a6 murder

[Graham]

Hi all!

I've been elsewhere for a couple of days, and it seems that I've missed a lot of valid argument here.

Maybe a quick re-cap is called for:

1] Regarding the DNA, the hankie and the underwear were stored seperately, unless my information regarding this is totally wrong.

2] As Steve points out, only one DNA trace was found on the hankie, and more importantly only one MALE DNA trace was found on the underwear. Both these traces matched that of Hanratty, reference the sample taken from his teeth after exhumation. I honestly think that no mistake was made - nor was a mistake actually possible - in the DNA analysis. I am not an expert on DNA, I admit, and I for one was surprised at the results of the analysis, because up to that time I was still "sort of" convinced that Hanratty was not the A6 killer. However, I am 100% prepared to accept the results as found, and I am equally 100% convinced that the chances of a repeat analysis are practically zero. If anyone reading this IS an expert in DNA, then I would be highly interested to hear from him/her regarding the analysis of the A6 exhibits.

3] Hanratty was, without any question, an unstable personality. He was the absolute typical example of someone who would prefer to make £1 illegally than £10 honestly. Almost his entire adult life, such as it was, was dedicated to crime. No, that doesn't automatically mean that at some stage he suddenly graduated from petty crime to a murderer and a rapist, but there is sufficient evidence regarding his psychology to suggest that he was unstable and apt to react in ways which can be considered abnormal. I've used this comparison before, but Ted Bundy struck virtually everyone who knew him as being totally stable and believeable; however, he was a mass-murderer and he eventually admitted it. How a person acts and how he/she is viewed by his/her peers is not necessarily a true indication of that person's capacity for committing crimes such as Bundy's or Hanratty's.

4] Valerie Storie is the one person able to give evidence as to who was in the rear seat of the car that night. There is no-one else. Her identification was accepted. If she was wrong, then there really was a grave miscarriage of justice, but before the trial, at the trial, and after the trial she never once deviated from her absolute conviction that it was James Hanratty who killed Gregsten and raped and attempted to kill her.

5] Peter Alphon was always extremely careful never to committ himself when there was any possibility whatsoever that he could be tried as the A6 killer.
His 'confessions' to the crime came only after Hanratty was dead. The law had taken its course, and two persons cannot be tried for the same crime (or at least that used to be the case).

6] There still remains a remote possibility that there was some kind of 'conspiracy' that resulted in the A6 Crime. However, I am yet to be convinced of the existence of such a conspiracy, but am willing for anyone to TRY to convince me!

7] The 'Rhyl Alibi' just doesn't hold water. Not one of the Rhyl witnesses was able to prove beyond any legal doubt that Hanratty was in Rhyl at the time of the A6 crime. Testimonies were taken and investigated, not just by the police but also by Hanratty's defence, and absolutely no proof whatsoever was forthcoming. Grace Jones, whatever her motives for agreeing to be a defence-witness, was torn apart (quiet easily, as it happened) at the trial, and I for one cannot accept her testimony. At best, she was simply mistaken.
Also, not one of the other persons at her Ingledene B&B ever, to this day, deposed that they could remember anyone meeting Hanratty's description staying there at the crucial time.

8] No doubt about it that Hanratty should never have been found guilty at his trial, due to a combination of police-corruption and defence ineptitude, and had it not been for the DNA then Hanratty would have gone down in history as a martyr to judicial miscarriage. And I'd still be championing his innocence. But the DNA ended that. I say again, if anyone can convince me totally that the DNA was flawed or otherwise wrong, then I'm listening.

This has gone on long enough. Sorry for the length of this post.

Cheers,

Graham

[Steve]

Hi Graham

Apologies not necessary, not when posting a compelling read with such total authority.

You and I agree that Hanratty should not have been convicted on the evidence presented at the trial, but that doesn’t alter the fact that he was the only creditable suspect for the crime, and that DNA evidence confirms his conviction as being sound.

I do believe there was a conspiracy, I’m not certain exactly how it happened, but I tend to believe that it occurred after the fact. One thing I do know for sure is that the full story has yet to be told.

Kind regards,
Steve

[Graham]

Hi Graham

Apologies not necessary, not when posting a compelling read with such total authority.

You and I agree that Hanratty should not have been convicted on the evidence presented at the trial, but that doesn’t alter the fact that he was the only creditable suspect for the crime, and that DNA evidence confirms his conviction as being sound.

I do believe there was a conspiracy, I’m not certain exactly how it happened, but I tend to believe that it occurred after the fact. One thing I do know for sure is that the full story has yet to be told.

Kind regards,
Steve

Hi Steve.

Thanks for your kind comments.

