A6 Rebooted

[Derrick]

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.”

Hi Nick.

From the Daily Express reporting on the trial's evidence of 30th January 1962;

Mr. Nlckolls also identified bullets found in the lay-by at Deadman's Hill, Bedfordshire, where the murder was committed, as having been fired from the Enfield.

"It makes a rather nice clicking sound." he said, as he began his "firing demonstration."

The revolver, with a 13 to 141b. trigger pull, could not be discharged accidentally. It needed no safety catch.

Del

[ansonman]

Sherlock,

Absolutely.

Speculation holds the key in the absence of hard evidence. Returning to the ID/parades. VS got here initial detailed description wrong because she changed it two days later. Her initial description was therefore inaccurate and misleading (at least according to her).

The guy she picks out in the first ID parade was innocent (what might have happened if he had been a small time crook without an alibi?, one wonders). So, it is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN (one of the few certainties in this case, in fact) that her first ID parade identification was completely wrong. Even though a man's life could be at stake

Might it also be possible, given this tendancy to get ID wrong, that not only did she select the wrong man for the second time (Hanratty) but also failed to pick out the right man? More a possibility than speculation methinks?

Ansonman

[Ed James]

On the gun, I recall that VS said that during the abduction she heard a repeated click from the back of the car. She asked the gunman what the noise was and he replied that he was setting off and on the safety catch. I can't immediately find the source of that information but I am not getting confused by the rattling of bullets in the gunman's pocket. All this was ,in my view , designed to terrorise the couple.

Yet it seems the gun had no safety catch. If there was no danger of Enfield going off accidentally, why was the spurless version made for Tank Crew? Was it just an adaption for comfort and cost reasons?

How could VS describe the Enfield as a small revolver?

Returning to bags, Woffinden p33/34 states that Elsie and Stanley Cobb in the Dorney area saw a man at 230pm on 22 August 1961 carrying a white carrier bag with the top rolled over. Their description included: 25-30 ,very sallow complexion with very dark hair brushed back but not tidy. 'It seemed to be receding from his forehead'

Ed

[Ed James]

Hi Ed
The gunman ordered Gregsten to lock all of the doors. This he must have been able to do without leaving the car according to Miss Stories account. If someone knows different about a 1956 Morris Minor then please let us know.

Del

Hi Del
Lord Russell in his book ( p16 Hardback 1965) wrote 'Having locked the driver's door and forced Gregsten at the point of the gun to open the rear door the intruder then entered the car, still holding the ignition key in his hand, and sat on the rear seat.'

The club secretary of my county Morris Minor Owner's Club has confirmed to me that you cannot lock the driver's door of a 1956 Morris Minor from the inside.

Does this materially contradict VS's account?

If I may be forgiven some further 'speculation' Lets assume for a moment that my disputed contention (posts 1896 & 1899) is correct that the couple were in the back seat when the gunman arrived . Could the gunman have opened the unlocked driver's door? And could it be that VS's description of the murder gun as a small one be attributed to the fact that she didn't get a clear sight of it at that stage for obvious reasons?

Whether VS and MG were in the front seat and simply preparing to be intimate (as a minimum suggested by the position of the duffle bag), or in the rear, it does tend to suggest that the gunman arrived earlier than the 30 minutes after the car's arrival in the cornfield estimated by VS.

We should perhaps remember that MG was expected home that night by Janet Gregsten and, and out of sensitivity for his long suffering wife, would have plannned his evening activities not to return at an unearthly hour.

regards

Ed




.

[Limehouse]

Hello all,

I have been most interested to catch up with the most recent posts, including some from new contributors. Welcome to the A6 thread.

I have not been a very regular poster on the threads for some time but I used to contribute almost daily. I found it very distressing at times and I eventually reasoned that a 50 year old crime that occurred before I even went to school was not worth the rise in blood pressure.

However, this crime is one that eats away at you until you just have express your thoughts. So, here are mine. I may have expressed these thoughts before, but even if I have, they're perhaps worth sharing with our newcomers.

