A6 Rebooted

[Graham]

Hi Graham,

Yes i can hear the trains from the rooms at the back of the house. Mainly my now bathroom which is further back than the others. I believe it used to be Room Number 1 although i'm not too sure as from what i've learnt, the rooms were numbered differently to what they were when i moved in and still are now.
It's not possible to hear the trains from any rooms at the front and definitely not the old bathroom.

Thanks,
Kerry.

Thanks, Kerry.

One time when I was in Kinmel Street I made a point of listening for trains, but couldn't hear any. However, it was as I recall around lunchtime on a fine day and there was plenty of street noise going on. In fairness to Hanratty, I would guess that in 1961 most trains were steam, which made a load more racket than modern locomotives. Also in 1961 the track would have been 'gapped' (for reasons of expansion) making the trains much noisier than today's continuous welded track.

Graham

[caz]

Hi Kerry,

I should have welcomed you before. It's terrific to have you here, giving us genuine 'on the spot' insights about the only place suggested for Hanratty's overnight stay in Rhyl.

If he really was there, I just wish he could have remembered and described any one of the witnesses before they came forward. If they saw and/or spoke to him, it stands to reason that he must have seen and/or spoken to them. And saying so might have gone some way to make up for his original claim to have spent that same night in Liverpool.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sherlock Houses]

I have just downloaded onto my laptop, i'll have a good read through this evening.
Thanks very much for that!

You're welcome Kerry. There's some fascinating stuff in there that's not in the Foot or Woffinden Books. However, it is probably only a fraction of James Hanratty's whole trial evidence.

[caz]

At the trial Sherrard (defence) asked him why, when he knew the police were looking for him, he had not gone to Rhyl to locate the house.
Hnratty replied: “I did not have the right bearings of Rhyl and have only been there on two occasions, although I stayed there two nights. I have some idea of the house I stayed in and some description.”

When Hanratty says he stayed in Rhyl two nights, does he mean the one with Evans then one in the guest house, or does he mean three nights in total?

This is surely crucial to the argument that he stayed two nights in Ingledene but in different rooms. I can't believe he would not have remembered something like that, especially as he remembered the green bath and looking out onto the courtyard, which would have been in different rooms and a night apart.

Love,

Caz
X

[NickB]

He means he stayed in Rhyl two times; the one with Evans (one night) and the one in the guest house (two nights). Three nights in total.

[Spitfire]

I believe that this was planned in advance and if Hanratty was the A6 murderer then he could not have been working alone, therefore there had to a conspiracy of sorts because he would not have been able to send the telegram from Liverpool and put the gun on the bus on the Thursday.

There was plenty of time in the morning and early afternoon of 24 August for Hanratty to put the gun and ammo on the bus, and then get a Liverpool train from Euston to arrive before 8.40 pm in order to send the telegram to France.

[Spitfire]

This series of coincidences, the evidence of six new witnesses and the fact that no one has ever come forward effectively to refute the overall picture, point to only one conclusion: Hanratty was in Rhyl on 22 and 23 Auguast, as he said he was.

I believe that Charlie Jones had long since retracted his statement, and had claimed that he had been coerced by Terry Evans to make it in the first place.

As to the Ivy Vincent, Margaret Walker and Christopher Larman, Mr Sherrard counsel for Hanratty had the opportunity of calling them as witnesses at least for the appeal in 1962, but chose not to do so. It seems that Mr Sherrard did not consider that their statements could assist Hanratty.

[otterman62]

Please forgive me if this has been covered previously but I haven't had a chance to read through all 250 pages of this thread.

The two competing theories seem to be:

1) Hanratty (small time thug/thief) who was known to work mostly in urban/suburban areas somehow randomly found himself in a rural area while he had a gun and ammunition on him. Seeing a couple parked in a car 'making out' (as the kids say), he decides on a bit of carjacking which then leads to murder, rape, and attempted murder none of which he's ever done before (to our knowledge).

2) The family of Gregsten or Storie hires an unknown person (maybe Hanratty, maybe Alphon) to break up the adulterous couple by scaring them. Finding them in a field, the person threatens and then kills Gregsten (after weird highjinks) and then decides that a bit of rape would go down well before attempting to kill Storie- thereby destroying at least one of the people he was supposedly being paid by the family of.

Seriously??!! Neither of those make any sense!

Penhalion, as per my previous , and first, post i agree with you regarding point 1 , that this seems very odd that a known burglar would aparently travel a good distance , by public transport, to arrive in a country location with few houses to burgle, and then instead resort to kidnap, murder and rape.
However I do believe that theory 2 does hold water. It isnt just a crazy theory, but actually a theory that i think ties a lot of strange facts together. One of the reasons this case fascinates me (us) is that over 50+years I dont believe that the case against Hanratty has been completely proven, despite the DNA evidence, and also because so many of the "conspiracy" theories, haven't been adequately disproved or investigated, e.g. his possible alibi's , Frances involvement and suicide , his suicide notes, the payments to Alphon that I am not aware have been explained, and Alphons behaviour and convictions.

[ansonman]

Hi Ansonman,

Thank you for all that information, i wasn't aware of any of it. I still need to get chance to read up on everything. That seems to me to be overwhelming evidence that he was here when he said he was. Why was none of this taken seriously by the police?

