a6 murder

[Victor]

.I will respond more fully to the matter of the ESDA tests later,if need be,for the moment .What they showed was that a crucial part of the police notes in the interview with Hanratty---ie the part that referred to him using the word "kip"-as the murderer had done and which Hanratty denied he had used, had been rewritten after the original notes had been completed.

Hi Norma,

No, the ESDA test showed that page 4 of 20 was re-written after page 20, and that pages 15 and 19 were re-written in sequence, but no material alterations were made when those 3 pages were re-written.

However,it was later learned that Hanratty was alone among those in the Identification parade of 9 to have spoken with a cockney dialect and accent.The others mostly came from the Midlands and even as far North as Scotland.

Again, no. Woffinden has not traced 3 members of that ID parade, so 3 could be cockney.

A contrasting point is had Valerie been aware that she could ask the members of the first (Alphon) ID parade to speak, then she may not have selected Michael Clark at all. It isn't permitted since Turnbull but was at the time.

BTW,I didnt say you were irrational Victor--nor do I think that,far from it in fact.What I said and what I meant, was that your point was something of a digression from the one I was trying to focus on,which was how the issue of witheld evidence is a very serious point of law and one which can significantly affect outcome.

Thank you, and yes it's a very serious point, but one that has highly variable results the other extreme being a significant point "buried" in trivia. A sensible balance must be found.

KR,
Vic.

[NickB]

... had Valerie been aware that she could ask the members of the first (Alphon) ID parade to speak, then she may not have selected Michael Clark at all.

Wasn't he of Spanish origin? Perhaps he sounded like Manuel.

[Victor]

Wasn't he of Spanish origin? Perhaps he sounded like Manuel.

Woffinden says an early rumour was that he was a Spanish sailor, but that's not true, he doesn't say anything about the accent though.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

There were 12 men as well as Hanratty in the Identity parade.In a letter to the Sunday times Mr Malcolm Fewtrell who had found the twelve men for the parade said this.........."You imply that those standing with him were all local from Buckinghamshire.This is not so.......The 12 men originated from all over the country and it is almost certain that some of them were Londoners."[Sunday Times Jan 1st 1967].[He wasnt certain of this ].

Moreover,some six National Newspapers had carried a description of the "new suspect".The Mirror-"he is known as "Ginger""and each paper explained that he had died his hair black , The Observer," Known as "Ginger Ryan""-The Mail said the same etc .There is little doubt that Valerie Storie would have been following the press and these "descriptions of the suspect" were published throughout the UK on 7th 8th and 9th and 12th of October. So on October 14th,when Hanratty stood in the middle of the line " His dyed hair showed up very badly .It was "a vivid tangerine colour and in appearance most unnatural [Kleinman- acting for defence].
Hanratty was the only man there with dyed hair of such a bright unnatural colour.
Sherrard asked Valerie Storie whether she agreed that his hair stood out like a carrot in a bunch of bananas---and she agreed---thats right,she said,I was startled by the unusual colour of the hair of the accused.I had never seen hair quite that colour before.It took twenty minutes of Valerie Storie going up and down the line up nine times in all before she pointed to number 6-Hanratty -the man with the dyed bright orange hair

I find it quite extraordinary that Valerie Storie picked out,mistakenly as her rapist and her lover"s murderer in her first identity parade a man who was Acott said heavily built -when all witness descriptions said he was of medium build and who Acott and her doctor described as though they were two different men viz Dr Ian Rennie said he remembered the man "had fairish hair and bluish eyes" but Supt Acott described him as having short cropped dark hair and a heavy build.We have never learnt what colour his eyes actually were despite a number of attempts to discover it.

Moreover it is apparently the usual practice when a man has been mistakenly identified for that man to be brought to court so that the jury can test the witness"s powers of identification.No such practice was followed in James Hanratty"s trial for his life.

[NickB]

Moreover it is apparently the usual practice when a man has been mistakenly identified for that man to be brought to court so that the jury can test the witness"s powers of identification.No such practice was followed in James Hanratty"s trial for his life.

I didn’t know that. Surely it would be a disincentive to volunteer for an identity parade if this involved you in being called to court.

An RAF Corporal in the guardroom when Hanratty was brought in to attend an identity parade claimed JH told him: “They know I did it. I know I did it, but I don't think they can prove it.”

