a6 murder

[Natalie Severn]

To abusive male poster alias Victor

To Victor the "Revolting abuser"
Much information has been given about Valerie Storie and her ability ,from day one, to describe her ordeal,dreadful as it was, in a perfectly coherent manner .
Therefore,when for a full week at least descriptions went out about a man with brown eyes,changed only on 31st August, one assumes the source of the description and therefore the change to that description, was Valerie herself.

Ps.I do not drink but you certainly seem to, judging by your posts---oh and I don"t lie either but you probably do since a dirty MC pig smells its own stink first!

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

What a festering heap of bovine faeces! Valerie was raped. Semen was present in her underwear. It was blood typed.

KR,
Vic.

Nice way to debate? Especially since I have never ever questioned whether or not Valerie was raped!

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

Have you been drinking? That makes no sense whatsoever, Woffinden and Michael Hanratty were clamouring for the DNA tests, and only objected when they didn't say what they wanted to hear. There were no contaminants on the samples otherwise they would appear in the results and they didn't!

Oh and stop blatantly lying - Valerie never changed her description of her rapists eyes - even Woffinden accepts that! FFS

KR,
Vic

And this illustrates why I am wondering whether it is Vic who has some kind of "drink problem" especially since I don"t drink!!!

[Victor]

Especially since I have never ever questioned whether or not Valerie was raped!

Hi Norma,

Try reading the post in context - If you question whether the gunman was male or female, then by implication you are questioning whether the victim was raped.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Much information has been given about Valerie Storie and her ability ,from day one, to describe her ordeal,dreadful as it was, in a perfectly coherent manner.

Actually Norma both Foot and Woffinden go to great lengths to demonstrate that Valerie was quite coherent and capable of accurately mis-identifying Michael Clark, and that there should be no allowance made for the fact she was convalescing.

Therefore,when for a full week at least descriptions went out about a man with brown eyes,changed only on 31st August, one assumes the source of the description and therefore the change to that description, was Valerie herself.

That's certainly a possible explanation that can be quickly discounted by checking what Valerie herself has to say about the matter - there is no direct quote from her saying "brown eyes", only the police description.

I do not drink but you certainly seem to, judging by your posts

Yes I do, but only at evenings and weekends\bank holidays\celebrations.

oh and I don"t lie either

So why keep repeating disproven theories as if they are factual. And repeat them again after the inaccuracies have been pointed out to you.

Kindly explain the dicotomy of having an incredibly sensitive technique that would pick up the slightest smidgeon of contamination - and the DNA results that showed only 3 profiles, the two victims and Hanratty - how has the super sensitive technique managed to miss the profile of the rapist and pick up Hanratty's contamination? The only logical explanation is if Hanratty is the rapist.

KR,
Vic.

[Admin]

If you cannot discuss this topic civilly you will be prevented from discussing it.

In an attempt to cool this thread off, for the next two months, any person who resorts to personal abuse of another poster on any A6 thread will be banned from the Other Mysteries forums and will not be able to post here.

Hopefully within the next two months, either the people who can't hold their tempers will be weeded out or they will have learned to discuss the topic in a civil manner.

If you see a poster who engages in personal abuse on these threads during the next few weeks, please hit report post immediately. Any negative comment about another poster will be considered abuse. Confine your comments to the case and not other posters.

Thank you.

[julie q]

Hi
I have not posted for some time,I came across the forum several months ago ,and having had an interest in the case for over 40 years saw it as an opportunity to share my knowledge and in return gain the knowledge and opinion of fellow posters. I feel recently it however it has degenerated in to a point scoring, name calling exercise.
I can understand that a case as controversial as this can provoke argument, refutation and at times dissension,people can resent their well embedded beliefs and received opinions being challenged .
People are perfectly entitled to place their own interpetation on known facts of the case , and hold opinions and theories on the many factors that are still unknown, but it should be possible to present them in a manner that does not cast aspersions on the itegrity of those who hold an opposite veiw.
There have been a number of aspects recently I would like to have commented on but refrained from doing so , hopefully we can now return to a reasonable and respectful debate
REGARDS JULIE Q

[Limehouse]

Hi
I have not posted for some time,I came across the forum several months ago ,and having had an interest in the case for over 40 years saw it as an opportunity to share my knowledge and in return gain the knowledge and opinion of fellow posters. I feel recently it however it has degenerated in to a point scoring, name calling exercise.
I can understand that a case as controversial as this can provoke argument, refutation and at times dissension,people can resent their well embedded beliefs and received opinions being challenged .
People are perfectly entitled to place their own interpetation on known facts of the case , and hold opinions and theories on the many factors that are still unknown, but it should be possible to present them in a manner that does not cast aspersions on the itegrity of those who hold an opposite veiw.
There have been a number of aspects recently I would like to have commented on but refrained from doing so , hopefully we can now return to a reasonable and respectful debate
REGARDS JULIE Q

Emotions have certainly run high - as you say - it is case that evokes strong emotions from both camps. Your contributions have been excellent vJulie - and I look forward to more of them.

