Valerie Storie's 3 part story as published in 'Today' magazine, June 1962

[Graham]

The car was found and a forensic examination made, way before Jim Hanratty was even remotely in the frame for the A6 case.

Cobalt,

I'm sure you know as well as I do that no-one (at least no-one whose identity/ies have come down to us) was in the frame until the cartridge-cases were found at The Vienna Hotel. Then of course Acott & Co were hot-foot after Alphon a.k.a. Durrant, and only when he was cleared did their attention turn to Ryan a.k.a. Hanratty per the Vienna's visiting-book (which, as an aside, he assiduously signed but could apparently not do likewise at Ingledene).

Any forensic evidence found in the Morris which could not be matched to known previous occupants of said vehicle would have been carefully noted, photographed and stored. The logical explanation is that Hanratty, either on his own or with assistance, gave the rear of the car (he was apparently never in the front) a thoroughly good cleaning somewhere between Deadman's Hill and Redbridge. However, if he had such foresight, why the hell didn't he dispose of the gun? I can think of one possible scenario........

Graham

[Derrick]

Not perplexing at all if he was only present in the car whilst driving it from Deadman's Hill to Redbridge whilst wearing a plastic boiler suit with rubber buttons.

So what happened to the evidence in the car of the gunman who VS said that she and MG were ambushed by in Dorney?

When did this boiler suited gadgee get in at Deadman's Hill?

Was it sometime after VS had passed out or what?

None of the "Redbridge witnesses" mention the driver as wearing a boiler suit.

If Hanratty was the gunman why didn't he dob in this Clockwork Orange type lookalike then?

Perplexing!

[Graham]

Graham,

You chose your words very carefully regarding whose forensic evidence might have been accounted for in the case of Janice Weston. Her husband, who benefited financially from her death despite a legal challenge, would presumably be accounted for having forensics in the car.

Despite the husband having an apparent alibi (rather like Hanratty) the police recognized some holes in the timeline and held him for close on three days for questioning.

It is hard to see how an accounted for person could have been the perpetrator of the A6 murder. Surely the A6 murderer was making his first visit within the car, and as you acknowledge it is perplexing that no evidence was obtained from his lengthy presence in the car.

Cobalt,

if I were you, I'd read up a bit more on the Janice Weston Case. First, her husband Tony Weston had a rock-solid alibi - he was staying in a hotel in Paris as confirmed by the hotel staff. Second, he was not the sole person who would have benefited from Janice's will. Third, I have a strong suspicion that although the police accepted his alibi - they had no real choice - Tony Weston was questioned regarding other matters, concerning which Janice may or may not have been aware. Check the thread I started on this case.

I do not know (I don't think anyone does) just whose prints and other forensics were found in Janice's car, but I repeat no forensics were left in it by anyone who did not have an acceptable reason to be in it. Yet someone drove that car from Huntingdon to London, possibly via Royston, and that some was obviously neither Janice nor Tony Weston. There have been several theories regarding this case, but as far as I'm aware the Bedforshire Police are no longer inquiring into it. Unfortunately, I have found it virtually impossible to locate any further information in the public domain concerning the Weston Case.

Regarding other points, check Spitfire's posts.

Graham

[Spitfire]

Regarding the forensic evidence in the car, you are not even on the radar. The car was found and a forensic examination made, way before Jim Hanratty was even remotely in the frame for the A6 case. He could not be fitted up forensically, because he was not even in the frame.

Once he was arrested, it would have been a mite suspicious if fibres had then turned up after a closer examination.

The car was found on the evening of 23rd August and the gun was found on the following evening of 24th August yet some Hanrattyites have contended that the gun was planted on the bus to incriminate Hanratty. My point is that if there had been such a conspiracy to frame Hanratty it could have been more effectively executed by planting something to incriminate him in the car.

From what you have written, it would seem that you do not subscribe to the theory that the gun was planted to incriminate Unlucky Jim as, to use your terminology, Jim was not in the frame when it was discovered.

[Spitfire]

..... it is perplexing that no evidence was obtained from his lengthy presence in the car.

Not perplexing at all if he was only present in the car whilst driving it from Deadman's Hill to Redbridge whilst wearing a plastic boiler suit with rubber buttons.

[cobalt]

Graham,

You chose your words very carefully regarding whose forensic evidence might have been accounted for in the case of Janice Weston. Her husband, who benefited financially from her death despite a legal challenge, would presumably be accounted for having forensics in the car.

Despite the husband having an apparent alibi (rather like Hanratty) the police recognized some holes in the timeline and held him for close on three days for questioning.

