A6 Rebooted

[Spitfire]

Another one from the Panorama programme concerns Mrs Grace Jones and her recollection of the young man who stayed for two nights in August 1961. She clearly states that Hanratty/the young man stayed in Room 4 at Ingledene, which is the small room at the front of the house. Yet the evidence given at the trial by Hanratty was that his room was at the rear. Moreover, Mr Sayle had been called to say he stayed in Room 4 for the relevant two days. Again Foot should have dealt with this problem but chose to ignore it and invent his own theory, one night in the batthroom and the second night in the room on the second floor at the rear.

[Graham]

Personally - and not that it really matters now - I always thought the "car sighting evidence" of Skillett, Trower and Blackhall to be at best irrelevant; at worst, worthless. Yet there were, and are, those who place huge importance on this piece of 'evidence'; to me it sounds like it could have been snipped out of a cheap TV script.

Foot, it has to be said, has a lot to answer for as far as the A6 is concerned. As an avid reader of 'Private Eye' from about 1963 onwards I always thought that Foot was in the top bracket of so-called investigative journalists, until the penny dropped and I realised that he was really a 'champagne socialist' who took on cases such as Hanratty's not because he necessarily cared about the people involved, more because he felt suc cases offered a poke at the 'Establishment'. That does not mean to say that I think Paul Foot was anything other than honest, but let's say he did tend to bend his thinking just a little bit to the possible benefit of the subject of his apparent benevolent sympathy - in this case, Hanratty. Towards the end of his life I did detect that he'd had a bit of a re-think about Alphon being the A6 killer employed by the Gregsten family or someone close to them.

Graham

[NickB]

Foot did indeed initiate a rethink about Alphon, after visiting him again and talking to Mrs Gregsten.

By the time of the 2002 Appeal the 'defence' side not only agreed that Alphon was innocent, but suggested that the police tampered with evidence to frame him. (For details, see the Vienna Hotel section of the Appeal report.)

[Graham]

Foot had apparently always believed in the 'conspiracy theory' concerning the A6, that a 'Mister X', as William Ewer had to be referred to in order to avoid a libel action, hired a gunman to put the frighteners onto Gregsten and Storie so that Gregsten would get the message and go humbly back to his loving wife. Sheer rot. And of course it all went wrong - the gunman, Peter Alphon, made a mess of it, so the blame had to be shifted onto a poor, innocent working-class lad called James Hanratty. More sheer rot.

Foot, when he finally got round to meeting Janet Gregsten, found her to be a very pleasant and very 'open' person and not the vengeful harpie he had thought she was, and he was honest enough to say so. A pity he didn't meet her much earlier. He also, again very honestly, said that when he met Alphon he quickly realised that he, Alphon, didn't know anywhere near as much about the A6 Case as Alphon (and others) claimed.

Regarding the possible tampering of evidence against Alphon by the police, I always thought that words had been put into Mrs Galvez's mouth concerning time-scales and what she saw in Alphon's room. Then of course there were the 3 'statements' of Nudds, something else which to my mind rang somewhat hollow.

Graham

[cobalt]

I realised that he was really a 'champagne socialist' who took on cases such as Hanratty's not because he necessarily cared about the people involved, more because he felt suc cases offered a poke at the 'Establishment'.

Not, I think, a very fair assessment of Paul Foot’s motives. Paul Foot stayed in contact with the Hanratty family long after the case had faded from public view. He also helped to find work for Michael Hanratty, a printer, when Fleet Street was being dismantled in the 1980s. His son, the journalist Tom Foot, still keeps in touch with the Hanratty family.

Paul Foot was, I agree, a man keen to expose the workings of ‘The Establishment,’ but his track record is a creditable one: The Birmingham 6; The Carl Bridgewater Murder; al-Megrahi and the Lockerbie bombing. He also helped expose local government corruption in collusion with self-styled architect John Poulson, so he was not a man who lacked enemies across the political spectrum.

