A6 Rebooted

[Spitfire]

I am not so sure that Matthews concluded that Hanratty was not the murderer but that he thought that on the evidence Hanratty should not have been convicted.

[moste]

In case the link is blocked asking you to subscribe, it says Matthews "concluded the man who carried out the attack on 22 August 1961 at Deadman's Hill, Bedfordshire, was probably hired to break up the illicit liaison. His report is believed to recommend that a new inquiry should in particular examine evidence regarding Peter Alphon, a salesman who was the original suspect."

I would be very surprised if any top detective really believed that 'someone was hired to break up the illicit liaison '

I can't imagine any scenario where that would be possible , not after 4 years, except for one, and that would involve

Valerie's father who had only just become aware of Gregstens true persona. Of course what followed was a major

Phuque up!

[NickB]

I think it likely that the 'police source' in the two Independent articles is Matthews himself; if so the leaks of what the report contains are accurate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello all.

For a while now I’ve intended to read about the Hanratty case. I partially read the Woffinden book years ago but got distracted and never returned to it. I knew that I had it somewhere though and I found it tonight beneath a pile of old Ripperologist magazines! I’ve only read 3 pages and will get more into it tomorrow but I though that I’d ask the odd question on the way.

I hope you will put up with my complete lack of knowledge on the case and I realise some questions that I ask will be answered later in the book.

Ok my first question is about Hanratty’s IQ and personality. On page 4 the killer says “ “This is a real gun and I haven’t had it very long. It’s like a cowboys gun. I feel like a cowboy.””

This seems like quite a childish thing to say? Certainly not something that you’d expect from a hardened gun user. Is this in keeping with what’s known about Hanratty? Is it something that he could be imagined saying?

[caz]

Hello all.

For a while now I’ve intended to read about the Hanratty case. I partially read the Woffinden book years ago but got distracted and never returned to it. I knew that I had it somewhere though and I found it tonight beneath a pile of old Ripperologist magazines! I’ve only read 3 pages and will get more into it tomorrow but I though that I’d ask the odd question on the way.

I hope you will put up with my complete lack of knowledge on the case and I realise some questions that I ask will be answered later in the book.

Ok my first question is about Hanratty’s IQ and personality. On page 4 the killer says “This is a real gun and I haven’t had it very long. It’s like a cowboys gun. I feel like a cowboy.”

This seems like quite a childish thing to say? Certainly not something that you’d expect from a hardened gun user. Is this in keeping with what’s known about Hanratty? Is it something that he could be imagined saying?

Hi Herlock,

I would say it was entirely in keeping with what's known about Hanratty. I believe his mental age was lower than his real age and if he was indeed the killer, the gun would have been a new toy for him, which he tried out with devastating effect, when he used it to hold up the courting couple. My belief is that he was enjoying the novel sense of power and control the weapon gave him on their long journey north - like a practice run if you like - and wasn't really thinking of killing anyone. But then, when Gregsten made a sudden movement, the man lost control and shot him, a knee-jerk reaction made possible by the gun in the hand of an apparent novice. Regaining control, he may have raped Valerie almost on instinct, because he could. His new toy gave him the power to do that too. The fact that he didn't make sure he killed her afterwards - as the only witness - suggests to me that the man was very far from being a hardened gun user and panic began to set in with the reality of what he'd just done. He had the ammunition and the time to shoot her again before driving away, but apparently no longer the control to end this smoothly.

Love,

Caz
X

[cobalt]

Caz has given a fairly succinct account of the case argued by the prosecution at trial. One of the problems surrounding the A6 Case is the lack of a clear motive considering the amount of violence employed, so the idea of Hanratty as an excitable James Cagney type waving a gun around was put forward to suggest a motive. From the outset this motive was questioned, for a number of reasons.



James Hanratty was a rather inadequate young man but had not previously displayed any significant propensity towards physical or sexual violence. None of his former friends, fellow jailbirds, prison warders or former girlfriends has ever come forward to suggest otherw


Although a former criminal acquaintance claimed Hanratty had made enquiries about acquiring a gun, his evidence is questionable since it may have been obtained through police harassment. No one ever saw Hanratty with a gun prior to his alleged crime, nor after it during his excursions to Ireland and Blackpool. If he lusted for control at the end of a gun, then it was an urge that was sated very quickly.



