a6 murder

[reg1965]

I commented on something that interested me in what Hanratty had said. What you wish i had or had not commented on is irrelevant. I am following the interests of my own mind, not yours. You are perfectly at liberty to highlight and comment upon anything about the case which interests you without being made to feel ignorant or somehow wanting because another poster thinks you should have done differently; I shouldn't need to point out to you that i should also be afforded the very same courtesy.

uuummm well actually I, and the other supporters of Hanratty's innocence have been compared by Victor to Holocaust deniers. Having a Jewish background I asked for an apology and none was forthcoming.

We also undergo the indignity of being referred to as hypocrites because we dare to venture that the sacred cow that is Valerie Storie is beyond reproach and should not be questioned over her testimony given in the case and in documents not disclosed at the time.

Ring any bells at all with you?

No...well let me remind you

Also, i have found some of the pro-JH's innocence arguments a little amusing and very contradictory in places...some comments have questioned the veracity of Valerie Storie's accounts of what took place in that Morris Minor and the integrity of her identification...sorry i don't have the actual quote but somebody said something along the lines of, "Well we dont have a lot of information about her character to go on", therefore implying she may well have been economical with the truth. The very same people go on to assert that a known and convicted serial criminal, who had no qualms about lying and robbing people, was essentially someone who was "open and honest" and whom we really should trust when he asseverates that he really did not kill or rape anybody, honest Guv, cos otherwise he would have confessed to it. So it is all right to doubt a woman whose life was totally stolen from her in the most horrific of manners, with no criminal record, and who has led a life of lawfulness and productiveness since; but really we ought to believe a known, convicted serial criminal could not possibly be capable of lying in a situation where not to have lied would have cost him his life! I find these dare i say hypocritical approaches to the veracity of the protagonists involved quite startling, to say the least!

(my emboldening)

I am sure most people can read and see new threads as they appear Reg: after all, i managed to create it, and find the A6 thread itself, and that's for someone who is "ignorant" (allegedly); I am sure other less ignorant posters are quite capable of finding my thread and commenting upon it, if it interests them, and if they so wish to.

I think I may have hit a nerve here. Blimey
Excuse me for breathing.....

[reg1965]

You did ask for my opinion in the chat room on Friday night and I obviously said I believe the CCRC when they state that the DNA conclusively proves Hanratty raped Storie and therefore killed Gregsten.

Where did the CCRC actually state this?

Could you give me a reference to the document please because I've never heard of it before. It sounds kinda important and a new fact in the case.

[Limehouse]

Julie
I agree that the fact that VS and MG's relationship is not an issue that warrants any blame at all on them personally but consider the effect that the public view of the relationship between VS and MG had on the case.

Initially, as has been discussed on numerous occasions, it was reported that they had picked up a hitch-hiker and he was described as a moon maniac.

A little later the truth came out that they had been waylaid whilst parked in a cornfield. Even at trial the true nature of this relationship was confined to being described as one of fondness and a mutual interest in car rallies.

This placed the context of the crime within that of being motiveless.

Even though Janet Gregsten visited VS in hospital on more than one occasion the affair was not mentioned in the press. Even in the Daily Mirror of 9th April 1962, five days after Hanratty's execution, when VS finally went home from hospital, her relationship to MG was described as "car companion".

With many of the major actors in this drama being so stranglely closely associated by one way or another, the true nature of the relationship coupled with the state of the Gregstens marriage can provide a motive for the crime which makes sense and is backed up by the evidence known at the time and that which has come to light through the work of the A6 commitee and the CCRC investigation of the 1990's.

See my post here where I explain this. I arrived at this through the discussions that I have had recently with Bob Woffinden.

If Hanratty did do it then there are a number of points which should be considered within the context of his actions and behaviour after he turned up at chez France the weekend after the murder.

1) The Frances' didn't make any public comment about his general demeanour beyond the fact that he was still wearing the Hepworth suit; and nothing was said about what would have been obvious blood staining. Charlotte France did his laundry for goodness sake.

2) If he had committed murder why did he dump the gun and return to his old haunts, associates and housebreaking? Why didn't he just steal a car and go on the run, taking the gun with him for protection?