[Black Rabbit]

Don't the statements from the Rhyl witnesses (though not available at the trial) surely cast a shadow of doubt over the 'guilt' of Hanratty?

They can't all be mistaken or lying

[Victor]

Don't the statements from the Rhyl witnesses (though not available at the trial) surely cast a shadow of doubt over the 'guilt' of Hanratty?

They can't all be mistaken or lying

Hi BR,

Some of the statments were available to the defence before the end of the trial, and most well before the appeal, they sound fairly honest and genuine, although Michael Sherrard said something along the lines of them not tallying with what Hanratty said about his alleged trip to Rhyl - the details he gives about the Ingledene are vague and general with the exception of the green bath in the attic - although I believe Hanratty said "top of the house" which is less specific and would open it up to more premises.

However, we have the DNA confirmation so that makes it very likely that there was a dark haired young man wandering around Rhyl looking for lodgings that evening, which in the height of the summer season wouldn't be that uncommon. It just wasn't James Hanratty.

In the words of Michael Sherrard... "The witness may be perfectly honest, absolutely convinced that he or she has identified the right man or woman and you're not going to be able to cross-examine them to show that they're lying 'cos they're not lying, they're telling the truth as they see it."

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

Hi BR,

also one of the Rhyl "Witnesses", the newspaper seller Charley Jones, admitted to Nimmo that he'd been effectively bullied by Terry Evans into making a supportive statement.

Sherrard said on at least one occasion that he was concerned about some people wanting to "get in on the act", and I think this also applies to at least some of the Rhyl "Witnesses".

Hanratty, in my opinion, would've been better off sticking to his original Liverpool Alibi and effectively challenging the prosecution to disprove it. It seems much more credible than a vague story about green baths and middle-aged landladies...

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Graham,

Michael Sherrard did indeed say this,but he was referring to the evidence given by Valerie Storie ---which he clearly found to be less than satisfactory especially since a man"s life depended on it----indeed Hanratty was executed more because of Valerie"s identification than anything else! And even though she had first stated that Michael Clark was her rapist and Gregsten"s killer.We now know that Michael Clark had brown hair and was heavily built---whereas James Hanratty was very slim,
[/B]

In the words of Michael Sherrard... "The witness[-referring to Valerie Storie"s statement] may be perfectly honest, absolutely convinced that he or she has identified the right man or woman and you're not going to be able to cross-examine them to show that they're lying 'cos they're not lying, they're telling the truth as they see it."

[Limehouse]

Found this recently:

Haven't heard of these witnesses before.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/hanratty-witnesses-go-public-1279254.html

I wonder if this couple's car was clocked by the census further down the road?

[Natalie Severn]

Hi BR,

also one of the Rhyl "Witnesses", the newspaper seller Charley Jones, admitted to Nimmo that he'd been effectively bullied by Terry Evans into making a supportive statement.

Sherrard said on at least one occasion that he was concerned about some people wanting to "get in on the act", and I think this also applies to at least some of the Rhyl "Witnesses".

Hanratty, in my opinion, would've been better off sticking to his original Liverpool Alibi and effectively challenging the prosecution to disprove it. It seems much more credible than a vague story about green baths and middle-aged landladies...

Graham

There were eleven witnesses in all.The son of Trevor Dutton who was a highly respected business man in Denbighshire,as is his son today,remained convinced that James Hanratty was the young man who stepped out of a doorway in Rhyl High Street and asked him if he would like to buy a gold watch.The area the young man chose [between Burton"s and what used to be the old post office]is an area of Rhyl where a few market stalls are set up during the week so it wasn"t entirely inappropriate---although apparently Mr Dutton seems to have thought it unusual.
Mrs Margaret Walker,like Mr Dutton,only became aware of the significance of her own encounter, when she heard about the Bedforshire solicitor looking for witnesses and learnt that Mrs Jones was going to Bedford.This was when the trial had only a few days left to run.Neither Mr Dutton or Mrs Walker were called by the defence,mainly because Sherrard was preparing his final pleading, and prioritised this.
It was only six years later that Mrs Walker came forward again at a meeting called by Lord Longford in Rhyl.
Mrs Walker was ,at that time, one of four women,all close neighbours running B&B"s at the time who had come forward to say they recognised Hanratty as the same man who had called at each of their houses on August 22nd 1961.Mrs Walker had not wanted to get involved in the case at all but eventually felt troubled not to.Brenda Harris,the daughter of Mrs Jones was another witness who was not called.
Both Mrs Walker,Mr Dutton and Christopher Larman all spoke of the artificial or streaky look the young man"s hair had.
Some of their statements,during appeal and investigation, form part of the "non-disclosure" of statements---of which their were very many.

[Natalie Severn]

Found this recently:

Haven't heard of these witnesses before.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/hanratty-witnesses-go-public-1279254.html

I wonder if this couple's car was clocked by the census further down the road?

This is a very impressive discovery Julie.That they were never followed up is really strange.It may ofcourse also be because the crime covered an area where there were three police forces in operation,Scotland Yard taking over ultimately.I often wonder if this was why John Kerr"s notes disappeared ---more due the unmanageability of three police forces liaising than anything else.