a6 murder

[richardnunweek]

Hi Reg,
How can DNA be a joke?
It is the most modern criminal detection we have,and I for one dispute that evidence gathered for testing was dubious.
If there was any chance in the test, that exhibits were not able to be conclusive of results they would never have been used..
Exhuming a grave is a very last resort action, and would never have been allowed if the risk of contamination was a argument.
You do present [ what could become] a intresting scenerio, that being, Michael/Valarie, were executed by contract by MI5, who feared a Leekage of information from the couple, however surely that is a non starter, at least from yours truely.
Regards Richard.

[reg1965]

Hi Richard
I didn't say that the science of DNA was a joke. What I meant was that the DNA evidence presented at the appeal was a joke and implied succinctness around the subject of contamination/degradation of the materials available for scrutiny.
The subject of Gregstens work is a valid point and leads to a wider argument of who could cover up a catalogue of establishment toomfoolery for so long.
The Ewer/Mrs Gregsten/Alphon plot on it's own just does not hold water.
Characters such as Charles France, Nudds and Mrs Anderson, along with Alphon may be involved in a wider conspiracy. But we shall never know.
Reg1965

[Graham]

Wow, this thread gets better and better! New posters attracted!

I've been away for a couple of days so need to catch up a bit, but just to keep my hand in, as it were, I offer the following comments:

1] Gregsten and Storie had parked their car elsewhere that fateful evening, prior to going to the infamous cornfield, which they apparently did so on a whim for better privacy. How did the gunman know they'd be there? I suggest that Hanratty was en route to the large houses south of the cornfield, where he hoped to make a profit via a spot of serious burglary, gun in hand and all that. He saw the car, thought, "What rthe hell?" and decided to see what the occupants had to offer in terms of cash, jewellery, watches, and so forth. When he realised that there was nothing to be gained, rather than just getting out and scarpering, he decided to have a bit of fun with this (as he saw them) confident and rather toffee-nosed couple.

2] Gregsten was a serial womaniser and his wife had more or less resigned herself to that. They were actually living apart at the time of the murder. If there is any evidence that either of them were involved in any 'secret work' at the RRL, I'd like to see it. And even if either of them were, what would this have to do with what happened at Deadman's Hill? Yes, they'd been warned by their superiors at the RRL about their affair, but so what? That is merely in keeping with the rather stifling morality of the times.

3] Why do people insist upon vilifying Miller's book? I say again, it was not a work of timeless literatary merit, but more of an essay in putting the opposite opinion to those of Foot and Woffinden.

4] Regarding someone paying a gunman to end the liason between Gregsten and Storie, I've always considered this absolute fantasty and unreal. Janet Gregsten's marriage was, to all intents and purposes, over, so why the need to get rid of her husband in the most brutal manner imagineable? Not that I've ever been in such a situation myself, but if I genuinely fancied the woman in a failing marriage I'm damned if I'd arrange to have her husband bumped off. Janet admitted quite freely that she and Ewer had an affair after the trial - she because she needed someone, or so I presume, and he because - well, ask Ewer.

5] Dixie France is something of an enigma in this case. Hanratty looked upon him as a very close friend and mentor in his criminal activities - he'd been around the underworld scene far longer than Hanratty. I once suggested that Hanratty obtained the gun via Dixie and, after the murder, looked to Dixie to take it back and get rid of it. Dixie doubtless refused to get involved any deeper, and told Hanratty to get rid of the gun himself - which he did, under the back seat of the 36A bus. It is not an unlikely scenario that Dixie had some spent cartridges and placed them at the Vienna to divert suspicion from himself, to avoid a possible accusation of accessory to murder. Personally I don't believe Dixie's suicide was anything to do with his daughter's affair with Hanratty - much more likely it was his way out of being tied in with the whole A6 murder. Remember that Hanratty told Dixie that he had 'done something that scared him'. It doesn't take too much of a stretch of imagination to see what that 'something' was.

6] As I have posted earlier, I do have slight doubts about the DNA, but only from the viewpoint of possible contamination. I would need to be seriously convinced that the DNA evidence can be completely faulted. (I have to admit here that I haven't had time to re-read Strunt's masterly post regarding the DNA evidence, but will do so when I can).

7] The hanky that wrapped the gun is very similar in some respects to the Watch in the Ripper Diary scenario, in as much that it is generally forgotten.
The hanky bore only one DNA, and one only - James Hanratty's. Had DNA been available to the prosecution in 1962, then the hanky alone would probably have been sufficient to convict him, never mind the underwear.

8] The weak point (with the wonderful benefit of hindsight) in the prosecution was Valerie's identification. I think that (obviously) it cannot be discounted, and had Hanratty not made such a balls-up of his alibi at his trial the jury may not have been totally convinced that the ID was sufficient to convict.

