a6 murder

[Andrew]

I never understood why Hanratty just didn't toss the bloody gun into the Thames and have done with it. Surely even PC Plod could see that Alphon's Southend story was just load of old tom...

Cheers,

Graham

I suppose the simplest course of action would have been to leave the gun under the seat of the car.
It appears that the hankerchief exists intact, is there a photo of it? I'm curious to know how JH recognised it as his.

[Tony]

Hi Tony,

It is possible that once they obtained a DNA proflile from the knicker fragment, they stopped looking for any other. It is possible too that someone else's DNA was on the other portion of Valerie's knickers and on the rest of the clothes she was wearing that night - but they were not tested.

It is obvious to both of us that MC looked more like Alphon than Hanratty for the reasons we have both explained. Several posters deny that the police were ever looking for a man with brown eyes and yet it is clear that the men in that first line-up fitted that original description. It was after that first line up and after she had wrongly selected MC that Valerie mentioned 'icy blue staring eyes' and the search took a new turn.

Hi Julie,

It’s all very well people telling us that Valerie felt compelled or under some sort of obligation to pick out someone/anyone on that first ID parade and we should accept that as fact. Of course that was not the case at all. It may suit some people’s views, of course.
But let’s have a look at the evidence and by evidence I mean what Valerie Storie said under oath.
And just how close did Mr Alphon come to a meeting with the hangman after Valerie’s identification effort and subsequent evidence on and after that first parade.

I will do this on a question and answer basis between Sherrard and Storie in court:

Q You told us today that on that first identity parade you were nervous and tensed up?
A Yes.
Q You will remember Dr. Rennie. Do you?
A Yes.

Q He put it the same way when he was asked about it. Do you remember telling me in the Magistrates Court that you appreciated the necessity for care and caution on that first identity parade?
A Yes.

Q The way in which you put it was: “I appreciate the necessity for great care and caution”. I want to put another sentence to you. Will you be good enough to say whether this represents your evidence: “ I know it would be my duty not to poit to anyone unless I was certain in my own mind that he was my assailant”?
A Yes; I understand that.

Q On that first parade you surveyed the men paraded before you for some time, as long as five minutes, before saying something or doing something?
A Yes.

Q And then you identified a man as being, in your view, the assailant?
A Yes.

Q Can you tell us now what that man looked like?
A No.

Q And on that occasion apparently you were sufficiently certain to make that identification without asking for any of the men to speak?
A At that time I did not know I was allowed to ask the men on the parade to speak.

Q But you were satisfied to make the identification without that?
A Yes.

Q You now know, do you not, that there was a man on that parade called Peter Alphon?
A I know now.

Q And when it appeared you had identified some other person on that parade did you not afterwards say that there was a fair resemblance between Alphon and the man who attacked you?
A When am I supposed to have said that?

Q Some time after the parade?
A Some time afterwards, yes.

Mr Justice Gorman: What did you say?
Sherrard: There was a fair resemblance between Alphon and the man who attacked you?
A Yes.

Mr Justice Gorman: Are you putting it to this lady that the man whom she identified was Peter Alphon?
Sherrard: No, My Lord. (To the witness): It was not the man whom you identified?
A No.
Q Can you tell us to whom you made that observation?
A In the first instance I believe it was the doctor at Stoke Mandeville Hospital.

Q And later?
A I am not sure whether it was Superintendent Acott or not.

Q May it have been Superintendent Acott?
A It may have been, but I do not remember.

This led Mr Justice Gorman to say to the jury:

“Supposing there had been no evidence on 24th September that would have exonerated the man who was picked out by Miss Storie on that date, how tragic the consequences might have been for someone else”

I wonder why she picked out Clark when admitting straight after that she thought Mr Alphon looked like her attacker. Could she have been scared half to death by a second sight of Mr Alphon?

Tony.

[Tony]

I suppose the simplest course of action would have been to leave the gun under the seat of the car.
It appears that the hankerchief exists intact, is there a photo of it? I'm curious to know how JH recognised it as his.

Hello Andrew,

Do you really think anybody would commit such an horrendous crime and then decide to get rid of the murder weapon in such a ridiculous place and under such ridiculous circumstances?

