A6 Rebooted

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Caz- I tend to think Gillbanks was not the most thorough of detectives actually . I find it intriguing that Hanratty was up in Liverpool trying to sell the bits of jewellery-- having failed to sell it via France or Louise Anderson in London. I always believed btw that he had made a last minute attempt to sell it to Louise Anderson on 22nd whose flat is only fifty yards from Paddington---but we will never know.When he couldn't sell it in Liverpool either at the Billiard Club or via this Aspinall friend I believe he caught the bus to Rhyl on the off chance he would find Terry again who had told him he could find people in Rhyl who would buy it.The whole story fits together for me as being entirely in keeping with the difficult life of troubled young Hanratty who didn't want to settle for being a refuse worker or a window cleaner like his poor upright Dad wanted and had instead been seduced by the bright lights of Soho as so many were in those days-my own mum and dad loved the bright lights of Soho -couldn't get down to London often enough -though they never met the underworld characters that populated its bars and nightclubs .But in amongst Soho's artists,bohemians, sex workers, Windmill Girls , Royals-from time to time-Bent coppers etc [loads of Bent 'boys in blue' in early 1960's Soho but they got cleaned out a few years later by all accounts ] were some very nasty characters indeed-older gangsters of the worst type who would have considered the new boy on the block very wet behind the ears indeed.
So my own thinking tends towards a set up.Hanratty may have been considered the perfect fall guy of plot to kill Gregsten by someone who didn't want Gregsten around anymore.The real killer intent all along on such an outcome, collecting his cash for the 'job' when he returned the gun.Or it was committed by an inexperienced Alphon type character who couldn't drive a car properly ,bit of an odd loner bright enough but often out to lunch someone who people knew from seeing him at the Dogs or in the betting shop.Justice claimed in his french book on the case that William Ewer knew Alphon from a political organisation and that they had both belonged to far right parties .Its pretty certain Ewer knew some very rich characters in those days-to have a William Steer in your shop even then spoke of some very rich connections and the Holbein would be now worth untold millions .That Ewer had such 'connections' tells me quite a lot about his 'Umbrella' business actually and the likely types who he did business with.The Louise Anderson's of that world whose 'antiques' had fallen off the occasional lorry.To address the police set up would take time.Blom Cooper clearly knew the trial was very dodgy indeed and as a barrister he was able to spell out all its failings----and of course he actually believed at the time Hanratty may well have done it-though he retracted apparently when Foot's book came out.If you want the detail of what I believe Acott and Oxford got up to that would take some time and I am off to Scotland tomorrow for the weekend so it would have to wait until next week.

[Natalie Severn]

Sherrard’s reaction was pretty strong!

That is just one amazing bit of research Nick---wow! Thanks for posting it.

[moste]

Sherrard’s reaction was pretty strong!

Fascinating. Well done Nick.

[Graham]

Sherrard’s reaction was pretty strong!

Wow - so Sherrard really did get stuck in. I wonder if the good burghers of Bedford, who made up the jury, felt that it was just not on for a young upstart lawyer to question in the way he did someone whom they considered to be a Pillar of Respectable Society, i.e., Basil Acott. You never know.....

Nice find, Nick.

Graham

[cobalt]

Mr Denning Drives North!

This is not a reference to the controversial Lord Denning, whose firm belief in police evidence helped keep the Birmingham6 behind bars for a number of years. I was referring to a creaky British thriller from 1952 starring John Mills, Herbert Lom and Sam Wannamaker. Mills drives north to dispose of the body of a man he has accidentally killed.

The reason I mention it is that most us have always assumed the perpetrator of the A6 murder (whether Hanratty or not)came from the London area. There is plenty reason to suppose this, from the finding of the gun and bullets, the evidence of Ms Storey, and the dumping of the car.

However there is the puzzling, yet reasonably credible, sighting of the car in the Derbyshire area in the early hours of the morning following the murder. This is the sighting which refers to the driver wearing a green woolly hat, something apparently photographed later in the boot of the car. Is it possible that those of us who doubt Hanratty's guilt have been too 'London centric' and not followed up possible links to the crime outwith the London area?

