a6 murder

[NickB]

Valerie was wearing glasses in the front of the car when they were facing each other and a car passed. Her description of him is based on this sighting. She said: "This was the only real proper glimpse of him that I had."

She was not wearing glasses in the back of the car when about 6 to 8 vehicles went by, again illuminating the man’s face, providing her with a side or three quarters view.

She said “I did have a good look at him when I was in the back …” which appears to contradict the description of her “only real proper glimpse” in the front. An explanation could be that she had a good look at him but could not make out his features as clearly as when she had been in the front.

[jimarilyn]

She said “I did have a good look at him when I was in the back …” which appears to contradict the description of her “only real proper glimpse” in the front. An explanation could be that she had a good look at him but could not make out his features as clearly as when she had been in the front.

Seems to me like yet another example of "Make your mind up time" (to quote the late Hughie Green).

[Victor]

Valerie was wearing glasses in the front of the car when they were facing each other and a car passed. Her description of him is based on this sighting. She said: "This was the only real proper glimpse of him that I had."

She was not wearing glasses in the back of the car when about 6 to 8 vehicles went by, again illuminating the man’s face, providing her with a side or three quarters view.

She said “I did have a good look at him when I was in the back …” which appears to contradict the description of her “only real proper glimpse” in the front. An explanation could be that she had a good look at him but could not make out his features as clearly as when she had been in the front.

Hi Nick,

If Valerie decided that "real" and "proper" looks included that she was wearing her glasses, but that she could also have a "good look" without her glasses then there is no contradiction at all.

KR,
Vic.

[NickB]

Yes, the contradiction appears if you interpret “good look at” to mean “good view of”.

She was not wearing her glasses and he was not directly facing her, so the “good view of” interpretation seems unlikely.

[Andrew]

Greetings,
As I understand it the Morris was parked at the far end where I’ve placed the arrow and facing this way which is downhill.
There is no street lighting so most of the night traffic would have been on main beam. In 1961 commercial vehicles were subject to a 30 mph limit and may have been struggling up the hill anyway. Most cars would have been slowed by the gradient. All these factors are in favour of reasonable illumination by the headlamps.
Against it is the prominent hillock that divides the road from the lay-by which looks like it might have limited the illumination available.
Regards
Andrew

[Graham]

I myself am short-sighted, but my eyesight without my specs close-up is probably a hell of a lot better than someone who doesn't need prescription glasses. Up to within about 2 feet my eyesight is extremely keen, in fact keen enough to allow me to indulge my hobby of precision model-making without my glasses. I can easily read this computer screen without my goggles at a (measured) distance of about 20 inches. However, to drive, watch the rubbish on TV, etc., I need corrective lenses. I would suggest that my eyesight and Valerie's may well be about the same.

Looking at Andrew's photo, where the tent is located is now the northbound carriageway of that stretch of the A6. Today's lay-by ain't the same as it was in 1961. Great photo, though. Where the metal-detectors are is probably about where John Kerr was posted when he was taking his traffic-census.

Graham

[Victor]

I myself am short-sighted, but my eyesight without my specs close-up is probably a hell of a lot better than someone who doesn't need prescription glasses. Up to within about 2 feet my eyesight is extremely keen, in fact keen enough to allow me to indulge my hobby of precision model-making without my glasses. I can easily read this computer screen without my goggles at a (measured) distance of about 20 inches. However, to drive, watch the rubbish on TV, etc., I need corrective lenses. I would suggest that my eyesight and Valerie's may well be about the same.

Hi Graham,

I would tend to agree with you, here's a quote from the Bupa website on Shortsightedness...http://hcd2.bupa.co.uk/fact_sheets/html/Myopia.html

Short-sightedness or myopia
If your cornea is too curved, or your eyeball too long, light rays from distant objects focus in front of your retina. This makes objects seem fuzzy or blurred.

Nearby objects don't look fuzzy, because the light rays enter your eye at a slight angle. This means they focus on your retina properly.

Steve must be excessively shortsighted, as his "milk bottle type glasses" quote suggests, but there's no reason to assume that Valerie was as afflicted as he is.

Looking at Andrew's photo, where the tent is located is now the northbound carriageway of that stretch of the A6. Today's lay-by ain't the same as it was in 1961. Great photo, though. Where the metal-detectors are is probably about where John Kerr was posted when he was taking his traffic-census.

Unfortunately the man with the metal detector is obscuring the "hillock" or bank so it's difficult to gauge whether a passing car's headlights would be blocked at head-height of a seated passenger. I see no reason to doubt Valerie's testimony when she says it lit his face up.

KR,
Vic.

[SteveS]

Blind side Valerie

Storie did not have a glimpse of the killer whist she was in the front seat.

All that was put forward at the hearing at Ampthill was that Storie's only glimpse of the killer was whilst in the back seat during the rape.

So where did the obvious tall tale of her having seen the killer whilst in the front come from?

Who knows but it was obviously invented some time between the hearing and the trial.

She was, obviously, not wearing her glasses in the back seat and Swanwick, quite troubled by this, gave the game away entirely by asking Storie if she was wearing her glasses whilst in the front and whether her eyesight was poor.

To this Storie replied to Swanwicks question of "At that time were you wearing your spectacles" with "yes". Then Swanwick asked "Can you see very well without your spectacles". The answer from Storie "Not very well".

If Storie had been in the front seat when she had gotten the best glimpse of the killer and was wearing her glasses and said this at the hearing at Ampthill then Swanwick would not have needed to have mentioned her eyesight deficiancy at all.

So to me it seems that another prosecution lie was not caught by the defence

All of the cobblers of how Stories eyesight might compare with the posters on here is purely hearsay.