I realise there are reasons not to believe him, but he is just as free from criminal connections as the Rhyl witnesses.

[Victor]

I didn’t know that. Surely it would be a disincentive to volunteer for an identity parade if this involved you in being called to court.

Hi Nick,

I've not heard it happening either, but it does make sense for at least a picture to be available. However, when you think it through how often is it going to be the case that someone is incorrectly identified and then another parade happens with another suspect who does get charged?

An RAF Corporal in the guardroom when Hanratty was brought in to attend an identity parade claimed JH told him: “They know I did it. I know I did it, but I don't think they can prove it.”

I realise there are reasons not to believe him, but he is just as free from criminal connections as the Rhyl witnesses.

This is the prize quote...
"Mr Foot dismisses Mr Needham's evidence as absolute nonsense. 'There's no conceivable way Hanratty could have incriminated himself in this way,' he said. 'There's not one single example anywhere of him saying he'd had anything to do with the killing. We've 14 witnesses, including whole numbers of people who were not at the trial, who showed that Hanratty was in Rhyl.'"

I can only conclude that Foot is deliberately lying about the existance of Langdale.

KR,
Vic.

[richardnunweek]

Hi NickB,
The trouble is on Casebook as a whole, no one believes any witnesses, that actually were present we have Hutch, and Maxwell on the Ripper case, and Valerie, and this guardsman with Hanratty.
So why is it that we tend to believe Hanrattys ' I am innocent dad' pleas, and dismiss Valeries avccount, and her reservations that she got the right man 100 percent, and also this corporals account which seems more then plausible to me.
The guy was guilty, and used his pathetic pleas to his family, in a frantic effort to prevent his death, knowing full well they would fight tooth and nail to get his reprieve.
My opinion .
Regards Richard,

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Nick and Vic,
Having met Paul Foot I can state that he was not a man who was interested in anything but getting at the truth of a matter, whether it was to do with the Hanratty case or politics or whatever.
He was horrified by the prosecution"s dependence on long term gangsters from the London Underworld such as Langland and Nudds----particularly when when a man"s life depended on their testimony.
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

Vic,
I have been quite shocked to read about the way the Jury were deceived throughout the trial and how the truth was withheld from the Jury with regards to the sexual relationship that was being enjoyed by the married man, Mike Gregsten and his colleague Valerie Storie .How I wonder does such deception square up with the time honoured oath,"The Truth,The Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth? The case was therefore built upon a basic deception of the jury and the public about the true situation with regards to the relationship between the couple in the cornfield---ie it was a clandestine situation with Mike Gregsten cheating regularly on his wife Janet and Valerie Storie colluding with that deception.Yet the public knew nothing of it and neither Valerie nor Janet wanted it to come out. Janet denied the affair -she didnt admit this to anyone anywhere for several years---all her statements talk about how disgusting it was that people were insinuating that Mike and Valerie were having an affair.Talk about lies being buried beneath lies and I seriously think James Hanratty may well we buried beneath the biggest lie of all.But truth lives a long time and will out eventually.
And you,Vic, using the age old excuse of Janet"s frigidity just doesnt wash---who the hell in their right mind would be anything other than frigid the way he had carried on?----especially given that the affair apparently began midway through 1958 while Janet was pregnant with their second child? Mind Valerie ,in the article she wrote for "Today" article,"Once I had a Secret Love? actually said she had begun her affair "four years before" ---making it a different date than that she gave under oath. Whatever month of the year though, it coincided with the new baby Janet began with and as the truth slowly came out over the years, Janet began to change her story and admit how depressed she had become about the affair and had done everything in her power to end it---hoping they could soon start afresh by moving away up North.
Can I now ask you directly Vic,did Valerie Storie and Mike Gregsten definitely have unprotected sex in that cornfield that night? Is this now known for certain?
Thanks
Best Norma

[Graham]

Couple of points:

1] the RAF guard who claimed that Hanratty had admitted his guilt also claimed (a) that the confession took place at RAF Halton, and I don't think Hanratty went anywhere near that place; and (b) that Hanratty 'came out into a corridor for a smoke, and that's when he made the confession'. Hanratty didn't smoke. The guard was interviewed for one of the TV documentaries which I have in my vast and totally mixed-up collection of video tapes, but I think Jimarilyn may have put it on YouTube.

