A6 Rebooted

[NickB]

So she noticed that he replied in the manner of: "This is my big chance to frame Hanratty!"

[Yossel]

[QUOTE=moste;n706804]

And the sighting of the Morris Minor on the A12, Cobalt?

Interesting and imaginative theory, but short on supporting evidence, I think.[/QUOTE

A12 I’ve forgotten which one that was. Are you of the opinion that one of the sightings was authentic ? In any event , a sighting wouldn’t preclude a woman driving the car .The so called sightings where a description was forthcoming are very dodgy.

I think considering Janet as a suspect by amateur armchair detectives has always been a no go issue .The top authors won’t even consider it possible, Paul Foot considered her a lovely person and I think I read that she had told him, she was having second thoughts on Hanrattys guilt in later years, all in all it sounds like they got along quite well. Being a Paul Foot fan of sorts, Cobalts scenario never crossed my mind, but, you never know.

Yes, I was referring to the idea that JG might be a suspect. It satisfies some requirements, but fails others. I really don't think it flies.

The sightings on the A12 seem authentic enough to me. Incidentally, it's a stretch of road I know very well, having lived mearby for many years.

I'm about half way through my re-read of Foot. He does a pretty good job of demolishing the case against Hanratty, but I'm not so sure his 'frame-up' theory is going to survive my more informed scrutiny.

[moste]

I have no knowledge outside the gun club I briefly frequented as a young man, but these autopsy photos seem to indicate an execution rather than a panic shooting.

And in that regard you are absolutely bang on the money. It’s difficult to understand the resistance to the fact that it’s not possible to carry out this shooting by accident. .

[moste]

[QUOTE: Yossel.
Yes, I was referring to the idea that JG might be a suspect. It satisfies some requirements, but fails others. I really don't think it flies.
This J G as a suspect has really got me thinking.... Satisfies some requirements but fails others, how do you mean?

[Yossel]

[QUOTE: Yossel.
Yes, I was referring to the idea that JG might be a suspect. It satisfies some requirements, but fails others. I really don't think it flies.
This J G as a suspect has really got me thinking.... Satisfies some requirements but fails others, how do you mean?

Well, she has a motive, for a start, and she knew the victims. That ticks two of the most important boxes in most criminal investigations. Then there is the absence of forensic information in the car. If the police were assuming they were looking fpr a man, anything linking to Mrs G would have been ignored. In any case, she may well have been in the car before the night of the crime. She might also have had a good deal to say to her husband and his lover, which would explain why the three of them went on such a long meandering car journey until the small hours of the morning.

How am I doing so far?

Thet trouble is that theory starts to fall apart when you ask some common sense questions. Where did she get the gun? How did she learn to use it? Why did she drive down to Redbridge and how did she rerturn unnoticed? Who looked after the kids while she was away?

One could go on, but I think I'm ready to file this one in the round drawer.

And since you ask....I have just finished Foot's section on the Rhyl Alibi. It's a pity JH didn't put this forward from the outset. There was an abundance of evidence. He would surely have got off, although in truth he would surely have been done for housebreaking immediately after the trial.

And finally....has anybody read Jean Justice's book that was published in France? I can just about read French well enough to make it worth obtaining a copy, if it is of sufficient interest. My wife is bi-lingual anyway so she will help. (And she's become interested in this case too.) Does anyone here recommend it?

[moste]

Hanratty stole a Jaguar in London, Cobalt, in early October and then drove it, without any problems, over 200 miles to Manchester. A feat the clueless A6 gunman would have had enormous difficulty in accomplishing.

Yes S H the whole driving tuition by Storie in the lay by, for some apparent non driver ,obviously wasn’t Hanratty. Janet had spent many hours in the passenger seat with her husband. Was she a driver? Did she understand the concept but hadn’t driven before? Could she have coaxed enough out of Storie before shooting her, in order for her to make her get away?

