A6 Rebooted

[OneRound]

Moste - I speculated about the perpetrator of these crimes being on drugs as a possible explanation for his actions. Michael Gregsten's health is of no relevance.

OneRound

[j.kettle1]

Blackpool telephone conversation with Acott.

During one of his telephone conversations with Acott from Blackpool, Hanratty asked (not verbatim) 'What size was the gun'. What a strange question if he'd committed the crime. It makes no sense, unless he'd actually had a connection with the gun - let's say as a middle man, and was trying to ascertain if the murder weapon was the same calibre as the one he had handed over.
If that was the case then the most obvious recipient was Alphon during their stay at the Vienna.
However, if this was indeed the case, and he knew who had committed the crime, why did he not tell someone (Mick?) when he asked him to clear his name?
All very strange.

[NickB]

This was in Hanratty's interview after capture, at the point when Acott revealed that two cartridge cases had been found in the hotel room. In evidence Hanratty admitted the question, but claimed that he asked it after denying he had ever had a gun or bullets rather than before.

Hanratty version:
“That is the end for me now. I have had no gun or bullets at any time. What size were the bullets?”

Police notes version:
“What size were the bullets, Mr Acott?” (Acott says he cannot tell him.) “Well that is the end for me isn’t it? I told you I have never had any bullets and never fired a gun.”

[j.kettle1]

Thanks, Nick.
I've been away a while and I think a bit of refresher reading is in order. ��

[Limehouse]

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.

Hello everyone,

I have been away from the boards for a few months as I needed a break for all sorts of reasons.

I have been catching up today and I must say, it is really good to see so many posters contributing to the A6 threads again.

However, I have to heave just a small sigh over the quality of some comments, including the one above. What has MG's medical history got to do with him being attacked and shot? The man clearly had a few disagreeable character traits but to add complete speculation about possible serious drug abuse adds nothing to the mystery.

I have also been disappointed to read highly disrespectful comments about VS. However much one might disapprove of her relationship with MG, she was not on trial for her morals and, even if she had had relations with a dozen men, married or not, it would not justify the terrible indignity and violence she suffered at the hands of her attacker. This was a very young girl whose life was ruined forever by events that night.

Finally, the debate over Hanratty's mental state has got me thinking. I think it was Graham who suggested that Hanratty had been diagnosed as a 'psychopath'. However, I wonder whether he was actually diagnosed as 'psychotic'? They are two quite different, but similar-sounding conditions.

Some people with psychotic disorders suffer paranoid delusions that people are plotting against them or that they are receiving messages telling them to behave in certain ways. However, psychotic disorders also cause people to chat incessantly and in rather incoherent ways. Psychotics also tend to indulge in highly risky behaviour (burglaries?), are often prolific liars and tend to live chaotic lives. People with psychotic disorders find it difficult to settle and form stable, permanent relationships. Psychosis has a number of causes, but one of them is head injuries.

Psychopaths, on the other hand, are usually cold (but sometimes personable) people who are incapable of feeling human warmth and empathy towards others.

To me, if Hanratty had been diagnosed with a mental illness, it seems much more likely that it was psychosis (and he had suffered a head injury).

This, coupled with his learning difficulties, would explain much of his behaviour, especially his inability to give a coherent and consistent account of his movements at the crucial time.

Just a few thoughts. I'm off the watch 'Strictly' now.

[moste]

Moste - I speculated about the perpetrator of these crimes being on drugs as a possible explanation for his actions. Michael Gregsten's health is of no relevance.

OneRound

Yes I know you did.
I'm speculating about the victims past actions inadvertently creating a motive for his own murder,

[Graham]

Hi Julie,

nice to see you back, even though the A6 Thread has, as it does periodically, 'gone circular'.

I couldn't agree more with what you say about posters (well, a poster) digging the dirt about Gregsten's past and medical problems. And in particular about calling Valerie a liar and describing her as a 'wretched woman' and her evidence as being 'a figment of her imagination'. This particular poster perhaps should re-read his own posts. She most certainly was not on trial for her morals. Such an approach doesn't advance by one jot the discussion of this perplexing case.

If I remember correctly Hanratty was described by one of the several medicos who examined him as having 'psychopathic tendencies', rather than being an out-and-out psychopath. We're in the middle of trying to put some order into our thousands of books in this house, so as soon as I can drop on my A6 books I'll check them again.

I hope you're keeping well and I look forward to further input from you.

Graham

[cobalt]

Anything which is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. Moste at least understands that.

If you think that Hanratty was guilty then you have a predisposition towards double standards, and your concept of what is appropriate is more limited. Moste, on the other hand, does not believe Hanratty was guilty, and therefore he affords all the other players in this unfortunate drama the same scrutiny as the prosecution side does to Hanratty. I welcome his approach, even if the conclusions he draws do not always convince me.

