a6 murder

[jimarilyn]

Wandering thoughts

I wonder if a certain 77 year old ex-public school boy is thinking of sending a happy 70th birthday card to a certain retired Government Scientist this coming November.

I wonder too if he has some keepsakes of hers hidden away somewhere.


PS. Methinks the thought police are about somewhere. Four posts have gone missing (Maybe they were needed for the semi-final this evening)

[larue]

Hello Larue

I think I am right in saying that the France family saw the bill from the Vienna when Hanratty visited them a few days later, and the room number would have been on the bill.

Kind regards,
Steves

hi Steve

what a delightful irony. a burglar and thief that's honest enough to pay his hotel bill... one might have thought he'd have legged it!

[larue]

PS. Methinks the thought police are about somewhere. Four posts have gone missing (Maybe they were needed for the semi-final this evening)

only four?

[Steve]

hi Steve

what a delightful irony. a burglar and thief that's honest enough to pay his hotel bill... one might have thought he'd have legged it!

Alphon neglected to settle the hotel bill from time to time, it's possible that Hanratty did too on occasion. I think perhaps he paid up at The Vienna because having found it by accident he intended using it again. It was very convenient for a couple of his favourite places in London, Dixie's house and Louise's flat.

[jimarilyn]

It is beyond doubt that Bob (from the old thread) and P.L.A. are one and the same poster.

[Limehouse]

I wonder if a certain 77 year old ex-public school boy is thinking of sending a happy 70th birthday card to a certain retired Government Scientist this coming November.

I wonder too if he has some keepsakes of hers hidden away somewhere.


PS. Methinks the thought police are about somewhere. Four posts have gone missing (Maybe they were needed for the semi-final this evening)

One of those missing posts practically gave the address of the 70 year old lady in question. That made me feel very uncomfortable indeed. I did not report the post, or ask for it to be removed, but I am glad it was removed.

I don't want to sound preachy, but I feel we have to remember that this was a dreadful crime carried out, relatively speaking, fairly recently, and people connected to that crime are still alive. They didn't ask to be dragged into the crime and it almost certainly ruined their lives. The least we can do is remember this when we post. I have to admit that people looking up the current address of the victim and posting most of it on here is creepy in the extreme.

[jimarilyn]

However it looks as if only about 9 or 10 minutes will be devoted to it. Might be worth a view.

Not even 9 or 10 minutes. To be precise, exactly 6 minutes and 17 seconds. No further comment necessary.

[Graham]

One of those missing posts practically gave the address of the 70 year old lady in question. That made me feel very uncomfortable indeed. I did not report the post, or ask for it to be removed, but I am glad it was removed.

I don't want to sound preachy, but I feel we have to remember that this was a dreadful crime carried out, relatively speaking, fairly recently, and people connected to that crime are still alive. They didn't ask to be dragged into the crime and it almost certainly ruined their lives. The least we can do is remember this when we post. I have to admit that people looking up the current address of the victim and posting most of it on here is creepy in the extreme.

I couldn't agree more.

Graham

[Graham]

Hi all.

I think Limehouse's last post should be taken seriously by all posters to this thread.

Unlike JtR and most of the other celebrated murder-cases discussed on these boards, the A6 Case is unusual because some of the people involved are still with us. Not only Valerie Storie, but also James Hanratty's brothers; Michael and Janet Gregsten's two sons; a number of witnesses at the trial; Michael Sherrard and (I think) Graham Swanwick; Charles France's daughters. And of course (so far as we know) Peter Alphon. The chances are that none of these people are even aware that we're discussing the A6 Case here, but we can't be 100% certain of that, and I for one would hate to think that we might just be causing distress to any of them. It's easy to fall into the trap of hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet, but let's not forget that real, living and breathing, people still have a direct and very personal interest in this case.

Like Limehouse says, I don't want to be preachy either. I'm sure everyone will understand.

Cheers,

Graham

[Tony]

Hello Graham,

You can cross one off your list.
Sir Graham Russell Swanwick; born 24th August 1906 – died 23rd June 2003

A pretty good innings.

