A6 Rebooted

[OneRound]

Natalie - I've noted a lot of references to the Sunday Times article. Grateful if you could please supply a link or similar.

Thanks,

OneRound

[Natalie Severn]

Natalie - I've noted a lot of references to the Sunday Times article. Grateful if you could please supply a link or similar.

Thanks,

OneRound

I don't have a link as such but the entire article is on pages 380 and 381 of Bob Woffinden's book Habnratty the Final Verdict
Its a 15 point statement by William Ewer.[even better,imo, is the feature article in the Daily Sketch which went to print directly it was free to publish after the trial on February 19 1962.It gives a full account of the background to the story,already known to Fleet Street journalists.I have another article printed in the colour supplement of The Sunday Times,on December 18th 1966-Peter Laurie and Brian Moynahan wrote it and its an in depth examination of the various goings on.

[OneRound]

It all went wrong.Just a week after the murder Ewer was flying round Swiss Cottage after Hanratty[sept 1st 1961] shouting to the roof tops that he was Gregsten's killer-see the Sunday Times of 1971 May 16th.---and letting Scotland Yard know that Hanratty was Ryan through the dry cleaners and Cater's flower shop clues.But Scotland Yard didn't pick it up! They were solely concentrated on Alphon!It was another month before Hanratty got into 'their' frame[September 25th] and it was on September 25th-just after Alphon was dropped from police inquiries- that Charles France went to the police station and told them that his friend had told him the back seat of a bus was where he hid his rubbish.
Now if Hanratty had been 'hired' do you honestly think Ewer and Janet Gregsten would tell anyone?Ofcourse not!Hence the initial decoy with Mrs France talking daft in late August about the dark eyed identikits 'looking like the light blue eyed Hanratty!'All decoy-all smoke and mirrors!

Hi Natalie,

Firstly, thanks for the reference to the Sunday Times article.

However, aren't you again giving a rather one sided take on this? Didn't Ewer issue a robust denial of much of what was published in these newspapers?

As for Mr France, aren't you possibly being a bit harsh? His wife thought the identikit picture of the murderer looked like Hanratty with one exception (the eyes which seem to have been a subject of confusion and denial for almost half a century!). The gun and ammo boxes had been found in a hiding place that Hanratty used as he admitted telling France. Given all this, didn't France actually do the right thing in telling the police of his suspicions / concerns as soon as the first main suspect, Alphon, had been dropped from police enquiries?

Best wishes,

OneRound

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Natalie,

Firstly, thanks for the reference to the Sunday Times article.

However, aren't you again giving a rather one sided take on this? Didn't Ewer issue a robust denial of much of what was published in these newspapers?

As for Mr France, aren't you possibly being a bit harsh? His wife thought the identikit picture of the murderer looked like Hanratty with one exception (the eyes which seem to have been a subject of confusion and denial for almost half a century!). The gun and ammo boxes had been found in a hiding place that Hanratty used as he admitted telling France. Given all this, didn't France actually do the right thing in telling the police of his suspicions / concerns as soon as the first main suspect, Alphon, had been dropped from police enquiries?

Best wishes,

OneRound

Yes-I am giving a rather one sided take on things.I have no interest in talking a lot of nonsense about some of these people who said things that contributed ,in my view, to an innocent man being hanged.
Ewer most definitely said things that he denied and then admitted on 16 May 1971---read what he said and then see if you really think he is an innocent at large over fingering Hanratty.They said things to reporters -he and Janet -and then denied it---and this was very thoroughly checked out by Paul Foot who was an investigative journalist of the utmost integrity.
France committed suicide 3 days after Hanratty was hanged.He had been to the police with information that in retrospect seems very odd indeed-as does a hanky of Hanratty's being wrapped round the murder weapon on a bus that passed the bottom of France's road.The only other person likely to have had access to a hanky of Hanratty's was Charlotte France who did his washing-Charles could easily have smuggled it out without her knowing actually.
I do not think that in the early stages of the murder hunt ie the week following the murder,Charles wanted Hanratty hanged.He saw him as a patsy possibly-an easy target for something to do with his small time stuff at the rehearsal club---he could have just got someone a gun and blow me down it all went pear shaped and somebody got shot and killed and a young woman of 23 was left paralysed for life .I believe France was as horrified by what happened as everyone else but did he play a part? Thats the question.

