A6 Rebooted

[cobalt]

I think I have over complicated the matter of Mrs. Lanz's statements in my previous post. She can only have made two statements to the police.

The first one was given on the 24th of August and is a matter of fact description of seeing the two victims, whom she knew by sight at least, in her premises. Mindful of the horrific crime which befell them after they left, Mrs. Lanz mentions two men, unknown to her, who left shortly after Miss Storie and Mr. Gregsten. Hawser says Mrs. Lanz's description of these two strangers, as best she can recall, did not fit either Hanratty or Alphon. On this last point Mrs. Lanz, the police and Hawser seem to be in agreement.

Mrs. Lanz's second statement, made on the 27th March 1962 shortly after the visit by Justice, Fox and Alphon to the Station Inn, is where we find a disagreement. According to Mrs. Lanz (speaking in 1971) she told Slough police in her second statement that she recognised Alphon as a person accompanied by a blond woman on the evening of the crime. She even remembered them leaving around half an hour after Miss Storie and Mr. Gregsten. Yet none of this appears in Hawser's summary of her statement. Hawser quotes directly from that statement to indicate that Mrs. Lanz is uncertain about both Alphon's identity and when she might have previously seen him. Hawser clearly believes that Mrs. Lanz has embellished her account over the years and arrived at a rather different version than the one given to police in March 1962.

Hawser may be correct. However I don't think we have ever seen Mrs. Lanz's second statement in full. It is difficult to understand why Mrs. Lanz would have taken the trouble to make that second statement, presumably at Fox's behest, yet to offer so little in the way of substance.

[cobalt]

In his report Hawser refers a number of times [384] to 'three independent, specific and positive identifications' of James Hanratty.' It's not clear to me what he means by 'independent.' It's hard to describe Valerie Storie as an 'independent' witness since she was unfortunately at the very heart of the crime. It seems to me that Hawser is referring to Skillet, Blackhall and Trower despite the fact that Blackhall did not identify James Hanratty as the driver, a fact which Hawser acknowledges elsewhere. Yet at [76] Hawser previously implied that Blackhall was in agreement with the other two witnesses.

Trower spoke to police on 24th August although it is not clear whether they approached him or vice versa. On that occasion he could remember nothing of significance. It was the following day, the 25th, when Trower recalled seeing a car being driven erratically into the street where the car was discovered. This later account was undermined by his friend Hogan, about whom Hawser for some reason founded a poor impression of his character. [138]

Hawser dismisses the 1971 account given by Mrs. Lanz of the Station Inn ]376]in which she is specific about Peter Alphon being in her hostelry on the evening of the crime. Given the passage of time which had elapsed since the crime that seems reasonable, yet Mrs. Lanz claims to have made a statement to that effect in Slough police station around the time that James Hanratty's appeal was dismissed. It is not clear if any record of that alleged statement existed for Hawser to see since he does not mention it in his report. On 27th March 1962 Mrs. Lanz makes another statement to Slough police which I assume is not the one she mentioned to Paul Foot in 1971. This statement is available to Hawser and he quotes from it to state that Mrs. Lanz was not certain as to when she previously saw a man that either was, or resembled Peter Alphon, in her premises. For me this is potentially an important point and one that Hawser does not satisfactorily deal with.
Peter Alphon may have decided to visit the Station Inn some time after the crime as part of a desire to place himself at the centre of it. However if Mrs. Lanz saw him prior to the crime, even if not on that evening, then Alphon's presence in the Station Inn is surely a coincidence too far.

[Pcdunn]

Hi djw - many thanks for flagging.

I'll definitely watch with interest and hope but doubt that it will be a very deep delve. I note the other case to be featured is that of George Davis. I had never thought of grouping his case with that of James Hanratty. I suppose the most common feature is (or was) the belief in their innocence and the campaigning, particularly by family members, to try and establish that.

Such belief and campaigning was also a prominent feature of the Derek Bentley case and it was in the role of the condemned teenager in the 1991 film Let Him Have It that Christopher Eccleston, the presenter of this series, first came to public attention. Eccleston even attended Bentley's memorial service when he was posthumously acquitted several years after the film's release.

