a6 murder

[Steve]

Evening all

Once again lively debate on the Hanratty thread whilst I have been busy earning a crust. I’m writing this in a hotel in Essex while waiting for my room service steak to arrive!

There was no ‘third man’ who was the real killer and has escaped everyone’s attention – this is stretching the imagination a bit too far. There is no doubt that Hanratty should not have been convicted on the evidence presented at the trial, but that does not alter the fact that he was guilty.

I have always believed, and said so here on several occasions, that the conspiracy if there was one was after the fact and not before it. By that I mean that someone made sure that evidence pointing towards Hanratty was made available to the police. The cartridge cases being found so long after Hanratty’s stay at the Vienna being the obvious act.

It’s possible that Hanratty panicked after the murder and sought help and advice from Dixie France, who might well have taken a dim view of murder and rape. Thieving is one thing, but Hanratty’s crimes are something else, and whilst the criminal code would have prevented Dixie from informing the police directly, he could still have decided to inform them indirectly.

I don’t know who put the gun on the bus. It was probably Hanratty, and doing so without thinking things through. It could have been Dixie, we’ll probably never know for sure.

My steak has arrived!

Kind regards,
Steve

[simon]

Hello Steve,
I'm inclined to agree with you on all that. As I think I've said before, Dixie killing himself just because Hanratty had been a family friend always struck me as a flimsy theory ; much more likely he had a deeper (probably post-murder) involvement.
Hope you enjoyed your steak.

Best wishes,
Simon

[richardnunweek]

Hi ,
It would appear if one was somewhat 'thick' in the years gone, you could be in serious trouble if arrested by the police, take Evans/ Bentley/ Hanratty, the latter surely must have been one dimwit to hide a murder weapon on the back seat of a bus, wrapped in his own hanky...
If JH was insane, he should never have hanged.
Was Hanratty insane?
Answer No.
Just a absulute waster, and one hell of a gutless swine.
Regards Richard.

[Steve]

Thanks, Simon.

It was like all hotel steaks, underdone and overpriced! I should have popped across the road to the Stevonia.

KR
Steve

[JamesDean]

Evening all

Once again lively debate on the Hanratty thread whilst I have been busy earning a crust. I’m writing this in a hotel in Essex while waiting for my room service steak to arrive!

There was no ‘third man’ who was the real killer and has escaped everyone’s attention – this is stretching the imagination a bit too far. There is no doubt that Hanratty should not have been convicted on the evidence presented at the trial, but that does not alter the fact that he was guilty.

I have always believed, and said so here on several occasions, that the conspiracy if there was one was after the fact and not before it. By that I mean that someone made sure that evidence pointing towards Hanratty was made available to the police. The cartridge cases being found so long after Hanratty’s stay at the Vienna being the obvious act.

It’s possible that Hanratty panicked after the murder and sought help and advice from Dixie France, who might well have taken a dim view of murder and rape. Thieving is one thing, but Hanratty’s crimes are something else, and whilst the criminal code would have prevented Dixie from informing the police directly, he could still have decided to inform them indirectly.

I don’t know who put the gun on the bus. It was probably Hanratty, and doing so without thinking things through. It could have been Dixie, we’ll probably never know for sure.

My steak has arrived!

Kind regards,
Steve

Hi Steve

I can well believe that Hanratty hid the gun on the bus without thinking things through if he was the killer. I'm still not convinced he was the killer due to the bizarre circumstances and coincidences although I accept that on face value the DNA is damning. But I am prepared to think that something was wrong with the DNA results and so there is still some doubt in my mind. After commiting such a heinous crime there is no doubt that the person responsible would have difficulty thinking clearly and so it is plausible that the gun was placed on the bus without due care and attention; just wanting not to be caught in possession. On the other hand it could have been planted deliberately, knowing it would be found.

