A6 Rebooted

[Dunderklumpen]

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

Keith Simpson in Forensic Medicine (6th ed, 1969), Chapter 6 shows two photographs of the deceased Gregsten. The caption of Fig. 68 reads: " Entry wounds of two discharges from a .38 pistol at a range of 3 to 4 inches (A.6 murder)"
It seems that also a professor is capable of making errors!
A Happy New Year,
Dunderklumpen

[Derrick]

Hi Dunderklumpen
Thanks for that revelation.

Prof Simpson didn't give ballistic evidence at trial. That was left to Dr Nickolls. All he could say was that he had not seen similar toolmarks in all of the 250 guns he had previously examined.
That said, currently there is some serious debate over the validity of ballistics evidence in the USA as can be seen here;

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324263404578614161262653152

Nevertheless, welcome to the debate
Del

[Sherlock Houses]

Keith Simpson in Forensic Medicine (6th ed, 1969), Chapter 6 shows two photographs of the deceased Gregsten. The caption of Fig. 68 reads: " Entry wounds of two discharges from a .38 pistol at a range of 3 to 4 inches (A.6 murder)"
It seems that also a professor is capable of making errors!
A Happy New Year,
Dunderklumpen

Hi Dunderklumpen [are you Swedish by any chance ?] and welcome to this forum.
I have seen both these autopsy photographs of Michael Gregsten that are on page 82 of Simpson's book. The entry wounds [one through the left ear and the other about an inch higher and to the left, through the temple] are higher than the corresponding exit wounds. The two exit wounds [on the right cheek] are also about an inch apart. Unless some reconstructive surgery was performed, hardly any discernible damage is apparent in these photos. From certain things I have read over the years I was expecting to see massive damage to Michael Gregsten's head.

[cobalt]

possible sightings

This is a summary of the possible sightings of the car involved in the A6 murder. The shootings occurred at around 0130, and the victims were discovered at around 0645.

Early morning: Clophill
0630: Matlock
0700: Redbridge
1200: Leicester
1300: Mitchin
1725: Coventry
1830: Redbridge

The last sighting is of course confirmed, although the prosecution also presented the 0700 sighting at Redbridge during the trial. The Coventry sighting is clearly a mistake given the timing. The Leicester sighting is also weak, relying on a petrol pump attendant making a mental note of the car; he also described a male and female passenger being in the car. The Clophill sighting only became known in 1997, and suffers due to the witnesses wishing to remain anonymous. They claimed to have reported their sighting at the time of the murder, but were discounted by the police. The Matlock sighting seems promising, since the witness, William Lee, was angry at the reckless driving of the car and wrote down the registration and passed this on to the police. However Matlock is outwith the probable range of mileage as written down on the day of the murder by Gregsten; and there remains the perplexing question of why a gunman would have driven up north in the morning, only to drive back down south later on, inside the most wanted car in the country. Taken individually, it is unclear how any of these sightings could undermine the prosecution case.

However the Clophill and Matlock sightings, taken together, may be significant. Both witnesses claim that the driver was having difficulty driving the Morris Minor, and both mention him wearing a green pom pom hat. This would surely have been unusual attire in August, although as has been pointed out perhaps the murderer was attempting to disguise himself. However what makes the sightings worthy of investigation is a police photograph of the boot of the car involved in the A6 murder, which apparently shows a green pom pom hat as part of the contents. Even if Acott was unaware of the alleged Clophill sighting, he was, we know, aware of the Matlock sighting and as an experienced detective must have taken some steps to establish how the pom pom hat came to be in the car.

The following can only be conjecture, for the Matthews report has never been published. But it may be that Matthews saw a contemporary report by the Clophill witnesses which mentioned the hat. (And incidentally the witnesses claimed the driver was not Hanratty.) The sighting by Lee may also be more solid than we imagine. Did he actually have a written record of the registration as claimed? And crucially, did he report his bad driver with the green hat and present his written record of registration before the A6 murder became a national news story?

[Sherlock Houses]

If I'm not mistaken Cobalt I think Derrick posted some months back that the Matlock sighting was at 8.30 am not 6.30 am.

The green pom pom hat and his other evidence would appear to be persuasive evidence that William Lee's sighting was indeed a genuine one.

[Derrick]

Hi Cobalt

As I have posted numerous times on this thread the Matlock sighting by Lee was actually at 8:30am and not 6:30am as erroneously stated in the 2002 judgement.

