A6 Rebooted

[Derrick]

...I doubt it was a blind, but I don't think you can assume he’d already decided to shoot her at the time of the demonstration...

The gunman showed driving inexperience before and after he had shot and presumably killed Miss Storie. She said he drove away grinding the gears.

[j.kettle1]

Hi Victor.

It's reasonable to say the gunman was flustered and agitated, on top of having just stalled when trying to make a quick getaway.

I think that the gunman asked how the gears worked before he stalled the car.

Therefore he may just be asking for a refresher rather than to be taught something new, or even just time to calm down a bit so he could concentrate and focus.

I find this dubious. The first thing that he would have wanted to do was get out of there as quickly as possible, and the only thing that was stopping him was the fact that he couldn't drive.

I agree with the rest of your post though.


Thanks

John

[Derrick]

...I find this dubious. The first thing that he would have wanted to do was get out of there as quickly as possible, and the only thing that was stopping him was the fact that he couldn't drive...

Hello John

You make a very good point here.

To add to that, why would a gun toting masked would be killer who couldn't drive, or who didn't know how to drive a MM, hold up a couple in one in the first place. It would seem evident enough that he may have to make a getaway at some time or other in it.

He would be unlikely to be able to get a bus in the middle of the night in the middle of nowhere or on the A6 as it happened to pan out.

Hanratty, it seemed, was always able to make getaways from his screwings etc.

Del

[j.kettle1]

To add to that, why would a gun toting masked would be killer who couldn't drive, or who didn't know how to drive a MM, hold up a couple in one in the first place. It would seem evident enough that he may have to make a getaway at some time or other in it.

Hi Derrick,
here's my opinion of why things panned out as they did. I could be miles off and I'm prepared to be corrected.

1. I believe that there was a plan to confront VS and MG. Whether it was intended that MG should be murdered I don't know.
2. The plan was that the gunman would be picked up from the cornfield (after concluding what had been agreed and arranged) by a getaway driver, but for some reason he didn't show.
3. After waiting and realising that there would be no getaway car (hence why they spent so long in the field) the gunman realised that he couldn't escape on foot as there was nowhere to go, and he couldn't remain where he was.
4. After killing Gregsten, in my opinion by accident, he had to kill Valerie, and that's why he ended up in the situation that he did.
5. I have no idea why the route was so circuitous.

Thanks

John

[Derrick]

Hi Derrick,
here's my opinion of why things panned out as they did. I could be miles off and I'm prepared to be corrected.

1. I believe that there was a plan to confront VS and MG. Whether it was intended that MG should be murdered I don't know.
2. The plan was that the gunman would be picked up from the cornfield (after concluding what had been agreed and arranged) by a getaway driver, but for some reason he didn't show.
3. After waiting and realising that there would be no getaway car (hence why they spent so long in the field) the gunman realised that he couldn't escape on foot as there was nowhere to go, and he couldn't remain where he was.
4. After killing Gregsten, in my opinion by accident, he had to kill Valerie, and that's why he ended up in the situation that he did.
5. I have no idea why the route was so circuitous.

Thanks

John

Hi John

You may want to bear in mind that Miss Storie told the court that the gunman, whilst they were still in the cornfield, said, on more than one occasion that "there was no hurry".

That would seem to suggest that he wasn't waiting for anybody in particular to show up soon to aid his plan, whatever that may have been.

Del

[Graham]

John,

. I believe that there was a plan to confront VS and MG. Whether it was intended that MG should be murdered I don't know.

I shall be interested to hear of any proof you might have regarding any "plan to confront" VS and MG.

The plan was that the gunman would be picked up from the cornfield (after concluding what had been agreed and arranged) by a getaway driver, but for some reason he didn't show.

Pure speculation, no more no less.

After waiting and realising that there would be no getaway car (hence why they spent so long in the field) the gunman realised that he couldn't escape on foot as there was nowhere to go, and he couldn't remain where he was.

Why couldn't he escape on foot? As I said in an earlier post of mine I walked the area and it's not all that far from the main A4 road. He could've walked there and got a late bus, train, whatever. Having 'nowhere to go' certainly wouldn't have bothered James Hanratty, who seemed more than usually adept at looking after himself one way or the other.

After killing Gregsten, in my opinion by accident, he had to kill Valerie, and that's why he ended up in the situation that he did.

Agreed.

I have no idea why the route was so circuitous.

