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:
Motive, Method and Madness: What was occuring in 1888? - by Joshua Rogan 35 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by packers stem 53 minutes ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by NickB 1 hour and 7 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by Elamarna 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: What was occuring in 1888? - by MrBarnett 2 hours ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by NickB 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - (24 posts)
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (17 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (8 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: What was occuring in 1888? - (7 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Mary Kellys Inquest - (2 posts)
Ripperologist: Ripperologist 161 April/May 2018 - (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
  #3481  
Old 10-25-2016, 07:04 AM
louisa louisa is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 987
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham View Post
However, there is one rather unpleasant aspect that has been creeping into this debate for some time, and that is the totally unjustified denigration of the late Valerie Storie. She told the truth as she saw it. It is as simple as that.

Thank you.

Graham
It was far from simple. She lied and continued to lie.

She was in that car with a married man and had been there many times before and I think we can be fairly certain they were not discussing car rallies. That was the first lie, but possibly an understandable one. She was the kind of woman that all married women should fear.

I have sympathy with anyone who is paralysed but our sympathy should not cloud our judgement. She was not 'heroic' but did what anyone would have done in those circumstances.

Becoming disabled does not suddenly make somebody into a wonderful person and I think people treated her with kid gloves instead of getting a bit tough and trying to discover why she had altered the description of her attacker so drastically.

The Defense could not 'get tough' with Valerie because it would be seen as harassment and the public, naturally, had a lot of sympathy with her, at that time.

It was what Det. Acott wanted though. He was as much of a crook as any of the other characters in this story.

She gave a detailed eye witness account to the first person on the scene - the man doing the road census. And look how accurately it matches Alphon!

If she had just changed it slightly afterwards it may have got by but to change it COMPLETELY? (!).

Peoples' memories do not improve with age, they always decrease.

However, the die was cast. Valerie had told the police that her attacker now looked exactly like Hanratty.

Why? That is anyone's guess and this is perhaps the biggest mystery of all, but she changed to Hanratty after she had been visited by Mrs. Gregston. How I would love to have been a fly on the wall during that visit.

She could have told the truth, giving the reason why she lied, before he was hanged, but she chose not to. For me, that was unforgivable.
__________________
This is simply my opinion
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3482  
Old 10-25-2016, 07:45 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 892
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by louisa View Post
Then, after a visit from Gregston's wife she changed it to "His eyes were blue and saucer like"
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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3483  
Old 10-25-2016, 07:47 AM
Alfie Alfie is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 193
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by louisa View Post
The fact that the gunman obviously could not drive a car should have been one of the main points of the trial.

...

She initially told police that the gunman had small deep set eyes. Then, after a visit from Gregston's wife she changed it to "His eyes were blue and saucer like"
You really ought to do a bit more research.

It was never alleged that the gunman couldn't drive, only that he was a bad driver, which Hanratty was according to a number of witnesses.

And Valerie didn't initially say the gunman had small deep set eyes.

Here's her earliest description of him, as told to Kerr at the scene:

"According to the statement which John Kerr made that afternoon, I asked her what the man was like and she said, He had big staring eyes ...'" (Woffinden)

I'd just add that reading your maligning of Valerie, with totally misleading statements, marks a low point of my time on this board.

Last edited by Alfie : 10-25-2016 at 07:49 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3484  
Old 10-25-2016, 07:47 AM
uncle_adolph uncle_adolph is offline
Cadet
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 44
Default

I'm not sure I would call Valerie a liar. I think that is a little harsh.

What I would say is that she convinced herself and continued to convince herself that Hanratty was the killer when the reality was she had no idea. And in that she was helped by the fact that the police suspect in the second ID parade was made pretty obvious to her by his appearance.

Her identikit to ultimately identifying Hanratty is pretty much a quantum leap.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3485  
Old 10-25-2016, 08:27 AM
Graham Graham is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 3,314
Default

Louisa,

your last post is frankly disgraceful and almost totally wrong.

Graham
__________________
We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3486  
Old 10-25-2016, 08:36 AM
Graham Graham is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 3,314
Default

Quote:
What I would say is that she convinced herself and continued to convince herself that Hanratty was the killer when the reality was she had no idea. And in that she was helped by the fact that the police suspect in the second ID parade was made pretty obvious to her by his appearance.

