A6 Rebooted

[Ed James]

I think this is a very good point. The whole journey from the cornfield to Deadman's Hill did seem prolonged, aimless and pointless. So did the period prior to the car moving out of the cornfield. The whole scenario was strangely pointless and risky for the gunman. First, the hold up, pretending that robbery was the motive, the rambling life-story, the pretence of being 'desperate' (but actually appearing to be well-dressed and groomed) - the whole event is strange and motiveless. It has been suggested that the gunman's purpose was to have a kind of 'dry run' for a bigger hold up - but his behaviour that night, according to VS's testimony, does not really ring true for such a purpose.

Hi Julie

The gunman's motive, behaviour and the journey baffled the police at the time.

Is it possible even from this distance to analyse what we know from VS's testimony and other facts relating to the gunman and abduction/murder/rape to distinguish the obvious pretence to build up a picture of the killer? I know some will say this is old ground, that the prosecution already did that successfully and others will like Sherrard say it was all selective. However, such an exercise conducted as objectively as possible might deal with the illustrative anomalies that you and Moste have identified.

In a spirit of objectivity, I would offer as a starter that the gunman dressed immaculately, ,seemed to know significant parts of the route , with Stanmore and Bedford figuring in his life, had large, distinctive eyes and had an understanding of prison terminology.

On the other side , did the gunman have a watch (and if so did it work ),a receding hairline, was he wearing a waistcoat , did the suit have a distinctive stripe.
regards

Ed

[Sherlock Houses]

In a spirit of objectivity, I would offer as a starter that the gunman dressed immaculately,

This would seem to be slightly at odds, Ed, with what Janet Gregsten is reported to have told a Daily Mail reporter after visiting Valerie Storie at Guy's Hospital on September 20th.

This is covered on page 63 of Paul Foot's impressive book...........

Mrs Gregsten revealed for the first time the inside story.
'Valerie [Mrs Gregsten was quoted as saying] told me what happened. They were parked on the roadside when this man tapped at the window. Mike, my husband, wound the window half down and the man stuck a gun in and told them: "open the door". The man was in his thirties and reasonably dressed. He spoke with a Cockney accent but the most important feature was his eyes. they were blue and staring.'

A little puzzling too that there was no mention of the car being in a cornfield.

[Ed James]

This would seem to be slightly at odds, Ed, with what Janet Gregsten is reported to have told a Daily Mail reporter after visiting Valerie Storie at Guy's Hospital on September 20th.

This is covered on page 63 of Paul Foot's impressive book...........

Mrs Gregsten revealed for the first time the inside story.
'Valerie [Mrs Gregsten was quoted as saying] told me what happened. They were parked on the roadside when this man tapped at the window. Mike, my husband, wound the window half down and the man stuck a gun in and told them: "open the door". The man was in his thirties and reasonably dressed. He spoke with a Cockney accent but the most important feature was his eyes. they were blue and staring.'

A little puzzling too that there was no mention of the car being in a cornfield.

Hi Sherlock
Thanks for pointing this difference in description of the gunman's dress ( I can't find the quote in my 1971 Hardback version). My quote comes from one of Acott's reasons for eliminating Alphon as a suspect: 'Valerie Storie has also described her assailant as having been 'immaculately dressed'. whereas Acott said Alphon was shabbily dressed . . .'

Even allowing for the fact that the words you quote are Janet Gregsten's , it does show how subtle but significant changes in descriptions can occur. It is precisely these differences in 'evidence' I was hoping to tease out.

VS is an admirably strong character who in my view sought subtely to avoid any detracting references depending on the audience. So 'roadside' is the nearest you get to 'cornfield' in that difficult conversation. Both JG and VS were tacitly conspiring to avoid the true nature of the VS/MG relationship.

regards

Ed

[Derrick]

...Janet Gregsten is reported to have told a Daily Mail reporter after visiting Valerie Storie at Guy's Hospital on September 20th...

Hi Holmes (hi ho hi ho etc etc etc...oh well never mind)

Miss Storie had already divulged the secret of her affair with Gregsten to DS Acott on the 11th, some 9 days previously, the same day that the cartridges cases were found in room 24.

Janet Gregsten was alleged to have seen the man at the cleaners on the same day that Miss Stories description of the killers eyes was finally made public as icy blue.

This case drips and sags with the famous coincidences (to wit Sherrard).

Del

[Limehouse]

So, we have:

brown eyes later becoming blue eyes

'reasonably dressed' and 'immaculately dressed'

a man in his 'mid twenties' and a man in his 'early thirties'

'we picked up a hitchhiker' v 'parked at the roadside' v 'parked in a cornfield'


and yet, we are asked to believe that VS was certain, beyond doubt, that JH was her attacker.


Surely, even allowing for a certain amount of 'hearsay' when Janet recounts the story and accounting for journalistic flourishes, surely there should be more consistency in these accounts if a person is certain beyond doubt?

[Dupplin Muir]

The following documentary shows how the victim of a crime gave one description of her assailant when first questioned after the event (in this case a petite 'girly' girl) but when the police arrested someone who actually didn't resemble the description at all (tall and tomboyish), she convinced herself that this was the culprit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qqERsM7IJc

It has obvious applicability to VS's identification of Hanratty.

