a6 murder

[Natalie Severn]

I also find arguments about the resemblence between the photofit and suspects utterly futile when the people who drew up the photofits had the opportunity to compare them first hand.

But Blackhall composed the first photofit with Trower only 3 days after Blackhall had seen the gunman in the Morris Minor.[Trower"s evidence was denounced by Paddy Hogan who said he couldnt possibly have seen the driver of the MM as he arrived far too late].
Blackhall however did see him,he was almost next to him,[as he was in the passenger seat of the car] at the roundabout for a couple of minutes.
But Blackhall,at the identity parade picked out the man standing next to Hanratty at the id parade.He didn"t pick out Hanratty.He told Paul Foot the man he saw ,had,in fact looked more like Alphon-.

[Victor]

The point that Norma has very patienly tried to make is that there are witnesses who saw a man resembling Alphon - the first and strongest suspect as far as the police were concerned - in the vacinity of the cornfield on the day of the attack and at times previous to this.

By contrast - there are no witnesses on record as having seen a man resembling Hanratty near the cornfield on that day. Only Valerie's testimony places Hanratty in the car - but her first description did not fit Hanratty and her identification of the wrong man at the first line-up shows that she did not have clear idea about what her attacker looked like. This is evident by the fact that Alphon - who did not have blue eyes but who did fit the first description issued - was placed on an identity parade.

Hi Julie,

Woffinden sifted through all of the police reports and highlighted a couple which might resemble Alphon, but Alphon did definitely visit the nearby Slough Dog Track, and was a door-to-door Almanack salesman so could have been in the area previously, but so what? Visiting a Dog Track and betting doesn't make someone a murderer.

Valerie was not the only one to put Hanratty in the car, Skillett and Trower did too.

Her first description did match Hanratty.

I don't agree that picking Clarke in preference to Alphon shows she didn't have a clear idea.

Alphon was put on an ID parade because of the cartridge cases in the Vienna and Nudd's lies. Of course the police needed to investigate him - they did and eliminated him as a suspect.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

How long after the murder did the police investigate the area around Dorney?

Not within the first 48-72 hours that is for sure.

If you do not see the significance of that then you should rethink your approach to the case.

Hi Derrick,

I've no idea, have you?

How much evidence could have been gleaned if Dorney had been searched almost immediately?

Who knows? Maybe nothing. I think that a lack of evidence against anyone else (because it was overlooked or missed) has no effect on the evidence against Hanratty. Unless you've got something stronger than a man vaguely similar to Alphon (but not identified as such until 6 months later after his photo had been in the press) might have been in the area during the day, and not meeting his mother or booking in to the Broadway House\Vienna Hotels - as evidenced by the staff and guest books of those places.

KR,
Vic

[Victor]

As I have said previously I believe the gunman may have been hired by someone from Gregsten"s family to scare off Valerie.If this was so then several locations the couple used would have been checked over in previous weeks by the gunman.The couple met almost every weekday after work,so the gunman may even have lain in wait several times in the previous weeks.AsI have said before, the hiring of the man was to take the couple on a car ride that scared them......but didnt result in physical violence or rape.But the plan went wrong.

Hi Norma,

Wasn't Gregsten on holiday with his family the previous week? I suppose that a large scale and repeated ambush would drive the cost of such an operation sky high - I seriously doubt it'd get as exorbitant as £5,000 though.

what makes you say the man carrying the plastic bag with the top rolled over has to be ruled out?

Because the gunman didn't have a bag, unless you are suggesting that that is one of those bits of evidence that the Police didn't look for and find shoved under a hedgerow?

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie,

Woffinden sifted through all of the police reports and highlighted a couple which might resemble Alphon, but Alphon did definitely visit the nearby Slough Dog Track, and was a door-to-door Almanack salesman so could have been in the area previously, but so what? Visiting a Dog Track and betting doesn't make someone a murderer.

Valerie was not the only one to put Hanratty in the car, Skillett and Trower did too.

Her first description did match Hanratty.
I don't agree that picking Clarke in preference to Alphon shows she didn't have a clear idea.

Alphon was put on an ID parade because of the cartridge cases in the Vienna and Nudd's lies. Of course the police needed to investigate him - they did and eliminated him as a suspect.

KR,
Vic.

I don't agree that Valeri's first description matched Hanratty. If this is so - why did the first police description of the attacker state he had brown eyes ? Additionally - if her first description was so reliable - why were the police so certain that Alphon -who had brown eyes - was a good suspect? It is clear that the police were working from their own first issued description of the attacker.

Skillet and Trowler's statements refer to the man they saw in London. Their statements do not place Hanratty in the cornfield. Their statements are also contradicted by other witnesses.