The one blot on his record might be the Hanratty case, but although he revised some of his views on the case, one thing he was adamant about up until he died: that James Hanratty was innocent of the A6 murder.

[cobalt]

As far as I am aware, Foot’s main reason for believing in Hanratty’s innocence was his alibi. That has been discussed fully on this site, and all the pros and cons fully debated.

However, we should bear in mind that Foot actually spoke to the 6 main witnesses to Hanratty’s alibi. On a face to face basis he had the (subjective) right to form an opinion as to their credibility. This is exactly the same judgment that Valerie Storie made in identifying James Hanratty as the A6 killer. No more. No less. And we agree, I think, that Ms Storie’s evidence was crucial to the prosecution case. Graham recently has acknowledged that the ‘witness’ sightings by Trower et al are pretty worthless, and they may well have been for the jury as well, to be fair.

Foot’s last words on the case were for us to examine the credibility of the DNA evidence. He was an acknowledged novice in this area, as are most who post on here I suspect. His overarching point was, is if I read him correctly, that science never provides any proof independent of itself. Science can only confirm, not actually prove. In many cases science, or forensics as it is usually called in criminal cases, will come up with an answer. But without substantive corroboration it may be a false answer to a question wrongly asked.

DNA was marketed as a forensic tool in the late 1980s as a ‘genetic fingerprint.’ That is a very powerful metaphor, given that the unique nature of fingerprints (different even between identical twins) can identify a particular individual. However DNA does not claim this, and talks in terms of ‘likelihood.’ And even with fingerprints there is the danger of misidentification.

DNA is not a fingerprint. And that is before we enter the twilight world of Low Copy DNA.
Why did Hanratty not leave fibre evidence inside the murder car?
Why did Hanratty’s clothes not leave fibre evidence on Ms Storie?
All this was possible to determine by 1960s technology.

We are told his semen was found on her underclothes, so why was there not a plethora of fibre/DNA evidence on the rest of her clothing, never mind the car seats? Oh, these were not kept for analysis we are told. But fortunately, one small area of her clothing was. This was very unfortunate for James Hanratty, after the event. After this, it becomes a matter of faith.

[NickB]

Appeal, section 109:

“It is conceded by Mr Mansfield on behalf of the appellant that, should it transpire that all possibility of contamination can be excluded, the DNA evidence points conclusively to James Hanratty having been both the murderer and the rapist.”

So the 'possibility of contamination' is the only obstacle remaining. A fig leaf that was hurriedly put in place only after the results were announced.

[Graham]

I realised that he was really a 'champagne socialist' who took on cases such as Hanratty's not because he necessarily cared about the people involved, more because he felt suc cases offered a poke at the 'Establishment'.

Not, I think, a very fair assessment of Paul Foot’s motives. Paul Foot stayed in contact with the Hanratty family long after the case had faded from public view. He also helped to find work for Michael Hanratty, a printer, when Fleet Street was being dismantled in the 1980s. His son, the journalist Tom Foot, still keeps in touch with the Hanratty family.

Paul Foot was, I agree, a man keen to expose the workings of ‘The Establishment,’ but his track record is a creditable one: The Birmingham 6; The Carl Bridgewater Murder; al-Megrahi and the Lockerbie bombing. He also helped expose local government corruption in collusion with self-styled architect John Poulson, so he was not a man who lacked enemies across the political spectrum.

The one blot on his record might be the Hanratty case, but although he revised some of his views on the case, one thing he was adamant about up until he died: that James Hanratty was innocent of the A6 murder.

Cobalt,

I don't think that my (very) brief assessment of Paul Foot and his career-motives was at all unfair. Born in a patrician family, he decided that this wasn't really for him, and eventually became a member of the Socialist Workers Party, which more or less meant that he was committed to the defence of the downtrodden proletariat against the depraved and grasping Establishment. Hanratty and other cases offered ample scope for this. He was merely following his conscience. I am quite aware that he was very kind and helpful to the Hanratty family, and good on him for being so, so long as it was done in a genuinely gracious spirit and not out of a patronising need to be seen to be doing good. In fairness to him, I think he was totally genuine in this.

