a6 murder

[SteveS]

The contention that Valerie Storie changed her evidence is myth. One can understand this erroneous information being cited as truth in research that is over forty years old, but the idea of learning is that knowledge progresses and it is really sad to see myths such as these still being regurgitated time after time when there is no evidential basis for them whatsoever.

Well maybe we will never know because John Kerr's notes were handed to and lost by the police. So any real evidential lead here was bollocks up by the plod, whether accidental or for other reasons.

The discrepancy in eye colour was NOT Valerie Storie’s. It either came from Kerr, whom we already know told Police Valerie had told him her name was Mary, or from confusion on the part of the Police briefing the media.

The policeman from Biggleswade who made the initial announcement stated brown eyes. This may have been wrong but it had to have emanted from somewhere. Who is to truly say that it didn't come from Storie. You are just going by the following.....

The Court of Appeal, which had access to all the evidence in the case, states quite clearly that there is no record of Miss Storie ever having described her attacker’s eyes as brown. (see paragraphs 131/132
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/j.../HANRATTY.htm)

They did not have Kerr's original notes. In fact the police presented a fake sheet to try to demolish Kerr's testimony. This says to me that the prosecutions account of Stories consistent account of events was perhaps not quite enough to swing the jury alone without a little push here and there.

Miss Storie has always been consistent that her attacker’s eyes were large and blue. That confusion arose somewhere is not her fault; she was lying in a hospital bed fighting for her life at the time, and was in no fit state to go over statements with a fine tooth comb to eliminate any confusions that may have arisen.

So what else was awry with her testimony. At the hearing at Ampthill the prosecution stated that Storie got the glimpse of the murderer whilst in the back seat yet at trial it had changed to the front seat. The crucial element to all of this is the fact that Storie may have removed her glasses whilst in the back with her rapist. Her eyesight was now in question but was not followed up by Mr Sherrard at trial. A big mistake in my book.

Not only is there no evidence that Miss Storie changed her description of the man who attacked her, but it would also not make sense in terms of trying to explain such an action in terms of attempting to put forward a “Hanratty was framed” scenario, since Hanratty himself was not implicated or connected with the crime at all until much later in the investigation and was completely unknown to Police at that time as an A6 suspect.

Ewer told the police about Hanratty just a week after the murder.

If anything, the detail of the blue eyes must have frustrated the Police, since their preferred suspect was Alphon, who clearly did not have blue eyes.

That only goes to show that DS Acott did not have any real confidence in Stories ability as a witness, whatever Acott may have said at trial. Storie underwent 6 intensive interviews that yielding nothing that connected Hanratty to the murder. In fact withheld statements of hers showed that Hanratty was unlikely to be culpable.

Valerie Storie was the victim of a terrible crime, and had no reason to lie about her attacker’s appearance. Like any victim of crime, she would have wanted the perpetrator caught and brought to justice, and she did her best to ensure that he was.

Yes she was. Also she shouldn't be accused of not wanting the culprit apprehended. But I believe that she did not know who the culprit was and ultimately relied on DS Acott to allow her to pick out someone who may have been the man...wrongly.

John Kerr when interviewed by the BBC in 2002 said that Hanratty appeared and I quote

He came across as a cocky, arrogant person who may not have looked a total killer - no, I don't say that - but he certainly looked a nasty piece of work.

Yet Kerr never waivered from his conviction of handing his notes to the police that August morning.

There may be myths but to what extent are they myths and to what extent are they non-disclosure by the appropriate authorities?


Thnx
Steve

[Victor]

Well maybe we will never know because John Kerr's notes were handed to and lost by the police. So any real evidential lead here was bollocks up by the plod, whether accidental or for other reasons.

Sorry Steve, you're wrong here... Kerr said he handed his notes to someone he thought was a policeman, but this man (whether a policeman or not) has never been traced.

The policeman from Biggleswade who made the initial announcement stated brown eyes. This may have been wrong but it had to have emanted from somewhere. Who is to truly say that it didn't come from Storie. You are just going by the following.....

Yes he did, although he did hesitate and stumble over the words which suggests he wasn't totally familiar with all the details and the mistake could very well be his.

They did not have Kerr's original notes. In fact the police presented a fake sheet to try to demolish Kerr's testimony. This says to me that the prosecutions account of Stories consistent account of events was perhaps not quite enough to swing the jury alone without a little push here and there.

