A6 Rebooted

[ansonman]

My copy of the book arrived two days ago and i haven't started it yet. It runs to about 350 pages and has an index. If he maintains that he believed in Hanratty's innocence up until the DNA evidence, that will be a big disappointment but let's see.

[Spitfire]

I submitted a review of this book on Amazon UK about 5 years ago. Just my own honest opinion, taken from the perspective of a believer in Hanratty's innocence.
For what it's worth [or otherwise] here is a copy of that review......

Very interesting.

So you bought Shadows of Deadmans Hill in 2002 or thereabouts paying about £11 for it, read it and were greatly offended by it. On rereading it, you were even more offended, so much so that you lent it to one of your wide circle of friends, who presumably did not return it, as some years later you felt you needed to buy another copy for £25.

Miller has retitled his book as Hanratty's Guilt: The A6 Murder and its Aftermath. It is available on Amazon in Kindle form for £2.99 or as a paperback (for those that want to make pencil notes in the margin) for £11.99. Miller has addressed some of the issues with his earlier book but not all, e.g. the hero of our story is given the additional Christian name of "Francis" and becomes James Francis Hanratty, which was his dad's full name. Miller has also provided an index and a bibliography.

At £2.99 it is 36p cheaper than a Latte from Costa so as NickB says, you have little to lose with it but you must accept the risk of being offended by its contents.

[cobalt]

PC Les Barker’s account reads like a person keen to insert himself into the action of a historic event. He never saw Hanratty or the car, far less the crime. The accounts of his refreshment break and writing up of notes are less than gripping and add absolutely nothing towards our understanding of what happened.

I appreciate his account is for a Facebook readership.

[NickB]

I think it was unlikely the policemen would have arrived at Deadmans Hill while the incident was happening. If they had arrived after they could have got Valerie to hospital earlier. If they had arrived before Hanratty wouldn't have wanted to stop there, but if the police car was visible from the road Gregsten might have deliberately driven in towards it - as this was similar to their plan.

At the price of a medium Cafe Latte you have little to lose in buying Miller. One thing that surprises me is how Stickler and Miller ignore Alphon's alibi of booking in at the Broadway House Hotel.

[Spitfire]

From the British Social History page on Facebook.

[Sherlock Houses]

Was Shadows of Deadman's Hill worth reading?

I submitted a review of this book on Amazon UK about 5 years ago. Just my own honest opinion, taken from the perspective of a believer in Hanratty's innocence.
For what it's worth [or otherwise] here is a copy of that review......

I first read this offensive book shortly after it was published around 2002. I read it again a couple or so years later and found it even more offensive. I gave it to a friend back in 2008 as that was the only book missing from his A6 murder library. He described it as 'a load of tripe'. In my opinion it requires a great deal of patience on the part of the reader as the author is obsessed with speculating, hypothesising and arrogantly stating and assuming as fact so many things that aren't true and there is just no evidence for. He apparently is a lecturer, not a writer, and quite unlike Paul Foot and Bob Woffinden has done no original or independent research into the A6 murder case. He is smugly content to plagiarise large sections of their books. That which he doesn't actually plagiarise he simply paraphrases.
Miller claims in his book that prior to the DNA tests he was 'a firm believer in the innocence of James Hanratty' [p131]. I don't believe this claim for one second. If this were so then it means that he has allowed the mountain of evidence pointing to Hanratty's innocence to fly completely out of the window. How fickle is that ? The particular DNA technique used in the tests, LCN [Low Copy Number], has been shown to be ultra sensitive and thereby nowhere nearly as reliable as conventional DNA methods. So sensitive in fact that 99% of the world's 200 plus nations will not adopt it. The only nations to place any credence in it are the UK, Netherlands and New Zealand. That should speak volumes and send alarm bells ringing.
In my opinion the book is a shoddy piece of work, the author couldn't even be bothered to provide the reader with an index section. Miller is often very dismissive of Paul Foot's highly impressive 1971 book and his meticulous research into the case. He is also very uncharitable and rude about Jean Justice and his two impressive books on the case. Some of the things Miller proposes are unbelievable and just plain ridiculous [ a word Miller himself loves to use]. An example of this is his suggestion that Hanratty had [sometime between late March 1961 and October 1961 ] seen the previous year's Hitchcock movie 'Psycho' at some unknown cinema and assumed the surname 'Bates' [after Anthony Perkin's character in the movie 'Norman Bates'] when arrested by police in Blackpool on October 11th, giving the name 'Peter Bates'. Really !! Another ludicrous example can be seen by his suggestion that when Hanratty took a girlfriend [Gladys Deacon] for a drive in the country to Bedford on September 23rd 1961 he was revisiting the scene of the crime to coincide [don't laugh] with the month anniversary of the murder. Miller conveniently doesn't mention the fact that it was a Saturday, that he had only bought his Sunbeam car three days earlier and that Bedford is about 10 miles from the murder scene at Deadman's Hill, Maulden.
I recently obtained a copy of this objectionable book, paying £25 for the non-privilege [silly old me]. Revisiting this shoddy and careless piece of work I have to say that I found it even more offensive. The book's margins are now littered with pencilled remarks of mine, far too numerous[ and time-consuming] to include in my review. My advice to any would be purchasers of this travesty of a book would be to not waste any hard earned cash on such an amateurish, speculative and arrogantly written book. The asking price for this book by some profiteering sellers is perverse, some are asking in excess of £100. It's not worth a hundred pence in my opinion. Any fair-minded person who has researched this enigmatic case to any degree may also come away feeling offended after reading this book.

