a6 murder

[Derrick]

...and saying he was "inarticulate"....

Norma
Thanks.
Just a quick point
I don't think Woffinden said that Hanratty was inarticulate in the Oldie article?
Derrick

[Natalie Severn]

Norma
Thanks.
Just a quick point
I don't think Woffinden said that Hanratty was inarticulate in the Oldie article?
Derrick

Not "inarticulate" --he said that in his otherwise very thoughtful book,"The Final Verdict".But what he does argue in the Oldie article is that as Hanratty was diagnosed as mentally defective he would not have had the mental equipment "to assert authority over the couple for six hours".While I suspect that Hanratty would have been disinclined to spend six hours pointing a gun and being driven round Slough with a mask on , on a drive to nowhere,I think this would be due far more to his restless basic personality rather than having anything to do with intelligence.He took a job at Rhyl fairground and kept it for one day before "moving on" -fed up with the draughty sea front.He took a window cleaning job with his dad for a few days and abandoned it before his dad could turn round.He would have abandoned that "job" in the Morris Minor after twenty minutes ,never mind six hours!
This indeed is where it all seems completely out of character and ridiculous to me.

[Victor]

The LCN DNA tests performed on the hanky and the knicker fragment are suspect as per the Reed appeal and the Caddy review. The hanky may not have been a mixed profile but its provenence as good evidence is still in question because, as laid out in Reed and Caddy inter alia;

1) All LCN tests must undergo a quantitation step.
2) Caveats must be given as to the limitations of the LCN technique below the stochastic threshold.
3) No assumptions can be made as to the source of any material under LCN because the amount of DNA is so small.
4) All DNA evidence, whether LCN or ortherwise must be viewed in accordance with any other evidence in a particular case.

These points must be accepted by everyone as they are the abiding rules by which LCN is acceptable as evidence here in England and Wales.

Hi Derrick,

Certainly these rules must be followed for all testing since 2009, I have not heard of any ruling to retrospectively apply them, or for any actions necessary to attempt to make prior testing abide by them. For example, there's the issue of the 3rd aliquot which should be retained and may therefore be available to run a quantification step.

For the DNA evidence in 2002, the first 3 points above were either not followed or stated so the appeal judgement of 2002 regarding the DNA evidence is obviously now in contravention of the Reed/Caddy rulings.

For the 1st quantification requirement there are several possibilities:-
a) Revealing the results of the quantification step done via the SGM process from the previous tests.
b) Quantifying the 3rd aliquot, if it still exists.

For the 2nd there are 2 issues, firstly we don't know whether the sample was beneath the stochastic threshold so the caveats might not be necessary, and secondly as you pointed out we do not know the full discussion and advice from the various experts used in the judgment so the caveats could have been given, especially by Evison.

For point 3, I cannot see the relevence. 3 DNA profiles were found and no mention is made of the tissue source other than the assumption that the blood type O semen discovered in 1961 was still present and VS profile was due to vaginal fluid or skin because the sample was from her knickers.

Victor, with regard to point 4 above, would you like to pinpoint for me exactly all of the evidence that shows Hanratty was the A6 murderer beyond a reasonable doubt that would then support the DNA?

Basically that is the subject of this thread, obviously summarising the entire trial transcripts is a labourious process and the quickest way of doing that is to quote the judgment - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/1141.html para 76:-

i) The identification made by Valerie Storie, involving as it did not only his physical appearance but also his voice (including his accent, pronunciation and use of the word ‘kip’) and his clothing. It is also possible to point to some of the things which the gunman said as being consistent with James Hanratty (including the name Jim): on the other hand, a number of the facts which she recalled did not fit with background information about him.

ii) The visual identifications by John Skillett and James Trower of James Hanratty as the erratic driver of the Morris Minor in the vicinity of Avondale Crescent (where the car used by Michael Gregsten was later found). In that regard, the prosecution also relied on the fact that Leonard in Ireland and Carol France in this country also spoke of James Hanratty’s erratic driving.

iii) In the light of the fact that the gunman appeared to be familiar with the roadworks in the Harrow area, the fact was that James Hanratty’s parents lived in Kingsbury with the result that he would, indeed, be familiar with the Harrow area.

iv) The presence, on 11 September 1961, of the two cartridge cases fired from the murder weapon, in room 24 at the Vienna Hotel. It was common ground that the room had been occupied by James Hanratty on 21 August 1961 and, on the evidence, it appeared that only one of the beds had been occupied on only one other occasion between then and the date they were found.

