a6 murder

[jimornot?]

John Kerr

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.

Hi Vic

Can't see where you get the argument VS was several orders of magnitude more reliable? How do you know?

Re last para - and not possible that VS having actually experienced the ordeal directly was not affected by it to include the possibility (possibility only) that she might have been distressed enough to get some details wrong? That line of argument seems to be self defeating as it can apply to either party

There has clearly been some kind of MISunderstanding or MISinformation or MIStake in the first instance about the eyes. (BTW a refeence later to bluish doesn't seem to be as compelling as icy blue. and piercing) Perhaps the mistke or whatever did not emanate from Valerie, perhaps it did. Eitehr way, I can't see what authority any of us have in questioning the reliability of someone we know very little about. Why should John Kerr be adamant about his notes - he doesn't seem to be an avid publicity seeker? (in a later post you refer to his 10 minutes of fame rather disparagingly – any reason for that? Nearly 50 years on can we really jude a character from a mere few minutes of testimony?

(BTW anyone know if Mr Kerr surfaced, spoke much about his exerinec later - can't find anything myself)

You may have expressed it before Vic but what is your take on Tony's info regarding how the identikit picture would have been constructed. It seems to be a good indication that the parties to the picture were pretty clear about the darkness of the eyes at that time.

ATB

Viv

PS I don't think you really believe Reg was belittling VS’s injuries etc and of course he wasn't.

[jimornot?]

I offered that as a riposte to "anyone in league with the persecution" and I feel accurately sums up anyone who goes to such extrordinary lengths to belittle the surviving VICTIM in this case.

He evidently will take Hanratty's word over Storie's, and JH is a convicted murderer, and he is also a rapist.

'He' is entitled to an opinion as are you Vic. I am not sure anyone is belittling VS nor are they putting her up on a pedestal. previous posts have shown where sympathies truly lie and when it comes down to it I don't think any single person on this thread has a lack of sympathy for Miss Storie.


ATB

Viv

[jimornot?]

Dear all

Hopefully things are not about to get heated again. Trouble is offence could be caused not only to named individuals but to the wider audience who merely want reasoned argument and not name calling or offensive suggestions. Graham & Rob had enough of it for quite a time, I hope we don't fall into old patterns.

I would have thought this thread is for those who have a real interest in this case and who want to learn more, to challenge established viewpoints, to assert opinions, to be persuaded to come off the fence etc. Surely diverse views are to be welcomed. I think it is good when there are firmly held views because then rational argument COULD take place if only for the benefit of the undecided band.

Posting provocative output is ok if it prompts debate on what we know or believe to be true. But it cannot acceptable if people feel personally attacked. In the heat of verbal exchanges, things may be said in haste but there is no reason for that here especially with the edit facility. Posters seem to be very intelligent & insightful so it beggars belief that occasional messages contain daft accusations that will obviously offend - I can only think it is by design. Also, it is easy to over-react or to twist words to imply something unsavoury whereas the application of common sense would give a more rounded view.

It surely isn’t too difficult for us to think about the impact of what we write that much more and to try to be more respectful of others?

I've made this generic but of course it doesn't apply to everyone. Less irritated now so off my high horse and getting back to my fence

ATB

Viv

[Tony]

Hello Viv,

Thank you for the previous three posts and reminding us of how we should conduct ourselves on here. You are quite correct in everything you say.

But I have studied this case seriously for nearly 40 years now; I have read every book, possibly every article and seen every TV documentary about it. I’ve even been to College to study it and yes I almost feel by now that I personally know all the characters personally if that makes sense.
I still firmly believe in James Hanratty’s innocence and, as I have said before, I’ve driven people mad about it. I’ve bought books by the dozen and given them to anybody who has shown even the slightest interest.
The subject even came up last night in the pub after another murder case was used as a quiz question.
I know James (Jimarilyn) holds exactly the same views as me and when Vic says he is in league with a rapist and murderer he, by association, tars me with the very same brush. I am not in league with a rapist and a murderer and I did find it a very offensive thing to say; not just to James but to the rest of us who are Hanratty supporters.

That’s it now on that subject. Sorry to go on Viv.

Tony.

[Victor]

Seek and ye shall find. Here's a few just for starters.....

1) She changed the colour of the murderer's eyes from brown (on the day of the murder) to blue (8 days after the murder).

Wrong - she never described the eyes as brown. You have no evidence for this other than hearsay.

2) She told Janet Gregsten that the murderer was "reasonably" dressed in contrast to her previous statement that he was "immaculately" dressed.
3) She also told Janet Gregsten that the murderer was in his 30's in contrast to her earlier statement that he was in his 20's. A very significant and noticeable difference.

