a6 murder

[Victor]

But the defence, as far as anyone knows, did not have the car's mileage examined. So all we have is D Supt Acott's word for it. Considering he knew of all of the sightings he could quite easily have jotted down a standby figure, of the final mileage, in his notebook to explain things just in case the defence got too nosey.

The police could have clocked it anyway so nothing is certain about the mileage.

Hi Derrick,

Your suggestions above are clearly indicating that you think Acott was fabricating evidence to implicate Hanratty, yet I understand Acott had a clean record in this regard and was a highly respected officer with a distinguished career.

What happened to the car, by the way?

On the pre-crash thread there were more recent pictures of the car and if memory serves (it probably doesn't) it was for sale. The poster Steve found the picture I think, and Graham was a regular poster at the time along with James who might have a better insight.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

It throws a whole new light on the evidence of Blackhall and Skillett and helps to explain their very different choices at the identification parades they attended.

Hi Norma,

Don't forget that Blackhall noticed the 3 red strips on the back of the moggie that cut them up. I completely disagree that it can say anything about Skillett and Blackhall making different choices at the ID parades they attended, because they both would have seen the same man driving erratically, regardless of whether it was Hanratty or someone else.

And yes,its quite bizarre that such evidence was never disclosed to the defence.

I agree that these statements should have been disclosed - if they had there would be less controversy now.

KR,
Vic.

[Derrick]

Your suggestions above are clearly indicating that you think Acott was fabricating evidence to implicate Hanratty, yet I understand Acott had a clean record in this regard and was a highly respected officer with a distinguished career.

Yes. I wouldn't believe anything Acott said from his performance in this case.

He plainly didn't place much faith in his star witness. He relied entirely on the meagre scraps he could glean from the Vienna hotel for the whole case. His points for eliminating Alphon just don't convince me.

As far as his record goes, the police were a closed shop for a long time, so any misdemeanors would go unreported. As far as I am aware, it was not until the late 60's early 70's that widespread police corruption and illegal practices (robberies, drug dealing and murder) were finally exposed in the Metropolitan police. This is generalized in Peter Flannery's magnificient BBC drama Our Friends In The North.

I believe Acott had already retired before Paul Foot's book came out. I am not saying that Acott had any involvement in corruption but many hundreds of CID officers did and were retired early on full pensions.

Derrick

[Limehouse]

Hi Norma,

Don't forget that Blackhall noticed the 3 red strips on the back of the moggie that cut them up. I completely disagree that it can say anything about Skillett and Blackhall making different choices at the ID parades they attended, because they both would have seen the same man driving erratically, regardless of whether it was Hanratty or someone else.


I agree that these statements should have been disclosed - if they had there would be less controversy now.

KR,
Vic.

The three stripes on the bumper came up for discussion a few months ago and I questioned whether Blackhall had actually mentioned this from memory or had been asked a leading question during interview (did you notice three red stripes on the bumper of the car?) or had actually been shown the car to identify it. We don't actually know the answer to this so the red stripes might not be such a strong point after all - especially if other witnesses in Avondale Crescent itself contradict this sighting.

[Tony]

Old News Paper Cutting.

This is a 1997 article on the case. Nothing new, but interesting all the same.

Tony.

JAMES HANRATTY, executed nearly 35 years ago for the notorious A6 murder, may have been framed, it emerged yesterday.

A new police inquiry into the killing of scientist Michael Gregsten and the rape and shooting of his mistress is understood to be investigating the role of a Soho club owner.

Charles `Dixie' France, who committed suicide two days after Hanratty's final appeal against the death sentence was turned down in 1962, is now believed to have perverted the course of justice.

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.

France, a witness at the 21-day trial, claimed that just after the murder Hanratty phoned him and blurted out: `Dixie, Dixie! I'm wanted for the A6 murder.'

It is now being suggested there was a sophisticated conspiracy to kill Mr Gregsten and put the blame on Hanratty. The plot is thought to have involved at least three men police believe they have identified. France was known to both Hanratty and Peter Alphon, a former door-to-door salesman linked to inquiries at the time of the murder. Alphon was interviewed by police but was never charged. He said yesterday: `Those people who believe Hanratty was innocent will continue to believe he was innocent. Those people who believe I was guilty will continue to believe I was guilty.'

Hanratty's family has led a long campaign to clear his name. His father James, who died some years ago, worked strenuously, demanding a new inquiry into the case, and now Hanratty's mother Mary and three brothers are hoping the years of fighting have at last paid off.

THE hangman slipped the noose around James Hanratty's neck at precisely 8am on April 4, 1962.

A few minutes later a police inspector emerged from Bedford prison and spoke to a small, silent crowd waiting at the gates. `It's all over now,' he said, then turned to walk away.

