a6 murder

[RonIpstone]

Play

At half-time in the Liverpool -v- Arsenal game this afternoon and inspired by Norma or Natalie tale about a play with Hanratty and Alphon, I decided to do a bit of playwrighting myself. This is part of what I wrote:

Act 1
Scene 1
16 August 1961
Two figures, a man and a woman, sit together on a settle in a dimly lit corner of Ye Olde Swiss Cottage.

Bill: So that’s the plan Janet, what d’ya think?

Janet: Seems a good un to me Bill, run it past me one more time.

Bill: Right, to get that no good two timing hubby of yours to stop playing away with that so called Valerie Storie, we get a hit man in to scare them when they are planning a rally near that there Dorney Reach.

Janet: Ok. Who’s the hit man?

Bill: A chap called Freddie Durrant aka Peter Alphon.

Janet: Right. Has he done this sort of thing before?

Bill: Not as such. By trade he sells almanacs.

Janet: Almanacs?

Bill: Yes and he bets on the dogs.

Janet: How much does he want for scaring Mike and Val.

Bill: Five grand, plus expenses, plus, if it goes horribly wrong, whatever he can blackmail out of us.

Janet: Seems a bit pricey, you can get a nice semi in our manor for under three grand. Oh dear,Bill I am lapsing into this criminal argot of yours already.

Bill: Don’t fret I will give Pete or Freddie the shooter, and the job’ll be a good un.

Act 2
Scene 3
23 August 1961 Early evening
Ye Olde Swiss Cottage, three (3) figures are huddled on the same settle as in A1.sc1 above.

Bill: Well you made a right pig’s ear of that, Freddie or should I call you Pete?

Janet: I only wanted you to scare him, not blow his bloody brains out.

PLA: Well I did my best, where’s my five grand?

Janet: Here you are Pete, or should I call you Freddie? Five G’s in used oncers and fivers.

PLA: Ta. I was just finking that the Old Bill are going to want someone for this caper. What am I going to do.

Bill: What’s your alibi?

PLA: I stayed at the Vienna. Checked in, went out to do the deed, back just after brekkie.

Bill: Excellent. I will have a word with Dixie, see if we can improve on it.

Act 2
Scene 4
23 August 1961 Early evening but a bit later on
A man on dog and bone to other man.

Dixie: How’s it hanging Bill? How’s the umbrella repair trade?

Bill: Ok earning a crust. Need your help Dixie. You’ve heard about the A6 job?

Dixie: Yes. It’s in all the papers.

Bill: Well I need to pin it on someone and I thought that the vacuous waster that’s knocking off your daughter would be the one.

Dixie: Shh Jim doesn’t know that I know. Have you got the shooter?

Bill: Yes, I’ll let you have it. Don’t mean I’ll shoot you with it, like in Moriaty’s Police Law.

Dixie: (Guffaws.) I’ll get rid of the shooter on the bus. That should do the trick. Let me have any spent cartridge cases so I can plant them on Jim.

Bill: I’ll see what I can do.


Act 3
Scene 1
An umbrella repair salon in Swiss Cottage.
12 September 1961

Dixie and Bill in unison: You bloody fool! What?

Bill: Why did you plant those cartridges in the Vienna? That’s Pete’s alibi.

Dixie: Well how was I to know? That’s where Jim was the night before he went to Scouseland.

Bill and Dixie in unison and laughing: Well what’s Acott going to make of this pretty kettle of fish?


© Ron Ipstone 2010

[Zodiac]

It sure made me laugh... but.

Janet: How much does he want for scaring Mike and Val.

Bill: Five grand, plus expenses, plus, if it goes horribly wrong, whatever he can blackmail out of us.

Janet: Seems a bit pricey, you can get a nice semi in our manor for under three grand. Oh dear,Bill I am lapsing into this criminal argot of yours already.

Bill: Don’t fret I will give Pete or Freddie the shooter, and the job’ll be a good un.