[moste]

This is not a reference to the controversial Lord Denning, whose firm belief in police evidence helped keep the Birmingham6 behind bars for a number of years. I was referring to a creaky British thriller from 1952 starring John Mills, Herbert Lom and Sam Wannamaker. Mills drives north to dispose of the body of a man he has accidentally killed.

The reason I mention it is that most us have always assumed the perpetrator of the A6 murder (whether Hanratty or not)came from the London area. There is plenty reason to suppose this, from the finding of the gun and bullets, the evidence of Ms Storey, and the dumping of the car.

However there is the puzzling, yet reasonably credible, sighting of the car in the Derbyshire area in the early hours of the morning following the murder. This is the sighting which refers to the driver wearing a green woolly hat, something apparently photographed later in the boot of the car. Is it possible that those of us who doubt Hanratty's guilt have been too 'London centric' and not followed up possible links to the crime outwith the London area?

Being a big John Mills fan I realised this was a film of his that I had missed, so watched it last night on youtube , clever plot, quite dated directing wise, but very enjoyable. In this drama the business of the disposal of Mados' body, The trouble and energy Denning goes to,to cover his tracks, and the effort he makes in dumping the body so that it wont be found anytime soon (made quite believable by J Mills) got me to pondering the situation in that A6 layby.
Given that the assailant believed both victims to be dead would it not make sense, since he wasn't pressed by time, to do some serious finking, and consider the advantage to himself, to pull these two poor souls the few yards across the concrete lay-by, and just into the woods , where they might not be discovered for weeks. I know the usual reaction to this kind of thinking is "well, no one knows how one behaves in situations like this." Yet is it not the case that while deliberating what to do next, and in some discussion with miss story regarding maybe "knocking her on the head "and having her teach him the gear layout of the morris, etc.. then, apparently after having second thoughts, turns and shoots her, all seemingly very calm, cool, and collected, I just think that along with so many other segments of this saga something doesn't sit right.
As far as the sightings in other areas, and the one around Matlock,which you mentioned Cobalt, which to my mind is much more of a believable and straight forward piece of witnessing than any of the other so called highway witnesses, the problem being, Hanratty was always at the mercy of policemen who used evidence if it worked for THEM, and didn't, if it didn't.

[caz]

Given that the assailant believed both victims to be dead would it not make sense, since he wasn't pressed by time, to do some serious finking, and consider the advantage to himself, to pull these two poor souls the few yards across the concrete lay-by, and just into the woods , where they might not be discovered for weeks.

Hi moste,

I think if the gunman had been finking clearly enough to go that far, he would have made absolutely sure he had silenced Valerie for good. That would have taken mere seconds, so it seems he was in a panic by then and just wanted to get away as fast as possible.

Nothing about this crime suggests someone who had ever used a gun before, whether to threaten, wound or kill. Everything suggests a newbie who was simply not up to the task of getting clean away with it and avoiding suspicion in the long run.

Love,

Caz
X

[Derrick]

...Everything suggests a newbie who was simply not up to the task of getting clean away with it and avoiding suspicion in the long run.
...

Are you sure.

I think that everything to the contrary is true.

The gunman, experienced with firearms and knowing what sort of loud explosion would occur, was careful not to raise suspicion of murder in;
a) the Dorney cornfield
b) the couple of dead-end turn-offs mentioned by Miss Storie.

But Deadman's Hill seemed perfect for murder.

The only mistake he made was not to kill Miss Storie. But as it happened she didn't have a clue what the killer looked liked and he has gotten away with it.

[Spitfire]

Are you sure.

I think that everything to the contrary is true.

The gunman, experienced with firearms and knowing what sort of loud explosion would occur, was careful not to raise suspicion of murder in;
a) the Dorney cornfield
b) the couple of dead-end turn-offs mentioned by Miss Storie.

But Deadman's Hill seemed perfect for murder.