The police were asked to hunt through everything to find Kerr's note, and the "fake sheet" was actually the closest they could find to the note described and was never claimed to be Kerr's note. As there was no proof or corroboration that Kerr had definitely handed his note to a policeman and he couldn't identify that officer, it's way more likely that he was mistaken, especially as he thought that Storie's name was "Mary".

Ewer told the police about Hanratty just a week after the murder.

And the evidence for this is???? I'm expecting "She saw him at the cleaners" for which there's no corroboration.

KR,
Vic.

[larue]

hi all

The contention that Valerie Storie changed her evidence is myth.

that's as maybe, but it seems to be a very persistent myth. or should that be folklore??? seems to me, that there is an awful lot about this case that qualifies as such. however, the 'changing' description is, of interest, as even published authors, staunch 'jimdiditites' maintain the description was changed.

these clips from Stewart Mclaughlin's book:

She gave Detective Inpector Whiffen a description of the man who had killed her lover and raped her. The description was never made public and the inspector was not asked about it at the trial. However, as a result of what Valerie said, the press and public were alerted to look for a man aged 25, 5ft 6in, of medium build, with a pale face, deep-set brown eyes and an East End accent.

Detective Sergeant Jock Mackie, the officer detailed to draw up the Identikit picture with Valerie Storie, found it a difficult task because her description did not match that given by other witnesses. Unable to agree a single portrait, the police issued two Identikit pictures: one selected by Valerie, the second from other witnesses. The two pictures, which differed sharply, appeared on TV and in the press on August 30th. They had one feature in common - the man's "dark, staring eyes." Every newspaper described them as brown.

Until August 31st Valerie Storie had consistently told police that the killer had deep-set brown eyes. On August 31st she was transferred to Guy's Hospital, London. While she was in the ambulance, Bedfordshire Police issued a new description of the killer. The man now had large, icy-blue, saucer-like eyes. This has been described as "a dramatic change," but was it really? What sort of memory retention does a woman have about her attacker when she is being raped on the back seat of a car in almost complete darkness after watching her lover shot dead in cold blood?

these clips from Leonard Miller's book:

In a further statement given by Valerie Storie to police, on August 28, the description of the killer was amended to "aged between twenty-five and thirty, about 5 feet 6 inches, proportionately built, slender, brown hair, clean-shaven, a very smooth, pale face, with icy-blue large saucer-like eyes."

Valerie Storie had never once said that the killer had brown eyes. The erroneous "brown eyes" description seems to have originated in what Bob Woffinden describes as "hastily scribbled and probably confusing [police] notes" (BW, 50).

The new description of the suspect's icy-blue large saucer-like eyes appeared for the first time in the evening papers on August 31 and in the national papers on September 1. At this point Janet Gregsten had not yet been to the hospital to talk to Storie. So how did Janet Gregsten know about the amended description of the killer? There are two obvious possibilities. One is that she saw an early edition of one of the two London evening papers ("evening" papers actually begin appearing in the afternoon). Perhaps the Sketch was wrong about the time - perhaps the sighting occurred at lunchtime or later. The second, and most probable, is that the police had already told her of Valerie Stone's amended description of the man, given three days earlier.

the comments aboot eye color are also interesting. one saying she said brown, the other saying different.

i have tried, more than once, to contact Stewart Mclaughlin to specifically aks him where he got this information aboot the brown eyes from, but so far he has not bothered to respond to my enquiry.

also worthy of note, is Leonard Miller's repeated use of the word 'amended'

amend:
1. to alter, modify, rephrase, or add to or subtract from.
2. to change for the better, to improve
3. to remove or correct faults in. to rectify.

and the statement that 'The description was never made public and the inspector [Whiffen] was not aksed about it at the trial'.

[larue]

hi Steve

That only goes to show that DS Acott did not have any real confidence in Stories ability as a witness, whatever Acott may have said at trial. Storie underwent 6 intensive interviews that yielding nothing that connected Hanratty to the murder. In fact withheld statements of hers showed that Hanratty was unlikely to be culpable.

another snippet from Mr McLaughlin's book

[my emboldening] seems like Acott didn't think much of the description...

