A6 Rebooted

[OneRound]

Hi all,

Whatever the time of Lee's alleged sighting, there is still the issue of Gregsten's recording of the car's mileage and the showing on the odometer when it was found in Avondale Crescent. If Gregsten was correct in what he wrote down and the odometer wasn't faulty, the car could not have been where Lee claimed.

Personally, I regard it as unlikely that Gregsten would have been slapdash in his recording. If you are so nerdy as to do such a thing, you are going to want to get it right. However, even the best of us can make mistakes. I therefore feel it was unacceptable that Lee's claimed sighting was not disclosed by Acott. As well as talking to Lee and seeking any further details, the defence team should have had the opportunity to carry out their own checks as to the accuracy of Gregsten's recordings (eg, were there previously any apparent howlers?) and the car's odometer.

What makes matters so difficult for us in coming to any conclusion about the strength of Lee's testimony is that we don't know (well, I don't anyway) when he reported matters to the police and critically whether it was before or after the car's number plate had been publicly reported. Furthermore, we also don't know if there had been any mention of a pom-pom hat prior to Lee's claim.

Following my last point and as an aside, some may recall that in their hunt for the Yorkshire Ripper the police were wrongfooted for some time by hoax letters from one writer. The police were sure the letter writer was their man as he had intimate knowledge of some of the crimes which as far as they were concerned would have been known only to the murderer. What they didn't realise was that those details had been broadcast in an earlier regional television programme!

The above para is not intended to disparage Lee but to show how poorly media aspects were handled by the police in past years. As said, that makes any assessment at this time so very difficult.

Best regards,

OneRound

[NickB]

In fact the circumstantial evidence can be shown to involve at the centre Charles France.

France’s evidence at the committal on 27-Nov-61, as reported in the Telegraph:

Charles Frederick France, club manager, of Boundary Road, St John’s Wood, said he had known Hanratty for six or seven years and met him in July this year. He knew him as Jimmy Ryan and used to call him ‘Jim’.

In July he met him outside the Rehearsal Club in Archer Street, Piccadilly, took him home and allowed him to sleep on the settee. About a week later Hanratty returned and again slept on the settee over the weekend.

On August Bank Holiday they went to Hendon Dog Track for a morning meeting. After the meeting they boarded a bus and went upstairs. “I started to go towards the front of the bus, but he pulled me back to the back seat. He made a remark something like ‘This is the only seat on the bus that lifts up and it is a good hiding place’.” They got home just after midday and Ryan left the next day.

He noticed that he did not sound his “th’s” and he was hesitating in his speech. “He sometimes said ‘I fink’. He never pronounced his th’s, said things like fink, fings.”

He came to the house on odd days. On August 20th, a Sunday, he came with two suitcases. Ryan asked Mrs France whether she would do his laundry and get some shirts done as he was going to Liverpool the following day. He did not stay that night, but returned the following day about 2.30 pm. He stayed until about 6.30.

He was dressed “in a sort of chalk-stripe blue suit, a sort of Edwardian-style suit with a double-breasted waistcoat. It was a new suit.* When he left, Ryan said he was going to see an old aunt in Liverpool.

The next he knew of him was when he sent him a telegram on the Friday. At about 9.30 am on Sunday Ryan arrived. He was wearing a pair of new brown slacks and a grey jacket. He stayed until the evening.

Mr France said that his daughter told Ryan: “The dye is fading out of your hair.” Ryan asked her if she would dye it again, as she had after the August Bank Holiday.

“His hair at that time was all different colours. It was streaky – not one colour.” His daughter brought some hair dye from work and dyed it dark brown or black, as she had done on the previous occasion.

Mr France said he reprimanded her for getting dye on some towels. Hanratty paid her £2 on the first occasion that she dyed his hair and £1 the second.
On September 3rd Hanratty asked Mrs France if she would do his laundry, as he was going to Ireland. Ryan telephoned London Airport that day to try to arrange to fly to Ireland. He did not stay that night, but next day called and collected his things.

Ryan had several suits. He believed that on Sunday September 3rd Ryan went down Petticoat Lane and bought a navy blue suit, shoes, shirts and a tie and items of toilet. He said he had paid £14 for the suit. The shoes were “sort of pointed – Italian.”

When he left for Liverpool on August 21st and when he left for Ireland he took his cases with him. While he was away in Ireland Mr France received three postcards from him. One was from Dublin and one from the Western seaboard.

“On September 9th I saw him again. I left a show in the West End – it was late, about midnight – and I found him sitting in the kitchen with my wide. He showed me a driving licence which he said he had got in Ireland. He said he wanted to buy a car.

