A6 Rebooted

[djw]

"...Section 38(1)(a)1 exempts information from disclosure if that disclosure would, or
would be likely to, endanger the physical or mental health of any individual.
This exemption has been applied to information pertaining to the murder of Michael
Gregsten and attack upon Valerie Storie, as well as other sensitive information
relating to other identifiable individuals, the disclosure of which would impact upon
living individuals. We are unable to provide any detail concerning the nature of this
other information, as that would in itself be disclosing exempt information.
For section 38 to be engaged it is necessary to prove that disclosure would involve a
level of harm. The harm/prejudice test for this exemption involves the consideration
of the risk that mental endangerment of an individual ‘would or would be likely’ to
occur2. In consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), The National
Archives has determined that the release of the aforementioned material ‘would be
likely’ to significantly distress the individuals concerned. ..."

"...Family members of the individuals concerned, who would be impacted by disclosure
into the public domain, have been identified and can be presumed living. After
reasonable consideration it has been determined that they are likely to be impacted
by the release of information in this record. Thus the release of this material and its
availability to members of the public is likely to cause shock, harm and distress to
such an extent that mental endangerment may be rendered to these individuals. To
release information, which potentially exposes members of the public to a risk of
mental endangerment, would not be in the public interest. The specific arguments
considered in the public interest test have previously been supplied to you.
Having reviewed and reconsidered these arguments, it is my view that the original
decision was correct. The release of this information into the public domain would be
likely to have a detrimental effect on the mental health of surviving immediate family
of individuals referenced within the record. To disclose distressing information
concerning the events recorded in this file has the potential to endanger their mental
health and as such is not considered to be in the public interest. Therefore it has
been determined that the risk of endangerment outweighs the reasoning for
disclosure in this specific case and the exemption at section 38(1)(a) of the Freedom
of Information Act applies to the information...."

Some more excerpts

Please note that, as you have stated in your request for an internal review, I am
satisfied that Michael Gregsten, James Hanratty, Charles France, Valerie Storie and
Peter Alphon can be considered deceased. It is well known that James Hanratty was
executed in 1962.
Nonetheless the majority of information in the record remains exempt under either
sections 38, 40, or 41 of the FOI Act, or a combination of these exemptions. Many
other third parties referenced in these records, who were suspects, or provided
witness statements voluntarily to the police, can still be presumed living. This means
that the amount of sensitive personal information in the record remains substantial
and extensive, and therefore it must remain exempt from disclosure.
Additionally, the immediate family members of some of the victims and defendant
are presumed living. The disclosure of some information in the record, that may only
relate to deceased individuals, and is therefore not covered under the personal data
exemption (section 40) is nonetheless covered by the section 38 exemption, due to
the capacity to endanger their mental health through public disclosure.

It is reasonable to assume that family members would be distressed by publication of
this material, which we would not be able to prevent, or control once published
online. By withholding the record from public access, family members are being
protected from shock and distress. Disclosure of the distressing content held within
the file would place in the public domain detailed and intimate accounts of traumatic
events, which would force these individuals to confront this information in
inappropriate circumstances. The content in this file retains the capacity to cause
such distress, despite the passage of time.
We acknowledge that some of the closure arguments in this letter may therefore
seem rather arbitrarily or insensitively applied. Unfortunately, we are only able to
consider your request for access to this file under the terms of the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) 2000, as set out in section 5(3) of the Public Records Act
1958. Our decision is based entirely on the content of the record, and whether any of
the information is exempt from disclosure using the categories defined in the Act
The public needs the reassurance of knowing that FOI access rights are not going to
be allowed to be exercised to their detriment. We must continue to protect public
confidence that family members are allowed to be given privacy. To release
information, which potentially exposes members of the public to a risk of mental
endangerment, would not be in the public interest.
I acknowledge that the criminal case to which this record refers was highly publicised
in its day and widely reported in the press, as any serious crime will likely be a key
focus of media interest. Details concerning this case can be found within the public
domain by researching sources such as newspapers.
However, the level of detail in a record such as this, which contains a substantial
quantity of personal information from lesser known third parties is far more in depth
than that which can be found reported within newspapers. Although, information in
the public domain may cover the crime which this record refers to, it is substantially
not the same information.
In re-reviewing the record I have also given consideration as to whether it can be
released in part via redaction. Redaction is always given very careful consideration
when we are reviewing any file. Achieving the appropriate level of access to public
records is crucial for The National Archives. We must ensure that public access to
records within our collections is appropriate and to protect sensitive information until
it can be placed into the public domain.

