and able to put up his dukes if he had to.

I think you are right about him being willing to defend himself as evidenced in Liverpool when he was attacked there by youths sporting knuckle dusters.
But according to the first description Louise Anderson gave to the Daily Telegraph, he was very pleasant to talk to and likeable and according to Mary Meaden a 22 year old girl friend ,his behaviour was always impeccable.In one article all three of the France"s gave to a newspaper, Charles "Dixie" France wrote of Hanratty"s gentleness ,and his "devotion to his mother" "He was gay and generous and he loved a joke" and Mrs France said she had treated him as her son. Each of his girl friends Gladys Deacon,Anne Price, Mary Meaden and Carol France spoke of a gentle man who behaved properly towards them and enjoyed taking them to variety shows or to the funfairs.Moreover he always tried to dress fashionably and seems to have been a bit of a dandy,liking fast cars and beautiful girls, so I don"t see him as a shaven headed thug type at all etc.

[caz]

I havent determined its 100% reliability but there were found to be 214 other cases of wrong identification in one State ---demonstrating the unreliability of eye witness identification by a victim.
And yes,I do indeed continue to reserve all judgment regarding the reliability of the LCN DNA test and what was found of Hanratty"s DNA on the fragment of forty year old cloth-which could have been the result of contamination .We know almost nothing of the history of that cloth.We do not know much about what happened on 28th -and 29th December 1961 in the police lab where Hanratty"s trousers had had seminal fluid removed from the fly area by the pathologist beforethe knickers were examined and before the piece of cloth was cut from them.

Hi Nats,

We do know quite a bit about the two areas of semen staining that were found to correspond with ejaculations by AB group Gregsten and the O group rapist. These corresponded forty years later with the three DNA profiles for Gregsten, Valerie and Hanratty, picked up from the excised fragment.

Hanratty’s defence team for the 2002 appeal knew they were up a gum tree if their case rested on a ridiculously improbable double event, whereby the wrong bit of knicker, containing every last trace of the rapist’s semen, got thrown away, while the remaining bit, still bearing the victims’ traces, got contaminated with semen from Hanratty’s trousers.

Even if something like this had been considered a distinct possibility - which it wasn’t, not remotely - it would not have followed that Hanratty could not still have been the owner of the lost semen stain. The remaining evidence plus his DNA on the hanky would have preserved what was considered to be a strong case. The victim identified the hanky’s owner as her rapist, and he failed - unaccountably - to say where he was at the time, if he wasn’t committing this capital crime.

One other question: if you think Alphon could have been the man hiding his own murder weapon on the bus, why - and how - did he go to the trouble of wrapping it in Hanratty’s snotty hanky first? It was just a hanky in 1961, proving nothing, and the gunman wore gloves for the actual crime, didn’t he? Was Alphon already anticipating that Hanratty would become a suspect at this point, and did he have reason to think the hanky could be identified as his too?

Regarding the hanky: I think the gun was most likely "planted" on that 36A bus---to incriminate Hanratty.Whether it was Alphon who planted it or France----is a mystery .What is for certain is that France would have had an abundance of opportunity to grab one of Hanratty"s hanky"s from the wash,since his wife took on all Hanratty"s washing.

And you wonder why people get frustrated with you for avoiding their questions?

You speculated that Alphon could have been the man who put the gun on the bus. When asked to explore this further, to see if it flies or falls apart under the strain of yet more improbability, you move on to someone else, who can be squeezed more easily into the general framework. But can he?

I agree that France has a lot more going for him as a potential planter, given all the circumstances. But again, it would not follow that he was knowingly incriminating - betraying - an innocent man (the one he spoke of, after supposedly helping to hang him, in the glowing terms you describe above!). France could have been distancing the weapon from himself, knowing or suspecting that it had been used in the A6 murder and that it was Hanratty who had used it. Better to put it somewhere it would be found and linked to the guilty man, then simply deny all knowledge, rather than risk becoming an accessory after the fact by doing anything else with it. Hanratty couldn’t have implicated France in the planting without directly implicating himself.

But why would France have planted the gun, if he knew it would be found and linked to an innocent Hanratty, who was bound to protest his innocence to the last and could so easily have had a verifiable alibi - or been blood group A for that matter? Why didn’t France chuck the gun in the Thames and be done with it? That's an argument we've all made against Hanratty hiding the damning thing under that seat. Getting it linked to a completely uninvolved Hanratty via the bus trick was only going to put France's own associations with the man under scrutiny. So who in his life was so worth protecting from suspicion, and so needed that protection, that he felt compelled to deflect that suspicion onto the hapless Hanratty in this way?

