a6 murder

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Vic,
QUOTE]Nudds evidence is the lynchpin of the Alphon case! His contribution to the Hanratty evidence is corroborated by the Vienna guest book.[/QUOTE]
Nudds! The man was totally untrustworthy and you very well know it.[Nudds said whatever the police wanted him to say and it suited them].

France could have many reasons to commit suicide including the obvious - he let his family and specifically his daughter associate with a murderer and rapist.

I don't think this is "obvious" at all. France was sacked having been a bouncer at a Soho Night club .He was old enough to be Hanratty"s father [45]-older than his mum was.He had worked amongst seasoned gangsters in Soho for years and years and had known Hanratty when he was just a young teenager---a "child" according to today"s definitions since was was under 18 when they first met.I often wonder if he was a really bad influence on the young and impressionable James Hanratty.

[RonIpstone]

Congratulations. Does this one have a key for the apostrophe?

Obviously not.

[Natalie Severn]

Um no Natalie. Unlike you i do not appear to be stuck in the 60s with the original trial. I have stated that there were flaws in the original trial, however the Jury heard all the evidence and they chose to convict and that was their prerogative and history has shown their verdict was correct. I have read the Appeal verdict and evidence and that also forms a part of my knowledge and understanding of the case. Whatever the flaws in the original trial, the evidence is overwhelming now that Hanratty was guilty. It's pointless going on and on about flaws in the original trial. That trial is over. Gone. Finished. Hanratty was convicted. Evidence from DNA shows that was correct whatever the flaws in the original trial. Case closed. If only some minds weren't so closed to facts and reason and evidence, maybe the case could be closed and the poor victim find some closure.

But Jen,by refusing to make a careful study of the original data ,it becomes all too easy to accept the various evasions embedded in the texts and expositions that followed from the likes of Hawser-- as well as from the successive home secretaries.They are all unbelievably slippery in their "selectiveness".
There was not an ounce of evidence that irrefutably pointed to Hanratty-not an ounce. Nudds [or France ] could easily have planted those cartridge cases as part of a "swiss cottage deal". I trust none of them.
Moreover ,the Macmillan government in 1961 were far too up to their necks in scandal -about to become massively unstuck in the scandal of the century with heads rolling all over the place from the prime minister Macmillan himself for appointing Profumo as his Minister of War when he slept with prostitutes like Christine Keeler who either did or could have given away state secrets to Russian spies, to others who were given to staying up all night at parties,apparently performing no end of party tricks in the nude etc .All of them were to be up before the beak in early 1962 around the time Hanratty was being hanged. Yes,the Profumo scandal exposed ministers cavorting with prostitutes who in their turn were either cavorting with Russian spies or cavorting with Soho gangsters as did Christine Keeler.[I will say this though-those 1961 politicians at least had the decency to resign -today they stay put however much tax payers money they have stolen from us on their "expenses "etc --- both sides of the house equally guilty ---but resign?---not likely-not unless forced.Ordinary people would have been locked up in prison and branded as thieves no less .So all this was going on when Hanratty was being sentenced to death and later hanged.Did the Home Secretary have his eye on the ball therefore when clemency was sought or a reprieve for Hanratty? I don"t believe so.Given the lack of evidence submitted, it was in fact quite an extraordinary outcome by any standard-even for February 1962.

[babybird67]

Babybird,
It appears to me that all you feel you have to do on here is present the flawed evidence from the original trial as being gospel

Um no Natalie. Unlike you i do not appear to be stuck in the 60s with the original trial. I have stated that there were flaws in the original trial, however the Jury heard all the evidence and they chose to convict and that was their prerogative and history has shown their verdict was correct. I have read the Appeal verdict and evidence and that also forms a part of my knowledge and understanding of the case. Whatever the flaws in the original trial, the evidence is overwhelming now that Hanratty was guilty. It's pointless going on and on about flaws in the original trial. That trial is over. Gone. Finished. Hanratty was convicted. Evidence from DNA shows that was correct whatever the flaws in the original trial. Case closed. If only some minds weren't so closed to facts and reason and evidence, maybe the case could be closed and the poor victim find some closure.

[babybird67]

The word ‘fiasco’ was introduced by Vic so you could direct your comments to him.