2] does it really matter if Gregsten and Valerie were lovers, or not? As far as Hanratty was concerned they could've been sitting in the Morris that night playing Scrabble. There was no way in 1961 that even the prosecution in a case of capital murder would dare suggest that one of the victims and a key witness was engaged in a promiscuous relationship. Hence the 'planning a car rally' farago. It shouldn't have made an iota of difference to the jury. No good getting all thin-lipped about it - I repeat, it made no difference. Murder is murder and rape is rape.

3] Norma, if you want to know if Gregsten and Valerie did have unprotected sex that evening, why not ask Valerie? She shouldn't be that difficult to locate....

4] Finally, and this is something I haven't seen mentioned recently, Valerie said in her testimony that on the evening in question she and Mike first went to a spot in Hunterscombe Lane after they'd left the Old Station Inn. Whether they went there to organise a car rally or have it off is immaterial, but for whatever reason they decided on a whim after a short time to relocate to the entrance of the cornfield on Marsh Lane. So if the gunman was 'sent' to the cornfield, how the hell did he know they'd be there?

What happened to Clive English, by the way? Was it really Reg1965 in other guise, or what?

Graham

[Victor]

Having met Paul Foot I can state that he was not a man who was interested in anything but getting at the truth of a matter, whether it was to do with the Hanratty case or politics or whatever.

Hi Norma,

All I can say from the evidence, especially the quote in post #5751, is that Foot (like Justice) was only interested in proving their opinions were correct, even to the point of directly lying.

He was horrified by the prosecution"s dependence on long term gangsters from the London Underworld such as Langland and Nudds----particularly when when a man"s life depended on their testimony.

Nudds and Langdale were minor witnesses at best, the major witness Valerie was guilty of nothing more than having sex with a married lothario.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

And you,Vic, using the age old excuse of Janet"s frigidity just doesnt wash---who the hell in their right mind would be anything other than frigid the way he had carried on?

Hi Norma,

It isn't my excuse, it's Janet Gregsten's own words. Her explanation or personal justification or whatever. To turn the tables on you again, "who the hell in their right mind would be anything other than" promiscuous "the way" she "had carried on?"

Can I now ask you directly Vic,did Valerie Storie and Mike Gregsten definitely have unprotected sex in that cornfield that night? Is this now known for certain?

Yes you can ask. No it's not certain. All that can be said with any degree of certainty is that VS and MG had unprotected sex after the last time those knickers were washed with soap or detergent. However long that was.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

All I can say from the evidence, especially the quote in post #5751, is that Foot (like Justice) was only interested in proving their opinions were correct, even to the point of directly lying.

Actually I think quite a few people in this trial were lying---and Valerie Storie was as complicit in that lie as the rest of the establishment, in that she went along with a trial allegedly about discovering the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth that actually from its opening was a "misrepresentation" of Valerie Storie"s relationship with Michael Gregsten .No wonder the truth fled from this bogus set up rather rapidly especially on copping sight of gangster Langdale and gangster Nudds and Mrs Snell his missus, France the framer and Louise the Fence-------its sounds like some comic strip about "Bill the Burglar" if it were not alll so tragic .Had the jury not been deceived from the very start ,such Middle England jurors as these were ,may not have looked at the case with anything like the same perspective.
Please Vic,xcan you also give me examples of where Paul Foot lied.He may have been mistaken,asall of us are at times but "lied"?

[Graham]

Norma,

quite a few posts ago you said that you had your doubts about both Hanratty or Alphon being the A6 killer. I asked you at the time if you'd care to suggest who might have carried out that horrendous crime. You never replied, (what a surprise!) and as sufficient time has now passed for you to have cogitated upon your expressed doubt, can we now learn the identity of the person you believe responsible?

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Victor,I suggest you read Mrs Gregsten"s later statements about her deep unhappiness about her husbands serial adultery.How can you know ,as a man,what it must really be like to be pregnant with a toddler and desperately hard up to boot, and have a young woman of 21 chasing after your husband as Janet Gregsten experienced?Do you never consider that she may at least have had her pride---despite her frightful predicament?