A6 Rebooted

[Ed James]

Hi
Back on the site after many years absence. A point I have often wondered about. Did Hanratty possess and wear a wrist watch at the time of the hijacking? At the Commitall Valerie Storie said the gunman was always looking at his watch. But under examination by Sherrard at the full trial, she said I believe that she didn't recall whether the man had a watch . I also understand the gold watch that Hanratty was attempting to sell didn't work. Valerie said the gunman repeatedly said there was plenty of time.

I would be most interested in others thoughts and views.

Ed James

[moste]

Obviously of earlier years than that which confronted Storie. But nevertheless clearly is nothing like Hanratty or Alphon for that matter. Actually a young Gene Pitney comes to mind.
I had not remembered this photo or the letter that came with it. This clearly highlights the regrettable decision of Sherrards not to pursue seeking out, and subpoenaing Clark at once ,in order to convince the court and jury that Storie had no idea whatever of her assailants identification.

[moste]

Uploaded from 2 1/2 yrs ago after Sherlock house’s correspondence with Michael Clark’s step sister. I had forgotten about this .

[cobalt]

The ex-policeman angle is a new one on me as well. Anonymous ex-policeman and his missus, 35 years after murder, come up with revelation? Less than convincing.

Not for me, so far as I can judge. And I am in the 'Hanratty was most likely innocent' camp. If I could see their claimed initial statements from the day after the murder I might be happy to revise my opinion: that is if such statements actually exist. Up till then all I can see is attention seekers.

[moste]

Remember the story of couple trying to assist what may very likely have been the killer, didn’t remember it as having been an ex policeman!

[cobalt]

This sighting seems a variation of a sighting many of us will have come across before. The version I came across was about a couple who saw a dramatisation of the A6 Case in the (early?)1970s and realised they had probably witnessed vital evidence in relation to the crime. Why they had been unaware of their vital evidence up till that point was always a problem with the reliability of their evidence.

This newspaper account contains the same details as I recall them, but adds one very important detail that removes the problem of delay: it is claimed that the couple made statements to the police the very day after the crime was committed. Taken at face value such statements would be as significant as other contemporary statements that have never seemed to surface: the notes taken by Kerr, the student who first spoke to Valerie Storie; the first statement made by Mrs. Lanz, proprietor of the Station Inn.

However I remain a little sceptical of the account. The couple preferred to remain anonymous. There is no explanation offered as to why they were driving through the area at around 3am in the morning. There is no explanation of why they stopped to offer assistance; the driver was not standing underneath an upturned bonnet so why did they assume the car was occupied? Would many couples have stopped to offer a stranger help at that time in the morning? Would they have been able to see much of a man's face in what was presumably an unlit area? Would Alphon not have politely rejected their offer of help instead of being abusive and drawing unnecessary suspicion on himself? Given the obvious potential importance of their alleged sighting it is hard to believe the couple would have remained schtum given the high profile reporting of the crime in 1962.

[Sherlock Houses]

This newspaper article from June 1996 certainly makes for very interesting reading.....

[Sherlock Houses]

Recently I came across a very revealing letter that Jeremy Fox wrote to a Bedfordshire newspaper in April 1987.......

[moste]

Always had it my mind that although Hanratty dealt with Anderson for moving on treasures , it would always be smaller stuff. If for example a Wilson Steer needed finding a new home ,Ewer would be your man.No doubt Hanratty knew of him but allowed Anderson to do her stuff, no need to involve himself or contact Ewer unnecessarily. Mind you France being in the mix and Hanratty being so IN with that family , you never know.

[cobalt]

There are few claims in that exchange which would have to be confirmed.

It's generally accepted that William Ewer knew both Louise Anderson and Dixie France. Anderson was in the same line of work as Ewer whereas his relationship with France is open to conjecture, albeit that it was Ewer who acknowledged France had come to his premises to offer what seemed to be some sort of apology after the murder. That would certainly suggest a previous relationship of some kind.

However I have never come across evidence of Alphon and Ewer being acquainted. I can certainly imagine a few reasons why they might have been- a common political interest involving some links to the security services being one of them. Ewer, whose wartime activities remain unknown, emerges as someone doing a little more than running an antique dealers. The rarely employed Alphon rarely seemed short of money and the notion that he existed on successful betting coups flies in the face of everything we know about gamblers. He also received handouts from his parents although we are encouraged to believe his father was a humble clerical worker at Scotland Yard. Plenty of grounds for suspicion that they might have been acquainted but nothing concrete I am aware of.

