a6 murder

[Rob63]

Well I`ve just finished the book, first time since I was 12 years old that I`ve completed a book in a day.
After having a couple of months where I was completely bored out of my tiny mind its good to find something which has given me an interest in life again. There are some very good explanations on why certain types of post war crimes increased, some interesting observations on detectives and their methods, and forensic science.
Dr Keith Simpson is mentioned and his mentor Dr Spilsbury, who its observed probably sent a few innocent men to their deaths from his testimonies (he commited suicide at the end of the war by gassing himself). A conversation took place between the two men where apparently Dr Spilsbury states to Dr Simpson "Its very hard reading your report as I can`t differentiate between what is fact and what is opinion".....slightly worrying when forensic science is all about facts.

[Graham]

Dr Keith Simpson is mentioned and his mentor Dr Spilsbury, who its observed probably sent a few innocent men to their deaths from his testimonies (he commited suicide at the end of the war by gassing himself). A conversation took place between the two men where apparently Dr Spilsbury states to Dr Simpson "Its very hard reading your report as I can`t differentiate between what is fact and what is opinion".....slightly worrying when forensic science is all about facts.

Hi Rob,

Does your book lend weight to the impression I've long held that Spilsbury was loopy? I'm no expert on the Crippen Case, but I get the impression that old Spilsbury blinded the judge, the jury and the legal establishment with spurious science and tied them all in knots. The one similarity, as I see it, between Crippen and the A6 Case is that neither defendant should have been convicted on the evidence placed before the Court.

I must read that book!

Cheers,

Graham

[Rob63]

Hi Graham,
No mention of that nature I`m afraid as Crippen was a couple of decades before. From what is said in the book though the police brought in Simpson because Spilsbury was beginning to make noticeable mistakes and as mentioned some people were fairly sure that his evidence in the past had wrongly hung a few people. It would be fairly conceivable that in 1910 when forensic science was in its infancy in the UK, a scientist could`ve quite easily bamboozle a judge and jury. I don`t know much about the Crippen case I`m afraid, wasn`t there a programme on recently which put across some new evidence ?
One case in the book was of August Sangret which I found quite interesting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Sangret

[Victor]

You think he was ill prepared and mis-read his notes. Ill prepared, a policeman about to issue an important statement on a live ITV News report ?? Do you think he was also confused about the gunman's age, height, build, complexion, nose etc., or was it just the eye colour that he got wrong ?
It stands to reason that there could only have been one source for the gunman's description, namely the victim herself, speaking to police officers at Bedford Hospital earlier that morning.

Hi James,

We know that he got the eye colour wrong. We know that there is no direct evidence that VS ever said "brown eyes" or "dark eyes", all there is is supposition and 2nd or 3rd hand accounts - such as the identikit picture.

It stands to reason that as Morgan got a detail wrong (the eye colour) therefore he cannot have got his information from the victim, or he made a mistake relaying that information.

You can make anything appear sinister if you keep repeating "VS must have told police that the killer had brown eyes" when you have no direct evidence for that whatsoever.

KR,
Vic.

[Tony]

Hi James,

We know that he got the eye colour wrong. We know that there is no direct evidence that VS ever said "brown eyes" or "dark eyes", all there is is supposition and 2nd or 3rd hand accounts - such as the identikit picture.

It stands to reason that as Morgan got a detail wrong (the eye colour) therefore he cannot have got his information from the victim, or he made a mistake relaying that information.

You can make anything appear sinister if you keep repeating "VS must have told police that the killer had brown eyes" when you have no direct evidence for that whatsoever.

KR,
Vic.

Hello everyone,

Firstly I apologise for my absence but I have been really busy this past two weeks and I now subscribe to the theory ‘if you want a job doing properly do it yourself’.
Well that’s what I’ve been doing and I can tell you it’s not been much fun; but I’m nearly out of the woods.
I have been looking in, however, and it’s really nice to see some good debating with a lot of the old timers back on board.

Hello Vic,

Yes I suppose I’m back on terms with you also after and the past two weeks I’ve had I think I might have even have preferred going away for a two week holiday with you.

Anyway what do you mean when you say the identikit picture is a second or third hand account? I really do not understand what you mean by that.

