a6 murder

[Graham]

Hi Graham

I see Alphon as a feckless drifter, not any kind of political activist. I think he made up all that nonsense for the benefit of the police.

KR
Steve

Hi Steve,

He doubtless did produce a lot of b.s. for Acott & Co, but it's also known he spent a lot of his time in libraries, and he must have been studying something or the other. I think what I was trying to put across was that he might have been on the fringes of some sort of political movement, given his temperament. What that movement might have been I don't have any idea, but he once described himself as a Fascist, and there were plenty of neo-Fascists and neo-Nazis knocking around in those days. Maybe it's me being paranoid about the dear chap....

Cheers,

Graham

[jimarilyn]

1960’s candidate for the worst joke ever.

Q: What do you call a man with a wooden head?
A: Edwood.

Q: What do you call a man with 3 wooden heads?
A: Edwood Woodwood.

I need to get out more.

Hi Tony,

I bet you Edward Woodward would have played a good "Ed Wood" on screen.

[larue]

Does anyone seriously think any of the prosecution witnesses or the prosecutors would actually change their mind after a man had hanged after their performances.
Can you imagine Swanwick saying after the most celebrated trial for decades, possibly ever: “Ah yes what a performance I put on with all my cross examination skills, pitted against a man with learning disabilities. But do you know after he had been hanged I just thought wait a minute perhaps he didn’t do it after all”.
Can you imagine Miss Storie saying after the execution: “oh dear I picked somebody else out previously but I thought then that he was the gunman. Obviously he wasn’t. They then let me have another go and this time I got it right. Well I hope I did but you do have to wonder with all these books being written.

Tony

hi Tony

what you have written here is a lot closer to what i meant. there is a kind of binary logic involved. a man is either guilty or he is not guilty. can only be one state or the other.

in a strictly hypothetical case, if a witness's evidence gets the defendant hung, then it is logical to expect the witness to maintain what he said in evidence, for should the witness start to waver, then the doors are opened to a claim of miscarriage of justice, and possibly perjury.

[larue]

Hi La Rue,

In terms of Tv murder mysteries, I tend to avoid them if at all possible but I do enjoy a few such as New Tricks (for the humour) and Foyle's War (for Foyle - there's something deeply attractive about him).

hi Limehouse

funny you should say that. i find the same about Sam Stuart [Honeysuckle Weeks]

Actually, when you look at some of these crimes from the 40s, 50s and 60s it makes you realise that the idea of being able to leave your back and front door open and let your kids run free was rather a myth.

that's a moot point [don't point that moot at me!] i guess the thing aboot crime is where you live and when you live. i certainly remember my parents recalling that between the wars and after ww2 they regularly went out and left their doors unlocked. they were living in a rural area, but that was no guarantee... and i can remember playing out with friends till after dark, something kids today would be better off not doing

[larue]

Ellis was guilty of premeditated murder. She refused to appeal and believed she should die for her crime. Maybe it was a form of 'suicide by police'. Again, she should not have hung but she deserved a long prison term.

why should she not have hung? because she was an attractive woman?? i don't think so. she got exactly what she deserved. she knew the penalty for murder.

If Hanratty had of been cleared, found not guilty, under old laws it would not have been possible to do anything about the DNA evidence. However, the 'double jepody' law has been overturned so perhaps it would be possible to re-try him based on the DNA evidence?

this is interesting. so now a person can be tried many times for the same crime? i guess it's now a question of 'if you don't get a conviction first time, keep trying till you do'

i suppose the next thing will be the re-introduction of the inquisition and burning at the stake?

[larue]

Hello Limehouse,

I too have an interest in miscarriages of justice.
However, even though I have been interested in the Craig/Bentley case I have never understood how any one has categorised it as a miscarriage.
Tony.

hi Tony

i think the public perception of this case is simply that the man who pulled the trigger and did the killing was jailed, while the man who did not have a gun, did no killing and was in police custody at the time of the murder was hung, is grossly unfair, especially as there are those that believe the words 'let him have it' about which so much was made, were never actually uttered.


ok, if two people embark on a crime, they are considered equally guilty in the eyes of the law, but the pair set out to commit robbery, not murder. all craig had to do, was throw down his gun, and both would have done a few years bird for attempted armed robbery, but because craig had issues, he killed a cop and got his mate hung.

[larue]

hi Steve

People do change their minds when new evidence emerges. In the Hanratty case no new evidence has ever emerged to conclusively prove there has been a miscarriage of justice.

what aboot the witholding of evidence from the defence team and the jury that has emerged since the trial?

