a6 murder

[Victor]

Also before the rape, Valerie took her knickers off, she didn't pull them down, so how was semen transferred onto her knickers which she had removed ?

Because she put her knickers back on afterwards and the semen leaked out onto them.

[Steve]

what aboot the witholding of evidence from the defence team and the jury that has emerged since the trial?

i always thought that the burden of proof was with the prosecution? and the lack of a credible alibi is hardly proof of guilt

Hi Larue

None of the evidence disclosed since the trial has proven beyond doubt that Hanratty was innocent.

It wasn’t just the lack of an alibi that convicted him, the identification evidence was the main factor.

Kind regards,
Steve

[Tony]

Hi Larue

None of the evidence disclosed since the trial has proven beyond doubt that Hanratty was innocent.

It wasn’t just the lack of an alibi that convicted him, the identification evidence was the main factor.

Kind regards,
Steve

Afternoon Steve,

Wasn’t the car’s mileage revealed at the Court of Appeal? This showed that the car had done about 200 miles according to Mike’s log and couldn’t have been dumped in Avondale Crescent at the time it was supposedly seen by the Redbridge witnesses unless somebody had wound the clock on. Thus their evidence could not have been correct. Acott knew this but withheld it from the defence.
As I’ve said before Valerie picked someone out on the first ID parade who was completely innocent and on the second ID parade she picked out Hanratty only after asking them to speak. Hanratty had strange coloured hair and was possibly the only cockney on that parade. She got it wrong first time so her identification powers were definitely suspect. As I said I wouldn’t have liked to be hanged on that evidence and you do not have to prove your innocence the Crown has to prove your guilt. I do wonder why Hanratty's defence team did not ask for Valerie's original chosen ID man to be brought before the court for comparison with Hanratty. It would seem a glaring mistake on the part of the defence:
"Oh look, My Lord this is who she picked first. Absolutely nothing like my client. How does she explain this?"
Just suppose Valerie had picked out Alphon on that first parade (and she might well have done) he would have undoubtedly been charged, probably tried and possibly executed. Do you think she would be still saying: “I was there I knew it was Alphon”.

Tony.

[Steve]

Hi Tony

I think it is correct that the car had covered more miles than it would have taken to drive from Deadman’s Hill to Avondale Crescent, but not enough for some of the claimed sightings, the one in Matlock for instance, to have been valid. Quite a lot of doubt has been thrown on the timings for the Morris Minor being left in Avondale Crescent and it is quite possible than another similar car was mistaken for Gregsten’s car and that Gregsten’s car was not left there until later in the day.

Certainly, the identifications by Trower & Co are very suspect indeed,

I believe that Acott was asked if the original man was available and that he gave a vague answer.

I have to say I feel that Valerie had enough information about her assailant, his voice of instance – Hanratty apparently spoke with a slightly effeminate voice – to be sure of her identification. Also we have to take into account that at the time of the identification parades she was still very ill.

Yes, you are right, if she had picked out Alphon he could well have been tried, convicted and hanged for the crime.

Kind regards,
Steve

[Tony]

Because she put her knickers back on afterwards and the semen leaked out onto them.

Hello Victor,

Yes I agree with that but what about Jimarilyn’s first point? Where was the gun while the gunman was tying knots with his gloves on and leaning over into the front seat to tie Valerie to the door handle?

Tony.

[Tony]

Hi Tony

I think it is correct that the car had covered more miles than it would have taken to drive from Deadman’s Hill to Avondale Crescent, but not enough for some of the claimed sightings, the one in Matlock for instance, to have been valid. Quite a lot of doubt has been thrown on the timings for the Morris Minor being left in Avondale Crescent and it is quite possible than another similar car was mistaken for Gregsten’s car and that Gregsten’s car was not left there until later in the day.

Certainly, the identifications by Trower & Co are very suspect indeed,

I believe that Acott was asked if the original man was available and that he gave a vague answer.

I have to say I feel that Valerie had enough information about her assailant, his voice of instance – Hanratty apparently spoke with a slightly effeminate voice – to be sure of her identification. Also we have to take into account that at the time of the identification parades she was still very ill.

Yes, you are right, if she had picked out Alphon he could well have been tried, convicted and hanged for the crime.

Kind regards,
Steve

Hi Steve,

Very quick response that.

