a6 murder

[Limehouse]

I assume that not all Londoners are, or were in 1961, unable to pronounce the digraph 'th'. It therefore does not follow that all four on the id parade would have said 'fink' rather than 'think'.

There can be no doubt that VS chose Hanratty as the person on the parade who most resembled her recollection of the murderer, in pretty much the same way as she had done in the first parade which featured Alphon.

That VS honestly believed Hanratty to be the murderer would have been apparent to even the dimmest member of that very dim Bedfordshire jury. Likewise it would have been equally apparent that Hanratty was nowhere near Ingledene on the night of 22 August 1961. It was also undoubtedly the case that Hanratty had lied about his whereabouts on that night.

In my opinion the jury took something of a stab in the dark by reasoning that if Jim had not been in Ingledene, the evidence before them being quite clearly that he was not, then he must have been elsewhere, and the only elsewhere on offer was provided by Miss Storie's evidence, to wit the back seat of the Morris Minor.

Fortunately for all concerned the subsequent scientific evidence provided by the boffins has confirmed the jury's theory.

I assume that not all Londoners are, or were in 1961, unable to pronounce the digraph 'th'. It therefore does not follow that all four on the id parade would have said 'fink' rather than 'think'. Londoners are not 'unable to pronounce th' - they just tend not to - but to select a man from an identity parade on the strength of his dialect - one that is shared by many - is always going to be open to objection.

I agree that Valerie genuinely believed she had selected the correct man but I am of the view that she was strongly coached.


It was also undoubtedly the case that Hanratty had lied about his whereabouts on that night.

No - it was not 'undoubtedly the case' because I doubt it and so do many others.

Fortunately for all concerned the subsequent scientific evidence provided by the boffins has confirmed the jury's theory.[/QUOTE]

Well - the FIRST lot of tests didn't confirm anything of the sort. Why do we have to put so much faith in the SECOND lot of tests when many scientists and many courts do not think the science is sound enough?

[JP56]

avenues for debate?

Thanks Victor for the responses...

Some follow up replies…


QUOTE “Lack of evidence is not evidence that nothing happened, why limit your comment to just JH?”

I’m not limiting it to JH, but I'm raising what is, I believe, a valid discussion point… namely, how on earth does someone spend the best part of 5 or 6 hours in a small car and generate NO forensics? It beggars belief. At the very least, hair, muddy footprints, bodily fluids would have been left. I raise it not to exonerate JH but to invite debate as to HOW that ‘forensics-free’ situation could have some about. What scenarios suggest themselves as a result? Otherwise how did JH, if it were he, manage to remove all trace of himself? And leave 2 cartridge cases? Makes no sense…


QUOTE “There is no reason whatsoever to doubt VS version of events, and she made no attempt to hide the nature of her relationship to the police and Janet Gregsten.”
Agree I see no reason to doubt VS, but the nature of the VS / MG relationship was hidden from the jury or, at least, not offered to them as part of trial info.

QUOTE “Why are you taking parts of the gunman's story (as relayed by VS) and ignoring others - "call me Jim" for example?”
Rather than ignoring aspects, I’m taking one aspect that suggest new avenues for exploration in reaching some conclusions about the identity of the murderer. I appreciate that you Vic firmly believe that JH wa the perpetrator but others don’t share that opinion and, in order to sustain & develop the forum, I feel that a reported statement from the murderer that he/she’s been on the run for 4 months represents a topic for debate as to the implications. I hope you’ll join in that debate if it kicks off!

QUOTE “Or guilt that the gun used was his?”
Good point.

QUOTE “Gregsten wouldn't abandon VS to the gunman - that's just stupid and cowardly. It'd also put an extra person in danger.”

