A6 Rebooted

[Graham]

I would very much doubt that Dixie knew anything at all about the A6 before it happened, yet I am pretty sure that he was fully aware of the gun and JH's ambitions to establish himself as a hold-up man. Dixie's record was of petty thieving, gambling and so forth, unlike JH and his house-breaking, which is viewed as a much more serious offence. Unlike JH, Dixie had a stable home-life and a close family, so a long spell in jail could have been calamitous for him.

It's also interesting, I think, that according to Woffinden JH used to give Dixie money on a number of occasions, and described Dixie as a layabout. But he wasn't so far beneath contempt that JH turned down his hospitality, which I suspect was offered as something of a pay-back for the money Dixie had received from JH. And of course there was Carole.

Regarding the letter that France wrote prior to his suicide, at France's inquest the coroner referred to the letter, but refused to read it in court as, quote, it would not be in the public interest to disclose its contents. The Observer newspaper then stated:

In trying to unravel all the evidence about this crime, it becomes abundantly clear that what was heard in the Bedford courtroom was not the whole story. It most emphatically is in the public interest that the contents of France's letter should be known, in order to allay the suspicion that something is being kept back which might materially alter the whole aspect of the case. (Quoted in full per Woffinden).

I have always thought that this is a very telling statement, as it suggests that there might be more to Dixie France than his simply being a friend of JH's. In the event, Charlotte France passed this and apparently other of Dixie's letters to the Sunday Times which published the "crucify us all" letter in 1967.

Graham

[Ed James]

As with Ewer,we are in difficulty in trying to establish a full picture of Dixie France.

The means and circumstances of France's involvement with the police remains a mystery. Did he go to them or did they come to him? At what point, did he presumably conclude that the discovery of the murder gun under the back seat of the 36A bus was a clear pointer of Hanratty's involvement. This is of critical importance.

In the books there is no reference to the date of,or other contents of, France's statement to the police. Why not?

What can we deduce from Hanratty's intercepted prison letter to France :

'Dear Dixie
I'm surprised over this difficulty that I'm in although it makes no
difference to me, whatever you say will be the truth. In a way I'm
very glad that you are giving evidence against me as now my
solicitor can have facts . You will not think much of me for what I 'm about
to do and I don't think much of what you are about to do, thoug it won't
make much difference as I'm innocent.'

When previously discussed on this site, posters have made much of the view that Hanratty would have known that this letter would be intercepted by the prison authorities and that Hanratty was effectively writing it for Acott to see. I don't buy this.

At the same time Hanratty tried to write to Slack about the enquiry
of obtaining a gun. I think he was trying to tackle two areas of major concern as to his position. But in the case of France there seems to be pressure to not reveal information

Ed

[Limehouse]

Interesting thoughts gentlemen.

Concerning Dixie's criminality, his record may have revealed petty crimes such as thieving, handling stolen goods, illegal gambling and so on - but if he really did obtain and supply guns - that's pretty major in my book. Armed robberies were common at the time because of the easy availability of cash on premises and in transit. These were terrifying attacks on innocent workers and bystanders which sometimes resulted in injuries and deaths at worse and psychological trauma at least.

I am puzzled as to why the defence did not press the prosecution to provide hard evidence that Hanratty ever obtained a gun and from whom?

I would also, like Ed James, like to explore via more debate, the motive for this crime. What on earth was the gunman hoping to achieve? Why enter into such a risky encounter? Why prolong the event? If the gunman's intention had been to 'try out his new toy' why, when the situation perhaps unexpectedly got too difficult to handle, did he not just ask the driver to stop and exit the car, running off into the night? After all, he had the upper hand with a gun in his possession?

If MG had not been shot 'by accident' - what might the alternative outcome have been?

[Dupplin Muir]

I've been reading through some of the past posts to 'bring myself up to speed' and I've noticed two things that don't accord with what I'd always imagined about the case.

The first is the statement that one of the bullets found in the car was embedded in the floor. If this is true then it refutes my belief that the two shots were fired in rapid succession and on roughly the same trajectory. The .38 revolver was quite a low-velocity weapon and the bullets would have lost a lot of speed while inflicting the wounds, and I therefore find it difficult to believe that one could ricochet off something and still possess enough speed to penetrate the floor. It seems more plausible that the killer fired once and then, when Gregsten was horizontal, put the gun against his head and fired again.

