a6 murder

[Limehouse]

Hi Graham,

Of course I do not automatically believe everything reported in newspapers. However, this was an article that appeared soon after the event and corresponds with statements made by the first man on the scene after the event - John Kerr. He was reporting what Valerie had told him. He had no reason to lie or confuse the issue by mis-reporting the fact as told to him. It looks very much to me as it this article was composed by reporters following a press meeting during which the police reported to the press what they believed to be the facts of the case at the time.

I believe the hitch hiker story came about to cover up the truth about the realtionship between Storie and Gregstern. By the time of the trial, the truth was known about their relationship - indeed, Gregstern's wife knew the truth even before the event.

[Graham]

Hi Limehouse,

Nowhere will you find any reference made by John Kerr to a hitch-hiker - he reported that Valerie told him that she and Gregsten had 'picked up a man near Slough'. (Woffinden P10, paper-back edition). How the 'hitch-hiker element' got into the tale is anyone's guess, but I am confident it didn't come from Kerr and probably didn't come from the police either. The expression picked up would certainly suggest a hitch-hiker, and I would say that some enterprising reporter(s) added this to their story to add to the overall horror.

As far as the relationship between VS and JG is concerned, this is one of most amazing aspects of the Case to modern ears, but it is an absolute fact that extra-marital relationships even in 1961 were, by and large, swept under the carpet even in a court of law. The-then 'morality' could accept murder being in the public gaze, but not extra-marital nookie. Janet Gregsten had known for some time that her husband was carrying on with VS, and she accepted it. However, the relationship between VS and MG didn't really have any bearing upon the legal proceedings themselves - it wasn't as if MG was murdered by a jealous lover of VS, for example.

To be honest, all of this is really peripheral if, as I do, you accept that JH 'selected' the car and its occupants more or less at random - he didn't know who they were from Adam and Eve.

Cheers,

Graham

[Limehouse]

Hi Graham,

I entirely agree that the actual relationship between VS and MG had no bearing on the case (unless you consider the much discussed idea that Hanratty was selected to 'scare' the couple) but it does explain how the hitch hiker story may have come about. VS may have been trying to be sensitive towards both her parents, and MG's family.

[Graham]

Hi Limehouse,

I can't seriously believe that VS actually attempted to hide anything from her parents. For a start, she doesn't come across as that kind of person anyway. If her parents didn't know about their daughter's relationship with Gregsten, then within hours of the murder they most certainly knew. They were initially told of the crime by a reporter called Tony Mason, who was amazed when he called on them that he was the first to break the news. Now there's sensitive policing for you...not. Further, John Storie later told reporters that he had been told by the police not to say anything about the case. And he didn't. VS's parents must have been of huge support to her, but to my mind it's strange that so little was ever written about them.

The hitch-hiker red-herring originated with the press and nowhere else.

Cheers,

Graham

[Victor]

But I can see police obfuscation, particularly where the last writings of Charles France are concerned, and I would dearly love to know why most of his letters were seized, never to be seen again nor even any hint given of their content. Or were they just taken, looked at, and then filed in the big round wicker filing-cabinet?

Hi Graham,
Foot did get to see them, on the condition that he didn't comment upon what they said...according to the introduction of his book.

Surely if the police were keen to catch the killer they would very quickly have corrected The Daily Mirror's 'misinformation' that the killer had brown eyes?

Hi Limehouse,
You would have thought so, but they were very busy and could have just overlooked it, or maybe used it as one of those "verification of details" tricks...they use the misreporting to quickly and easily filter out the less serious leads because any tip that lists brown eyes can be ignored as it's not genuine.

The article also clearly states that 'Miss Storie told dectectives they had picked up a man thumbing a lift'.

But she didn't according to her testimony, and no detective has said she said that either, so we have both parties to the alleged conversation denying that that was said.

It is fairly clear to me that the Mirror was quoting from statements made by the police soon after the murder.

I agree with this sentence, it's clearly the preliminary reports from the scene before the details have been confirmed with VS, hence the huge numbers of errors in it.

The evidence for this can be supported by the fact that the police, through this article, were urging the public not to pick up hitch hikers.

As Graham said it was the RAC who warned against hitch-hikers probably in an effort to be seen to be protecting their members, whereas the warnings were actually a knee-jerk reaction to misinfornmation.

It is plain that at that stage, the police thought they were searching for a brown-eyed hitch hiker.

No. It is plain that at that stage, the press erroneously thought the police were searching for a brown-eyed hitch-hiker.

The initial reports from the scene were confused, and the Daily Mirror reporter overheard baseless gossip or wild theorising or speculation; or invented some details; or jumped to the assumption that "picked up" indicates "hitch-hiker" in order to get a complete story by his deadline and they got it wrong.

In the Ripper case, we have lots of misinformation too, such as:-
i) the ripper's medical knowledge.
ii) Packer and his grapes
iii) The C5 knew eachother
iv) Mary Jane Kelly was pregnant when she was killed.
v) The letters are from the killer.

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

Fair enough James, you've found a source for your mis-information including a reference to "brown eyes", but it's still mis-information that has subsequently been corrected, so why keep spreading it?

And any defence that the Daily Mail never prints mis-information can be countered with this article...http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008...atednewspapers

KR,
Vic.

Pathetic with a capital P. This post really takes the biscuit. Perhaps you need to re-read the article and that fourth to last paragraph in particular another few dozen times.

"Valerie, although too ill to give a detailed account of what happened, WAS ABLE TO TELL detectives that they were shot by a man "who thumbed a lift from them"."

Also, where does the Daily Mail come into the equation ????????????????

[Victor]

Pathetic with a capital P. This post really takes the biscuit.

Thank you for warning me, I agree that your post is Pathetic with a capital P.

