a6 murder

[Alfie]

What's it all about, Alfie?

Hi Graham

I wish I knew, but thanks for your comprehensive summary of some of the contentious issues. Each time I read this thread I'm impressed by how you and a few other posters have got the facts at your fingertips.

One of the things that intrigues me that I haven't read much about on this site (although I'm only 183 pages into it) is what sort of state the gunman would have been in after taking the driving seat in the Morris Minor.

One of the accounts I read described how after he was shot MG slumped over the steering wheel, and there was the sound of blood running out of his head wounds. Afterwards for some reason he flopped back in the seat, so presumably some of the blood would have leaked on to that as well.

The gunman is reported to have wiped the steering wheel (with what?) and to have draped some sort of covering retrieved from the boot over the seat. But I would imagine he would have been hard pressed to have emerged from the car without some visible blood stains on his clothes. There must have been a pool of blood around the accelerator and brake pedals.

If he abandoned the car in Redbridge during the early morning rushhour and, presumably, boarded a train from the nearby underground station, how come nobody seems to have noticed him?

Regards

Alan

[Graham]

Hi Alan,

good points all. I know less about human pathology than I do about guns, but if Gregsten was sat upright when shot in the head, could it be that after the first initial gush of blood the bleeding would have been minimal because of his upright position?

However, Gregsten's son stated, in the TV documentary, that his father had had his face blown off, so there must have been a good deal of bleeding.

Now here's another thing - Valerie said that the gunman fired just as Gregsten turned round with the duffel-bag in his hands, yet she later said that she had to 'prise Gregsten's hands off the steering-wheel'. Doesn't add up, unless Gregsten had dropped the bag and seized the steering-wheel before the fatal shots were fired - and if that's the case, then it adds weight to the suggestion (actually, my suggestion, that the gun was fired accidentally. Think about it.

The killer couldn't have been blood-spattered to any great extent, otherwise as you very reasonably point out someone would have remarked this after he abandoned the car and (presumably) boarded a train.

Could be that he spent some time cleaning himself up en route from Deadman's Hill to Redbridge. After all, and with a nod to the main theme of this forum, Jack the Ripper seems never to have been spotted after any of his killings. Crowded train, early-morning rush-hour, who's taking much note of anyone else?

Question: my geographical knowledge of London is limited. How far from Avondale Crescent to where the France family lived?

Graham

[Alfie]

Now here's another thing - Valerie said that the gunman fired just as Gregsten turned round with the duffel-bag in his hands, yet she later said that she had to 'prise Gregsten's hands off the steering-wheel'. Doesn't add up, unless Gregsten had dropped the bag and seized the steering-wheel before the fatal shots were fired - and if that's the case, then it adds weight to the suggestion (actually, my suggestion, that the gun was fired accidentally. Think about it.

Hi Graham

Another good point. Experts judged that MG's wounds indicated he would have died almost instantly, so it's hard to visualise him dropping the bag and grabbing the steering wheel in some sort of death spasm. But perhaps he wasn't killed instantly; maybe he did go through death throes that VS afterwards blocked out or couldn't bring herself to describe.

I think I understand your point about the gun going off accidentally. That would open a whole new can of worms regarding the veracity of VS's testimony and whether it was motivated not so much by the desire to see justice done to her boyfriend's murderer but to avenge her rape.

Regards

Alan

[Graham]

Hi Alfie,

As I've said before on this thread, please always bear in mind that Valerie Storie is still thankfully with us. She has never once deviated from the evidence she gave at the trial.

Cheers,

Graham

[Alfie]

As I've said before on this thread, please always bear in mind that Valerie Storie is still thankfully with us. She has never once deviated from the evidence she gave at the trial.

Hi Steve

I take your point. It's easy to treat this case as some sort of cerebral exercise and lose sight of the fact that lives were irrevocably affected. I'll think more carefully about what I post in future.

Regards

Alan

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie,

Generally that is true, but not always.


I wasn't assuming that every promiscuous man is a potential rapist, rather that a rapist would have a high sex drive. Therefore someone who was "quite vulnerable due to his learning difficulties" and highly sexed, might seek comfort in sex if they'd just done something extreme like accidentally shooting someone twice through the head and killing them.


As you say... If the motive was rape... which is something I strongly doubt.

Kr,
Vic.

ps. I concur, welcome Alfie, you've raised some interesting points and I hope you stick around.

Tony's comments...

...seem strange to me, surely the A6 was a busier road and they were more likely to be discovered there than down a private road. As for the first question... Because she's a smart woman and was obviously trying to dupe the gunman into getting them from a secluded private road onto the busier A6.

With respect Victor, I think you are completely misunerstanding the nature of rape. A rapist does not, generally, have a high sex drive. Rape is a crime of violence during which the rapist achieves excitement and pleasure from exercising power and violence over the victim.

When the gunman shot MG, he is highly unlikely to have 'sought comfort' through sex by violating a woman by force. Much more likely is that the violence of the shooting turned him on and he achieved a further thrill by violating Valerie.

Learning difficulties do not turn people into violent rapists and highly sexed men do not achieve satisfaction from rape. They do what Hanratty did. In any case, Hanratty is said to have used prostitutes several times a week. He also had several girlfriends, some of whom, but not all, were poviding him with sex. He was a man in his mid twenties having sex mybe six or seven time a week. That doesn't sound terribly highly sexed to me. Sounds about normal.

Getting away from that topic, I am really insterested in Tony's posts about Valerie trying to ensure they did not stop in a place that would draw attention to them. I think he has a really valid point about her reasons for wanting not to be overlooked. However, speaking personally, I would much rather be seen having sex in public due to the extreme circumstances than risk being shot sometime after the event.

