a6 murder

[Steve]

(including and aside from this Don character)

Donald Slack, also known as Donald Fisher. He was based in Ealing (Ealing again!) and always denied supplying Hanratty with a gun, although both Fisher and Hanratty admitted to having had a conversation about guns.

[reg1965]

I believe in keeping an open mind Reg, old chap, but Dixie the killer! This is the first time I have heard of that theory!

Steve old darling,
VS's identification of the killer came from at most a 2 second glimpse. This was made under the most stressful of all situations, a dead lover lying beside her. (Foot 1988, p105-106) This is evidence that sent a man to the gallows. The other verbal identification, 'finking', 'call me Jim', 'done the lot' etc could have easily been gleaned from someone who knew enough about JH. Did Alphon know JH that well if at all. CF certainly would have done. Whether it was CF or PLA the verbals would seem to come from CF. If it was JH then why say 'call me Jim' when he used Ryan as an alias when in hotels and drycleaners, even if the initial he used was J. This is just plain ludicrous. Also he would have had to obtain a shooter from underworld figures, and if the donor's of the gun thought that JH was a total mental defective then why risk it getting back to them? It would make them accessory to murder!

Regards
Old chap Reg (aged 13 3/4) ;-)

[Steve]

Hi Reg

I didn’t know you cared!

I don’t believe that Alphon and Hanratty knew one another before the murder, but I don’t know one way or the other for sure. One thing I am certain of is that it was not Alphon in the Morris Minor that night.

Perhaps , because of the possibility of being an accessory to murder, Hanratty’s criminal associates closed ranks against him.

One point on the identification, Valerie spent several hours in the car listening to the gunman talking and he apparently had a distinctively high-pitched voice. This was a major part of her identification, his voice.

By the way Reg, you have a fantastic vocabulary for a thirteen year old!

Kind regards
Old darling Steve

[reg1965]

Donald Slack, also known as Donald Fisher. He was based in Ealing (Ealing again!) and always denied supplying Hanratty with a gun, although both Fisher and Hanratty admitted to having had a conversation about guns.

Steve
I agree. On 2nd October 1961, after trying to sell a diamond ring (which we can only assume he did) he visited Fisher and they went off (seemingly with others) to Wembley dogs. He must have known Fisher quite well and the two of them probably talked and boasted about a lot of things, guns included. Most young men make up all sorts of cobblers when they are with their mates so as not to look like a reet numpty!
Regards
Reg

[reg1965]

By the way Reg, you have a fantastic vocabulary for a thirteen year old!

All those days playing hookey from school and reading the Readers Digest's 'It pays to increase your word power' seem to have paid off.
Probably having a First Class Honours Degree helps too I suppose! They make you eat, drink and sleep reasearch work, Harvard Referencing and decent grammar!

[Steve]

Reg, you have crammed a lot into your 13 3/4 years. I'm beginning to think you were born on a leap day and you are really four times older than that!

[Steve]

Steve
I agree. On 2nd October 1961, after trying to sell a diamond ring (which we can only assume he did) he visited Fisher and they went off (seemingly with others) to Wembley dogs. He must have known Fisher quite well and the two of them probably talked and boasted about a lot of things, guns included. Most young men make up all sorts of cobblers when they are with their mates so as not to look like a reet numpty!
Regards
Reg

By the 2nd October 1961 Hanratty was already very well acquainted with guns!

[reg1965]

By the 2nd October 1961 Hanratty was already very well acquainted with guns!

You are being a tad naughty old love with your logical gymastics around absolute known facts about the A6 murder case.
And no i am not a leap year babe. And four times as old...Cheeky! Try three and get away with you. I have nearly 20 years A6ing under my belt though if that is any help.

Take care
xxxxxxxxx
Reg

Ps. any others who want to join our love-in is fine by me!!! ;-)

[Steve]

Logical gymnastics? Sounds far too tiring for me. Regarding your age, you are 43 this year! Am I right, sir?

[reg1965]

Logical gymnastics? Sounds far too tiring for me. Regarding your age, you are 43 this year! Am I right, sir?

Steve my old sweetie
You should not be so modest about your gymnastic ablilities, you seem a natural. Will we see you at London 2012?
Re my age; there or thereabouts!
Reg

[Steve]

How perceptive of you, Reg. Yes, I am hoping to be in the 200 metre with-zimmer-frame sprint! I have got my best time down to 2 days, 3 hours and 46 minutes and by 2012 I feel sure I can achieve under 2 days, 3 hours and 45 minutes.