3) He had Carole redye his hair the same jet black. Why not have it dyed some other colour, just like he eventually did when he finally knew he was wanted for the murder (carrot orange by all accounts).

4) When in the Republic of Ireland (to get a driving licence) and after getting involved in a road accident, why did he then get someone else, who could have identified him to write postcards back home for him?

5) It was only after he knew he was wanted in connection with the murder did he then steal a Jaguar car (for which he had recently bought skeleton keys against his Irish driving licence for 3s 6d) and went to Liverpool to try to establish an alibi. If his was guilty why didn't he go sooner to try to establish his Liverpool alibi or his lodgings in Rhyl? My previous post explains this in Hanratty's own words.

The criminal amount of police non-disclosure together with the change of alibi totally crippled the defence. The general disparity in the resources afforded to each side doesn't help; yet even on a level playing field of resources the non-disclosure issues would still remain.

The introduction of PACE in 1984 tried to assuage the issue of disclosure and other aspects of evidence; but I am afraid that under this so called Labour government, justice is being eroded by the allowance of, inter alia, bad character evidence to be admitted by the prosecution.

Best wishes
Reg

He Reg,

I agree totally and I think I made the point earlier that Hanratty was not and should not have been on trial for having previously been a criminal any more than MG and Vs should have been on trial for being adulterers. I was trying to make a point about honesty concerning the trial. There was a danger of a picture being painted of a kind of Enid Blyton world where this nice, middle-class couple, were helpfully organising a car rally for their colleagues when along came this nasty, common rough-type with a cockney accent and a gun.... You points about the relationship between MG and VS possibly having an influence on the motive for the crime are, for me, the most significant points in this whole story.

[babybird67]

uuummm well actually I, and the other supporters of Hanratty's innocence have been compared by Victor to Holocaust deniers. Having a Jewish background I asked for an apology and none was forthcoming.

That's between you and Vic, Reg and has nothing to do with me...unless you are suggesting i am responsible for Victor's postings?

We also undergo the indignity of being referred to as hypocrites because we dare to venture that the sacred cow that is Valerie Storie is beyond reproach and should not be questioned over her testimony given in the case and in documents not disclosed at the time.

Ring any bells at all with you?

Not really Reg since as you have already pointed out what i actually said was:

I find these dare i say hypocritical approaches to the veracity of the protagonists involved quite startling, to say the least!

(my emboldening)

I did not fling about any personal insults or accuse any poster to this thread of being a hypocrite. I DID say it was a hypocritical approach to claim a WELL KNOWN liar, as proven by his criminal record and his own admissions in court, down to the inadvisable fact that he himself changed his alibi, should have his other claims regarding the crime (e.g., the "i didn't do it Guv") as accepted as Gospel whereas the woman who was actually raped and crippled in that horrific attack, in fact whose only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time, would deliberately falsify her evidence in order to convict an innocent man of the crime...which would run completely counter to both common sense and, a small factor in this case which often gets overlooked in the heat of the debate, any actual EVIDENCE available. Which it quite plainly is.

I think I may have hit a nerve here. Blimey

HIt a nerve? I don't think so Reg. I've already made numerous well reasoned and well argued points (which i note you still haven't bothered addressing, but then ignoring counter arguments that you cannot answer seems to be your MO as far as i can see from this thread), and this has been noted by other contributors; i have excelled in my field; i've had work published in The Historian. I merely point out the accusation of ignorance you made since it is so very divergent from the FACTS of what i am, as well as having been unforgivably rude, also as noted by other contributors to this thread (not to mention your incomprehensible rudeness to Sam...i presume you aren't accusing him of accusing you of being a Holocaust denier? Like me, his only crime was to come and contribute something which you did not approve of, wasn't it.)

Excuse me for breathing.....

Of course Reg i will forgive you for breathing. It's a shame you haven't been man enough to apologise and ask for forgiveness for being so rude to me (and others), for which i would also have forgiven you, if, of course, you were truly sorry, which i think sadly is a concept alien to you. Still, we can't all have been brought up with manners, can we?

have a nice day

[Tony]

What revelations? Are you talking about other reported sightings of the car later that day? Or the mileage?

