a6 murder

[Natalie Severn]

The Invisible Gorilla demonstrates the unreliability of eyewitnesses - I got the reference from "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins, a xmas present and a fantastic read so far. It has no connection to Nimmo whatsoever, but completely undermines Dutton and Larman et al.

Vic---It also, ofcourse, undermines Valerie"s "fleeting glimpse" evidence which combined with her hesitation,her mistaken initial identification -of the "heavily built " Michael Clark [Hanratty was very slim] .Clark had mousey brown hair -not dark hair ;All this together with her belief that she was able to recognise the gunman"s eye colour ,suggests that Valerie was imprecise on several counts.
Eye colour cannot be determined accurately- whether seen briefly or for a longer period-in the artificial light beamed by headlights at night -its a scientific fact -and for the reasons I wrote about yesterday.
And your gorilla theory, clearly therefore makes nonsense of the Trower and Skillett "evidence"!

[Victor]

Clarks aunt said that he had mousey brown hair. She mentioned nothing else at all about his appearance.

Hi Derrick,

Doesn't Woffinden mention "blue~ish eyes"?

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Valerie"s "fleeting glimpse" evidence which combined with her hesitation,

Hi Norma,

What "hesitation"?

Clark had mousey brown hair -not dark hair

How can you argue that the hazel and blue eye colour would be indistinguishable in the dark, but that mousey brown and dark hair would be?

And your gorilla theory, clearly therefore makes nonsense of the Trower and Skillett "evidence"!

It's not my theory - it's a practical demonstration that eyewitness evidence is unreliable.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

What "hesitation"?

Valerie took an extraordinary long time to reach her decision-twenty minutes in all .Surely in most cases a person either recognises someone instantly or they dont?
Valerie needed extra support which she found by hearing his London accent pronouncing "thinking" as "finking".


How can you argue that the hazel and blue eye colour would be indistinguishable in the dark, but that mousey brown and dark hair would be?

Hazel which is light a green/ brown colour and blue would both be "bleached" out as colours in the headlights at night and both would appear as a similar light grey "non-colour".
Mousey brown would appear as dark blond or "brownish".Dark brown or Black would appear as black.

[JP56]

So many questions from a forum noobie...

I have steadily worked thru 75% of the postings on the A6 murder. Not sure what triggered my interest but the quality of debate is high (some outright name-calling excepted!!!) and I have found it stimulating.

I guess I had a vague sense that there were questions over JH’s conviction & hanging (even though the DNA results passed me by at the time) and my reading into the topic has given me fresh insight.

I have toggled between ‘JH is innocent’ and ‘mmm, likely he did it…’ so on the fence, as they say. I wanted to contribute some thoughts, questions and puzzles as I see them. Apologies if they have been comprehensively covered on this forum already, but, as I see it, there’s still scope for debate about a lot of the facets of the A6 murder.

So… issues / questions in my mind.

