a6 murder

[Victor]

Exactly.

VS is and was an innocent woman who was brutally assaulted. She never committed any crime unless you want to go into the realms of infidelity.

Examining her evidence is completely justified, but to imply that she is somehow manipulating her account is utterly unjustified - she will mis-remember details and be unspecific about certain events, and any contradictions in her account are entirely understandable after the ordeal she was subjected to. I think she's an incredibly brave woman, and I'm not surprised she's refused to comment on the events any further.

So where does that leave us?

Upon closer examination of that version we find inconsistencies and puzzling statements which just don't add up.

Yes, I agree.

We are justified in drawing attention to these...

Yes, I agree.

...and challenging them to try and arrive at the truth.

With some sensitivity. Even then are you sure you'll get an answer? VS won't comment and shouldn't be harrased into accounting for herself. She's the victim (one of them).

Her memory of the events will have faded, and I hope the bad memories vanish entirely, she deserves that.

KR,
Vic.

[reg1965]

Examining her evidence is completely justified, but to imply that she is somehow manipulating her account is utterly unjustified - she will mis-remember details and be unspecific about certain events, and any contradictions in her account are entirely understandable after the ordeal she was subjected to. I think she's an incredibly brave woman, and I'm not surprised she's refused to comment on the events any further.

I don't see how implying or explicitly stating that VS manipulated her account is utterly unjustified at all. Whether her contradictory testimony was by hazy recollection or by massaging of the facts we will never know but it is not unjustified to question her integrity about anything in this case when an innocent man was hanged on her witness evidence. If I was on trial for my life I would want my defence brief to rip the prosecution case to shreds whoever the witnesses were.

[Victor]

I don't see how implying or explicitly stating that VS manipulated her account is utterly unjustified at all.

That would be because you are accusing her of a crime, for which there is no evidence.

Whether her contradictory testimony was by hazy recollection or by massaging of the facts we will never know but it is not unjustified to question her integrity about anything in this case when an innocent man was hanged on her witness evidence.

I never mentioned hazy recollection - I implied emotional distress. And of course a guilty man was hanged so that entirely negates your argument here.

If I was on trial for my life I would want my defence brief to rip the prosecution case to shreds whoever the witnesses were.

And that's what makes you a bully, intimidating innocent people.

KR,
Vic.

[Tony]

That would be because you are accusing her of a crime, for which there is no evidence.


I never mentioned hazy recollection - I implied emotional distress. And of course a guilty man was hanged so that entirely negates your argument here.


And that's what makes you a bully, intimidating innocent people.

KR,
Vic.

Well I am going to support Reg on this one. Not that he needs any support.

He did not accuse Valerie Storie of committing a crime. No where on this entire thread has anyone suggested that. Yes we have questioned the many inconsistencies within her accounts of the night, her mistake at the first ID parade and whether or not Acott coached her. But as I say no one has accused her of a crime. She was, of course, the victim of a horrible crime herself.

Reg didn’t say that you mentioned ‘hazy recollection’; that was Reg’s own terminology and he is certainly entitled to use it.
With regards to your statement that “ a guilty man was hanged” you are also, probably more entitled to say that then Reg or any of us are entitled to say an innocent man was hanged. But if we just accepted that as a matter of fact there would be no debate here and we are certainly entitled to our opinions. I respect yours and you should respect mine is my view.

With regards to Reg’s last statement: if you were on trial for your life and you were innocent but if deemed guilty you would be facing Harry Allen and his rope I would suggest that you would be of exactly the same opinion as Reg.

Unfortunately Hanratty's defence team seem to have taken your line and did not appear to want to upset anyone of the witnesses against Hanratty. If they had taken Reg’s line Hanratty might be alive today.

Tony.

[Tony]

Well I am going to support Reg on this one. Not that he needs any support.

He did not accuse Valerie Storie of committing a crime. No where on this entire thread has anyone suggested that. Yes we have questioned the many inconsistencies within her accounts of the night, her mistake at the first ID parade and whether or not Acott coached her. But as I say no one has accused her of a crime. She was, of course, the victim of a horrible crime herself.