[Victor]

I don't agree that Valeri's first description matched Hanratty. If this is so - why did the first police description of the attacker state he had brown eyes ? Additionally - if her first description was so reliable - why were the police so certain that Alphon -who had brown eyes - was a good suspect? It is clear that the police were working from their own first issued description of the attacker.

Hi Julie,

Not the brown eyes debacle again, there is no firsthand evidence that Valerie ever said brown eyes, the first police description did, but Valerie denied she had told them that. Alphon was brought in because of the dual connection of being reported as suspicious at a hotel, and Nudd's lies after the cartridge cases were found at the Vienna.

Skillet and Trowler's statements refer to the man they saw in London. Their statements do not place Hanratty in the cornfield. Their statements are also contradicted by other witnesses.

I specifically said Skillett and Trower link Hanratty to the car not the cornfield. Trower is contradicted by Hogan, but Blackhall does not contradict Skillett. Both these witnesses evidence was evaluated at the trial and was obviously believed by the jury.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Vic,

Alphon was brought in because of the dual connection of being reported as suspicious at a hotel, and Nudd's lies after the cartridge cases were found at the Vienna.

Nudds is curiously quiet about Durrant aka Alphon to the police .Up until Alphon was arrested for the murder,Nudds had been intent on drawing their attention to "Ryan" aka Hanratty and not"Durrant" aka Alphon.He told them that Hanratty had left after breakfast on 21st August and on his way out turned and asked Nudds if he could return to his room because he had left something there.He then told the police that he had been asked by Hanratty how to get to to Queensway and Nudds had told him he could take the 36 bus.
Given that the police were not at all interested in Hanratty at this stage it seems a curious bit of irrelevant information to have offered the police at that stage.
Something else set Alphon apart and had the police on his trail.But in addition ,like Julie, I believe it was also Valerie"s initial description combined with Blackhall"s description whose sighting they considered very important at that stage and who they had asked to help construct an identikit.

I specifically said Skillett and Trower link Hanratty to the car not the cornfield. Trower is contradicted by Hogan, but Blackhall does not contradict Skillett. Both these witnesses evidence was evaluated at the trial and was obviously believed by the jury

Vic,Blackhall most certainly does contradict Skillett.He told Skillett the man looked nothing like Hanratty.Moreover he is on record to Paul Foot as saying the man he saw in the Morris Minor looked more like Alphon.Skillett and Blackhall picked out men who looked completely different from each other and Blackhall had been right next to the driver,stationary at the roundabout with the window wound down in the passenger seat.

[Victor]

Nudds is curiously quiet about Durrant aka Alphon to the police .Up until Alphon was arrested for the murder,Nudds had been intent on drawing their attention to "Ryan" aka Hanratty and not"Durrant" aka Alphon.He told them that Hanratty had left after breakfast on 21st August and on his way out turned and asked Nudds if he could return to his room because he had left something there.He then told the police that he had been asked by Hanratty how to get to to Queensway and Nudds had told him he could take the 36 bus.
Given that the police were not at all interested in Hanratty at this stage it seems a curious bit of irrelevant information to have offered the police at that stage.

Hi Norma,

Why irrelevent? The cartridge cases has already been found on the 36 bus at that point. It seems to suggest you think he might be telling the truth!

Something else set Alphon apart and had the police on his trail.But in addition ,like Julie, I believe it was also Valerie"s initial description combined with Blackhall"s description whose sighting they considered very important at that stage and who they had asked to help construct an identikit.

Again, not Valerie's initial description - the Police initial description, which as we know was mistaken.

Blackhall most certainly does contradict Skillett.He told Skillett the man looked nothing like Hanratty.Moreover he is on record to Paul Foot as saying the man he saw in the Morris Minor looked more like Alphon.Skillett and Blackhall picked out men who looked completely different from each other and Blackhall had been right next to the driver,stationary at the roundabout with the window wound down in the passenger seat.

I don't agree, Blackhall picked a different person and we might expect him as the passenger being closer to have had a better view, but Skillett as the driver would have to be more alert, and he wanted to vent his anger on the driver who had cut him up so could be more focussed in getting his point across and observant of the person he was communicating to. Blackhall could be half asleep and focussing on winding the window down instead of paying attention to the driver.

KR,
Vic.

[julie q]

indentifications

Hi Norma,

Why irrelevent? The cartridge cases has already been found on the 36 bus at that point. It seems to suggest you think he might be telling the truth!


Again, not Valerie's initial description - the Police initial description, which as we know was mistaken.