We were asked to consider that Hanratty was acting under the influence of drugs. No one on this site took offence at this outlandish theory; rather it was accepted as a plausible motive for an inexplicable crime. Yet where is the evidence? Did anyone ever see Hanratty take Purple Hearts? Did anyone ever report him begging Dixie France for some Uppers before going on a job? No absolutely nothing. Purely idle conjecture. Did anyone, in his entire life, ever see James Hanratty with a gun? No. Yet we, on this site, were prepared to argue from that conjecture.

However the minute the same scrutiny regarding mental well being is asked of Gregsten, we are told this should be off limits. Why? Because he was a victim? That is not a good enough reason, not if we are seeking the truth. In any case James Hanratty may well have been a victim himself, and he has not been afforded the same protection. For all we know Gregsten’s mental state may have been central to what took place that night, so I am not prepared to support any voice which wants to close this debate down.

I want the debate to be opened up to try and shed some light on what actually took place. Was Gregsten on Purple Hearts or Uppers? Or Valerie Storie? Might that explain her confused statements? Is anyone offended by these questions? If so, no more than I would be if you ask them of Hanratty.

[moste]

Anything which is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. Moste at least understands that.

If you think that Hanratty was guilty then you have a predisposition towards double standards, and your concept of what is appropriate is more limited. Moste, on the other hand, does not believe Hanratty was guilty, and therefore he affords all the other players in this unfortunate drama the same scrutiny as the prosecution side does to Hanratty. I welcome his approach, even if the conclusions he draws do not always convince me.

We were asked to consider that Hanratty was acting under the influence of drugs. No one on this site took offence at this outlandish theory; rather it was accepted as a plausible motive for an inexplicable crime. Yet where is the evidence? Did anyone ever see Hanratty take Purple Hearts? Did anyone ever report him begging Dixie France for some Uppers before going on a job? No absolutely nothing. Purely idle conjecture. Did anyone, in his entire life, ever see James Hanratty with a gun? No. Yet we, on this site, were prepared to argue from that conjecture.

However the minute the same scrutiny regarding mental well being is asked of Gregsten, we are told this should be off limits. Why? Because he was a victim? That is not a good enough reason, not if we are seeking the truth. In any case James Hanratty may well have been a victim himself, and he has not been afforded the same protection. For all we know Gregsten’s mental state may have been central to what took place that night, so I am not prepared to support any voice which wants to close this debate down.

I want the debate to be opened up to try and shed some light on what actually took place. Was Gregsten on Purple Hearts or Uppers? Or Valerie Storie? Might that explain her confused statements? Is anyone offended by these questions? If so, no more than I would be if you ask them of Hanratty.

At least someone understands where I'm coming from.
Thanks Cobalt, for a very well explained post,

[OneRound]

Anything which is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. Moste at least understands that.

If you think that Hanratty was guilty then you have a predisposition towards double standards, and your concept of what is appropriate is more limited. Moste, on the other hand, does not believe Hanratty was guilty, and therefore he affords all the other players in this unfortunate drama the same scrutiny as the prosecution side does to Hanratty. I welcome his approach, even if the conclusions he draws do not always convince me.

We were asked to consider that Hanratty was acting under the influence of drugs. No one on this site took offence at this outlandish theory; rather it was accepted as a plausible motive for an inexplicable crime. Yet where is the evidence? Did anyone ever see Hanratty take Purple Hearts? Did anyone ever report him begging Dixie France for some Uppers before going on a job? No absolutely nothing. Purely idle conjecture. Did anyone, in his entire life, ever see James Hanratty with a gun? No. Yet we, on this site, were prepared to argue from that conjecture.

However the minute the same scrutiny regarding mental well being is asked of Gregsten, we are told this should be off limits. Why? Because he was a victim? That is not a good enough reason, not if we are seeking the truth. In any case James Hanratty may well have been a victim himself, and he has not been afforded the same protection. For all we know Gregsten’s mental state may have been central to what took place that night, so I am not prepared to support any voice which wants to close this debate down.

I want the debate to be opened up to try and shed some light on what actually took place. Was Gregsten on Purple Hearts or Uppers? Or Valerie Storie? Might that explain her confused statements? Is anyone offended by these questions? If so, no more than I would be if you ask them of Hanratty.

No, you were not.

Partly in response to your own post doubting either a financial or sexual motive, I asked whether ''the murderer'' or ''perpetrator'' of these crimes may have been under the influence of drugs. I deliberately used such terms in a (naive) hope that Hanratty supporters would not take dramatic offence and would still give serious consideration to the question.

Graham is fully convinced of Hanratty's guilt and so responded with direct reference to him. I can understand that. I could also understand it if Moste did not accept the references to Hanratty but instead gave some consideration to the actual murderer (whoever he was) being on drugs. That is what the question was. And after all, there was a murder unless that is also to be disputed.

OneRound

[moste]

No, you were not.

