A6 -location of scene and 2nd appeal

[Graham]

First off, has anyone any thoughts or comments regarding my Post 123? It has been suggested to me that if the ballistic finds in the car were indeed bullets and not cartridge cases, then how did one of these end up in the glove pocket after being fired at MG's head? It has also been put to me that, whereas Foot states that the finds were cartridge-cases, which in view of the above makes much more sense, Woffinden makes no mention of the finds at all, which, as is often the case with Uncle Bob, is very likely highly suggestive. I am unable to accept that unless the bullets passed through MG (which they did) and through an open window into the countryside, they did no other damage to the interior of the car. Therefore for the time being, unless someone can come up with anything solid to contradict this, I will continue to believe that the finds in the car were cartridge cases and not bullets. I have seen just one photo of the car's interior, and there doesn't seem to be any gunshot damage, or damage that could possibly be attributed to gunshots.

As to other forensics in the car, Caz is totally correct when she states that it is odd how prints from MG, VS and other innocent users, were found, but no others. OK, so maybe Hanratty wore gloves. But left no other traces? I still can't get my head around this. I agree with Steve - I don't believe the car was cleaned. I think the lack of any forensics linking Hanratty (or anyone else other than legitimate users) to the car is a result either of exceptionally good fortune or incompetence or both.

Regarding why the gunman retained the gun and didn't chuck it into the nearest pond or river or thick undergrowth, I think that a part answer to this may lie in Hanratty's personality. As you all know (!) I do not like to speculate, but I'd say that after the murder, JH's mind was in such a state that all he could think of was getting back to familiar territory, i.e., London.
I have previously suggested/speculated that the gun was obtained for him by Charles France, although quite obviously I have absolutely no proof of this, and that JH's thoughts went along the lines, "OK Dixie, you've got me into this, now you can get me out of it", and he returned the gun to Dixie to dispose of, perhaps with a threat of violence. (Although having said that, Dixie France wasn't as soft as he might appear - he ran the Harmony Cafe in Soho, and was rumoured to have a whole arsenal of weapons under the counter, to deal with any trouble). So Dixie did get rid of the gun, but in a way he thought might incriminate JH and take the pressure of him, Dixie, by putting it in a place that JH had previously suggested he used to dispose of unwanted articles. I still find it slightly hard to believe that JH would himself dump the gun in a place he openly admitted he'd identified to Dixie, i.e., under the back seat of a bus. I honestly think that any murderer with even half his wits intact after such a terrible crime would've tossed the gun + ammo into The Thames, had he brought it back to London with him. And finally, when shown the hankie in which the gun + ammo was wrapped, JH openly admitted that it was his. (In which case, how would he recognise it? Was it monogrammed, perhaps?) Again, this strongly suggests to me that it was not JH himself who planted the gun on the bus.

Enough.

Cheers,

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Julie,

I agree it all sounds very strange, nevertheless this is what the killer apparently did, so we're stuck with it.

But why would this be any kind of argument against Hanratty, acting alone and using a gun for the first time to commit murder and rape? What sort of an argument would it be for anyone else as the gunman - for example a smarter or more experienced operator, who had planned a nasty surprise for the courting couple, perhaps on instructions from, or with the knowledge and assistance of others? Would we have seen such a catalogue of ineptitude from anyone but a man on his own and well out of his criminal depth?

If others were in on this, and were happy with the individual they were sending to that cornfield to act on their behalf, I'll eat my hat. I