Perhaps if you had quoted and attributed to Vic i would have. However you adopted it, and as his later post makes clear, he used it in a different context, so perhaps you could explain why mistakes in a suspect description and the action to correct them on the part of the Police in an attempt to apprehend a murderer and rapist qualifies as being described as a 'fiasco', as that is the word you chose to use.

As my post makes clear, there would be no dispute about eye colour had the police got things right at the very start.

As has been pointed out ad nauseum, their witness was fighting for her life in intensive care. The doctors did not expect her to survive. They obtained a description in a hurry. There is no evidence that Ms Storie ever used the phrase 'brown' in her description of her attackers eyes. That the Police confused this in a hurried attempt to get enough information out there to catch the despicable man who had killer Gregsten and raped and crippled Storie is not surprising...in fact i am more surprised there weren't more inconsistencies. DO you get everything right in your job ALL the time? I know i certainly don't but we can all sit in ivory towers and expect everyone else to be perfect.

They issued a description introducing brown eyes. They were, it seems, ignoring Valerie’s description of ‘blue eyes’.

Ignoring? Huh? You really think Police deliberately ignore witness statements? It was obviously an error on their part which they corrected immediately it was brought to their attention, hence the revised suspect description they issued. Can you give a motive for them ignoring this vital informtion one minute and then suddenly changing their mind and revising it and including it?

No one is blaming Valerie for that.

People on this thread have. And have accused her of much worse.

I did not relegate the victims of the crime in my statement at all. Taken in context, my statement was a response to the announcement that Hanratty’s family plan to launch a fresh appeal in 2011. My statement would naturally, therefore, mention Hanratty’s family first. My sympathies have consistently been towards all victims of this crime.

You may say so, but it doesnt appear that way to me. Otherwise you would not perpetuate the idea that Hanratty was innocent, which must cause immense distress to the surviving victims and families affected by what he did to them. I know you won't and don't like what I say, but I'm sorry...i am on the side of the victims in this crime....not the perpetrator.

[RonIpstone]

My apologies for this! I have a new computer ...

Congratulations. Does this one have a key for the apostrophe?

[Victor]

I really don"t think their honesty has much to do with it.Ok they were decent,honest people all three,I don"t question that.What I question is how reliable each of them were.
Lets take a look at the identification of each in turn:

1]In Valerie"s case it is a fact that Valerie identified a RAF airman named Michael Clark as the A6 murderer:"No 4 is the man " she said after about 5 minutes.

Hi Norma,

The Michael Clark identification is mitigated by the section on the wiki link you quoted concerning 'suspect absent vs suspect present'.

Yes,Valerie did,in the second identity parade, pick out James Hanratty,but only after a delay of 20 minutes during which she needed to hear how he pronounced the word "thinking"---which along with a million or more other Londoners,Hanratty pronounced as "finking"! 20 minutes is a long time, for someone to decide whether she has "recognised" someone,someone absolutely certain she was correct .Moreover Valerie herself admitted not only that she "only had a fleeting glimpse" of the gunman"s face, a face half covered by a mask for most of her five hour ordeal and of whom her fleeting glimpse of his facial features had begun to fade from her memory after only two weeks , let alone 6 weeks.

You seem to be overlooking the difference between selecting after 20 minutes and double-checking her selection to ensure she didn't repeat her previous error. Otherwise you are doubting her honesty.

Yes, John Skillett did also identify James Hanratty ,but lets please not forget that companion in the car ,Edward Blackhall said "looked nothing like Hanratty " and who was actually sitting nearer,next to the open window of the Morris Minor ,on the passenger side ,at the roundabout.

Blackhall's contribution to the identikit contradicts the "looked nothing like" comment, and of course Skillett as the driver has an obligation to be more alert and observant.

James Trower also had agreed to look through Scotland Yard"s photograph album to see if he could identify the man in the murder car,Trower picked out three pictures each one of which was wrong![Page 57,Paul Foot].

That depends upon whether Trower was asked to look for and point out similar men, or specifically only the driver.

These were the three identifications on which the prosecution relied to convict James Hanratty - along with the evidence of a few shady characters such as Nudds and Langdale , two seasoned and very corrupt gangsters and Charles France, whose suicide followed almost immediately after Hanratty was sentenced to death.