Where is this from? In any case these are minor changes.

4) She identified a totally innocent airman as the murderer, which could have had fatal repercussions for Michael Clark had he been unable to prove his whereabouts on the night of the murder.

Completely wrong, there could not have been any repercussions for Michael Clark even if he couldn't account for his whereabouts.

5) She originally stated that they picked up a hitch-hiker, inferring that the gunman was 'thumbing' a lift. In stark contrast of course to being hi-jacked by a dangerous gunman.

Wrong - she never mentioned hitch-hiker.

6) A couple or so weeks after the murder she told police that her memory of the gunman's face was quickly fading, yet 7 and a half weeks after the murder she was able to claim that Hanratty was the gunman. And Hanratty's hair was a completely different colour from the gunman's hair.

Ridiculous - have you never had your memory jogged by seeing someone.

7) She and Michael Gregsten had been having a love affair for two or three years but she had deceived her parents about the nature of their relationship.

so what? Adultery isn't a crime.

PS. Seeing as you're a stickler, Victor, for demanding evidence/proof for every little this, that and the other, where is your proof to back up your own claim that you're not in league with a murderer and rapist ?

Proof of negatives is a complicated matter and I can't provide it because I do not know for certain that all of my friends have never committed those offences.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Yes perfect lighting conditions. All identification parades are held in perfect conditions so they can not be challenged in court later. This one should have been however.

Fine move the goalposts. Perfect conditions isn't the same as perfect lighting conditions. She was wheeled up and down in front of them and did not have the freedom to examine them from every angle - hardly "perfect conditions".

How long did she have to see him? As long as she wanted.

What a distortion. She had as long as she wanted to at the parade, but when asked to describe him she couldn't go back in time and examine him further.

6 months later???

The murder took place on the 23rd August the identification parade took place on the 22nd September.

Not even one month. But I suppose you can convince yourself it was six months if you want to and it serves your purpose.

Yes 6 months later. The parade happened on 22nd September - the first time VS saw Clark, and Sherrard asked her to describe him in court the following February and she had not seen him in the interim.

There were 9 (IIRC) others on the parade including Alphon, and this was the first time she had seen any of them, so Sherrard was asking her to describe the man she picked out at her time when she was overloaded with the sight of 10 unfamiliar men.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Hi Vic

Hi Viv.

Can't see where you get the argument VS was several orders of magnitude more reliable? How do you know?

Because...
"as her [VS] veracity was never in dispute" - para 132
"The defence did not doubt Valerie Storie's honesty (nor could they)" - para 135

Re last para - and not possible that VS having actually experienced the ordeal directly was not affected by it to include the possibility (possibility only) that she might have been distressed enough to get some details wrong? That line of argument seems to be self defeating as it can apply to either party

Thank you, she was very distressed and obviously did make a mistake by selecting Clark.

(BTW a refeence later to bluish doesn't seem to be as compelling as icy blue. and piercing)

That reference to bluish was by Dr Rennie when asked to describe Clark's eyes

Perhaps the mistke or whatever did not emanate from Valerie, perhaps it did. Eitehr way, I can't see what authority any of us have in questioning the reliability of someone we know very little about. Why should John Kerr be adamant about his notes - he doesn't seem to be an avid publicity seeker? (in a later post you refer to his 10 minutes of fame rather disparagingly – any reason for that? Nearly 50 years on can we really jude a character from a mere few minutes of testimony?

Exactly and the quotes above about VS are the basis for my comparison, I agree with them but have not initiated them.

There is a mystery (coincidence\discrepancy) concerning Kerr's notes and the 10mins of fame was a possible reason as to why he might have invented the story. "Possible reason" not certainty.

You may have expressed it before Vic but what is your take on Tony's info regarding how the identikit picture would have been constructed. It seems to be a good indication that the parties to the picture were pretty clear about the darkness of the eyes at that time.

I have no solid information on how the Identikit process was done, and neither has Tony as can be seen by his use of phrases like "would have", "should have", "could have" - none of can say exactly what happened.

The photographs of Hanratty show he can appear to have dark eyes - Tony's take seems to be that those pictures have been manipulated, especially the ones on the front cover of Woffinden and Foot. I have no problem with that explanation, but I cannot exclude the possibility that that is how Hanratty's eyes appearred to VS in the car that night.

PS I don't think you really believe Reg was belittling VS’s injuries etc and of course he wasn't.

I don't think it's deliberately maliciousness by James and Reg, but I do think that they overlook and sideline her suffering in pursuit of their goal of proving Hanratty innocent, and I believe that that is wrong.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

With regard to your views put forward in most of your post the following lyric comes to mind that I think somes up the feelings of a few of us on this thread.

