a6 murder

[reg1965]

For those who have missed some of them, Kerr was interviewed in one of the programmes about the case in recent years.

Hi Simon AND ALL

Here are the quotes of John Kerr from the BBC Horizon programme in 2002

First 2 are about the finding of Storie.

JOHN KERR (Trial witness): Well that August I took this job for two weeks doing a traffic census at a position called Dead Man's Hill, which is about eight miles south of Bedford on the A6. As I walked up the road I began slowly to see that there were two bodies, or collections of something, lying right at the end of this road about 80m up. As I got a bit closer still I realised that one of them was a woman lying on her back and beyond her another figure, also on the back, and from the fact that he was wearing trousers it was clearly a man and so I got closer to the woman and I could see that she was bloodstained, her skirt rising up above her knees, but it was such a bizarre, extraordinary scene that I actually said to her, "Are you alright?" because there was no sign of alarm, carnage or anything awful having happened. It was just these two bodies lying, apparently peacefully, in this brilliant sunny day. Of course she said to me, "No, I've been shot."

JOHN KERR: (ARCHIVE) I asked her what her name was. She said it was Valerie Storie. She said "please tell my parents. They'll be so worried about me," so I said, "well what has happened?" (PRESENT DAY) She said, "we picked up a man around 9.30 last night near Slough. He drive us here and he shot me and he shot him." And I said at that point, "Is he dead?" and she said, "I think so."

The last two about his attendence at court.

JOHN KERR: He came across as a cocky, arrogant person who may not have looked a total killer - no, I don't say that - but he certainly looked a nasty piece of work.

JOHN KERR: Given that really the whole thing depended upon Valerie Storie's word against his I think sometimes that Hanratty's demeanour and appearance probably weighed a great deal with the jury in coming to their decision.

Reg

[simon]

Personally I don't find it strange that VS implied it was a hitch-hiker. No matter what state she was in, I think she'd have preferred people not to know that (as was quite possibly the case) they were interrupted while having sex in the car in a cornfield. Later, of course, it would have been pointed out to her that absolutely accurate details were neccessary to catch the killer. But maybe 'discussing a car rally' was allowed to stand ? - or was the story she stuck to ?

[reg1965]

Personally I don't find it strange that VS implied it was a hitch-hiker. No matter what state she was in, I think she'd have preferred people not to know that (as was quite possibly the case) they were interrupted while having sex in the car in a cornfield. Later, of course, it would have been pointed out to her that absolutely accurate details were neccessary to catch the killer. But maybe 'discussing a car rally' was allowed to stand ? - or was the story she stuck to ?

Hi Simon
You have got it pretty damn right.
Reg

[reg1965]

As per John Kerr's description of Hanratty at trial it may well be true that it was his general presence and his word against Srories that swung it (oops!) for the jury.

Although Kerr refrained from tainting Hanratty as a killer he did say that Hanratty did look a nasty piece of work.

His change of alibi was, perhaps, just the final nail in the coffin of James Hanratty. Ironic, considering the number of people who came forward from Rhyl at the time of the trial that were either withheld from the defence or who were not fully interviewed by the defence due to lack of time and or resources or by just plain incompetence.

It would seem we are getting closer to deducing why the jury convicted Hanratty of the A6 murder, wouldn't it?
Reg

[Graham]

I raised the point re: 'hitch-hiker' because a previous post implied that Valerie Storie used this expression to distort the truth in some way. It seems this is now cleared up.

In my view, JH was convicted (against the odds, as I've always said) for the following reasons:

1] Valerie Storie's identification evidence was, whether we like it or not, accepted by the jury;

2] JH's mid-trial change of alibi;

3] JH's performance in the witness-box. He appeared to think that if he were allowed to have his say then the jury would see that there was no way someone like him could have committed the A6 Crime. He was wrong. Sherrard counselled urgently against his taking the stand, but legally he couldn't prevent him doing so.

This reminds me of the 'Brighton Trunk Murder No 1' case from the 1930's. Tony Mancini was lucky enough to have Norman Birkett as his defence counsel, and Birkett suggested to Mancini that he should take the stand which, after considerable 'coaching' by Birkett, he did, and he put in what was apparently a virtuoso performance. But JH was no Tony Mancini, who was, although a real rogue, an intelligent one and, it would seem, a consummate actor. JH was neither an actor nor intelligent. I believe JH ruined the distinct possibility of his being acquitted by taking the stand. If his demeanour had such a profoundly negative effect upon John Kerr, then I think it stands to reason that the members of the jury were similarly unimpressed.

Incidentally, I think it's also important to mention, with regard to the conversation Kerr had with Storie as they waited for the ambulance, that he said he thought she said her name was 'Mary Storie'. If he misunderstood her in this respect, then it's not impossible that he misunderstood or mis-heard other things she said to him.

Graham

[Sara]

As it's almost Xmas and the end of a long year on this thread, may I propose this offering from Reg (describing the late Paul Foot) as "Mixed Metaphor of the Year"?

