a6 murder

[jimarilyn]

Hi James,

There is just one chapter devoted to the A6 case and it is very interesting.
Michael Sherrard comes across as liking Hanratty and felt he should have been found not guilty. In fact he doubted if the case would even go to trial at one point.
He said the gaolers who sat with Hanratty in the condemned cell whilst awaiting execution were in tears on the morning of the execution.

I’ll send you a copy of the relevant chapter later this week.

Tony.

That would be very kind of you Tony.

Re. the gaolers being in tears on the morning of the hanging, this does not surprise me one bit. Reading James Hanratty's letters from Bedford Prison one gets the unmistakable impression that a very strong rapport was built up between him, the gaolers and the three Catholic priests who spent considerable time with him in his last few weeks. They all believed in his innocence, which speaks volumes (for me at least).

regards,
James

[Tony]

There are two things, well two hundred really, that I would like to see in relation to this case; the first one is John Kerr’s notes that he handed to a police officer that conveniently went missing. Vic says: “The form wasn't "conveniently misplaced" it was inconveniently misplaced because if it had been found then John Kerr's evidence could have been completely undermined.”
Victor has absolutely no evidence for stating this and further more if it had supported Valerie’s story you can bet Acott would have been waving it round the courtroom from the beginning.
The second thing I would like to see is a photo of Michael Clark and compare it to pictures of Hanratty and Alphon. Even Valerie stated on oath that Michael Clark looked like Alphon and then said she could not remember any details of him whatsoever.

After the first parade Acott must have been unsure of her. Well he simply must have been. And we don’t know how much coaching or instructions she received before picking out Hanratty.

If a senior police officer tells you: “Well done”. You will obviously feel you have done what they wanted and within a short space of time you believe you are right and as time passes the belief that you are right becomes stronger. And that is just another explanation of how Valerie became so sure of herself.
Does Vic or anyone else think it would not have been exactly the same if she had picked out Alphon? I doubt it very much.
Acott could and probably did drill it in to Valerie: “Don’t worry love. He’s the one that did it. It couldn’t be anyone else. We thought it was him from the beginning. Forget about Alphon he had nothing to do with it.” And the more he says it the more convincing he sounds and the more you believe you are right.

I was once discussing a long since demolished Toll House on a remote lane close to where I live and I told everyone I remembered it quite clearly and even though I had not been inside I had seen people at the windows. I was 100% convinced on the matter.
Then somebody showed me a photo of the Toll House. “Yes that’s the one, I remember it well.” But I didn’t it was demolished about ten years before I was born. I must have seen the same photo at my Grandma’s house and it had stuck in my memory and played tricks with my memory. I would have bet anything that I had seen that house in person.

Tony.

[Victor]

There are two things, well two hundred really, that I would like to see in relation to this case; the first one is John Kerr’s notes that he handed to a police officer that conveniently went missing. Vic says: “The form wasn't "conveniently misplaced" it was inconveniently misplaced because if it had been found then John Kerr's evidence could have been completely undermined.”
Victor has absolutely no evidence for stating this and further more if it had supported Valerie’s story you can bet Acott would have been waving it round the courtroom from the beginning.

And you have absolutely no evidence for stating that it would undermine VS, that is precisely my point. It is lost, so you cannot conclude it supportted either position, Acott couldn't have "waved it round the courtroom" because it was lost.

That last sentence of yours actually says that you have already determined that it would support Kerr and not VS, a biased starting position.

The second thing I would like to see is a photo of Michael Clark and compare it to pictures of Hanratty and Alphon. Even Valerie stated on oath that Michael Clark looked like Alphon and then said she could not remember any details of him whatsoever.

I agree a picture of him would be very useful, but it be good to know exactly what VS said in relation to him.

After the first parade Acott must have been unsure of her. Well he simply must have been. And we don’t know how much coaching or instructions she received before picking out Hanratty.

"must have" = Assumption.

We also do not know how little coaching or instructions VS received before picking out Hanratty.

If a senior police officer tells you: “Well done”. You will obviously feel you have done what they wanted and within a short space of time you believe you are right and as time passes the belief that you are right becomes stronger. And that is just another explanation of how Valerie became so sure of herself.

That is a possible explanation, but so is...
During the 2nd ID parade, when confronted by her rapist and her lovers killer, she knew immediately, and definitely that Hanratty was guilty as sin, and from that moment she has never been swayed from that belief.

