A6 Rebooted

[moste]

Reading SHs highlighted page from the biography, further to the above, Simpson alludes to 2 shots through and through of Gregsten head by .32 bullets. the police would have to have informed him about the bullet size, his own actual first hand knowledge of the bullet size was when he examined Valerie at the hospital on the Sunday following. He took photo's but did he actually see the bullets at this time, he may in fact have never seen them, since it was probably a hospital doctor who operated on her to remove them from her arm.so in retrospect, Simpson would not be dictating to his stenographer that .32 or .38 were used. So if it wasn't his identification of the bullets where did that info. come from, the police? Still smells fishy to me!

[Graham]

There will likely always be errors in works such as these

You make the above statement, yet deny that Prof System or his proof-reader made a mistake regarding the the calibre of the bullets? Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. In my opinion, and I think also that of others, picking up on the .32 versus .38 'debate' is merely clutching at straws. I repeat, had he referred to the bullets as .32 in any official report, it would have been spotted.

Graham

[Spitfire]

Reading SHs highlighted page from the biography, further to the above, Simpson alludes to 2 shots through and through of Gregsten head by .32 bullets. the police would have to have informed him about the bullet size, his own actual first hand knowledge of the bullet size was when he examined Valerie at the hospital on the Sunday following. He took photo's but did he actually see the bullets at this time, he may in fact have never seen them, since it was probably a hospital doctor who operated on her to remove them from her arm.so in retrospect, Simpson would not be dictating to his stenographer that .32 or .38 were used. So if it wasn't his identification of the bullets where did that info. come from, the police? Still smells fishy to me!

No he doesn't. It was Gregston's body from which the .32 bullets were removed.

If you are saying that Prof Simpson would not make an error as to the calibre of bullets, then I would venture to suggest he is less likely to make an error as to the identity of the victim.

Gregston was shot with .32 bullets, whereas Gregsten was shot with .38 calibre bullets.

[Graham]

Hang on, guys, this is now getting confusing. First off, Prof Simpson removed no bullets from anyone, as I understand it. The two bullets remaining in Valerie's body were removed under local anaesthetic at Guy's Hospital on Saturday August 31st by an un-named surgeon (as far as I am able to tell). No bullets were removed from Gregsten's head by anyone, as he had been shot through-and-through. The cartridge-cases recovered from the murder scene, from the car and from the Vienna Hotel were all .38 calibre, as were the bullets removed from Valerie and also the bullets with the gun found on the bus. Can we please close this now, and agree once and for all that the weapon used in the A6 Crime was .38 calibre, and that about 17 years after the crime was committed Prof Simpson simply made a mistake when writing his memoirs when he referred incorrectly to the bullets as .32 calibre. Otherwise I would be interested to see some actual, physical proof that the gun used to kill Gregsten and wound Valerie was a .32.

Graham

[moste]

Hang on, guys, this is now getting confusing. First off, Prof Simpson removed no bullets from anyone, as I understand it. The two bullets remaining in Valerie's body were removed under local anaesthetic at Guy's Hospital on Saturday August 31st by an un-named surgeon (as far as I am able to tell). No bullets were removed from Gregsten's head by anyone, as he had been shot through-and-through. The cartridge-cases recovered from the murder scene, from the car and from the Vienna Hotel were all .38 calibre, as were the bullets removed from Valerie and also the bullets with the gun found on the bus. Can we please close this now, and agree once and for all that the weapon used in the A6 Crime was .38 calibre, and that about 17 years after the crime was committed Prof Simpson simply made a mistake when writing his memoirs when he referred incorrectly to the bullets as .32 calibre. Otherwise I would be interested to see some actual, physical proof that the gun used to kill Gregsten and wound Valerie was a .32.

Graham

Well, your obviously never going to see physical proof of the gun that killed Gregsten. Everything you state is what we were originally told by the police via the newspapers.(so rock solid I guess) I don't believe there was ever a report of the calibre of bullets removed from Ms. Storie, If there was it would make sense, as the police would want to wrap all ballistic information up together as a complete and irrefutable indicator of Hanratty's guilt.
I am happy to close this issue now. I will just add this 'Simpsons .32 calibre reference' to my other list of 27 anomalies in this case. P s. I do believe Spitty is still playing 'name games' in his post , so not really confusing.

[Graham]

Moste,

it was your post #3076 that I found confusing, not Spitfire's later post.

Graham

[caz]

Gregston was shot with .32 bullets, whereas Gregsten was shot with .38 calibre bullets.

Good one, Spitty.

