A6 Rebooted

[Limehouse]

Thanks Julie,
I don't have my books with me at the moment but either Woffinden or Foot makes specific mention of Gregsten being a physicist---another time he is referred to as simply a scientist.Its when a male colleague and friend is talking about him and saying what a first rate mind he had etc---- anyway one or other of the authors above discusses his work 'as a scientist' not as a technician.

It has to be remembered also that somebody from the Gregsten family wrote to Valerie Storie and Mike Gregsten's employer's and complained about their affair.I believe that is of significance when discussing whether or not somebody in the family may have hired someone to put the frighteners on them.After all they both got hauled in and told they were causing problems with their behaviour and Valerie's response was said to have been that they should 'mind their own business' -so clearly,whoever wrote to the firm about them had their noses put out of joint by being told to get stuffed.
We know very little about Ewer---it really surprised me to learn that no sooner was the trial over and Janet attempting to recuperate from the shock than Ewer was hurrying to comfort her and even got his leg over etc all this was very unconventional in 1962/3 with someone like a grieving and widowed sister in law .So I see the family as rather unusual frankly and I can't think of who else would have written to the firm about Gregsten"s affair if it wasn't Janet---and it seems it was not,so who could it have been other than Ewer?Surely not Gregsten's two maiden aunts or his doting mother? And anyway his side of the family are said not to have liked Janet very much apparently.

That's a good point actually because whoever wrote to the RRL was probably hoping Valerie would be saacked or moved somewhere.

[Limehouse]

Hi All,

You know this thread is getting obsessed with unverifiable speculation. There are all sorts of personalities here being tarnished with things that just cannot be substantiated.

Norma, Hanratty was not an expert driver. I once saw on TV Hanratty's brother saying that Hanratty had taught him to drive, and he actually said that he was not a great driver.

The killing and raping could not have been a "hit". There was nothing professional about it. You have the gunman going into the car haranging the occupants for quite a length of time, and then ordering then to drive on, sending one of them out for petrol, deciding to have a "kip" and then ending up accidently killing one of them and raping the other, and then trying to murder her.

That is not a "hit." That is the work of someone who is off their head and who has started something that he doesnt know how to finish. It is nothing to do with scaring two people out of an affair.

I agree with Graham on this. The lengthy harranging when the murderer and rapist got into the car is the key.

I think Hanratty planned to stage an armed robbery, possibly on a garage, or an off licence, or even a small bank, but at the end of the day his nerve left him.

That made him annoyed and needing to bolster up his ego again.

He saw Gregsten and Valerie in the car. He had the gun and the ammunition. He went into the car at gun point, hanranged them, told them to drive on, and then didnt know what to do with them.

Best wishes.

Hanratty was a careless driver but he knew his way round the gears etc. he would never have been able to achieve a swift get-away with a top-of-the-range car if he couldn't understand how to start the car and change gear!

It doesn't make sense to say he didn't have the bottle to hold up a garage - with only one attendant at that time of night. He would just have to have covered his face - pointed the gun - made his needs known and made a run for it. Over in seconds. Getting into the car with a couple and holding them for hours - risking being seen etc took much more courage. I would also like to know how he 'saw Gregsten and Valerie in the car'. They were in that field to have sex. They were not easily visible to passing gunmen. If he was after a quick hold-up he was a long way from a hold-up target.

As for saying the word 'kip' - Hanratty did deny saying this and people testified that they had never heard him say 'kip'. There is also the issue of the altered statement sheet. However - the point is that Valerie heard this word and that could point to a different gunman altogether.

Of course there will be speculation concerning this crime because it appears motiveless until you scratch the surface.

[jimarilyn]

Norma, Hanratty was not an expert driver. I once saw on TV Hanratty's brother saying that Hanratty had taught him to drive, and he actually said that he was not a great driver.

You're misrepresenting what Michael Hanratty said in that filmed interview for Bob Woffinden's 1992 documentary.

Michael's actual words on camera were...........

"Jimmy was a good driver. I won't say an excellent driver but he was a very good driver. Actually in the 50's he taught me to drive."

[Hatchett]

Hi Limehouse,

I don't think, with respect, that you can say it is easy to hold up a garage. Armed robbery is a serious step up the ladder from petty burglary, particuarly with a loaded gun. No doubt the manouvres you mention would have crossed his mind when he planned it. But there is a difference between planning it and carrying it out.

It is quite conceivable that someone would have bottled out of the face to face confrontation of an armed robbery. Especially when their other crimes were what you could call sneak crimes. ie burglary and car theft.

Like I said before that could have explained the mood he was in when he entered the car.

Best wishes.

[Hatchett]

Hi Again,

It doesnt matter whether he said "kip" or not. The point I was making was it was hardly professional for someone with a motive that has been suggested to do all the other things and then decide to have a sleep while he has got two hostages in the car.

Best wishes.

[Hatchett]

Hello Jim,

It wasnt deliberate misrepresentation. Like I said I was going from memory. But I think the point is still there. He wasnt a great or an "expert" driver, in the view of his brother.

