A6 Rebooted

[moste]

Mmmh! For me it all points powerfully toward the big frame up which I have always advocated.

Good research ,S H.( It’s interesting that the ‘People’ paper mistakenly refer to Acott as Robert, instead of Basil or Bob, I’ve noticed that mistake being made before, you would think McCafferty would have picked up on that, unless Acott was happy with Robert also.

[Sherlock Houses]

I still can't help feeling that there's something fishy about the whole ballistics evidence in this case, Moste.

[moste]

I still can't help feeling that there's something fishy about the whole ballistics evidence in this case, Moste.

Yeah, like Simpsons .32 calibre conundrum. And now I’ve read McCaffertys evidence .What murderous gunman springs a full chamber of used cartridges onto the floor by the dead bodies, I learned in my teens that the firing pin leaves a mark akin to a fingerprint on the back of the spent shell. And I’m a good guy. Yes the ballistic thing, its almost like someone was leading the law by the nose , until they had them stumble into Hanratty.

[NickB]

Yes, if someone else did it they also framed Hanratty. Yet the 'framing' aspect of it has not been explored much by those who believe in his innocence. Why he should be framed is just as mysterious as why he should be in the cornfield.

[Alfie]

It's hard to imagine a professional killer discarding the cartridge cases, but a novice gunman like Hanratty - much more likely.

[Graham]

Yet the 'framing' aspect of it has not been explored much by those who believe in his innocence.

Simply because there is not a single shred of hard evidence that he was framed.

Graham

[cobalt]

Can we now confirm that there is no ballistic evidence to match the bullets found at the scene, and presumably from Ms. Storie, with the gun found under the back seat of the bus?

That is to say, that the link has been made solely through the discarded cartridge cases?

[cobalt]

Graham,

The cartridge cases in the Vienna Hotel are very suspicious, although you might argue that if they were indeed planted then they were intended to ‘frame’ Alphon rather than Hanratty.

As it stands, we are asked to believe that Jim Hanratty acquired a revolver and undertook practice shooting. No location has ever been offered, from Hampstead Heath to a disused warehouse or a railway siding, but wherever he did this he rather carelessly did not eject the cartridges. Had he done so, they would in all likelihood never have been found.

Instead he reloaded the gun with a full six chambers in the Vienna Hotel, accidentally dropping two of the spent cartridge cases down the back of a chair. We have no idea how many practice shots he took, but you would imagine that he himself would have known and taken care to remove all the cartridges from the scene. Why did he forget about two of them? Where did the rest go? I am assuming there must have been other spent cartridges since no one could be so careless as just leave these two at the scene of re-loading.

This carelessness in ejecting cartridge cases is not a feature of the A6 murder. The killer, unlike during his practice session, clears the chambers before re-loading his final sally at poor Ms. Storie. Whether he does this through panic or cold blooded psychopathy is a matter for your armchair expert.

[Graham]

Speculation, and more speculation. So I'll have a go. Let's say that Hanratty - and no other - received the gun shortly before he checked in at The Vienna. Let's say that he eagerly examined it in his room, and found that the previous owner hadn't removed the spent cartridges from the cylinder; so Hanratty did so to enable him to re-load the weapon, and in so doing accidently and without noticing dropped a couple of cases onto the chair. They rolled down to the back of the chair out of sight, until weeks later when Crocker carried out his inspection. A revolver has to be emptied of its spent cartridges before it can be re-loaded, and this is what Hanratty - and no other - did at Deadman's Hill. Given the fact that he had just killed someone and raped and shot someone else, I'd expect him to be in a state of somewhat nervous agitation, hence he dropped the empty cases prior to re-loading the weapon to enable more shots to be fired at Valerie. And it was in this same agitated state that he previously had difficulty with the Morris Minor. As far as where he went to 'practise', how about in the countryside around Dorney Reach? It was rural, and the locals wouldn't be too concerned if they heard a shot or two after dark. And a pistol generally makes less of a racket than a shot-gun being used to keep down the local rabbit population.

We cannot confirm that the bullets taken from the scene did not match those test-fired from the gun after it was found on the bus. If Simpson said that they were .32 calibre then that, I take it, was a simple mistake. We all make 'em. McCafferty said that it is 'difficult' to match fired bullets against the rifling of that particular type of revolver; but he didn't use the word 'impossible'. He said it is 'comparatively easy' to match the cartridge cases, that is by examining microscopically the indent made in the cartridge base by the firing-pin, with the firing-pin itself; and this was done. The gun -and no other - that was found on the bus was the one used at Deadman's Hill by James Hanratty.