v) The fact that the murder weapon together with ammunition, wrapped in a handkerchief, were discovered under the back seat of a bus, that is, the very place which it was common ground James Hanratty had spoken of as a place to dispose of unwanted goods.

vi) James Hanratty’s conduct in removing the dye from his hair on 3 October 1961 when he knew that he was wanted by the police.

vii) James Hanratty’s admissions that he had made enquiries for a gun, his desire to be a “stick-up man”, and his ability to acquire a gun.

viii) The admitted lies about the stay in Liverpool with the three men on the nights of 22 and 23 August 1961 and the implausibility of one of the explanations for these lies (maintained at trial) to the effect that James Hanratty did not think that he would be able to find the house in Rhyl.

ix) The implausibility of the reason given by James Hanratty for going to Liverpool and for abandoning the search for the man who lived in Carlton or Tarleton Road or Street.

x) The evidence that the sweet shop incident occurred on Monday 21 and not Tuesday 22 August 1961, so not involving James Hanratty.

xi) The implausibility of the reason given for the telegram sent on Thursday 24 August 1961 (namely that he had promised to write to Mrs France), and the inference that this was an attempt to provide or bolster up a false alibi: the telegram had been sent at 8.40pm to arrive the following morning, at the same time he would have been travelling on the midnight train.

xii) The confession to Roy Langdale during the course of exercise in prison.

xiii) The fact that James Hanratty put forward two alibis, one of which was admittedly false and the other, also implausible, asserted only after the commencement of the trial thereby limiting the opportunity to investigate. This compounds with James Hanratty’s failure to take any steps between the 7 and 11 October 1961 (when James Hanratty was in the Liverpool area) to find the boarding house in Rhyl.

xiv) The implausibility of the reason for the visit to Rhyl, namely to find a man he had met only once before in order to sell stolen jewellery without knowing where Terry Evans was to be found or having any good reason to believe that Terry Evans was interested in buying stolen jewellery.

xv) The unsatisfactory state of the evidence emanating from Mrs Jones whose description of the house included a green bath (recollected by James Hanratty) albeit that the bathroom had a bed in it. This evidence had to be contrasted with the records which revealed only one single room in which James Hanratty could have stayed (room 4, occupied on 21, 22 and 23 August by a witness called in rebuttal) and the evidence of the guests who did stay in Mrs Jones’ house which effectively excluded James Hanratty’s presence on 22 or 23 August.

xvi) The evidence of blood group consistency, namely that James Hanratty (albeit along with 80% of 40-45% of the male population) was a group O secretor as was the semen found on Valerie Storie’s clothing (Michael Gregsten being a group AB secretor).

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Hanratty was diagnosed as being mentally defective after collapsing in the street? What kind of doctor would make that diagnoses? It makes no sense at all.

Hi Julie,

I believe that it's Blom-Cooper's book that details the circumstances, if I remember correctly he was working in Brighton and neglecting his health so collapsed on the street from exhaustion and was taken to Brighton General where an investigation of the cause for the neglect led to the diagnosis. Someone can probably supply the details or I'll check them out when I have access to my books.

You cannot possibly say that no diagnosis has been made of Alphon's mental condition. Do you have access to his medical notes? There may be no publicised diagnosis of his state - but he was certainly an hysteric at the very least. My assessmenmt of his mental condition is based on his behaviour which included making possibly hundreds of telephone calls to various people involved in the case - including Valerie Storie - the France family - the Hanratty family - Justice and Fox and various others. The phone calls to some of the people apparently went on for years after the case had concluded. He also visited the Hanratty's and offered to compensate them financially for the loss of their son.

Quite true, I don't have access to Alphon's medical records so can't definitively say that no diagnosis was made, but it isn't up to me to prove a negative, if anyone alleges that Alphon was diagnosed mentally unstable then it is for them to provide the evidence. For example, it's reasonable to speculate that Alphon was seeking revenge for the repeated allegations by the Police, Foot, Fenner Brockway and other MPs in the commons, which is certainly misguided but not necessarily mentally defective.

The explanation of how Hanratty's hanky got round the gun is exactly that. Someone other than hanratty placed the hanky round the gun when disposing of it in a place Hanratty had admitted using as a hiding place. It will be remembered that when Hanratty went thieving - he used a CLEAN hanky to wipe evidence from surfaces and items he discarded. He would would have wrapped the gun in a used hanky - not because he worried about his DNA turning up - but because that was not how he did things.

Any explanation for Hanratty's hanky being found wrapped round the gun must include an explanation for how the two items came together, which involves some convoluted conspiracy theory. Now where's Occam's razor?

