A6 Rebooted

[babybird67]

re Roy Langdale:
He was one of the most despised and avoided prisoners in the entire jail. He had tortured a young man he shared a cell with by shaving off his eyebrows,beating him severely with a belt ,forcing him to sing Jailhouse Rock and then lancing his chest a dozen times with a serrated knife.For his own safety he was transferred to the "hospital".

You're missing my point Norma. Are any of these things worse than rape or murder? Why do you disapprove of Langdale but not of Hanratty? They were both nasty peices of work so why distinguish such an apparent affection for one of them, and hatred for the other? I'm looking for some consistency you see.

He was generously treated by the courts following his testimony against Hanratty and appears to have been "awarded " for it by a very lenient sentence following the viscious attack he had made on his 18 year old cell mate.

Which was wrong.

He told the court that he had "exercised" with Hanratty--[/U]-which both Hanratty and other prisoner witnesses refuted Hanratty saying he had done so once or twice and never ever had he "confessed to the A6 murder,and the other prisoners saying they hadn"t even seen him exercising with Hanratty and that they themselves had exercised him most of the time during which time he always asserted his innocence vehemently.The other prisoners testified against Langdale in court.

Exactly. Langdale was contradicted in court by two others. So how do you know it was his evidence that swayed the jury in convicting Hanratty? I tend to believe the testimony from Storie would have been most persuasive, but we can only guess, since we weren't members of the jury of privy to their reasoning.

I don't believe anything Nudds or Langdale say. I believe Valerie and the other evidence that shows Hanratty guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

[Natalie Severn]

Do you have a link to this report? This is not evidence that Hanratty was innocent. It is just one person's opinion that he was. A bit like your opinion and Julie's and Jim's. Just opinions.

You can request it from the home office,Jen .
Absolute dishonesty and distortion to say it was just his "opinion".

Det Chief Supt Roger Matthews was commissioned to do it upon the orders of Scotland Yard as a result of a request by the Home Office in 1996 .

[RonIpstone]

re Roy Langdale:
He was one of the most despised and avoided prisoners in the entire jail. He had tortured a young man he shared a cell with by shaving off his eyebrows,beating him severely with a belt ,forcing him to sing Jailhouse Rock and then lancing his chest a dozen times with a serrated knife.For his own safety he was transferred to the "hospital".
He was generously treated by the courts following his testimony against Hanratty and appears to have been "awarded " for it by a very lenient sentence following the viscious attack he had made on his 18 year old cell mate.
He told the court that he had "exercised" with Hanratty---which both Hanratty and other prisoner witnesses refuted Hanratty saying he had done so once or twice and never ever had he "confessed to the A6 murder,and the other prisoners saying they hadn"t even seen him exercising with Hanratty and that they themselves had exercised him most of the time during which time he always asserted his innocence vehemently.The other prisoners testified against Langdale in court.

Hello Natalie or Norma,

I'm sure Joan Baez would not agree with you.

This is what she had to say:

" Show me the prison, show me the jail
Show me the prisoner, whose life has gone stale
And I'll show you, young man,
With so many reasons why
there but for fortune, go you or I...."

You could quite easily be Langdale, who was not the model prisoner that Hanratty was.

[Natalie Severn]

I mean it has to be a strange situation where someone draws up an identikit that:


1]shows a man with a brushed back flat perfectly clear hairline when Hanratty"s hair line was jagged due to a "widow"s peak" which gave him a "quiff" and made his hair stand up and not respond to being "brushed back".

2]draws an "identikit" picture of him with almond shaped droopy dark eyes and then gives out he had "icy blue staring eyes" and didn"t look remotely like Hanratty

3]goes on to "identify" a Mr Michael Clark as the man who had raped her in the Morris Minor!


A very dangerously wrong "identification" surely in a capital case?

[Derrick]

You could quite easily be Langdale, who was not the model prisoner that Hanratty was.

No one here, as has been repeated to the point of extreme boredom, is denying that Hanratty was a common or garden petty crook. At times it appears he was actually quite successful (Anderson was paying top dollar prices by all accounts) until of course he left his dabs all over the shop.

It's time to get back to business and discuss the A6 murder isn't it?

Derrick

[caz]

Hi All,

If the DNA findings had been discredited or at least not accepted; if it had been agreed that the case was flawed - with or without those findings - and the conviction of Hanratty therefore unsafe, I'm struggling somewhat with how that would automatically have shown Valerie's testimony and final identification to be wrong, the Rhyl witnesses to have been right* and someone other than Hanratty to have been the rapist and murderer.

