a6 murder

[Graham]

And I think that VS said that he wanted to kiss her, which he couldn't have done with a hankie over his face.

As to disguising his voice on a police ID parade? - don't think so, unless he was the 1960's equivalent of Rory Bremner...

Cheers,

Graham

[Andrew]

Recent and not-so recent

James,
The lay-by today is pretty busy with lorry drivers going to the burger van and about ten parked cars with the occupants variously walking dogs and eating lunch etc while I was there. It didn't seem spooky to me (it might after dark). I went for a walk in the woods and noticed a remarkable lack of birds which did seem eerie. Perhaps they don't like the mixture of coniferous and deciduous trees. It appears that they still get a bit of crime there - the picnic tables had been smashed up despite being made of substantial pieces of timber.
Although the site has changed there was a parallel with 1961 in that I missed the turning twice and had to u-turn.
I travelled to Deadman's Hill using one route and returned by another. My return trip was via Henlow which has an RAF base and is only about 6 miles from the lay-by. Thoughts of Michael Clark crossed my mind. When I realised that there is a dog-track in Henlow thoughts of Peter Alphon crossed my mind.........
Regards
Andrew

[Graham]

I've parked many times in 'the' lay-by (which I have to say is rather grotty) and on one glorious August day a few years ago even went walkies in the woods.

I wonder what the 'incidents' are/were that the police sign refers to?

Cheers,

Graham

[Andrew]

A thought on the hankie

Greetings all,
"The gun was found wrapped in a handkerchief" is the way the discovery on the bus is usually reported. Taken in context of all the evidence at the trial, the alternative version is "The gun was found wrapped in the face mask" Once the court heard JH declare the handkerchief to be his, one can deduce that it was case closed as far as the jury were concerned.
Regards
Andrew

[Graham]

I have a feeling that Sherrard must have held his head in his hands when he heard his client admit that the hankie was his....but Sherrard did have reservations about JH taking the witness-stand.

Graham

[jimarilyn]

Can anyone explain to me why the evidence of the nurse at the Ampthill Court, given under oath, was neither taken up by Paul Foot nor Bob Woffinden?
More importantly why did Michael Mansfield not bring it to the notice of the judges at the Court of Appeal. It could have had great importance with that appeal.

Surely Foot, Woffinden and Mansfield could not all have missed her evidence. Although it must be said that this witness was not called at the Bedford trial. She would have been today.

Hi Tony,

Two very good questions. I take it that you're referring to my post 3329 which was a belated response to your own post 1701. For clarification I have enclosed these 2 posts below. Extremely puzzling isn't it ? It would appear that this Bedford nurse was quite experienced in dealing with rape victims. What, I wonder, was Sherrard's reaction to hearing her testimony ? Did he pursue the matter further or did his mind go completely blank at this point ?

Good evening Jimarilyn,

You know I haven’t the first idea what this DNA business is all about but several posters on here are saying about the stains on the gusset of the knickers. Now you are brilliant at quickly putting your hand on evidence previously submitted and I can’t find it at the moment. But didn’t the first nurse to help Valerie in the hospital say she was wearing her underwear in a strange way? It’s definitely in one of the books but I’m stuck at the moment.
Thanks,

Tony.

Hi Tony,

Sorry I'm a bit late (only 6 months !) in getting back to you on this point. I'm re-reading Jean Justice's fine book "Murder vs Murder " at the moment and on page 74 Justice writes..It is significant here that one of the nurses from the Bedford General Hospital said in evidence at Ampthill that the state and position of Valerie's knickers indicated that the girl had not been raped in the classical sense of the word.

Incidentally 47 years ago today James Hanratty was convicted and sentenced to death.


regards,
James

The extract from Jean Justice's book which I submitted in post 3329 was from page 74. The paragraph from which it was extracted reads in it's entirety as follows...........


'Fourthly, with regard to her account of the rape, many people, particularly owners of Morris Minors, may protest that sexual intercourse, even between consenting parties, is not practical in so confined a space. My own view is that it could be performed but not very satisfactorily. It is significant here that one of the nurses from the Bedford General Hospital said in evidence at Ampthill that the state and position of Valerie's knickers indicated that the the girl had not been raped in the classical sense of the word. In an article in "Today" magazine, Valerie herself wrote that after Gregsten's death, her real terror began, for she felt that the assailant was not yet satisfied. Alphon's version of the incident, (which we shall come across when we read his confession notes), was that Valerie was crying and sobbing at first, but relaxed when they had intercourse. My impression is that the poor girl was thinking that by allowing the gunman to make love to her, she might save her own life. She therefore submitted to the assault, her co-operation, albeit unwilling, making a difficult task just about possible even under the cramped conditions that obtained'

[Victor]

It is significant here that one of the nurses from the Bedford General Hospital said in evidence at Ampthill that the state and position of Valerie's knickers indicated that the the girl had not been raped in the classical sense of the word.

