a6 murder

[simon]

Hi Tony,
Paul Foot wrote an article in The Guardian about suddenly hearing from Janet, and about his subsequent meeting with her. I have that article at home....somewhere!!

Regards,
Simon

[Tony]

Hi Tony,
Paul Foot wrote an article in The Guardian about suddenly hearing from Janet, and about his subsequent meeting with her. I have that article at home....somewhere!!

Regards,
Simon

Good evening Simon,

Ever since this information came to this thread I have periodically tried to find it. I have had no success at all. If it’s not too much trouble could you try to locate it and put it on here for us to read?

Many thanks, Simon.

Tony.

[simon]

Hello again Tony,
A rummage through boxes in my shed in the gathering dusk has so far turned up 2 Guardian pieces about the A6 Murder by Paul Foot - but not yet the one I remember. However, he writes on Oct.10th 1994 - "Mrs Gregsten assures me, and I believe her utterly, that she never had any 'flash of intuition'. about Hanratty "..(referring here to the Swiss Cottage sighting)..."It was all rubbish as far as I was concerned", she said ". So clearly both his conversation with her, (face to face or on the phone ?) and the article I remember, were some time before that. I'll have another look when I get the chance...but the Guardian itself might be able to provide you with a copy ? The first word of Foot's article sticks in my memory, describing his surprise at getting a call from her, out of the blue. 'Gregsten!''

Simon

[alan]

Very much a learner

Dear All,

Having read Russel, Wolfenden and Foot and thinking I was a bit of an expert, this thread has certainly brought me down to earth. I would like to hear any comment on the following couple of points:

I was 17 when the murder happened. I read the papers but didn't take that much interest at the time. My parents, however, did follow the trial avidly and thought at the time that JH was innocent. In an earlier thread I read that in London at the time there was a groundswell of JH's innocence and a less than exacting belief of VS. My mother did not believe VS then nor did she when interviewed on television some time later. Perhaps that was a popular trend at the time. The Regent Garage by the airport changing to a Shell Garage in Kingsbury Hardly helps the truth cause.

My other point is that if the concensus is that JH was in London on the 21st where does that leave the Dinwoodie evidence? I find it proposterous that JH could have bought an alibi and think he took a plane in 1961 to London to comit a random murder is so unlikely as to be ludicrous. (in my opinion)

For the record I was a Jim probably didn't do it but after the DNA changed to probably did do it. Note the probably. Arguments over the validity of the DNA test don't help when deciding which side ofthe fence to fall.

Regards,

Alan

[jimarilyn]

Dear All,

Having read Russel, Wolfenden and Foot and thinking I was a bit of an expert, this thread has certainly brought me down to earth. I would like to hear any comment on the following couple of points:

I was 17 when the murder happened. I read the papers but didn't take that much interest at the time. My parents, however, did follow the trial avidly and thought at the time that JH was innocent. In an earlier thread I read that in London at the time there was a groundswell of JH's innocence and a less than exacting belief of VS. My mother did not believe VS then nor did she when interviewed on television some time later. Perhaps that was a popular trend at the time. The Regent Garage by the airport changing to a Shell Garage in Kingsbury Hardly helps the truth cause.

My other point is that if the concensus is that JH was in London on the 21st where does that leave the Dinwoodie evidence? I find it proposterous that JH could have bought an alibi and think he took a plane in 1961 to London to comit a random murder is so unlikely as to be ludicrous. (in my opinion)

For the record I was a Jim probably didn't do it but after the DNA changed to probably did do it. Note the probably. Arguments over the validity of the DNA test don't help when deciding which side ofthe fence to fall.

Regards,

Alan

Hi Alan ,

Good post.

I have to say that I fall into that category of people who regard Valerie Storie as anything but a reliable witness. Whether that is due to the shock/trauma she experienced I cannot say. Your point about the Shell/Regent station is well taken.

On the identification parade of 24th of September she didn't have to pick anyone out and she must have known that. Nevertheless she went ahead and picked out a totally innocent airman (Michael Clark). Imagine how Michael Clark must have felt at that moment. Unfortunately we're all in the dark as to what Mr Clark looked like except that he bore a resemblance to Peter Alphon (according to Miss Storie) who stood just a few feet away from him on that hospital line-up.

