A6 murder and the 1967 Nimmo Inquiry

[jimarilyn]

What is that supposed to mean ?

Calm down Mr Hatchett, no need to get excited, my post was directed at Graham. Unless of course......................

[Graham]

What is that supposed to mean ?

Hi Hatchett,

He thinks that you and me are one and the same person, that's what he means.

Graham

[jimarilyn]

I have PM'd Jimarilyn regarding this.

Graham

..........and received a quick response. My last response to any more intimidatory PM's from him.

[Hatchett]

So I take it this has been resolved and I am now recognised as being Hatchett and not a part of Graham or anyone else?

[babybird67]

I did not receive an apology from 'Jen' when she called me a liar some months ago. I don't much like being called a 'Hanratty groupie' either. I find it offensive.

I did not have an apology from you for calling me arrogant and smug. Nor from Reg and his lapdog Jim or sockpuppets Steve etc. You always seem to forget Julie that YOU started the problem between me and you in the first place so stop acting the innocent. I'll find the exact quotes later and the post where you first insulted me instead of sticking up for a woman being bullied by two spineless men.

You posted a comment that nobody had accused Ms Storie of lying. I quoted Reg's post to you where he CLEARLY called her a liar. Therefore you lied when you stated that nobody had accused Ms Storie of lying. No apology necessary.

I find people who defend convicted murderers and rapists offensive but each to his own.

[babybird67]

You are applying double standards again here. So it's perfectly ok for babybird67 to go around calling anyone and everyone (mostly James Hanratty) liars in her ranting posts, yet when it's pointed out to her that she herself is guilty of trying to advance a complete untruth (aka. lie) no-one is allowed to stop her in her tracks ? She has lied, tried to mis-lead, tried to deceive. I won't be a hypocrite and pretend merely that she made a mistake. Babybird has stated previously that she thinks very carefully about what she is going to say in her posts. She knew exactly what she was typing when she wrote....."The man she spoke to bought cigarettes from her...why would Hanratty, a non-smoker, buy cigarettes ?

I can think of only one reason why she would ask this, and that is to cast doubt that Hanratty was a non-smoker. This would then accord with what the gunman is supposed to have said in the Morris Minor, ie that he didn't usually smoke.

No, an apology is definitely not in order.

Lol follow the thread idiot. I asked for clarification once doubt was raised about that point. After that I never claimed he bought cigarettes. I have said i dont have the books so it is difficult for me to check things. When i wrote that he bought cigarettes that is WHAT I REMEMBERED reading. If that is incorrect I am happy to be corrected. An apology from you would be worthless as I rate you as a spineless coward anyway, as per your behaviour to me when i first joined this thread.

[jimarilyn]

Particularly to someone who is a veteran of these threads and has spent many hours researching and passionately debating the issues.

I notice you have only submitted 22 posts though. Where are the many hours of passionate debate ?

The same goes for describing Baby Bird’s contributions as rants.

Eh ? She even admits to being a ranter.
The following excerpt is from an unbelievably long tirade from just over a year ago (the one where she is extremely insulting and offensive towards Julie) ....................

Thus let my rant commence…skip if you have no interest. I warn you now, it’s massive and I am thinking of hawking out the film rights to it later. You’ve been warned - I acknowledge it is long. Don’t therefore read it and then complain I wrote too much…I’m telling you already I have done that. It does what it says on the tin. Think of it as a stream of consciousness and engage with it if you wish, ignore it if you wish. The only person I really would like to read and take note of what I say is Limehouse, for reasons that will become obvious as my rant progresses.

No wonder she kept a low profile after this.
One has to feel sorry for her long suffering better half.

[Derrick]

So I take it this has been resolved and I am now recognised as being Hatchett and not a part of Graham or anyone else?

Dear Hatchett

Do you feel as if you need resolution in this matter? Are you not comfortable in yourself? Take it easy baby and let it flow.

Tell us all about what you think about the A6 Murder. That's what this forum is here for me old sweetheart.