Some days later he came back to my house. He had a guarantee form for a car. He came by a car. It was a Talbot two-seater white sports. He said he had paid £113 deposit for it and wanted to find a guarantor. I refused.”
Mr France said he had not seen Hanratty between some time after September 9th and now in court.

But Hanratty twice telephoned him, the first time on about October 5th.
“He blurted out ‘Dixie. Dixie. I am wanted for the A6 murder.’ I told him to ‘Cool down again, lad!’ Now talk to me. Tell me what it’s all about.’” Mr France said that after talking to him for a while Ryan said he had been in contact with Mr Acott.

The second time Hanratty said he had been to see ‘South Pacific’ at the Dominion in Tottenham Court Road.

Mr France said he asked Hanratty several times to go to Scotland Yard, but he said: ‘The next time you hear from me it will be out of town. They will have to go some to get me.’

Hanratty said he had £250 hidden away and he mentioned something about a railway embankment. He also said he had an alibi and mentioned three men in Liverpool who would come forward.

Mr France said that when Ryan came back from Liverpool he produced a receipt from the Vienna Hotel to his wife and remarked about the expense.

[Cross examination]

Sherrard: “Do you prefer to be called Brand, France with a ‘z’ or Hancock?”

France: “Hancock is my mother’s name. Franz is my proper name and for the last 25 years we have had the name of France.”

In reply to a question if Hanratty sometimes took his daughter out, Mr France said as far as he knew he had once taken her to work and that was all. Asked by Mr Sherrard whether he was suggesting that Hanratty had ever behaved badly towards his daughter, Mr France replied: “Regarding his character, I give him the highest praise.”

Mr France said that on August 21st Ryan did not look as if he had been sleeping rough. He was immaculate.

Sherrard: “When you were speaking to him on the telephone and he was saying ‘Dixie. Dixie. I am wanted for the A6 murder’ is the effect of what he told you that he was protesting his innocence?”

France: “Yes, he was saying he never had.”

Sherrard: “On the phone, did he give you a reason unconnected with this murder which, according to him, prevented him going to the police?”

France: “He did mention on the phone, yes, another reason unconnected with the murder.”

Sherrard: “Did he indicate to you on the telephone that he was saying he had been in Liverpool when the murder was supposed to have been committed?”

France: “Yes, and there were witnesses to say he had been there.”

--------------

[*William James Clapp, of Cotman Gardens, Edgeware, an assistant at a firm of tailors in the Broadway, Burt Oak, said that on July 8th a man named Hanratty, giving an address in Sycamore Grove, Kingsbury, ordered a suit for £13 5s. Shown a waistcoat and trousers, Mr Clapp said it was part of the suit. The jacket was double-breasted and it was tapered at the hips.]

[ansonman]

Hi all,

Whatever the time of Lee's alleged sighting, there is still the issue of Gregsten's recording of the car's mileage and the showing on the odometer when it was found in Avondale Crescent. If Gregsten was correct in what he wrote down and the odometer wasn't faulty, the car could not have been where Lee claimed.

Personally, I regard it as unlikely that Gregsten would have been slapdash in his recording. If you are so nerdy as to do such a thing, you are going to want to get it right. However, even the best of us can make mistakes. I therefore feel it was unacceptable that Lee's claimed sighting was not disclosed by Acott. As well as talking to Lee and seeking any further details, the defence team should have had the opportunity to carry out their own checks as to the accuracy of Gregsten's recordings (eg, were there previously any apparent howlers?) and the car's odometer.

What makes matters so difficult for us in coming to any conclusion about the strength of Lee's testimony is that we don't know (well, I don't anyway) when he reported matters to the police and critically whether it was before or after the car's number plate had been publicly reported. Furthermore, we also don't know if there had been any mention of a pom-pom hat prior to Lee's claim.

Following my last point and as an aside, some may recall that in their hunt for the Yorkshire Ripper the police were wrongfooted for some time by hoax letters from one writer. The police were sure the letter writer was their man as he had intimate knowledge of some of the crimes which as far as they were concerned would have been known only to the murderer. What they didn't realise was that those details had been broadcast in an earlier regional television programme!

The above para is not intended to disparage Lee but to show how poorly media aspects were handled by the police in past years. As said, that makes any assessment at this time so very difficult.

