a6 murder

[simon]

I find the whole eye-colour thing a bit worrying. Maybe it's just me, but there are friends I've known for decades whose eye-colour I'd be hard-pressed to tell you. Added to which...how good an idea of a person's eye-colour can you get at night, whether his face is momentarily seen by the lights of a passing car or not ? Could be misleading, I'd say.

Simon

[Steve]

Hi Tony

What you say about the identification evidence is of course correct as reported in the books on the case, and I have no doubt it was reported correctly. The identification evidence is one of the many reasons for the A6 murder becoming such a highly debated murder case.

However, the only available witness description of the murderer was by Miss Storie and she certainly remains adamant that the man in the car was Hanratty. We have to discount the identifications at Redbridge because they are now known to be extremely dubious.

What has really confirmed for many people with an interest in the A6 murder that Hanratty was guilty is the DNA evidence. As science stands today this is irrefutable proof that that Hanratty was the A6 murderer. Yes, I know this DNA evidence has been challenged here on this thread, but no-one has yet been able to disprove it. Therefore it has to be concluded that James Hanratty was guilty as charged and executed in line with the law as it then stood.

I don’t disagree that he should not have been found guilty on the evidence presented at trial, but that is another point altogether.

Kind regards,
Steve

[Steve]

I find the whole eye-colour thing a bit worrying. Maybe it's just me, but there are friends I've known for decades whose eye-colour I'd be hard-pressed to tell you. Added to which...how good an idea of a person's eye-colour can you get at night, whether his face is momentarily seen by the lights of a passing car or not ? Could be misleading, I'd say.

Simon

Simon

I agree with this - I have to make a conscious decision to notice and remember people’s eye colour. I think maybe it’s a male thing? I don’t know. But it does seem to me that females notice things like eye colour more than men do. Also I’m sure that some people are better at recognising faces than others. I was recently at a meeting completely unaware that someone who I know quite well was in the same room and it was only when he came over to me and said ‘hello, Steve’ that I realised I knew him. And I still had to ask him where I knew him from!

KR
Steve

[simon]

Hi Steve,
I bet you're now off his Christmas card list!

Simon

[Steve]

I'll tell you on December 26th .....

[Steve]

Actually, come to think of it if I get one at Christmas it will the first from him!

[larue]

It seems to me that a lot of the contributors to this thread state that their doubts have been dispelled by the fact that the evidence and total commitment by Valerie Storie was absolute. She has never wavered in her belief that Hanratty was the murderer. And to be fair she hasn’t.

Let us briefly examine this evidence:

She admitted she got the very briefest of glimpses of the gunman. Her eyesight was very poor.
Her first description of the killer to John Kerr went missing and when ‘it’ did turn up Kerr said it was not what he had written in fact it wasn’t even his handwriting. He said she told him the killer had fair hair and brown eyes. At the time Hanratty’s hair was dyed black and his eyes were blue.
At the first identity parade she picked out an entirely different and innocent man. At the very least a picture of this man should have been made available to the defence. It wasn’t. It would be intresting to know the colour of this man's eyes. Does anyone know?
Before the second identity parade she told Acott her recollection of the man was fading (again not revealed to the defence)
She asked the members of the ID parade to speak. It seems possible if not probable that Hanratty was the only cockney on the Parade. She would have known the suspect had dyed hair. Hanratty’s died hair was growing out. She took a long time to ID him.
The first identikit picture compiled by Valerie looked very much like a Mr Alphon.
Although identikits were in black and white you are, apparently, shown the ropes by the expert compiler (well you must be). He would say, even though it would be published in black and white,
such a number is for brown eyes, such a number is for green eyes, such a number is for blue eyes and so on.
There were 104 codings for types of eyes. The identikit picture had code E49 eyes which depicts dark eyes. E10 illustrates blue eyes. Why were E49 eyes used to describe Hanratty if he was the killer?

I wouldn’t like to be hanged on the basis of that. Contributors to this thread are saying.
“Oh the jury saw through Hanratty and were persuaded by Valerie’s unwavering evidence”

Sorry not enough for me.

Tony.

i quite agree with you Tony. not enough for me either!

[larue]

It seems to me that a lot of the contributors to this thread state that their doubts have been dispelled by the fact that the evidence and total commitment by Valerie Storie was absolute. She has never wavered in her belief that Hanratty was the murderer. And to be fair she hasn’t.

this is very true. it was also said of swanwick.

but, has anybody ever considered the implications of a wavering of belief?

think aboot it

[Steve]

Hi Larue

Yes, on the old thread I remember posting something about this - the possibility that if Hanratty had been innocent then the killer could still be alive. Miss Storie does not believe this to be a possibility, nor do I!