At this point the police felt sure that Alphon was the killer, because he had a history of odd behaviour, was familiar with the Slough area, and also fitted Valerie's original description.
Acott went to see Valerie Storie in hospital to keep her abreast of developments and she now told him that the killer had "icy-blue" eyes. At the magistrates' hearing Acott played down this new description by saying: the man having icy-blue eyes was only part of the description. It is not one we would depend on."
Why wouldn't he depend upon it? The irresistible inference was because Alphon had hazel-brown eyes. At the Hanratty trial, by which time Acott had eliminated Alphon from the inquiry, he was asked why he wanted so much to interview the missing Alphon. Acott replied: 'Because we were left with two very strong suspects - Alphon and Ryan. One had to be eliminated. The only one we could eliminate was Alphon. I did not think Alphon had done it."
So why didn't he choose to eliminate Ryan first? Because, he said, at that point the police had not realised that J. Ryan and Hanratty were the same person.

[caz]

Hi larue,

Is it not quite plausible, given the timing here, that as soon as Valerie was made aware that it was being reported in the papers that she had described the gunman as having brown eyes (Aug 30th), she set the record straight by telling the police: "They've got that wrong, you know. I said blue eyes and I meant blue. In fact I remember because they were large and icy-blue".

She may have had no idea up until then, and been in no fit state to wonder, what anyone had been claiming on her behalf and whether or not she was being accurately represented. And it's not exactly unusual for a person's words to be misheard, mangled, misinterpreted or misreported between the uttering and the quoting.

Love,

Caz
X

[Victor]

also worthy of note, is Leonard Miller's repeated use of the word 'amended'

amend:
1. to alter, modify, rephrase, or add to or subtract from.
2. to change for the better, to improve
3. to remove or correct faults in. to rectify.

Hi Larue,

I think Caz's explanation is spot on and fits exactly with the 3rd description... the fault (brown eyes) was corrected.

KR,
Vic.

[babybird67]

hi Steve

Hi Steve

Well maybe we will never know because John Kerr's notes were handed to and lost by the police. So any real evidential lead here was bollocks up by the plod, whether accidental or for other reasons.

We will never know what Kerr wrote down, that’s correct. However we know that he told Police that Valerie told him her name was Mary. This gives some idea of the reliability of the information that he may have taken down. What it comes down to is Valerie stating quite categorically that she always maintained her attacker had blue eyes - remember she was spelling out blue eyes in stones as she lay possibly dying at the roadside - and whether you believe her or not. As I have pointed out, the timescales of the updated information given out by the Police regarding eye colour do not fit with the idea of someone fitting up Hanratty as he was not known about at the time.

So we do not have Kerr’s notes but we would have to question how reliable they would be if we did have them. Every other piece of evidence we DO have is consistent regarding Valerie’s description of her attacker. You cannot make a case accusing her of inconsistency based on a set of missing notes, which, by the very fact that they are missing, means you do not know, one way or the other, what was in them. They cannot be used as evidence since they are not extant and it is mere presumption to guess what they could have/might have contained.

The policeman from Biggleswade who made the initial announcement stated brown eyes. This may have been wrong but it had to have emanted from somewhere. Who is to truly say that it didn't come from Storie.

Storie said it didn’t come from her and I credit her with knowing what she said and what she did not. I see absolutely no reason whatsoever for her to lie. There is not a single piece of extant evidence which would support the contention that this erroneous information came from Storie. People who wish to claim that it did need to understand that the burden of proof is on them to give evidence for an accusation which impacts either on Miss Storie’s reliability or, worse, her veracity. To continue to quote research which is over forty years old without questioning it, as if the case and our knowledge of it has not moved on since that time, is not acceptable, not to me anyway.
　

So what else was awry with her testimony. At the hearing at Ampthill the prosecution stated that Storie got the glimpse of the murderer whilst in the back seat yet at trial it had changed to the front seat. The crucial element to all of this is the fact that Storie may have removed her glasses whilst in the back with her rapist. Her eyesight was now in question but was not followed up by Mr Sherrard at trial. A big mistake in my book.

Steve, you interpret discrepancies in the testimony of an honest victim of crime as if there is some huge import to it. Does it really have a material bearing on whether she was in the front seat or the back seat when she caught a glimpse of the man who attacked her? Seriously? Why you find this more of a discrepancy than those which arise between Hanratty and his alleged Rhyl alibi, where on his own testimony the people who saw him could not possibly have done so because he himself says he was not in Rhyl at the time they say they saw him, I do not know. These discrepancies are just swept away by your naďve belief that a career criminal on trial for his life would be less likely to lie than a rape victim!