I don’t feel able to just dismiss the topic. I agree that simply to walk / run away from the car would put the other occupant in danger but can you see that other avenues open up… asking petrol station attendant to raise the alarm, giving details of the car etc; making a ‘scene’ where others were about to frighten away the gunman; stopping the car at a public spot (petrol station eg) and simply throwing the keys away; … Clearly these kinds of actions would need to be done where the gunman would realise that he would be seen and identified by others and therefore might be spooked into running away. Did VS at any point get out of the car during its 5-6 hour jaunt? I know all this is a little fanciful but, given the situation, wouldn’t SOME action opportunity have presented itself? After all, the gunman didn’t seem to be too sharp and might therefore be tricked into giving up the whole stupid stunt?

Regards
JP56

[Victor]

It was also undoubtedly the case that Hanratty had lied about his whereabouts on that night.

No - it was not 'undoubtedly the case' because I doubt it and so do many others.

Hi Julie,

How do you reconcile the two stories? Did he go to Liverpool and stay with the 3 men, or did he give up the search for them and get on a bus to Rhyl?

One of those stories is undoubtedly a lie.

KR,
Vic.

ps. JP56 - another interesting post which I will reply to when I have the time - just off for a swim.

[Natalie Severn]

The man with "carbuncles for eyes "as seen by Bill Ewer

JP56 wrote :Rather than ignoring aspects, I’m taking one aspect that suggest new avenues for exploration in reaching some conclusions about the identity of the murderer. I appreciate that you Vic firmly believe that JH wa the perpetrator but others don’t share that opinion and, in order to sustain & develop the forum, I feel that a reported statement from the murderer that he/she’s been on the run for 4 months represents a topic for debate as to the implications. I hope you’ll join in that debate if it kicks off!

Well for me its the "he" or "she" that has set me thinking, JP56!
William Ewer told the press that he was the person---not "she" Janet Gregsten, who had seen Hanratty!He noticed him, he said, because his eyes stood out from his head" like two huge carbuncles" and that was why he had contacted the police at once because he knew the police were looking for just such a man "with staring eyes" .
He said he had seen this young man soon after the event-[in late August /early September] going into the photographers or possibly the flower shop "but because the flower shop had its windows steamed he couldnt see inside"-- OK. Hanratty did ofcourse go into the flower shop which was directly opposite William Ewer"s shop late that August in 1961 and sent his mum,Mrs Hanratty, some flowers ,under the name of J. Ryan.Ewer saw the very same carbuncular eyed man going into Burtol"s dry cleaners which was also directly opposite his shop.
Now from here on it all gets very curious indeed .Ewer , in his Sunday Times statement of 16 May 1967 , said that he saw this young man again,this time going into Burtol"s Dry Cleaners "but only after it had all become public that the police were looking for a man called Ryan".Well that simply isnt the case.It didnt all become public until at least early October that police were looking for a man named Ryan.We know that Hanratty went into that dry cleaners on September 4th 1961[the manager testified in court-a full month before he even knew himself the police were after him for the A6 murder].
The other curious event Ewer referred to in his Sunday Times Statement was that William Ewer was visited by his neighbour Charles Dixie France .Now one could accept that as a business man "dabbling" in antiques Ewer might have had one or two visits from Charles France but it apparently had nothing to do with bits and pieces of antiques.It was ,Ewer said, because Charles France wanted to express his condolences to him for what had happened to Michael Gregsten.Lets not forget though that William Ewer later took Janet Gregsten as his lover after it all settled down.Was this simply because he had grown close to her after all she had been through?
One last point;James Hanratty did not have eyes as big as saucers or carbuncles.One only needs to look at his photos to see this.
But regarding who was in that car that night.
Was it a "he" or a "she"?Such a line of inquiry might not have been over the top in the circumstances--- given that Ruth Ellis had only a few years earlier gone and got herself a gun and shot her lover dead in nearby Hampstead in a "crime of passion"!

[Victor]

But regarding who was in that car that night.
Was it a "he" or a "she"?Such a line of inquiry might not have been over the top in the circumstances--- given that Ruth Ellis had only a few years earlier gone and got herself a gun and shot her lover dead in nearby Hampstead in a "crime of passion"!