If you can put yourself in the murderer’s shoes for a minute, and OK let’s assume you are not the brightest button in the box; nevertheless you are a criminal and you do know that the first rule of your game is: DON’T LEAVE ANY CLUES. That’s the first thing you learn in your job
Right you’ve done the crime: “What the hell am I going to do with gun and all this ammo? I must make sure none of it is ever found that’s what the professionals do isn’t it?
Shall I chuck it in the river, bury it? What? I know I’ll wander about mingling with people climb on to a public transport bus, most people use busses these days there aren’t so many cars about and I’ll hide it under one of the seats and hope nobody sees me. Nobody will ever find it on a bus. Yes that’s a good idea.”

Why not just put it in a jiffy bag with your name and address on it, drop it in at the first cop-shop you come to and save Acott, Oxford, France, Ewer, Nudds, Anderson, Langdale etc a lot of trouble.

Tony.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Tony,
First class post, I agree with you whoever left that gun on the bus, complete with their own hanky , and boxes of ammo, cannot have been thinking rationally, or should i say'Finking'.
I personally have no doubt that Hanratty was responsible for the A6 crimes , and he was the type of man that acted on impulse without duely 'Finking' it out.
He simply wanted to ditch the gun as soon as possible, and appeared not to care if it was found, as long as it was not found on him.
He was as guilty as hell... regardless of his pleas to his family, he knew all the time he maintained his innocence, they and his defence team, would fight for a aquital.
I for one, would be extremely surprised if that was not the case.
Regards Richard.

[Tony]

Hello Tony,
First class post, I agree with you whoever left that gun on the bus, complete with their own hanky , and boxes of ammo, cannot have been thinking rationally, or should i say'Finking'.
I personally have no doubt that Hanratty was responsible for the A6 crimes , and he was the type of man that acted on impulse without duely 'Finking' it out.
He simply wanted to ditch the gun as soon as possible, and appeared not to care if it was found, as long as it was not found on him.
He was as guilty as hell... regardless of his pleas to his family, he knew all the time he maintained his innocence, they and his defence team, would fight for a aquital.
I for one, would be extremely surprised if that was not the case.
Regards Richard.

Hello Richard,

Can I firstly say to you that I respect your view on the case but I do not agree with you as you know?

In your post you say: “He simply wanted to ditch the gun as soon as possible”.

Then why didn’t he if he did the crime?

Five minutes after driving off he would have been far enough away to find a ditch and dump it there where it would probably never be found. Why go wandering into town to leave it on a bus. Would you? Would any body?
I know some smart alec will say well somebody did. Well before he does say that we know somebody must have done because it was found on the bus but ask yourself this:
You have committed murder the last thing you want is for the murder weapon to be found, particularly as you had wrapped it in your own calling card hanky, would you leave it on a bus and then say quite frankly in court: “Yes everyone that’s my hanky wrapped round the murder weapon and yes I did tell my mate Dixie I hid stuff on the bus”
Or is it not more feasible that somebody else who had access to Hanratty’s dirty washing and had the gun put it on the bus and could then tell the cops and the court that Hanratty told you that he hid stuff on the bus.

Game, set and match.

Tony

[Victor]

Hi Victor,

I'll reply to both of your posts in one go if iImay.

Hi Julie,
No problem at all.

The fact that the stanied piece of knicker was removed before the trail does not rule out the possibility of Valerie's and Hanratty's intact garments being stored together prior to the trial.

When could they have been? The judgment is quite clear that they were not examined by the scientists on the same day, although they were all at the commital.

Michael Clark was asked to join an identity parade, along with others, including Alphon, the prime suspect. Not only was Alphon the prime suspect, he fitted the original description circulated by police. By habit, when selecting men for line-ups, those chosen somewhat resemble the suspect. Michael Clark must have been closer to Alphon in looks than Hanratty. My comment is therefore logical and justified.

Every line-up I've ever seen has had a mixture of people, they're usually the same sex, age-range and ethnicity and Alphon and Hanratty are the same on those 3 points, but there's absolutely no evidence that Clark looked more like Alphon than Hanratty.

Read my comment carefully and you will clearly see that I am not blaming Valerie at all. In fact, I am doing the opposite. The quote 'it is not Valerie who stands accused in my eyes' makes it clear enough that I do not blame her.

