A6 Rebooted

[Derrick]

hanratty couldn't be the a6 killer because he would have done 2 things.

torched the car and then stolen another.

chucked the gun in the drink.

[Spitfire]

hanratty couldn't be the a6 killer because he would have done 2 things.

torched the car and then stolen another.

chucked the gun in the drink.

Good evening Derrick,

I've been mystified as to why Mansfield et al did not complain about the failure to disclose the milkman witness, Charles Drayton, who claims to have seen the murder car, 847 BHN at 5.25 am in the morning of 23 August 1961. Can you shed any light on this? It seems strange as Bob Woffinden was of the opinion that Drayton's evidence was the "immediately convincing", whereas the sighting by William Lee was "plainly wrong" and you of course have described Lee's evidence as "incontrovertible".

Whilst on the subject of Lee, you maintain he saw the Morris Minor at 8.30 am not at 6.30 am as stated in the Court of Appeal judgment. Why do you say this? Does anyone else agree with you?

Awaiting your reply with interest

S

[OneRound]

Hi OR,

First of all, and before Sherlock Houses takes me to task, accept my apologies for saying in my earlier post that the Bedford milkman was 'Draycott' as per my even earlier posts the correct name is Drayton.

Apropos witnesses in Bedford and Essex, whilst browsing today I saw this this report from a few years back. It amused me anyway.

As to the law, I think it would for the Court of Appeal to quash the conviction if there had been a fundamental flaw in the trial process, even if other evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If a retrial were possible, then in those circumstances, one would be ordered. Because of the execution of Hanratty and the passage of time, a retrial could not really have been ordered.

Thanks once more, Spit.

All points noted. Guess milko Drayton might not have been too accurate with the time if he was more worried about lions on the prowl in Bedford!

I agree with your final para. In allowing the dna evidence to be presented, the Court of Appeal stated that it would not save the conviction if the trial was shown to be fundamentally flawed. It did though seem to me that the game was up once the dna came into the mix.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Derrick]

Good evening Derrick,

I've been mystified as to why Mansfield et al did not complain about the failure to disclose the milkman witness, Charles Drayton, who claims to have seen the murder car, 847 BHN at 5.25 am in the morning of 23 August 1961. Can you shed any light on this? It seems strange as Bob Woffinden was of the opinion that Drayton's evidence was the "immediately convincing", whereas the sighting by William Lee was "plainly wrong" and you of course have described Lee's evidence as "incontrovertible".

Whilst on the subject of Lee, you maintain he saw the Morris Minor at 8.30 am not at 6.30 am as stated in the Court of Appeal judgment. Why do you say this? Does anyone else agree with you?

Awaiting your reply with interest

S

Good afternoon Spitfire

I am sure the appellant lumped all of the additional sightings into one ground dealt with, off-handedly imho, by the CACD beginning at paragraph 151.

I say it was 8:30 because that is what he said in his statement, which I have seen, to the police that day. As far as people agreeing with me...the CCRC for starters. Acott must have been crucially worried by Lee's statement that he buried it. Yet he wrote on Lee's statement "N/A. Car already discovered in Avondale Crescent."!!!!

Lee seeing the car at 8:30, validates Drayton's sighting at 5:25am and invalidates Skillet and Trower's identifications, leaving Storie's as the only evidence against Hanratty.

The circumstantial evidence presented at trial could be easily explained by inserting Dixie France's name for Hanratty's.

The DNA is worthless unless a referential profile for Gregsten is forthcoming.

Del

[ansonman]

Good afternoon Spitfire

I am sure the appellant lumped all of the additional sightings into one ground dealt with, off-handedly imho, by the CACD beginning at paragraph 151.

I say it was 8:30 because that is what he said in his statement, which I have seen, to the police that day. As far as people agreeing with me...the CCRC for starters. Acott must have been crucially worried by Lee's statement that he buried it. Yet he wrote on Lee's statement "N/A. Car already discovered in Avondale Crescent."!!!!

Lee seeing the car at 8:30, validates Drayton's sighting at 5:25am and invalidates Skillet and Trower's identifications, leaving Storie's as the only evidence against Hanratty.

The circumstantial evidence presented at trial could be easily explained by inserting Dixie France's name for Hanratty's.

The DNA is worthless unless a referential profile for Gregsten is forthcoming.

