Announcement

**Sherlock Houses** · 01-21-2019, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by NickB View Post

Looking back at previous pages I notice that in post 4795 you came to the conclusion that the police had tampered with the hotel records. So Mansfield's claims appear to confirm what you had already suspected.

With reference to further wrongdoing and misbehaviour on the part of the police the following should be well heeded...

Baden [Bill] Skitt, ex Chief Constable of Hertfordshire, was appointed in 1996 as one of the original commissioners of the recently set up Criminal Cases Review Commission. One of the suspected miscarriages of justice cases he investigated was the case of James Hanratty. During the course of his investigation he discovered that on April 5th 1962, the day after Hanratty's execution, Kenneth Oxford went to the archives, signed for and received the Vienna Hotel register. A very strange thing to do just one day after Hanratty was hanged. This register was never returned to the archives and when Skitt came to question Oxford about it and ask him the reason why it was never returned, Oxford just replied that he couldn't remember. Unbelievable !

Now the obvious question that must be asked is what was so important about the contents of the Vienna Hotel register that it was deemed necessary, just one day after Hanratty's judicial murder, to take the trouble of going to the archives, collecting it and ensuring it's non-return ? We are left merely to speculate about Oxfraud's, oops I mean Oxford's unacceptable behaviour.

**Graham** · 01-21-2019, 11:46 AM

I've taken time off from the A6 Case, so forgive me if my memory's not so good - not for the first time I've lent my A6 books to a friend and must get them back!

IIRC, Woffinden said that the Vienna Hotel records, presumably including the register, was in police hands for 9 days, as of 11 September 1961, after the Vienna became of interest to them . It was then, presumably, returned to the hotel, as it would be required for taxation purposes and so forth. The Vienna Hotel at 158 Sutherland Avenue traded until around 1980, perhaps a little later (it is now townhouses). If the register was, as is claimed, in the police archives on April 5th 1962, just when was it placed there? Did the police at some time between ca. 20 September 1961 and 5 April 1962 take it back into their possession again? If so, why? I feel certain that had the register not been returned to the hotel, then Woffinden would have commented.

Maybe there's a simple explanation, but it sounds a bit fishy to me.

Graham

**NickB** · 01-21-2019, 06:14 PM

If the Register was taken away by Oxford presumably it was because the police were complicit in scoring out Mr Bell’s name in the Diary for 22-Aug-61, to support the false claim in Nudds Second Statement that Bell had cancelled his booking, and Oxford was trying to hide the fact that Bell had signed the register as having stayed that night.

If this was the intention it failed because Foot reported that Bell had signed the Register. If Oxford had taken it away, presumably Foot got his information about it from the court proceedings.

It is incredulous how, knowing that Bell had signed the Register, Foot placed any faith in the Second Statement - which also contradicted Foot’s own account of how Alphon booked in: "On Tuesday the 22nd, in the evening, he had booked in at the Vienna Hotel through the Broadway House Hotel ...”

**Graham** · 01-22-2019, 09:43 AM

I'm not 100% convinced that the police did actually alter the register and/or other Vienna records and documents. From what I've gathered, record-keeping at the Vienna was haphazard to say the least.

Graham

**NickB** · 01-22-2019, 10:37 AM

Even if Bell's name had been struck through by accident in the diary, due to haphazard record-keeping, it was used in a dishonest way by Nudds and the police in the Second Statement if they knew that he had stayed the night, as evidenced by his signature in the register.

We do not know the precise alterations that Mansfield was referring to, and cannot see the documents, so it is difficult to assess the veracity of his claim. But I think it is telling that for several years the 'Hanratty is innocent' campaign was based on the belief that Alphon did it and the police tried to frame Hanratty; so I think the Hanratty defence team would have thought very carefully before jettisoning this approach and putting forward as a ground of objection the opposite position - that the police tried to frame Alphon.

**Graham** · 01-22-2019, 11:26 AM

It must be borne in mind that long before The Vienna Hotel became part of the A6 investgation, Peter Alphon a.k.a. Frederick Durrant had been questioned in relation to the A6 investigation further to their plea for hotel managers, B&B's, etc., to report any odd behaviour by a guest. Hence the manager of The Alexandra Court reporting 'Durrant', who was interviewed and his real name obtained.