[*Imagine what a good defence lawyer would have done with those same Rhyl witnesses if their testimony involved incriminating Hanratty in some awful crime in Rhyl that night, when he was claiming to have been two hundred miles away? They'd have been turned into mincemeat and rightly so.]

It certainly wouldn't have proved Alphon the culprit beyond reasonable doubt, and Hanratty could certainly still have been guilty.

Who in their right mind would pour hard cash into a bottomless pit like that one, in an attempt to obtain and fund a further appeal that, at best, would still leave Hanratty the more likely of the only two suspects - on balance, considering what 'evidence' would remain intact - to have committed the crime?

There is zero evidence against Alphon, of the sort that could ever possibly produce a guilty beyond reasonable doubt verdict. And who else is there?

It's a fool's errand - even if you believe in the gut instinct that keeps on telling you that Hanratty would, or could not have done such a thing. And it has to be mere opinion in an absence of provable innocence.

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

And what you do not seem to understand is that there is NO EVIDENCE that Hanratty was innocent; no EVIDENCE that any fabrications or manipulations were made to the evidence which proves Hanratty guilty etc. Evans has now been cleared. WHat vested interest do you think there is preventing the clearing of Hanratty, should it be justified? DO you seriously believe in a decades long twisting of evidence against the poor working class lad just so the Police/Justice system/ whomever you seem to feel is responsible for this nefarious act don't have to fess up to their failings?

The fact that previous miscarriages of justice have been redressed shows the system DOES work where there is evidence of innocence or where there is evidence something has gone wrong. Neither applies to Hanratty.

What sort of system DO you want Julie? How many appeals DO you want criminals to have? Even when all the arguments have been heard over and over and NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, indicates this man's innocence? How much money should we waste raking over the ashes and dragging the victims over and over through the painful embers of the disgusting acts of brutality that have already wrecked their lives? How many appeals is enough for you? Ten? Twenty? Or will you really never rest until you ensure Hanratty is innocent, despite all the evidence and due process of law being followed? Seriously please answer...I would really like to share your vision of justice. It has a very odd face from where I am looking.

It's so easy to say isn't it? 'Evans has now been cleared'. Simple except that he's f*****g well dead. Hanged. Convicted by a jury. Proven guilty and Hanged. Redressed? How?

I don't accept that there is no evidence of Hanratty's innocence. You do. You feel that because a jury agrees with you and several appeals agree with you and the DNA seem to agree with you I should too but I don't.

I am not satisfied that the evidence was honestly obtained and honestly presented by the police and by the prosecution. I am not satisfied a motive was properly explored and I am not satisfied that all of the evidence concerning the relationship between Storie and Gregsten was put before the jury.This relationship could certainly have provided a motive - especially as Gregsten was going to leave his wife the weekend following the murder. I think Valerie Storie was mistaken when she identified Hanratty as her attacker and I think she was mistaken because she had Acott on her back willing her to make an identification. I think that Accott did not care whether it was Alphon or Hanratty who carried out the attack or even someone completely unidentified as long as someone was in the frame.

There is so much more to this crime than has ever been made public.

Forget appeals. They will just uphold the institutions that sent Hanratty to the gallows. i would like to see the truth being told. The whole truth.

[Natalie Severn]

Yes Julie.You have put the case very well.
Norma

[Graham]

I'm not really sure whether there is any real point in continuing with this thread, because it's plainly obvious that there is absolutely no chance of the one side ever convincing the other.

But it occurred to me that there is another (in)famous case that in many respects resembles the A6, and that is the Lindbergh Kidnapping.

1] In both cases a murder was committed almost certainly accidentally.

2] In both cases the accused was a previously petty criminal who for whatever reason decided to move on to greater things. JH from burglary to armed robbery, Bruno Hauptmann from robbery to ransom on a grand scale.

3] In both cases the accused made himself known to the police by an elementary mistake. JH via his Irish postcard and Hauptmann via his spending of the ransom money which was marked.

4] In both cases the defence claimed police corruption.

5] In both cases an apparent nut-case came onto the scene to muddy the waters - JH had Alphon, Hauptmann had Condon.

6] In both cases the accused was nailed (literally in the case of Hauptmann) by forensics - JH by means of DNA, Hauptmann by means of his ladder being proved to have come from timbers in his house.

