a6 murder

[Graham]

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

What's all that got to do with the claim that VS said that they'd picked up a hitch-hiker? Or do all hitch-hikers have deep-set brown eyes and an East End accent?

Graham

[reg1965]

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

Thats all very well but Kerr was quoted as published in the Evening News as I previously stated. Valerie Storie changed her testimony so many times it is difficult to pin her down to what actually happened and what didn't, bar the outcome of course.

[reg1965]

What's all that got to do with the claim that VS said that they'd picked up a hitch-hiker? Or do all hitch-hikers have deep-set brown eyes and an East End accent?

Graham

I think it has everything to do with it. The first suspect Alphon had the same said eyes where as Hanratty did not.

[Graham]

Thats all very well but Kerr was quoted as published in the Evening News as I previously stated. Valerie Storie changed her testimony so many times it is difficult to pin her down to what actually happened and what didn't, bar the outcome of course.

Let's get this straight, yes?

Kerr never said anything about a 'hitch-hiker'. However, he did use the expression 'picked up', and the media instantly fell upon this, to the extent that that the very first TV news report (ITN) stated that the couple had, quote, 'picked up a hitch-hiker'.

Then, the same day, the Evening News said that there was a, quote, 'Hunt for Hitch-Hike Murderer'. As did the Daily Telegraph the next day.

Even dear old Bob Woffinden describes all of this as 'misreporting'.

What I am trying to do here is to dispel any misconception that VS described her attac
ker as a 'hitch hiker' and then, for whatever reason, retracted that statement. The simple fact is that she never used the term 'hitch hiker'.

Graham

[Graham]

Hi Graham
I count Foot as being beloved text,Woffinden just happens to have been in the ideal position to enhance the case.
Even dear old Paul acknowleges that the original statement is false. This is because she tried to hide the fact that her and Gregsten were out to have rumpy-pumpy that night.
Reg

Whatever VS and MG intended to get up to that evening, the fact is that I am trying to get across (and obviously having some difficulty) that someone on these boards suggested that VS was mangling the truth when she referred to 'picking up a hitch hiker'. She never said so. The media did. End.

Graham.

[Limehouse]

I would like to throw in a few comments concerning this current bun-fight (excuse the pun).

Mike and Valerie should not be 'on trial' for having an affair. Their personal morals made them answerable only to their own consciences (and in Mike's case, to his wife).

Precisely what did Valerie gain from 'distorting the truth'? If you were Valerie, wouldn't you feel more secure knowing the right man had been caught and punished? What would she have gained by deliberately mis-leading the police?

Can you imgine what it must have been like for her - watching a man for whom she cared having his head almost blown off in front of her eyes and then to have been raped whilst his life ebbed away a few feet away? But of course that was not the end of her ordeal. She is then shot several times and left for dead in the early hours of the morning in a relatively remote location. She had to lie for hours, knowing she might die, with the dead body of her lover nearby. For God's sake, who would not be confused, shocked, struck numb and dumb by the time they were questioned a few hours later? And again, how must it have felt having to try and recall facts weeks later, re-living the experience every time someone questions you?

If there was a miscarraige of justice, Valerie was not to blame. Mike was not to blame. They were the victims. And if Hanratty was innocent, he too was a victim but you can't blame Valerie for that.

[Tony]

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

Good morning Graham,

First of all a very warm welcome back.

I think the discussion about hitch hiking/being picked up is about done and dusted and is also perhaps irrelevant.
My own take on it is this: In the 1960’s I used to hitchhike everywhere; up here we call it thumbing a lift.

I used to stand by the side of the road stick my thumb out and look pleadingly at the approaching motorist. I never stood for very long always just a matter of minutes.
However unless I was ‘thumbing’ I was never just ‘picked up’. So I don’t know what that term means.

