A6 Rebooted

[ansonman]

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

I only wish there were answers.

I think you may well be right about the car being moved because I seem to recall from the photos posted by Spitfire that the car appeared to have moved from one photo compared to another.

If it were proved that the car had been parked in the evening, would that have exonerated Hanratty?

There's also the question as to whether the person who parked the car was the murderer. My own guess is that somebody helped to clean the car and then parked it. For reasons mentioned earlier I think the car was parked in the evening and I don't think the assailant hung about all day (assuming the Matlock sighting is off the radar) waiting for the car to be cleaned before parking it. I mean, he would want to scarper, surely?

But this is pure supposition. What does strike me though is that if you wanted a car to stick out like a sore thumb, without having to torch it, you park it very badly in a busy area when the registration is public knowledge and the public have been asked to look out for it.

But why would you want it to be seen?

Ansonman

[cobalt]

It didn't sound like Hanratty to the police either.

The only evidence connecting Hanratty to the car was the ID evidence by eyewitnesses.
The prosecution did not lead any forensic evidence, from amongst the blood, sweat, saliva, semen, firearm residue, cigarette butts, shoe patterns, hairs and fibres. The car should have been a potential Aladdin's cave compared to the meagre pickings on the London bus and Vienna hotel.

There is no objective evidence to show that James Hanratty ever set foot in that car.

[Spitfire]

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.

So William sees a Morris Minor at 8.30 am and commits the registration number to memory for use if and/or when the Police broadcast an appeal for information later in the day?

Not with the additional mileage it isn't.

If you regard the additional mileage as being accurate, then it must discount Lee's sighting, yet you are convinced that Lee did see 847 BHN therefore you must not accept the accuracy of the additional mileage.

If the additional mileage is accurate, then Hanratty had to drive about 109 miles in three hours or thereabouts. (Time of leaving murder scene about 4 am, arrival at Avondale Crescent just after 7 pm.)

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.

Are you saying that East London's thoroughfares would have been empty at 6.30 pm?

It makes more sense to mix in with the commuters leaving their cars in a residential street near a tube station at 7 am before news of the car's involvement in the murder becomes known, than what you are contending happened, which is that the murderer drove 130 miles north to Matlock and at the time 8.30 am, when the car had been for over one hour the subject of national appeals for information as to its whereabouts, the murderer sticks a green pom pom bobble hat on his head for no other apparent reason than perhaps that he might be more easily identified. But yet you assure us that this happened.

[ansonman]

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.

Del,

I don't think Hanratty was set up for the crime from the start. Only after Alphon was out of the frame and I don't think he did it either.

I am guessing that the perpetrators, and I do believe it was more than one, wanted the car to be found where it could not be traced back to them, because they knew there was no evidence to link them to the car. Because they had removed all that evidence. So park it where it will be found.

I am guessing that Hanratty was subsequently set up because the police did start to get uncomfortably "warm" without even realising it. In other words, though the police didn't know at the time, they were getting close to their men and their men had to take away the heat. Hence Hanratty.
All pure supposition, I accept, but to my mind it does stack up.

Ansonman

[OneRound]

I only wish there were answers.

I think you may well be right about the car being moved because I seem to recall from the photos posted by Spitfire that the car appeared to have moved from one photo compared to another.

If it were proved that the car had been parked in the evening, would that have exonerated Hanratty?

There's also the question as to whether the person who parked the car was the murderer. My own guess is that somebody helped to clean the car and then parked it. For reasons mentioned earlier I think the car was parked in the evening and I don't think the assailant hung about all day (assuming the Matlock sighting is off the radar) waiting for the car to be cleaned before parking it. I mean, he would want to scarper, surely?

But this is pure supposition. What does strike me though is that if you wanted a car to stick out like a sore thumb, without having to torch it, you park it very badly in a busy area when the registration is public knowledge and the public have been asked to look out for it.

But why would you want it to be seen?

Ansonman

Hi again Ansonman,

If it had been proved that the car had been parked in the evening, that would not have automatically exonerated Hanratty. However, it would have blown the identification evidence of Skillett and Tower out of the water.

Without that, would the jury have been prepared to rely upon the sole remaining prosecution eye witness being someone who had already identified an innocent airman as her rapist? If the answer to that is ''yes'', Hanratty might as well have been strung up without the formality of a trial.

Best regards,

OneRound

[cobalt]

Spitfire,

Mr. Lee was not, according to his statement, relying entirely upon memory. He had written down the number of the car on some work papers in his car. Of course this cannot be proved since he only reported the car after 5 o'clock and after hearing the news regarding the murder and the search for the car.

