-
We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze -
Jean Justice - the silver thread running through the post-trial ‘innocence’ campaign.
It was Justice who spent a year building up Alphon as the alternative killer. Justice persuaded his lover Jeremy Fox (who from his attendance at the trial had determined Hanratty was guilty) to assist him and fund the A6 Murder Committee activities. Then he persuaded the Hanratty family, Brockway and Foot around to his way of thinking. Woffinden said his interest in the case was due to Justice to whom he dedicated his book.
But what was Justice really like?
Poster ‘Victor’ met him and said: “I must admit that meeting was the basis of my negative thoughts about him and his motives. I disliked the way he preached at me about Hanratty's innocence, it was like he threw logic away and appealed to emotions, whilst simultaneously ignoring the sympathy for the real victim, VS.”
If you look at what Woffinden presents as Justice's jolly japes, there is often something less appealing behind them. For example, with the stolen parking meter Justice was only charged with ‘receiving’; his chauffer and a friend took the blame. They told the court that they did it and then took it along to Justice’s flat: “Mr Justice opened the door of the house and we took it in.” The friend (James Bryde-Hennessy) committed suicide soon after. There is also a National Archive document concerning bribery of the police by a barrister in connection with the Parking Meter incident.
(The police reference number is MEPO 2/11299; the next one in sequence MEPO 2/11300 is the Alphon/Mrs Hanratty fracas.)Comment
-
I'd have said 'slightly rusty wire', but no matter....Jean Justice - the silver thread running through the post-trial ‘innocence’ campaign.
I never knew that Victor met him. If he posted regarding this meeting then it must have been when I was absent from the boards. As Justice's nickname was 'Boom' this just about sums what it must have been like to spend time in his presence.
Hmmm, that could easily be applied elsewhere....I disliked the way he preached at me about Hanratty's innocence, it was like he threw logic away and appealed to emotions, whilst simultaneously ignoring the sympathy for the real victim, VS.
JJ was seriously wealthy courtesy of his family and his own property speculation, and was a real upper-crust hell-raiser. His interest in Alphon and the A6 was possibly down to lack of anything constructive to fill his spare time. Still, give him his due, he pursued it with commendable energy.
Woffinden stated that JJ first became interested in the A6 at the time of the committal at Ampthill (at which Jeremy Fox took a dislike to Hanratty and suspected his guilt). In fact, JJ himself said that his interest was first aroused by Acott's TV appeal during which he named Alphon as his No 1 suspect. This was on 22 September, about 8 weeks prior to the committal, and before Hanratty was in the frame. It seems possible that JJ was more concerned with proving Alphon guilty than proving Hanratty innocent.
Incidentally, I read Murder v. Murder long ago, and although I can't recall it in any detail, I didn't find it at all convincing. I lent the book to someone, and that was the last I saw of it. Used copies are still around for Ł20 or less, so I might just treat myself.
GrahamWe are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver BlazeComment
-
His second book on the case is only 8 Euro.
Comment
-
Hello All,
This case is what made me join this forum in the first place. I have the abiding conviction that Hanratty could not have done these crimes, mainly because the timeline does not fit.
DNA itself is a wonderful thing but when the evidence becomes contaminated, as I believe it was in this case, then we cannot trust it.
What I am going to say is probably going to bring people down on me like a ton of bricks.
Valerie Storie has been sheltered and cosseted and made to look like a heroine. She was not a heroine but a survivor who did what anyone would have done in her position.
Whilst I feel terribly sorry for what she went through, I feel no more sorry than I do for anyone else who has been paralysed in this way.
There is no point in reading anything that she has written because, like any autobiography, it will be self-serving, omitting the bad parts and only putting forward the things the author wishes us know and to think.
Dress it up how you will but the fact remains that this lady had no problem with the fact a man had a wedding ring on his finger. She was a bit of a plain Jane, a spectacles wearer, which was considered an unattractive thing in those days, so a bit of male attention would have been welcome.
It must be obvious to everyone what Gregston and Storie had been doing in that field on that night, and I am not going to pass judgement because it was a matter for the two of them, but the rest of the story is as we know it.
I am going to jump ahead now to the identity parade. Alphon was the man all right. No doubt about it and the police thought so as well. The fact that Valerie did not pick him out at the parade was a huge blow and meant that he was able to walk free and be cleared forever of the crime (even though he later admitted to it).
As we all know - originally Storie had described her attacker as a man who looked just like Alphon and then changed it completely - a complete somersault - saying it was a man who looked just like Hanratty (who was the complete physical opposite of Alphon).
The crime had to be pinned on someone and unfortunately for Hanratty, he had rubbed too many influential people up the wrong way, so he was the one to take the blame. He also happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, not for the first time in his life.
Eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable but Hanratty was hanged on the basis of dodgy eye witness accounts.
It seems strange that Valerie Storie's description of her attacked changed after she had a visit from Gregston's wife. Suddenly Hanratty was the one!
I think it is shameful that Valerie changed her mind and people simply accepted this. A person's memory does NOT improve over time - it decreases. Her original description would have been the accurate one.
"She never waivered" in the belief that Hanratty was the perpetrator. Well she wouldn't, would she? How would it have looked if she announced that she had been wrong?
