a6 murder

[Steve]

" Next time I'm dahn sarf I'll try to visit Dorney Reach again, if only to see how the place has changed since I was last there.

Hi Graham

Changes have taken place! Only earlier this year a footpath was built on the cornfield side of Marsh Lane.

Also, a word of advice; don't park at Taplow Station and walk all the way to the cornfield this time!

Kind regards,
Steve

[Graham]

Hi Graham

Changes have taken place! Only earlier this year a footpath was built on the cornfield side of Marsh Lane.

Also, a word of advice; don't park at Taplow Station and walk all the way to the cornfield this time!

Kind regards,
Steve

No chance of that at my time of life, Steve! It did me in the last time....

Have you ever traced the (supposed) route taken from the cornfield to Deadman's Hill? My knowledge of London is just about zero and I couldn't attempt it, but it'd be interesting all the same.

Cheers,

Graham

[Steve]

Hi Graham

It would be impossible to trace the exact route now because the roads have changed so much and not enough is known about which roads they took between Kingsbury and St Albans. For example, the first problem would be Slough High Street- you cannot drive along it because it is now a pedestrian zone!

Kind regards,
Steve

[P.L.A]

The Jury

I’ve always thought it was an old defence lawyer’s trick to try to manipulate proceedings in order to get the jury deliberating on Friday afternoons. The theory being that this improved the chances of acquittal.

Contemporary reporting of the A6 verdict and sentencing doesn’t mention anything about the judge’s response to the jury’s decision. Then again, it wouldn’t quite go for a TV reporter to say that Hanratty had been sentenced to death, but the judge didn’t seem to agree with it all. It seems to appear acceptable when written in books long after the event. It could be that Paul Foot’s journalist colleagues told him that this is what had happened, but couldn’t really print it at the time

Maybe some of the jurors had looked at Hanratty as they filed back into court – a good sign that they are about to announce a not guilty verdict. Jurors about to send a defendant down, or to the gallows, would have looked anywhere but.

Before the foreman announces the verdict, experienced onlookers in court will in most cases have a good idea of what he is about to say.

Peter.

[P.L.A]

Marsh Lane Entrance

What is known about the entrance is:
It is south of the M4 bridge
There are at least two dwellings just to the north

This gives just two possibilities, viz: just south of the bungalows (numbers 1 and 3) at the southern end of the lane, or 450 yards north of this (just south of number 5).

I am now looking at a picture of number 5 that I took a few months ago, and it is definitely what we see in posting 1071. The chimney, distinctive slope on the back of the roof, the size and shape of the low hedge between the house and cornfield, etc. Plus the basic fact that it is a house and not a bungalow.

It could well be that Tony Mason and all the other journalists and TV camera crews that went to this site were duped by deliberate police misinformation.

Storie’s account says that they turned into Marsh Lane. This suggests to me that they went to an entrance further north than one directly opposite Court Lane.

What we can all agree on is that the pictures in all the books, papers and TV footage show the entrance just south of number 5. The question is whether this is right or not.

I know that the present occupier of number 3, who moved there about twelve years after the murder, believes the abduction took place just to the south of her bungalow.

Peter.

[Graham]

"Contemporary reporting of the A6 verdict and sentencing doesn’t mention anything about the judge’s response to the jury’s decision. Then again, it wouldn’t quite go for a TV reporter to say that Hanratty had been sentenced to death, but the judge didn’t seem to agree with it all. It seems to appear acceptable when written in books long after the event. It could be that Paul Foot’s journalist colleagues told him that this is what had happened, but couldn’t really print it at the time"

Good point, PLA!

Cheers,

Graham

[Steve]

I am now looking at a picture of number 5 that I took a few months ago, and it is definitely what we see in posting 1071. The chimney, distinctive slope on the back of the roof, the size and shape of the low hedge between the house and cornfield, etc. Plus the basic fact that it is a house and not a bungalow.

Peter, I am confused!

The buildings in 1071 are bungalows, yet you say above 'house and not a bungalow.' Could you please clarify for me?

