A6 Rebooted

[Alfie]

I can now understand why this thread got removed for quite a while. Posters such as you give forums a bad name.

If the lady was a relative of yours then your comments would be understandable.

I gave my opinions, the same as you have given yours, and I will go on giving mine whether you like it or not.

"The totally innocent party"? She was an unreliable eye witness and a man was hanged on her say-so.

You may have been on this thread for a long time but you do not OWN it. There is room for other opinions besides your own.

If I am in error in the future then just say so, without being rude, but that may be an impossibility for somebody like you.

Of course there's room for other opinions. Just try to make sure they're based on something other than your faulty memory.

And I wasn't being rude. I was calling you on your errors. I believe that is allowed, even if it's not agreeable to you.

[louisa]

Try not posting until you know what you're talking about then.

And try to refrain from slagging off the totally innocent party in the Hanratty case.

You really should do a bit of research instead of continuing to make a fool of yourself on this forum.

And I wasn't being rude. I was calling you on your errors. I believe that is allowed, even if it's not agreeable to you.

Thank you so much "for calling me on my errors". How in the world could I have thought you were being rude?
.

[Sherlock Houses]

This forum alone has discovered errors on virtually every page of his book and so a ‘new edition’ would be widely ridiculed unless it were substantially rewritten. If he had written a balanced book in the first place then I believe it would have been far more successful and still in print.

No no no. I'm sorry but you can't be allowed to get away with this outlandish claim as some naive folk might believe you. I trust that you're prepared to back up this frankly ludicrous statement and itemise for us all just exactly what these hundreds of errors are in his impressive 500 page book. Just re-reading his book and I haven't come across a single error in his first 20 pages !

Copied from the back cover of his book..........

"Woffinden's painstaking, meticulous and detailed scrutiny of the material is little short of a tour de force" "
-Louis Blom Cooper, THE SPECTATOR

"A brave and passionate attempt to right a wrong...it is conviction writing of a high and sustained standard."
-John Stalker, SUNDAY TIMES

[Sherlock Houses]

Thank you so much "for calling me on my errors". How in the world could I have thought you were being rude?
.

I don't suppose Alfie knows what it's all about, Louisa.

[louisa]

I don't suppose Alfie knows what it's all about, Louisa.

A good play on words there, Sherlock.

[Sherlock Houses]

And try to refrain from slagging off the totally innocent party in the Hanratty case -

I can't ever recall Louisa slagging off James Hanratty.

[louisa]

I can't ever recall Louisa slagging off James Hanratty.

[NickB]

Just re-reading his book and I haven't come across a single error in his first 20 pages!

Well I've just looked at the first page and can see one. “The isolated inn had a sombre appearance. Earlier in the year, the film producer George Brown had used it as a setting for a murder mystery, ‘Meet Miss Marple’." The film was ‘Murder, She Said’ and it did not feature the inn.

Later in the book, after he has provided the basic story outline and starts presenting his case, the errors become more serious because they prevent the reader from considering the evidence fairly. They are often errors of omission - something he was rightly critical of in Acott.

[Graham]

The first 20 pages of Woffinden's book are based largely upon Valerie's statements, historical and reported fact, and also the statements of other people who knew the Gregstens. I frankly can't see much wrong in these first pages, but as the book progresses there is much to be concerned about, especially for example the so-called pre-murder sightings of Alphon in the area around Marsh Lane. It is wrong to attribute to Woffinden a 100% totally reliable reportage of the whole sorry A6 tale; there are simply too many and's, if's and but's. I don't know if Sherlock has ever read Leonard Miller's book on the A6, but if so, perhaps he might do as he requests re: Woffinden and enlighten us with his advice of where Miller has reported wrongly.

It doesn't matter what reviewers of The Sunday Times or The Spectator might say about Woffinden's book: what the hell do they know about the A6 Case?

Graham

[OneRound]

Hi Louisa,

I no longer have the books but I believe Woffinden refers to the convicted murderer as 'James Francis Hanratty' when in fact his name was simply 'James Hanratty'.

Now, Louisa, the likes of Nick, Alfie and Graham may tell you that's a mistake and so it may initially seem. However, I'm pretty sure that would actually be them making a goof and not seeing an important but craftily disguised clue deliberately planted by our Bob.

