a6 murder

[reg1965]

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.

Where is it reported that she told John Kerr that the killer had blue eyes? I think you are being totally unfair to John Kerr. What makes him a less reliable witness? The rozzers conveniently misplaced his enumerator form with his original notes on it as it contradicted VS's testimony at trial (light fairish hair, no mention of blue eyes). They [her maj's constabulary] produced a fake at trial that Kerr denied was in his handwriting. (Woffinden, Miscarriages of Justice. 1989, pps 108-9) Just another example of how the whole thing was rigged.

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.

As far as I know VS said that her attempts to spell out the killers description in stones was incomplete and must therefore had taken her some considerable time considering as you say that she was gravely injured.

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

As it was said before the jury that would be at the trial then. Does anyone know if it was mentioned at the comittal?

[reg1965]

Hi all
Going by Nudd's second statement, he and Snell stayed up until about 2am waiting for late guests to come in. He said he left the key for room #6 on the counter along with a note for Peter Alphon (Durrant) who had not returned.
Were guests given a key to the outside main door when checking in? If so why did Nudds and Snell have to wait up so late? They could have left a note out earlier and gone to bed. If Alphon was any later and didn't have a key how could he have got in before someone came back on duty in the morning and the main door opened?
But then again he didn't plan on coming back till later did he?
Reg

[Victor]

Where is it reported that she told John Kerr that the killer had blue eyes? I think you are being totally unfair to John Kerr. What makes him a less reliable witness? The rozzers conveniently misplaced his enumerator form with his original notes on it as it contradicted VS's testimony at trial (light fairish hair, no mention of blue eyes). They [her maj's constabulary] produced a fake at trial that Kerr denied was in his handwriting. (Woffinden, Miscarriages of Justice. 1989, pps 108-9) Just another example of how the whole thing was rigged.

There is only Kerr's word that he wrote things down, that's what makes him a less reliable witness, lack of corroboration. Other than his word there is no evidence that his notes existed let alone contradicted VS. And the document produced at trial can hardly be called a "fake" as it wasn't the document he referred to, it was just another document.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

As far as I know VS said that her attempts to spell out the killers description in stones was incomplete and must therefore had taken her some considerable time considering as you say that she was gravely injured.

Cor! Are you disputing that she was gravely injured? How much more do you want her to suffer, she has been legally vindicated so all you are doing is making some vague attempt to tarnish her reputation and integrity. To be able to say it must have taken some considerable time you need to prove when she started the message, and how long there was before Kerr turned up.

And of course you are now believing part of her testimony and dis-believing others, how do you chose which parts to believe?

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Hi all
Going by Nudd's second statement, he and Snell stayed up until about 2am waiting for late guests to come in. He said he left the key for room #6 on the counter along with a note for Peter Alphon (Durrant) who had not returned.
Were guests given a key to the outside main door when checking in? If so why did Nudds and Snell have to wait up so late? They could have left a note out earlier and gone to bed. If Alphon was any later and didn't have a key how could he have got in before someone came back on duty in the morning and the main door opened?
But then again he didn't plan on coming back till later did he?
Reg

Here we go again, relying on Nudds and Snell of all people! And their 2nd statements, the one where they had loads of time and opportunity to collude! The highlighted assumption is not proven and relies entirely on their word.

[Tony]

Hello everyone,

Vic says: “There is only Kerr's word that he wrote things down, that's what makes him a less reliable witness, lack of corroboration. Other than his word there is no evidence that his notes existed let alone contradicted VS. And the document produced at trial can hardly be called a "fake" as it wasn't the document he referred to, it was just another document.”
Does anyone seriously think, as Vic seems to, that this document never existed and was a figment of his imagination?

The third part of his post is completely unfair on Reg and everyone will also see through that. Don’t blow a fuse just yet Reg.


Vic also says: “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.”
Well if I had been in the jury room I would have said my bit which would have included: “ hang on she isn’t that reliable, she picked somebody else out and she has said he looked like the first suspect and when Sherrard asked her what her first choice looked like she said she did not know and that was in perfect conditions”

Tony

[jimarilyn]

Where is it reported that she told John Kerr that the killer had blue eyes? I think you are being totally unfair to John Kerr. What makes him a less reliable witness? The rozzers conveniently misplaced his enumerator form with his original notes on it as it contradicted VS's testimony at trial (light fairish hair, no mention of blue eyes). They [her maj's constabulary] produced a fake at trial that Kerr denied was in his handwriting. (Woffinden, Miscarriages of Justice. 1989, pps 108-9) Just another example of how the whole thing was rigged.

Hi Reg,

I couldn't agree with you more. How Victor can say that VS was a much more reliable witness than John Kerr defies belief. Does Victor know him personally ? To be an Oxford University undergraduate obviously requires more than a little intelligence. Is Victor trying to imply that the intelligent Mr Kerr was so incompetent that he couldn't accurately hear and write down the words that VS was relaying to him about her attacker.

For me personally John Kerr comes across as a much more reliable witness than Valerie Storie. He was constant and much more consistent. He knew his own handwriting intimately and exactly what he had written on the back of a census form and he wasn't going to be fobbed off by a police forgery.

Mr Kerr was particulary good 3 years earlier in South Pacific.


regards,
James

[larue]

hi all

in my view, judging a witness's reliability based upon corroroboration of their testimony places one on a bit of a sticky wicket. after all, not much of ms storie's testimony was actually corroborated, and yet almost everyone regards her statements as thoroughly reliable.

[Victor]

Does anyone seriously think, as Vic seems to, that this document never existed and was a figment of his imagination?

