A6 Rebooted

[NickB]

Sorry if I was unclear.When I said Hanratty said he stayed in a New Brighton b&b when on the run, I meant when he knew he was wanted for the murder and went to the Liverpool area before going on to Blackpool (where of course he also checked into a b&b).

Who were the several people in Liverpool who thought they recognised him when the photos appeared after the trial?

[cobalt]

The A6 Committee found six witnesses who believed they could place Hanratty in the Liverpool area (rather than Liverpool) although not all emerged immediately after the photograph of Hanratty was published. From memory I think that the left luggage attendant, name of Usher, was one person who thought he recognised the photo when it first appeared.

[cobalt]

Following on from my earlier comments about the murderer ‘scarpering,’ he singularly failed to do so when first in solo control of the car. There were at least 60 miles ‘extra’ travelled from Deadman’s Hill to Redbridge, whether through panic or failure to know the way (knowledge the murderer apparently did possess for most of the outward journey) is unclear. It is hard to imagine the murderer wished to spend one second longer in the vehicle than necessary before dumping it, yet this took him the best part of four hours.

In fact the ‘extra’ mileage could have been as much as 120 miles depending on when Gregsten filled the car with petrol earlier in the day. It seems remiss of the police not to have established this, after all most of us are creatures of habit when filling up as part of our daily routine, and we even know that Gregsten preferred not to use Regent petrol. In the days of fewer petrol stations and attendants filling up the tank they should have been able to work this out reasonably quickly since Gregsten was most likely a regular customer known to the attendant.

In addition, given the police knew that two gallons had been put in the tank around midnight and they had the opportunity to check the tank to see how much fuel was present once the car was recovered, it should have been possible to judge the distance covered by the solo driver fairly accurately. I remain a little sceptical of Acott and his odometer readings, which were not submitted at trial as I recall.

[OneRound]

Following on from my earlier comments about the murderer ‘scarpering,’ he singularly failed to do so when first in solo control of the car. There were at least 60 miles ‘extra’ travelled from Deadman’s Hill to Redbridge, whether through panic or failure to know the way (knowledge the murderer apparently did possess for most of the outward journey) is unclear. It is hard to imagine the murderer wished to spend one second longer in the vehicle than necessary before dumping it, yet this took him the best part of four hours.

In fact the 'extra' mileage could have been as much as 120 miles depending on when Gregsten filled the car with petrol earlier in the day. It seems remiss of the police not to have established this, after all most of us are creatures of habit when filling up as part of our daily routine, and we even know that Gregsten preferred not to use Regent petrol. In the days of fewer petrol stations and attendants filling up the tank they should have been able to work this out reasonably quickly since Gregsten was most likely a regular customer known to the attendant.

In addition, given the police knew that two gallons had been put in the tank around midnight and they had the opportunity to check the tank to see how much fuel was present once the car was recovered, it should have been possible to judge the distance covered by the solo driver fairly accurately. I remain a little sceptical of Acott and his odometer readings, which were not submitted at trial as I recall.

Hi Cobalt - that's absolutely the case and has long been a bugbear of mine. I'll see if I can dig out anything amplifying my concerns.

Best regards,
OneRound

[OneRound]

Hi Graham,

I can answer (b) for you. The defence didn't use Lee's claimed sighting at trial as they were not aware of it. That was one of the non disclosures complained of at the 2002 Appeal.

Whilst acknowledging that Lee was ''the most impressive'' of those claiming to have sighted the car so as to invalidate the car being in Avondale as prosecution witnesses stated, the Court of Appeal took the view that his identification must have been ''flawed'' due to the discrepancy with the odometer recordings. The odometer recordings were also not disclosed and that too was complained about.

The Court of Appeal appeared to speculate that Acott may have seen no need to disclose Lee's claimed sighting due to the odometer recordings. My own view is that the defence should have been made aware of both Lee's claim and the odometer recordings in order to at least have the opportunity to try and find support for the former and discredit the latter. Being dead by the time of the 2002 Appeal was a good career move for Acott as it resulted in him being given the benefit of much doubt and not having to explain awkward matters (others as well as this).

