a6 murder

[RonIpstone]

Specualtion is all very well Ron, but lets stick to the facts about what can actually be established.I might just as easily [and perhaps more credibly ] speculate that Alphon was a "hit man" hired by Gregston"s family to scare him off his relationship with Valerie Storie.That that was why £5,000 was paid into his bank in three separate installments that Autumn -together with the £2,700 received from Newspaper"s for "The Story of his Arrest for the A6 Murder".That the arrangement to shock and put the frighteners on the affair suddenly went dramatically wrong when Gregsten hit him with his duffle bag frightening Alphon into shooting him by accident!

I was addressing my remarks to those who accept that the entirety of the evidence points to Hanratty's guilt. For reasons best known to yourself, you do not accept the remotest possibility that Jim did it, so you are in a very difficult position to say why he did it. As Jim never told us why he did it, speculation is the only resort we have.

[Natalie Severn]

I was addressing my remarks to those who accept that the entirety of the evidence points to Hanratty's guilt.

Even that evidence presented by the police that modern tests indicate had been tampered with?

Even though :

" No hair, no blood, no fibres, nothing at all was found that linked Hanratty to that motor-car."

Even though :

MICHAEL SHERRARD QC (James Hanratty's trial barrister): I really couldn't bring myself to take in that those who had concealed the evidence in a capital case could have been as wicked as that.

Even though there was a stack of evidence withheld from the defence?

[RonIpstone]

Even that evidence presented by the police that modern tests indicate had been tampered with?

Even though :

" No hair, no blood, no fibres, nothing at all was found that linked Hanratty to that motor-car."

Even though :

MICHAEL SHERRARD QC (James Hanratty's trial barrister): I really couldn't bring myself to take in that those who had concealed the evidence in a capital case could have been as wicked as that.

Even though there was a stack of evidence withheld from the defence?

YES!

Going on the premise Jim did it, why did he do it, or why might he have done it? That he did not do it is not an answer.

[Limehouse]

[QUOTE=Natalie Severn;143807]

Presumably he swallowed the Liverpool alibi in its entirety and on that basis advised Hanratty to give evidence. So he has past form in believing in Hanratty's falsehoods.]

Ron,
The Judge, Mr Justice Gormon,actually bent over backwards to reduce the consequences of Hanratty"s change of alibi:

"He does not have to prove his alibi.The failure or otherwise of the alibi does not make him guilty.You do not have to rely on it ,"-he had tried to direct the jury---but they were having none of it.The Bedford jury lived fully up to its reputation as being comprised of property owning gentry with a predilection for hanging and flogging.

It had been a great disappointment to Sherrard that, having persuaded the justices at committal that a trial at Bedford would be likely to deprive Hanratty of the fair trial that in the end,in fact, Sherrard suspected "there had been manoeuvrings behind the scenes for it not to take place at the Old Bailey after allbut for the trial to take place in a court where the prosecution was most likely to succeed ."

After the death sentence had been passed on Hanratty, Michael Sherrard was invited to attend a play where the script explored the anomolies in the evidence through an imaginary conversation between Hanratty and Alphon.
"It brought back to him how difficult it had been trying to curb the confidence of Hanratty and his family given the lengths the police were prepared to go to secure a conviction.It was only recently confirmed that the presentation of the police evidence was deeply flawed.........There were flaws all over the place ,not only from the police."

The location of the trial at Bedford rather than London is an important factor - I feel - in the lack of confidence the powers-that-be had in a conviction. It was grossly unfair to Hanratty (and anyone in the dock for that matter) that the trial was held so close to the location of the crime.

It would never happen now. I can think of two cases local to me that were tried miles away from the town because of the strength of local feeling about the crimes.

[Natalie Severn]

You, Ron, stated that you addressed your post to those who accept that "the entirety of the evidence pointed to Hanratty"s guilt ".

It does not.

And I was providing clarification on this point.
viz:The ENTIRETY of the evidence does NOT point to Hanratty"s guilt

[Limehouse]

I was addressing my remarks to those who accept that the entirety of the evidence points to Hanratty's guilt. For reasons best known to yourself, you do not accept the remotest possibility that Jim did it, so you are in a very difficult position to say why he did it. As Jim never told us why he did it, speculation is the only resort we have.

This sounds like an attempt to exclude those who doubt Hanratty's guilt from the discussion.

One could just as easily ask 'why did the killer do it?' regardless of who that killer was. The motive for this crime is one of the most interesting aspects of the case and is worthy of discussion.