However he did, clearly, encounter a car being driven erractically, and that fits in with the testimony of Valerie Storie. You choose to ridicule the green bobble hat, but if the photograph of the car boot does show such an item (has this ever been confirmed?) then that would suggest Lee's testimony holds considerable water, IF he mentioned this detail in his original statement. (Has this ever been seen?)

Many things about this case move the action northwards, as the murderer did from the outset, and Hanratty (who may have been the murderer) did with his alibi. Yet all the evidence seems to fall within the London area.

[Spitfire]

Some folk are saying that the perpetrator (Hanratty in the real world) would not have driven through the busy 'thoroughfares' of East London at 7 am, whereas those same folk hold that it is perfectly likely that the perpetrator (not Hanratty) would have driven 130 north from Bedfordshire to Matlock, then at 8.30 am, when 847 BHN was the hottest car on the planet driven, that self same car having donned (the perpetrator, not the car) a green bobble hat. Then from 8.30 am the perpetrator and his many unknown associates covered the 160 miles from Matlock to Ilford in leisurely fashion stopping off for a pub lunch for themselves and a valet for the murder car, arriving in Ilford at 6.30 pm, or shortly before.

Those same folk express astonishment that the parked Morris Minor should not be noticed when parked in Avondale Crescent, and that the perpetrator should have had the temerity to leave the car parked in a suburban street early in the morning, yet regard an apparently pointless 290 mile (at least) journey after the murder as a normal and sensible thing for a murderer to do.

[cobalt]

The green booble hat is not like ansonman's rubber suit, and something upon which to vent your sarcasm. The green bobble hat was photographed (I think) in the boot of the murder car. Therefore anyone who reported seeing the driver of the murder car wearing the bobble hat must either have had x-ray vision or rather more likely actually have seen the driver wearing it. No amount of sarcasm can prevent you explaining why this occurred.

Even if the witnesses saw another driver in a different car, that is to say the same model, wearing a similar green bobble hat and driving erratically, this would still require some examination, given the level of outlandish coincidence. (Albeit in the Hanratty case coincidence is essential to the prosecution case.)

BTW, I am sure that had Sillett and Trower seen a green bobble hatted driver turning into a side street in Redbridge, your satire setting would be set at zero and you would celebrating the most convincing piece of evidence yet available in the tawdry conviction of James Hanratty.

[Spitfire]

The green booble hat is not like ansonman's rubber suit, and something upon which to vent your sarcasm.

Ansonman, so far as I am aware, has never subscribed to a rubber suit theory. Moste had a plastic suit with rubber buttons theory, later adapted to a plastic suit with velcro fastenings theory.

The green bobble hat was photographed (I think) in the boot of the murder car. Therefore anyone who reported seeing the driver of the murder car wearing the bobble hat must either have had x-ray vision or rather more likely actually have seen the driver wearing it. No amount of sarcasm can prevent you explaining why this occurred.

I have never seen such a photograph, nor have I seen William Lee's statement. There are others who claim to have seen both, maybe they can say how we can see them and judge for ourselves.

Even if the witnesses saw another driver in a different car, that is to say the same model, wearing a similar green bobble hat and driving erratically, this would still require some examination, given the level of outlandish coincidence. (Albeit in the Hanratty case coincidence is essential to the prosecution case.)

A statement was taken. It is likely that the murder investigators discounted his sighting because of (a) other positive identifications of the murder car inconsistent with Lee's sighting and (b) the odometer readings of the car and (c) the inherent unlikeliness of the murderer driving north for 130 miles and five hours and then driving 160 plus miles south for the purpose of leaving the car near a London tube station.

BTW, I am sure that had Sillett and Trower seen a green bobble hatted driver turning into a side street in Redbridge, your satire setting would be set at zero and you would celebrating the most convincing piece of evidence yet available in the tawdry conviction of James Hanratty.

If William Lee had been called to an ID parade had made a positive identification of James Hanratty would the Hanrattyistas have accepted it?

My recent point is directed to Derrick who has opined that the murderer would not have risked driving the murder car through the busy thoroughfares of East London at just before 7 am in the morning. I have highlighted the enormous risks he took by driving to Matlock and then from Matlock to Ilford, for no apparent reason and at times when the police were actively looking for the car, yet Derrick does not seem to appreciate that there would be any risks at all in these actions.

My view, FWIW, is that the car would be less likely to be detected parked among other commuters' cars in quite suburban street near a tube station than it would had been driven on the main north-south highways and byways of England, entering the outskirts of London and the notoriously busy thoroughfares of East London circa 5.30 pm to be ditched in Ilford some time before 6.30pm.