[Sherlock Houses]

This case drips and sags with the famous coincidences (to wit Sherrard).
Del

Unbelievably so, Derrick. Makes one wonder when the 'saucer like' description was added to the "staring icy blue eyes".

[OneRound]

So, we have:

brown eyes later becoming blue eyes

'reasonably dressed' and 'immaculately dressed'

a man in his 'mid twenties' and a man in his 'early thirties'

'we picked up a hitchhiker' v 'parked at the roadside' v 'parked in a cornfield'


and yet, we are asked to believe that VS was certain, beyond doubt, that JH was her attacker.


Surely, even allowing for a certain amount of 'hearsay' when Janet recounts the story and accounting for journalistic flourishes, surely there should be more consistency in these accounts if a person is certain beyond doubt?

... and, of course, you can add to Limehouse's points above that Valerie Storie picked a different man as her assailant on every identity parade she attended.

None of this proves James Hanratty's innocence but it again makes me question whether his guilt was proved fairly and beyond reasonable doubt.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Limehouse]

That's my view too, One Round.

[ansonman]

The evidence of the sole witness was unreliable

At long last we have several contributors who are, quite rightly, drawing attention to the fact that VS's evidence was, to put it politely, highly unreliable. This unreliable evidence sent JH to the gallows. There was, and is, nothing else to positively link Hanratty to the crime. Of course, VS has always maintained that Hanratty was the murderer and she had to. You can hardly send a man to his death and then say later "actually, I may have got that a bit wrong".

My own speculative inclination is that Acott had it right in being convinced that Alphon was his man from the start but was wrong footed by VS. (who would want to have stood in front of her in an ID parade?)

To my mind Alphon was always a more likely candidate than Hanratty. Not only was Alphon a fully paid up member of the Nutter Brigade but those who gave him his alibi (Mother and two co-workers) were far less reliable than those in Rhyl who exonerated Hanratty but were pilloried by many for doing so.

Ansonman

[Sherlock Houses]

The following documentary shows how the victim of a crime gave one description of her assailant when first questioned after the event (in this case a petite 'girly' girl) but when the police arrested someone who actually didn't resemble the description at all (tall and tomboyish), she convinced herself that this was the culprit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qqERsM7IJc

It has obvious applicability to VS's identification of Hanratty.

Just finished watching this 85 minute documentary. You're absolutely right DM about the applicability to Storie's identification of Hanratty.

I'd urge anyone to watch this truly eye-opener of a documentary, you will be truly shocked.

.

[Sherlock Houses]

At long last we have several contributors who are, quite rightly, drawing attention to the fact that VS's evidence was, to put it politely, highly unreliable. This unreliable evidence sent JH to the gallows. There was, and is, nothing else to positively link Hanratty to the crime. Of course, VS has always maintained that Hanratty was the murderer and she had to. You can hardly send a man to his death and then say later "actually, I may have got that a bit wrong".

My own speculative inclination is that Acott had it right in being convinced that Alphon was his man from the start but was wrong footed by VS. (who would want to have stood in front of her in an ID parade?)

To my mind Alphon was always a more likely candidate than Hanratty. Not only was Alphon a fully paid up member of the Nutter Brigade but those who gave him his alibi (Mother and two co-workers) were far less reliable than those in Rhyl who exonerated Hanratty but were pilloried by many for doing so.

Ansonman

I can't disagree with anything you have written here Ansonman.

Even Louis Blom-Cooper who wrote the first book about the case back in 1963 and who was a proponent of Hanratty's guilt, regarded her as an unreliable witness.

[ansonman]

Unreliable evidence continued (all taken from Woofinden)

.........."These were five examples of areas of evidence where Valerie Storie appeared to have varied her statement between the two court hearings"
(P182)

"Sherrard asked Storie about the two identity parades - first of all, the one on which Alphon stood. Word had reached Sherrard that she had subsequently passed an intriguing comment:

"Sherrard: Did you not afterwards say that there was a fair resemblance between Alphon and the man who attacked you?"

"Storie: When am I supposed to have said that?

"Sherrard: Some time after the parade?

"Storie: Some time afterwards, yes"
P183

In fact, she admitted on oath to having made the observation initially to a doctor at Stoke Mandeville and later to Acott.

"At Deadman's Hill it was, as Storie bleakly confirmed, "dark, completely and utterly dark". Even after she had been raped, the opportunities of seeing her attacker properly were not good. "At the time he was out of the car, I only had a glimpse of him. In any case, I'd got my glasses off. They were in my right hand coat pocket. I can't see very clearly without them"
P243

"Howser failed to investigate the crucial identification evidence with any rigour. He did not consider at all the fascinating point that Valerie Storie constructed an identikit that looked like Alphon, yet then didn't pick him out on an identity parade; but conversely did pick out Hanratty, who didn't look like her identikit. Moreover, her original description of the gunman's hair-straight, well greased, dark brown, brushed straight back, slightly receeding temples- was wrong for Hanratty; but would have been entirely accurate for Alphon"
P394

Ansonman

[Graham]

Here we go again....

Graham

[ansonman]

The sole witness

Sherlock,

Which means that Hanratty should not have been found gulity and certainly should not have been hanged.

No speculation, no theory, no if's, no but's. Just absolute fact. The testimony of an unrealiable witness sent the wrong man to the gallows.

Ansonman