I didn't comment on Tony's fabrications because there is every possibility I did not read them. I have had periods away from the thread for various reasons. However - I am sure Tony's scenario did not involve a woman who suffered the horrific death of her husband engaged in a conversation with another person concerning the 'bumping off' of that loved husband and father.

Neither did Ron's if you read it. Ron's scenario involved Janet and Bill discussing scaring Mike and Val and it going wrong.

KR,
Vic.

[Derrick]

Certainly these rules must be followed for all testing since 2009, I have not heard of any ruling to retrospectively apply them, or for any actions necessary to attempt to make prior testing abide by them. For example, there's the issue of the 3rd aliquot which should be retained and may therefore be available to run a quantification step.

Any appeal ruling can set a certain precedent that can be applied to any case, retrospectively or otherwise. In Hanratty in 2002 the judges used Pendleton (2002) for guidance on the admissibility of fresh evidence. Pendleton was forty years after the original Hanratty trial and appeal.

For the 1st quantification requirement there are several possibilities:-
a) Revealing the results of the quantification step done via the SGM process from the previous tests.
b) Quantifying the 3rd aliquot, if it still exists.

Any quantitation from previous tests has no bearing on tests performed later on on a separate piece of the knicker fragment and is frankly scientifically ludicrous to suggest such a practice. The chances of the 2 containing exactly the same DNA distribution per contributor and molecular weights is as close to nil as makes no odds.

I agree with you here that if 3 aliquots were made up originally and the 3rd wasn't used it should be quantified, retested and compared to the EPG's of the original tests.

For the 2nd there are 2 issues, firstly we don't know whether the sample was beneath the stochastic threshold so the caveats might not be necessary, and secondly as you pointed out we do not know the full discussion and advice from the various experts used in the judgment so the caveats could have been given, especially by Evison.

Of course we don't know whether either sample was below the stochastic threshold because the quantitation wasn't done.
It is for the party that brings the LCN evidence to give the caveats of it's limitations for the benefit of the other party, the judge and in a regular trial, the jury.
Never mind Evison, (who quite obviously did not know the limitations of LCN as illustrated by his seeming acceptance of a particular source material being a contaminant in a LCN test.) because it was Nigel Sweeney who

...suggests that the DNA evidence clearly establishes the correctness of the decision of the jury and proves beyond doubt that there has been no miscarriage of justice.

(appeal ruling p83)
No caveats given there at all, quite the opposite in fact.

For point 3, I cannot see the relevence. 3 DNA profiles were found and no mention is made of the tissue source other than the assumption that the blood type O semen discovered in 1961 was still present and VS profile was due to vaginal fluid or skin because the sample was from her knickers.

From the 2002 appeal ruling (p120)

...Dr Evison seems to accept that in the case of the knicker fragment the contaminant would have to be semen...

So the respondents have made claims as to the source of any contaminating material having to be semen. Evison is thus shown perhaps accepting this viewpoint.

The fourth point, that of DNA must be weighed along all the other evidence, was not applied by the courts ruling as stated at p127

Accordingly, we reject the evidence of Dr Evison where it is in conflict with the additional evidence of the respondents, agreeing as we do with the submission made by Mr Sweeney that the DNA evidence standing alone is certain proof of James Hanratty’s guilt.

Basically that is the subject of this thread, obviously summarising the entire trial transcripts is a labourious process and the quickest way of doing that is to quote the judgment..

Cutting and pasting a list of features that the prosecution relied on at the original trial is not going to help to show evidence of Hanratty's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Take your time Victor, no one was expecting you to come up with a definitve list in under 24 hours.

Derrick

[Derrick]

Not "inarticulate" --he said that in his otherwise very thoughtful book,"The Final Verdict".But what he does argue in the Oldie article is that as Hanratty was diagnosed as mentally defective he would not have had the mental equipment "to assert authority over the couple for six hours".While I suspect that Hanratty would have been disinclined to spend six hours pointing a gun and being driven round Slough with a mask on , on a drive to nowhere,I think this would be due far more to his restless basic personality rather than having anything to do with intelligence.He took a job at Rhyl fairground and kept it for one day before "moving on" -fed up with the draughty sea front.He took a window cleaning job with his dad for a few days and abandoned it before his dad could turn round.He would have abandoned that "job" in the Morris Minor after twenty minutes ,never mind six hours!
This indeed is where it all seems completely out of character and ridiculous to me.

Norma
I completely agree with you on all points.

Yet I also agree with others that a motive for the killing need not be sought as Gregsten in trying to disarm the gunman was killed, most likely by accident. The following rape and attempted murder of Valerie could then be seen as stemming from the death of Gregsten.

