Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why did Hanratty do it?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why did Hanratty do it?

    I had posted the following on the main thread but it was immediately followed by the usual, tired, wrong-headed arguments that Jim did not do it. For those who think that Jim did it, or that there was a possibility that Jim might have done it, I ask the following question?

    What motive did Hanratty have for committing the crime?

    It will be 50 years next year that this infamous murder was committed by James Hanratty. The works of literature on whether or not Hanratty was guilty are extensive, but little seems to have been written as to why he should have wanted to do what he seems to have done, to wit murder Michael Gregsten and rape and to attempt to murder Valerie Storie.

    Leonard Miller in The Shadows of Deadman's Hill took the view that the area where the abduction took place was the sort of area that one would expect to be frequented by a burglar-large houses with relatively wealthy residents etc. The implication being that Hanratty was on one of his burgling expeditions. This is all right as far as it goes, but Hanratty had not burgled any houses that night, so if burglary was on his agenda, why did he abort his mission and abduct the occupants of a Moggie Minor?

    If murder and rape had been his intention then there was no reason why he should not have done the deeds earlier in the proceedings. There was little compelling reason to leave the cornfield, let alone drive across London to Bedfordshire. It is true that Hanratty had robbed Gregsten and Storie shortly after the abduction, but the potential pickings offered by the occupants of a humble Moggie Minor could not have provided the reason for the abduction.

    If Hanratty had acquired a gun to do stick-ups on the basis that burgling houses was all played out, then it is strange that he should carry on burgling empty houses armed with a revolver.

    What Gregsten and Storrie did have in their humble little car was transport-a means to get out of the sticks and back to civilisation in London. Could that have been the reason for the hold up at gun point? It is a distinct possibility, although events subsequent to the hold up show that if originally a return to London was intended, that destination was eventually abandoned for the delights of Bedfordshire. Yet the change of destination could be explained by the tortured reasoning of Jim Hanratty, not the brightest of individuals, who must have realised that a order to Gregsten to drive him to one of his hunting grounds in the Smoke might lead to his arrest. The actual ultimate destination, Deadman's Hill in Beds. may have been en route to Hanratty's intended destination, which really could have been anywhere further north, which obviously would include Rhyl or Liverpool.

    But that still leaves us with why Jim was wandering round Dorney Reach that late August evening? Had Jim in fact gone to Maidenhead earlier in the day, perhaps to do a stick up, perhaps for a trial run, although if the latter why take a loaded gun? From Maidenhead had Jim taken a pleasant evening stroll to the riverside village of Bray?

    Now this is where my theory may be shot down, but I believe that the M4 roadbridge had been opened in the Spring of 1961. When I was there in 1993 there was also a footbridge alongside the motorway. Was this footbridge there when the motorway opened, or at least in the August after it opened?

    If so, Jim, is drawn to have a look at the wonder of the age, the motorway, and so walks from Bray crosses the Thames alongside the M4, on the north bank of the Thames he decides not to retrace his steps, which would mean a hell of a walk back to Maidenhead, but decides to see if he can find Taplow Station. But Jim being Jim, he gets lost. Not only is he lost, he is lost carrying a loaded revolver. He now becomes apprehensive. Carrying a revolver in an area which has recently experienced house break-ins has its risks. Jim does not want to encounter the Old Bill; he happens upon the Moggie Minor and has a bright idea; he could get some much needed practice experiencing the power of ordering folk about with his newly acquired gun and also get a lift back home.

    It was only when Jim sat in the back seat of the Moggie did he realise the new problems which he had created for himself. He needed time to 'fink' but no solution ever occurred to him.

  • #2
    Originally posted by RonIpstone View Post
    If Hanratty had acquired a gun to do stick-ups...
    Hi Ron,

    I have many pages to catch up with on the main A6 thread, but just read your interesting post here.

    I think if there is any evidence at all that Hanratty had indeed acquired a gun (to do 'stick-ups' or for any other reason), everything else falls into place along the lines you suggest.

    The gunman seems to have bungled whatever he set out to do that night, and ended up bungling the shooting of Valerie too, after spending an awfully long time doing not a lot of anything in that car with his unlucky victims - which is very suggestive of a man with no previous experience of what he could expect from a face-to-face confrontation with a loaded gun on his side. Assuming this was Hanratty, it turned out as much to his own disadvantage as to anyone else's, to arm himself in this way.

    I just cannot imagine a more crafty customer (eg Alphon) not making absolutely sure the woman was dead before making off. It would have been so easy to do so, and to eliminate any possible chance of her identifying him.

