A6 Rebooted

[Graham]

Reference Julie Q's fascinating post, it does shed some new light on Alphon the man, although I have to say it hasn't substantially altered my opinion of him - basically, that he was unstable. You only have to look at the filmed interview in Paris - he's putting on an act worthy of Olivier. I never believed that he was the A6 killer, even in those distant days when I believed Hanratty was innocent. And I don't think he was the first suspect interviewed by the police - more likely he was the first named suspect.

I didn't know that his DNA had been obtained by subterfuge, and I won't embarrass Julie Q by asking for further information. And I didn't know that Jeremy Fox had helped him out - good for him, because he too fell on hard times.

It is also fascinating to hear what Alphon had to say about Ewer, implying that he was a dangerous bloke to mess around with. I once spent a considerable amount of time trying to obtain information on William Ewer - I admit readily that I'm no expert in such an enterprise, but I drew a big blank. I wonder if William Ewer was his real name, in fact. He must have had something about him to impress a bloke like Jean Justice who, although an ace bullshitter, was an ace bullshitter from the startum of Society where people listened. Yet it seems to me that Ewer downplayed himself to the extent that he was quite happy to be described as an umbrella repairer, when it's known that he acted as intermediary for someone to purchase at auction a valuable - what was it? I've forgotten!

I'm short of time just now, but I'm intending to re-read the 15-point statement he made as a response to the Sunday Times article which questioned his role in the A6 Case.

Finally, many thanks again to Julie Q for an incredibly interesting insight into Alphon's character.

Graham

[Hatchett]

Hello Limehouse,

I think Alphon is worthy of discussion as a sad and troubled individual. Since the DNA findings and other evidence, I am not at all convinced that he is worthy of dicussion as the A6 killer. I think that that is an open and shut case.

Best wishes.

[babybird67]

hi Julie/Hatchett

exactly, Hatchett. Discussion in terms of a player in the case, not as a possible candidate for the A6 killer, which is how he always seems to figure when he is brought into the discussion.

[Graham]

Alphon's involvement in the A6 Case was initially purely coincidental, but once he was in he made the absolute most of it in terms of ŁŁŁ's. But having said that, he really was once within a whisker of being accused, for luckily for him Valerie didn't recognise him - which of course speaks volumes for the fact that she'd never seen him before.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Alphon's involvement in the A6 Case was initially purely coincidental, but once he was in he made the absolute most of it in terms of ŁŁŁ's. But having said that, he really was once within a whisker of being accused, for luckily for him Valerie didn't recognise him - which of course speaks volumes for the fact that she'd never seen him before.

Graham

Yes,I meant to thank Julie q for another superb post this time shedding light on Alphon.Who knows if he had any involvement?Its all a mystery.
If Valerie had seen this person,whoever it was,she certainly had not seen Hanratty otherwise she surely would not have picked someone out with a very different build who ,and she actually did say this "she thought looked like Alphon"----and therefore presumably nothing like Hanratty?Yet Valerie was quite certain ,at the time of the identity parade,this was her rapist!
Her identikit picture looks nothing like Hanratty either.
And I can't help smiling to see you write that Alphon's part in the case was 'purely coincidental'.Why Hanratty would never have been thought of but for Alphon's peculiar behaviour at the Alexandre Hotel and his subsequent link to the Vienna Hotel.
But then I don't for one moment believe that Hanratty was not framed for this murder once it all went pear shaped in that car-----they had to find a scapegoat to deflect from who it really was.
Wouldn't we all love to know what really happened because so much was inconsistent with what we know about these characters.


As Michael Sherrard ,Hanratty's trial barrister said,"I really couldn't bring myself to take in that those who had concealed the evidence in a capital case could have been as wicked as to conceal evidence in a capital case."
Where is the Matthews Report commissioned by Scotland Yard in 1995 that completely exonerated Hanratty and sent them all into a terrible spin? Where is it and have its contents been concealed too ?
Norma

[Hatchett]

Hello Natalie,

You know, if you wish, you can find reasons for conspiracies in just about anything. The real issue in this case as I see it, is that it was a motiveless murder, but that is sometimes tragically how life is. I think the answer to this case is simple as it has been outlined before.

