A6 Rebooted

[caz]

Hi OR,

I think we occupy similar territory on the A6 Case: I’m not convinced of James Hanratty’s innocence but I’m less convinced of his guilt.

How did the murderer arrive at the scene? Well first of all we would have to establish he was not a local man. If he was local, he wouldn’t really need to arrive at all. I assume the police checked out the small number of suspects in the area and their whereabouts on the night of the crime. Presumably any criminal associates lodging with ex-cons and even the proverbial black sheep of the family who turned up around the time of the crime were traced and eliminated as well. I say ‘presumably’ because there have been claims on this site that the local enquiries were very low key, that the focus swiftly shifted to London on discovery of the car and gun.

If the murderer did arrive in Taplow on the day then I doubt he could have come by either train or bus. In the aftermath of such a crime every local person who had used public transport that afternoon/evening would have been racking their brains to remember any stranger they saw alighting in the Taplow area. Presumably ticket inspectors, bus drivers and conductors were questioned by police who drew a blank. That leaves the murderer arriving by car but not alone, for no stolen or abandoned car turned up in the area after the crime. Unsurprisingly given the turn of events, no one has ever come forward to volunteer that they drove the murderer to the location.

The prosecution case suggested that Hanratty was in the area to do a spot of honest burglary and he could have been dropped by car for that very purpose with a view to a later rendezvous where he could be picked up with his loot. If the rendezvous went wrong, or was never part of the plan, then Hanratty needed a way back to London which for him meant stealing a car. A car park or street would the obvious option but he seems to have spied a car in a field. This meant he could use the firearm- which he had rather puzzlingly lugged along on his burglary mission- to scare the occupants out of the car and head back home. But he did not do this most obvious thing either then or at any point during the next five hours. A car thief who seems reluctant to nick a car.

No one saw the murderer arrive. No one saw a young man in a suit walking a country lane, crossing a field, ‘casing’ a residential property or lurking around a car. No one reported any attempted break in to their property. To me this suggests the murderer was dropped by car near to the field with the intention of confronting the victims.

All this assumes the ‘where’ and ‘when’ as testified by Valerie Storie. We have no corroboration of there being a third person in the car, by petrol attendants or other drivers, until the horrific events at Deadman’s Hill.

Hi cobalt,

Leaving the gunman's identity to one side for a moment, in your opinion do you think it possible that when he first saw the car parked in the field and walked up to it to investigate, he may have found a very obviously courting couple, engaged in kissing, cuddling and foreplay? Could this have turned a young mind to his own sexual gratification, and the possibility of doing a very ungentlemanly gentleman's excuse-me? It's a very powerful instinct, so it may not have been his original intention, and he may have had a lot of "finking" ahead of him, but once aroused...?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi cobalt,

That's a striking post which powerfully reinforces my long held view that James Hanratty's guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt at trial and so a ''not guilty'' verdict should have been delivered by the jury.

Putting my legal take and finding as above aside, we have to accept that someone killed Michael Gregsten and severely wounded Valerie Storie. For me, a lot points towards that person having been Hanratty albeit not, as I say, definitively enough for a ''guilty'' verdict and certainly not at the time of the trial.

A couple of questions for you if I may. They are out of genuine interest and not to challenge you. Hence, I am only asking for your speculative thoughts - anything more would be wholly unfair.

Your post doubts not just Hanratty but any stranger walking along the quiet, country roads of Taplow on the late afternoon / early evening in question. When, where and how do you think the third person got in the car?

And if not Hanratty, who?

Best regards,
OneRound

Hi OneRound,

I was wondering exactly the same!

Similarly, posters have often used the lack of forensic evidence found in the car to argue that Hanratty was never in it. But would that not equally apply to Alphon, or whoever else they suspect was the gunman?

I do think the original jury was swayed by Hanratty's change of alibi, and his failure then to prove he was in either Liverpool or Rhyl when the murder was committed. That was not for the defence to prove, but it certainly helped the prosecution with their own case. Had Hanratty stuck firm with Liverpool, that essential element of reasonable doubt might well have crept in and been enough. But of course an acquittal on those grounds would not have meant he was innocent. Because of Rhyl we know he lied about his whereabouts, and his criminal record tells me he would have gone on to commit more offences had he been acquitted. So who can say, hand on heart, that none would have been of a serious enough nature to cause any great suffering to innocent home and vehicle owners?