And as you can see you can let BabyBird take care of herself...she is no shrinking violet. Going by her last couple of posts, she is not open to apolgies anyway.

I would stick by admins advice; posted the on the main thread this arvo.

Your very good friend
Derrick

[jimarilyn]

Lol follow the thread idiot. I asked for clarification once doubt was raised about that point. After that I never claimed he bought cigarettes. I have said i dont have the books so it is difficult for me to check things. When i wrote that he bought cigarettes that is WHAT I REMEMBERED reading. If that is incorrect I am happy to be corrected. An apology from you would be worthless as I rate you as a spineless coward anyway, as per your behaviour to me when i first joined this thread.

Thank you for your compliments, I must be doing something right.

You sound just like your lapdog Victor....oo...er...oo..... 'I don't have my books with me to verify if what I'm spouting is true or not'. What a kop out.

Anyone who has closely studied this case wouldn't need their books, they would know automatically that Hanratty asked Mrs Dinwoodie only for directions to a Carlton/Tarleton Street or Road.

What you know about the A6 Murder case can be written on the back of a postage stamp.

[Derrick]

Dear Jen

I find people who defend convicted murderers and rapists offensive but each to his own.

Offensive eh?
What do you think of the late Sir Ludovic Kennedy or Chris Mullins MP who defended the convicted murderers "The Birmingham 6"?

Offensive? Here's a piece from Wikipedia on Ludovic Kennedy

He was knighted in 1994 for services to journalism, on the recommendation of John Majors government. Major's predecessor Margaret Thatcher had vetoed Kennedy's knighthood

Thatchers veto is interesting don't you think?

Chris Mullins MP wrote the book on which the great C4 drama "A Very British Coup" was based. Offensive?

Or Paul Foot on numerous cases such as the Colin Wallace and Carl Bridgewater cases?

He was proved absolutely correct in both. Offensive?

Gareth Peirce in her relentless effort to free the Guildford Four?

Again proved correct. Offensive?

Don Hale? Offensive?
His investigation led to the freedom of Stephen Downing.

Plus many many others.

These people may be offensive to you but they are brave people who have stood up to personal abuse and closed doors and have still been proven right.

But then again as you said...each to his own. And as you didn't say...each to her own.

Kindest regards
Derrick

[Graham]

I had to open the Graham Taxi Service, but back now. I started writing this post about 5 minutes ago when my computer went gonzo, so starting again.

Hatchett,

please don't let the warm friendly atmosphere of the A6 threads put you off...your input is more than welcome, and I for one agreed with your initial post before I was accused of being somehow attached to you....

Derrick,

actually, your post is a good post. Ludovic Kennedy is (was?) a man I admired, but remember that he also defended Bruno Hauptmann, of the Lindbergh Kidnap Case (his book was The Airman And The Carpenter,
but it's now pretty well accepted that Hauptmann was guilty as hell, so maybe Ludo didn't hit treble top with that one.

Regarding the Birmingham Six, I believe that even though the 'real bombers' actually identified themselves, or were identified, some time ago, no action has been taken to bring them to justice. I'm a fair and thoughtful bloke, so if you have information that contradicts this, please advise.

Regarding Stephen Downing, yes, I read Don Hale's book (and it also happens that I know Bakewell pretty well, not that that matters) and I do know that the police have not taken the trouble to investigate anyone else for this murder - and the number of suspects would fit out a Rugby Union team and leave a few left over for reserves. Again, not to say definitively that Downing was guilty, but there are plenty of honest people in Bakewell who'd take quite a bit of convincing that he is innocent...