Not exactly the most reliable "evidence" on which to convict a man of a capital offence .

Nudds evidence is the lynchpin of the Alphon case! His contribution to the Hanratty evidence is corroborated by the Vienna guest book.

France could have many reasons to commit suicide including the obvious - he let his family and specifically his daughter associate with a murderer and rapist.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

That suggests the 'fiasco' (by the way, how is amending a description of a suspect a fiasco? Sholdn't the Police try to catch the right man, and if they have something wrong, amend it? Wouldn't it be more of a 'fiasco' to let a murderer and rapist go free rather than admit they had released incorrect information as to one detail regarding the description of the suspect?) ended once Alphon was eliminated. This is clearly not the case, since the 'fiasco' of continually perpetuating the myth Storie being wrong/responsible about the brown eyes is STILL being perpetuated decades later on this very thread by the pro-Hanrattys like Reg and Norma.

The word ‘fiasco’ was introduced by Vic so you could direct your comments to him

Hi Jen and Julie,

I used the word fiasco to describe the hype that Foot started and is still being perpetuated, and not the simple mistake the police made forcing them to change the description issued.

As my post makes clear, there would be no dispute about eye colour had the police got things right at the very start. They issued a description introducing brown eyes. They were, it seems, ignoring Valerie’s description of ‘blue eyes’.

I don't think they ignored the blue eyes, either they overlooked it initially, or regarded it as one aspect of the complete description that Valerie could have been mistaken about.

Why else did they accept Nudd’s various statements and go after Alphon when the cartridge cases were found in room 24? Alphon had brown eyes, Alphon had been ‘fingered’ by Nudd’s statements and the discovery of the cartridge cases in room 24. Couple that with the description the police seemed to be working from resulting in them naming Alphon. The police started the brown eyes description and followed it through. No one is blaming Valerie for that.

The police would have been stupid to have ignored the double connection to Alphon - he was in the Vienna although not in the same room as the cartridge cases, and he had been reported for his behaviour in the Alexandra. The eye colour descrepancy would obviously mitigate against this double connection, but it definitely warranted further investigation.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Babybird,
It appears to me that all you feel you have to do on here is present the flawed evidence from the original trial as being gospel.Last month you spoke of the honest and reliable witnesses,Valerie Storie,John Skillett and James Trower.
I really don"t think their honesty has much to do with it.Ok they were decent,honest people all three,I don"t question that.What I question is how reliable each of them were.
Lets take a look at the identification of each in turn:

1]In Valerie"s case it is a fact that Valerie identified a RAF airman named Michael Clark as the A6 murderer:"No 4 is the man " she said after about 5 minutes.
Yes,Valerie did,in the second identity parade, pick out James Hanratty,but only after a delay of 20 minutes during which she needed to hear how he pronounced the word "thinking"---which along with a million or more other Londoners,Hanratty pronounced as "finking"! 20 minutes is a long time, for someone to decide whether she has "recognised" someone,someone absolutely certain she was correct .Moreover Valerie herself admitted not only that she "only had a fleeting glimpse" of the gunman"s face, a face half covered by a mask for most of her five hour ordeal and of whom her fleeting glimpse of his facial features had begun to fade from her memory after only two weeks , let alone 6 weeks.

2]
Yes, John Skillett did also identify James Hanratty ,but lets please not forget that companion in the car ,Edward Blackhall said "looked nothing like Hanratty " and who was actually sitting nearer,next to the open window of the Morris Minor ,on the passenger side ,at the roundabout.

3]
Yes,James Trower also claimed to have seen the driver but like Skillett"s sighting this was fiercely disputed by Paddy Hogan ,his companion,and the defence team too regarding the timing Trower claimed-and also by the defence"s discovery of a mismatch between what he said he saw and what measured distances informed them of what it was possible to have seen even had he been there when he said he was!
James Trower alsohad agreed to look through Scotland Yard"s photograph album to see if he could identify the man in the murder car,Trower picked out three pictures each one of which was wrong![Page 57,Paul Foot].

These were the three identifications on which the prosecution relied to convict James Hanratty - along with the evidence of a few shady characters such as Nudds and Langdale , two seasoned and very corrupt gangsters and Charles France, whose suicide followed almost immediately after Hanratty was sentenced to death.

