a6 murder

[Natalie Severn]

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

I have a few thoughts about that.
At the moment I am of the view that it could have been Alphon and that he didnt ejaculate,

Best
Norma

[Victor]

Victor,I suggest you read Mrs Gregsten"s later statements about her deep unhappiness about her husbands serial adultery.

Hi Norma,

Where are these later statements? Were they after she'd had her affair with Ewer? Had she been abandoned by another man? Had both her lovers died?

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?

I definitely want to read a source for the highlighted part. Gregsten pursued Storie.

Do you never consider that she may at least have had her pride---despite her frightful predicament?

Oh she can have her pride, but what about the severly crippled Valerie? She has to tell the world she's had sex with a married man!

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

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"?

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.

[Victor]

At the moment I am of the view that it could have been Alphon and that he didnt ejaculate,

Hi Norma,

Where did the blood group O semen detected in 1961 come from then? Or are you demonising Valerie further by claiming she had unprotected sex with a third person?

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

I have a few thoughts about that.
At the moment I am of the view that it could have been Alphon and that he didnt ejaculate,

Best
Norma

OK, so a few days ago you thought the A6 killer was neither Hanratty nor Alphon, but "you have a few thoughts about that". Can we please share your thoughts?

You now think "at the moment" that it could have been Alphon and he didn't ejaculate. So who did you think it was at the time you made your statement that you thought it was neither Hanratty nor Alphon? If you think "at the moment" it could have been Alphon, who will you possibly think it was in, say, a week's time?

Do you really know what you're talking about, Norma?

If I may paraphrase the excellent Mrs Patrick Campbell in her famous put-down of George Bernard Shaw: Norma, when you were very small, did not your mama or papa ever tell you to shut up?

Graham

[Victor]

Goodnight Norma,

I'm off to bed, I'll have to wait reading your evidence for Storie pursuing Gregsten until the morning.

Sweet dreams,
Vic.

[Graham]

Me too.

Dormez bien.

Can't wait for Norma's "thoughts" on all and sundry.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

Where did the blood group O semen detected in 1961 come from then? Or are you demonising Valerie further by claiming she had unprotected sex with a third person?

KR,
Vic.

I am not demonising Valerie.You are deliberately avoiding addressing the issue.Tell me Vic, Do you not think,for the sake of truth and justice,that that Jury had a right to know the truth about the situation?

[Natalie Severn]

OK, so a few days ago you thought the A6 killer was neither Hanratty nor Alphon, but "you have a few thoughts about that". Can we please share your thoughts?

You now think "at the moment" that it could have been Alphon and he didn't ejaculate. So who did you think it was at the time you made your statement that you thought it was neither Hanratty nor Alphon? If you think "at the moment" it could have been Alphon, who will you possibly think it was in, say, a week's time?

Do you really know what you're talking about, Norma?

If I may paraphrase the excellent Mrs Patrick Campbell in her famous put-down of George Bernard Shaw: Norma, when you were very small, did not your mama or papa ever tell you to shut up?

Graham

Oh do piss off you supercilious git!

[babybird67]

Norma

Norma

Why do you think the sexual history of the victims of rape and murder are germane to a trial of those accused of committing the offence?

Are you the sort of woman who supports dissecting a rape victim’s sexual history and laying that out in front of the jury because it is ‘the truth’ whether it is relevant or not? Can you explain in what possible way a personal sexual relationship between two people could be considered a relevant factor in their assault, rape and murder? Do you support Hanratty’s sexual exploits with several women, including a 16 year old girl of a family friend with whom he carelessly had unprotected sex, also being put before the jury since that was also ‘the truth’? If the sexual history of a victim of rape should be put before a jury in the interests of the 'whole truth' then surely the sexual history of the accused should also be subject to the same scrutiny by the same jury in the same interests of truth. Do you think Hanratty's numerous sexual exploits with various women and with prostitutes would have led the jury to view him in a favourable light?

If you think the rapist was a non-ejaculating Alphon, can you explain how police at the time were able to blood type the perpetrator from the semen he left behind?

[Natalie Severn]

[QUOTE=Graham;135063]

I've kept out of the recent nastiness - my policy is not to get involved.


Graham[/QUOTE

........you could have fooled me!

[Natalie Severn]

Norma

Why do you think the sexual history of the victims of rape and murder are germane to a trial of those accused of committing the offence?

