A6 Rebooted

[moste]

It would seem the report is held either by The Ministry of Justice or The National Archive. I assume there are other copies in existence aside from Matthews’ personal one.

The reluctance to publish the report in 1996 would have centred on two issues. One would have been the damage to the reputation of UK justice, although mistakes can be admitted to so long as they can be attributed to older methods and practices no longer in use. The other consideration would have been the impact on the undisputed victim of the A6 Case, Valerie Storie, who possibly unwittingly sent an innocent man to his death.

Miss Storie died a few years ago so that difficulty has been removed. However another problem has arisen in regard to the 2002 Appeal which was dismissed largely on DNA evidence. If the Matthews Report undermines the subsequent DNA evidence presented at appeal then there are serious implications for the criminal justice system, in which DNA evidence is regarded as something of a gold standard.

Valerie gone But then there is the two Gregsten boys

[moste]

Wow. Any old crutch will do to procrastinate in this case they must thanking god for Covid wonderful example of choking bureaucracy

[cobalt]

It would seem the report is held either by The Ministry of Justice or The National Archive. I assume there are other copies in existence aside from Matthews’ personal one.

The reluctance to publish the report in 1996 would have centred on two issues. One would have been the damage to the reputation of UK justice, although mistakes can be admitted to so long as they can be attributed to older methods and practices no longer in use. The other consideration would have been the impact on the undisputed victim of the A6 Case, Valerie Storie, who possibly unwittingly sent an innocent man to his death.

Miss Storie died a few years ago so that difficulty has been removed. However another problem has arisen in regard to the 2002 Appeal which was dismissed largely on DNA evidence. If the Matthews Report undermines the subsequent DNA evidence presented at appeal then there are serious implications for the criminal justice system, in which DNA evidence is regarded as something of a gold standard.

[ansonman]

You may recall that A D. Whitehead wrote to the Home Office back in 2020 requesting a copy of the Mathews report. He or she has continued to request to read the report:

The Matthews report on the A6 murder (1996) - cais Rhyddid Gwybodaeth i Home Office - WhatDoTheyKnow

The Home Office is now saying that they do not hold the information requested:

Dear D Whitehead

Freedom of Information Act 2000 Request (Our Reference 59087)

Thank you for your email of 11 June 2020 in which you ask for a copy of the report on the
A6 murder and James Hanratty which was made to Hom e Secretary Michael Howard on
29 May 1996 by Detective Chief Superintendent Roge r Matthews.

Your request has been handled as a request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

I apologise for the delay in responding to your request. The Home Office aims to reply to
FOI requests within 20 working days. Unfortunately , this is not always possible. I am sorry
for the delay in your case.

Following a search of our records, I can confirm the Home Office does not hold the
information which you have requested.

Please note that some files originally held by the department were transferred to the
Ministry of Justice, following a machinery of government change.
You may wish to contact them for further information at the following link:
xxxx.xxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx

Given the subject matter of your request, The National Archives may hold the information
you are seeking. If you have not already done so, you may wish to write to them.
Contact details can be found on their website as follows:
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/

If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent internal review
of our handling of your request by submitting a complaint within two months to

---

xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx, quoting reference 59087. If you ask for an internal review,
it would be helpful if you could say why you are dissatisfied with the response.

As part of any internal review the Department's handling of your information request would
be reassessed by staff who were not involved in providing you with this response. If you
were to remain dissatisfied after an internal review, you would have a right of complaint to
the Information Commissioner as established by section 50 of the FOIA.

A link to the Home Office Information Rights Priva cy Notice can be found in the following
link. This explains how we process your personal information:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/information-rights-privacy-notice


Yours sincerely



J Conquest
Information Rights Adviser

So who does have the report?

[moste]

Oh ok , just that we don’t know much about Mathew’s activities outside of police work , but your right the article would mention his being a senior police man I guess.

[OneRound]

I typed in on Google 'Retiree Chief Superintendent Roger Mathews of the Met.' this morning, and a page came up from the Guardian making reference to an obituary from 2020 April. I hope this is a total coincidence, since Sherlock had posted he was under the impression that Mathews was Ill in hospital fairly recently. However reading the article, it does appear rather ominous .They report this chap as 71 when he passed away ,which would make our Roger around 40 when he spent his time on the A6 case. Also, although they cover much of the detectives work throughout his career ,they don't allude to his intensive work on the A6 case.
Can anyone elaborate further on this article ? As I say it would be a big coincidence if its a different person.

