A6 Rebooted

[moste]

I must say though that this demonstration has now convinced me completely.that the supposed statement "It was an accident, he frightened me! He moved to quick,"or words to that effect, when supposedly challenged by VS.re "why did you do that"? is bogus.
You can tell from the effort that it requires to squeeze off two shots, that this was no accident.
Had the killer been in the dock trying to reduce his sentence to 2nd degree murder, I can see him trying this one on, but to blurt it out to VS. immediately after the deed as she maintained, is a real puzzlement.
I am as sure as can be ,and in my humble opinion, a second person we don't know about is at the scene, Why VS has never said I cant explain, But the person who killed Mr. Gregston was gone, and the bungler made a hash of the rest.

[Graham]

Hello Derrick,I've just got the Bob woffindens book here, He covers the Gladys Deacon Drive to Bedford and afterwards on page 134\135 in quite good detail. All the best, Steve.

Thank you, Mr Moste.

Although Woffinden isn't specific about the route JH might have taken (he couldn't have been, naturally), the A6 was the most straightforward route from northwest London to Bedford; in which case he would have driven up Deadman's Hill.

Graham

[Graham]

Mr Moste,

If, as you claim, there was a second person at the murder scene, then (a) what was his purpose there and (b) who was he?

I've done a little bit of pistol shooting in my time, albeit years ago, and not with an Enfield .38, but if a single-action revolver is cocked, then it takes very little effort in terms of finger-pressure on the trigger to fire the weapon. I'm not an expert, but I believe that once fired, the hammer returned automatically to the 'cocked' position, so another shot could follow very rapidly indeed. It seems logical to me that JH had been holding the gun in 'cocked' mode, and that if, as Valerie said, a movement 'frightened him' it would have been very easy to pull the trigger with lethal results.

To claim that there was an accomplice already present at the murder scene takes a huge leap to get one's head around. I don't believe it for an instant.
If this supposed 'second person' killed Mike Gregsten, then why didn't he do likewise for Valerie Storie?

By the way, in 1961, there was no 'second degree murder', that is, unpremeditated murder. The death sentence was automatic for anyone who murdered during the commission of a crime; who killed someone with a gun; who killed a policeman. Or so I think at any rate.

Put some meat on the bones, Mr Moste!

Graham

[moste]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieG2dQ5PIc0 Sorry the link was on previous page

[moste]

No second degree in the 60s, or unlawful killing, or manslaughter? You know what Im saying I think! Steve.

[moste]

Actually I'm making the mistake of posting on the wrong threads. Its easy to go off on a tangent I find. Apologies to all . Ive got stuff about R R Labs that should be on here, that's on "Swedish housewife." thread.

[moste]

If you shot someone with a gun in the 50s or 60s by accident, i.e. without malice aforethought ,or intent to gain, I don't believe they hanged you.

[Graham]

If you shot someone with a gun in the 50s or 60s by accident, i.e. without malice aforethought ,or intent to gain, I don't believe they hanged you.

Try telling that to surviving members of Derek Bentley's family. Bentley wasn't even holding the gun when PC Miles was shot and killed. But because he and Craig set out to commit theft, and a police office was shot and killed, the law had to have its victim and that victim was Bentley, as Craig was too young to hang. Bentley was subsequently posthumously pardoned. He was punished by means of an extreme, inhumanly harsh application of the law as it stood at the time.

Hanratty could not say during his trial that he had fired the gun by accident, as he had pleaded not guilty. However, after sentence and during appeal, he could have done so, but as far as I'm aware he didn't. It's doubtful if it would have made any difference anyway.

Graham

[Derrick]

...the A6 was the most straightforward route from northwest London to Bedford; in which case he would have driven up Deadman's Hill...

Hi Graham

On page 135, Woffinden says;

He took Gladys for a drive in the country.

So that would mean not necessarily the most straightforward route.

Del

[Ed James]

Dripping with coincidences?

First, you can't recklessly then or now under the common law point a fully loaded gun at someone for a number of hours and then claim it was an accident that it fired (even if it was ! but firing twice is stretching the accident claim) to escape a murder charge because you must have known the foreseeable consequences of your actions.

But can I move on to something that has troubled me. The murder car's route from Dorney Reach to Deadman's Hill has defied all attempts to make sense of such a prolonged, apparently purposeless and, to the gunman, risky enterprise.

And yet the gunman was apparently in control, giving directions. Saying such things as ' ... no,go straight on over Western Avenue ' instead of going to Northolt when previously he had indicated he was hungry and there was a cafe at Northolt. VS's evidence was that the gunman then gave instructions to go in a north easterly direction through the Harrow area (near Kingsbury where Hanratty lived with his parents) towards Stanmore. The fact that the gunman ordered Mike Gregsten to stop earlier for petrol indicates he had a longish journey in mind.