7] In both cases the accused blamed someone else. JH blamed an 'unknown', Hauptmann blamed Isidor Fisch. In neither case could the 'someone else' be identified - in JH's case because the 'someone else' didn't exist; in Hautpmann's because the 'someone else' was dead.

8] In both cases the accused went to their deaths vehemently protesting their innocence, yet as time moved on it was accepted by the majority that both were guilty.

9] In both cases there was some confusion regarding an ID parade.

I believe that the basic difference between the two cases is that Hauptmann pre-planned the kidnap and deliberately set out on the night of 1 March 1932 to carry it out; JH, on the other hand, was a kid with new toy, i.e., a gun, and happened upon the Morris Minor on the night of 22 August 1961 out of sheer coincidence. The other difference is that Hauptmann wasn't confronted with the necessity to eliminate a witness to his crime; JH was.

Whatever.

Graham

[babybird67]

It's so easy to say isn't it? 'Evans has now been cleared'. Simple except that he's f*****g well dead. Hanged. Convicted by a jury. Proven guilty and Hanged. Redressed? How?

Don't swear at me for a start.

I have always been against the death penalty for precisely the reason that you cannot bring someone back to life who is later proven to be innocent. Also I do not believe the state can outlaw murder yet engage in it itself.

The point was, where there have been miscarriages of justice, the state has ADMITTED that, and done what it can to clear the person's name. What do you think is so special about Hanratty that they would deliberately fail to do this in his case? I'll tell you. Absolutely nothing. He hasn't been cleared because he was not innocent. He was a lying, thieving, murdering rapist. Still...if that's the sort of person you admire...

I don't accept that there is no evidence of Hanratty's innocence. You do. You feel that because a jury agrees with you and several appeals agree with you and the DNA seem to agree with you I should too but I don't.

So answer the question Julie. What sort of justice system do you believe in? Ten appeals per crime? Twenty? Interminable? Eternal torture for the victims as we go round and round in circles again and again. It doesn't really matter what you do and don't accept. Due process of law has been followed. He had his appeals. They failed. He was guilty. Get over it.

I am not satisfied that the evidence was honestly obtained and honestly presented by the police and by the prosecution.

Whereas the defence was a paragon of virtue lmao. Mrs Jones who couldn't keep honest books with her business and who had discussions with Terry Evans on material aspects of the evidence when specifically warned not to by the Judge. Hanratty himself, who was in Liverpool, oops no in Rhyl at the time. Oh yes. Of course.

I am not satisfied a motive was properly explored and I am not satisfied that all of the evidence concerning the relationship between Storie and Gregsten was put before the jury.

There was no motive. Hanratty bungled an armed robbery like he bungled everything in his sad pathetic life. And why should the relationship of Gregsten and Storie have been put before the jury. It was irrelevant.

This relationship could certainly have provided a motive - especially as Gregsten was going to leave his wife the weekend following the murder.

Not at all. That theory doesn't make sense and there is absolutely zero evidence for it.

I think Valerie Storie was mistaken when she identified Hanratty as her attacker and I think she was mistaken because she had Acott on her back willing her to make an identification.

You should learn a bit of respect for the victims of crime. And perhaps less glorification of criminals.

I think that Accott did not care whether it was Alphon or Hanratty who carried out the attack or even someone completely unidentified as long as someone was in the frame.

I think he was anxious to catch the killer like anybody would have been. Luckily he had Valerie to steer him away from making a miscarriage of justice out of Alphon and getting the real murderer convicted and off the streets so that nobody else had to lose their life at his hands.

There is so much more to this crime than has ever been made public.

How do you know if it hasnt been made public?

Forget appeals. They will just uphold the institutions that sent Hanratty to the gallows.

Like the Evans appeal that didn't uphold it you mean? But oh yes Golden Boy Hanratty is a special case, I forgot.

i would like to see the truth being told. The whole truth.

You wouldn't know the truth if it came up and sang you a Bob Dylan song. You just want the class war to be behind everything instead of looking for the truth. It's sad. Really sad.

[Graham]

Hi Julie,

I am not satisfied that the evidence was honestly obtained and honestly presented by the police and by the prosecution

Specifically, in which area or areas? The police presented their case to the prosecution who placed it before a jury - whether that jury was middle-class Bedford burghers or farm-hands is immaterial. The defence has the right to object to the selection of any jury-member, pre-trial. Why should the police or prosecution evidence be any more or less dishonest than during any trial before or since? Are you implying that there was some sinister reason for the Law (with a capital L) to desire Hanratty to be found guilty, and that the Law was prepared to go to dishonest lengths to acheive this?

