A6 Rebooted

[Spitfire]

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



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

Graham

.

Looking at the Find My Past website, it seems that Jeanie May Oulet was born in 1893 and married John A Gregsten in 1921 with Michael's birth being registered in 1925.

There is evidence that a John A Gregsten married again in 1930 to one Dorothy Hibbert.

Jeanie May Gregsten's death was registered in 1969. John A Gregsten does not appear in any record after 1930.

[ansonman]

Question Time

I should like to ask a question, if I may.

Spitfire excluded, is there anyone on this thread who, as a member of the jury, would have found Hanratty guilty as charged, knowing what we know today and knowing that a guilty verdict would send him to the scaffold?

Ansonman

[Graham]

Looking at the Find My Past website, it seems that Jeanie May Oulet was born in 1893 and married John A Gregsten in 1921 with Michael's birth being registered in 1925.

There is evidence that a John A Gregsten married again in 1930 to one Dorothy Hibbert.

Jeanie May Gregsten's death was registered in 1969. John A Gregsten does not appear in any record after 1930.

Thanks for this, Spitfire. I was going to look later this evening, but you've saved me the trouble!

Graham

[NickB]

Ernest Brine, the bus conductor in the afternoon, gave evidence that the upstairs was crowded during his shift so the back seat could not have been lifted unnoticed.

I think the man Pamela Patt saw is the most likely candidate, but the gun could also have been put there before the bus left the depot. As I recall, a bus terminus was a pretty unsecure place then where passengers could wander around unchallenged and get on a bus due to leave.

[GUT]

I should like to ask a question, if I may.

Spitfire excluded, is there anyone on this thread who, as a member of the jury, would have found Hanratty guilty as charged, knowing what we know today and knowing that a guilty verdict would send him to the scaffold?

Ansonman

Based on what I know yep.

[OneRound]

I should like to ask a question, if I may.

Spitfire excluded, is there anyone on this thread who, as a member of the jury, would have found Hanratty guilty as charged, knowing what we know today and knowing that a guilty verdict would send him to the scaffold?

Ansonman

Hi Anson - I remain unconvinced that Hanratty's guilt has been proved fairly and beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, a not guilty verdict from me.

At risk of appearing to run with the fox and the hounds, I would emphasise that does not mean I am convinced of Hanratty's innocence. Some way from it in fact.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Spitfire]

Graham, you might have been better doing your own research. I must have been distracted by Manchester City's disastrous performance last night but John A Gregsten died in 1964. His death registered in Hove Sussex. His second wife Dorothy Louise Gregsten (Nee Hibbert) died in 1972.

There is evidence that John A Gregsten was living in London as late as 1958 and presumably retired to Hove with second wife Dorothy.

John A Gregsten was an only child. His father, Michael's grandfather, Alfred Ernest Gregsten was born in 1869 in Liverpool, and his father (Michael's great-grandfather) was born in Ireland in 1830.

Michael's mother, Jeanie May Gregsten) Nee Oulet was the eldest child of Jesse James Oulet and Jane Isabella Oulet. The youngest child was Hilda Marjorie Oulet born in 1897 and died unmarried in 1982. I assume that she as the only aunt of Michael was the owner of 847BHN.

[Spitfire]

Hi Anson - I remain unconvinced that Hanratty's guilt has been proved fairly and beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, a not guilty verdict from me.

At risk of appearing to run with the fox and the hounds, I would emphasise that does not mean I am convinced of Hanratty's innocence. Some way from it in fact.

Best regards,

OneRound

Without seeing and hearing all the evidence one cannot say how one would have voted if one had been on the jury.

It seems that the trial judge summed up indicating that an acquittal would be a reasonable and sensible verdict. The eleven man jury disagreed and convicted.

The trial did not feature Mr Larman and Mesdames Vincent and Walker's evidence. Would they have made a difference? Sherrard chose not to call them for the 1962 appeal, so presumably he thought not.

The trial did not have the DNA evidence which in the first instance was sought to be introduced by pro-Hanratty campaigners. It was only when it seemed that this evidence would tell against their man was any exception taken to it. Had this DNA evidence exculpated Hanratty, then I would have accepted it. As it presently stands, the DNA exculpates everyone including Alphon but inculpates Hanratty.

