A6 Rebooted

[caz]

Well I just finished the Stickler book and I’ve been thinking about how I view the case in general. It’s certainly an intriguing one - but was Hanratty guilty? I certainly couldn’t come down on either side with absolute confidence but I’d have to swing the balance in favour of guilty. There’s no point on me giving the arguments for guilt because you all know them far better than I do. But…for me there is definitely room for doubt. Plenty that is unanswered. Maybe if I read the other new book my opinion might skew in the other direction and I wouldn’t bet any money on my getting the verdict correct. As a comparison, I can’t be sure that my opinion on the Wallace case is correct but I’m far more confident of Wallace’s guilt than I am of Hanratty’s.

Hi Herlock,

I'm fairly confident that Wallace murdered his wife, but even more confident that Hanratty was the A6 killer, because I have seen no plausible explanation for his DNA turning up on the hanky that was found with the murder weapon if anyone else was guilty. There was nothing at the time that could have positively identified the hanky as Hanratty's and lead the police to him that way, and yet he had undoubtedly used it.

I don't see how Hanratty could be successfully framed after the event, when his unpredictable movements that week would be unknown to whoever was trying to frame him, and he could in all likelihood have a cast iron alibi up his sleeve in the event that the police set their sights on him. I'm also wondering how anyone framing him could guarantee that he would become a suspect, and that police attention would not turn to his associates and potential enemies if he could clear himself [either with an alibi, or if Valerie failed to pick him out because he looked nothing like the man who had raped her]. Would he not have been livid if he suspected someone he knew of setting him up for a horrific crime he had not committed? Would he have given this person - possibly the actual gunman - an easy ride by lying about his whereabouts at least once and sending himself to the gallows?

Love,

Caz
X

[moste]

I had 42 anomalies surrounding this case which, read consecutively makes for an extremely week and flimsy reason to hang someone .Alas They disappeared in our move to a new house.You are correct that I have always been very sceptical regarding Valerie as a witness .The fact that her statements are entirely infallible due to her terrible injury irks me the most . She makes the statement in her newspaper 3 page supplement,’I can be led, but never pushed’ I do believe in order for superintendent Acott to get his man put this case to bed, and add more feathers in his and Oxfords hats, Valerie had to be tutored quite expertly.
p.s. I think she said he could flash a light on the back of the car ,not the headlights which would certainly have been clocked by any assailant present.

[cobalt]

Hi Moste,

I know that you remain sceptical about Valerie Storie's account but the one you propose, if valid, could have been acknowledged by her without seriously changing our opinions about the case.

Instead of a madman appearing in a cornfield in Taplow she could merely have explained that as they took a break during their planning for the upcoming car rally, a madman approached them in a layby near Deadman's Hill. I don't see what she gains by not telling this version if it were true.

Incidentally, I think there is corroborated evidence of Mike Gregsten flashing his headlights in an attempt to alert other drivers to his predicament although they did not respond as he hoped. That would indicate a third party inside the vehicle.

Furthermore, if the bullets were indeed .32, then why did some person panic and bung a revolver and some .38 ammo under the back seat of a London bus? How could they have anticipated the police tampering with the forensic evidence?

Sorry to pour cold water on your theory. Like you I think there was more logic to the fatal meeting of the three persons involved than has been revealed.

[moste]

I looked into the fact that Mike was gripping the steering wheel tightly, Valerie stated in one interview that while she was forced to remove her boyfriend from the car, she had to peal his fingers from around the wheel.If this was the case it is most likely that his body went into cadarveric spasm. While having both hands on the wheel.Not something you would achieve if you were passing over a duffle bag

[moste]

