A6 Rebooted

[Sherlock Houses]

I was able to view this Sky History documentary ['The guilty innocent'] last night and for me it left loads to be desired. I could hardly believe the amount of screen time that was allotted to the smug ex-policeman Paul Stickler, he seemed to take over proceedings. It's clear to me that his knowledge and understanding of this complex murder mystery is superficial and he is definitely not a stickler for accuracy. Rhyl is definitely not a 40 minute drive from Liverpool Mr Stickler and Michael Gregsten was not shot through the back of the head but through his left temple and lower left ear. That's besides all the errors and assumptions he made in a youtube video of his which I watched about a year or so ago.

[NickB]

Roger Matthews makes a brief appearance on the Channel.4 programme, at around the 44 minute mark.

Hanratty's parents met George Davis when Peter Hain was promoting a book about wrongful identification ...

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-liberal-leader-peter-hain-centre-who-was-arrested-and-tried-for-a-106878049.html

[moste]

I thought a mini series would be needed a movie couldn’t be long enough.maybe 8 50 minutes episodes.
on the Roger Mathews thing ,his whole one year sabbatical on the Hanratty trail died with him then it seems.until accessible when the cows come home.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock - I did the same last night and soon came to the same conclusion. A decent enough introductory overview of the case and the key participants for a newcomer but nothing informative or revealing for those already having a basic knowledge. Inevitably for a 60 minute programme (including several sets of adverts) reviewing such a complicated case from over sixty years ago, there just wasn't sufficient time to probe any aspects in depth whilst some weren't included at all.

Two points about Valerie Storie's ID of James Hanratty:

1. As mentioned on the programme, the old chestnut of brown eyes changing to blue and whether this was Valerie misremembering or a copper's c0ck up; and

2. Not mentioned on the programme but highly significant to me in casting doubt upon her subsequent ''certain'' identification of Hanratty, Valerie attended an earlier parade in which she picked out an innocent volunteer. As only one man killed Michael Gregsten and raped Valerie, there was only one man in the world whom she could properly pick out; if he wasn't on the first parade or she was unsure, she should have picked no one. For me, picking the wrong man the first time considerably lessened her credibility when she picked Hanratty on the second parade.


Like you, I found the George Davis programme more interesting and enjoyable although it did seem to give Davis an easy ride. Whilst quashing his conviction in 2011 due in the main to concerns about police identifications, the Court of Appeal made clear they could not assert his innocence and definitely doubted his claimed alibi. The programme made no reference to the Court of Appeal's reservations.

Best regards,
OneRound

Hello OneRound,

At least I wasn’t imagining things. I knew there were at least questions asked about the ID.

Yeah the documentary is an ok watch for someone who knows little or nothing about the case. I know little or nothing but it told me nothing new. I was thinking of buying the Harriman book but I’ve been put off by talk of it being very science/DNA heavy? The case needs someone to write a good unbiased, in-depth analysis presenting all of the facts and discussing all viewpoints. Someone on here should have a crack at it (or a collaberation) It also needs a longer documentary. At least a three parter. Maybe one day.

One question - is anything still happening with the case?

[OneRound]

Well, thanks to technology I watched the Hanratty documentary last night. All I’ll say is “don’t build your hopes up.” Someone called Robert Harriman (?) was ‘Hanratty was innocent,’ and someone called Paul Sickler was ‘Hanratty was guilty.’ Other comments by Duncan Campbell and Louise Shorter. There’s also a short interview with Hanratty’s nephew (who had his son with him.) One thing that did surprise me though was a short piece of footage of a modern day interview with Valerie Storie. I was under the impression that she’d never talked in public about the case.

One question about the case, and this is probably down to my poor memory - they were saying that Valerie’s ID of Hanratty was cut and dried but why do I have the impression that it wasn’t? Didn’t her description of him change at some point? It’s probably just my memory as it’s been ages since I’ve read anything and even then I’ve only read two books on the case.

The George Davis one was enjoyable imo btw.

Hi Herlock - I did the same last night and soon came to the same conclusion. A decent enough introductory overview of the case and the key participants for a newcomer but nothing informative or revealing for those already having a basic knowledge. Inevitably for a 60 minute programme (including several sets of adverts) reviewing such a complicated case from over sixty years ago, there just wasn't sufficient time to probe any aspects in depth whilst some weren't included at all.