Neither have I, neither had VS, neither had or has anyone else. Just a random route. However, I always thought it interesting that Hanratty eventually got VS and MG to head in the general direction of Bedford, as that was a place where he'd been before and apparently had a relation who lived there.

Obviously you do not support the view that James Hanratty was the A6 killer, and fair enough - we're all entitled to our opinions. Do you believe, then, the killer was Peter Alphon or A N Other? If the latter, any idea(s) as to who it might have been? Other posters over the years who rejected JH as the killer and showed little or no support of Alphon as the killer have never been able to come up with any suggestion as to who it might have been.

I honestly do not think that the suggestion that JH was an accomplished driver and wouldn't have required tuition to drive a Moggie can be supported. He was in (hopefully) a once-in-a-lifetime situation and must have been an absolute bag of nerves.

Graham

PS: I agree with the point Derrick makes in response to you - our posts crossed. G

[caz]

To add to that, why would a gun toting masked would be killer who couldn't drive, or who didn't know how to drive a MM, hold up a couple in one in the first place. It would seem evident enough that he may have to make a getaway at some time or other in it.

Hi Del,

But if that's what happened, we are stuck with it surely, regardless of who the gunman was?

Love,

Caz
X

[Derrick]

Hi Del,

But if that's what happened, we are stuck with it surely, regardless of who the gunman was?

Love,

Caz
X

Indeed. I agreed wholeheartedly.

Love Del
x

[NickB]

On 12-Aug-61 Hanratty’s burglary loot in Harrow included ‘six sets of gold cufflinks with the initial 'E' on them’.

On 22-Aug-61 Hanratty (according to him) was on the Euston-Liverpool train where he saw a man whose most distinguishing feature was that he had gold cufflinks with the initial ‘E’ on them.

Immediately after the trial Kleinman made a public appeal for “the man with the gold cuff links initialled ‘E’”.

I wonder why he never came forward.

[j.kettle1]

Hi Graham,

Yes of course I am speculating, and you knew that. It doesn't take a genius to work that out - it was prefaced by the word "opinion".
There you've had a straight answer, in direct contrast to some of the obfuscating waffle I read on here.

[QUOTE
Obviously you do not support the view that James Hanratty was the A6 killer, and fair enough][/QUOTE]
You do not know this.
Why accuse me of speculating and then speculate yourself?

[j.kettle1]

Hi Graham,

Yes of course I am speculating, and you knew that. It doesn't take a genius to work that out - it was prefaced by the word "opinion".
There you've had a straight answer, in direct contrast to some of the obfuscating waffle I read on here.

Obviously you do not support the view that James Hanratty was the A6 killer, and fair enough

You do not know this.
Why accuse me of speculating and then speculate yourself?

Thanks

John

[Graham]

John, me old mucker.

You prefaced your Post with the words "my opinion" and "I believe". That to me is not "speculation". The word "opinion" can be taken as meaning a belief slightly short of actual proof. I'm not trying to be clever-arse pedantic here, I'm just repeating what I read.

If you did support the view that JH was indeed the A6 killer, then I politely suggest that you in turn wouldn't be suggesting that he was an accomplished driver and wouldn't have had to ask Valerie how to get an Morris Minor going.

Have a read of the passage under my signature, something I 'borrowed' long ago from Sherlock Holmes especially for the A6 thread. Yes, it's a huge temptation to speculate about the A6 crime, essentially because the few known, concrete facts have been clouded and obfuscated by decades of wild theories and pointless speculation. It is not down to me and other people who believe that JH was guilty - the jury said he was; it is down to those who believe that he was innocent - and you give me a very strong impression that this is your belief - to present evidence to overturn the verdict of the law, and to convince people like me that we are wrong.

The stark, cold fact about the driving away from the murder-scene is that we have only Valerie's evidence to go on - not for one moment would I dream of impugning her veracity here, but we have no other supporting evidence. I stick to my belief if you don't like the word speculation that JH was in a terrible mental state after what he'd just done, was probably not in complete control of himself, and made a boo-boo of starting the Morris.

Anyway, Mastermind is on.

Graham

[j.kettle1]

Hi Graham,

If you did support the view that JH was indeed the A6 killer, then I politely suggest that you in turn wouldn't be suggesting that he was an accomplished driver and wouldn't have had to ask Valerie how to get an Morris Minor going.

