a6 murder

[Victor]

Hi Tony,

That's the whole point though, VS was wheeled in on a trolley in a terrible state adn who's to say if she comprehended what was explained to her, and whether what you've outlined was actually said.

You say she's an intelligent woman, but was she capable of reaching her intellectual capacity at that moment?

Perhaps she felt obliged to pick someone out?

Perhaps Acott was so insistent that she didn't feel she could be wheeled away without having a go at picking someone out?

Not the best of circumstances I must admit.

As for "If she picked a wrong man, catastrophe", as you said Michael Clark walked free, so not exactly a catastrophe then.

KR,
Vic.

[Tony]

Hi Tony,

That's the whole point though, VS was wheeled in on a trolley in a terrible state adn who's to say if she comprehended what was explained to her, and whether what you've outlined was actually said.

You say she's an intelligent woman, but was she capable of reaching her intellectual capacity at that moment?

Perhaps she felt obliged to pick someone out?

Perhaps Acott was so insistent that she didn't feel she could be wheeled away without having a go at picking someone out?

Not the best of circumstances I must admit.

As for "If she picked a wrong man, catastrophe", as you said Michael Clark walked free, so not exactly a catastrophe then.

KR,
Vic.

Hello Vic,

I don’t think I explained the sentence you referred to very well. So let me have another go.

I was actually putting myself in Acott’s position.
He had got who he at that time thought was the gunman. Well he must have done; if he thought Alphon had nothing to do with it there would have been no ID parade.

If then Valerie had picked Alphon then: “Bingo”. She’s picked the man we suspect, it’s game up for him.
If on the other hand she picked an entirely innocent man then my use of the word “catastrophe” wasn’t meant in the literal sense. By it I meant Acott’s theories and suspicions were undone and at that time he had no where else to go or in other words no other suspect to turn to. He was back to square one which at that point in time would have been catastrophic for him.

And distress or not if Valerie picked out this entirely innocent man then presumably she could equally have picked out any of the men.

Also if as you say Acott was so insistent that she pick someone out then he must have felt he had the gunman on offer to her.


Tony.

[Tony]

Hello Vic,

I don’t think I explained the sentence you referred to very well. So let me have another go.

I was actually putting myself in Acott’s position.
He had got who he at that time thought was the gunman. Well he must have done; if he thought Alphon had nothing to do with it there would have been no ID parade.

If then Valerie had picked Alphon then: “Bingo”. She’s picked the man we suspect, it’s game up for him.
If on the other hand she picked an entirely innocent man then my use of the word “catastrophe” wasn’t meant in the literal sense. By it I meant Acott’s theories and suspicions were undone and at that time he had no where else to go or in other words no other suspect to turn to. He was back to square one which at that point in time would have been catastrophic for him.

And distress or not if Valerie picked out this entirely innocent man then presumably she could equally have picked out any of the men.

Also if as you say Acott was so insistent that she pick someone out then he must have felt he had the gunman on offer to her.


Tony.

Morning all,

At 11.00 AM on the 24th September 1961 Acott organised the ID parade and in the line up was Peter Alphon.

How convinced was Acott at this time of Alphon’s guilt and how disappointed was he when Clark was picked out?
And what would have been Valerie’s thoughts if she had selected Alphon and then Acott had grabbed her by the arm and said: “Well done.”?

Opinions please from anyone but particularly from the Jimdidit side of the fence.

Tony.

[jimarilyn]

Just another of those coincidences ??

Hi all,

Michael Sherrard was supposed to have remarked something to the effect that this case was "sagging with coincidences".
September 11th 1961 was a significant day in the murder investigation, it was the day that Robert Crocker and Juliana Galves discovered the spent cartridge cases in room 24 of the Vienna.
It was also the day James Hanratty returned from his week long visit to Ireland having gone there to obtain a driving licence.
Probably just another coincidence but I can't help wondering how many of his acquaintances knew of his return to London early that morning.

regards,

James

[alan]

Morning all,

At 11.00 AM on the 24th September 1961 Acott organised the ID parade and in the line up was Peter Alphon.