1. VS’ version of events, accuracy of reporting of events during the night of 22/23 Aug 1961. Now, don’t get me wrong… I believe VS is an honourable, brave and honest person. What I am raising is, under such extreme circumstances, ANYONE could be forgiven for getting things wrong when recalling them afterwards. The sheer terror she must have experienced for so many hours would have meant that she would have missed many many details, including the appearance and voice of her assailant. I know that when I am in stressful situations (not life-threatening… but stressful nonetheless…) I tend to get a sort of tunnel focus, I don’t notice details beyond what I need to know to get me through whatever situation it is, and I only focus on ‘survival’. Examples might be… delivering an important presentation, being in a road traffic accident, dealing with a domestic or family health crisis. In such situations, one is forgiven for not seeing the details in the wider picture. I would contend that some of VS’ testimony could be vague, inaccurate, missing etc, which would account for the lack of detail & inconsistencies that have been well debated here. The alternative is that VS deliberately missed out or adjusted her testimony but, with that proposal, one would have to ask… for what motive? I can’t personally conceive of any reason why VS would deliberately mislead the enquiry team as to what happened. I am, however, prepared to consider whether coaching encouragement from the police may have led her to adopt a certain position and then have to defend that position in court.
2. I would contend that VS didn’t actually get a decent look at her assailant’s face (partly due to the ‘tunnel focus’ effect above) because principally it was just to damn dark! There would have been little, if any, light and I don’t buy the ‘car headlights’ proposition at all. As for being able to identify the colour of her assailant’s eyes… I don’t think so.
3. Not wanting to appear snooty, but wouldn’t most London criminals in the area have a cockney accent, (fink etc) rather than an educated voice? Thus making the voice ID a little less reliable… As has been discussed, ID evidence can be suspect and, in this case, seems to have been the main evidence that helped convict JH.
4. Why the lack of ANY forensics in the car except for VS / MG. No hair, footprints, mud, fibres etc … but bullets WERE found, indicating possibly a thorough clean but bullets planted at some point after? With the lack of sightings, forensics, there is NOTHING (except the testimony of a terrified young woman) to put JH at the scene.
5. I have been thinking about a scenario which is not JH or Alphon. More like… was JH framed and why? Who might be the third party not ID’d so far? Someone completely unconnected with JH but with indirect connections to others wanting him framed?
6. The pompom hat… I absolutely refuse to believe there was no hair left after the wearer took it off. Was the hat a feature in the trial?
7. Was JH or Alphon left handed?
8. What about the watches? Were they stolen, or still on MG & VS when discovered?
9. I find the 5 hr ordeal inexplicable. Except … some unidentified individual who let it go badly wrong, waiting & waiting for an opportunity to end it, or enjoyed the control, or wanted some kind of response from his victims. VS story really doesn’t stack up – all due respect but so many things seem wrong, but this is probably due to the stress of the event. What would she be looking to do in NOT telling truth? Could she have been lookng to hide the real nature of her relationship with MG?
10. Alternatively, what other scenarios present themselves? Why NO foresics from the inside of car? Was no-one actually in it, other than MG & VS? And what are the implications of that conjecture? A very different version of events? If so why did VS tell THAT story of a 5 hr aimless drive?
11. Regarding JH’s testimony, perhaps the Liverpool and Rhyl stories were BOTH true. As the trial moved on, Liverpool looked a thin alibi & the prosecution had managed to damage it so JH introduced the later trip to Rhyl. Unfortunately this looked shifty. If he’d told full story in one, he might have survived.
12. It sems to be down to VS’ word against JH. She looked certain (& a victim) so gets sympathy vote on the day. JH looks shifty (alibi change, admitting naively to (eg) hanky seems to be (strangely) an honest account. I can imagine that he entered dock secure that he was innocent, halfway through he panicked & changed / added to story. In an attempt to build a convincing story which was true but, tragically LOOKED false. In all probability he told the truth. At first not seeing the need to be untruthful as he knew he was innocent, but when things started going wrong, added a (TRUE) Rhyl story to build alibi. Just looked wrong.
13. I can believe that Acott was worried that Alphon was no longer in the frame after the first ID parade, and needed a result. I think I can glean that he subsequently hid / managed / maniplated evidence to ensure it all pointed to JH… by which time Acott had convinced himself (& VS?) of JH’s guilt & went from there.
14. Who planted the gun / cartridges? Perhaps ANother (France / Alphon !!) ‘helped’ police by aiding, hence his easy treatment. No prints on the gun DOESN’T point to JH frame-up. Either JH did it & cleaned gun OR someone else, who was being protected by having prints wiped & gun placed in a location ALREADY alluded to by JH. Possible conclusion … ANother did it, JH was framed.
15. Who was the gunman? Another WHO WAS ON RUN for 4 MONTHS (as reported from the scene by VS)?? So what crimes were being pursued from MAR – JUN 1961 in the area, perhaps another assault / rape / murder? Are there Police records/newspaper reports from the Bedfordshire area, perhaps with France connections? Perhaps there WAS an unknown gunman, being sought for crimes 4 months prior, who committed this act?
16. Personally I tend to think that Alphon’s presence in the enquiry was a massive coincidence, and post exclusion, he acts in character as a chancer. I tend to think he has nothing to do with the crime.
17. JH’s entanglement is also a coincidence & just unlucky for him. Witness his actions when the call went out for Ryan. Immediately he responded, openly, to clear himself. Not the actions of a guilty man??
18. France’s ‘apology’ to Gregsten family.. he knew who did it & knew his own small part in it (perhaps in letters) – apology was more like sorry, in the same way you might express sorrow “I’m sorry for your loss…” but his peripheral involvement drove him to the edge. Involvement conjecture …he knew the killer but was threatened if he revealed it, also he felt guilt at not doing anything about it.