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

Carol France-

A picture of Carol France,one of Hanratty"s girl friends.He went to Battersea Fun Fair with her on September 16th.He was wearing his dark,pin stripe Hepworth 3 piece suit and black pointy toed shoes.After having a coffee they went on the Dodgems, Big Dipper,Big Splash Switch back and Big Wheel.

[Natalie Severn]

Originally Posted by caz
One other question: if you think Alphon could have been the man hiding his own murder weapon on the bus, why - and how - did he go to the trouble of wrapping it in Hanratty’s snotty hanky first? It was just a hanky in 1961, proving nothing, and the gunman wore gloves for the actual crime, didn’t he? Was Alphon already anticipating that Hanratty would become a suspect at this point, and did he have reason to think the hanky could be identified as his too?



Caz,

Why you have posed the above question like this?I havent said that thats what I "think" happened.I indicated I thought France might have planted it or Alphon ---or possibly someone else from the Soho underworld of 1961. So I "think" that Alphon "could".in my view "have had something to do with this crime even if he didnt commit it"----ok?.Maybe he committed it or maybe he was implicated in it in some way----I havent said that I definitely think Alphon was the gunman in the car-so please dont keep projecting ideas into my words .

Secondly can you point me to this exact text that states when and ,even more importantly ,where the semen stains were tested and found to have been blood group "O" etc.Who analysed these results and how long after the crime was committed were they analyized?
And will stop this hectoring about how I post and what I say---thanks .

Norma

[RonIpstone]

Hi Nats,


But why would France have planted the gun, if he knew it would be found and linked to an innocent Hanratty, who was bound to protest his innocence to the last and could so easily have had a verifiable alibi - or been blood group A for that matter? Why didn’t France chuck the gun in the Thames and be done with it? That's an argument we've all made against Hanratty hiding the damning thing under that seat. Getting it linked to a completely uninvolved Hanratty via the bus trick was only going to put France's own associations with the man under scrutiny. So who in his life was so worth protecting from suspicion, and so needed that protection, that he felt compelled to deflect that suspicion onto the hapless Hanratty in this way?

Hello Caz,

The only link from Hanratty to the hiding of the gun under the seat of the bus was provided by Dixie France. The discovery of the gun would not therefore implicate Hanratty unless Dixie gave evidence about the conversation he had with Hanratty about this hiding place. If Dixie had wanted to frame Hanratty he had from the date (24 Aug) the gun was discovered to do so. That he did not should be sufficient proof that he did not wish to frame Hanratty.

I agree that if had wanted to protect the 'real killer' then he should have chucked the gun in the river or otherwise try to put it beyond discovery. To try to frame Hanratty in the absence of certain knowledge that (1) Hanratty did not have a sustainable alibi (2) that Hanratty was of the same blood group as the rapist and (3) that Valerie would misidentify JH as her rapist, was a risky strategy which could deflect suspicion back onto France and the real killer.

Ron

[Derrick]

I accept that Zodiac may be right about the attributes of the guns mentioned.

In that light doesn't that make the then Home Office's Chief Pathologist, Professor Keith Simpson, to be completely wrong as to his own ballistic findings in this case? Yet however wrong he was, his testimony went completely unchallenged in this case along with exhibits being numbered incorrectly. But it cannot be explained away as a case of a few simple typo's in Simpson's book some 17 years later. Either the wounds inflicted and described at trial by the chief pathologist were caused by either a .32 or .38.

I also disagree with Simpson with his view that he was "impressed by the weight of the evidence" against Hanratty. Even before Woffinden's new investigation into the case only a buffoon could be impressed by the calibre of the "weight" of the evidence against the man Hanratty.

How it was presented at trial and the jury's impression of it is another matter.

After the trial both the eminent lawyer Blom-Cooper and historian Russell wrote that they were unimpressed with the case against Hanratty. Indeed Russell worked off of the backing of at least 100 Members of Parliament through votes from early day motions from the MP for Slough and Eton Fenner Brockway. It is well known that Blom-Cooper believes Hanratty to be guilty although he has also swayed towards innocence when reviewing both Foot and Woffinden's books which shows a critical uncertainty in his own mind.

