A6 Rebooted

[Ed James]

Hi Del

No offence taken but I am struggling with the technical aspects of the software , even with help of my technically proficient wife!!

I pressed the quote button but it didn't enclose the relevant quotes in a box . So any further instructions welcome, please. I didn't preview my reply because that made it disappear last time.

Hi Spitfire, I wasn't suggesting Acott made it up - but I was suggesting the particular scenario could have been different than VS described (and I wasn't being critical of her). I was trying to make a general and particular point. By the nature of our investigative and legal processes, points aren't always probed, by police, prosecution or defence for their own differing reasons. And on occasions that lack of probing could prove important.

Take a recent Murder trial I observed. A slight man heavily under the influence of drink and possibly drugs punched a bigger man allegedly in self defence in a house. A neighbour gave a written statement ( but was not called to court ) that just before the time the blow was struck she heard 3 men's raised voices. The third voice could only have been a locally known drug dealer. Yet the police were focused on a one to one conflict and the prosecution didn't even call or submit evidence from the drug dealer. Nor did the defence call for such evidence probably fearful of what the drug dealer might say. Better to take your chance on the one to one conflict and the self defence claim. Sadly, for the accused and much to the surprise of the Judge it didn't work.

Hi Graham thanks for MM photo. I certainly remember the locking mechanism as described on the passenger doors. But I have vague recollection of locking my driver's door in a quiet spot by winding down the window and locking from the outside using the key! Perhaps I had technical difficulty then!!
Bye for now - away for weekend, Ed

[ansonman]

Back seat drama

Hi,

It is many years since I posted any comments on this thread although I have continued to kep up to date with all comments.

Ed James is absolutely reasonable to assume that Valerie and Mike were in the back seat at the time the gunman tapped on the window. An earlier poster made the comment that there is absolutely no evidence to support this but there is evidence of probability, in my view. As Ed says, there can be only one valid reason for moving the duffle bag to the front seat and (on the balance of probability) they were likely to have done this as a precurser to having sex.

It would be unlikely in the extreme for Storie to volunteer this to Acott (or anyone else for that matter) and so the fact that she didn't means absolutely nothing. The bag is moved to the front to make room in the back for sex. Had they returned to the front seats after sex then it is also likely that the bag would have been returned to the back seat. The fact that it wasn't lends great weight to the suggestion that they were still in the back when the gunman appeared.

Quite unrelatedly, the ridiculous prices quoted for the "shaddows of deadman's hill" and commented on by contributors earlier can still be avoided. Earlier today I managed to buy a new copy from the Amazon Spanish site for 15 euro including delivery to France.

And I happen to think Hanratty was innocent.

Rgds

Ansonman

[Derrick]

Hi ansonman

...Ed James is absolutely reasonable to assume that Valerie and Mike were in the back seat at the time the gunman tapped on the window. An earlier poster made the comment that there is absolutely no evidence to support this but there is evidence of probability, in my view. As Ed says, there can be only one valid reason for moving the duffle bag to the front seat and (on the balance of probability) they were likely to have done this as a precurser to having sex...

(my italic underlining)

Yes there is evidence of probability but not of evidence in fact. It was me that said:

There is no evidence whatsoever for that assumption.

and I also said that

It would seem that they may have been preparing to do so again.

because my view is based plainly on the evidence in the case.

Miss Storie told Acott on 11th September (in a statement withheld from the defence) that she and Gregsten had sex in that car in that field on the Sunday previous.

It was at this time that the police first knew of the intimate affair between the pair of them.

It clearly follows that it is just not credible that if she and Gregsten were in the back set of the car on the Tuesday that she wouldn't (after eventually admitting the affair) have come clean about that too at that stage in a major murder inquiry with no credible suspect.

Del

[Graham]

Sound observations, Derrick. As you correctly state, we can really only base our beliefs and deductions on the evidence; anything else is simply speculation, and there's been far too much of that already over the years.

Graham

[Ed James]

Thank you ,Ansonman, for your spirited support for the views I expressed.

I am posting because I am gripped by the mystery surrounding so many aspects of the case and genuinely want to draw on the views and superior knowledge of others to aid my understanding.

I have made my points, others have made theirs and I want to move on, even though I feel my reasoning is closer to deduction (inference from known facts) rather than pure speculation.