I was just doing some research into the effects of discharging. .38 wartime revolver in a space as tiny as a car .Sometimes what people don’t say is as revealing as what they do say.
vis a vis Ms. Stories (or ghost writers ) colourful representation of her experiences on that fateful night, via the 3 page newspaper supplement. she didn’t think it pertinent or valuable enough to lay credence to the fact that the vehicle would be filled with cordite/gunpowder smoke and fumes.
Its interesting that it was thought important enough to mention mikes hands gripping the steering wheel though. Which brings us to ,If he was shot through the face from the rear seat while passing over the duffle bag, would he have positioned himself back sitting straight forward? or as I suspect immediately slumped to his left, down onto Valerie’s knees?
The more we glean from the poor ladies story ,the more we’re faced with UNLIKELYHOODS
I still feel more comfortable with my notion that Gregsten was shot by an assassin through the front passenger window , there never was a car jacker in the back seat the semen belonged to Mike. The highly acclaimed pathologist and author ( ‘40 years of murder’ ) maintained that after he examined Valerie his findings were conducive with rape having been committed.Did he simply mean that semen was present , or that the bruising and mistreatment of her body were such that she had clearly been raped? This is the same pathologist that maintained that when the surgeon removed the bullets from Valerie’s arm ,they were found to be .32 calibre which would involve a completely different firearm that was planted on the bus,plus,the incredible fact that two of the bullets were only just below the surface of the skin. Anomalies abound Chaps!

[moste]

Fascinating .SH.

[Sherlock Houses]

My own suspicion remains that the cartridge cases were planted. Whether they were planted to implicate Alphon or Hanratty remains unclear. It may well be that neither was responsible for the crime but that those behind the attack were stalling for time and wanted to take off 'the heat' by serving up a 'patsy.' To their eventual horror, they saw an innocent man hanged and perhaps paid a price within the criminal fraternity for that. Hanratty. for all his limitations, seems to have been an agreeable enough thief and well regarded.

Hi Cobalt,

I had several very illuminating phone conversations with Hanratty's brother Michael and his dear wife Maureen over the course of several years.

Back in March 2017 Michael told me of an incident concerning his son Michael jr. About a week prior to our conversation Michael jr was on his way home from work and decided to stop off for a drink at some pub. He was standing at the bar having a drink when three men came in. He was looking at the men interestedly and couldn't help but hear some of their conversation. By what they were saying he thought to himself that they must be villains. One of them was talking about the justice system and somehow Michael got involved in their conversation. One of the men, aged about 80, said that he was in prison with Harry Roberts [who murdered two policeman in 1966]. He started talking about the 'Old Bill'. Michael replied "You don't have tell me anything about the 'Old Bill', they executed my uncle." The man said "What, who are you then ?"
Michael told him his name and the chap was gobsmacked. The man replied " I'll tell you what, I was in prison with Harry Roberts and Frankie Fraser. I'm terribly sorry but your uncle didn't commit that murder." Michael said "Well I know that !". The man went on to add that when he was in the prison with all the villains the talk was constantly, almost every day for a long time, about how Jimmy had been stitched up by the 'Old Bill'. Michael was shaking upon hearing all this and had to go outside for a smoke. When he got back the three men had gone. The underworld knew that Hanratty was innocent.

[cobalt]

HS,

No, Hanratty was not 'the brightest spark.' But he made living out of crime when not incarcerated and was street sharp enough. He knew the rules and parameters of his own game.

If he goes to burgle a property in Taplow, is disturbed by the owner and manages to escape, he will serve a couple of years with his record. He knows the tariff. But if he goes to rob the same property at gunpoint, with the same amount of valuables, then on arrest he will serve at least, I guess, about 6 years. So why on earth was he in Taplow with a loaded gun?

[cobalt]

HS,

Your fourth scenario regarding the cartridge cases was not enumerated- perhaps you were shy of making it a theory- but it has to be part of the mix. Remember the context as well: the police were drawn to Swiss Cottage shopping arcade where a J. Ryan was brought to their attention, through disputed sources. This name was not pursued by the detectives (they were not uniformed officers) until the later, rather convenient, discovery of cartridge cases at the Venna Hotel, albeit Alphon became the initial suspect.