Hi Norma,

What a festering heap of bovine faeces! Valerie was raped. Semen was present in her underwear. It was blood typed.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Thanks Victor for the responses...

No problem JP56,

I’m not limiting it to JH, but I'm raising what is, I believe, a valid discussion point… namely, how on earth does someone spend the best part of 5 or 6 hours in a small car and generate NO forensics? It beggars belief. At the very least, hair, muddy footprints, bodily fluids would have been left.

It's a discussion point, but you've made a false assumption, namely, that there were no forensics to be found. No forensics were found but that does not mean that there were none there to be found. On second thoughts - someone mentioned 11 sets of fingerprints taken from the car. There are many possible explanations for this - e.g., Gregstens blood overwhelmed any fingerprint or fibre evidence, or the killer obliterated the evidence cleaning up the blood, &tc.

I raise it not to exonerate JH but to invite debate as to HOW that ‘forensics-free’ situation could have some about. What scenarios suggest themselves as a result? Otherwise how did JH, if it were he, manage to remove all trace of himself? And leave 2 cartridge cases? Makes no sense…

I can't see any inconsistency with JH overlooking 2 cartridge cases in the Vienna - that may have been some way down the back of the seat cushion and the possibility that he may have done a quick clean up on the car - obviously not a deep clean because the 'forensics-free' comment is inaccurate.

Agree I see no reason to doubt VS, but the nature of the VS / MG relationship was hidden from the jury or, at least, not offered to them as part of trial info.

Why is it relevent?

QUOTE “Why are you taking parts of the gunman's story (as relayed by VS) and ignoring others - "call me Jim" for example?”
Rather than ignoring aspects, I’m taking one aspect that suggest new avenues for exploration in reaching some conclusions about the identity of the murderer. I appreciate that you Vic firmly believe that JH wa the perpetrator but others don’t share that opinion and, in order to sustain & develop the forum, I feel that a reported statement from the murderer that he/she’s been on the run for 4 months represents a topic for debate as to the implications. I hope you’ll join in that debate if it kicks off!

Absolutely take one aspect and run with it, but again it's value is minimised by the fact that it was one of a number of things the gunman said many of which are untrue. But why select that specific aspect and not the childhood abuse, or desperate criminal on the run, or "call me Jim"

I agree that simply to walk / run away from the car would put the other occupant in danger but can you see that other avenues open up… asking petrol station attendant to raise the alarm, giving details of the car etc; making a ‘scene’ where others were about to frighten away the gunman; stopping the car at a public spot (petrol station eg) and simply throwing the keys away; … Clearly these kinds of actions would need to be done where the gunman would realise that he would be seen and identified by others and therefore might be spooked into running away.

Or it might spark a bloodbath, with the petrol attendant (or whoever) being an additional victim.

I know all this is a little fanciful but, given the situation, wouldn’t SOME action opportunity have presented itself? After all, the gunman didn’t seem to be too sharp and might therefore be tricked into giving up the whole stupid stunt?

That's all very well to say with hindsight, but would you be able to rationally consider these things when there's a gun pointed at you?

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

What a festering heap of bovine faeces! Valerie was raped. Semen was present in her underwear. It was blood typed.

KR,
Vic.

This type of hyperbole is not helpful.
Hanratty was executed for a crime I do not believe he had anything to do with.

I am well aware Valerie was raped and also that the car where the rape was alleged to have taken place had nothing in it whatsoever to link it to Hanratty.How come if the car was parked in Redbridge only three and a half hours after the rape in it took place at "about 3.30 am"?