Keith Simpson was brought in, by the Canadian Government, to comment on the attacks on the forensic evidence in a book (The Trials of Steven Truscott, Isabel LeBourdais, 1966) about the Steven Truscott case in Canada in the 1960's and backed the scientists original findings. Yet over forty years later Truscott had his conviction quashed and got $6.5 in compensation. A retrial could not be held because of the passage of time.

These examples show Simpson's judgement to be lacking in at least two capital murder cases.

My point is; which eminent scientist's view is one supposed to believe in court cases?

Is the DNA evidence correct as Dr Whittaker says in this case? He has a less than excellent track record in court where LCN is concerned. (Hoey especially)

As I understand it, mixed profile interpretation with LCN has not been validated. So the evidence given must be suspect in this case and in other cases with similar test results?

Derrick

[Natalie Severn]

Caz,

I agree that France has a lot more going for him as a potential planter, given all the circumstances

Then you will surely agree that if he could have "planted the gun" he,of all people apart from Louise Anderson would have had an abundance of opportunity to grab one of Hanratty"s used hankies from the dirty linen Hanratty regularly gave to his wife ,Mrs France , and for Dixie France to then wrap it around the gun and nip round the corner to the 36A bus stop!

[RonIpstone]

Hello Derrick,

What are you saying here? That the gun found under the seat on No 36A was not the gun that was used to kill Gregsten and maim Valerie Storie?

Paul Foot has it that it was beyond doubt that this gun was used in the murder. Are you saying that he too got it wrong?

In fact so uncontroversial did Foot find Dr Keith Simpson's evidence that neither the good doctor nor his evidence were referred to in the book, or at least Dr Keith's name does not appear in the index.

At any rate all concerned with Hanratty's defence have accepted without challenge that the gun found on 24 August was the murder weapon and also the weapon from which the cartridge cases found in the Vienna Hotel on 11 September came.

Ron

[Natalie Severn]

The only link from Hanratty to the hiding of the gun under the seat of the bus was provided by Dixie France. The discovery of the gun would not therefore implicate Hanratty unless Dixie gave evidence about the conversation he had with Hanratty about this hiding place. If Dixie had wanted to frame Hanratty he had from the date (24 Aug) the gun was discovered to do so. That he did not should be sufficient proof that he did not wish to frame Hanratty.

But "Dixie" ,who had been a "close friend" of Hanratty , was a witness for the prosecution and it was his evidence about the hiding place on the upstairs back seat of a bus,combined with Nudds claiming to have conversed with Hanratty about taking a36A bus to Queensway, that was so damning at the trial.So why was this "close friend" bending over backwards to be so "helpful" to the prosecution?

[RonIpstone]

Caz,




Then you will surely agree that if he could have "planted the gun" he,of all people apart from Louise Anderson would have had an abundance of opportunity to grab one of Hanratty"s used hankies from the dirty linen Hanratty regularly gave to his wife ,Mrs France , and for Dixie France to then wrap it around the gun and nip round the corner to the 36A bus stop!

Hi Norma or Natalie,

Agreed the opportunity to find a used hankie was probably available to Dixie.

But why would he do it? It would only implicate Hanratty if a connection could be made between him and a predilection for leaving 'stuff' under bus seats. That such a connection could eventually be made was because Dixie gave his evidence of the conversation with Hanratty on the way back from the Hendon dog track on 7 August. If framing Hanratty had been on the agenda, then surely Dixie would have gone to the cops when the gun was first discovered?

I assume you would also suggest that Dixie put the spent cartridges in the Vienna, which presumably would be as risky an enterprise as leaving the gun on the bus. The question has to be what was in it for Dixie France? As the theory has developed over the years that Alphon 'what done it', then it was hardly the brightest thing to do to leave spent cartridge cases in Alphon's hotel, and would certainly not deflect the suspicion away from Alphon.

On the other hand if you are saying that Dixie did not leave the spent cartridge cases in the Vienna, who did? But again this theory is subject to the same objection, if Alphon had been the real murderer then what was the point of leaving spent cartridges in his hotel, even if the room they were left in had not been occupied by Alphon?

As mentioned previously all this effort on the part of Dixie and/or his accomplice would be of no effect if (1) Hanratty had any sort of credible alibi and/or (2) Hanratty was not of blood group O and/or (3) Valerie Storie did not identify Hanratty.