In my honest opinion, I doubt that there was any conspiracy as such - probably more confusion, if the events at the Vienna Hotal are any guide. I still maintain that Alphon's involvement in the case was purely coincidental, but he being who he was made the most of it - profitably, as it would appear.
Further, I think the whole case really was riddled with coincidence, and that the full story has yet to be told - if it ever can be told. If anyone in the case can be considered as key, then that person has to be Charles France, and until all of his pre-suicide writings are made public, we'll know no more about his role. Yet suffice to say that it is virtually certain that France made the key link between Ryan and Hanratty, and there has to be a reason why he did so. Police pressure is the obvious reason - but why didn't he just keep his mouth shut? Why did he make the link, if indeed he did so? He was very obviously a scared man - but, again, why?

Cheers,

Graham

[P.L.A]

The Evidence

Can’t understand what all the fuss is about. There was enough evidence produced at Bedford Assizes to convict Hanratty two or three times over.
Not too sure how the DNA findings add to this.
The jury took their responsibilities very seriously and obviously spent time debating all the issues at length.

We should be grateful that the sheer brilliance and total professionalism of Acott and Swanwick took such a dangerous criminal out of circulation.

Peter.

[Tony]

Good Morning Graham,

I would like you to reply to my post 832 about whether or not Dixie knew that Hanratty was going to Liverpool. I suspect Dixie and Ewer of much in this case.

Also I want to refer to your post 871.

“4] Valerie Storie is the one person able to give evidence as to who was in the rear seat of the car that night. There is no-one else. Her identification was accepted. If she was wrong, then there really was a grave miscarriage of justice, but before the trial, at the trial, and after the trial she never once deviated from her absolute conviction that it was James Hanratty who killed Gregsten and raped and attempted to kill her.”

She wasn’t absolutely sure on the Alphon ID parade as she picked someone else out.

“5] Peter Alphon was always extremely careful never to committ himself when there was any possibility whatsoever that he could be tried as the A6 killer.
His 'confessions' to the crime came only after Hanratty was dead. The law had taken its course, and two persons cannot be tried for the same crime (or at least that used to be the case).”

Are you mixing this up with what used to be the case that an individual could not be tried for the same crime twice? This is the double jeopardy scenario in which a suspect is found not guilty and then further evidence is found at a later date and the original suspect can be put on trial again. At one time a killer could be found not guilty and 5 minutes later on the courtroom steps could say: “The jury got it wrong. I did it” without fear of any consequences. Tony Mancini committed murder and was acquitted and later admitted to it.
I don’t recall a law that says if the police fail to get a conviction against a defendant that’s the end of the matter and no other person can be put on trial.

Thanks, Tony.

[Graham]

Good Morning Graham,

I would like you to reply to my post 832 about whether or not Dixie knew that Hanratty was going to Liverpool. I suspect Dixie and Ewer of much in this case.

Also I want to refer to your post 871.

“4] Valerie Storie is the one person able to give evidence as to who was in the rear seat of the car that night. There is no-one else. Her identification was accepted. If she was wrong, then there really was a grave miscarriage of justice, but before the trial, at the trial, and after the trial she never once deviated from her absolute conviction that it was James Hanratty who killed Gregsten and raped and attempted to kill her.”

She wasn’t absolutely sure on the Alphon ID parade as she picked someone else out.

“5] Peter Alphon was always extremely careful never to committ himself when there was any possibility whatsoever that he could be tried as the A6 killer.
His 'confessions' to the crime came only after Hanratty was dead. The law had taken its course, and two persons cannot be tried for the same crime (or at least that used to be the case).”

Are you mixing this up with what used to be the case that an individual could not be tried for the same crime twice? This is the double jeopardy scenario in which a suspect is found not guilty and then further evidence is found at a later date and the original suspect can be put on trial again. At one time a killer could be found not guilty and 5 minutes later on the courtroom steps could say: “The jury got it wrong. I did it” without fear of any consequences. Tony Mancini committed murder and was acquitted and later admitted to it.
I don’t recall a law that says if the police fail to get a conviction against a defendant that’s the end of the matter and no other person can be put on trial.

Thanks, Tony.

Hi Tony.

1] I'm away from my books just now, but in answer to your question on Post 835, if I remember correctly JH sent the France family a postcard from Liverpool, but not until towards the end of the critical week. I honestly can't remember if he had actually told Dixie of his intentions of visiting Liverpool; he probably did, but when I don't know.

2] Valerie didn't pick out Alphon on the ID parade for the simple reason she'd never seen him before.

3] As JH had been found guilty and his appeal had failed, Alphon must have felt safe, but he said very little until after JH's execution. Yes, I think I was getting confused about double-jeopardy. I wonder if, had the recent appeal been upheld and JH had been exonnerated, would Alphon have been arrested and interrogated again as the only other suspect in the A6 Case?

You're right about Tony Mancini, but I believe he admitted to the murder only about 45 years afterwards!!

Cheers,

Graham

[simon]

Hi Graham,
You say you'd welcome anyone's attempt to convince you there was a conspiracy.
Personally, I'd welcome anyone convincing me that this was a completely random abduction and murder. If JH was intent on rich pickings, and was armed for that purpose, why on earth would he choose to sit in the back of that particular car for hours on end ? If rape was on his mind, why not go looking for someone who was by herself ?