However, I wouldn't loftily dismiss speculation as even conjecture based on known facts can be insightful and stimulate further thinking. I think at one point Graham in this thread (along similar lines to Leonard Miller whose book I found very thought provoking) suggested that Hanratty,wandering around aimlessly in the area and frustrated about not finding anywhere suitable to burgle, turned his attention to the Morris Minor.

I have to say that I don't find this suggestion entirely convincing - though I can see some of the supporting points, for example, Hanratty went to Paddington, he previously burgled big, relatively isolated dwellings, he had enquired about obtaining a gun and, to those who are satisfied by it, the DNA evidence to the Court of Appeal.

One reason for not being totally convinced is that the size of the murder weapon is not conducive to carrying it around for long periods. The spurless Enfield.38 No2 Mk1*, is 10 and a quarter inches long and weighs 1.65 lbs (unloaded). The gunman already has a pocketful of ammunition, gloves and a large handkerchief on his person. An American aquaintance, who has had guns for over 70 years and actually owns an Enfield .38 ,tells me that such a gun could not be carried in a suit pocket but would have to inserted centrally in the trouser waistband.

This would be difficult to conceal, extremely awkward, especially if seeking illegal entry to houses, even in Hanratty's Hepworth's double breasted suit where the italian style would have a tighter cut trousers.

kind regards

Ed

[Rosella]

That would be awkward, and dangerous.. to Hanratty!

[Spitfire]

Whoever disposed of the gun was able to board a bus carrying it without arousing suspicion. He was also able to carry it from leaving the car at Avondale Crescent to wherever he went on the night of 23 August. Due to the car being parked close to a tube station it seems reasonable to say that the gunman carried the weapon onto the tube train. If he could get away with carrying a gun on a reasonably crowded tube train then why not out in the sticks on reasonably quiet country roads?

[Graham]

Hello Ed,

in spite of my footnote, it's virtually impossible to debate this case without speculating, but there is speculation and there is speculation if you see what I mean!

Carting the gun + ammo around and trying to hide it within the confines of an Italian suit (and the trousers of such suits were tight), is indeed a bit difficult to get your head around. I've sometimes wondered if JH had the gun + ammo in a small bag when he came across the Morris; if so (excuse the speculation) he may have just tossed it away when he tapped the window, or taken it into the car with him and dropped it on the floor between the front and rear seats. If so, given all the trauma she eventually went through, it's possible that Valerie didn't see it in the dark of the car's interior. Don't know, obviously, but it's a suggestion.

If he really had been wandering around the area toting a large gun + ammo just in his pockets (or down his trousers.....potentially dangerous, as Rosella suggests) then that to me seems odd even for JH. He told his victims that he'd been sleeping rough, which Valerie thought was a lie as she said he was immaculately dressed. I seem to remember that he also claimed to have walked across the cornfield - the corn hadn't been harvested, and if he had indeed waded through a field of ripe corn he'd have been wet and filthy. (I know this for a fact, as I've done it myself. I'll say no more....)

On the other hand, JH was seen (by Nudds) leaving The Vienna Hotel carrying luggage, which he presumably deposited at a left-luggage office. Where? Paddington's favourite, but did Slough or Taplow or Maidenhead Stations have left-luggage facilities in those days? It's safe to say that JH had the gun + ammo with him when he left The Vienna, cf: the cartridge-cases (which I strongly believe he accidentally dropped on the chair during his stay in Room 24). At any rate, somewhere along the line he deposited his luggage but kept the gun + ammo.

I obviously do not know what his intentions were after he left The Vienna; nor do I know where he was between his leaving the hotel and tapping on the window of the Morris. (Suggestion: Donald Slack lived in Ealing, not a million miles from Slough/Taplow/Dorney). If JH was looking to 'do' a posh house, then there were and are plenty around Dorney, including Dorney Court - if he'd been able to burgle that place then that would have been some achievement. Dorney Court is a large Tudor mansion situated just where Marsh Lane and Court Lane form a right-angle, and very close indeed to the gate of the cornfield. It's always been privately-owned; these days it caters for weddings, parties, etc.

I have never subscribed to the theory that JH was 'sent' to the cornfield. If he had been, then he would have had to be 'briefed' by someone, not only regarding where Mike and Valerie would be parked, but also the type of car they would be in. They began their amorous evening in a field over in Huntercombe Lane and then according to Valerie decided for whatever reason to move to Marsh Lane. That is, they did not initially plan to go to Marsh Lane, although evidence does suggest they'd been there before.