Let’s just suppose that you were up in court accused of a serious crime and also let’s suppose you were entirely innocent. But you have a problem; you have been identified, quite wrongly, by a prosecution witness.
Just before your trial you find out that this same witness had attended an earlier ID parade similar to the one which you had been on and on this parade the witness had picked someone else out for the crime you are now accused of. Wouldn’t you then say to the police: “Wait a minute lads. I’m here accused of this crime, no messing about where’s the other person who this witness picked out and said had committed the crime for which I am now accused and on trial. Bring him in let’s have a look at him”
Would you accept an answer on the lines: “oh we did not take his name and address down, we don’t know where he is or what he looked like.”

Would you accept that? No me neither.

Tony.

[Steve]

Wasn’t the car’s mileage revealed at the Court of Appeal? This showed that the car had done about 200 miles according to Mike’s log and couldn’t have been dumped in Avondale Crescent at the time it was supposedly seen by the Redbridge witnesses unless somebody had wound the clock on. Thus their evidence could not have been correct. Acott knew this but withheld it from the defence.

Hi Tony

Trower's evidence was shown to be totally incorrect by his friend Hogan, who said that morning Trower arrived later than usual. Also, from the position Trower would have been standing, on the pavement outside the shop and with his own car parked inbetween himself and the road, he would at best have had only a fleeting glimpse of the car's driver. It would seem that Trower involved himself in the A6 murder case for reasons known only to himself and, with his false evidence, actually stood in the way of justice being done.

One witness, Doreen Milne, said that she parked her own Morris Minor on the opposite side of Avondale Crescent a little after 8 o’clock on the morning of the alleged sighting, and didn't notice a second grey Morris Minor being there. That’s not to say there wasn’t one actually there and she just failed to notice it, but her own vehicle could well have caused confusion about the actual time that the gunman (assuming it was the gunman) dumped the car in Avondale Crescent. However, corroboration of Doreen Milne’s statement came from Margaret Thompson who told the police at the scene that evening that she was sure that Gregsten’s car had not been there earlier in the afternoon when she had walked along the road with her little boy.

Kind regards,
Steve

[Steve]

Just before your trial you find out that this same witness had attended an earlier ID parade similar to the one which you had been on and on this parade the witness had picked someone else out for the crime you are now accused of. Wouldn’t you then say to the police: “Wait a minute lads. I’m here accused of this crime, no messing about where’s the other person who this witness picked out and said had committed the crime for which I am now accused and on trial. Bring him in let’s have a look at him”
Would you accept an answer on the lines: “oh we did not take his name and address down, we don’t know where he is or what he looked like.”

Would you accept that? No me neither.

Hi Tony

I don't think any of us would disagree that Hanratty should not have been found guilty on the evidence presented at the trial.

KR
Steve

[jimarilyn]

No I think a lot happened in that car that has never been revealed or explained.

Good observation Tony, I'm very much of the same opinion. Miss Storie and Mike Gregsten were held captive in that car for about five and a half hours, the equivalent of watching a double bill of Ben Hur and The Third Man (and a bit more to spare). That's a long time to spend with a stranger (?) in the confines of a Morris Minor. They were supposed to have remained in the cornfield for about 2 full hours before starting their tortuous journey up to Maulden.

Miss Storie, I feel, was very selective in what she revealed about the gunman's conversation. Most of what the gunman disclosed about himself was not true of Hanratty at all (being in the Oxford area, living rough for 2 days, being locked up in a cellar for days, being beaten and given bread and water, being in institutions since the age of 8, being in a remand home, being in Borstal, serving five years for housebreaking, coming up for Preventive
Detention). This sort of conversation would probably only account for about 10-15 minutes (if that) of those 2 hours when the car was stationary in the cornfield, so unless there were very long periods of silence (very improbable) just what else was said and done while the car was parked up ?

The truth of the matter is that we only have Miss Storie's version of events to rely on. We are obliged to take her word for it, without us knowing anything about her character or personality traits. Theoretically speaking, and for all we know, Miss Storie could have invented parts of the story or embellished certain details and not revealed other important details. I'm not saying this is the case, only that we are all at a huge disadvantage in having only one version of those events.