[Graham]

Aaaah, romance blossoms on the A6 thread....!

But seriously....

JH had to get the gun from someone somewhere, but quite obviously he gave no clue (apart from mentioning Donald Slack to Acott). I don't really believe it was Dixie who got the gun - not his style. Maybe some miscreant down at The Rehearsal Club; maybe someone he knew elsewhere. Apart from the times he was in stir his life would appear to be something of a mystery, even to his family. Who knows who he knew? But - as was once pointed out on this thread - back then guns were amazingly easy to come by, especially ex-service revolvers, and for all we know JH could have bought it off some dealer who took his money and asked no questions.

What I tried to imply about old Dixie is that IF he wanted frame JH, and IF he took the gun off him after the murder, then probably finding one of JH's used hankies would have been no problem, given that Charlotte did a lot of JH's laundry for him. But this is, as I said, pure speculation, and I still think that JH got rid of the gun himself, on the 36A bus. We'll never know. But - another but - remember the unknown woman at JH's appeal who shouted out in court something to the effect that 'they should ask the conductor on the 36A bus'? A Mrs Pamela Patt, if memory serves aright. But Mrs Patt was interviewed by the police and could add nothing - so was she really the conductor on the 36A bus during that particular run? Is there something deep within the closed police files concerning this?

Reg - if I can tear you away from Steve for a moment - I don't think anyone with even a passing interest in the A6 Case will disagree that JH should never have been convicted on the evidence placed before the Court. I couldn't agree with you more that VS's identification, visually at least, is difficult to appreciate (she herself admitted that her memory of the man's face was fading) but having said that she had to suffer several hours of his talk, and I rather think that the sound of his voice must have stayed with her until this day.

Finally, yes, JH was apparently polite and courteous to women, but even so he must have had a pretty powerful sex-drive as by his own admission he regularly visited prostitutes in addition to his various girl-friends. Whatever else he was, he wasn't a bad-looking bloke, in fairness.

Keep the posts coming!

Cheers,

Graham

[reg1965]

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.

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.

From the above post by Graham.

1) The 'Toffee-nosed couple' is lifted straight out of Leonard Millers book. This is just plain made up nonsense. No one ever brought this forward at the trial or otherwise!

3) I don't know about anybody else's villification of Leonard Miller's book but mine are:

i) The ad-hominim against Paul Foot because of his involvement in Tony Cliff's SWP. Miller is obviously obsessed with Foot being a communist. This has clouded his judgement. Foot investigated the case with something approaching an open mind and had extreme serious doubts about Jean Justices Mr X conspiricy.
ii) The ludicrous 'The Crime' section which any old idiot could just have made up. Especially the connections between Hanratty and the film Psycho (no proof that Hanratty saw the film at all), and the even more bizarre Loch Ness Monster interlude!
iii) Miller is quite happy to accept any prosecution evidence as solid. As soon as one sniff of defence evidence raises it's head (ie anybody from a small North Wales holiday resort) it must be wrong or purely for publicity. The whole weight of the Rhyl alibiees taken together certainly outweighs anything that the prosecution put up to convict JH
iv) The Bedford incident and Hanratty's childhood. Miller suggests that because of certain events in his childhood he made MG drive towards Bedford that fateful night. This is the most deceitful of all Miller's claims. In fact in Hanrattys childhood he did indeed have an aunt in Bedford and was sent there on at leat 2 occasions. So what did he do when he ran away from home (in 1952)...head for Bedford? No. He went to Brighton! Just like every other time he ran away....as far away from family as possible.
v) Others I will post in due time. Full references included.

Miller may be a former lecturer in media studies and literature at 'numerous' HE establishments but he ain't fooling me! The man obviously has an agenda beyond the establishment of Hanratty's guilt, which if you think about it, was proved some 39 years before he published his book. Why would one want to write a book proving something that to all intents and purposes has already been proved. Unless you wanted to **** a snook at a very small minority of 'so called A6 cranks'. This certainly doesn't make sense. The final irony maybe is that Zoilus press has discontinued this wretched title and it is currently out of print.

Reg1965

[Graham]

From the above post by Graham.

1) The 'Toffee-nosed couple' is lifted straight out of Leonard Millers book. This is just plain made up nonsense. No one ever brought this forward at the trial or otherwise!