I believe that Hanratty decided on an attempted armed robbery, his bottle went, he chanced upon two lovers in a car and vented his spleen on them, once he calmed down he realised he was in serious trouble and would pay a high penalty for absolutely no gain at all, and didnt know what to do with them. He couldnt let them out of the car, and yet at that stage he didnt want to kill them. Then something happened. Either Gregston tried to grapple with him or something Gregston did frightened Hanratty and he shot him. After that he knew that he would have to kill Valerie. He then raped her and attempted to murder her.

In a state of shock he ground the gears and drove haphazardly away.

After that he was either in a state of denial, or continually lied because he did not want to admit to such a Nationally and humanly horrendous crime.

I know this explanation for someone losing their lives and someone being raped and paralised for life does not sit comfortably in the minds of anyone. But I think that is what happened.

Like I say most murders at the end of the day are sensless and immeasurably sad.

Best wishes.

[Limehouse]

Hello Natalie,

You know, if you wish, you can find reasons for conspiracies in just about anything. The real issue in this case as I see it, is that it was a motiveless murder, but that is sometimes tragically how life is. I think the answer to this case is simple as it has been outlined before.

I believe that Hanratty decided on an attempted armed robbery, his bottle went, he chanced upon two lovers in a car and vented his spleen on them, once he calmed down he realised he was in serious trouble and would pay a high penalty for absolutely no gain at all, and didnt know what to do with them. He couldnt let them out of the car, and yet at that stage he didnt want to kill them. Then something happened. Either Gregston tried to grapple with him or something Gregston did frightened Hanratty and he shot him. After that he knew that he would have to kill Valerie. He then raped her and attempted to murder her.

In a state of shock he ground the gears and drove haphazardly away.

After that he was either in a state of denial, or continually lied because he did not want to admit to such a Nationally and humanly horrendous crime.

I know this explanation for someone losing their lives and someone being raped and paralised for life does not sit comfortably in the minds of anyone. But I think that is what happened.

Like I say most murders at the end of the day are sensless and immeasurably sad.

Best wishes.

The big problem I have with this version of events is that it does not make sense in terms of what Hanratty's objectives may have been as we know him.

If Hanratty had set out to do an armed robbery because he wanted to diversify away from housebreaking - he would not have become so desperate or frustrated with himself that he resorted to holding up a couple in a car. He didn't need to do that. He wasn't desperate for money and if he had been he would simply have resorted to type - that is - he would have burgled a house or houses and resigned himself to sticking to housebreaking for a while longer.

How did he 'chance upon two lovers in a car' in a cornfield in a remote lane? How did he see them? This was a massive field - enclosed except for the concealed entrance - and the lovers were parked a distance into the field - not in the entrance. How did he see them?

You are right about one thing - it is a motiveless murder - until you start to ruffle the surface. The 'official' version of events makes it a motiveless murder but beneath the surface there is an untold story.

[Natalie Severn]

There's something about this case that causes otherwise smart people to see logic where there is none and real possibility in the wildest speculation. They may not like or agree with the evidence for Hanratty being the trigger-happy twit, but in its place they seem to think it's quite acceptable to put baseless fantasies, accusing goodness knows who of goodness knows what, without even a glimmer of evidential support, as if justice could possibly be better served that way. It's hypocritical nonsense.

Hi Caz,

First of all it would be helpful here if you could cite some examples of where there is specific evidence of Hanratty being a 'trigger happy twit'.

When Whitaker was clutching his DNA kaleidoscope and witnessing not only sexual intercourse between the victims of the A6 but another entire act of sexual intercourse taking place between the gunman and the female victim, my reaction quite frankly is to wonder how come.

So he was seriously suggesting he had had sight of two entire acts of sexual intercourse that had taken place on August 22/23 1961 ,the evidence of which was on a fragment of cloth that had been kept in a drawer in paper envelopes ,in non-sterile conditions ,along with Hanratty"s 'intimate samples' each these items being first held in cardboard boxes in a police station in Bedford-see 115 of the appeal hearing? Moreover on each day of the committal in Ampthill the item was taken , then part of a complete pair of knickers and laid out on a table amongst Hanratty"s items such as his trousers from which we know semen was later removed at the end of December 1961 -in the same lab on the day before the piece of cloth was cut from the pair of knickers in the lab.