Hi Caz,
Well the professional view of the Matthews Report headed by a very senior detective and completed after a year of examining all the new as well as the older evidence/ withheld statements etc undertaken by 20 detectives looking into the case, commissioned by Scotland Yard at the request of the Home Office
was that this was not a murder that had been carried out by one individual and that more were involved.
In my view its very easy to see a scenario where Charles France was involved.After all,he knew Hanratty would be away that week.Knew he was desperate to sell some rings and a watch.Charlotte had done Hanratty's laundry and provided Hanratty with a suitcase full of clean shirts /clean handkerchiefs/ socks etc.
So just lest suppose that France had been approached by a certain small antiques dealer who he knew because he did bits of business with him-and France of late had acted as Hanratty's fence .Now France only lived a few hundred yards up the road from his small antiques shop.France could even put him in touch with people in Soho who sold antiques if need be---and they got talking-[yes-ofcourse they knew each other why else did France go into his shop and 'apologise' for what had happened to his brother in law?].Anyway the guy in the shop began to appreciate that France might the very man who might help him out over a small personal matter-a matter that was causing great distress to someone very dear to him .Could he get hold of a 'frightener'-a gun for him----not to actually use on any one-just to shake this chap up and his mistress and put a stop to the damn relationship once and for all?So a plan was agreed.France knew someone who would do the job---[this could have been anyone-an East Ender ,a family member[quite possible in my view] or even someone from the club in Soho].He would need to be driven over to the Station Inn Pub in Slough where they would sit in a corner and watch out for Gregsten and his companion to come in -they knew both were back from their vacations and would be meeting there as usual-just as Mrs Lanz later told detectives..Then when they left they would follow them-one man would drop the 'gunman 'off who would then ' hold them up'.
But it didn't go to plan.Gregsten got shot and killed-probably by accident-The young woman got raped shot and left for dead.
This was the very last thing the devastated France had expected.Panic set in-he had suggested to the gunman that he fake an identity loosely based on his 'live in pal ' Hanratty-this was just to cover any come back from the police if the couple snitched about the hold up ever---but bugger! everything went pear shaped!now Hanratty was going to have to be the patsy good and proper---plant the damn gun under the back seat of a local bus,grab one of Hanratty's dirty hankies from Charlotte's laundry basket and wrap it round the 60 boxes of ammunition and the gun,let the police know it was where Hanratty his his rubbish-----etc
Meanwhile the shop owner would claim to have seen the murderer going into the dry cleaners opposite his shop etc and call the police about him on September 1st 1961....deflect deflect from the actual killer quickly as possible---.....and Lo and behold the character chosen none other than Hanratty-France's live in pal!But hey! that would actually deflect from the real killer wouldn't it?
He would hardly have pointed Hanratty out if he had actually been the real killer because that would have immediately led back to the real murder whose identity must be kept secret---
I dont actually think the real murderer lived very long after the bungled job he had done---probably ended up in one of the famous cement mixers on the A4
cheers
Norma

[Graham]

Nats, I really have to say that I do admire your persistence. I'll say what I want to say even though I am fully aware that my words will have no effect on you at all!

First, the Matthews Report was ultimately rejected. The DNA results were not.

Second, there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone, either William Ewer or a member of Gregsten's family, or a member of Valerie Storey's family, or Janet Gregsten, planned or conspired to scare MG and VS into ending their relationship. Indeed, Janet is on record as saying that she actually understood her husband's serial need for a bit of nookie on the side. The Gregstens and the Storeys, as well as Janet and William Ewer, were of genteel, educated, middle-class backgrounds, and none of them had either the money or indeed the wits, knowledge or indeed the reason to engage a gunman into scaring MG out of his naughtiness with VS. That suggestion had always struck me as totally ludicrous. And before you say it, yes I know that after the event Janet and William Ewer had a long-standing affair. And if you read the books, you'll understand why.

Third, Dixie France was almost certainly involved, but not as the willing contributor to any conspiracy, because there was no conspiracy; rather as a hanger-on, a bit player who may or may not have supplied Hanratty with the gun. Whatever Dixie's involvement, it was enough to cause him to eventually kill himself. There was a terrible and tragic sequence of unplanned events that led to the A6 crime. Dixie was on the edge, but close enough to see that there was a real chance he might have been hauled in as an accessory to murder, something he was unable to countenance or live with.

Fourth - you're right, the murderer didn't live long after the crime. He was, in fact, executed at Bedford Prison on 4th April 1962.

By the way, if, as you claim, the 'real' A6 killer ended up in cement, could you please enlighten us with your views as to who put him there? Janet, perhaps? William Ewer? Charlotte France? Louise Anderson? The Krays?

