A6 Rebooted

[OneRound]

I have transcribed James Hanratty's trial evidence [February 7th and 8th] gleaned from about 5 or 6 different UK Newspapers of the time. I have gathered it all together and put it in a pdf document, too large to use as an attachment, I think, even though it is 221KB in size.

I will try and attach the pdf document with this post and see what happens. I have never tried to attach a pdf doc on this forum and don't know if it's feasible.

Hi Sherlock - many thanks from me too for your transcriptions.

From my reading, Hanratty holds his own surprisingly well against Swanwick. As Kerr remarked in one of the tv programmes, there are though some instances where he comes across as rather cocky. Possibly this when added to Hanratty's declared burglary background grated with the jury.

Going back to something we discussed a few weeks back, I feel it's worth noting that there is no reference in any of these reports to Hanratty acknowledging that the hanky produced at court was his.

Whilst writing, a slightly belated but nonetheless warm welcome to all the new posters. Some cracking insights of Ingledene from Kerry.

Those, like myself, who doubt Hanratty's innocence often stress that whilst he might have stayed at Ingledene, there is little or no evidence that he did so on the night of Gregsten's murder. One further speculative point here on behalf of the prosecution - Hanratty did not need to have ever stepped foot inside Ingledene in order to describe it if someone else had described it to him. Aided by Kerry's excellent posts and bits of other reading, I could give a rough outline of the property even though I've never even been to Rhyl.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Derrick]

From the Appeal:

'The prosecution suggested that the gun had been deposited on the morning of 24 August.' (section 33)

'Because James Hanratty had sent a telegram from Liverpool to London at 20.40 on 24 August, it was the prosecution case that he had deposited the gun during the early morning run on 24 August when Arthur Embleton was the driver.' (section 159)

Hi Nick

Of course. The prosecution had to suggest whatever fitted in with their very very scant evidence.

They suggested that Hanratty was in Liverpool on the 21st even when a good half a dozen of their own witnesses placed him in London at the time of the sweetshop enquiry. Mrs Dinwoodie signed a picture of Hanratty as the man she had seen and identified him in the dock.

The prosecution were scrabbling for any explanation to their own hand-built conundrum.

Del

[Spitfire]

Hi Nick

Of course. The prosecution had to suggest whatever fitted in with their very very scant evidence.

They suggested that Hanratty was in Liverpool on the 21st even when a good half a dozen of their own witnesses placed him in London at the time of the sweetshop enquiry. Mrs Dinwoodie signed a picture of Hanratty as the man she had seen and identified him in the dock.

The prosecution were scrabbling for any explanation to their own hand-built conundrum.

Del

But you've said before that Hanratty could not have left the gun on the bus and sent the telegram from Liverpool what is the evidence for that?

[Graham]

Alphon's Riches

Paul Foot interviewed Alphon a few years after the A6 Crime, and Alphon opened up a bit about his money - but he was very careful to wait until his bank had destroyed paid-in cheques, so that Foot was unable to see who had paid the cheques into Alphon's account.

Basically, Alphon had a savings account and a cheque account. Foot noted that between October 9th 1961 and November 24th 1961 the sum of £3300 was paid into the deposit account via 9 cash payments of value between £150 and £800. In this period only £150 was transferred to his cheque account. After this date the funds in the deposit account were gradually transferred to the cheque account, and the deposit account was closed on April 2nd 1962 (two days prior to Hanratty's execution).

Further, on October 19th 1961 Alphon opened another cheque account with the £150 drawn from the deposit account. During October and November a further £2050 was paid into this account via cheques and cash (NOT from the original deposit account). Payments were made in units of £150, £250 and £300. Payments appear to have been made on a regular weekly basis. On December 1st he paid in £1000 and on December 4th a further £800, presumably both cash (not sure of this). This account was closed on June 22nd 1962 following 3 payments totalling £715 made in February and March.

£7569 was paid in total into Alphon's 2 savings accounts between October 1961 and June 1962, most of it in the first 2 months or so. From what I can make out via financial websites this would be worth around £150000 by today's values. A lot! And Alphon appears to have spent it almost as fast as he was paid it!

