A6 Rebooted

[Alfie]

The cartridge case evidence from the Vienna Hotel is probably the most confusing part of the case. It screams "plant!", but why would anyone be planting evidence to incriminate the completely unknown (at that stage) Hanratty? The only explanation I can come up with is that the cartridges weren't planted.

Ever draped your trousers over the back of a chair and next morning found the coins you left in a pocket on the chair's seat?

[Alfie]

I’ve just started reading Paul Foot’s book which arrived today after the ‘disappearance’ of the one that I’d previously ordered. Your discussing the minutiae so apologies for the amateur hour question but...

The location of the ‘hold up’ just seems so strange to me. The location doesn’t appear to be a route that someone might have been taking to get to somewhere (I could be wrong on that of course) and so I have to assume that our gunman was there for a reason? As a non-local it’s surely unlikely that Hanratty would have known that it was a ‘lovers lane’ and even if he’d found this out somehow he wouldn’t have simply stood around on the off chance of a car turning up (in the dark.) Is it feasible that he could have been at some nearby location when he saw the car enter and decided to follow it? I’m unsure of the distances involved here or was the location just too ‘out of the way?’

There maybe nothing significant in the location but it’s just something that nags at me. Why would Hanratty have been there at that time of night? It doesn’t appear to me as a kind of spur-of-the-moment ‘‘oh there’s a car I’ll go and hold them up’’ type situation.

According to Roy Langdale's statement to the police, Hanratty told him: "I wasn’t thumbing a lift at all. I was coming across a field when I saw the car standing still just off the road a little way."

Langdale may or may not be a reliable source, but it's a fact that the Thames with its towpath runs alongside the far side of the field in which Gregsten parked, and that downtown Maidstone is less than half a mile distant along that path. If some criminally-minded associate in Maidenhead (the scene of Hanratty's aborted stick-up?) directed a burglar to the rich pickings of Dorney, that field would lie pretty well directly on his route.

Pure speculation of course, but it makes more sense to me than thinking a city boy like Hanratty might be wandering aimlessly around Taplow's country lanes and just happen on the Morris. And imo it's a much more believable scenario than the conspiracy theory that entails him knowing where the courting couple he was to frighten would park.

[NickB]

Swanwick: "It is quite a wealthy area around Taplow."

Hanratty: "I don't know because I have never been to Taplow"

Swanwick: "Were you not there on the evening of the 22nd?"

Hanratty: "Sir, I was not."

Swanwick: "Seeing, I suggest, if you could find a house to break into or some opportunity to start your career as a stick-up man, that is what I suggest?"

Hanratty: "Well I suggest you are wrong, sir."

The prosecution was basing this line of questioning on Langdale's account that Jim came upon the car and "thought he would try out the effect of the gun". But of course if that conversation had taken place he was unlikely to admit that he had shrunk from carrying out his original plan to go for 'cash' which, I agree, is a more likely scenario. There may have been an accomplice for the stick-up in Maidenhead who was to provide the get away and (as Spitfire suggested in a different context) for some reason abandoned Jim. In a previous discussion it was argued that he had an accomplice for the Jaguar journey up north, which would have explained why it did not reach Liverpool and why the Salford beer was found in the boot.

When I first came upon this case the location appeared to be surprising, but I did not think it more surprising that Hanratty would have been there than anyone else.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It would be interesting to visit the site just to get a sense of what the area was like as there doesn’t appear to be photographic evidence.

Thanks for the posts Alfie and NickB. Perhaps I’m overplaying the ‘strangeness’ of the circumstances? It just ‘feels’ like the killer was there intentionally to commit a crime.

How reliable/believable do you all consider Langdale to have been?

[Alfie]

How reliable/believable do you all consider Langdale to have been?

Difficult to say. He was a crook and could have been a police plant - he appeared to get off lightly for the crime for which he was being held on remand in Brixton. And he was dishonest - he claimed not have been motivated by selling his story to the press when he did precisely that, and also claimed to have been best pals with Hanratty and to have been virtually the only one to have exercised with him, whereas the defence produced two witnesses to say he was barely acquainted with Jim.

On the other hand, there were details of the crime that weren't made public until the first day of the committal hearings in Ampthill and Langdale, who had no opportunity of hearing of them according to his guard, Eatwell, was able that same day to expound on some of them to a fellow prisoner while being bused back from a court hearing in London.

Lewis Hawser discussed the issue in his report:

"Mr Langdale had a lot of conversation with the other prisoner in the coach and the gist of the conversation was this: Mr Hanratty had told Mr Langdale that he had shot the man and raped the girl whilst the dead man was still in the car, in the front. After raping the girl he had made her drag the dead man out of the front of the car on to the grass and lie down beside him. Mr Hanratty then shot the girl. Mr Langdale said: ‘He must be mad as his sole conversation is sex’. This is substantially the same as Miss Storie’s account save that she said she was sitting beside Mr Gregsten when she was shot. ...