I appreciate that you're not blaming Valerie completly, although Tony appears to be...

The man is hanged, mainly on your identification. A very serious thing; the man you picked is now dead and it’s down to you. You can’t ever have any doubts. Never again can you think; “I made one mistake, have I possibly made another?”

It is possible that once they obtained a DNA proflile from the knicker fragment, they stopped looking for any other.

No that's just not possible with the method used, and the judgment states that they found a profile "attribute to" MG, and one for VS.

It is possible too that someone else's DNA was on the other portion of Valerie's knickers and on the rest of the clothes she was wearing that night - but they were not tested.

That is true. The clothes were destroyed after the trial and DNA testing wasn't available at that time.

It is obvious to both of us that MC looked more like Alphon than Hanratty for the reasons we have both explained.

But your reasons are based on speculation and assumptions (that all the parade members have the same coloured eyes)

Several posters deny that the police were ever looking for a man with brown eyes and yet it is clear that the men in that first line-up fitted that original description.

Yes, I completely deny that the police were ever looking for a man with brown eyes. I will concede that the press warned the public that the killer had brown eyes.

It is not clear that the men in the first line-up all had brown eyes, it is very much disputed.

It was after that first line up and after she had wrongly selected MC that Valerie mentioned 'icy blue staring eyes' and the search took a new turn.

On oath VS told the court that she told John Kerr in the layby the morning of the crime that the killer had blue eyes, so quite a bit before the first ID parade then.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Do you really think anybody would commit such an horrendous crime and then decide to get rid of the murder weapon in such a ridiculous place and under such ridiculous circumstances?

Hi Tony,
I agree it ridiculous, but then again holding up a car ina cornfield is equally ridiculous.

If you can put yourself in the murderer’s shoes for a minute, and OK let’s assume you are not the brightest button in the box; nevertheless you are a criminal and you do know that the first rule of your game is: DON’T LEAVE ANY CLUES. That’s the first thing you learn in your job

I agree just like the first rule of housebreaking is "Don't leave fingerprints", I wonder if there's anyone stupid enough to do that... repeatedly... and get imprisoned for it, repeatedly?

Right you’ve done the crime: “What the hell am I going to do with gun and all this ammo? I must make sure none of it is ever found that’s what the professionals do isn’t it?

The assumption there is that he had time to think about it and reason sensibly. And wasn't concerned about the implications of having killed and raped. And wasn't preoccupied with that.

KR,
Vic.

[Tony]

Hello again Julie,

A housebreaker with limited intelligence might break into your house, rob you of precious and sentimental items and then wipe his dabs off everything he has touched; but although he has tried to be very, very careful he’s missed a couple. He’s soon picked up by the Old Bill and is on his way to chokey. This guy who has been as careful as possible commits a murder and forgets about being careful he takes all his ammo and gun and places it carefully on public transport.
The same as leaving the odd fingerprint? Leave it out; you’re having a laugh aren’t you?

As for me saying that Valerie Storie was to blame; well she may have been the cause of the visitation that evening of the gunman. I do not know and nor does anyone else.
One thing I do know is that we seem to have only heard a small portion of what went off in the car. For a start Gregston was in and out of the car on a regular basis.

What did you think of VS’s evidence in court, Julie. Would you convict on the strength of that? “Peter Alphon looks like the man who attacked me”.

Hey, Julie, a few years ago I was on holiday in Florida and I picked up a rental car and half an hour later we pulled into Cracker Barrel for some breakfast. My kindly wife left her handbag on the front passenger seat. I don’t know why she didn’t put up one of those large billboards at the side of the highway advertising free British Passports, mobile phones etc.
Anyway we walked to the restaurant and were told we would have a twenty minute wait so we decided after some thought to use the twenty minutes driving and call at somewhere else. By the time we got back to the car the side window was smashed and her handbag had mysteriously disappeared. We thought we might have been robbed and we were right. We went back into the restaurant and they called the cops who arrived after a few minutes.
The restaurant offered us anything we wanted ‘on the house’ while Officer Don Bell set about his work. He realised the car was very clean and so he got out his fingerprint kit and dusted for dabs; and he got some.
He asked where we were going and as we did not really know he gave us his station phone number, his mobile number and his home number. He said to phone him at any time and he would fax us a crime report for our insurers, he would find out for us how and where to get replacement passports and he would also try to contact the airline about replacement tickets. What a top gent.
But before he went he decided he would contact Avis to get us a replacement car.
He phoned them and I could only hear one side of the conversation it went like this:

Good morning I am Officer Bell from Lakeland Police Department and I am at Cracker Barrel with one of your clients who has been a victim of a crime and I need you to bring him a new car right away.

