A6 Rebooted

[Alfie]

I have been following this thread for a long time now, so I know exactly who they are. The Hanratty was guilty band.

What I do not comprehend is " why " they are.

I am here because I am of the opinion that there was a grave injustice, an innocent man was framed and sent to the gallows.

Why do they spend so much time and effort trying to prove that Jim was guilty ? What do they want or expect ? Hanratty was convicted and executed for goodness sake.


I have read everything on here, several times over. I have followed your posts with interest.


Can you offer any idea ? it baffles me.

I can't presume to speak for the others, but I'm here because the A6 case raises scores of questions that us amateur detectives enjoy trying to answer.

Not to be sneezed at either is the satisfaction to be gained from correcting the many errors of fact and logic disseminated by the 'Jim-didn't-do-it' conspiracists.

Hope this helps.

[Sherlock Houses]

Not to be sneezed at either is the satisfaction to be gained from correcting the many errors of fact and logic disseminated by the 'Jim-didn't-do-it' conspiracists

LOL. Nice to see we have some clueless comedians on the forum who are forever asking things like "does anybody know whether ?..." or "has anyone heard ? ....."

[moste]

[QUOTE=George Dixon;n706591][QUOTE=moste;n705208]

Well said George, I'd forgotten she had said that . And your absolutely right regarding what would have been the most likely scenario where Ewers affections lay. As for snide remarks , take no notice, all new posters usually get it from the 'Hanratty was guilty band'.

Hi moste.

I have been following this thread for a long time now, so I know exactly who they are. The Hanratty was guilty band.

What I do not comprehend is " why " they are.

I am here because I am of the opinion that there was a grave injustice, an innocent man was framed and sent to the gallows.

Why do they spend so much time and effort trying to prove that Jim was guilty ? What do they want or expect ? Hanratty was convicted and executed for goodness sake.


I have read everything on here, several times over. I have followed your posts with interest.


Can you offer any idea ? it baffles me.

. Hi George,

I am in a fog when it comes to why people are on a forum just to more or less perpetuate an automatic gain saying ,of anything a poster has to say about Hanrattys innocence. I have occasionally read a post to my wife written by someone aggressively opposing a thought I have had regarding what may have happened in some particular circumstance, and she is bemused for the reasons you allude to.

[cobalt]

Hi George,

For my own part I am happy to engage with those who believe Hanratty was guilty, for it shows they are committed to the idea that a civilised society requires justice. They are not content with the snapshot of a jury’'s judgment, nor an appeal court verdict, but want to believe that justice has been served. To that end they are prepared to argue their case and since I want justice to be served as well, I am happy to argue mine. I respect them for that even if I do not always respect their opinions.

The A6 Case did not die in 1962, nor did the idea of justice; that is why we are still here. It is not unknown for some on here to change their mind. Spitfire, who has an exhaustive knowledge of the A6 Case, used to call stridently for the publication of the Matthews Report but has now apparently seen the error of his ways.

Yossel, who is new to the case, has stressed retaining a wider look at the case and not getting bogged down in detail. I think this is good advice. The most strenuous advocates for the prosecution prefer to concentrate on the minutia of Hanratty'’s alibi, which is a sideshow to the murder by any definition and an attempt to prove a negative in any case. They are less comfortable when dealing with the shortage of evidence against Hanratty in Taplow, which would involve proving a positive.

After 57 years the salient problems with Hanratty'’s conviction have not been addressed, unless one takes the DNA evidence as holy writ. First of all, there is no evidence offered as to how he ever came to be in a remote cornfield in Taplow late that evening. No taxi driver, no motorist picking up a hitch-hiker, no cyclist seeing a walker on a country road, no railway porter: nothing.
Secondly, there was no reasonable motive for the crime. The proposed one- that Hanratty wanted to test out his powers as a stick-up man- could have been achieved in the cornfield within five minutes with the advantage of transport back to London. There was clearly something more involved in the crime than mere ego or monetary gain.
Thirdly, no forensic evidence was found at the time to link Hanratty to either the car or the victims, a gaping hole in the prosecution case which has retrospectively been 'explained' by lack of DNA analysis at the time: this is incorrect, for fibre matching had been part of UK forensics for at least 30 years before the crime, fingerprinting for twice as long. The handkerchief which survived and Ms. Storie’'s underwear were provided to fill this alarming gap after 40 years with some success, but not total success for some of us.

