a6 murder

[Natalie Severn]

The other point is that Alphon [ or a person with similar mental health problems as Alphon ] could have committed this bizarre act when suffering from a psychotic episode. Alphon, may well have had an "aural hallucination" that "commanded" him to punish the couple he saw in the car, because of some twisted conception, like Peter Sutcliffe had, of "cleansing society of immorality" .This hallucination would be similar to that which Alphon expressed when he spoke of his "mission" to rid society of its immorality. Such a rationale is often the reason given by those few paranoid schizophrenics who become killers and rapists.Most paranoid schizophrenics,thankfully do not become killers and/or rapists, but when they do these are nearly always the sorts of explanations given for their irrational behaviour."A voice told me to " etc

Norma

[caz]

Hi Nats,

But Peter Sutcliffe didn't stop "cleaning the streets" (his justification for his violent urges) even after he'd come to police attention and been interviewed several times. The A6 crime seems to be very much a one-off unless you can provide any clear links to subsequent offences.

Yes--well I have seen the way you make a bee line for any "potentially significant detail" you can use to "embolden" my words -while every single week taking some opportunity to claim I am "shouting at you"!Come off it!

I'm not claiming anything, Nats. People can check for themselves where you posted whole lines, paragraphs and even entire posts in bold. That's called 'shouting' and it's bad form. It's also bad form - and quite ironic - to accuse a debating opponent of being 'arrogant' for daring to ask why you think you know so much better than everyone concerned with the appeal court judgement.

I've never heard it called bad form to highlight a particular word or phrase in someone else's post when using the quote function. I wasn't 'objecting' to the date I highlighted. I explained exactly why I did so, to show how soon after Valerie was raped and shot, the man who was proved in law to have done it was out with another girl enjoying the fun of the fair. Surely you can see the point, or are you so certain that Hanratty could not have done it that nothing could ever give you the slightest pause?

He selected large houses where the pickings were rich and where he perceived the people would be insured.

That's a bit of a presumption though, isn't it, Limehouse? That you know what this crook was able to perceive about his victims, and that he actually cared whether they were insured or not? Don't encourage Nats, she'll be calling him Robin Hood the lovable rogue next.

I certainly do not think murder and rape were the initial objectives of the gunman and this is what makes the crime so hard to understand. It seems motiveless.

I agree that having killed Gregsten it was necessary to kill Valerie and the gunman had probably already made up his mind to kill her when he raped her and probably thought that the rape would go undetected if the vicitm was dead.

We know the man had a gun in his pocket and was pleased to see Valerie and Gregsten in that car. Who knows what he perceived about them, and what his original motives were for showing them his weapon? He presumably enjoyed the initial feeling of being the man in charge. But if he was a novice at in-your-face confrontations, and empty properties were much more his comfort zone, it's not hard to see how he could have found himself out of his depth, eventually having to rely on his bullets to extricate himself from this situation of his own making, when Gregsten made a move he couldn't cope with.

Never having shot anyone dead before, his reaction must have been - to him - a strange mixture of shock and exhilaration, given his impulse to rape Valerie before shooting her too. His inexperience showed in his failure to make sure he had finished her off.

The whole thing was clumsy, with a childlike quality about it. He'd have been lost without those bullets.

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

When I pointed out that Hanratty selected large houses that he thought would be insured I was not in any way excusing him or suggesting he had altruistic trendencies - I was simply responding to Ron's point that Hanratty was not capable of thinking through his actions to good effect. What I meant was that if he could select large houses to rob and know what to take and what to leave - he was hardly going to bother to hold up a couple in a Moggie thinking the outcome would be profitable.

[Natalie Severn]

But Peter Sutcliffe didn't stop "cleaning the streets" (his justification for his violent urges) even after he'd come to police attention and been interviewed several times. The A6 crime seems to be very much a one-off unless you can provide any clear links to subsequent offences.