Avis

I am sorry but I am not asking your client to get in a car full of broken glass and drive to you.

Avis.

Now listen I’ll explain to you once more. I am Officer Bell. I am with a client of yours who is on holiday in our country. He needs a new car and you are going to bring him one out here right now. I know you have got a depot close to here and I am going to wait here with your client until his new car arrives and I am a busy man and your client wants to get on with his holiday so I know that you will not keep me waiting for more than fifteen minutes. Now is that clear enough for you?

The new car, a bigger and better version, turned up after about ten minutes during which time I spent a fascinating time talking to my new best friend Don Bell about crime in Florida. Apparently we were very unlucky and he never once criticised us for leaving valuables on show.
I tried to get him to agree to a job swap with the British cops who I explained would probably not have even bothered coming out to us. I also explained that if he could arrange a job shop I was confident of our crime rate dropping. On the other hand all our cops would be sat at the top of the palm trees armed with radar guns aimed at all their motorists. He seemed a bit puzzled by that one I must say.

Sadly I did not have chance to discuss the A6 murder case with him.

Right I’m off to watch the Ashes.

Tony.

[Victor]

A housebreaker with limited intelligence might break into your house, rob you of precious and sentimental items and then wipe his dabs off everything he has touched; but although he has tried to be very, very careful he’s missed a couple. He’s soon picked up by the Old Bill and is on his way to chokey. This guy who has been as careful as possible commits a murder and forgets about being careful he takes all his ammo and gun and places it carefully on public transport.
The same as leaving the odd fingerprint? Leave it out; you’re having a laugh aren’t you?

Or he could just wear gloves... One stupid mistake isn't the same as another stupid mistake? Dress it up however you like, they're both still stupid or ridiculous things to do, it's just that the consequences of one are significantly greater than the other. So what you are saying is that Hanratty considers the consequences of his actions before he makes a stupid mistake, leave it out you're having a laugh aren't you?

As for me saying that Valerie Storie was to blame; well she may have been the cause of the visitation that evening of the gunman. I do not know and nor does anyone else.

You don't know and that gives you the right to accuse her of bringing death on her lover and nearly herself, leaving her maimed for life. And all for what? Because she had the nerve to fall for a married man, who was on the verge of leaving his wife and lived seperately from his family.

Are you really saying that she was really that depraved and such a bad person that she deserves to be crippled for life, and now not only does she have Gregsten's life on her conscious, but also Hanratty's because the rotten harlot brought it all on herself.

I think no-one deserves to be the victim of crime, and that only truly sick people like Sutcliffe, Ireland, Nielsen, Brady, Rose West deserve to die for the things they've done. How do you reconcile supportting the abolishment of the death penalty for murder with lack of sympathy for Storie as a victim of crime?

One thing I do know is that we seem to have only heard a small portion of what went off in the car. For a start Gregston was in and out of the car on a regular basis.

Oh and now, after the horrendous ordeal which she went through, and the injuries, operations and recuperation, she has to accurately remember precise details of what happened for 5 or 6 hours. Can you? Why don't you try recalling all the conversation from your last night out in the pub with the blokes? Who said what when. Who bought the rounds and what they all had. When each of them went to the toilet. And that's you without all the injuries, distracting pain. I think her recollection of what happened is very good considering all the circumstances.

As for Gregsten being in and out of the car on a regular basis, I think you've placed too much weight on Alphon's "confession" in Foot. Anyway, would you abandon your partner leaving her in the clutches of an gunman, whilst you walked away free, or warn a petrol station attendent while you've got a gun pointed at your back (or hers), and risk him being shot too? What sort of callous git do you think Gregsten is? I think he showed Valerie the love, concern and respect she deserved, and ultimately showed highly commendable bravery by sacrificing himself for her. If only all lovers were that considerate.

KR,
Vic.

[jimornot?]

