A6 Murder who wrote the letter to Gregsten's boss complaining of the relationship?

[Alfie]

Hanratty drove this car ,on his own ,from London to Manchester on the evening of October 6/7 1961 .
This alone supplies all the evidence needed that he was quite expert at such 'ventures' and could drive cars with quite sophisticated mechanics-he was a car thief for goodness sake. Also the evidence given by several of his friends about being taken out in expensive cars plus the lifts and drives into the countryside in the Sunbeam Sports car e.g. Louise Anderson,witness for the prosecution and several girl friends named at the trial [the evidence by the girls is provided by Paul Foot in the John Lennon film entitled "Did Britain Murder Hanratty? " where Foot interviews those girls each of whom testified at the trial apparently.[I hope to be able to provide a 'you tube 'clipping from the film in the next month or so ]

Just re-watched the Lennon doco, and nowhere in it could I find Foot interviewing the girls about JH's driving ability.

What I did find though is this interesting snippet concerning JH's Liverpool alibi, specifically his bus-ride up Scotland Road while supposedly looking for Tarlton or Talbot road:

Foot tells his Watford audience: "He gets in a bus and he goes up the Scotland Road. And he gets some of the way up the Scotland Road and he asks the conductor, 'I want to get off at Tarlton Road', and the conductor says 'I've never heard of it, get off here.'"

I can't remember hearing about this conductor before and Foot doesn't seem to mention him in his book. Anybody know anything about this exchange or is it a figment of Foot's imagination?

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Kiszco was released YEARS before Castree was identified as the murderer. It was not any identification of Castree's DNA that prompted the release of Kiszco.

I know that, Limehouse, and never suggested otherwise.

Kiszco was incriminated by false evidence, by evidence withheld from the jury, by a confession that was forced from him and by the non-acceptance of his alibi. The re-examination of the sample found at the scene was not the only reason Kiszco was released. It was a re-examination of all of the evidence.

I know that too. That is precisely why I am asking you why you would trust the same justice system to have got it 'right' in the end (albeit too late for Kiszco), and not convicted another wrong man, through similarly false evidence, incompetence or dishonesty.

Obviously, I cannot demonstrate to you that Hanratty was innocent because you do not share the same doubts about the evidence offered at his trial as I do.

No, the reason you cannot demonstrate to anyone that Hanratty was innocent is because you cannot prove he was elsewhere, or that anyone else committed this crime. I could share your doubts about the evidence for his guilt, but doubts do not demonstrate innocence.

The comparisons I made between these cases was based on their reactions to being arrested and their behaviours when under police questioning.

Exactly - that was the very point I was making to you. Their reactions and behaviours could have been identical, while their motivations could have been quite different. Just because one was proven innocent doesn't mean the other is any less likely to have been guilty. Only evidence can decide that.

If anything, the Kiszco case is a poor one to use for comparison purposes with Hanratty because it demonstrates what happened in a genuine miscarriage of justice - the wrongs were admitted and all the evidence was re-examined, and proof emerged beyond all reasonable doubt that Kiszco could not have been guilty, and eventually Castree was found to fit the bill instead.

Why would the A6 case be any different if the same kind of mistakes were made, and a similar miscarriage of justice really had taken place, along with the evidence to demonstrate the fact beyond doubt?

Happy new year to you too.

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

Hi Limehouse,
The case was eventually solved when Castree's DNA was found on the victim's underwear and positively identified after 30 years. So yes, I'm afraid you do have to think about that - very hard - unless you can give a good reason why your concerns about the honesty and reliability of the evidence - forensic and otherwise - used to implicate Hanratty and Kiszco did not and do not extend to Castree. How do you know he was not similarly 'set up' and every bit as deserving of your concern as Kiszco was?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Kiszco was released YEARS before Castree was identified as the murderer. It was not any identification of Castree's DNA that prompted the release of Kiszco.

Kiszco was incriminated by false evidence, by evidence withheld from the jury, by a confession that was forced from him and by the non-acceptance of his alibi. The re-examination of the sample found at the scene was not the only reason Kiszco was released. It was a re-examination of all of the evidence.

Obviously, I cannot demonstrate to you that Hanratty was innocent because you do not share the same doubts about the evidence offered at his trial as I do.

The comparisons I made between these cases was based on their reactions to being arrested and their behaviours when under police questioning.

