A6 Rebooted

[NickB]

Actually, Cobalt said Sayle junior had a dubious radical past.

Sayle senior appears to have had a dubious moderate past. I notice that in 1937 and 1938 he stood for Liverpool Council as a Labour candidate.

[Derrick]

Henry Parry, the licensee of Ye Old Windsor Hotel, would regularly send overspills of guests from his hotel to the guest houses in Kinmel Street.

This was the case with Mr Sayle, whom he said he sent to Mrs Jones'.

Parry was, by all accounts, a thoroughly unlikeable man and a class snob who despised pretty much everyone who walked through his establishments doors, including Grace Jones.

It is most likely that Parry was the source of the prosecution's information regarding Mr Sayle and not Mrs Jones' books.

Parry could quite easily have gotten the dates wrong and Sayle might not have remembered his actual stay dates and agreed with the prosecution that those were the dates.

Sayle was a railway union rep for the North West. Did anyone think to check for any other occasions he had been to Rhyl on union business. Perhaps he and Parry remember a previous visit. None of the guests at Ingledene that week were ever interviewed by Nimmo.

After all it wasn't until February 1962 that the prosecution got wind of Hanratty's change of alibi.

Also: Did any one else staying at Ingledene that week see Mr Sayle? Mrs Jones doesn't ever remember him or Mr Sutch, another person called into Court by Mr Swanwick, as having stayed at her guesthouse. The only person brought to court that Mrs Jones recognized was a Mr Williams, a regular guest.

Mr Swanwick may have filled up Ingledene that week in court. But thanks to Mrs Jones' pisspoor record keeping how many of them actually stayed there?

[Derrick]

...his every move monitored by uniformed police and plain-clothes KGB-types. The 'agents of state repression'...

Sounds like he could have been working on a zero hours contract at an Amazon.com packing warehouse in the low skill, low pay capitalist heaven that is the UK these days.

[Limehouse]

Sounds like he could have been working on a zero hours contract at an Amazon.com packing warehouse in the low skill, low pay capitalist heaven that is the UK these days.

Or possibly Sports Direct?

[Limehouse]

Actually, Cobalt said Sayle junior had a dubious radical past.

Sayle senior appears to have had a dubious moderate past. I notice that in 1937 and 1938 he stood for Liverpool Council as a Labour candidate.

Quite right Nick. He did write 'radical' not 'racial'. Thanks for pointing that out.

My apologies Cabalt. However, even having a radical past, dubious or otherwise, is no basis for doubting his father's witness statement. Perhaps Mr Sayle did stay there and perhaps he didn't. Perhaps he was mistaken about the date. It matters not. Sayle junior is not responsible for his father's testimony and there is no call for his character to be smeared just because he was a left-wing comedian who did well enough to buy a house in Spain.

Yea Gods. Why did I log back in today? I just can't do this any more. I don't think I care one way or the other any more.

[Graham]

Quite right Nick. He did write 'radical' not 'racial'. Thanks for pointing that out.

My apologies Cabalt. However, even having a radical past, dubious or otherwise, is no basis for doubting his father's witness statement. Perhaps Mr Sayle did stay there and perhaps he didn't. Perhaps he was mistaken about the date. It matters not. Sayle junior is not responsible for his father's testimony and there is no call for his character to be smeared just because he was a left-wing comedian who did well enough to buy a house in Spain.

Yea Gods. Why did I log back in today? I just can't do this any more. I don't think I care one way or the other any more.

Julie, I'm right with you here. I don't think I can do it any more either. As you have been well aware over the past, what, dozen years, I have always thought that Hanratty was guilty and have never, not once, been persuaded by any 'argument' on these boards that he wasn't. The latest pieces of nonsense are that whoever murdered Gregsten wore a rubber suit or whatever; plus it is now posted that Gregsten was an acid-head, out of his brains with LSD. Where does all this stupidity end? I've been on these boards long enough to recall how God-awful and incredibly abusive the A6 debate became a few years ago; I was actually threatened (by PM) with physical violence by a so-called Hanratty supporter, although how he intended to locate me and do me over was never made clear.