Partly in response to your own post doubting either a financial or sexual motive, I asked whether ''the murderer'' or ''perpetrator'' of these crimes may have been under the influence of drugs. I deliberately used such terms in a (naive) hope that Hanratty supporters would not take dramatic offence and would still give serious consideration to the question.

Graham is fully convinced of Hanratty's guilt and so responded with direct reference to him. I can understand that. I could also understand it if Moste did not accept the references to Hanratty but instead gave some consideration to the actual murderer (whoever he was) being on drugs. That is what the question was. And after all, there was a murder unless that is also to be disputed.

OneRound

OK OneRound, time to climb down off the fence. Do you believe Hanratty murdered Gregsten? We promise not to take dramatic offence!

[cobalt]

One Round,

I welcomed your thoughts on drugs as a factor in the crime. For me, if Hanratty were the murderer, that makes a lot more sense than him deciding the burglary game was redundant and it was time to grab a gun, which I think was Acott's rationale. Your point was worthy of consideration. You made a reasonable case for the murderer being under the influence of drugs.

I said in my last post this was 'idle' conjecture' but I would like to retract the adjective 'idle'. It was a reasonable avenue to explore. I was happy to point out that there has never been any evidence to support this conjecture, but that does not make it 'idle.'

My objection was to Limehouse's post which I felt was trying to narrow the terms of our debate. She quite correctly advised against making moral judgements on Valerie Storie, for a criminal case has to stand above the moral details. However she also objected to questions regarding Gregsten's mental health and I think she has no right to argue this. It may be this is merely a side issue in the case, or it may not.

The details of how the murderer entered the car are not accepted by all of us.

[OneRound]

OK OneRound, time to climb down off the fence. Do you believe Hanratty murdered Gregsten? We promise not to take dramatic offence!

I have never been on the fence here. If you had bothered to read my earlier posts, you would be be well aware of my view that Hanratty did murder Michael Gregsten but he was not fairly and reasonably convicted. However, that is separate from the question I asked as to whether the ''murderer'' was under the influence of drugs at the time.

OneRound

[OneRound]

One Round,

I welcomed your thoughts on drugs as a factor in the crime. For me, if Hanratty were the murderer, that makes a lot more sense than him deciding the burglary game was redundant and it was time to grab a gun, which I think was Acott's rationale. Your point was worthy of consideration. You made a reasonable case for the murderer being under the influence of drugs.

I said in my last post this was 'idle' conjecture' but I would like to retract the adjective 'idle'. It was a reasonable avenue to explore. I was happy to point out that there has never been any evidence to support this conjecture, but that does not make it 'idle.'

My objection was to Limehouse's post which I felt was trying to narrow the terms of our debate. She quite correctly advised against making moral judgements on Valerie Storie, for a criminal case has to stand above the moral details. However she also objected to questions regarding Gregsten's mental health and I think she has no right to argue this. It may be this is merely a side issue in the case, or it may not.

The details of how the murderer entered the car are not accepted by all of us.

Thank you. I trust that means my original conjecture was also not necessarily 'outlandish' as you previously referred to it.

I am sure one aspect that everyone on this site can agree upon is that there are aspects of the A6 crime that we do not know or understand. That very probably prompts some of our interest. That in turn may lead to speculation. Whilst that in itself is not wrong (and I would be highly hypocritical if I suggested it was), we do need to remember as we get comfy in our armchairs and type away that there were real victims of this crime and that some of them and/or their families are still with us today.

There are no scientific laws or magic formula applying but we all (and I don't exclude myself) need to apply some reasonableness and have a clear idea as to its purpose before posting speculative thoughts. In this regard, too many of Moste's posts come across to me as ill explained and muck raking.

Finally, I accept that some will view Hanratty as another 'victim' of this crime. They though do also need to accept that Hanratty remains a guilty man in the eyes of the law which means, as the Court of Appeal effectively stated in 2002, that any argument in his favour now needs to be clearly demonstrated. Arguments for innocence are very welcome but speculation about Michael Gregsten's health shamefully falls a long way short of that.

OneRound

[moste]

I have never been on the fence here. If you had bothered to read my earlier posts, you would be be well aware of my view that Hanratty did murder Michael Gregsten but he was not fairly and reasonably convicted. However, that is separate from the question I asked as to whether the ''murderer'' was under the influence of drugs at the time.

OneRound

Fair enough.
We can be certain that we will never find out the question as to the murderer having a drug habit.
However we do know that Gregsten was being prescribed tranquilizers ,and I would put the case that it doesn't require much imagination to assume Gregsten will have visited every avenue available ,to alleviate the symptoms of this ,'severe mental disorder'
Since we know that there were alternatives to the run of the mill drug prescriptions available on the NHS. By putting two and two together ,Could it be why the man was always hard up for money?
People may well say 'documenting information with regards to Gregstens financial situation has nothing to do with his being murdered', but I say it may be central to it!