[ansonman]

The green booble hat is not like ansonman's rubber suit, and something upon which to vent your sarcasm. The green bobble hat was photographed (I think) in the boot of the murder car. Therefore anyone who reported seeing the driver of the murder car wearing the bobble hat must either have had x-ray vision or rather more likely actually have seen the driver wearing it. No amount of sarcasm can prevent you explaining why this occurred.

Even if the witnesses saw another driver in a different car, that is to say the same model, wearing a similar green bobble hat and driving erratically, this would still require some examination, given the level of outlandish coincidence. (Albeit in the Hanratty case coincidence is essential to the prosecution case.)

BTW, I am sure that had Sillett and Trower seen a green bobble hatted driver turning into a side street in Redbridge, your satire setting would be set at zero and you would celebrating the most convincing piece of evidence yet available in the tawdry conviction of James Hanratty.

Cobalt,

Please don't give me any credit for the rubber suit. From memory, the said suit is entirely of Spitfire's imagination. I certainly don't want to take any credit for that.

Regards,

Ansonman

[Spitfire]

I assure you that the plastic suit theory is not a figment of my imagination but is the product of Moste's considerable researches into the A6 Murder. Moste unleashed this theory on 16th May last year (2016),

Zero forensics found in the back seat of the car.Hair,Fiber,fingerprints,seeds,corn debris, from the field,from a third party.
Is it possible that the true story may have involved MG arranging to meet with someone,for purposes that involved skulduggery, at the predetermined location near Clophill? Or alternatively,were the couple on a dummy run ,(the all night runs that Valerie loved so much) for the rally they were planning for the weekend,and possibly followed to that spot in Bedfordshire. If as Det. Super. Mathews suggests,more than one person was involved,the murderer may have been driven there,and left at that lay-by to perform his dastardly deed.After which he drives back eventually to Redbridge,wearing one of the latest plastic boiler suits, complete with rubber buttons,and leaves no, or very little evidence of ever having been in the vehicle,nothing that 1960s forensics would find anyhow.Could MGs brother in law have known of this latest venture at the weekend by the lovers,via his heart throb Janet?
All of the above would satisfy (a) why no one saw anyone that night around the corn field (b) why there was no evidence of a third person in the back seat,(c) why no taxi drivers came forward with info.about a fare.(d) Why the people of Dorney were surprised, as were the press, that police presence was very scarce considering this was supposedly the starting point of this crime(locals were not interviewed for some weeks!)(e)how Alphon came into a large sum of money after the murder,could he have been the the shooter, maybe Hanratty the driver to Deadmans hill. And far too many more questions that this scenario would answer,to fit in one post.
By the By
Did anybody have any comments on the notion that it was an extremely coincidental plan they had come up with, for the following weekends 'particularly arduous 80 mile round trip' through the Chilterns? The Chilterns pass by where I lived in the 90s forming the Dunstable downs, and peter out near Barton-Le- Clay just a couple of miles shy of Clophill. I mean call me suspicious but.....

His theory was amended on 18th July 2016 to admit the possibility that the plastic boiler suit had velcro fastenings rather than rubber buttons.

On an earlier point, the plastic boiler suit possibly worn by the car disposal associate, to greatly diminish the prospects of leaving a clue of his presence,from Bedfordshire to Redbridge,may well have had the latest Velcro as a fastening method, rather than the afor mentioned rubber buttons. I do remember my Dad being issued with this style of protective uniform,rather than the old Denim coveralls, in the early sixties, and Velcro was just making its appearance .Of course with this theory, and following the opinion of Chief Superintendent Mathews, (3 people involved)I believe a 'drop off 'driver was used, and a vehicle removal person,as well as an assassinator. I can't help pondering on the possibility that the assassinator was just that ,and was only at the predetermined location of dead mans hill very briefly, VS I believe was a complete surprise to all concerned and wasn't supposed to be part of the equation. Hence the **** up with disposing of her as a witness, Gregsten was supposed to have left her at home, and now presented the problem of not leaving a witness.
I am convinced ,mostly because of the massive amount of anomalies in this case,that Stories account of things , is a fabrication from beginning to end, concocted by Det. Acott and Oxford. Storie with her experience in amateur dramatics made a wonderful ally ,in the convincing the world of a single gunman nutcase. Much to the glee of the Home secretary,I have no doubt. Trouble is Home Secretaries have been dogged with the blasted thing for decades, and it never went away, even when they rigged a ridiculous dna test . Of course as the years roll by and more and more people who simply just wanted true justice die off, then and only then will the injustice of Hanrattys death be buried forever.

[OneRound]

Ansonman, so far as I am aware, has never subscribed to a rubber suit theory. Moste had a plastic suit with rubber buttons theory, later adapted to a plastic suit with velcro fastenings theory.