Hi Vic

Are you really saying that she was really that depraved and such a bad person that she deserves to be crippled for life, and now not only does she have Gregsten's life on her conscious, but also Hanratty's because the rotten harlot brought it all on herself.

No, he is not.

Best wishes

Viv


Dear all

A quick please for us all to ensure we don't get back to arguments between contributors over interpretations of their postings and endless to-ing and fro-ing (is that right?) on the lines ' your message means you think this' followed by indignant denials and counter arguments until the debate (argument rather than debate in fact) ) drags on and on boring the life out of many of us. This is my reaction to Vic's posting but not aimed at him specifically - he has suffered bad reactions a well

on the particular messages culminating in the quote above, I truly think all those who post on this site have due respect and sympathy for Valerie Storie. I think Tony has clearly indicated this in the past, can we simply accept him at his word?

Preaching over

Viv

[Graham]

Hi Viv,

Couldn't agree more. But please do bear in mind that the (very) few Jimdiditites on this thread have over quite a long period of time been subjected to all manner of nastiness - myself, I have to say, not included, because I've always backed off when things have got too hot, and I will continue to do so if things ever get that hot again.

I think that VS must have told the police a hell of lot that has never since seen the light of day. Chances are that she recalled quite a lot about what went on in that car, but the police - and she was after all a prosecution witness - very carefully sieved through her recollections and released only what they wanted to release. Which is their prerogative.

It wasn't only VS's evidence and identification that nailed JH - his own stupidity at the trial and, dare I say it, the shortcomings of his defence stacked up against him. I've said this umpteen times, but had he (a) stuck with the Liverpool Alibi and (b) otherwise kept his trap shut, he may well have been acquitted.

Cheers,

Graham

[larue]

What sort of callous git do you think Gregsten is? I think he showed Valerie the love, concern and respect she deserved, and ultimately showed highly commendable bravery by sacrificing himself for her. If only all lovers were that considerate.

KR,
Vic.

hi Vic

i would suggest that there may be those who would not have considered MG to be Mr Nice Guy, for having a string of affairs, despite having a wife and two kids of his own, plus, leaving semen on VS's underwear suggests they had unprotected sex. what would your prediction be of MG's actions should VS have become pregnant by him??? do you think he would have showed her consideration and married her???

but you have me puzzled with your assertion that MG 'sacrificed himself'.

are you trying to suggest that MG deliberatly got the gunman to kill him in the forlorn hope that this act would allow VS to survive???

i'd love to see your evidence for this

[Graham]

Hi Larue,

Everything I've read seems to suggest that Janet held herself responsible for her marital problems, connected with her assertion that, quote, she 'couldn't give Mike the sex he wanted'. Yet after the dust had settled she lived for several years with William Ewer who, with the best will in the world, I'd say couldn't match Mike for looks and personality. So what did she actually mean?
Was Mike into something that Janet didn't like?

Janet seemed never to have a bad word about Mike, she said that he was accomplished and personable, and a good father to his sons. And as she herself was an extremely attractive woman, it makes one think....

I can't remember if Mike had any other known affairs apart from with Valerie.

Like you, I'm not sure that Mike 'sacrificed himself' and I never got the impression that Valerie felt that he had - she just said that the gunman told her that Mike had moved too quickly, maybe in an effort to swat the gunman with the duffel-bag. He had the opportunity to scarper on at least one occasion, and he didn't, which for me at any rate says quite a lot for his character.

Cheers,

Graham

[Mari]

Hi, in case of interest

In this 60 minute interview they clearly say that most eyewitnesses feel the need to pick someone from a lineup whether the actual perpetrator is there or not.

I found this show quite interesting. For anybody interested click here to watch.

60 minutes on Eyewitness Testimony and the reliability of it.

Part 1

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4852659n

Part 2

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4852677n

[Dupplin Muir]

Hi Mari

Yes, you are absolutely right about the pressure on witnesses at an identity-parade to pick someone, and another problem is that people can often (though not always) 'read' the body-language of the police and thus choose the 'right' suspect.

Similar considerations lead to pharmaceutical companies using 'double-blind' tests when evaluating new drugs: not only are the test subjects unaware of whether they are getting the genuine drug or a placebo, but the people administering the drugs don't know either.

Regards

DM