It was certainly all over for James Hanratty. Hanging leaves no room for appeals, second chances or reprieve. But for those who believed he was innocent, it was just beginning.

When the crowd had mostly dispersed, a lone figure - a friend of the family who knew Hanratty and attended his trial - walked up to the prison gates and laid a bouquet in the dust.

`This man is innocent,' he declared, `and one day the truth will be told.' Yesterday - 35 years after Hanratty went to the gallows - all the signs were that the day had arrived.

The otherwise anonymous petty crook appears about to be cleared of involvement in the notorious A6 murder of Michael Gregsten.

A police report will examine not only the evidence but the possible role of people other than Hanratty in the murder. One of them, the late Soho club owner Charles `Dixie' France, is believed to have tried to frame Hanratty to avert suspicion from a third party, Peter Alphon.

Family and friends of James Hanratty have campaigned ceaselessly for a posthumous pardon for the man accused of a crime that horrified a nation already accustomed to details of notorious killings.

Some had involved similar elements of passion and betrayal. But it was the apparently random nature of the A6 crime - and the brutal way in which it was carried out - that led to it being labelled Britain's murder trial of the century.

James Hanratty was an unremarkable young man with a taste for sharp clothes and a record for housebreaking and minor crimes. Michael Gregsten was a 36-year-old government scientist working at the Road Research Laboratory, near Slough.

He was married, but frequently unfaithful to his wife. In the summer of 1961 he had seduced his laboratory assistant, Valerie Storie, and they were having an affair.

Gregsten was a rugged, handsome man with a ready smile and the bespectacled, 22-year-old brunette fell easily for his charm.

A cornfield near the Thames at Dorney Reach, Berkshire, became their regular rendezvous for secret, passionate encounters.

On August 22, Gregsten had tea at home and went out in his mother's Morris Minor. He picked up Miss Storie from work and drove her to the

field to watch the evening sunset.

At 9.15, after dusk turned to dark, there was a tap on the car window.

When Gregsten wound it down, a man with a scarf around his mouth and a revolver in his hand shouted: `This is a hold-up. I'm a desperate man.'

He ordered the couple to hand over the keys and got into the car with them. They would have to endure more than two hours of threats and terror before he eventually told them to drive off.

With a gun pointing at their backs, they travelled for about 60 miles past London Airport, around the fringes of the capital and out on the A6 towards Bedford.

At about 2am, the gunman told Gregsten to pull into a lay-by at Dead Man's Hill near Clophill, Bedfordshire. By this time Miss Storie was in tears and begging him not to shoot them.

The gunman bound her hands with cord from the boot and tied her to the door handle. Then, in front of her, he shot Gregsten twice through the head at point-blank range.

The killer then asked Miss Storie for a kiss and, when she refused, held her at gunpoint. On the back seat of the car, he raped her.

By now she was helpless and distraught but he showed no mercy. He shot her four times, reloaded the gun and shot her again. She was paralysed - but, remarkably, she survived.

Valerie Storie feigned death by lying still and holding her breath as the killer kicked her.

At the roadside after he fled in the car, she tried to write a description of him with pebbles in the dirt: `Blue eyes, brown hair . . .'

It was not until after dawn broke more than three hours later that a passer by came across the terrible scene

It is the sequence of events that followed - some of them highly implausible and many of them contradicted - which has always been at the heart of the Hanratty case.

During her ordeal, Miss Storie had seen the face of the killer clearly only once, when he was caught in the headlights of a passing car.

She subsequently gave police a description which enabled an Identikit picture to be issued. It looked nothing like Hanratty, but in October 1961 police arrested him after he was `identified' to them as a strong suspect.

It was later reported that Gregsten's wife Janet and her brother-in-law, William Ewer, had each seen Hanratty in a London street - and that Mrs Gregsten had known `intuitively' that he was responsible for the murder.

However, shortly before she died in January 1995, Mrs Gregsten would categorically deny this and state that she was no longer convinced of Hanratty's guilt. Mr Ewer would say journalists had been `mistaken' in reporting the alleged sighting.

Miss Storie, crippled and wheelchair-bound through her injuries, failed to pick out Hanratty at an identity parade, and admitted subsequently that her memory of her attacker was fading.

At a second parade, however, she asked each suspect to repeat a phrase the killer had used - `Be quiet, will you, I'm thinking.' The killer had pronounced the word as `finking'. So did Hanratty. After 20 minutes, Miss Storie picked him from the line-up.

When Hanratty went for trial, Miss Storie's moving and highly emotional evidence was the main plank of the prosecution evidence and could have swayed the jury considerably.

She was the victim. She had seen the killer and recalled his `ice blue' eyes. How could she be doubted? Indeed, she had looked across a crowded court at Hanratty and declared: `I have no doubt whatsoever that he is the man who shot Mike and myself.'