Woffinden seems to accept the early morning dump theory as he discusses evidence from the staff at Redbridge underground station that morning.

Blackhall, Trower and Skillett place the car in the area on the Weds morning too, and the identifications of the first two leave little room for doubt.

KR,
Vic.

I think Bob’s book may have been written before Acott’s revelations were made public.

Tony.

[jimarilyn]

Does this turn of phrase not sound extremely strange and convoluted to anybody else? "It was obvious to me inside that i never committed this crime"

I have to take issue with you here Babybird67. You must remember that we're all individuals and consequently cannot be expected to respond robotically (with identical replies) to questions fired at us in a courtroom from a wily and skilful prosecutor. I don't know how much of James Hanratty's testimony in court (he was in the witness box for 2 full days incidentally) you have acquainted yourself with after studying the excellent books by Paul Foot and Bob Woffinden but it soon becomes apparent to the reader that Hanratty would often assimilate/adopt terminology used by Graham Swanwick. For example he would often respond to Swanwick with phrases like..."I must put it to you...."

Woffinden has something to say about the language used in court by Hanratty. On page 223 of his book for instance he writes..."Yet, for all his ungainliness of speech, he evinced at every opportunity a blazing determination to affirm his absolute innocence of the charge."

In closing I have to say that I agree 100% with the extremely knowledgeable and passionate Reg that you did my post a disservice by taking one short phrase out of context with the remainder of that particular post.

James.

[NickB]

That’s interesting. So did Valerie listen to JH give evidence for 2 full days?

She must have known whether or not it was the same man she had been listening to for 6 hours in the car.

[jimarilyn]

1] There is often the claim that Clark resembled Alphon, as if VS must have chosen him for that reason, thereby the implication being that it was because she was remembering being raped by Alphon that she must have chosen a lookalike. This would be a partially credible argument but for one salient point...the fact that Alphon himself was in that line-up. Is there anyone out there who would like to argue that Clark resembled Alphon to a greater extent than Alphon resembled himself? That, surely, would be an incredible position to take? There was obviously something else about Clark that induced VS to choose him...resembling Alphon or otherwise was not a relevant issue, as explained above.

That line-up was a full calendar month after the murder. In the interim period Miss Storie had made a statement to detectives (which was withheld from the defence team for 30 years) to the effect that her memory of the killer's face was fading fast and she might not be able to identify him.
As most of us know she identified an innocent airman, Michael Clark, as being the guilty party. She understood fully that she was under no obligation to pick someone out unless she was convinced it was the right man. The fact that Peter Alphon resembled Michael Clark is very significant.
For all we know they could have been dead ringers for each other. Valerie Storie herself had remarked on the similarity between the two, but when confronted with this in court by Michael Sherrard she was initially reluctant to admit to having made such a remark. She was not being forthright with Mr Sherrard. Just one example of Miss Storie being evasive and economical with the truth.


James

[jimarilyn]

That’s interesting. So did Valerie listen to JH give evidence for 2 full days?

She must have known whether or not it was the same man she had been listening to for 6 hours in the car.

No, Miss Storie was not in court on either of those days. Her only appearance in court was January 23rd 1962 ( the second day of the trial) when she travelled from Stoke Mandeville Hospital to testify from her wheelchair.

[Victor]

uuummm well actually I, and the other supporters of Hanratty's innocence have been compared by Victor to Holocaust deniers. Having a Jewish background I asked for an apology and none was forthcoming.

If you misrepresent what I said then no wonder you don't understand why you're never going to get an apology for that.

It wasn't Hanratty Supporters that I compared to Holocaust Deniers, it was Conspiracy Theorists. Those people who constantly complain that the LCN DNA evidence is worthless and proves nothing, or has been deliberately manipulated to prove Hanratty guilty are Conspiracy Theorists.

Now who else is a CT? Oliver Stone and his JFK theories, Flat-Earth Believers, and David Irving and his Holocaust Deniers.

Your religious beliefs or leanings are irrelevent to the comparison I made, your denial of legally accepted evidence is.

We also undergo the indignity of being referred to as hypocrites because we dare to venture that the sacred cow that is Valerie Storie is beyond reproach and should not be questioned over her testimony given in the case and in documents not disclosed at the time.