The prosecution claim was that Hanratty had stumbled upon his victims in a cornfield, presumably having originally set out to burgle wealthy houses in the vicinity. We have no idea why he would have a carried a gun in order to commit burglary, since burglary requires speed and stealth, not lugging a gun and a bag of bullets. The reward for robbing a householder at gunpoint can be little different from burgling the property, the main difference being the sentence if caught would be a great deal heavier. Hanratty was weak academically and probably an impulsive character, but he would have known his criminal equations in relation to risk and reward.



The evidence we have points to Hanratty being a low level professional burglar and thief. Had he wished to progress to armed robbery then it is hard to see why he would be prowling around country houses and cornfields. He might have tried his hand at an all night petrol station or robbed a taxi driver before slipping off into the London streets he knew very well. That way the gun would have given him fast access to ready cash while still, if we wish to believe the psychologists, giving him the sense of control.



Back in 1961 the question was openly asked about why an armed robber was in a cornfield; over half a century later a convincing explanation has not yet appeared.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I would say it was entirely in keeping with what's known about Hanratty. I believe his mental age was lower than his real age and if he was indeed the killer, the gun would have been a new toy for him, which he tried out with devastating effect, when he used it to hold up the courting couple. My belief is that he was enjoying the novel sense of power and control the weapon gave him on their long journey north - like a practice run if you like - and wasn't really thinking of killing anyone. But then, when Gregsten made a sudden movement, the man lost control and shot him, a knee-jerk reaction made possible by the gun in the hand of an apparent novice. Regaining control, he may have raped Valerie almost on instinct, because he could. His new toy gave him the power to do that too. The fact that he didn't make sure he killed her afterwards - as the only witness - suggests to me that the man was very far from being a hardened gun user and panic began to set in with the reality of what he'd just done. He had the ammunition and the time to shoot her again before driving away, but apparently no longer the control to end this smoothly.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Its been a while.

Thanks for that. I’m only a few pages in but I did watch the documentary mentioned in the book on YouTube last night too. It does appear to point away from a seasoned criminal used to guns. The fact that he also appeared to miss with a few shots from such a short distance seems to bear this out. Also giving them the name ‘Jim’ wasn’t exactly a master stroke either. And as you say, he left Valerie alive to tell the tale. She did pretty amazingly to ‘play dead’ in the circumstances as she must have been in terrible pain?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Caz has given a fairly succinct account of the case argued by the prosecution at trial. One of the problems surrounding the A6 Case is the lack of a clear motive considering the amount of violence employed, so the idea of Hanratty as an excitable James Cagney type waving a gun around was put forward to suggest a motive. From the outset this motive was questioned, for a number of reasons.



James Hanratty was a rather inadequate young man but had not previously displayed any significant propensity towards physical or sexual violence. None of his former friends, fellow jailbirds, prison warders or former girlfriends has ever come forward to suggest otherw


Although a former criminal acquaintance claimed Hanratty had made enquiries about acquiring a gun, his evidence is questionable since it may have been obtained through police harassment. No one ever saw Hanratty with a gun prior to his alleged crime, nor after it during his excursions to Ireland and Blackpool. If he lusted for control at the end of a gun, then it was an urge that was sated very quickly.



The prosecution claim was that Hanratty had stumbled upon his victims in a cornfield, presumably having originally set out to burgle wealthy houses in the vicinity. We have no idea why he would have a carried a gun in order to commit burglary, since burglary requires speed and stealth, not lugging a gun and a bag of bullets. The reward for robbing a householder at gunpoint can be little different from burgling the property, the main difference being the sentence if caught would be a great deal heavier. Hanratty was weak academically and probably an impulsive character, but he would have known his criminal equations in relation to risk and reward.



The evidence we have points to Hanratty being a low level professional burglar and thief. Had he wished to progress to armed robbery then it is hard to see why he would be prowling around country houses and cornfields. He might have tried his hand at an all night petrol station or robbed a taxi driver before slipping off into the London streets he knew very well. That way the gun would have given him fast access to ready cash while still, if we wish to believe the psychologists, giving him the sense of control.



Back in 1961 the question was openly asked about why an armed robber was in a cornfield; over half a century later a convincing explanation has not yet appeared.

Thanks for that Cobalt

Believe it or not this was the question that was stuck in my mind as I was sitting in the dentists waiting room today. What was Hanratty doing there in the first place? If he was in the area looking to burgle houses do we know if any attempted burglaries had occurred? I guess we’d have to assume that if he’d made an attempt that it would have been unsuccessful as he had nothing on him. I have too many questions at this early stage of the book. How did he intend to get back to where he was staying with any ill-gotten gains? I’m assuming that he’d have been unfamiliar with the area and so wouldn’t have known who to approach locally to fence the goods? It certainly smacks of someone not-too-bright ‘winging it’ with a new toy in his hands. The rape is possibly that hardest thing to explain. Maybe the sense of power got the better of him?