The keys are
1. What really happened in the car, compare (i) VS statement, (ii) what we can KNOW from the evidence / data
2. What is the missing / withheld evidence
3. The public mood at the time – the need for vengeance / a natural trust in police / sensational nature of event / trial
4. VS’ statement was “we PICKED UP a man…” NOT “we were held up at gunpoint”… strange choice of words.
5. The contrast in court between VS & JH (one person’s word against another)
6. During the night of the murder, why no attempt to get away at petrol station etc?

Anyway, I think this post (my first…) has turned into a ramble, and has become a little disoriented. I look to others on the forum to correct my mistakes and to point me in the right direction. Thanks.

[Limehouse]

Hello there JP56 - and a very warm welcome.

That was a fantastic first post. Some fabulous stuff to reespond to! I'll do the bits that jump out for me first:

1. - I think Valerie did receive a certain amount of coaching by the police - particularly when on ID parades - and the evidence for this was her feeling the need to select 'someone' from thje first parade rather than saying - the man in question has blue eyes and none of thse men is the man.
2. I would say the best opportunity that Valerie had to notice the build and general appearance of the man would have been when they were removing Mike from the car. It was around 3.30am then and would not have been pitch black. I don't think the 'headlights/face lit up scenario is very reliable.
3. Certainly - many criminal types had cockney accents and certainly many of them travelled out of London to perform their criminal acts - including Hanratty - and he could not have been the only one.
4. No forensics in the car - this is especailly strange as VS removed her knickers when she was raped and you would expect semen to have escaped somewhere into the car - especially on the seats.
5. - I have posed the possibility of a completely as-to-now unknown gunman who escaped indentification completely. This is an area that could certainly use some more debate.
13. - totally agree
14. Whio indeed?
15. - had anyone escaped from jail?

As for the five hour ordeal - it does seem a long - long time to be driving around doing nothing much. What was the true motive for the crime? Theft? Unlikely - why pick on a Moggie in a cornfield? Hanratty was the type of thief who entered people's houses when they were not at home and took as much as he thought was worth taking and he could carry in as fast a time as he could manage. If he was going to change his MO to armed robbery - he would have gone for a fast job with low risk and high returns.

Once again - welcome. Stick around!

[Natalie Severn]

Thankyou for your post, JP56, and welcome.You make excellent points and ask some searching questions and I will get back to you ,as Julie has, but I need to give it some more thought.
My own thinking at the moment is about the role Charles France may have played in the case.He had worked in the Rehearsal Club as a bouncer before he was sacked .Apparently he presided over the gambling that took place at the Rehearsal Club [was it later renamed the Harmony Club as referred to in the article Julie posted?]. Gambling was something of a weakness -maybe an addiction for France and throughout the 1930"s through to the sixties he had collected a number of criminal convictions for gambling.[Alphon too was another who lived and breathed "the Dogs" and gambling].Among the gamblers in Soho"s clubland were characters like the North London gang chief, Billy Hill who ran protection rackets amongst other things and is said to have initiated the Krays etc etc.Its therefore unlikely that Nudds ,a North London villain himself and keen horse- racing man,would not have known these gangsters.So a scenario can easily be envisaged where a "patsy" was sought and quickly found for the messed up job in Slough!
I think Valerie was "discouraged" from being open and frank about her affair with Gregsten.Who knows what she may also have been discouraged from revealing publicly about exactly what went on in that car apart from the killing of Gregsten ---her other evidence was given "in camera" after all.

[Victor]

Hi JP56,

Welcome to the A6 thread.

A couple of things stand out from your post...

