A6 Rebooted

[NickB]

If the cartridge cases were planted to incriminate Hanratty, why was the police reaction to go after Alphon instead and connive with Nudds in his second statement which, according to the defence in 2002, they tampered with Vienna paperwork to support?

The claim that the police had something to hide in this respect is bolstered by Nudds being sent into the witness box with his weak "my second statement was a lie, believe me now" line, when credible witnesses could have been produced to demonstrate that the second statement was untrue. Namely:

- the Broadway House people, saying that Durrant had gone their first;

- Galves, saying that when she went to bed at 10 o'clock Durrant had not yet arrived.

Alternatively, if the cartridge cases were planted to incriminate Alphon it would have been a lot simpler to put them in his room.

[moste]

If the cartridge cases were planted to incriminate Hanratty, why was the police reaction to go after Alphon instead and connive with Nudds in his second statement which, according to the defence in 2002, they tampered with Vienna paperwork to support?

The claim that the police had something to hide in this respect is bolstered by Nudds being sent into the witness box with his weak "my second statement was a lie, believe me now" line, when credible witnesses could have been produced to demonstrate that the second statement was untrue. Namely:

- the Broadway House people, saying that Durrant had gone their first;

- Galves, saying that when she went to bed at 10 o'clock Durrant had not yet arrived.

Alternatively, if the cartridge cases were planted to incriminate Alphon it would have been a lot simpler to put them in his room.

I thought The cartridges were found after they had abandoned the ‘Alphon theory’ based on Storie not picking him out.In other words ‘they opted to plant the empty shells to finger Hanratty because the Alphon farce failed’?
your second paragraph Nick reminds us ,how incredibly week the police investigation was going, and hence the general prosecutions case.
Also again your mention of the Broadway house ,reminds me of how very busy we are led to believe this place was, that they used other satellite hotels to take up the overflow, and in consequence of this, did the defence do due diligence to the room 24 usage during its supposed vacant time, always assuming that the police hadn’t diddled the register pages !

[Graham]

The police had interviewed Alphon a.k.a. Frederick Durrant after complaints of his behaviour at the Alexandra Court hotel. He was asked where he was on the night of the murder, and freely told them he was staying at The Vienna - he therefore knew from the onset that he was being spoken to by the police in connection with the A6 murder. And that, so far as the police were concerned, was that - until the cartridges were found at The Vienna and the hotel's register showed that a Frederick Durrant had stayed there on the night of the murder. They then launched a search for him, and made the unusual move of publicly naming him - as Peter Louis Alphon - as someone they wished to interview regarding the A6 crime. He freely gave himself up at Scotland Yard, which doesn't suggest to me the action of a man guilty of murder. He was, therefore, not on the ID parade until some time after the cases had been found at the Vienna and he had subsequently been grilled by Acott.


Graham

[NickB]

Those who believe Hanratty guilty have been critical of the police action regarding Alphon, and the defence team came round to that conclusion in 2002. This made their general complaint about police malpractice more consistent, but the defence case more difficult overall going from 'Alphon did it' (as the campaigners had been claiming for decades) to 'Neither Hanratty nor Alphon did it'.

With regard to the weakness of Nudds case in court, this mirrored the weakness of Hanratty's case: "I lied about my alibi, trust me now".

[OneRound]

Those who believe Hanratty guilty have been critical of the police action regarding Alphon, and the defence team came round to that conclusion in 2002. This made their general complaint about police malpractice more consistent, but the defence case more difficult overall going from 'Alphon did it' (as the campaigners had been claiming for decades) to 'Neither Hanratty nor Alphon did it'.

With regard to the weakness of Nudds case in court, this mirrored the weakness of Hanratty's case: "I lied about my alibi, trust me now".

Hi Nick and all - I've long thought that tactically the defence team in 2002 would have been on better ground adopting the approach of ''we can't rule Alphon in, we can't rule Alphon out'' due to all the non-disclosures, contradictions, uncertainties, etc. The defence team did not need to assert Alphon's lack of any involvement to pursue claims of police malpractice against him (Alphon) which may have raised further concerns about the whole investigation and benefitted Hanratty's appeal.

I particularly struggle to follow how they could dispute the reliability of the DNA evidence but at the same time apparently acknowledge it ruled Alphon out.