That all said, (a) is certainly a key question and I don't know the answer to that. Obviously Lee's credibility would significantly fall if his statement was taken after what he claimed to see was already in the public domain.

For reference, paras 151 to 157 of the Appeal judgement concentrate on the claimed car sightings.

Best regards,

OneRound

Hi again Cobalt - this is what I was on about earlier today. It was in response to a post from Graham querying (a) when Lee's statement was taken; and (b) whether it was used at trial by the defence.

Even without suggesting any manipulation of the odometer recording by Acott, I maintain it should not have been his decision alone as to its significance and what to do with it.

The odometer could have been faulty and/or Gregsten may have made an incorrect entry. Technical testing of the odometer and review of Gregsten's previous entries for possible mistakes should have been undertaken. It was for the defence to do this or be satisfied that it had been properly done. Acott's non-disclosure denied them that opportunity.

Best regards,
OneRound

[cobalt]

The Court of Appeal (2002) deals with the problem of mileage by setting up a strawman argument, then reassuringly dismissing it.
‘‘These distances are comfortably within the distance which, if the record is correct, the odometer recorded.’’
No one so far as I know ever disputed that the odometer readings, once revealed and if accurate, indicated anything else. What is being brushed aside is the ‘extra’ 60 miles travelled by a gunman allegedly fleeing to save his own skin, yet at a conservative estimate spends at least 1.5 hours in the car that he might have avoided. The truth may be that he drove an ‘extra’ 120 miles meaning he was in the car at least 3 hours longer than required, which incidentally tallies more accurately with the sightings in Redbridge. The police failure to establish which- I have earlier indicated this was surely possible- receives no comment.

‘’Thus, 232 miles had been travelled in the period which elapsed. Depending on when petrol was put in the car, this may have included Gregsten’s driving that day (57.4 miles) but must include the drive from the cornfield at Dorney Reach to Deadman’s Hill on the A6 (58-65 miles) and, at the very least, the minimum distance from the A6 to Avondale Crescent, Ilford (48.6 miles)’’
We know that the murderer was driving badly when he left the scene and we also believe he was driving badly just prior to parking the car, which had minor damage. Yet he can drive a considerable distance, presumably taking wrong turnings or being confused at times, without attracting any other attention throughout that time period. Unless we accept the 0525 sighting by a milkman in Bedford which the police clearly preferred not to.


The Appeal Court then seeks to dismiss other sightings of the car.
‘’Other sightings of a car with the registration number 847 BHN were noted at 1.00pm between Hitchin and St. Ippollits (which would mean that the car stayed in the vicinity of Bedford all morning)’’
It does no such thing. It could have been to Matlock and back in that time, if we set aside the odometer readings, which were not tested at trial. This is a false assumption by the Appeal Court.

Finally to Mr. Lee in Matlock whose evidence clearly flies in the face of the odometer readings. His case is rather weak in that he, according to what I have been told on this site, he did not report his 0630 sighting of the car until after it had been located by the police. Mr. Lee was at least honest- he admitted he no longer had the scrap of paper upon which he had written the registration of the badly driven car- but presumably would have identified the model of car correctly. What has made his sighting significant is his memory of a green bobble hat being worn by the driver and such an item being found in the boot of the murder car.
‘’He wrote the registration number down as 847 BHN which was the registration of Gregsten’s car in the boot of which there was such a hat (although there is no evidence that the murderer otherwise was seen wearing it).’’
The EWAC accepts the hat’s relevance without explanation and then makes a misleading comment about the murderer not being seen wearing the hat on any other occasion. But this may have been the only occasion he was seen, given the early morning Redbridge sightings would now be redundant. Now the bobble hat could have been a very telling piece of evidence had it been worn by Hanratty, since his tendency to dye his hair would have made any hair fibres as good as a fingerprint. No comment is offered by the EWCA as to why no tests were apparently carried out.

