A6 murder and the 1967 Nimmo Inquiry

[Natalie Severn]

Indeed Norma

What is the saying?....There but for the Grace of God go I.

If one happens to get caught in the Criminal Justice System then they must have their wits about them in all aspects of it. Who can do all that with no resources against the state machine.

Regards
Derrick

Good question.To succeed one appears to need the unwavering commitment and investigative legal skills of a Gareth Peirce.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma
If you are correct then you are playing into the hands of the prosecution as Trower identified Hanratty instantly.

Yet even those here who think Hanratty was the A6 killer accept that identification evidence is highly subjective. The Redbridge witnesses most likely did not see Gregstens' aunt's Mog according to the 2002 appeal.

And if it were not parked up before 5pm as some non-disclosed witnesses claim then it would seem unlikely that Alphon was the driver as he checked into the Alexandra at 5pm that day and was seen at the Vienna at 11.45am. Yet someone else may have parked it up for him. Who knows in this mad case.

Regards
Derrick

Yes,it is my understanding that the more immediate the identification the more likely it is to be accurate.The length of time taken---15 to 20 minutes followed by Valerie"s need to hear his voice would suggest some degree of uncertainty.If that is unhelpful as far as Trower is concerned then so be it, Derrick .

Regarding the two Redbridge non-disclosed witnesses both stating they believed the Morris Minor was not parked before 5pm .This would appear to rule out Alphon being the person who eventually parked the Morris Minor in Avondale Crescent if it was parked there after 5pm certainly.
I have been thinking along other lines too---was there another person involved who scrupulously cleaned the car of fibres,semen and finger prints and then deposited it in Avondale Crescent -a person familar with Redbridge,perhaps? Maybe the gunman himself was an Eastender ? The pronunciation of "thinking" as "finking" would certainly tally with an East Ender -the accent and dialect .
Hanratty,so far as we know, did not frequent the East End of London but rather Central London and Swiss Cottage .Hanratty grew up in West London where "thinking" is also pronounced "finking" but in West London the Cockney accent is not quite so marked or quite so sing song.
The more I think about this the more I wonder whether others were involved.

[Hatchett]

Hello Natalie,

But why would others be involved?

This was not a pre arranged kidnapping with a ransome note and a promise of possible fortunes for nefarious acts.

This was an inocent couple having a love affair in a car in a field that were forced into a nightmare with a man with a gun who blustered and bullied them and then forced them onto a journey that endled in mindless murder and despicable rape.

There was no plan. There was no profit. There was no need at all to do it, apart from reckless and uncontrollable madness and depravity which ended in almost indescribale cruelty.

I think the danger here is to try and look logically into what basically was an illogical and terrible act.

Who else possibly could be involved in something so profitless, pointless, and depraved?

[Natalie Severn]

having your cake and eat it!

Hi Hatchett,

There was no plan. There was no profit. There was no need at all to do it, apart from reckless and uncontrollable madness and depravity which ended in almost indescribale cruelty.

Then why not Alphon?
Either the A6 killing was the act of a madman or it wasnt.You can"t have your cake and eat it.
Alphon is will be remembered was the chap who drew police to the Vienna Hotel very early in the inquiry-28th August.Why did he do that? Because of his extremely bizarre and crazy behaviour at the Alexandra Hotel where he booked into immediately after leaving the Vienna Hotel.
In his own words and during a 7 hour interrogation by police,at noon on 23rd August,the day of the murder ,he had gone back to his left luggage locker in Victoria Station-[presumably via the 36A bus which ran from the Vienna Hotel direct to Victoria].He deposited his clothing there and collected another case.
At the Alexandra Court Hotel he behaved exactly like the madman you describe.
So much so, a number of people went to the manager and told him they thought he was the A6 killer [26/08/1961]!
Those are facts.It was Alphon, student of bizarre religions and admirer of the mad mass murderer,Hitler, who was the first man to be held in custody over the A6 murder.Alphon who had first drawn police attention to the Vienna Hotel.It was Alphon who eventually announced, publicly in Paris, that he was the A6 murderer and who,by the way, in doing so lost all claim to
compensation from the media.