Moreover,my reference to Ruth Ellis was in order to illustrate that a crime of passion may not have been so extraordinary in this case since a murder trial had taken place only a few years earlier by woman whose lover had been unfaithful to her and had caused her "prolonged distress". Ruth Ellis had acquired a gun and shot her lover herself,in that case ,after several years of humiliation and betrayal.
But I was not suggesting a scenario where Janet Gregsten was in that car or that it was Janet Gregsten who may have even come up with such an idea.I was pondering on JP56"s post where it says "he or she" as the "gunman"---- "He or she".
So I would have thought that the scenario of a wronged woman may have been considered then among the "motives".As it was,because of the medieval curfew on the affair coming to light in 1961 , it was never allowed to even be discussed.Had it actually have been allowed to feature at this trial, had all knowledge of Valerie Storie"s and Michael Gregsten"s affair been allowed into the open,the verdict may have been different.
It is just a " possibilty", while never having intended the gunman to commit murder or rape [/I]] that someone in the Gregsten family,when they saw the distress caused to Janet Gregsten,mother of Gregsten"s two small children, being abandoned when Gregsten finally left her and took up residence that week in his new flat, may have hired someone to do a scare off job.

[Black Rabbit]

That VS honestly believed Hanratty to be the murderer would have been apparent to even the dimmest member of that very dim Bedfordshire jury.

What an arrogant, sanctimonious child you appear to be!

I can't be the only one on here that's getting tired of your repeated insults. As you don't seem prepared to apologise (as I offered you the opportunity to do so in an earlier post) to the people of Bedfordshire for your unwarranted slur(s), Why don't you either substantiate your accusations regarding the Bedfordshire Jury or shut up!!!

[Victor]

This type of hyperbole is not helpful.

Hi Norma,

It seemed appropriate considering you "laughed out loud" at the DNA results.

Hanratty was executed for a crime I do not believe he had anything to do with.

Yup, and laughing out loud seems very callous and incongruous, although admittedly my thoughts are for the victims rather than the perpetrator. I happen to believe in the death penalty only for serial killers such as Sutcliffe, not for all criminals.

I was pondering on JP56"s post where it says "he or she" as the "gunman"---- "He or she".

And the thought is ridiculous. The gunman was definitely a "he".

However, I'm happy to consider and discuss scenarios where the male gunman was "sent" to the cornfield - and I think that is equally unlikely because they stopped at a different place first and then moved to the cornfield - how do you explain that for an "arranged hit" scenario?

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Hi Norma,

However, I'm happy to consider and discuss scenarios where the male gunman was "sent" to the cornfield - and I think that is equally unlikely because they stopped at a different place first and then moved to the cornfield - how do you explain that for an "arranged hit" scenario?

KR,
Vic.

The cornfield spot had been used before. Valerie even showed the spot to another colleague and told him 'this is where Mike and I usually stop'. Anyone who had been told this would look in that sot. Perhaps they looked there first and got lucky. The chances of this being a randon attack are - to me - remote in the extreme.

[Limehouse]

No problem JP56,


It's a discussion point, but you've made a false assumption, namely, that there were no forensics to be found. No forensics were found but that does not mean that there were none there to be found. On second thoughts - someone mentioned 11 sets of fingerprints taken from the car. There are many possible explanations for this - e.g., Gregstens blood overwhelmed any fingerprint or fibre evidence, or the killer obliterated the evidence cleaning up the blood, &tc.


I can't see any inconsistency with JH overlooking 2 cartridge cases in the Vienna - that may have been some way down the back of the seat cushion and the possibility that he may have done a quick clean up on the car - obviously not a deep clean because the 'forensics-free' comment is inaccurate.


Why is it relevent?


Absolutely take one aspect and run with it, but again it's value is minimised by the fact that it was one of a number of things the gunman said many of which are untrue. But why select that specific aspect and not the childhood abuse, or desperate criminal on the run, or "call me Jim"


Or it might spark a bloodbath, with the petrol attendant (or whoever) being an additional victim.


That's all very well to say with hindsight, but would you be able to rationally consider these things when there's a gun pointed at you?

KR,
Vic.