<< Not afraid to stick his snout in where others would get cold feet he would stick to his guns right to the end ... >>

[reg1965]

As it's almost Xmas and the end of a long year on this thread, may I propose this offering from Reg (describing the late Paul Foot) as "Mixed Metaphor of the Year"?

<< Not afraid to stick his snout in where others would get cold feet he would stick to his guns right to the end ... >>

Hi Sara

Mixed metaphor my arse I could be a bloody football pundit with stuff like that!!

You take care

ps like your scepticism over the DNA evidnece pet

A very very merry Xmas to you all, if we don't bump into each other before, and a happy New Year.
Reg

[Graham]

Paul Foot

I've said it before on this thread and I'll say it again: Paul Foot was a hero at a time when we needed a few (as we do so again, today). He never ceased to snipe away at what he saw as corruption, bad government, the evil aspects of big business, miscarriages of justice and so on. Usually he got it right; occasionally he got it wrong. I always appreciated his general lack of tabloid-type emotion in dealing with his various causes celebre. He just got on with it. I'm old enough to remember when he first got his teeth into the A6 Case in Private Eye, and he never let go, even though right at the end of his life he seemed to have just a slight doubt (this following the DNA evidence). Richard Ingrams, the former editor of the Eye, once said that "If Footie says something, then I believe it" or words to that effect.

Graham

[Rob63]

Hi,
First post on the forum, I`ve spent the last four days trawling through this A6 thread and interesting reading it makes. I remember going to Madame Tussauds as a child many years ago and seeing the JH exhibit in the horror section, it struck me as out of place as the rest were quite gory. As I didn`t know anything about the case the chap looked very much like countless other males of the time who frequented the local pub. At that time most males wore a suit of some description when out on the town and they all tended to look like the typical 'jack the lad'. I did overhear my parents mentioning that there was some doubt as to his guilt but thats as far as my knowledge went.
Over the years I`ve caught a few news articles on the crime but didn`t take much notice, after hearing one on the dna evidence in 2002 I found myself asking if dna isn`t the be all and end all that it is purported to be. Bearing in mind I knew very little about the crime or DNA I put this down to some sub conscious memory of childhood when I overheard my parents mentioning the doubt raised over the case.
So I`ve come on here as a fence sitter, I tend to rely on facts and am not a great fan of wild speculation although this does sometimes produce some thought provoking moments, I`ll maybe get a book or two to read on the matter but would`ve rather purchased one which is middle of the road, unfortunately after reading this thread there seems to be only books pushing the for or against argument...unless someone can enlighten me ?
I did like another posters suggestion of a dedicated A6 part of this forum where different sections could be easily located regarding witnesses, evidence etc. as anyone new to the subject has a mammoth task of trawling through such a long thread to glean information. One thing I would like to see is another DNA test on the available exhibits from a totally independent laboratory but realise that this would be highly improbable.
I do have some questions which contributors may be able to answer, I`m sorry if the answers have already been given but it isn`t easy backing up through such a long thread to find snippets of info.

1/ Were any spent cases found at the scene of the crime and if so how many ?
2/ There is reference in one post to the shooter first appearing wearing a hanky as a mask, would this be true ? If so when did the shooter remove the mask ?, is there anything in VS statement ?
3/ Before they arrived at the cornfield there is mention that they were parked nearby in another location but were disturbed. Is there any reference to what disturbed them ?
4/ I`ve seen a post on here quoting a Mr Simpson (pathologist ?) where he listed the wounds as coming from a .32 calibre bullet, was this a typo for the article. I`m assuming that as a pathologist he would`ve had to take a stab at what calibre weapon caused the injuries. Therefore was it a .32 or a .38 figure which was on the pathologists report?
5/ I believe there was something in VS statement that she and MG went to the pub on the fateful night with friends. Does anyone have any references to who these friends were ?
6/ Reference the Dixie France letters, I recall someone on here mentioning that Mr Foot had access to them at one point as long as he didn`t discuss publicly what they contained. Being as he believed JHs` innocence right up until the DNA episode and then still had his doubts, should the letters now be discounted in containing anything of value to the case. I only mention this as being a journalist Mr Foot could`ve found some way of releasing information if there were any explosive facts gained from the letters.

Sorry it`s such a long first post but these are jut a few thoughts I`ve had whilst perusing over the last four days
Regards
Rob

[reg1965]

I've said it before on this thread and I'll say it again: Paul Foot was a hero at a time when we needed a few (as we do so again, today). He never ceased to snipe away at what he saw as corruption, bad government, the evil aspects of big business, miscarriages of justice and so on. Usually he got it right; occasionally he got it wrong. I always appreciated his general lack of tabloid-type emotion in dealing with his various causes celebre. He just got on with it. I'm old enough to remember when he first got his teeth into the A6 Case in Private Eye, and he never let go, even though right at the end of his life he seemed to have just a slight doubt (this following the DNA evidence). Richard Ingrams, the former editor of the Eye, once said that "If Footie says something, then I believe it" or words to that effect.