Secondly, in a discussion a while ago it seemed to be generally accepted that VS and MG were sitting in the front seats of the car, preparing to have sex, when the gunman arrived. If this is true when did the AB semen get on the underwear? I know that people in those days didn't change their clothes quite as often as they do nowadays, but I find it difficult to believe that VS would have gone around for several days in soiled undergarments. Unless, of course, Alphon's story of forcing them to have sex at gunpoint was true...

I ask because, although I've read most of the books on the case, some were from the library and others I lost in a move, so it's quite difficult for me to check such things.

[Sherlock Houses]

As with Ewer,we are in difficulty in trying to establish a full picture of Dixie France.

The means and circumstances of France's involvement with the police remains a mystery. Did he go to them or did they come to him? At what point, did he presumably conclude that the discovery of the murder gun under the back seat of the 36A bus was a clear pointer of Hanratty's involvement. This is of critical importance.

In the books there is no reference to the date of,or other contents of, France's statement to the police. Why not?

According to Paul Foot's book [page 96] France, his wife Charlotte and daughter Carole were interviewed by Acott for several hours at Scotland Yard on Friday, October 6th.
Whether or not France made the initial contact with Scotland Yard I cannot say.

What can we deduce from Hanratty's intercepted prison letter to France :

'Dear Dixie
I'm surprised over this difficulty that I'm in although it makes no
difference to me, whatever you say will be the truth. In a way I'm
very glad that you are giving evidence against me as now my
solicitor can have facts . You will not think much of me for what I 'm about
to do and I don't think much of what you are about to do, thoug it won't
make much difference as I'm innocent.'

When previously discussed on this site, posters have made much of the view that Hanratty would have known that this letter would be intercepted by the prison authorities and that Hanratty was effectively writing it for Acott to see. I don't buy this.

I don't buy this either, Ed. He could not have known that this short letter [it is unclear whether he himself had written it or whether it was dictated to a prison guard] would not reach his friend as he wrote other letters to various people around the same time. He had been transferred to Brixton Prison on November 3rd and the letter seemingly had been written about a week or so before the Committal Proceedings began at Ampthill on November 22nd. It is a cryptic and tantalising letter and its contents are open to some speculation and interpretaion.
It is reasonable to suppose that Hanratty is about to reveal some information about France to his defence team which wouldn't sit well with France. I wonder if this had something to do with the availability of firearms at the Rehearsal Club, where France had been employed as a doorman before his dismissal and a place which he frequented afterwards.
The final phrase in the letter "though it won't make much difference as I'm innocent" is consistent with Hanratty's attitude, bewilderment and shock when he phoned France on October 5th after finding out that he was wanted for the A6 murder.

[ansonman]

Interesting thoughts gentlemen.

Concerning Dixie's criminality, his record may have revealed petty crimes such as thieving, handling stolen goods, illegal gambling and so on - but if he really did obtain and supply guns - that's pretty major in my book. Armed robberies were common at the time because of the easy availability of cash on premises and in transit. These were terrifying attacks on innocent workers and bystanders which sometimes resulted in injuries and deaths at worse and psychological trauma at least.

I am puzzled as to why the defence did not press the prosecution to provide hard evidence that Hanratty ever obtained a gun and from whom?

I would also, like Ed James, like to explore via more debate, the motive for this crime. What on earth was the gunman hoping to achieve? Why enter into such a risky encounter? Why prolong the event? If the gunman's intention had been to 'try out his new toy' why, when the situation perhaps unexpectedly got too difficult to handle, did he not just ask the driver to stop and exit the car, running off into the night? After all, he had the upper hand with a gun in his possession?

If MG had not been shot 'by accident' - what might the alternative outcome have been?

He could equally have asked the driver and VS to exit the car and he could have driven off, assuming he was capable of driving.

As well as the motive for the crime I am also interested in the likely mindset of the criminal. What sort of person was it who could sit in a car, demand it be driven around for hours, while rambling on, holding the passengers at gunpoint, before shooting the driver, raping the girl, forcing the girl to help him drag the dead body from the car, asking the girl to show him how to drive the car, shooting the girl (to death, he assumed) and driving off?