Vic - it is totally relevant that no forensics were found in the car considering the gunman was said to have occupied the car for hours. If you are saying forensics might have been there but not found then that calls into question the quality of the forensic examination of the scene. If you are saying JH wiped the car clean of forensic contaminatiuon then this would be a considerable departure from his usual approach but it would mean he was able to remove poossible hair - skin - semen - fibres - saliva and numerous other microscopic traces of himself. What keeps being overlooked by people like you is that the absence of ANY of the attacker's forensics (ie ANY KILLER) raises the possibility that someone - maybe not the killer - did not want a trace of the killer found because someone was being lined up to take the blame.

Back to the cartridges cases again. There is no evidence trhey were stuffed down the back of the chair. When the chair was tipped forward - a cartridge rolled off the chair. The second one was found easily by Julia G. Her statement makes it clear the cartidge was not stuffed down the back of the chair. Additionally - my previous posts on this point show how unlikely it is that the killer would have left those cartridges behind.

Why is the relationship between Gregtern and Storie relevant at the trial? Not for any moral reasons - but because of the important issue of motive. Almost all attacks of this type are 'inside jobs'. The motive of the guinman being hired to separate or scare the couple is much more plausible than a random attack - given the circumstances.

[Limehouse]

What an arrogant, sanctimonious child you appear to be!

I can't be the only one on here that's getting tired of your repeated insults. As you don't seem prepared to apologise (as I offered you the opportunity to do so in an earlier post) to the people of Bedfordshire for your unwarranted slur(s), Why don't you either substantiate your accusations regarding the Bedfordshire Jury or shut up!!!

You are right Black Rabbit. Ron can behave like a child and like most naughty children it is a good idea to ignore him. He is a troll.

[JP56]

QUOTE “It's a discussion point, but you've made a false assumption, namely, that there were no forensics to be found. No forensics were found but that does not mean that there were none there to be found. “

Mmmm… not sure what to read into this… you’re saying that forensics were there but not detected? Sure;ey even in 1960s, hair, mud & fibres would be detected?


QUOTE “can't see any inconsistency with JH overlooking 2 cartridge cases in the Vienna…”

I was referring to cases found in the car…


QUOTE “Why is it relevent?” (VS / MG relationship)

I think that what is relevant is the fact that this relationship was kept from the jury and VS clearly was happy to allow that to happen. Just a piece of the jigsaw that the defence didn’t ‘exploit’


QUOTE “Absolutely take one aspect and run with it, but again it's value is minimised by the fact that it was one of a number of things the gunman said … “

Mmmm, I don’t agree with ‘minimised’. Each piece of data has value, not then necessarily minimised by other data, but to be weighed in the mix, and explored as to the contribution it makes to unravelling the puzzle of this case…


QUOTE “would you be able to rationally consider these things when there's a gun pointed at you?”

Perhaps not during the early stages, but over 5-6 hours, with a clearly less than bright abductor, I would expect two intelligent people to exploit obvious opportunities. You suggest that the two victims weren’t able to think clearly to save themselves but you are suggesting that the ability to rationalise additional potential victims if the alarm was raised didn’t desert them, if I read your comment right…

For clarity… My initial post was a little unstructured and set a couple of hares runnin’… but principally, I wanted to raise the possibility for a radical re-thinking of the events of that night. What if the 5-6 hours story isn’t how it happened? Did any other witnesses report THREE people in a car during that time? What are the implications for our reading of VS’ version of events? Combined with the lack of forensics from the car (and, if there was any for a third person, don’t we think that the police would have pounced on that?).. is there the possibility that VS & MG were the only occupants and a very different set of events took place, unreported by VS for whatever reason. I don’t have any reason to question the current version from VS as reported but, given that we still debate this crime nearly 50 years later, I suggest it as a path to be explored, an intellectual exercise… and I’m STILL puzzled by the initial statement from VS “We PICKED UP a man in Slough…”