Hi Ron,

A brilliant piece of creative writing!!! Which I have to say, in all fairness, is where you really should have posted it, on the creative writing thread. Clearly, unless I've completely misunderstood your previous posts, neither you nor I believe that the play, while being something of a comedic masterpiece, is in anyway, shape or form an attempt at accurately reconstructing what actually happened? Posting it here can only, whether by accident or design, cause offence to those who hold a very genuine and honest belief that Hanratty was was not guilty of the A6 murder. You might also think of moving it to your own, new, Hanratty thread which, lets face it, looks like it needs all the help it can get!

Best wishes,

Zodiac.

[Limehouse]

Hi Ron,

A brilliant piece of creative writing!!! Which I have to say, in all fairness, is where you really should have posted it, on the creative writing thread. Clearly, unless I've completely misunderstood your previous posts, neither you nor I believe that the play, while being something of a comedic masterpiece, is in anyway, shape or form an attempt at accurately reconstructing what actually happened? Posting it here can only, whether by accident or design, cause offence to those who hold a very genuine and honest belief that Hanratty was was not guilty of the A6 murder. You might also think of moving it to your own, new, Hanratty thread which, lets face it, looks like it needs all the help it can get!

Best wishes,

Zodiac.

You are quite right Zodic - it is offensive - not only to genuine doubters of Hanratty's guilt but particularly to the victims of these dreadful events.

Ron thinks it is amusing to poke fun at us and question our intelligence. He has complete faith in British justice and modern science.

[jimarilyn]

Hi Julie,

What I do is just by-pass such provocative, offensive nonsense. I would advise all fair-minded people to do the same

Some excellent, perceptive posts by Derrick incidentally.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi all

........ to return to
...." 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

Derrick,
I had to take the car in for its MOT today and the admin.person there speaks with a typical "Central/West London" form of speech---specifically in this case, he has a Kilburn/Ladbroke Grove-accent---almost identical to that which Hanratty would have heard all around him as he grew up.
He varied his use of the Cockney "f" and "v" substitute for the pronunciation of "th"-ie he spoke using the substitute when he was speaking fast and informally---but this was not all the time,for example when we discussed the differences in the cost of labour between Rhyl and London , the conversation was then quite serious and formal and he used a standard form of pronunciation for "th". But when we began to discuss the fact that when you"ve got a cold or hay fever,you tend to feel more tired ,he lapsed into using the "v" --and even and "f" --- for example he said,"Yeah!-dat"s "a trouble "[using the elision "a " for "the"]." Wiv flu and stuff- it leaves ya knackered!" In other words,like most Londoners, he was bidialectal-using "f" and "v" substitutes for the informal speech and "th" for the more formal parts of the exchange.
I reckon both Hanratty and Alphon,both Londoners with London accents, would have varied their speech in much the same way .Hence Alphon is reported to have used expressions such as ""it ain"t likely" and other colloquialisms when with a friend who he went to the dogs with, but when holding his own with a TV interviewer about his " murder confession" kept to more formal usage.

[Derrick]

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.

Nick
The appeal ruling that deals with this ground (133-135) is very vague as to when the "real proper glimpse" was actually first mentioned.

The glimpse from the front seat was described at the committal as being the "first chance" to see the killer. Mr MacDermott, for the prosecution, placed more emphasis on the glimpse that Valerie had whilst in the back seat when being raped and not having her spectacles on. Beside, Valerie's evidence at the committal was held in secret; the press had no access so could not report what was actually said. Bob Woffinden gives very little details of the evidence that Valerie gave.

Anyway, if Valerie's "real proper glimpse" was whilst she was in the front seat then 2 points must be considered.
1) Obviously Valeries eyes must have become accustomed to the dark. She would have needed more than a few seconds to get reaccustomed to the bright light source to be able to see anything clearly enough.
2) The ability to see the killers face from the light of cars approaching from behind has to depend on where the killer was actually placed. If he was, as Valerie says, just about to kiss her, then he must have been sitting forward between the 2 front seats. It would be obvious then that Valeries own head would have cast a shadow over much of the gunmans face for those few seconds. At best I would imagine that she would have had a view of him that lit up the side of his face and not much else.