I believe Woffinden discovered that father and son Hanratty swapped places in the death cell the night before the execution. The younger James then disguised himself - see, all the pieces begin to fit, he had form for disguises - as his dad and devoted the rest of his life campaigning for a pardon. Whilst this at first may seem a little unlikely, you'll note from a thorough review on Youtube that in all interviews, the so called 'father' never says the word 'think or rather 'fink' which would have given the game away. Also, to cap it all, you'll never guess the father's full name - yes, that's right, James Francis Hanratty, too incredible to be yet another coincidence! I'm sure you'll agree that's clear proof that the younger Hanratty escaped the noose thanks to his father's sacrifice. Furthermore, the fact that young Jim, the guy who all thought was the dad, never went on to commit a crime is certain further proof that he couldn't have been the A6 killer and rapist.

It really annoys me when Nick, Alfie, Graham and others think they've spotted errors rather than taking the time and trouble to see what Woffinden is really getting at.

Btw, not for me to apologise for others, but I am sorry that not all here have been treating you seriously.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Sherlock Houses]

It doesn't matter what reviewers of The Sunday Times or The Spectator might say about Woffinden's book: what the hell do they know about the A6 Case?
Graham

Maybe it's my imagination but didn't Louis Blom-Cooper write the first book about the murder back in '63 ?

[Spitfire]

Well I've just looked at the first page and can see one. “The isolated inn had a sombre appearance. Earlier in the year, the film producer George Brown had used it as a setting for a murder mystery, ‘Meet Miss Marple’." The film was ‘Murder, She Said’ and it did not feature the inn.

It seems that Bob relied on the Maidenhead Advertiser of 3rd February 1961 for this misinformation. According to IMDb, the film Murder She Said was released on 26th September 1961 and during filming it was known by its working title of Meet Miss Marple.

I assume that the Maidenhead Advertiser had announced that filming of the Agatha Christie book the 4.50 from Paddington was going to happen in the summer of 1961, that the film would be known as Meet Miss Marple and that the picturesque, if sombre, Old Station Inn at Taplow would be one of the locations.

Unfortunately for Bob not all of this came to pass. The working title was changed and if it had been the intention to feature the esteemed and famous watering hole, such intention did not come to fruition on the final print of the film.

One of the filming locations is given as Amerden Lane (near where the railway line crosses it) which was not too far away from the Old Station Inn and it is quite possible that the film crew used the pub or its car park as some sort of base.

[NickB]

At the bottom of this page are screen shots of Amerden Lane. You can hover your mouse over the last photo to see the scene today.

This is one of the factual errors that does not impact on the case, but does show a lack of care in research.

It really annoys me when Nick, Alfie, Graham and others think they've spotted errors rather than taking the time and trouble to see what Woffinden is really getting at.

Woffinden made it quite clear what he is really getting at: “This book is for all those Hanratty supporters across the nation.”

[moste]

Hi Louisa,

I no longer have the books but I believe Woffinden refers to the convicted murderer as 'James Francis Hanratty' when in fact his name was simply 'James Hanratty'.

Now, Louisa, the likes of Nick, Alfie and Graham may tell you that's a mistake and so it may initially seem. However, I'm pretty sure that would actually be them making a goof and not seeing an important but craftily disguised clue deliberately planted by our Bob.

I believe Woffinden discovered that father and son Hanratty swapped places in the death cell the night before the execution. The younger James then disguised himself - see, all the pieces begin to fit, he had form for disguises - as his dad and devoted the rest of his life campaigning for a pardon. Whilst this at first may seem a little unlikely, you'll note from a thorough review on Youtube that in all interviews, the so called 'father' never says the word 'think or rather 'fink' which would have given the game away. Also, to cap it all, you'll never guess the father's full name - yes, that's right, James Francis Hanratty, too incredible to be yet another coincidence! I'm sure you'll agree that's clear proof that the younger Hanratty escaped the noose thanks to his father's sacrifice. Furthermore, the fact that young Jim, the guy who all thought was the dad, never went on to commit a crime is certain further proof that he couldn't have been the A6 killer and rapist.

It really annoys me when Nick, Alfie, Graham and others think they've spotted errors rather than taking the time and trouble to see what Woffinden is really getting at.

Btw, not for me to apologise for others, but I am sorry that not all here have been treating you seriously.

Best regards,

OneRound

Ahh yes:' It is a far, far better thing that I do than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.(C.D)
Stop taking the Mickey O.R

[OneRound]

Mickey, Moste? Surely not.