In my opinion this atrocity was committed by "madman with the mission" Peter Alphon.
However,this could still have been a plan gone wrong. Alphon could have been commissioned ,as others have suggested ,by Gregsten"s family, to scare Valerie Storie off from Michael Gregsten,a married father of two with whom Valerie was having a long term adulterous affair .

[Natalie Severn]

I think the danger here is to try and look logically into what basically was an illogical and terrible act.

Who else possibly could be involved in something so profitless, pointless, and depraved?

Again Hatchett, I would remind you that the prosecution decided it was all about the rape.
That was their case---like it or not.

So you tell me why,if it was all about rape,and therefore the gunman was presumably fired up with hotheaded lust,it took him 5 hours to get round to it?

Why would a youngman ,in a city suit go to a cornfield in the middle of nowhere and then spend five hours circling round greater London before "satisfying" himself?

[RonIpstone]

In my opinion this atrocity was committed by "madman with the mission" Peter Alphon.
However,this could still have been a plan gone wrong. Alphon could have been commissioned ,as others have suggested ,by Gregsten"s family, to scare Valerie Storie off from Michael Gregsten,a married father of two with whom Valerie was having a long term adulterous affair .

Hello Norma or Natalie,

Can you clarify your position on the following points so that the rest of us might know what you are on about?

1. You have previously rubbished the sightings made by the Redbridge witnesses of 847BHN in the early morning of 23 August 1961 and have argued that the murder car was not left in Avondale Crescent until the late afternoon or early evening of that day. Is it still your argument that Alphon or someone acting on his behalf drove the car from a location near the Vienna Hotel?

2. You have mentioned elsewhere that Alphon returned to the Vienna for the morning of 23 August and then took a No 36A bus to Victoria in which he disposed of his shooter. You are therefore questioning the evidence of Edwin Cooke who said it was his practice to look under the rear seat of the upper deck and did so on the 23 August and nothing was there; is that correct?

3. You have previously mentioned that when Alphon returned to the Vienna, he might have had 847BHN thoroughly cleaned to remove fibres, semen etc, yet when the car was discovered the rug used to cover the driver's seat was still in place AND two empty cartridge cases were found in the car. Do you accept that the fact that these items were left in the murder car indicates that the car was abandoned in a rush rather than after a complete and systematic removal of potential forensic evidence?

4. Can you clarify your position on the cartridge cases found at the Vienna. Are you saying that Alphon left them there inadvertently when he occupied Room 24? In which case you appreciate that you are relying on the evidence of Nudds and Snell. Or are you saying that they were planted, and if so, are you saying that they were planted to implicate Hanratty or Alphon specifically or anyone who had stayed at the Vienna?

Ron

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Ron or RonIpstone,

1. You have previously rubbished the sightings made by the Redbridge witnesses of 847BHN in the early morning of 23 August 1961 and have argued that the murder car was not left in Avondale Crescent until the late afternoon or early evening of that day. Is it still your argument that Alphon or someone acting on his behalf drove the car from a location near the Vienna Hotel?

Yes.

You have mentioned elsewhere that Alphon returned to the Vienna for the morning of 23 August and then took a No 36A bus to Victoria in which he disposed of his shooter. You are therefore questioning the evidence of Edwin Cooke who said it was his practice to look under the rear seat of the upper deck and did so on the 23 August and nothing was there; is that correct?

yes-he may have thought he had looked under the seat,as this had become his habit.

You have previously mentioned that when Alphon returned to the Vienna, he might have had 847BHN thoroughly cleaned to remove fibres, semen etc, yet when the car was discovered the rug used to cover the driver's seat was still in place AND two empty cartridge cases were found in the car. Do you accept that the fact that these items were left in the murder car indicates that the car was abandoned in a rush rather than after a complete and systematic removal of potential forensic evidence?

Possibly.I think there must have been a fair bit of panic and rushing about about ,yes.
I understand too that no fibres,fingerprints or blood matching Hanratty were found in the murder car Do you know whether any of the finger prints found in the car matched those found in Mrs Dalal"s flat? Alphon had been was accused of violently assaulting Mrs Dalal early in September and I wonder whether the fingerprints Police took from the flat matched any in the murder car---because fingerprints were found in the flat-?