I just do not understand how some of the more radical Hanratty supporters (and I do not include you, Julie, in this description, as I always found you very fair and willing to listen to both sides of the debate) can continue to totally ignore and refute what really must be staring them in the face: that he was NEVER able to prove that he was at Ingledene when he said he was. That Alphon had NOTHING to do with the A6 Crime. That there was NEVER a conspiracy.

Someone recently asked on this thread why Norma Buddle (Natalie Severn) doesn't post here any more: I would hazard a guess that she's probably had enough, too.

Like you, I'm beginning to think that maybe I can't do it any more. I'm beginning to think I may just keep away for a while, and see how things develop, but, as they have for years and years, the arguments for and against Hanratty's innocence just keep on going round and round, ad infinitum and ad nauseam, and I'm getting dizzy!

Julie, all the very best to you, and I hope life is treating you as well as you deserve.

Graham

[NickB]

We do seem to be going backwards if it is now being denied that Joe Sayle stayed in room 4.

After all, at the Nimmo enquiry Grace Jones and her daughter claimed that the only room Hanratty could have stayed in was the green bathroom because they now accepted all the other rooms were occupied. This means that Sayle was in room 4 - as agreed by Foot, Woffinden etc.

It is worth re-iterating that both room 4 and the green bathroom are at the front of the house, whereas Hanratty stated that he stayed in a back room.
1. “I went up a flight of stairs and it was on the second floor and it was a back room.”
2. “Well it was dark when I eventually entered the house and I did not draw the curtains because it was a back room.”
3. “In the morning I looked out of the window and found a small courtyard.” (Swanwick – Is that the front or the back?) “That is at the back, sir.”

[Graham]

Strewth, I'm back again already....

Karen, the lady who now lives in Ingledene and who posted last year, said that the bathroom on the second floor (and I hope I've got this right) and at the front of the house was, and is, the only bathroom in the house. In which case, how on earth could Hanratty claim that he 'stayed in a room at the back of the house with a bath in it?' If he slept in the bath, as I believe Woffinden actually suggested, then what about all the other guests who may have needed it? Was Grace Jones stating, in all honesty, that she put a guest to spend the night in a bathroom? I somehow think not. I have the very strong impression that once Grace Jones had made her statement, she was extremely reluctant to contradict it; yet there is no doubt that the Sayles stayed in Room 4, and no doubt that Hanratty could NOT have stayed in a room at the front of the house unless he was prepared to kip in a bath!

When will people accept that Hanratty was never at Ingledene when he claimed to have been?

Graham

[NickB]

Hanratty claimed that he slept in a bedroom at the back of the house with a desk and curtains, and that there was a bathroom in the attic with a green lavatory and bathroom combined. The implication was that he slept in the bedroom and used the lavatory in the bathroom.

The green bathroom at Ingledene was at the front and had a skylight with no curtains. It had a bed between the door and the bath. You had to walk round the bed to get to the bath. Mrs Jones at first denied this (presumably to back up the claim that Hanratty would have been able to see the bath) but then admitted she had been lying – which is when she made the ‘tommyrot’ remark.

[Derrick]

In reply to Graham, who is explicitly incredulous that others cannot accept that Hanratty is anything other than guilty as charged and convicted of the A6 murder, I say;

I do not accept Hanratty's guilt as I have always had and will always have, until anyone else can demonstrate that there isn't, a serious reasonable doubt as to his culpability.

It is based fairly and squarely on a number of points.

1. There was never any forensic evidence to link Hanratty to the crime (DNA dealt with further on)
2. The identification evidence of Valerie Storie is seriously flawed and completely unreliable.
3. The reliance on the Redbridge witnesses when Acott knew all along that the car had travelled much further than reasoned and had most likely been dumped in Avondale Crescent just before it was found that evening.
4. The other circumstantial evidence doesn't point conclusively to Hanratty. ie the gun on the bus or the casings in the Vienna Hotel.
5. The alleged confession made to Langdale was a complete fabrication on Langdale's part.
6. Others were leaned on to give prosecution evidence for exoneration of crimes; Anderson and Langdale; perhaps even France.
7. The DNA evidence is not convincing seeing as the pellet fraction obtained from the knickers showed a profile made up of at least two persons. These "unknown" elements where attributed to Storie and Gregsten. How one could assume that Gregsten was a contributor without a referential profile by which it could be compared is not science but conjecture. Also, to attribute one allele to Storie when no MtDNA was obtained is also suspicious of misinterpretation.