[caz]

One thing we can be thankful for is that this horrendous crime would appear to have been unique, suggesting that whoever was guilty was either unwilling or unable to commit anything like it ever again.

I do not think the DNA found on the hanky can easily be explained unless Hanratty was either the gunman, or had a close enough association with whoever was involved and/or framing him to account for how his hanky could have ended up on the bus with the murder weapon. It has to be remembered that it was solely the choice of hiding place that could have pointed to Hanratty at that time. The gun itself and the hanky could not have been linked to him forensically, and nobody could have predicted that this might one day become possible, if the hanky survived.

Another consideration is that nobody involved could have done anything about it if Hanratty had been able to prove he was either in Liverpool or Rhyl. If the man they were seeking to frame had gone free because of this, questions would then have been asked of anyone who had tried to point the finger at him.

Love,

Caz
X

[cobalt]

The Rhyl alibi has long since run its course in terms of available information. One day an amateur photographer’s snapshot of Rhyl town centre might turn up in some attic that is being cleared, and there will be discovered a photo of James Hanratty chatting to a newspaper vendor, whose local evening editions (under microscopic enlargement) are established as dated 22^nd August 1961. The town clock in the background and the shadows in the photo confirm the time as being near dusk. Biometric experts will opine that the man in the Hepworth suit is indeed James Hanratty, so far as they can judge from contemporary photos.

Yet none of this will be enough. Suspicions of ‘photo shopping’ will not unreasonably be voiced, as they still are in respect of the controversial Lee Harvey Oswald backyard photos. It will be claimed that since the Rhyl photo directly contradicts DNA evidence then it must be a fake. Some might even suggest the photo was staged as a kind of student prank/hoax after the A6 murder trial, by persons who then thought better of the deed. We will be no closer to agreement in such a hypothetical situation than we are today. I have long thought that the Rhyl alibi, so diligently pursued by Paul Foot, is now a blind alley in so far as it can never be proved as authentic or false to the satisfaction of either camp.

Since an accused has no need of an alibi anyhow, this is no great loss. Liverpool and Rhyl are totally unconnected to the crime. I would question whether the Vienna Hotel, Swiss Cottage, the Rehearsal Club Soho, the 36A bus or Redbridge are worthy of the significance they have been afforded over the years. This crime has its roots in Taplow, a village of barely 2,000 people, and the answer to the enigma that is the A6 Case must lie somewhere close to there.

[OneRound]

Depends what you mean by 'valid', OneRound.

If the guilty man was never suspected, for instance, and didn't take part in either parade, there would be no telling what he really looked like, and Valerie presumably thought she had a valid reason for picking out Clark.

The argument is usually made that because she picked out Clark and not Alphon, then went on to pick out Hanratty, she must have had little real idea about the man who had actually raped and shot her, and therefore her subsequent identification of Hanratty [without the benefit of DNA evidence] was unreliable. It's a perfectly fair observation, but it comes with the inference that Alphon was the gunman and Valerie therefore made two mistakes. But if we accept that Alphon walks for lack of evidence, it is then difficult to argue that Valerie had no possible grounds for mistaking Clark for the gunman. How would we know that, if we don't have the gunman to make the comparison which only Valerie could have made, for what it was worth?

Love,

Caz
X

Sorry Caz but the only real valid reason Valerie should have had for picking Clark was that she was certain he raped her and shot Gregsten. He obviously didn't and so, at least for me, her credibility was blown with that misidentification.

It was not - or should not have been - for Valerie to pick someone who was comparable to or looked like the rapist and killer. It had to be the rapist and killer or no one if either he wasn't on the parade or she was uncertain.

I agree with your wording that I have put in bold but whilst the inference you then refer to is there for some, it isn't for me. I've long since looked at this case from a legal viewpoint of guilt being proved fairly beyond reasonable doubt and don't consider it was for Hanratty. It doesn't follow from that it could or should have been so proved for Alphon.

On the balance of probabilities, I would acknowledge there is a strong likelihood that Hanratty was guilty; I'm particularly influenced by Hanratty's own lies at trial as to at least one of his alibis and, another of your favourites, his DNA being on the hanky wrapped around the murder gun. However, that doesn't satisfy me as to fairly proving legal guilt, particularly when police non-disclosures go into the mix.