The whole thing reeks contamination and contamination only ,that enabled Mr Whitaker to get his birds eye view of the rapists complete act of sexual intercourse on the 43 year old fragment of degraded knicker cloth.
Moreover can anyone explain why was there no semen from Hanratty found on the back seat of the Morris Minor???
[And no other forensic link to Hanratty found there either----not even a finger print or fibre from his clothing.
Also The knicker garment in question had been removed for the rape to take place and surely some semen would therefore have found its way to the seat,the floor, etc?
Much of the semen in 1961 was found to be 5 inches upwards on the back part of the actual knickers and on the slips-not on the crotch part especially.

All very suspect

[Natalie Severn]

Hello Natalie,

You know, if you wish, you can find reasons for conspiracies in just about anything. The real issue in this case as I see it, is that it was a motiveless murder, but that is sometimes tragically how life is. I think the answer to this case is simple as it has been outlined before.

I believe that Hanratty decided on an attempted armed robbery, his bottle went, he chanced upon two lovers in a car and vented his spleen on them, once he calmed down he realised he was in serious trouble and would pay a high penalty for absolutely no gain at all, and didnt know what to do with them. He couldnt let them out of the car, and yet at that stage he didnt want to kill them. Then something happened. Either Gregston tried to grapple with him or something Gregston did frightened Hanratty and he shot him. After that he knew that he would have to kill Valerie. He then raped her and attempted to murder her.

In a state of shock he ground the gears and drove haphazardly away.

After that he was either in a state of denial, or continually lied because he did not want to admit to such a Nationally and humanly horrendous crime.

I know this explanation for someone losing their lives and someone being raped and paralised for life does not sit comfortably in the minds of anyone. But I think that is what happened.

Like I say most murders at the end of the day are sensless and immeasurably sad.

Best wishes.

I don't believe the 'speculation' which made up the entire evidence by the prosecution ,Hatchett.Only Valerie saw him and Valerie was sure,in her first ID parade, that Michael Clark,not Hanratty, was her rapist.

You provide me with some specific 'evidence' that links Hanratty to the crime that isn't to do with the DNA---see above post [788] for the reason I find the DNA 'evidence' such an anathema.
Best Wishes,
Norma

[jimarilyn]

He couldnt let them out of the car, and yet at that stage he didnt want to kill them. Then something happened. Either Gregston tried to grapple with him or something Gregston did frightened Hanratty and he shot him. After that he knew that he would have to kill Valerie. He then raped her and attempted to murder her.

That must have been an amazing feat, to have shot two people from 200 miles away while in the land of nod. Was the shooting done by remote control ?

[Hatchett]

Hello All,

In particular Limehouse.

No, it would not be what was Hanratty was expected to do. But at times of low esteem and stress people do what is completely unexpected, because their actions are erratic.

The scenario in the car typifies that.

You have an armed guy going into the car, haranging the occupants for a lengthy time, commanding them to drive on a pointless journey that leads nowhere, he allows one of them to go and buy petrol, he then decides to have a sleep. Something happens and he kills someone and then he rapes and attempts to murder the other. Finally he drives erratically away.

Surelly, these are the actions of someone who clearly not only doesnt know what he is doing, but is also suffering from sort sort of stress.

Best wishes.

[Limehouse]

Hello All,

In particular Limehouse.

No, it would not be what was Hanratty was expected to do. But at times of low esteem and stress people do what is completely unexpected, because their actions are erratic.

The scenario in the car typifies that.

You have an armed guy going into the car, haranging the occupants for a lengthy time, commanding them to drive on a pointless journey that leads nowhere, he allows one of them to go and buy petrol, he then decides to have a sleep. Something happens and he kills someone and then he rapes and attempts to murder the other. Finally he drives erratically away.

Surelly, these are the actions of someone who clearly not only doesnt know what he is doing, but is also suffering from sort sort of stress.

Best wishes.

Yes Hatchett - those are the actions of someone suffering some sort of stress. They don't - however - describe Hanratty's state of mind immediately before or after the events of that night.

We have testimonies that describe Hanratty's movements before the A6 crime. He was perfectly normal - not nervous or stressed. If - as you say- his intention was to carry out an armed robbery for the first time - there might have been some tension about him and his actions. There wasn't. He packs for his trip to Liverpool perfectly calmly. He is not aggitated when he leaves the Vienna hotel.