The Detective leading the investigation, Bob Acott, had a particular approach to solving this particular crime. He reasoned that the perpetrator was probably lying low in a cheap B&B or hotel somewhere. He thus put out an alert to hotel/B&B owners and managers to report anyone behaving suspiciously. As we know, that request produced Alphon.

Why did Acott take this line of enquiry? Well, it was an approach that had borne fruit in a previous case - that of the criminal Guenther Padola, who had shot dead a policeman in London in 1959 when trying to escape from the custody of two police officers. Podola went to ground but was found days later hiding in a cheap hotel. he was arrested, put on trial and found guilty. he was hanged.

So, Acott followed this investigation method and hey presto, Alphon popped up. He was, as far as we know, pretty much the only suspect and was even named as such - until VS failed to pick him out at an identity parade and he was pretty much off the hook.

Let's look at a little timeline.

On 11 September cartridge cases from the murder weapon were found in room 24 of the Vienna Hotel.

Alphon, of course, had already been questioned at length following his behaviour at the Alexandra Court Hotel but he was allowed to leave police custody and go about his business for several more weeks until, on 22 September we was named as the main suspect.

Now, when Alphon was ruled out of the enquiry, there was still the little problem of the cartridge cases being found in room 24. That placed the enquiry firmly back at the Vienna Hotel - and we know how the enquiry progressed from there.

Two things bother me. I can't help feeling that the police were so certain Alphon was the man, the cartridge cases were planted in order to provide some much needed evidence to connect the gun with the hotel. After all, there was no scientific evidence left at the scene of the crime (the car) and the gun was clean of prints. This might explain why Nudds statement seemed to change according to who was in the frame at any particular time.

However, the other thing that bothers me is that the gun was found in a place that was known to be used by Hanratty as a place to dispose of unwanted loot from robberies. Additionally, the gun was found with his handkerchief. For many, this links Hanratty most strongly with the crime.

So, to me, Alphon is a complete red herring (although, I believe, a dangerous man in many ways) who wandered into the perplexing conundrum by accident but who could very well have ended up being on trial for this terrible crime.

That leaves me with two theories.

1. Hanratty was framed - the whys and wherefores too numerous and complex to discuss right here and now.

2. The killer was a completely random stranger who carried out this crime and disappeared into the night , disposing of the car and the gun the following morning. That leaves the problem of the handkerchief which, if this scenario is true, was not even Hanratty's and the DNA evidence that claimed it was his was fiction or the result of contamination.

One thing I am completely sure of is that this was not an honest or fair investigation and if it had been, we probably would not be discussing it now.

Take care everybody.

Julie

[Ed James]

Hi Julie

I was heartened to see your post. I hope it will help keep the thread alive and stimulate the productive exchange of views.

Before plucking up the courage to post, I read loads of past posts . I recall yours as having an analytical approach and well reasoned arguments (plus occasionally flagging up your own areas of doubt). You were also the first to seek to soothe things when passions and entrenched positions turned exchanges into acrimony.

Even as a newcomer, I can understand how angst about posting and a sense of futility can arise. But I hope you will be active on the thread, especially as I would welcome your views on areas I wish to probe.

I don't have fully worked out views about the guilt or innocence of Hanratty, preferring instead to try and tease out further points from the known evidence. However, I fully agree with you about Acott's tunnel vision. Under intense pressure to deliver, he simply switched (perhaps understandably) his focus to Hanratty ignoring what didn't fit his case. If Acott truly believed it a 'simple gas meter case' then this demonstrates a cynical desire to get a result regardless of the truth.

I will comment on your theories and the points that bother you in future posts.

regards
Ed

[Graham]

Hi Julie,

I hope you're keeping well. Nice post! Both of us go back a long way with the A6 Case, and although we're coming from opposite ends of the spectrum, so to speak, I think we both agree that there is a lot - a hell of a lot - about this Case that doesn't add up.