When the cartridge cases were found at The Vienna, and the name 'Durrant' found in the books, Acott must have thought all his Christmases had come at once; as far as he was concerned, once they'd collared Alphon/Durrant, it was all over, and Acott could add to his CV the solving of the A6 Murder. NickB is quite correct: it was Alphon the police effectively framed at first, via the pressure put on Nudds to 'agree' with their version of Alphon's movements and time-table.

Graham

**caz** · 01-23-2019, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by cobalt View Post

The armchair psychology that says Hanratty wanted to achieve power with a gun is probably best left in the armchair. Hanratty was a thief. Not a robber. A thief. He wanted money, not power.

In the same way a ‘flasher’ is not a rapist. Although that did not stop some poor sod being hauled in for the appalling Rachel Nickell murder (1992) and deemed responsible for many years even after acquittal until the eventual culprit was caught. Eventually, after about 15 years, the police apologised. Not so difficult really, since Napper, I think his name was, had already given a full confession.

Why would Hanratty need to bandy words with a couple he had never met before? His conversation might have been sharp, but was certainly limited, so the whole enterprise is ridiculous. In theory, he just needed the car, according to the prosecution, to get his way back to London. Moste explains how this could have been done in a matter of minutes.

One overwhelming problem with the ‘Hanratty in the cornfield’ scenario is the quantity of ammunition. Whether the spare ammo was in a bag, as sometimes reported, or in his pockets, as I think Valerie Storie testified, the question has to be asked why he needed so much? He was not doing a James Cagney ‘You Dirty Cops’ shoot out so why did he need more than six shots? For a robbery in Taplow? It makes no sense. As little sense as him carrying this ammo on public transport.

Whoever the killer was, he was surely driven close to the point of engagement, be that a cornfield or Deadman’s Hill.

Just catching up - very slowly - with this thread, so apologies for dragging up this relatively old post from last July!

Hi cobalt,

The problem with seemingly motiveless acts of depravity, such as the A6 murder and rape, is that they should make no sense to the vast majority of decent folk. To the criminal mind of the man involved, sense didn't come into it, or he would have abandoned the idea of going to a cornfield armed with a deadly weapon, in favour of downing a pint or two at his local pub with a girlfriend.

To borrow from your own words, the armchair psychology that says Hanratty was not the type to go from thieving to experimenting with a gun [wasn't there evidence that he had asked about acquiring a firearm?] is probably best left in the armchair. Repeat offenders can and very often do progress from petty crimes of one nature to serious ones of another nature.

In the same way a ‘flasher’ is not a rapist.

Really? A flasher is never going to progress to rape or worse?

Tell that to the families of Colin Pitchfork's victims:

Colin Pitchfork - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Pitchfork

Pitchfork, a murderer and rapist, had a history of indecent exposure going back to his early teens and became the first person convicted of murder based on DNA evidence. He was sentenced to life back in 1988, yet I don't see anyone disputing the DNA findings that put him away, nor any psychologist claiming that as a 'flasher' he couldn't be a rapist.

Love,

Caz
X

**caz** · 01-23-2019, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Spitfire View Post

I believe the songstress Priscilla White, who suspiciously changed her name to Cilla Black, was also resident in the Scottie Road area and would have been able to shed considerable light on the A6 Murder if only she had been asked, which she does not seem to have been.

I believe that Black, or White if you prefer, had been married to the former England and Warwickshire quick bowler, Bob Willis, who also does not seem to have been interviewed by either Acott or Oxford.

Cilla was great chums with a popular music combo going under the style of "The Beatles". If you believe Wikipedia (which I don't ) then the Beatles were performing in Liverpool during the month of August 1961. Yet they do not seem to have had an engagement for 22nd August 1961. As they were later to sing in the little ditty Penny Lane, "Very strange."

So did Acott and/or Oxford question the Fab Three (the Fab Four minus Ringo who did not join the combo until 1962) and Stu Sutcliffe and Pete Best about their involvement in the A6 job?