    So my question would not be why did he do it, but why didn't he finish it off and save himself in the process?

    I wonder if the answer is connected with the reason that Hanratty didn't deny it was his hanky found round the gun, and thought he could suddenly say he had been in Rhyl and everything would be all right. He seems to have had little concept of the stark reality of his precarious position throughout, and how his behaviour would impact on his own fate.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by RonIpstone View Post
      What motive did Hanratty have for committing the crime?
      Hi Ron,

      Does there have to be a motive?

      Norma has argued that there doesn't have to be [although using Alphon as the guilty party] merely an escalation because Gregsten threw the duffel bag at the gunman hence provoking the fatal responce. That works for me, completely.

      KR,
      Vic.
      Truth is female, since truth is beauty rather than handsomeness; this [...] would certainly explain the saying that a lie could run around the world before Truth has got its, correction, her boots on, since she would have to chose which pair - the idea that any woman in a position to choose would have just one pair of boots being beyond rational belief.
      Unseen Academicals - Terry Pratchett.

      Comment


      • #4
        Hello Caz and Vic,

        I have never thought that Hanratty intended to kill Gregsten and Storie and/or to rape the latter, when he abducted them at gunpoint in the cornfield at Dorney Reach.

        Events overtook him in the lay-by at Deadman's Hill, and fearing that Gregsten was going to overpower him, he fired the gun. The rape and attempted murder of Valerie that followed were as a consequence of Gregsten's death. I would not venture an opinion as to Hanratty's psychology with regard to the rape, but Hanratty intended to kill Valerie purely and simply to remove the witness to the crime.

        But that leaves us with the questions, why was Hanratty wandering around Dorney Reach that August evening, and what motivated him to hold up the occupants of the humble Moggie Minor? I accept that speculation is all that can be engaged in here. The best I can come up with is that Hanratty wanted a lift home or to test his authority with a gun, or possibly a combination of the two. If he could order these two about then he had climbed the first rung of the ladder to become a stick-up man. He may even have been wandering about all day looking for an opportunity to use his newly acquired firearm and viewed the holding up of the Moggie Minor as his last chance that evening.

        I accept that my theories could be wrong, or even rubbish, but they stand well in comparison with the dotty theories of Swanwick that Hanratty was driven by uncontrollable lust to commit the crimes and of Foot and others that Alphon committed the crimes as a paid hand, not to kill but to scare.

        Ron
        Last edited by RonIpstone; 08-19-2010, 10:28 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by RonIpstone View Post
          Hello Caz and Vic,

          I have never thought that Hanratty intended to kill Gregsten and Storie and/or to rape the latter, when he abducted them at gunpoint in the cornfield at Dorney Reach.

          Events overtook him in the lay-by at Deadman's Hill, and fearing that Gregsten was going to overpower him, he fired the gun. The rape and attempted murder of Valerie that followed were as a consequence of Gregsten's death. I would not venture an opinion as to Hanratty's psychology with regard to the rape, but Hanratty intended to kill Valerie purely and simply to remove the witness to the crime.

          But that leaves us with the questions, why was Hanratty wandering around Dorney Reach that August evening, and what motivated him to hold up the occupants of the humble Moggie Minor? I accept that speculation is all that can be engaged in here. The best I can come up with is that Hanratty wanted a lift home or to test his authority with a gun, or possibly a combination of the two. If he could order these two about then he had climbed the first rung of the ladder to become a stick-up man. He may even have been wandering about all day looking for an opportunity to use his newly acquired firearm and viewed the holding up of the Moggie Minor as his last chance that evening.

          I accept that my theories could be wrong, or even rubbish, but they stand well in comparison with the dotty theories of Swanwick that Hanratty was driven by uncontrollable lust to commit the crimes and of Foot and others that Alphon committed the crimes as a paid hand, not to kill but to scare.

          Ron
          Hi Ron

          I agree your theories are more plausible than those of the prosecution particularly when others indicate Hanratty had never shown such tendencies before. It appears that MG was shot after he handled the duffle bag and it implies that the gunman was suddenly spooked. It was certainly amateurish to shoot valerie but not ensure she had been killed

          It seems impossible to think it was a premeditated murder especially with them sitting in the car for so long.

          There is much debate as to why Hanratty would change his MO but why on earth would Alphon be chosen as a hit man in the first place- what was in his background to warrant it?

          atb

          Viv

          Comment


          • #6
            There is much debate as to why Hanratty would change his MO but why on earth would Alphon be chosen as a hit man in the first place- what was in his background to warrant it?


