a6 murder

[Stephen Thomas]

I imagine that a cockney geezer type like Hanratty would have stood out big time in a Welsh town back then

Like, as they say, a sore thumb.

[Natalie Severn]

The cartridge case question

The jury had to ask a further question about the cartridge cases.

The judge told them:

"Those cartridge cases,it is said,were left before 24 August.They were not found until 11 September.You have heard another person used that room,that there were other people in the hotel,that there was a way outside from this bedroom,and you must not jump to the conclusion that the mere finding of these cartridge cases there denoted that they were left there by the prisoner."

[Natalie Severn]

The jury at the 1961 trial in Bedfordshire were out over ten hours.After six hours had gone by one of the jury came back with specific questions and a request for general guidance from the judge."May we have a further statement from you regarding the definition of reasonable doubt? Must we be certain and sure of the prisoner"s guilt to return a verdict?" David Lines,Under- Sherrif of Bedfordshire and also a lawyer,saw this as meaning they clearly were not sure.
The judge,it seemed thought the same way
"If you have reasonable doubt,then you are not sure.You understand that,do you not?"

[RonIpstone]

The comment and surety of just one of the jurors is not enough to suggest that there was not dissent in the jury room and if the above points had been put forward it would have swayed the jury, if not at Bedford then certainly at the Old Bailey.

Ah, but it was in Bedford and not the Bailey and we all know about Bedfordshire juries.

[Derrick]

However, a former trial juror said last night the jury made the right decision based on the evidence presented to them.

from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ha...c-1279254.html

The jury should have been able to consider the following.

• VS's withheld statements that were contrary to her confidence over identifying MG's killer, coupled with the true nature of VS and MG's relationship.
• The mileage done by the car before it was finally abandoned in Redbridge, along with testimony of other witnesses who contradicted the prosecutions case.
• The testimony of all of the known Rhyl witnesses at the time.
• Michael Clark bore no resemblance to Hanratty whatsoever. This is the crux of the identification of MG's killer which was so plainly wrong. Why then should anyone place any confidence in VS to get it right the next time? Acott fudged the issue of Clarks appearance in court and left the jury none the wiser.

The comment and surety of just one of the jurors is not enough to suggest that there was not dissent in the jury room and if the above points had been put forward it would have swayed the jury, if not at Bedford then certainly at the Old Bailey.

Looks like and sounds like a fit up job to me. Still going on as well.

Derrick

[Victor]

The main issue was perfectly clear on that page that Michael Sherrard made the statement about Valerie Storie

Hi Norma,

No, I disagree, I think Sherrard was smart enough to realise it does apply to all identification witnesses, which is why he deliberately phrased it the way he did - hence you had to add in "[-referring to Valerie Storie"s statement]" in post #7587.

By raising the more general point about other witness statements you are failing to appraise each of their statements in context.

Not at all, a large proportion of the Rhyl statements are from a bunch of relatives or friendly neighbours who would have discussed it and managed to positively reinforce eachother and convince themselves that they'd definitely seen Hanratty, when it was another young man.

and she composed an identikit picture that looked nothing like Hanratty but was the image of Alphon!

That's entirely subjective, and lots of people hold the opposite viewpoint - including Charlotte France who would actually have had the benefit of comparing it to Hanratty in all 3 dimensions, rather than a bunch of poorly resolved photographs.

Blackhall composed the other image---and is on record as saying the man Skillett and he saw looked nothing like Hanratty.

Well he can't speak for Skillett who positively identified Hanratty - and the example you've given is probably why the 2nd identikit image could not be reconciled with Valerie's, because Blackhall has a poor recollection for faces, or he was distracted by te stripes on the rear bumper, and yet was insistent he had input to the identikit.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

Why reply to a post of mine and address it to Graham?


She did not "state" that, she picked him out of a ID parade.

KR,
Vic.

1]Because I was more concerned about the subject matter.Graham had followed your post with some reinforcement and I was covering both posts.

