A6 Rebooted

[ansonman]

I should add that AH stands for "Anti Hanratty" and certainly nothing else of the sort.

[Spitfire]

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.

I didn't mean it to be as abrupt as it looks, but if you can work the embed code it is useful to know. Needless to say I have yet to master the code.

[ansonman]

I didn't mean it to be as abrupt as it looks, but if you can work the embed code it is useful to know. Needless to say I have yet to master the code.

Believe me, you're not alone.

[Admin]

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

Getty's definition of "commercial website" is broad and vague. Technically, as Casebook runs ads to support itself, we are a "commercial website". We earn advertising revenue.

Do not use Getty images. Thank you.

[Spitfire]

Getty's definition of "commercial website" is broad and vague. Technically, as Casebook runs ads to support itself, we are a "commercial website". We earn advertising revenue.

Do not use Getty images. Thank you.

I won't, but I will check with them to see whether this site qualifies as a non-commercial website.

[ansonman]

I won't, but I will check with them to see whether this site qualifies as a non-commercial website.

Me, I would have just said something to the effect "I am terribly sorry. I can assure you it won't happen again" and left it at that. No way would I have added the caveat. These is dangerous times, specially with the sad AH ready to hit the button again.

[Spitfire]

Me, I would have just said something to the effect "I am terribly sorry. I can assure you it won't happen again" and left it at that. No way would I have added the caveat. These is dangerous times, specially with the sad AH ready to hit the button again.

Again, didn't intend to abrupt, but typing on an iPad tends to put a bit of a premium on the niceties of forum etiquette. I can assure all that it won't happen again and I am grateful to the individual who pointed out my lapse in the first place.

[cobalt]

One Round has succinctly summed up the problems with Mr. Lee’s statement, although surely after numerous government inquiries one would have thought the very issue he highlighted- when did Mr. Lee of Matlock report the matter of the erratic driver to the police- would have been established beyond doubt. Yet, rather like the forensic evidence from the murder car itself, this line of inquiry has apparently drawn a perplexing blank.

What has been established is that the murder car was dumped in Redbridge. What is less certain is who was driving it and when it was abandoned. The most satisfactory explanation for how the car got there is actually the prosecution one; namely that it was driven there directly, by the perpetrator, in the early hours of the morning before the registration was released to the general public. Given the approximate timings of Miss Storie and the Redbridge witnesses, it is possible the car stopped off at some point after the crime was committed.
However, given the shocking nature of the crime, it is remarkable that no one spotted it parked until early evening. This was the era of Gideon’s Way and schoolboys taking down car registrations for a hobby. Presumably many citizens were giving every Morris Minor in the land an extra look after the police broadcast the car’s registration.

In this respect the theory that the car was only abandoned shortly before being found makes a great deal more sense. (Did any police check the heat from the engine?) On the other hand, it is even more unlikely that the car was driven through rush hour traffic without being identified. I appreciate that some contributors have suggested that the car was hidden in a lock up during the early morning, possibly given a clean inside, and only taken a very short distance to Redbridge in the evening. Some local criminal names have also been suggested as possible accomplices in this deed. Yet surely only the murderer himself would have undertaken such a risky journey with the prospect of the hangman’s noose visible in his rearview mirror.

The photos which appeared on this site perhaps were misleading in one respect, for the police were shown examining the car in the dark. When the police first alighted on the car, the natural light in late August must have been very good; meaning the driver, if he had deposited it shortly before, would have been clearly visible to any alert members of the public.

[ansonman]

One Round has succinctly summed up the problems with Mr. Lee’s statement, although surely after numerous government inquiries one would have thought the very issue he highlighted- when did Mr. Lee of Matlock report the matter of the erratic driver to the police- would have been established beyond doubt. Yet, rather like the forensic evidence from the murder car itself, this line of inquiry has apparently drawn a perplexing blank.

What has been established is that the murder car was dumped in Redbridge. What is less certain is who was driving it and when it was abandoned. The most satisfactory explanation for how the car got there is actually the prosecution one; namely that it was driven there directly, by the perpetrator, in the early hours of the morning before the registration was released to the general public. Given the approximate timings of Miss Storie and the Redbridge witnesses, it is possible the car stopped off at some point after the crime was committed.
However, given the shocking nature of the crime, it is remarkable that no one spotted it parked until early evening. This was the era of Gideon’s Way and schoolboys taking down car registrations for a hobby. Presumably many citizens were giving every Morris Minor in the land an extra look after the police broadcast the car’s registration.