From Stanmore the car picked up the A41 (known as the Watford by pass) and then turned off through Aldenham on to Radlett. The Aldenham turning is less than 5 miles away from Abbots Langley, where Gregsten lived with Janet. And would have been nearer had the car continued along the A41. I wonder what thoughts were going through poor Mike Gregsten's head.

We know 7 miles on travelling north westerly , the gunman confused St Albans for Watford , and insisted it was Watford even when corrected by VS. Was this the point the gunman became well and truly lost?

regards
Ed

[Graham]

First, you can't recklessly then or now under the common law point a fully loaded gun at someone for a number of hours and then claim it was an accident that it fired (even if it was ! but firing twice is stretching the accident claim) to escape a murder charge because you must have known the foreseeable consequences of your actions.

Ruth Ellis was asked by the prosecution at her trial what she intended to do when she pointed the gun at David Blakeley. She replied that she intended to kill him, even though she had entered a 'not guilty' plea at the request of her defence. As was drilled into me when I had a shot (pardon the pun) at target-pistol shooting, a gun is always loaded even when it isn't; and if you point a gun at a person then that person has every right to think that you're going to shoot him. It was no accident where Hanratty was concerned.

I once tried during an otherwise idle afternoon about 15 years back to try and follow the route taken by the Morris from Dorney Reach to Deadman's Hill, but got lost and conceded defeat after only a few miles. The roads had obviously changed since 1961, and I wasn't very familiar with that part of London; even so, I found it impossible to make much sense of the accepted route. I wonder if Hanratty having decided to prolong his captives' agony, considered it was safer to be on the move than sit for hours on end in a cormfield, even at night.

Graham

[moste]

I don't think that is a good analogy really. The jury made a guess at what was meant by "Let him have it" either meaning give the gun to the officer, or shoot him with it. the argument was he hanged because he was misunderstood. They took it that he meant the former, if they had accepted the latter, no one would have hanged legally. Like you say though I do believe there is a thing, where if theyre getting nowhere they will drum something up. Visa-a vis. JH

[Limehouse]

First, you can't recklessly then or now under the common law point a fully loaded gun at someone for a number of hours and then claim it was an accident that it fired (even if it was ! but firing twice is stretching the accident claim) to escape a murder charge because you must have known the foreseeable consequences of your actions.

But can I move on to something that has troubled me. The murder car's route from Dorney Reach to Deadman's Hill has defied all attempts to make sense of such a prolonged, apparently purposeless and, to the gunman, risky enterprise.

And yet the gunman was apparently in control, giving directions. Saying such things as ' ... no,go straight on over Western Avenue ' instead of going to Northolt when previously he had indicated he was hungry and there was a cafe at Northolt. VS's evidence was that the gunman then gave instructions to go in a north easterly direction through the Harrow area (near Kingsbury where Hanratty lived with his parents) towards Stanmore. The fact that the gunman ordered Mike Gregsten to stop earlier for petrol indicates he had a longish journey in mind.

From Stanmore the car picked up the A41 (known as the Watford by pass) and then turned off through Aldenham on to Radlett. The Aldenham turning is less than 5 miles away from Abbots Langley, where Gregsten lived with Janet. And would have been nearer had the car continued along the A41. I wonder what thoughts were going through poor Mike Gregsten's head.

We know 7 miles on travelling north westerly , the gunman confused St Albans for Watford , and insisted it was Watford even when corrected by VS. Was this the point the gunman became well and truly lost?

regards
Ed

I think this is a very good point. The whole journey from the cornfield to Deadman's Hill did seem prolonged, aimless and pointless. So did the period prior to the car moving out of the cornfield. The whole scenario was strangely pointless and risky for the gunman. First, the hold up, pretending that robbery was the motive, the rambling life-story, the pretence of being 'desperate' (but actually appearing to be well-dressed and groomed) - the whole event is strange and motiveless. It has been suggested that the gunman's purpose was to have a kind of 'dry run' for a bigger hold up - but his behaviour that night, according to VS's testimony, does not really ring true for such a purpose.

[moste]

There are clues from statements re -what was said and done in the car.
Why would the man, immediately concur with Valerie that putting MG in the trunk was a bad idea due to incoming fumes being harmful, if he was going to kill him later? Twice the man, after confirming what time it was, made the illogical reference to" there's plenty of time". Plenty of time for what? Also, entering into a dialogue with V.S.regarding a whereabouts of Watford or St.Albans would suggest heading to a location, rather than meandering. Again I suggest this draws one towards a rendezvous theory. Remember Mr. Kerrs statement "We picked a man up near Slough" who held us up and shot us"

[moste]

That would be the statement he took from V.S. a little earlier.