Let's suppose Hanratty is unquestionably the killer. How did he turn up at Dorney Reach on the fateful day and what was his motive for hijacking the couple sitting in a Morris Minor in the corn field? Was he hired to do a job or was he acting alone? Did he know that Gregsten and Storie would be there or was it simply a chance meeting? That the killer spent such an inordinate length of time getting the couple to drive around, almost aimlessly, before they eventually pulled off into that layby, suggests to me that there was no definite plan of action other than to terrorise the victims or else the assailant intended all along to do what he did and was looking for a suitable quiet spot. If it was a contract killing then you would expect some planning to have taken place and the events of that night seem anything other than well planned. Did the killer pull into the layby with the intention of perpetrating that crime or did things simply get out of hand? So many questions that may never be answered.

Was it a Vienna Steak you had this evening Steve?

Best wishes

[Steve]

Hi JamesDean

It’s all those questions that make this subject so fascinating! I don’t believe anything was planned that night, the killer was following his instincts.

The steak was a rib-eye, but I think I could have got a flight to Vienna for less than it cost!

KR
Steve

[Limehouse]

Hi Steve,

As usual, your good sense and straightforward logic brings us down to earth! Your unshakeable belief in Hanratty's guilt coupled with your assertion that the prosecution 'had a little help' in convicting him gets me every time! However, just imagine what would have happened if the DNA evidence had shown Hanratty to be innocent. That would have thrown the whole investigation and prosecution evidence into question.All of the evidence against Hanratty - the hanky round the gun, the cartridges in the hotel room, witness testimony - all looking very suspect indeed. Even allowing for the fact that the DNA result could have been produced due to cross-contamination, if evidence could be corrupted to obtain what some thought was a justified outcome, I am sure it could be manipulated further to ensure that the verdict was, indeed, sound.

That being said, as you have often pointed out, the only person alive to spend a considerable amount of time with the killer eventually identified him as Hanratty and has had no doubts since.

[Tony]

Good morning Limehouse,

Interesting that you say that the only person still alive eventually identified Hanratty. I would underline the word eventually.
Firstly she identified Michael Clark, who looked like Peter Alphon, then later she told Acott her memory of the gunman was fading and she might not be able to pick him out.

She did not pick him out by the traditional method of sight but only after asking all the men to speak. Hanratty was the only cockney on that parade, he looked very odd compared to all the others as his dyed hair was growing out and we do not know what prior coaxing she had from Acott. We do know, however, that after the selection of Hanratty, Acott grabbed her arm and said “Well done”

As for having no doubts since; I can’t recall any prime witness whose evidence has sent someone to the gallows saying after the event: “I might just have made a mistake”.
Because of the finality of the sentence you could hardly start having doubts could you?

Tony.

[Limehouse]

Hi Tony,

Valid points indeed.

[larue]

There was no ‘third man’ who was the real killer and has escaped everyone’s attention – this is stretching the imagination a bit too far.

no offence meant Steve, but maybe my imagination is more flexible than yours. i simply like to look at things through the other end of the telescope occasionally, and i aksed myself, an alternate question to "what was the motive for this crime", in other words, what motive could exist which would plausibly fit the events as generally accepted?

sadly however i cannot go into any more detail here for reasons which Graham has so clearly elucidated a few posts ago.

I have always believed, and said so here on several occasions, that the conspiracy if there was one was after the fact and not before it. By that I mean that someone made sure that evidence pointing towards Hanratty was made available to the police. The cartridge cases being found so long after Hanratty’s stay at the Vienna being the obvious act.

i would say you could well be right here

[Limehouse]

The cartridge cases being found so long after Hanratty’s stay at the Vienna being the obvious act.

OK, so who had the cartidges cases before they were found? Did Hanratty give them to someone to dispose of? Why not just drop them in the Thames?