And when they've given you their all
Some stagger and fall, after all it's not easy
Banging your heart against some mad bugger's wall.

All alone, or in two's,
The ones who really love you
Walk up and down outside the wall.
Some hand in hand
And some gathered together in bands.
The bleeding hearts and artists
Make their stand.

The ones who really love me definitely aren't in here!

If you all want to band together and berate me for pointing out the flaws in your arguments then that's your right, I'm happily listening to the Wall oblivious to your vitriole. Just because you've formed your own little club and I'm a lone voice here doesn't mean that you right and I'm wrong, as can be seen from the Poll thread, Guilty:7, Unsure:6, Not guilty:6 not a huge majority, but still the majority.

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

Hi One and All,

I would have thought this thread is for those who have a real interest in this case and who want to learn more, to challenge established viewpoints, to assert opinions, to be persuaded to come off the fence etc. Surely diverse views are to be welcomed. I think it is good when there are firmly held views because then rational argument COULD take place if only for the benefit of the undecided band.

Wise words, Viv, and should be borne in mind by anyone and everyone who makes a contribution to this thread.

Posting provocative output is ok if it prompts debate on what we know or believe to be true. But it cannot acceptable if people feel personally attacked. In the heat of verbal exchanges, things may be said in haste but there is no reason for that here especially with the edit facility. Posters seem to be very intelligent & insightful so it beggars belief that occasional messages contain daft accusations that will obviously offend - I can only think it is by design. Also, it is easy to over-react or to twist words to imply something unsavoury whereas the application of common sense would give a more rounded view.

Yes, we all like to think our own pet theories are the right ones, and sometimes maybe we get a little pissed off when others don't immediately accept them. This happens on any forum site - you only have to look at some of the Ripper threads to see stuff far worse than anything seen on the A6 thread. Human nature, I suppose. But think twice and write once is my motto when posting.

One of the reasons why I've backed off recently is that some of the arguments and discussions are getting very circular and leading nowhere. Of course it's possible to intricately dissect every available morsel of evidence, and this should be encouraged. But one of the things about the A6 Case that I'm becoming more and more aware of is the fact that I don't honestly see any more real evidence coming to light. Unlike the Ripper Case you can't just think something up, nominate a new suspect or whatever and chuck it into the pot to see how it cooks; the A6 has a finite and established cast of characters and a body of published evidence and that is all we have to go on. If someone suddenly appears with new evidence, or maybe if documents are found that throw new light on some aspect of the case, then that would be great; but in my honest opinion the chances of that happening are pretty remote. Not impossible, just remote. Having said that, maybe as I speak the coppers are sifting through wodges of papers and documents removed from Alphon's flat - who knows? If anything startling were to be found amongst Alphon's papers, would the general public get to hear about it? Valerie Storie has said she will never again discuss the Case, and Hanratty's brothers haven't been heard from for a long time. If Bindman & Co are still active behind the scenes, then they're keeping quiet.

Funny thing is that this thread appears to attracts more visits than any other on the Casebook, but relatively few people actually post. Obviously the name James Hanratty still means something to a lot of people, but has so far faded from memory that most people have nothing to say about it. Richard Ingram, when he announced Alphon's death in The Independent, began his piece by stating that the name Alphon and by extension the A6 Case will mean nothing to most people in 2009. It's good to know that a few enthusiasts are still on the case. Keep it going, guys!

Cheers,

Graham

[jimarilyn]

But I have studied this case seriously for nearly 40 years now; I have read every book, possibly every article and seen every TV documentary about it. I’ve even been to College to study it and yes I almost feel by now that I personally know all the characters personally if that makes sense.

Tony.

Hi Tony,

I can assure you that makes a lot of sense. From all that I've read, heard or seen I too feel as if I've come to know all the characters involved and what makes them tick. For example I can almost picture an everyday scene in the France household and the various interactions/conversations between James Hanratty and the five members of Dixie France's family.

There are no voice recordings or filmed footage of Hanratty to go by but I can almost hear the sound/lilt of his voice. From all that I've read it would appear that Hanratty was a quietly/softly spoken individual. Louise Anderson for example described his voice as slightly effeminate in quality.

Yes, James Hanratty was a burglar/car thief with seemingly little regard for the feelings of the householders/car owners involved, and yes, his ill-gotten gains were obtained dishonestly, but he also comes across quite strongly as having a generous and sharing spirit. There are numerous instances of this littered throughout Paul Foot's and Bob Woffinden's books. He did not have a meanness of spirit.