Re. Mrs Dinwoodie's evidence, even Basil Acott regarded her as an honest and trustworthy witness. As you know, Mrs Dinwoodie only served in that sweet shop on the Monday and Tuesday (21st/22nd of August) and it's been proven (unless all the witnesses involved were lying) that Hanratty was in London all of that Monday. That means that the sweetshop encounter could only have happened on the Tuesday afternoon.


regards,

James

[Tony]

Funny things happen in this case.

Now its funny how things come back to you isn’t it? Sometimes something or somebody says something and you think: “Wow I remember that now but I don’t think I ever would have done if you hadn’t just said that.”

Well you know what I mean don’t you.
I’ve just read Alan’s post 2419 and this has had the same affect on me; and don’t ask me why. But here’s what happened:

Like everyone on here I have had a passionate interest in this case for years. I’m sure I’ve driven my wife and mates mad going on about it. I became totally obsessed with it after the Paul Foot serialisation of it in 1971 in the Sun newspaper.

Anyway in those long off days I occasionally wrote to the letters page in my local paper and occasionally the editor printed one. Well, it must have been 1972, and within one of the letters I mentioned that James Hanratty had been framed for the A6 murder and it was published. There were no replies the following week.

Three years later I moved to the next village and the local bobby used to come out for a drink on Friday nights. He sort of became one of the lads i.e. playing darts and dominoes and he’d buy a round if drinks and so on. One night I went up to the bar and he was standing there and he turned to me and dropped his usual laughing policeman routine and said to me completely out of the blue and very seriously: “So you think Hanratty didn’t do it do you? Well I wouldn’t go on about it too much if I were you.”

And that was it. I was surprised he even knew about the A6 case and why he said it I don’t know but I knew from his attitude it wasn’t open for debate and he never mentioned it ever again. I hadn’t been talking about it in the pub so he must have remembered the letter from the paper some three years earlier. But what a strange thing to happen in a pub in Derbyshire in 1975.

Tony

[PC49]

Hi Alan ,

Good post.

I have to say that I fall into that category of people who regard Valerie Storie as anything but a reliable witness. Whether that is due to the shock/trauma she experienced I cannot say. Your point about the Shell/Regent station is well taken.

On the identification parade of 24th of September she didn't have to pick anyone out and she must have known that. Nevertheless she went ahead and picked out a totally innocent airman (Michael Clark). Imagine how Michael Clark must have felt at that moment. Unfortunately we're all in the dark as to what Mr Clark looked like except that he bore a resemblance to Peter Alphon (according to Miss Storie) who stood just a few feet away from him on that hospital line-up.

Re. Mrs Dinwoodie's evidence, even Basil Acott regarded her as an honest and trustworthy witness. As you know, Mrs Dinwoodie only served in that sweet shop on the Monday and Tuesday (21st/22nd of August) and it's been proven (unless all the witnesses involved were lying) that Hanratty was in London all of that Monday. That means that the sweetshop encounter could only have happened on the Tuesday afternoon.


regards,

James

The two latest posts from Alan and James certainly sum up, in many ways, the nagging doubts I've always had about Valerie Storie.
She obviously suffered an horrendous ordeal, and has had to live with the after effects ever since. However, I just can't escape from the feeling that she's a helluva lot tougher than originally portrayed, and was determined that "somebody" should pay for the crime against her and Michael Gregsten. Hence, her selection of the totally innocent Michael Clark, from the 1st identity parade. I firmly believe that had she picked out Alphon, then he would have been the man standing in the dock at Bedford Assizes.
Acott's dealings in the whole issue smack of Liverpool's (in)famous Balmer, in previous similar cases - Acott too was desperate for a conviction, and between them, he and VS formed a formidable partnership.
It's obvious that we will never know exactly what when on during that mammoth car journey, but does anyone seriously believe that the whole truth has been brought out?
With reference to the sweetshop alibi, I am confident that the people involved with the shop, principally Olive Dinwoodie, were honest and reliable citizens. As correctly stated, there were several witnesses who placed Hanratty in London on the 21st, so the enquiry inside David Cowley's shop can only have taken place on the 22nd. Does anyone still genuinely believe that this alibi was "bought"???
Regards to one & all.