The really tragic and harsh stuff concerns Valerie Storie, Michael Gregsten and James Hanratty who was executed when there was everything to be doubtful about regarding his guilt.He should never have been hanged.All the evidence was circumstantial.Even Valerie's identification was amazing-I mean she was quite sure only three weeks before ,that the RAF man Clark was her rapist and attacker.Valerie admitted four weeks before that identification
that her memory of the man's face was fading----she told Supt, Acott this and is is written in files.
Hanratty was never seen in London or Slough or Deadmans Hill between am of 22 August 1961 and 25 August 1961. Neither were his fingerprints,blood, hairs, fibres ever found on or near the Morris Minor,or on the gun or any cartridges or cartridge cases .He was a man who stole cars and its ludicrous to think he would have needed Valerie Storie to help him find the gears of a morris minor that a child could drive---why it had the most basic engine imaginable!!!!and not know how to start It?????Come on !
But really I find the case so awful,so disgusting in every way---some of which you have touched on yourself to be fair, that I don't any longer find this is the place to discuss it .Out of respect for all concerned.
But if you do and others do fine,its a good message board but I think I will stick to discussing the mystery of JtR on here!
Cheers and
Best Wishes
Norma

[OneRound]

Natalie - whilst I don't share the same clear view as you of Hanratty's innocence, I like your passion for the cause. I and I'm sure others would be disappointed by your departure from this thread.

The nature of any good forum is healthy debate and at times polite disagreement. Having said that, I actually think you might approve of my forthcoming planned attack on the DNA ''evidence''.

I do hope to see more of you here.

Best wishes,

OneRound

[Limehouse]

Hi Natalie ,

Anyone attempting to frame Hanratty would not have known exactly where he was or who he might have been with around the time of the murder. For all the framer(s) knew, Hanratty might easily have been able to produce just one certain witness or verifiable item / receipt to clearly establish his innocence. For all the other careful planning that must have gone on for a frame up, it seems a massive gamble to assume he wouldn't have been able to do so.

That's all on that.

Again, this doesn't prove guilt but it's one of the reasons that I doubt his innocence.

Best wishes,

OneRound

This is a fair point OneRound, but as I mentioned in my previous post, the ones really in the know about Hanratty's Liberpool trip were France and other criminal associates. They would have known that Hanratty would never sign his own name in a B&B and would not keep much evidence of his trip because it was to sell stolen goods and possibly to steal more! Why would he keep a bus ticket that showed he was somewhere selling stolen loot? He was not to know he was about to be accused of the A6 crime!

Secondly, Hanratty DID produce witnesses concerning his trip north - both in Liverpool and Rhyl - but the jury didn't accept their version of events.

Julie

[Natalie Severn]

Thankyou for your above post ,One Round.Lets see how it goes then---I will be very interested to read your stuff on the DNA-excellent!!!I think the main thing on here is to be careful not to let it get into a slanging match because that is so counterproductive.Those who think Hanratty was innocent form a sizeable number-still.In March 1962 90,000 signed a petition and since then numerous people have failed to accept his guilt based on the evidence put forward at the trial.From the committal hearing the betting was massively in favour of him simply being acquitted and at the trial itself the same.
But returning to the DNA ---well,its all changing now -re the Lawrence and Knox trials---it was deemed wholly suspect--and unreliable.
Best
Norma

[OneRound]

This is a fair point OneRound, but as I mentioned in my previous post, the ones really in the know about Hanratty's Liberpool trip were France and other criminal associates. They would have known that Hanratty would never sign his own name in a B&B and would not keep much evidence of his trip because it was to sell stolen goods and possibly to steal more! Why would he keep a bus ticket that showed he was somewhere selling stolen loot? He was not to know he was about to be accused of the A6 crime!

Secondly, Hanratty DID produce witnesses concerning his trip north - both in Liverpool and Rhyl - but the jury didn't accept their version of events.

Julie

Hi Julie,

As ever, you argue your points clearly and fairly.

I accept your ''bus ticket not being kept'' view. It was only meant as an example and obviously wasn't a good one. In total hindsight, how different things would have been if Hanratty had happened to stuff the Rhyl bus ticket in the pocket of his Hepworth trousers and keep it there until Acott saw him?!

The point I was really trying to make - and I think you appreciate it - is that if I was seeking to frame someone for a murder, I would want to be entirely sure they couldn't produce an alibi to immediately knock down all my other careful plans. Yes, it was known that Hanratty was going to be up to no good and trying to keep a low profile but that wouldn't have satisfied me. Maybe, I'm too law abiding ;-) .