Does Vic or anyone else think it would not have been exactly the same if she had picked out Alphon? I doubt it very much.

To ask that question we have to move into the realms of the hypothetical, and if she had picked out Alphon (despite him having the wrong colour eyes) then she would not have been faced with her defiler and therefore might not have been so positive about the ID.

Acott could and probably did drill it in to Valerie: “Don’t worry love. He’s the one that did it. It couldn’t be anyone else. We thought it was him from the beginning. Forget about Alphon he had nothing to do with it.” And the more he says it the more convincing he sounds and the more you believe you are right.

Unsupportted supposition.

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

After the first parade Acott must have been unsure of her. Well he simply must have been. And we don’t know how much coaching or instructions she received before picking out Hanratty.

If a senior police officer tells you: “Well done”. You will obviously feel you have done what they wanted and within a short space of time you believe you are right and as time passes the belief that you are right becomes stronger. And that is just another explanation of how Valerie became so sure of herself.
Does Vic or anyone else think it would not have been exactly the same if she had picked out Alphon? I doubt it very much.
Acott could and probably did drill it in to Valerie: “Don’t worry love. He’s the one that did it. It couldn’t be anyone else. We thought it was him from the beginning. Forget about Alphon he had nothing to do with it.” And the more he says it the more convincing he sounds and the more you believe you are right.

Hi Tony,

That's very much my take on the matter. Truth often flies out the window at the expense of that all important conviction.

If I were to say I am an admirer of Big Baz, I would be lying. He tried very hard to discredit James Hanratty over the Stanmore burglaries of September 30th/October 1st 1961 (re. the stolen jacket) and said Hanratty was lying. Hanratty's version of events however proved 100% to be true.

I trust Hanratty's word over Acott's and Oxford's every time.


regards,
James

[Victor]

That's very much my take on the matter. Truth often flies out the window at the expense of that all important conviction.

That's just more slander.

If I were to say I am an admirer of Big Baz, I would be lying. He tried very hard to discredit James Hanratty over the Stanmore burglaries of September 30th/October 1st 1961 (re. the stolen jacket) and said Hanratty was lying. Hanratty's version of events however proved 100% to be true.

That is distorted in favour of Hanratty again. Using your logic, we can conclude "Hanratty's version of events was not 100% true, because the Hepworth jacket wasn't where he said he'd left it."

The Stanmore burglaries episode could just as easily have an innocent explanation...The householder didn't notice that his jacket had been stolen and therefore couldn't confirm Hanratty's version of events.

I trust Hanratty's word over Acott's and Oxford's every time.

That sentence could be taken as absolute proof that James is in league with... well, you know.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

What if...?

Hi Tony,

I have no evidence for this so I'm not accusing anyone of anything but the question is valid hypothetically...

What would have happened if John Kerr's note had been inadvertently included with all the defence papers, so Sherrard had it all the time. Would it have been better for him to destroy it thereby establishing forever the doubt and confusion over the document and by association all over VS testimony?

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

Acott could and probably did drill it in to Valerie: “Don’t worry love. He’s the one that did it. It couldn’t be anyone else. We thought it was him from the beginning. Forget about Alphon he had nothing to do with it.” And the more he says it the more convincing he sounds and the more you believe you are right.

But the police seemed very confident that Alphon was their man right up to when VS failed to pick him out at the i.d. parade. How could they possibly have 'thought it was him (Hanratty) from the beginning?'

Graham

[Tony]

Hello Graham,

Yes of course the police thought that they had their man when they put Alphon on the first parade. That is obvious. But Valerie did not select him as we all know.

So the police had to cast their net and they dragged in Hanratty. At the second parade Valerie already knew she had picked the wrong man and would have been very nervous not to repeat the mistake. We all know Hanratty stood out in more ways than one and Valerie duly selected him.

That is where I suggest Acott said to her: “Don’t worry love. He’s the one that did it. It couldn’t be anyone else. We thought it was him from the beginning. Forget about Alphon he had nothing to do with it.”

Any doubts she may have had would have been then relieved by Acott and he would have put her mind at rest. And if he sensed that he would go on reinforcing his point till the trap door opened.

Tony.

[Graham]

Do we know if VS had legal representation present at that parade? I think Kleinman was present for JH (but didn't insist on the parade wearing head-covering, which was a bit remiss of him).

