A6 Rebooted

[louisa]

Trower and Skillett were also unreliable eye witnesses in this fiasco.

DS Acott had withheld from the court vital witness sightings of the murder car and other pieces of evidence, including Michael Gregsten's car log book where Gregsten had meticulously recorded his mileage driven prior to the night of the murder.

With this information Acott calculated in his own notebook Gregsten's car had travelled over 200 miles before it was abandoned, a fact supported by other undisclosed sightings of the car in different parts of the country and all suggesting a longer journey for the car than Acott proposed to the court.

Had the court known about Gregsten's log book and the conflicting sightings of the car it would have cast doubt on the two witnesses's claim to have seen Hanratty driving the car near the Ilford side street at seven in the morning.

Acott knew that that car wasn't in Ilford at seven o'clock in the morning. He knew that those two witnesses never saw that car, but he still used them.

[Sherlock Houses]

The Daily Mirror article was just plain wrong - the reporter doubtless interviewed an official police or Home Office spokesman then went away and put his own slant on the situation, as reporters and journalists always have. Sorry, but that article is simply not credible.
Graham

It must be if you say so. No doubt the Daily Express article (which you conveniently omit to mention) was just 'plain wrong' too and it's reporter, Rodney Hallworth, just like his Daily Mirror counterpart Howard Johnson, misheard everything that was told him about a man going to be charged with the A6 murder.

I'd love to see your evidence for such a claim.

[Graham]

Re: that Daily Mirror article, as above, I checked both Foot and Woffinden.

On Page 100 of the hardback edition, Foot re-prints the Mirror article in full. Here I must be totally honest and confess that I'd forgotten about this, as it's been quite a long time since I read Foot's book. Foot also quotes the Daily Herald, which stated even more strongly that a man will be charged today' (14th October). After these extracts, Foot, ever the honest and accurate investigative journalist, states: "This was all very surprising. The suspect had still to be identified by the only witness of the crime - Valerie Storie". No suggestion by Foot of an enormous and corrupt police conspiracy to make sure that James Hanratty 'got it'. And as far as I can tell Foot never mentions these newspaper articles again.

As for Woffinden, he who saw police corruption between the pages of every copper's note-book, doesn't even refer to either of these newspaper articles, yet he must have known about them.

I would have to say that both Foot and Woffinden viewed these articles in the same way as I do - pure journalese.

Graham

[Sherlock Houses]

On 26th August Valerie told Inspector Mackle, who constructed the identikit image, the eyes were blue. On 28th August her first signed statement described the eyes as blue.

I take it you're referring to Detective Sergeant Mackle.
I've never read anywhere that Storie told Mackle that the killer's eyes were blue. I'm sure this will come as complete news to very many people. Do you have a source for this ?
I seem to recall Tony from the old thread stating that Storie selected the E49 coding for the eyes which depicts dark eyes. Both identikit photos depict the killer as having dark eyes.
Just a few hours after Storie was discovered in the notorious lay-by there was a lunchtime bulletin on ITV News in which Superintendent Richard Morgan of Biggleswade was interviewed. Among other things he stated that the man was about 30 years old and had brown eyes. Some people however would have you believe that this very experienced police officer could not read his notes correctly, simply because of a momentary hesitation (and then correction) about his mention of deep-set eyes.
This would help to explain how Storie picked out the dark-eyed Michael Clark in the first identification parade on September 24th. Whatever happened to the icy blue, flying saucer type eyes I wonder ?

[Spitfire]

On 26th August Valerie told Inspector Mackle, who constructed the identikit image, the eyes were blue. On 28th August her first signed statement described the eyes as blue.

Janet's first visit to the hospital was nearly a month later on 20th September.

So if Valerie had thought that the murderer's eyes were brown then the signed statement of 28th August must be in error when it describes the eyes as blue?