He is not aggitated when he returned from his trip to Liverpool and Rhyl (or - as you would have it - his return from where ever it is you believe he hid out in the days following the crime where he managed to stay invisible to those around him). His behaviour and movements remained consistent anmd normal for Hanratty.

You describe the behaviour of the gunman when he enters the car and subsequently. I contend that Hanratty would never have entered that car. I contend that IF Hanratty had gone out that night with the intention of carrying out an armed robbery and he had lost his bottle he would have accepted the situation and wandered off to find a house to raid where the occupants had gone out. If he wanted to diversify into armed robbery and it failed that night he didn't need to find a couple in a car to provide pay-back for a failed armed robbery attempt.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

First of all it would be helpful here if you could cite some examples of where there is specific evidence of Hanratty being a 'trigger happy twit'.

Sigh - do you misread my posts on purpose Nats? I thought you had a decent degree in linguistics!

I said 'the' trigger happy twit - you remember, the one who went on to rape and shoot Valerie after shooting dead her lover and stupidly not checking she was also dead when he left the scene. You may not like or agree with the DNA evidence and Valerie's own testimony for Hanratty being the rapist, but you are surely not arguing that the gunman was not a trigger happy twit, or that he did the shooting while someone else carried out the rape - are you?

The whole thing reeks contamination and contamination only ,that enabled Mr Whitaker to get his birds eye view of the rapists complete act of sexual intercourse on the 43 year old fragment of degraded knicker cloth.
Moreover can anyone explain why was there no semen from Hanratty found on the back seat of the Morris Minor???
[And no other forensic link to Hanratty found there either----not even a finger print or fibre from his clothing.
Also The knicker garment in question had been removed for the rape to take place and surely some semen would therefore have found its way to the seat,the floor, etc?
Much of the semen in 1961 was found to be 5 inches upwards on the back part of the actual knickers and on the slips-not on the crotch part especially.

But once again, how can you state with any confidence that the tiniest traces of semen scraped from Hanratty's fly back in 1961 accidentally contaminated the knicker fragment, and that was what showed up in the most recent DNA results, when you state in the next breath that nothing of the sort could have survived for forty years, nor been reliably identified and matched with the hanky and the man's human remains? Can you not see the glaring contradiction here?

And how would you explain the lack of any semen found in the car itself? Are you suggesting someone cleaned up every trace to protect the real rapist's identity - in 1961? Or that Valerie was lying about being raped in the car? I don't get where this one can go, because assuming there was a rapist, the fact that nobody's semen was found in the vehicle itself doesn't clear Hanratty any more than it could clear or incriminate anyone else.

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

Sigh - do you misread my posts on purpose Nats? I thought you had a decent degree in linguistics!

I said 'the' trigger happy twit - you remember, the one who went on to rape and shoot Valerie after shooting dead her lover and stupidly not checking she was also dead when he left the scene. You may not like or agree with the DNA evidence and Valerie's own testimony for Hanratty being the rapist, but you are surely not arguing that the gunman was not a trigger happy twit, or that he did the shooting while someone else carried out the rape - are you?



But once again, how can you state that the tiniest traces of semen scraped from Hanratty's fly accidentally contaminated the knicker fragment, when you state in the next breath that the DNA could not have survived for forty years to provide a reliable match with the hanky and the man's human remains? Can you not see the glaring contradiction here?

And how would you explain the lack of any semen found in the car itself? Are you suggesting someone cleaned up every trace to protect the real rapist? That Valerie was lying about being raped in the car? I don't get where this one can go, because assuming there was a rapist, the fact that no semen was found doesn't clear Hanratty any more than it could clear or incriminate anyone else.

Love,

Caz
X

Trigger happy hardly describes Hanratty if - as some Hanratty-did-its claim - he fired the gun by accident because Gregsten made a sudden move.

Re the lack of semen in the car - it is extremely unlikely that a rape could take place in the back of a Morris Minor during which the victim removed her knickers resulting in no contamination to the car what-so-ever. Add this to the fact that the killer appeared to leave no fibres or hairs or finger prints - then it is not an idiotic suggestion to make that someone (or several people perhaps) thought it was necessary for no trace of the killer to be found in the car.

[babybird67]

or that

Valerie was laying on top of her slip and skirt, and the excess semen leaked onto that (as referred to in the Appeal Judgement).