Question: does anyone have any idea as to the whereabouts of Dixie France during August 21st and 22nd? I don't recall any of the books mentioning this.

Graham

[Ed James]

Some interesting stuff all round.

Incidentally, as you may have noticed, I prefer to use neutral terms like 'gunman' because I am not sure of the motive (who is? Not Swanwick), identity or capacity of the usual suspects to carry out the abduction.

A bag of some sorts to carry the weapon and ammo is an obvious answer - not just speculation, and would certainly be needed for disposal on the bus (perhaps it was a carrier bag marked Tomkins the Butcher!?) But if there was a bag wouldn't VS have seen it (based on her first view of the gunman outside the car - I know I have questioned that part of her account!) , and especially when forced into the back of the car - though I accept she had other things on her mind.

I think Woffinden criticised the police for not properly searching the location of the abduction , so disposal of the bag could have occurred. However, the gunman no matter how incompetent would probably have retained a bag for carrying off the gun /ammo. Does the fact that the ammo was in a pocket discredit the suggestion that there was a bag ? Or simply that the gun and ammo were kept apart to stop any rattling. On balance , if there was a bag, I would have thought the spare ammo would have been in its box , not loose in the gunman's pocket.

Wasn't an Alphon lookalike seen with a bag prior to the murder,by a local resident whose dog barked at him?

Some telling points to suggest that the gunman may not have been wandering around all day with the gun and ammo (but visiting contacts) and that he was able to leave Avondale Crescent undetected. But given the withheld evidence disputing the arrival time of the MM at Avondale Crescent , it could have been the gunman disposed of the gun to a safe place before finally abandoning the car.

What about Dixie? We know that he was not at home when Hanratty called on 21 August and that he was not at the Rehearsal Club on the two occasions that Hanratty called in. With his presumably late night gambling he had the excuse to be where he wanted to be. I consider his whereabouts of interest . Surely the police asked?

Finally, has anyone wondered how down at heel France could afford to have a home telephone. My family didn't get one until 1973/74. Did he need one for his line of business?

regards

Ed

[Graham]

You can come up with all manner of scenarios regarding the three main players in this tragedy, during the 21st and 22nd of August. Frankly, I don't think we'll ever know much more than we do now.

Maybe if JH had a bag it got pushed under a front seat? Does anyone have the police list of the contents of the Morris?

I have always thought it incredible that there were no forensic evidence found in the car - apart obviously from traces left by Mike, Valerie and other 'legitimate' users of the car. In particular - and I've said this before - I can't understand why the police (apparently) didn't carry out a proper forensic investigation of the cornfield. But they didn't. At best it seems to have received just a cursory inspection. Even Sherlock Holmes nailed a baddie by matching soil-samples found on his shoes with the scene of a crime.

Yes, someone (I think it was the man who lived in a caravan somewhere along Marsh Lane; forget his name, and I've lent my books to another interested party!) did claim to see a man who looked like Alphon, but I believe that was some days before the abduction. Please let's not drag Peter Alphon back in - I think we're all pretty much agreed that he didn't do it, even if he profited from the A6 Crime.

I've always thought that Woffinden was very hard on Dixie France, whom he called an 'abject' man. Dixie wasn't a pillar of polite society, that's for sure, but he lived an apparently respectable life when at home with his family, away from his 'work'. There was a photo of his flat posted on these boards, can't remember the address, but it looked OK to me. His wife and three daughters had no problem with him, so far as we're aware, and his youngest daughter, when interviewed for one of the TV documentaries, was plainly extremely upset as she spoke about the father the obviously loved and who she lost because of JH and the A6.

Ed, you raise a good point re: the France family's phone - Woffinden said that Dixie was almost permanently skint and in debt. I'd like to see proof of that.

I also understand that apart from his visits to The Rehearsal Club, which after his being fired continued but on an informal basis, he was also 'manager' of a dive called The Harmony Cafe in Archer Street. This was a hang-out for aspiring jazz musicians of the late 50's and early 60's, and also (or so I'm told) the scene of almost nightly punch-ups. Dixie was reputed to have a small armoury of weapons under the counter, which he used to break up the fights. Maybe he supplied JH with the gun - we'll never know for sure.

He also had a reputation for being a police informer.

I don't think Dixie was quite as 'abject' as Woffinden implies. Mrs France, regarding the bag, said that it came from 'her' butcher, a description I rather associate with someone who had regular suppliers and with money to spend (but perhaps not enough to go mad with).

