a6 murder

[jimarilyn]

thank you for your reply, but i would like to correct you in saying that richard was born in march 1962 and the possibility of them having sexual intercourse before the time stated by you at the fun fair is high indeed. carol france was also a trainee hairdresser at the time and was the one who dyed hanratty's hair, thanks for the reply however and i would like to hear from you soon.

Hi blue moon,

About 8 months ago I did a lot of research on the Ancestry.co.uk website (see my post 295) and I discovered a lot of information about Carole and her family. Richard's birth was registered in the quarter Jan-March 1963 as Richard W Nutzlader-Sanderson (in the Pancras district). James Hanratty was imprisoned from October 1961 until his execution on April 4th 1962 so could not have had sexual relations during that time with Carole.
For Richard to have been born in March 1962 ( when Carole's father Charles died ) it would mean the birth not being registered for a full 12 months.
This cannot be the case as the law allows parents just 42 days in which to register a birth.


regards,
James

[Tony]

Hi All,

With the very welcome addition of Rob63, jimornot? and blue moon there are now 48 posters to this thread.
It's been some time since the likes Steve, PLA, Larue, JamesDean and Rigby have posted, I hope we haven't heard the last from them as their contributions have all been very impressive.
A few months ago I came across an article on the internet about Martin O'Neill (the Aston Villa manager) which stated that he has a very keen interest in the JFK assassination and ....wait for it......the A6 Murder.
I wonder if he's aware of this thread and if so I wonder what the chances are of his becoming a contributor in the future.
Wishful thinking ??


regards,
James

Here is a part of the article James referred to:

Crime scene investigator: the dark side of Martin O’Neill
Born in Kilrea, Northern Ireland, on March 1, 1952, O’Neill is not your stereotypical football man. An outstanding Gaelic footballer, he was snapped up by Irish League club Distillery, but O’Neill has also had a fascination with crime since embarking on a law degree at Queen’s University, Belfast
He maintained his interest even during his glorious playing days at Nottingham Forest, and queued outside the Old Bailey with wife Geraldine, who was then pregnant, for seats in public gallery during Yorkshire Ripper trial
Has visited site of A6 murder by James Hanratty, who in 1962 became one of the last men to be hanged in Britain. O’Neill also visited London’s Lower Belgrave Street, where Lord Lucan murdered nanny Sandra Rivett, before disappearing n Fascination with the JFK assassination in 1963 led to a visit to Dealey Plaza, Dallas, where Lee Harvey Oswald shot the president. O’Neill also stood in the cell in which Oswald was held after his arrest and on the spot where Jack Ruby shot Oswald at the Dallas County Jail
O’Neill now plans to visit New York’s Dakota building, scene of John Lennon’s murder, and Chappaquiddick, where Teddy Kennedy drove off a bridge, leading to the drowning of Mary Jo Kopechne
Awarded an OBE for services to sport in 2004, right with wife Geraldine, O’Neill had previously been given an MBE

I will write to Martin O’Neill in the New Year and invite him to look at the thread and ask if he has anything to contribute.

Good research James.

Thanks,

Tony.

[Tony]

Hi blue moon,

About 8 months ago I did a lot of research on the Ancestry.co.uk website (see my post 295) and I discovered a lot of information about Carole and her family. Richard's birth was registered in the quarter Jan-March 1963 as Richard W Nutzlader-Sanderson (in the Pancras district). James Hanratty was imprisoned from October 1961 until his execution on April 4th 1962 so could not have had sexual relations during that time with Carole.
For Richard to have been born in March 1962 ( when Carole's father Charles died ) it would mean the birth not being registered for a full 12 months.
This cannot be the case as the law allows parents just 42 days in which to register a birth.


regards,
James

Hello James,

On here we know people do not obey the law. They go about with guns killing and raping people. So I doubt if it would be viewed as a major misdemeanour for somebody to break the 42 day birth registration requirement.

So I would like to see Blue Moon’s photograph of Richard.

Any chance of posting it on here Bluemoon?

Tony

[jimarilyn]

Hello James,

On here we know people do not obey the law. They go about with guns killing and raping people. So I doubt if it would be viewed as a major misdemeanour for somebody to break the 42 day birth registration requirement.

So I would like to see Blue Moon’s photograph of Richard.

Any chance of posting it on here Bluemoon?

Tony

Hi Tony,

I too would be very interested in seeing Blue Moon's photo of Richard, especially in light of the fact that Carole took a drug overdose (accidental or otherwise) a couple or months or so after her father's sucide.


regards,
James

[jimarilyn]

Hi Tony,

I too would be very interested in seeing Blue Moon's photo of Richard, especially in light of the fact that Carole took a drug overdose (accidental or otherwise) a couple or months or so after her father's sucide.


regards,
James

Hi all

Here is the Daily Mirror article from May 23rd 1962 .....