Best regards,

OneRound

OneRound,

The 2002 BBC2 documentary transcript regarding the logging of the mileage supports your view that Gregsten was not slapdash:

"NARRATOR: Detective Superintendent Acott had withheld from the court vital witness sightings of the murder car and other pieces of evidence, including Michael Gregsten's car log book where Gregsten had meticulously recorded his mileage driven prior to the night of the murder. With this information Acott calculated in his own notebook Gregsten's car had travelled over 200 miles before it was abandoned, a fact supported by other undisclosed sightings of the car in different parts of the country and all suggesting a longer journey for the car than Acott proposed to the court. Had the court known about Gregsten's log book and the conflicting sightings of the car it would have cast doubt on the two witnesses's claim to have seen Hanratty driving the car near the Ilford side street at seven in the morning"

Ansonman

[Graham]

Ansonman,

OK.....now you listen to me. Re: the Lee sighting, I asked in my post 3932 if someone would kindly remind me of the circumstances. Yes? Excellent. You had the goodness to repeat Natalie Severn's post of August 2012 in which she stated that Mr Lee claimed to have seen the car at 6.30am. Nowhere did I attribute that claim to you personally. In fact, to be absolutely honest, I have no interest in what you say, especially after that nonsense you posted just before Christmas.

This matter is now closed.

Graham

[OneRound]

OneRound,

The 2002 BBC2 documentary transcript regarding the logging of the mileage supports your view that Gregsten was not slapdash:

"NARRATOR: Detective Superintendent Acott had withheld from the court vital witness sightings of the murder car and other pieces of evidence, including Michael Gregsten's car log book where Gregsten had meticulously recorded his mileage driven prior to the night of the murder. With this information Acott calculated in his own notebook Gregsten's car had travelled over 200 miles before it was abandoned, a fact supported by other undisclosed sightings of the car in different parts of the country and all suggesting a longer journey for the car than Acott proposed to the court. Had the court known about Gregsten's log book and the conflicting sightings of the car it would have cast doubt on the two witnesses's claim to have seen Hanratty driving the car near the Ilford side street at seven in the morning"

Ansonman

Thanks, Ansonman.

Whilst the extract quoted from the Narrator is clearly critical of Acott (as indeed I am), it still doesn't lend support to Lee's claimed sighting. If, as suggested, Gregsten had 'meticulously recorded' the mileage, the car could not have been where Lee claimed regardless of the actual time. That is of course subject to the odometer being reliable.

Best regards,

OneRound

[ansonman]

Thanks, Ansonman.

Whilst the extract quoted from the Narrator is clearly critical of Acott (as indeed I am), it still doesn't lend support to Lee's claimed sighting. If, as suggested, Gregsten had 'meticulously recorded' the mileage, the car could not have been where Lee claimed regardless of the actual time. That is of course subject to the odometer being reliable.

Best regards,

OneRound

OneRound,

Natalie Severn once said in an earlier posting:

"Note the assumption ....that if Supt Acott wrote the mileage down as being so and so "he must be right and everybody else wrong"

(Just to avoid any confusion on the part of someone nameless, that's Nats saying the above and me repeating it).

I have no idea whether Acott could or did write down the wrong mileage, or write down the correct mileage and then change it. Whatever the case, he was certainly not happy with whatever he saw on the meter.

Ansonman

[OneRound]

OneRound,

Natalie Severn once said in an earlier posting:

"Note the assumption ....that if Supt Acott wrote the mileage down as being so and so "he must be right and everybody else wrong"

(Just to avoid any confusion on the part of someone nameless, that's Nats saying the above and me repeating it).

I have no idea whether Acott could or did write down the wrong mileage, or write down the correct mileage and then change it. Whatever the case, he was certainly not happy with whatever he saw on the meter.

Ansonman

Hi again Ansonman,

Notwithstanding my dislike of Acott's methods, I feel Natalie is pushing things too much there. However, it does go back to my earlier post today that all this should have been disclosed to the defence team in 1962 so that they could make their own enquiries. It was wrong of Acott to deny them that opportunity.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Derrick]

OneRound,

The 2002 BBC2 documentary transcript regarding the logging of the mileage supports your view that Gregsten was not slapdash:

"NARRATOR: Detective Superintendent Acott had withheld from the court vital witness sightings of the murder car and other pieces of evidence, including Michael Gregsten's car log book where Gregsten had meticulously recorded his mileage driven prior to the night of the murder. With this information Acott calculated in his own notebook Gregsten's car had travelled over 200 miles before it was abandoned, a fact supported by other undisclosed sightings of the car in different parts of the country and all suggesting a longer journey for the car than Acott proposed to the court. Had the court known about Gregsten's log book and the conflicting sightings of the car it would have cast doubt on the two witnesses's claim to have seen Hanratty driving the car near the Ilford side street at seven in the morning"

Ansonman

Whoever wrote the script for the 2002 Horizon programme didn't do their research very well. There was no way of knowing how meticulous or not Gregsten was with regard to his odometer records as the records were handed back to the Gregsten family and the CCRC believed them to have been destroyed. If the police held a copy then that is still being withheld.

