A6 Rebooted

[moste]

Quote :Why put more petrol in the car anyway? The gunman knew it wasn't empty, even though he'd been told there was less petrol in the car than there actually was. But why put anothyer two gallons in? Presumably the gunman had it in his head that he was going to drive off and keep going for some considerable time without VS and Gregsten. I have never thought that he intended to kill either of them but then once the gun went off after he was scared by Gregsten, he probably thought he had no choice but to kill again.
Hi Ansonman
First off, 'Why put more petrol in the car? Well as I think I posted recently , 'the petrol gauge was broken. Reason for thinking this? The assailant could easily have read the gauge from where he sat. Additionally ,it's likely that Gregsten kept a meticulous log of petrol consumption ,plus miles travelled ,for this very reason.
I'm not sure I follow ' the gunman knew he was going to be travelling a good distance without Gregsten and Valerie? Yet he shot Gregsten by accident? Not quite with you on that one.
In any event ,the gunman made sure he had a minimum of 60 miles in the tank right from the Regent garage.

[moste]

Hi Sherlock.
In answer to your number one. We have an annomily .
Not only were the police completely negligent in not swooping on the corn field immediately ,or even sooner, to question everyone and anyone about possible sightings in this entire crime scene area,
It also turns out that the old Bill were extremely tardy in not doing an immediate door to door enquiry of residents in Avondale crescent where the car was discovered! I find it impossible to come up with a reason for these two facts without concluding, 'they didn't need to interview or question anyone ,they already had an agenda!

[NickB]

As I say, I do not know the answers to any of these questions, but would like to know more about the background to the case. Any help would be appreciated.

I would say the answers to your questions in general is 'no'. There is a lot of discussion on this forum about all your points, in particular about his driving abilities or lack of them.

Regarding point 5 the defence's DNA expert Dr Evison, put it this way: “I think there are a number of specific circumstances where I don't believe the possibility of contamination can be excluded. I think there is a possibility that contamination could have occured.” (my italics) As you probably know, the Appeal court considered the possibility and rejected it.

[Sherlock]

Hi Cobalt

I didn't realise that my nom de plume was similar to that of another contributor to this thread. I am sorry if it has caused confusion.

Although it is not strictly relevant to this thread, I am not certain that Timothy Evans was responsible for the deaths of his wife and child, but some writers have put forward evidence to the contrary, which I feel it is only fair to consider. I do not think that this necessarily qualifies me for the funny farm!

As far as Hanratty is concerned, I am aware that it is a very complex case with a great many side issues. For what it is worth, due in part to some of the uncertainties I have already listed, my gut reaction is that he may not have been guilty, but I could be wrong. I just do not know.

I would have to admit right away that I am not as knowlegeable about the case as some of the contributors to this thread. That is why I am hoping that some of them such as yourself and Sherlock Houses may be able to help me.

I am aware that Valerie Storie sadly died earlier this year. She was the only living person who came face to face with the gunman and was convinced for the rest of her life that it was indeed Hanratty. I do not know if she was right or wrong or if the DNA evidence can be considered as conclusive.

It is my understanding that the evidence put forward at the trial was somewhat ambiguous and that there was some surprise in court when the guilty verdict was announced, but that in the minds of the judiciary the DNA evidence affirmed this verdict and closed the case for ever.

I also understand that the trial was originally scheduled to be held at the Old Bailey as it was felt that Hanratty would have received a fairer trial there, but was switched back to Bedford at the last minute. Has a reason ever emerged for this?

This case has a good many questions which do not always have easy answers.

[moste]

Hi Cobalt

I didn't realise that my nom de plume was similar to that of another contributor to this thread. I am sorry if it has caused confusion.

Although it is not strictly relevant to this thread, I am not certain that Timothy Evans was responsible for the deaths of his wife and child, but some writers have put forward evidence to the contrary, which I feel it is only fair to consider. I do not think that this necessarily qualifies me for the funny farm!

As far as Hanratty is concerned, I am aware that it is a very complex case with a great many side issues. For what it is worth, due in part to some of the uncertainties I have already listed, my gut reaction is that he may not have been guilty, but I could be wrong. I just do not know.

I would have to admit right away that I am not as knowlegeable about the case as some of the contributors to this thread. That is why I am hoping that some of them such as yourself and Sherlock Houses may be able to help me.

I am aware that Valerie Storie sadly died earlier this year. She was the only living person who came face to face with the gunman and was convinced for the rest of her life that it was indeed Hanratty. I do not know if she was right or wrong or if the DNA evidence can be considered as conclusive.

