a6 murder

[Steve]

Hi Graham

Interesting that Swanwick was in the RAF during WWII, he was a Wing Commander but as far as I can tell never saw active service. Superintendent Acott also served in the RAF during the war as a bomber pilot, was promoted through the ranks to Flight Lieutenant, a couple of levels below Wing Commander, and was awarded the DFC.

You cannot help wondering if they knew one another from their RAF days (probably not) but their mutual experience must have added a dimension to their dealings in the A6 murder case and to their courtroom exchanges.

Kind regards,
Steve

[jimarilyn]

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

Hi Tony,

You're more than welcome to my copy of Miller's book "Shadows of Deadman's Hill" for you to keep as long as you wish. If you PM me with your address I'll post it to you in a jiffy bag. I wouldn't waste your hard earned money on this (IMO) objectionable book written by a bitter man ( or vice versa might be more apt)

[larue]

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

precisely. now, i wonder why "they" will not allow anybody to see dixie france's letters, and why the police refused to hand over evidence to michael hanratty after the appeal?

[larue]

Hi

If anyone has this cable TV Channel tomorrow evening (Thursday 26th June) at 8.30pm there is a half hour documentary entitled "Infamous Murders-Evidence of Murder". It features 3 different murders, one of which is the A6 Murder. I've never seen this documentary so I can't comment on it. However it looks as if only about 9 or 10 minutes will be devoted to it. Might be worth a view.

bit of a disapointment really. i saw this one a few weeks ago. they called acott robert not basil. as i recall there were one or two other glaring errors. that aboot sums it up.

[Limehouse]

precisely. now, i wonder why "they" will not allow anybody to see dixie france's letters, and why the police refused to hand over evidence to michael hanratty after the appeal?

Hi Larue,

There is a simple reason why he evidence was not handed to Michael Hanratty and the letters were not allowed to be seen. Once the appeal failed, all the evidence would be subject to a 30/50/100 year rule. This means no member of the public, including family, can have access to the information for the period specified (normally by the Lord Chancellor). I know this from personal experience. This rule was designed protect everyone who was involved in the case, including victims, their families, witnesses etc.

[Steve]

Even Paul Foot, for all his research into the A6 case, named Acott as 'Robert' in his book!

[Tony]

Morning Graham,

I think Swanwick was involved in a famous previous trial. I seem to recall that he defended one of The Great Train Robbers but I stand to be corrected.

Tony.

[Tony]

Graham,

Sorry that's nonsense as the Train Robbery was later. Apologies.

Tony.

[Steve]

Hi Tony

There is a brief mention of Graham Swanwick's involvement in the Great Train Robbery in the Telegraph obituary - there is a link to it in my earlier post.

KR
Steve

[Steve]

Mr Justice Swanwick and Bob Woffinden both get a mention in this:

http://innocent.org.uk/cases/rdudley/index.html

[jimarilyn]

bit of a disapointment really. i saw this one a few weeks ago. they called acott robert not basil. as i recall there were one or two other glaring errors. that aboot sums it up.

Although it was only 6 minutes 17 seconds in length, this exhaustive documentary made the following glaring errors :

1) It said Gregsten was 34 years old (he was 36) and Alphon was 31 (he was 30).
2) The filmed footage supposed to be of Acott was obviously that of another detective.
3) "He got into the car and ordered Gregsten to drive further down the lane and into a field".
4) "After binding Storie's hands the gunman shot Gregsten twice in the head".
5) "Ryan was quickly picked up in Blackpool" (it was weeks and weeks later).
6) "He was charged with murdering Michael Gregsten and attempting to murder Valerie Storie" (no mention of 'rape' charge.

In addition, the filmed interview of Superintendent Morgan of Biggleswade was cut short halfway through. This filmed interview of August 23rd stops at the point where Morgan mentions "palish face". The rest of that interview was as follows....." errm.... brown eyes, very deep set....not very deep set, straight nose, wearing a dark lounge suit and believed to have an East End, London accent".

About the only redeeming feature of this very brief documentary was the filmed footage of the day.

[jimarilyn]

*This rule was designed protect everyone who was involved in the case, including victims, their families, witnesses etc.

I wonder what it was designed to protect them from exactly ???

[simon]

Hi
If anyone else has a copy of L. Miller's book they'd be willing to lend, could they please bear me in mind ?!

Simon

[Steve]

Hi Simon

You are welcome to borrow my copy, just PM an address you want it sending to.

KR
Steve

[simon]

Hi Steve,
Much appreciated. Address sent....I think!

Simon