I suspect Eccleston's connection with the Bentley case has resulted in him fronting this short series and that there will be a significant acknowledgement of the impact upon the respective families. If so, that's understandable although I would prefer a detailed probe into the crimes themselves.

Best regards,
OneRound

The announcement about this series which I saw had Eccleston saying these two cases were selected because he had a "personal connection to one" and because of the great publicity of the other. I suppose they are, respectively, Bentley and Hanratty.
(Thanks for the mention of Eccleston's role as Bentley in the 1991 film, I didn't know that credit.)

[Sherlock Houses]

.................

[Sherlock Houses]

........

[Sherlock Houses]

........

[Sherlock Houses]

8 888 8 *

[cobalt]

I find Hawser's command of language less than overwhelming.

[16] ''They left the Inn at about 8.45 pm and drove some 1.5 miles into a cornfield near Dorney Reach.''
That is ambiguous and might confuse anyone not familiar with the Case.

(76) ''The consistency of the description of Mr. Hanratty's driving given by witnesses who had seen him drive with the driving described by Mr. Skillet, Mr. Blackhall and Mr. Trower.''
Not only is this rather verbose it is misleading. Mr. Blackhall did not identify James Hanratty as the driver of the car as is suggested here.

[Sherlock Houses]

Many thanks, Sherlock. If you are are able to supply the rest of Hawser's Report, it would be much appreciated.
Best regards,
OneRound

Can do OneRound but pages 16-17 and 20-23 are missing for some reason or other.

[OneRound]

Many thanks, Sherlock. If you are are able to supply the rest of Hawser's Report, it would be much appreciated.
Best regards,
OneRound

[Sherlock Houses]

*****

[Sherlock Houses]

Thanks for pointing out Ecclestons role as Derek Bentley.

If you search for the Hawser report it appears to be in various libraries and even for sale online. At nearly £300 though (assuming they wouldn't just try and source it then cancel the sale when they couldn't) I would rather access it in a library. That is of course, if it is indeed public.

Hi,

Back in October 2015 I scanned Hawser's 1975 whitewash of a report. Attached are the first 10 pages....

[djw]

Also in May (and June elsewhere) is a talk about the A6 murder by Paul Stickler. I think I will go to this.

U3A Thame

THE A6 MURDER

---

Thu 2 May 2024, 2:00 PM

Barns Centre, Church Road, Thame OX9 3AJ

[djw]

Thanks for pointing out Ecclestons role as Derek Bentley.

If you search for the Hawser report it appears to be in various libraries and even for sale online. At nearly £300 though (assuming they wouldn't just try and source it then cancel the sale when they couldn't) I would rather access it in a library. That is of course, if it is indeed public.

[OneRound]

Is it odd that last March The Times referred to the case as a miscarriage of justice (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/s...tice-rf0t0ht2b) and now Murdoch's Sky wish to reexamine the case? It is almost like there is a section of the establishment who believe Hanratty should not have been convicted. Is Christopher Eccleston establishment? Perhaps not.

^{How deep will he delve? Will it be just Gregsten, Storie, Alphon and Hanratty level of analysis? Or will he go deeper and cover Ewer, France, Nudds? Or even deeper into Nimmo, Hawser, Matthews}?

Hi djw - many thanks for flagging.

I'll definitely watch with interest and hope but doubt that it will be a very deep delve. I note the other case to be featured is that of George Davis. I had never thought of grouping his case with that of James Hanratty. I suppose the most common feature is (or was) the belief in their innocence and the campaigning, particularly by family members, to try and establish that.

Such belief and campaigning was also a prominent feature of the Derek Bentley case and it was in the role of the condemned teenager in the 1991 film Let Him Have It that Christopher Eccleston, the presenter of this series, first came to public attention. Eccleston even attended Bentley's memorial service when he was posthumously acquitted several years after the film's release.

I suspect Eccleston's connection with the Bentley case has resulted in him fronting this short series and that there will be a significant acknowledgement of the impact upon the respective families. If so, that's understandable although I would prefer a detailed probe into the crimes themselves.

Best regards,
OneRound