9] Alphon's involvement in the A6 Case was via coincidence, and nothing else. That it was Alphon is simply another astonishing piece of coincidence in this case that Sherrard described as 'riddled with coincidence'. Anyone other than Alphon would have run a mile once he'd been cleared, but Alphon wasn't just 'anyone'. He lived by his wits, and once he'd been cleared of any proveable involvement, he took massive advantage of his situation, and made a damned good profit, one way and another.

10] If any 'third party' was involved in the murder, then I am totally convinced it wasn't Alphon. Not the type, in my opinion. He was a rogue, but not a killer.

11] Hanratty gained his livelihood via crime. He was also not very bright, and in a 2008 sense probably not responsible for his own actions.

12] I agree with Steve that if any 'conspiracy' existed, it was after, and not before, the fact.

13] Finally - at last - we really do have to accept that any analysis of Valerie Storey's evidence has to made with extreme caution. Basically, Foot and Woffinden are saying that she was mistaken - I refuse to associate myself with that argument.

I'm knackered.

Cheers,

Graham

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
One Question.
Does any one contributing to this wonderful subject actually believe that Valerie picked out a innocent man , and without reservation allowed that man to be hanged, without being riddled with guilt then and ever since, which now spans 46years.
I certainly do not.
Every murder throughout time has mysteries attached, just look at our subject in 'casebook', the simpliest way to approach any murder is to eliminate conspiracy, and look at the facts.
James Hanratty was found guilty of murder , and was hung accordingly within the law in 1962, and justice was served in my opinion.
Regards Richard.

[Limehouse]

Graham, a brilliant post. Although I am prepared to consider that Hanratty may have been hired to 'scare' the couple, I do not believe he was hired to kill them. As for Gregsten and Storie being disposed of officially, well, M15 could hardly have employed a more incompetent assassin.

The idea of Hanratty wandering around looking for somewhere to rob, perhaps first having 'cased' the area and happening across the couple does have a ring of truth. We don't know for sure that Hanratty did not carry a gun on previous robbery expeditions. Graham, your description of him setting out to rob the couple and then deciding to play them along for a while as they appeared to be 'toffs' kind of sounds possible.

The DNA evidence does not and could not convince me of Hanratty's guilt. The problems with the DNA evidence have been discussed at length by people far more qualified than me and I just do not accept that the samples could not possibly have been contaminated after more than 40 years stored God knows where.

[Limehouse]

Hi,
One Question.
Does any one contributing to this wonderful subject actually believe that Valerie picked out a innocent man , and without reservation allowed that man to be hanged, without being riddled with guilt then and ever since, which now spans 46years.
I certainly do not.
Every murder throughout time has mysteries attached, just look at our subject in 'casebook', the simpliest way to approach any murder is to eliminate conspiracy, and look at the facts.
James Hanratty was found guilty of murder , and was hung accordingly within the law in 1962, and justice was served in my opinion.
Regards Richard.

Richard,

I believe that Valerie identified the person she believed to be responsible for the A6 murder and rape. Having done so, she would have absolutely no reason to feel guilty.

Other people have described what they feel are problems with that eventual identification and i shall say no more.

Hanratty was, indeed, found guilty of murder. The jury reached that conclusion having considered all of the evidence presented to them. Whether that evidence was complete and a valid synthesis of events that night is open to debate. I cannot say, hand on heart, that justice was done.

[JamesDean]

7] The hanky that wrapped the gun is very similar in some respects to the Watch in the Ripper Diary scenario, in as much that it is generally forgotten.
The hanky bore only one DNA, and one only - James Hanratty's. Had DNA been available to the prosecution in 1962, then the hanky alone would probably have been sufficient to convict him, never mind the underwear.

Hi Graham

Why was there only one DNA on that hanky when we know for certain it was handled by other people other than Hanratty? The cleaner who found the gun used the hanky to carry the gun so as not to get his fingerprints on the weapon. Why is his DNA not on the hanky? The only explanation I can think of is that the DNA analysis focused on mucus on the hanky and only Hanratty had used the hanky to wipe or blow his nose. But even then I'm left wondering if sweat from greasy fingers could contaminate the mucus deposits and so there should have been more than one DNA found on the article.

Also, why was/is there only a fragment of Miss Storie's knickers remaining? What happened to the rest of the garment?

richardnunweek Hi,
One Question.
Does any one contributing to this wonderful subject actually believe that Valerie picked out a innocent man , and without reservation allowed that man to be hanged, without being riddled with guilt then and ever since, which now spans 46years.

Hi richardnunweek

I don't believe that Valerie Storie knowingly picked out the wrong man when she identified Hanratty. But if she got the right man it was more by chance than anything else. She had already made one mis-identification and had not seemed to think Alphon fitted the bill even though he was a close match to her original description and spoke, I believe, with a similar accent to Hanratty. However, Hanratty was asked to speak and Alphon wasn't; had he been required to speak then maybe we would be debating something entirely different.