In this respect the theory that the car was only abandoned shortly before being found makes a great deal more sense. (Did any police check the heat from the engine?) On the other hand, it is even more unlikely that the car was driven through rush hour traffic without being identified. I appreciate that some contributors have suggested that the car was hidden in a lock up during the early morning, possibly given a clean inside, and only taken a very short distance to Redbridge in the evening. Some local criminal names have also been suggested as possible accomplices in this deed. Yet surely only the murderer himself would have undertaken such a risky journey with the prospect of the hangman’s noose visible in his rearview mirror.

The photos which appeared on this site perhaps were misleading in one respect, for the police were shown examining the car in the dark. When the police first alighted on the car, the natural light in late August must have been very good; meaning the driver, if he had deposited it shortly before, would have been clearly visible to any alert members of the public.

Cobalt,

If you go to this link and then have a look at the photo at #612, it does underline your point about it being remarkable that no one spotted the car until early evening. I'd go further and say it is impossible to believe that no one spotted it, unless it wasn't there until early evening:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=218&page=62

Regards,

Ansonman

[OneRound]

Hi Ansonman - yes, it does seem remarkable that no one spotted the car until early evening if it had been parked there since early morning.

However, it also seems remarkable that no one spotted the car being driven there in the early evening and that someone was even prepared to do the driving after the number plate had been broadcast if that is what happened.

Very perplexing. Again.

The only explanation for either scenario I can come up with is that we were then a long way from today's age of instant news and so many of the general public would still have been unaware of Gregsten's murder and any details of the car.

Only three years earlier, Jackie Charlton had to buy an evening newspaper to find out whether his brother Bobby had been killed or not in the Munich Air Disaster. Having to discover news in such a way seems unimaginable now but that is how it was then. Possibly that puts the failure to spot the car in a bit of context although, maddeningly, it helps not one jot as to whether it had been parked for several hours or was still being driven around shortly before discovery.

Best regards,

OneRound

[ansonman]

Hi Ansonman - yes, it does seem remarkable that no one spotted the car until early evening if it had been parked there since early morning.

However, it also seems remarkable that no one spotted the car being driven there in the early evening and that someone was even prepared to do the driving after the number plate had been broadcast if that is what happened.

Very perplexing. Again.

The only explanation for either scenario I can come up with is that we were then a long way from today's age of instant news and so many of the general public would still have been unaware of Gregsten's murder and any details of the car.

Only three years earlier, Jackie Charlton had to buy an evening newspaper to find out whether his brother Bobby had been killed or not in the Munich Air Disaster. Having to discover news in such a way seems unimaginable now but that is how it was then. Possibly that puts the failure to spot the car in a bit of context although, maddeningly, it helps not one jot as to whether it had been parked for several hours or was still being driven around shortly before discovery.

Best regards,

OneRound

Hi OneRound,

Yes, well put as ever.

I've been giving some further thought to the photo, for which Spitfire deserves the credit for putting me onto, and several things come to my mind.

Firstly, the way the car was parked, almost entirely on the pavement. It's almost as though whoever left it there wanted it to be seen. I was eight years old in 1961 and the street the car was parked in looks not unlike that in which I grew up. This was a respectable neighbourhood (obviously) with working/middle class and there were very few car owners in our street. A car parked like that would have stood out like a sore thumb.

This got me to thinking "why didn't the driver park it in a less conspicuous place?" He could have left it in woods or even an alleyway. It is almost as though the driver didn't mind it being seen, or even wanted it to be seen. That may sound crazy, I accept, but when you look again at how it's parked, you'd have had to set light to it to make it look more conspicuous.

And this led me to believe that notwithstanding all you say about communication in the day, I cannot believe the car was left there in the morning at not reported until the evening.

And this finally, leads to believe that the driver either wanted it to be seen, or didn't mind it being seen, because he had made absolutely certain the car had been cleaned of any incriminating evidence afore it was left there. And that would have taken time, maybe several hours. But rather than leave the car where it had been cleaned (a presumably safe and secure location) he drives it onto a pavement in a busy street.