There are so many things wrong with the entire Hanratty case, so many strange things, genuine coincidences that blurred the truth.
I believe that although Hanratty was a petty crook, he was not a murderer or a rapist. And I will show, in a later post, that he could not have been in two places at the same time!
I think Natalie Severn has done a wonderful and credible job on the Hanratty threads in describing what really happened in this fascinating case.This is simply my opinionComment
-
Aye, a blow for Hanratty alright, but what a boon it was for the conspiracy theorists.Originally posted by louisa View PostComment
-
Hi Alfie,Originally posted by Alfie View Post
Yes - those conspiracy theorists, instead of going for the obvious conclusion which is right under their noses, they prefer to believe convoluted theories.This is simply my opinionComment
-
Hi Louisa.
You will show in a later post that Hanratty could not be in two places at the same time.
I wait with bated breath.
Whilst I agree with most of what you say in this post,I believe Alphon was involved,but not sure about him doing the actual deed.
What could possibly have been Alphons motive if he was the lone culprit ?
Are we to believe his line' Immorality,Indecensy, that's enough isn't it'?
No,there's much more than 'what's right under our noses, 'Comment
-
Hello again Louisa.
I am noting,your tenth and eleventh paragraphs 'As we all know.....' Invites us to accept that a serious conspiracy is now in the making ?
Am I right Ma'am .Comment
-
Finally Louisa, I'm happy that someone other than myself have said what needed to be said, with regard to Valerie Stories' involvement in this case,
Given this woman's somersault as you put it in the identification of her attacker.
Well,we can only hope that she was not haunted for the rest of her wretched life,
by the ghost of an innocent man. I have never been convinced by any of her accounts ,statements ,newspaper articles, or more recently videos .
It's interesting you mention the identification change after Janet's two visits,and yet apparently before Janet died,she reportedly believed Hanratty was most likely innocent ,which interestingly is at complete odds to the view of her own sons.Comment
-
Not quite, Foot said she had "grown increasingly uncertain about Hanratty's guilt".Originally posted by moste View Post
With regard to not being in two places at the same time - this applies to Alphon. Galves says that when she went to bed at 10pm on 22-Aug-61 Alphon/Durrant was expected at the Vienna but had not yet arrived. Her first job the following morning was to put a star beside the person's name in the guest book who had arrived last the previous night - that was Durrant.My own feelings about Alphon have changed a little as a result of two recent meetings with him. I arranged the meetings in 1994 when, to my astonishment, I was approached by Janet Gregsten, whose husband was murdered on the A6. I had always assumed that she, perhaps unwittingly, had something to do with the murder, given that her husband was having an affair with Valerie Storie. I had three long meetings with Mrs Gregsten, two of them in Penzance, where she lived. Very quickly she convinced me she had nothing to do with the murder and had no idea who had. She had, however, grown increasingly uncertain about Hanratty’s guilt. I found her impressive, quite unlike the jealous demon of my imagination. In January 1995, while we were still discussing how to take the matter further, she died of a heart attack. My brief relationship with her was a warning against jumping to hasty conclusions, in particular about Peter Alphon.Comment
-
I can't see any reason why Hanratty would have given the gun back to Dixie France.
If Hanratty put the gun under the seat then that would be the work of a idiot wouldn't it? and as has been pointed out Hanratty (in many ways) wasn't stupid. If he was panicking he would have chucked it in the Thames.
In my opinion the person who left the gun under the seat was Dixie France - who else?
Nobody has come up with the answer to this question yet:-
Hanratty was in the Liverpool sweetshop at 5pm on the 22nd. Agreed? Even the prosecution agreed on that.
So……. (here is a question to all those who think he is guilty).....how in the world could he have managed to get down to Slough by 9pm? (and locate that obscure field?)
Also - if Hanratty knew that he had to be in Slough by 9pm why on earth would he still be in Liverpool at 5pm casually trying to flog his stolen loot?This is simply my opinionComment
-
-
Well they did Nick, by way of inference .Originally posted by NickB View Post
They ,the prosecution, knew that the defence had reduced the possibility of Hanratty being in that sweet shop,from Monday or Tuesday to just Tuesday, by reason of the prosecutions own addmision , that there was unchallengeable proof that Hanratty was in London all day Monday.
There then followed possibly the biggest gaff in courtroom history.
The now famous, and self destructing statement made by Swanwick.
'There was possibly a flight available , or helicopter service,that could possibly have deposited Hanratty down in the field where the crime took place.
At this moment in time, Hanratty was home free, and I would suggest the Jury had heard enough,and we're ready to vote on it.
Unfortunately ,and unbelievably, in the event he hanged.
This passage of events ,re the barrel scraping air flight reference,is right up there with my main reasons for believing in Hanrattys innocenceComment
-
Yes, exactly.
It was proven that he was in London all day on Monday 21st so he had to have been in Liverpool the following day.
The sweetshop lady was vague but that's of no consequence. He was there, on the day he told the court.
Unfortunately Hanratty had lost the sympathy of the jury because they knew he had already perjured himself, which Hanratty did not see as important at the time. He then told the truth about his true whereabouts on those days but by that time the damage was done.
Michael Sherrard was a good lawyer but he was outclassed by those hired by the Prosecution.This is simply my opinionComment
Tweet
Comment