The mileage as recorded by Acott isn't necessarily correct as we have to trust that Gregsten's log book entry was right.

I think that the Lee sighting is genuine. As for the circuitous route, only the A6 killer would know the reason.

Del

[Derrick]

You beat me to it Holmes ole chap!

[cobalt]

Apologies for stating the wrong time regarding the Matlock sighting. I also wrote Mitchin instead of Hitchin for the 1300 possible sighting.

The timing of William Lee’s report of the erratic driver to the Matlock police may be very significant. It is an easy matter to transpose the digits of a car registration, for no one can really write down a number while driving at the same time. If you later return home and see a similar car number splashed all over the TV screens, then it would be very easy to mistakenly believe that this was indeed the registration you had seen that morning.
If, however, you had reported the car and its registration before becoming aware of the A6 murder, that would be very much stronger evidence indeed.

That still leaves the issue of the green pom pom hat. It can surely not have belonged to the killer, since his suit pockets would already have been filled with a gun, cartridges, cigarettes and a handkerchief at the very least. Somewhere in the police enquiry there must have been an attempt to assign ownership of every single item found inside that car, and the green pom pom hat must have been satisfactorily explained, otherwise it would have formed part of the case against Hanratty.

If the Lee sighting in Matlock is genuine, then the lack of forensic evidence found inside the car becomes bewildering. The killer was in the car for at least 10 hours as both passenger and driver, sat in both the front and back seats, and committed a murder and sexual assault inside the vehicle. He smoked a few cigarettes as well I imagine and even made use of a woollen hat, perhaps to disguise himself, but no trace of him was found.

He must have had to stop for petrol, and presumably some water/juice and crisps/sandwich to keep himself going. Petrol stations then were smaller, family affairs, and to use a toilet it was often necessary to ask for a key. Then he had to chance to luck and drive back through the London traffic unnoticed, in a car smeared with blood and with cartridge cases in the foot well. His driving, which had been noticeably erratic on the quieter morning roads, apparently escaped notice later in the day. I can see why Acott wanted to dismiss the Matlock sighting as a red herring, but the green pom pom hat lends it credence, especially given the alleged sighting earlier in the morning around Clophill.

[OneRound]

Hi Cobalt

As I have posted numerous times on this thread the Matlock sighting by Lee was actually at 8:30am and not 6:30am as erroneously stated in the 2002 judgement.

The mileage as recorded by Acott isn't necessarily correct as we have to trust that Gregsten's log book entry was right.

I think that the Lee sighting is genuine. As for the circuitous route, only the A6 killer would know the reason.

Del

Hi Derrick,

I accept and cannot dispute your wording which I've put in bold. However, given Gregsten was so (? unusually) keen and particular to record the mileage, I doubt that he would be cavalier or slipshod when making the entries.

I would very much incline to the view that Gregsten's entry was correct. That is an assumption but a reasonable one to my mind.

I'll comment a bit later on Cobalt's original post.

Best regards,
OneRound

[OneRound]

This is a summary of the possible sightings of the car involved in the A6 murder. The shootings occurred at around 0130, and the victims were discovered at around 0645.

Early morning: Clophill
0630: Matlock
0700: Redbridge
1200: Leicester
1300: Mitchin
1725: Coventry
1830: Redbridge

The last sighting is of course confirmed, although the prosecution also presented the 0700 sighting at Redbridge during the trial. The Coventry sighting is clearly a mistake given the timing. The Leicester sighting is also weak, relying on a petrol pump attendant making a mental note of the car; he also described a male and female passenger being in the car. The Clophill sighting only became known in 1997, and suffers due to the witnesses wishing to remain anonymous. They claimed to have reported their sighting at the time of the murder, but were discounted by the police. The Matlock sighting seems promising, since the witness, William Lee, was angry at the reckless driving of the car and wrote down the registration and passed this on to the police. However Matlock is outwith the probable range of mileage as written down on the day of the murder by Gregsten; and there remains the perplexing question of why a gunman would have driven up north in the morning, only to drive back down south later on, inside the most wanted car in the country. Taken individually, it is unclear how any of these sightings could undermine the prosecution case.

However the Clophill and Matlock sightings, taken together, may be significant. Both witnesses claim that the driver was having difficulty driving the Morris Minor, and both mention him wearing a green pom pom hat. This would surely have been unusual attire in August, although as has been pointed out perhaps the murderer was attempting to disguise himself. However what makes the sightings worthy of investigation is a police photograph of the boot of the car involved in the A6 murder, which apparently shows a green pom pom hat as part of the contents. Even if Acott was unaware of the alleged Clophill sighting, he was, we know, aware of the Matlock sighting and as an experienced detective must have taken some steps to establish how the pom pom hat came to be in the car.