[caz]

Hi Limehouse,

VS is/was an intelligent woman. Any woman in her shoes would surely have thought: "Oh my God, he's trying to get us down this or that private lane, where nobody is going to see us and we can expect no help".

So she had to persuade the gunman that the opposite was true, in order to keep the car on the main road where there would be more chance of attracting attention - and help.

This in turn suggests a gunman of low intelligence, who fell for the ruse.

Also, I can't imagine that VS would not have been asked gently, behind the scenes, to go through the circumstances by which two different sets of semen stains had arrived on her knickers. Had the gunman forced her to have sex with MG before forcing himself upon her, I have little doubt that the police would have been in possession of this information. It would have had the extra benefit for VS of being a "no consensual naughties in the car, we're British" situation.

Love,

Caz
X

[Alfie]

Light on in the Morris?

Afternoon all

I'm still working my way through old posts and am building up a store of questions I'd like to ask at some stage.

Here's a couple that require a simple yes or no answer. Talking about when VS & MG were parked up in the cornfield, Graham in post 2277 mentions that the light in the car was on. Was that the case? I haven't read that anywhere else and wonder what the source was?

Also I haven't read a definitive statement on whether the Morris's doors were locked before the tap on the window came?

Cheers

Alan

[Alfie]

Alphon's alibi

Hello again

...as the police would have it, it was one of two people who stayed at The Vienna Hotel. One of them was absolved because he wasn't identified by the principle witness and because his alibi stood up

I'd appreciate it if someone took the trouble to tell me what Alphon's alibi was.

Cheers again

Alan

[Alfie]

Second I.D. parade

Hello again

I've read two or three posters now who aver that during the parade in which Hanratty was I.D.-ed by Valerie, H was the only cockney-speaker. Do we know this for a fact?

I seem to recall some earlier poster saying that was the presumption but it was not known for certain that this was the case.

Can anybody enlighten me?

Regards

Alan

[larue]

Also, I can't imagine that VS would not have been asked gently, behind the scenes, to go through the circumstances by which two different sets of semen stains had arrived on her knickers. Had the gunman forced her to have sex with MG before forcing himself upon her, I have little doubt that the police would have been in possession of this information. It would have had the extra benefit for VS of being a "no consensual naughties in the car, we're British" situation.

hi Caz

i can't quite see what you are getting at here, especially the last part -

"It would have had the extra benefit for VS of being a no consensual naughties in the car, we're British" situation.

regardless of whatever they were told, the police would come to have known exactly what had been going on after the forensic examination of the underwear? whatever sexual activity may or may not have been happening in or around the car prior to the attack was kept secret from the jury anyway.

[caz]

Hi larue,

Well some posters in the past have suggested that Alphon was the rapist and claimed that he had forced the couple to have sex while he watched. Others pointed out that Valerie could have said virtually anything about her ordeal because there was nobody to confirm or deny it - except of course, there was Alphon if (the biggest 'if' in the world) he was there. The implication was that Alphon may have correctly described something that only Valerie and the rapist could have known.

Others observed that Valerie would have been naturally reluctant in that day and age to admit to having naughties in the car with her married lover, hence all the "rally" talk and what have you. Then came the speculation that Valerie was the one who was keen on a more private place in which to meet the gunman's perverted demands.

But I can't see that any of this really adds up, and my point was that the police would have got round to asking Valerie, not if she had intercourse with Michael, but when. And the answer - which none of us know - would have had a bearing on Alphon's credibility if he went on to claim something that clearly didn't match Valerie's version of events. There would have been no reason for her to lie if all her sexual activity that night had been carried out under threat from the gunman. So I think it's safe to say that Valerie gave the police one account, Alphon was full of it and gave another, and this whole line of speculation will lead nowhere.

Love,

Caz
X

[john]

I am very very confused now

I did not know there were Gregstens' semens stains on Ms Stories knickers!
If this is so, then why or why does the DNA forensic report state in writing and the verbal televised interview with forensics after the DNA results that Hanratty's DNA was the only and the only one DNA discovered on the knickers. No one else at all anywhere.

So someone explain the discrepancy as to where is Gregsten's DNA then?

I do not understand this at all.

[caz]

Hi John,

There were most definitely two sets of semen staining on the knickers (one matching MG's blood group, the other - group O - from the rapist). There was also vaginal fluid, which later provided a DNA profile that matched VS.

When they reported that only Hanratty's DNA was found, I assume they simply meant that his was the only potential suspect's profile obtained. I frankly doubt that "No one else at all anywhere" is a direct quote. It was probably not thought necessary to spell out at that particular juncture that the profiles of the two innocent victims were also there as expected.

Love,

Caz
X

[john]

Hello Caz

I have replayed the televised interview and subsequent interviews with a rather smug scientist later and re read all the forensic reports of the DNA Testing. All of them state verbally and in print that Hanratty's and Stories DNA are the only ones on the samples. They cannot be being discreet surely?

So what is going on. I had not appreciated until these recent posts that there had been gregsten's semen stains at all anywhere. These were never revealed at the trial at all or anywhere in print pre Justices' 1st book in which he mentions the Alphon sex claim that Gregsten and Storie had sex in the car and that only the murderer would know this. Miller in his book rubbishes this as having no evidence whatseover. Well i might be wrong but there is now clear evidence that they had sex somewhere, before the murderer had with Miss Storie. So what else one wonders is not being told as there was no indication of sex by Miss Storie at all in any of her statements to the Police about sex with Michael Gregsten. I do not think shock would have obliterated that from the memory.