And I politely suggest that you can't find any of my posts that specifically states that JH was an accomplished driver. If you can then I'll apologise, but please don't respond with "implied". I either said it or I didn't.

It is not down to me and other people who believe that JH was guilty - the jury said he was; it is down to those who believe that he was innocent - and you give me a very strong impression that this is your belief - to present evidence to overturn the verdict of the law, and to convince people like me that we are wrong.

Does it have to be so black and white? Was he guilty/wasn't he guilty?
It's not quite like that for me.
My interest in this particular case are the anomalies, you know, the bits that don't fit the narrative and I will question them until I am satisfied that I have the answers. That probably won't be in my lifetime but who knows, there may be one last thing that emerges that completes the jigsaw or circle, for me at least.
This is a sorry tale and there is no-one, absolutely no-one that can tell it from start to finish, and that includes those on both sides of the debate, and also those that are unsure.

Thanks

John

[Graham]

John, your words:

He was also adept at stealing various makes and models of cars, so I'm pretty sure that different starting techniques would pose no problem to him.

OK, you didn't use the phrase "accomplished driver", but please tell me what's the difference between that phrase and what you wrote as quoted above?

This really is like trying to push a peanut up a mountain with your nose.

Yes, it does have to be that "black and white". We are talking here about a young man whom the state executed because he was found guilty of murder. And in the intervening period there have been serious doubts as to his guilt. Even though I believe that JH was guilty, I can understand to a large extent the arguments and feelings of those who don't accept that.

I genuinely do not understand the final two paragraphs in your last post. Debating the niceties of whether or not the A6 killer could drive a Morris Minor is very, very peripheral to the overall landscape-picture of this affair. Someone on the night of 22nd August 1961 got into Mike Gregsten's car at Dorney Reach, abducted Mike and his girl-friend Valerie Storie, and ended the evening by killing Mike and raping and attempting to kill Valerie. Those are the bare bones of this case.

As it goes, I do believe that Hanratty was the A6 killer, but I do not necessarily believe that the trial-verdict was the right one. If this sounds odd or perverse, then I can only suggest that you wind back to the beginning of this thread, and start reading.

Yes, it's interesting to take each individual aspect of this case and question and dissect it and discuss it until you're blue in the face, but at the end of what must perforce be an extremely long day, those who claim that Hanratty was innocent can never prove it. At least, not with the knowledge and background and repercussions of this case as I understand it at about 9.40 pm on the evening of 5th September 2014.

Sorry for the dramatics....


Graham

[j.kettle1]

Hi Graham.

I said:

And I politely suggest that you can't find any of my posts that specifically states that JH was an accomplished driver. If you can then I'll apologise, but please don't respond with "implied". I either said it or I didn't.

And you replied:

OK, you didn't use the phrase "accomplished driver", but please tell me what's the difference between that phrase and what you wrote as quoted above?

So I didn't say what I was accused of.

And then you make an offensive remark:

This really is like trying to push a peanut up a mountain with your nose.

And then when I stated my case quite clearly that no-one could tell the sorry tale from start to finish you respond with this:

I genuinely do not understand the final two paragraphs in your last post. Debating the niceties of whether or not the A6 killer could drive a Morris Minor is very, very peripheral to the overall landscape-picture of this affair. Someone on the night of 22nd August 1961 got into Mike Gregsten's car at Dorney Reach, abducted Mike and his girl-friend Valerie Storie, and ended the evening by killing Mike and raping and attempting to kill Valerie. Those are the bare bones of this case.

The bare bones indeed, not the full story.
Here's what I said:

This is a sorry tale and there is no-one, absolutely no-one that can tell it from start to finish, and that includes those on both sides of the debate, and also those that are unsure.

Graham, what is peripheral to you may not be peripheral to me. My reason for posting here does not have to fit into your definition of what should or not be on the agenda.
I have given my reasons for participating here. If it's ok by you I'll debate on my own terms and for the reasons that I want to, and I'm sorry but it is not for you to decide what those reasons should be.

As it goes, I do believe that Hanratty was the A6 killer, but I do not necessarily believe that the trial-verdict was the right one. If this sounds odd or perverse, then I can only suggest that you wind back to the beginning of this thread, and start reading.

I have been a member since 2012. I know that you have been so for much longer, and I also accept that your knowledge of this case is far greater than mine. The only reason for mentioning this is that I have taken the time and trouble to read every single post on every single thread.

Thanks

John