The other views in the back seat would have been poor seeing as she is very short sighted.

Her eyewitness testimony is highly suspect. And as I have said before the killers speech pattern's would have been readily spoken by a million or more men at the time.

Valeries statements, that were withheld from the jury, show that she had doubts as to being able to recognise the man and he was obviously not called Jim. The prosecution did not make available Mr Clark, the first man Valerie picked out, and by non disclosure the picture that Valerie picked out on the 11th September that she said most looked the killer.

I think it was a surprise even to DS Acott that the case actually got beyond committal stage.

Derrick

[NickB]

Thanks Derrick.

But if the killer thought Valerie would be unable to identify him, why did he shoot her?

[Derrick]

Thanks Derrick.

But if the killer thought Valerie would be unable to identify him, why did he shoot her?

Nick

No idea.

But the killer was certainly a complete nutter who liked to count to five before threatening to do things.

Derrick

[Limehouse]

Nick
The appeal ruling that deals with this ground (133-135) is very vague as to when the "real proper glimpse" was actually first mentioned.

The glimpse from the front seat was described at the committal as being the "first chance" to see the killer. Mr MacDermott, for the prosecution, placed more emphasis on the glimpse that Valerie had whilst in the back seat when being raped and not having her spectacles on. Beside, Valerie's evidence at the committal was held in secret; the press had no access so could not report what was actually said. Bob Woffinden gives very little details of the evidence that Valerie gave.

Anyway, if Valerie's "real proper glimpse" was whilst she was in the front seat then 2 points must be considered.
1) Obviously Valeries eyes must have become accustomed to the dark. She would have needed more than a few seconds to get reaccustomed to the bright light source to be able to see anything clearly enough.
2) The ability to see the killers face from the light of cars approaching from behind has to depend on where the killer was actually placed. If he was, as Valerie says, just about to kiss her, then he must have been sitting forward between the 2 front seats. It would be obvious then that Valeries own head would have cast a shadow over much of the gunmans face for those few seconds. At best I would imagine that she would have had a view of him that lit up the side of his face and not much else.

The other views in the back seat would have been poor seeing as she is very short sighted.

Her eyewitness testimony is highly suspect. And as I have said before the killers speech pattern's would have been readily spoken by a million or more men at the time.

Valeries statements, that were withheld from the jury, show that she had doubts as to being able to recognise the man and he was obviously not called Jim. The prosecution did not make available Mr Clark, the first man Valerie picked out, and by non disclosure the picture that Valerie picked out on the 11th September that she said most looked the killer.

I think it was a surprise even to DS Acott that the case actually got beyond committal stage.

Derrick

Hi Derrick

On page 24 of Lord Russell's book Valerie describes how she was stiing in the front passanger seat shortly after Gregsten's murder when the murderer asked her to kiss him. She refused and as she did so a car coming from the direction of Luton lit up his face. She described "very large - paloe - blue - staring eyes and brown hair combed back with no parting". She goes on to say "the light was on his face for just a few seconds as the vehicle went past and then we were in complete darkness again'.

On page 179/180 - on being questioned by Sherrard and in describing how she selected Michael Clark on the first parade she is asked

"And you then identified a man as being - in your view - the assailant?"
"Yes"
"Can you tell us now what that man looked like?"
"No"

However - Acott did describe the man. He was 5ft 9 niches tall - dark short cropped hair - about 27 years of age and heavily built.

In view of these conflicting descriptions - it is fair to say that Valerie's recollections of her killer in those few seconds are questionable.

[jimornot?]

Hi Derrick

On page 24 of Lord Russell's book Valerie describes how she was stiing in the front passanger seat shortly after Gregsten's murder when the murderer asked her to kiss him. She refused and as she did so a car coming from the direction of Luton lit up his face. She described "very large - paloe - blue - staring eyes and brown hair combed back with no parting". She goes on to say "the light was on his face for just a few seconds as the vehicle went past and then we were in complete darkness again'.