I think Mike Sherrard probably got it right when addressing Law Society students he said, "The wrong man was not hanged. That was an immense relief to me." and "The evidence was too weak to justify conviction. I still hold that view."

[GUT]

I think what really sank him was the change in his story.

Juries just don't like that sort of thing, once they cry BS you are in trouble.

[OneRound]

I think what really sank him was the change in his story.

Juries just don't like that sort of thing, once they cry BS you are in trouble.

Hi GUT - yes, I don't believe anyone could disagree with that. In order to keep the jury on side, it really needed to be Rhyl from the start or not at all. Sherrard fully recognised the danger and insisted Hanratty sign his confirmation of this change.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Graham]

Hi Spitfire,

thanks for the info. Don't think I'd have done much good myself as I was still dazed all evening by Villa's performance at The Stadium Of Light.

Graham

[NickB]

I assume that she as the only aunt of Michael was the owner of 847BHN.

Just after the murder Valerie’s mother told the BBC they "left at about 7.30pm in a grey Morris car which I understood belonged to Michael's mother.” Of course she could have been wrong.

With regard to the suggestion that Valerie’s parents were behind the incident because they disapproved of the relationship, this is how Valerie described the situation after her mother discovered Michael was married.

“My parents knew me well enough to realise that I could not be forced to forget about Michael. I have always been the sort of person who could be led – never forced.

So the open door stayed open at our house for Michael. Now our love began, if anything, to grow richer.

For it was an open love, at least within my home. Michael became one of the family.”

[moste]

Just after the murder Valerie’s mother told the BBC they "left at about 7.30pm in a grey Morris car which I understood belonged to Michael's mother.” Of course she could have been wrong.

With regard to the suggestion that Valerie’s parents were behind the incident because they disapproved of the relationship, this is how Valerie described the situation after her mother discovered Michael was married.

“My parents knew me well enough to realise that I could not be forced to forget about Michael. I have always been the sort of person who could be led – never forced.

So the open door stayed open at our house for Michael. Now our love began, if anything, to grow richer.

For it was an open love, at least within my home. Michael became one of the family.”

Given that it was, it seems ,highly unlikely that Gregsten would come home one day "cap in hand" and declare an undying love, and bitter sorrow of his past treatment, of his wife and the mother, of his two beautiful boys.
I really think it highly unlikely that either of the two families in question, would have had any aptitude for breaking up this relationship at all.
It had been FOUR YEARS for crying out loud!
Jean Gregsten, , would be in a state of some anguish,wouldn't you think, over this so called husband who comes and goes on a whim, openly pursuing his sexual passions with this other woman , whilst at the same time, returning
home to enjoy the fatherly side of his interests with his boys.
Here's a man who, though knowingly is in a desperate state financially ,nevertheless, continues on with an affair that, in the long run doesn't appear to be going anywhere. How was he going to pay the rent of the place in Windsor, he was supposedly about to move into.
Little wonder Jean sold his prized piano!(Someone mentioned recently "THEY sold it", JEAN sold it, is more accurate I think ) and good for her I say.
Another point; when it is said "Jean COULD'NT give him what he wanted", is it not much more likely, that Jean WOULD'NT give him what he wanted? Lets put the horse before the cart. Many couples who tie the knot, as we all know, can run into stormy weather, some times running aground never to be rekindled, others are revived and go on to have wonderful relationships, but wasn't this fellow some kind of rat, who wanted the cake and the ha'penny
All in all, it is most likely in my opinion, that there was quite a high level of acceptance, of Gregsten and Storie's behaviour, among the families, given the time that had passed by. Except perhaps with the exclusion of Mr. Bill Ewer.I think it would be very interesting to know, When, how, and to what degree his affections developed for his wife's half sister.
N.B. It goes without saying,that although I find Michael Gregstens apparent demeanor, abhorrent, nobody deserves to be subjected to that kind of evil.

[Graham]

I think you should know, Mr Moste, that Michael Gregsten's wife was called Janet. His mother was called Jeannie May.

Graham

[moste]

I think you should know, Mr Moste, that Michael Gregsten's wife was called Janet. His mother was called Jeannie May.

Graham

Of course it was Graham, I'm getting old, The Jean came from Valerie's middle name, silly me!