[cobalt]

Louisa,

I think you are correct. I believe, like you, that Alphon was the A6 murderer. He is the only man in British history who has claimed to be this, so his claim has to be given serious consideration. He was also the first man who provided a motive (albeit contentious) for the appalling crime. Until Alphon, no one had any credible conception of why the crime had been committed. Acott’s ascribed motive is extremely weak and reads like something from Dixon of Dock Green.

The police never seem to have treated Alphon’s (later) claim very seriously. They initially ‘stumbled’ upon him early in the investigation (I suspect he was fingered by nervous criminals, not a hotel manager) and let him go on a weak alibi. Upon the fortuitous discovery of cartridge cases at the Vienna Hotel (more nervous criminals) he was then given the third degree by Acott and co. yet was able to hold his own. Alphon was a strange man, who lied as part of his daily existence, but he did seem to have a certain fortitude. The failure by Valerie Storie to identify Alphon effectively saved him from the hangman’s noose.

Not much of what I have written above is disputed by parties on either side of the debate.

All the rest is conjecture of course, but I have long suspected that Alphon was a ‘wanabee,’ a man who felt that life had not given him his due deserts. He had a high I.Q. I think, but was socially unproductive. He could not even finish his National Service (although he was surely given basic weapons training, unlike Hanratty.) There are no records of girlfriends or the like. He was a consummate actor and had the gift of the gab. His 1966 Paris interview is impressive in a perverse way.

Mixing in the semi criminal world of dog racing and the like I believe he saw himself as a Humphrey Bogart character, or as I have previously said, the Sam Spade of Slough. Why was it necessary for Alphon to register under false names at hotels? For Hanratty this may have had a practical purpose, but why did Alphon do this? I suspect because he wanted to be a man of mystery, a man who was outwith the normal rules of society. He certainly did not seem to be a career criminal hiding his identity.

Now genuine criminals of the day like Billy Hill or Freddie Foreman would have sussed him from a long way off, and probably Dixie France as well. He was all talk and little action. He had not even done time, for God’ sake. But Bill Ewer, shrewd businessman though he probably was, was capable of being dazzled by Alphon’s slightly upper crust/Richard Hannay delivery. I think Alphon was given hard cash to do a frightener, and was driven close to the cornfield by Ewer. Alphon was out of his league. The rest we know.

Except that maybe Hanratty was the man who passed the gun to Alphon at the Vienna.

Keep digging Louisa, but do not denigrate Valerie Storie. She was the victim of the crime and deserves our conditional respect, same as James Hanratty. Anyone who strays from that line almost always ends up resorting to simplicities, in what is a very complex case.

[Spitfire]

Keep digging Louisa, but do not denigrate Valerie Storie. She was the victim of the crime and deserves our conditional respect, same as James Hanratty. Anyone who strays from that line almost always ends up resorting to simplicities, in what is a very complex case.

I for one will not be affording any respect, conditional or otherwise, to James Hanratty.

[louisa]

Louisa,

I think you are correct. I believe, like you, that Alphon was the A6 murderer. He is the only man in British history who has claimed to be this, so his claim has to be given serious consideration. He was also the first man who provided a motive (albeit contentious) for the appalling crime. Until Alphon, no one had any credible conception of why the crime had been committed. Acott’s ascribed motive is extremely weak and reads like something from Dixon of Dock Green.

The police never seem to have treated Alphon’s (later) claim very seriously. They initially ‘stumbled’ upon him early in the investigation (I suspect he was fingered by nervous criminals, not a hotel manager) and let him go on a weak alibi. Upon the fortuitous discovery of cartridge cases at the Vienna Hotel (more nervous criminals) he was then given the third degree by Acott and co. yet was able to hold his own. Alphon was a strange man, who lied as part of his daily existence, but he did seem to have a certain fortitude. The failure by Valerie Storie to identify Alphon effectively saved him from the hangman’s noose.

Not much of what I have written above is disputed by parties on either side of the debate.