[moste]

Hi Yossel, From your post:’The trouble is that theory starts to fall apart when you ask some common sense questions. Where did she get the gun? How did she learn to use it? Why did she drive down to Redbridge and how did she rerturn unnoticed? Who looked after the kids while she was away?’
Mr. Ewer owned and operated a Junk shop as you know, he has been suspected due to his business connection with Ms. Anderson, as a receiver of stolen goods. This takes care of where the gun came from ,and by association how she learned to use it . In fact if the weapon was actually lets say a .32 automatic Beretta (and the shell cases in the bedroom of the Vienna and the stuff under the seat of the bus, were as I suspect, ‘a farcical plant) then it would be almost as easy to learn how to use as a Zippo cigarette lighter.
Why she left the car in Redbridge and how she avoided being noticed, well, the same question could be asked for whom ever the perp was.
Where the children were is a good question. However, my memory of reading of the friendship between Janet ,and Roy and Jean
Catton who were neighbours may provide the answer , there was a very agreeable arrangement set up between the two mothers ,where Janet would look after Jeans children along with her own at their home in Abbott’s Langley, and Jean would go out to work and share her wage with her friend ,(according to Woffinden they were quite poor financially but quite close friends.) I believe we’re still on track with this line of enquiry.
N B. I haven'’t mentioned in the past ( because I believe Hanratty to have been innocent) but the burglary of reasonably wealthy homes in any leafy suburb within 20 years of the second war, may quite likely provide the intruder with not only a possible expensive oil painting ,but also a small arms pistol / revolver from a bedside table . There were thousands not handed back in after the war.

[cobalt]

I read Paul Foot’'s book many years ago, but the detail that stayed with me over the years before I stumbled on this site, the one that seemed to point to Hanratty'’s innocence, actually came from testimony by Valerie Storie. She said that the killer asked to be shown how to work the gears of the car, and that the killer then drove off crashing the gears. Now a person who has committed such a horrific crime might be disorientated and could well crash the gears and even stall an unfamiliar car; but he would not need to be shown how to change the gears unless he was a novice. For me, this has always pointed away from Hanratty.

I am aware of the irony here. I have spent a few days suggesting we need to question the testimony of Valerie Storie and here I am now taking her words as gospel. But how else can we take them? It is such a specific detail, and such an unexpected one, that it is inconceivable she could have made it up. She had no need to invent evidence which fitted in with other witnesses, for at the time of the crime there were none. Any reasonable person can only assume that she was telling the truth and the killer was not close to being a competent driver. (I am assuming this detail provided by Ms. Storie came before the careless driving statements near Redbridge underground,)

This means the killer, who put two very accurate shots through Michael Gregsten in the style of an assassin, was also apparently the person who missed the sitting target of Valerie Storie with a number of shots. It also indicates the killer, for all (s)he was armed and had some spare ammunition (maybe not the whole shebang found later on the bus) did not initially have the intent to murder and had no clear means of escaping the scene once (s)he had. It is a very difficult circle to square.

[Yossel]

Hi Moste

Sorry, but I don't think the same question about the car could be asked of any perpetrator. If she lived in Abbots Langley, why would she drive to Redbridge and dump the car there? Anyway I really don't think the JG theory gets very far. There's just no evidence to support it, so it just takes its place amongst the many interesting but unsubstantiated theories.

I take your point about the gun though. My Dad brought one back from the War and ....erm.....he kept it by the bed! It was nevertheless not usual for London hoods to go around carrying guns, and your more regular felons tended to steer clear of those that did. The Police drew a big line too when it came to arms. They could be reasonably tolerant of the low-life they spent their time chasing, but anyone known to carry a gun was definitely beyond the pale.

[Yossel]

Hi Cobalt

My re-read of Foot is confirming my long-held view that Hanratty is very unlikely to have been the murderer. You can't quite prove he wasn't but the chances are remote. As a betting man, I like to put percentages on these things if I can and if you disregard the DNA testing results I'd say the likelihood that JH did it was 10% at most. You might say that Foot leads one that way and that other sources might make me think differently, but the case he put together on JH's behalf has never unravelled; in fact it strengthened over the years, until the DNA tests of course. Naturally there will be some for whom that testing is definitive, but I was a little sceptical because of the time lapse since the crime and the possibility that evidence had been contaminated, if not deliberately falsified.

I took the opportunity to discuss the DNA findings recently with an old friend who has now retired from a long and distinguished career with the Police. He had no special interest interest in the A6 case, although naturally he had heard of it. His immediate and unprompted reaction to the DNA results was that he wouldn't be happy relying on them because of the time lapse and the huge changes that have taken place since in the handling of evidence generally, particularly in relation to forensics. It would be wrong to disregard the results entirely, but he would play it down unless it was strongly supported by other sources. In view of his assessment, I'd be prepared to uplift my estimate of whether JH did it to perhaps a 20% probability, but no more.