Mr Langdale seems to have had a rather remarkable knowledge of the details of the crime and it is not easy to see how he could have acquired them by the evening of 22^nd November 1961. I have read reports in the Evening Standard and Evening News of 22^nd November ... Both newspapers very fully reported the opening of the case by the Prosecution though both said specifically that Miss Storie was sitting when the first shots were fired at her and that the man had to help her get Mr Gregsten out of the car. It seems to me unlikely that Mr Langdale would have got these two important details wrong if he had read a report in the newspaper on that day and then invented the story that he told the fellow prisoner in the coach on the way back to prison. The differences are more likely to be due to faulty recollection by him of something told to him some time previously or perhaps faulty recollection on the part of the person who gave him the details. I would not be prepared to regard Mr Langdale’s evidence as in any way conclusive but I do not think it can be totally ignored. I think it is entitled to some weight as part of the total picture."

[Herlock Sholmes]

Difficult to say. He was a crook and could have been a police plant - he appeared to get off lightly for the crime for which he was being held on remand in Brixton. And he was dishonest - he claimed not have been motivated by selling his story to the press when he did precisely that, and also claimed to have been best pals with Hanratty and to have been virtually the only one to have exercised with him, whereas the defence produced two witnesses to say he was barely acquainted with Jim.

On the other hand, there were details of the crime that weren't made public until the first day of the committal hearings in Ampthill and Langdale, who had no opportunity of hearing of them according to his guard, Eatwell, was able that same day to expound on some of them to a fellow prisoner while being bused back from a court hearing in London.

Lewis Hawser discussed the issue in his report:

"Mr Langdale had a lot of conversation with the other prisoner in the coach and the gist of the conversation was this: Mr Hanratty had told Mr Langdale that he had shot the man and raped the girl whilst the dead man was still in the car, in the front. After raping the girl he had made her drag the dead man out of the front of the car on to the grass and lie down beside him. Mr Hanratty then shot the girl. Mr Langdale said: ‘He must be mad as his sole conversation is sex’. This is substantially the same as Miss Storie’s account save that she said she was sitting beside Mr Gregsten when she was shot. ...

Mr Langdale seems to have had a rather remarkable knowledge of the details of the crime and it is not easy to see how he could have acquired them by the evening of 22^nd November 1961. I have read reports in the Evening Standard and Evening News of 22^nd November ... Both newspapers very fully reported the opening of the case by the Prosecution though both said specifically that Miss Storie was sitting when the first shots were fired at her and that the man had to help her get Mr Gregsten out of the car. It seems to me unlikely that Mr Langdale would have got these two important details wrong if he had read a report in the newspaper on that day and then invented the story that he told the fellow prisoner in the coach on the way back to prison. The differences are more likely to be due to faulty recollection by him of something told to him some time previously or perhaps faulty recollection on the part of the person who gave him the details. I would not be prepared to regard Mr Langdale’s evidence as in any way conclusive but I do not think it can be totally ignored. I think it is entitled to some weight as part of the total picture."

I made a post a few weeks ago wondering how likely it would have been for Hanratty to have admitted the crime. I can perhaps understand if it was just a gun crime as some criminals might think that they would get a measure of kudos for being ‘a man to fear,’ but I find it a little difficult to believe that someone would admit to a rape. Hanratty would have known well how a rapist would get treated in prison by other prisoners. I’m not saying that it couldn’t happen but i have to say that I’m a little dubious. And to add to that we have the fact that a prisoner would be seeking to benefit from his scoop which would serve as an encouragement to lie.

Could corruption have occurred with the police filling in the details?

[NickB]

Hanratty would have known well how a rapist would get treated in prison by other prisoners

For what its worth (probably not much) there is also the hearsay evidence of John McVicar who told Dick Taverne that he used to boast about it in prison.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ghSuAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT111

[Herlock Sholmes]

For what its worth (probably not much) there is also the hearsay evidence of John McVicar who told Dick Taverne that he used to boast about it in prison.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ghSuAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT111

Thanks for that Nick. It’s certainly interesting. Of course Hanratty wasn’t the ‘sharpest tool’ was he. It’s a difficult one to assess as it’s natural to question the truthfulness of someone hoping to gain from the info.

[NickB]

I believe the judge warned the jurors to be wary of his evidence for that reason, and I doubt it was a major consideration in their deliberations.

[Spitfire]

Langdale would only have to find out from Hanratty what the evidence was against him and the details of the crime. Langdale could then add his own admission of guilt from Hanratty. I cannot believe Hanratty would admit his crimes of the 22/23 August 1961 to anyone.