Absolutely perplexing.

Ansonman

[cobalt]

Ansonman,

Thanks for the steer on the car photo: it allowed me to read over some posts from 2008 which were often of very good quality indeed.

Regarding the untidy way in which the car sat on the pavement, the simplest explanation may simply be that the driver was not very good and parked it badly. Or he was an experienced driver, but a bag of nerves.

An interesting post I discovered back in the archives, from the Yorkshire Post, dated 24th August 1961. It claimed that the report of the car in Redbridge was made to the police by an anonymous caller. I am not sure if this is accurate, but it would, if true, be very strange in the circumstances. This report also stated, along the lines of John Kerr perhaps, that the couple had picked up a hitch hiker who later suddenly pulled a gun on them around Deadman’s Hill. According to the Yorkshire Post, this hitch hiker had claimed he was intending to get a lift to the Leeds area before the attack.

We know that contemporaneous news reports can often contain inaccuracies, but they might also pick up nuggets of information suppressed later by the police. As one commentator suggested, perhaps the Leeds story was slipped in simply to boost local interest in the events. Certainly, the modern tabloids would have a field day with that claim: A6 murderer planned rendezvous with Jimmy Savile; or A6 murderer link with teenage Sutcliffe. But it does seem a strange piece of information to have been picked up by a reporter, presumably from a police source.

[OneRound]

Thanks, Ansonman.

Not deliberately setting out to scupper your current line of thinking but could the police have moved the car a few feet to where it was actually photographed? Maybe for reasons of easier access to the car or their own vehicles getting past? Admittedly, it would seem an odd and unprofessional thing to do but we all appear to recognise that the bar was not set too high when when it came to the police carrying out checks on the car.

Sorry I'm just giving you questions and zilch in the way of answers.

One thing I would add - partially, at least, in support of the car NOT being there since early morning. Regardless of many of the general public not being aware of Gregsten's murder and the car details (as per my previous post), surely to goodness every copper going on the beat that day would have been told to keep a good lookout for the car concerned.

Was Avondale Crescent on the beat of any policeman that day? Did Sherrard ask? Again, I don't know but if he had and the answer was that it was but the car wasn't spotted, then Michael Hanratty could probably have been ordering the Babycham for his brother.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Derrick]

Hi Cobalt

One Round has succinctly summed up the problems with Mr. Lee’s statement, although surely after numerous government inquiries one would have thought the very issue he highlighted- when did Mr. Lee of Matlock report the matter of the erratic driver to the police- would have been established beyond doubt. Yet, rather like the forensic evidence from the murder car itself, this line of inquiry has apparently drawn a perplexing blank.

William Lee reported the incident to police after he had first heard of the A6 murder and the wanted cars number on the radio immediately after he had finished work, at around 5pm.

...The most satisfactory explanation for how the car got there is actually the prosecution one; namely that it was driven there directly, by the perpetrator, in the early hours of the morning before the registration was released to the general public...

Not with the additional mileage it isn't.

In this respect the theory that the car was only abandoned shortly before being found makes a great deal more sense...

Indeed. If the car was the one supposedly seen by Blackhall et al, then the perp was taking a chance driving through East London traffic on busy thoroughfares.

The photos which appeared on this site perhaps were misleading in one respect, for the police were shown examining the car in the dark. When the police first alighted on the car, the natural light in late August must have been very good; meaning the driver, if he had deposited it shortly before, would have been clearly visible to any alert members of the public.

Another point here, have the police moved the car further from the fence to a position just off the pavement after it had been reported by Mr Madwar? Thus to allow for investigative/removal purposes.

Del

[Derrick]

...And this finally, leads to believe that the driver either wanted it to be seen, or didn't mind it being seen, because he had made absolutely certain the car had been cleaned of any incriminating evidence afore it was left there. And that would have taken time, maybe several hours. But rather than leave the car where it had been cleaned (a presumably safe and secure location) he drives it onto a pavement in a busy street...

Excellent point ansonman. This goes along with much of the evidence in this case; the evidence was laid on a plate for the police to find. Yet no forensic evidence accompanied it. Doesn't sound like Hanratty to me.