The following can only be conjecture, for the Matthews report has never been published. But it may be that Matthews saw a contemporary report by the Clophill witnesses which mentioned the hat. (And incidentally the witnesses claimed the driver was not Hanratty.) The sighting by Lee may also be more solid than we imagine. Did he actually have a written record of the registration as claimed? And crucially, did he report his bad driver with the green hat and present his written record of registration before the A6 murder became a national news story?

Hi Cobalt - thanks for your post, appreciate it has been subsequently tweaked. Good to be up and running again.

I do suspect the Matthews report raised concerns as to how fairly and reasonably Hanratty's guilt had been proved rather than finding brand new evidence to point matters in a new direction. Admittedly, that's my usual take on things here and, as you say, has to be conjecture as this report has never been published. However, if the alleged sightings were as helpful to Hanratty's cause as you speculate might be the case, then surely they would not have only been included by Matthews in his report but also presented as a ''winning card'' by Hanratty's legal team at the 2002 appeal. As we know, that didn't happen.

From memory, the Court of Appeal mentioned Lee's alleged sighting in their ruling but obviously were not much influenced by it. [I'll need to check the detail of that.]

As you suggest, Lee's ''sighting'' and, in particular, the timing of the reporting of it to police is potentially so significant. It would be good to know details although I do have doubts as to how much it would turn out to help Hanratty. It just could be that Lee was another witness who was ''trying to get in on the act'' (as mentioned by Sherrard and others) or simply confused. Attempting to probe this matter is far from straight forward.

When was anything about the green pom pom hat first made public? From this distance, that question almost certainly has to be rhetorical and remain unanswerable. However, from even around the time of the A6 crimes, the answer still may not have been clear cut. Information being supplied to and circulated by parts of the media in criminal cases has not always been well controlled and monitored.

Very much an aside but I understand the police were originally convinced that ''Wearside Jack'' (the writer of letters to the police and media in which he falsely claimed responsibility for the ''Yorkshire Ripper'' murders) was indeed the ''Yorkshire Ripper'' as some of his letters contained details that apparently only the murderer would have known. It was only after ''Wearside Jack'' was identified that it was realised his ''inside info'' had actually come from a local news feature that the policemen heading the investigation were unaware of.

Best regards,
OneRound

[cobalt]

I agree we have to be cautious with what seems ‘special knowledge.’ Information in the possession of either the police or witnesses can be leaked to journalists for a price, mentioned in passing to friends, or even picked up (and I suspect this may be the case with Alphon) by suspects whilst being questioned by the police.

For that reason I think the most reliable evidence is contained in the contemporary police files, despite the sterling efforts of the late Paul Foot and others. That is why the conclusions reached by DS Roger Matthews are, despite the later DNA evidence, still worthy of attention. Matthews did not just believe that Hanratty was innocent of the crime; he went further and actually recommended that others (unnamed) should be pursued legally for their role in events. He had a team of 20 officers and went through 16 boxes of evidence, so he must know the evidence as well as anyone.

It is unrealistic to expect his report to be published, since it was for internal consumption and names suspects and doubtless criticises police personnel now deceased. It would also be unfair for him to speculate on the value of potential evidence as that would render any trial obsolete. But I would like to see the police record of these 'sightings,' timed and dated. And the complete forensic report on the car might be illuminating too.

[moste]

Hi Dunderklumpen [are you Swedish by any chance ?] and welcome to this forum.
I have seen both these autopsy photographs of Michael Gregsten that are on page 82 of Simpson's book. The entry wounds [one through the left ear and the other about an inch higher and to the left, through the temple] are higher than the corresponding exit wounds. The two exit wounds [on the right cheek] are also about an inch apart. Unless some reconstructive surgery was performed, hardly any discernible damage is apparent in these photos. From certain things I have read over the years I was expecting to see massive damage to Michael Gregsten's head.