4. Why the lack of ANY forensics in the car except for VS / MG. No hair, footprints, mud, fibres etc … but bullets WERE found, indicating possibly a thorough clean but bullets planted at some point after? With the lack of sightings, forensics, there is NOTHING (except the testimony of a terrified young woman) to put JH at the scene.

Lack of evidence is not evidence that nothing happened, why limit your comment to just JH? There's only VS testimony (and the body\semen on her knickers\&tc) that anyone was at the scene, but I agree with you that there is even less evidence pointing towards Alphon.

9. I find the 5 hr ordeal inexplicable. Except … some unidentified individual who let it go badly wrong, waiting & waiting for an opportunity to end it, or enjoyed the control, or wanted some kind of response from his victims. VS story really doesn’t stack up – all due respect but so many things seem wrong, but this is probably due to the stress of the event. What would she be looking to do in NOT telling truth? Could she have been lookng to hide the real nature of her relationship with MG?

Why not a panicked JH, completely out of his depth, coping the best he can with the stu[pid situation he'd got himself into?

There is no reason whatsoever to doubt VS version of events, and she made no attempt to hide the nature of her relationship to the police and Janet Gregsten.

11. Regarding JH’s testimony, perhaps the Liverpool and Rhyl stories were BOTH true. As the trial moved on, Liverpool looked a thin alibi & the prosecution had managed to damage it so JH introduced the later trip to Rhyl. Unfortunately this looked shifty. If he’d told full story in one, he might have survived.

The two stories are mutually exclusive, he either stayed with the 3 men in Liverpool or quickly abandoned the search for them, and got on a bus to Rhyl. He couldn't have done both.

15. Who was the gunman? Another WHO WAS ON RUN for 4 MONTHS (as reported from the scene by VS)?? So what crimes were being pursued from MAR – JUN 1961 in the area, perhaps another assault / rape / murder? Are there Police records/newspaper reports from the Bedfordshire area, perhaps with France connections? Perhaps there WAS an unknown gunman, being sought for crimes 4 months prior, who committed this act?

Why are you taking parts of the gunman's story (as relayed by VS) and ignoring others - "call me Jim" for example?

16. Personally I tend to think that Alphon’s presence in the enquiry was a massive coincidence, and post exclusion, he acts in character as a chancer. I tend to think he has nothing to do with the crime.
17. JH’s entanglement is also a coincidence & just unlucky for him. Witness his actions when the call went out for Ryan. Immediately he responded, openly, to clear himself. Not the actions of a guilty man??

Alphon was certainly a coincidence - they both stayed in the Vienna a night apart. I completely disagree about JH involvment, he did contact Acott, but he then went hunting for an alibi in Liverpool.

18. France’s ‘apology’ to Gregsten family.. he knew who did it & knew his own small part in it (perhaps in letters) – apology was more like sorry, in the same way you might express sorrow “I’m sorry for your loss…” but his peripheral involvement drove him to the edge. Involvement conjecture …he knew the killer but was threatened if he revealed it, also he felt guilt at not doing anything about it.

Or guilt that the gun used was his?

6. During the night of the murder, why no attempt to get away at petrol station etc?

Gregsten wouldn't abandon VS to the gunman - that's just stupid and cowardly. It'd also put an extra person in danger.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Valerie took an extraordinary long time to reach her decision-twenty minutes in all .Surely in most cases a person either recognises someone instantly or they dont?

Hi Norma,

No she didn't - she took 20 minutes to announce her decision.

Valerie needed extra support which she found by hearing his London accent pronouncing "thinking" as "finking".

She used the voice to corroborate her decision, which is entirely understandable considering her earlier mistake. There were up to 4 Londoners on that ID parade (according to Woffinden)

KR,
Vic.

[RonIpstone]

I assume that not all Londoners are, or were in 1961, unable to pronounce the digraph 'th'. It therefore does not follow that all four on the id parade would have said 'fink' rather than 'think'.

There can be no doubt that VS chose Hanratty as the person on the parade who most resembled her recollection of the murderer, in pretty much the same way as she had done in the first parade which featured Alphon.