I say apparently, because I can only suspect they were. I also suspect Pamela Patt was shown a photograph of Hanratty to no effect, that the time Gregsten filled up his car was established but seen not to develop the prosecution case. The odometer readings were not unhelpful to the prosecution case on a superficial reading, but if presented in court could have opened up awkward questions about their interpretation and accuracy.

[Sherlock Houses]

We know that the murderer was driving badly when he left the scene and we also believe he was driving badly just prior to parking the car, which had minor damage. Yet he can drive a considerable distance, presumably taking wrong turnings or being confused at times, without attracting any other attention throughout that time period. Unless we accept the 0525 sighting by a milkman in Bedford which the police clearly preferred not to.

This claimed 0525 sighting in Bedford by Charles Drayton for me at least remains the most persuasive and impressive of all the alleged sightings of the murder car. Mr Drayton made a mental note of the registration plate number of the car he had a near collision with. The number 8 was his lucky number and 47 was the number of both his round in Norwich and also the number of his house. The BHN part of the reg plate struck a chord with him as it reminded him of a horse he often backed, Bahrain. I've checked on this and a horse by that name did race during that period of time in the early 1960's.
Incidentally I was watching a 1961 crime movie last night on the very good 'Talking Pictures' channel. The film was called "Never back losers" and I couldn't help but be struck by the first part of the reg plate of one of the cars featured in the film, namely 847. That must have prompted me to submit this response to your post.

[moste]

Imagine for a moment that the traversing of the length of the Chilterns was in fact exactly what the couple were doing.In order to coordinate distances between villages , set out check points along the route , make notes of possible pubs to call in at for lunch etc. and in short, have everything ready for the rally on the upcoming weekend. You know like,Beaconsfield,Amersham,chesham,Berkhamstead, Little Gaddesden, and the like.This would not only account for the discrepancy in mileage , but also place the couple beyond Barton-Le-Clay, from choice rather than by force . The two would likely not want the Rally club members to know that they had already been on a dummy run, since this wouldn’t be cricket! Now, everything goes dreadfully wrong, Gregsten attacked and murdered,Storie attacked and left for dead.
How to explain being in Clophill the final location of the Weekend Rally, and explain the evidence of semen in her nether regions.Enter the ‘Stick up man story’. Some people have voiced a preference over the years for the culprit having been a ‘ gentlemen of the road’ ,a passing tramp, (like Kenneth Colley brilliantly playing the roll in ‘Pennies from Heaven’. )This scenario would of course allow for the collusion of Valerie Storie and Acott and sundry, in an effort to fit all the pieces of a jig saw together, that would come up with a scapegoat in order to protect Storie’s virtue, they were all eating out of her hand weren’t that? Just a thought.
As an aside, does anyone know, whether it may have been possible for the defence under the stewardship of a couple of policemen, invite James Hanratty to take a Morris Minor for a 3 mile drive around Bedford for the purpose of examining his level of competency to further his plea of not guilty. Just another thought.

[moste]

[QUOTE=cobalt;n727086]
The Court of Appeal (2002) deals with the problem of mileage by setting up a strawman argument, then reassuringly dismissing it.
‘‘These distances are comfortably within the distance which, if the record is correct, the odometer recorded.’’
No one so far as I know ever disputed that the odometer readings, once revealed and if accurate, indicated anything else. What is being brushed aside is the ‘extra’ 60 miles travelled by a gunman allegedly fleeing to save his own skin, yet at a conservative estimate spends at least 1.5 hours in the car that he might have avoided. The truth may be that he drove an ‘extra’ 120 miles meaning he was in the car at least 3 hours longer than required, which incidentally tallies more accurately with the sightings in Redbridge. The police failure to establish which- I have earlier indicated this was surely possible- receives no comment.