I am not satisfied a motive was properly explored and I am not satisfied that all of the evidence concerning the relationship between Storie and Gregsten was put before the jury

By and large, the Law is not concerned with motive, only whether an accused person did it or didn't do it. What possible reason would the affair between Gregsten and Storie have on the decision of the jury, unless (for example) Hanratty was also having it off with Storie and was jealous of Gregsten and had decided to do him in? That was never even suggested, as far as I'm aware.

I think Valerie Storie was mistaken when she identified Hanratty as her attacker and I think she was mistaken because she had Acott on her back willing her to make an identification

.

I can only ask you to back up your accusation with proof.

I think that Accott did not care whether it was Alphon or Hanratty who carried out the attack or even someone completely unidentified as long as someone was in the frame.

Well, if that really was the case, it wasn't the first time and it wasn't the last.
The police need to be perceived as doing what they're paid to do. I have read that the officer in charge of the Yorkshire Ripper Case believed until his dying day that the bloke in Sunderland who made the recorded confession was the real killer. Because that bloke was the first, real, suspect, and Sutcliffe came into the frame only long afterwards. However, I seriously believe that Acott was forced to eat humble pie over Alphon, and genuinely came to the serious conclusion that Hanratty was the man.

There is so much more to this crime than has ever been made public.

I'd love to see you go into more depth regarding this.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

There is zero evidence against Alphon, of the sort that could ever possibly produce a guilty beyond reasonable doubt verdict. And who else is there?

Hi Caz,
Addressing the question of whether or not there was any evidence against Alphon .
Not believing for one moment that this was some "accidental killing" by a sex maniac who had travelled from London all suited and booted, gun at the ready ,to engage a couple in a cornfield in Slough in rough sex games , followed by rape, the first conclusion I came to was the attack was planned.Lets not forget it comprised a three hour ,seemingly pointless but very terrifying drive round the edges of London.
Regarding the site of the actual hold up off marsh Lane,the police didn"t actually attend to following up the visit to the police station by Mr and Mrs Cobb and Mr Newell on the 29th of August. The reason they went was to report seeing a man who closely resembled the identikit of Valerie"s ,of a man of about 25-30 "He was wearing a dark suit and carrying a white carrier bag rolled over at the top.He had pale,sallow skin, dark hair,brushed straight back,inclined to recede at the temples'.He had very dark eyes but I wouldnt say they were sunken,[Mr Newell] His nose was thin." Mr Newell had seen him on two previous occasions.These three witnesses from the Marsh Lane area hadn"t seen the police in the neighbourhood at all.

Those statements could have been gold dust.... but they were never followed up.

Caz, Alphon, did not have an alibi for the night.Ok,that doesnt make him the gunman,but given his "confession" he spells out a possible "motive" which was that the "Central Figure" had hired him to stop the affair between Valerie and his brother in law ,once and for all.

AS far as you asking about "who else?" well given the links to the London underworld that the likes of France and Nudds had,it could have been anyone
at all who was familiar to the Rehearsal Club or any Soho club frequented by the likes of Billy Hill and his gangster mates. Hanratty would have been such an easy target to have on hand as a "patsy".
Bill Ewer had even seen him about in North London days after the murder.He admitted this in his Sunday Times statement on 16th May 1971. Ewer states he saw him go into the Dorothy Morrell"s flower shop and found out from her that his name was Ryan and he had ordered flowers on September 1st for Mrs Hanratty and Ewer,on his own admission,telephoned Scotland Yard to report the visit to the police who subsequently took a statement from Mrs Morrell.So Scotland Yard had the link from Ryan to Hanratty as early as 1st September 1961.
Best,
Normax

[jimarilyn]

Yes Julie.You have put the case very well.
Norma

Totally agree with you Norma. Julie's post was an excellently thought out and worded post.

As James Hanratty said in his letters from prison, the truth will emerge one day.

"Oh Deep in my heart I do believe that We shall overcome, some day." (beautifully sung Joan)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkNsEH1GD7Q

[babybird67]

ah Jim he was finally right about something then...

Totally agree with you Norma. Julie's post was an excellently thought out and worded post.

As James Hanratty said in his letters from prison, the truth will emerge one day.

"Oh Deep in my heart I do believe that We shall overcome, some day.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkNsEH1GD7Q

The truth did emerge. It was almost as if he had a premonition about his own DNA coming out to condemn him. I think he just went up slightly in my estimation!

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Jim!

We shall overcome!