Can you clarify your position on the cartridge cases found at the Vienna. Are you saying that Alphon left them there inadvertently when he occupied Room 24? In which case you appreciate that you are relying on the evidence of Nudds and Snell. Or are you saying that they were planted, and if so, are you saying that they were planted to implicate Hanratty or Alphon specifically or anyone who had stayed at the Vienna?

I don"t know how they came to be there.If Alphon was the gunman ,then he may have left them in the hotel . Nudds stated in his second statement that Alphon had been in Room 24 briefly before he had been moved to Room 6. However anyone could have planted them there.There were no fingerprints on them so why should they have been thought to have belonged to Hanratty a full 19 days after the murder when police attention had already been drawn to Alphon and the Vienna Hotel on 28th August ?It was Alphon who had originally been suspected by guests at the Alexandra Ct Hotel of being the A6 gunman and drawn attention to his activities at the VIenna Hotel under the name of Durrant.
Norma

[Hatchett]

Hello Natalie,

I am not too sure what you mean by cake and eat it?

I was not part of the Prosecution Team and do not speak for them. What they said was a pleading and submission to the Jury for them to make a considered judgement.

Rather than rape being the motive, my personal view is that I think it much more likely for the need for power and control to be have been the initial motive, which commenced as soon as the killer and rapist pointed the gun at Mr. Gregsten and he responded in the way that he did.

The rape occurred five hours later, after the murder. Again it would appear much more likely that the murder had spun the situation into crisis point and the killer knew then that he had lost control.

Going on to Alphon,

Acts of madness are not confined to mad people. That is a sad and terrifying fact of life. It doesn’t matter how seemingly bizarre Alphon’s life style or actions appear to have been, that does not make him the murderer and rapist.

I can give you three good reasons why the killer and rapist was Hanratty and not Alphon. None of them are new.

First, he was convicted by a Jury who considered the evidence before them. That decision being ratified by Courts of Appeal.

Secondly, he was identified by Valerie Storie.

Thirdly, it was proven by DNA that he was guilty. The DNA, which despite the controversies that rage on these threads, was accepted judiciously by the authorities, and according to statements, seemingly accepted by Hanratty’s own Defence Counsel.

As to the business about the motive being a commission to frighten Miss Storie and Mr. Gregsten out of their illicit relationship?

The concept itself appears to me to be very unbelievable.

But if it was true then it appears to have been a very badly thought out of way of doing it.
If that had been the motive then surely threatening them separately would have been the obvious way. Or threatening to cause trouble with their employers.

But to kidnap them both together?

Especially considering that in all of those hours together in the car there is no evidence that their affair was ever mentioned.

I do not believe that this concept holds water at all.

I trust that I have clarified that there is nothing about the gluttony of eating cake and wanting to keep it for another day in what I have said.

Best wishes.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Hatchett,
[QUOTE]I am not too sure what you mean by cake and eat it?[QUOTE]

In the sense that either the crime was committed by a madman or it wasn"t.You seem to be moving goal posts as you go along.
Now you say he didnt need to be mad to commit a mad act.So what terminology would you use in this instance to describe the state of mind of the gunman?

Rather than rape being the motive, my personal view is that I think it much more likely for the need for power and control to be have been the initial motive, which commenced as soon as the killer and rapist pointed the gun at Mr. Gregsten and he responded in the way that he did.

Well that was not the case that was argued by the prosecution and presented as the motive to the jury.Lust and raper were the primary motives presented.

Going on to Alphon,

Acts of madness are not confined to mad people. That is a sad and terrifying fact of life. It doesn’t matter how seemingly bizarre Alphon’s life style or actions appear to have been, that does not make him the murderer and rapist

So what,by contrast,and sticking strictly to this statement about the state of mind of the gunman, made Hanratty more likely to be the murderer and rapist?

First, he was convicted by a Jury who considered the evidence before them.

And if the jury had seen the sections of evidence that Michael Sherrard QC discusses in his 2009 autobiography ,[ Hanratty"s trial barrister],if as he stated " the police fiddled with witness statements as modern forensic handwriting tests have proven",and "it had been proven that James Hanratty told the truth about much of what had been altered"
What then?
Are we to just remember the stuff Nudds or Langdale said?