Not exactly the most reliable "evidence" on which to convict a man of a capital offence .




My apologies for this! I have a new computer which swiftly moves to another thread as it did in this case.I have now contacted admin and

[Limehouse]

The word ‘fiasco’ was introduced by Vic so you could direct your comments to him

As my post makes clear, there would be no dispute about eye colour had the police got things right at the very start. They issued a description introducing brown eyes. They were, it seems, ignoring Valerie’s description of ‘blue eyes’. Why else did they accept Nudd’s various statements and go after Alphon when the cartridge cases were found in room 24? Alphon had brown eyes, Alphon had been ‘fingered’ by Nudd’s statements and the discovery of the cartridge cases in room 24. Couple that with the description the police seemed to be working from resulting in them naming Alphon. The police started the brown eyes description and followed it through. No one is blaming Valerie for that.

I did not relegate the victims of the crime in my statement at all. Taken in context, my statement was a response to the announcement that Hanratty’s family plan to launch a fresh appeal in 2011. My statement would naturally, therefore, mention Hanratty’s family first. My sympathies have consistently been towards all victims of this crime.

[babybird67]

My point is that this fiasco was started by the police and was a theme running through the investigation until Alphon was eliminated from the enquiry.

(my emphasis)

Until? That suggests the 'fiasco' (by the way, how is amending a description of a suspect a fiasco? Sholdn't the Police try to catch the right man, and if they have something wrong, amend it? Wouldn't it be more of a 'fiasco' to let a murderer and rapist go free rather than admit they had released incorrect information as to one detail regarding the description of the suspect?) ended once Alphon was eliminated. This is clearly not the case, since the 'fiasco' of continually perpetuating the myth Storie being wrong/responsible about the brown eyes is STILL being perpetuated decades later on this very thread by the pro-Hanrattys like Reg and Norma.

That is why, in my post, I wrote:

I hope the latest campaign helps the Hanratty family and all those involved in this case to find peace.

It's a shame the actual victims of the crime are relegated to a general afterthought of 'all those involved in this case' whilst your primary sympathies are with the murderer/rapist and his family.

[Victor]

No, I am not suggesting anything of the sort. You stated that 'repeating past mistakes such as the 'brown eyes fiasco' could not hope to bring peace to Gregsten and Storie.

My point is that this fiasco was started by the police and was a theme running through the investigation until Alphon was eliminated from the enquiry. This issue, coupled with other aspects of the investigation, engendered grave doubts about the conviction. That is why Valerie and Gregsten's family have not achieved peace and that is why Hanratty's family and supporters continue to dispute the conviction.

Hi Julie,

Admittedly it was Norma here ->

Valerie Storie changed her description of the murderer"s eyes,from deep set and brown to blue and staring.

...who is perpetuating the 'brown eyes' myth, when even Woffinden acknowledges that it's a farce. I believe he derides it in an attempt to improve the reputation of the pro-Hanratty campaigners, because debunking the myths is the best way of convincing people of the legitimacy of the cause, no matter where the blame for starting the myth lies. Which of course lead to my comment - repeating past mistakes undermines the pro-Hanratty campaign.

I note you didn't offer your opinion on what would have happened if Valerie and Mike hadn't been in that cornfield that night.

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie,

Are you suggesting that the gravely injured Valerie who was undergoing operations as part of her treatment should have challenged the description? Can you prove she even heard or read it? If not she probably did not have the opportunity to correct it.

KR,
Vic.

No, I am not suggesting anything of the sort. You stated that 'repeating past mistakes such as the 'brown eyes fiasco' could not hope to bring peace to Gregsten and Storie.

My point is that this fiasco was started by the police and was a theme running through the investigation until Alphon was eliminated from the enquiry. This issue, coupled with other aspects of the investigation, engendered grave doubts about the conviction. That is why Valerie and Gregsten's family have not achieved peace and that is why Hanratty's family and supporters continue to dispute the conviction.

That is why, in my post, I wrote:

I hope the latest campaign helps the Hanratty family and all those involved in this case to find peace.

[Victor]

The 'nonsensical brown eyes fiasco' was started and perpetuated by the POLICE. If we ignore the information given to police by Kerr - the next description issued was taken at 8.45am and described 'a man of about 25 - smooth face - big eyes'. No eye colour was mentioned.