            Alphon was well known at the Dogs ,therefore he would have been "known" to the criminal fraternity who both went to the dogs---including regular visits to the Slough /Bucks "dog tracks" .He needed cash---he was forever living in hotels and bumming off his mother. It was probably fairly easy for someone to approach Alphon to do a scaring off "job" in Slough .He was on the periphery of crime and such shady goings on.He wouldnt have been approached with a view to murder---just" frightening off " Valerie .
            Best
            Norma

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
              [/B]

              Alphon was well known at the Dogs ,therefore he would have been "known" to the criminal fraternity who both went to the dogs---including regular visits to the Slough /Bucks "dog tracks" .He needed cash---he was forever living in hotels and bumming off his mother. It was probably fairly easy for someone to approach Alphon to do a scaring off "job" in Slough .He was on the periphery of crime and such shady goings on.He wouldnt have been approached with a view to murder---just" frightening off " Valerie .
              Best
              Norma
              Hi norma

              sorry this may cross with the other thread. I can see what you are saying but is there any known link of Alphon to the central figure? I would have thought there were far more likely candidates in that criminal fraternity - known nutters with form. It also begs the question why would anyone pay £5000 in those days for the warning?

              atb

              Viv

              Comment


              • #8
                Of course Alphon was not hired as a £5,000 a night hit-man to scare Michael Gregsten and his lover. For a variety of reasons that scenario is just plain bonkers, as is the scenario that Alphon checked into the Vienna Hotel, went out of London and committed the crime as a result of moral outrage at what he perceived to be going on in the cornfield at Dorney Reach.

                Yet attributing a motive to Hanratty for committing the initial offence of abduction is almost as difficult. Why did he do it? What did he hope to gain?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Ron;
                  Mike Gregsten and Janet Gregsten had a two year old son as well as a seven year old son: Janet conceived this child during Gregsten 4 year old relationship with 22 year old Valerie who must have only been 18 when it began:Janet must have been a lot more distressed by it than people think:There was a very good motive to scare Valerie off actually_am away from my own computer so cant write more today,best Norma

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Hi Ron,
                    I emphasised on another thread that I don"t myself hold with any theory that suggests there was ever any intention , by anyone at all, to kill Michael Gregsten or Valerie Storie.
                    The mystery of the £5,000 that found its way,by instalments,into Peter Alphon"s bank account following the murder of Mike Gregsten and the rape and attempted murder of Valerie Storie must , in my opinion, have had to do with some sort of involvement, by Alphon.But the huge sum involved would surely have been hush money-money paid to Alphon so he wouldnt blab about "who" and "what" was behind the original "plan"to scare off Valerie and which had not intended to end in either rape ,physical injury or murder.
                    Its altogether too far fetched to have Alphon being the FIRST suspect to be sought out by police and charged with the murder, arising from gun cartridges found at the Vienna Hotel,on 19th September ---and Alphon receiving £5,000 in the months that followed, and yet, and yet, Alphon having nothing at all to do with any of it !
                    Don"t forget that police had already been pointed to the Vienna Hotel as early as August 27th when guests at the very next hotel Alphon stayed in,ie The Alexandra Hotel from 24th August, were frightened by his appearance and disturbing behaviour.Add to this that police had already taken a statement about Alphon"s movements there on 22nd/23rd August, from Juliana Galves on September 6th both dates ie 27th August and September 6th being before the cartridge cases turned up on 11th September .But ofcourse the finding of the cartridge cases was the first really big, direct lead , to the Vienna Hotel.
                    Alphon could have been offered money to "plant it" on the 36A bus on 24th August ie been passed the gun [by France] and wrapped it in one of Hanratty"s handkerchiefs ,thereby leading police directly to Hanratty .Its very odd that not a single finger printwas found anywhere on either the gun or the cartridge cases.
                    My own interpretation of all this is that it was Alphon himself who had been hired to put the frighteners on,wear a mask and hold a gun to "scare off "the copulating couple in the cornfield , that it had even suited his priggish "mision" and it was Alphon who panicked and made a complete hash of it leading to the tragic disaster.He was in there somewhere!
                    Last edited by Natalie Severn; 08-27-2010, 10:55 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Hi Natalie,
                      The 'Scare off' has never washed with me, if anything such a traumatic event would have brought the couple closer together.
                      What could the gunman say?
                      'I dont want you two to see each other again,'
                      If I find out either of you contact the other , I will seek them out'
                      Question.
                      Did Valerie ever say any conversation went along that line?
                      If it had, dont you accept that Mike and Val would have had major suspicions who had set all of this up.?
                      Also if the gunman was paid to put the 'Frightners on', what a risk he would be taking , one off guard moment, and the tables could have been turned, which as I suspect the duffle bag incident was the result of. ie, a futile attempt to disarm.
                      That would have [ and did] resulted in murder.
                      Question.
                      The gunman knew he had killed Gregson. believed he had killed Valerie, so the only person/persons that could finger him out, would be the person/persons that had hired him.
                      To be sure of getting away with it, he would surely have silienced them, he would only be tried for one killing after all, he could not risk an admission by the hirer, who may have become distraught by the events,
                      Regards Richard.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        A couple of questions
                        Ask yourself Richard
                        1] :Would Valerie have been advised -by Acott or Swanwick to discuss such comments about her adulterous relationship with Gregsten ----remember-it had been intentionally concealed from the trial and the Bhurgers of Bedford? Especially since the married man in question was the father of two and seven year old children? It needs to be remembered here that none of the jury knew anything about Valerie having an "affair" with Gregston ,so she would hardly have felt free to tell the court the ins and outs of their extra marital affair, particularly regarding any copulating that took place during their visits to the cornfield.In the climate of 1961,the visits to the cornfield --in fact any 'carrying on" between Valerie and Gregsten would have been viewed in a dim light and the adultery seen as "illicit" -especially to the bovine Burghers of Bedford.