Girl witness in tablets drama

I BLAME A6
TRIAL, SAYS
HER MUM


"Seventeen year old Carol France, who was a witness in the A6 murder trial, was in hospital last night recovering from an overdose of tablets.
It was two months after her father, Charles France, 43 --also a witness at the trial-- gassed himself.
Carol was taken from her home in Boundary Road, St. John's Wood, London, to New End Hospital, Hampstead, in the early morning.
A hospital spokesman said later : 'she had an overdose of iron tablets which were prescribed for anaemia. She took too many--that's all.
Carol, her father and her mother were witnesses at the trial of James Hanratty, 25, who was hanged for the murder of Michael Gregsten, 36, at Deadman's Hill on the A6 road near Bedford.

Note

They told the trial jury that Hanratty had stayed at their home.
When Carol's father died he left a note which, a coroner said, expressed 'great bitterness against James Hanratty'.
After visiting Carol in hospital yesterday, her mother said 'I blame the A6 trial for what has happened to my daughter'.
'Life has been hell for us all. People just won't let us forget'.

Gossip

'They gossip and stare and cranks make vicious anonymous telephone calls to our home.
If we had been witnesses in an ordinary case, we would have been allowed to forget.
But because we were involved in a sensational murder trial, people just won't let us alone.
Every time the phone rings we tremble. We know it's probably another filthy call'. "


regards,
James

[Sara]

Newbies and other interested parties might also like to look at page 222 esp post 2218 also 2220

I should add that I'm not convinced that JH is innocent, only that the case against him seems a great deal less compelling than the case for him, given I cannot, in the light of all the research papers I and others have posted up on the other thread, accept the reliability of the DNA evidence at all.

Any proper understanding of the techniques used has to call this evidence into question, esp given that JH handled the handkerchief in court when confirming it was his! - all old handkies will contain mucus stains if washed normally.

If the police / Acott at the time were so sure that the Rhyl witnesses weren't reliable or convincing, why did they keep them a secret from both defence and prosecution?


PS I'll also add that I find the case agaisnt Alphon a great deal more convincing than that against Hanratty. The original idientikit images are very compelling - anyone who can't see a likeness between that and both the Alphon photos is imo being perverse!! the most important elements in the likeness, ie the *proportions* of the two faces, is very exact; and the eyes mouth and nose are remarkably similar esp the eyes

Alphon's alibi was provided by a known criminal and liar who was proved to have given false eveidence in at least one other respect - it's therefore surely worthless.

[jimornot?]

Hi all

Just finished laughing at Tony's welcome to me. It's good that serious debate can be mixed with humour!

Reg, I too have an identical twin brother but he is not as infamous as Ron. I have often been mistaken for my twin even when it was pretty obvious I was not who they thought I was. Reflecting on that has made me conclude a) I am really very unobservant and many others are too b) people will become very convinced that their memories / things 'seen' their own eyes are gospel and they will take a lot of persuading otherwise even if facts are presented to the contrary. Not earth shattering I know but as has alraedy been stated by those on either side of his case, witnesses will often truly believe their statements evn if they are not fully accurate

I have been chatting about my interest in this thread and most people (even those old enough) can't raise any enthusiasm - they certainly don't seem to remember much about it. So kudos for all of you for maintaining the discussion irrespective of the side you are on.

William Ewer fascinates me. Anyone know specifically why he tried to sue Paul Foot (who said nothing in his book changed) or what he found so libellous in the Sunday Times articles (c'mon Jimarilyn Holmes, what did the Sunday times report?) the police apparently (according to Foot's ) denied he was the source who linked up Ryan to Hanratty but I read that Mrs Morrell at the florists indicated policemen did visit her shop asking after Ryan and I seem to recall this was before they had a link of Ryan to Hanratty.

I think this was alluded to before but any evidence on where Alphon's money in his account originated? I know there was some newspaper money but if too early re Jean Justice (if he paid him at all, minimal amount only according to Jeremy Fox) and money from the Press was say around £2000 where did the rest come from? I can't recall right now if there was proof he'd had the money.

And Blue Moon your first posting (welcome by the way) what an introduction

Happy Christmas all

Viv

[jimornot?]

If the police / Acott at the time were so sure that the Rhyl witnesses weren't reliable or convincing, why did they keep them a secret from both defence and prosecution?


