a6 murder

[jimarilyn]

What Valerie Storie saw....

Now judge for yourselves how similar (or otherwise) the Identikit picture which VS helped to compile is to the first suspect Peter Alphon. Bearing in mind that this Identikit was compiled on 28th August and published in the following day's newspapers. Her memory of the murderer was at it's freshest at this point in time. She saw the murderer face to face which is why she was able to tell the police that he had slicked back hair. Hanratty could not slick his hair back because of a widow's peak and looks absolutely nothing like either Identikit picture. What I would dearly like is for someone who is convinced of Hanratty's guilt to explain this.

[jimarilyn]

Hi all,

Prior to the A6 murder the newly adopted US technique of Identikit had been used with great success by Scotland Yard since it was introduced 5 months earlier in March 1961.

On March 3rd 1961 an antiques shop assistant, 59 year old Elsie Batten, was found stabbed to death in the shop owned by Louis Meyer.

When Mr Meyer and a local shop assistant were interviewed by Det Sgt Raymond Dagg, they told him that they had seen a rather suspicious youth of Indian appearance at the shop a couple or so days earlier.

Dagg, aware of the new idea of Identikit, turned to America for help. He compiled a facial picture of the suspect with the help of Mr Meyer, and then, completely independently, from the other witness.

The two pictures bore a striking resemblance to each other and were then circulated and published in the Press.

On March 8th, Hilton Cole, a policeman from a nearby station, saw Edwin Bush in Old Compton Street in Soho and recognised him from the Identikit pictures.

Cole arrested Bush on suspicion of being the murderer.

Bush had a copy of the Identikit pictures (taken from a newspaper) in his pocket. His shoes were similar to marks left at the murder scene.

Bush was picked out at an identification parade by one of two witnesses and then confessed to the murder.

He was later convicted and executed on July 6th at Pentonville Prison.

Judge for yourselves how strikingly similar the picture of Bush is to his Identikit Picture...........

For a more detailed account of the Elsie Batten murder click on the link below. Intriguingly and coincidentally enough, Edwin Bush (just like Peter Alphon would do almost 6 months later) denied any involvement and claimed his mother as an alibi. The statement his mum had given earlier to police however contradicted this.

http://www.met.police.uk/history/bush.htm

PS. I wonder if Louis Meyer (or Meier) had any dealings with William Ewer or Louise Anderson ?

[reg1965]

Now judge for yourselves how similar (or otherwise) the Identikit picture which VS helped to compile is to the first suspect Peter Alphon. Bearing in mind that this Identikit was compiled on 28th August and published in the following day's newspapers. Her memory of the murderer was at it's freshest at this point in time. She saw the murderer face to face which is why she was able to tell the police that he had slicked back hair. Hanratty could not slick his hair back because of a widow's peak and looks absolutely nothing like either Identikit picture. What I would dearly like is for someone who is convinced of Hanratty's guilt to explain this.

Hi James
The eyes don't seem to be 'saucer like and icy blue' either!
I'm not trying to be cynical but id evidence of this sort (along with misidentification and fading memory) should be taken with a very large pinch of salt.
As another point. Does anyone have any information as to what was said during Janet Gregsten's hospital visit to Valerie Storie were Mrs Gregsten later commented 'that Valerie is my friend'?

Regards
Reg

[Graham]

I can't convince myself that the Identikit of Alphon looks much like his real self. The Identikit could be anyone - there aren't really any distinguishing features that jump out at you. The Identikit of Bush, though, does carry a passing resemblance, I have to say, especially in the eye department.

Those two photos of Alphon portray a man who appears quite differerent to the one who was filmed during his Paris 'news conference'. Probably down to a different hair-style and a filling-out of his face.

Now, get out your copy of "Who Killed Hanratty?" by Paul Foot, and compare the two photos of Hanratty, Numbers 9 and 10 between Pages 144 and 145, and the photo Number 34 of Hanratty between pages 240 and 241. I have always been struck at the vast difference between 9 and 10, and 34 - the latter when he was obviously relaxed and probably not aware that his picture was being taken.

Also, compare the photos Numbers 7 and 8 of Alphon between Pages 144 and 145, and Number 35 of Alphon between Pages 240 and 241. Same man? Well, yes, of course, but only because we know it is. (It's the latter photo, the one of Alphon embracing his mother, that looks uncannily like the old actor Sidney Tafler; at least to my eyes).