                        2]So lets be clear,I dont think the conversation needed to involve anything about the rights and wrongs of their relationship, Richard, beyond what we already know he said about them "going to be married" or something similar .I mean would such a morality lecture have been needed anyway? Would either Valerie or Mike Gregsten have ever wanted to go to make love in that cornfield again after a gunman approached them, held them up at gun point,then took them on a scary ride to nowhere? I doubt they would ever have wanted to see a cornfield again, let alone make love there!

                        3]No, I dont think the gunman would have searched them out to kill them,though I do think that very same gunman was threatening Valerie with phone calls from Windsor ,since we know the poor girl was threatened with at least one of these life threatening phone calls while in hospital --- it is recorded.
                        Best
                        Norma
                        Last edited by Natalie Severn; 08-27-2010, 01:55 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Been away from the forum for a while so bear with me as I haven`t genned up on the case for quite some time.
                          Now and again I`ve wondered what was the motive of the crime but never been able to come up with anything credible. One thing that crossed my mind was the amount of spare ammunition carried by the perpetrator at the time especially when its in boxes. The revolver carried six rounds so I can believe someone might go equipped with another loose half dozen rounds as back up in pockets, but not as much as was carried by the gunman.
                          Would it be credible to think that Mr Hanratty had been prowling the area for suitable houses to burgle, broke into one and found the revolver along with a few boxes of ammo, and took the lot. I`m not sure of the firearms laws at the time but I`m reasonably sure a licence must`ve been needed. If this gun was a war bring back (there were plenty around at the time) and not licenced, would the owner have reported it stolen, especially concerning what would be reported in the newspapers in the next few days.
                          Mr Hanratty is wandering away from the area looking for a way back to London, spots the car and decides to use his 'new find' to have a bit of fun.
                          The rest of the evening/mornings happenings could`ve been an 'accident of hands' so to speak.
                          This is all supposition of course and I apologise if some of it is thrown by the facts

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Hi Rob,
                            Its good to have someone point out the sheer bulk of these 60 cartridge cases,I mean the gun was bulky to start with let alone all those boxes.
                            I doubt Hanratty was doing what you suggest.There were usually fingerprints on window sills etc so I can"t really see him stealing all this lot and never leaving a finger print.Dont forget no fingerprints were found anywhere---on the gun,cartridge cases or car.It was very clearly planned as far as I can see--

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
                              Hi Rob,
                              Its good to have someone point out the sheer bulk of these 60 cartridge cases,I mean the gun was bulky to start with let alone all those boxes.
                              I doubt Hanratty was doing what you suggest.There were usually fingerprints on window sills etc so I can"t really see him stealing all this lot and never leaving a finger print.Dont forget no fingerprints were found anywhere---on the gun,cartridge cases or car.It was very clearly planned as far as I can see--
                              hi Norma and Rob

                              I can't see why anyone planting the gun to frame hanratty would also plant all the cartridges - seems no need to do that at all. It is surely more in keeping with someone panicking in desperation to get rid of the gun. I can't understand why anyone would seek to put it under the seat unless panic took over and it seemed safest to do that (or how about a wish to perhaps recover it later?)

                              atb

                              viv

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X