To question Valerie Storie'’s testimony has always been a delicate area since she was lucky to escape with her life from the events of 22^nd August 1961 and she showed great fortitude thereafter. However anyone who doubts the prosecution case has at some point to confront her testimony and question her version of the conversation and events from the time of the ‘pick-up’ as she initially described it, to the shooting in the lay by.

[Alfie]

LOL. Nice to see we have some clueless comedians on the forum who are forever asking things like "does anybody know whether ?..." or "has anyone heard ? ....."

They can be a bit touchy, the 'Jim-didn't-do-it' crowd, when posters ask questions they haven't got the answers to.

[Yossel]

Thanks Cobalt. There are two points in your post that I would like to comment on.

The first concerns the lack of forensic evidence at the time. This is not a neutral factor. It strongly aids the defence, or should have done at the time of the trial. Forensics was a well-developed science even then. You would have thought it extremely unlikely that the someone could spend six hours in the confines of a Morris Minor, shoot the driver and rape the passenger without leaving some traceable fibres, skin fragments or other personal traces. Their absence is far from neutral. On the contrary, they strongly suggest Hanratty was not in the car. If not Hanratty, who then? Was any check made against Alphon, or anybody else? Or are we to believe that the only traces found related to innocent occupants?

The second is more delicate because of the discomfort involved in questioning the testimony of one who suffered as Valerie Storie did. It would nevertheless be dishonest of me to pretend I find her a wholly satisfactory witness. This is a new view for me. When I first became acquainted with the case I rather took her words at face value. On a re-reading, and after acquainting myself with her various testimonies and post-trial interviews, I can only say I find her strangely unappealing. If I went into the reasons, this would be a very long post and I expect I would just be repeating points long since made by others. All I would add is that my wife, who has a more intuitive disposition than me, commented forcibly upon seeing her interview and reading her trial testimony that VS was oddly lacking in passion and empathy. She didn't appear to feel sorry for herself, which shows admirable stoicisim. But she didn't seem to show much sympathy for others either. Her lover died. Where was her passion for him? Mrs Gregston had to bring up three children without their father, partly as a consequence of Storie's affair. Where was the sympathy for them? That affair was no small matter. It wouldn't be nowadays but more so at the time. She was very young to be knocking about with a married man with kids. Where's the remorse?

Some of her reported remarks are curious too. I forget the exact words, but she said to the killer something to the effect of 'Why did you have to shoot him, you bastard?' It is almost as if she knew him, or at least knew why he was in the car threatening them with a gun. Then there's her reaction upon picking out someone other than Alphon in the first identity parade. She appears to have been distraught that she picked out 'the wrong man'. Why? All she was asked to do was see if she could pick out the killer. She couldn't. That was hardly surprising considering he had his face covered throughout the ordeal. Why would she be so upset? One would expect a certain disappointment that her assailant either was not in the line-up, or her powers of recall were understandably insufficient. But why distraught? It is almost as if she felt she had let the police down.

If I could turn the clock back, Miss Storie is one of the witnesses I would like to hear much more from. Ewer is another, but both have shuffled off their mortal coils now so there's no point in wishing. Perhaps when the Yard's papers are revealed to the public we will learn more, but by then I will have shuffled of mine too.

The Hanratty case is a puzzle which I suspect will never be solved.

Yossel.

[Spitfire]

As I said above it is a case of ABH and once one discounts all the evidence which points to Hanratty then anything is possible, plastic suit with rubber buttons theory anyone?

[Sherlock Houses]

Hanratty was more of a drifter in the sense that he burgled in London, Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool

Sorry Cobalt but I am totally unaware of any burglaries committed by Hanratty in those highlighted cities, perhaps I've overlooked something all these years.