All the rest is conjecture of course, but I have long suspected that Alphon was a ‘wanabee,’ a man who felt that life had not given him his due deserts. He had a high I.Q. I think, but was socially unproductive. He could not even finish his National Service (although he was surely given basic weapons training, unlike Hanratty.) There are no records of girlfriends or the like. He was a consummate actor and had the gift of the gab. His 1966 Paris interview is impressive in a perverse way.

Mixing in the semi criminal world of dog racing and the like I believe he saw himself as a Humphrey Bogart character, or as I have previously said, the Sam Spade of Slough. Why was it necessary for Alphon to register under false names at hotels? For Hanratty this may have had a practical purpose, but why did Alphon do this? I suspect because he wanted to be a man of mystery, a man who was outwith the normal rules of society. He certainly did not seem to be a career criminal hiding his identity.

Now genuine criminals of the day like Billy Hill or Freddie Foreman would have sussed him from a long way off, and probably Dixie France as well. He was all talk and little action. He had not even done time, for God’ sake. But Bill Ewer, shrewd businessman though he probably was, was capable of being dazzled by Alphon’s slightly upper crust/Richard Hannay delivery. I think Alphon was given hard cash to do a frightener, and was driven close to the cornfield by Ewer. Alphon was out of his league. The rest we know.

Except that maybe Hanratty was the man who passed the gun to Alphon at the Vienna.

Keep digging Louisa, but do not denigrate Valerie Storie. She was the victim of the crime and deserves our conditional respect, same as James Hanratty. Anyone who strays from that line almost always ends up resorting to simplicities, in what is a very complex case.

Hi Cobalt,

I agree with just about all of what you have said.

Although I doubt if Ewer was 'dazzled' by Alphon. As you say, Ewer was shrewd and would have sussed out a loser like Alphon. Somebody who could be manipulated for money and fancied himself in the role of a moral avenger, complete with gun! Giving a gun to Alphon was never going to be a smart move.

Later when Jean Justice and Fox became involved, Alphon took them to the cornfield (Fox drove them) where he said he had kidnapped the couple. Fox placed an empty beer bottle behind a hedge. This turned out to be the exact cornfield where the kidnapping had taken place, proving Alphon knew about it. At that time only the police and the killer knew exactly which cornfield the kidnapping happened in. There are dozens of similar ones in the area (by all accounts - I have to say I haven't been there myself).

Dixie France - I haven't figured him out. I presume Hanratty did something pretty serious for Dixie to have turned against his friend, to that degree. A bit more than simply having sex with his daughter, I would have thought.

I'd love to see the complete letter Dixie left in the dosshouse where he gassed himself. I'm not sure Sherrard even saw the entire document. That seems strange in itself. I'm wondering if it contained anything that might prove Hanratty's innocence. Too late by then of course, but still something Acott would not have wanted to get into the public domain. The police could not be seen to be at fault.

It's been a while since I read my books on this case so forgive me if I have got a few details wrong.

[moste]

The decision to charge Hanratty was taken after Trower and Skillett had identified him - which in turn followed his interview with Acott and Oxford in which he had failed to provide satisfactory answers.

Imagine a police officer charging a man with a capital offence having listened to anything Trower had to say!

For a man to go to the gallows on the evidence and identification of the Redbridge motley crew.well it would be enough to have one lose faith in our glorious justice system all together.
Have no fear, me thinks the jury put all their eggs in Valerie's basket.
She knew how to tweak the minds of '11 good men and true'

[Sherlock Houses]

I'd love to see the complete letter Dixie left in the dosshouse where he gassed himself. I'm not sure Sherrard even saw the entire document. That seems strange in itself. I'm wondering if it contained anything that might prove Hanratty's innocence. Too late by then of course, but still something Acott would not have wanted to get into the public domain. The police could not be seen to be at fault.

That's a bit of an understatement Louisa. According to the landlady of that dosshouse in Acton there were about 100 hundred pages (with much writing) lying loose around France's room. He had written long letters to each member of his family apparently. The plod got there first however and took away all the letters. In their great wisdom they decided only a select few were entitled to view them. A group of ordinary men deciding amongst themselves to hide them from public scrutiny for countless decades.

