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

[Graham]

Let us know when you have sound proof that Hanratty wasnt in Cowleys when he said he was.

Au contraire...you let us know when you have 'sound proof' that Hanratty was in the sweetshop when he claimed he was.

Graham

[NickB]

On travelling to Dorney from Liverpool on Tuesday evening Acott said:
“Yes, I think it is possible, but I do not think it happened and I never have thought it happened.”
It is disingenuous to allude to the first part of this sentence while ignoring the rest.

The pertinent exchange between Sherrard and Acott on the subject was when Acott said that Mrs Dinwoodie had always maintained to the police that the sweetshop conversation took place on the Monday, and Sherrard replied that he intended calling Mrs Dinwoodie as a witness.

But Sherrard knew that the defence’s own interview with Mrs D had come up against the same problem: Mrs D had steadfastly refused to entertain the possibility that the incident could have occurred on the Tuesday. By then the newspapers had reported that Hanratty was in London on the Monday, so I think it is reasonable to deduce that Mrs D knew the implications of what she was saying.

[Spitfire]

But Sherrard knew that the defence’s own interview with Mrs D had come up against the same problem: Mrs D had steadfastly refused to entertain the possibility that the incident could have occurred on the Tuesday. By then the newspapers had reported that Hanratty was in London on the Monday, so I think it is reasonable to deduce that Mrs D knew the implications of what she was saying.

It is said by Foot that the only reason that Mrs Dinwoodie was able to fix the day as being the Monday was because she remembers being assisted by Barbara Ford, and the Monday was the only day when Barbara was working in the shop. It is then said for a time on the Tuesday afternoon Barbara and Linda Walton did visit the shop at about 4pm for about half an hour to an hour, and during this time Barbara would have assisted Mrs D in serving in the shop.

Therefore, so the argument runs, the reason for Mrs D being able to fix the date as Monday also applied to Tuesday afternoon and the incident could have happened on Tuesday afternoon.

Mrs D could have been wrong about the date or she could have been wrong in identifying Hanratty, or indeed wrong on both counts, but for the defence of James Hanratty it would be sufficient if it could be shown that Mrs D could possibly have been wrong on the day the incident occurred and possibly correct on the identification of Hanratty.

All these arguments were rehearsed before the jury which came to the conclusion (we must assume) that it could not possibly have been Hanratty in the shop asking for directions on the Tuesday afternoon.

[NickB]

Foot assumes Mrs D’s connection was that the visitor came in at a particular moment she and Barbara were both behind the counter. My reading of her evidence is that her connection was that he came in on the day that she was serving with Barbara. After all, she knew Barbara called in on the Tuesday and told this to the court.

Foot’s assumption appears to be based on the notion that Mrs D only came up with the connection when Pugh told her that the visitor had seen a woman and child behind the counter. I do not think this is from a contemporary account by Pugh and I find it difficult to believe.

The source appears to be a report written by Gillbanks in February 1962 (see Woffinden page 361) where he says:
“She fixes the day as Monday 21st only because of the alleged remark of Hanratty that a girl was serving in the shop at the time.”

The report goes on to say that Mrs Dinwoodie could easily be confused over the Monday or Tuesday. Sherrard must have been rather sceptical about this having seen Kleinman’s interview and the official complaint made by Mr and Mrs Dinwoodie.

[Graham]

Nick,

Mrs Dinwoodie first heard from Mrs Cowley that the police were visiting sweet-shops along Scotland Road in connection with the A6 Case, as DC Pugh had already called and spoken to Mrs Cowley. If so, then Mrs D may well have had time to think about what to say when DC Pugh popped in again with his infamous single photograph. He also told her that JH had stated that the shop he claimed to have visited had a woman and a young girl serving; had Mrs D volunteered this information herself before DC Pugh told her about JH's statement, then that would have been somewhat more impressive. Obviously people at the other 28 sweet-shops along Scotland Road were less helpful.

Graham

[NickB]

But she was unhelpful testifying that it was the Monday, when it would have been so much easier for her to say it could have been either day. Perhaps it was an act of revenge against the defence because she was incensed by Kleinman’s attempt to trick her - but would she go so far as commit perjury to do this?

On another subject, the Sunday Times article says:
'On tape, Alphon says he told the couple in the car that they would have to be separated because of their "immorality". Miss Storie denies that the murderer showed any signs of knowing about their relationship. Nor does she remember the murderer saying anything about a "sense of mission" which Alphon talks about on the tape.'

I presume she means he showed no signs of knowing about their relationship when he entered the car.

Nick

[Graham]

But she was unhelpful testifying that it was the Monday, when it would have been so much easier for her to say it could have been either day

Barbara Ford also said she thought it was the Monday.

Perhaps it was an act of revenge against the defence because she was incensed by Kleinman’s attempt to trick her - but would she go so far as commit perjury to do this?

Can you please elaborate on this, Nick? Thanks.

Graham

[Graham]

On another subject, the Sunday Times article says:
'On tape, Alphon says he told the couple in the car that they would have to be separated because of their "immorality". Miss Storie denies that the murderer showed any signs of knowing about their relationship. Nor does she remember the murderer saying anything about a "sense of mission" which Alphon talks about on the tape.'

I presume she means he showed no signs of knowing about their relationship when he entered the car.