Reg didn’t say that you mentioned ‘hazy recollection’; that was Reg’s own terminology and he is certainly entitled to use it.
With regards to your statement that “ a guilty man was hanged” you are also, probably more entitled to say that then Reg or any of us are entitled to say an innocent man was hanged. But if we just accepted that as a matter of fact there would be no debate here and we are certainly entitled to our opinions. I respect yours and you should respect mine is my view.

With regards to Reg’s last statement: if you were on trial for your life and you were innocent but if deemed guilty you would be facing Harry Allen and his rope I would suggest that you would be of exactly the same opinion as Reg.

Unfortunately Hanratty's defence team seem to have taken your line and did not appear to want to upset anyone of the witnesses against Hanratty. If they had taken Reg’s line Hanratty might be alive today.

Tony.

I was using the phone whilst I copied and pasted my last posting and I did not highlight the beginning of the posting.

It should have started off with:

A very good morning to you Vic.


I was not being rude to you Vic.


Tony.

[Victor]

Well I am going to support Reg on this one. Not that he needs any support.

Hi Tony

He did not accuse Valerie Storie of committing a crime. No where on this entire thread has anyone suggested that.

I disagree. "I don't see how implying or explicitly stating that VS manipulated her account is utterly unjustified at all." Reg is accusing her of falsifying her evidence, which is a crime.

Reg didn’t say that you mentioned ‘hazy recollection’; that was Reg’s own terminology and he is certainly entitled to use it.

True, I was pointing out that he neglected to mention her distress.

With regards to your statement that “ a guilty man was hanged” you are also, probably more entitled to say that then Reg or any of us are entitled to say an innocent man was hanged. But if we just accepted that as a matter of fact there would be no debate here and we are certainly entitled to our opinions. I respect yours and you should respect mine is my view.

I agree, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the statement "an innocent man was hanged" is just plain wrong, he could say "In my opinion...", and I (and anyone else) am perfectly justified in saying "a guilty man was hanged" without the qualifier.

I also don't accept that stating or accepting he was guilty stifles this debate as I am of the opinion that a miscarriage of justice occurred and simultaneously a guilty man was hanged.

With regards to Reg’s last statement: if you were on trial for your life and you were innocent but if deemed guilty you would be facing Harry Allen and his rope I would suggest that you would be of exactly the same opinion as Reg.

I would hope that they would do everything legal in their power to get me off, but there must be a line that you do not cross, and accusing innocent witnesses of lying crosses that line.

Unfortunately Hanratty's defence team seem to have taken your line and did not appear to want to upset anyone of the witnesses against Hanratty. If they had taken Reg’s line Hanratty might be alive today.

Tony.

I don't think that's entirely true, they tried to get him off, but his behaviour seems to have sabotaged his defence (changing alibis, taking the stand)

KR,
Vic.

[reg1965]

If I was on trial for my life I would want my defence brief to rip the prosecution case to shreds whoever the witnesses were.

And that's what makes you a bully, intimidating innocent people.

Better an alive bully then the dead numb nuts that you would be if you were on trial for your life.

[jimarilyn]

Does anyone believe it? How long do you think someone needs to recover from being raped, shot and crippled FOR LIFE?

KR,
Vic.

Hi all,

A very emotive statement.

I am definitely not without sympathy for VS. I have gained the strong impression from several posters on this particular thread ( two of whom no longer post ) that because of what she went through ( and because she has been confined to a wheelchair since 1961 ) we daren't question any contradictions and inconsistencies that are quite apparent in her story. It's almost as if we should treat her with kid gloves.
Would these posters feel the same wayI wonder if she had made a full recovery and was able to walk ?

VS had first met MG towards the end of 1957 when she had just turned 19 years of age. They had been having an affair for quite some time before the events of August 22nd/23rd 1961. She was very aware that MG was married with 2 young sons but nevertheless (it would very much seem) she was quite happy to continue the affair. She had kept the true nature of this relationshiop with MG hidden from her parents. Whether they suspected the truth or not is another matter. I am not being judgmental here, ( there must be a good number of single females having affairs with married men and likewise single males having affairs with married women) just stating facts. In addition to this she told John Kerr that they had picked up a hitch-hiker, which was simply not so. I mention these two examples to illustrate the fact that she was not averse to being economical with the truth when she deemed fit to do so.