Are you the sort of woman who supports dissecting a rape victim’s sexual history and laying that out in front of the jury because it is ‘the truth’ whether it is relevant or not? Can you explain in what possible way a personal sexual relationship between two people could be considered a relevant factor in their assault, rape and murder? Do you support Hanratty’s sexual exploits with several women, including a 16 year old girl of a family friend with whom he carelessly had unprotected sex, also being put before the jury since that was also ‘the truth’? If the sexual history of a victim of rape should be put before a jury in the interests of the 'whole truth' then surely the sexual history of the accused should also be subject to the same scrutiny by the same jury in the same interests of truth. Do you think Hanratty's numerous sexual exploits with various women and with prostitutes would have led the jury to view him in a favourable light?

If you think the rapist was a non-ejaculating Alphon, can you explain how police at the time were able to blood type the perpetrator from the semen he left behind?

Thanks for your post Baby Bird,
I understand what you are saying and in most cases I think that what you say would apply.But am I the sort of woman.........well I am myself and when I was 4 years old I was abducted and worse ,in a park,in broad daylight, and the experience nearly ruined my life.In truth I have a great deal of respect and sympathy for Valerie and greatly admire her resilience.She was wonderfully courageous to have come through all that so bravely. But I think it possible that Janet Gregsten may have suffered more than people realise from the behaviour of her husband and his lover and that therefore apart from the "inconsiderate behaviour"aspect, there could have been somebody , just as Alphon claimed in his later confession,"arranging to separate Valerie and Mike Gregsten." Its a possibility-and its a possibility that it all suddenly went out of control and resulted in this diabolical crime. I also believe that the jury were entitled not to have been "misled" at any point and that they were entitled to know the truth about the background to the Cornfield visit.
Best Wishes
Norma

[babybird67]

Norma

Thanks for your post Baby Bird,
I understand what you are saying and in most cases I think that what you say would apply.

Most cases Norma? Why should Valerie's sexual relationships be fair game when in 'most cases' you think it should not be? Not only does she have to be the victim of rape and attempted murder, but she has to have her sexual history bandied about in court when other rape victims should be afforded confidentiality and respect...why?

In truth I have a great deal of respect and sympathy for Valerie and greatly admire her resilience.

Not enough respect apparently to prevent you from accusing her of complicity in an establishment frame up.

She was wonderfully courageous to have come through all that so bravely.

Indeed she was. It is a shame that her own honest testimony of identifying the man who raped her and killed her lover, underscored by the DNA, is not enough to prevent some people from wishing her the agony of having to relive the doubts about Hanratty's obvious guilt every day for the forseeable future. Most vicitms of crime, after a conviction and two upheld appeals, would be afforded the relief of being able to put the crime behind them and try to move on. Sadly, Valerie is victimised over and over again.

But I think it possible that Janet Gregsten may have suffered more than people realise from the behaviour of her husband and his lover

Has it ever occurred to you that the Police dealing sensitively with the situation were trying to protect Janet as Gregsten's widow from having the sexual inadequacies of her marriage made public? She was already dealing with a bereavement in the most shocking of circumstances.

and that therefore apart from the "inconsiderate behaviour"aspect, there could have been somebody , just as Alphon claimed in his later confession,"arranging to separate Valerie and Mike Gregsten."

If there is any evidence anywhere of this, please produce it. You will find, if you research the case, that there is not a shred of evidence for this theory whatsoever.

Its a possibility-and its a possibility that it all suddenly went out of control and resulted in this diabolical crime.

Courts and convictions deal with evidence, not possibilities. That is why Hanratty has been convicted, and his conviction upheld at appeal twice over. It is possible there are spacemen out in the universe, it doesn't make it probable, and it doesn't mean there is any evidence for it either.

I also believe that the jury were entitled not to have been "misled" at any point and that they were entitled to know the truth about the background to the Cornfield visit.

The jury were not misled in terms of anything germane to the case in regards Storie and Gregsten's relationship. It was not relevant. Gregsten and Storie could have been doing anything at all in their car, it had no bearing on them being victims of a despicable crime. And if you believe the sexual behaviour of the victims should be disclosed to a jury, then in all justice you must believe that the sexual behaviour of the accused must also be offered to the jury in the same interests of truth and equity.

By the way, I asked you several extremely clear questions all of which you have avoided answering. Perhaps if you use the quote facility and take them one at a time, it may assist you in formulating your thoughts and your answers as i would be most interested in your response.

[Graham]

Oh do piss off you supercilious git!

Priceless!

Graham

[Graham]

Welcome back, Jenny!

Yours are not the only questions that dear Norma chooses to avoid. She's very good at shouting (and I mean shouting)the odds about her own muddled theories, but doesn't quite cut the mustard when it comes to addressing points and questions which would seem to be beyond her knowledge of this case.

Regards,

Graham