Ron or Ronipstone

[Limehouse]

23- 24 August

We know that the car was abandoned on 23 August. We know that the gun was found on 24 August and the bus cleaner testifies it was not there on 23 August.

Where was the gun and the killer between those dates? Did the killer have the gun and cartridges on him when he abandoned the car? Why didn't he get rid of the gun soon after the murder and away from London? Did he wander around London with a gun and five boxes of cartridges for a whole day?

If the gun was definitely placed on the bus on 24 August and the prosecution accepted that what possible value was there in Nudd's attempt to connect Hanratty with the 36/36A bus?

[Limehouse]

Now then, Nats, concerning the ‘personal’ matters:

I’m not sure what you mean when you accuse me of making ‘deeply offensive’ personal or ‘personalized’ attacks on you or Claire or any other poster. If you think I have been guilty of breaking the site rules in this regard, then I urge you to report the offending posts to the admin and let them deal with me accordingly. It has been years since I have had any negative feedback from the admin about anything I have posted, and even then there were only about two occasions, both related to the interminable dish it out and take it stuff I used to have on the diary threads with two (male) posters, who have long since ceased to contribute anything on that subject. I was out of order on those occasions, although I felt sorely provoked at the time. And I can absolutely understand anyone taking against me for my forthright posts. I would take against me if I was on the receiving end of some of them. But I actually get very few posters complaining publicly that I have attacked them personally, and none - apparently - complaining to admin direct.

As for you observation that Claire finds me ‘very offensive’ in my rush to judgment about ‘what people are actually saying’, that’s pretty hilarious considering that she was in such a tearing hurry to be offended by me that she totally misjudged what I was actually saying, when I was essentially in agreement with her. When she told me to go and ‘pick on’ someone else, I wondered what the hell I could have done to her! But I really can’t be held responsible if the odd poster takes everything personally and is that determined to feel picked on.

In my view there can be little more personally offensive going on in this thread or elsewhere than the implication that Valerie would have allowed the authorities to believe that she had been raped by a man who ejaculated and left O group semen in her underwear, if that’s not what happened. It has been proved, in law, beyond reasonable doubt that she was indeed raped, shot and left for dead by the man she went on to identify. She didn’t lie, or conspire with anyone to get the wrong man hanged; she has never doubted that the right man paid for the crime; and she was right not to doubt it.

Considering all the personal and baseless things that have been implied - even flatly stated on occasion - about Valerie’s conduct and character, in order to claim that Hanratty was innocent, several posters (not the unidentifiable sock puppets of course) can think themselves lucky that she doesn’t appear to know about this thread, or care enough to defend herself. She could get the whole lot deleted with a click of her fingers, and sue one or two arses while she’s at it.

Please think about that when you next imagine I’m attacking you 'personally' and you feel so hard done by.

Love,

Caz
X

I would like to offer a few thoughts on why the A6 case provokes posts such as the one above and other emotion-laden contributions from both sides of the camp.

Few of us could imagine the horror that unfolded that night when two people were accosted in a remote spot by a man waving a gun. Even in this day and age (sorry my comma key seems to have stuck and cannot add any commas) a crime that leaves one man shot dead and his companion raped a badly wounded would shock and most of us.

A man was convicted of that crime and hanged. If there is a humane way to execute a person hanging certainly isn't. I can't imagine why we retained this form of execution until the 20th century was more than half done.

There is a certain 'romance' to the story - a young man self-addmittedly a bit of a rogue - but nevetheless a son who loved his family deeply - and there are the 'star-crossed lovers' a married man and a young girl - perhaps in love but perhaps not.

The 'placement' of some of the evidence reminds one of a Miss Marple mystery - everything the police needed to connect the accused to the crime falling into place.

What am I trying to say? Well I guess all of us here who argue with passion our position on the case care about justice. I am sure we all care deeply about the victims involved. And the outcomes are just so final. For those who believe Hanratty was guilty the finality of the outcome is justice for Mike and for Valerie and for their friends and families. For those who doubt Hanratty's guilt - the outcome is justice for no one.

What if Hanratty had not been hanged? How would we feel if he had spent the last forty-nine years in jail? Would we still be listening to his pleas of innocence? Would others who have lived in the shadows of this terrible crime stepped out of the shadows and spoken up?