Do you think blind victims of crime should just accept that they have no way of visually identifying their attackers? Should people with poor eyesight not have a right to use all means at their disposal to identify the person who raped them? That eyesight alone was NOT relied upon to identify Hanratty should give you greater repose in knowing that the right man was brought to justice. It is not Miss Storie’s fault that her attacker obscured his features, that he attacked her at night, raped her in the back of a car in a layby where there were no lights for her to see him properly etc etc. What would you have her do? Just say, oh well, I don’t have 20/20 vision so any identification on my part MUST be mistaken? I really find it hard getting a handle on the sort of society you want for victims of crime, Steve, as some of the things you say are really quite bizarre at times.

Ewer told the police about Hanratty just a week after the murder.

What is your source for this? I hope it is not the newspaper article that has been repudiated by Ewer. Do you believe everything you read in the Press? Why do you have such a problem accepting it when people who were there tell you “I did not say that”? And continue to propagate myths which mislead anyone looking into this case.
　

Storie underwent 6 intensive interviews that yielding nothing that connected Hanratty to the murder

Really? None of those included descriptions which fitted Hanratty physically? None of them included relations of what he said in the car? That the gun was new to him? That he had ‘done the lot’ Hanratty being one of only six people (I believe, may have been four, I no longer have Graham’s books to check this) to whom this would have applied? His accent? His manner of dress? I don’t think you are being entirely accurate here.

In fact withheld statements of hers showed that Hanratty was unlikely to be culpable.

That’s interesting…can you elaborate? What precisely are you talking about? Have you a copy of this withheld statement?

But I believe that she did not know who the culprit was and ultimately relied on DS Acott to allow her to pick out someone who may have been the man...wrongly.

My emphasis.
You believe she did not know who the culprit was? She was there, Steve, you were not. The DNA results, as we all know, although some cannot admit, completely vindicated her. I think it is absolute arrogance on the part of anyone who ‘claims’ they have a better idea of who attacked Miss Storie than she does herself. I find it extremely offensive, to be honest, and patronising in the extreme.

You then quote Kerr who claims he did not think Hanratty a total killer. So what? Who cares what Kerr thought Hanratty capable of? If he had been a member of the jury, his view on this point might have mattered, but he was not, and a jury of eleven people did what was their right, on the basis of evaluating all the evidence in front of them, and decided he was the killer.

There may be myths but to what extent are they myths and to what extent are they non-disclosure by the appropriate authorities?

You are confusing the issue. Non disclosure was an issue at the time, and any nondisclosures were regrettable, however the Court of Appeal deemed any nondisclosures immaterial to the reaching of the guilty verdict.

Myths are contentions taken as fact when there is no evidence for them to be thought so. As my original posting asserts, the ‘fact’ postulated by Foot and by people who keep quoting his research without evaluating it in light of extant evidence that Valerie Storie changed her evidence about the eye colour of her attacker is not a fact at all…it is completely a myth, and feeds the unsubstantiated conspiracy theories which abound around this case. It is, as I said, a myth, pure and simple. And it is regrettable there are people out there who will come across it being presented as ‘fact’ and not deconstruct what they are being told to actually discover the truth behind the myths.

[larue]

hi Vic

Hi Larue,
I think Caz's explanation is spot on and fits exactly with the 3rd description... the fault (brown eyes) was corrected.
KR,
Vic.

so the description was changed then?

[Victor]

so the description was changed then?

Hi Larue,

The description issued by the police was evidently changed, that doesn't mean that the description given by Valerie changed. She amended\corrected the description that the police issued, and the police issued a new description.

KR,
Vic.

[caz]

Ah but Victor, your opponents will surely point out that it is highly unlikely that a policeman could have got his facts muddled when reporting what Valerie had described.

Ooh the irony.

Love,

Caz
X

[larue]

hi Vic

Hi Larue,

The description issued by the police was evidently changed, that doesn't mean that the description given by Valerie changed. She amended\corrected the description that the police issued, and the police issued a new description.

KR,
Vic.

i think the description issued by the police was definately changed, as Supt. Morgan clearly stated 'Brown Eyes' on the ITN interview, but, as VS was the only source of information regarding the gunman, perhaps some have assumed that the change was hers, not a correction.


again, from Stewart Mclaughlin's book:

'the description was never made public'.