Happy New year to you.

[caz]

Caz, you only have to put a sample of semen under a poweful enough microscope to see whether it contains spermatoza. I could have done that as an O Level Human Biology student.

Hi Limehouse,

But the point is that you didn't do it in this case. Others did. You were not asked to examine or confirm any of the evidence, or to be an observer, yet you happily accepted without question that a sample of semen was indeed put under the microscope; the sample indeed came from Kiszco; and it indeed contained no sperm. I expect there are many qualified to say "I could have done the DNA tests that indicated Hanratty's guilt and Alphon's innocence", but it's meaningless if they were never asked to do so and were not there to see the results for themselves.

The case was eventually solved when Castree's DNA was found on the victim's underwear and positively identified after 30 years. So yes, I'm afraid you do have to think about that - very hard - unless you can give a good reason why your concerns about the honesty and reliability of the evidence - forensic and otherwise - used to implicate Hanratty and Kiszco did not and do not extend to Castree. How do you know he was not similarly 'set up' and every bit as deserving of your concern as Kiszco was?

Nothing that happened to Kiszco is remotely relevant or comparable unless you can demonstrate that Hanratty was similarly innocent. Their treatment and their reaction to it could have been identical, but it would still prove absolutely nothing about the latter's guilt or innocence.

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

And you know this because - you trust the people who established this and you trust the methods they used.

That is my only point, although Castree was finally nailed for this crime by his DNA. It was found to match a 30 year old semen sample from the victim's underwear. I take it you don't dispute the reliability of that particular result and are not campaigning for Castree's conviction to be looked at again?

So again, how are you picking and choosing what forensic evidence is reliable and what isn't, if it's not purely down to which results match your personal beliefs?

Why, for instance, would you or Nats not question the evidence that got Peter Sutcliffe banged up in the 80s for the Yorkshire Ripper murders, given that Hillsborough was in the same decade and is constantly being brought up to show just how corrupt and indiscriminate the authorities can be in 'setting up' entirely the wrong people?

Love,

Caz
X

Caz, you only have to put a sample of semen under a poweful enough microscope to see whether it contains spermatoza. I could have done that as an O Level Human Biology student.

Castree's DNA sample is irrelevant and I don't even have to think about it since it had nothing whatever to do with Kiszco being cleared of Lesley's murder.

Kiszco's conviction was quashed and he was relased from prison long before Castree was identified as the possible murderer. After almost two decades in prison, his case was looked at again and the forensic evidence came to light. It was there to be found in 1975 - but it was ignored because of the false evidence given by the teenage girls who claimed Kiszco had exposed himself to them. This was a completely malicious and untrue accusation. It led to police arresting Kiszco and subjecting him to hours and hours of questioning until he finally confessed. He later said:

"I started to tell these lies and they seemed to please them and the pressure was off as far as I was concerned. I thought if I admitted what I did to the police they would check out what I had said, find it untrue and would then let me go".

[caz]

Kiszco produced no sperm due to his medical condition.

And you know this because - you trust the people who established this and you trust the methods they used.

That is my only point, although Castree was finally nailed for this crime by his DNA. It was found to match a 30 year old semen sample from the victim's underwear. I take it you don't dispute the reliability of that particular result and are not campaigning for Castree's conviction to be looked at again?

So again, how are you picking and choosing what forensic evidence is reliable and what isn't, if it's not purely down to which results match your personal beliefs?

Why, for instance, would you or Nats not question the evidence that got Peter Sutcliffe banged up in the 80s for the Yorkshire Ripper murders, given that Hillsborough was in the same decade and is constantly being brought up to show just how corrupt and indiscriminate the authorities can be in 'setting up' entirely the wrong people?

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

Carrying on from this, I wonder why you and Limehouse unhesitatingly accepted that the DNA evidence 'proved' Kiszco innocent and Castree guilty instead, while totally rejecting the DNA evidence 'proving' Alphon innocent and Hanratty guilty? How old were the samples when they were tested in the Kiszco case? Why would you trust the methods that were used or the people using them, if they are supposed to be so notoriously flawed and unreliable?

How are you picking and choosing?

