A6 Rebooted

[Graham]

Been away for a day or so, came back and decided to take a breather from what's happening on the 'Mrs Dalal Thread'.

To my mind, what's important about the Guy's Hospital ID parade is not who Valerie picked out, but who she didn't pick out, that is Peter Alphon. I just happen to know someone who because of a criminal offence was requested by police to view an identification parade, and he said that he kind of felt 'obliged' to pick someone out - in this case, same as Valerie, he picked out a perfectly innocent person. It was, and probably still is, perfectly acceptable for the police, once their suspect has been eliminated via an ID parade, to introduce another suspect for a fresh parade. Nothing wrong in that, except that some people seem to believe that once Valerie had 'identified' Michael Clark as her assailant, that should be that. And yes, Dr Rennie, who was present at the Guy's Hospital parade, did indeed say that as far as he could remember the man Valerie picked out had fairish hair and bluish eyes. Hanratty'e supporters will carefully ignore this piece of evidence.
Woffinden, to his credit, reports that he couldn't track down Clark himself, but did find an aunt of his, who said that Clark had 'mousey colour' hair which, again to Woffinden's credit, he said corroborated Dr Rennie's evidence.

Graham

[moste]

Been away for a day or so, came back and decided to take a breather from what's happening on the 'Mrs Dalal Thread'.

To my mind, what's important about the Guy's Hospital ID parade is not who Valerie picked out, but who she didn't pick out, that is Peter Alphon. I just happen to know someone who because of a criminal offence was requested by police to view an identification parade, and he said that he kind of felt 'obliged' to pick someone out - in this case, same as Valerie, he picked out a perfectly innocent person. It was, and probably still is, perfectly acceptable for the police, once their suspect has been eliminated via an ID parade, to introduce another suspect for a fresh parade. Nothing wrong in that, except that some people seem to believe that once Valerie had 'identified' Michael Clark as her assailant, that should be that. And yes, Dr Rennie, who was present at the Guy's Hospital parade, did indeed say that as far as he could remember the man Valerie picked out had fairish hair and bluish eyes. Hanratty'e supporters will carefully ignore this piece of evidence.
Woffinden, to his credit, reports that he couldn't track down Clark himself, but did find an aunt of his, who said that Clark had 'mousey colour' hair which, again to Woffinden's credit, he said corroborated Dr Rennie's evidence.

Graham

And did the Aunt say he had dark eyes, and was about 5'9', and heavy set.?

[Natalie Severn]

Been away for a day or so, came back and decided to take a breather from what's happening on the 'Mrs Dalal Thread'.

It was, and probably still is, perfectly acceptable for the police, once their suspect has been eliminated via an ID parade, to introduce another suspect for a fresh parade. Nothing wrong in that, except that some people seem to believe that once Valerie had 'identified' Michael Clark as her assailant, that should be that.
Graham

It most definitely not perfectly acceptable Graham.

The first description is vital.If a witness today makes a positive identification of one individual ,no subsequent identification is permissable.Equivacation and uncertainty are not enough.

[Natalie Severn]

And did the Aunt say he had dark eyes, and was about 5'9', and heavy set.?

This information of course came from Acott's note books, Moste.But the information from the identikit photos supplied by Valerie most definitely did not indicate the man had light coloured eyes.Whether the man's eyes were blue /bluish, green /greenish or brown /brownish they were indicated in the identikit to have been dark in tone not light blue like Hanratty's.

[Graham]

And did the Aunt say he had dark eyes, and was about 5'9', and heavy set.?

I've reported above what the aunt said to Woffinden.

Graham

[Graham]

It most definitely not perfectly acceptable Graham.

The first description is vital.If a witness today makes a positive identification of one individual ,no subsequent identification is permissable.Equivacation and uncertainty are not enough.

The whole purpose of an ID parade is to either confirm or refute a witness's identification of a suspect. In this case, the police's suspect was Peter Louis Alphon and they placed him on an ID parade in which a victim of the A6 crime, one Valerie Storie, was asked if she could identify him as the person who attacked both her and Michael Gregsten. She could not. She picked out someone else who had a complete alibi. She picked out another person because she felt that she was expected to do so. At the next parade at which Miss Storie was the person requested to make an identity she, after due deliberation, selected James Francis Hanratty.

If the police do not place on an ID parade the person whom they suspect is the perpetrator of the crime under investigation, there is no point having an ID parade. Once Alphon had not been identified by Miss Storie, the police eliminated him as a suspect. There is no limit to the number of ID parades that the police, in theory, can organise, providing that each ID parade contains the person they, the police, have reason to believe he or she was the perpetrator of the crime in question.

Once again Nats, you are merely trying to bend facts to suit your own particular theory. We will never know what Michael Clark looked like, and if you have evidence to the contrary, please post it.