[Graham]

In 2001 The Guardian published a letter from a reporter who said he'd interviewed a Mr Needham, an RAF corporal at RAF Halton who claimed to have been involved in Hanratty's second ID parade. Mr Needham, it was stated, told the reporter that Hanratty during a 'chat' told him that 'they know I did it, and I did do it, but they can't prove it'. Unfortunately, no ID parade was ever held at Halton. It was pure invention, for reasons I am unable to fathom. As far as this, and Langdale's story, I agree with Spitfire that Hanratty was hardly likely to admit guilt to anyone.

Graham

[cobalt]

Langdale’'s statememt comes from the lowest form of the evidential food chain- the ‘cellmate confession.’ This debasement of truth should probably be outlawed inside the judicial system. It is always an indicator that the prosecution have an extremely weak case. Langdale’'s evidence is entirely worthless despite the best efforts of the notorious, faux socialist Hawser. MacVicar was an honest as a felon can be, and Taverne was a political turncoat who aided the advent of Thatcherism.

One problem with the A6 Case is the very poor quality of evidence. This applies to the failed forensic evidence from the car itself and the clothing of the victims. An upcoming book by forensic scientist Angela Gallop- ‘'When the Dogs Don’t Bark'’- focuses on how forensic evidence is tailored in trials, although she was not involved in the A6 Case and does not refer to it in her book. Even in the 1960s, before DNA, forensic evidence should have formed the backbone of the A6 Case. Fibre transfer, hair follicles, the provenance of the murder weapon, fingerprints on discarded cartridge casings, that sort of thing. It didn’t, therefore we have a host of unreliable witnesses to fill in the evidential gap.

John Kerr, the earnest census taker, stands apart. In his earnest enthusiasm he managed to get Valerie Storie’'s name wrong but no one could doubt his honesty. The same for Edwin Cooke, a man consigned to cleaning buses for a living, but who speaks better to camera than many a modern day media correspondent. And poor Grace Jones, a landlady from Rhyl, who thought it was her honest duty to report what she believed in court but had not the paperwork to prove it.
Cooke was let off light since his evidence suited the prosecution. Kerr, as a reward for his honest endeavours, had his statement forged. Mrs. Jones was accused of trying to drum up business for a small hotel which was already overflowing; besides which, her evidence was intended to clear Hanratty in which event her small hotel would have lost the very cachet what was being alleged in court. The judge, who should have arraigned the prosecution for this calumny, did nothing. She was only a landlady after all.

As for the rest? A rogues'’ gallery. The best might be Valerie Storie but she was engaged in an extra marital affair and more damningly hid this salient fact at the trial. She led a good life thereafter. It gets worse from then on. The police were playing fast and loose by any rules, whilst self confessed liars such as Alphon and Ewer' were given a free ride. For example, when Hanratty said he wanted to be a ‘stick up’ man to a confederate in a bar this is taken as holy writ: when Alphon later claimed he was the actual A6 killer to an audience in Paris his testimony is ignored of that of a fantasist. Hanratty himself was a liar by trade, as was his ‘fence’ Anderson who gave testimony against him at the trial. Ewer may have been little different on a grander scale, for he was certainly more than an umbrella salesman. MI5 more like, but we do not know his contribution during the war so I am not supposed to say this. Then we reach the zenith of lying as perpetrated by probably Dixie French, almost certainly Langdale, and self-confessedly by the ludicrous Nudds.

Most of the A6 trial was one set of lies set against another. Hanratty added to this confusion when he changed his alibi. Little wonder the jury asked what the meaning of '‘beyond reasonable doubt’' meant. What they did not know when they passed judgment was the biggest lie, or concealment of all: that Valerie Storie was having an affair with Michael Gregsten and that William Ewer, a man who inexplicably did not feature in the police investigation, had amorous intentions towards Mrs. Gregsten.

[cobalt]

Apologies. I should have said 'Dixie France' of course.

[moste]

Bravo. Good post.

[Alfie]

And poor Grace Jones, a landlady from Rhyl, who thought it was her honest duty to report what she believed in court but had not the paperwork to prove it.
... Mrs. Jones was accused of trying to drum up business for a small hotel which was already overflowing; besides which, her evidence was intended to clear Hanratty in which event her small hotel would have lost the very cachet what was being alleged in court. The judge, who should have arraigned the prosecution for this calumny, did nothing. She was only a landlady after all.

Is this the Mrs Jones that put a double bed in a bathroom, didn't bother to ask all guests to sign the register, and lied to the court about what she and Terry Evans talked about? That Mrs Jones?

The trial took place during the winter, btw. I don't think Ingledene would have been overflowing with guests.