Love,

Caz
X

[cobalt]

Hi OR,

I think we occupy similar territory on the A6 Case: I’m not convinced of James Hanratty’s innocence but I’m less convinced of his guilt.

How did the murderer arrive at the scene? Well first of all we would have to establish he was not a local man. If he was local, he wouldn’t really need to arrive at all. I assume the police checked out the small number of suspects in the area and their whereabouts on the night of the crime. Presumably any criminal associates lodging with ex-cons and even the proverbial black sheep of the family who turned up around the time of the crime were traced and eliminated as well. I say ‘presumably’ because there have been claims on this site that the local enquiries were very low key, that the focus swiftly shifted to London on discovery of the car and gun.

If the murderer did arrive in Taplow on the day then I doubt he could have come by either train or bus. In the aftermath of such a crime every local person who had used public transport that afternoon/evening would have been racking their brains to remember any stranger they saw alighting in the Taplow area. Presumably ticket inspectors, bus drivers and conductors were questioned by police who drew a blank. That leaves the murderer arriving by car but not alone, for no stolen or abandoned car turned up in the area after the crime. Unsurprisingly given the turn of events, no one has ever come forward to volunteer that they drove the murderer to the location.

The prosecution case suggested that Hanratty was in the area to do a spot of honest burglary and he could have been dropped by car for that very purpose with a view to a later rendezvous where he could be picked up with his loot. If the rendezvous went wrong, or was never part of the plan, then Hanratty needed a way back to London which for him meant stealing a car. A car park or street would the obvious option but he seems to have spied a car in a field. This meant he could use the firearm- which he had rather puzzlingly lugged along on his burglary mission- to scare the occupants out of the car and head back home. But he did not do this most obvious thing either then or at any point during the next five hours. A car thief who seems reluctant to nick a car.

No one saw the murderer arrive. No one saw a young man in a suit walking a country lane, crossing a field, ‘casing’ a residential property or lurking around a car. No one reported any attempted break in to their property. To me this suggests the murderer was dropped by car near to the field with the intention of confronting the victims.

All this assumes the ‘where’ and ‘when’ as testified by Valerie Storie. We have no corroboration of there being a third person in the car, by petrol attendants or other drivers, until the horrific events at Deadman’s Hill.

[OneRound]

Hi cobalt,

That's a striking post which powerfully reinforces my long held view that James Hanratty's guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt at trial and so a ''not guilty'' verdict should have been delivered by the jury.

Putting my legal take and finding as above aside, we have to accept that someone killed Michael Gregsten and severely wounded Valerie Storie. For me, a lot points towards that person having been Hanratty albeit not, as I say, definitively enough for a ''guilty'' verdict and certainly not at the time of the trial.

A couple of questions for you if I may. They are out of genuine interest and not to challenge you. Hence, I am only asking for your speculative thoughts - anything more would be wholly unfair.

Your post doubts not just Hanratty but any stranger walking along the quiet, country roads of Taplow on the late afternoon / early evening in question. When, where and how do you think the third person got in the car?

And if not Hanratty, who?

Best regards,
OneRound

[cobalt]

A great deal of hard work done there Spitfire, so congratulations on your efforts. It does shine a light on the short, shabby life being lived by James Hanratty. Alphon is often referred to as a ‘drifter’ but it seems Hanratty was little different.

The arrest which caught my eye was the one in Mill Hill where an alert policeman thought Hanratty looked out of place in the area. No one, neither policeman nor member of the public, has surfaced to do the same in the A6 Case.

We don’t know when Hanratty was alleged to be in Taplow but assume it was late afternoon or early evening. Nobody saw him arrive by train, bus or car. At some point he is believed to have walked along quiet, country roads which means fewer witnesses, but any there were had all the more reason to remember him. Especially in the aftermath of a horrific crime in such a quiet area. Taplow is a small town with a population of under 2,000 so a stranger to the area would be more noticeable than in a larger town. For me the lack of witnesses in Taplow speaks louder than the witnesses to Hanratty being in Liverpool/Rhyl.

[Spitfire]

Harrow Observer 3 April 1958 reporting Hanratty's sentence of three years corrective training.

[Spitfire]

Harrow Observer 13 October 1955.

[Spitfire]

And after a year's probation, Jim was back before the beak as the above report in the Harrow Observer 15 September 1955.

[Spitfire]

The genesis of Hanratty's criminal career as reported in the Harrow Observer 16th September 1954

[moste]

Hi moste - you might want to add to that list the trial being switched at short notice from the Old Bailey to Bedfordshire Assizes. That undoubtedly did Hanratty no favours.

