A6 Rebooted

[Alfie]

So ,if Derricks post is to be accepted as factual. We dont know Gregstens blood group DO WE?

Mmm, who to believe, the Court of Appeal or some random poster on an internet forum? It's a tough one.

[Spitfire]

Mmm, who to believe, the Court of Appeal or some random poster on an internet forum? It's a tough one.

In fairness to Derrick, he said there was no mention of AB semen stains in the 1961/2 reports/bench notes of Lewis Nickolls NOT that MG's blood group was not AB as reported by the Court of Appeal.

[Alfie]

Carol France

Evening Times: "Michael Sherrard, in cross-examination, asked: ‘Your mother was good enough to say ‘Uncle Jim’ behaved perfectly properly towards her and you and your sister. Do you confirm that?’ Miss France: ‘Yes, sir.’"

Hadn't realized till now that Carol perjured herself.

[Spitfire]

And this is the report which found its way into the Daily Mirror on Saturday 27th January 1962:

"An earlier witness yesterday was 16-year-old Carol France, eldest daughter of Mrs. Charlotte France, who fainted while giving evidence on Thursday.
Miss France, a hairdresser, spoke of visits to her home in St. John's
Wood, London, by Hanratty, whom she knew as" Uncle Jim."

"Tinted"

She described two occasions last August when, at Hanratty's request, she tinted his hair black.

At the end of her evidence, Miss France went to the back of the court where she began sobbing. Then, as she was being led out of court, she shouted a remark. Hanratty, in the dock, turned to look at her".

The trial continues on Monday"

I wonder what she shouted.

[NickB]

Carole’s sobbing behaviour may have been caused by Sherrard dismissing her abruptly: “I am not going to take up any more time with this. You are just not being completely frank with the court.”

She had admitted to being out only once with Jim. This corresponded with the one outing of which Charles had said he was aware. With her father in a delicate state, it is understandable that Carole did not want to say that there had been other occasions. This frustrated Sherrard – although no doubt he was banking on her not telling the whole truth anyway (i.e. about the sex).

While we are discussing girlfriends, below is:

(1) Telegraph report of Gladys Deacon’s evidence at the committal;

(2) The start of a report about Mary Meaden in the London Evening News, one of two newspapers that carried an interview with her. Spitfire, perhaps you can provide the other one which was in the Daily Mirror on 11-Oct-61.

[Spitfire]

(2) The start of a report about Mary Meaden in the London Evening News, one of two newspapers that carried an interview with her. Spitfire, perhaps you can provide the other one which was in the Daily Mirror on 11-Oct-61.

http://forum.casebook.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=18548&stc=1&d=1522161927

[Spitfire]

http://forum.casebook.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=18549&stc=1&d=1522164639

[NickB]

Thanks Spitfire.

It is claimed that these two reports invalidated the id parade because they revealed the suspect had dyed hair. But I notice she specified the hair was dyed black. I wonder if the police had information from Liverpool that it was now blondish, because the arresting officers said it was the dyed hair that alerted them it might be Hanratty in the Stevonia.

The Appeal describes Louise Anderson as “his girlfriend” which seems to be going too far. Although in the Daily Mirror, two days before the article above, she described their first meal this way: “He asked me to go out with him. I said I would. The following Sunday he came round for me and we went to a restaurant in the Bayswater Road.” (If a Sunday it would have been 13-Aug-61, but some reports say it was the day before.) She is complimentary about him in that article.

Anderson’s animosity towards him in court is sometimes put down to the police having a hold over her for dealing in stolen property. But it seems to be deep felt and personal – beyond any police obligation.

Then there was this ...

[gallicrow]

I can't read those scans, so here they are in plain text, posted by yourself last year!


Below is the Louise Anderson article, by a ‘News of the World reporter’, dated 27-Nov-66:


HANRATTY TOLD ME HE WAS A KILLER

A former woman friend of James Hanratty, hanged four years ago for the murder of Michael Gregsten near Deadman’s Hill on the A6 trunk road, has stepped into the recent ‘was he really innocent?’ controversy.

She told me: “There is no question of a miscarriage of justice. He was guilty. A day or so after the murder he told me he had killed a man."

The woman, 54 year old Mrs Louise Anderson, first told me a year ago she knew Hanratty was the real killer when I met her in the antique and curio shop she ran in Greek Street, Soho.

In view of the reactions prompted by a recent BBC Panorama programme about the Hanratty case I again asked her to describe the occasion when Hanratty said he had killed a man.

“It was shortly after the A6 murder,” she said. “He told me he had killed a man. He didn’t say it was Gregsten, but he said he might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb. He was very worried.”

“I also know that between the murder and his arrest he had new dentures fitted so that his face was slightly altered and that he dyed his hair.”