[Katew]

I saw someone posted that when he drove his fathers car (automatic) he found it difficult and was sure that this was why Hanratty had trouble with the car.
Hanratty was a known car thief and was very good at it. He had to be able to start any car and drive it away without drawing attention to himself and by all accounts Hanratty was a smooth operator.
Also the reason Hanratty never said about the Ryll alibi was becase he met with a fellow villian and had little hope of that person supporting his alibi, Hanratty, like most people thought the truth would come out, he was never known for violence.
Then we have the infamous Dixie French - he was the one who put Hanratty into the frame. He committed suiside when Hanratty was convicted.
His reason - old as time - a father shamed.
Hanratty had eyed Dixie's daughter and even though Hanratty was warned off he still went after the 16 year old and had sex with her under some railway arches - a fact she affirmed many years later.
I think that Dixie France put Hanratty in the frame to cause him grief assuming that Hanratty would be able to abili himself but it all went terribly wrong.
I have never believed Hanratty guilty. Peter Alphons is my choice. The widow of Peter Gregson and her brother knew so much more about this crime.
I also think the theory that Mrs Gregson's brother hired someone to put the frighteners on Gregson and Storie but they hired an idiot and Alphons panicked and shot Gregson and everyone backed away fast.
I have no trust in the DNA evidence as I think that it was kept with other stuff and contaminated.
When all was lost and there was no further hope, James Hanratty still swore his innocense and asked his brother to clear his name.
Villian he may have been but when facing his maker he still wouldn't confess to a crime he didn't commit.

[Steve]

The cartridge cases being found so long after Hanratty’s stay at the Vienna being the obvious act.

OK, so who had the cartidges cases before they were found? Did Hanratty give them to someone to dispose of? Why not just drop them in the Thames?

Hi Limehouse

There is a strong possibility that Dixie France had them. Hanratty could well have given the gun and ammunition to his friend to dispose of them, and as posted previously Dixie decided to use them to draw the police towards Hanratty, who he knew to be the A6 murderer.

The France family home is a short distance from the Vienna hotel. France knew that Hanratty had spent the night before the murder there, and the room he had slept in had easy outside access through a public area at the back of the building. It would not have been hard for Dixie to slip into the hotel room and place the cartridge cases where they would be found.

Kind regards,
Steve

[Limehouse]

Hi Steve,

That is a very plausible scenario. Hanratty must have trusted Dixie a great deal to do that after such a horrific and serious crime. Perhaps Dixie could not bring himself to report Hanratty outright - just plant some evidence and hope that justice would be done.

Hi Kate,

Welcome to the debate. I think we have to be very careful to avoid making statements of fact about what happened unless they can be verified. We cannot know as a fact that France put Hanratty in the frame although we can discuss the possibility.

Various scenarios have been dicussed on this thread. Some people believe Hanratty was hired to frighten the couple, and when things went wrong the evidence was manipulated to point only to Hanratty. Others believe it was a random crime, carried out by Hanratty.

Most of us on this thread believe there was more to the events that night than has been publically released.

[reg1965]

Newbie

HI all
I am a newbie to this thread.
What an excellent resource for all things A6!
I first became interested in the A6 case after viewing Bob W's C4 documentary in the early 90's.
After that I read Paul Foots classic and then Bob W's brilliant 'Final Verdict'. A few years back I bought the woeful Leonard Miller effort which should have been titled 'Travesty of Deadmans Hill'!
I am still totally convinced of Hanratty's innocence and yet not sure of the extent of Alphons involvement beyond being convinced that he has had a very easy ride from the authorities over the years.
The DNA evidence is, from my lay viewpoint, a joke. Too much so called expert scientific evidence has led to too many wrongful convictions over the years (The McGuires, Barry George and anyone subjected to Sir Roy Meadows Munchaesen by Proxy nonsense etc).
Paul Foot has completely discredited the identification evidence already.
No other forensic evidence points to Hanratty.
Hanratty disposed of his jacket 6 weeks after the event...what does this tell one?
The disposal of the gun on the bus and the discovery of the cartridges in room 24 are all very convienient.
I would like to put forward a couple of points that may be of interest surrounding a motive for the crime.
Michael Gregsten was a physicist working at the road research lab at the time. Both he and Valerie Storie had been warned about their liaisons by management on several occasions.
What work was he involved with? Would it have been something that was subject to the official secrets act in some way? Remember that in 1961 we were at the height of the cold war.
I'll leave it there for now.
Regards
Reg1965