Crucial to the prosecution case was the discovery of two .38 cartridge cases from the murder weapon in a room at a London hotel. Hanratty was said to have stayed there under the false name of James Ryan - but a question remained over the previous occupant of the room.

Peter Alphon, who was interviewed during police inquiries into the case, had stayed at the hotel the night before.

There were, of course, strong challenges to the evidence by Hanratty's defence counsel. At one stage his barrister, Mr Michael Sherrard, accused the police officer in charge of the case, Detective Superintendent Basil `Bob' Acott, of `bias to a marked degree'.

Mr Sherrard added: `If ever a man clung tenaciously to his own errors, that man was Superintendent Basil Acott.' He submitted that Miss Storie was honest, but mistaken.

No forensic evidence had been found in Gregsten's car to link Hanratty to it. And in order to believe he was the murderer, jurors would have to assume he just happened to be walking in a smart city suit in a cornfield when he stumbled across the lovers in their car.

There was also contradictory evidence. Grace Jones, a landlady from Rhyl, thought Hanratty had been at her guest house at the time of the murder and therefore could not have done it. In the years after Hanratty's execution, 14 others volunteered statements to support this story.

So who was the real murderer? Suspicion has repeatedly fallen on Peter Alphon, who now denies involvement but is said to have admitted the killing several times. The former door-to-door salesman was seen at the pub where Gregsten and his mistress met on the night they were abducted.

It has been suggested that relatives of Mrs Gregsten were involved in a plot to frighten her husband into ending his infidelity. Mr Alphon is reported to have claimed he was paid [pounds sterling]5,000 to break up the relationship.

James Hanratty's final denial of guilt - at a time when he had nothing to lose - came the day before he went to the gallows. He told his family in a letter: `I'm dying tomorrow but I'm innocent. Clear my name.'

[Tony]

Hi Derrick,

yet I understand Acott had a clean record in this regard and was a highly respected officer with a distinguished career.


Vic.

Clean record? Ask my dear friend Julie Limehouse about that one Vic.

Tony.

[Victor]

Clean record? Ask my dear friend Julie Limehouse about that one Vic.

Hi Tony and Julie,

I'm all ears, care to elaborate... Julie has posted this eveing so....

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Yes. I wouldn't believe anything Acott said from his performance in this case.

Hi Derrick,

Conspiracy theories and speculation don't wash, come up with some concrete evidence please. There was nothing contemporary, just innuendo and speculation and hindsight, which is always going to highlight things that could have been done better.

He plainly didn't place much faith in his star witness. He relied entirely on the meagre scraps he could glean from the Vienna hotel for the whole case. His points for eliminating Alphon just don't convince me.

Agreed, his points for eliminating Alphon are weak, they seem to be off-the-cuff repudiation rather than a considered responce, but that's the nature of court evidence.

As far as his record goes, the police were a closed shop for a long time, so any misdemeanors would go unreported. As far as I am aware, it was not until the late 60's early 70's that widespread police corruption and illegal practices (robberies, drug dealing and murder) were finally exposed in the Metropolitan police. This is generalized in Peter Flannery's magnificient BBC drama Our Friends In The North.

As far as his record goes you've just come up with generalised conspiracy theories rather than a considered evaluation of Acott's career - have another attempt.

I believe Acott had already retired before Paul Foot's book came out. I am not saying that Acott had any involvement in corruption but many hundreds of CID officers did and were retired early on full pensions.

Again generalisations when I asked for specifics - there's a bad egg everywhere and you've clearly demonstrated that Acott wasn't one because you can't find any dirt - that sounds like a ringing endorsement to me.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

This is a 1997 article on the case. Nothing new, but interesting all the same.

Hi Tony,

Interesting, speculative and full of errors...

The two men are believed to have known each other

France and Hanratty definitely knew eachother.

A cornfield near the Thames at Dorney Reach, Berkshire, became their regular rendezvous for secret, passionate encounters.

One of many - even that night.

On August 22, Gregsten had tea at home and went out in his mother's Morris Minor.

Aunt's not mother's.

He picked up Miss Storie from work and drove her to the field to watch the evening sunset.

Hmmm... not directly, and interesting euphemism.

At the roadside after he fled in the car, she tried to write a description of him with pebbles in the dirt: `Blue eyes, brown hair . . .'

Oo-er, controversial???

Miss Storie, crippled and wheelchair-bound through her injuries, failed to pick out Hanratty at an identity parade, and admitted subsequently that her memory of her attacker was fading.

Wrong... The fading comment was before the ID parade where Hanratty was not even there... She never "failed to pick out Hanratty at an identity parade", 100% of the time she picked out Hanratty when he was there.

Crucial to the prosecution case was the discovery of two .38 cartridge cases from the murder weapon in a room at a London hotel. Hanratty was said to have stayed there under the false name of James Ryan - but a question remained over the previous occupant of the room.