It is obvious that there is a reasonable doubt over Stories ability to see a man and pick him out without glasses when, by her own admission that her eyesight is poor.

It certainly explains the first misidentification and her doubts of the killers identity in the withheld statements. Her identification of Hanratty was not based on sight but by sound and how many of the parade had similar accents?

[SteveS]

Charlie Jones

Charlie Jones aka Charlie White has been accused of repudiating his connection with Hanratty but all he really did was to say that he did not know Hanratty before the day in August when Hanratty asked after a Terry as being someone who worked at the fairground.

Now I might be a bit thick but how could Jones relay a message in July (when all of the Jimdiditites say Hanratty was in Rhyl) from Hanratty to Terry Evans before Hanratty had met him for the first time?

Not possible.

[Victor]

Charlie Jones aka Charlie White has been accused of repudiating his connection with Hanratty but all he really did was to say that he did not know Hanratty before the day in August when Hanratty asked after a Terry as being someone who worked at the fairground.

Hi Steve,

You mean the Charlie Jones\White who told Detective Chief Superintendent Nimmo "It's that Evans that made me do it... The whole lot came from him, sir." and "It was just that Evans told me there might be some money in it and I was broke at the time - my rent was overdue and I was in debt."

And he signed a statement to that effect.

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

You beat me to it, Vic!

Cheers,

Graham

[Victor]

Storie did not have a glimpse of the killer whist she was in the front seat.

All that was put forward at the hearing at Ampthill was that Storie's only glimpse of the killer was whilst in the back seat during the rape.

She was, obviously, not wearing her glasses in the back seat and Swanwick, quite troubled by this, gave the game away entirely by asking Storie if she was wearing her glasses whilst in the front and whether her eyesight was poor.

Hi Steve,

I'm having trouble following you here, you seem to be saying Valerie said this here and you believe her, but later on she said this here and you don't believe that, and when she says her eyesight is poor and that she's shortsighted, you can interpret that as she's virtually blind. She was asked about the ID parade and said she based her selection on sight with the confirmation from the voice, but you don't believe that and yet still believe that her eyesight is poor.

All of the cobblers of how Stories eyesight might compare with the posters on here is purely hearsay.

No, we are taking the definition from BUPA which I quoted above and is surely a reputable source, and concluding that there is no reason to doubt her testimony.

It certainly explains the first misidentification and her doubts of the killers identity in the withheld statements. Her identification of Hanratty was not based on sight but by sound and how many of the parade had similar accents?

The "withheld statements" only says her memory of the man is fading, not faded completely. And the answer to the second part is between 1 and 4.

KR,
Vic.

[NickB]

Valerie's “good look at him when I was in the back” comment is from the initial notes taken by the police within 12 hours of the killing.

At the committal and the trial she said her only real proper glimpse of him was when she was in the front.

[RonIpstone]

My view has always been that Valerie Storie's identification evidence was suspect. This view arises not out of the fact that she was wearing or not wearing glasses, or whether she was sitting in the front or the back of the Moggie Minor, but simply from the fact that she wrongly identified an innocent man during the Alphon identification parade.

Anyone with a good mental picture of his or her assailant, when confronted with a parade which did not include the assailant would say words to the effect, "I do not recognise anyone." They might go one to add, "This one looks most like him." But they would not make a positive identification.

Yet Valerie did, and the reason she did was that the Police had informed her that the prime suspect was present on the parade. Her mental picture of her assailant was not clear enough to enable her to say, "The murderer is not present."

When it came to the Hanratty identification parade it was easier for Valerie to pick out the prime suspect, he had dyed hair, he was extremely nervous and he had that London accent. So it was easy for Valerie to make the identification, yet the probative value of the identification was vitiated almost entirely by the first and wrongful identification.

But the jury must have been aware of this, and identification evidence alone did not convict Hanratty. If the jury were sure that Hanratty had not been in Liverpool/Rhyl on the night in question, as I think they were, then the other circumstantial evidence and the identification evidence would be sufficient to convict Hanratty.

[SteveS]

My view has always been that Valerie Storie's identification evidence was suspect. This view arises not out of the fact that she was wearing or not wearing glasses, or whether she was sitting in the front or the back of the Moggie Minor, but simply from the fact that she wrongly identified an innocent man during the Alphon identification parade.

Anyone with a good mental picture of his or her assailant, when confronted with a parade which did not include the assailant would say words to the effect, "I do not recognise anyone." They might go one to add, "This one looks most like him." But they would not make a positive identification.

Yet Valerie did, and the reason she did was that the Police had informed her that the prime suspect was present on the parade. Her mental picture of her assailant was not clear enough to enable her to say, "The murderer is not present."

When it came to the Hanratty identification parade it was easier for Valerie to pick out the prime suspect, he had dyed hair, he was extremely nervous and he had that London accent. So it was easy for Valerie to make the identification, yet the probative value of the identification was vitiated almost entirely by the first and wrongful identification.

But the jury must have been aware of this, and identification evidence alone did not convict Hanratty. If the jury were sure that Hanratty had not been in Liverpool/Rhyl on the night in question, as I think they were, then the other circumstantial evidence and the identification evidence would be sufficient to convict Hanratty.

Hi Ron

That was a brilliant post and cans much of the issue surrounding the jury's possible reason for convicting Hanratty inspite of Stories testimony.

It would seem that a few held out for some reason. That which we will never know.

Yet as I have said previously the jury would already have a head start and begin to find against Hanratty for the simple reason that the DPP had built a case, however slim, against him.

To that end any negative fleche whether by the prosecution of self-inflicted would have gone against him.