Two points about Valerie Storie's ID of James Hanratty:

1. As mentioned on the programme, the old chestnut of brown eyes changing to blue and whether this was Valerie misremembering or a copper's c0ck up; and

2. Not mentioned on the programme but highly significant to me in casting doubt upon her subsequent ''certain'' identification of Hanratty, Valerie attended an earlier parade in which she picked out an innocent volunteer. As only one man killed Michael Gregsten and raped Valerie, there was only one man in the world whom she could properly pick out; if he wasn't on the first parade or she was unsure, she should have picked no one. For me, picking the wrong man the first time considerably lessened her credibility when she picked Hanratty on the second parade.


Like you, I found the George Davis programme more interesting and enjoyable although it did seem to give Davis an easy ride. Whilst quashing his conviction in 2011 due in the main to concerns about police identifications, the Court of Appeal made clear they could not assert his innocence and definitely doubted his claimed alibi. The programme made no reference to the Court of Appeal's reservations.

Best regards,
OneRound

[Herlock Sholmes]

Valerie Storie was interviewed in 2002 for a documentary shown on Channel 4. At 1.07 you can see the policewoman who first talked to Valerie say "She never changed her description ..."

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9y_7KiYI0q8

Thanks Nick. Must be my dodgy memory.

[NickB]

Valerie Storie was interviewed in 2002 for a documentary shown on Channel 4. At 1.07 you can see the policewoman who first talked to Valerie say "She never changed her description ..."

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9y_7KiYI0q8

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, thanks to technology I watched the Hanratty documentary last night. All I’ll say is “don’t build your hopes up.” Someone called Robert Harriman (?) was ‘Hanratty was innocent,’ and someone called Paul Sickler was ‘Hanratty was guilty.’ Other comments by Duncan Campbell and Louise Shorter. There’s also a short interview with Hanratty’s nephew (who had his son with him.) One thing that did surprise me though was a short piece of footage of a modern day interview with Valerie Storie. I was under the impression that she’d never talked in public about the case.

One question about the case, and this is probably down to my poor memory - they were saying that Valerie’s ID of Hanratty was cut and dried but why do I have the impression that it wasn’t? Didn’t her description of him change at some point? It’s probably just my memory as it’s been ages since I’ve read anything and even then I’ve only read two books on the case.

The George Davis one was enjoyable imo btw.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m looking forward to the Hanratty episode and to reading the comments on here.

[OneRound]

The Guilty Innocent starts Tuesday 14 May https://www.history.co.uk/shows/the-...pher-eccleston

Just giving this a bump.

The 2 part series begins on the Sky History channel at 9 o'clock tonight with the tale of George Davis. From my memories and subsequent reading of the case, the person really deserving sympathy is the armed robber's late ex-wife Rose.

The James Hanratty case is featured at the same time next week.

[djw]

Also in May (and June elsewhere) is a talk about the A6 murder by Paul Stickler. I think I will go to this.

U3A Thame

THE A6 MURDER

---

Thu 2 May 2024, 2:00 PM

Barns Centre, Church Road, Thame OX9 3AJ

I won't be going to this now. June talk is Chichester.

[Spitfire]

Harrimans book gets name checked in this new precis https://www.history.co.uk/articles/w...cent-or-guilty Without subscribing to Sky I wonder if there is a way I could watch this? Do Sky documentaries end on a pay per programme service? Like Now TV?

Sky History can be watched on NowTV. https://www.nowtv.com/stream/sky-history

I think it's Ł9.99 for a month's subscription or Ł6.99 per month for a minimum of 6 months.

[djw]

Harrimans book gets name checked in this new precis https://www.history.co.uk/articles/w...cent-or-guilty Without subscribing to Sky I wonder if there is a way I could watch this? Do Sky documentaries end on a pay per programme service? Like Now TV?

[moste]

Spot on.

I can confirm, Moste, from my friend Malachy, that Roger Matthews passed away during 2023.

Ok . Thanks for that SH.

[Sherlock Houses]

Doesnât look like she is particularly interested in the Hanratty case, just rolling the blogs off the assembly line !

Spot on.

I can confirm, Moste, from my friend Malachy, that Roger Matthews passed away during 2023.