Graham

[moste]

OK I found the Woffinden piece on Michael Clark. It is tantalisingly disappointing that all Bob W got out of the Aunt was 'mousey hair'. Also I still don't see why Sherrard couldn't have said, "I want Mr. Michael Clark subpoenaed and brought into the courtroom for the jury to make comparisons between Mr.Clark and the accused. All we had in fact was. Sherrard:" Is the man available, by any chance? Acott:"He was some time ago, but I cannot say off hand".
Now, I don't pretend to be overly conversant with the law, and court procedures, but it seems to me, had this matter been taken to task, Sherrard, could ,I believe, have completely discredited Stories Identification, and left the case for the prosecution in tatters.
Thinking about it, Sherrard obviously thought about producing Clark since he asked if he was available.

[Graham]

OK I found the Woffinden piece on Michael Clark. It is tantalisingly disappointing that all Bob W got out of the Aunt was 'mousey hair'. Also I still don't see why Sherrard couldn't have said, "I want Mr. Michael Clark subpoenaed and brought into the courtroom for the jury to make comparisons between Mr.Clark and the accused. All we had in fact was. Sherrard:" Is the man available, by any chance? Acott:"He was some time ago, but I cannot say off hand".
Now, I don't pretend to be overly conversant with the law, and court procedures, but it seems to me, had this matter been taken to task, Sherrard, could ,I believe, have completely discredited Stories Identification, and left the case for the prosecution in tatters.
Thinking about it, Sherrard obviously thought about producing Clark since he asked if he was available.

Rather as expected, Moste, you have left out the most important piece of eye-witness evidence concerning Michael Clark, that of Dr Ian Rennie. As I posted quite recently - and I'm sure you must have read it - Dr Rennie, who was a prosecution witness at the trial, stated that "As far as I can remember he had rather fairish hair and bluish eyes". Check Paul Foot, page 111, if you have a copy of this book. Once again, I emphasise that Michael Clark, heavy build or not, bore a passing resemblance to Hanratty. Sherrard plainly did not resolutely pursue the possibility of bringing Michael Clark into court for the simple reason he accepted Dr Rennie's evidence. If he did not accept it, yet did not make strenuous efforts to contact Clark, then he was not doing his job - which I do not for one moment believe. Even so, and I repeat for the benefit of anyone reading this, the crucial point of the Guy's Hospital ID parade is who Valerie DID pick out, but who she DIDN'T pick out, that is Peter Louis Alphon.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

There is no limit to the number of ID parades that the police, in theory, can organise, providing that each ID parade contains the person they, the police, have reason to believe he or she was the perpetrator of the crime in question.

Once again Nats, you are merely trying to bend facts to suit your own particular theory. We will never know what Michael Clark looked like, and if you have evidence to the contrary, please post it.

Graham

All this has nothing whatsoever to do with the legal requirement of the identification of a suspect. We are talking about whether Valerie Storie today would have been allowed to positively identify first one person and then another as the gunman.She would not and there are no two ways about it.Her second identification would be totally discredited.

Secondly ,as Roger Matthews pointed out from his research Hanratty was the only man on the parade born within a hundred miles of London!!

For the whole truth about how very unlike James Hanratty was in looks to Michael Clark we again need only refer to Roger Matthews the Scotland Yard detective who in 1996 was in possession of all the files and information on the case .Here is what

Roger Matthews said:-Intriguingly, he [Hanratty] bore not the remotest resemblance to the man she had identified i.e. Michael Clark (wrongly, of course) at the Alphon parade.

As for ME bending facts to suit my particular theory Graham as you put it---come off it please ---if you would be so kind as to look up the law and get your facts straight over identification rules regarding suspects it would do us all a favour.

[Natalie Severn]

Once again, I emphasise that Michael Clark, heavy build or not, bore a passing resemblance to Hanratty.

Graham

Absolutely untrue.Graham we have clear and unequivocal evidence stating the exact contrary to your assertion here by none other than the very senior Scotland Yard Detective Roger Matthews who was appointed by the Home Office in 1996 on the advice of Scotland Yard to oversee and study all the files they had at their disposal and which clearly included this crucial information and Matthews having the true facts on this at his disposal says : he Hanratty] bore not the remotest resemblance to the man [Michael Clark ] she had identified (wrongly, of course) at the Alphon parade.

[moste]

Hi SH.
Mikes height at 5'3" I don't think works. Of the photos in Woffindens book after page 244 (paper back)One shows Mike leaning against a fence with Janet sitting on same fence, with baby Simon. Using Janet's draping foot and the perspective of the gaps in the said fence as a yard stick, I would estimate the fence at approximately 4' 0'' or so, In which case Mike appears to be closer to your 6'0" in height. Interesting, her alluding to "Jim wouldn't help her get Mike out of the car" other versions have it "he had to get Mikes feet from under the pedals" We are led to believe that once clear of the car, Valerie dragged a dead body, lets say 12 stone 7 pounds, ( all 5 foot 3 inches of her, who looks to be about 8 stone 7 pounds soaking wet) approximately 20 to 25 feet across the gravelly concrete to the grass verge.... I don't think so! And anyway, what was it with this maniac? was he also a neatness freak? Grass Verge? are you kidding me? As I mentioned before 'Maulden wood' you would think, would have been his best option, if your going to exert that much energy dragging a corpse 20 odd feet. Jim was heading in the wrong direction!