My own suspicion remains that the cartridge cases were planted. Whether they were planted to implicate Alphon or Hanratty remains unclear. It may well be that neither was responsible for the crime but that those behind the attack were stalling for time and wanted to take off 'the heat' by serving up a 'patsy.' To their eventual horror, they saw an innocent man hanged and perhaps paid a price within the criminal fraternity for that. Hanratty. for all his limitations, seems to have been an agreeable enough thief and well regarded.

Dixie France committed suicide and we are often told he was a manic depressive. But the timing of his suicide is surely significant, coming after Hanratty's appeal was denied. That doesn't speak to Hanratty's innocence of course: French might have supplied the revolver (many commentators assume he did) and been horrified by how it was used by Hanratty. The other possibility is that French gave evidence against Hanratty at trial, under great duress, and assumed Hanratty would not be convicted. When Hanratty was destined for the gallows it tipped French over the edge.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Vienna is now up-market residential housing.

Part of the 2002 Appeal findings not disputed (like Alphon being innocent) is that the handkerchief with the gun was Hanratty's. I believe defenders of Hanratty say this was part of a conspiracy to frame him.

Thanks Nick.

[NickB]

The Vienna is now up-market residential housing.

Part of the 2002 Appeal findings not disputed (like Alphon being innocent) is that the handkerchief with the gun was Hanratty's. I believe defenders of Hanratty say this was part of a conspiracy to frame him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's a fair point about the cartridge cases falling out of his jacket draped over a chair. We've all lost coins and car keys in that manner I'm sure.

It would however indicate that Hanratty himself had fired the revolver prior to its use in the A6 Case. The police attempted to link the weapon to Hanratty on the basis of a comment he had made to Dixie France about hiding unwanted items underneath the back seat of a bus. (I'll omit the later DNA handkerchief link.) A much stronger link would have been to establish when and from whom Hanratty had acquired the revolver. They could not do so, despite I assume great pressure being put upon underworld figures such as Dixie France. Nor did they attempt to offer any narrative as to when and where Hanratty took his practice shots with this new acquisition.

If we remove the identification evidence of Valerie Storie which has long been contested, there is no evidence that James Hanratty ever handled a revolver before or after the crime.

If it was Hanratty we appear to have 3 possible scenarios.

1. That he fired the gun at some undisclosed location then emptied the cartridges but kept them on his person for some unknown reason before leaving them on the chair at The Vienna as they fell from a jacket pocket after he’d hung it over the back of a chair. Alternatively he just carelessly dropped them on the chair. We would also have to ask where he could have fired a gun twice without drawing attention to himself?

2. That he fired the gun etc and only emptied out the cartridges in room 24 of The Vienna where he left them on a chair. We still have the question of where he could safely have discharged a gun twice.

3. Someone else fired the gun, didn’t empty the cartridges, then hand it to Hanratty.

Out of curiosity does the building that was The Vienna still exist?

From experience you know that I’m not one to favour conspiracy Cobalt but I can’t help thinking that if 3 was the case the keeping a couple of cartridges then dropping them in Hanratty’s room would have been an easy way of framing him. And let’s face it, Hanratty was hardly the brightest spark.

[cobalt]

That's a fair point about the cartridge cases falling out of his jacket draped over a chair. We've all lost coins and car keys in that manner I'm sure.

It would however indicate that Hanratty himself had fired the revolver prior to its use in the A6 Case. The police attempted to link the weapon to Hanratty on the basis of a comment he had made to Dixie France about hiding unwanted items underneath the back seat of a bus. (I'll omit the later DNA handkerchief link.) A much stronger link would have been to establish when and from whom Hanratty had acquired the revolver. They could not do so, despite I assume great pressure being put upon underworld figures such as Dixie France. Nor did they attempt to offer any narrative as to when and where Hanratty took his practice shots with this new acquisition.