Del

Del

Although we are not yet into March, I doubt that a more authoritative post will appear on the site this year.

Ansonman

[Sherlock Houses]

Yep, seen driving into Avondale Crescent from Redbridge Lane East by Trower at 7am , then the car drives along Avondale exiting onto Roding Lane South, then off to Coventry (for more skullduggery) where it is seen at 3.25pm from where it heads south to return to Avondale Crescent for 6.45pm.

It would have been seen at 7am in Avondale Crescent, and 3.25pm in Coventry, but would not have been parked there (Avondale Crescent) all day. Unlikely I agree, but...

Methinks you are two hours out re. the Coventry sighting. Didn't the 2002 court of appeal judgment say it was at 5.25 pm ?

[OneRound]

Methinks you are two hours out re. the Coventry sighting. Didn't the 2002 court of appeal judgment say it was at 5.25 pm ?

Sherlock - yes, the Court of Appeal did say the reported Coventry sighting was at 5.25 pm but Spit was responding to a possible scenario that I had raised. If you read the previous posts, it should be clear.

OneRound

[OneRound]

Del

Although we are not yet into March, I doubt that a more authoritative post will appear on the site this year.

Ansonman

Hi Ansonman,

I don't diminish how very interesting Del's post is or his genuinely held belief in Hanratty's innocence. However, I'm struggling to see it as ''authoritative''. Genuine question - why do you consider it so?

Thanks,

OneRound
PS Realise that already rules me out of getting the set of golden darts this Christmas!

[Sherlock Houses]

Drayton sighting genuine ??

First of all, and before Sherlock Houses takes me to task, accept my apologies for saying in my earlier post that the Bedford milkman was 'Draycott' as per my even earlier posts the correct name is Drayton.

Rest assured I won't take you to task for this Spitfire, a yellow card will suffice.

Coincidentally enough I finished reading Woffinden's book for the umpteenth time on Monday, the alleged sighting by Charles Drayton is mentioned towards the end of the book. The day before I had watched an old 1944 movie "Half Way House" on YouTube and was struck (well not literally) by one of the actor's names, Alfred Drayton. A sign perhaps ??, depending somewhat I suppose, as to how uncommon that surname might be. My guess is that it is not a very common name.

[ansonman]

Hi Ansonman,

I don't diminish how very interesting Del's post is or his genuinely held belief in Hanratty's innocence. However, I'm struggling to see it as ''authoritative''. Genuine question - why do you consider it so?

Thanks,

OneRound
PS Realise that already rules me out of getting the set of golden darts this Christmas!

Hi OR,

"How very interesting" is some understatement!

Derrick is asked why he maintains that Lee saw the car at 8.30am and not 6.30am and his reply is because that's what was stated on Lee's police statement and that Derrick has seen said statement. I do not recall reading anywhere until now, that such a recoded statement existed.

Del goes on to say that Acott wrote on the statement "N/A car discovered in Avondale Crescent".

That is certainly the most authoritative evidence I have read on this site in a very long time.

Finally, Del quite accurately adds:

"Lee seeing the car at 8:30, validates Drayton's sighting at 5:25am and invalidates Skillet and Trower's identifications, leaving Storie's as the only evidence against Hanratty".

Authoritatively awesome as our American friends might say.

The fact that Del's AAA authoritative post has met with silence from the anti Hanratty's would seem to underline MHO.

I am sorry about the "arras" but I've already ordered them for Del, along with a gold plated dart board.

Regards,

Ansonman

[ansonman]

Hi again OR,

Just to put this into context and to underline the relevance of Del's evidence (being the 8.30am statement of Lee which Del has seen).

We have the 2002 Court of Appeal judgement which includes:

"At 6.30am on Wednesday 23 August, William Lee saw a grey Morris Minor
being driven by a man wearing a woollen pom-pom hat on the A6 near
Matlock in Derbyshire. He wrote the registration number down as 847 BHN
which was the registration of Michael Gregsten's car in the boot of which
there was such a hat (although there is no evidence that the murderer
otherwise was seen wearing it)".

The appeal court judges also accept that:

"The most impressive evidence of sighting must surely be that of Mr Lee in
Matlock".

Before discrediting it consequent upon the odometer readings

So Derick has seen Lee's statement which says 8.30am and not 6.30am.