On page 179/180 - on being questioned by Sherrard and in describing how she selected Michael Clark on the first parade she is asked

"And you then identified a man as being - in your view - the assailant?"
"Yes"
"Can you tell us now what that man looked like?"
"No"

However - Acott did describe the man. He was 5ft 9 niches tall - dark short cropped hair - about 27 years of age and heavily built.

In view of these conflicting descriptions - it is fair to say that Valerie's recollections of her killer in those few seconds are questionable.

hi Julie

it may well be that Valerie's recollection was poor but perhaps being confronted by the murderer made things suddenly clear? She appears to be adamant in her contention it was hanratty wot did it and she'd have greater resaon than anyone to want the perpetrator caught - I am not aware that she has ever indicated doubts after identifying JH.

I believe she indicated a pressure to identify someone at the first ID parade (quite possibly led by acott?) but is anyone aware of anything else Valerie has said if /when questioned why she got it so wrong first time around?

atb

viv

[Derrick]

hi Julie

it may well be that Valerie's recollection was poor but perhaps being confronted by the murderer made things suddenly clear? She appears to be adamant in her contention it was hanratty wot did it and she'd have greater resaon than anyone to want the perpetrator caught - I am not aware that she has ever indicated doubts after identifying JH.

I believe she indicated a pressure to identify someone at the first ID parade (quite possibly led by acott?) but is anyone aware of anything else Valerie has said if /when questioned why she got it so wrong first time around?

atb

viv

Hello Viv
Valerie gave an interview in the mid-sixties for the BBC's Panorama programme which is included in Bob Woffindens documentary which is available for viewing on YouTube.

She says;

Hanratty wasn't on that parade. I couldn't identify him. erm... I just tried to pick out somebody I suppose that i thought looked like him. I made a mistake. The man had nothing to do with the, with the case. just one of those things.

Derrick.

[jimornot?]

Hello Viv
Valerie gave an interview in the mid-sixties for the BBC's Panorama programme which is included in Bob Woffindens documentary which is available for viewing on YouTube.

She says;



Derrick.

thanks Derrick I'll check it out.
all the best

viv

[Victor]

Hi Derrick,

I've been away for a while and have ongoing commitments so won't be posting as regularly, and have only just caught up on your predictable, tired, oft-repeated rhetoric. You aren't yet another sock-puppet for Reg, SteveS, and Clive are you? A little hint to avoid being spotted - post something original or thought-provoking instead of repeating Woffinden's 'all the other evidence has been discreditted'-claptrap.

1. Hanratty was diagnosed "mentally defective", Alphon lived until last year and other than indulging Justice's largesse [Thank you Graham] and making a few bizarre phonecalls never killed anyone.

How anyone can entertain the possibility that Alphon was psychotic or schitophrenic or otherwise mentally unbalanced without any shred of evidence from the last 40 years (ie from 1970 until his deth in 2008/9 - Norma) is incredible.

2. There were several LCN DNA tests, the hanky gave a single [un-mixed] profile "The only places on the handkerchief from which his DNA was extracted were the areas of mucus staining" - judgment para 126. It was not kept with the knicker fragment and was discovered seperately and Hanratty admitted it was his. That's an almighty "coincidence" to explain away for Hanratty supporters, especially in light of all the other coincidences that are undisputed. "Sagging" with them, the case is.

3. Tony frequently posted multpile ficticious scenarios involving Acott and Oxford discussing the case, yet when Ron does it from the opposite viewpoint the usual suspects berate him, yet the same people congratulated Tony - there's 6,400 posts to trawl back through, so I'm not going to bother, you know who you are. Don't be a hypocrit.

Ron - entertaining irrelevance or irreverance - your bread is buttered on the wrong side. I thought it was amusing! But then I would.

4. No-one knows the exact LCN results, we know the summary of the conclusions, if anyone wants to contest those, then go right ahead, just don't expect to be taken seriously. I still welcome the challenge although nobody has posteed to that thread since September 2009.