2]]Valerie "stated" by implication.The main issue was perfectly clear on that page that Michael Sherrard made the statement about Valerie Storie---not about say the failure of Blackhall to identify the same man as Skillett for example.By raising the more general point about other witness statements you are failing to appraise each of their statements in context.Valerie said herself she only had a fleeting glimpse of the gunman in the darkness [when she saw his "blue" eyes in the headlight of a passing car].She also said after only two weeks that the features of the gunman"s face were fading from her memory and she composed an identikit picture that looked nothing like Hanratty but was the image of Alphon! Blackhall composed the other image---and is on record as saying the man Skillett and he saw looked nothing like Hanratty.

[Victor]

When Valerie picked Michael Clark out of the ID Parade, as being the man who had murdered her lover, then raped her, shot her and then left her paralysed and for dead, she wasn't actually "stating" that she believed him to be the man who had murdered her lover, then raped her, shot her and then left her paralysed and for dead???

Hi Zodiac,

Technically yes she did not state that, she selected him from a lineup, and was then informed that it couldn't have been him. But then that's the difference in Culprit-Absent ID Parades.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Surely, if the 'Sherrard' quote applied to everyone, then all witness testimony in all Court cases could be dismisssed out of hand?

Hi BR,

Then why does it apply to Valerie? It applies to every identification witness, which includes all the Rhyl "witnesses".

KR,
Vic

[Black Rabbit]

Hi Norma,

Secondly why doesn't the Sherrard quote apply equally to everyone, including those Rhyl "witnesses"?
Vic.

Surely, if the 'Sherrard' quote applied to everyone, then all witness testimony in all Court cases could be dismisssed out of hand?

[Zodiac]

Hi Norma,

Why reply to a post of mine and address it to Graham?

Secondly why doesn't the Sherrard quote apply equally to everyone, including those Rhyl "witnesses"?

And even though she had first stated that Michael Clark was her rapist and Gregsten"s killer.

She did not "state" that, she picked him out of a ID parade.

KR,
Vic.

So let me get this straight, Vic.

When Valerie picked Michael Clark out of the ID Parade, as being the man who had murdered her lover, then raped her, shot her and then left her paralysed and for dead, she wasn't actually "stating" that she believed him to be the man who had murdered her lover, then raped her, shot her and then left her paralysed and for dead???

Best wishes,
Zodiac.

[Derrick]

...so, as a way of moving the debate on, what are the possible events that are supported by the evidence we have for the night of the murder?

Hi JP56
You put forward a very good idea that has not been examined in much depth here.
What is supported by other evidence for the times between MG and VS leaving the Old Station Inn at Taplow and VS being found sometime after 6am at Clophill on the morning of the 23rd?

A man on a motorcycle saw a Morris car in a different field just before 10pm.
Apart from that no one reports any sightings of the Morris car until after MG is reported to have been murdered.
The Regent garage near London Airport (where VS says thay stopped for fuel) did not report any sighting of a Morris Minor and Hirons (Shell garage near Kingsbury) was wrong about seeing the car.

I suggest it as a path to be explored, an intellectual exercise… and I’m STILL puzzled by the initial statement from VS “We PICKED UP a man in Slough…”

You put forward a hypothesis of MG and VS being the only occupants of the car. Yet who shot VS?
The "We PICKED UP a man in Slough…" line is interesting though.

We would have to imagine a scenario along the following lines to make any sense of it at all.

VS cannot accept that MG is going to end their relationship and hatches a plot to do him in. She gets a gun from a new boyfriend at the RRL at Slough. She persuades him to come along in case MG overpowers her.

VS and the new man have had sex earlier that day. VS has not changed her clothing.

VS and MG go to the usual Dorney haunts and VS persuades MG to go on the proposed rally route and they "pick up" the boyfriend at Slough. They head for Bedford as part of the proposed route. They stop at Deadman's Hill for a leak.

VS is in the back and shoots MG twice. A fight breaks out and the boyfriend shoots VS.

He drives off.