Best regards,
OneRound

[cobalt]

I agree with all of that OneRound. I was surprised by the line taken and like you can see there was a contradictory element within it. Then again it was an appeal and not a court case with jury where the ‘Mr. Nobody did it’ defence would have sounded much weaker.

I have to assume that Michael Mansfield is better able to gauge how to run an appeal than most, so he must have had good reasons.

Regarding NickB’s case about mirrored evidence, I think that is why the A6 Case is still ‘alive.’ We could add the failure of casual witnesses to see Hanratty anywhere near Taplow, but also the failure (bar one unemployed actor from memory) to see Hanratty anywhere near a train from London to Liverpool.

[ansonman]

I have submitted a request for file release but am certain the result will be the same as the request made last year. 89 years seems a hell of a long to to me and anyone associated with the case will have been dead long before 2063. Ditto those interested in the case today. The file is in the metropolitan police registered files. What on earth are they hiding, one wonders?

I received this response, earlier today, to my request for the file release:

"MEPO 26/341: 'The A6 Murder' (James HANRATTY): libel proceedings brought against Times Newspapers Ltd by William EWER, brother-in-law of Janet Gregsten, the widow of the victim, Michael John Gregsten. With photographs

This file has been recently been reviewed at The National Archives and it has been decided that we are unable to open this document because all of the information is exempt under section 38 (1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This means that we cannot make the document open to you or to the public in general.

Section 38 (1)(a) exempts information that, if it was released, would endanger the physical or mental health of any individual.

A public interest test was considered in consultation with the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). The outcome of which is as follows:

Arguments made in favour of disclosure:

The information within this record relates to the A6 murder, which is one of the UK?s key criminal cases in late 20th century law enforcement and continues to this day to cause controversy. Because of this, the information would be useful to anyone seeking to understand the case.

Arguments made in favour of non ? disclosure:

This record contains information that would cause substantial distress to the victim?s immediate family if disclosed.

Outcome of the public interest test:

This record contains information that would cause substantial distress to the victim?s immediate family. This information is in the form of police reports and witness statements that describe in detail the injuries sustained by the victim of the murder and also the victim of attempted murder. As one of the most notorious cases in British criminal history, any disclosure of relevant official information will be of interest to the media. As a consequence of renewed interest, the surviving members of immediate family will be confronted with facts of a tragedy they have probably spent their lives trying to come to terms with.

Information within the record is also covered by the exemption at section 40 (2) of the FOI Act. This exempts personal information about a ?third party? (someone other than the requester), if revealing it would break the terms of Data Protection Legislation. Data Protection Legislation prevents personal information from release if it would be unfair or at odds with the reason why it was collected, or where the subject had officially served notice that releasing it would cause them damage or distress. Personal information must be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner as set out by Art. 5 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

In this case the exemption applies because the record contains the personal and the sensitive personal information of a number of identified individuals assumed still to be living. These individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy which would not include the release of this information into the public domain by The National Archives during their lifetime. To do so would be likely to cause damage and/or distress and would be a breach of the first data protection principle, which is concerned with the fair, lawful and transparent processing of information of this kind".

Ansonman

[cobalt]

So, you have been given the brush off.

I cannot see that there would be anything in respect of details about injuries received by the victims that is not already in the public domain.

Even more puzzling is the claim that ‘‘a number of identified (third parties) assumed still be living’’ could have their privacy threatened due to sensitive information. Valerie Storie had no children of her own unfortunately and I cannot believe the Hanratty family are opposed to information being released. That would appear to leave information that would be harmful to the family of Michael Gregsten.

[moste]

So, you have been given the brush off.

I cannot see that there would be anything in respect of details about injuries received by the victims that is not already in the public domain.

Even more puzzling is the claim that ‘‘a number of identified (third parties) assumed still be living’’ could have their privacy threatened due to sensitive information. Valerie Storie had no children of her own unfortunately and I cannot believe the Hanratty family are opposed to information being released. That would appear to leave information that would be harmful to the family of Michael Gregsten.

The opening of these files ‘would’ reveal information that was previously unknown to the public is the truth of it I think. Is it simply the case that ,newspapers being the animal that they are , may go digging for what would obviously be distressing information, with regards to possible evidence of Michael Gregstens paternity? How fascinating and ironic would it be that the very science(DNA) , for most people supposedly closing the door forever on James Hanrattys appeals, turned out to be the very technology that opened a completely new line of enquiry , involving a possible Ewer motive for the murder?
All of course completely academic, since persons proving themselves to be extremely bitter over the questioning of Hanrattys guilt, are hardly likely to comply with a DNA test.