I don't agree, Blackhall picked a different person and we might expect him as the passenger being closer to have had a better view, but Skillett as the driver would have to be more alert, and he wanted to vent his anger on the driver who had cut him up so could be more focussed in getting his point across and observant of the person he was communicating to. Blackhall could be half asleep and focussing on winding the window down instead of paying attention to the driver.

KR,
Vic.

Hi Vic and Norma.
I have been reading your debate regarding the reliability of identification witnesses ,including that of Skillet and Trower In the court of appeal judgement<paragraph 152> which I asume you both have a copy of, reference was made to the non disclosure of witness statements which may have cast aspersions on the itegrity of of the Skillet , Trower evidence . As they were refered to only briefly in the judgement I would like to give a fuller account of their contents .
DOREEN MILNE.
Doreen Milne owned a Morris Minor car the same model and colour as the one used in the murder .Throughout the summer of 1961 she had parked her car at around 8 am every weekday morning in Avondale Crescent at exactly the same location as the murder car was found.She would then travel by train to her work in London. In the week preceding the murder however the owner of the house ,in front of which she was in the habit of parking her car,had asked her if she would refrain from doing so, he had just errected a new fence in front of of his property and for some reason did not want cars parking close to it. She decided that the easiest solution was to park her car on the opposite side of the street .Doreen Milne said in her witness statement that when she left her car in this location on the 23rd August at 8.15 am she was certain that no other car was parked opposite .
A witness statement disclosed to the defence and used by the prosecution at the trial was that of DORIS ATHOE
Doris Athoe lived in Avondale Crescent and said that on the morning of the 23rd August she had noticed a Morris Minor car parked in the crescent and that it had remained there all day.There is every reason to believe that the car seen by Doris Athoe was the one belonging to Doreen Milne , Doris Athoe did not recall seeing 2 Morris Minor cars in the crescent as she would have done had the murder car also been there.
An even more compelling statement not disclosed was that of MARGARET THOMPSON
Margaret Thompson lived in Avondale Crescent and at around 5.30pm on the 23rd August she had left her home with her 3 year old son, to go to a shop on the corner of the crescent to purchase some ingredients for a meal she was preparing .On her return from the shop at 5.45pm she found the footpath obstructed by a Morris Minor car parked on it,forcing her and her young son to walk onto the roadway, something which had annoyed her.
When she saw police activity in the crescent later that evening she immediately went out and made a statement in which she claimed the car had definitely not been there at 5.30pm .
Another witness statement not disclosed was that of WILIAM LEE.
Willaim Lee was a HGV lorry driver and on the 23rd August at around 6.30am was driving his lorry southwards on the A6 some 100 miles north of Bedford when a Morris Minor car pulled out from a junction causing him to take evasive action to aviod a collision . So incensed was Mr Lee that he followed the car noting its registration number,when he later stopped for a break and learned of the murder which had occured further south on the A6 and the number of the car involved he called the police and gave a statement.The CCRC discovered this statement in 1998 and Mr Lee was traced and iterviewed .He reiterated what he had said in his original statement
including the fact that the driver of the Morris Minor had been wearing a green woollen hat with a pom pom on it. Later in their investigations the CCRC obtained a file containing photographs which included coloured images of the interior of the car and the boot . When those photographs were enhanced and enlargened , a green woollen hat with a poom pom on it,exactly as described in Mr Lee's statement to the Derbyshire police in 1961, could be seen in the boot of the car.
If the defence had been given access to those witnesses it is not unreasonable to suppose that a persuasive argument could have ben made to the jury that the murder car was not in the vicinity of Avondale Crescent at 7.am that morning and was therefor not the car seen by Skillet and Trower
I think it was non disclosure of this type that prompted Michael Sherrard to describe the people responsible for withholding it as wicked beyond belief .
Even the Appeal court judgement ,<paragraph 157> descibes it as the "high water mark of non disclosure
Hope this of some help.
regards julie q

[Victor]

Another witness statement not disclosed was that of WILIAM LEE.
Willaim Lee was a HGV lorry driver and on the 23rd August at around 6.30am was driving his lorry southwards on the A6 some 100 miles north of Bedford when a Morris Minor car pulled out from a junction causing him to take evasive action to aviod a collision . So incensed was Mr Lee that he followed the car noting its registration number,when he later stopped for a break and learned of the murder which had occured further south on the A6 and the number of the car involved he called the police and gave a statement.The CCRC discovered this statement in 1998 and Mr Lee was traced and iterviewed .He reiterated what he had said in his original statement
including the fact that the driver of the Morris Minor had been wearing a green woollen hat with a pom pom on it. Later in their investigations the CCRC obtained a file containing photographs which included coloured images of the interior of the car and the boot . When those photographs were enhanced and enlargened , a green woollen hat with a poom pom on it,exactly as described in Mr Lee's statement to the Derbyshire police in 1961, could be seen in the boot of the car.