[caz]

Caz has given a fairly succinct account of the case argued by the prosecution at trial.

Hi cobalt,

I wasn't conscious that I was doing that. I was giving my personal opinion of the kind of person I imagined to have committed the crime, from the known evidence and the finer details given by Valerie, as the surviving victim.

James Hanratty was a rather inadequate young man but had not previously displayed any significant propensity towards physical or sexual violence. None of his former friends, fellow jailbirds, prison warders or former girlfriends has ever come forward to suggest otherw

Well everyone who was ever physically or sexually violent did not display any propensity until the first time, and my argument was that if the young Hanratty went out with a gun for the first time that fateful evening, not to use it for armed robbery - at least not yet - but to see what it felt like to have that kind of power and control, it was to be the first and last time for all three factors, because he temporarily lost control and shot Gregsten dead unintentionally; regained it and used the gun's power this time to have his way with a terrified woman; and with nothing to lose because he'd already committed one capital crime, he turned the gun on her too. In his panic, not having done anything like this before, he screwed up because he had everything to lose if he didn't finish the job. It was amateur at best, hopeless at worst. If Hanratty was innocent, he was incredibly unlucky that his blood group matched the gunman's; his voice matched the gunman's, according to Valerie, who had had to listen to him for hours in the car before the fatal shot was fired; and his 'rather inadequate young man' persona fitted the facts so well.

Although a former criminal acquaintance claimed Hanratty had made enquiries about acquiring a gun, his evidence is questionable since it may have been obtained through police harassment. No one ever saw Hanratty with a gun prior to his alleged crime, nor after it during his excursions to Ireland and Blackpool. If he lusted for control at the end of a gun, then it was an urge that was sated very quickly.

We don't know that Dixie France never saw Hanratty with a gun, do we? But again, if he did get access to one, would we expect him to have gone out with it on the first occasion, with an immediate urge to commit a capital crime with it? Or might he have had the curiosity and desire to see the reaction it got, when pointed at a couple having naughties in a car? Not surprising if that curiosity and desire was very quickly sated - and gone forever - once the gun went off.

The prosecution claim was that Hanratty had stumbled upon his victims in a cornfield, presumably having originally set out to burgle wealthy houses in the vicinity. We have no idea why he would have a carried a gun in order to commit burglary, since burglary requires speed and stealth, not lugging a gun and a bag of bullets. The reward for robbing a householder at gunpoint can be little different from burgling the property, the main difference being the sentence if caught would be a great deal heavier. Hanratty was weak academically and probably an impulsive character, but he would have known his criminal equations in relation to risk and reward.

The evidence we have points to Hanratty being a low level professional burglar and thief. Had he wished to progress to armed robbery then it is hard to see why he would be prowling around country houses and cornfields. He might have tried his hand at an all night petrol station or robbed a taxi driver before slipping off into the London streets he knew very well. That way the gun would have given him fast access to ready cash while still, if we wish to believe the psychologists, giving him the sense of control.

But it's unwarranted speculation that Hanratty - if guilty - would have set out that night to burgle houses or rob a householder at gunpoint, or rob anyone at gunpoint, anywhere. We don't have to speculate why he changed tack and held up a couple in their car in a cornfield if there is no evidence of him going out in the first place to commit armed robbery. Why could he not have taken the gun on impulse, looking for an opportunity to take it for a spin and try it out for size, not foreseeing the enormity of where it would lead, being 'weak academically' and an 'impulsive character'.

Love,

Caz
X

[NickB]

Although a former criminal acquaintance claimed Hanratty had made enquiries about acquiring a gun, his evidence is questionable since it may have been obtained through police harassment.

If you are thinking of Fisher/Slack, it is the other way round. Hanratty claimed he asked for a gun and Fisher denied it.

On 12-Oct-61 Hanratty told the police:
"When I came out of Manchester in March I went to see him in Ealing and he gave me £25 to start me up in business. He asked me what I was going to do now, and I said 'I think I will pack up the jewellery lark', and asked him to get a shooter to do some stick-ups."