It is my understanding that the evidence put forward at the trial was somewhat ambiguous and that there was some surprise in court when the guilty verdict was announced, but that in the minds of the judiciary the DNA evidence affirmed this verdict and closed the case for ever.

I also understand that the trial was originally scheduled to be held at the Old Bailey as it was felt that Hanratty would have received a fairer trial there, but was switched back to Bedford at the last minute. Has a reason ever emerged for this?

This case has a good many questions which do not always have easy answers.

Hello Sherlock.
It sounds like you may have a genuine interest in the A 6 mystery.

If you're really interested you may consider spending a few weeks reading old A6 threads, also I would recommend a copy of Paul Foots "Who killed Hanratty?" and Bob Woffindens "The final verdict" fascinating reading both, though written from the perspective that Hanratty was innocent. I have read stuff seen through the eyes of an author who believes Hanratty to have been guilty, but it didn't come close to measuring up to the quality of investigative journalism that these two portray
As far as DNA is concerned ,Rob Harriman wrote a tome on the subject, "Hanratty: The DNA Travesty."(available on Kindle) and has recently released a second. They are both heavy reading and a thorough understanding of the science of DNA is pretty much a requirement to tackle those I would suggest. However Harriman makes some excellent points, even for the lay person to understand, and he has certainly gone into a great deal of research and studying of the case before drawing conclusions that the official judgement on the DNA issue was, well ,left wanting, to put it nicely.

[Spitfire]

But if you still have reservations about who killed Beryl and Geraldine Evans then you really belong in the funny farm.

Hello Sherlock, welcome to the A6 Thread. Your unorthodox views should sit well with the Hanrattyite lobby (aka Hanrattyistas).

All the books to which Moste has referred will soon be rendered obsolete by a third appeal made on behalf of the late lamented and much missed Hanratty which has been promised for early 2011.

Only then will the full facts of this fascinating case emerge. However, by way of a taster, or amuse-bouche as our French cousins might say, of what is to be revealed in the new appeal and to assist you in finding answers to the questions that you have posed I will say as follows.

You are barking up the wrong tree looking for evidence of abduction at the cornfield in Dorney Reach. It is now thought by leading Hanratty activists that Gregsten voluntarily drove to Deadman's Hill in furtherance of some planned skullduggery. He (and Miss Storie) were not held up by the gunman at all and the gunman did not get into the car until after he had shot Michael Gregsten.

When the gunman did get into the car, he did so wearing a rubber suit with plastic buttons and/or velcro fastenings. I am not sure whether he was wearing the rubber suit when he raped Miss Storie.

After the killing, rape and attempted killing, the gunman drove north to Matlock where he donned a green pom-pom hat and drove around a bit, during which time he was spotted by a very reliable witness, Mr William Lee at 6.30 a.m. From Matlock the gunman drove south towards Leicester where he bought petrol from a Mr Douglas at midday. He was then spotted in the St Albans area at about 1 pm.

From the previous paragraph it can be seen that there is no way the gunman and the Morris Minor could have been in Avondale Crescent on the morning of 23 August 1961. The police should have asked the Avondale residents whether they had seen a man in the AFTERNOON wearing a rubber suit with plastic buttons and/or velcro fastenings (but not a green pom-pom hat which the gunman had left in the car), if that question had been asked then the answers would have solved the case in an instance and someone but not Hanratty would have been convicted.

Here's a report of the case.

[Alfie]

... I do not know the answers to any of these questions, but would like to know more about the background to the case. Any help would be appreciated.

The short answer is, Hanratty was guilty. To argue otherwise will suck you in to conspiracy theories so convoluted that you'll require TWO tinfoil hats to ward off the dictates of the facts and logic.

[Sherlock]

I was aware that Hanratty's family wished to launch a fresh appeal. Is there one in prospect?

I agree that it might involve one in some pretty far-fetched theories and speculation if one was to stick obstinately to the opinion that Hanratty was guilty and not consider any evidence to the contrary. That is why I am keeping an open mind at the moment.

[Graham]

The much-vaunted new appeal supposedly planned to be heard during 2011 didn't happen. For the Appeal Court to consider a fresh appeal it would need to see new evidence, and unless someone somewhere is holding something back, there is no new evidence, post the 2002 Appeal, in the A6 Case. There is also the question of finance - who would pay for a fresh appeal? Further, I understand that the lawyer who supported the Hanratty family in their efforts to launch a new appeal no longer represents them.