Hi Tony, James,

The last time this subject was raised I mentioned that the only explanation for the nurse's words that I found plausible was that VS was sodomised.

What, I wonder, was Sherrard's reaction to hearing her testimony ? Did he pursue the matter further or did his mind go completely blank at this point ?

Sherrard probably thought 'I hope Swanwick doesn't call Ann Pryce or any of the other prostitutes to ask whether this was common practice for Hanratty', and was therefore very relieved when this didn't happen.

KR,
Vic

[babybird67]

'Fourthly, with regard to her account of the rape, many people, particularly owners of Morris Minors, may protest that sexual intercourse, even between consenting parties, is not practical in so confined a space. My own view is that it could be performed but not very satisfactorily. It is significant here that one of the nurses from the Bedford General Hospital said in evidence at Ampthill that the state and position of Valerie's knickers indicated that the the girl had not been raped in the classical sense of the word. In an article in "Today" magazine, Valerie herself wrote that after Gregsten's death, her real terror began, for she felt that the assailant was not yet satisfied. Alphon's version of the incident, (which we shall come across when we read his confession notes), was that Valerie was crying and sobbing at first, but relaxed when they had intercourse. My impression is that the poor girl was thinking that by allowing the gunman to make love to her, she might save her own life. She therefore submitted to the assault, her co-operation, albeit unwilling, making a difficult task just about possible even under the cramped conditions that obtained' [/B]

I think you will find the threat of being shot quite a strong persuader in Valerie's submission to her rape.

I also find it odd that anyone would be able to ascertain from 'the state and position of Valerie's knickers' exactly how she had been raped and what sort of sexual assault she had suffered, no matter how experienced one was in dealing with rape victims.

[jimarilyn]

Jean Justice's book

Hi everybody,

With further regards to Jean Justice's impressive book "Murder vs Murder" the paragraph from p74 which I submitted a couple or so posts ago was in relation to seven points that Jean mentioned concerning Valerie Storie's contradictory evidence.
They are very illuminating and he describes them much better than I could ever do. I thought pages 72 to 77 of his book might make interesting reading for those posters who do not have a copy of this book.............

[Tony]

Hi everybody,

With further regards to Jean Justice's impressive book "Murder vs Murder" the paragraph from p74 which I submitted a couple or so posts ago was in relation to seven points that Jean mentioned concerning Valerie Storie's contradictory evidence.
They are very illuminating and he describes them much better than I could ever do. I thought pages 72 to 77 of his book might make interesting reading for those posters who do not have a copy of this book.............

Hi James,

If her knickers were not on in the usual position would that not indicate that the crotch was not also in the usual place and therefore the semen from the rapist would not be on the crotch at all. Years later a small piece of the knickers is located and Hanratty’s DNA is found.
That is a case for cross contamination isn’t it.

And Valerie Storie’s sworn evidence suggests that what Alphon says happened in the car might very well be true.

Tony.

[babybird67]

Hi James,

If her knickers were not on in the usual position would that not indicate that the crotch was not also in the usual place and therefore the semen from the rapist would not be on the crotch at all. Years later a small piece of the knickers is located and Hanratty’s DNA is found.
That is a case for cross contamination isn’t it.

Hi Tony. Can you explain to me how cross contamination could have occurred when this piece of the knickers were stored separately to the other exhibits? They cannot have been contaminated by broken vial's contents, since there would be evidence of spillage on the envelopes which protected the piece of knickers, and there was none. Of course, you would then have to explain why only the profiles of JH, VS and MG were found on the knickers, and none of the fourth party who you wish to attribute the rape and murder to.

And Valerie Storie’s sworn evidence suggests that what Alphon says happened in the car might very well be true.

Alphon could not have been the A6 murderder. Counsel for the Hanratty family agreed this to be the case after the DNA evidence was examined at the Appeal hearing. He had no idea what went on in the car and was merely having his infatuation for Justice milked by the latter for all it was worth in what makes for very uncomfortable reading in Foot's account of the matter. Which bit of her evidence are you referring to here by the way?