VS is an innocent victim and is beyond reproach. Certainly you can question her evidence, point out anomalies or inconsistancies, but you cannot accuse her of lying or manipulation because there are a miriad of reasons why she may be mistaken such as her physical condition, her mental state both for her own plight and due to the loss of her lover.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

That line-up was a full calendar month after the murder. In the interim period Miss Storie had made a statement to detectives (which was withheld from the defence team for 30 years) to the effect that her memory of the killer's face was fading fast and she might not be able to identify him.

Hmmm... I think you'll have to do better than that, it can easily be interpretted that VS expressed nervousness and concern that her rapist and her lover's murderer was going to get away unless she managed to pull herself together and identify him.

She understood fully that she was under no obligation to pick someone out unless she was convinced it was the right man.

Have you got any evidence to support that statement? It's quite obvious that she did not fully understand what was expected of her because she was not aware that she could ask the people on the first identity parade to speak.

The fact that Peter Alphon resembled Michael Clark is very significant.
For all we know they could have been dead ringers for each other.

You mean apart from that Alphon had hazel eyes and Clark had blue.

By the way, would you consider hazel to be LIGHT or DARK? It'd completely undermine your photofit arguments if hazel was considered LIGHT brown wouldn't it?

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

'I shall have to hit you over the head i suppose'

Sounds very much like Mrs Meike Dalal's vicious attacker and would be rapist. Mrs Dalal (unlike Miss Storie) saw her assailant quite clearly for about 5-10 minutes in daylight hours. She made a positive identification of Alphon as being the guilty party (it definitely wasn't Hanratty as he was in Ireland on September 7th). This crime bore all the hallmarks of the A6 murder a fortnight earlier.
Mrs Dalal's attacker actually went ahead and hit her violently over the head three times. He also made a somewhat bungled attempt to tie her hands/wrists, much, it would seem, in a similar manner to the way the A6 gunman had tied Miss Storie's hands/wrists together. None of this (the binding of hands and threatening to hit over the head) had been mentioned in the press re. the A6 murder, and to cap it all off Mrs Dalal's would be rapist told her that he was the A6 murderer !!
Truly astounding.

James

[babybird67]

hello James

I have to take issue with you here Babybird67. You must remember that we're all individuals and consequently cannot be expected to respond robotically (with identical replies) to questions fired at us in a courtroom from a wily and skilful prosecutor. I don't know how much of James Hanratty's testimony in court (he was in the witness box for 2 full days incidentally) you have acquainted yourself with after studying the excellent books by Paul Foot and Bob Woffinden but it soon becomes apparent to the reader that Hanratty would often assimilate/adopt terminology used by Graham Swanwick. For example he would often respond to Swanwick with phrases like..."I must put it to you...."

Woffinden has something to say about the language used in court by Hanratty. On page 223 of his book for instance he writes..."Yet, for all his ungainliness of speech, he evinced at every opportunity a blazing determination to affirm his absolute innocence of the charge."

Thank you...that is a much more constructive response to my question than any response forthcoming from Reg. I was seeking information and opinions regarding the manner in which Hanratty expressed himself: Graham responded with information and so have you. That is how i, and everyone else, reading this thread will enlarge their knowledge, and what i believe this messageboard should be about. It should NOT be about bandying about insults to people who happen to hold a divergent viewpoint from one's own...on that i hope we agree.

I still maintain that the particular phrase i highlighted is an extremely odd way of protesting one's innocence, although in the context of further information from Graham and yourself i am quite prepared to accept the possibility that i am reading too much into it...a possibility i outlined from earlier in the thread.

In closing I have to say that I agree 100% with the extremely knowledgeable and passionate Reg that you did my post a disservice by taking one short phrase out of context with the remainder of that particular post.

In what way was your post disserviced? I wished to comment on a particular phrase used by Hanratty: I quoted the relevant part. None of the rest of your post was relevent to what i wanted to say (which may not have been the same as what Reg wanted me to have said) therefore i did what is a common and logical thing which is accepted both on these boards and in academia by cutting out the bits of the posting i did not wish to comment on. In fact, because i was quoting Hanratty, not you, the fact that you even posted it had absolutely no bearing on what i said whatsoever. It could easily have been Graham, Victor or anyone else that had referenced that quotation from the trial, it just happened to be you. I made no comment on what you had said whatsoever, so how i can possibly have disserviced you, i cannot comprehend: please enlighten me.

