Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by GUT 5 hours ago.
Rippercast: One on one with Stephen Senise - by jmenges 6 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by Iconoclast 7 hours ago.
Rippercast: Questions for Michael Hawley - Jack the Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety - by Hercule Poirot 7 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by Herlock Sholmes 8 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by Scott Nelson 8 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (12 posts)
Witnesses: Spratling Vs Enright - (4 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - (1 posts)
Rippercast: Questions for Michael Hawley - Jack the Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety - (1 posts)
Rippercast: One on one with Stephen Senise - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Social Chat > Other Mysteries > A6 Murders

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #4731  
Old 04-14-2018, 01:42 PM
OneRound OneRound is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRound View Post
Hi all,

Intrigued by Sherlock's post containing further details of the innocent airforce man picked out by Valerie Storie together with my being a sad git, I googled ''Michael Arthur Falkner Clark'' (the man's full name per Acott's notes).

Whilst that full name produced nil results, I was led to a ''Michael Arthur Falkner'' who died just over a week ago and lived in Middlesex where our airman was based. For such an unusual name, just another coincidence in a case sagging with them or could he have been our man?

Best regards,

OneRound
Hi Alfie - re your post about our missing airman, I'll throw this one of mine from November 2016 into the pot again.

As Graham has confirmed, the man picked by Valerie Storie on the first identity parade subsequently left the country. I just wonder if he returned years later and for some reason dropped the ''Clark'' part of his name.

Best regards,

OneRound
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4732  
Old 04-16-2018, 12:38 AM
OneRound OneRound is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRound View Post
Hi Alfie - re your post about our missing airman, I'll throw this one of mine from November 2016 into the pot again.

As Graham has confirmed, the man picked by Valerie Storie on the first identity parade subsequently left the country. I just wonder if he returned years later and for some reason dropped the ''Clark'' part of his name.

Best regards,

OneRound
Aw-shucks!

Further investigation shows that the Michael Arthur Falkner Clark picked out by Valerie Storie was born in 1935 (all per what appears to be Acott's notes, as supplied by Sherlock Houses in a post of November 2016) whilst the Michael Arthur Falkner I dredged up who died in 2016 was, in fact, born in 1932.

Best regards,

OneRound
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4733  
Old 04-16-2018, 01:47 AM
Spitfire Spitfire is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 599
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock Houses View Post
This is complete crappushka. Valerie Storie knew full well that she was under no obligation to select anyone from that line-up unless she was sure in her own mind that he was infact the gunman. All she had to say to Acott was something along the lines "I'm sorry Mr Acott but I don't see the A6 murderer amongst these 10 men"

The fact that she picked out the innocent R.A.F clerk Michael Clark demonstrates that she had very little inkling as to what the gunman looked like because Michael Clark was the almost complete opposite to James Hanratty in physical appearance.

When cross-examined at the Bedford Trial by Michael Sherrard this is what Acott had to say regarding Clark's physical appearance.......

Acott :- "I can give you a full description of the man who was picked out on that parade.

Sherrard:- "Would you tell me whether he was, as Dr Rennie has told us , a fair-haired man ?"

Acott :- "No, he was not. I have his full description. I have had this man physically examined....I can tell you from my own knowledge : 5 feet 9 inches, dark short-cropped hair, about 27 years of age, and he was heavily built. Anything else, sir ? "

Sherrard :- " Is the man available, by any chance ?"

Acott :- "He was sometime ago, but I cannot say off-hand."



You will notice how deceitful and cunning Acott was in describing Michael Clark. He was ultra careful to hide from the jury and court something which he obviously regarded as vitally significant. The fact that Michael Clark had DARK EYES !! He'd even underlined it on page 174 of his notebook. Can you imagine what the reaction of the court would have been to this sensational information ?? Valerie Storie had allegedly maintained, from August 28th 1961 until her trial evidence in late January 1962, that the murderer had icy-blue, saucer like, staring eyes. So why, for Goodness sake, would she pick out a dark-eyed man on September 24th 1961 ?