Before you say the police invented this, Hanratty reiterated this to his own solicitor Kleinman:
"[Fisher] asked me what I had in mind. I said that house-breaking was all played out. If you want to get rich these days, I said, you've got to have a shooter and go after cash."

He then went on to admit this in court, but claimed that he was responding to the police putting it to him that Fisher had said it. Woffinden appears to believe this, saying Acott visited Fisher between when Hanratty was arrested and interviewed. But he then (more reliably) reports that Acott did not interview Fisher until 26-Oct, when Fisher denied having any such conversation.

Hanratty had tried to get a letter to Fisher, asking him why he had told the police about the gun enquiry and saying "it was only a matter of conversation". Had Fisher been allowed to receive Hanratty's letter he could have corroborated that "it was only a matter of conversation" and support Hanratty's line of defence. But Fisher just denied the conversation took place, suggesting to me he did not think it had been just idle talk.

So what made Hanratty admit the conversation?

On 11-Oct Acott had visited Lanigan who told him that he discussed with Hanratty getting guns to do a hold up in Wembley. This would have been fresh in Acott's mind when he interviewed Hanratty the following day.

So what may have happened is that Acott dropped hints that he had been speaking to a friend of Jim's who had told him about a gun discussion (meaning Lanigan) and Hanratty jumped to the conclusion that he meant Fisher. Acott then got an admission of two gun discussions for the price of one.

[cobalt]

The idea of Hanratty strolling around with a gun, getting the ‘feel’ of his new power, does hold more water, for me at least, than the idea that he went out to burgle houses all tooled up and chanced upon Gregsten and Ms. Storie.

For all that there are still a few problems. The main one is why it was necessary to catch a train to Taplow to get the feel of his weapon. He could have done this more easily in the London areas he knew much better and saved on the train ticket. If the cartridge shell evidence from the hotel is to be believed then Hanratty must have practised already with his weapon, so he’d already had at least one opportunity to test his powers.

Another one is that his main reason for acquiring a gun was surely practical: to threaten people or businesses in order to obtain quick cash. There may well have been a psychological element as well- many young men might get a kick from handling a lethal weapon- but Hanratty was a professional thief more than he was some psychotic basket case. Any violent instincts would have been expected to surface in some form by his late if not mid teens, gun or no gun.

The final one is the sheer amount of time Hanratty spent in the car exercising his new found power. From memory he was allegedly in the vehicle with the couple for around six hours, by which time whatever dark thrill he was experiencing through holding a couple hostage must have been wearing a bit thin. At any point in the proceedings he could have turfed the couple out of the car and driven back to London to bask in his new found status as a stick- up man. I can’t see why he was supposed to be confused, uncertain, baffled by the situation he had put himself in: just tell them to get out at some quiet spot and then drive off.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I realise that it’s a case of was he there or wasn’t he but the question of why also seems an interesting one. I need to see a map or two to familiarise myself with the locations but I do recall when I first heard about the case thinking ‘’what was he doing in a field?’’ Was the spot where he first encountered Gregsten and Storie a route from/to somewhere? Or is it more likely that he saw the car drive to the spot and he simply followed it? Did Hanratty have any contacts in the area?

I also recall thinking, as Cobalt mentioned, ‘why the hell did he spend so long in the car? Or even any time at all as he could have just taken it and driven off?

[Alfie]

If I might momentarily diverge from the interesting discussion above to ask a couple of unrelated questions ...

Over the weekend of October 7-8 the papers carried descriptions of the man wanted by police, most of which mentioned the name Ryan, his red hair, and that he bore a tattoo of a snake on one arm and the word Bett or Bert on the other. Was Hanratty in fact so tattooed? If he wasn't, why would the police have told the press that he was?

[caz]

The idea of Hanratty strolling around with a gun, getting the ‘feel’ of his new power, does hold more water, for me at least, than the idea that he went out to burgle houses all tooled up and chanced upon Gregsten and Ms. Storie.

For all that there are still a few problems. The main one is why it was necessary to catch a train to Taplow to get the feel of his weapon. He could have done this more easily in the London areas he knew much better and saved on the train ticket. If the cartridge shell evidence from the hotel is to be believed then Hanratty must have practised already with his weapon, so he’d already had at least one opportunity to test his powers.

Another one is that his main reason for acquiring a gun was surely practical: to threaten people or businesses in order to obtain quick cash. There may well have been a psychological element as well- many young men might get a kick from handling a lethal weapon- but Hanratty was a professional thief more than he was some psychotic basket case. Any violent instincts would have been expected to surface in some form by his late if not mid teens, gun or no gun.