I could easily accuse you of doing richardnunweek a disservice by not quoting fully the posting from which you have lifted the part of his post which you wished to comment on which appears immediately above this post, couldn't i?

By the way, does being passionate and knowledgeable entitle Reg to be downright rude to contributing members and bully/intimidate them into not contributing to the forum? Please tell me you are not trying to excuse his behaviour, which imo is inexcusable without apology. In fact, the more i read of the historic postings on the A6 thread, the clearer it is to see why people who oppose his viewpoint rarely come back and post anymore; as it is easy to see how a thread in which the issue was debated originally with mutual respect on both sides deteriorated into one in which those who believe Hanratty was guilty felt uncomfortable expressing themselves once a certain poster not a million miles away began to partake in the 'discussion.'

Fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately for Reg, i am made of pretty stern stuff, and am not easily bullied.

[jimarilyn]

Have you got any evidence to support that statement? It's quite obvious that she did not fully understand what was expected of her because she was not aware that she could ask the people on the first identity parade to speak.

On the contrary, before identification parades are held, witnesses are given strict guidelines. They are advised not to pick any suspect out (especially in a crime as serious as murder) unless they are convinced in their own mind that he/she is the guilty party. If they are unsure then they are not to pick anyone out.

You mean apart from that Alphon had hazel eyes and Clark had blue.

So Michael Clark was blue-eyed ?????? Where did you get that information from ? Making it up again as you go along, eh ?



James

[babybird67]

That line-up was a full calendar month after the murder. In the interim period Miss Storie had made a statement to detectives (which was withheld from the defence team for 30 years) to the effect that her memory of the killer's face was fading fast and she might not be able to identify him.

Was this a statment or just a comment she had made expressing quite natural doubts that she might not be able to identify a man who had attacked her obscuring his own features?

As most of us know she identified an innocent airman, Michael Clark, as being the guilty party. She understood fully that she was under no obligation to pick someone out unless she was convinced it was the right man.

Was this at the ID parade where she was wheeled out from hospital shortly after being oeprated on against the advice of her doctors? Do you not think she might not only have been emotionally traumatised by the possibility of coming face to face with her attacker but groggy from the effects of anaesthetic? You cannot claim to know what she understood...you were not there and you do not know what was and what was not explained to her about the process, and even if you had been, it is pure conjecture to speculate what she 'understood' since as already pointed out she was recovering from an operation as well as from a serious attack.

The fact that Peter Alphon resembled Michael Clark is very significant.

No it is not. It is irrelevant. That argument may hold some water if Alphon himself had not been on the same parade...unless you wish to argue that Clark resembled Alphon to a greater extent than Alphon resembled himself? Which would be patently ridiculous. By the way, the Hanratty family accept that Alphon "could not have been" the A6 murderer...what prevents you from accepting that fact also?

Just one example of Miss Storie being evasive and economical with the truth.

And it is this sort of comment which i find disturbing. By all means examine Ms Storie's evidence in the light of her having been a victim of an extremely traumatic crime which may have caused confusions to slip into her account...do not suggest however that she was deliberately lying because she was NOT on trial, she would have no plausible motive for lying, nor is their any evidence whatsoever that she was lying: she also has the vindication of the Court of Appeal who ruled that she had in fact picked out the very man who raped her and attempted to murder her and shot her lover in front of her eyes.

And this is also what i find diffcult to swalllow; every effort is made to explain away innocently every lie told by Hanratty by those who support him, down to describing him - unfathomably to my mind - as "open and honest" (no wonder he was always getting caught ); yet every contrary effort is made to depict the VICTIM of the crime, who has no criminal record and was not on trial for any crime, as being DELIBERATELY dishonest and a liar. Not acceptable in my opinion.

It's like living in a parallel universe with arguments that have had all common sense and right-thinking knocked out of them...not a situation i have ever been in before, but heigh-ho, i don't give up easily!