Foot says that he could find absolutely no records, no clues, nothing, as to the source(s) of Alphon's loot. But it's known that the wily Alphon sold his story to various newspapers for a total that Foot estimates to be around £2500. Foot also says that Alphon was no slouch at the greyhounds, and did have some great wins. But, as Foot correctly states, the fact that most of the payments into his 2 savings accounts were in round figures does suggest there was another, regular income for a time.

Foot lists some of Alphon's payings-out, which were large. These included £1000 for a greyhound plus legal fees he paid to a firm of solicitors for legal work on his behalf. Foot also says that during the above time-period Alphon was living high and wide at The Ariel Hotel near London Airport.

Unfortunately, Paul Foot was completely unable to discover if any of the payments into Alphon's account were from "Mr X" (the supposed Central Figure behind the A6 Crime), blackmail payments, or anything else nefarious.

That Peter Alphon was a clever, wily, intelligent and accomplished rogue there is no doubt.

Sorry for the length of this post, but I thought it might be helpful and interesting to newcomers to the A6 Case.

Graham

[Derrick]

But you've said before that Hanratty could not have left the gun on the bus and sent the telegram from Liverpool what is the evidence for that?

See #2560

[Spitfire]

Hi Caz

The prosecution planned to call Pamela Patt to give a deposition at the committal. She was ill and did not attend.

But strangely, between then and the trial she wasn't considered an important witness and wasn't called. Her details were withheld from the defence.

The police, as far as I understand, favoured the afternoon run of the bus as the time in which the gun was dumped on it.

So, giving the police and the prosecution the absolute benefit of any doubt then, Ms Patt's statement was of little help to the prosecution and the gun was placed on the bus in the afternoon thus making it impossible for Hanratty to have put it there.

Del

What does Pamela Patt's statement say that leads to the conclusion that the gun was put on the bus in the (later) afternoon?

[Graham]

Family Involvement?

A poster asked if it was felt that Gregsten's family or Valerie Storie's family might have instigated the A6 crime by paying someone to 'break them up'.

As far as I can recall, Michael Gregsten had little in the way of family, as his parents were dead and his only relations appeared to be two aunts, one of whom actually owned the Morris Minor which she lent to Gregsten as he couldn't afford to buy a car himself. It's unlikely in my opinion that these two aunts even knew about his affair with Valerie Storie.

Michael and Janet Gregsten were perennially short of money, and even had to sell their beloved piano.

Valerie's parents had met Gregsten many times, and he was a regular visitor to their house. Someone sneakily told them that he was married, but according to Valerie this didn't make any difference as far as her parents were concerned. So I frankly can't see Mr and Mrs Storie cashing in their savings or re-mortgaging their house to pay someone to scare their daughter away from Gregsten.

Janet Gregsten had some bad press initially, and was thought (especially by Paul Foot) to have been jealous of her husband's affair and perhaps angry enough to do something about it. In fact, she actually said that she wasn't particularly bothered about the affair, as it meant that Michael was getting the sex she was evidently unable to give. Precisely how Janet could raise the money to pay a hit-man (or whatever you want to call him) was never explained, and I think this is how the infamous "Mr X" a.k.a. "The Central Figure" came into the reckoning. Unfortunately, those who felt that "Mr X" was the rather mysterious William Ewer were to be disappointed, as he successfully sued The Sunday Times, Paul Foot and Jonathan Cape for libel after they linked him to the case. He got £1000 from Jonathan Cape and a lot more from the Sunday Times. Of course, a lot of interest in Mr Ewer ultimately came from the fact that he and Janet Gregsten lived together for a number of years after the murder; but as he was her brother-in-law and they had known each other for a number of years, this really isn't all that surprising.

Finally, Paul Foot at last met Janet Gregsten not long before she died, and he admitted that she was far from being the harridan he thought she was, and further admitted that in his considered opinion she had nothing to do with her husband's murder.

So - family involvement? Nah.

Graham

[Derrick]

What does Pamela Patt's statement say that leads to the conclusion that the gun was put on the bus in the (later) afternoon?

And a very good afternoon to you Spitfire.

And what about her (Ms Patt's) statement that says it was put there in the morning?

Nothing at all eh?

The gun wasn't there the previous evening, as per Edwin Cooke's testimony.

Nothing suggests that it was put there on her (Ms Patt's) run. So it could only have been put there on the afternoon run which began after 3pm.