Sorry for the length of this post - I was going to split it into several shorter posts, but I've just been advised that we're going out tonight.........

Graham

[Ed James]

Hi Graham

Hope you have a good night out. I'm pressed for time ,hoping to have good night in.

The detail in your reply is remarkable and very interesting. I will try to stick to the question of whether the gunman had a bag for now. I think Natalie Severn on a linked thread provided a list of the contents of the car and those in the lay by. I will try to track down but will be happy if someone beats me to it.

Yes, Fogerty- Waul had several contacts with Alphon like character , but the one I had in mind was a woman at the front gate of a house. But it was just an aside. I don't wish to pursue this route at present.

Be good to hear others' view of France and the contact between him and Hanratty before and after the murder? You paint a picture of someone who loves his family and keeps his dodgey dealings separate from his Family. But so did Mafia characters!

regards

Ed

[NickB]

Wouldn’t it be possible to carry the gun in the jacket pocket with a hole cut for the barrel? The jacket was never found.

As regards danger, there was a safety catch. “As they went along the gun was pointing at Gregsten’s neck. There were clicks as the safety catch was put on and off.”

[Sherlock Houses]

One reason for not being totally convinced is that the size of the murder weapon is not conducive to carrying it around for long periods. The spurless Enfield.38 No2 Mk1*, is 10 and a quarter inches long and weighs 1.65 lbs (unloaded). The gunman already has a pocketful of ammunition, gloves and a large handkerchief on his person. An American aquaintance, who has had guns for over 70 years and actually owns an Enfield .38 ,tells me that such a gun could not be carried in a suit pocket but would have to inserted centrally in the trouser waistband.

This would be difficult to conceal, extremely awkward, especially if seeking illegal entry to houses, even in Hanratty's Hepworth's double breasted suit where the italian style would have a tighter cut trousers.

There has been much discussion and speculation on these boards over the last few years concerning the murder gun. Much of it stems from the fact that in his 1978 autobiography the forensic pathologist involved in the A6 murder case, Professor Keith Simpson, wrote that "He [ie Michael Gregsten] had two .32 calibre bullet wounds of the head, shot 'through and through' from left ear to right cheek. The skin was tattoed round the entry wounds, and the range could not have been more than an inch or two; the shots had evidently been fired in rapid succession, before the head had moved."

Obviously the .32 calibre wounds described by Professor Simpson and suggestive of an automatic pistol, are at loggerheads with the official findings of the murder gun being a .38 Enfield revolver. In all likelihood this is a very careless typo error by a renowned pathologist, unless he was trying to tell us something 17 years later.

It's very interesting to note what Valerie Storie had to say about the murder weapon when questioned at the trial by Graham Swanwick........"When it [ie. the car window] was about halfway down a gun was suddenly thrust through it, pointing at Mike and myself. It was a pistol or revolver a small one." She elaborated shortly afterwards [when asked how long the gun was] that it was "six to eight inches".

As you rightly point out Ed, the Enfield .38 revolver is a large [10 inches plus] heavy weapon and difficult to conceal on one's person. It's a little difficult to reconcile this with Valerie Storie's description of the murder gun being a small pistol or revolver six to eight inches in length. Could she have been so mistaken about such an important matter ?

[ansonman]

Speculative selection

Unlike some of the posters I don't have a problem with speculation, so long as it at least falls within the bounds of possibilty. In this case we have evidence (very little), probability and possibility (speculation).

The fact is that there is no conclusive evidence to prove or disprove Hanratty's guilt. (DNA issue being so discredited as to consign it to the bin.

Hanratty's fate was sealed by his ID parade selection by VS. But how reliable was that? From her hospital bed she gave the police a compelling description of the murderer. Which she changed two days later. She then selects an entirely innocent man from the first ID parade, before selecting Hanratty from the second. Hardly reliable I submit.

It seems to me that if you take away the possibilities (speculation) in this case then you're left with precious little else.

Rgds,

Ansonman

[Sherlock Houses]

I too have absolutely no problem with speculation Ansonman.
It is often said that truth is stranger than fiction. This is well worth bearing in mind and the truth about the A6 murder case may be such that nobody has given serious consideration to before.


If what the gunman allegedly said about being a desperate man and having been on the run for four months is true, the fact that two prisoners escaped from Winchester Prison on April 10th 1961 just might have some relevance. Mere speculation of course.