I'll leave this one here other than just to add it might have been helpful for all of us - and potentially massively so for Hanratty - if he, Alphon and Clark had all been on that first parade.

Best regards,
OneRound

[djw]

Hello Derrick and all who commented on this aspect of the case. I made a FOI request and this is the reply which I received.

[/I]

So there we are. I have two months to appeal the decision. It seems to me if I can show that the info which is considered to be detrimental to the health of the victims' family or families is already in the public domain then there can be no reason for withholding the file on that basis.

This is broadly the arguments the National Archives declined to release the Matthews report on.

Were Nimmo and Hawser public inquiries or statutory inquiries?

[cobalt]

Only Valerie Storie would have been able to explain why she picked out Michael Clark in error. It’s obvious that she had little opportunity to see the murderer’s face since it was necessary at the second ID parade for her to hear the men speak. She may have been relying on some general impression when she identified Mr. Clark.

I was an innocent member of an ID line up as a teenager and might, through great coincidence, have been picked out as the guilty party. There had been a low level burglary attempt one Sunday morning and the police invited 6 of us- preparing to play football an hour later in the local public park- down to the cop shop, employing a lure of civic duty and payment. In terms of appearance and demeanour the suspect stood out like a carrot in a bunch of bananas next to us grammar school lads, albeit we were all wearing jeans and t-shirts. He was already an established ‘bad un’ well known to both us and the police.

In the event two elderly witnesses picked out nobody but, to my alarm, it turned out that the burglary had taken place in the very street where I lived. A town of around 50,000 inhabitants and by sheer chance I had walked past the burgled house on my way to play football soon after the crime. I was in Vienna Hotel territory! In fact I walked past that house a couple of times every day so it would have been fully understandable if the two OAPs thought I looked a tad familiar and tapped me on the shoulder. And my alibi? I didn’t really have one. I was walking alone, heading for the public park, carrying a sports bag.

I’ve often wondered what would have transpired had I been picked out at the ID parade. I didn’t have a criminal record any more than Hanratty or Alphon had a record of armed robbery/kidnap but, as someone would no doubt have remarked, he had to start somewhere.

[caz]

Depends what you mean by 'valid', OneRound.

If the guilty man was never suspected, for instance, and didn't take part in either parade, there would be no telling what he really looked like, and Valerie presumably thought she had a valid reason for picking out Clark.

The argument is usually made that because she picked out Clark and not Alphon, then went on to pick out Hanratty, she must have had little real idea about the man who had actually raped and shot her, and therefore her subsequent identification of Hanratty [without the benefit of DNA evidence] was unreliable. It's a perfectly fair observation, but it comes with the inference that Alphon was the gunman and Valerie therefore made two mistakes. But if we accept that Alphon walks for lack of evidence, it is then difficult to argue that Valerie had no possible grounds for mistaking Clark for the gunman. How would we know that, if we don't have the gunman to make the comparison which only Valerie could have made, for what it was worth?

Love,

Caz
X

[OneRound]

Not sure about that, OneRound. Valerie might have had a very specific reason for ruling out Alphon, along with all the others she ruled out.

Yes, if she had picked out Alphon, after ruling out all the others in that first parade, things could have been very bad for him indeed. But it never happened so we can only guess. Had Alphon hanged instead of Hanratty, and had the verdict been as hotly disputed for years afterwards, the DNA evidence would presumably have proved a miscarriage of justice in his case, and Valerie would still be accused today of having picked out the wrong man, but at least that accusation would be wholly justified.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi once more Caz,

I fully accept that Valerie may have had a good reason to rule out Alphon. However, and this was meant to be my key point, she could not have had a valid reason to pick Clark. Once she did, she was no longer a witness I could rely upon.

Btw, I agree with your response to ansonman's last post.

Best regards,
OneRound

[caz]

Just as well that Michael Clark had an alibi!

He didn't need one, ansonman. He was there to make up the numbers. I'm sure you know how this works, so why make such a fatuous comment?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

<sub>Hi again Caz,

We've had this dance before but you're a good partner, so let's go across the floor one more time.

As Valerie Storie asserted, there was only one man who shot Michael Gregsten and raped her. Once she picked the wrong man, her credibility was gone. For me at least.