Your suggestion that Hanratty may have held up the couple in the car to secure a lift home is a weak one in my opinion. Hanratty was an accomplished car thief. he did not need to hijack a driver and passenger to get a lift home. He could have stolen an empty car. Additionally - Hanratty knew how to start and drive a car - he may have been a careless driver but he could start and drive away a car well enough to steal to order. The killer hardly knew how to start the car and change gears.

[Natalie Severn]

Your suggestion that Hanratty may have held up the couple in the car to secure a lift home is a weak one in my opinion. Hanratty was an accomplished car thief.

Good point Julie. And even if he didnt want to steal a car, he need hardly have done a stick up "with a gun" - to get a lift back to London for goodness sake -when the only thing he needed to do was stick his thumb out on any main road road .

[RonIpstone]

This sounds like an attempt to exclude those who doubt Hanratty's guilt from the discussion.

One could just as easily ask 'why did the killer do it?' regardless of who that killer was. The motive for this crime is one of the most interesting aspects of the case and is worthy of discussion.

Your suggestion that Hanratty may have held up the couple in the car to secure a lift home is a weak one in my opinion. Hanratty was an accomplished car thief. he did not need to hijack a driver and passenger to get a lift home. He could have stolen an empty car. Additionally - Hanratty knew how to start and drive a car - he may have been a careless driver but he could start and drive away a car well enough to steal to order. The killer hardly knew how to start the car and change gears.

Hi Julie,

Not an attempt to exclude anyone from discussion, but merely an attempt to restrict the argument and to prevent it drifting back to the rather trite Jim did it -v- Jim didn't do it argument.

On the point that you raise that Jim was an accomplished car thief, I am not entirely certain that that is borne out by the evidence, but on the assumption he was, then we can still say that the hold up of the Moggie Minor would have given the apprentice gunman, Jim, some valuable (in his eyes) experience in using the gun to his advantage.

Any rationalisation of Hanratty's apparently motiveless hijack of the Moggie Minor is going to sound weak, because Hanratty was acting unreasonably and without a motive in the eyes of the proverbial man on the Clapham omnibus.

Ron

[jimornot?]

suicide note

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/On+a+yellowing+suicide+note,+the+clue+to+a+36-year+murder+riddle%3B...-a0110864053

Hi all

This article appears to be written in 1998 and raises some of the issues already disputed on this thread

My main point in highlighting it here is the first paragraphs concerning the suicide note – does anyone actually know if the note was ever revealed in full as hinted and/or the gist of what it said

The key parts of the article are.... ‘Part of the new inquiry, which has raised more than a dozen points suggesting 25-year-old Hanratty was innocent, centres on a now yellowing suicide note left by France. The two men are believed to have known each other, and the suicide note is understood to suggest that France had a guilty conscience over Hanratty's fate.

Last night Home Office sources said the note did shed further light on the case but declined to reveal its contents. Home Secretary Michael Howard is poised to refer the case to the Court of Appeal and the note's contents could then be revealed in full..... ‘

Atb

viv

[Derrick]

I was addressing my remarks to those who accept that the entirety of the evidence points to Hanratty's guilt. For reasons best known to yourself, you do not accept the remotest possibility that Jim did it, so you are in a very difficult position to say why he did it. As Jim never told us why he did it, speculation is the only resort we have.

Ron
By you own admission the first emboldened statement cannot include yourself. You called the Bedfordshire jurymen "DIM" for convicting Hanratty on such piss poor evidence which you, yourself, have had doubts about from the beginning.

When I put it to you to accept the Reed and Caddy rulings on the reliability of LCN mixed profiles, what did you say? DNA mumbo jumbo and that you don't understand any of it anyway!

So you are just relying on DNA mumbo jumbo from another source without any true confidence of its actual probity.

So what do you do next? Start a new thread that essentially seeks to exclude anyone who disagrees with your view of the case.

If I were someone who believed that Hanratty was truly guilty of the A6 murder I would be embarrassed by your last few posts and the new thread you have set up as it is fundamentally anti-discussion.

You are quite entitled to your opinions and to accept what Leonard Millers book puts forward but as the second boldened statement of yours suggests, it is all just going to be speculation.

But speculation is all you have as Hanratty was not the A6 murderer. You yourself have already said that the evidence against Hanratty was poor.

Although Hanratty is guilty under the law you obviously feel some need to square it with the evidence put forward. But Ron this happened nearly fifty years ago, so why are you so interested in why he did it, if all you will ever come up with is a motiveless mood of the moment act a la Miller based on a couple of quack diagnosis of latent psychopathy?

Thankfully I can say this on this broadminded thread as the new "Why did Hanratty do it?" thread is only for those who believe in Hanratty's guilt and not for the likes of me!

There will always be an England eh?