[Sherlock Houses]

I for one will not be affording any respect, conditional or otherwise, to James Hanratty.

Quelle surprise !

I'd never have guessed this judging from the content of your posts.

[NickB]

Sherlock,

In answer to your question, my source for Valerie telling Mackle the eyes were blue is Section 131 of the Appeal.

Woffinden saw Valerie’s statements and confirms that the one on 28th August contains the description “icy blue eyes”.

He says: “There is in fact no record of Storie ever having remarked or suggested that the gunman had ‘brown’ eyes, even though this formed part of the original circulated description. This point, which I believe was simply a mistake by Bedfordshire police, misled campaigners for many years.”

Turning to the matter of charging Hanratty, I don’t know how reliable you consider the Magee site but it suggests this was decided upon before he even left Blackpool.

Friday 13 October
7:45 A.M.

Detective Superintendent C.H. Barron, head of Bedfordshire C.I.D. and Detective Chief Inspector Whiffen see Hanratty at Blackpool Police Station. Barron says to Hanratty:

‘At 2:40 p.m. on Wednesday, August 23, 1961 with Detective Superintendent Acott, I saw the dead body of Michael John Gregsten on a concrete strip of road by the side of the A6 at Deadman’s Hill. I am arresting you for the murder of Gregsten and you will be taken to Bedfordshire where you will later be charged.’

Barron then cautioned Hanratty and asked him, ‘Do you understand?’ Hanratty replied, ‘Yes.’

In court Sherrard asked why Hanratty had been arrested so early and Acott replied that this had to be done in Blackpool so he could be taken out of the custody of the local police and transferred to Bedford.

[Graham]

Nick,

if it's the 'Musing About The A6 Murder' blog by Paul Magee that you refer to, this has been removed by the author.

Graham

[louisa]

Sherlock (Re: your post # 3520) - Thanks for that correction. As stated in my last post, it has been a while since I read my books on this case. I can see I will have to go back and have another look.

I remembered reading that pages were missing and it stands to reason that the police removed them for reasons of their own.

I strongly suspect that these missing pages were a confession that he had lied on oath.

I think we can be sure that if Acott got his hands on them they would have been destroyed immediately. He would not have kept them.

[Sherlock Houses]

I seem to recall Tony from the old thread stating that Storie selected the E49 coding for the eyes which depicts dark eyes. Both identikit photos depict the killer as having dark eyes.
Just a few hours after Storie was discovered in the notorious lay-by there was a lunchtime bulletin on ITV News in which Superintendent Richard Morgan of Biggleswade was interviewed. Among other things he stated that the man was about 30 years old and had brown eyes. Some people however would have you believe that this very experienced police officer could not read his notes correctly, simply because of a momentary hesitation (and then correction) about his mention of deep-set eyes.

I've located Tony's post [#3268] from the old A6 thread.
This was what he had to reveal...........

Hello Graham,

I quote you from your post 3267:
“Not a lot of evidence to point to the A6 killer having brown eyes....is there?”

The first identikit picture compiled solely by Valerie and which looked remarkably like Mr Alphon, despite your own doubts about this was compiled and aided by the identikit expert.
As Vic says it was in black and white, I think they still may be nowadays, but the ‘coach’ would have explained to her the procedure. She had not done one before.
As you know there are different types of hair, noses, lips ears and such like. But colour is a feature even though it is in black and white; such as for the colour of the hair
Similarly eye colours can be selected and the ‘coach’ has to explain exactly what colour codings are referred to with the hair, lips and eyes.
There are 104 codings for eyes. E10 illustrates blue eyes. Valerie chose E49 which depicts dark eyes.
Dark eyes are not blue eyes by any stretch of the imagination.
Can you let me know how Valerie, very shortly after the murder when her memory was freshest, chose E49 eyes to be published to help in the search for the killer?
She simply must have told the expert coach the man had dark or brown eyes and not blue.

Tony.