Regards

[Graham]

What I omitted to mention in my marathon post (which has taken a couple of powerful vodka-tonics to recover from...) is precisely how Acott & Co made the connection between 'Ryan' and 'Hanratty'. My own thoughts are that Dixie France obliged, possibly under severe pressure.

Has anyone considered an A6 Case website? Not that I for one moment would suggest removing this debate from the admirable JtR Casebook, but as time goes on I'm wondering if there is sufficient interest to start up a totally seperate site? I haven't the faintest idea how to initiate this, but if there is enough interest - and I think there is - could you let me know your feelings out there?

Cheers,

Graham

[Graham]

Hi Graham

Why was there only one DNA on that hanky when we know for certain it was handled by other people other than Hanratty? The cleaner who found the gun used the hanky to carry the gun so as not to get his fingerprints on the weapon. Why is his DNA not on the hanky? The only explanation I can think of is that the DNA analysis focused on mucus on the hanky and only Hanratty had used the hanky to wipe or blow his nose. But even then I'm left wondering if sweat from greasy fingers could contaminate the mucus deposits and so there should have been more than one DNA found on the article.

Also, why was/is there only a fragment of Miss Storie's knickers remaining? What happened to the rest of the garment?

Hi James,

I think that we have to assume that the hanky was handled by tools, rather that fingers. Even though there was no DNA tests in those days, it may well have been possible to locate a blood-group via nasal mucus traces. Plus, I think that there is a DNA technique that can eliminate 'minor' traces at the expense of 'major' traces, but I ain't no expert. I'm not even sure if the bus-cleaner who found the gun actually handled it, via the hanky or otherwise.

As to the 'entire' remnants of the knickers, sorry, I can't help. Obviously the knickers must have been cut up at some stage. For what purpose, I just don't know.


Hi richardnunweek

I don't believe that Valerie Storie knowingly picked out the wrong man when she identified Hanratty. But if she got the right man it was more by chance than anything else. She had already made one mis-identification and had not seemed to think Alphon fitted the bill even though he was a close match to her original description and spoke, I believe, with a similar accent to Hanratty. However, Hanratty was asked to speak and Alphon wasn't; had he been required to speak then maybe we would be debating something entirely different.

Regards

Hi Richard,

If you've ever seen the filmed interview of Alphon in Paris, he spoke with a rather fluent, very easy, educated accent with a hint of southern English. Hanratty, according to all the reports I've read, was very hesitant in his speech and delivery and also very 'cockney'.

Cheers,

Graham

[Graham]

Whoo-ee! Something went a bit wrong with my last post! Hope you can figure it out!

Cheers,

Graham

[JamesDean]

If you've ever seen the filmed interview of Alphon in Paris, he spoke with a rather fluent, very easy, educated accent with a hint of southern English. Hanratty, according to all the reports I've read, was very hesitant in his speech and delivery and also very 'cockney'.

Hi Graham

Yes I have seen the interview of Alphon in Paris. Not sure if that's his usual accent but you are probably correct in assuming he is better spoken than Hanratty.

The cleaner carried the gun between finger and thumb as far as I can make out. But he put the cartridges in the hanky and carried that down to his foreman.

This is the interview with the cleaner ....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6540000/newsid_6546200/6546299.stm?bw=bb&mp=rm&news=1&ms3=4&ms_javascript=true&bbcws=2

[Graham]

Hi Graham

Yes I have seen the interview of Alphon in Paris. Not sure if that's his usual accent but you are probably correct in assuming he is better spoken than Hanratty.

The cleaner carried the gun between finger and thumb as far as I can make out. But he put the cartridges in the hanky and carried that down to his foreman.

This is the interview with the cleaner ....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/new...t=true&bbcws=2

But does the cleaner say that he actually handled the hanky?

The DNA stated that there was only one trace on the hanky....

Cheers,

Graham

[JamesDean]

But does the cleaner say that he actually handled the hanky?

The DNA stated that there was only one trace on the hanky....

Cheers,

Graham

He said he put the cartridges in the hanky and carried it down to his foreman. I don't see how he would have done that without handling the hanky. I doubt he was worried about putting fingerprints on the hanky. But ... it's all speculation my dear Watson

Clocking off for a coffee and brandy ... cheers!

[Graham]

He said he put the cartridges in the hanky and carried it down to his foreman. I don't see how he would have done that without handling the hanky. I doubt he was worried about putting fingerprints on the hanky. But ... it's all speculation my dear Watson

Clocking off for a coffee and brandy ... cheers!

Same here...too late for any further debate.

Night all.

Graham

[Limehouse]

I find it difficult to imagine that the cleaner pout the cartridegs in the hanky as I think there were several boxes of them.