Whoever the gunman was, he was certainly a nutter of the first degree. Does that description fit Hanratty? Did Hanratty ever act in such a way as to be designated a raving madman? I think not. Furthermore, to quote from the Truro Daily News of December 2007:

"Unfortunately, one is left to ponder what an urban burglar like Hanratty was doing in an isolated cornfield. He had never used a gun throughout his criminal career, nor had he ever been accused of committing a sex crime".

Nor had he been known to behave like a Grade 1 nutter.

Ansonman

[Dupplin Muir]

An interesting insight into the misdeeds of forensic scientists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Gilchrist

[Sherlock Houses]

Nor had he been known to behave like a Grade 1 nutter.

Ansonman

Unlike Grade 1 nutter Alphon, who, to my mind at least, fits the profile of the A6 murderer to a tee. The garrulous Alphon loved to ramble on, loved an audience and would have been in his element in such a situation.
The itchy footed and naive Hanratty wouldn't have been able to sit still for 10 minutes cooped up in the back of a small car let alone 5 and a half hours.

[Ed James]

Hi Julie

In the British trial system, the prosecution and the defence are only interested in winning their case, not in establishing the truth! So ,for example, the defence would not have wanted to open up further the possession of a gun issue, in the light of Hanratty's admission that he had enquired about acquiring a weapon ( whether seriously or not).

Equally, the prosecution showed no desire for truth in dealing with the (lack of establishing) motive for the crime, the biggest hole in their case. Instead, Graham Swanwick QC used a variety of devices for leaving the baffling question of motive to the jury. For example suggesting that on the handing back of the watches,' That ,you may think, possibly supports the view that the principle motive for this crime was perhaps sex rather than money'.

In his summing up, neglecting the sex motive, Swanwick said 'The murderer embarked on this hold up without any forethought. Once he had committed armed robbery of course there was no retreat, and no obvious means of escape to somebody who was not very experienced in these matters of safe escape'

I can't agree the gunman had no means of escape - or was so mentally overwhelmed so as to preclude escape. The gunman seemed deliberately intent on prolonging the hijacking, shunning the chance to go.

As to an outcome other than the murder, this has been a cause of much brain ache for me. I am inclined to think that the gunman was no more seeking kip than he was previously hungry. The best I can offer is that he was looking for some visible impact of his sustained terrorism. I recognise that this may lend support to Alphon's suggestion that he was giving Gregsten opportunities to get away, without my advancing the case for Alphon being the perpetrator.

Finally, a question: In the annals of crime is there a similar case of a prolonged hi jacking?
regards

Ed

[Sherlock Houses]

Finally, a question: In the annals of crime is there a similar case of a prolonged hi jacking?
regards
Ed

A few years ago I watched a great film-noir on dvd that was based on a true story. That movie was the Ida Lupino directed "The hitch hiker" made in 1953.
I couldn't help but think of the A6 murder while watching this movie, I feel sure others will too when they watch it. I strongly recommend this movie to anyone unfamiliar with it. It's now available for viewing on Youtube via the following link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRFjtfTJoEk

[ansonman]

His appearance and behaviour should have given him away

Unlike Grade 1 nutter Alphon, who, to my mind at least, fits the profile of the A6 murderer to a tee. The garrulous Alphon loved to ramble on, loved an audience and would have been in his element in such a situation.
The itchy footed and naive Hanratty wouldn't have been able to sit still for 10 minutes cooped up in the back of a small car let alone 5 and a half hours.

I could not agree more.

Added to which Alphon very closely resembled the Identikit made up by VS. So in him we have a far closer match to the murderer in behaviour and appearance.

Hanratty did not reseble the murderer in any way.

Ansonman

[OneRound]

...

Secondly, in a discussion a while ago it seemed to be generally accepted that VS and MG were sitting in the front seats of the car, preparing to have sex, when the gunman arrived. If this is true when did the AB semen get on the underwear? I know that people in those days didn't change their clothes quite as often as they do nowadays, but I find it difficult to believe that VS would have gone around for several days in soiled undergarments. Unless, of course, Alphon's story of forcing them to have sex at gunpoint was true...

...

Hi Dupplin - I've always thought it strange that the Court of Appeal and Hanratty's legal team didn't apparently probe the matter of the AB semen further in 2002.