Tony.

[reg1965]

Hello everyone,

Firstly I apologise for my absence but I have been really busy this past two weeks and I now subscribe to the theory ‘if you want a job doing properly do it yourself’.
Well that’s what I’ve been doing and I can tell you it’s not been much fun; but I’m nearly out of the woods.
I have been looking in, however, and it’s really nice to see some good debating with a lot of the old timers back on board.

Hello Vic,

Yes I suppose I’m back on terms with you also after and the past two weeks I’ve had I think I might have even have preferred going away for a two week holiday with you.

Anyway what do you mean when you say the identikit picture is a second or third hand account? I really do not understand what you mean by that.

Tony.

Hi Tony
It is also quite astonishing that Valerie spent some time trying to spell out "blue eyes in stones" at the scene and that this was not immediately relayed to John Kerr when he found her and then onto DS Morgan!
If Valerie was not the source of the brown eyes, then what went wrong with the identikit picture if blue eyes was so important to her?
A major manhunt was in full swing, based apparently on wrong eye colour that took some time to be rectified. What the hell happened?
It would appear that Hanratty was already in the frame before the old bill took a serious interest in Alphon. This is evident from the incident at the florists (J Ryan) which the police investigated after Ewers pursuit.
Regards
Reg

[Victor]

Anyway what do you mean when you say the identikit picture is a second or third hand account? I really do not understand what you mean by that.

Hi Tony,

Identikits are images made from basically bits of other photographs stuck together, are utterly subjective and it depends upon the operator and witness as to how close the images are...

"How's this?"
"The eyes looked darker than that"
"How's this one?"
&tc.

Or...
"Which of these eyes looks closest to your attacker?"

The victim has to select which looks best for them or closest, and when you add in the complication that there was another group of people who formed a different image of the same person, and that this was so incompatable that they had to issue 2 images.

In any case the image formed is an interpretation of the witnesses words by the operator or artist, it is not a direct drawing.

KR,
Vic

[Victor]

It is also quite astonishing that Valerie spent some time trying to spell out "blue eyes in stones" at the scene and that this was not immediately relayed to John Kerr when he found her and then onto DS Morgan!

Surely that's blindingly obvious. Kerr turned up so there was no need to continue with the massive effort of collecting stones and forming words when she was so horrifically injured.

If Valerie was not the source of the brown eyes, then what went wrong with the identikit picture if blue eyes was so important to her?

VS was not the source of the brown eyes comment.
The Identikit was black and white, so the eyes that appeared to be closest in her opinion were used, and the pictures used for the front covers of Foot and Woffinden seem to confirm that she was correct.

A major manhunt was in full swing, based apparently on wrong eye colour that took some time to be rectified. What the hell happened?

Well that's one of the major problems with the case, and partly why this thread exists.

It would appear that Hanratty was already in the frame before the old bill took a serious interest in Alphon. This is evident from the incident at the florists (J Ryan) which the police investigated after Ewers pursuit.

What the hell is this all about? It seems to be suppostion built upon unfounded rumour, mixed with a big dash of paranoia.

KR,
Vic.

[Andrew]

Hello everyone,
The problem seems to be that Identikits were in black and white at that time, which presumably made it necessary to refer to a written description as well.

Regards

[jimornot?]

identikit

Hello everyone,
The problem seems to be that Identikits were in black and white at that time, which presumably made it necessary to refer to a written description as well.

Regards

Hi all

I thought Tony or Reg some time ago referring speciffically to the identikit highlighted the choices avaialble to the victims who would select a specific type based on colour etc - or have I not remembered that from this thread correctly? Tony / Reg?

ATB

Viv

[Tony]

Hi all

I thought Tony or Reg some time ago referring speciffically to the identikit highlighted the choices avaialble to the victims who would select a specific type based on colour etc - or have I not remembered that from this thread correctly? Tony / Reg?

ATB

Viv

Hello Viv,

I have copied and pasted my post 3288 below for you. It is self explanatory really and shows that Valerie chose dark eyes for the identikit and definitely not blue ones.

Tony.