Foot was sacked from Private Eye in 1972 by the-then editior Richard Ingrams because, as Foot claimed, their politics differed. This may be so. I actually stopped buying Private Eye when Foot was kicked out. Moving on a little, Foot was later employed by the Daily Mirror at a salary of £55000 a year, not bad for a committed socialist. After 14 years with the Mirror he re-joined Private Eye.

He was not the first to ask questions about the A6 Case, but I believe he was the first to actually carry out serious investigation into it. At which he worked hard. Unfortunately, he backed the wrong horse. He refused point-blank to even consider that he was mistaken about the Rhyl Alibi, which is as duff now as it was then.

I still liked the bloke, though.

Graham

[OneRound]

...

Paul Foot .. was not the first to ask questions about the A6 Case, but I believe he was the first to actually carry out serious investigation into it. At which he worked hard. Unfortunately, he backed the wrong horse. He refused point-blank to even consider that he was mistaken about the Rhyl Alibi, which is as duff now as it was then.

...

Graham

Hi Graham,

After the 2002 Appeal, Foot forcefully asserted that ''if you are in Rhyl, you cannot commit a murder near Bedford'' and continued to do so.

I always thought this naive and blinkered. The opposite equally applies. If you are committing a murder near Bedford, you cannot be in Rhyl.

Best regards,

OneRound

[cobalt]

Three reasons why James Hanratty should not have been convicted for the A6 murder.

MMO.
Means
Motive
Opportunity.


1.MEANS:
There was no direct link between Hanratty and the gun. (Cartridges conveniently found weeks later in a hotel bedroom and handkerchief had to suffice.) He had no record previously of handling a firearm. His fingerprints were not found on the weapon. Nor was, astonishingly, any forensic material found which linked him to the murder.

2. MOTIVE:
Hanratty had no discernible motive, apart from one later constructed by the investigating officers. The desire to play the ‘big man’ with a gun could have applied to hundreds of wannabe criminals, including Alphon by the way. Hanratty knew neither Michael Gregsten nor Valerie Storie. Hanratty had no record of violence.

3.OPPORTUNITY:
Hanratty (unlike Alphon) was not observed by anyone at or near the locus of the crime- save for Valerie Storie whose identification evidence was undermined by an earlier ‘identification.’ Her earlier police description was later altered to fit Hanratty.

The later DNA? The DNA which confirmed the dodgy verdict? Pretty ambiguous at best. Mixed samples are a matter for subjective interpretation, as can be seen in the ‘assumption’ that some of the DNA indicators came from Michael Gregsten. The small samples retained, and conveniently found by the police (after having being ‘lost’) are of dubious veracity in a murder trial.

Hanratty had an alibi, which would never be good enough for many on this site even if he had hit the Cavern Club and done a filmed duet with John Lennon on ‘Love Me Do.’ (‘It’s just a Cockney who looks like him’. ‘He’s tried to buy an alibi.’) A bit like the date stamped witness who was offered a gold watch by a Cockney on 22 August, which is rather better than ‘duff.’

Unlike Valerie Storie, none of the Rhyl witnesses ever identified someone else in lieu of Hanratty.

[cobalt]

Hanratty was ‘framed?’
Probably. But not just by the police.

The killer actually used the name ‘Jim’ although Valerie Storie thought this was not his real name. Why ‘Jim’ and not ‘Bert,’ ‘Alf’ or ‘Reg?’

By good fortune, a gun was found on a London bus. Not only was it loaded, but it was accompanied by a veritable arsenal of ammunition. To dump the gun might make sense. But why all the ammo? It could have been used in another firearm. A handkerchief, identifiable although not by DNA at that time, was around the gun.

The police were alerted to Swiss Cottage by William Ewer a week after the murders, and established a link with a Mr. Ryan (aka James Hanratty). This was acknowledged by the senior detective Acott, although he denied it had any significance in the enquiry. Probably true. The police would have had a number of enquiries and Ewer’s ‘sighting’ would have been very low on the radar.