KR
Steve

[larue]

I think we are all, to some extent, both horrified but fascinated by murder. The popularity of TV shows that deal with murder confirms this.

hi Limehouse

aren't we just?

i watched the program on craig and bently last night on the crime channel, with nick ross. brilliant. man, would i love a day pass into the black museum...

gruesomely fascinating.

it's strange, but now you have mentioned it, i for one have never really considered where my interest stems from, as well as all the available books on the a6 case, i also have keith simpson, tullet and brown, as well as titles like 'masterpieces of murder', 'the encyclopaedia of true crime' etc, and avidly listened to the brilliant series, 'murder most foul', also with nick ross, and 'the black museum', with orson welles, dating from the fifties.

blimey, anyone perusing my bookshelf might conclude i was planning something...

[larue]

What has really confirmed for many people with an interest in the A6 murder that Hanratty was guilty is the DNA evidence. As science stands today this is irrefutable proof that that Hanratty was the A6 murderer. Yes, I know this DNA evidence has been challenged here on this thread, but no-one has yet been able to disprove it. Therefore it has to be concluded that James Hanratty was guilty as charged and executed in line with the law as it then stood.

hi Steve

disproving the dna test is almost impossible, unless one happens to be a dna expert with a fully equipped lab and access to the actual samples... and in my case that's aboot as likely as me winning the lottery. maybe i ought to buy a ticket?

i would have to say that it is virtually irrefutable proof that that Hanratty was the murderer, as there must still be, however microscopic, a chance that human error has played a part. honest or otherwise.

[larue]

Hi Larue

Yes, on the old thread I remember posting something about this - the possibility that if Hanratty had been innocent then the killer could still be alive. Miss Storie does not believe this to be a possibility, nor do I!

KR
Steve

hi Steve

that's not exactly what i meant. never mind

[Steve]

Hi Larue

That's why I always say 'as science stands today' - who knows what the future holds!

KR
Steve

[Tony]

this is very true. it was also said of swanwick.

but, has anybody ever considered the implications of a wavering of belief?

think aboot it

Does anyone seriously think any of the prosecution witnesses or the prosecutors would actually change their mind after a man had hanged after their performances.
Can you imagine Swanwick saying after the most celebrated trial for decades, possibly ever: “Ah yes what a performance I put on with all my cross examination skills, pitted against a man with learning disabilities. But do you know after he had been hanged I just thought wait a minute perhaps he didn’t do it after all”.
Can you imagine Miss Storie saying after the execution: “oh dear I picked somebody else out previously but I thought then that he was the gunman. Obviously he wasn’t. They then let me have another go and this time I got it right. Well I hope I did but you do have to wonder with all these books being written.

Tony

[Limehouse]

hi Limehouse

aren't we just?

i watched the program on craig and bently last night on the crime channel, with nick ross. brilliant. man, would i love a day pass into the black museum...

gruesomely fascinating.

it's strange, but now you have mentioned it, i for one have never really considered where my interest stems from, as well as all the available books on the a6 case, i also have keith simpson, tullet and brown, as well as titles like 'masterpieces of murder', 'the encyclopaedia of true crime' etc, and avidly listened to the brilliant series, 'murder most foul', also with nick ross, and 'the black museum', with orson welles, dating from the fifties.

blimey, anyone perusing my bookshelf might conclude i was planning something...

Hi La Rue,

My interest in true crime is fairly low key really and is extends from my interest in social history. For example, my interest in the Ripper crimes is based in the social and political landscape of the time and location rather than in a deep desire to know who the killer was.

As previously stated, my interest in the A6 murder stems from it being in the forefront of the early part of my childhood. This is also true of the Moors Murders - although I don't have the emotional stamina to delve too depply into those crimes.

I have had a long-held interest in the Craig and Bently case because I am concerned with justice being done and I think it Bently's case it was not. I suppose that was also what maintained my interest in the A6 events and what keeps me dipping into the Rillington Place case although, again, I can hardly stand to think about Christie's crimes or that horrible house.

In terms of Tv murder mysteries, I tend to avoid them if at all possible but I do enjoy a few such as New Tricks (for the humour) and Foyle's War (for Foyle - there's something deeply attractive about him).

Actually, when you look at some of these crimes from the 40s, 50s and 60s it makes you realise that the idea of being able to leave your back and front door open and let your kids run free was rather a myth.