Thanks,
Steve

[Steve]

I know that the present occupier of number 3, who moved there about twelve years after the murder, believes the abduction took place just to the south of her bungalow.

Peter.

This is true, I have spoken to the lady at that house and she told me the same thing. Other residents further up Marsh Lane have also told me the same thing.

[Tony]

The gloves are off.

We know the gunman wore gloves because Valerie said so.
Most unfortunately for Hanratty as he stayed with her, Louise Anderson said she had lost a pair of black gloves.
In Woffinden’s book he says that when Juliana Galves went at 11.45am to tell Alphon to vacate the room “he was by the wash basin washing his hands. The suitcase was lying open on the bed. As soon as the door opened, Alphon moved to close the suitcase”. Galves noticed it contained very dirty clothing but what particularly caught her eye was the pair of black ladies’ gloves lying on top.

In interview with Acott, Alphon refused to disclose where this suitcase was.

What do you think that’s all about then?

Tony.

[Steve]

Hi Tony

Forgive me if I am wrong, but was this not from the discredited second Nudds statement rather than Juliana Galves? (I'm not 100% certain and stand to be corrected.)

In either case Anderson telling the police about losing a pair of gloves may or may not have been true, and was not at all helpful to Hanratty!

KR
Steve

[Limehouse]

Hi everyone,

I have wondered about this statement concerning the dirty clothing. I mean, she caught a glimpse of it so what did she mean by dirty? In the normal run of things, the kind of dirt accumulating on one's clothes resulting from everyday wear might include grubby collars and cuffs (possibly more so in those days with fewer washing machines) and i am not sure this would be visible from a glimpse inot a suitcase. You are unlikely to spot dirt on a pair of men's socks (they didn't wear white socks in those days) but you might smell them, in which case she might have said 'smelly and dirty'. If she meant the clothes were muddy, which might be significant in this case, why didn't she say so? If she meant bloody I am sure she would have said so. What I am saying is, how much can we conclude from this statement about dirty clothes?

Concerning the gloves, I can't help thinking Louise Anderson made this claim up. To my mind, there is certainly a murky patch in all this, involving Anderson, France and possibly Ewer and I am half sure it concerned the disposal of stolen goods but possibly much more than that.

[Tony]

Hello Steve,

The Vienna Hotel was run by a staff of four: Julianna Galves and her husband and a second couple William Glickberg (Nudds) and his wife Florence Snell.

Julianna Galves and her husband were in charge. The statement about the gloves, according to Woffinden, came from Julianna Galves who was about the only honest person in the hotel. We don’t know anything about her husband as far as I know.

Alphon refused to tell Acott the whereabouts of the suitcase.

Tony.

[Steve]

men didn't wear white socks in those days

I thought you were far too young to remember that, Limehouse !!!

[Steve]

Hello Steve,

The Vienna Hotel was run by a staff of four: Julianna Galves and her husband and a second couple William Glickberg (Nudds) and his wife Florence Snell.

Alphon refused to tell Acott the whereabouts of the suitcase.

Tony.

Hi Tony

Yes, this is true. There was so much evidence, both true and false - actually mainly false now I come to think of it - from the hotel staff that the jury must have struggled to make sense of it. Not only the statements from Galves & Co, but also when the cartridge cases were found.

KR
Steve

[Tony]

Hi Tony

Yes, this is true. There was so much evidence, both true and false - actually mainly false now I come to think of it - from the hotel staff that the jury must have struggled to make sense of it. Not only the statements from Galves & Co, but also when the cartridge cases were found.

KR
Steve

Hello Steve,

I don’t think there has ever been any suggestion anywhere at anytime that Julianna Galves was anything other than honest and reliable has there? She had no association with Nudds.
The only thing questionable is whether she said it (about the gloves in the suitcase) or not.
Who did she say it to and when? Was this known at the trial? Was it known solely to the police who withheld it from the defence?
Or is it something that has simply been made up. If she did indeed say it then it was probably true. I have no idea but if it was true and the gloves were in Alphon’s case and the police had have found the case he would have been up to his neck in it.

Tony.