Graham

[OneRound]

Hi Cobalt

I didn't realise that my nom de plume was similar to that of another contributor to this thread. I am sorry if it has caused confusion.

Although it is not strictly relevant to this thread, I am not certain that Timothy Evans was responsible for the deaths of his wife and child, but some writers have put forward evidence to the contrary, which I feel it is only fair to consider. I do not think that this necessarily qualifies me for the funny farm!

As far as Hanratty is concerned, I am aware that it is a very complex case with a great many side issues. For what it is worth, due in part to some of the uncertainties I have already listed, my gut reaction is that he may not have been guilty, but I could be wrong. I just do not know.

I would have to admit right away that I am not as knowlegeable about the case as some of the contributors to this thread. That is why I am hoping that some of them such as yourself and Sherlock Houses may be able to help me.

I am aware that Valerie Storie sadly died earlier this year. She was the only living person who came face to face with the gunman and was convinced for the rest of her life that it was indeed Hanratty. I do not know if she was right or wrong or if the DNA evidence can be considered as conclusive.

It is my understanding that the evidence put forward at the trial was somewhat ambiguous and that there was some surprise in court when the guilty verdict was announced, but that in the minds of the judiciary the DNA evidence affirmed this verdict and closed the case for ever.

I also understand that the trial was originally scheduled to be held at the Old Bailey as it was felt that Hanratty would have received a fairer trial there, but was switched back to Bedford at the last minute. Has a reason ever emerged for this?

This case has a good many questions which do not always have easy answers.

Hi Sherlock - off topic as you say but some of the best conversations are! I would be interested in having a butcher's at the Christie & Evans thread - assume that's on another forum, grateful for a link or reference.

My take on Hanratty is that whilst he did it, his guilt was not fairly and reasonably proven and so imo the Court of Appeal should have upheld the application made on his behalf in 2002. With that view, there is no way I could ever argue for Evans' guilt given the main prosecution witness at his trial was subsequently totally discredited when shown to be a serial killer.

So yes, for me, ''Christie done it''. I consider him not being involved up to his neck inconceivable. However, that doesn't mean Evans couldn't have had some involvement and understanding of what went on. Like Hanratty, Evans was a liar which harmed his defence and makes any assessment today more difficult. Evans may have been a frightened innocent when he left Rillington Place but that is an assumption and gleaning facts to fully support or reject it is not straightforward.

Best regards,

OneRound

[ansonman]

I haven't posted on this thread for some time as I am chiefly interested in the cases of Evans and Christie on another thread, but I would like to understand more about the Hanratty case. I have not read that much about it but I have looked through the book by Woffinden who believed in Hanratty's innocence in my local library in the past, which was published before the DNA tests appeared to confirm his guilt. At the moment, as with Timothy Evans, I have no definite opinion as to whether Hanratty was guilty or innocent, but perhaps other contributors can help me with the following questions:-

1) Was anyone resembling Hanratty seen in the vicinity of the cornfield by anyone else immediately before Valerie Storie and Michael Gregston were approached by the gunman? My impression is that no-one was.

2) Was there anything in Hanratty's past which might have suggested that he was capable of sexual crimes? My impression is that he was only known as a petty thief but I think another contributor once told me that he had had sex with an underage girl on one occasion. This might or might not suggest that was capable of rape; I am assuming the sex was consensual on that occasion.

3) Had he ever threatened or acted violently towards anyone else, and was he known to carry guns or to be familiar with them?

4) After the Morris Minor was found abandoned near Redbridge tube station was anyone resembling Hanratty seen entering the station or boarding a train? Again my impression is that no-one was.

5) I think Valerie Storie said that the gunman had difficulty with the gears of the Morris Minor at one point. As I believe Hanratty was quite an experienced car thief and I think also hired a car in Ireland, is it likely that if he was driving the Morris Minor he would have drawn attention to himself by his poor driving? If I remember corrrectly one or two witnesses did spot the Morris being driven in an erratic manner.

6) Is it absolutely impossible that the DNA results might have been contaminated, possibly due to poor storage of the clothing from which the specimens were taken? I think I have heard of this occurring in other cases.

As I say, I do not know the answers to any of these questions, but would like to know more about the background to the case. Any help would be appreciated.

You are Sherlock Houses and I claim my £5.