Regards,

Graham

[Cogidubnus]

Two bullets

A naive thought perhaps, but one I had to get off my chest...

Since, for consistencies sake, we're thinking upon the lines that these can't be cartridge cases (else they'd be described so), and since, equally, they're unlikely to be spent bullets (else where's the damage to the car interior, and how does one get into the glove compartment?)...then why shouldn't they be exactly what they're described as...unused bullets? After all there are supposed to be boxes of the damned things around...

All the best

Dave

[EddieX]

Interesting, but the fact that the gun was wrapped in Hanratty's hankie would not necessarily prove that Hanratty had left the gun on the bus, still less that he was the murderer.

It would,however, prove that whoever disposed of the gun had access to Hanratty's laundry. This would be Hanratty himself and the France family. As Dixie France believed Hanratty to be in the north-west of England, then he would be incriminating himself, unless he believed that Hanratty would not have evidence to sustain an alibi.

How did France know that Hanratty had no credible alibi evidence? Especially how did he know this as at 24 August when he allegedly caused the gun to be disposed of on the bus?

[Graham]

Interesting, but the fact that the gun was wrapped in Hanratty's hankie would not necessarily prove that Hanratty had left the gun on the bus, still less that he was the murderer.

DNA showed that the hankie was Hanratty's. I did say that the fact the gun was wrapped in one of his hankies did strongly suggest that it wasn't Hanratty who left the gun on the bus; rather, someone who was trying to incriminate him.

I suggest that Hanratty, on returning to London after the crime, went very quickly to Dixie France to 'return' the gun to him. I use the word 'suggest': I have no actual evidence that this was part of the chain of events.

G

[EddieX]

A naive thought perhaps, but one I had to get off my chest...

Since, for consistencies sake, we're thinking upon the lines that these can't be cartridge cases (else they'd be described so), and since, equally, they're unlikely to be spent bullets (else where's the damage to the car interior, and how does one get into the glove compartment?)...then why shouldn't they be exactly what they're described as...unused bullets? After all there are supposed to be boxes of the damned things around...

All the best

Dave

That's the point they are described as bullets (items 30 & 31 of post #127) not unused bullets. The term bullet is used in items 2,3 and 34 in a way which indicates they have been fired from the gun. The term 'round of ammunition' is used to mean the cartridge case containing a bullet which has not been fired; item 36.

Two bullets were found in the car and VS said two shots were fired inside the car at MG. it is difficult to imagine how the two bullets could be other that those which killed MG, but it is also difficult to see how they could be the fatal bullets without there being noticeable bullet marks inside the vehicle.

[Natalie Severn]

Nats, I really have to say that I do admire your persistence. I'll say what I want to say even though I am fully aware that my words will have no effect on you at all!

First, the Matthews Report was ultimately rejected. The DNA results were not.

Second, there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone, either William Ewer or a member of Gregsten's family, or a member of Valerie Storey's family, or Janet Gregsten, planned or conspired to scare MG and VS into ending their relationship. Indeed, Janet is on record as saying that she actually understood her husband's serial need for a bit of nookie on the side. The Gregstens and the Storeys, as well as Janet and William Ewer, were of genteel, educated, middle-class backgrounds, and none of them had either the money or indeed the wits, knowledge or indeed the reason to engage a gunman into scaring MG out of his naughtiness with VS. That suggestion had always struck me as totally ludicrous. And before you say it, yes I know that after the event Janet and William Ewer had a long-standing affair. And if you read the books, you'll understand why.

Third, Dixie France was almost certainly involved, but not as the willing contributor to any conspiracy, because there was no conspiracy; rather as a hanger-on, a bit player who may or may not have supplied Hanratty with the gun. Whatever Dixie's involvement, it was enough to cause him to eventually kill himself. There was a terrible and tragic sequence of unplanned events that led to the A6 crime. Dixie was on the edge, but close enough to see that there was a real chance he might have been hauled in as an accessory to murder, something he was unable to countenance or live with.