As anyone who has ever written, helped to write, proofread or publish a book containing facts and figures will confirm, it is nigh on impossible to find and correct every single typo, printing or spelling error in any manuscript, even with the best will in the world and a full grasp of the material. The most important thing is for authors to check their facts before and after putting pen to paper, but a case of one stray letter (o for e) or digit (2 for 8) eventually appearing in the published work is always going to be as likely as not.

The tiniest slip of the pen, transcription or printing error where important figures are concerned can obviously have a huge impact if not recognised and corrected, but in my experience authors should not try to tackle all the proofreading themselves as they can too easily read through their own work several times without seeing the kind of mistakes which an independent proofreader would tend to pick up at first sight.

I must say, this is not the finest hour for Hanratty's supporters.

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

I must say, this is not the finest hour for Hanratty's supporters.

Hi Caz,

I dare say there'll be other straws to clutch at.......


Graham

[moste]

It is not a simple error. It is a massive error.

For you and me, or any other layman who has probably never handled a firearm, that I agree would be a simple error. But Simpson was a highly experienced pathologist. In his heyday, his word could mean life or death. He was a national figure in high profile murder cases, and would have had a pack of young hounds after his job had he slipped up.

OK he was not a ballistic expert, but he was hardly a novice in these matters. If there was typing error in the 1978 memoirs then this could have been acknowledged as an erratum.

Nail on Head.
And it wasn't a Typo. 7and9 are the closest numbers on the keyboard 2 isn't even close .No it was something else, as I'm trying to explain to others. Gregsten -Gregston doesn't matter a diddlysquat. But .32 calibre without an erratum is nothing at all to do with having anything both ways ,or clutching at straws, Its as you put it Cobalt, massive. I would be happy to leave it at that ,but as there are folks who obviously feel very warmly in this subject, (for some unexplained reason) will want the last word I have no doubt.

[caz]

Nail on Head.
And it wasn't a Typo. 7and9 are the closest numbers on the keyboard 2 isn't even close .No it was something else, as I'm trying to explain to others. Gregsten -Gregston doesn't matter a diddlysquat. But .32 calibre without an erratum is nothing at all to do with having anything both ways ,or clutching at straws, Its as you put it Cobalt, massive. I would be happy to leave it at that ,but as there are folks who obviously feel very warmly in this subject, (for some unexplained reason) will want the last word I have no doubt.

Hi Moste,

A poorly handwritten 8 could feasibly end up as a typewritten 2, with the error going unnoticed. The correct spelling of someone's name matters quite a lot actually - not least to the family of the person concerned, in this case the victim of a particularly horrific and senseless crime.

In short, both errors were regrettable but there we are. They happen. The errors - multiple - would have been truly massive in the highly unlikely event that the bullets involved didn't match, and nobody working on the case for the defence or prosecution were any the wiser.

So is this what is actually being suggested here, or is the criticism directed at the author for not noticing and correcting what must surely have been an error?

Love,

Caz
X

[cobalt]

The errors - multiple - would have been truly massive in the highly unlikely event that the bullets involved didn't match, and nobody working on the case for the defence or prosecution were any the wiser.

It might not be the first time this has happened. Many on this site will be familiar with the Craig-Bentley case of 1952 in which a policeman was killed on a warehouse roof. The 'Let Him Have it' case is best remembered because Bentley, who was apprehended at the time of the shooting, went to the gallows whilst the underage Craig who apparently fired the fatal shot lived to
a fair old age thereafter.

However the prosecution, as far as I can recall, never actually matched the fatal shot to Craig's gun. It seemed so obvious there was no need to do this. Until middle age Craig himself always assumed he had fired the fatal shot. He admitted to aiming at the policeman and pulling the trigger, albeit his firearm was highly inaccurate. However research by the likes of David Yallop has made a strong case that the fatal shot was an accidental cross fire from armed police who were called to the scene. An armed officer, crucial to the events, was never called to the trial. (His name was Paice, from memory, and he gave an interview about 20 years ago which was broadcast only in the London area.)

None of this, if true, would absolve Craig of responsibility for the death of a policeman, and I think he acknowledged this himself in an interview some years ago. However it shows that even in a high profile murder case the ballistic evidence may be assumed rather than proved.