Without going into specifics right now, I think I'll just make the following brief comments which hopefully will be food for thought for further debate:

1] we really know very little about James Hanratty the person, other than his police and criminal records, and what little - and there really isn't much - has trickled down from his family and acquaintances. I, for one, would love to speak to someone, not family or connected with the A6, who actually knew him: I don't think anyone who did know him has ever posted on this Forum. No character-witness spoke for him at his trial, as far as I'm aware. If he was framed - and this argument has gone on for years - then by whom? And why?

2] Alphon was far from being the only suspect until JH came into view. From what I gather Acott rounded up numbers of people and hauled them in for questioning, but as far as I know no names were released (as is right and proper if no-one was charged). I think Woffinden mentions someone who was interviewed for several hours by Acott.

3] Alphon was involved purely coincidentally. In the days when I thought JH was innocent, I also thought Alphon was the real killer, but no chance.

4] Acott was a copper of his time. He must have been under severe pressure from his superiors, from the Government and from the media, who all knew him as the man who nailed cop-killer Podola and was therefore very likely a legend in his own lifetime in the Force.

5] For some time I've thought how greatly the Handkerchief has been undervalued. It wrapped the gun, and was identified in court before the jury by JH, and such an identification given its provenance must have seriously impressed the jury. How JH identified it as his hankie and no-one else's remains a mystery to this day, and he couldn't offer an acceptable and plausible explanation of how it came to be wrapped around the gun.

6] the DNA evidence must stand, as it was accepted by the Court Of Appeal, current and later accusations of 'contamination' notwithstanding. I cannot see how proof of contamination can now be established, if indeed it ever could.

7] finally (thank God, I hear you say) the judge's summing-up was considered by all present to be favourable towards JH, but the jury found him guilty. So what really impressed them in the evidence to bring in such a verdict?

Best,

Graham

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie

I was heartened to see your post. I hope it will help keep the thread alive and stimulate the productive exchange of views.

Before plucking up the courage to post, I read loads of past posts . I recall yours as having an analytical approach and well reasoned arguments (plus occasionally flagging up your own areas of doubt). You were also the first to seek to soothe things when passions and entrenched positions turned exchanges into acrimony.

Even as a newcomer, I can understand how angst about posting and a sense of futility can arise. But I hope you will be active on the thread, especially as I would welcome your views on areas I wish to probe.

I don't have fully worked out views about the guilt or innocence of Hanratty, preferring instead to try and tease out further points from the known evidence. However, I fully agree with you about Acott's tunnel vision. Under intense pressure to deliver, he simply switched (perhaps understandably) his focus to Hanratty ignoring what didn't fit his case. If Acott truly believed it a 'simple gas meter case' then this demonstrates a cynical desire to get a result regardless of the truth.

I will comment on your theories and the points that bother you in future posts.

regards
Ed

Hi Ed,

Thanks so much for your very kind comments.

Your posts have been very interesting and thought-provoking so far and I look forward to reading more.

Kind regards,

Julie

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie,

I hope you're keeping well. Nice post! Both of us go back a long way with the A6 Case, and although we're coming from opposite ends of the spectrum, so to speak, I think we both agree that there is a lot - a hell of a lot - about this Case that doesn't add up.

Without going into specifics right now, I think I'll just make the following brief comments which hopefully will be food for thought for further debate:

1] we really know very little about James Hanratty the person, other than his police and criminal records, and what little - and there really isn't much - has trickled down from his family and acquaintances. I, for one, would love to speak to someone, not family or connected with the A6, who actually knew him: I don't think anyone who did know him has ever posted on this Forum. No character-witness spoke for him at his trial, as far as I'm aware. If he was framed - and this argument has gone on for years - then by whom? And why?

2] Alphon was far from being the only suspect until JH came into view. From what I gather Acott rounded up numbers of people and hauled them in for questioning, but as far as I know no names were released (as is right and proper if no-one was charged). I think Woffinden mentions someone who was interviewed for several hours by Acott.