The twelfth juror opting out particularly gets my goat. I can accept someone not having the stomach for a trial that all this one involved. However, to only say so after the trial was underway was appalling. It wasn't as if the juror had no idea what was coming. Sherrard and Gorman both owed it to Hanratty to really kick off about it rather than just feebly let it happen.

Best regards,
OneRound

I know, and although you can’t twist the jurors arm and say your stuck with it , Sherrard could simply have said ‘ Well your honour ,we are not prepared to continue until another juror is sworn in’ it was his prerogative as far as I can remember. He just feebly went along with it as if he didn’t want to be a nuisance.
It almost makes you think the juror dropping out wasn’t because he decided he didn’t have the stomach for it , rather it was dirty tricks by the prosecution ,messing with Sherrards head.

[OneRound]

Well, first off accepting Only 11 jurors ,always been a bone of contention for me. Secondly, given all of the evidence the jury had to sift through ,plus their serious confusion over what their collective duties actually were , there is a question as to the juries ability to bring to a conclusion a fair verdict. Thirdly, in an attempt to side with Sherrard ( much against my better judgment re his general performance)It seems I think, that Sherrard was reasonably pleased with the way things progressed while Acott and co. were on the stand. From this I mean that the jury must have understood that Sherrard looked like he had exposed the possibility that police corruption existed .Thirdly The judge I believe was wrong footed by the jury emerging from their deliberations after so many hours with what most people would regard as inept procrastinations ,and although infuriated, kept his cool ,because he believed Hanratty was innocent ,and was going to be found not guilty. In truth, all three ,wigs ,jury , and police corruption, are equally guilty here. If Hanratty was always going to hang regardless of the efforts of the defence, then the existence of a conspiracy has to be considered.

Hi moste - you might want to add to that list the trial being switched at short notice from the Old Bailey to Bedfordshire Assizes. That undoubtedly did Hanratty no favours.

The twelfth juror opting out particularly gets my goat. I can accept someone not having the stomach for a trial that all this one involved. However, to only say so after the trial was underway was appalling. It wasn't as if the juror had no idea what was coming. Sherrard and Gorman both owed it to Hanratty to really kick off about it rather than just feebly let it happen.

Best regards,
OneRound

[moste]

Mmhh, was it not the case though ,that Sherrard during his opportunity at the appeal , centred his concerns on Judge Gormans summing up , rather than what we protesters believe to be more scathing, blindingly obvious issues ?
Attacking Gormans efforts was in my opinion Sherrard showing his lack of experience, ‘ Birds of a feather Mr Sherrard’ !!

[ansonman]

"The judge I believe was wrong footed by the jury emerging from their deliberations after so many hours with what most people would regard as inept procrastinations ,and although infuriated, kept his cool ,because he believed Hanratty was innocent ,and was going to be found not guilty".

The bitter irony was that the judge went out of his way to ensure that Hanratty had a fair trial and did indeed anticipate a not guilty verdict. When it came to his appeal the judges fairness went against Hanratty.

[moste]

Well, first off accepting Only 11 jurors ,always been a bone of contention for me. Secondly, given all of the evidence the jury had to sift through ,plus their serious confusion over what their collective duties actually were , there is a question as to the juries ability to bring to a conclusion a fair verdict. Thirdly, in an attempt to side with Sherrard ( much against my better judgment re his general performance)It seems I think, that Sherrard was reasonably pleased with the way things progressed while Acott and co. were on the stand. From this I mean that the jury must have understood that Sherrard looked like he had exposed the possibility that police corruption existed .Thirdly The judge I believe was wrong footed by the jury emerging from their deliberations after so many hours with what most people would regard as inept procrastinations ,and although infuriated, kept his cool ,because he believed Hanratty was innocent ,and was going to be found not guilty. In truth, all three ,wigs ,jury , and police corruption, are equally guilty here. If Hanratty was always going to hang regardless of the efforts of the defence, then the existence of a conspiracy has to be considered.

[ansonman]

It is harrowing, although in one case the victim actually volunteered himself. Corroborating evidence? I assume there was little. So what can the jury do when presented with a cropped version of events? Do the best they can, same as you or me.

Don't blame the juries. Blame those in the wigs and gowns who see justice as part of a medieval game of jousting. It's despicable. It's a war they will never fight and so such good fun.

I would put corrupt police in front of the wigs and gowns in the "blame queue".