Later that day - the police issued a revised description based on their interview with Valerie and this included 'brown eyes'. This description was circulated in newspapers and was not challenged.

Hi Julie,

The 'nonsensical brown eyes fiasco' was completely the fault of the Police - as that interview with the Inspector (Mackie or similar) on the Horizon program clearly reveals including the "deep set, not very deep set" bit.

Are you suggesting that the gravely injured Valerie who was undergoing operations as part of her treatment should have challenged the description? Can you prove she even heard or read it? If not she probably did not have the opportunity to correct it.

And we know Kerr's information is unreliable because he thought Valerie's name was "Mary" - that's clearly more of a "huge flaw".

Moreover - as late as 22 September police announced they wished to interview Peter Alphon in connection with the A6 crime. Alphon had brown eyes. As we know - he was not identified by Valerie Storie but the police clearly believed that her attacker had brown eyes so if any confusion has been caused the police are to blame and you can hardly expect those who doubt Hanratty's guilt to simply ignore this huge flaw in the investigation.

Alphon looked like a likely suspect because he had stayed at the Vienna where the cartridge cases were found and had previously been interviewed in connection with the case. It would have been a huge oversight to have not interviewed him at that point whatever his eye colour. It is a simple mistake by overzealous police officers which has been hyped up by people wishing to undermine the integrity of the investigation.

It is precisely because of this type of issue that people started to have grave doubts about the integrity of the investigation. Valerie and Mike and their families were not going to achieve peace for fifty years because of huge flaws such as this - coupled with other suspect evidence such as the cartridge cases turning up when they did and there being no reasonable motive for the crime offered by the prosecution.

I completely fail to see how 2 cartridge cases ballistically shown to come from the murder weapon are "suspect". Secondly you are blaming the prosecution for a lack of motive when that is true for whoever the gunman was, and this leads nicely into your next question...

Just to vary the debate a little - I wonder what would have happened to the gunman that night if Mike and Valerie had not been sitting in the car in that field? Would there have been an equally shocking hold-up in a local house or an armed robbery at the petrol station where they stopped for fuel that night? Would another courting couple have fallen victim to the infamous A6 killer?

It depends upon whether the gunman could find an unoccupied house. I doubt the gunman could get to the petrol station, but a more local (to the cornfield) petrol station or bank or shop or easy target like a courting couple in a car &tc could easily have been targetted. The resultant murder would depend on whether the alternative victims were as brave (or foolhardy) as Gregsten in tackling the gunman.

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie,

Yes I read your comment, but I cannot see how repeating past mistakes - particularly the nonsensical "brown eyes" fiasco can ever hope to bring peace to Storie, the Gregstens, nor the Hanratty family. Surely they'd be much better off drawing a line under the case and moving forward, unless the Hanratty family feel in some way responsible for their "black sheep".

KR,
Vic.

Vic

The 'nonsensical brown eyes fiasco' was started and perpetuated by the POLICE. If we ignore the information given to police by Kerr - the next description issued was taken at 8.45am and described 'a man of about 25 - smooth face - big eyes'. No eye colour was mentioned.

Later that day - the police issued a revised description based on their interview with Valerie and this included 'brown eyes'. This description was circulated in newspapers and was not challenged.

Moreover - as late as 22 September police announced they wished to interview Peter Alphon in connection with the A6 crime. Alphon had brown eyes. As we know - he was not identified by Valerie Storie but the police clearly believed that her attacker had brown eyes so if any confusion has been caused the police are to blame and you can hardly expect those who doubt Hanratty's guilt to simply ignore this huge flaw in the investigation.

It is precisely because of this type of issue that people started to have grave doubts about the integrity of the investigation. Valerie and Mike and their families were not going to achieve peace for fifty years because of huge flaws such as this - coupled with other suspect evidence such as the cartridge cases turning up when they did and there being no reasonable motive for the crime offered by the prosecution.

Just to vary the debate a little - I wonder what would have happened to the gunman that night if Mike and Valerie had not been sitting in the car in that field? Would there have been an equally shocking hold-up in a local house or an armed robbery at the petrol station where they stopped for fuel that night? Would another courting couple have fallen victim to the infamous A6 killer?