You don't have to take VS's words as gospel to conclude she was an essentially honest witness - a little dull and unimaginative perhaps but not one likely to commit perjury. If she misled, it would most likely have been in the detail, quite possibly under the influence of others. You take her words in context and in the light of the known facts for which there is evidence. There is no evidence that her assailant was a woman, and if it was, VS was a liar of monumental proportions - and a good one at that because the lie survived all scrutiny. I think she wasn't above gilding the lily a bit in places, but all the evidence supports the broad outline of her account before the Court and almost certainly for the reason that on the whole it was true and based upon her shocking experiences.

I don't see evidence of assassination myself. VS's account seems wholly plausible and consistent with the demonstrable facts. I do think the killer was a most unlikely and incompetent hit-man, which leads me to suspect there was never any intention to murder. I have just finished the Alphon section of the book. My goodness he was weird! I'll write more about that anon (bet you can't wait) but meanwhile I'll leave you with some thoughts that have been gathering in my mind recently.

It is not so much a question for me now as to whether Hanratty did it as why the authorities went to such lengths to try and convict him, and suppress the subsequent appeals. Nobody expects the police or the legal system to be perfect. Mistakes will always be made, and the best we can do sometimes is learn the lessons. I think the A6 case did cause some to be learned. I was twelve when Gregston was killed. Our Police Force now is in my opinion immeasurably superior to what it was then. It is infinitely more open to question and scrutiny with the conseqence that the public rightly holds it in far higher esteem than it did when I was a lad. We have also abolished hanging, which helps a bit. So if you want a reason to be cheerful, you can maybe say that Hanratty and others like him did not die wholly in vain. But why were the authorities so keen to get him, and why the cover-ups?

None of the characters in the case strike me as 'big-wigs'. At the classier end, you have the Gregstons and maybe Ewer, but none of these were wealthy, or in sensitive or powerful positions. They are the sort of people who, if they had got in the way of somebody sinister or powerful, could have been dealt with by easier means. At the seedier end, there were various forms of pond life, some so pathetic that it remains hard to take anything they said seriously. If the Plod made mistakes during the investigation, why could they not simply have been admitted and repaired as far as possible? Was Acott's career so important? Was the Force's reputation so fragile it had to be defended at all costs, and its mistakes swept under the carpet?

And why were the Politicos so shy about upholding the rights and interests of those seeking a review of what was plainly a contentious case? OK, Henry Brooke was a notorious Home Secretary, but Roy Jenkins was famous for his liberalism and Joan Lestor was a feisty and honorable MP who was unlikely to have been easily warned off for getting too close to a touchy subject. Why the sensitivity?

Let's come back to that.

[Sherlock Houses]

This means the killer, who put two very accurate shots through Michael Gregsten in the style of an assassin, was also apparently the person who missed the sitting target of Valerie Storie with a number of shots. It also indicates the killer, for all (s)he was armed and had some spare ammunition (maybe not the whole shebang found later on the bus) did not initially have the intent to murder and had no clear means of escaping the scene once (s)he had. It is a very difficult circle to square.

It is also well worth noting Cobalt that the gunman, during the dead of night with no lighting to assist him, was able to fire a volley of 4 or 5 very accurate shots at Storie which were grouped close together all in a line. Quite a feat under very dark conditions with an alleged .38 revolver [which has plenty of kick] when you seriously think about it. Did this accurate shooter deliberately miss his target with the remaining shots ?

This is what Professor Keith Simpson had to say about Storie's wounds it in his 1978 autobiography....

On the following Sunday I went across from my Tring house to Bedford Hospital to examine Valerie Storie. She had similar calibre through and through wounds, one of the neck and four drilled-in holes in over her left shoulder and down over her arm. I thought probably all five shots, which were in a line, had been fired in quick succession and from beyond arm's range"

[cobalt]

Joan Lestor was certainly a feisty MP but since her constituency was the Slough area in which the victims lived, presumably felt another MP should take up the case on behalf of Hanratty. The cover up after the execution is easily explicable since UK justice, like most others I imagine, will defend the indefensible up to the point where doing so undermines the credibility of the system more than an admission of error.

