A6 Rebooted

[NickB]

must leave us with at least some doubt about any future ID that she made?

Yes it does. However this was fully disclosed at the trial and therefore would have been part of the jury's deliberations.

But this is where Stickler skims over what I was referring to above as questionable police behaviour. One of the grounds of appeal in 2002 was that the police tried to frame Alphon, and it is difficult to argue with that description. I believe there was pressure on Nudds to produce his second statement, which led to Alphon being sought. Acott then made a presumed 'We got him' visit to Valerie inferring that the murderer was definitely on the line-up. This doesn't excuse Valerie, but gives some context.

[moste]

They would have known what Kerr was going to say from his written statement, so I don't see any advantage to the police in destroying notes containing what he was going to say anyway. I see it as a bit of theatre from Sherrard, and it played well with his general theme of dodgy police action - some of which I think was questionable.

I've dug out my Stickler and on the second page he seems to be unaware, or has forgotten, that Valerie wrote that her parents knew about her affair with Mike.

Well, I’m sorry, but the police knowing what Kerr was going to say and so didn’t need his note, is not acceptable.They mislaid vital information in the form of a very important exhibit.’ Keep cutting the police slack’

, seemed to be the flavour of the case throughout

Sherrards efforts were very poor , An 11 person jury? Losing a vital wrongly picked ID line up man? Not elaborating on this wrongly picked man when cross questioning Storie ? Not objecting strongly enough when the venue of the trial was not to be at the Old Bailey?
I don’t believe there was any theatre in Sherrards performance . Rather he was nervous as this was his first capital case, personally I don’t think he was up to it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve just read the section of the Sticker book on the Alphon ID parades. I don’t know what everyone else thinks but from my own point of view I can’t help thinking that the fact that she picked out a man that definitely wasn’t involved and who didn’t really match her own description must leave us with at least some doubt about any future ID that she made? Would she have picked out Hanratty had he been in the parade too?

[Sherlock Houses]

Finished watching the channel 4 programme , Valerie explains leaving the cornfield then on to the A6 road , loads of important stuff left out which in my opinion leaves her story ,to say the least âWantingâ. But this ,it has to be said is a perfect exercise in how to portray a person as a guilty as hell individual.
Interesting question, I didnât realise a Chief Superintendent Ian Russell spent a year with a team on deciphering the entire case. Chief Superintendent Roger Mathews did exactly the same. I wonder if they conferred, ? You know , compared notes as it were.

I watched that Channel 4 programme earlier today Moste. My first viewing of it and for me it left much to be desired .You're quite correct in thinking of it as "a perfect exercise in how to portray a person as a guilty as hell individual." A more suitable title would have been "The Warped Truth".

[Herlock Sholmes]

They would have known what Kerr was going to say from his written statement, so I don't see any advantage to the police in destroying notes containing what he was going to say anyway. I see it as a bit of theatre from Sherrard, and it played well with his general theme of dodgy police action - some of which I think was questionable.

I've dug out my Stickler and on the second page he seems to be unaware, or has forgotten, that Valerie wrote that her parents knew about her affair with Mike.

I’d speculate that some junior saw the sheet of paper and noticed that it was connected to the road survey work and even if he’d looked on the back and seen the writing he might have noticed the registration number and just assumed that these were notes to do with Kerr’s work and thrown them in the bin. The police would be embarrassed when asked about it and an embarrassed looking force and a missing piece of evidence would be a gift for the defence.

[NickB]

They would have known what Kerr was going to say from his written statement, so I don't see any advantage to the police in destroying notes containing what he was going to say anyway. I see it as a bit of theatre from Sherrard, and it played well with his general theme of dodgy police action - some of which I think was questionable.

I've dug out my Stickler and on the second page he seems to be unaware, or has forgotten, that Valerie wrote that her parents knew about her affair with Mike.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Kerr initially thought that Valerie said her name was Mary so there were communication difficulties, which is understandable given the situation. In the more stable conditions at hospital she was recorded as saying the hair was dark. She also said that the gunman had given the name 'Jim'. So you can believe either that Kerr misheard or that Valerie shortly afterwards changed her description.

She did well to speak coherently under the circumstances Nick. That she perhaps might have been less than clear or harder to hear at times can hardly be surprising.