The Ewer link to Hanratty would presumably have come via Anderson and France. It's speculated that Hanratty offloaded some of his swag to Ewer on occasion but again there is no proof of this. When Hanratty was abandoned by Anderson and France at trial he would presumably have made a link between their evidence and the promptings of William Ewer had he been associated with all three. Yet I don't remember Hanratty ever mentioning Ewer by name.

[Sherlock Houses]

Therefore we sceptics are left with the very strong possibility that Hanratty's DNA was deliberately planted on the exhibits. This would be a conspiracy of course, the kind of which happens about every other week in the political and legal systems in order to maintain some semblance of credibility with the wider public. Most governments are a conspiracy against the people so there is nothing shocking in claiming this to be the case, especially where UK justice is concerned. It's par for the course as we have seen over the years in the cases involving Timothy Evans, the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, Stefan Kisko or the Hillsborough disaster. Manufacturing evidence is just part of the legal apparatus, along with concealing evidence that is unhelpful to the prosecution case.

A good number of years ago while surfing the Internet [without even getting wet] I came across an interesting article on
the Liberal Democrat Voice website. The poster, Angus Huck, going off topic ['Cash for honours'] somewhat, mentions the Hanratty case.
He submitted three posts and apart from a couple of minor errors he makes some interesting comments. That article, from July 2007, is still available online and for anyone interested here is the link. [The relevant parts are contained within the first two thirds of the article.]......

https://www.libdemvoice.org/%E2%80%98cash-for-honours%E2%80%99-the-inquiries-continue-1068.html

[cobalt]

Moste,

Don't be so coy. I know you as a man who sees the bigger picture. If Hanratty's DNA was on the victim's underwear then he would be as guilty as sin. No argument.

Now it's possible to adopt a halfway house argument and claim that Hanratty's DNA was inadvertently leaked on to historic exhibits and that therefore he was innocent. That was the strategy adopted at the appeal in order to offer an off ramp to the judicial system. It was as we know rejected.

Therefore we sceptics are left with the very strong possibility that Hanratty's DNA was deliberately planted on the exhibits. This would be a conspiracy of course, the kind of which happens about every other week in the political and legal systems in order to maintain some semblance of credibility with the wider public. Most governments are a conspiracy against the people so there is nothing shocking in claiming this to be the case, especially where UK justice is concerned. It's par for the course as we have seen over the years in the cases involving Timothy Evans, the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, Stefan Kisko or the Hillsborough disaster. Manufacturing evidence is just part of the legal apparatus, along with concealing evidence that is unhelpful to the prosecution case.

In the Hanratty case the concealment involved the murder car itself where we are still being encouraged to believe that no forensic evidence was obtained. This was seen as ludicrous even back in these pre- DNA days but remains an article of faith for those who believe Hanratty was guilty. They can never account for this forensic free car - any contributions welcome- but instead cling to a handkerchief (of dubious provenance) much as Othello did to prove his wife's guilt. They prefer evidence from the back seat of a public corporation bus to that of a car where the murder and rape occurred. They love DNA, except when there is none. So they were presented with some DNA to salve their conscience. Case closed.

[moste]

I wonder if Stickler would know as much or more about dna, than we do. I have asked in as many ways as I can think of, on line, where discussions are on going about the degradation of dna ,in all of the possible situations. And amazingly I can’t seem to find anyone whether an expert in the field with letters after their name, or even a lab technician working in the field, to give an enlightening answer .
It isn’t a tricky one for the learned. A 40 year old piece of cloth with semen stains, treated understandably with total indifference where the still unknown dna is concerned, IE. no gloves worn during handling ,allowing other dna exhibits to come close or into contact ,breathing on ,talking over, while packing and unpacking. My guess is , any modern day specialist would not put their name to any so called results from a test of the said piece of cloth. The fact that the officials came up with a conclusion smacks of collusion.

[moste]

I wonder if Stickler would know as much or more about dna, than we do. I have asked in as many ways as I can think of, on line, where discussions are on going about the degradation of dna ,in all of the possible situations. And amazingly I can’t seem to find anyone whether an expert in the field with letters after their name, or even a lab technician working in the field, to give an enlightening answer .
It isn’t a tricky one for the learned. A 40 year old piece of cloth with semen stains, treated understandably with total indifference where the still unknown dna is concerned, IE. no gloves worn during handling ,allowing other dna exhibits to come close or into contact ,breathing on ,talking over, while packing and unpacking. My guess is , any modern day specialist would not put their name to any so called results from a test of the said piece of cloth. The fact that the officials came up with a conclusion smacks of collusion,
borne out by the list of home secretary’s that exhibited an incredible act of non action and procrastination,

[cobalt]

He was charging £8 for an hour and a half presentation in 2023.