Graham

Hi Graham
Bravo for that elequent elegy for the late great, and I mean Great, Paul Foot.
I am not sure though were this idea of Foot having doubts about Hanrattys guilt come from. Maybe somebody who knows can post a refernce of it.
Regards
Reg

[Graham]

Hi Graham
Bravo for that elequent elegy for the late great, and I mean Great, Paul Foot.
I am not sure though were this idea of Foot having doubts about Hanrattys guilt come from. Maybe somebody who knows can post a refernce of it.
Regards
Reg

Hi Reg,

I heard an interview on the radio not long before Footie died, and he was asked about the A6 case and said something to the effect that ' the DNA evidence had, of course, made him think hard about matters'. Not to say that he accepted it, but I did get the impression that, like many of us, the DNA findings came as something of a, er, surprise....

Cheers,

Graham

[Graham]

Evening Rob,

Good first post. If I may, can I please take it point by point?

1/ Were any spent cases found at the scene of the crime and if so how many ?

Yes, there were, because Hanratty apparently re-loaded the gun. Unfortunately I can't remember exactly how many, but the figure of 6 sticks in my mind.

2/ There is reference in one post to the shooter first appearing wearing a hanky as a mask, would this be true ? If so when did the shooter remove the mask ?, is there anything in VS statement ?

VS did indeed say that the gunman was wearing a hankie or similar as a mask, 'outlaw-style'. I don't recall her saying when he removed it, but he must have done so before he raped her, as I believe he forced her to kiss him.

3/ Before they arrived at the cornfield there is mention that they were parked nearby in another location but were disturbed. Is there any reference to what disturbed them ?

They were in another location prior to going to the cornfield. As far as I recall they were in a lay-by or similar in Hunterscombe Lane, about 1/4 of a mile away. I would say they moved because their first location probably wasn't private enough for what they wanted to do...

4/ I`ve seen a post on here quoting a Mr Simpson (pathologist ?) where he listed the wounds as coming from a .32 calibre bullet, was this a typo for the article. I`m assuming that as a pathologist he would`ve had to take a stab at what calibre weapon caused the injuries. Therefore was it a .32 or a .38 figure which was on the pathologists report?

The gun found on the 36A bus was a .38 calibre Enfield service revolver. I'm no expert, but I'd say that the close-range effect of a .32 and a .38 would be about the same. Simon Gregsten said that his father's face had been blown off.

5/ I believe there was something in VS statement that she and MG went to the pub on the fateful night with friends. Does anyone have any references to who these friends were ?

I've always understood that they went to The Station Inn on their own. If they met friends there, I cannot recall anyone identifying them.

6/ Reference the Dixie France letters, I recall someone on here mentioning that Mr Foot had access to them at one point as long as he didn`t discuss publicly what they contained. Being as he believed JHs` innocence right up until the DNA episode and then still had his doubts, should the letters now be discounted in containing anything of value to the case. I only mention this as being a journalist Mr Foot could`ve found some way of releasing information if there were any explosive facts gained from the letters

I also recall that Paul Foot did have access to France's letters, not just the ones that were published. Like all people with an interest in the A6 Case I would love to know just what France wrote, and whether or not it had any direct and material bearing on the case. Where are those letters now, one is moved to ask? In some dusty file somewhere? Destroyed? Charles France's family have, understandably, never made any known statement regarding his involvement, at least not since his death.

Best regards,

Graham

[reg1965]

Hi Reg,

I heard an interview on the radio not long before Footie died, and he was asked about the A6 case and said something to the effect that ' the DNA evidence had, of course, made him think hard about matters'. Not to say that he accepted it, but I did get the impression that, like many of us, the DNA findings came as something of a, er, surprise....

Cheers,

Graham

Hi Graham
Thanks
Reg

[Rob63]

Blimey that was a quick reply Graham, thanks for providing answers to my questions. I`ve just popped on fleabay and bought Mr Foots' book, along with Murder Casebook no.20 and Mr Simpsons 'Forty years of murder' which has a section on the A6 murders. Hopefully once I receive them I`ll be able to pick the wheat from the chaff.

[Graham]

Blimey that was a quick reply Graham, thanks for providing answers to my questions. I`ve just popped on fleabay and bought Mr Foots' book, along with Murder Casebook no.20 and Mr Simpsons 'Forty years of murder' which has a section on the A6 murders. Hopefully once I receive them I`ll be able to pick the wheat from the chaff.

Like greased lightnin', me, mate!

You did well to get a copy of Foot's book so easily, unless it's been recently reprinted. I got mine a few years ago by e-mailing about 6 specialist crime book-shops, and it took me a couple of months before I scored.

What I don't have - and I take this opportunity to ask if anyone's got one for sale - is a copy of Jean Justice's book 'Murder vs Murder. I read it years and years ago - I borrowed a copy - but would love to read it again.

Cheers,

Graham