How convinced was Acott at this time of Alphon’s guilt and how disappointed was he when Clark was picked out?
And what would have been Valerie’s thoughts if she had selected Alphon and then Acott had grabbed her by the arm and said: “Well done.”?

Opinions please from anyone but particularly from the Jimdidit side of the fence.

Tony.

Good morning Tony,

Well, had V.S. picked out Alphon from the start that shouldn't have mattered either. Alphon had an "irrefutable" alibi (Acott's words) or might that alibi have just evaporated like so many other peculiar things in this case?

Alan

[Tony]

Good morning Tony,

Well, had V.S. picked out Alphon from the start that shouldn't have mattered either. Alphon had an "irrefutable" alibi (Acott's words) or might that alibi have just evaporated like so many other peculiar things in this case?

Alan

Hello Alan,

If Alphon had an “irrefutable” alibi why was he asked to go on an ID parade?

Acott would have checked his alibi before putting him on parade and he would have looked a bit silly if Valerie had picked out Alphon and then he, Alphon, calls somebody who can give him a foolproof alibi in court.
Acott did not accept Alphon had an alibi. He couldn’t have done.

Tony.

[Tony]

The two latest posts from Alan and James certainly sum up, in many ways, the nagging doubts I've always had about Valerie Storie.
She obviously suffered an horrendous ordeal, and has had to live with the after effects ever since. However, I just can't escape from the feeling that she's a helluva lot tougher than originally portrayed, and was determined that "somebody" should pay for the crime against her and Michael Gregsten. Hence, her selection of the totally innocent Michael Clark, from the 1st identity parade. I firmly believe that had she picked out Alphon, then he would have been the man standing in the dock at Bedford Assizes.
Acott's dealings in the whole issue smack of Liverpool's (in)famous Balmer, in previous similar cases - Acott too was desperate for a conviction, and between them, he and VS formed a formidable partnership.
It's obvious that we will never know exactly what when on during that mammoth car journey, but does anyone seriously believe that the whole truth has been brought out?
With reference to the sweetshop alibi, I am confident that the people involved with the shop, principally Olive Dinwoodie, were honest and reliable citizens. As correctly stated, there were several witnesses who placed Hanratty in London on the 21st, so the enquiry inside David Cowley's shop can only have taken place on the 22nd. Does anyone still genuinely believe that this alibi was "bought"???
Regards to one & all.

Hello PC49,

At the trial Mr Swanwick never once suggested to Mrs Dinwoodie that no one came to her sweet shop to make enquiries about Tarleton or Carlton Road all he did say was that perhaps Hanratty resembled a man who made such an enquiry.
So he was asking the jury to accept the fact that Hanratty came up with a story that actually happened and he himself, Swanwick, accepted that it had happened. But it wasn’t Hanratty who made the enquiry. If it wasn’t Hanratty then how could Hanratty have known about it?

And if you were buying an alibi I would suggest you could buy a better one than that. How could he have bought something so ludicrous.

Tony.

[jimarilyn]

At the trial Mr Swanwick never once suggested to Mrs Dinwoodie that no one came to her sweet shop to make enquiries about Tarleton or Carlton Road all he did say was that perhaps Hanratty resembled a man who made such an enquiry. So he was asking the jury to accept the fact that Hanratty came up with a story that actually happened and he himself, Swanwick, accepted that it had happened. But it wasn’t Hanratty who made the enquiry. If it wasn’t Hanratty then how could Hanratty have known about it?And if you were buying an alibi I would suggest you could buy a better one than that. How could he have bought something so ludicrous.