The more interesting question is why the police eventually focused on Hanratty to the exclusion of other lines of enquiry at the time. Were they covering up some political scandal? Almost certainly not. The two most suspicious deaths which some have claimed as political murders by the State- Doctors Stephen Ward (1963) and David Kelly (2003)- did not involve shooting, had no other victim present, and were capable of being officially recorded as suicides, albeit men driven to take their lives.

Was there industrial espionage linked to knowledge Gregsten had picked up at his work? Again, almost certainly not. The alleged ‘Marconi Murders’ (1982-1990) which involved 25 UK scientists working on defence projects are curious, but do not involve shooting, collateral damage to others and can once again be classed as suicides. Well, just about.

The most likely explanation behind the A6 Case for me rests with the personal relationships involved. That does not mean to say we should take at face value the official version that there were no persons capable of wielding influence and encouraging the police to avoid pursuing certain lines of enquiry. You may recall that chief weapons inspector Dr. David Kelly was briefly described as some minor civil servant at the time of his ordeal although that preposterous claim was soon abandoned.

Michael Gregsten is sometimes described as a ‘research scientist’ but I have never read exactly what his research involved, although it is undeniable that the road building programme in early 1960s UK was a very lucrative affair. Valerie Storie, given her age, cannot have been involved in very high level work on her own behalf.

Peter Alphon'’s father is usually described as a ‘clerk’ working at Scotland Yard although other reports suggest he was more than that. What seems to be accepted is that Alphon senior worked in a department that oversaw what were called ‘aliens’ at the time and as such he would have been aware of the many undesirables such as ex-Nazis and the odd KGB defector who were granted residency for political reasons, especially since the Berlin Wall was being constructed at the time of the A6 Case. Alphon himself apparently attended some Fascist type meetings, groups which in the UK have always contained members of the aristocracy along with the inevitable MI5 informers.

William Ewer of course is the greatest enigma of all, a man who by his own disputed account was able to summon detectives to Swiss Cottage to pursue their investigations into a man called Ryan- this before the police officially knew who Ryan was. As a left wing journalist, Paul Foot would certainly have been able to establish whether Ewer was related to the prominent pro-Soviet journalist and suspected spy William N. Ewer, the one who was granted an audience with Hitler and later wrote anti-Stalinist articles in The Daily Worker. He does not make this link so most likely there is none, although William N. Ewer was born in Hertfordshire; then again maybe old Footie had some fellow feeling for a one time champion of the proletariat.

[Yossel]

Lovely post, Cobalt! I'll answer at greater length later. For the moment I'll just mention that I knew someone who worked at Marconi in that period and he had no difficulty at all believing that the 'murders' were in fact murders, for the most part at least.

Atb

Yoss.

[moste]

Quote. :Peter Alphon'’s father is usually described as a ‘clerk’ working at Scotland Yard although other reports suggest he was more than that. What seems to be accepted is that Alphon senior worked in a department that oversaw what were called ‘aliens’ at the time and as such he would have been aware of the many undesirables such as ex-Nazis and the odd KGB defector who were granted residency for political reasons, especially since the Berlin Wall was being constructed at the time of the A6 Case. Alphon himself apparently attended some Fascist type meetings, groups which in the UK have always contained members of the aristocracy along with the inevitable MI5 informers....
Hi Cobalt This is the first I have heard of any information re Alphon senior , other than his roll as a clerk at Scotland Yard. Could this mean that he may have had an eye on the Russian diplomat that was romantically involved with Christine Keeler during the Profumo affair? It’s always been fascinating to me that Storie alluded to her long walks with Mike , along the Thames watching the boats passing through the locks etc. Only a 20 minute or so stroll along the river would bring the couple to Spring Cottage and the boat house belonging to Lord Astor, on the edge of the Clivedon Estate. The cottage of course made available to Stephen Ward and his girls during the spring and summer of 1961. All kinds of permutations and possibilities come to mind with this coincidence , which I tried to excite posters imaginations with, many moons ago, but, it seems I was the only one who thought there may have been some kind of connection between the John Profumo mess, and Gregstens death.

[moste]

Hi Cobalt, I have just read your very interesting post from Feb. 2 '1918 after typing in 'Profumo 'in (search), and unless anyone can dig anything else up my theory can't be progressed . Thanks for the research you did on it all the same.