Hi moste - just a coincidence. Different person albeit same name and also a career spent researching criminal matters. However, the gentleman who died two years ago was a criminology lecturer and author, not a former police officer.

Best regards,
OneRound

[moste]

I typed in on Google 'Retiree Chief Superintendent Roger Mathews of the Met.' this morning, and a page came up from the Guardian making reference to an obituary from 2020 April. I hope this is a total coincidence, since Sherlock had posted he was under the impression that Mathews was Ill in hospital fairly recently. However reading the article, it does appear rather ominous .They report this chap as 71 when he passed away ,which would make our Roger around 40 when he spent his time on the A6 case. Also, although they cover much of the detectives work throughout his career ,they don't allude to his intensive work on the A6 case.
Can anyone elaborate further on this article ? As I say it would be a big coincidence if its a different person.

[moste]

Wonder who will inherit his personal copy of the report together with his notes and observations when he dies?

Mmh, good question .
I f it would be as revealing as we believe would it make front page and national tv 60 years on

[ansonman]

Wonder who will inherit his personal copy of the report together with his notes and observations when he dies?

[moste]

I’m certain that Hanratty was framed, I don’t know about Alphon. He was a nobody. Mathews knows the truth though.

[caz]

I've said it before...

Is it not double standards for anyone to argue that Hanratty was hanged for Alphon's crimes, when there was never a case for the latter to answer? Where is the evidence that Alphon was ever in the car; ever handled the gun, the hanky or the pom pom hat; or ever entered the room where the cartridge cases were found?

Those who have no doubt in Hanratty's innocence need to come up with an alternative suspect who ticks all the right boxes.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

William Lee was an interesting witness but no more than that. As I understand he only contacted the police regarding the registration number after it had been broadcast on TV. He was unable to find the original piece of paper he had scribbled down the number on. I think he was an honest man but like Valerie Storie, maybe his evidence was not as strong as we like to think.

The pom pom hat introduces a Monty Python element into the crime. Why was it worn, if at all? Was it to hide Hanratty's appalling hair dye? But why do this in darkness? There are other dubious witnesses who can confirm the pom pom hat with the car. And were no follicles retrieved, as you have suggested should have been? No one on this site has ever seen a photo of the intriguing pom pom hat, in either colour or black and white, as far as I know. Yet its existence is acknowledged. Quite perplexing , as is the lack of DNA from the murder car itself. No photos have emerged of that either so far as I am aware.

Unlike the famous handkerchief, it seems the pom pom is immune to DNA. Every time Caz brings up the handkerchief in future, I will feel obliged to mention the pom pom hat. What happened to it?

Perhaps the police made the pom pom hat disappear early on, when they had Alphon in their sights?

Love,

Caz
X

[moste]

Photos of the inside of the car were published in Sticklers book "The long silence" last year. One would not think that a murder took place in it.

Just in passing, it looks like a roll bar has been installed, typical in adapted rally cars.Not a big deal, except its common knowledge that Gregsten loaned the Morris from his Mother/Aunt. Interesting, you wouldn't think the ladies would be on board with that.

[OneRound]

Hi again Fishy,

Valerie Storie's misidentification of Michael Clark was in the September a few weeks after the murder. It followed gun cartridges from the murder weapon being found at a cheap hotel at which both James Hanratty and Peter Alphon had stayed.

Alphon was the number one suspect at this time and it was he and not Hanratty who was on this first parade. Once Valeries Storie failed to pick out Alphon and wrongly identified Clark (a total innocent making up the numbers in the lineout), police attention then moved away from Alphon and focused on Hanratty.

Valerie Storie never suggested her picking out Clark was anything other than an honest mistake and, tbf to her, she was still hospitalised and gravely injured at the time. Nonetheless (and assuming innocence on Alphon's part), an equally honest mistake by Valerie Storie could just as easily have resulted in her picking Alphon. If so, that would almost certainly have seen Alphon charged with murder and ... well, who knows what would also have happened. However, it is just possible that the opportunity for her to assert the guilt of Hanratty may then have gone forever.

Regards,
OneRound

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy - Fair enough although maybe just as well for Michael Clark that you weren't standing by with a noose when Valerie Storie first identified him.

Regards,
OneRound

What were the circumstanses surrounding that identifcation , and how long after that did it continue ?