3] Alphon was involved purely coincidentally. In the days when I thought JH was innocent, I also thought Alphon was the real killer, but no chance.

4] Acott was a copper of his time. He must have been under severe pressure from his superiors, from the Government and from the media, who all knew him as the man who nailed cop-killer Podola and was therefore very likely a legend in his own lifetime in the Force.

5] For some time I've thought how greatly the Handkerchief has been undervalued. It wrapped the gun, and was identified in court before the jury by JH, and such an identification given its provenance must have seriously impressed the jury. How JH identified it as his hankie and no-one else's remains a mystery to this day, and he couldn't offer an acceptable and plausible explanation of how it came to be wrapped around the gun.

6] the DNA evidence must stand, as it was accepted by the Court Of Appeal, current and later accusations of 'contamination' notwithstanding. I cannot see how proof of contamination can now be established, if indeed it ever could.

7] finally (thank God, I hear you say) the judge's summing-up was considered by all present to be favourable towards JH, but the jury found him guilty. So what really impressed them in the evidence to bring in such a verdict?

Best,

Graham

Hi Graham,

I am very well thank you. Much better for being more of a part-timer these days - at work and on this site. Hoping you and yours are well too.

Good points about Hanratty's true character. We do have the odd comment from former girlfriends and old lags but, as you say, not much else - although I believe he quite impressed the prison officers who were charged with caring for him in the days leading up to his execution.

What is puzzling about him is his criminality. He appears to come from a 'respectable working class family' with the typical, for those days, standards and values of hard work, decent standards of behaviour, honesty and so on. He had, we can conclude, loving parents - indeed, his father cashed in his pension to start up a small business with his son. That was a great risk and sacrifice considering Hanratty's track record up to that point in his life. He could have earned an honest crust. Even allowing for the limitations of his literacy, there were plenty of jobs he could have done. However, he seemed to prefer to make his money dishonestly - probably because it provided him with a better return and a decent standard of life - when he was free to enjoy it. On this site, much has been debated about his learning difficulties and the possibility that this might provide a clue to his behaviour. However, I think a significant factor might also be his experiences during WW2, when he was a very young child. Compare Hanratty's criminality with that of Derek Bentley - who also came from a very decent working-class family.

I take on board your comments about there probably being other suspects and I would be very interested to know how many there were and on what basis they were questioned. For example, I wonder if any of the family or acquaintances of MG or VS formally questioned? This would fit with the 'gas meter' approach. It was a very peculiar and particular crime, so if it was not an 'inside job' it is difficult to comprehend what type of suspects would have been considered other than those 'behaving strangely'.

I totally agree that Acott was a copper of his time and he certainly would have been under pressure to solve this crime. As we know, coppers in those days had their own methods and approaches to securing a result and I think that if it took a little bit of manipulation of evidence (the cartridge cases, for example) there would have been no hesitation if it resulted in a 'reasonable' result. By that I mean a no-good criminal being fingered.

The handkerchief is a difficulty but if we consider that France's wife had access to Hanratty's laundry (as so, presumably did France) then the frame-up story kind of stands. Why would someone want to frame Hanratty? Well, maybe events didn't start out that way but that's how they ended up.

I think the DNA evidence is very problematic for all of the scientific reasons that have been fully explored by the science experts on these threads. It was certainly accepted by the Court of Appeal but I think it is safe to say that it would not be accepted today. The method of extraction has been much discredited.

I think what impressed the jury was the magnitude of the crime and its impact on the country at the time. Had they been able to hear all of the evidence, had they known what we know today, I think the verdict may well have been different.

Kind regards,

Julie

[OneRound]

Hi folks - I haven't posted for a while but have been following matters from the sidelines so to speak. Good to see some new contributors and probing posts.

Like Graham, I consider the handkerchief to be of considerable importance. I'm just not sure though that Hanratty claimed ownership of it in court. If he did, it's another remarkable feature of this baffling and compelling case. How could he be sure the hankie was his and, even if he was, why should he make such an admission when it was surely in his interests to deny ownership?