I'm not trying to make an issue of this, only to try to illustrate that a person's looks, features and facial characteristics may be open to individual interpretation, and to point up how difficult it can be to generate an accurate description of an individual.

Cheers,

Graham

PS: I tried to scan and upload the above photos for the benefit of anyone who hasn't seen them, but my technology failed me.

[larue]

"may be open to individual interpretation"

hi Graham

is this not the crux of the whole case? all the 'evidence' including dna results are similarly open

[jimarilyn]

I can't convince myself that the Identikit of Alphon looks much like his real self. The Identikit could be anyone - there aren't really any distinguishing features that jump out at you. The Identikit of Bush, though, does carry a passing resemblance, I have to say, especially in the eye department.

Those two photos of Alphon portray a man who appears quite differerent to the one who was filmed during his Paris 'news conference'. Probably down to a different hair-style and a filling-out of his face.

Now, get out your copy of "Who Killed Hanratty?" by Paul Foot, and compare the two photos of Hanratty, Numbers 9 and 10 between Pages 144 and 145, and the photo Number 34 of Hanratty between pages 240 and 241. I have always been struck at the vast difference between 9 and 10, and 34 - the latter when he was obviously relaxed and probably not aware that his picture was being taken.

Also, compare the photos Numbers 7 and 8 of Alphon between Pages 144 and 145, and Number 35 of Alphon between Pages 240 and 241. Same man? Well, yes, of course, but only because we know it is. (It's the latter photo, the one of Alphon embracing his mother, that looks uncannily like the old actor Sidney Tafler; at least to my eyes).

I'm not trying to make an issue of this, only to try to illustrate that a person's looks, features and facial characteristics may be open to individual interpretation, and to point up how difficult it can be to generate an accurate description of an individual.

Cheers,Graham

PS: I tried to scan and upload the above photos for the benefit of anyone who hasn't seen them, but my technology failed me.

As I had anticipated, completely fobbed off again.

You're in a tiny minority Graham who can't "convince themselves" that Alphon looks like the Identikit picture. He looks amazingly like the Identikit picture! I wonder what the odds are of this happening.....out of about 9 million people living in London, Valerie Storie's Identikit picture just happens to look uncannily like the first suspect in the case ?

The Alphon who was filmed in Paris in May 1967 was almost 6 years older and you can still tell that it's Alphon.

Photo 9 of Hanratty was one of a series of photos taken of Hanratty during the trial at Bedford. Photos 10 and 34 of Hanratty were most probably taken prior to his 3 year imprisonment (March 1958 to March 1961).

Photo 35 of Alphon is a right profile view and you can easily tell that it's him. This particular view of Alphon corroborates Valerie Storie's statement that her attacker's hair was receding at the temples. This is clearly shown in this picture.

[Tony]

As I had anticipated, completely fobbed off again.

You're in a tiny minority Graham who can't "convince themselves" that Alphon looks like the Identikit picture. He looks amazingly like the Identikit picture! I wonder what the odds are of this happening.....out of about 9 million people living in London, Valerie Storie's Identikit picture just happens to look uncannily like the first suspect in the case ?

The Alphon who was filmed in Paris in May 1967 was almost 6 years older and you can still tell that it's Alphon.

Photo 9 of Hanratty was one of a series of photos taken of Hanratty during the trial at Bedford. Photos 10 and 34 of Hanratty were most probably taken prior to his 3 year imprisonment (March 1958 to March 1961).

Photo 35 of Alphon is a right profile view and you can easily tell that it's him. This particular view of Alphon corroborates Valerie Storie's statement that her attacker's hair was receding at the temples. This is clearly shown in this picture.

A very good afternoon Jimarilyn,

Well the identikit and the actual photos of Alphon look like a dead ringer to me. But as Graham says it could be like anyone. Who knows maybe it even looks like Michael Clark.

Now I really would like to see a 1962 picture of him.

Tony.