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

Valerie gave an interview in the mid-sixties for the BBC's Panorama programme which is included in Bob Woffindens documentary which is available for viewing on YouTube.

She says;

Hanratty wasn't on that parade. I couldn't identify him. erm... I just tried to pick out somebody I suppose that i thought looked like him. I made a mistake.The man had nothing to do with the, with the case. just one of those things.

Hi Derrick,

Just one of those things.....mmm.....kinda reminds me of that old Cole Porter classic made famous by Frank Sonata.

It's well worth bearing in mind here what Justice William Gorman had to say to the 11 man Bedford jury about Miss Storie's wrongful identification of Michael Clark....

"Supposing there had been no evidence on 24th September that would have exonerated the man who was picked out by Miss Storie on that date, how tragic the consequences might have been for someone else."

[Limehouse]

Hi Derrick,

I've been away for a while and have ongoing commitments so won't be posting as regularly, and have only just caught up on your predictable, tired, oft-repeated rhetoric. You aren't yet another sock-puppet for Reg, SteveS, and Clive are you? A little hint to avoid being spotted - post something original or thought-provoking instead of repeating Woffinden's 'all the other evidence has been discreditted'-claptrap.

1. Hanratty was diagnosed "mentally defective", Alphon lived until last year and other than indulging Justice's largesse [Thank you Graham] and making a few bizarre phonecalls never killed anyone.

How anyone can entertain the possibility that Alphon was psychotic or schitophrenic or otherwise mentally unbalanced without any shred of evidence from the last 40 years (ie from 1970 until his deth in 2008/9 - Norma) is incredible.

2. There were several LCN DNA tests, the hanky gave a single [un-mixed] profile "The only places on the handkerchief from which his DNA was extracted were the areas of mucus staining" - judgment para 126. It was not kept with the knicker fragment and was discovered seperately and Hanratty admitted it was his. That's an almighty "coincidence" to explain away for Hanratty supporters, especially in light of all the other coincidences that are undisputed. "Sagging" with them, the case is.

3. Tony frequently posted multpile ficticious scenarios involving Acott and Oxford discussing the case, yet when Ron does it from the opposite viewpoint the usual suspects berate him, yet the same people congratulated Tony - there's 6,400 posts to trawl back through, so I'm not going to bother, you know who you are. Don't be a hypocrit.

Ron - entertaining irrelevance or irreverance - your bread is buttered on the wrong side. I thought it was amusing! But then I would.

4. No-one knows the exact LCN results, we know the summary of the conclusions, if anyone wants to contest those, then go right ahead, just don't expect to be taken seriously. I still welcome the challenge although nobody has posteed to that thread since September 2009.

KR,
Vic.

I am actually breaking my own rules by answering this post at my desk at work because I know it will bug me all day and distract me from my duties if I don't.

Vic,
Your opening comments to Derrick are disgraceful. You do not have any evidence to back your claims and in any case, you are hardly a font or original ideas yourself.

1. Hanratty was mentally defective? really? Well let's examine that claim. ONE doctor made this statement - apparently based on Hanratty's illiteracy and criminality. There is every possibility that Hanratty was dyslexic - a condition that impairs literacy skills not intelligence. IF Hanratty was mentally defective - they would never have hanged him as there would have been a case for diminished responsibility. Alphon displayed far more evidence of mentally impaired behaviour that went far deeper than a few phone calls. When he made his 'confession' in France he was no longer under the influence of Justice. Was this the behaviour or a mentally sound man? A few phone calls? A few? It was far more than that and they started BEFORE his association with Justice and were aimed at many people. How do you know he has not displayed any evidence of impaired behaviour in the last forty years?

2. The hanky may have been Hanratty's - no one is disputing that - but it does not automatically follow that Hanratty placed that hanky with the gun. There is no forensic evidence on the gun or the cartridges to link them with Hanratty and it does not take the brain of Britain to work out that the gun, hanky and cartidges could have been planted by someone wanting to incriminate Hanratty.

3. You found Ron's little play amusing. That speaks volumes about you - and him.

Now I've got that off my chest, I must get back to work.