‘’Thus, 232 miles had been travelled in the period which elapsed. Depending on when petrol was put in the car, this may have included Gregsten’s driving that day (57.4 miles) but must include the drive from the cornfield at Dorney Reach to Deadman’s Hill on the A6 (58-65 miles) and, at the very least, the minimum distance from the A6 to Avondale Crescent, Ilford (48.6 miles)’’
We know that the murderer was driving badly when he left the scene and we also believe he was driving badly just prior to parking the car, which had minor damage. Yet he can drive a considerable distance, presumably taking wrong turnings or being confused at times, without attracting any other attention throughout that time period. Unless we accept the 0525 sighting by a milkman in Bedford which the police clearly preferred not to.


The Appeal Court then seeks to dismiss other sightings of the car.
‘’Other sightings of a car with the registration number 847 BHN were noted at 1.00pm between Hitchin and St. Ippollits (which would mean that the car stayed in the vicinity of Bedford all morning)’’
It does no such thing. It could have been to Matlock and back in that time, if we set aside the odometer readings, which were not tested at trial. This is a false assumption by the Appeal Court.

Finally to Mr. Lee in Matlock whose evidence clearly flies in the face of the odometer readings. His case is rather weak in that he, according to what I have been told on this site, he did not report his 0630 sighting of the car until after it had been located by the police. Mr. Lee was at least honest- he admitted he no longer had the scrap of paper upon which he had written the registration of the badly driven car- but presumably would have identified the model of car correctly. What has made his sighting significant is his memory of a green bobble hat being worn by the driver and such an item being found in the boot of the murder car.
‘’He wrote the registration number down as 847 BHN which was the registration of Gregsten’s car in the boot of which there was such a hat (although there is no evidence that the murderer otherwise was seen wearing it).’’
The EWAC accepts the hat’s relevance without explanation and then makes a misleading comment about the murderer not being seen wearing the hat on any other occasion. But this may have been the only occasion he was seen, given the early morning Redbridge sightings would now be redundant. Now the bobble hat could have been a very telling piece of evidence had it been worn by Hanratty, since his tendency to dye his hair would have made any hair fibres as good as a fingerprint. No comment is offered by the EWCA as to why no tests were apparently carried out.

I say apparently, because I can only suspect they were. I also suspect Pamela Patt was shown a photograph of Hanratty to no effect, that the time Gregsten filled up his car was established but seen not to develop the prosecution case. The odometer readings were not unhelpful to the prosecution case on a superficial reading, but if presented in court could have opened up awkward questions about their interpretation and accuracy.
[/Imagine for a moment that the traversing of the length of the Chilterns was in fact exactly what the couple were doing, (after the pub and having had sexual relations in the car)to coordinate distances between villages , set out check points along the route , make notes of possible pubs to call in at for lunch etc. and in short, have everything ready for the rally on the upcoming weekend. You know like,Beaconsfield,Amersham,chesham,Berkhamstead, Little Gaddesden, and the like.This would not only account for the discrepancy in mileage , but also place the couple beyond Barton-Le-Clay, from choice rather than by force . The two would likely not want the Rally club members to know that they had already been on a dummy run, since this wouldn’t be cricket! Now, everything goes dreadfully wrong, Gregsten attacked and murdered,Storie attacked and left for dead.
How to explain being in Clophill the final location of the Weekend Rally, and explain the evidence of semen in her nether regions.Enter the ‘Stick up man story’. Some people have voiced a preference over the years for the culprit having been a ‘ gentlemen of the road’ ,a passing tramp, (like Kenneth Colley brilliantly playing the roll in ‘Pennies from Heaven’. )This scenario would of course allow for the collusion of Valerie Storie and Acott and sundry, in an effort to fit all the pieces of a jig saw together, that would come up with a scapegoat in order to protect Storie’s virtue, they were all eating out of her hand weren’t that? Just a thought.
As an aside, does anyone know, whether it may have been possible for the defence under the stewardship of a couple of policemen, invite James Hanratty to take a Morris Minor for a 3 mile drive around Bedford for the purpose of examining his level of competency to further his plea of not guilty. Just another thought.

