A6 Rebooted

[moste]

Do you think all women are stupid, or just me and Valerie?

Not at all. Not stupid, perish the thought. Just misguided is all.With just a hint of bias

Those identikit pictures are far from perfect copies of an actual photo, but they are painstakingly created stage by stage by a trained

individual ,who , at completion satisfies the witness and him/herself that no further adjustments are required, even down to the eye

colour where the witness can adjust shading to varying degrees for grey, green, blue, or brown .I said your statement was laughable, only

because ,anyone having even so much as half a lean towards that identikit picture resembling Alphon, could never in a million years point

to Hanratty and say ,‘that’s the man’.

oh , and just for the record , My better half and I , have raised four beautiful daughters each in our opinion more sagacious that their

respective husbands(shht!) And to go one step further , I have felt for many years ,the world would be a far better place if ran by

women.

Well done incidentally in winning Cobalt over with regards to this identikit point.

I can only think with regards to Valerie Picking out Hanratty , She was somehow influenced unfairly by the overbearing( ‘I knew you’d help

me settle my score ‘) Acott.

Never forgetting we were in a period of major police corruption.

[caz]

‘Valerie's picture may have looked like Alphon to others, but what good was it if it didn't look like Alphon to her?’

I think that’s one of the best points Caz has ever made on this site. Since Valerie Storie was the guiding hand behind the photofit then it is pretty presumptuous of anyone else to tell her who she was actually describing. She was doubtless under pressure at the first ID parade but the police had no motive whatsoever for steering her away from their suspect. For whatever reason, she failed to identify Alphon.

Thank you, cobalt, on behalf of Valerie, as she no longer has a voice.

If Alphon had looked to her like the gunman, as in the photofit she had approved, her motivation for picking him out and getting justice would have been through the roof.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Valerie's picture may have looked like Alphon to others, but what good was it if it didn't look like Alphon to her?

Ha Ha Ha. CaZ. Can you hear yourself?

Do you think all women are stupid, or just me and Valerie?

[cobalt]

Hawser changed his surname from Hauser in 1944, presumably to make it sound less Germanic.

(i53) Solicitors. NOTICE is hereby given, that by a deed poll dated 9th November 1944 and duly enrolled in the Supreme Court of Judicature on the 15th November 1944 CYRIL LEWIS HAWSER of 27 Corringham Court Golders Green in the county of Middlesex Barrister at Law a natural born British subject renounced and abandoned the surname of Hauser and assumed in •lieu thereof the surname of Hawser on behalf of himself his Wife Phyllis Hawser and infant child Gillian Margaret Hawser.—Dated 15th November 1944.

[cobalt]

The Nimmo (1967) and Hawser Reports (1975) were discussed on here a couple of years back, around post number 5560.

The Nimmo Report was never published so far as I can make out as it was merely advisory for the then Home Secretary. It concentrated on the alibi evidence from Liverpool and Rhyl. The Hawser Report was published, drew upon some of the Nimmo Report, and dealt comprehensively with all aspects of the A6 Case. You can download the Hawser Report online in its entirety but have to sign up to a paid website. Other than that it can probably be found in second hand book shops.

[djw]

If the Matthews report is based on witness statements taken in the 1960s, why did the Nimmo and Hawser reports conclude differently and can these two be read or accessed anywhere?

[cobalt]

‘Valerie's picture may have looked like Alphon to others, but what good was it if it didn't look like Alphon to her?’

I think that’s one of the best points Caz has ever made on this site. Since Valerie Storie was the guiding hand behind the photofit then it is pretty presumptuous of anyone else to tell her who she was actually describing. She was doubtless under pressure at the first ID parade but the police had no motive whatsoever for steering her away from their suspect. For whatever reason, she failed to identify Alphon.


‘Matthews was an Alphonite.
"Mr Matthews team had concluded the man who carried out the attack on 22 August 1961 at Deadman's Hill, Bedfordshire, was probably hired to break up the illicit liaison. His report is believed to recommend that a new enquiry should in particular examine evidence regarding Peter Alphon, a salesman who was the original suspect.’

Which is why the Matthews Report would make interesting reading. He must have had more than Alphon’s claim in order to have reached this conclusion about the motivation for the crime. There must be supporting evidence, presumably in witness statements taken at the time, which support this theory but which have not been placed in the public domain.

[moste]

Valerie's picture may have looked like Alphon to others, but what good was it if it didn't look like Alphon to her?

Ha Ha Ha. CaZ. Can you hear yourself?

[NickB]

Third man in the picture that sounds more like it. In the vein of D CS Mathews you mean?

Matthews was an Alphonite.

"Mr Matthews team had concluded the man who carried out the attack on 22 August 1961 at Deadman's Hill, Bedfordshire, was probably hired to break up the illicit liaison. His report is believed to recommend that a new enquiry should in particular examine evidence regarding Peter Alphon, a salesman who was the original suspect."