[jimarilyn]

Hi PC49,Yet another insightful post....

However, I just can't escape from the feeling that she's a helluva lot tougher than originally portrayed, and was determined that "somebody" should pay for the crime against her and Michael Gregsten. Hence, her selection of the totally innocent Michael Clark, from the 1st identity parade.

I'm in the same boat as yourself (glad it's not the Titanic) regarding this matter. I can't escape the same feeling.

Acott's dealings in the whole issue smack of Liverpool's (in)famous Balmer, in previous similar cases - Acott too was desperate for a conviction, and between them, he and VS formed a formidable partnership.It's obvious that we will never know exactly what when on during that mammoth car journey, but does anyone seriously believe that the whole truth has been brought out?

I've thought the very same thing about the similarities between Acott and, as you rightly put it ,the infamous Herbert Balmer. Balmer was as corrupt a copper as there's ever been. He certainly stitched up poor old George Kelly who also went to the gallows pleading his innocence. Truth, it would very much seem, flies out the window at the expense of that all important conviction. It's almost as if they adopt the attitude " ah well he's a petty criminal, he's no good anyway so who cares if he hangs or not"

regards,

James

[Tony]

Hi PC49,Yet another insightful post....
I'm in the same boat as yourself (glad it's not the Titanic) regarding this matter. I can't escape the same feeling.

I've thought the very same thing about the similarities between Acott and, as you rightly put it ,the infamous Herbert Balmer. Balmer was as corrupt a copper as there's ever been. He certainly stitched up poor old George Kelly who also went to the gallows pleading his innocence. Truth, it would very much seem, flies out the window at the expense of that all important conviction. It's almost as if they adopt the attitude " ah well he's a petty criminal, he's no good anyway so who cares if he hangs or not"

regards,

James

Hello James,

Well you are right about one thing. In all my discussions with any number of people you nearly always get the same answer.

“Hanratty? What are you worried about him for son? He was a bloody thief. The world’s a better place without him.
The Bridgewater Three? A bunch of low-lifes. Serves em right whether they did it or not. Don’t deserve to be out.
Stefan Kisko? Who cares about him. He was weird anyway.
Stephen Downing? Bit of a mental case if you ask me. Should be locked up anyway.
Colin Stagg? Bloody crackpot. The cops should have nailed him better than they did. He did it alright.”

Yes it’s a sad place all right.

See you later.

Tony.

[Tony]

Another one of those Basil moments.

Scene 1: The incident room near Ampthill. 24th August 1961.

Enter Basil Montague Acott followed by Kenneth Oxford to meet the assembled team of detectives’

“Morning lads. I’m Bob Acott, call me Guv, and this is my Assistant Kenny Oxford, call him Sarge or Oxo.
Now this is a very messy business and we’ve got to clear it up pronto. All we know to date is that a nutcase has accosted a couple in a car, driven off with them for about six hours, then shot the man and raped and shot his female companion. At the moment we’ve nothing to go on except the girl is still alive. Her name is Valerie Storie and the dead bloke was Martin Gregory.”

“Guv, Guv.”

“What’s up Oxo?”

“It’s Michael Gregston, Guv.”

“Who is?”

“The bloke who got shot.”

“Oh yes that’s right. Isn’t that what I said? Anyway we’ve got to put this case to bed and fast; and when I say fast I mean bloody fast. Now any questions?”

“Yes Guv, what expenses are we on working out of London?”

“I don’t believe it. Look this is no time for arseing about. Oxo will sort your expenses out later. This is bloody serious two people have been shot and if we don’t get somebody’s neck in the noose soon my head will be on the block.
So get out there and bring me something back.”


Scene 2: The incident room near Ampthill. 30th August 1961.

“Right lads, settle down what have you got for me?”

Silence.

“Come on what have we found out from the car? What have the forensic boys come up with?”

“Nothing, Guv.”

“Nothing. Well what have you lot been up to all week? Have you no underworld contacts with any info? What about your noses?”

“Guv, the word is snouts.”

“What is Oxo?”

“Police jargon for informers, Guv.”

“Oh, is it Oxo? Well you learn something new every day.”