Her identikit to ultimately identifying Hanratty is pretty much a quantum leap.
She did in fact tell the police, prior to ID Parade No 2, that her memory of the man was fading. However, as she later stated after the parade, as soon as she saw Hanratty she knew he was the man. I can't accept that she had no idea what her attacker looked like.

With regard to Hanratty's appearance, Kleinmann, who was present at the parade (even though he kept everyone waiting by turning up late), rejected Acott's suggestion that all the men on the parade wear surgeon's caps to cover their hair. His argument was that he knew that it was Hanratty's eyes that were the giveaway, and wished to divert attention from them to his weird hair. It didn't work.

Hanratty was actually at the Frances' flat with the family watching TV when the Identikit images were shown on the screen. Charlotte France looked at them and said to Hanratty, "Doesn't that one look like you?" So I would have to say that it couldn't have been all that inaccurate.

Graham
__________________
We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3487  
Old 10-25-2016, 08:36 AM
louisa louisa is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 987
Default

Those eye witness accounts...

VALERIE STORIE: "I made a mistake. The man had nothing to do with the, with the case. It was just one of those things".

Both of VS's identikits show a man with dark eyes yet Hanratty's were light blue.

The first was compiled with the help of Valerie Storie -the main 'eye witness' who initially wrongly identified a totally innocent man, Michael Clark. This first identikit shows a man with a very clear hair line and not as the judge pointed out in his summing up, a man with a distinctive 'widows peak' which Hanratty had and which meant his hair could not be swept back giving a clear hairline as in the photofit.

This first one also shows not only a man with dark eyes but also with light coloured hair which Hanratty did not have on 22nd August as it was dyed black.

The 2nd identikit was compiled by a policeman with the help of Edward Blackhall who rolled down his window to better see and communicate with the MM driver. Blackhall was one of the three main eye witnesses but Blackhall did not recognise James Hanratty on the identification parade and later swore the man he had seen 'looked nothing like Hanratty, which very much cancels out that of Skillett, who was driving his car and was further away than Blackhall from the MM driver.

Yes he did positively identify Hanratty 6 weeks later but the contradictions between the two mens 'eye witness' statements is very very curious. The 2nd identikit also shows that dark eyes had been selected, (not the saucer wide , light blue eyes of the altered 31st August 2nd nation-wide police description]. The man again has a clear hairline, wavy hair brushed back and an oval, staring eyes Valerie spoke of and with an oval face shape like the first identikit - whereas Hanratty had a box like shaped face.

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.

A man was hanged on this evidence.
__________________
This is simply my opinion
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3488  
Old 10-25-2016, 08:45 AM
louisa louisa is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 987
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham View Post
She did in fact tell the police, prior to ID Parade No 2, that her memory of the man was fading. However, as she later stated after the parade, as soon as she saw Hanratty she knew he was the man.

Yes, she probably did, from what she had been told.

She took 20 minutes to identify him. They each had to say "Be quiet, will you? I'm thinking"

Although I suspect she already knew who to pick out. Taking her time and asking them to speak was just to make it look more plausible. Acott could not risk her picking the 'wrong' man again and I suspect she had been 'coached' beforehand.

Didn't he touch her on the shoulder and say "Good girl" afterwards?
__________________
This is simply my opinion

Last edited by louisa : 10-25-2016 at 08:58 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3489  
Old 10-25-2016, 08:59 AM
Graham Graham is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 3,314
Default

Quote:
She actually took 20 minutes to identify him. They each had to say "Be quiet, will you? I'm thinking"
Yes I know. She also said in her women's magazine article that she wanted to make him suffer, so she took a long time before identifying him.

Quote:
Although I suspect she already knew who to pick out. Taking her time and asking them to speak was just to make it look more plausible. Acott could not risk her picking the 'wrong' man again and I suspect she had been 'coached' beforehand.
Don't you think it's time you stopped digging the enormous hole you're making for yourself, and threw the shovel out?

Graham
__________________
We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3490  
Old 10-25-2016, 09:17 AM
louisa louisa is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 987
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham View Post
Yes I know. She also said in her women's magazine article that she wanted to make him suffer, so she took a long time before identifying him.
I think she ultimately made him suffer a lot more than he ever deserved.


Going from memory, I believe she admitted she wasn't even wearing her glasses during the fateful journey and the rape.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham View Post
Don't you think it's time you stopped digging the enormous hole you're making for yourself, and threw the shovel out?
You first.
__________________
This is simply my opinion
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 12:48 PM.


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