Exactly, Tony. They then tried to suggest that there was some imaginary air service which magically transported Hanratty to a cornfield in Dorney Reach in time for him to abduct the unwitting occupants of a humble Morris Minor.Ridiculous.

regards,
James

[PC49]

Hello PC49,

At the trial Mr Swanwick never once suggested to Mrs Dinwoodie that no one came to her sweet shop to make enquiries about Tarleton or Carlton Road all he did say was that perhaps Hanratty resembled a man who made such an enquiry.
So he was asking the jury to accept the fact that Hanratty came up with a story that actually happened and he himself, Swanwick, accepted that it had happened. But it wasn’t Hanratty who made the enquiry. If it wasn’t Hanratty then how could Hanratty have known about it?

And if you were buying an alibi I would suggest you could buy a better one than that. How could he have bought something so ludicrous.

Tony.

Good morning Tony,
I consider that you've summed up this particular issue perfectly. It was almost certainly Tarleton Street (in Liverpool city centre) that Hanratty was looking for, and being in the Scotland Road area, where he obviously had contacts, would be perfectly reasonable. I find it so hard to comprehend why the defence lawyers did not make more of this sighting. As I've mentioned previously, the people in ownership of the sweetshop, and working there, were definitely not the type of people to "sell" alibis!!
As it would seem that the members of the jury did not believe in the validity of this incident, then they were obviously unfit to serve on a jury.
Very best regards.

[PC49]

Exactly, Tony. They then tried to suggest that there was some imaginary air service which magically transported Hanratty to a cornfield in Dorney Reach in time for him to abduct the unwitting occupants of a humble Morris Minor.Ridiculous.

regards,
James

Maybe it was a magic carpet ride, James?
It couldn't have been anything else. To get back to London from Liverpool in the early 60's, in sufficient time, would have warranted a new entry in the Guinness Book of Records!
I heartily endorse your comments.
All the best.

[jimarilyn]

It was almost certainly Tarleton Street (in Liverpool city centre) that Hanratty was looking for, and being in the Scotland Road area, where he obviously had contacts, would be perfectly reasonable. I find it so hard to comprehend why the defence lawyers did not make more of this sighting. As I've mentioned previously, the people in ownership of the sweetshop, and working there, were definitely not the type of people to "sell" alibis!!

A very sound deduction PC49. I have lived in Liverpool all of my life and know the area very well. As you so rightly put it the proprietors of that sweet shop in Scotland Road were very respectable people (David Cowley and his wife Stella) as was Mrs Dinwoodie.
The sweet shop, as you are probably aware, was only about a mile away from Lime Street Station. Were it still in existence today it would be a hundred or so yards away from the approach to the second Mersey Tunnel (Kingsway Tunnel) which was opened in 1971.
Incidentally, Graham Swanwick was way out of order when he said that Scotland Road was an "area that abounds in thieves".

As it would seem that the members of the jury did not believe in the validity of this incident, then they were obviously unfit to serve on a jury.

I agree. As the jury were out for nigh on 10 full hours I would imagine that several of them must have been impressed with the sweetshop incident. Perhaps the foreman of that jury just wore them down and bullied the dissenters into submission, if so then it doesn't reflect too well on their character. I know one thing, I would never have allowed myself to be pressurised into changing my mind on such an important issue.


regards,
James

[alan]

Hello Alan,

If Alphon had an “irrefutable” alibi why was he asked to go on an ID parade?

Acott would have checked his alibi before putting him on parade and he would have looked a bit silly if Valerie had picked out Alphon and then he, Alphon, calls somebody who can give him a foolproof alibi in court.
Acott did not accept Alphon had an alibi. He couldn’t have done.

Tony.

Tony,

Yes, I take your point but wasn't it Alphon who had the 12 point alibi. If that was the case the alibi must have come after the first ID parade OR wasn't Accot quite so sure afterall.

Also I have to believe the Dinwoodie evidence. The only thing that can step in the way of that is that it was on the Monday. Is JH's alibi for Monday being in London perfectly sound?

As for the magic carpet ride to Dorney Reach; I'm sorry I don't believe it.

If it wasn't for the DNA I would still think not guilty; none of the jigsaw pieces seem to fit and the DNA bit adds even more confusion to me.