If the guilty man was not on the first parade, it was incumbent on her to pick no one. It was not - or should not have been - a case of keep going until you pick someone on a further parade whom the police consider to be a suspect and then he can be charged.

Worth being aware that had she picked out Alphon first time round (and she had as much chance of doing so as the random man she identified), he would almost certainly have been charged and then .... hmmm.

Best regards,
OneRound</sub>

Not sure about that, OneRound. Valerie might have had a very specific reason for ruling out Alphon, along with all the others she ruled out.

Yes, if she had picked out Alphon, after ruling out all the others in that first parade, things could have been very bad for him indeed. But it never happened so we can only guess. Had Alphon hanged instead of Hanratty, and had the verdict been as hotly disputed for years afterwards, the DNA evidence would presumably have proved a miscarriage of justice in his case, and Valerie would still be accused today of having picked out the wrong man, but at least that accusation would be wholly justified.

Love,

Caz
X

[ansonman]

Just as well that Michael Clark had an alibi!

[OneRound]

Surely she picked out a different person on the two parades she attended. You make it sound like there were several!

Also, she couldn't have picked out Hanratty on the first one because he wasn't there. Alphon was, but she failed to pick him out, and he is the only other suspect who was ever seriously considered.

Love,

Caz
X

<sub>Hi again Caz,

We've had this dance before but you're a good partner, so let's go across the floor one more time.

As Valerie Storie asserted, there was only one man who shot Michael Gregsten and raped her. Once she picked the wrong man, her credibility was gone. For me at least.

If the guilty man was not on the first parade, it was incumbent on her to pick no one. It was not - or should not have been - a case of keep going until you pick someone on a further parade whom the police consider to be a suspect and then he can be charged.

Worth being aware that had she picked out Alphon first time round (and she had as much chance of doing so as the random man she identified), he would almost certainly have been charged and then .... hmmm.

Best regards,
OneRound</sub>

[ansonman]

Well, cobalt, you have already made up your own mind about what the Matthews Report would reveal, so why do you need to see it? Assuming you won't be 'distressed' either way, it's not up to you to speak for surviving relatives of anyone who was personally involved in the case in any capacity. You may regard their potential distress as a bogus reason for not publishing, but you can't know that distress would not still be a consequence of doing so.

People can't always admit it to themselves that they were, or could have been wrong, let alone put it in an official report. Distrusting the DNA findings goes with the territory of being unable to let go of a belief, regardless of what the evidence indicates.

Love,

Caz

According to accounts I have read, Matthews concluded that Hanratty was entirely innocent of the crime and had been wrongly hanged. Is it unreasonable for us to know how and why Matthews reached this conclusion? I would have thought it is in almost everyone's interests to want to get to the truth.

[caz]

''Would disclosure be likely to reveal anything powerful enough to overturn or cast serious doubt on the DNA findings?''
Yes, otherwise the Matthews Report would have been published. I regard the distress, real or imagined, to surviving relatives a bogus reason for not publishing. The notion that the Hanratty family might be caused further distress by publication is preposterous since Matthews conveyed to them his belief that James Hanratty was innocent of the crime.

''If not, please don't tell me it wouldn't be argued that such evidence was bound to be destroyed or redacted to protect the status quo.''
I suspect that sensitive information has long since been shredded but judging by Matthews' recommendation there must be enough evidence in existence to cast serious doubt on the verdict. So far as I am aware Matthews never retracted his original belief that Hanratty was innocent even after the DNA evidence emerged. Either he was reluctant to admit he was wrong- a common human frailty- or he distrusted the DNA evidence.

Even for those who hold the DNA evidence to be a 'slam dunk' it would surely be instructive to see why Matthews was misled into believing that there were three persons involved in the crime.

Well, cobalt, you have already made up your own mind about what the Matthews Report would reveal, so why do you need to see it? Assuming you won't be 'distressed' either way, it's not up to you to speak for surviving relatives of anyone who was personally involved in the case in any capacity. You may regard their potential distress as a bogus reason for not publishing, but you can't know that distress would not still be a consequence of doing so.

People can't always admit it to themselves that they were, or could have been wrong, let alone put it in an official report. Distrusting the DNA findings goes with the territory of being unable to let go of a belief, regardless of what the evidence indicates.

Love,

Caz
X

[cobalt]

'No' will be the answer I think.

Legal technicality? Why? There is clearly something underlying the A6 Case which we are not aware of, hence our collective ignorance.