[moste]

[QUOTE=cobalt;n727086]
The Court of Appeal (2002) deals with the problem of mileage by setting up a strawman argument, then reassuringly dismissing it.
‘‘These distances are comfortably within the distance which, if the record is correct, the odometer recorded.’’
No one so far as I know ever disputed that the odometer readings, once revealed and if accurate, indicated anything else. What is being brushed aside is the ‘extra’ 60 miles travelled by a gunman allegedly fleeing to save his own skin, yet at a conservative estimate spends at least 1.5 hours in the car that he might have avoided. The truth may be that he drove an ‘extra’ 120 miles meaning he was in the car at least 3 hours longer than required, which incidentally tallies more accurately with the sightings in Redbridge. The police failure to establish which- I have earlier indicated this was surely possible- receives no comment.

‘’Thus, 232 miles had been travelled in the period which elapsed. Depending on when petrol was put in the car, this may have included Gregsten’s driving that day (57.4 miles) but must include the drive from the cornfield at Dorney Reach to Deadman’s Hill on the A6 (58-65 miles) and, at the very least, the minimum distance from the A6 to Avondale Crescent, Ilford (48.6 miles)’’
We know that the murderer was driving badly when he left the scene and we also believe he was driving badly just prior to parking the car, which had minor damage. Yet he can drive a considerable distance, presumably taking wrong turnings or being confused at times, without attracting any other attention throughout that time period. Unless we accept the 0525 sighting by a milkman in Bedford which the police clearly preferred not to.


The Appeal Court then seeks to dismiss other sightings of the car.
‘’Other sightings of a car with the registration number 847 BHN were noted at 1.00pm between Hitchin and St. Ippollits (which would mean that the car stayed in the vicinity of Bedford all morning)’’
It does no such thing. It could have been to Matlock and back in that time, if we set aside the odometer readings, which were not tested at trial. This is a false assumption by the Appeal Court.

Finally to Mr. Lee in Matlock whose evidence clearly flies in the face of the odometer readings. His case is rather weak in that he, according to what I have been told on this site, he did not report his 0630 sighting of the car until after it had been located by the police. Mr. Lee was at least honest- he admitted he no longer had the scrap of paper upon which he had written the registration of the badly driven car- but presumably would have identified the model of car correctly. What has made his sighting significant is his memory of a green bobble hat being worn by the driver and such an item being found in the boot of the murder car.
‘’He wrote the registration number down as 847 BHN which was the registration of Gregsten’s car in the boot of which there was such a hat (although there is no evidence that the murderer otherwise was seen wearing it).’’
The EWAC accepts the hat’s relevance without explanation and then makes a misleading comment about the murderer not being seen wearing the hat on any other occasion. But this may have been the only occasion he was seen, given the early morning Redbridge sightings would now be redundant. Now the bobble hat could have been a very telling piece of evidence had it been worn by Hanratty, since his tendency to dye his hair would have made any hair fibres as good as a fingerprint. No comment is offered by the EWCA as to why no tests were apparently carried out.