'The Independent' 22-Oct-2011

[caz]

Valerie�s picture of the killer looked like Alphon is all I�m saying.(despite her spending all that time with the man) dont you see the problem here? This is the same man that Valerie lit ciggies for, and tried to dissuade from being seen by homeowners in Clophill by parking their car in an observable location. The mind boggles.

I don't know what's wrong with your font, moste, but it's quite distracting.

The problem I see is that if Alphon had been the gunman and Valerie had seen enough of his face to produce a reasonable likeness of him after the event, it makes no sense that she would then not recognise him again when he stood there in plain sight at the first id parade.

Valerie's picture may have looked like Alphon to others, but what good was it if it didn't look like Alphon to her?

I thought the usual objection to her not recognising Alphon, but going on to pick out Hanratty at the second id parade, was that she hadn't seen the gunman's face clearly enough to know him again, and had to rely on voice recognition. Not sure you can have it both ways.

Love,

Caz
X

[moste]

Third man in the picture that sounds more like it. In the vein of D CS Mathews you mean? B.in Law henchman ,very possible.( far from being a toss up of the two)

[moste]

Hi moste,

Would you say justice would have been done if Alphon had hanged instead, despite the total lack of forensic evidence to suggest a connection between him and the rape or the murder weapon?

If Valerie got it wrong when identifying Hanratty as her rapist, despite having spent so long in the car with the man who attacked her, how unlucky was it that Hanratty's blood group, his DNA, even including the snot on his hankie, all conspired to support her identification, while nothing of the sort attached itself to Alphon?

I'd have more doubts if there was a third man in the picture who would have made a stronger suspect than Alphon, but as it's a toss up between the two we have, the case against Hanratty from where I'm sitting is not nearly as weak as that against Alphon.

Love,

Caz
X

Valerie’s picture of the killer looked like Alphon is all I’m saying.(despite her spending all that time with the man) dont you see the problem here? This is the same man that Valerie lit ciggies for, and tried to dissuade from being seen by homeowners in Clophill by parking their car in an observable location. The mind boggles.

[moste]

Somehow managed to delete Caz’s heading there. Sorry.

[moste]

[QUOTE=caz;n774136]

Hi cobalt,

This is an important point. As Valerie was lying on the ground with those bullets in her, hoping she might survive to tell the tale, her motivation for remembering her attacker would have been extremely strong. More than anything, she'd have wanted to see this trigger happy bastard caught and convicted for her lover's senseless murder. And she knew she could make that happen, but only if her memory remained sharp enough to know the man again.

What more powerful motivator could there be, assuming Valerie did indeed come face to face with her attacker again, during one of the id parades?

Love,

Caz
X

It’s a pity that at a point some weeks after the event ,she was heard and documented as saying’ my memory of the assailant is fading ,
Also, how indicative of a total scam is it, for Acott (in the words of Storie in her articles in the magazine some months later,) to voice his satisfaction after her identification of Hanratty , “Well done”, I knew I had settled my score with Hanratty.
Woffinden goes on to explain.: There was nothing wrong with Acott’s behaviour as the rules stood at the time.(They have been thoroughly revised since). Officers were allowed to be present,
albeit as mere observers.Providing that Acott made no comment until it was all finished,and he appeared not to have done so,then no rules of procedure would have been breached.However in the light of Valerie Stories account, it seemed that her belief that she picked out the right man could only have been reinforced by Acotts instantaneous reaction. She said at the trial that she ‘had no doubt whatsoever’ that Hanratty was the gunman.But to what extent was her certainty due to her own identification alone? Or to what extent was it buttressed by Acotts confirmation?
Fiercely contested identification lay at the heart of this conviction. If it was beset by doubts before, in the wake of the ‘Today’ article it looked even more dubious. (Bob Woffinden.page 324)

[cobalt]

If you don’t mind Ed, I’ll take up your earlier point about what Hanratty was doing in Taplow in the first place. He was a burglar by ‘trade’ but has voiced the intention to become a robber. The confusion for me has always been that he did not seem to know which of these he was on the night in question.

The prosecution suggested, I think, that Hanratty was casing houses in the area with a view to burglary. That’s perfectly believable and I think Taplow has always been a village with a fair smattering of wealthy properties, so would provide rich pickings. But burglary is surely about slipping through doors and windows silently so it makes no sense for Hanratty to have been carrying a fully loaded revolver and, bizarrely, extra ammunition in his suit pocket. Why would a burglar go out equipped like James Cagney for a shoot out with the cops? If the gun was for some sort of insurance if spotted, then again surely the point of the weapon was to get people to back off: not to start an execution. And the penalty if apprehended by the law would have been far more severe than for mere burglary. The whole concept makes no sense to me.

Of course, we are often told Hanratty was not a logical person and paid little attention to the consequences of his actions. There’s truth in that I am sure. However was a fairly experienced petty criminal who would have known the various jail tariffs of the time and calculated the risk/reward ratio. I can see no evidence that Hanratty- if he ever was in Taplow- was set upon committing burglary that evening.