Tony

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
I have always followed the Hanratty saga on Casebook, and have contributed to it on occassions, however I feel saddened that Miss Storey should continue to be blamed for a miscarriage of justice.
Limehouse has reminded us of the unimaginable trauma that Valerie suffered that night, and its consequences ruined many lives not only her own,and i for one would never question her integreity, and deep honesty on what events occured in front of her that evening.
As far as 'Innocent-Guilty is concerned, I would simply relay Valeries message to the world ever since' I am sure, I was there......that simple answer, along with DNA suggests the guity man got his just rewards.
Best regards
Richard.

[jimarilyn]

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

Hi Graham,

Welcome back to the thread.
I think you are splitting hairs here regarding whether she said man or hitch-hiker.
The inference was that they picked up a hitch-hiker.
In fact John Kerr told a Daily Mirror reporter on the evening of the murder :-

"I covered her with my
coat and held her hand as
she told me that while she
and her companion were
driving through Slough
last night, a man thumbed
a lift."

I would definitely say that a man thumbing a lift is a hitch-hiker.

The point I'm making is that she did not tell Kerr that they were abducted
at the point of a gun in a cornfield.

regards,
James

[Tony]

Hi Graham,

Welcome back to the thread.
I think you are splitting hairs here regarding whether she said man or hitch-hiker.
The inference was that they picked up a hitch-hiker.
In fact John Kerr told a Daily Mirror reporter on the evening of the murder :-

"I covered her with my
coat and held her hand as
she told me that while she
and her companion were
driving through Slough
last night, a man thumbed
a lift."

I would definitely say that a man thumbing a lift is a hitch-hiker.

The point I'm making is that she did not tell Kerr that they were abducted
at the point of a gun in a cornfield.

regards,
James

When you think about it it is quite strange that after the events of the night the first person that Valerie Storie speaks to, John Kerr, she tells him something that is quite wrong. If she had subsequently died shortly after she may have well been sending the police off on a wild goose chase.
Very odd indeed.

Tony

[Limehouse]

Hi Tony,

Not so odd when you consider that she had been laying for hours, bleeding and in pain, probably close to death, and it would have taken a lot more breath to explain what had actually happened. How many people would have been in a state to say anything much at that point?

[Tony]

Hi Tony,

Not so odd when you consider that she had been laying for hours, bleeding and in pain, probably close to death, and it would have taken a lot more breath to explain what had actually happened. How many people would have been in a state to say anything much at that point?

Hang on a minute, Limehouse,

I understand quite a bit of conversation took place between Valerie Storie and John Kerr.
The gunman’s description, his height, his hair style, the colour of his eyes. Also her name and address, the type and registration number of the car etc etc.
This was all written down by Kerr and handed to the police who ‘mislaid’ it.

How much longer would it have taken for her to say: “We were held up” rather than “We picked up a man”
I do not know why she said they picked up a man; and by that, despite what Graham says, you can only infer he was hitch hiking.
No I think it was a very odd thing to have said and how do you think the reporters would print it the following day?
Exactly as they did.

Tony

[Limehouse]

Fair enough Tony, but I do think people are being very hard on Valerie. Even if she was being a bit evasive to avoid conclusions being drawn about her and Mike's objectives that night, it was probably as much to protect Mike's wife and children and her own parents as much as herself. As I have said previously, she had everything to gain by ensuring the right man ended up in the dock. I am sure she would not have deliberately mislead the police.

[Sara]

I've huge sympathy with Storie, as we all must have - she suffered a terrtible trauma that night. But that's all the more reason to believe what she first said to Kerr, when found, and when she was no doubt still in fear of her life AND had not had time to hone a story possibly under prompting from other parties after the event.

I personally think she would have been far LESS likely to make up a story when first found, in the state she was in, there in the layby. It's not denigrating Storie in any way to remark that her testimony on several things, inc the sequence of events and the description of the victim, chaged radically. That's just stating the truth!

Whichever way you look at this case, and the way testimony changed and evidence was treated, there is something still incredible, and naggingly 'wrong' about the whole matter - especially, in my view, the disappearance of the paper on which Kerr made his notes. Looking at the Getty photo of him, he looks 'an old head on young shoulders' - I don't think we need doubt his testimony

[simon]

For those who have missed some of them, Kerr was interviewed in one of the programmes about the case in recent years.