Hi Julie q,

Thank you for those informative statements, one thing that jumps out to me is:- doesn't the mileage on the car rule out Mr Lee's sighting despite the corroborative woollen hat?

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Wasn't Gregsten on holiday with his family the previous week?
KR,
Vic.

Hi Vic,
Michael Gregsten did take Janet and their children away to Dorset for a family caravan holiday but he left half way through and only returned to Dorset to bring them back home.

[Derrick]

Hi Julie q,

Thank you for those informative statements, one thing that jumps out to me is:- doesn't the mileage on the car rule out Mr Lee's sighting despite the corroborative woollen hat?

KR,
Vic.

A good point.
But the defence, as far as anyone knows, did not have the car's mileage examined. So all we have is D Supt Acott's word for it. Considering he knew of all of the sightings he could quite easily have jotted down a standby figure, of the final mileage, in his notebook to explain things just in case the defence got too nosey.

The police could have clocked it anyway so nothing is certain about the mileage.

What happened to the car, by the way?

Derrick

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Vic and Norma.
I have been reading your debate regarding the reliability of identification witnesses ,including that of Skillet and Trower In the court of appeal judgement<paragraph 152> which I asume you both have a copy of, reference was made to the non disclosure of witness statements which may have cast aspersions on the itegrity of of the Skillet , Trower evidence . As they were refered to only briefly in the judgement I would like to give a fuller account of their contents .
DOREEN MILNE.
Doreen Milne owned a Morris Minor car the same model and colour as the one used in the murder .Throughout the summer of 1961 she had parked her car at around 8 am every weekday morning in Avondale Crescent at exactly the same location as the murder car was found.She would then travel by train to her work in London. In the week preceding the murder however the owner of the house ,in front of which she was in the habit of parking her car,had asked her if she would refrain from doing so, he had just errected a new fence in front of of his property and for some reason did not want cars parking close to it. She decided that the easiest solution was to park her car on the opposite side of the street .Doreen Milne said in her witness statement that when she left her car in this location on the 23rd August at 8.15 am she was certain that no other car was parked opposite .
A witness statement disclosed to the defence and used by the prosecution at the trial was that of DORIS ATHOE
Doris Athoe lived in Avondale Crescent and said that on the morning of the 23rd August she had noticed a Morris Minor car parked in the crescent and that it had remained there all day.There is every reason to believe that the car seen by Doris Athoe was the one belonging to Doreen Milne , Doris Athoe did not recall seeing 2 Morris Minor cars in the crescent as she would have done had the murder car also been there.
An even more compelling statement not disclosed was that of MARGARET THOMPSON
Margaret Thompson lived in Avondale Crescent and at around 5.30pm on the 23rd August she had left her home with her 3 year old son, to go to a shop on the corner of the crescent to purchase some ingredients for a meal she was preparing .On her return from the shop at 5.45pm she found the footpath obstructed by a Morris Minor car parked on it,forcing her and her young son to walk onto the roadway, something which had annoyed her.
When she saw police activity in the crescent later that evening she immediately went out and made a statement in which she claimed the car had definitely not been there at 5.30pm .
----------------

If the defence had been given access to those witnesses it is not unreasonable to suppose that a persuasive argument could have ben made to the jury that the murder car was not in the vicinity of Avondale Crescent at 7.am that morning and was therefor not the car seen by Skillet and Trower
I think it was non disclosure of this type that prompted Michael Sherrard to describe the people responsible for withholding it as wicked beyond belief .
Even the Appeal court judgement ,<paragraph 157> descibes it as the "high water mark of non disclosure
Hope this of some help.
regards julie q

Many thanks julie q,
It sounds from these undisclosed witness statements that the Morris Minor may not have arrived in Avondale Crescent until after Margaret Thompson had left for the shops ---ie after 5.30 pm but before 6.15. This appears to have been corroborated by the statement of Doreen Milne who had parked her identical car-same make,model and colour to the murder car- in that spot every weekday until the week previous to the murder when she had begun parking it in the same spot but on the other side of the road,as she did on that day.It throws a whole new light on the evidence of Blackhall and Skillett and helps to explain their very different choices at the identification parades they attended.
And yes,its quite bizarre that such evidence was never disclosed to the defence.

[NickB]

Did anyone see the car at the Vienna earlier in the day when Alphon delivered the cartridge cases?

[Natalie Severn]

Did anyone see the car at the Vienna earlier in the day when Alphon delivered the cartridge cases?

Would anyone have noticed in London ?