“Right lads while you lot have been running round in circles me and Oxo have had a bit of a result. We’ve put out an alert to find anyone acting suspiciously after the murder of this Mike Greenstone and we’ve found this strange guy Alphonse; the girl in the car has put together an identikit and he’s a dead ringer for it. Not only that we’ve got the murder gun.


“Oh the divers soon found that Guv. Was it in the Thames?”

“No erm actually the murderer left it on a bus.”

Laughter and giggles.

“Now look here you can stop bloody laughing because that’s what happened isn’t it Oxo?”

“Now then this Alphonse character stayed at the Vienna Hotel, you know the one that old matey Glickberg works at.”

“What Nuddsy, Guv? Well you can’t believe a word that fellah says.”

“Yes actually I think that’s the name he’s using this week. Well if me and Oxo can get him to give us a statement implicating this Alphonse we’re nearly there. All we need is to find some incriminating evidence in his room; you’ve still got all those bullets handy haven’t you Oxo? Well better keep a couple of them in your pocket; never know when they might come in handy. Now all we need is a positive ID from Valerie Storie. That’s her name isn’t it Oxo and we’re home and dry?”
So see you all back here in a couple of days and it should be all but over.”


Tony.


P.S I have no evidence that the honourable officer's wife's name was Cybil.

[jimarilyn]

Hi Tony,

Very good (and funny) indeed.

Now I'm not saying that Basil was as daft as a Brush nor implying he was a bit of a pot-Herb (a colloquialism up here in the North-West) but he comes across quite often as having a bit of a Faulty memory.

regards,
James


PS. I'm glad you said honourable and not horrible

[reg1965]

Leonard Millers Fantastic Tall Tales

A veritable cornucopia of porkies in print from his magnum opus Shadows of Deadman's Hill

Issue 3 (of an occasional series)

p 66

But the eye-witness evidence was actually vague, brief, impressionistic and inconclusive. That 19 people made statements to the police in connection with Hanratty's Rhyl alibi sounds very impressive, but as Woffinden tersely concludes, "Some of the original statements...are not helpful." (BW, 368)

Oh dear. It's now Len 'take it all out of context' Miller.

From Woffinden (1997. pps 367-368) when commenting on the outcome of the Nimmo report (1967)

The fatal flaw at the heart of the Nimmo inquiry was the process of examining each piece of testimony as a discrete entity; and then perceiving some fault in it (a technique which could demolish just about every area of witness evdence in every criminal investigation).
What mattered (and what the Nimmo inquiry neglected even to address) was the cumulative weight of the testimony, which is considerable. Further, this would have been only strengthened if Nimmo had taken the trouble to interview all the witnesses. The report contained a list of names and adresses 'provided to the defence after 6 February 1962'. There were nineteen names on this list. Of these, eight were interviewed in the course of the Nimmo inquiry; there are no statements from the remaining eleven. Presumably when Roy Jenkins, the Home Secretary, told Parliament that one of the briefs of the inquiry was 'to take statements from all relevant witnesses', he had imagined that statements would be taken from all relevant witnesses.
Some of the original statements of those missing eleven witnesses are not helpful. However, the statement of Trevor Dutton, whom Nimmo hadn't interviewed, was very helpful. Nor did Nimmo see Christopher Larman, whose name had been featured in the press in connection with the alibi but who was at that time in Australia. The original statements from Dutton and Larman were precise and persuasive; not to have interviewed them is a bewildering oversight.

(my italics) the statement lifted by Laughing Boy Len.
(my boldening and italics) the bit of the full quote that Len missed out!

From our old mate Len's prose we get the sense that Hanratty's Rhyl alibi is a house built on sand, backed up from an incomplete, and totally out of context, reference to Woffinden.

Now we see the full Woffinden text it paints a totally different picture doesn't it?

Starting to get the picture are we?

Lens list of personal literary failings (a new feature we are proud to introduce)

Ambiguous references.
Pure conjecture.
Misrepresenting referenced material to back up a theory.

...readers are encouraged to contribute!

...Look out for Issue 4 of this fascinating series soon.

[Victor]

Hi Alan ,

Good post.

I have to say that I fall into that category of people who regard Valerie Storie as anything but a reliable witness. Whether that is due to the shock/trauma she experienced I cannot say. Your point about the Shell/Regent station is well taken.