[NickB]

Kerr initially thought that Valerie said her name was Mary so there were communication difficulties, which is understandable given the situation. In the more stable conditions at hospital she was recorded as saying the hair was dark. She also said that the gunman had given the name 'Jim'. So you can believe either that Kerr misheard or that Valerie shortly afterwards changed her description.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi HS,

John Kerr always maintained that Valerie Storie told him that the gunman had "llight fairish hair". This is a bit difficult to reconcile with what he is alleged to have said in any police statement he may have made.
The attached two "Newcastle Journal" articles from the Committal Hearings in November 1961 and the Trial itself in January 1962 help to clarify things a little....

Hi SH,

Thanks for those interesting snippets. So it looks like the paper that couldn’t be produced at the Committal Hearing was still missing at the time of the trial but a sheet of paper which had accompanied the missing one had been found; on the back of which was writing that wasn’t Kerr’s (so likely done by a police officer)? It’s difficult not to raise an eyebrow especially when there is a discrepancy in regard to later descriptions.

How did the police respond to Kerr saying that Valerie had said that the killer had ‘light fairish hair’?

[Sherlock Houses]

In the first Police broadcast (by Telex) at 10.50 am it was ‘alleged that suspect gave his name as Brown.’ No hair colour was mentioned. But Kerr, in his statement, had said that Valerie had said that the man had brown hair and he made no mention of a name. So how did Brown (hair colour) become a name?

The author suggests that the confusion occurred because a passing motorist spoke to Valerie and she said, when asked who’d done it, “Brown. He’s taken my car.”

As Kerr was the first person that spoke to her and that she had told him that the killers hair was Brown, I find it difficult not to see this as incompetence rather than some kind of ‘understandable error.’ The Telex was for police only and was to help them catch the killer so hair colour was important. And surely they would have known that this was a stranger, initially thought to have been a hitchhiker, so why would he have given his surname to his two victims? Or any surname for that matter?

Hi HS,

John Kerr always maintained that Valerie Storie told him that the gunman had "llight fairish hair". This is a bit difficult to reconcile with what he is alleged to have said in any police statement he may have made.
The attached two "Newcastle Journal" articles from the Committal Hearings in November 1961 and the Trial itself in January 1962 help to clarify things a little....

[caz]

Hi Moste,

I think you may be placing too much weight on Valerie Storie's use of the word 'ironically.' The way you interpret it is perfectly sound but in everyday conversation the word is often used a little more loosely.

I think she simply means to say that had the killer appeared in the cornfield a few months later than he did, then neither she nor Michael Gregsten would have been there to fall victim to him.

Exactly my thoughts, cobalt.

Wrong time, wrong place kind of thing.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

No more talk of apologies for going over old ground ,you may twig something everyone has missed.
when I signed up on here 11 years ago people werenât always very nice, some had been posting away for many years and didnât seem overly enthusiastic about new blood. I just felt as in your case someone looking at things from a different angle ,could help with the understanding of what was making the characters tick in this incredibly sad saga.

Cheers Moste

[NickB]

There appears to have been some confusion on behalf of the police in the early stages and it;s difficult for me to see how it came about?

Yeah I think the main weakness of the book is that it is too defensive of the police.

As mentioned, on the Channel 4 programme the police officer who first interviewed Valerie says it was 'blue eyes' from the start. So I think on that it was just police error, as Woffinden acknowledges.

[moste]

Finished watching the channel 4 programme , Valerie explains leaving the cornfield then on to the A6 road , loads of important stuff left out which in my opinion leaves her story ,to say the least ‘Wanting’. But this ,it has to be said is a perfect exercise in how to portray a person as a guilty as hell individual.
Interesting question, I didn’t realise a Chief Superintendent Ian Russell spent a year with a team on deciphering the entire case. Chief Superintendent Roger Mathews did exactly the same. I wonder if they conferred, ? You know , compared notes as it were.

[moste]

No more talk of apologies for going over old ground ,you may twig something everyone has missed.
when I signed up on here 11 years ago people weren’t always very nice, some had been posting away for many years and didn’t seem overly enthusiastic about new blood. I just felt as in your case someone looking at things from a different angle ,could help with the understanding of what was making the characters tick in this incredibly sad saga.