I think it is also pertinent to add Cobalt's comments of a few days ago:

"As One Round has intimated, it is simply not satisfactory for an appeal court to dismiss Mr. Lee’s evidence as ‘flawed’ on the basis of the mileage readings. These mileage readings are not holy writ; they depend on a number of assumptions, and may be flawed as well.

IF Mr. Lee mentioned a green bobble hat in his original statement on the day of the crime, and IF a green bobble hat was later found in the boot of the car, then I would contend that his evidence outweighs that of the mileage readings".

I would add to that, Del has seen the statement by Lee that says he (Lee) saw the car two hours earlier than what is stated in the appeal judgement

Regards,

Ansonman

[ansonman]

Should of course be two hours later than appeal judgement.

[OneRound]

Hi Ansonman,

Thanks for your responses.

Regardless of what time Lee claimed to see the car and Del having seen his statement (none of this btw is a dig at Del), don't we need proof that Lee's statement is correct for things to be authoritative?

I hope you appreciate that I'm not trying to do Lee and Del down here. As Cobalt acknowledged (and you've posted), I recently intimated that it was unsatisfactory how the Court of Appeal dismissed Lee's evidence. That is particularly so given Lee's reference to a ''woollen pom-pom hat'' and such a hat being found in the boot of the car (all per the Court of Appeal). However, if Lee made his statement after the car's registration number and reference to the hat had been made public then it's value is considerably reduced. For me, that's what needs to come out clearly for things here to be authoritative.

I definitely acknowledge that the Court of Appeal didn't authoritatively explain its non acceptance of Lee's reported sighting. However, that by itself, does not prove what he stated was correct. Whilst that will probably have you popping out to buy me another fence panel, I unsurprisingly have a different take. For me, we go back (again!) to my belief that Hanratty did not receive a fair trial as this should have been put to the jury for them to consider and take into the mix.

One final thing for now. I'm probably being very thick but I don't see the real significance of milko Drayton apparently seeing the car in the Bedford area around 5.25 am. Allowing for that being right, it still doesn't seem to help in determining which of the conflicting reported sightings by Lee and Blackhall & Trower is correct (assuming not all incorrect). Am I missing something?

Thanks and best regards,

OneRound
PS As you allude to, I did expect a prompt and stronger reply from others to your first post on this.

[ansonman]

OR,

Whatever else may be said about you (and my comments have always been positive, albeit not always in agreement) you have never sought to do anybody down or take a dig at anybody on this site. Fortunately, the same can be said for almost all posters.

What makes Derrick's evidence so striking, for me, is that:

a) It confirms the time Lee saw the car (and this time is two hours later than all other reports of the siting including the appeal).

b) The appeal judges admit that Lee's sighting is the most impressive EVIDENCE of sighting. Now why would they say that if it wasn't true? The judges hardy went out of their way to support Hanratty on any score.

c) Acott withheld this most impressive piece of evidence AND attempted to discredit it by adding the ridiculous N/A comment.

Best regards,

Ansonman

[OneRound]

OR,

Whatever else may be said about you (and my comments have always been positive, albeit not always in agreement) you have never sought to do anybody down or take a dig at anybody on this site. Fortunately, the same can be said for almost all posters.

What makes Derrick's evidence so striking, for me, is that:

a) It confirms the time Lee saw the car (and this time is two hours later than all other reports of the siting including the appeal).

b) The appeal judges admit that Lee's sighting is the most impressive EVIDENCE of sighting. Now why would they say that if it wasn't true? The judges hardy went out of their way to support Hanratty on any score.

c) Acott withheld this most impressive piece of evidence AND attempted to discredit it by adding the ridiculous N/A comment.

Best regards,

Ansonman

Thanks, Ansonman.

With regard to your specifics:

a) Yes but - exhausting the point - it still doesn't prove the accuracy of Lee's statement.

b) Given the ''woollen pom-pom hat'' being reportedly seen and then found, ''the most impressive'' description was definitely the case. If the Court of Appeal were not going to accept Lee's evidence, they had at least to acknowledge it and couldn't really evade acknowledging its standing.

c) I think I've posted before that death was a good career move for Acott. It prevented him having to appear before the Court of Appeal and explain various matters upon which the Court gave him imo considerable benefit.

Best regards,

OneRound