Derrick

[Derrick]

Hi all
While Ron is out painting his new chalet I thought it may be time to return to earth and actually discuss the case itself.

I would like to start with Valerie Storie's reliability as an eyewitness.

The point I would like to make is why her alleged "good view" of the gunman changed from being in the back seat in statements made to the police and also given at committal to being in the front seat at trial.

The point being that in the back seat she was made to take her spectacles off. In the front seat she would obviously still be wearing them.

An inconsistancy in evidence that places her eyesight in question.

Even so the identikit she signed as being the killer looks like Alphon and in speech maybe a million or more men speak with a cockney accent and perhaps more than 40 percent of them have group O blood.

This is not impressive eyewitness testimony to me.

Derrick

[NickB]

The point I would like to make is why her alleged "good view" of the gunman changed from being in the back seat in statements made to the police and also given at committal to being in the front seat at trial.

Derrick,

Where is your quote “good view” from?

Valerie said she had a “good look at him when I was in the back”. About 6 to 8 vehicles went by illuminating the man’s face, providing her with a side or three quarters view. My interpretation is that she had a good look at him but could not make out his features as clearly as when she had been in the front.

The ‘proper glimpse’ of him was when she was in the front and one vehicle passed, when they were facing each other and (as you say) she was wearing her glasses. I believe this was consistent at the committal and the trial.

Nick

[Derrick]

The ‘proper glimpse’ of him was when she was in the front and one vehicle passed, when they were facing other and (as you say) she was wearing her glasses. I believe this was consistent at the committal and the trial.

Nick
The Times reported the day after the opening at the committal at Ampthill that her only glimpse of the killer was while she was in the back seat prior to being raped as presented by Mr E G MacDermott for the prosecution.

Mr MacDermott said "When he was in the back seat of the car, when he raped her, several cars passed and by their light as they went along the A6 she could see him quite clearly, and perhaps you may think it was because she saw him quite clearly, it was necessary for him to kill her".

Are you surprised that Jean Justice spotted the obvious inconsistencies in the case between the hearing and the trial. In fact it doesn't take a genius to spot blinders like this one.

Hope that this helps you Nick.

Derrick

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Derrick,
At this present time I have been studying what Michael Sherrard,had to say,if anything, about the various aspects of the case we discuss on here. As Hanratty"s trial barrister,he was there during the entire length of the trial,was seeing him both in his prison situation and in court ,and got to know Hanratty well during the lengthy trial leading up to the execution.As I have said earlier on this thread ,its very clear he has remained,throughout his life and up to the point his autobiography,"Wigs and Wherefores" was published in 2009, committed to the view that the trial was deeply flawed -going so far as to say that Hanratty should have been acquitted and long before the trial got to Bedford .Moreover,because, he says in his autobiography,modern tests indicate ,that evidence had been tampered with and the question of the "integrity of the police notes" should have been dealt with -and he states modern technology showed they had been tampered with as were "witness " statements .All this is to be found on the same page .*
So what do we make of these alterations in Valerie"s recall? Her assistance with an identikit that looked nothing like Hanratty?[But could pass as being similar feature by feature to Alphon].The next problem we have is that Valerie goes on to wrongly identify Micheal Clark as being the gunman---a volunteer in the Identity parade. Furthermore Valerie agreed with Michael Sherrard that she had thought he looked like Alphon!
What then can we make of these anomalies ?
Again I turn to Michael Sherrard who was there and heard Valerie"s
testimony:

MICHAEL SHERRARD: Valerie Storie was a rather pathetic figure. She was brought into court on a stretcher and gave her evidence from a wheelchair. Everybody felt sorry for her. What she said had happened to her had happened, Gregsten had been murdered in her presence, she had been raped.

---and he continues:

MICHAEL SHERRARD: The witness may be perfectly honest, absolutely convinced that he or she has identified the right man or woman and you're not going to be able to cross-examine them to show that they're lying "cos they're not lying, they're telling the truth as they see it.

And that is exactly how I see these inconsistencies ,and ,in my opinion ,the mistaken belief that Valerie Storie had,that Hanratty was the masked gunman.

*Apparently Det Supt Oxford was to have gone to the 2002 appeal process to be asked about the integrity of the police notes.But he had a heart attack and died."His explanations for the forensic findings of alterations will never be heard."[Sherrard 2009, Wigs and Wherefores]

[NickB]

One of the grounds of appeal in 2002 was that the ‘good look’ in the back of the car when several vehicles went by ...
“contrasted with her evidence at the committal and at trial (and, incidentally, the undisclosed interview of 11 September) that the ‘only real proper glimpse’ was when she was in the front of the car.”

So this was raised then. But there is no suggestion of inconsitency between the committal and trial on this point.