With regard to your second point, I think it is fair to say that not one individual witness was 100 per cent convincing. However, I do accept the cumulative effect of the several witnesses lends weight to Hanratty's defence.

Best regards,

OneRound

[louisa]

Natalie - please stay! I agree with all of your comments and you've put them well.

Especially this one:

"Now if Hanratty had been 'hired' do you honestly think Ewer and Janet Gregsten would tell anyone?"

Very true.


My belief that Alphon was the rapist and murderer stem from a number of reasons. He was a nutcase, but surely the person who behaved so bizzarely and carried out these acts had to be a nutcase?

And why in the world would Alphon harrass Dixie France (to his death) - William Ewer as well - if he himself wasn't involved in the rape/murder and knew the truth about things - how it all happened?

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Louisa .Lets see how we get on now because last time there were a lot of altercations and it spoiled the discussion.

I don't really think Hanratty was 'framed' in the conventional sense.He was there ---ie staying over at the France's , staying over at Louise Anderson's that Summer.He was supposed to be in LIverpool .If France or Louise Anderson implicated Hanratty I would suspect it may have been because everybody had got into a big pile of doo doo because things had gone very wrong over acquiring the gun-illegal stuff but not on a par with murder-but the person who was given the task of 'frightener' and who had the gun , buggered to whole thing up basically.
Hanratty I see as just a patsy---handy to have him away-and implicating him
could do no harm because after all he could just tell them he was in Liverpool. and his friends in the fencing trade would corroborate it and he would be dropped from police inquiries like Alphon himself eventually was.
But the point you make about the terrible nuisance calls suffered by
the Russells and the FRance's can be seen as very much a symptom of a mentally disturbed man.Everything to do with Alphon's personality -triggered into a mad episode by the stress of the moment--especially his non-stop bizarre chatting to the couple-qualifies him for the shocking act on the A6.It doesn't mean he did it.It means he could have.

[Limehouse]

Hi everyone,

It's great to see the debate up and running again! It''s also good to welcome some new contributors with fresh ideas and new angles.

I think it can remain civilized because everyone is so far respecting the views of others.

I am looking forward to hearing more from One Round re the DNA and especially so in the light of recent ases, as mentioned by Norma.

Have a good evening everyone.

[OneRound]

Hi everyone,

It's great to see the debate up and running again! It''s also good to welcome some new contributors with fresh ideas and new angles.

I think it can remain civilized because everyone is so far respecting the views of others.

Julie and all - I very much share those sentiments. Well said!

We shouldn't be afraid to challenge but should always try to be polite and respectful. After all, probably no one now knows or will ever know every single answer to all the many complex questions surrounding this bewildering and tragic mystery.

For my part, I have some thoughts and ideas but accept that is all they are.

Best wishes,

OneRound

[louisa]

Hi One Round

What are your thoughts and ideas?

Sorry if I'm asking you to cover old ground. I have read all the posts on the A6 thread but I've forgotten who said what now.

I kept wanting to chip in but I wasn't allowed to post on the Hanratty thread until a few days ago.

I'm interested in everybody's opinion and if somebody can explain if and why they think Hanratty was the murderer then I'd be interested to hear why they've come to that conclusion.

I'm always ready to be persuaded.

[OneRound]

Hi Louisa,

If you don't mind, I'll first of all try and persuade people why the Court of Appeal judgment and, in particular, the DNA ''evidence'' doesn't work for me. That will be difficult to put down as thoroughly as I want but I'll give it a good go. At least, I feel certain about that which will help me.

My other thoughts and ideas are far less certain and might be better called suspicions of varying confidence. I'm happy to return to those but would probably not do them or myself justice (no pun intended!) if I put them down without some thought and reasonably clear explanation.

I hope my views might be of some interest but I'm primarily here to continue listening and learning as I've been doing for the last two or three years from the sidelines of this fascinating forum.

Best wishes,

OneRound

[louisa]

The Hanratty case is a fascinating one for several reasons. Whether guilty or not, the trial was a farce.

There are so many pieces to this jigsaw and some strange coincidences (if indeed they are coincidences) and it's frustrating not being able to 'crack the case' - surely between all of us on this forum we can come up with the missing piece of the jigsaw, whatever that is?

I really don't think we can rely on DNA being 100% trustworthy. Clothing evidence (especially from as long ago as 1961) could have been contaminated - and the chances are that it was.