There has never been a perfect alibi for Hanratty’s movements on the night of the murder, and some of the people in Rhyl, who claimed to have been certain they had seen Hanratty there at that time, have later back-tracked and said they are now not so certain. No-one yet (other than Alphon) has ever came forward and claimed to be the ‘real A6 killer.’ (Alphon’s claim was motivated not by righting a wrong, despite what he said in Paris.) Nothing has emerged in 46 years to prove 100% beyond doubt that Hanratty was not the A6 gunman.

i always thought that the burden of proof was with the prosecution? and the lack of a credible alibi is hardly proof of guilt

Almost certainly Swanwick believed his entire life that he had done the correct thing by leading the jury towards a guilty verdict, he would have had no doubt of Hanratty’s guilt, of that I feel sure. But, of course he didn’t NEED to believe that Hanratty was guilty in order to his job.

Michael Sherrard could have believed that Hanratty was innocent, but he too didn’t need to hold that belief in order to do his job and defend him to his best ability. In an interview after learning the results of the Court of Appeal and after the DNA evidence had been made public, Sherrard said he was glad that the wrong man had not been hanged. That means that he NOW believes Hanratty to have been guilty irrespective of his thoughts at the time of the A6 murder trial when he was defending him.

Kind regards,
Steve

in all honesty Steve, i don't believe that counsel give a hoot one way or the other aboot the defendant's guilt or innocence. all they are interested in is the result. swanwick must have been the most suprised man in court when the foreman said 'guilty' exept perhaps for jh himself...

[larue]

Yeah, weird, eh? He was also a Theosophist, about which I know zip.

Odd that he prosecuted those who had taken human life, even though it meant that he might be seen as the instrument of their own death....

Ah well....they reckon Judge Jeffreys was a notorious Bible Basher and God Botherer!

Cheers,

Graham

hi Graham

that's the beauty of the british system. nobody has responsibility. in a capital murder case:

police collect the evidence
counsel present the evidence
juries decide upon the evidence
judges ensure correct proceedure is followed
the death sentence is mandatory
the appeal court dismisses the appeal
the public don't care anyway
the executioner carries out the sentence

so hey! nobody has to have a guilty concience if the defendant was innocent. they can all say, truthfully 'i didn't kill him, it was the system...'

[Rigby]

hi Graham

that's the beauty of the british system. nobody has responsibility. in a capital murder case:

police collect the evidence
counsel present the evidence
juries decide upon the evidence
judges ensure correct proceedure is followed
the death sentence is mandatory
the appeal court dismisses the appeal
the public don't care anyway
the executioner carries out the sentence

so hey! nobody has to have a guilty concience if the defendant was innocent. they can all say, truthfully 'i didn't kill him, it was the system...'

Well, the last fella could always decide to go and get a proper job

[jimarilyn]

i always thought that the burden of proof was with the prosecution? and the lack of a credible alibi is hardly proof of guilt

Hi Larue,

Very good point. Judge William Gorman, referring to the evidence of Mrs Grace Jones in his summing up, advised the jury :

"Remember this, members of the jury, it is for the Crown to prove that he (Hanratty) did not stay at Rhyl. It is not for him to PROVE that he did."

[jimarilyn]

Well, the last fella could always decide to go and get a proper job

Hi Rigby.

Well put. What kind of person would have even contemplated applying for such a position. He/she would probably have justified themselves by saying "Well somebody has to do it, why not me ?"

[larue]

what kind of person indeed?

the role of executioner seems to be one of the oldest professions, as they have been around since time imemorial, but as to who would want to be one, is a question i cannot answer. [nor can i answer the question of who would want to commit murder either] seems to have been sufficient applicants though, else it would have been curtains for capital punishment years before.

there was an interesting documentary a few months back entitled 'pierrepoint:executioner'. albert was described as a right nice bloke by those who knew him, a publican when he wasn't doing his day job, and those who did not know what he did, would never have guessed. he entertained 435clients over 24 years, and resigned, not on moral grounds, but over an argument regarding some unpaid fees...

by the time he resigned, he had had a total change of heart regarding capital punishment, and from a firm belief that he did a just and proper service for the public, he came to believe that execution was no deterrent.

[jimarilyn]

there was an interesting documentary a few months back entitled 'pierrepoint:executioner'. albert was described as a right nice bloke by those who knew him, a publican when he wasn't doing his day job, and those who did not know what he did, would never have guessed. he entertained 435clients over 24 years, and resigned, not on moral grounds, but over an argument regarding some unpaid fees...

by the time he resigned, he had had a total change of heart regarding capital punishment, and from a firm belief that he did a just and proper service for the public, he came to believe that execution was no deterrent.