That VS honestly believed Hanratty to be the murderer would have been apparent to even the dimmest member of that very dim Bedfordshire jury. Likewise it would have been equally apparent that Hanratty was nowhere near Ingledene on the night of 22 August 1961. It was also undoubtedly the case that Hanratty had lied about his whereabouts on that night.

In my opinion the jury took something of a stab in the dark by reasoning that if Jim had not been in Ingledene, the evidence before them being quite clearly that he was not, then he must have been elsewhere, and the only elsewhere on offer was provided by Miss Storie's evidence, to wit the back seat of the Morris Minor.

Fortunately for all concerned the subsequent scientific evidence provided by the boffins has confirmed the jury's theory.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

No she didn't - she took 20 minutes to announce her decision.

KR,
Vic.

Nonsense! That is how Valerie explained such a protracted identification process .Most people accept that either someone os recognised "instantly" or they are not actually recognised at all and the person doing the identification is not at all sure she has the right man.Valerie took five minutes to identify Michael Clark as her rapist and that too cannot be called "instant recognition".Time twenty minutes and see exactly how long Valerie took to "announce her decision" , Victor.

[Victor]

I assume that not all Londoners are, or were in 1961, unable to pronounce the digraph 'th'. It therefore does not follow that all four on the id parade would have said 'fink' rather than 'think'.

Hi Ron,

Up to 4 - Woffinden traced all the others and they were not from London.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

I assume that not all Londoners are, or were in 1961, unable to pronounce the digraph 'th'. It therefore does not follow that all four on the id parade would have said 'fink' rather than 'think'.

There can be no doubt that VS chose Hanratty as the person on the parade who most resembled her recollection of the murderer, in pretty much the same way as she had done in the first parade which featured Alphon.

That VS honestly believed Hanratty to be the murderer would have been apparent to even the dimmest member of that very dim Bedfordshire jury. Likewise it would have been equally apparent that Hanratty was nowhere near Ingledene on the night of 22 August 1961. It was also undoubtedly the case that Hanratty had lied about his whereabouts on that night.

In my opinion the jury took something of a stab in the dark by reasoning that if Jim had not been in Ingledene, the evidence before them being quite clearly that he was not, then he must have been elsewhere, and the only elsewhere on offer was provided by Miss Storie's evidence, to wit the back seat of the Morris Minor.

Fortunately for all concerned the subsequent scientific evidence provided by the boffins has confirmed the jury's theory.

Ronipstone,
Regarding the pronunciation of "th".It would simply have depended on whether they were working class or lower/ aspiring middle class.Rod Stewart,Keef Richards et al do exactly the same.Neither are ashamed of their working class origins and both use "f" for "th" in interviews.
People who are bi-dialectal and can and do use both,will lapse into the dialect they are most comfortable with when nervous or feeling threatened.

Can you please explain exactly what you mean by your references to "the Rhyl witnesses"?Which Rhyl witnesses?----there were 11 who came forward altogether from diverse backgrounds.
Please explain /give good reason for the claims you make about all of their statements-"en bloc " so to speak.
Likewise the claims made by these " boffins " as you call them,in 2002.That made me laugh out loud!["bluffers" more likely given the contamination they knew they were dealing with!]

[Victor]

That is how Valerie explained such a protracted identification process.

Hi Norma,

Yes it is an explanation given by Valerie, and there's no reason to doubt that explanation whatsoever.

Most people accept that either someone os recognised "instantly" or they are not actually recognised at all and the person doing the identification is not at all sure she has the right man.

And we have Valerie repeatedly saying she's positive she had got the right man, and again no reason whatsoever to doubt her.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

Yes it is an explanation given by Valerie, and there's no reason to doubt that explanation whatsoever.


And we have Valerie repeatedly saying she's positive she had got the right man, and again no reason whatsoever to doubt her.

KR,
Vic.

Can you explain how you know all this for certain?

I doubt Valerie"s explanation because I believe she was taken under Det Supt Acott"s wing and that she was still very convalescent.Her state of mind could well have been highly impressionable with regards to any slight inference from Acott-we know she was dependent on his support and guidance and she herself has written about it in the past.