Cheers,

Graham

[Tony]

Do we know if VS had legal representation present at that parade? I think Kleinman was present for JH (but didn't insist on the parade wearing head-covering, which was a bit remiss of him).

Cheers,

Graham

Good evening Graham,

Ted Kleinman was present at the parade and could obviously see that Hanratty stood out from the rest of the members due to his hair. On this point alone he should have made the strongest objection possible that the parade was being conducted unfairly. That he did not was stupid at best and a dereliction of duty at worst.

When Valerie asked if she could hear the men speak he again should have asked for a brief pause and determined if his client was the only one on there with a cockney accent. Again a glaring mistake on his part.

However, Hanratty, if he was the killer, made no effort to disguise his voice, which I find puzzling.

Why would Valerie have needed legal representation she had the whole of the Metropolitan Police Force behind her

Tony

[jimarilyn]

Hi Jimarilyn,

Just a piece of self advice here. Don't be tempted to rise to the bait of a provocative and totally illogical poster.

[Victor]

Lost ?

Hi James,

What's the problem? Have you worked out that there are (at least) two "lost" items, Kerr's note and the Hepworth jacket.

So which way do you want to take this?
1. The items are lost and therefore nothing can be concluded about them.
2. The items are "conveniently" lost, therefore the police "lost" Kerr's note because it contradicts VS, and Hanratty "lost" his jacket so the incriminating bloodstains wouldn't be found.

Or do you want to take different directions with each item?

Hmmm.... I wonder.

KR,
Vic.

[jimornot?]

Hi Jimarilyn,

Just a piece of self advice here. Don't be tempted to rise to the bait of a provocative and totally illogical poster.

Hi James

I think Vic is out or oder to assume you have no sympathy with Valerie Storie's situation - I recall you making several statements expressing the opposite in the past.

I can't say her trustworthiness is any more or less than John Kerr. But people Do make mistakes and it is perfectly alright to raise that possibility without appearing to be entirely callous and without sympathy.

there are some doubts about the accuracy of valerie's memory and it is a s simple as that. Vic is certain no mention was made of dark eyes and maybe that is right but we just do not know for certain. I certainly belive any mistakes she made (if there were any) were honest ones.

I just don't see why Mr Kerr's integrity should be questioned or have I missed something?

For me personally, I visit the thread to learn things, to see how a case for or against Hanratty's guilt can be re-assessed etc. I enjoy the lighter touches also like some of the other interractions but not when they get too personal. As has often been posted before, I would think challenges should be welcomed by everyone but as Graham says in rebutting or questioning arguments, we should write twice and post once.

I am sure you will still feel comfortable adding your opinions and in closing I would like to acknowledge that some posters, not least yourself and Larue, have contributed hugely to the archives on this thread which this has benefitted everyone.

all the best

Viv

[jimornot?]

Hi James,

What's the problem? Have you worked out that there are (at least) two "lost" items, Kerr's note and the Hepworth jacket.

So which way do you want to take this?
1. The items are lost and therefore nothing can be concluded about them.
2. The items are "conveniently" lost, therefore the police "lost" Kerr's note because it contradicts VS, and Hanratty "lost" his jacket so the incriminating bloodstains wouldn't be found.

Or do you want to take different directions with each item?

Hmmm.... I wonder.

KR,
Vic.

Hi Vic good point but did the Police not try to present false evidence at the trial - ire a version of Kerr's notes - which might imply that his recollections were of some importance and potential influence?

BTW is it conceivsble only the jacket would have had incriminating stains?

all the best

Viv

[jimornot?]

[QUOTE=Tony;85419]Victor,

I have been busy contributing to this thread and I am sorry but I missed your own post number 3769.

I can only speak for myself but I sincerely do have tremendous sympathy for Valerie Storie. Nobody and I mean nobody, goes for a night out and expects to come home in an ambulance after being raped and shot and unable to walk for the rest of their lives. That should go without saying. But at the end of the day she was one of the three or four major players in this mystery and surely we are entitled to analyse her evidence. If not we may as well close the thread down.



Hi Tony

without wishing to jump on the 'band-waggon' I would think you echo many of the feelings of a lot of us

ATB

Viv

PS I also feel that the cut and thrust between posters is also intesreting until it gets a bit personal so I don't want too much sanitisation but common sense