Best wishes.

[Derrick]

Hello Jim,

It wasnt deliberate misrepresentation. Like I said I was going from memory. But I think the point is still there. He wasnt a great or an "expert" driver, in the view of his brother.

Best wishes.

Hi Hatchett

What point?

Mick Hanratty still said that Jimmy was "a very good driver". Not Sterling Moss perhaps but someone who could steal and drive any car away to order.

Hardly the profile of someone who had to be shown several times how to start a Morris Minor and was heard driving off crunching the gears.

I have seen some people post here suggesting that the killer just pretended to feign ignorance over the basic driving of a Morris. That is nonsense as the killer according to Valerie Storie thought that she was dead. Why would one feign the ignorance of starting a Morris and perform crunching gears for the benefit of what would, to the killer, be a dead audience?

Hanratty may have driven carelessly at times but how many boy racers today do we swear at when attempting to cross the road? Are they all murderers? Of course not, just pains in the arse.

Whoever killed Gregsten was a very inexperienced driver who spent the next couple of hours having a kip in the car until he was seen nearby by the Bedfordshire milkman, who was nearly knocked down by him.

Derrick

[Hatchett]

Hi Derrick,

Surely, the point is obvious. Whether you use the word great, as I did, or the word expert as his brother did, Hanratty was not a great or an expert driver in the view of his brother.

It is an asumption that a car thief is a good driver. That does not have to be so. Also the other point is that it is most probable that a car thief in London at that time will go for the most expensive cars. It is also most probable that they did not have to drive them that far to get rid of them.

I think Hnaratty's driving skills are exaggerated.

Best wishes.

[Limehouse]

Hi Derrick,

I think Hnaratty's driving skills are exaggerated.

Best wishes.

If Hanratty's skills were poor - as you say - Alphon's were non-existant. The man who drove the Morris Minor car away didn't even know how to change gear. Hanratty was a competent car thief in that he was able to drive cars away effeciently well enough to deliver them to a 'receiver'. It is documented that he drove several cars 'north' so he was used to long and short distances.

[Limehouse]

It wasn't. It was from primary transfer...i.e. Hanratty ejaculated it there.
Jen

He could not have done so because Valerie testified that she removed her knickers.

[babybird67]

He could not have done so because Valerie testified that she removed her knickers.

He ejaculated into her, and it went onto her knickers when she put them back on. My point was it didnt get there by brushing against a drop from his trousers or any other method of secondary transfer.

[Hatchett]

Hi Limehouse,

I do not see how Alphon's driving skills come into this. I didnt say that Hanratty was a poor driver I said that his skills have been exagerrated. If he was that good as a car theif why was he caught so often.

Best wishes.

[Limehouse]

Hi Limehouse,

I do not see how Alphon's driving skills come into this. I didnt say that Hanratty was a poor driver I said that his skills have been exagerrated. If he was that good as a car theif why was he caught so often.

Best wishes.

There were two suspects - Alphon and Hanratty.

The reason he was caught as a car thief was not because of his driving but that he left his dabs all over the place. Just like he did in the houses he robbed. Whenever he was caught - it was because he had left his finger prints. Strangely enough he didn't leave any finger prints in the Morris Minor - or on the gun - or on the cartridge cases.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Limehouse,

I do not see how Alphon's driving skills come into this. I didnt say that Hanratty was a poor driver I said that his skills have been exagerrated. If he was that good as a car theif why was he caught so often.

Best wishes.

He wasn't.

[Natalie Severn]

on LCN DNA and its reputation world wide

Here is why I find the talk that LCN DNA tests on a fragment of 43 year old cloth that had been kept in a police lab in non sterile packaging that had come apart so very questionable-especially as MG's sexual intercourse of 22/08/61 with VS had vanished,while the other evidence of sexual intercourse that had taken place with the rapist was alleged to have remained :
Weir J found various aspects of the prosecution case unsatisfactory. Of particular interest here is his rejection of expert evidence concerning the analysis of DNA by what is called the LCN DNA technique. LCN means low copy number. It is of use where the crime scene yields a sample of material that contains a quantity of DNA that is too small to be analysed by what have become more traditional techniques. Instead of simply analysing what is there, this method has a stage where such DNA as is present is multiplied until there are enough copies of it to be analysed.
The LCN DNA technique is controversial in the scientific community.2 Weir J said, para 62:
.....I was concerned at the wide variance in expert opinions, not only as between the Prosecution and Defence but also between the two experts called for the Prosecution. The central plank in the attack made on the evidential value and reliability of this system by the Defence witnesses, Dr Krane and Professor Jamison, was that the LCN system which had been invented by Dr Gill of Birmingham FSS and whose use for evidential purposes is being promoted by him and a colleague at that laboratory, Dr Whitaker, has not been "validated" by the international scientific community. and is considered controversial in the scientific community.2 Weir J said, para 62:[continued PTO]