[caz]

Hi All,

If the argument is that VS's identification of the man whose DNA showed up on her knickers was unreliable for whatever reason (eg she picked out another man initially when Hanratty wasn't present; descriptions she apparently gave at different times to different people were inconsistent; she never got more than a quick look at the rapist's face and only thought she recognised his voice again during the second line-up, in which Hanratty took part and was asked to speak; she was too traumatised for perfect recall etc etc - pick whichever reasons you fancy) then it's a bit much to suggest that, actually, she did see her attacker clearly enough to help compile a useful Identikit picture, and the person she saw in her mind's eye was in fact Alphon.

Isn't this trying to have it both ways? If you reject the victim's testimony as unreliable, you can't very well use the same person's testimony to identify another man at the scene.

Hi Tony,

But by the same token, could Michael Clark not have looked more like Hanratty than Alphon, when VS picked him out?

Love,

Caz
X

[P.L.A]

The Parades

At the first identity parade, Storie wasn’t aware that she was allowed to ask the people to speak. She only learnt that she could make this request after the event, but before the second parade.

In an interview with the Sunday Mail soon after the appeal, she said that when she was wheeled into the second parade, she recognised Hanratty straight away. She was determined not to mess this one up, so took as much time as she could to be totally certain.

She said something like “I looked at him, and he looked at me, and he knew that I knew who he was.”

Peter

[reg1965]

From the appeal ruling (2002)

140. The fourth ground of appeal concerns the failure by DS Acott to disclose a note which he had made in his notebook to the effect that the man identified by Valerie Storie on the first identification parade (on which Peter Alphon was standing) had ‘dark eyes’. A note to that effect was written in the back of his notebook (that is, not in the sequence of events that he recorded whether for evidential purposes or otherwise). Mr Mansfield also submits that this feature is relevant to the attack on the Superintendent’s credibility because when asked to describe the man, the officer only said: “I can tell you this from my own knowledge: 5ft 9in, dark short cropped hair, about 27 years of age and he was heavily built”. Other aspects of the noted description also omitted from his evidence included ‘long round face, square chin, pale complexion, … born 7.12.35’.
141. The notebook would fall to be disclosed under contemporary common law rules; it is less clear that it represented an inconsistent statement by 1962 standards. Further, it would have been open to the defence to require that the identified man be brought to court. Mr Sherrard asked if he was available to be brought and was told:
“He was some time ago, but I cannot say off-hand.”
The officer was not pressed further.
142. As to DS Acott’s answer (omitting ‘dark eyes’), it is only fair to him to record that he was prepared to give a description (which in the light of his earlier evidence is likely to have come from his notebook) saying:
“I think I had better give it in detail from start to finish then.”
He was then asked whether it was the result of his own observations and he responded, “Not all of it”. Mr Sherrard, clearly concerned about what the officer might say, was prepared to leave the matter but the judge pressed. The answer upon which Mr Mansfield relies comes after a request both from Mr Sherrard and the judge to restrict himself to his own knowledge. Given that the Superintendent had specifically said that not all of the description came from his own knowledge and we do not know why this description was in the back of the notebook, it would be wrong to conclude that of his own knowledge he could describe the man’s eyes as ‘dark’.
143. Finally, the evidence about the man whom Valerie Storie had identified was not consistent on this point. Dr. Rennie, who had treated Valerie Storie, was present at this parade and was asked if he could recall the appearance of the man whom Valerie Storie had identified. He stated: “As far as I remember he had rather fairish hair and bluish eyes”. In our view, there was no great mileage for the defence in this point. The most important feature (namely that Valerie Storie had identified a volunteer on the parade who could not have been involved) was fully deployed before the jury.

Lets examine each of the paragraphs one by one and try to make some sense of what the Court of Appeal was getting at.

It should be accepted by all, and it was by the judges that the note in Acott's notebook WAS NOT DISCLOSED at the original trial. From there we have;

140 It is plain to all (even the judges) that the man identified by Valerie Storie had, by at least one witness to the parade, 'dark eyes'. Why would this be in Acott's notebook if he didn't write it himself? It was never put or denied that it was Acott who had written this despite the other facts about the identified man.

141 This is fudge by the judges to accept that the prosecution had neglected its reponsiblities to make all parade members available for a possible trial. Nothing more or less. Sherrard made an appeal at the time and it was deflected.

142 This just lets Acott and thus Valerie Storie's misidentification, off of the hook just because the 'dark eyes' description was written in his notebook and not from what he (Acott) could actually (or wanted to) remember. This should offend everyones' natural sense of justice.