Perhaps you need to re-read the article and that fourth to last paragraph in particular another few dozen times.

"Valerie, although too ill to give a detailed account of what happened, WAS ABLE TO TELL detectives that they were shot by a man "who thumbed a lift from them"."

What's the point of re-reading an obviously inaccurate newspaper article? We know it's got some details wrong - in particular as Graham pointed out, it got the elimentary uncontestable physical facts wrong, VS was shot in the back not the chest - therefore it cannot be relied upon.

Also, where does the Daily Mail come into the equation ????????????????

Oops sorry I confused Mail with Mirror, but the point still holds, newspapers lie, tabloids especially so.

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

Oops sorry I confused Mail with Mirror, but the point still holds, newspapers lie, tabloids especially so.

If they lied as much as you try to make out they'd be fighting off libel suits everyday and would be bankrupt and out of business in no time.

Was it just the "deep set brown eyes" and "thumbed a lift from them" (which was in quotes) that the Mirror lied about in that article ?? Or did they (do they) just lie about things you disagree with ?

Perhaps it wasn't the RAC who were helping the police.
Perhaps the car wasn't abandoned in Avondale Crescent.
Perhaps the inside of the car wasn't splashed with blood.
Perhaps MG and VS weren't scientific workers at the Road Research Laboratory near Slough.
Perhaps the gunman didn't shoot MG twice through the head and VS several times in the chest.

[Graham]

Hi Victor,

In the Ripper case, we have lots of misinformation too, such as:-
i) the ripper's medical knowledge.
ii) Packer and his grapes
iii) The C5 knew eachother
iv) Mary Jane Kelly was pregnant when she was killed.
v) The letters are from the killer.

You're quite right!

1] - this myth came via the famous 'Dr Stanley' novel (can't remember the title) by Leonard Matters and is a perfect example of how a piece of pure fiction can be assimilated into a factual case. Ask virtually anyone these days, and he/she will tell you that the Ripper was a doctor...which he certyainly wasn't. There was debate at the time of the murders whether the killer needed medical knowledge to do what he did, and the consensus was that he didn't.

2] - Packer and his grapes. Invention by newspaper reporter.

3] - the C5 knew each other. Pure speculation, nothing else. Could be true, but doubtful. The idea, of course, came about via the 'Ripper & The Royals' theory that the victims got together to blackmail the government.

4] - MJK was pregnant. Don't know how this came about, but Dr Bond's autopsy made no mention whatsoever of pregnancy. Again, lots of people take this as true, and it ain't!

5] - the letters were from the killer. It is now accepted that the famous letters were written by at least one journalist, and it was the press (again!) that picked up on the 'fact' that they were from the killer. The police and the press were receiving Ripper letters for the next 50 years, and probably still do.

If VS actually stated that she and MG had picked up a hitch-hiker, why and when was this story dropped in favour of the tap at the window of the parked car? Do I smell CONSPIRACY??? (No...the Mirror just got it wrong).

Cheers,

Graham

[jimarilyn]

VS was shot in the back not the chest - therefore it cannot be relied upon.

Wrong again, she wasn't shot in the back.

It's you Victor who is spreading mis-information.

[Rob63]

I`m just re reading Mr Foots book and I believe the hitch hiker story was originally quoted by John Kerr when he was interviewed by the papers quite soon after he came across VS, his statement was based on what VS had told him when he found her.
This also gave a different timeline of events which went along the lines of, they picked up the chap near Dorney, once he was in the car he pulled a gun and ordered MG to drive through the suburbs, they reached Deadmans Hill where he shot MG, after which he sat there talking to VS for some time then raped her, he then shot her in the car and threw the bodies onto the layby and made his escape. No mention is made of the cornfield or sitting there for hours.
VS was also interviewed by two inspectors soon after she reached the hospital and was by all accounts able to give very good details, this statement as far as I know has never been made public, although I only have a first edition of the Foot book so don`t know if this still holds true.
VS parents knew of the affair as one of VS friends had let the cat out of the bag early in the relationship.

[Victor]

Wrong again, she wasn't shot in the back.

It's you Victor who is spreading mis-information.

Get it right, I quoted Graham!

Just noticed that the Mirror's article said she'd been shot in the chest when in fact she was shot in the back. There you go, more wrong reporting.

[Graham]

I've just had a quick re-read of Woffinden. On Page 20 (paperback) there is a statement by Dr Pollen who speaks of a wound on the right side of the neck and five bullet holes in the region of the left shoulder. The fifth hole was high up on the left side of the chest but, quote, I was unable to say at this stage which were entry or exit wounds. From this I infer that only the latter-described hole was in the chest, but as Dr Pollen says he was unsure about its being entry or exit.

I was always under the impression that VS was lying on her front when she was shot, maybe turned a little towards the body of MG. She was able to start making a message from loose pebbles, and she could only do this I think if she were lying on her front. And as the shots paralysed her, had she been on her back I don't think she could have turned over.

Hmmm.

Cheers,

Graham

[Victor]

Was it just the "deep set brown eyes" and "thumbed a lift from them" (which was in quotes) that the Mirror lied about in that article ?? Or did they (do they) just lie about things you disagree with ?

Oo-er are you suggesting that I conspired with the Mirror so that they reported the opposite to what I think so I can call them liars?

As I wasn't born in 1961, they even had the foresight to predict what I would be believing, or maybe they borrowed the TARDIS and went travelling in time to get things right.

They lied to make a full sensationalist story, filling in the gaps.

[jimarilyn]

Get it right, I quoted Graham!

It's you who needs to get it right ! VS was shot in the left side of her neck, her left shoulder and high up on the left side of her chest. She wasn't shot in the back.