A6 Rebooted

[NickB]

Gregsten got out and purchased a packet of ten Nelson tipped from a machine in the Harrow area. I've always imagined the cigarette machine was outside a shop, rather than at a petrol station.

I believe the most significant stop was when Gregsten and the gunman got out and went to the back of the car. I presume the gunman had removed the handkerchief for this and so Gregsten may have had a good view of his full face.

Also, when in the car I imagine every time Gregsten looked in the rear view mirror he would have seen the gunman. Mostly the handkerchief would have been in place, but I doubt it was when they stopped at the petrol station.

When Swanwick went through possible motives for the killing he said: "Or did he think that Gregsten had seen him and might recognise him?" I believe he was suggesting the gunman thought that Gregsten had seen him clearly during the carjack and so would recognise him later if left alive.

(Woffinden has a different interpretation of Swanwick's remark: "that the gunman might have been known to them".)

[j.kettle1]

Woffinden has a different interpretation of Swanwick's remark: "that the gunman might have been known to them".)

Which was probably based on the forensics found in the MM which were found to belong to legitimate users only.

[Derrick]

Which was probably based on the forensics found in the MM which were found to belong to legitimate users only.

Bar 2 finger-marks which belonged neither to Hanratty nor Alphon.

[ansonman]

Gregsten got out and purchased a packet of ten Nelson tipped from a machine in the Harrow area. I've always imagined the cigarette machine was outside a shop, rather than at a petrol station.

I believe the most significant stop was when Gregsten and the gunman got out and went to the back of the car. I presume the gunman had removed the handkerchief for this and so Gregsten may have had a good view of his full face.

Also, when in the car I imagine every time Gregsten looked in the rear view mirror he would have seen the gunman. Mostly the handkerchief would have been in place, but I doubt it was when they stopped at the petrol station.

When Swanwick went through possible motives for the killing he said: "Or did he think that Gregsten had seen him and might recognise him?" I believe he was suggesting the gunman thought that Gregsten had seen him clearly during the carjack and so would recognise him later if left alive.

(Woffinden has a different interpretation of Swanwick's remark: "that the gunman might have been known to them".)

Strange that they had no change for milk but did have change for fags. Unless they bought the Nelson's first and used all their change for them. But then wouldn't they realise that before approaching the milk machine?
Ansonman

[Graham]

Strange that they had no change for milk but did have change for fags. Unless they bought the Nelson's first and used all their change for them. But then wouldn't they realise that before approaching the milk machine?
Ansonman

Being old and warty I can remember that a carton of milk from a vending machine around that time was sixpence (2 1/2p) and ten fags was either two shillings (10p) or two-and-six (12 1/2p). So if they had a two-bob piece and/or a half-crown, fags were no problem, but if they didn't have a tanner bit then no milk for them. A cigarette vending machine out on a public road wouldn't last five minutes today before it was vandalised.....

Graham

[cobalt]

NickB,
I have always assumed the murderer was smoking during the journey, hence the stop for cigarettes. Maybe I am wrong on this detail, but if he did then he would have had to remove his handkerchief while doing so, or lift it up at the very least.

Derrick,
There is an instinctive desire for us to assume the two unidentified prints belonged to the murderer. Perhaps they did. But the mundane reality is that they were just as likely to have come from innocent contact by a friend of the family that the police were not aware had been in the car, or even a car mechanic doing something like an MOT. I am sure many of us would have fingerprints in our car whose provenance we would struggle to explain.

[j.kettle1]

Bar 2 finger-marks which belonged neither to Hanratty nor Alphon.

Thank you for the correction, Derrick.
Do you happen to know if any were found on the steering wheel, or for that matter where any of the fingerprints were found in the MM?

[moste]

NickB,
I have always assumed the murderer was smoking during the journey, hence the stop for cigarettes. Maybe I am wrong on this detail, but if he did then he would have had to remove his handkerchief while doing so, or lift it up at the very least.

Derrick,
There is an instinctive desire for us to assume the two unidentified prints belonged to the murderer. Perhaps they did. But the mundane reality is that they were just as likely to have come from innocent contact by a friend of the family that the police were not aware had been in the car, or even a car mechanic doing something like an MOT. I am sure many of us would have fingerprints in our car whose provenance we would struggle to explain.

I think it was pretty much accepted that the assailant did not care for smoking , and Storie has said ,'I lit two cigarettes, one for Mike and when asked if he wanted one, the man took the other,I don't know if he smoked it though'.This being the case, I struggle with why the killer would be so accommodating, and understanding of Gregstens smoking habit to stop specifically to buy cigs!

[cobalt]

That's a fair point Moste. Perhaps Hanratty allowed them cigarettes for relaxation, to keep them co-operative, but then there is still the overwhelming question of what on earth his purpose was of being in the car in the first place. To keep them co-operative for what?

Was his motive financial? Clearly not. He took no money and even abandoned the car.

