a6 murder

[JP56]

...so...

...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?

[JP56]

right...

As it stands, I agree ... I don't think that VS lied. She had no reason to based on what we know. I just struggle to comprehend the events of that night as reported. Hence an exploration of alternative scenarios.

[Victor]

I would be willing to enter into discourse concerning possible alternatives to the official version of events and I know one or two others would too - but be prepared for an ugly battle!

Come on Julie, the insults come from both directions, but the obvious first question is - What is the motive for Valerie to lie? It just makes no sense. I have no problems considering the possibility that she might be mistaken about certain things, or hesitant, or confused, but categorically any accusations that she lied and perjured herself are completely unfounded and unwarranted and hypocritical.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Has Peter Alphon's DNA ever been sampled / examined / tested (whatever the word is...)?

Hi JP,

Yes, his DNA was used as a comparison for the hanky and knicker fragments and was found to not match - no idea where they got it from though.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Mmmm, I don’t agree with ‘minimised’. Each piece of data has value, not then necessarily minimised by other data, but to be weighed in the mix, and explored as to the contribution it makes to unravelling the puzzle of this case…

Hi JP,

But the data came from one source in a stream of other bits - 'call me Jim' - childhood abuse - living rough - PD - &tc, and if some of them are lies then how do you pick and chose which ones you are going to believe?

QUOTE “would you be able to rationally consider these things when there's a gun pointed at you?”

Perhaps not during the early stages, but over 5-6 hours, with a clearly less than bright abductor, I would expect two intelligent people to exploit obvious opportunities. You suggest that the two victims weren’t able to think clearly to save themselves but you are suggesting that the ability to rationalise additional potential victims if the alarm was raised didn’t desert them, if I read your comment right…

OK, at what point do you think you can overpower a gunman? Or is that exactly what Gregsten did try and paid for with his life?

My suggestion was that there would probably be lots of thoughts running through the victim's minds - and self-preservation would be one of the most significant, and if that means compliance and not rocking the boat then that's what would have happened - I don't see it as contradictory to comply with an armed assailant, and not put extra people at risk.

KR,
Vic.

[JP56]

alphon...

Hullo all

Has Peter Alphon's DNA ever been sampled / examined / tested (whatever the word is...)?

Secondly (& I KNOW I should have asked this before...) are there a couple of books on this crime that can be recommended? Obviously, having read 75% of the posts, I see several books have been referenced many times... what I'm looking for is a recommendation on a book that *dispassionately* sets out to solve the mystery, rather than one 'with an agenda' for/against JH...

Thirdly (finally...) any info on an earlier question - JH & Alphon... left ot right handed?

Many thanks
JP56

[Victor]

Hi Julie and JP,

Together you've raised a number of points about the car, such as...

What keeps being overlooked by people like you is that the absence of ANY of the attacker's forensics (ie ANY KILLER) raises the possibility that someone - maybe not the killer - did not want a trace of the killer found because someone was being lined up to take the blame.

Mmmm… not sure what to read into this… you’re saying that forensics were there but not detected? Sure;ey even in 1960s, hair, mud & fibres would be detected?

Yes, I'm saying it is possible forensics were there and not detected - either because they'd been obliterated by the first people to examine the car, or the Forensic Team didn't think it was useful looking for any.

However, I'm saying that it is one possibility that the Forensic team missed things - especially hair and fibres. Semen might not be present - it is possible that it was all contained within the knickers and trousers.

It's an oft repeated mantra - absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Or the old chestnut - if a tree falls over in a forest, and there's no-one there to hear it, does it make a sound?

No forensics were found - other than the 11 sets of fingerprints, which seems like an awful lot to sift through to me, so maybe they didn't think it was worth the effort. That does not mean they were never there.

Back to the cartridges cases again. There is no evidence trhey were stuffed down the back of the chair. When the chair was tipped forward - a cartridge rolled off the chair. The second one was found easily by Julia G. Her statement makes it clear the cartidge was not stuffed down the back of the chair.

There is evidence they were down the back of the chair, maybe not stuffed all the way down, but certainly lodged between the seat cushion and the back - the chair had been moved previously when the room was cleaned and they hadn't fallen off then.

Additionally - my previous posts on this point show how unlikely it is that the killer would have left those cartridges behind.

Yes you made some comments and I replied, and then you left the discussion there - I think it's unexpected, but not impossible for the killer to have left them there.

Why is the relationship between Gregtern and Storie relevant at the trial? Not for any moral reasons - but because of the important issue of motive. Almost all attacks of this type are 'inside jobs'. The motive of the guinman being hired to separate or scare the couple is much more plausible than a random attack - given the circumstances.