143 Hanratty at the time of the murder would have had black hair. Dr Rennie's statement was qualified by 'As far as I can remember' and included 'rather fairish and bluish eyes'. So it could not have been Dr Rennie who gave the 'dark eyes' notion to Acott. The fact that the judges concluded that no mileage could be gained by the defence is an outrage and contradicts the fact that the identified parade member was not available when he should have been.

Reg

[Tony]

Hi All,

If the argument is that VS's identification of the man whose DNA showed up on her knickers was unreliable for whatever reason (eg she picked out another man initially when Hanratty wasn't present; descriptions she apparently gave at different times to different people were inconsistent; she never got more than a quick look at the rapist's face and only thought she recognised his voice again during the second line-up, in which Hanratty took part and was asked to speak; she was too traumatised for perfect recall etc etc - pick whichever reasons you fancy) then it's a bit much to suggest that, actually, she did see her attacker clearly enough to help compile a useful Identikit picture, and the person she saw in her mind's eye was in fact Alphon.

Isn't this trying to have it both ways? If you reject the victim's testimony as unreliable, you can't very well use the same person's testimony to identify another man at the scene.

Hi Tony,

But by the same token, could Michael Clark not have looked more like Hanratty than Alphon, when VS picked him out?

Love,

Caz
X

Hello Caz,

I’ve not had the opportunity to correspond with you but I have read all your posts and each and every one is reasoned and well put together and there has been no occasion when you have raised your voice, so to speak. So thank you for that and I hope I don’t change things.

Valerie Storie said in evidence that Michael Clark bore a close resemblance to Peter Alphon but when asked to describe him at Bedford court she said she couldn’t remember anything about him and was unable to describe him.

This, for me at any rate, was a bad mistake by Hanratty’s defence team not to insist on seeing Michael Clark before deciding to call him for the jury to have a look at him.

Just suppose for a moment that you were on trial for your life, you were innocent and you knew the surviving victim had picked out another person on an ID parade wouldn’t you say to your barrister: “Hang on a minute this woman’s picked out someone else? What does he look like? Does he look anything like me or does he perhaps look like the first suspect? Whatever or whoever he looks like I want a look at him.

Tony.

[Tony]

At the first identity parade, Storie wasn’t aware that she was allowed to ask the people to speak. She only learnt that she could make this request after the event, but before the second parade.

In an interview with the Sunday Mail soon after the appeal, she said that when she was wheeled into the second parade, she recognised Hanratty straight away. She was determined not to mess this one up, so took as much time as she could to be totally certain.

She said something like “I looked at him, and he looked at me, and he knew that I knew who he was.”

Peter

Good evening Peter,

In the words of Mandy Rice-Davies: “She would say that wouldn’t she?”
She could hardly say anything else.

Tony

[caz]

Hello Caz,

I’ve not had the opportunity to correspond with you but I have read all your posts and each and every one is reasoned and well put together and there has been no occasion when you have raised your voice, so to speak. So thank you for that and I hope I don’t change things.

Valerie Storie said in evidence that Michael Clark bore a close resemblance to Peter Alphon but when asked to describe him at Bedford court she said she couldn’t remember anything about him and was unable to describe him.

This, for me at any rate, was a bad mistake by Hanratty’s defence team not to insist on seeing Michael Clark before deciding to call him for the jury to have a look at him.

Just suppose for a moment that you were on trial for your life, you were innocent and you knew the surviving victim had picked out another person on an ID parade wouldn’t you say to your barrister: “Hang on a minute this woman’s picked out someone else? What does he look like? Does he look anything like me or does he perhaps look like the first suspect? Whatever or whoever he looks like I want a look at him.

Tony.

Hi Tony,

I really appreciate your words, especially since I don’t quite know what I’ve done to earn myself the very different tone Reg has begun to take with me over on the other thread. I had actually developed quite a soft spot for him, so it’s more disappointing than anything else to find him so cross with me.

Anyway, you make some good points here. Certainly, if the defence could have been sure that Michael Clark looked nothing like Hanratty (much more crucial than if he bore some resemblance to Alphon, who it has to be said wasn’t recognised by VS) it was a potential trump card missed.