What is surely significant is that Ewer was attracting police attention to a man who appeared to be Hanratty, weeks before he was apparently in the frame. Ewer later married the widow of the deceased, in the full knowledge that Alphon had claimed a marital motive for the murder. Why was Ewer one step ahead of the police? This has never been answered. He fell back on some mysticism from Mrs Gregsten to justify his prior knowledge. His behavior at the arcade in Swiss Cottage, and later at the trial, was described as ‘excitable.’ This anomaly between the timing of suspicion was never pursued by the police.

By even greater fortune, when the investigation was stalling, cartridges were found at the Vienna Hotel. These were attributed to James Hanratty, after conflicting statements by the hotel manager.

In summary, the Swiss Cottage 'frame' had been unsuccessful, so a further 'frame' was required in the Vienna Hotel. Why would any assassin, even a limited one like James Hanratty was alleged to be, carelessly leave behind cartridges in a hotel chair? It is stretching credulity too far I think. The same man, let us not forget, who managed never to be seen in the area of the murder or, amazingly, not to leave one fibre of his being in the murder car. That such a man could leave cartridges in a hotel room is just beyond what I can believe.

[Spitfire]

Ewer later married the widow of the deceased, in the full knowledge that Alphon had claimed a marital motive for the murder.

William Ewer on his wedding day, note the plastic suit.

[moste]

Hanratty was ‘framed?’
Probably. But not just by the police.

The killer actually used the name ‘Jim’ although Valerie Storie thought this was not his real name. Why ‘Jim’ and not ‘Bert,’ ‘Alf’ or ‘Reg?’

By good fortune, a gun was found on a London bus. Not only was it loaded, but it was accompanied by a veritable arsenal of ammunition. To dump the gun might make sense. But why all the ammo? It could have been used in another firearm. A handkerchief, identifiable although not by DNA at that time, was around the gun.

The police were alerted to Swiss Cottage by William Ewer a week after the murders, and established a link with a Mr. Ryan (aka James Hanratty). This was acknowledged by the senior detective Acott, although he denied it had any significance in the enquiry. Probably true. The police would have had a number of enquiries and Ewer’s ‘sighting’ would have been very low on the radar.

What is surely significant is that Ewer was attracting police attention to a man who appeared to be Hanratty, weeks before he was apparently in the frame. Ewer later married the widow of the deceased, in the full knowledge that Alphon had claimed a marital motive for the murder. Why was Ewer one step ahead of the police? This has never been answered. He fell back on some mysticism from Mrs Gregsten to justify his prior knowledge. His behavior at the arcade in Swiss Cottage, and later at the trial, was described as ‘excitable.’ This anomaly between the timing of suspicion was never pursued by the police.

By even greater fortune, when the investigation was stalling, cartridges were found at the Vienna Hotel. These were attributed to James Hanratty, after conflicting statements by the hotel manager.

In summary, the Swiss Cottage 'frame' had been unsuccessful, so a further 'frame' was required in the Vienna Hotel. Why would any assassin, even a limited one like James Hanratty was alleged to be, carelessly leave behind cartridges in a hotel chair? It is stretching credulity too far I think. The same man, let us not forget, who managed never to be seen in the area of the murder or, amazingly, not to leave one fibre of his being in the murder car. That such a man could leave cartridges in a hotel room is just beyond what I can believe.

Once more right on the money.
It's strange how to some of us it's so obvious that Hanratty was framed and yet for others ,well ,they just don,t see it. I guess it's what makes the world go round

[Derrick]

...Ewer later married the widow of the deceased...

First I've heard of it.

[moste]

First I've heard of it.

Didn't we read though somewhere that Janet had admitted that her and Ewer were involved in a relationship? Because I thought the question arose ,what happened to Mrs. Ewer during the 7 or 8 years that Janet was living with Ewer with the two boys?