Secondly, he was identified by Valerie Storie.

Valerie got it wrong first time and took twenty minutes to decide,the second time,indicating some hesitation.

Thirdly, it was proven by DNA that he was guilty.

No it was not straightforward DNA testing .It was "indicated " through LCN DNA testing on a 40 year old piece of degraded cloth,so fragile it could not be tested in normal conditions,having been abandoned for 31 years in a police lab in conditions that would normally be unacceptable. Dangers were inherent vis a vis contaminants as in all LCN DNA testing on a piece of cloth that old and kept in less than sterile conditions as was the case in the drawer of the police lab.
Best
Norma

As to the business about the motive being a commission to frighten Miss Storie and Mr. Gregsten out of their illicit relationship?

The concept itself appears to me to be very unbelievable.

Really?
Ever wondered how Janet Gregsten felt about being left with the sex-aholic Gregsten"s two babies to look after? It may not be what happened,I grant that, but it certainly is not unbelievable.Gregsten had just walked out on his wife.

But if it was true then it appears to have been a very badly thought out of way of doing it.
If that had been the motive then surely threatening them separately would have been the obvious way. Or threatening to cause trouble with their employers.

That had most definitely happened and the pair had been warned by their employers to stay away from each others-and rightly or wrongly, Valerie Storie said was none of their business.
Read up on it-its all in the books-Foot and Woffinden.

[Natalie Severn]

[QUOTE=Natalie Severn;157513]

Hi Hatchett,

I am not too sure what you mean by cake and eat it?

In the sense that either the crime was committed by a madman or it wasn"t.You seem to be moving goal posts as you go along.
Now you say he didnt need to be mad to commit a mad act.So what terminology would you use in this instance to describe the state of mind of the gunman?

Power and control?
Well that was not the case that was argued by the prosecution and presented as the motive to the jury.Lust and rape were the primary motives presented.



So what,by contrast,and sticking strictly to this statement about the state of mind of the gunman, made Hanratty more likely to be the murderer and rapist than Alphon?



You say the jury saw the evidence.Which evidence? The evidence of a bunch of shady witnesses?
They certainly didnt see the sections of evidence that Michael Sherrard QC discusses in his 2009 autobiography ,[ Hanratty"s trial barrister],if as he stated " the police fiddled with witness statements as modern forensic handwriting tests have proven",and "it had been proven that James Hanratty told the truth about much of what had been altered"
What then?

Or is it more comforting to just remember the stuff Nudds or Langdale said?


Regarding Valeri"s id:

Valerie got it wrong first time and identified a totally innocent man as her rapist.She also took twenty minutes to decide,the second time,indicating some hesitation and uncertainty when she needed to hear the man speak.

Regarding the DNA
No it was not straightforward DNA testing .It was "indicated " through LCN DNA testing on a 40 year old piece of degraded cloth,so fragile it could not be tested in normal conditions,having been abandoned for 31 years in a police lab in conditions that would normally be unacceptable. Dangers were inherent vis a vis contaminants as in all LCN DNA testing on a piece of cloth that old and kept in less than sterile conditions as was the case in the drawer of the police lab.


It sounds unbelievable you think that there could have been a "set up" to frighten Valerie off? Why so?[bearing in mind this "set up" ceased to go as planned the moment Gregsten grabbed that duffle bag]

Ever wondered how Janet Gregsten felt about being left with the sex-aholic Gregsten"s two babies to look after? It may not be what happened,I grant that, but it certainly is not unbelievable.Gregsten had just walked out on his wife.


The couple had been warned by their employers and advised to beak off their relationship. Valerie Storie is said to have believed it was none of their business.
Read up on it-its all in the books-Foot and Woffinden.

[Victor]

Well that was not the case that was argued by the prosecution and presented as the motive to the jury.Lust and raper were the primary motives presented.

Hi Norma,

Why does it matter what the prosecution proposed? Surely the primary concern is whether Hanratty was guilty or not, and just becuase the prosecution favoured one explanation over another it doesn't mean that was correct and we can ignore the others.

