A6 Rebooted

[Sherlock Houses]

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?

I've brought this point up before and it's another one of those 64,000 dollar questions that people are at a complete loss to explain.

[Sherlock Houses]

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 scanned those pictures a while back Moste but didn't upload them on here in case it was considered in bad taste to do so.

[Spitfire]

This scenario would satisfy why there was zero forensic evidence of a third person in the car, THERE WASN'T ONE.

So who drove the car from deepest Bedfordshire to Avondale Crescent, Valerie or Mike G?

[cobalt]

Spitfire,

Moste can answer for himself, but I think you have pointed out an obvious weakness in his scenario. The murderer must have driven the car at some point after the crime, even if the crimes were committed outside of it. There should have been some forensics.

But in doing so- by asking the question of how did the murderer make his getaway- you are also implicitly opening up an even more puzzling question: how did the murderer actually arrive at the corn field with his ammo and gun wearing a sharp suit? I think Moste suspects the murderer was met by appointment at not the corn field but at Deadman’s Hill, but that would have been a very late rendez-vous indeed, and still leaves open the problem of how he arrived there. If the murderer had an accomplice, at least in terms of transport, then why the need to drive the murder car back to London?

The gun presents many problems too. As many have pointed out, why not just fling it in a ditch, the River Thames, or even leave it in the car? I cannot imagine any criminal armourer would want the murder weapon returned to him intact. The gun was effectively a noose round his neck. It does not make sense. The murderer could have paid off the loss of the gun in cash at a later date.

[moste]

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?

My point exactly. You have it in a nutshell.

[moste]

Spitfire,


The gun presents many problems too. As many have pointed out, why not just fling it in a ditch, the River Thames, or even leave it in the car? I cannot imagine any criminal armourer would want the murder weapon returned to him intact. The gun was effectively a noose round his neck. It does not make sense. The murderer could have paid off the loss of the gun in cash at a later date.

Absolutely, that location for the gun, along with the two spent shells in the hotel at the side of Hanratty's bed, spells PLANT!

[Spitfire]

Moste can answer for himself...

But chooses not to!

[moste]

I scanned those pictures a while back Moste but didn't upload them on here in case it was considered in bad taste to do so.

I understand, fair enough.
. Interestingly In Keith Simpsons book there is a photo of the scene, not available in other publications I have seen, depicting Gregsten's body from about 30 feet distance, after Valerie had been taken to the hospital, but before the tent was drawn around. Its looking south so you can just about make out the RAC box. For some reason they have left what must be Valerie's basket by Mike's body, its the iconic egg shaped wicker basket, that we're so popular back in the 60's. What this picture reminded me of, was the oddity of VS asking the killers permission to collect her personal things from the car including a couple of novels she had been reading. This, after the terribly violent death of her lover, and her own assault. but prior to the hail of bullets almost Bonnie and Clyde style, and his subsequent departure. I know; one never knows how one will react at these most traumatic occasions, but I have problems getting my mind around this.

[Spitfire]

But chooses not to!

The question may have to go unanswered from Moste.

I will rephrase it and ask again. If the murderer was never in the car, who drove it from Deadman's Hill to Avondale Crescent?

[OneRound]

Absolutely, that location for the gun, along with the two spent shells in the hotel at the side of Hanratty's bed, spells PLANT!

Could it not also spell INCOMPETENCE?

Incompetence was certainly evident in the failed attempt to kill Valerie Storie.

OneRound

[Spitfire]

Could it not also spell INCOMPETENCE?

Incompetence was certainly evident in the failed attempt to kill Valerie Storie.

OneRound

And in the killing of Michael Gregsten, if the murderer had to drive the Morris Minor to make his getaway, then it was a monumental act of INCOMPETENCE to shoot him whilst he was sitting in the driver's seat.

However it does seem to be contended by some that the murderer did not drive the Morris Minor, so we may not have INCOMPETENCE but SUPERNATURAL FORCES being spelled out.

[moste]

Could it not also spell INCOMPETENCE?

Incompetence was certainly evident in the failed attempt to kill Valerie Storie.

OneRound

Of course it could spell incompetence, incompetence is the given reason accepted by most people

[Limehouse]

I understand, fair enough.
. Interestingly In Keith Simpsons book there is a photo of the scene, not available in other publications I have seen, depicting Gregsten's body from about 30 feet distance, after Valerie had been taken to the hospital, but before the tent was drawn around. Its looking south so you can just about make out the RAC box. For some reason they have left what must be Valerie's basket by Mike's body, its the iconic egg shaped wicker basket, that we're so popular back in the 60's. What this picture reminded me of, was the oddity of VS asking the killers permission to collect her personal things from the car including a couple of novels she had been reading. This, after the terribly violent death of her lover, and her own assault. but prior to the hail of bullets almost Bonnie and Clyde style, and his subsequent departure. I know; one never knows how one will react at these most traumatic occasions, but I have problems getting my mind around this.

I think there is something terribly, terribly tragic about Valerie's simple request to retrieve her personal items from the car. There, on the ground was the dead body of the man she had loved for three long years. She had just been violated. She wanted to gather around her the familiar, personal things that held just practical significance until the moment her life changed forever.

As for how one might react on traumatic occasions, I can give a very personal example. When I was ten, my mother died. She pulled me to her, told me to 'be a good girl' and kind of faded. A nurse whisked me away to a quiet room and twenty minutes or so later my father came into the room and told me she had died. I didn't know what I was supposed to say or do. I knew how I felt, but I didn't know how to express it. To my shame, I looked up at him and asked 'did she leave a will?'

[Sherlock Houses]

I understand, fair enough.

Have you checked your PM's lately ?

[caz]

Absolutely, that location for the gun, along with the two spent shells in the hotel at the side of Hanratty's bed, spells PLANT!

Don't faint, moste, but I tend to agree, at least concerning the gun on the bus.

I believe Hanratty planted it there before speeding off to Liverpool, in the hope of setting up a credible alibi. If he is sending a telegram to Dixie France from Liverpool when that gun is found in London (which is roughly what happened), he could claim he hadn't returned to London that week but had been in Liverpool the whole time. It would serve to separate him geographically from the murder weapon more demonstrably than if he chucked it where it might not be found at all.

Later, of course, he decided to introduce a two-nighter in Rhyl, which appears to have taken the Frances totally by surprise. At any rate, if he did speak to anyone about staying in Rhyl, on his return to London, nobody saw fit to help him out by saying so.

What I find particularly distasteful is your continued speculation that things happened very differently on the murder night from the way the surviving victim described them. Valerie's motivation for completely misreporting the basics of the crime is never explained, though your motivation appears quite transparent. What would she have stood to gain from doing this? Or are you questioning her entire recollection of events purely on compassionate grounds, because they would have been so traumatic for her?

Love,

Caz
X