Hope you are having a nice weekend.

[Limehouse]

Regardless of how the garments were stored AFTER the trial, during the trial, all of the exhibits were thrown into a box each night and stored together. Of course, the exihibits are unlikely to have included VS's knickers, but when these exhibits were placed into envelopes, what evidence is there that the person doing so wore gloves?

[Graham]

Referring back to an earlier post of mine, even in those far-off days when like many people I felt JH had been wrongly incriminated, it never seemed plausible to me that Alphon was the real A6 criminal. For a start, his 'presence' in the case and its initial investigation was purely coincidental, depending as it did on the decision of the manager of the Alexandra Court Hotel to contact the police about "Mr Durrant's" odd behaviour. Had the manager decided not to contact the police, I doubt very much if the name of Peter Louis Alphon would ever have been connected to the A6 Case. That he also had a connection to the Vienna Court Hotel was, again, purely coincidental. But once he had a toe in the water, so to speak, he dived in head-first, yet even he admitted to being scared witless at the prospect of an interview with the fearsome Acott and Oxford. He came incredibly close to being nailed for the A6 Crime...

...and then Jean Justice and Jeremy Fox, who had both taken an early interest in the case (but for reasons I for one am still unsure of), latched onto him, and once he was sure that he was no longer a suspect he went to town with those two gents, and they went to town with him. There never was a shred of hard evidence to link Alphon to the A6 Case, and there still isn't. He had the time of his life courtesy of Justice's wealth, and at the same time he made a bob or two out of it via compensation for wrongful arrest and probably at least one out-of-court settlement from the newspapers. His statements to the press were contradictory, and even his so-called Paris Press Conference, and his subsequent TV interview (with a television journalist he got eating out of the palm of his hand) were frankly jokes. He lapped it up. Justice's book, an extract of which Jimarylin reproduced above, was well-written and persuasive, but ultimately based almost entirely on conjecture and also upon a well-sieved interpretation of what Alphon told him.
Personally, I think that Alphon's whole presence was a terrible tragedy not only for the Hanratty family but also for any future opportunity to put this case to bed once and for all. The Case is irreparibly contaminated by Alphon's presence. It couldn't have been dreamed up in Hollywood.

Graham

[jimarilyn]

Hi James,

If her knickers were not on in the usual position would that not indicate that the crotch was not also in the usual place and therefore the semen from the rapist would not be on the crotch at all. Years later a small piece of the knickers is located and Hanratty’s DNA is found.
That is a case for cross contamination isn’t it.

And Valerie Storie’s sworn evidence suggests that what Alphon says happened in the car might very well be true.

Tony.

Hi Tony,

As usual another searching post.

I think the two key words in the nurse's testimony are "state" and "position".
One can only speculate as to what exactly the Bedford nurse meant by this. Were the knickers put back on inside out or twisted or something ? For some reason the nurse took the considered view that it didn't appear as if Miss Storie had been raped in the classical sense of the word. And what did the nurse imply by "state" ? Is it possible that to the nurse's naked eye no semen was visible on the knickers ? I don't know the answer. It is certainly food for further thought.

Valerie Storie stated at the trial that when she was being raped she was in "a half-lying, half-sitting position, leaning against the bag of washing". When it was over she asked her rapist if she could put her knickers back on. Were they completely off or were they wrapped around her ankles ? It is extremely difficult to visualise an act of sexual intercourse taking place in the cramped confines of a Morris Minor backseat, even more so when you consider that the bag of washing would have narrowed the length of the small back seat. I sometimes wonder to myself if the rape actually happened outside the car on the concrete strip but then realise that could not have been the case otherwise Miss Storie would have said so.

[Victor]

As usual another searching post.

Hi all,

Correction, it would have been a searching post if Tony hadn't overlooked the implications of the fact that the semen was identified as type O secretor and therefore could only have been the rapists.

Is it possible that to the nurse's naked eye no semen was visible on the knickers ? I don't know the answer. It is certainly food for further thought.

It's utterly irrelevent what the nurse thought or how naive and inexperienced she was, because the rapist's semen was detected.

I sometimes wonder to myself if the rape actually happened outside the car on the concrete strip but then realise that could not have been the case otherwise Miss Storie would have said so.

I agree, there is no reason to doubt the testimony of Valerie Storie.

KR,
Vic