I think that what is relevant is the fact that this relationship was kept from the jury and VS clearly was happy to allow that to happen. Just a piece of the jigsaw that the defence didn’t ‘exploit’

On the moral side, it's possible that a jury may be unfairly influenced to discount Valerie's evidence if they considered her to be a 'scarlet woman'. I believe she was told by Acott not to say anything about it because for an inside job to be remotely plausible you have to demonstrate how the gunman knew where to go and when, and then to get the cartridge cases in the right place, and then to find Hanratty the patsy had no solid alibi, but was the right blood group - and later the right DNA profile. That's a monumental ask, and no-one has come even close.

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

[QUOTE=JP56
For clarity… My initial post was a little unstructured and set a couple of hares runnin’… but principally, I wanted to raise the possibility for a radical re-thinking of the events of that night. What if the 5-6 hours story isn’t how it happened? Did any other witnesses report THREE people in a car during that time? What are the implications for our reading of VS’ version of events? Combined with the lack of forensics from the car (and, if there was any for a third person, don’t we think that the police would have pounced on that?).. is there the possibility that VS & MG were the only occupants and a very different set of events took place, unreported by VS for whatever reason. I don’t have any reason to question the current version from VS as reported but, given that we still debate this crime nearly 50 years later, 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…”[/QUOTE]

Hi JP - you have made some excellent points - worthy of debate.

You last point (quoted above) is especially interesting and it is one that some of us have attempted to explore. However - even a slight questioning of VS' version of events is met with hysterics from the opposing view and debate is smothered as posts dissolve in to insults being flung in all directions.

I would be willing to enter into discourse concerning possible alternatives to the official version of events and I know one or two others would too - but be prepared for an ugly battle!

Julie

[JP56]

QUOTE “It's a discussion point, but you've made a false assumption, namely, that there were no forensics to be found. No forensics were found but that does not mean that there were none there to be found. “

Mmmm… not sure what to read into this… you’re saying that forensics were there but not detected? Sure;ey even in 1960s, hair, mud & fibres would be detected?


QUOTE “can't see any inconsistency with JH overlooking 2 cartridge cases in the Vienna…”

I was referring to cases found in the car…


QUOTE “Why is it relevent?” (VS / MG relationship)

I think that what is relevant is the fact that this relationship was kept from the jury and VS clearly was happy to allow that to happen. Just a piece of the jigsaw that the defence didn’t ‘exploit’


QUOTE “Absolutely take one aspect and run with it, but again it's value is minimised by the fact that it was one of a number of things the gunman said … “

Mmmm, I don’t agree with ‘minimised’. Each piece of data has value, not then necessarily minimised by other data, but to be weighed in the mix, and explored as to the contribution it makes to unravelling the puzzle of this case…


QUOTE “would you be able to rationally consider these things when there's a gun pointed at you?”

Perhaps not during the early stages, but over 5-6 hours, with a clearly less than bright abductor, I would expect two intelligent people to exploit obvious opportunities. You suggest that the two victims weren’t able to think clearly to save themselves but you are suggesting that the ability to rationalise additional potential victims if the alarm was raised didn’t desert them, if I read your comment right…

For clarity… My initial post was a little unstructured and set a couple of hares runnin’… but principally, I wanted to raise the possibility for a radical re-thinking of the events of that night. What if the 5-6 hours story isn’t how it happened? Did any other witnesses report THREE people in a car during that time? What are the implications for our reading of VS’ version of events? Combined with the lack of forensics from the car (and, if there was any for a third person, don’t we think that the police would have pounced on that?).. is there the possibility that VS & MG were the only occupants and a very different set of events took place, unreported by VS for whatever reason. I don’t have any reason to question the current version from VS as reported but, given that we still debate this crime nearly 50 years later, 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…”

[Limehouse]

What an arrogant, sanctimonious child you appear to be!

I can't be the only one on here that's getting tired of your repeated insults. As you don't seem prepared to apologise (as I offered you the opportunity to do so in an earlier post) to the people of Bedfordshire for your unwarranted slur(s), Why don't you either substantiate your accusations regarding the Bedfordshire Jury or shut up!!!

You are right Black Rabbit. Ron can behave like a child and like most naughty children it is a good idea to ignore him. He is a troll.

[Limehouse]

No problem JP56,


It's a discussion point, but you've made a false assumption, namely, that there were no forensics to be found. No forensics were found but that does not mean that there were none there to be found. On second thoughts - someone mentioned 11 sets of fingerprints taken from the car. There are many possible explanations for this - e.g., Gregstens blood overwhelmed any fingerprint or fibre evidence, or the killer obliterated the evidence cleaning up the blood, &tc.


I can't see any inconsistency with JH overlooking 2 cartridge cases in the Vienna - that may have been some way down the back of the seat cushion and the possibility that he may have done a quick clean up on the car - obviously not a deep clean because the 'forensics-free' comment is inaccurate.


Why is it relevent?


Absolutely take one aspect and run with it, but again it's value is minimised by the fact that it was one of a number of things the gunman said many of which are untrue. But why select that specific aspect and not the childhood abuse, or desperate criminal on the run, or "call me Jim"


Or it might spark a bloodbath, with the petrol attendant (or whoever) being an additional victim.