Yes Caz,
I would include the following two cases
a] the attack on Meike Dalal,23 , in Upper Richmond Road on 7th September when a man claiming to be the A6 murderer forced his way into her house wanting money.He tied her up and gagged her.His efforts at tying her hands,like the gunman"s efforts in the A6 case were unsuccessful and Mrs Dalal freed herself and the man again struck her on her head where she was still bleeding from his previous blow.However she had managed to get the gag off her mouth and screamed loudly at which point he escaped down the stairs and into the street.
Mrs Dalal identified Alphon as the man who carried out the attack----he was arrested and charged with causing Mrs Dalal grievous bodily harm -but managed to get off the charge for reasons that have not been satisfactorily explained. Hanratty was in an Irish police station at the time of the attack explaining a minor accident in a car there.

b] Mrs Willis in Hertfordshire was robbed at gun point at 11 am on August 24th with a small black gun looking similar to the one used in the A6 murder.He too claimed to be the A6 murderer.She described him as having deep set brown eyes,dark brown hair, thin pale face, smoothed back and receding at sides aged about 30.She was brought to court and said it was definitely not Hanratty.

Anyway why do you think a man such as Alphon with mental health problems would commit the same crime over and over again just because Peter Sutcliffe did?Sutcliffe was a serial killer,which is rare even among those killers and rapists with paranoid schizophrenia.One episode of psychosis need not be repeated in identical fashion at all.It will depend on how the sufferer interprets his "mission". Alphon was hung up on "decadence" and immorality etc but his later psychotic episodes seemed to focus on terrorising people with weird phone calls, which is yet another indication of paranoid schizophrenia.

[Derrick]

....We know the man had a gun in his pocket and was pleased to see Valerie and Gregsten in that car. Who knows what he perceived about them, and what his original motives were for showing them his weapon? He presumably enjoyed the initial feeling of being the man in charge. But if he was a novice at in-your-face confrontations, and empty properties were much more his comfort zone, it's not hard to see how he could have found himself out of his depth, eventually having to rely on his bullets to extricate himself from this situation of his own making, when Gregsten made a move he couldn't cope with.

Never having shot anyone dead before, his reaction must have been - to him - a strange mixture of shock and exhilaration, given his impulse to rape Valerie before shooting her too. His inexperience showed in his failure to make sure he had finished her off.

The whole thing was clumsy, with a childlike quality about it. He'd have been lost without those bullets....

The gunman tapped on the window. When it was wound down the gun was thrust in.

re my bold emphasis.
1st: How do we know of the killer being pleased to see the couple in the car? Unless you are relying on Leonard Millers melodramtic account of how he invisiged the crime was played out, then we don't.
2nd: It would have been over 4 hours before the gun was fired. Hanratty would not have stayed around that long. He might have pinched their watches, even pinched the car but he would have got very bored very quick. Don't you idiots get it, eh?
3rd: The use of the word must is misplaced. May have or might may be better but must is not allowed.
4th: Don't confuse Hanratty's academic inabilities with some kind of child like mind. He knew what he was doing in his career of house breaking. His biggest fear at the time was a 5 year stretch. Alphon was more child like in his inability to form friendships and make a proper life for himself. He was still tied to his mothers apron strings for sponging at the age of 30.

Hanratty didn't need and never used a gun for his living.

Derrick

[Natalie Severn]

I'm not claiming anything, Nats. People can check for themselves where you posted whole lines, paragraphs and even entire posts in bold. That's called 'shouting' and it's bad form.

And so have numbers of other people on this site -including the Ripperologist par excellence, Stewart Evans, who I have often seen posting in bold in order to emphasise a point, and I have never yet seen anybody having a go at him about it---still less on the weekly basis you seem to feel is in order as far as I am concerned.

Your whole approach up until these last few posts has been one of hostility ,insults, attacks and sneers.

[Graham]

Just to put certain matters into perspective, with regard to Hanratty and guns, he himself during an interview with his defence team, said:

He [Donald Slack} asked me what I had in mind. I said that house-breaking was all played out. If you want to get rich these days, I said, you've got to have a shooter and go after cash

Later, Hanratty tried to play down this rather incriminating statement, but was not successful. Slack, of course, denied ever having had such a conversation with Hanratty. Well, he would, wouldn't he? During the trial, Hanratty said that Acott had put it to him that he had interviewed a man called Slack, and that Slack said that he, Hanratty, had made inquiries about obtaining a gun. Sherrard then asked Hanratty what he said to Acott, and Hanratty's reply was, "I did not deny it because it was the truth, my Lord...it was just a phrase of talk, my Lord".

So. Who do we believe? Slack or Hanratty?