Erm... He admitted it.

Peter Alphon, who was interviewed during police inquiries into the case, had stayed at the hotel the night before.

Erm... No,. Alphon stayed at the Vienna on the night of the murder.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Victor,
The trial was flawed.The verdict was unsafe.Read julie q's post on this.Even if Hanratty was guilty,the trial was still flawed.Michael Sherrard QC has said so,in print, and he was one of this country"s leading advocates at the time---ie in May 2002 when he said it just after the judgement.He was also Hanratty"s trial barrister and knew the case better than you or anyone on here.Supt Acott held back crucial witness statements and other evidence-no question.Statements given by Hanratty to Acott were later altered.There is now scientific proof of this.
Best, Norma

[Victor]

The trial was flawed.The verdict was unsafe.Read julie q's post on this.Even if Hanratty was guilty,the trial was still flawed.

Hi Norma,

The judgment says it wasn't, that's the latest official word on the matter.

Michael Sherrard QC has said so,in print, and he was one of this country"s leading advocates at the time---ie in May 2002 when he said it just after the judgement.He was also Hanratty"s trial barrister and knew the case better than you or anyone on here.

Michael Sherrard also said "the wrong man was not hanged"

Supt Acott held back crucial witness statements and other evidence-no question.

I agree with Julie q's "high watermark of non-disclosure" comment, there is question.

Statements given by Hanratty to Acott were later altered.There is now scientific proof of this.

Where is this proof? The ESDA tests do not show that at all.

KR,
Vic.

[NickB]

The best way to have quashed the conviction was to find some evidence showing Hanratty was not guilty.

WhenWoffinden persuaded the CCRC to undertake the DNA tests he hoped that this would provide such evidence.

So if the DNA result had indicated Hanratty’s innocence it would have been central to the defence’s case at the Appeal. But when it didn't, people like Woffinden then changed from championing the DNA test to trying to get it ruled inadmissible.

The defence then had to fall back on trying to prove that the trial was materially flawed. It failed to do so.

[uncle_adolph]

More than enough evidence has been produced over the years to show that Hanratty was not guilty. But as has happened so many times in this case the judges decided not to deal with that evidence but to focus on the one thing which apparently proves his guilt beyond any doubt. Thus the many people who gave evidence in support of Hanratty were all clearly wrong even though their evidence taken as a whole is overwhelming and totally wipes the floor with the prosecution case.

Until that question is answered the doubt in this case will never go away no matter what the supposed irrefutable scientific evidence might show.

[Derrick]

Conspiracy theories and speculation don't wash, come up with some concrete evidence please. There was nothing contemporary, just innuendo and speculation and hindsight, which is always going to highlight things that could have been done better.

You seem to obsessed with conspiracy theories. You are paranoid.

If you think that serious non-disclosure and massaging of evidence in Hanratty is speculation and that the CCRC was somehow involved in a conspiracy then you should get some stronger pills from your shrink.

Agreed, his points for eliminating Alphon are weak, they seem to be off-the-cuff repudiation rather than a considered responce, but that's the nature of court evidence.

How can you compare 12 detailed points to be "off the cuff"? And as for "the nature of court evidence", the CIO should, as you would agree, give exact reasons, backed up by evidence for excluding a suspect from an investigation. If that is the "nature of court evidence" as you put it, it is no wonder so many innocent people are in jail.

As far as his record goes you've just come up with generalised conspiracy theories rather than a considered evaluation of Acott's career - have another attempt.

I have as much of an idea of his record as you do...zilch. So don't preach to me when you have no knowledge of the man. I find it hard to believe that you think that a complete reorganisation of Scotland Yard amid proven corruption was the result of conspiracy theories! You really should do some reading on the subject before posting such poor responses.

Again generalisations when I asked for specifics - there's a bad egg everywhere and you've clearly demonstrated that Acott wasn't one because you can't find any dirt - that sounds like a ringing endorsement to me.

Get back in your coffin Victor, I said "I am not saying that Acott had any involvement in corruption".

But I am not giving Acott a ringing endorsement either.

500 bad eggs in one police force seems to me a very large number that even the dimmest member of society could see that the Met police force was completely corrupt and no one of any senior rank would have been unaware of what was happening. All were either sacked or retired.

Another 300 CID officers were removed and sent "abroad" from Scotland Yard to other forces.

How many of these bad eggs were freemasons? Certainly the most high profile cases at the Old Bailey in 1977 showed that 13 high ranking (Commander, Super and Inspector) corrupt policeman were.

Derrick

[NickB]

More than enough evidence has been produced over the years to show that Hanratty was not guilty. But as has happened so many times in this case the judges decided not to deal with that evidence

What evidence was presented to the judges that they decided not to deal with?