[Sherlock Houses]

As I said above it is a case of ABH and once one discounts all the evidence which points to Hanratty then anything is possible, plastic suit with rubber buttons theory anyone?

Methinks you've done the plastic and rubber scenario to death, it's high time to move on if you can. In the words of Vic Reeves [to Bob Mortimer] "you just wouldn't let it lie."

[Sherlock Houses]

They can be a bit touchy, the 'Jim-didn't-do-it' crowd, when posters ask questions they haven't got the answers to.

Some questions of you establishmentarians border on the ridiculous and are thus unanswerable. There will always be tons more questions than answers in any sphere of life. Why for instance did Valerie Storie pick out a dark-eyed, heavily built man with short cropped hair [the complete opposite to Hanratty] in the first ID parade when according to her the gunman had icy-blue, saucer like eyes and greased back hair ???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDTvLldOgZs

[Spitfire]

Hanratty at trial, when asked by Sherrard why, when he phoned Acott on October 6, he lied about being in Liverpool on the night of the murder:

"On the first occasion when I rang Superintendent Acott he was thoroughly interested to know my whereabouts on the 22^nd and 23^rd of August. I was a little bit confused myself with seeing my name in the papers knowing that my mother and father and brother were looking for me. I knew in myself that I did not commit this crime so I tried to help in every way I could to help Superintendent Acott when he asked me where I was on the 22^nd and 23^rd of August. At that stage I knew that I was only wanted for interviewing, not for the actual A6 murder charge which I eventually found out later or the truth would have been told straight away." [Italics mine]

Dixie France at trial: "France said that Hanratty phoned him on October 5, saying: 'Dixie, Dixie, I am wanted for the A6 murder.'"

None of the reports of the trial that I've read have Swanwick challenging Hanratty on this discrepancy. Anyone know if he did?

Hi Alfie,

I cannot believe that Hanratty was not challenged by Swanwick on this aspect of his defence. Like you, I cannot find anything in the press reports covering the trial which confirms this, however Hanratty was in the witness box and cross-examined for over one day, so any press report would only contain a fraction of the detail into which Swanwick would have delved.

Hanratty's reason for not telling the truth to Acott does not stack up. It was just another Hanratty lie, one of many, which led the jury to convict.

[Spitfire]

Some questions of you establishmentarians border on the ridiculous and are thus unanswerable. There will always be tons more questions than answers in any sphere of life. Why for instance did Valerie Storie pick out a dark-eyed, heavily built man with short cropped hair [the complete opposite to Hanratty] in the first ID parade when according to her the gunman had icy-blue, saucer like eyes and greased back hair ???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDTvLldOgZs

But then again it was open to the Defence to bring Michael Clark, the person VS had misidentified, into court to prove the point. The Defence did not, why?

The jury heard all the evidence on identification. It was not kept from them that VS had made a false positive identification. The jury concluded that Hanratty was lying as to his whereabouts, and that more than anything sank Hanratty's case.

[Spitfire]

Methinks you've done the plastic and rubber scenario to death, it's high time to move on if you can. In the words of Vic Reeves [to Bob Mortimer] "you just wouldn't let it lie."

In some minds the plastic suit theory with rubber buttons theory is active, so we should be open minded as to all theories.

[Spitfire]

This was part of the front page of the Mirror 7 Oct 1961

[NickB]

Hanratty's reason for not telling the truth to Acott does not stack up.

Indeed. His call to the Daily Mirror on the same day (which you have posted above) was all about him being wanted for the murder.

As mentioned recently, another reason he gave for not mentioning Rhyl also does not make sense: that Acott was asking him questions so quickly. In almost the next breath he said 'It was him doing the pausing not me.' In this case Swanwick immediately pointed out the contradiction: 'I thought you said the questions were coming so quickly?'

It was just another Hanratty lie, one of many, which led the jury to convict.

And far from being a minor detail, this goes to the heart of the matter ...

If he really was in Rhyl, why had he not mentioned it to anyone before? He could not provide a satisfactory answer and so resorted to lying about that too.