We therefore should take great care and not accept as gospel everything she has spoken ( or written ) on the matter.

I remain convinced that this was a carefully PLAnned crime.


regards,
James

[Victor]

Better an alive bully then the dead numb nuts that you would be if you were on trial for your life.

Well if I was guilty like Hanratty then I'd deserve it.

[Victor]

Hi all,

Would these posters feel the same wayI wonder if she had made a full recovery and was able to walk ?

Absolutely, why not? Rape is rape whatever else happens and should draw equal contempt for the perpetrator.

I mention these two examples to illustrate the fact that she was not averse to being economical with the truth when she deemed fit to do so.

That's what people having affairs do - they cover up their liaisons. I notice you didn't mention MG's alleged other affairs.

We therefore should take great care and not accept as gospel everything she has spoken ( or written ) on the matter.

Just because she made efforts to hide the fact she was having an affair, whatever her motive for this was protecting Janet or the kids or Mike's memory, that doesn't mean she was an habitual liar.

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

Hi Eveybody,

Absolutely, why not? Rape is rape whatever else happens and should draw equal contempt for the perpetrator.

I agree and I'm sure PLA accepts the contempt aimed at him.

That's what people having affairs do - they cover up their liaisons. I notice you didn't mention MG's alleged other affairs.

VS's employers at the Road Research Laboratory knew of and disapproved of the liaison she had with MG. Her parents didn't. Janet Gregsten knew of the affair. I didn't mention any of MG's alleged other affairs because I don't know
anything about them.

Just because she made efforts to hide the fact she was having an affair, whatever her motive for this was protecting Janet or the kids or Mike's memory, that doesn't mean she was an habitual liar

These are your own words. I never said or implied any such thing. You need to re-read my post carefully.


James

[Graham]

In addition to this she told John Kerr that they had picked up a hitch-hiker, which was simply not so. I mention these two examples to illustrate the fact that she was not averse to being economical with the truth when she deemed fit to do so.

No she didn't. John Kerr said that VS told him that she and MG 'picked up a man at about 9.30pm last night near Slough'. It was the press who spread the hitch-hiker story. Let's just get facts straight, eh?

And yes, I'm still around.

Cheers,

Graham

[reg1965]

No she didn't. John Kerr said that VS told him that she and MG 'picked up a man at about 9.30pm last night near Slough'. It was the press who spread the hitch-hiker story. Let's just get facts straight, eh?

And yes, I'm still around.

Cheers,

Graham

Welcome back Graham

Actually John Kerr was quoted as saying in the Evening News of the afternoon of the 23/8/61 "She told me that as they passed through Slough at 9:30 last night, a man thumbed a lift, They picked him up, and on the journey they noticed he had staring eyes."

Facts straightened for you Graham

Reg

[Graham]

Welcome back Graham

Actually John Kerr was quoted as saying in the Evening News of the afternoon of the 23/8/61 "She told me that as they passed through Slough at 9:30 last night, a man thumbed a lift, They picked him up, and on the journey they noticed he had staring eyes."

Facts straightened for you Graham

Reg

Try reading your beloved Woffinden, Page 11 in the paperback - 'Kerr said that VS told him "We picked up a man near Slough". She did actually say that, which is why it was originally thought to be a hitch-hiker killing.'

Facts now straightened for you, too, Reg.

Graham

[reg1965]

If Graham wants any further straightening of the facts then the above from the Evening News of the 23/8/61 went on about the description of the wanted man:-

"He is aged about 30, 5ft 6ins., of medium build, wearing a dark brown suit, His has dark hair, a apl face and deep set brown eyes. He talks with an East End accent."

The next day all of the following newspapers carried the fact the killer had deep set brown eyes.
Daily Mirror
Daily Mail
Telegraph
Herald

Regards
Reg