Wow ! Just try to imagine putting a noose around the necks of 435 fellow human beings. I'd have thought Albert would have had a total change of heart
after the very first execution. If he was a man of conscience he must have been haunted with nightmares over those 24 years.

In Woffinden's 1992 documentary "Hanratty - The mystery of Deadman's Hill" the Bedford Under-Sheriff, David Lines, acting as an official witness to James Hanratty's execution said that the whole business "stayed with me vividly for about three months. I just hoped to forget it soon but I never have. You never forget something like that."

If Mr Lines, who comes across as a very kind and humane person, felt this way after witnessing just one hanging, imagine what nightmares an executioner might have after 400 plus jobs.

Thank GOODNESS State Murder is no longer with us in the UK.

[jimarilyn]

Two very puzzling aspects of Miss Storie's Story

1) In Valerie's own words....."He told Mike to hand over his tie, which Mike did, and he told me to turn around and face him and put my hands together in front of my body so that he could tie my wrists. As he put the tie against my wrists I held them apart so that although he thought he was tying them up very tightly, it was in fact loose when I did put my arms together. Having tied my wrists with the tie, he then proceeded to do the same with the piece of rope, tying one end of it to the car door handle.."
I have a lot of trouble with this, not least of which is where was the gun while the gunman was tying her wrists together and stretching over the seat to connect the rope to the car door handle. And why didn't Mike Gregsten seize a golden opportunity to overcome the gunman ? Did the gunman perchance have two pairs of hands ?

2) Again in Valerie's own words....."He tried to touch me and I managed to remove the £7 which were still in my bra and put them into the pocket of the mack which I was wearing. He tried to touch me and he tried to kiss me. Then he said 'take off your knickers'. I said no. Again he threatened to shoot me if I did not agree. So I was forced to take them off"........... "He undid the zip of the fly of his trousers, pushed me back into a half-lying, half-sitting position, leaning against the bag of washing, and without removing any more of his own clothing he raped me. This only lasted for a very short time..a minute or so. then he sat back and he said, 'You have not had much sex have you ?' I said, 'can I put my knickers back on ?' "

Having just witnessed her lover's murder, I find it strange that Valerie should be so concerned with secreting the 7 quid into the pocket of her mack. Also before the rape, Valerie took her knickers off, she didn't pull them down, so how was semen transferred onto her knickers which she had removed ?

[Tony]

1) In Valerie's own words....."He told Mike to hand over his tie, which Mike did, and he told me to turn around and face him and put my hands together in front of my body so that he could tie my wrists. As he put the tie against my wrists I held them apart so that although he thought he was tying them up very tightly, it was in fact loose when I did put my arms together. Having tied my wrists with the tie, he then proceeded to do the same with the piece of rope, tying one end of it to the car door handle.."
I have a lot of trouble with this, not least of which is where was the gun while the gunman was tying her wrists together and stretching over the seat to connect the rope to the car door handle. And why didn't Mike Gregsten seize a golden opportunity to overcome the gunman ? Did the gunman perchance have two pairs of hands ?

2) Again in Valerie's own words....."He tried to touch me and I managed to remove the £7 which were still in my bra and put them into the pocket of the mack which I was wearing. He tried to touch me and he tried to kiss me. Then he said 'take off your knickers'. I said no. Again he threatened to shoot me if I did not agree. So I was forced to take them off"........... "He undid the zip of the fly of his trousers, pushed me back into a half-lying, half-sitting position, leaning against the bag of washing, and without removing any more of his own clothing he raped me. This only lasted for a very short time..a minute or so. then he sat back and he said, 'You have not had much sex have you ?' I said, 'can I put my knickers back on ?' "

Having just witnessed her lover's murder, I find it strange that Valerie should be so concerned with secreting the 7 quid into the pocket of her mack. Also before the rape, Valerie took her knickers off, she didn't pull them down, so how was semen transferred onto her knickers which she had removed ?

Hello Jimarilyn,

That is a really interesting point. Just what was Mike doing while the gunman was tying Valerie’s hands and leaning over the front seat and tying them to the door handle? Perhaps he was still working on the car rally.
And yes you are absolutely correct where was the gun whilst all this was taking place? Perhaps Mike held it for him By the way have you tried tying knots or putting your finger through the metal trigger guard on a gun while wearing gloves? But why didn’t Hanratty’s counsel ask the very question you are now asking. I suppose somebody will come on and say you have had 46 years to think about it.

No I think a lot happened in that car that has never been revealed or explained.

Tony.