I'm surprised that no one else seems to have cottoned on to the fact that you've rightly decided to fight sarcasm with sarcasm, leave your property portfolio at the gates and post some excellent sarcasm. So much subtler than "Rubber Suit" and twenty times more entertaining. I have tried to single out one of your above questions as being the best but I simply can't. Each one is an absolute gem.

Keep up the good works Homes. Hope you don't think I've unmasked you too early.

Ansonman

[cobalt]

Hi Sherlock,

I am sure Ansonman has his tongue in his cheek so will not respond, much though I respect his posts.

Apologies if I was rather abrupt with your first post, but I think it is accepted that the Evans/Christie case is a walk in the park compared to the A6 murder.

In my view the best contributors on this site have a particular point of view either for or against Hanratty, but are not totally convinced themselves and are open to the opposing point of view. For my own part I am highly sceptical of Hanratty's guilt, but have many times been given cause to reconsider due to well argued posts on here. I hope you will attempt to meet that high standard, as I often try and fail to do.

Spitfire unfortunately is not one of these. He once, I think, believed in Hanratty's innocence, and now seems to harbor a visceral hatred for a man he never met and was executed back in 1961. In his latest offering he puts forward the claim that the witness in Derbyshire was unreliable. True to form he does not explain why, but merely asserts the opposite in a tone of sarcasm more worthy of a teenager. Does he have timings of the alleged sighting and the number plate? I doubt it. No one on this site has ever been able to find that information.

He then attempts to deride the notion that the driver of the car was wearing a bobble hat, and that is not difficult, since bobble hats have a certain existentially humorous aspect to them. Lets all have a laugh at that. The problem is that, as I understand, a very same green bobble hat(as described by our witness in Derbyshire) was photographed in the boot of the murder car. So then the laughing should, if not be stopped, then at least be paused while we consider the possibilities. I hope you are worthy of this task.


best wishes,
Cobalt.

[Spitfire]

Spitfire unfortunately is not one of these. He once, I think, believed in Hanratty's innocence, and now seems to harbor a visceral hatred for a man he never met and was executed back in 1961. In his latest offering he puts forward the claim that the witness in Derbyshire was unreliable. True to form he does not explain why, but merely asserts the opposite in a tone of sarcasm more worthy of a teenager. Does he have timings of the alleged sighting and the number plate? I doubt it. No one on this site has ever been able to find that information.

I wish you would check the facts of your florid posts before tapping the "Submit Reply" button.

Hanratty was executed in 1962 not 1961.

I have no greater hatred for him than I have for any other career criminal who has descended into murder and rape.

As to the question and statement
"Does he have timings of the alleged sighting and the number plate? I doubt it. No one on this site has ever been able to find that information."

This is bizarre. I have posted the link to the judgement of the Court of Appeal earlier but here it is again. The point is discussed in paragraphs 151 to 157 inclusive. The Matlock sighting was at 6.30 am and the number plate was 847BHN.

[Sherlock Houses]

Spitfire unfortunately is not one of these. He once, I think, believed in Hanratty's innocence, and now seems to harbor a visceral hatred for a man he never met and was executed back in 1961. In his latest offering he puts forward the claim that the witness in Derbyshire was unreliable. True to form he does not explain why, but merely asserts the opposite in a tone of sarcasm more worthy of a teenager. Does he have timings of the alleged sighting and the number plate? I doubt it. No one on this site has ever been able to find that information.

He then attempts to deride the notion that the driver of the car was wearing a bobble hat, and that is not difficult, since bobble hats have a certain existentially humorous aspect to them. Lets all have a laugh at that. The problem is that, as I understand, a very same green bobble hat(as described by our witness in Derbyshire) was photographed in the boot of the murder car. So then the laughing should, if not be stopped, then at least be paused while we consider the possibilities. I hope you are worthy of this task.
.

You sum SF up perfectly Cobalt. I couldn't have put it any better than you have.
What is it that's said about sarcasm ?

[Sherlock Houses]

As to the question and statement
"Does he have timings of the alleged sighting and the number plate? I doubt it. No one on this site has ever been able to find that information."

This is bizarre. I have posted the link to the judgement of the Court of Appeal earlier but here it is again. The point is discussed in paragraphs 151 to 157 inclusive. The Matlock sighting was at 6.30 am and the number plate was 847BHN.

You and the "much to be desired of" 2002 Court of Appeal are in error yet again. Derrick has pointed out to you more than once on this forum that William Lee's sighting was at 8.30 am. Yes, 8.30 am not 6.30am.