The thing about Hanratty is that there are those of us quite prepared to accept the DNA until such time as a professional and unbiased forensic scientist proves that it is wrong. Over the years, there has been no concrete and inarguable evidence to prove his innocence, despite the worthy efforts of at least some of his supporters. No new evidence to support even a suggestion of his innocence has been forthcoming, not a whisper. Not even a death-bed confession from P L Alphon (but who'd believe it anyway?). Not a squeak from his defence-team, or his surviving relatives. Not a single syllable from some retired copper who wants to clear his conscience before he goes to meet his Maker. Not a single tap on the pipes from anyone who knew him (and there must be at least some still drawing breath) prepared to speak up for him. No-one, it seems, wants to know him any more. Except, for some weird reason, us.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

I find people who defend convicted murderers and rapists offensive but each to his own.

I am annoyed with myself for trying to argue on here with the hang-"em and flog "emites from the Hanratty-did-it school of justice ---its so stupid.

[Limehouse]

I had to open the Graham Taxi Service, but back now. I started writing this post about 5 minutes ago when my computer went gonzo, so starting again.

Hatchett,

please don't let the warm friendly atmosphere of the A6 threads put you off...your input is more than welcome, and I for one agreed with your initial post before I was accused of being somehow attached to you....

Derrick,

actually, your post is a good post. Ludovic Kennedy is (was?) a man I admired, but remember that he also defended Bruno Hauptmann, of the Lindbergh Kidnap Case (his book was The Airman And The Carpenter,
but it's now pretty well accepted that Hauptmann was guilty as hell, so maybe Ludo didn't hit treble top with that one.

Regarding the Birmingham Six, I believe that even though the 'real bombers' actually identified themselves, or were identified, some time ago, no action has been taken to bring them to justice. I'm a fair and thoughtful bloke, so if you have information that contradicts this, please advise.

Regarding Stephen Downing, yes, I read Don Hale's book (and it also happens that I know Bakewell pretty well, not that that matters) and I do know that the police have not taken the trouble to investigate anyone else for this murder - and the number of suspects would fit out a Rugby Union team and leave a few left over for reserves. Again, not to say definitively that Downing was guilty, but there are plenty of honest people in Bakewell who'd take quite a bit of convincing that he is innocent...

The thing about Hanratty is that there are those of us quite prepared to accept the DNA until such time as a professional and unbiased forensic scientist proves that it is wrong. Over the years, there has been no concrete and inarguable evidence to prove his innocence, despite the worthy efforts of at least some of his supporters. No new evidence to support even a suggestion of his innocence has been forthcoming, not a whisper. Not even a death-bed confession from P L Alphon (but who'd believe it anyway?). Not a squeak from his defence-team, or his surviving relatives. Not a single syllable from some retired copper who wants to clear his conscience before he goes to meet his Maker. Not a single tap on the pipes from anyone who knew him (and there must be at least some still drawing breath) prepared to speak up for him. No-one, it seems, wants to know him any more. Except, for some weird reason, us.

Graham

Good post - Graham - in many respects - although I don't agree with all of it - I like the way you express it.

[Limehouse]

I am annoyed with myself for trying to argue on here with the hang-"em and flog "emites from the Hanratty-did-it school of justice ---its so stupid.

I think you are so right Norma. It's exhausting and stressful but one day it might be worth it!

[Graham]

Hi Norma,

you missed all the fun!

In all honesty, I don't think anyone who posts here is a "hang 'em and flog 'em" merchant. Babybird did say convicted rapists and murderers, rather than suspected same. Speaking personally, I am totally and completely agin capital punishment, something imposed in my opinion by societies lacking in any humanity regarding those found guilty of murder. I lived in the USA for a few years, where it was an almost everyday occurrence to hear of some poor bugger being electrocuted/gassed/shot/injected - but having said that, I will say again that a former warden of San Quentin Prison once said, quote, "there are no guilty men on death row". How many genuinely-innocent people have been executed in America over, say, the last 50 years, is open to argument. I would say very few, but that's just my opinion.

For what it's worth, my own interest in the A6 Case stems from (a) I remember it; (b) I remember Paul Foot's tireless efforts to have the case reviewed; (c) I wondered myself if an innocent man had been executed, and I continued to do so until the DNA results; (d) a particular interest in the history, the society and the morals of the time; (e) why it happened.

Graham