The Court stated in paragraph 113 of their judgment that the AB semen was ''assumed to have come at some earlier stage from Michael Gregsten''. This seems a large and significant assumption which is very much in contrast to the thorough steps taken to check the presence of Hanratty's DNA (ie exhuming his remains and disturbing the burial place of a family member in the process even after tests had already been undertaken on his mother and one of his brothers). The timing of when Gregsten's semen (as per the Court's assumption) got on the underwear is also vague.

If tests had shown that the AB semen didn't match Gregsten, then the DNA evidence against Hanratty would have been seriously called into question, if not entirely blown out of the water. The presence of unidentified semen would have to show that either someone other than Hanratty was the rapist or, at the very least, that the DNA evidence was contaminated and could not be relied upon.

Of course, tests on the AB semen could have shown a match to Gregsten. I'm no scientist but wouldn't have thought it too difficult to get something (a lock of hair from one of Gregsten's children, for instance) to establish this one way or the other with near certainty.

Further to Dupplin's post above, and even with a match being shown to Gregsten, the possibility of Gregsten's DNA being there as a result of contamination might still exist. This very much depends upon when sex had last occurred with Gregsten and whether it was prior to different underwear being worn. I accept these are highly indelicate matters but do wonder if they should have been followed up in 2002, albeit perhaps in a closed court. They are imo very relevant to the integrity of the DNA evidence.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Sherlock Houses]

Alphon and Ian Brady

I could not agree more.

Added to which Alphon very closely resembled the Identikit made up by VS. So in him we have a far closer match to the murderer in behaviour and appearance.

Hanratty did not reseble the murderer in any way.

Ansonman

Besides fitting so closely the profile of the A6 murderer in behaviour and appearance, Alphon had something extremely undesirable in common with the infamous Moors murderer [and serial killer] Ian Brady.............their love of and fascination with Nazism and all it entails. I seem to recall reading not so long ago something along the lines that Brady too felt he had a mission in life.

Quite revealing I'd say.

[Spitfire]

Hi Dupplin - I've always thought it strange that the Court of Appeal and Hanratty's legal team didn't apparently probe the matter of the AB semen further in 2002.

The Court stated in paragraph 113 of their judgment that the AB semen was ''assumed to have come at some earlier stage from Michael Gregsten''. This seems a large and significant assumption which is very much in contrast to the thorough steps taken to check the presence of Hanratty's DNA (ie exhuming his remains and disturbing the burial place of a family member in the process even after tests had already been undertaken on his mother and one of his brothers). The timing of when Gregsten's semen (as per the Court's assumption) got on the underwear is also vague.

If tests had shown that the AB semen didn't match Gregsten, then the DNA evidence against Hanratty would have been seriously called into question, if not entirely blown out of the water. The presence of unidentified semen would have to show that either someone other than Hanratty was the rapist or, at the very least, that the DNA evidence was contaminated and could not be relied upon.

Of course, tests on the AB semen could have shown a match to Gregsten. I'm no scientist but wouldn't have thought it too difficult to get something (a lock of hair from one of Gregsten's children, for instance) to establish this one way or the other with near certainty.

Further to Dupplin's post above, and even with a match being shown to Gregsten, the possibility of Gregsten's DNA being there as a result of contamination might still exist. This very much depends upon when sex had last occurred with Gregsten and whether it was prior to different underwear being worn. I accept these are highly indelicate matters but do wonder if they should have been followed up in 2002, albeit perhaps in a closed court. They are imo very relevant to the integrity of the DNA evidence.

Best regards,

OneRound

Are you certain that there were blood type AB seminal stains on the piece of the knickers that was available for DNA analysis?

I had assumed that the AB stains had been discovered in 1961 at the same time as the O stains, and that it had been determined at that early stage of the investigation that the O stains had come from the murderer and the AB stains from Gregsten. I had therefore thought that the piece of the knickers excised would have only contained O group stains and that no AB stains were available for analysis in 1990 onwards.

[Graham]

Interesting debate regarding the knickers. I believe that one of Gregsten's sons provided samples at the time of the appeal analysis, as did Alphon. I believe it was shown that semen from Gregsten was found on the knickers, but nothing from Alphon.

Incidentally, with regard to the hoary old chestnut of the Identikits, it is on record that JH was at the Frances' flat watching TV when the Identikits were flashed onto the screen. Mrs France remarked to JH that one of them, the one produced by Valerie, "looks just like you!"

Graham