Love,

Caz
X

The answer to that is simple Caz. There WAS no DNA testing in the Kiszco case. The forensic evidence in the Kiszco case was there to be identified when he was arrested but the police ignored it and witheld the evidence from the defence. The truth is, the semen found on Lesley contained sperm. Kiszco produced no sperm due to his medical condition.

[caz]

Kiszco and every one of those football supporters were provably not responsible for the related deaths.

Carrying on from this, I wonder why you and Limehouse unhesitatingly accepted that the DNA evidence 'proved' Kiszco innocent and Castree guilty instead, while totally rejecting the DNA evidence 'proving' Alphon innocent and Hanratty guilty? How old were the samples when they were tested in the Kiszco case? Why would you trust the methods that were used or the people using them, if they are supposed to be so notoriously flawed and unreliable?

How are you picking and choosing?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

And Caz,can you try for just once to follow other people's reasoning-to see what such links might indicate ?

I am also actually sick and tired of your sarcasm and innuendo ---do us a favour and act with some good manners and courtesy for once.

Hi Nats,

I'm sorry you feel that way. I always try to follow other people's reasoning, or I wouldn't be here debating it, asking questions about it, or saying how difficult I find it to follow at times.

Obviously if Hanratty was innocent of this crime, it all went badly wrong from the start, and kept on going wrong right through to the DNA testing, which Hanratty defenders had called for and had expected to show that someone other than him had committed the rape and murder.

But he could have been guilty and still 'set up' by people who knew or suspected it, or even by people who didn't care if he was guilty or not. And there's the rub, because sadly the emphasis has changed since the 2002 appeal, and the only way you can ever hope to clear Hanratty's name now is if you can come up with clear evidence that he did not commit the crime, or that someone else did. It doesn't matter how much corruption you can uncover in high or low places relating to this or any other case, because that in itself cannot lead logically or evidentially to the conclusion that Hanratty - like Kiszco and all the Hillsborough victims - must have been innocent. Kiszco and every one of those football supporters were provably not responsible for the related deaths.

Demonstrating that the DNA results were unsafe, and that the original conviction was unsafe, would be a first step, but would it be enough to get a further appeal off the ground? I can't see it myself.

I hate to sound so negative and cynical, but I really struggle with how the original verdict is ever going to be seriously undermined, let alone overturned, by anything posted so far on these boards about the case.

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

Hanratty: the contradictions of William Ewer

The Sunday Times on 23rd May 1971 carried a full page spread --one of a sequence .It was written by three investigative journalists the lead journalist being Lewis Chester with Alex Finer and Nelson Mews assisting. Their conclusion was that the prosecution case omitted more of the background to the murder than it revealed and that had it been full known at the time,it is improbable that Hanratty would ever have hanged. Most of their case rests on the anomalies and inconsistencies in the statements made by William Ewer but also the role played by Charles France.

Paul Foot another investigative journalist of much integrity -another honourable journalist it needs to be said ,also carried out much research into William Ewer and Charles France with much the same conclusions.

This,they insisted was where the concealment and deceptions began.

[Natalie Severn]

Hillsborough:an ongoing example of what is meant by a set up and in this case one that is fully followed up by heads of state -ie a cover up reaching the very top of government , the Prime Minister of the time to be precise ,and successive PM's and government figures since. Hillsborough is an ongoing case of great national magnitude of course and it is quite clear the ' setting up' involved not just a couple of policemen because upwards of 162 altered statements were proven by the Hillsborough Independent Inquiry to have been 'fiddled with ' by policemen --ALL these 162 fiddled with statements pertaining to the victims of the disaster and all this took place ,apparently, in order to make it look as though the victims of Hillsborough were responsible for their own deaths;
The smearing of the victims and the fabrication of evidence was set in motion within a few days of the disaster by Sir Kenneth Oxford,then serving Margaret Thatcher in an 'advisory capacity' and as Chief Constable of Merseyside.Yes-the same Kenneth Oxford who was due to have to explain to the 2002 appeal court on the Hanratty case how the notes he had taken during the night he and Acott arrested Hanratty without a solicitor present came to have been 'altered' or ' fiddled with' .


And Caz,can you try for just once to follow other people's reasoning-to see what such links might indicate ?

I am also actually sick and tired of your sarcasm and innuendo ---do us a favour and act with some good manners and courtesy for once.