The only mistake he made was not to kill Miss Storie. But as it happened she didn't have a clue what the killer looked liked and he has gotten away with it.

I don't think Hanratty intended at the outset to kill either Michael Gregsten or Valerie Storie..

If he had intended to kill Gregsten, he would have ensured that Gregsten was out of the car when he did so. It makes no sense to have shot him dead while he was in the car and especially while sitting in the driving seat. I am therefore inclined to the view that Hanratty acted instinctively in pulling the trigger fearing that Gregsten was about to attempt to disarm him.

Hanratty did intend to kill Valerie to remove the only witness to his cowardly murder. He did this when Valerie was out of the car to avoid making the interior even more bloody than it was.

Complete ineptitude in the commission of his crimes was a Hanratty trademark and he made a complete hash of killing an unarmed woman.

[caz]

The only mistake he made was not to kill Miss Storie.

Yes, and the only mistake Captain Smith made was to allow his ship to go too near that iceberg.

It's only a mistake if you end up hanging - or drowning - for it.

Love,

Caz
X

[moste]

Hi moste,

I think if the gunman had been finking clearly enough to go that far, he would have made absolutely sure he had silenced Valerie for good. That would have taken mere seconds, so it seems he was in a panic by then and just wanted to get away as fast as possible.

Nothing about this crime suggests someone who had ever used a gun before, whether to threaten, wound or kill. Everything suggests a newbie who was simply not up to the task of getting clean away with it and avoiding suspicion in the long run.

Love,

Caz
X

I meant to add in my last post, if he had made the effort to conceal the two bodies, then of course he would probably have been faced with the dilemma that the girl was still alive, but since it didn't happen that way it doesn't really matter. But still why not hide the evidence?
On the shooting, I am sure that someone has already agreed with me on these threads (and having watched the demo on youtube) firing a .38 enfield takes quite a squeeze. Firstly, to fire twice in rapid succession takes an assassin, actually given the tag "double tap "in the trade. If Gregsten had only been shot once, as Alphon claimed, (strange thing to insist, even for a person who loved to mix lies with truths) then one of the anomaly's of this case would have been removed.

[moste]

Hi moste,

I think if the gunman had been finking clearly enough to go that far, he would have made absolutely sure he had silenced Valerie for good. That would have taken mere seconds, so it seems he was in a panic by then and just wanted to get away as fast as possible.

Nothing about this crime suggests someone who had ever used a gun before, whether to threaten, wound or kill. Everything suggests a newbie who was simply not up to the task of getting clean away with it and avoiding suspicion in the long run.

Love,

Caz
X

I meant to add in my last post, if he had made the effort to conceal the two bodies, then of course he would probably have been faced with the dilemma that the girl was still alive, but since it didn't happen that way it doesn't really matter. But still why not hide the evidence?
On the shooting, I am sure that someone has already agreed with me on these threads (and having watched the demo on youtube) firing a .38 enfield takes quite a squeeze. Firstly, to fire twice in rapid succession takes an assassin, actually given the tag "double tap "in the trade. If Gregsten had only been shot once, as Alphon claimed, (strange thing to insist, even for a person who loved to mix lies with truths) then one of the anomaly's of this case would have been removed. Incidentally its likely, IMHO, that the going berserk with the gun just before leaving the scene, was a ploy to give anyone the impression that Gregstens death was anything but a contract killing.

[Sherlock Houses]

Anyone else think JH looks like Woody Harrelson?!

I can see why you might think that, but for me the celebrity who reminds me most of JH is the golfer [and ex-World no.1] Luke Donald.

[Sherlock Houses]

Michael Da Costa info

Michael Da Costa, the 20 year old actor who contacted James Hanratty's defence team in February 1962, was convinced that he had seen Hanratty at Euston Station on the morning of August 22nd 1961.

Tragically, Michael took his own life by hanging back in March 1977 at the age of 35. His wife, Philippa, had passed away just over 2 years earlier.

[NickB]

Michael Da Costa

I this is him ...

http://movie-dude.co.uk/Michael%20Da%20Costa.htm