Regards to all,

Alan

[Tony]

Tony,

Yes, I take your point but wasn't it Alphon who had the 12 point alibi. If that was the case the alibi must have come after the first ID parade OR wasn't Accot quite so sure afterall.

Also I have to believe the Dinwoodie evidence. The only thing that can step in the way of that is that it was on the Monday. Is JH's alibi for Monday being in London perfectly sound?

As for the magic carpet ride to Dorney Reach; I'm sorry I don't believe it.

If it wasn't for the DNA I would still think not guilty; none of the jigsaw pieces seem to fit and the DNA bit adds even more confusion to me.

Regards to all,

Alan

Hello Alan,

The 12 point alibi you refer to for Peter Alphon was actually something cooked up by Basil Acott (yes quite a chef I know) that he said ruled Alphon out. But there are 12 equally good points to rule him in and some of Acott’s points were just silly.
Acott himself knew that Hanratty was definitely in London on the Monday he never disputed this.
So if the sweetshop incident did happen it could only have been on the Tuesday.

Tony.

[alan]

Hello Alan,

The 12 point alibi you refer to for Peter Alphon was actually something cooked up by Basil Acott (yes quite a chef I know) that he said ruled Alphon out. But there are 12 equally good points to rule him in and some of Acott’s points were just silly.
Acott himself knew that Hanratty was definitely in London on the Monday he never disputed this.
So if the sweetshop incident did happen it could only have been on the Tuesday.

Tony.

Hi Tony,

Yes, very interesting. That only leaves us with the magic carpet ride to Dorney. Has anybody ever tried to emulate this particular feat?

You refer to the sweetshop incident as an "if it took place". Do you subscribe to the bought alibi theory or are there other views on this bit of evidence.

If it was bought wouldn't it raise the spectre of conspiracy again otherwise why bother. After all Dinwoodie came before the murder.

Little wonder this thread keeps alive as ever!

Alan

[Tony]

Hi Tony,

Yes, very interesting. That only leaves us with the magic carpet ride to Dorney. Has anybody ever tried to emulate this particular feat?

You refer to the sweetshop incident as an "if it took place". Do you subscribe to the bought alibi theory or are there other views on this bit of evidence.

If it was bought wouldn't it raise the spectre of conspiracy again otherwise why bother. After all Dinwoodie came before the murder.

Little wonder this thread keeps alive as ever!

Alan

Hello Alan,

Yes I did refer to the incident as ‘if it did take place’ and yes I believe it most certainly did.

Put yourself in Hanratty’s shoes for a moment: you have been arrested for and charged with murder. They need to prove you guilty. You need not say nor do anything.
But you would know in 1961 if the jury believed the prosecution case and found you guilty you would probably be on the end of a rope. So you need to defend yourself but you are the type of character who leads a come day go day sort of existence. You don’t have a regular job so you can’t say you were at work or anything like that so you simply think: “Where the bloody hell was I on that Tuesday afternoon?”
Eventually you remember one thing, a tiny thing: somebody a stranger tried to help you out in the late afternoon by pointing you in the right direction of a road you were looking for in Liverpool. But it’s a bit of a long shot for it was only an old lady in a sweet shop but, well, that’s what happened.
“Look the only person that can vouch for me is an old lady in a sweet shop in Liverpool. I don’t know her name or the shop’s name or even exactly where it is now. I don't even know if she will recall such a minor incident but that’s the best I can do.”

I bet the defence looked to the heavens in desperation and Acott would have had a laugh with Oxford about it.
I bet nobody at the time thought they would come across Mrs Dinwoodie but they did. And what is more she confirmed exactly what he said. A sweet shop is a very busy place but in 1961 how many Londoners called in asking for directions? Not many I would have thought.
Acott, at the trial, accepted what Mrs Dinwoodie said to be true and he knew Hanratty was in London on the Monday so the incident must have been on Tuesday the afternoon of the murder. Acott, now a bit stuck, then said it was possible that another Londoner called at her shop asking for directions at the time Hanratty said he was there. Hmm good old Bob.

Tony.