If we remove the identification evidence of Valerie Storie which has long been contested, there is no evidence that James Hanratty ever handled a revolver before or after the crime.

[Herlock Sholmes]

HS,

Having doubts is not really a problem, even in cases which are uncontested. My wife used to lift fingerprints for the police back in the day and she told me that even once when a person was bang to rights for a local murder, the detectives still could not nail down all the details of how he entered the house and when and how he disposed of the weapon, which was never found. Which is my way of saying that even if the police in 1961 could not nail down all the details of the A6 murder I concede that this in no way means James Hanratty was innocent.

However I think there are great holes in the prosecution narrative that have never been filled in over the years. I will focus on one small area: the time between Hanratty leaving the Vienna Hotel sometime before noon and arriving in a cornfield in Taplow some time after 9pm. He had a prized new revolver that had been fired at least twice- we don't know by whom. If it was by Hanratty then there is no record of when and where he took his practice shots. No one seems interested much in this detail, although the finding of the same weapon under a bus seat is considered a highlight of the case. JH broke the gun in his basement room. Yet he was extraordinarily careless when reloading the weapon since two cartridge shells fell out, unnoticed by him, and were later found tucked inside a chair. Maybe JH was a careless person. His fingerprints were often found after his burglaries and his driving was less than gentleman of the road type. But to be so careless with a new toy- it seems remarkable he did not notice his error.

What is also remarkable is that once apprehended JH did not deny being in the basement room of the Vienna. Hanratty was no great reader of newspapers it seems but if guilty, he could not have been unaware of the predicament of Peter Alphon and the link to the cartridges in the Vienna Hotel. Why not swear point blank he had never been in the basement and claim any paperwork was erroneous? Via the criminal grapevine he must have been aware that he could use Alphon as a 'patsy.' Yet this murderer/rapist decides to do the decent thing in the knowledge that it places him nearer to the gallows.

Hanratty then sets out from the Vienna Hotel to pursue his criminal activities but in what fashion? He is a burglar, a man who slips in and out of houses and cars and such a man travels light. A suit is an unusual uniform I should think but in a posh area maybe a smart move. So he heads off to Taplow, perhaps an area a criminal acquaintance has alerted him to, to size up some likely properties. So far so good. Except we are told he went there, initially carrying a bag and a portable radio, to commit armed robbery. There are late night cafes, bars, petrol stations all over North London, but JH decides to go to a small town to hold up a property that cannot really exist. The prosecution were riding two horses here and Sherrard should have made more of this: when Hanratty went to Taplow did he go as a burglar or an armed robber? A simple 'either - or' shall suffice.

And how did Hanratty arrive in Taplow? By train it is suggested, yet there is no witness to him ever arriving there either by fellow passengers or by platform staff. He then had to walk some quiet roads and again he remains unseen, despite walking around in a suit carrying a bag. Exactly when he arrived in Taplow has never been sketched in. A man needs water, food and a place to urinate over 9 hours so he cannot easily remain invisible, yet JH managed to do all three unnoticed. There are 9 missing hours in this narrative that some try to fill by Hanratty breaking his journey to meet a criminal acquaintance. But that only raises the possibility of his being seen at railway stations. Others have him sleeping rough in the afternoon for reasons unexplained but that was not the impression Valerie Storie had of her attacker.

And whether intent on burglary or robbery, how did Hanratty intend to leave Taplow? Train seems unlikely if he was carrying swag and maybe he was running short of time to catch a train back to London anyway. As a car thief he might have relied on his criminal skills, but then why was he seeking out a car in a cornfield? And if indeed he did strike lucky, why on earth did he not simply order the couple out of the car at gunpoint and head back to the Big Smoke?

The prosecution is not obliged to 'dot the i's' and 'cross the t's' as I concede, but there are large improbable gaps in the narrative presented.

Good points Cobalt.