Nick, in fairness to all concerned, Alphon was a fantasist and was being egged on by one Mr Jean Justice. Justice was showing Alphon a life-style that he, Alphon, could only have dreamed about prior to his being (totally by accident and coincidence) dragged into the whole murky A6 business. Alphon lapped it up. Whether or not Alphon was 'writing his own script', so to speak, or repeated what Mr Justice advised him to, or both, will never be known. Alphon was a total fantasist, a man who believed his own bullshit about himself - and he was also an accomplished actor who had sufficient nouse to make the very most of the situation he found himself in. He had come very, very close to being accused of the A6 Crime, and it is my belief that this in itself was sufficient for him to concoct in his warped mind, ably assisted by Mr Justice, the complete fiction of what he thought might have happened in the Morris Minor that night. He was in the clear, and he could say what he liked once Hanratty was out of the way. The suggestion that he had been hired to 'break up' the relationship between Michael Gregsten and Valerie Storie is totally, completely, insupportable. He had nothing to do with it. His connection with the case stemmed purely from the plain coincidence that he had stayed a night at The Vienna Hotel. One of the many coincidences that Michael Sherrard, quite correctly, stated that this case 'dripped with'.

Graham

[NickB]

Can you please elaborate on this, Nick? Thanks.

I was referring to what happened when Kleinman took Mrs D's statement.

Olive Dinwoodie and her husband John made additional statements in which they complained about the 'bullying' manner of the defence; and the way in which Kleinman tried to slip in the phrase "I am not sure whether it was the Monday or the Tuesday that the man called" to the statement he had drawn up for her. Quite correctly, she refused to sign it. In frustration, Kleinman blurted out, "There is a man's life at stake."

(Woffinden page 165)

[caz]

Hi Nick,

So if Mrs D had given way after Kleinman's frustrated observation, and conceded it might have been the Tuesday after all, because she didn't want a hanged man on her conscience, it would have tainted her evidence anyway.

Good for her that she stuck with what she believed had been the correct day that someone resembling the man in the photo (but sounding nothing like Hanratty) had come in and asked for directions.

I don't see how she could ever have realistically provided the jury with that elusive element of doubt.

Love,

Caz
X

[Derrick]

...So if Mrs D had given way after Kleinman's frustrated observation, and conceded it might have been the Tuesday after all, because she didn't want a hanged man on her conscience, it would have tainted her evidence anyway...

Mrs D's husband made a number of complaints to the Liverpool police about what he considered to be harassment by the defence agents. These were recorded in a couple of statements that the Dinwoodies' made to the police.

Although Mrs D was upset over her treatment at the hands of the defence agents she still agreed to appear as a defence witness. She was not subpoenaed or coerced to appear.

The key points of Mrs D's evidence at trial where;

• she identified Hanratty in the dock as the man that she picked out from the photos that she had been shown as resembling the man who had come into the shop.
• she said that the man had asked for a Tarleton Road which was not a street she knew.
• she could only be sure of the actual day of the man coming in because her granddaughter was serving with her.

And that is all.

The first point comes directly from Mrs D's own identification. The second two corroborate Hanratty's own account of the encounter.

Irrespective of what DC Pugh reported or did not report Mrs D saying, he wasn't a trial witness anyway. Mrs D came to court of her own volition and gave evidence as she remembered it.

But she was taken very ill on the Tuesday and was, most likely, confused over the presence of Miss Ford that afternoon, serving ices and sweets to the little children.

Hanratty said that he asked for Tarleton Road and a young girl was serving. Together, Mrs D and Miss Ford corroborate this. It could not have been the Monday because the prosecution themselves proved he was in London.

[uncle_adolph]

So if Mrs D had given way after Kleinman's frustrated observation, and conceded it might have been the Tuesday after all, because she didn't want a hanged man on her conscience, it would have tainted her evidence anyway.

Naturally, a witness picking completely the wrong person at an identification parade shouldn't taint their evidence, should it?

[Spitfire]

Hanratty said that he asked for Tarleton Road and a young girl was serving. Together, Mrs D and Miss Ford corroborate this. It could not have been the Monday because the prosecution themselves proved he was in London.

Or to look at it another way, it could not have been Hanratty as the incident occurred on the Monday as recalled by the Defence's own witness, Mrs Dinwoodie.

The sweetshop alibi and Valerie's defective first identification were extensively debated before the jury, which had the undoubted advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses give their evidence. The jury resolved the question of identification against Hanrattty.

[uncle_adolph]

The sweetshop alibi and Valerie's defective first identification were extensively debated before the jury, which had the undoubted advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses give their evidence. The jury resolved the question of identification against Hanrattty.

The jury didn't, however, have the advantage of seeing the person Valerie chose at the first ID parade.....and coming to their own conclusion about the quality of her visual evidence. Acott's written notes were hardly a suitable substitute.

[moste]

The jury didn't, however, have the advantage of seeing the person Valerie chose at the first ID parade.....and coming to their own conclusion about the quality of her visual evidence. Acott's written notes were hardly a suitable substitute.

Sherrards fault. Actually if I recall, Acott didn't have his notes on Michael Clarks description available in court, he gave Sherrard his memory of what he recalled of the falsely identified witness by Storie, sounded absolutely nothing like Hanratty. At this cross road Sherrard I believe showed his incompetence in not grinding the whole proceedings to a halt, he should have insisted on seeing what the falsely identified man looked like, and then when and if he was comfortable with what he saw ,should have introduced that person to the jury.
Sherrard I believe was out of his depth.It was most unusual for a capital case of this magnitude to be defended by anyone other than a QC. Victor Durrand was one of the best and was asked for by Kleinman,Hanrattys solicitor. Subsequently Durrand serving a one year suspension , Sherrard took the job, Hanratty was happy enough as apparently Sherrard had impressed him at the pre trial in Ampthill.
The above is paraphrasing from The Final Verdict,Bob Woffinden. This area of the book makes good reading if your interested in how dirty the tricks can get.