Another sad truth is that if Miss Storie had not been involved in a love affair with Michael Gregsten, a married man, he might still be alive today and she might be wheelchair free.

[jimarilyn]

Most of what the gunman disclosed about himself was not true of Hanratty at all.

During the trial at Bedford, Michael Sherrard made the following very important and perceptive statement :-

"There is so much that does not fit, and that is why the prosecution are driven to saying in as serious a matter as this 'take what fits and let it fit; take what does not and discard it - a bluff, a blind' "

[Limehouse]

Another sad truth is that if Miss Storie had not been involved in a love affair with Michael Gregsten, a married man, he might still be alive today and she might be wheelchair free.

That is very unfair. Why blame just the woman? You might just as well say that if Gregsten had not embarked on an affair with Miss Storie he may not have died etc. Additionally, Miss Storie was not the only woman with whom he had an affair. If it had not been Miss Storie in the car, it most likely would have been someone else.

[Tony]

Another sad truth is that if Miss Storie had not been involved in a love affair with Michael Gregsten, a married man, he might still be alive today and she might be wheelchair free.

That is very unfair. Why blame just the woman? You might just as well say that if Gregsten had not embarked on an affair with Miss Storie he may not have died etc. Additionally, Miss Storie was not the only woman with whom he had an affair. If it had not been Miss Storie in the car, it most likely would have been someone else.

Good evening Limehouse,

Yes maybe in today’s society Jimarilyn’s turn of phrase was not politically correct but I have yet to see anyone on here being unkind or disrespectful to either contributors or people involved in the crime. I just think it was probably written without thinking it through. When I first read it it did not disturb me but now you point it out I understand your complaint. But I would simply view it as an unfortunate slip.

As I say everyone is extremely polite to all contributors and people involved in the case. Even people who are convinced of JH’s guilt are unusually polite and even some of the shadier, or shall we say more colourful participants don’t come in for much stick and that is why this forum is so addictive.
Can you imagine some people’s comments and language if we were debating Ian Brady or Ian Huntley?

But to get back to the case; if what we have been told about what happened in the car, and the only two people who have any knowledge about it are Miss Storie who was there and Mr Alphon who rightly or wrongly said he was there, then there isn’t much to go on.
All the conversations during the two hours in the cornfield and then the three hour drive don’t add up to more than a few minutes at most.
Nobody has addressed the problem I now have about where the gun was when Valerie was being tied up. What was Mike doing at this time? I think this is important and once again why didn’t the defence ask this simple question
No I think we have been told very selective pieces of what was said and happened in that car.

Tony.

[jimarilyn]

Another sad truth is that if Miss Storie had not been involved in a love affair with Michael Gregsten, a married man, he might still be alive today and she might be wheelchair free.

That is very unfair. Why blame just the woman? You might just as well say that if Gregsten had not embarked on an affair with Miss Storie he may not have died etc. Additionally, Miss Storie was not the only woman with whom he had an affair. If it had not been Miss Storie in the car, it most likely would have been someone else.

I have not attached any blame to Miss Storie in my statement, I have merely pointed out that Miss Storie and Michael Gregsten were involved in a love affair, which eventually (and unfortunately) through a chain of events led to them being in a cornfield at Dorney Reach on August 22nd 1961 where they were hi-jacked by a gunman. You have read much more into this statement than was intended.

[jimarilyn]

Alphon & Tafler

Not a very clear image of Sydney Tafler. This image is from the classic 1951 British comedy drama "The Lavender Hill Mob". Judge for yourself if you think there's any similarity. Alec Guiness was the star of the film and I bet Peter Alphon said more than once in his life..." I LIKE GUINESS"

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
What a fascinating subject this is[ if thats the apt word].
If one takes the actual wording of Valeries statement, the mind boggles, and indeed many questions have to be asked.
I would say, having sat in a period Morris minior, and having first hand experience of the cramp conditions that I experienced as a twelve stone Plus guy[ many years ago,] I would not get in it now]. that sitting in the back seat, especially in adaptability to carry out a shooting , and a rape, I find hard to accept.Neverless it obviously happened, so I would suggest that Mikes nerve was gone , and although opportunety arose, mayby to overpower, he saw it safer to play it cool. which did not pay off.
And the replacing of Valeries Nickers by herself , would obviously have had semen placed on them.
Regards Richard.