I say apparently, because I can only suspect they were. I also suspect Pamela Patt was shown a photograph of Hanratty to no effect, that the time Gregsten filled up his car was established but seen not to develop the prosecution case. The odometer readings were not unhelpful to the prosecution case on a superficial reading, but if presented in court could have opened up awkward questions about their interpretation and accuracy.
[/Imagine for a moment that the traversing of the length of the Chilterns was in fact exactly what the couple were doing, (after the pub and having had sexual relations in the car)to coordinate distances between villages , set out check points along the route , make notes of possible pubs to call in at for lunch etc. and in short, have everything ready for the rally on the upcoming weekend. You know like,Beaconsfield,Amersham,chesham,Berkhamstead, Little Gaddesden, and the like.This would not only account for the discrepancy in mileage , but also place the couple beyond Barton-Le-Clay, from choice rather than by force . The two would likely not want the Rally club members to know that they had already been on a dummy run, since this wouldn’t be cricket! Now, everything goes dreadfully wrong, Gregsten attacked and murdered,Storie attacked and left for dead.
How to explain being in Clophill the final location of the Weekend Rally, and explain the evidence of semen in her nether regions.Enter the ‘Stick up man story’. Some people have voiced a preference over the years for the culprit having been a ‘ gentlemen of the road’ ,a passing tramp, (like Kenneth Colley brilliantly playing the roll in ‘Pennies from Heaven’. )This scenario would of course allow for the collusion of Valerie Storie and Acott and sundry, in an effort to fit all the pieces of a jig saw together, that would come up with a scapegoat in order to protect Storie’s virtue, they were all eating out of her hand weren’t that? Just a thought.
As an aside, does anyone know, whether it may have been possible for the defence under the stewardship of a couple of policemen, invite James Hanratty to take a Morris Minor for a 3 mile drive around Bedford for the purpose of examining his level of competency to further his plea of not guilty. Just another thought.

[moste]

Sorry about all that . I was getting the reply ‘Not permitted to post’ each time I tried . So did a copy and paste ,which went through twice, complete **** up.Apologies.

[cobalt]

Hi Moste,
I can’t see that Valerie Storie’s virtue in 1961 was an issue that required a man to hang. It was known amongst her work colleagues that she was in a relationship with Gregsten.

However the decision to conceal that relationship from the jury has possibly had the effect of muddying the truth of what occurred. Valerie Storie’s account is difficult to accept. One of the first questions a man would ask when holding up a couple in a cornfield at dusk is surely, ’What are you pair up to here, then?’ Instead, we are left to believe the man decided to give a potted history of his own life story to a couple of strangers. There is no sense that he is surprised to stumble upon them and, just as curiously, none from the victims either. The tone is more a sense of annoyance that someone ‘round the twist’ has interrupted their evening.

Her version of the journey once they eventually left the cornfield suffers from there being no witness who can place anyone else in the car. For a man who had a handkerchief over his face for some of the time, the murderer seems surprisingly keen to visit public places. He suggested a café at one point and allowed Gregsten out to buy milk, unsuccessfully I think, and then petrol and cigarettes. Gregsten of course had Miss Storie’s safety to consider so could hardly raise the alarm, but he did not seem able to attract any attention to their predicament. Was any attempt made to trace and take a statement from the person who sold the cigarettes?

The ‘kip’ element is the hardest of all to make sense of, as Valerie Storie herself acknowledged when pointing out that it would soon be daybreak. No one seems to have required to take in any fluids, and maybe more surprisingly, require a toilet break, yet they are now going to be tied up and have some sort of rest. The murderer must have great faith in his ability to tie knots because he is going to sleep next to his captives, presumably with a loaded gun in his hands, or by his side.

The shooting of Gregsten does not seem to have been an act of panic, as reported, since there were two shots fired.

The shooting of Valerie Storie is certainly no act of panic, but an attempted execution of a defenceless woman. It makes some sense from a psychopathic viewpoint in that is intended to remove a witness, but does not knit easily with the nervy, aimless behaviour reported earlier.

It may be that in editing Valerie Storie’s several accounts to remove evidence of her romantic relationship with Gregsten and in tailoring a final version to advance the prosecution case, some salient points have been missed out. So far as I am able to read it, the account offered by the prosecution at trial is unconvincing.