Neither Hanratty nor Alphon were the A6 killer. It is just another of those cases where the real identity of a murderer will go unknown.

Anyone is free to buy the official line and accept the court rulings but I don't because they make no sense and do not stand up to any ounce of scrutiny.

As for Hanratty's alibi. He may be a liar but that doesn't make him a murderer. If it did then the whole population of the world would be hanged.

My 2d's worth
Del

[Spitfire]

As for Hanratty's alibi. He may be a liar but that doesn't make him a murderer.

It most certainly doesn't. And the judge was at pains to point out that there was no obligation on the part of Hanratty to prove his innocence by way of an alibi or otherwise. But in the real world, Hanratty had lied about being in Liverpool at the time of the abduction and the murder which followed, the jury heard the evidence about Ingledene and must have come to the conclusion that Hanratty was not in Ingledene and therefore not in Rhyl. If he wasn't in Rhyl and wasn't in Liverpool, where was he?

Miss Storie's evidence of identification was seriously compromised by the wrong identification on the first ID parade. But the jury knew about this and were addressed at length on it by Sherrard and the judge. However the DNA evidence confirms Valerie's ID of Hanratty. There was no doubt that Hanratty's DNA was found on the exhibits, the only question being whether it got there by contamination as contended by the Defence, or as a result of Hanratty committing the murder, as per the Prosecution.

As nothing seems to have come of a promised appeal, there will be no change in the official verdict.

[Derrick]

...But the jury knew about this and were addressed at length on it by Sherrard and the judge.

But they were unaware of her affair with Gregsten and what effect that might have had on the jury is unknown.

Knowing that, I would imagine an all male jury, at that time, would have looked on her as having got what she deserved.

And Acott knew it too, that is why it was swept under the carpet. No jury would have had sympathy with a scarlet woman even under those circumstances. Plus it may have led the jury to look for a Gas Meter Job.

Your succinct precise of the DNA evidence sheds light on your ignorance of that part of the case.

Del

[Spitfire]

Your succinct precise of the DNA evidence sheds light on your ignorance of that part of the case.

Succinct and precise, that's me!

[cobalt]

Hi Limehouse,

My remarks regarding Alexi Sayle the comedian were not central to my doubts regarding his father's testimony. Joe Sayle, the father, was clearly a ranter of the highest order if his attempt to link the Queen to the fate of the Rosenbergs is anything to go by. I would be cautious about the testimony of such a self-conscious 'Marxist.' I have worked alongside several communists and the most impressive ones saved their politics for the union meeting, not their own living room.


Another reason I would prefer the testimony of Mrs Jones is simply that she was responsible for the welfare of all the guests who boarded with her. Her memory and recollections are likely to be more accurate than a passing resident whose responsibilities did not extend beyond himself.

As a veteran of trade union conferences I am also aware that a fair bit of alcohol can be consumed after business finishes, and I would be hesitant to place much weight upon anything said by the average delegate after 9pm in the evening.

I notice also that Mr Joe Sayle, a man who seems less than a shrinking violet, has never been suspected of 'getting in on the act' like the witnesses who support Hanratty's alibi.

[caz]

Hi cobalt,

While I can understand well-meaning witnesses thinking they saw or spoke to Hanratty (or a man resembling his photo) in Rhyl at the right time, and not wanting to have a hanging on their consciences, what possible motive would a man like Joe Sayle have had for lying about where and when he stayed in that guest house, or at the very least claiming it in court if he couldn't remember or wasn't absolutely certain? Nobody seems to have come forward at any time to say he was somewhere else that night, and how would it help anyway, if Mrs Jones said Hanratty - not Sayle - was in room 4, at the front of the house, while Hanratty himself insisted he stayed in a back room, and said nothing about being moved to a different one? That's one detail I can't imagine anyone forgetting, because even with hardly any luggage it's a fair bit of bother to change rooms mid-stay.

I have to agree with Julie and Graham, that the arguments for Hanratty's innocence seem to be getting more desperate of late - much like his alibi in fact!

Love,

Caz
X