[Graham]

Hi Cobalt,

In the Bentley-Craig Case the pathologist, Dr Haley, who examined PC Miles, said in a later interview with David Yallop that in his estimation PC Miles' fatal wound had been caused by a bullet of somewhere between .32 and .38 calibre fired from appox. 8 - 10 feet range. Yet he never said this before or during the trial; in fact he never gave any opinion at the trial as to the calibre of the fatal bullet, which was never found. Craig's gun was a .455 calibre Webley, which he had modified by shortening the barrel so he could carry it easily in a pocket. The bullets he had with him that night were between .41 and .45 calibre, therefore undersized, and couple with the shortened barrel, would have been very inaccurate. What Yallop is saying is that if Dr Haler is correct, the fatal bullet could not have come from Craig's gun. The confusion is compounded by the prosecution's ballistics expert, Dr Nickolls, who some years after the case said that he had collected bullets of .41, .45 and .32 calibre from the crime-scene; the standard police-issue firearm at that time was the Webley Automatic of .32 calibre. Unfortunately, Dr Nickolls failed to mention during the trial that one of the four bullets he found was .32 calibre. Thus there is potentially good deal of confusion as to what calibre of bullet actually killed PC Miles, and there also seems some doubt as to whether the police marksman called to the scene actually opened fire. What is also very often forgotten is that Craig shot two policemen that night, the other being PC Fairfax who was hit in the shoulder; but I can't find any evidence as to the calibre of bullet that struck Fairfax (which I do find rather odd, to be honest). Lots of confusion surround the Bentley-Craig Case with regard to the forensics and ballistics, but should Bentley have been hanged? In my view - no way.

In the A6 Case, all the ballistic evidence found at the crime scene, in the car, in the Vienna Hotel, on the Number 36A bus, and most crucially in Valerie Storey's body, point to the inescapable fact that a .38 calibre gun, and no other, was used.

Finally, may I wish all A6 posters a prosperous and happy 2016, and it would be great to see some debate start up again!

Graham

[OneRound]

Hi Graham,

It was my fascination with the Derek Bentley case that largely led me to and ignited my interest in James Hanratty and the A6 murder. David Yallop's 1972 television drama To Encourage The Others set me off on Bentley and a later edition of his book of the same title contained an appendix comprising the House of Lords debate in 1972 about the two cases.

Like you, I consider there's lots of confusion surrounding the Bentley-Craig case with regard to the forensics and ballistics. Like you too (although unlike some here apparently), I don't accept there's similar confusion with regard to the forensics and ballistics of the A6 case.

The general circumstances of the two cases are obviously extremely different. The Court of Appeal also delivered very different judgments in respect of the most recent appeals made on behalf of Bentley and Hanratty; finding in favour of the former and, as we well know, against the latter.

To my mind, the judgment given by the Court of Appeal in 1998 in respect of Bentley was highly perceptive. Bentley's conviction was judged unsafe and his conviction quashed not because of what was claimed to be ''new evidence'' presented at the appeal or concerns over evidence given at trial by police officers but because of the unfairness of the trial judge's summing up.

As the Court of Appeal ruled, ''In our judgment the summing up in the case was such as to deny the appellant [Bentley] that fair trial which is the birthright of every British citizen.'' However, it should be noted that this was a long way short of a declaration of innocence for the Croydon teenager. Indeed the Court of Appeal went so far as to state, ''On the evidence presented to the court [at trial] we consider that a properly directed jury would have been entitled to convict. The case against the appellant was, as it seems to us, a substantial one ...''. [I suspect the Court of Appeal were being pro-active in pre-empting any possible future appeal by Craig in going on to refer the case against him as ''overwhelming''.]

I make no claim of innocence for Hanratty. Furthermore and unlike the Bentley case, I have no quarrel with the fairness of the judge's summing summing up at Hanratty's trial. However, I would question whether police non-disclosures and other irregularities also denied James Hanratty ''that fair trial which is the birthright of every British citizen''.

Wishing you and all here a happy and healthy New Year,

OneRound

[NickB]

The press had, for several days prior, spread the police's information that they wanted a man in connection with the A6 murder who is known to dye his hair.

If DCs Williams and Stillings were looking out for someone with dyed hair, it explains why Hanratty attracted their attention in the Stevonia Café.

[OneRound]

If DCs Williams and Stillings were looking out for someone with dyed hair, it explains why Hanratty attracted their attention in the Stevonia Café.

Interesting take on the dyed hair by the Court of Appeal in their 2002 judgment.

Whilst acknowledging it was of a ''vividly unnatural colour'' (para 146), the Court did not consider this caused unfairness at Hanratty's identification parades and stated, '' ... this is very much a matter which is as likely to have been in James Hanratty's favour, as against him, since it would certainly make him look different from the person who attacked Miss Storie'' (para 206).

Best regards,
OneRound