That's all very well to say with hindsight, but would you be able to rationally consider these things when there's a gun pointed at you?

KR,
Vic.

Vic - it is totally relevant that no forensics were found in the car considering the gunman was said to have occupied the car for hours. If you are saying forensics might have been there but not found then that calls into question the quality of the forensic examination of the scene. If you are saying JH wiped the car clean of forensic contaminatiuon then this would be a considerable departure from his usual approach but it would mean he was able to remove poossible hair - skin - semen - fibres - saliva and numerous other microscopic traces of himself. What keeps being overlooked by people like you is that the absence of ANY of the attacker's forensics (ie ANY KILLER) raises the possibility that someone - maybe not the killer - did not want a trace of the killer found because someone was being lined up to take the blame.

Back to the cartridges cases again. There is no evidence trhey were stuffed down the back of the chair. When the chair was tipped forward - a cartridge rolled off the chair. The second one was found easily by Julia G. Her statement makes it clear the cartidge was not stuffed down the back of the chair. Additionally - my previous posts on this point show how unlikely it is that the killer would have left those cartridges behind.

Why is the relationship between Gregtern and Storie relevant at the trial? Not for any moral reasons - but because of the important issue of motive. Almost all attacks of this type are 'inside jobs'. The motive of the guinman being hired to separate or scare the couple is much more plausible than a random attack - given the circumstances.

[Limehouse]

Hi Norma,

However, I'm happy to consider and discuss scenarios where the male gunman was "sent" to the cornfield - and I think that is equally unlikely because they stopped at a different place first and then moved to the cornfield - how do you explain that for an "arranged hit" scenario?

KR,
Vic.

The cornfield spot had been used before. Valerie even showed the spot to another colleague and told him 'this is where Mike and I usually stop'. Anyone who had been told this would look in that sot. Perhaps they looked there first and got lucky. The chances of this being a randon attack are - to me - remote in the extreme.

[Victor]

This type of hyperbole is not helpful.

Hi Norma,

It seemed appropriate considering you "laughed out loud" at the DNA results.

Hanratty was executed for a crime I do not believe he had anything to do with.

Yup, and laughing out loud seems very callous and incongruous, although admittedly my thoughts are for the victims rather than the perpetrator. I happen to believe in the death penalty only for serial killers such as Sutcliffe, not for all criminals.

I was pondering on JP56"s post where it says "he or she" as the "gunman"---- "He or she".

And the thought is ridiculous. The gunman was definitely a "he".

However, I'm happy to consider and discuss scenarios where the male gunman was "sent" to the cornfield - and I think that is equally unlikely because they stopped at a different place first and then moved to the cornfield - how do you explain that for an "arranged hit" scenario?

KR,
Vic.

[Black Rabbit]

That VS honestly believed Hanratty to be the murderer would have been apparent to even the dimmest member of that very dim Bedfordshire jury.

What an arrogant, sanctimonious child you appear to be!

I can't be the only one on here that's getting tired of your repeated insults. As you don't seem prepared to apologise (as I offered you the opportunity to do so in an earlier post) to the people of Bedfordshire for your unwarranted slur(s), Why don't you either substantiate your accusations regarding the Bedfordshire Jury or shut up!!!

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

What a festering heap of bovine faeces! Valerie was raped. Semen was present in her underwear. It was blood typed.

KR,
Vic.

This type of hyperbole is not helpful.
Hanratty was executed for a crime I do not believe he had anything to do with.

I am well aware Valerie was raped and also that the car where the rape was alleged to have taken place had nothing in it whatsoever to link it to Hanratty.How come if the car was parked in Redbridge only three and a half hours after the rape in it took place at "about 3.30 am"?

Moreover,my reference to Ruth Ellis was in order to illustrate that a crime of passion may not have been so extraordinary in this case since a murder trial had taken place only a few years earlier by woman whose lover had been unfaithful to her and had caused her "prolonged distress". Ruth Ellis had acquired a gun and shot her lover herself,in that case ,after several years of humiliation and betrayal.
But I was not suggesting a scenario where Janet Gregsten was in that car or that it was Janet Gregsten who may have even come up with such an idea.I was pondering on JP56"s post where it says "he or she" as the "gunman"---- "He or she".
So I would have thought that the scenario of a wronged woman may have been considered then among the "motives".As it was,because of the medieval curfew on the affair coming to light in 1961 , it was never allowed to even be discussed.Had it actually have been allowed to feature at this trial, had all knowledge of Valerie Storie"s and Michael Gregsten"s affair been allowed into the open,the verdict may have been different.
It is just a " possibilty", while never having intended the gunman to commit murder or rape [/I]] that someone in the Gregsten family,when they saw the distress caused to Janet Gregsten,mother of Gregsten"s two small children, being abandoned when Gregsten finally left her and took up residence that week in his new flat, may have hired someone to do a scare off job.