Hi Spitfire,

If not, they jolly well should have done, following the release of 'Happiness is a Warm Gun [bang bang shoot shoot etc]'. Coincidence? I think not.
And John Lennon once lived on Menlove Avenue - very strange - so they also missed a trick by not questioning him in connection with the murder of Julia Wallace in 1931. He even penned the song 'Julia' - even stranger. Not born then? Probably lied about his age, like Julia Wallace did.

Don't let Lennon's campaign on Hanratty's behalf fool you - a clever bluff if you ask me, by the man who knew too much.

Love,

Caz
X

**moste** · 01-27-2019, 07:59 PM

stuck in 2015??

**caz** · 01-28-2019, 01:28 PM

Hi moste,

No, if you had read both my latest posts, you would have seen I had caught up to last July.

But actually, are we not all stuck in 2002, unless or until you or anyone else can come up with a legal way to challenge the appeal judgement?

Love,

Caz
X

**caz** · 01-30-2019, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Derrick View Post

Hi Caz

Leaving out the fact that no AB group anything was found by Dr Nickolls in his examinations, heat is the enemy of DNA persistence.

Why do you think that DNA samples have to be frozen for ultimate preservation?

Del

Hi Derrick,

Apologies for the belated response!

I'm not sure I understand what you were seeking to imply with the above.

Do you dispute that semen staining from two individuals was found on Valerie's underwear, shortly after the crime, and before anything from Hanratty was examined?

Do you dispute that Gregsten's blood group was established as AB, while the major semen staining established that the rapist's blood group was O?

Unless you were suggesting that Valerie lied about being raped, and had actually had recent sexual activity with one or two men, neither of whom was Gregsten or the gunman, then surely it's beyond reasonable doubt that the murderer shared Hanratty's blood group, while any semen from a second individual [tested for blood group or not] would have been Gregsten's.

Heat may be 'the enemy of DNA persistence', but that doesn't alter the fact that Hanratty's DNA did persist, both on the hankie found with the murder weapon [while nobody else's DNA was found] and on the knicker fragment. If the latter hadn't come directly from the gunman's ejaculation in 1961, but had been the result of the fragment coming into accidental contact, during storage, with a 1961 wash from the fly of Hanratty's trousers [highly speculative and not considered likely, but the only 'innocent' explanation I have seen for his DNA profile turning up there], wouldn't its 'persistence' have been all the more remarkable in that case?

If you want to claim that nobody's DNA could have persisted on either the hankie or underwear, and been identified after the length of time which had elapsed [whether it was deposited during the crime or a subsequent contamination event], how would you explain the decision to exhume Hanratty's remains, and the DNA matches found to both items? If there was a conspiracy to lie about finding matches, because it just wasn't possible, why do you suppose they bothered with an expensive exhumation? Did they not have other means of fabricating forensic evidence against him?

There's also the other little matter of why anyone framing an innocent Hanratty in 1961 would have perceived any advantage from depositing his hankie along with the gun on that London bus. No way to link it forensically to him, and no concept that one day it could be. Conversely, for the same reasons, Hanratty would have seen no disadvantage in doing the same, and a potential advantage from leaving the murder weapon where it would be found, and making sure he'd be a couple of hundred miles away by the time it was. If he was being framed, however, he might have been provably nowhere near London at the right time, or he might have had a different blood group from the murderer. Most people have a blood group other than O. In either case he'd have been off the hook, while his criminal associates could have come under suspicion instead.

Love,

Caz
X

**moste** · 01-30-2019, 06:05 PM

Hi Caz. Quote:"But actually, are we not all stuck in 2002, unless or until you or anyone else can come up with a legal way to challenge the appeal judgement?" Sorry, I was referencing my inability to negotiate this new forum format! It may be something to do with my P C being 12 years old, or yours sincerely being 71! LOL

**caz** · 01-31-2019, 11:01 AM

Oh I'm so sorry, moste, I completely misinterpreted you. May be something to do with me being a stupid old woman of nearly 65!

I'm doing okay with the new format, except for my failure to give myself a new avatar. I followed the instructions but the image I chose appears on its side and I can't see how to rotate it so it's upright like the original. I may have to admit defeat and ask Admin for help.

Love,

Caz
X

**moste** · 01-31-2019, 06:41 PM