The final one is the sheer amount of time Hanratty spent in the car exercising his new found power. From memory he was allegedly in the vehicle with the couple for around six hours, by which time whatever dark thrill he was experiencing through holding a couple hostage must have been wearing a bit thin. At any point in the proceedings he could have turfed the couple out of the car and driven back to London to bask in his new found status as a stick- up man. I can’t see why he was supposed to be confused, uncertain, baffled by the situation he had put himself in: just tell them to get out at some quiet spot and then drive off.

Morning cobalt,

I thought maybe he'd have wanted to go further out into the countryside with his new toy and ammunition on him, so there'd be fewer people around and he could keep his distance from those who were. He would then be in control and able to pick and choose his moments for a bit of 'stick-up' practice. It might explain why nobody came forward to say they saw him, if he kept to quiet lanes and sensibly kept his head down if anyone came along. I think Herlock makes a good point about the gunman possibly watching the car and simply following it. You could ask the same questions: "What was he doing in a field?" and "why did he spend all that time in the car?" of whoever decided to take the couple for that lengthy joyride, which ended up joyless for all concerned. But if the motive was a trial run at a hold-up, and not really about obtaining quick cash on this first outing, the cornfield was a pretty safe bet, with nobody around to witness any of it apart from the couple he chose to surprise at gunpoint. I suppose it could be argued that he could have achieved the same thing without loading the gun, but psychologically it might have been important to "Jim" to know it was real, potent and loaded. Like a cowboy. A childlike mentality might not have wanted this new thrill to end, and we don't know how or when it would have ended if Gregsten had not been shot when he was. Valerie seemed to express as much surprise as shock when that happened: "What did you do that for?" or words to that effect. A little strange unless she had had the impression that the man only had the gun for show and was not intending to use it.

The thing about a loaded gun is that it is deadly but also impersonal, and can be used by someone who does not have any obvious 'violent instincts' of a physical kind, like brawling down the pub or beating up the girlfriend. Given Hanratty's lower than average mental age, I wouldn't necessarily have expected any physically violent instincts to have surfaced earlier in Hanratty's life, if at all. The point of wanting a gun to part people from their cash might even have been as much for defence as attack, so he wouldn't get the crap beaten out of him by a victim who was bigger and stronger than him. A gun would have made up for any lack of physical strength and make him the boss in any situation.

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

I haven't done anything A6-wards for ages, but do drop in on this forum occasionally. Yes, it's a vexing question as to just why JH showed up in that field when he did - and why. Before they arrived at the cornfield on Marsh Lane, Gregsten and Valerie had been parked on Huntercombe Lane near to the Pineapple pub, but I can't recall them saying why. Or even if they were actually asked why they moved. This can, I suppose, suggest that JH was watching them when they were parked on Huntercombe Lane, and followed them to the cornfield; but I don't think he did. He was, I've always believed, in the field or, more likely, in the vicinity of the field when he saw the Morris pull in and park. I can only suggest he was in the area, with gun, for the purpose of armed robbery - but robbing whom and how? Did he know that the cornfield was used by courting couples fairly regularly? I don't know. Neither do I know, because I don't recall him being asked or volunteering the information, if he was familiar with the Taplow area. He know Slough, especially around the area of the greyhound track. Was any real attempt made at the trial to established just why was in the area? According to Valerie, he said he'd been in the Oxford area and had been sleeping rough for a couple of nights; but he was, as she stated, 'immaculately dressed'. So why did he say that?

I've wondered if, after getting into the car and brandishing the gun, he was disappointed at the couple having nothing really worth pinching - not even the car - but for whatever reason he decided to 'stick around' for a while. It seems that they engaged him in conversation and that he was happy to talk - but for so long? And why, when he eventually ordered them to move, head eventually for Bedford? I've thought that perhaps he found both Valerie and Gregsten rather self-assured and cocky, and that gun or no gun they didn't seem as terrified of him as he felt they ought to be. As Cobalt asks, why didn't he simply chuck them out of the car at some point and drive off into the night?

I'm not even trying to suggest that there is more to the A6 than meets the eye; but it does seem to me that there is a whole bagful of questions that need asking and answering, and they weren't asked either during the police interrogation of JH or at his trial. I'm convinced that the killing of Gregsten was by JH and was 'accidental' and in no way premeditated, as the conspiracy-theorists who place Alphon rather than JH in the car would have it.

Graham