Fourth - you're right, the murderer didn't live long after the crime. He was, in fact, executed at Bedford Prison on 4th April 1962.

By the way, if, as you claim, the 'real' A6 killer ended up in cement, could you please enlighten us with your views as to who put him there? Janet, perhaps? William Ewer? Charlotte France? Louise Anderson? The Krays?

Regards,

Graham

Graham I am astonished by your words 'no evidence whatsoever'-------are you suggesting that what EWER ADMITTED about his involvement -see THE SUNDAY TIMES of May 1971 is not the case? Ewer is on record as admitting having contacted SCOTLAND YARD-to tell police he thought he had "found the murderer" on the 1st September 1961-ie long before the police started looking at Hanratty [all of a sudden] having fixed their beam on Alphon until 24th September 1961 and his 'discovery of the murderer with eyes like carbunkles' was the very next day after the eyes of the killer were altered from dark [see identikit choice made by Valerie on 26/08/61] to light blue and after a new description had been put out by police.Mrs Dorothy Morrell ,the lady in the flower shop ,explained to police how Ewer came into her shop after Hanratty had been to buy flowers for his mother and showed reporters the record she had of the transaction---
Also I happen to have researched Ewer and his links to 'Antiques dealing" with people in Soho---he was known around there -quite well known actually-----
A man who can hang a Steer painting in his shop window in 1961 was no ordinary bloke.A Steer painting sold for £26 million last year!Ditto the Hans Holbein he sold for Sotherby's in 1969---I don't know his role in those transactions-he may have been selling them FOR people-but he was certainly one wily operator ......

[EddieX]

DNA showed that the hankie was Hanratty's. I did say that the fact the gun was wrapped in one of his hankies did strongly suggest that it wasn't Hanratty who left the gun on the bus; rather, someone who was trying to incriminate him.

I suggest that Hanratty, on returning to London after the crime, went very quickly to Dixie France to 'return' the gun to him. I use the word 'suggest': I have no actual evidence that this was part of the chain of events.

G

My point is that if Hanratty had a valid alibi, then Dixie, who had access to Hanratty's laundry, would be incriminating himself by disposing of the gun in this way. It was suggested above by another poster that France was trying to frame Hanratty. My argument was intended to refute that suggestion.

[Natalie Severn]

The Matthews report was ultimately rejected on the basis that the DNA was accurate.It wasn't.LCN DNA testing is being challenged as a reliable test in the United States at this very moment and is banned in most European countries because it is so dangerously unreliable ---unless stored in totally sterile conditions from crime scene to laboratory and within the laboratory itself---it has been proven to be much more prone than conventional DNA to quite hideously inaccurate contamination results than was ever dreamt of in 2002---and I can give you at least a half dozen recent cases that have had to be thrown out ,the verdict overturned, the men released from prison as a result....
-----
The man who was to become Assistant Commissioner of Scotland Yardand was then Chief Constable of Bedfordshire, Baden Skitt is reported as saying: James Hanratty was innocent---we just can't explain the DNA

Not at all a straightforward business any of this!But I trust Baden Skitt somehow-he rings true---more than can be said for Basil Acott and Kenneth Oxford------

[Natalie Severn]

My point is that if Hanratty had a valid alibi, then Dixie, who had access to Hanratty's laundry, would be incriminating himself by disposing of the gun in this way. It was suggested above by another poster that France was trying to frame Hanratty. My argument was intended to refute that suggestion.

Not really Eddie.He actually told police what Hanratty had said about hiding his rubbish under the back seat of a bus and they believed him.He didn't incriminate himself by this-only Hanratty with very serious consequences!
Mind he topped himself after it----

secondly it has been argued quite reasonably that the 'framing' of Hanratty by France was not intended to get him into any trouble he couldnt get out of because Hanratty was understood to be going to Liverpool to sell the rings and a gold watch --- France could just then play dumb.......say to police "no idea how they got there 'etc

[Natalie Severn]

There were a pretty large number of undisclosed witness statements-something close to 112.But for me the two that really helped destroy the case against Hanratty were the two witnesses in Avondale Crescent: Margaret Thompson and even more specifically Doreen Milne.