It's just like the flying from Liverpool incident, it's not a suggestion that Hanratty did go into the sweetshop and fly back to commit the crime, it's just a factual statement that he could have.

Valerie got it wrong first time and took twenty minutes to decide.

No she didn't. She took 20 minutes to reveal her decision, and used the voice as confirmation.

No it was not straightforward DNA testing. It was "indicated" through LCN DNA testing on a 40 year old piece of degraded cloth,so fragile it could not be tested in normal conditions,having been abandoned for 31 years in a police lab in conditions that would normally be unacceptable. Dangers were inherent vis a vis contaminants as in all LCN DNA testing on a piece of cloth that old and kept in less than sterile conditions as was the case in the drawer of the police lab.

1. Prove the knicker fragment had "degraded".
2. The "so fragile it could not be tested in normal conditions" statement is complete tripe and shows you don't understand the process. SGM+ requires a certain sample size, and the tests were inconclusive - ie, no profile was determined. So they used a more sensitive technique that works on smaller sample sizes.
3. The drawer was pretty good conditions - dry, out of the light, sealed, relatively undisturbed - certainly not ideal, but far from unacceptable.
4. The age is 100 times less than the mummies that have been tested, and exactly comparable to the 40 year old blood spots on card stored at room temperature situation.
5. "Less than sterile" - a drawer in a sterile police lab? Sounds pretty sterile to me, especially as the sample was triple-sealed.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Vic,

3. The drawer was pretty good conditions - dry, out of the light, sealed, relatively undisturbed - certainly not ideal, but far from unacceptable.

And how on earth do you know this?The whole point is that nobody knows what happened or whether or not it had been inside that particular drawer for over 31 years , abandoned.To state otherwise is just pure speculation.

No she didn't. She took 20 minutes to reveal her decision, and used the voice as confirmation.

Well it sounds a very odd way to go about things.One thing you can not deny is that Valerie picked out Michael Clark,in her first try,and she wrong.

1. Prove the knicker fragment had "degraded"

If it wasnt nearly bare of DNA why on earth did they have to use Low Copy Number DNA testing on it and then throw it away saying there was nothing left on it to test? Why LCN ? BTW where is the other half off the section that was cut from the crotch---any idea?

3. The drawer was pretty good conditions - dry, out of the light, sealed, relatively undisturbed - certainly not ideal, but far from unacceptable.

Even though there was a broken vial inside it,separated from its rubber stopper that could have contained a wash from semen stained trousers?Apparently there were other items from Hanratty in that drawer too.

. The age is 100 times less than the mummies that have been tested, and exactly comparable to the 40 year old blood spots on card stored at room temperature situation.

Not exactly comparable at all.DNA from bones does last.DNA from cloth can disappear in a matter of weeks.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080507124555AAFg8aZ

Moreover nobody knows who handled that cloth.It was in a brown envelope whose edges had come apart and it was left abandoned for 31 years in a dusty old drawer.

5. "Less than sterile" - a drawer in a sterile police lab? Sounds pretty sterile to me, especially as the sample was triple-sealed.

The envelope it was found in was falling apart.

[jason_c]

"As to the business about the motive being a commission to frighten Miss Storie and Mr. Gregsten out of their illicit relationship?

The concept itself appears to me to be very unbelievable.

But if it was true then it appears to have been a very badly thought out of way of doing it.
If that had been the motive then surely threatening them separately would have been the obvious way. Or threatening to cause trouble with their employers."

Agreed.

A smack in the face to either party is the usual form of intimidation/retribution when affairs are discovered.

[Natalie Severn]

Errata- re posts 114 and 115/editing duplicated posts.

[Natalie Severn]

"As to the business about the motive being a commission to frighten Miss Storie and Mr. Gregsten out of their illicit relationship?

The concept itself appears to me to be very unbelievable.

But if it was true then it appears to have been a very badly thought out of way of doing it.
If that had been the motive then surely threatening them separately would have been the obvious way. Or threatening to cause trouble with their employers."

Agreed.

A smack in the face to either party is the usual form of intimidation/retribution when affairs are discovered.

This was a four year affair and Mike Gregsten had just moved out of the marital home.