PS I'll also add that I find the case agaisnt Alphon a great deal more convincing than that against Hanratty. The original idientikit images are very compelling - anyone who can't see a likeness between that and both the Alphon photos is imo being perverse!! the most important elements in the likeness, ie the *proportions* of the two faces, is very exact; and the eyes mouth and nose are remarkably similar esp the eyes

Alphon's alibi was provided by a known criminal and liar who was proved to have given false eveidence in at least one other respect - it's therefore surely worthless.

Hi Sara

I tend to agree all round but still feel drawn back by the DNA simply because it didn't have any others suspect's traces?

Thing is on Alphon - and assume for a moment he is the real perpetrator - why would he have had help to get rid of the gun with the hanky. What's your theory on all that please? (and just an aside, who was it who gave Alphon his alibi - I thought it was 'only' his mother)

Conversely why does anyone think the police rushed to name Alphon? Surely not just because he behaved strangely? It iso odd that he was 'set free' -albeit after the ID parade - and somehow Hanratty just fell into the police lap simply because he was linked to Alphon's stay at the Vienna.

I certainly agree that many of those helping the police case against Hanratty were not necessarily the best character witnesses (noting at the head of all exceptions to this sweeping generalisation, Ms Storie who may or may not simply have made a mistake). look at the range of witnesses - Nudds (why did he make the 2nd statement at all, according to Foot he volunteered it), Langdale, Anderson........... and France.

all the best

Viv

[Sara]

Over the years we have witnessed the Appeal Court quashing convictions in such high profile controversial cases as Derek Bentley (executed), George Kelly (executed), Barry George, Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, Carl Bridgewater case, etc.

In so doing, the Establishment has acknowledged police malpractice, contaminated exhibits, doubtful expert witness testimony, dubious scientific claims, biased judges, etc.

Just what is it about James Hanratty and the A6 murder that leads countless people to believe that the Appeal Court and numerous Home Secretaries over the years have deliberately swept the truth under the carpet, knowingly upholding a conviction they know to be incorrect?

What is being hidden in this case that is so important and so different to all the successful appeals?

It can’t be just down to the funny handshake brigade – surely some of these must have been involved in a few of the high profile cases whose verdicts were quashed.

Peter.

This to me is the crux of the matter. There is to my mind something going on here below the surface which we can't follow, but which has resulted in this desperate and repeated attempt on the part of the police and 'establishment' for lack of a better word, to pin this crime on Hanratty at all costs.

Was the 'Road Research Laboratory' a cover for something else? - this was the height of the Cold War remember. Why was the '50 year rule' applied?

It's clear too from Fenner Brockway's testimony to the House of Commons when seeking an Inquiry into the case, that much of Storie's account of what happened that night HAS NEVER BEEN REVEALED TO PUBLIC SCRUTINY

Right, I'd better shelve my obsession for a while and get out and buy some wine!
- and study the Kempton card for Boxing Day (anyone else going??)

[Tony]

Hi all

Just finished laughing at Tony's welcome to me. It's good that serious debate can be mixed with humour!

Reg, I too have an identical twin brother but he is not as infamous as Ron. I have often been mistaken for my twin even when it was pretty obvious I was not who they thought I was. Reflecting on that has made me conclude a) I am really very unobservant and many others are too b) people will become very convinced that their memories / things 'seen' their own eyes are gospel and they will take a lot of persuading otherwise even if facts are presented to the contrary. Not earth shattering I know but as has alraedy been stated by those on either side of his case, witnesses will often truly believe their statements evn if they are not fully accurate

I have been chatting about my interest in this thread and most people (even those old enough) can't raise any enthusiasm - they certainly don't seem to remember much about it. So kudos for all of you for maintaining the discussion irrespective of the side you are on.

William Ewer fascinates me. Anyone know specifically why he tried to sue Paul Foot (who said nothing in his book changed) or what he found so libellous in the Sunday Times articles (c'mon Jimarilyn Holmes, what did the Sunday times report?) the police apparently (according to Foot's ) denied he was the source who linked up Ryan to Hanratty but I read that Mrs Morrell at the florists indicated policemen did visit her shop asking after Ryan and I seem to recall this was before they had a link of Ryan to Hanratty.

I think this was alluded to before but any evidence on where Alphon's money in his account originated? I know there was some newspaper money but if too early re Jean Justice (if he paid him at all, minimal amount only according to Jeremy Fox) and money from the Press was say around £2000 where did the rest come from? I can't recall right now if there was proof he'd had the money.