[ this is a shame, as it may have made things more clear, as it is, this remark is food for the conspiracy theorists, for example, why wasn't it made public, because it did not fit Hanratty ]

'However, as a result of what Valerie said, the press and public were alerted to look for a man aged 25, 5ft 6in, of medium build, with a pale face, deep-set brown eyes and an East End accent.'

[but here he is wrong, as Supt. Morgan on the TV broadcast said 'erm... brown eyes, very deep set, NOT very deep set'

correcting himself over the deep set portion of the description, not the color]

to me, it is not difficult to see how some people, authors et al, may have picked up the wrong end of the stick and started beating about the bush with it.

[caz]

'However, as a result of what a policeman reported that Valerie said, the press and public were alerted to look for a man aged 25, 5ft 6in, of medium build, with a pale face, deep-set, er, NOT very deep-set brown eyes and an East End accent.'

Yeah, we should all put our faith in that copper who stumbled hopelessly over Valerie's description, giving the press and public two opposite options to grapple with, and not treat it as evidence that he was perfectly capable of buggering up the colour as well.

Love,

Caz
X

[SteveS]

So by the same token we shouldn't believe Acott who couldn't even bring Michael Clark before the court and didn't really believe Stories blue eyed description for over a month and went after Alphon instead?

Thnx
Steve

[larue]

and by that self same token, can we not believe anything Valerie Storie says?, as during these statements on Panorama in 1966, she stumbled over her words with a tell-tale 'errr' in this part

... of course Hanratty's the man, I was there, I saw him. err there's no possible doubt whatsoever. Hanratty was guilty beyond any doubt whatsoever.

and then regarding the first ID parade, she admits she made a mistake

Hanratty wasn't on that parade. I couldn't identify him. erm... I just tried to pick out somebody I suppose that i thought looked like him. I made a mistake. The man had nothing to do with the, with the case. just one of those things.

that being the case, about what else could she have made a mistake?

this argument had gotten very silly.

[SteveS]

and by that self same token, can we not believe anything Valerie Storie says?, as during these statements on Panorama in 1966, she stumbled over her words with a tell-tale 'errr' in this part

... of course Hanratty's the man, I was there, I saw him. err there's no possible doubt whatsoever. Hanratty was guilty beyond any doubt whatsoever.

and then regarding the first ID parade, she admits she made a mistake

Hanratty wasn't on that parade. I couldn't identify him. erm... I just tried to pick out somebody I suppose that i thought looked like him. I made a mistake. The man had nothing to do with the, with the case. just one of those things.

that being the case, about what else could she have made a mistake?

this argument had gotten very silly.

Hi larue
The argument may have gotten silly and we all eer and arh over things we say.

2 points I would like to make are these:

As Storie said at the magistrates hearing at Ampthill; the glimpse of the man was whilst she was in the back seat. At Bedford this had changed to whilst Storie was now in the front.

In addition, and most importantly, Storie had removed her glasses whilst in the back of the car. How could she have possibly have recognized anyone in those circumstances when she herself acknowledged that she was shortsighted.

So therefore who exactly was she trying to identify?

As Storie says in your 2nd quote:

Hanratty wasn't on that parade. I couldn't identify him. erm... I just tried to pick out somebody I suppose that i thought looked like him. I made a mistake. The man had nothing to do with the, with the case. just one of those things.

Your emboldening is just the point I would like to make.

Storie, when asked about Michael Clark, said he resembled Alphon, yet in the above quote she says that Hanratty wasn't on that parade and couldn't identify him but picked out someone who looked like Hanratty!

Now after all, Alphon didn't look much like Hanratty. So therefore did she try to pick out someone who resembled both Alphon and Hanratty? No easy task I'm sure.

It must therefore have been easier for Storie to have picked out a Londoner from the second parade since she asked and was given the go ahead to ask them to say something. Hanratty was the only Londoner with that accent on that parade.

So I would be on pretty safe ground to state that Hanratty hanged because he had a London accent and nothing more.

It would have come as no crumb of comfort to the family of Mr Clark, should he have hanged. To have had Stories words of "just one of those things" ringing in their ears would have grated with dispassionate disconcern for the import of the issue.

This was not, all things considered, Stories finest hour, taking into account the fact that she gives very few interviews.

Thnx
Steve