---

Need customer service? Click here

[ansonman]

I shall be interested to learn if you think it’s worth buying the book even though he’s on the other side of the fence.

[moste]

Sorry about the type, this is the only site that does that!

[moste]

So, I bought Millers latest effort on kindle also, $4.75 Canadian. Only Two chapters in and it’s already apparent he’s on the other side of my fence . Anyhow we’ll see how it develops.

[NickB]

Well I've bought Miller - as only £2.99 on Kindle.

Seems the cornfield entrance was at or near what became the Thames Water entrance. This is what I had come to believe after Spitfire's map.

http://forum.casebook.org/forum/social-chat/other-mysteries/a6-murders/312-a6-murder?p=37583#post37583

[NickB]

Was Shadows of Deadman's Hill worth reading?

I don't know because it sold out very quickly and was then only available for silly money. It was slated on here, mainly because someone had had the audacity to write a book believing in Jim's guilt! I would be interested to know about his 'new material' though, because one of the criticisms of his original book was that it contained no original material but appeared to be merely pointing out the flaws in Foot and Woffinden.

[ansonman]

Indeed. 71% gave it 5 stars and 15% 4 stars. What's more interesting to me is this book, recently published:


Hanratty's Guilt: The A6 Murder and its Aftermath Paperback – 9 Aug. 2022


by Leonard Miller (Author)

I haven't read his first book which was going for a ridiculous sum. Here's the write up on this one:

"The A6 murder case shocked the nation in 1961. But after James Hanratty was convicted of the crime and executed a series of books appeared over three decades arguing that there had been a major miscarriage of justice and an innocent man had been hanged. Some even suggested that the crime had involved a conspiracy and that it originated in the private life of the murder victim, Michael Gregsten.

Leonard Miller’s classic work of analysis, Shadows of Deadman’s Hill, published before the Court of Appeal’s final verdict on the case in 2002, was the first book to challenge the case for Hanratty’s innocence. Piece by piece, Miller tore apart the claims that there had been a miscarriage of justice, as set out in no less than five full-length studies of the A6 murder case. These authors, he argued, were guilty of tunnel vision. There was no secret conspiracy involving third parties. The crime was unplanned. An impulsive attempt at robbery spiralled out of control as Hanratty enjoyed the power which a newly acquired gun gave him.

Miller’s conclusion was later echoed by the subsequent Court of Appeal’s final verdict that Hanratty had all along been the A6 gunman and rapist, and that there was “overwhelming proof of the safety of the conviction from an evidential perspective”.

In this rewritten and expanded analysis, Leonard Miller returns after twenty years to his original study of the crime. He brings the story up to date, considers new studies, and provides the definitive account of the case for James Hanratty’s guilt. This book also includes new material communicated to the author after the publication of his earlier work".

Was Shadows of Deadman's Hill worth reading?

[NickB]

87 reviews on Amazon. The book has attracted more attention than I expected.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks Ansonman, Spitfire and Nick B

Why did I ask if anyone had read it? I think I just won the ‘stupidest question of the year’ award.

[NickB]

New info from Stickler included:

1. Evans was in Rhyl at the time Hanratty claimed to have been there, serving at a cafe near Dixie's.

2. Irish police were contacted on 19th September to trace Ryan, so the information from Pratt about the rental car had been obtained by then and not on 26th.

3. Hanratty came up with the Rhyl alibi on 25th January and Gilbanks went there the following day.

However it didn't really work for me as a proxy book because it lacked the personal insights that Valerie would have included. He seemed to be more protective of the police than her; the idea that Acott was passive in Nudds second statement strains credulity. Also would have liked more detailed notes about his sources.