And if anyone still believes that Hanratty was framed, perhaps someone could give us an idea of why, and by whom.

Graham

[cobalt]

It may be that I am labouring a technical point but it seems that what we commonly understand as ballistic evidence does not exist in the A6 Case. The link between the crime scene shooting and Hanratty comprises two elements: the gun found under a bus seat and the cartridge cases found in the Vienna Hotel. No evidence was presented to link the actual bullets fired to the gun found on the bus.

Perhaps the cartridge cases were deemed sufficient, although I would imagine in evidential terms there is quite a difference between cartridge cases and bullets fired at the scene. Perhaps it was not possible to make any determination about the bullets due to the difficulty suggested by the police detective. There is of course another possibility: that the bullets were tested and found not to have been fired from the revolver found on the bus.

[moste]

”“And if anyone still believes that Hanratty was framed, perhaps someone could give us an idea of why, and by whom.””


Hi Graham. Why, ? Because there was an intense pressure to solve this crime and bring the investigation to a close. By whom? Well, the top cops on the job of course.
As for hard evidence. If someone is framed and it’s carried out properly ,there is no hard evidence. If there was any hard evidence ,the ‘frame ‘didn’t work .

[NickB]

How could the police have got the gunman to say his name was Jim?

You could claim this was a name plucked at random, as you could claim that someone had guessed the PIN of your bank card, but if it was not Hanratty then surely it was someone framing Hanratty.

[moste]

It may be that I am labouring a technical point but it seems that what we commonly understand as ballistic evidence does not exist in the A6 Case. The link between the crime scene shooting and Hanratty comprises two elements: the gun found under a bus seat and the cartridge cases found in the Vienna Hotel. No evidence was presented to link the actual bullets fired to the gun found on the bus.

Perhaps the cartridge cases were deemed sufficient, although I would imagine in evidential terms there is quite a difference between cartridge cases and bullets fired at the scene. Perhaps it was not possible to make any determination about the bullets due to the difficulty suggested by the police detective. There is of course another possibility: that the bullets were tested and found not to have been fired from the revolver found on the bus.

Not labouring the point at all, it’s a good point. The bullets typically are very important to identifying the gun used ,except in this case according to McCafferty, the particular gun used ( note, he doesn’t mention the make or model) is very difficult to work out using the bullets fired, that’s unfortunate ,because in a lot of cases bullets found at a crime scene are often too damaged to work with. However ,here we have the miraculous situation where bullets were removed from Ms Storie apparently only just below the skin, absolutely mind boggling in itself, consequently the investigators should have been presented with undamaged bullets to examine.Why a .38 calibre Enfield's rifling is any more difficult to match than any other firearm is anyone’s guess, (and McCafferty doesn’t say why)unless of course, the four bullets dug out of Storie’s arm were in fact from a .32 seven shot Smith and Wesson!

[cobalt]

McCafferty does seem to be introducing some form of special pleading in regard to a specific firearm, which is why I was interested in what HS had discovered. He has done great work on this site.

Do we even know how many bullets were shot at the A6 lay-by? We know there were two shots which killed Mr. Gregsten, and that there were five shots into Ms. Storie, some of which she did not feel because she had already been paralysed. I mention this detail to remind us all of the horrific nature of the crime.

Did any of the shots miss? How many bullets were recovered from the crime scene? I have no books so have to rely upon this site and the appeal court summary online.

If we combine the failure to obtain prosecution evidence from the car- which is incomprehensible- and the bullets fired, then I would suggest to Graham and others that this was a case sagging with black holes.

[cobalt]

Police conspire. That is a matter of record, from the Birmingham Six, Hillsborough and beyond. So there is no need to establish the concept of police conspiracy- it has established itself. I have omitted the Cardiff Cases of 1987 and 1988 which are worse in terms of police conspiracy than either of the better known two. What really needs to be established is why people believe there are no such things as a conspiracy, and why such people confidently assert conspiracies do not exist.

When such persons have been exposed as naïve, as happens from uncomfortable time to time, they usually point out that there are a few rogue policemen who bent the rules. As if. History would suggest the very opposite: that there were a few honest policeman who were NOT prepared to bend the rules. Conspiring is part and parcel of everyday policing.

So I will not take up the generous offer to explain why Hanratty was ‘fitted up’ for the A6 murder. It would be as idiotic as for me to try to ‘prove’ his alibi. The onus lies with the prosecution to prove the case and this they have failed to do convincingly. I am not about to make their job easier.