[moste]

Absolutely untrue.Graham we have clear and unequivocal evidence stating the exact contrary to your assertion here by none other than the very senior Scotland Yard Detective Roger Matthews who was appointed by the Home Office in 1996 on the advice of Scotland Yard to oversee and study all the files they had at their disposal and which clearly included this crucial information and Matthews having the true facts on this at his disposal says : he Hanratty] bore not the remotest resemblance to the man [Michael Clark ] she had identified (wrongly, of course) at the Alphon parade.

I'm with you on this one Natalie. Besides The good doctor is using phrases like "As far as I can remember" then much to the consternation of Mr.Swanwick refers to Clarks hair as "rather fairish" blue eyes or not that wouldn't have worked for the prosecution.

[NickB]

Roger Matthews pointed out from his research Hanratty was the only man on the parade born within a hundred miles of London!!


Roger Matthews said:-Intriguingly, he [Hanratty] bore not the remotest resemblance to the man she had identified i.e. Michael Clark (wrongly, of course) at the Alphon parade.

Did he really track down all the people on that id parade and determine where they were born? How does he know Hanratty bore not the remotest resemblance to Michael Clark?

This just shows why the Matthews report has never been published. It does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

Here are some other comments he made:

“Gregsten wound [the window] down and was forced out of the car at gunpoint.”

“Staff at the Maida Vale hotel said they had not seen Alphon on the crucial night.”

“The room [where the bullet cases were found] had been occupied on at least two occasions in the intervening period.”

“[Skillet and Trower’s] evidence was totally unreliable – and was in fact rejected at the trial.”

“[Hanratty’s] graphic description of the room [at Rhyl] he had occupied was quite extraordinarily accurate.”

[Limehouse]

Rather as expected, Moste, you have left out the most important piece of eye-witness evidence concerning Michael Clark, that of Dr Ian Rennie. As I posted quite recently - and I'm sure you must have read it - Dr Rennie, who was a prosecution witness at the trial, stated that "As far as I can remember he had rather fairish hair and bluish eyes". Check Paul Foot, page 111, if you have a copy of this book. Once again, I emphasise that Michael Clark, heavy build or not, bore a passing resemblance to Hanratty. Sherrard plainly did not resolutely pursue the possibility of bringing Michael Clark into court for the simple reason he accepted Dr Rennie's evidence. If he did not accept it, yet did not make strenuous efforts to contact Clark, then he was not doing his job - which I do not for one moment believe. Even so, and I repeat for the benefit of anyone reading this, the crucial point of the Guy's Hospital ID parade is who Valerie DID pick out, but who she DIDN'T pick out, that is Peter Louis Alphon.

Graham

Hi Graham,

I have the upmost respect for you as you frequently make viable and fair points but Acott was a trained police officer and therefore, one would hope, observant concerning people's features, appearance etc. He wrote 'dark eyes' in his notebook but you expect us to consider the evidence of Dr Rennie who stated 'As far as I can remember (!!!) he had 'rather fairish hair' and 'bluish eyes'. Really? Is that supposed to be reliable evidence?

Kind regards

Julie

[Graham]

Hi Graham,

I have the upmost respect for you as you frequently make viable and fair points but Acott was a trained police officer and therefore, one would hope, observant concerning people's features, appearance etc. He wrote 'dark eyes' in his notebook but you expect us to consider the evidence of Dr Rennie who stated 'As far as I can remember (!!!) he had 'rather fairish hair' and 'bluish eyes'. Really? Is that supposed to be reliable evidence?

Kind regards

Julie

Hi Julie,

thank you for your nice words. However, this is what Acott said in court, after some prior questions and answers with Sherrard:

I can tell you from my own knowledge [that the man Valerie picked out] was 5' 9" tall, dark, short-cropped hair, about 27 years of age, and he was heavily built. This is in Paul Foot, first edition, p 112. It is repeated in Woffinden, paperback edition, p 247. I don't know if Acott was reading from his note-book when he was giving this evidence, but I suspect that he was, as according to Woffinden he said to Sherrard, "I have his full description".
This is confirmed by Foot, who has Acott saying to Sherrard, "I will have to refer to notes". Acott was also asked by Sherrard, "Would you tell us whether he [Clark] was, as Dr Rennie has told us, a fair-haired man?" To which Acott replied, "No he was not". If this answer was made following referral to his note-book, then why did Acott, old Basil Of The Yard, not also describe the colour of Clark's eyes, as eye-colour was and is of the utmost importance in the A6 Case? I would suggest that he didn't, because he didn't know.

Nothing there about 'dark eyes', as you suggest he had written in his note-book. Where and when did you come across this, Julie?

This whole case is littered with "As far as I can remembers", Julie. No reason I think to disbelieve Dr Rennie's evidence any more than that of a lot of other witnesses.

Regards,

Graham