And Blue Moon your first posting (welcome by the way) what an introduction

Happy Christmas all

Viv

Hello Jimornot, VS, Viv or whatever your moniker might be this afternoon,

You ask about the money that appeared in Alphon’s account. Well it was most certainly there and an awful lot of it. Hundreds of thousands of pounds worth in today’s values. Although not so much in Euros in case he’s thinking of going away for Christmas. Nobody knows where it came from apart from the press payments that is. It is, for me at any rate, one of the most puzzling things of the entire aftermath of the case.
Here we have a man who has hardly done a day’s work in his life, gets through the weeks by scrounging off his Mum; and then only a few pounds at a time. Almost, you might say, one of life’s down and outs. The suddenly he’s in the millionaire class. Where did the money come from? Well we don’t know yet but it is said he won it on the dogs. Hmmm.
As for Alphon’s alibi: well he did not have one.

Tony.

[jimornot?]

Here we have a man who has hardly done a day’s work in his life, gets through the weeks by scrounging off his Mum; and then only a few pounds at a time. Almost, you might say, one of life’s down and outs. The suddenly he’s in the millionaire class. Where did the money come from? Well we don’t know yet but it is said he won it on the dogs. Hmmm.
As for Alphon’s alibi: well he did not have one.

Tony.

Hi Tony

so where do you think it came from? Do you go along with the theory of hit man (though why choose him?) or some kind of blackmail (perhaps after the failure of a plan to merely warn VS & MG off / drive them together?

atb

Viv

PS I still can't decide either way. If it was Hanratty I can go along with the thought that he met up with the, by pure chance. But if so why did Alphon suddenly get to be the banker's friend?

If not Hanratty, it seems to have been by design and Alphon who was apparently seen in the area before and on the night guessed they'd be there. BUT, V&M had moved from an earlier 'liaison' point so may not have been at the cornfield at all - unless he saw them there anyway and followed.

I wonder what all forum readers would want for Christmas to settle their minds on this case? Let's say at the moment it is evenly balanced but there would be one or 2 things that would make you switch camps - what would that (have to) be?

Food for thought with lots of actual food following tomorrow no doubt.

atb

Viv

[blue moon]

There is definetly a guilty consience however i mean through many conversations with carol it seems that this topic is very hard for her to talk about, i used to ask myself why does this women always want to move then she broke the news to me the reason she gave was habit habit from i wondered she then replied the habit of never feeling safe and confessed that for years after hanratty was hanged she recieved threats even threats to her life and then theres the reason behind her dads suicide? depression i really dont think he was some what of a wannabe gangsta so to speak enjoying the good life, until he got involved in something he didnt expect would be so big and everdently involving the apple of his eye i believe that dixie france thought that he frame hanratty for alphon he knew his daughter was in connection with a car thief well known to police and just pass the buck. I also believe the reason carol does not talk of her father much and when she does its as if he died yesterday is because she knows deep down she is partly to blame for his death because if she had not agreed to pull hanratty in in order for him to be framed so to speak maybe both men would be alive today. thank you all merry xmas..

[Limehouse]

Hi Blue Moon. Very interesting posts. I am not sure I understand why Hanratty was framed. Was he innocent of the A6 murder but framed to get someone else off the hook? Or was Hanratty hired to disrupt the relationship between Valerie and Mike and when it all wnrt wrong, evidence was put in place to ensure only he took the blame? Or, was he innocent, but framed to get him out of the way?

[reg1965]

There is definetly a guilty consience however i mean through many conversations with carol it seems that this topic is very hard for her to talk about, i used to ask myself why does this women always want to move then she broke the news to me the reason she gave was habit habit from i wondered she then replied the habit of never feeling safe and confessed that for years after hanratty was hanged she recieved threats even threats to her life and then theres the reason behind her dads suicide? depression i really dont think he was some what of a wannabe gangsta so to speak enjoying the good life, until he got involved in something he didnt expect would be so big and everdently involving the apple of his eye i believe that dixie france thought that he frame hanratty for alphon he knew his daughter was in connection with a car thief well known to police and just pass the buck. I also believe the reason carol does not talk of her father much and when she does its as if he died yesterday is because she knows deep down she is partly to blame for his death because if she had not agreed to pull hanratty in in order for him to be framed so to speak maybe both men would be alive today. thank you all merry xmas..

Does Carol France know that you are telling us all this? If not I would recommend quitting now. I would love to know what Carol has to say about Hanratty and her father and a possible frame up but this approach has a distasteful ring about it as far as I a concerned.

Be careful
Reg

[Graham]

Does Carol France know that you are telling us all this? If not I would recommend quitting now. I would love to know what Carol has to say about Hanratty and her father and a possible frame up but this approach has a distasteful ring about it as far as I a concerned.

Be careful
Reg

I just wandered by the boards whilst digesting the cold flesh of a dead bird and I have to say that I agree with you one hundred percent, Reg. And this is a first! I've always counselled care when speaking of still-living persons connected with this case, as you know. Your advice is sound.

Cheers,

Graham