Mind what can you believe about anything that went on in those days when they didnt always have a solicitor present-as was the case with Hanratty?
I mean after Hillsborough and the 164 'tampered with' police statements that were part of a cover up that reached the top---yes to the highest powers in the land --- covered up by successive governments for 26 years ---nothing would surprise me! And do people realise that at the time [1989 ]Sir Kenneth Oxford was Chief Constable of Merseyside and part of Margaret Thatcher's 'think tank' and it was he ---[who helped 'do for' and arrest Hanratty]-who also 'briefed' Margaret Thatcher and began the disgusting smears and lies about the Liverpool fans causing the tragedy ---? Oxford actually wrote in a memo to her that the 'blame for the Hillsborough tragedy rested with drunken and ticketless Liverpool fans'---we know now from the Independent Hillsborough Inquiry that this was a disgusting smear and lie--see the Liverpool Echo of March 2012-.

[EddieX]

1. If Hanratty had had a valid alibi, then he could not have placed the gun on the bus.

2. If Hanratty did not put the gun on the bus, then someone else must have.

3. That someone else would have had to have access to Hanratty's laundry.

4. Dixie France was such a person in 3 above.

5. Dixie France could not have known that Hanratty would have no alibi evidence, and therefore would not take the risk of implicating himself in order to frame Hanratty, should that have been his wish (although why it should have been is not immediately apparent).

[propatria27]

Interesting, but the fact that the gun was wrapped in Hanratty's hankie would not necessarily prove that Hanratty had left the gun on the bus, still less that he was the murderer.

It would,however, prove that whoever disposed of the gun had access to Hanratty's laundry. This would be Hanratty himself and the France family. As Dixie France believed Hanratty to be in the north-west of England, then he would be incriminating himself, unless he believed that Hanratty would not have evidence to sustain an alibi.

How did France know that Hanratty had no credible alibi evidence? Especially how did he know this as at 24 August when he allegedly caused the gun to be disposed of on the bus?

Just for completeness, you can add Louise Anderson to this list as she was holding a suitcase of JH's that contained clothing and was subsequently handed over to the police. If fact, I believe JH told them it was there. I wil need to check, though, to see if he left it with her prior to the gun being found on the bus.

Pete

[propatria27]

First off, has anyone any thoughts or comments regarding my Post 123? It has been suggested to me that if the ballistic finds in the car were indeed bullets and not cartridge cases, then how did one of these end up in the glove pocket after being fired at MG's head?
Graham

Graham, I spent 25 years in the RAF, as a policeman, and carried a weapon, most often an automatic pistol, for much of that time. I would make the point that the muzzle velocity of the weapon depends on the quality of the ammunition and it is my experience that older ammunition deteriorates over time, especially if kept in damp conditions - we don't know about the ammunition found in this case, but I would suggest it wasn't brand new. You may also be interested in this article that describes the effect of .38 calibre ammunition on dead animals and people:

"In British military service from 1922-1963, when replaced by the Browning HP in 9mm, a 200-grain soft lead bullet was used. In tests, the 200-grain slow mover generated 620-fps and delivered 176-foot pounds to its target. It was quoted that "In tests performed on cadavers and live animals, it was found that the lead bullet, being overly long and heavy for its caliber, become unstable after penetrating the target, somewhat increasing target effect. The relatively low velocity allowed all of the energy of the cartridge to be spent inside the human target, rather than penetrating completely." This cartridge, the old 38/200 ball load is still in factory production in India."

http://www.firearmstalk.com/entries/...e-Defense.html

It is virtually impossible to tell the trajectory a bullet will take once it hits the human body as there many things that can deflect it, or make it shatter (bone, cartildge etc). Please remember that the bullets that hit MG went through his skull twice, if found inside the car. I believe it is entirely possible for the bullets to have been found in the car.

Pete