[moste]

Good points Cobalt,. I’ll just qualify the ‘protect her virtue thing’, I don’t say Acott was in on that part of it, only that he was taken in by the rape ,and car hijack, I don’t think Storie would have been forward thinking enough to consider that by changing how it all happened an innocent man might hang.
An important issue for me would be ,Did Valerie’s parents know that their daughter was in a full blown sexual relationship with Gregsten.
She said they did because someone snitched, I’m not convinced, and the investigative journalists could have possibly secured this information from say her bosses at RRL ,or her girlfriend who she had recently returned from holiday with. Incidentally , when Valerie said ‘ someone snitched ‘ Is she saying that someone phoned her parents and said’ I think you should be aware that your daughter is in a sexual relationship with the man who you believe to be just a platonic friend, and by the way he’s married with two children’ . I believe there is something wrong with all this.
your last paragraph is a good line of thought. Had the jury been made aware of her true relationship with Gregsten, (maybe by the questioning of a witness by Sherrard,) then everything changes ,because they would now possibly have that missing link to the whole case...motive. One would only hope that the police were extremely diligent in their investigations to rule out a love triangle.
The tying of the couples hands is laughable , and tying to the door handle also, there is a good size gap in a Morris 1000, between the chrome door handle and the door panel, making any effort of restraint virtually impossible.

[Sherlock Houses]

For a man who had a handkerchief over his face for some of the time, the murderer seems surprisingly keen to visit public places. He suggested a café at one point and allowed Gregsten out to buy milk, unsuccessfully I think, and then petrol and cigarettes. Gregsten of course had Miss Storie’s safety to consider so could hardly raise the alarm, but he did not seem able to attract any attention to their predicament. Was any attempt made to trace and take a statement from the person who sold the cigarettes?

The cigarettes you mention were bought from a machine, Cobalt. Apparently three different machines (milk, chocolate and cigarette) were involved during the car's journey. I do recall reading somewhere about a chocolate machine but can't find the reference to it at the moment. It may have been next to the milk machine by Nevill and Griffin's dairy. So it's unclear whether the car stopped at three or four diffferent public places that night. According to Miss Storie, Michael Gregsten was even allowed to cross over the road to reach the cigarette machine. He returned to the car so he must have taken the gunman's shooting threats seriously. Also, according to Miss Storie, Gregsten did try to attract attention to their plight by flashing the car's reversing light at times.
Gregsten seems frozen with fear at whatever petrol station it was that they stopped at, otherwise why not just fling the keys out of the car and holler to the attendant that there's a dangerous gunman in the back. Even in the unlikelihood of the gunman carrying out his threat there and then, in a well lit petrol station with cars and people around, he would have found escape from that car very difficult. Mike Gregsten's mentality at that petrol station remains puzzling. It was the ideal opportunity that entire night to do something to help their situation.

[cobalt]

Thanks for putting me right on the purchase of cigarettes. I had forgotten how common outdoor cigarette vending machines once were. They still existed in Turin when I worked there a few years ago- but ironically you needed to slide a medical insurance card into a slot to establish you were an adult.

Ash trays inside cars were also common standard features, both in the front and back seats. Although the murderer claimed he did not really smoke I think he was reported as smoking one cigarette. He might have flicked the fag end out of the window of course, but if he stubbed it out in an ash tray then theoretically that could have been retrieved as evidence. It would have been good to retrieve something of forensic value from the car. Since there was blood inside and a number of fingerprints were obtained (all but one accounted for, from memory) it seems no attempt was made to wipe or clean the vehicle. How the murderer did not shed a hair or two in the course of his actions is difficult to understand.

Perhaps Gregsten missed a chance at the petrol station but it is cannot be easy to rationalise when a gun is pointing at your back. There seems to be some dispute about whether the police identified the correct petrol station although I imagine that in the days when your tank was filled by an attendant he would likely remember a customer or car when it was quiet around midnight. Does a Morris Minor of that vintage have its filler tank on the rear passenger side as photos suggest, in which case the attendant may not have even glanced at the rear driver’s side? Or did Harold Hirons claim to have remembered a third party and get a reasonable look at him?