I do wonder if our understanding of this matter has been largely influenced by earlier speculative threads on this board. Nothing wrong with a bit of speculation in my book provided it is clearly declared to be that and not presented or disguised as fact.

It would appear mighty strange that the Court of Appeal made no reference to any such admission by Hanratty when they upheld his conviction in 2002. Furthermore, the fact that Hanratty's DNA was found on BOTH the hankie and fabric from Valerie Storie's knickers weighed heavily with the Court of Appeal. They stated (para 126 of the judgment) that the idea that contamination ''happened twice over is beyond belief''.

Additional doubts about Hanratty claiming to own the hankie are also suggested by the transcript of a BBC Horizon programme on the ''A6 Murder'' aired shortly after the Court of Appeal's ruling (unable to attach but it can be located by googling ''Hanratty BBC Science Horizon Transcript''). About hal-way through the programme before commenting on DNA and the testing undertaken in this case, the Narrator states, ''The murder weapon and ammunition found in the bus had been wrapped in a man's white handkerchief.'' No reference to Hanratty claiming ownership of the hankie or any distinguishing features of the hankie which would have enabled Hanratty to do so.

If, despite the above, you, Graham, or anyone else can show that Hanratty did make such a claim, it would in my opinion be very significant. It wouldn't blow all the DNA findings away (in particular, the DNA on the knicker fragment) but it would weaken the base upon which it stands and especially the Court of Appeal's ''twice over'' comment.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Graham]

Hi OneRound,

nice to hear from you again. Re: the hankie, I have to be dead honest - I can't remember where I read that JH had i.d.'d it in court, but I know I read it somewhere. Don't think in Foot or Woffinden or Miller. I wonder if Blom-Cooper mentioned it? I read his book a long time ago. The chances are that I read it on this Forum, possibly in pre-crash days, and I do remember asking just how JH was able to identify the hankie as his. So I've kinda taken it for granted that he did so. Any help on this will be appreciated.

Graham

[Derrick]

...It wouldn't blow all the DNA findings away (in particular, the DNA on the knicker fragment) but it would weaken the base upon which it stands and especially the Court of Appeal's ''twice over'' comment...

Hi OneRound

Exactly!

Del

[Derrick]

...The chances are that I read it on this Forum, possibly in pre-crash days...

Hi Graham

Tony mentioned it a long time ago on the old thread; post#2726.

Del

[Graham]

Hi Graham

Tony mentioned it a long time ago on the old thread; post#2726.

Del

How on earth did you know that, Derrick? I've always had problems trying to locate a particular post on this Forum, but that could be down to me or my computer or both.

I went to the post, copied and saved it, but the Forum tells me it's an invalid document and I can't upload it. God knows why.

But Tony's post was essentially from the trial transcript, a dialogue between Swanwick and JH, who definitely identified the hankie as his but without explaining, or being asked, how he knew. At this stage, I wonder if Michael Sherrard put his head in his hands.

Interestingly, Tony was essentially a Hanratty supporter, but posted this piece of what could have been damning evidence anyway, for which I thank him.

I've never read the transcript in full, have to admit.

Anyway, good to know I didn't dream it, and thanks very much, Del.

Graham

[NickB]

That dialogue does not ring true to me. A moment of such significance would have been reported elsewhere.

And I don't think Swanwick would ask Hanratty if he had a conversation with Mr France about the back seat of a bus when he had already explained it in some detail in answer to Sherrard.

Hanratty: “We sat in the back seat and I explained to Mr France that if I had a large amount of jewellery in my pocket I used to sort it out upstairs on the bus. I used to put the good stuff in one pocket and I explained to Mr France the rubbish I used to put under the back seat because if I was to put it on the floor people would notice it.”

Sherrard: “Is that practice of putting stuff in that sort of place common or uncommon in that sort of world?”

Hanratty: “It is a very common hiding place for a man in my position.”