[ansonman]

So, you have been given the brush off.

I cannot see that there would be anything in respect of details about injuries received by the victims that is not already in the public domain.

Even more puzzling is the claim that ‘‘a number of identified (third parties) assumed still be living’’ could have their privacy threatened due to sensitive information. Valerie Storie had no children of her own unfortunately and I cannot believe the Hanratty family are opposed to information being released. That would appear to leave information that would be harmful to the family of Michael Gregsten.

Agree with all.

The fastest brush off I've ever known. On 9th January they emailed to acknowledge receipt of my request and added:

"

The National Archives has to consult other government departments in relation to this request".

They said that they would respond by 23rd January.

The following day (yesterday) they told me that the file could not be released. That's some consultation.

Ansonman

[cobalt]

If we accept that theory that Gregsten was killed as part of some ill conceived and fatally flawed mission, is there a consensus on what that mission was?

Was it to drive Gregsten back to his wife and family, which he had temporarily left around the time his second son was born?

Or was it to tell Gregsten to make a commitment to Valerie Storie and thereafter keep his distance from a family he was regarding as less than integral to his own life?

[moste]

If we accept that theory that Gregsten was killed as part of some ill conceived and fatally flawed mission, is there a consensus on what that mission was?

Was it to drive Gregsten back to his wife and family, which he had temporarily left around the time his second son was born?

Or was it to tell Gregsten to make a commitment to Valerie Storie and thereafter keep his distance from a family he was regarding as less than integral to his own life?

Neither of those possibilities ,I think.
Going with that theory, and with the benefit of hindsight , I would guess, there was history between Gegstens wife and Ewer .The man may have wanted her for himself and living life in the shadows for too long , finally at the end of his rope, decided it was time for action. Possibly taunted by this incorrigible bastards, unscrupulous indifference to his wife and persistent overt unfaithfulness, with' from those who knew him' an insatiable appetite for chatting up the girls, and yet to all accounts enjoyed a good relationship with his eldest boy. Clearly he wanted his cake and ha'penny.
Ewer doesn't come across as a person to trifle with, and Gregsten may well have pushed Ewer beyond his level of tolerance.

[moste]

If we accept that theory that Gregsten was killed as part of some ill conceived and fatally flawed mission, is there a consensus on what that mission was?

Was it to drive Gregsten back to his wife and family, which he had temporarily left around the time his second son was born?

Or was it to tell Gregsten to make a commitment to Valerie Storie and thereafter keep his distance from a family he was regarding as less than integral to his own life?

Left his wife around the time of the birth of the second son? For the love of Pete!

How does anyone 'drive a man back to his wife and family' How the hell does that work? something like 'I have a gun here, I'm not going to use it this time, but if you don't get back to your good wife and kids next time we meet ,your a dead duck'. Stuff of pure fancy.
Telling Gregsten to make a commitment to Valerie and keep his distance from his one time family Sounds more like Mr. Stories line of country that. Almost as fanciful though.
Editing just to add: Hadn't occurred to me before but what if Ewers family are the ones to be protected by this 89years freeze out?

[cobalt]

There’s certainly a problem of coercing a husband to do the decent thing at gunpoint and return to his wife. The theory has been shot down many times on this site by those who support the Hanratty verdict.

Threatening an errant husband to stay away from his wife is more credible and actually has some overlap with the theory that Ewer wanted Gregsten removed from the scene. If Ewer was a man not to be messed with then presumably the gun was to reinforce this point. The reason that I mentioned the second son is that this event may have had a bearing on Ewer’s commitment to Mrs. Gregsten.

The problem with the hired assassin theory is that Ewer, if a man not to be messed with, would surely have found somebody better to carry it out. There was no need to confront Gregsten when Valerie Storie was in his company and even less reason to drive around the outskirts of London when the trigger could have been pulled in a field in Dorney Reach.

[Sherlock Houses]

Just to let any interested parties know, Michael Hanratty sadly passed away in the early hours of this morning. He had been diagnosed with lung cancer shortly after Christmas. A lovely, passionate man who will be sadly missed by all who knew him. R.I.P Mick and GOD bless.