Apparently, despite the books and campaigns, he never wavered in his belief that Hanratty was guilty.

[Steve]

Graham Swanwick

Hi Tony

Age 96 is a very good innings indeed! As for never wavering in his belief in Hanratty’s guilt I suppose if you are the prosecuting council it helps to believe the defendant is guilty, especially knowing the likely outcome is the gallows!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1434025/Sir-Graham-Swanwick.html

KR
Steve

[Tony]

Hello Steve,

I said I would consider my own verdict on Hanratty whilst I was away last week. I have recently read Paul Foot’s book again which totally convinced me of Hanratty’s innocence again.
Last week I took Bob Woffinden’s book away with me and at the end of it I was even more convinced. I know about the DNA evidence but I am still not convinced by it.
I knew nothing about the Leonard Miller book until I came across this forum about three weeks ago and I am struggling to locate a copy. However, I have read reviews of it and not all are complimentary even though Miller, apparently, was himself convinced of Hanratty’s innocence until the DNA results.
I think Woffinden goes a lot further than Foot did and after 20 years had obtained a lot more evidence.
I’ll have to think longer and harder.
As an aside the British legal system has proudly boasted: “a man is innocent until proven guilty”. If you are stopped for a breath test you are considered guilty until you blow into the bag and prove yourself innocent. If you don’t blow into the bag, for whatever reason, you are guilty.
Hanratty’s appeal failed, not because of his own DNA being found (cross contamination was a possibility), but because no one else’s was found. In other words they couldn’t find him 100% guilty but did do because they couldn’t find anybody else guilty.

I notice you included a link to an article in the Telegraph; have you seen the Telegraph article, which I found in my cuttings this morning, in which the priest at Hanratty’s execution told someone years later that Hanratty did in fact confess to the crime just before he was hanged?

Tony

[dougie]

Is there really any doubt about Hanrattys guilt any more, in light of the DNA evidence?
I thought a priest would be bound by his position not to reveal any such "secrets".Id be suspicious of any report by someone who knew someone, who knew the priest at hanrattys or anybody elses execution and came out with hearsay like that.
As for the breathlyser issue,why would someone who hadnt had a drink refuse to blow into the bag?Only someone with something to hide would do that.And if everybody refused to blow into the bag then nobody could be prosecuted for drunken driving, and everyone could get drunk as a lord ,drive their car and be immune from prosecution.
regards

[Graham]

The only other well-known case I can remember Swanwick being involved in was something to do with the Birmingham Six. Was he the judge?

Messrs Foot and Woffinden portray him as a player of dirty tricks, especially apropos Grace Jones. I suspect it wasn't quite as dramatic as they relate, and I guess he was only doing what he was being paid to do, and Mrs J did rather blow it.

Tony,

Miller's book "Shadows Of Deadman's Hill" is published by Zoilus Press. I bought my copy direct from them. I suppose it's still in print. If you Google Zoilus Press you'll get to their website. Basically, he takes Foot's and Woffinden's arguments and presents an alternative view, but gets a bit foggy when he starts putting JH's supposed thoughts down on paper, which I thought was a bit clumsy and disingenuous and didn't really acheive much.
But well worth reading, all the same.

Hanratty's original appeal failed because his defence couldn't put forward any new evidence or argument that his trial was biased. You could debate the latter until the cows come home... His more recent appeal was dismissed for much the same reasons, and as I suggested in an earlier post if there had been any new evidence available we'd have heard about it by now. Whether anyone is still working behind the scenes today, I don't know, but I doubt it.

Cheers,

Graham

[Steve]

Hi Tony & Everyone

The ‘Priest’ story has been around for some time and does indeed make interesting reading. I never believed it though for the reason that Hanratty almost certainly felt in his own mind that he was innocent of murder (and of rape) because he shot Michael Gregsten in self-defence and Miss Storie was a willing participant to his amorous advances. Rubbish of course.

Kind regards,
Steve