And to save others the trouble of trawling back through the thread, here it is in all its glory.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4734  
Old 04-16-2018, 01:52 AM
Spitfire Spitfire is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 599
Default

See post below.

Last edited by Spitfire : 04-16-2018 at 02:16 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4735  
Old 04-16-2018, 02:16 AM
Spitfire Spitfire is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 599
Default

And here it is, what purports (I think) to be a copy of page 174 of the notebook in question.
Attached Images
 
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4736  
Old 04-16-2018, 03:14 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 884
Default

Woffinden says: “I did locate his closest surviving relative, an aunt living on the Welsh borders. She recollected his hair as being of a ‘general mousey colour’ – which appeared to corroborate Rennie’s description, and not Acott’s.”

If Rennie’s description of Clark’s hair is more accurate, as corroborated by his aunt, why is Rennie’s description of Clark's “blueish eyes” not also taken as the more accurate one?

In fact Woffinden must have asked the aunt about the eyes, but strangely does not report what she said.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4737  
Old 04-16-2018, 06:44 AM
Alfie Alfie is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 182
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB View Post
... Woffinden must have asked the aunt about the eyes, but strangely does not report what she said.
If she'd informed Woffinden they weren't blue, you can bet he'd have reported it. If she told him she couldn't remember what colour they were, he'd likely have reported that too. Which only leaves ...
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4738  
Old 04-20-2018, 09:02 AM
Alfie Alfie is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 182
Default Forensics and the A6 case

One of the most puzzling aspects of the case to me is the complete absence of any hairs or fibres connecting the killer to the crime. The absence of these in the car I can just about accept - Hanratty did after all have the time to thoroughly clean the interior even if the means he had for so doing is not immediately apparent.

But for there to be not a single hair or fibre found on Valerie or on her clothes just about beggars belief, and it leads me to wonder just how thorough the examination was.

From what I've read, scientists at that time certainly had the ability to match hairs and fibres, and the fact that hair samples and clothes were taken from Hanratty and Alphon for testing suggests that the attempt was made in this case. So how come there wasn't even a single pubic hair belonging to Hanratty found on Valerie? Was it negligence on the part of the police, or just a case of lady luck, for once, shining on Jim?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4739  
Old 04-20-2018, 12:04 PM
cobalt cobalt is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 268
Default

Alfie,

I don’t think luck comes into it. You might just be lucky enough to sit in a car for over 7 hours and leave no trace. However, if you have shot a man twice, sexually assaulted a woman in the rear seat, then proceeded to occupy the seat of the dead driver then it’s obvious you are bound to have left some traces inside the car. That is before we follow your logic regarding the clothing of Ms. Storie and also, I could add, the body of Michael Gregsten who was carried from the car.

Since there were fingerprints identified within the car then it seems unlikely that any clean up operation occurred. An experienced forensic team would be aware if such an attempt had been made.

Matching hair and fibres had been part of forensic science in the UK since at least the 1930s, so was well enough established by 1961. I would draw a different conclusion than yourself. Hair and fibres were extracted from the car but were not considered relevant to the prosecution case.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4740  
Old 04-21-2018, 06:37 AM
Alfie Alfie is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 182
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cobalt View Post
I would draw a different conclusion than yourself. Hair and fibres were extracted from the car but were not considered relevant to the prosecution case.
Perhaps, but wouldn't the defence have had access to the results of any forensic analysis? And wouldn't they have been able to call as a witness Lewis Nickolls, the director of the Met Police Lab, and put that very point to him? Wouldn't it be a strong point in Hanratty's favour if Sherrard could say that hairs and fibres were found in the car that didn't match Hanratty's hair or clothes?

Nickolls was a witness at the committal, but isn't mentioned in the reports I've gathered about the trial. Anybody know whether he was called there?

As for fingerprints being found in the car, it's possible that Hanratty hoovered the interior without wiping away any fingerprints. If he was wearing gloves he might have thought it wasn't worth the time and effort.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.