Hi Kerry,

The prime suspect was a man called Peter Louis Alphon. On 22nd September the officer in charge of the investigation, DS Robert Acott took the unusual step of publicly naming Peter Alphon as the man suspected of murdering Michael Gregson. There is no question that so far as Acott was concerned, Alphon was their man. Unfortunately for him (and Hanratty) Valerie Storie failed to pick out Alphon from an identity parade held at Guy's hospital on 24 September. The man she did pick out was totally innocent. Fortunately for him, he was able to prove that he could not have been the murderer.

As you can imagine, Acott was under enormous pressure to charge somebody. A lack of motive, evidence and proof linking anyone to the crime made his task all the more difficult. But he had to nail somebody and Hanratty ended up being the fall guy. Sadly there are many cases where the wrong man has been charged with a murder he did not commit.

A more recent example which you may be familiar with, concerns Barry George who was convicted in 2001 with the murder of TV presenter of Jill Dando and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Fortunately for George the death penalty had long ended by the time he was wrongfully charged, although he did spend some years in jail. His appeal in 2002 was dismissed but a second appeal was made in 2006 using fresh evidence and the appeal was allowed in 2007 and his conviction quashed.

The similarities between this and the Hanratty case were that the police were under intense pressure to make an arrest, had no evidence to link anyone to the murder but had to nail somebody. As with the Gregson murder, Jill Dando's assassin got away scott free.

Best regards,

Ansonman

[Derrick]

...So I ask you again. What evidence do you have that Hanratty could not have done both if he was the A6 murderer? Your assertion must have been based on the available time, and not on him being in Rhyl...

Hi Caz

The prosecution planned to call Pamela Patt to give a deposition at the committal. She was ill and did not attend.

But strangely, between then and the trial she wasn't considered an important witness and wasn't called. Her details were withheld from the defence.

The police, as far as I understand, favoured the afternoon run of the bus as the time in which the gun was dumped on it.

So, giving the police and the prosecution the absolute benefit of any doubt then, Ms Patt's statement was of little help to the prosecution and the gun was placed on the bus in the afternoon thus making it impossible for Hanratty to have put it there.

Del

[NickB]

From the Appeal:

'The prosecution suggested that the gun had been deposited on the morning of 24 August.' (section 33)

'Because James Hanratty had sent a telegram from Liverpool to London at 20.40 on 24 August, it was the prosecution case that he had deposited the gun during the early morning run on 24 August when Arthur Embleton was the driver.' (section 159)

[Penhalion]

Penhalion, as per my previous , and first, post i agree with you regarding point 1 , that this seems very odd that a known burglar would aparently travel a good distance , by public transport, to arrive in a country location with few houses to burgle, and then instead resort to kidnap, murder and rape.
However I do believe that theory 2 does hold water. It isnt just a crazy theory, but actually a theory that i think ties a lot of strange facts together. One of the reasons this case fascinates me (us) is that over 50+years I dont believe that the case against Hanratty has been completely proven, despite the DNA evidence, and also because so many of the "conspiracy" theories, haven't been adequately disproved or investigated, e.g. his possible alibi's , Frances involvement and suicide , his suicide notes, the payments to Alphon that I am not aware have been explained, and Alphons behaviour and convictions.

So, which family do you believe instigated this whole fiasco? Was it Mrs. Gregsten to get her husband back? Was it Storie's parents to get their daughter away from a married man?

If Mrs. Gregsten then why would she pay a sizable sum of money to a man who completely cocked up the job and KILLED the husband she was trying to get back?

If the Stories, then, again, why would they pay money to a man who RAPED their daughter and left her paralyzed?

Blackmail from the killer makes no sense because in order for the blackmail to stick, he would have to implicate himself in a case that carried the death penalty.

I don't have a good explanation for Alphon's money, but it could have come from other less than completely lawful activities that he didn't want the police to get wind of and nothing to do with the A6 case.

[NickB]

I have transcribed James Hanratty's trial evidence [February 7th and 8th] gleaned from about 5 or 6 different UK Newspapers of the time.

Thanks Sherlock. I've had a chance to read this now.

Interesting to think how much more there is if he was questioned for 10 hours.

[Sherlock Houses]

Thanks Sherlock. I've had a chance to read this now.

Interesting to think how much more there is if he was questioned for 10 hours.

You're welcome Nick. Hope you found it useful.

Yes, 10 hours of questioning and cross examination in the witness-box must have accounted for plenty of pages of evidence in the trial transcript.

Wishful thinking on my part but perhaps one day the complete trial transcript might become digitalised and be put online for interested parties to read and study.

[cobalt]

You make a good case for neither Mrs Gregsten nor the Storie family being involved in payments to Alphon.

However the amount in Alphon's account was £100,000 in today's money, way beyond what a 'frightener' or even a 'hit' would cost. It was also way beyond the amount of money even the most skilful or lucky gambler could ever hope to have accumulated at the dog track. Not even Cliff Richard or Helen Shapiro were on that sort of money at the time.

Alphon's riches have never been explained, save by himself. As the initial suspect, actually named by the police, it is strange indeed that his later good fortune did not merit more police interest.