A lot of unanswered and unanswerable questions. A couple of points/questions..

Couldn’t the gun have been fired before Hanratty acquired it?

As the cartridges were found on the chair isn’t it more likely that they fell out of a jacket pocket draped over the back of the chair?

[cobalt]

HS,

Having doubts is not really a problem, even in cases which are uncontested. My wife used to lift fingerprints for the police back in the day and she told me that even once when a person was bang to rights for a local murder, the detectives still could not nail down all the details of how he entered the house and when and how he disposed of the weapon, which was never found. Which is my way of saying that even if the police in 1961 could not nail down all the details of the A6 murder I concede that this in no way means James Hanratty was innocent.

However I think there are great holes in the prosecution narrative that have never been filled in over the years. I will focus on one small area: the time between Hanratty leaving the Vienna Hotel sometime before noon and arriving in a cornfield in Taplow some time after 9pm. He had a prized new revolver that had been fired at least twice- we don't know by whom. If it was by Hanratty then there is no record of when and where he took his practice shots. No one seems interested much in this detail, although the finding of the same weapon under a bus seat is considered a highlight of the case. JH broke the gun in his basement room. Yet he was extraordinarily careless when reloading the weapon since two cartridge shells fell out, unnoticed by him, and were later found tucked inside a chair. Maybe JH was a careless person. His fingerprints were often found after his burglaries and his driving was less than gentleman of the road type. But to be so careless with a new toy- it seems remarkable he did not notice his error.

What is also remarkable is that once apprehended JH did not deny being in the basement room of the Vienna. Hanratty was no great reader of newspapers it seems but if guilty, he could not have been unaware of the predicament of Peter Alphon and the link to the cartridges in the Vienna Hotel. Why not swear point blank he had never been in the basement and claim any paperwork was erroneous? Via the criminal grapevine he must have been aware that he could use Alphon as a 'patsy.' Yet this murderer/rapist decides to do the decent thing in the knowledge that it places him nearer to the gallows.

Hanratty then sets out from the Vienna Hotel to pursue his criminal activities but in what fashion? He is a burglar, a man who slips in and out of houses and cars and such a man travels light. A suit is an unusual uniform I should think but in a posh area maybe a smart move. So he heads off to Taplow, perhaps an area a criminal acquaintance has alerted him to, to size up some likely properties. So far so good. Except we are told he went there, initially carrying a bag and a portable radio, to commit armed robbery. There are late night cafes, bars, petrol stations all over North London, but JH decides to go to a small town to hold up a property that cannot really exist. The prosecution were riding two horses here and Sherrard should have made more of this: when Hanratty went to Taplow did he go as a burglar or an armed robber? A simple 'either - or' shall suffice.

And how did Hanratty arrive in Taplow? By train it is suggested, yet there is no witness to him ever arriving there either by fellow passengers or by platform staff. He then had to walk some quiet roads and again he remains unseen, despite walking around in a suit carrying a bag. Exactly when he arrived in Taplow has never been sketched in. A man needs water, food and a place to urinate over 9 hours so he cannot easily remain invisible, yet JH managed to do all three unnoticed. There are 9 missing hours in this narrative that some try to fill by Hanratty breaking his journey to meet a criminal acquaintance. But that only raises the possibility of his being seen at railway stations. Others have him sleeping rough in the afternoon for reasons unexplained but that was not the impression Valerie Storie had of her attacker.

And whether intent on burglary or robbery, how did Hanratty intend to leave Taplow? Train seems unlikely if he was carrying swag and maybe he was running short of time to catch a train back to London anyway. As a car thief he might have relied on his criminal skills, but then why was he seeking out a car in a cornfield? And if indeed he did strike lucky, why on earth did he not simply order the couple out of the car at gunpoint and head back to the Big Smoke?

The prosecution is not obliged to 'dot the i's' and 'cross the t's' as I concede, but there are large improbable gaps in the narrative presented.