Good Morning Vic,

Just finally on the identikit picture:

You really did not need to direct me to Amazon to look at Bob’s book; I have, for some reason, many copies of it anyway.

Valerie Storie compiled the identikit under the guidance of Inspector Mackle of the Met. He was the leading man in that field at that time.

Together they, presumably, attempted to construct something that would give a likeness to the gunman so he could readily be identified. Well you would think so at any rate.

As I said together, or on Valerie’s instructions E49 eyes were chosen and this is without doubt for very dark eyes.

The American Officer who trained the Met officers in the use of identikit work Mr Hugh McDonald has said that if light, or blue, eyes had been chosen the result would have been a different picture.

The majority, I think, do believe the identikit resembles Peter Alphon. At the first ID parade Valerie chose Michael Clark and later said in court Michael Clark and Peter Alphon looked alike.

Tony.

[jimornot?]

Hello Viv,

I have copied and pasted my post 3288 below for you. It is self explanatory really and shows that Valerie chose dark eyes for the identikit and definitely not blue ones.

Tony.


Good Morning Vic,

Just finally on the identikit picture:

You really did not need to direct me to Amazon to look at Bob’s book; I have, for some reason, many copies of it anyway.

Valerie Storie compiled the identikit under the guidance of Inspector Mackle of the Met. He was the leading man in that field at that time.

Together they, presumably, attempted to construct something that would give a likeness to the gunman so he could readily be identified. Well you would think so at any rate.

As I said together, or on Valerie’s instructions E49 eyes were chosen and this is without doubt for very dark eyes.

The American Officer who trained the Met officers in the use of identikit work Mr Hugh McDonald has said that if light, or blue, eyes had been chosen the result would have been a different picture.

The majority, I think, do believe the identikit resembles Peter Alphon. At the first ID parade Valerie chose Michael Clark and later said in court Michael Clark and Peter Alphon looked alike.

Tony.

thanks for that Tony - I did recall it but can never find the info in the thread.

That seems pretty conclusive doesn't it about the eye colour at the outset?

I agree too about BOTh identikits looking like Alphon especially after Jimarilyn posted the additional photo not widely known of him.

all the best - good to see you back

Viv

[jimornot?]

[QUOTE=Victor;84316]Surely that's blindingly obvious. Kerr turned up so there was no need to continue with the massive effort of collecting stones and forming words when she was so horrifically injured.

Hi Vic

Are you saying VS would have given a clear description to John Kerr or none at all?

ATB

Viv

[reg1965]

Surely that's blindingly obvious. Kerr turned up so there was no need to continue with the massive effort of collecting stones and forming words when she was so horrifically injured.

Hi Vic

Are you saying VS would have given a clear description to John Kerr or none at all?

ATB

Viv

hi viv

this is the point that i originally made, but Vic seems to have misread it. i was asking why VS did not mention to john kerr that the killer had blue eyes when she had spent some considerable time trying to spell it out in stones!

by the way, does anyone know when the stones story was first mentioned in the case. i seem to fink it was at trial.

regards
reg

[Victor]

Are you saying VS would have given a clear description to John Kerr or none at all?

She did give him a description, I'm of the opinion that he was obviously shocked and overwhelmed by the horrific sight infront of him that he got muddled and confused, after all we have no proof that his "notes" actually existed at all, and he was wrong about other parts of the description too, such as hair colour. It's possible that all the confusion is his fault.

i was asking why VS did not mention to john kerr that the killer had blue eyes when she had spent some considerable time trying to spell it out in stones!

Assumption 1: "VS did not mention to john kerr that the killer had blue eyes"
She says she did, it's his word against hers, and she's way more reliable as a witness.

Assumption 2: "she had spent some considerable time"
She thought she was going to die and wanted to leave a clue, there is no mention of how long it took and it's hardly important, actually achieving it before dying or passing out might be more significant. Does it matter if she was grasping about for stones, occasionally passing out from the shock and blood loss, drifiting back into conciousness and grabbing a few more stones and improving layout of the proto-words.

by the way, does anyone know when the stones story was first mentioned in the case. i seem to fink it was at trial.

It's from paragraph 25 of the judgment but the source for that isn't mentioned.

KR,
Vic.