Regards,
Simon

[Victor]

2] As Steve points out, only one DNA trace was found on the hankie, and more importantly only one MALE DNA trace was found on the underwear. Both these traces matched that of Hanratty, reference the sample taken from his teeth after exhumation. I honestly think that no mistake was made - nor was a mistake actually possible - in the DNA analysis. I am not an expert on DNA, I admit, and I for one was surprised at the results of the analysis, because up to that time I was still "sort of" convinced that Hanratty was not the A6 killer. However, I am 100% prepared to accept the results as found, and I am equally 100% convinced that the chances of a repeat analysis are practically zero. If anyone reading this IS an expert in DNA, then I would be highly interested to hear from him/her regarding the analysis of the A6 exhibits.

Graham,

Are you sure about the ONE MALE DNA? I thought they found Gregson's on the underwear too.

Vic

[P.L.A]

Some Masterplan

A plot that results in an assassin ending up with a car that he is unfamiliar with in the middle of nowhere at the dead of night with one body and one severely injured person at his feet doesn’t seem very well planned to me.

As a basic necessity, one would have thought the gunman would have had a bit of practice in a Moggy beforehand. Not to mention ensuring that he could get from the scene to safety without running the very real risk of being stopped by police in the murder car.

It would have been in the interest of all conspirators that the killer escaped. If he was caught, then their role was in danger of being revealed.

Peter.

[simon]

Just a thought.. Valerie the intended victim, until things went wrong ?

[P.L.A]

Pointless Exercise

If the objective was to kill the pair then what would be the point of the gunman deliberately doing and saying things during the course of the car journey in order to point the finger in Hanratty’s direction? E.g. driving close to the Hanratty family home.

With Mike and Val dead, there would be no witnesses to the route taken.

Peter.

[P.L.A]

DNA Source

If the first suspect’s personal samples from 1961 were available to the DNA testers, then is it likely that the second suspect’s weren’t?

If they were, then the exhumation was unnecessary. Maybe Mr. Alphon did give a later sample after all.

Peter

[Tony]

Good Afternoon Graham,

Regarding your reply to my questions, thank you for the quick response. I know people can ask questions and you simply can not respond until after a little research. Even Paul Foot, who lived and breathed the case, quite often forgot details and had to check back to remind himself.
On point 2 I wasn’t suggesting she should have selected Alphon, but he was damn lucky she didn’t, I was pointing out that you say: “before the trial, at the trial, and after the trial she never once deviated from her absolute conviction that it was James Hanratty who killed Gregsten and raped and attempted to kill her.”

She wasn’t absolutely convinced at this first ID parade about Hanratty then because she didn’t pick him out and obviously she couldn’t because he wasn’t there. But she did pick someone out so she couldn’t have been that certain of Hanratty at all.
As there were 12 men on the ID parade the odds were 11 to 1 against her picking Alphon but just suppose, and we know she made a mistake once, just suppose she picked out Alphon. Acott would have said: “well done Valerie that’s our suspect”.
Charge, trial and execution of said Mr Alphon. Then somebody writes a book saying it wasn’t Alphon but a two bit crook called Hanratty. Do you think 40 years on Miss Storie would be saying; “I’ve settled my score with Alphon, I was in the car with him. I know it was him”?

On point 1 I think this is very important. I think Hanratty was staying with or was certainly in contact with Dixie. If he was framed by Dixie as I said in post 832:

P L A’s post 796 about the framing couldn’t have been an option because for all the framers knew “Hanratty could have been sat at home having a cup of tea with his mum”
Well first of all I doubt if Hanratty sat around any evening drinking tea. He was either out robbing or socialising. But, and I’m sure somebody will correct me here, didn’t Dixie know where Hanratty would be that week. Hadn’t he told Dixie he was off to Liverpool on some half baked scheme of finding a fence to sell stolen property to? Or maybe even Dixie suggested it to Hanratty knowing that there wasn’t a great chance of any alibi.
Ewer is alerted. “This week is a possibility. Will they be out together on Tuesday?” “Yes they probably will”. They definitely were.

Tony.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
The A6 Murder has become very complex recently, surely we are now positive that the killer , and attempted killer, was none other then the man convicted of the crime, ie James Hanratty.
DNA, Is positive.
This is purely a case of a unstable petty criminal having access to a loaded revolver, and attempting to be 'The big I am'. trying something different ...and that consequence resulting in events which escalated out of hand. which caused the death of Gregston, and what should have been also the witness Valarie.
The actions of Hanratty, and his persistance in his innocence, was simply a defensive ploy[ the only one he truely had] to attempt to foil the execution, by a very scared individual.
Regards Richard.

[Steve]

Hi Richard

I would say that is a fair assessment, but I suspect not everyone will agree!

KR
Steve