It is hard to see how an accounted for person could have been the perpetrator of the A6 murder. Surely the A6 murderer was making his first visit within the car, and as you acknowledge it is perplexing that no evidence was obtained from his lengthy presence in the car.

[cobalt]

Your term 'Hanrattyites' may just be digital briefspeak, but I find it condescending. It would not be difficult to find similarly disrespectful terms for those who genuinely believe in Hanratty's guilt, so let us not go down that road.

Regarding the forensic evidence in the car, you are not even on the radar. The car was found and a forensic examination made, way before Jim Hanratty was even remotely in the frame for the A6 case. He could not be fitted up forensically, because he was not even in the frame.

Once he was arrested, it would have been a mite suspicious if fibres had then turned up after a closer examination.

[Spitfire]

If any fibres had been found in the Morris Minor which linked the crime to Hanratty, then I have little doubt that the Hanrattyites would claim that such evidence had been planted to incriminate Unlucky Jim. The fact that no such evidence was found tends to indicate (at least) that there was no conspiracy to implicate Hanratty in the early stages after the commission of the murder. If there had been such a plan to implicate Hanratty, then the obvious thing to do would be to plant evidence in the murder car.

[Graham]

Hi Cobalt,

like you and Moste, I too have found it most perplexing that no forensic evidence was found in the car to link Hanratty, or anyone else, to the A6 Crime. However, this is not unique.

In 1983 a London solicitor, Mrs janice Weston, was found bludgeoned to death in a lay-by on the A1 near Huntingdon. Shortly afterwards her car was found abandoned in Camden Square, London, not too far from where she lived. There was blood in the car but no fingerprints, fibre, shoe detritus, etc., that were shown to belong to any person whose presence in the car could not be accounted for. In other words, exactly the same as the A6 murder car. I started a thread on this Forum concerning this case, which to this day remains unsolved. So - do no fingerprints, fibre, etc., in either case point to police inefficiency, or a very thorough and clever killer?

In both cases the cars were driven from the murder scenes back to an a locale more closely associated with the victims.

The murder of Janice Weston and the A6 Crime are also in a way linked, as there was no known motive in either of them. However, there are certain 'suggestions' that the killing of Janice Weston may not have been quite as random as originally thought - which is not to suggest that the A6 murder might fall into the same category.

Graham

[cobalt]

Hi Graham,

Yes, I was referring to the Pottery Cottage murders. On one occasion the wife and husband were sent out in the car to buy groceries by Hughes. On another excursion Hughes and the husband visited his office so Hughes could rifle the safe. The A6 case was over in the blink of an eye, by comparison. The ordeal of the family butchered by Hughes lasted over two days. I raised it to show the difficulties of understanding how a person will react when trying to save, not just themselves, but those close to them.

I sense that Moste is picking up some flak for some of his earlier theories. I may not subscribe to them myself, but I think he asks the questions which have to be asked. It is easy to laugh off his rubber button suit theory, but it is just as easy to laugh off the official version that no forensic evidence was ever found in the murder car. Younger readers might think that until DNA was developed in the mid 1980s that there were no forensics worth the name: history proves otherwise. Fibers were being identified accurately enough to convince juries from the 1930s, so the mystery is why none were found in the murder car. Ditto fingerprints and semen.

[Spitfire]

I take it you're not fully signed up to that theory, Spitfire.

Regards,
OneRound

Not entirely.

[OneRound]

The latest theory is that the gunman did not hijack Val and Mike at the cornfield at Dorney Reach, but rather they drove to Deadman's Hill of their own volition and not under the threat or duress of any gunman.

I take it you're not fully signed up to that theory, Spitfire.

Regards,
OneRound

[Spitfire]

I think anyone subjected to the hardly-imaginable experience of spending several hours in a small car in the company of a man with a loaded gun would be very, very careful not to 'upset' their unwelcome passenger in any way.

The latest theory is that the gunman did not hijack Val and Mike at the cornfield at Dorney Reach, but rather they drove to Deadman's Hill of their own volition and not under the threat or duress of any gunman.

[Graham]

Cobalt,

was that the 'Pottery Cottage Murders'? If so (and I'm sure it was), Hughes was being transported via police-car, from to and to where I don't know, and attacked the officers in charge of him. He then entered the cottage and as far as I can recall shut each family member into a separate room and then proceeded to murder them one by one. What a nice guy. If this was the case, then it's doubtful of the family members could be of much help to one another. At least Hughes got his 'just desserts' there and then.

I think anyone subjected to the hardly-imaginable experience of spending several hours in a small car in the company of a man with a loaded gun would be very, very careful not to 'upset' their unwelcome passenger in any way.

Graham

[Spitfire]

There is obviously something missing here.

And equally obviously that something is a plastic boiler suit with rubber buttons.