I think a document of Kerr's notes existed, I don't know what it says and as it has been lost I don't think any conclusions can be drawn from what it allegedly said.

The third part of his post is completely unfair on Reg and everyone will also see through that. Don’t blow a fuse just yet Reg.

I completely stand by what I wrote. If anyone wants to support Hanratty's innocence than they need to show lots of consideration to the VICTIMS.

Well if I had been in the jury room I would have said my bit which would have included: “ hang on she isn’t that reliable, she picked somebody else out and she has said he looked like the first suspect and when Sherrard asked her what her first choice looked like she said she did not know and that was in perfect conditions”

A couple of quotes from the judgment:-
"as her [VS] veracity was never in dispute" - para 132
"The defence did not doubt Valerie Storie's honesty (nor could they)" - para 135

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

How Victor can say that VS was a much more reliable witness than John Kerr defies belief. Does Victor know him personally ? To be an Oxford University undergraduate obviously requires more than a little intelligence. Is Victor trying to imply that the intelligent Mr Kerr was so incompetent that he couldn't accurately hear and write down the words that VS was relaying to him about her attacker.

For me personally John Kerr comes across as a much more reliable witness than Valerie Storie. He was constant and much more consistent. He knew his own handwriting intimately and exactly what he had written on the back of a census form and he wasn't going to be fobbed off by a police forgery.

VS was several orders of magnitude more reliable than John Kerr. Intelligence and reliability are not necessarily related, Intelligence and honesty are not related... Successful master criminals are usually highly intelligent and need to be to be successful.

I'm not saying he's incompetent, I'm saying he was young, inexperienced of Rape and Murder crime scenes and it would be completely understandable if he got some of his details wrong.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

in my view, judging a witness's reliability based upon corroroboration of their testimony places one on a bit of a sticky wicket. after all, not much of ms storie's testimony was actually corroborated, and yet almost everyone regards her statements as thoroughly reliable.

Hi Larue,

I can't agree. The amount of physical evidence such as semen on her knickers, MG's dead body and bullet holes in her body corroborates her allegations of rape and murder. The DNA evidence corroborates her identification of Hanratty.

As for Kerr, his most significant contribution is missing.

KR,
Vic.

[Andrew]

Hotel room cartridges

Hello learned friends
Looking again at the Hansard link:

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1966/aug/04/the-case-of-james-hanratty

This from Lord Russell;

§ I am afraid that in order to clarify this to your Lordships I shall have to deal with the evidence of Mr. Nudds fully. I hope your Lordships will pardon me if I do so. In fact, he made three statements. The first is of no consequence because it referred only to the fact that Hanratty himself had slept in Room No. 24 on August 21. That was the night before these events took place which led to the murder. There was no dispute about this. The only relevance that that first statement had was that it was in that same room, about seven days after the murder, that two cartridge cases were found which happened to be of the same calibre as the murder weapon.

The last sentence implies that there wasn’t any forensic link between the gun and the cartridge cases.

Can anyone help on this point?

Regards

[Victor]

Well if I had been in the jury room I would have said my bit which would have included: “ hang on she isn’t that reliable, she picked somebody else out and she has said he looked like the first suspect and when Sherrard asked her what her first choice looked like she said she did not know and that was in perfect conditions”

Hi Tony,

Perfect conditions.
How long did she have to see him?
With an entire group of other people she'd not met before.
6 months later.

Oh and I found this in the judgment:-
Dr. Rennie, who had treated Valerie Storie, was present at this parade and was asked if he could recall the appearance of the man whom Valerie Storie had identified. He stated: "As far as I remember he had rather fairish hair and bluish eyes".

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

The last sentence implies that there wasn’t any forensic link between the gun and the cartridge cases.

Can anyone help on this point?

Hi Andrew,

Para 36 of the judgment http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/j...6/HANRATTY.htm
On 11 September 1961 (some twenty days after the killing), two cartridge cases were found in room 24 at the Vienna Hotel, Sutherland Avenue, Maida Vale; it was later established scientifically that they had been fired from the murder weapon.

KR,
Vic.

[larue]

Hi Larue,
I can't agree.

hi Vic

i did not think for one second that you would, however, what you have just posted completely tallies with what i just said, inasmuch as the main points of ms stories' testimony are corroborated, as you correctly enumerate below [with the possible exeption of the dna. i'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on that one]

The amount of physical evidence such as semen on her knickers, MG's dead body and bullet holes in her body corroborates her allegations of rape and murder. The DNA evidence corroborates her identification of Hanratty.

but what is not corroborated, [as if i need to tell you] amongst other things, are the conversations that took place in the car, nor indeed the first meeting of the gunman.

these things are all taken on trust, mainly because no-one can concieve of a possible reason why ms storie would not be telling the truth.

As for Kerr, his most significant contribution is missing.

so why do you not extend John Kerr the same courtesy?

[Victor]

but what is not corroborated, [as if i need to tell you] amongst other things, are the conversations that took place in the car, nor indeed the first meeting of the gunman.

these things are all taken on trust, mainly because no-one can concieve of a possible reason why ms storie would not be telling the truth.

so why do you not extend John Kerr the same courtesy?

Hi Larue,

There isn't a single thing that VS said that has been proven incorrect though is there? The closest you can come is the identification of Michael Clark (in preference to Peter Alphon), or the euphemisms about planning car rallies.

John Kerr has no reason to lie, but his statements are disputed, and it is his 10 minutes of fame - discovering a body and helping save VS life - a young student thrust into the limelight without getting crippled (and lots of time in hospital &tc) in the process. Since when have students been dependable paragons of virtue? Even Oxford has student problems.

KR,
Vic.