The murderer of Mike Gregsten and rapist/attempted murderer of Valerie Storie was (IMO) a violent, mean, calculating and heartless thug. Whatever else James Hanratty might have been he was none of these things.

regards,
James

[jimarilyn]

Living amongst the rich

Fine posts, Viv and Graham, excellently thought out and worded.

Yes, arguments/discussions can have a tendency at times to become rather circular and repetitive but that I feel is only natural. I disagree that they lead nowhere though, as they provoke more thought amongst the many contributors to this thread. As I've mentioned before some potentially important details contained in the various books on the case can often escape notice or not register strongly enough with the reader.

A prime example of this is that amongst the various things the gunman is alleged to have said to Mike and Valerie was that he "had lived with the rich". This can be easily overlooked when reading Paul Foot's book (p 29) at fast or normal speed. As far as I can remember no-one has commented on this before anywhere on this thread. It may well be a very significant statement. Was the gunman lying when he said this ? If not, and given the background and upbringings of both Peter Alphon and James Hanratty it would seem to fit Alphon much more than Hanratty.

More food for thought perhaps.....


regards,
James

[larue]

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.

hi Vic

i have proven by experiment, to my own satisfaction that her id of the gunman's eye color in the car is faulty, but then, you won't believe that, now will you?

equally, there is a lot she has said that has not been proven to be true either. as far as i know, nobody has ever tried to prove or disprove her testimony. as i have said, her statements are taken on trust.

John Kerr has no reason to lie, but his statements are disputed, and it is his 10minutes 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.

you are correct, John Kerr had no reason to lie. he was not looking for his 15 minutes of fame either, nor i suspect was Sidney Burton.

Valerie's statements were also disputed... by the defence
nobody went looking for this tragedy. but it happened to them anyway, they just had to deal with it.

as an ex-student myself, i find this last statement rather offensive, and totally unrequired.

Vic, you have made many insightful and fascinating posts on this thread, please don't spoil it by descending back into the realms of name-calling.

[larue]

As I've mentioned before some potentially important details contained in the various books on the case can often escape notice or not register strongly enough with the reader.

hi James

this is so true. it is also true of some of the posts here...

[Tony]

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.

Hello Larue,

It’s very interesting that we now find out that “even Oxford has student problems”.

Michael Sherrard did not want to defend James Hanratty because he did not think he was sufficiently qualified. He eventually did it at James Hanratty’s insistence; Hanratty did not want anyone else and they got on very well together. This was a major mistake by Hanratty as there were more qualified QC’s around that would probably have made a better fist of it.

Sherrard did his best but as highlighted on here he missed an awful lot; but even after he had been found guilty Hanratty was still 100% in favour of Sherrard.

Michael Sherrard did not have the same regard for Basil Acott and even less for Kenneth Oxford who he was suspicious of throughout.

Mr Oxford became Chief Constable of Liverpool; it seems Oxford had more than just student problems. Here are a couple of quotes from his obituary:

‘another man was severely injured when a police Land Rover was driven into a crowd. Oxford's response was chilling: "They can see the vehicles coming and they know what will happen if they get in the way." Eventually CS gas was used for the first time on the British mainland, and due to the use of inappropriate canisters designed to penetrate buildings for use in armed sieges, several serious injuries resulted. The Chief Constable responded to his critics and to Margaret Simey in particular with both incredulity, and anger, and his lengthy report did little to appease anyone. He blamed the riot on "black hooligans", and claimed to have saved the city centre from their ravages, and made several highly personal comments regarding his attitude to the rioters claiming at one point that "they won't beat me".’
Yes indeed all round good egg. We all know that he and Acott hid information which was to Hanratty’s advantage from the defence and I wonder if he did anything with the cartridge cases he had from the day after the murder. Remember two cartridge cases turned up inexplicably three weeks after the murder at The Vienna.

Can’t wait for Vic to get his teeth into this.

By the way Larue I am going to try to follow your fine example about the detection of my wife’s eye colour later this week. I’m hoping for better results than last time. The results should be in by next weekend.

Tony

[larue]

Michael Sherrard did not want to defend James Hanratty because he did not think he was sufficiently qualified. He eventually did it at James Hanratty’s insistence; Hanratty did not want anyone else and they got on very well together. This was a major mistake by Hanratty as there were more qualified QC’s around that would probably have made a better fist of it.

hi Tony

i wonder why Hanratty was so insistent about Mr Sherrard? i am certain a more experienced barrister would likely have secured an aquittal. [ no offence meant to Mr Sherrard ], but at that time he was very junior

By the way Larue I am going to try to follow your fine example about the detection of my wife’s eye colour later this week. I’m hoping for better results than last time. The results should be in by next weekend.
Tony

i shall look forward to reading them. good luck