But what is missing is a motive for the gunman to get into the car in the cornfield in the first place.

Fundamentally Hanratty was a housebreaker to the end of gaining ready cash to support a flashy clothes, girls and cars type lifestyle. His main screwing haunts were suburbs where he could make a quick getaway by public transport if necessary. Dorney Reach would have been too out in the sticks when compared to Hanratty's regular M.O. After the A6 murder Hanratty was still doing burglaries, as the Stanmore incident evidently proved.

Hanratty would have been after cash not a magical mystery tour around the London ring round like some Texan Cowboy on holiday from the States.

Anyway Hanratty was in Liverpool during the afternoon and then Rhyl by the time of the hold up, trying to get cash for stolen wares, so it makes no odds.

Derrick

[NickB]

Cutting and pasting a list of features that the prosecution relied on at the original trial is not going to help to show evidence of Hanratty's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury were convinced by it.

They heard the whole trial, not just read filtered excerpts, and saw the way that the witnesses presented their evidence. They also knew that a guilty verdict would mean hanging.

The judge explained to the jury in ultra simple language what ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ meant, ending with the words: “Therefore you may think the best way of looking at it is this: you have to be sure of the guilt of the accused before you find him guilty."

[Natalie Severn]

Norma
I completely agree with you on all points.

Yet I also agree with others that a motive for the killing need not be sought as Gregsten in trying to disarm the gunman was killed, most likely by accident. The following rape and attempted murder of Valerie could then be seen as stemming from the death of Gregsten.

But what is missing is a motive for the gunman to get into the car in the cornfield in the first place.

Fundamentally Hanratty was a housebreaker to the end of gaining ready cash to support a flashy clothes, girls and cars type lifestyle. His main screwing haunts were suburbs where he could make a quick getaway by public transport if necessary. Dorney Reach would have been too out in the sticks when compared to Hanratty's regular M.O. After the A6 murder Hanratty was still doing burglaries, as the Stanmore incident evidently proved.

Hanratty would have been after cash not a magical mystery tour around the London ring round like some Texan Cowboy on holiday from the States.

Anyway Hanratty was in Liverpool during the afternnon and then Rhyl by the time of the hold up, trying to get cash for stolen wares, so it makes no odds.

Derrick

Well Derrick someone at last begins to talk about who James Hanratty was! He was absolutely about smart ,up to the minute clothes--like the trousers he had "tapered" at that Dry cleaners,about girls and funfairs and the dogs--- that was all so very much a part of a whole London working class [cultural] scene-and perfectly articulated for me by what his young girl friends said about him - girls such as Mary Meaden who described him as a "perfect gentleman",18 year old Gladys Deacon who said she had had a "wonderful" weekend with him driving off into the country in his new soft topped Sunbeam Alpine two-seater sports car over the weekend of Saturday 23rd September 1961.He was according to every girl he dated kind ,gentle and appropriatly behaved--again that was all part of it, part of the strong, London, working class culture he grew up in, "you treated girls properly".
Hanratty,I am pretty sure , would never have had the remotest inclination to go out into the sticks for sex with a girl in a Morris Minor! Hanratty probably wouldnt have been seen dead in a Morris Minor --they were about the uncoolest car you could get! And the idea of spending any time at all -talking to a "middle aged" man who owned a " duffle bag"-which was the equivalent of today"s man in an anorak and a girl-- vivacious and lovely though she was , still wearing slightly old fashioned " flicked up specs" not the round John Lennon ones which were all the rage then !Not Hanratty"s type and that is not a criticism of Valerie -just plain obvious!
The type of girl he appears to have wanted would have been the type to have worn the typical London up to date gear of the early 60"s ---tight skirts,high heels, Brigitte Bardot type hair styles---you see the type in the picture of Carol France I posted way back. It may sound silly and of no importance this but it has to be remembered that Hanratty was 24 -not 34--and he was quite typical of a young London working class man in what he wanted---even going to the dogs was all part of it! [Most of this information I have got from my husband,born in 1947 into a working class family in West London and who, after leaving University in 1968, went and worked for the Print on one of the big Sunday Papers in Central London and learnt all about " puttin" on the style" ---and had a fine old time of it too while he was at it!