Hopefully this will dispel any misapprehension that Hanratty had never considered obtaining a gun.

Graham

[Graham]

It would have been over 4 hours before the gun was fired. Hanratty would not have stayed around that long. He might have pinched their watches, even pinched the car but he would have got very bored very quick. Don't you idiots get it, eh?

Yet Hanratty on at least one occasion embarked upon a long journey northward, illicit profit in mind, lasting days rather than hours. The Shrewsbury - Cardiff - Liverpool trip is an example. He also went to Liverpool on at least one previous occasion to fence stolen goods, and this would entail at least one night in a B&B or similar accommodation. No doubt in my mind that if a few quid were in the offing, Jim didn't get bored that quickly.

And less of the 'idiots', if you don't mind.

Graham

[Graham]

Burgling

Norma,

let me ask you a question. I'll make it multi-choice, for ease of reply.

If your Notting Hill pied-a-terre was ever broken into (perish the thought) and your precious things nicked or otherwise despoiled, would your reaction as far as the perpetrator were concerned, assuming he was caught, be:

A] please let him go. He is the victim of a deprived childhood and an uncaring state. He did what he did because he had no choice.

or

B] give me those blunt hedge-clippers so I can remove his balls, the bastard.

This reference an earlier post of yours.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

4th: Don't confuse Hanratty's academic inabilities with some kind of child like mind. He knew what he was doing in his career of house breaking

I think you are quite right here .When I read Hanratty"s defence of himself at his trial against Swanwick"s cross examination, I was impressed by the directness of his replies.He didn"t flinch or try to dodge out of answering and the answers he gave were consistent , direct and coherent .Also he somehow managed to maintained that composure throughout and this was against a man whose brief was to have him hung! He did ofcourse succeed in that but still,apart from a few moments in the dock when he heard the verdict and knew he would be sentenced to death ,he kept his composure right to the fatal end.There is nothing childish about him in his defence of himself and certainly nothing to indicate any feeble mindedness-quite the contrary .

[Graham]

When I read Hanratty"s defence of himself at his trial against Swanwick"s cross examination, I was impressed by the directness of his replies.He didn"t flinch or try to dodge out of answering and the answers he gave were consistent , direct and coherent

I think you, I and most other people would perform in a similar fashion if our life was at stake!

There is nothing childish about him in his defence of himself and certainly nothing to indicate any feeble mindedness-quite the contrary .

I don't think anyone has suggested that JH was feeble-minded, Norma. He did have difficulties, most certainly, and did indeed undergo a craniotomy when he was 15; and in the parlance of the day he was considered to me mentally defective. Not the same as 'feeble-minded'.

[Natalie Severn]

Norma,

let me ask you a question. I'll make it multi-choice, for ease of reply.

If your Notting Hill pied-a-terre was ever broken into (perish the thought) and your precious things nicked or otherwise despoiled, would your reaction as far as the perpetrator were concerned, assuming he was caught, be:

A] please let him go. He is the victim of a deprived childhood and an uncaring state. He did what he did because he had no choice.

or

B] give me those blunt hedge-clippers so I can remove his balls, the bastard.

This reference an earlier post of yours.

Graham

Graham,
First --- I have never used this last expression ! Second there is nothing of any real value in our flat in Nottinghill .....seriously.....!
But I wouldnt say let him go---he did what he did because he had no choice.I would be like Hanratty"s parents were over his housebreaking and expect them to face the consequences of their actions.If Hanratty did carry out this A6 atrocity,then I think that in accordance with the punishment of the day, it was correct that he should have faced the consequences.But I am against the death penalty, mainly because if a mistake is made its always too late to do anything about it.
Norma

[Graham]

Well, your answer is an honest one, Norma!

I too am, and always was, against the death-pentalty, but in the England of 1961 it was very much 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth'. As it is in the USA and China of 2010. Yes, there were mistakes made when we had the death-penalty, but I do not believe that the execution of James Hanratty was one of them.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Oh Well thats a reasonable answer to end on tonight,Graham ! Off to watch a remake of the Red Dragon now!
Norma

[cappuccina]

Personally, I would order the burglar to steal the black and white television set in my basement, my couch that the children have jumped up and down on for a decade, and my 30 year old refrigerator and stove...