I have never seen such a photograph, nor have I seen William Lee's statement. There are others who claim to have seen both, maybe they can say how we can see them and judge for ourselves.



A statement was taken. It is likely that the murder investigators discounted his sighting because of (a) other positive identifications of the murder car inconsistent with Lee's sighting and (b) the odometer readings of the car and (c) the inherent unlikeliness of the murderer driving north for 130 miles and five hours and then driving 160 plus miles south for the purpose of leaving the car near a London tube station.



If William Lee had been called to an ID parade had made a positive identification of James Hanratty would the Hanrattyistas have accepted it?

My recent point is directed to Derrick who has opined that the murderer would not have risked driving the murder car through the busy thoroughfares of East London at just before 7 am in the morning. I have highlighted the enormous risks he took by driving to Matlock and then from Matlock to Ilford, for no apparent reason and at times when the police were actively looking for the car, yet Derrick does not seem to appreciate that there would be any risks at all in these actions.

My view, FWIW, is that the car would be less likely to be detected parked among other commuters' cars in quite suburban street near a tube station than it would had been driven on the main north-south highways and byways of England, entering the outskirts of London and the notoriously busy thoroughfares of East London circa 5.30 pm to be ditched in Ilford some time before 6.30pm.

Hi Spitfire,

A few comments on your post above.

1. I too have not seen Lee's statement or any such photo. However, the Court of Appeal in their 2002 judgement (para 152 (i)) referred to the driver as allegedly seen by Lee to have been 'wearing a woollen pom-pom hat' and that 'there was such a hat' in the boot of the car. For such a comment to be made, I am confident the Court of Appeal and certainly the Crown (in opposing the appeal upon behalf of Hanratty) would have insisted upon clear evidence of the hat being in the boot.
However, as I posted the other day, this still doesn't prove that Lee didn't hear about the hat from somewhere else.

2. Your point in (c) would appear to be a good one. Certainly based on understandable logic and sound common sense. However, and this is not to rubbish your point, but there seems precious little of that in what went on in the hours before the murder.

3. I don't really dispute your points (a) and (b) but I do feel strongly that these aspects should have been disclosed to the defence in 1962 in order that they could carry out their own investigations and attempt to challenge them. In my opinion (albeit not the Court of Appeal's) that denied Hanratty fundamental fairness at and in the preparation for his trial.

4. With regard to your final para, I take and tend to go along with your own view. However much the car had been cleaned (so as not to incriminate the true perpetrator(s) as per other posters), the driver was still running a risk when he drove the car to Avondale Crescent. That risk clearly increased the longer the driver waited to abandon the car. There again, perhaps that is too logical!
I would still like to know though if any beat copper was in Avondale Crescent that morning or afternoon. If one was and he didn't see the car, that is a massive plus for the Hanratty camp.

5. A personal request. Your view on the rubber suit theory is clearly demonstrated and known. Unless any other poster chooses to raise it again, I would be grateful if it could be left alone. Thanks.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Spitfire]

5. A personal request. Your view on the rubber suit theory is clearly demonstrated and known. Unless any other poster chooses to raise it again, I would be grateful if it could be left alone. Thanks.

It is a plastic suit with rubber buttons and/or velcro fastenings theory, why does everyone call it a rubber suit theory?


You mean like Cobalt raised it earlier today?

The green booble hat is not like ansonman's rubber suit,..

[Derrick]

...My recent point is directed to Derrick who has opined that the murderer would not have risked driving the murder car through the busy thoroughfares of East London at just before 7 am in the morning. I have highlighted the enormous risks he took by driving to Matlock and then from Matlock to Ilford, for no apparent reason and at times when the police were actively looking for the car, yet Derrick does not seem to appreciate that there would be any risks at all in these actions...

I said nothing of the sort. I said:

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.

If it was the car then it was certainly spotted, as anyone who knows anything about this case will know, probably before it's reg number was broadcast.

So, risk or no risk? Car spotted before reg number known (Skillet et al - morning) -vs- car not spotted after reg number known (Avondale crescent - tea-time).

Even so, all this pony about Lee reporting the car after the reg number had been broadcast somehow diminishing his integrity is cobblers. How could he report a sighting of a particular car if he didn't know it was important until he found out it was important? Besides, his statement to police about this and the hat was made before the car had been seized and examined. He wouldn't have known about the hat from anywhere.

This to me makes Lee's sighting genuine and incontrovertible. The initial mileage recorded by Acott has to be wrong.

[OneRound]

It is a plastic suit with rubber buttons and/or velcro fastenings theory, why does everyone call it a rubber suit theory?

Spit,

I actually used the same terminology as you adopted earlier today. That was in a naive and overly optimistic hope that it might discourage you from raising this wearisome topic yet again.

OneRound