Two of the men who appeared in the BBC programme had visited her at her shop, Mrs Anderson went on. One, she said, was Jean Justice who supplied the BBC with a tape-recording and the other was introduced to her as Peter Louis Alphon the man whose voice was taped.

Mrs Anderson, who lives in Paddington, says she was asked to appear on the Panorama programme but declined because she had been ill. Mrs Anderson was a witness at the trial of Hanratty at Bedfordshire Assises.

[NickB]

Sorry. As mentioned before, the original pdf files exceed the forum’s download limits.

One other ‘girlfriend’ we could mention is Ann Pryce. Anderson and Pryce were the two guarantors for the Sunbeam Alpine finance agreement after France had refused to be one.

[Spitfire]

I came across this:-
Here:

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11542759

Whatever it is won't be seen by the taxpayer for another 45 years.

What is it that is so sensitive about the death of France and the actions of Ewer?

The authorities have always acted is if the case against Hanratty was overwhelming, despite the need for the Nimmo and Hawser whitewashes.

So why do France and Ewer still present a problem of, to all intents and purposes, national security?

Hello Derrick and all who commented on this aspect of the case. I made a FOI request and this is the reply which I received.

MEPO 26/341 - 'The A6 Murder' (James HANRATTY): libel proceedings brought against Times Newspapers Ltd by William EWER, brother-in-law of Janet Gregsten, the widow of the victim, Michael John Gregsten. With photographs

Having considered the public interest test we have decided that this information should be withheld. I regret to say this means we cannot make this record open to you or to the public in general.

I previously explained that some of the information in the record is covered by section 38(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This exempts information that, if it was released, would endanger the physical or mental health of any individual.

A public interest test was conducted in consultation with the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). Please find below the arguments made in favour of and against the release of the information requested and the outcome of the public interest test.

Arguments made in favour of the release of the information requested:
The information within this record relates to the A6 murder, which is one of the UKs key criminal cases in late 20th century law enforcement and continues to this day to cause controversy. Because of this, the information would be useful to anyone seeking to understand the case.

A suspect was identified, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to the death penalty. The case, therefore, is considered solved.

Arguments made against the release of the information requested:
This record contains information that would cause substantial distress to the victims immediate family if disclosed. This information is in the form of police reports and witness statements that describe in detail the offences sustained by the victims of the crime.

Outcome of the public interest test:
This record contains information that would cause substantial distress to the victims immediate family. There is a profound public interest in not endangering the mental health of the family members of a victim of crime. It is for these reasons that the MPS finds that section 38 (1) (a) is engaged.

Information within the record is also covered by the exemption at section 40 of the Act. This exempts personal information about a third party (someone other than the requester), if revealing it would break the terms of the Data Protection Act (DPA) 1998. The DPA prevents personal information from release if it would be unfair or at odds with the reason why it was collected, or where the subject had officially served notice that releasing it would cause them damage or distress.

In this case the exemption applies because the record contains the personal and the sensitive personal information of a number of identified individuals assumed still to be living. These individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy which would not include the release of this information into the public domain during their lifetime. To do so would be likely to cause damage and/or distress and would be a breach of the first data protection principle, which is concerned with the fair and lawful processing of information of this kind.

If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request or the decision which has been reached, you have the right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests must be submitted within two months of the date of this response and should be addressed to:

Quality Manager
Programme Management Office
The National Archives
Kew
Richmond
Surrey
TW9 4DU

So there we are. I have two months to appeal the decision. It seems to me if I can show that the info which is considered to be detrimental to the health of the victims' family or families is already in the public domain then there can be no reason for withholding the file on that basis.

[cobalt]

This record contains information that would cause substantial distress to the victims immediate family if disclosed. This information is in the form of police reports and witness statements that describe in detail the offences sustained by the victims of the crime.
[Missing apostrophe after victims] The full horror of the crime was well established at the trial in 1962. This reasonng is hard to follow.

.. sensitive personal information of a number of identified individuals assumed still to be living.
I thought registrations of birth and death in the UK were actually stored in Kew. If they don't know who is dead or alive, who does?

These individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy which would not include the release of this information into the public domain during their lifetime
Given that all the main players in the sorry A6 Case are now deceased this does not seem a strong reason against disclosure. Is there an issue of paternity here?

[NickB]

I presume Anthony Gregsten is still alive.

[Graham]

I think both of the Gregsten brothers are still alive. Anthony has, or had, a cabinet-making business in Gloucestershire. And I believe that that James' three brothers are still alive - Limehouse could confirm that, I think.

I am under the possibly-erroneous impression that records of all murder cases are not released by the Home Office for 100 years. Hopefully someone will assure me that I'm wrong.

Graham

[moste]

I presume Anthony Gregsten is still alive.

Well he would be 59, and Simon 65 this month, looks like.