VS cannot pick out the new boyfriend for fear of being implicated.

Although no other evidence backs up VS's story as to what happened that night, there are many problems with this particular idea.

• The gun being found on the bus. It needs Dixie's testimony.
• The cartridge cases at the Vienna Hotel. Found, nearly 3 weeks after, in a room that Hanratty stayed in.
• William Ewer phoning Scotland Yard after seeing Hanratty in Burtols in late August 1961. Ryan/Hanratty was then known to the police.
• Dixie's apology to William Ewer. Why?
• Dixie's suicide. Why?
• Alphon's ability to cause mischief with protection from imprisonment. Why?

Was the testimony of the couple who say they saw a man by a Morris car on Deadman's Hill dismissed because it didn't fit in with VS's story?

That is the problem I find. Not only with this case but with other cases. Who makes the decision as to what is relevant and what is not. And as the police are the investigators in chief and can and do withhold evidence then that will always leave the defence in an impossible position especially when only armed with limited resources. Swanwick said takes what fits....etc after all!

Concerning witnesses who "want to get on the act". In Hanratty the initial defence investigations were by private agents who should have just gathered what evidence they could, rather than making value judgements on it, and left the gravity of the evidence to Mr Sherrard alone.

James Hanratty snr always blamed Kleinmann for not interviewing Mrs Dinwoodie personally.

Derrick.

[Victor]

Graham,

Michael Sherrard did indeed say this,but he was referring to the evidence given by Valerie Storie

Hi Norma,

Why reply to a post of mine and address it to Graham?

Secondly why doesn't the Sherrard quote apply equally to everyone, including those Rhyl "witnesses"?

And even though she had first stated that Michael Clark was her rapist and Gregsten"s killer.

She did not "state" that, she picked him out of a ID parade.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

hi
Perhaps I can be of some help of here ,The couple approached the police in the aftermath of the murder and gave a statement. It was found by Bob Woffinden when he gained access to the Bedfordshire police files on the case ,he traced and interveiwed them and they reiterated the statement they gave in 1961. They had been out for a meal that evening and had left the restaurant when it closed , their journey home had taken past Deadmans Hill at around midnight,this was still some time before the murder car had arrived there, for this reason it was concluded that their evidence was irrelevant.
REGARDS julie q

Hi Julie q,
I noticed your post yesterday but I was in Rhyl until today only returning to London this evening,so I would like you to know I was not ignoring you and that I noted your comments and appreciated your concerns.Your posts have been most instructive, not only shedding new light on the case,especially on witness testimony ,but also asking penetrating questions that often get to the heart of a mystery ---especially about a character such as Alphon-----you noted a month or so ago that of all Supt Acott"s twelve reasons why Alphon couldn"t have been the gunman,his crucial omission from that list of 12 points was that he never had an alibi for the night of the murder! Quite right- and Juliana Galves in her second statement of 13th September 1962 also said she did not see him at the Vienna Hotel until about 11.30 on 23rd August ----and that he looked dishevelled and jumpy and she saw him move to close his open case which had a pair of black nylon gloves lying on top of the case which was full of dirty clothes!
Well Julie,lets indeed hope this thread will be less acrimonious from now on,
Best Wishes,
Norma

[Graham]

hi
Perhaps I can be of some help of here ,The couple approached the police in the aftermath of the murder and gave a statement. It was found by Bob Woffinden when he gained access to the Bedfordshire police files on the case ,he traced and interveiwed them and they reiterated the statement they gave in 1961. They had been out for a meal that evening and had left the restaurant when it closed , their journey home had taken past Deadmans Hill at around midnight,this was still some time before the murder car had arrived there, for this reason it was concluded that their evidence was irrelevant.
REGARDS julie q

Julie,

Thanks for this. The Independent article doesn't mention the time of the couple's encounter with the Morris driver. I've got a vague feeling that I read something along the lines of your post ages ago, but can't remember where. Woffinden was honest enough to accept that the couple's evidence was not relevant to the A6 Case.

Graham