In the afternoon, the bus travelled as far north and west as Victoria, I believe. That would still mean at least a 20 minute tube to Euston for a train. Who knows how long one would have to have waited for a Liverpool train; a journey that would have lasted around 4 hours.

Besides, Hanratty said that on his return from Rhyl on that Thursday that he went to the cinema in the afternoon and watched Guns Of Navarone and then tried to get into the Howard Winstone vs Ayree Jackson fight at the Liverpool Stadium, but it was full. These two events were verified by the police.

But even so. If Hanratty was the A6 murderer and didn't place the gun on the bus on the Thursday then why would his conspiratorial proxy put it somewhere that it could not only be found, but found in a place that Hanratty himself used to dispose of the low value gains from his screwings?

Nonsensical.

Del

[NickB]

They suggested that Hanratty was in Liverpool on the 21st

Derrick,

When did they do that?

The prosecution case was that 'the sweet shop incident occurred on Monday 21 and not Tuesday 22 August 1961, so not involving James Hanratty.' (Appeal section 76.x)

In other words, he was not in Liverpool on the 21st and therefore could not have been the person seen by Olive Dinwoodie.

[Derrick]

Hi Graham

Family Involvement?...As far as I can recall, Michael Gregsten had little in the way of family, as his parents were dead...

Michael Gregsten's mother Jeannie May was alive and kicking at the time of the A6 murder, she was, at the time in her late 60's

Of course, a lot of interest in Mr Ewer ultimately came from the fact that he and Janet Gregsten lived together for a number of years after the murder; but as he was her brother-in-law and they had known each other for a number of years, this really isn't all that surprising.

Lived together! They became lovers Graham. Janet Gregsten is on record saying that she never understood the real meaning of sexual intimacy until she was taken by Ewer. All under her own sister's roof apparently.

But who am I to make moral judgements eh?

Del

[Derrick]

Derrick,

When did they do that?

The prosecution case was that 'the sweet shop incident occurred on Monday 21 and not Tuesday 22 August 1961, so not involving James Hanratty.' (Appeal section 76.x)

In other words, he was not in Liverpool on the 21st and therefore could not have been the person seen by Olive Dinwoodie.

Hi Nick

In the documentary, The Mystery of Deadman's Hill, Michael Sherrard says and I quote:

It drove the prosecution at one stage solemnly to suggest that Hanratty might have been in Liverpool and that there was an air service from Liverpool to the the south which was regular and perhaps he come down for the occasion and then gone back to Liverpool or Ryhl or whatever, that seemed to us quite absurd.

Michael Sherrard was there in court, no one here was. I believe we have to take Sherrard's word as being true. Any other action would be disingenuous.

Del

[NickB]

Derrick - What has that Sherrard quote got to do with your claim that the prosecution suggested that Hanratty was in Liverpool on the 21st - the Monday?

[Derrick]

Derrick - What has that Sherrard quote got to do with your claim that the prosecution suggested that Hanratty was in Liverpool on the 21st - the Monday?

Nothing, as you well know Nick.

The quote from Sherrard was actually concerned with the prosecution's worry that Hanratty was actually in Liverpool on the 22nd, as you well know Nick.

Del

[Graham]

Michael Gregsten's mother Jeannie May was alive and kicking at the time of the A6 murder, she was, at the time in her late 60's

Yes, I did say 'as far as I can recall'

Lived together! They became lovers Graham. Janet Gregsten is on record saying that she never understood the real meaning of sexual intimacy until she was taken by Ewer.

You know exactly what I meant, Derrick, so please stop splitting hairs.

Graham

.

[Spitfire]

I don't think that there was any evidence as to when the gun was put on the bus, except for Mr Cooke's assertion that he inspected under the rear seat on 23rd August and there was no gun, but his inspection on 24 August revealed the gun and ammo.

As to Dinwoodie, the prosecution's case was that the incident took place on 21st August and that the person asking directions was not Hanratty, however if the jury rejected that and found that the directions incident happened on 22nd August, then the prosecution's case was that either that the person was not Hanratty or if it had been, then the evidence of him being the gunman was such that the jury should find that by one means or another Hanratty had got from Scotland Road to Dorney Reach.

I agree with Sherrard that if the incident took place on 22nd and involved Hanratty, then that should provide a sufficient alibi.