[richardnunweek]

Hello Natalie,
I also was born in 1947,and remember the tight skirts, and high heels,I also was a passenger in a Morris Minor[ rear seat] ,many times[ my father owned one].
I do not share your view that Hanratty would not have acted in the way the killer did..reasons.
When he allegedly behaved like a gentleman on previous dates, he proberly was not carrying a large gun , and ammo in his pocket.
We cannot asume that the gunman has sex on his mind, when forcing himself in the car, just because Valerie wore glasses, does not mean that after he shot Gregson, he did not have a sexual inclination to ease his frustration, [he surely would have felt,] and the fact that she was not showing a lot of thigh, or dangling her stillettos,taking into account it was dark ,preference would hardly be a factor.
Refering to duffle bags, which were all the rage then, i used one throughout my senior school, infact the vast majority of the UK owned one, I would hardly class them as alien/anorak type.
Hanratty may have worn tapered trousers, he may have liked the swinging birds, but he was a low class [proven] criminal, and he was in the Morris Minor that evening, and events happened beyond his wildest imagination, and he was hung accordingly.
Well thats my way of 'Finking'
Regards Richard.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Richard.Well I am glad you had a duffle bag! But that was for school !
Yes,Hanratty went wrong.He started to housebreak .That doesnt make him a killer---as he himself put it ,more than aptly to Mr Swanwick,"Sir I must put this point quite clear.I ain"t a man the court approves of as of good character,but I am not a murderer.This is a murder trial not a housebreaking trial" -James Hanratty -trial testimony.

Richard , you think he killed Gregsten,raped Valerie and then shot her.
Why do you think that when he has no record whatsoever of any violence and every opportunity he desired to date attractive 18 year old girls?
[-dont bover yet Richard-gotta finish it!]

Murder versus Murder continued:-
[ Is this Alphon"s motive?-my question]


11. When I reproached them on their illicit love,Gregsten said,'that is nothing to do with you,: I became heated and said that everything that happened was my business,That I could see civilisation slipping into vice and decadence.He laughed and this antagonised me more.As I spoke with them and more and more his mentality emerged and I came to detest and despise him and knew he would be no loss to the world.

Notes end here ,followed by points 1-12 below.

[Natalie Severn]

1 Car passed. Lights lit up face 20 minutes after Gregsten"s death.
2 I arrived in car about 9,30.
3 Left about 11.30
4 Drove to lay by by roundabout route.
5 I said, " Shut up.I"m thinking my plan out"
6 firedabout ten times at her.
7 Drove off about 3.0
8 Raped Valerie about 20 minutes after gregsten"s death.
9 Fired shots at Gregsten at point- blank range
10 Said,"Kiss me" before raping her whenshe was in front seat.
11.38 Enfield revilver.
12 Past attempt at cornfield.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Natalie.
I also used that same duffle bag in 1963 to carrying swimming gear to the baths, so not just school.
The trouble with the A6 Case, is there is always a 'Ah..but', as in many famous cases of the 20th century, even Ruth Ellis allegedly did not fire the bullets into Blakeney , she just mimed, the shots were actually fired by her new boyfriend Curzon..
The same with Kennedy..and the grassy knoll, we all love a mystery, which is understandable since we all belong to this web site.
I just happen to accept the version of Guilty as charged where Hanratty is concerned.
Richard.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Richard,
Oh I have never thought Ruth Ellis didnt fire those shots.
Neither have I ever thought Hanratty was anything but wrongly hanged .But then I remember my mum going on a bit about it and how terrible it was that people had seen him in Rhyl--[ we had family living there at the time -maybe they told mum how awful it was that he wasnt believed and people in Rhyl had seen him ] Anyway it stayed with me.I spoke to about 5 people in Rhyl this month.They either said they had always understood he was in Rhyl---so how could he have done the murder? or they simply said-a bit irritated---"Ofcourse he was here---he was definitely here-no question about it."
Best
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

re Alphon"s written Confession to Justice of 1961

Apologies!

This page-- in its entirety should be read as part of the thread entitled ""Alphon the a6 Hitman ".It was a mistake I made last night when I was not concentrating properly through watching TV at the same time as I was transcribing a tract from Jean Justice"s 1964 book ,"Murder versus Murder". It should be read re the numbered sequence of" Alphon"s Confession" ie first section of confession : 1-11 , second section 1-12.

[Limehouse]

The jury were convinced by it.

They heard the whole trial, not just read filtered excerpts, and saw the way that the witnesses presented their evidence. They also knew that a guilty verdict would mean hanging.

The judge explained to the jury in ultra simple language what ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ meant, ending with the words: “Therefore you may think the best way of looking at it is this: you have to be sure of the guilt of the accused before you find him guilty."

The jury may have heard the whole trial - but did they hear 'the whole evidence?'. Had they been presented with all of the evidence - and with more reliable testimonies than that from the likes of Nudds - they may have come to a different conclusion.