[Limehouse]

To be fair, Nats, I do find your 'stream-of-consciousness' posts hard to follow at times, and when I can follow them I wonder how relevant the information would be, either towards getting a further appeal, or indeed as part of that appeal.

It strikes me that you'd need a much stronger and more concise argument, if the evidence simply isn't there to overturn the DNA results, or otherwise demonstrate the impossibility of Hanratty committing the crime.

Suspicious characters were bound to show up in a case like this one, muddying the waters and allowing for all sorts of conjecture from those who believe an innocent Hanratty must have been set up from start to finish, apparently by everyone else directly or indirectly involved, from his friends and associates and the real killer, to the police, the forensics people and the entire justice system.

Love,

Caz
X

It has already been demonstrated how a completely innocent man WAS convicted of murder and it did not involve a 'set up' from a whole group of collaborators. First, it took a group of girls to falsely and maliciously identify Kiszco as having 'flashed' them. Secondly, it took a group of police officers applying pressure to obtain a 'confession' after endless hours of questioning. Thirdly, those same police officers withheld crucial forensic evidence from the defence and finally, this resulted in the jury rejecting an alibi that was true, resulting in a conviction.

It is unlikely a whole group of people set out to purposefully secure a conviction against Hanratty but I believe evidence was planted, I believe evidence was withheld, I believe some witnesses made false statements, I believe some witnesses gave evidence to prevent themselves facing criminal charges and I believe statements were altered.

Regardless of who asked for the forensic tests, because of all the reasons I have outlined above, I believe the DNA evidence to be unreliable.

[caz]

Interesting everybody ducking this.

To be fair, Nats, I do find your 'stream-of-consciousness' posts hard to follow at times, and when I can follow them I wonder how relevant the information would be, either towards getting a further appeal, or indeed as part of that appeal.

It strikes me that you'd need a much stronger and more concise argument, if the evidence simply isn't there to overturn the DNA results, or otherwise demonstrate the impossibility of Hanratty committing the crime.

Suspicious characters were bound to show up in a case like this one, muddying the waters and allowing for all sorts of conjecture from those who believe an innocent Hanratty must have been set up from start to finish, apparently by everyone else directly or indirectly involved, from his friends and associates and the real killer, to the police, the forensics people and the entire justice system.

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

Interesting everybody ducking this.

Let us not forget that William Ewer ,by his own confession, [see Sunday Times May 16th 1971 ],was racing round Swiss Cottage 'after Hanratty" panting outside the steamed up windows of Dorothy Morrell's flower shop, making a pest of himself demanding to be 'let into the back' of a photographer's shop in Swiss Cottage a few doors away from the flower shop-bringing police to the scene having phoned Scotland Yard to say he thought he had 'caught the killer'!Not content with all this he said he also went into Burtol's Dry cleaners just opposite his very own 'antiques''umbrella' 'art' shop where reporters swore Janet Gregsten gave them a story on the 2nd day of September 1961about having had an 'intuitive sighting' of the A6 killer.[by the way she had told reporters,according to them,that she had been hanging a William Steer painting in the window----just for the record---anyone dare guess what that would be worth today? £26 million -give or take a few thousand pounds----some 'umbrella shop' this---that belonged to one William Ewer---who was listed in the 1961 phone business directory as an Art Dealernot an umbrella shop man !

So this is the man -William Ewer,who Charles France visited just days before he committed suicide--to 'apologise' for his brother -in - law , Michael Gregsten's death!WHAT?????

One has to admit its odd---the flower shop/dry cleaner/photographer events ---was Ewer desperate to deflect attention from someone else, someone other than Hanratty ---doing so by pointing this very big finger at Hanratty?

I believe it might help to know who called on Michael Gregsten's landlord in Windsor in either August or September 1959--- just a month or two before Janet Gregsten delivered her second child on October 4th 1959---to say the landlord should not be giving lodgings to this 'married man'-who was having an affair?

And the jury in Bedford were told nothing whatever about any affair Valerie Storie and Michael Gregsten were having of course!

[Natalie Severn]

Still haven't had any detective work on who visited gregstens landlord in Windsor to warn him about Gregstens marital status and the danger of harbouring a married man. Who do you think it was ? If it had been the 7 or 8 months heavily pregnant Janet Gregsten then I reckon we would have heard a out it properly as it is it remains an undisclosed statement but on police files.