[Limehouse]

[QUOTE=JP56
For clarity… My initial post was a little unstructured and set a couple of hares runnin’… but principally, I wanted to raise the possibility for a radical re-thinking of the events of that night. What if the 5-6 hours story isn’t how it happened? Did any other witnesses report THREE people in a car during that time? What are the implications for our reading of VS’ version of events? Combined with the lack of forensics from the car (and, if there was any for a third person, don’t we think that the police would have pounced on that?).. is there the possibility that VS & MG were the only occupants and a very different set of events took place, unreported by VS for whatever reason. I don’t have any reason to question the current version from VS as reported but, given that we still debate this crime nearly 50 years later, I suggest it as a path to be explored, an intellectual exercise… and I’m STILL puzzled by the initial statement from VS “We PICKED UP a man in Slough…”[/QUOTE]

Hi JP - you have made some excellent points - worthy of debate.

You last point (quoted above) is especially interesting and it is one that some of us have attempted to explore. However - even a slight questioning of VS' version of events is met with hysterics from the opposing view and debate is smothered as posts dissolve in to insults being flung in all directions.

I would be willing to enter into discourse concerning possible alternatives to the official version of events and I know one or two others would too - but be prepared for an ugly battle!

Julie

[Victor]

Hi Julie and JP,

Together you've raised a number of points about the car, such as...

What keeps being overlooked by people like you is that the absence of ANY of the attacker's forensics (ie ANY KILLER) raises the possibility that someone - maybe not the killer - did not want a trace of the killer found because someone was being lined up to take the blame.

Mmmm… not sure what to read into this… you’re saying that forensics were there but not detected? Sure;ey even in 1960s, hair, mud & fibres would be detected?

Yes, I'm saying it is possible forensics were there and not detected - either because they'd been obliterated by the first people to examine the car, or the Forensic Team didn't think it was useful looking for any.

However, I'm saying that it is one possibility that the Forensic team missed things - especially hair and fibres. Semen might not be present - it is possible that it was all contained within the knickers and trousers.

It's an oft repeated mantra - absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Or the old chestnut - if a tree falls over in a forest, and there's no-one there to hear it, does it make a sound?

No forensics were found - other than the 11 sets of fingerprints, which seems like an awful lot to sift through to me, so maybe they didn't think it was worth the effort. That does not mean they were never there.

Back to the cartridges cases again. There is no evidence trhey were stuffed down the back of the chair. When the chair was tipped forward - a cartridge rolled off the chair. The second one was found easily by Julia G. Her statement makes it clear the cartidge was not stuffed down the back of the chair.

There is evidence they were down the back of the chair, maybe not stuffed all the way down, but certainly lodged between the seat cushion and the back - the chair had been moved previously when the room was cleaned and they hadn't fallen off then.

Additionally - my previous posts on this point show how unlikely it is that the killer would have left those cartridges behind.

Yes you made some comments and I replied, and then you left the discussion there - I think it's unexpected, but not impossible for the killer to have left them there.

Why is the relationship between Gregtern and Storie relevant at the trial? Not for any moral reasons - but because of the important issue of motive. Almost all attacks of this type are 'inside jobs'. The motive of the guinman being hired to separate or scare the couple is much more plausible than a random attack - given the circumstances.

I think that what is relevant is the fact that this relationship was kept from the jury and VS clearly was happy to allow that to happen. Just a piece of the jigsaw that the defence didn’t ‘exploit’

On the moral side, it's possible that a jury may be unfairly influenced to discount Valerie's evidence if they considered her to be a 'scarlet woman'. I believe she was told by Acott not to say anything about it because for an inside job to be remotely plausible you have to demonstrate how the gunman knew where to go and when, and then to get the cartridge cases in the right place, and then to find Hanratty the patsy had no solid alibi, but was the right blood group - and later the right DNA profile. That's a monumental ask, and no-one has come even close.

KR,
Vic.