[moste]

One thing bothers me about Lee's claimed sighting. He says he saw the Morris at about 6.30am. Valerie said she thought the Morris left the crime-scene at 4.00am or a little earlier. Checking with AA Route Planner, Deadman's Hill to Matlock is approx. 130 miles, and the AA say that by keeping to the A6 (direct route) this will, in 2017, take you 2 hr 50 mins. That might mean that you'd be in Matlock at about 6.30am if you left Deadman's Hill at 4.00am and put your foot down.

However, as the one-time proud (?) possessor of a 1952 Morris Minor with a 948cc (I think) engine, foot down on the flat this fine vehicle could just about hit 60 mph. I've no reason to think that Gregsten's 1956 Minor would have gone much quicker. Taking into account hills (which would slow down any Minor), traffic-lights, junctions, town centres, and also the early-morning rush-hour would just be starting, I don't see how anyone could make it to Matlock from Deadman's Hill between the times mentioned by Valerie and Lee. If Lee really did have the number written down on some paperwork, then I'd suggest he got this from BBC Radio News maybe later that morning (assuming that the Beeb broadcast the car's description and number - I really don't know if this was the


One thing - I do agree with Woffinden who said the Morris was left in Avondale Crescent shortly before Mr Medwar spotted it.

Graham

So let's wait and see what the true sighting time was by Lee in Matlock,I can't recall.
On the Morris Minor I checked factory specs, out of interest .Your close enough with your 52' model ,top speed 62 miles an hour.
The 56' model however ..73 miles an hour,due to increased cylinder bore .
I mentioned before learning to drive in the Morris Minor van ,ours was a painted over blue, ex 'Park wireless ' 1959 model . My memory jogged back to those glorious teenage years and I had to check specs on the vehicle ,as I recalled my mate dropping down into third to pass a slower car on a narrow street in Manchester, and when he popped back into top he was doing over '55 mph.
(Great days)
Err, did you mention 'early morning rush' 1961, Matlock, ? 😉

[Spitfire]

So let's wait and see what the true sighting time was by Lee in Matlock,I can't recall.
On the Morris Minor I checked factory specs, out of interest .Your close enough with your 52' model ,top speed 62 miles an hour.
The 56' model however ..73 miles an hour,due to increased cylinder bore .
I mentioned before learning to drive in the Morris Minor van ,ours was a painted over blue, ex 'Park wireless ' 1959 model . My memory jogged back to those glorious teenage years and I had to check specs on the vehicle ,as I recalled my mate dropping down into third to pass a slower car on a narrow street in Manchester, and when he popped back into top he was doing over '55 mph.
(Great days)
Err, did you mention 'early morning rush' 1961, Matlock, ? ��

847 BHN appears to have been a Series II Morris Minor manufactured between the years 1952-56 with the smaller 803cc engine, rather than a Morris Minor 1000 manufactured between 1956-62 with the bigger 948cc engine. The Series II model had a split screen windscreen, whereas the later models had the single pane windscreen.

This photo seems to show the split screen.

[Derrick]

[quote=Spitfire;409316]847 BHN appears to have been a Series II Morris Minor manufactured between the years 1952-56 with the smaller 803cc engine, rather than a Morris Minor 1000 manufactured between 1956-62 with the bigger 948cc engine. The Series II model had a split screen windscreen, whereas the later models had the single pane windscreen.

This photo seems to show the split screen.



...and the car parked almost entirely on the pavement.

[Spitfire]

...and the car parked almost entirely on the pavement.

But not blocking pedestrian access over the pavement as can be seen below there is plenty of room between the nearside of the car and the fence adjoining the pavement.

[Admin]

All people on the A6 thread are currently asked to read the rules and follow them. We've received several report posts recently regarding this thread. If people wish to continue to discuss the case, we ask that they do so according to the rules.

Thank you.

P.S. The photos were not the chief issue, but the getty images were discovered in reviewing the thread. Please do not repost them, if you need to, simply put a link to their location. Thanks.

[Spitfire]

P.S. The photos were not the chief issue, but the getty images were discovered in reviewing the thread. Please do not repost them, if you need to, simply put a link to their location. Thanks.

Getty Images permit their photos to be embedded in non-commercial websites and blogs.

[ansonman]

Getty Images permit their photos to be embedded in non-commercial websites and blogs.

Steady on, else you'll get us all banned again.

To be fair, I'm not convinced the photos had anything to do with it. Rather, a sad AH did one or more report posts and shut us down.

I won't be mentioning the M word anytime soon.