Yes, it would seem the obvious thing for an innocent man to want to know what the first man picked out in error looked like. Ditto for a guilty man, if it occurred to him that his defence could use the victim’s first mistake to show she was capable of making a second. But a simple soul, guilty or innocent, might have automatically assumed that he must have resembled the first man considering that they were both picked out by the same witness. Since the first man was not a suspect and had obviously only been there to make up the numbers, a resemblance between the two could have worked against Hanratty. A guilty man might have been wary of asking about the first man’s appearance, fearing the answer was likely to come back “He's a dead ringer for you, sunshine”. Equally, an innocent man might have relied on his defence to pounce on anything as crucial as the first man looking nothing like him, but being a dead ringer for Alphon.

Peter wrote about VS:

She said something like “I looked at him, and he looked at me, and he knew that I knew who he was.”

Now I would actually have called this irrelevant had VS said it in court. Either she recognised Hanratty as the man who had attacked her or she couldn’t be certain - at least not until she had heard him speak as well. Guilty or innocent, he would have been acutely aware that he was the suspect in that line-up when she was looking him directly in the eye. So she could have picked up this awareness from his body language and misinterpreted it as a mutual recognition and acknowledgement of guilt.

Anyone in his precarious position would have willed her to move on as quickly as possible to the next man, and the slightest hesitation or hint that she was setting her sights on him could only have added considerably to his misgivings, which could well have shown in his own eyes.

As I have said before, if it hadn't been for bad luck, an innocent Hanratty would have had no luck at all.

Love,

Caz
X

[reg1965]

Anyway, you make some good points here. Certainly, if the defence could have been sure that Michael Clark looked nothing like Hanratty (much more crucial than if he bore some resemblance to Alphon, who it has to be said wasn’t recognised by VS) it was a potential trump card missed.

It was not a trump card missed. The whereabouts of Mr Clark was withheld from the defence as Mr Sherrard was told by DS Acott “He was some time ago, but I cannot say off-hand.” This is an outrage. All identification witnesses must be available for a trial.

Yes, it would seem the obvious thing for an innocent man to want to know what the first man picked out in error looked like. Ditto for a guilty man, if it occurred to him that his defence could use the victim’s first mistake to show she was capable of making a second. But a simple soul, guilty or innocent, might have automatically assumed that he must have resembled the first man considering that they were both picked out by the same witness. Since the first man was not a suspect and had obviously only been there to make up the numbers, a resemblance between the two could have worked against Hanratty. A guilty man might have been wary of asking about the first man’s appearance, fearing the answer was likely to come back “He's a dead ringer for you, sunshine”. Equally, an innocent man might have relied on his defence to pounce on anything as crucial as the first man looking nothing like him, but being a dead ringer for Alphon.

Mr Clark wasn't available for trial as stated above. The non-disclosure of DS Acotts notebook had 'dark eyes' written in the back of it. Ummmm!

Peter wrote about VS:

She said something like “I looked at him, and he looked at me, and he knew that I knew who he was.”

Now I would actually have called this irrelevant had VS said it in court. Either she recognised Hanratty as the man who had attacked her or she couldn’t be certain - at least not until she had heard him speak as well. Guilty or innocent, he would have been acutely aware that he was the suspect in that line-up when she was looking him directly in the eye. So she could have picked up this awareness from his body language and misinterpreted it as a mutual recognition and acknowledgement of guilt.

It is irrelevant as you stated.

[Tony]

The mystery of Michael Clark.

Good evening Reg1965,

I simply can’t believe that Sherrard did not ask to see Michael Clark. The ID parade took place when Alphon was in custody not Hanratty so no member of the defence team would have been present. So it must follow that the defence had really no idea what Michael Clark looked like. We only have Valerie’s offering, and that is that he was very similar to Alphon.
Why did not the judge ask to see the first man identified as MG’s murderer? If he looked a dead ringer for Hanratty presumably the prosecution would not have minded too much. They could have simply said to the judge: “Well here is Mr Clark, you can see how Miss Storie made an error he does look an awful lot like the defendant.”

But we know he did not look like the defendant he looked like Peter Alphon and how do we know? Valerie told us so.

It’s a mystery to me that he was not seen by the defence. If pushed Acott would have had to produce him. He could hardly have refused.

Tony.