Was his motive sexual? Unlikely, although he did, after several hours, assault Valerie Storie. I am no expert in this field but I understand that sexual arousal can be linked to acts of extreme violence. If this is credible, then the motive would not be sexual, but rather that the sexual assault was a chain reaction to the shooting of Gregsten.

Which brings us no nearer the motive of the murderer entering the car in the first place. Like Moste I am not convinced of the cornfield story. It was odd in 1961, and despite all the crimes we have had to endure reading about in the intervening years, many of them apparently bizarre, there is still something deeply unsatisfactory about the alleged motive for the A6 case.

Why did Hanratty not 'upgrade' from burglary to armed robbery? That might have been a logical move. Why not roll over the odd petrol station which in these days had no CCTV, and were often family owned?

Why go for double murder with no robbery at all? It is totally without sense. OK Hanratty was educationally backward (as we expressed it at the time) but in terms of profit/illegality he was a sharp enough character and driving better cars than my father back in 1961. In fact my old man had a Lambretta scooter until 1964.

[OneRound]

Hi Cobalt,

As for motive or at least what caused the murderer to act the way he did, I speculated some time ago as to whether his behaviour might have resulted from him taking drugs.

I'm no expert in this area but several factors appear to suggest a possibility. Bulging eyes. Incessant chatter and irrational conversation. Hunger. Need for sleep. Sexual arousal.

Add to that, I would guess that drugs and particularly pills to pop were starting to be illegally sold around the time of this crime.

Just thoughts but no one has come up with any other compelling reason or motive to satisfy me over the years.

Best regards,

OneRound

[OneRound]

Hi Cobalt,

As for motive or at least what caused the murderer to act the way he did, I speculated some time ago as to whether his behaviour might have resulted from him taking drugs.

I'm no expert in this area but several factors appear to suggest a possibility. Bulging eyes. Incessant chatter and irrational conversation. Hunger. Need for sleep. Sexual arousal.

Add to that, I would guess that drugs and particularly pills to pop were starting to be illegally sold around the time of this crime.

Just thoughts but no one has come up with any other compelling reason or motive to satisfy me over the years.

Best regards,

OneRound

Glad everyone is convinced by that.

Having just looked at my post a couple of years back reflecting this speculation, I note other factors I included then were impaired ability to drive and lack of logical thought throughout the whole encounter.

As stated yesterday, just my thoughts and I'm certainly not going to die in a ditch over them. Not even the most likely reason in my own book for the kidnapper's actions but not something I feel should be totally excluded.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Graham]

Hi OR,

I wouldn't totally rule out your suggestion that JH was on drugs. At that time amphetamines (Purple Hearts, Black Bombers, etc) were becoming fashionable, and I think were not actually illegal and were apparently sometimes prescribed by GP's as a general pick-me-up. My first 'exposure' to London was around 1963 when I used to stay at my brother's place in Chelsea, and more than once I was offered what I later found out were Purple Hearts. The only thing I'd say about JH is that according to his family he was a non-smoker and drank very little, so perhaps taking 'uppers' had no appeal for him; but on the other hand, he did patronise Soho clubs, so I'd guess it can't be ruled out that he had some exposure to what was available 'under the counter'.

Graham

[moste]

Glad everyone is convinced by that.

Having just looked at my post a couple of years back reflecting this speculation, I note other factors I included then were impaired ability to drive and lack of logical thought throughout the whole encounter.

As stated yesterday, just my thoughts and I'm certainly not going to die in a ditch over them. Not even the most likely reason in my own book for the kidnapper's actions but not something I feel should be totally excluded.

Best regards,

OneRound

Hhmmm. Also ,not to be totally excluded, given the something of a fog around Gregstens past.The apparent hopelessness of his mental condition. The famous Tavistock clinics inability to treat him and only when, the intense headaches and depression,were becoming so unbearable ,did he deny his religious teachings ,and seek out medical help)
Watford memorial hospital could not fare any better even after seeing him for a year.His own doctor simply prescribed tranquilizers.
According to Dr.John Sutherland,of the Tavistock Clinic,'Gregsten was worried about financial matters,and had a general feeling he ought to be dead.
Looks like someone else thought the same thing!
Could Gregsten have decided to take his health problem into his own hands ,but find himself in dire straights financially, because he was feeding a serious drug habit?
Doing the math, on the surface of things,money wise, he should have been better off than he was.

[moste]

Proceeding from above post.
It's notable that these medical institutions don't hold back any punches( as with Hanrattys examinations)
Gregsten himself had complained of ' depersonalization syndrome'
The Tavistock clinic labelled him as being a person with a 'severe character disorder'.
His own doctor had him down as psychoneurotic.
P.s. Just wondering ,if his employers at the R .R .Labs knew about all this whether he might have found himself in even more debt,as an unemployed?

[moste]

Above info. Mostly gleaned from the author B. Woffinden. Maybe of interest to posters who don't have the books.