Yes, I knew exit wounds can make a fearful mess. Is it possible Sherlock, for you to scan and upload said photos of Gregsten, from page 82 , or would there be a copyright problem do you think ?
I find the following, something of an anomaly, (which I have added to my long list) M G was told to pass up the duffel bag from the front foot well. As we know, according to V S, he turned about 90 deg. leaning to his left at the same time, immediately the gun was fired. Now I have been reading about a thing called 'caderveric spasm'. Its a phenomena, known to the medical world as rare, and only occurs in people dying suddenly in a shock/trauma situation. The result, is a rigor mortise like muscle tensing, and almost always affects the arms, wrists, and hands of the victim. This phenomena according to Valerie's testimony, certainly had M G in its grip, since she state's according to Lord Russell, ' Mikes hands were gripping the steering wheel. When I touched them they were stone cold'. And in another article (I can't remember where)'I had to peel Mikes fingers off the wheel'. Now, I myself and I suspect a few of us, have, observed the effect of a human being, executed by a shot through the head, film footage , Tiananmen Square China, JFK Dallas, and the like. Therefor I would suggest the most likely effect of Gregstens double shot to the head would be for him to slump across Valerie's side of the car winding up on her lap. As it was, M G is supposedly sat upright gripping the wheel (I imagine, head forward against the steering). This position I would attribute to, a gun being thrust through the passenger window, and MG dispatched tout suite, This scenario would satisfy why there was zero forensic evidence of a third person in the car, THERE WASN'T ONE.
I have just finished Keith Simpsons ' Forty Years of Murder' I don't recommend it for the squeamish!. However his attention to detail, and wondrous astuteness as each chapter unfolds, victim by victim, case by case, leaves one filled with awe at his expertise, and professionalism. Then comes the let down. To wit, The A6, Murder, No explanations of findings at the scene from a pathologist stand point required here. No in depth, minute detail of wounds to the victims ,as in other cases, No mention at all of the above mentioned "Cadaveric spasm' No need to go into any serious discussion on this case eh? after all Valerie was there, wasn't she, and as we've all learned that's all that's needed!

[uncle_adolph]

Just as a point of interest.....how could he have had his hands on the steering wheel if he was passing the bag into the back?

[caz]

Hi Cobalt - thanks for your post, appreciate it has been subsequently tweaked. Good to be up and running again.

I do suspect the Matthews report raised concerns as to how fairly and reasonably Hanratty's guilt had been proved rather than finding brand new evidence to point matters in a new direction. Admittedly, that's my usual take on things here and, as you say, has to be conjecture as this report has never been published. However, if the alleged sightings were as helpful to Hanratty's cause as you speculate might be the case, then surely they would not have only been included by Matthews in his report but also presented as a ''winning card'' by Hanratty's legal team at the 2002 appeal. As we know, that didn't happen.

From memory, the Court of Appeal mentioned Lee's alleged sighting in their ruling but obviously were not much influenced by it. [I'll need to check the detail of that.]

As you suggest, Lee's ''sighting'' and, in particular, the timing of the reporting of it to police is potentially so significant. It would be good to know details although I do have doubts as to how much it would turn out to help Hanratty. It just could be that Lee was another witness who was ''trying to get in on the act'' (as mentioned by Sherrard and others) or simply confused. Attempting to probe this matter is far from straight forward.

When was anything about the green pom pom hat first made public? From this distance, that question almost certainly has to be rhetorical and remain unanswerable. However, from even around the time of the A6 crimes, the answer still may not have been clear cut. Information being supplied to and circulated by parts of the media in criminal cases has not always been well controlled and monitored.

Very much an aside but I understand the police were originally convinced that ''Wearside Jack'' (the writer of letters to the police and media in which he falsely claimed responsibility for the ''Yorkshire Ripper'' murders) was indeed the ''Yorkshire Ripper'' as some of his letters contained details that apparently only the murderer would have known. It was only after ''Wearside Jack'' was identified that it was realised his ''inside info'' had actually come from a local news feature that the policemen heading the investigation were unaware of.

Best regards,
OneRound

Hi OneRound,

You have highlighted my own concerns in a nutshell.

There can be one heck of a difference between reporting the wearer of a green pom pom hat, for driving a specific vehicle erratically, before news of this horrific crime is splashed all over the papers, and doing the same in the light of that news. If there is no way of knowing which was the case here, it doesn't really resolve anything.

If it could have done, and in Hanratty's favour, his defenders appear to have missed an opportunity.

Green bath, green pom pom hat. Still no joy for the luckless Jim.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Just as a point of interest.....how could he have had his hands on the steering wheel if he was passing the bag into the back?

As another point of interest, is moste seriously suggesting Valerie lied about being raped in the car by the man who had shot dead her boyfriend?

If so, words - almost - fail me.

Love,

Caz
X