On the identification parade of 24th of September she didn't have to pick anyone out and she must have known that. Nevertheless she went ahead and picked out a totally innocent airman (Michael Clark). Imagine how Michael Clark must have felt at that moment. Unfortunately we're all in the dark as to what Mr Clark looked like except that he bore a resemblance to Peter Alphon (according to Miss Storie) who stood just a few feet away from him on that hospital line-up.

Re. Mrs Dinwoodie's evidence, even Basil Acott regarded her as an honest and trustworthy witness. As you know, Mrs Dinwoodie only served in that sweet shop on the Monday and Tuesday (21st/22nd of August) and it's been proven (unless all the witnesses involved were lying) that Hanratty was in London all of that Monday. That means that the sweetshop encounter could only have happened on the Tuesday afternoon.

regards,

James

Hi James,

How can you assume that VS must have known that she didn't have to pick anyone out from the line-up? Would you have known? How intimidating do you think the situation was? How vulnerable and desperate do you think she was? Do you know how influential and persuasive Bob Acott was before the parade?

After all, she didn't know she could ask the people on that parade to speak.

A single woman in 1961, who'd just been raped and shot severly crippling her for life. Who had to face all those judgmental idiots saying "she deserves it" just because she happened to fall for a work colleague who was seperated, but still technically married. Therefore she's a harlot.

Cut the woman some slack, I completely expect her to be a bit confused, to have some of the details come back to her over time, whether she wants to remember or not. She's probably not had a decent nights sleep for the past 47 years.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Now we see the full Woffinden text it paints a totally different picture doesn't it?

Hi Reg,

What are you getting at?

The 11 missing witness statements are not helpful, so Woffinden and Foot ignore them and only quote the ones that are helpful.

I think you've just weakened your own case.

KR,
Vic.

[Tony]

Hi James,

How can you assume that VS must have known that she didn't have to pick anyone out from the line-up? Would you have known? How intimidating do you think the situation was? How vulnerable and desperate do you think she was? Do you know how influential and persuasive Bob Acott was before the parade?

After all, she didn't know she could ask the people on that parade to speak.

A single woman in 1961, who'd just been raped and shot severly crippling her for life. Who had to face all those judgmental idiots saying "she deserves it" just because she happened to fall for a work colleague who was seperated, but still technically married. Therefore she's a harlot.

Cut the woman some slack, I completely expect her to be a bit confused, to have some of the details come back to her over time, whether she wants to remember or not. She's probably not had a decent nights sleep for the past 47 years.

KR,
Vic.

A very good afternoon to you Vic,

It’s been a lovely day here today. I hope it has been for you also.

I would like to briefly respond to your first sentence in reply to the post by Jimarilyn.

OK I accept the terrible circumstance Valerie Storie found herself in. You wouldn’t wish that scenario on your worst enemy so I am with you all the way so far.
However, Valerie Storie was an intelligent woman. She would definitely have been briefed before the parade by Acott. He would have said something along the lines of:
“Well Miss Storie we have a line of men for you to view and one of them we suspect murdered Gregston and raped and shot you. I want to see if you can pick him out and then he will be charged. Do your best.”
Now that’s about as mild a version as I can come up with.

The men would have been assembled and Alphon would then have taken his place in the line up. Miss Storie would then have viewed the men. Nobody would have told her she HAD to pick out someone. She was intelligent enough to know that the suspect was there, that is the man who the police thought was guilty, and if she picked him out he would have been charged with murder, gone to trial and if found guilty would have in all probability been executed.
She viewed the men for a long time knowing what her decision would mean to one of them. If she picked the right man, bingo. If she picked a wrong man, catastrophe.

If she was at all unsure she should have said to Acott: “I’m not sure enough of anyone here to risk sending them to the gallows.”

But she didn’t she went ahead and identified Michael Clark as the man she had spent six hours with, had seen shoot her lover, raped her and finally shot her.
Alphon walked free and of course so did Michael Clark.

But soon she would have another go and I’ll bet you something Mr Acott would have made damn sure he coached her a bit better the second time around because if she did not pick out Hanratty the case was closed and Acott would have been a failure in one of the most serious murder cases in years.

Sorry to go on Vic.


Tony.