3) I don't know about anybody else's villification of Leonard Miller's book but mine are:

i) The ad-hominim against Paul Foot because of his involvement in Tony Cliff's SWP. Miller is obviously obsessed with Foot being a communist. This has clouded his judgement. Foot investigated the case with something approaching an open mind and had extreme serious doubts about Jean Justices Mr X conspiricy.
ii) The ludicrous 'The Crime' section which any old idiot could just have made up. Especially the connections between Hanratty and the film Psycho (no proof that Hanratty saw the film at all), and the even more bizarre Loch Ness Monster interlude!
iii) Miller is quite happy to accept any prosecution evidence as solid. As soon as one sniff of defence evidence raises it's head (ie anybody from a small North Wales holiday resort) it must be wrong or purely for publicity. The whole weight of the Rhyl alibiees taken together certainly outweighs anything that the prosecution put up to convict JH
iv) The Bedford incident and Hanratty's childhood. Miller suggests that because of certain events in his childhood he made MG drive towards Bedford that fateful night. This is the most deceitful of all Miller's claims. In fact in Hanrattys childhood he did indeed have an aunt in Bedford and was sent there on at leat 2 occasions. So what did he do when he ran away from home (in 1952)...head for Bedford? No. He went to Brighton! Just like every other time he ran away....as far away from family as possible.
v) Others I will post in due time. Full references included.

Miller may be a former lecturer in media studies and literature at 'numerous' HE establishments but he ain't fooling me! The man obviously has an agenda beyond the establishment of Hanratty's guilt, which if you think about it, was proved some 39 years before he published his book. Why would one want to write a book proving something that to all intents and purposes has already been proved. Unless you wanted to **** a snook at a very small minority of 'so called A6 cranks'. This certainly doesn't make sense. The final irony maybe is that Zoilus press has discontinued this wretched title and it is currently out of print.

Reg1965

Hey, listen!

I have never, ever stated that Miller's book is God's gift to those who believe in JH's guilt. In fact, I have stated that I don't think Miller's book is all that well-written, informative or even contains any new information. But what I have said is that he is (a) putting an opposite viewpoint to that of Foot and Woffinden and (b) he, like me and anyone else, is entitled to his opinions. It may interest you to know that back in the 1960's when I was young and radical I held Paul Foot in some esteem for his anti-establishment stance (although I have to admit his politics did become a little, er, muddled, as time went on), and his was the first column I always read in the good old days when 'Private Eye' was worth reading. He had a well-earned reputation for going after miscarriages of justice (the A6 Case was far from being his only cause celebre and standing up for the rights of the down-trodden and weak individual. Also, I was pretty well convinced of JH's innocence right up until the DNA test-results were published. I always thought that Foot argued his case(s) fairly and honestly and didn't fall into the trap of viewing JH as a gentle soul who wouldn't hurt a fly.

I don't know what moved Miller to write his book. I have stated here on this thread that I thought the last few chapters of his book were very poorly conceived and written, and that he was using pure speculation almost as proven fact. As it happens, I did once write to him courtesy of his publisher, but wasn't graced with a response. I'm sure he didn't write his book for the £££'s, as Zoilus Press specialises in the publication of somewhat specialist, and esoteric, works. If it's out of print, then that doesn't surprise me in the slightest, as in 2008 the A6 Case is very much a minority interest. Are Foot's and Woffinden's books still in print, would you know?

Re: MG and VS being 'toffee-nosed', both of them were well-spoken, articulate and well-educated in comparison to JH, and I do feel that they must have 'wound him up' somewhat, gun or no gun. If he just banged on their window, robbed them, then buggered off, okay; but he stayed with them for hours. Why?

Cheers,

Graham

[richardnunweek]

Hi Graham,
One of the most puzzling aspects of this case is exactly why the killer[ aka Hanratty] should wish to stay in a morris minor for several hours , when Hanratty would surely have robbed the car occupants of money/jewellery, and ordered them to leave the car whilst he drove away, leaving no need to discharge the firearm, and a obvious asset in having a car to desert the scene,
It has all the behaviour of a person in heavy drink, or drug related, which resulted in irrational action, however the man convicted of this crime was not that way inclined.
So If Hanratty was guilty, why did the night proceed the way it did?.
This case makes no sense to anyone intrested in bringing logic to solve it...
Regards Richard.