A6 Rebooted

[Graham]

Nice post, Nick.

Graham

[NickB]

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.

There were lots of things written in the notebook including dark eyes, long round face, square chin, pale complexion and born 7.12.35.

Acott offered to read out all the notes: "I think I had better give it in detail from start to finish then."

But before he could do so he was asked whether they comprised his own observations and he replied: "Not all of it".

Sherrard appeared keen to leave it there and move on, but the judge pursued the matter and Acott was asked to read out only what he knew according to his own knowledge.

That is when he said the bit above.

[Sherlock Houses]

Michael Clark

From the anti-Hanratty bible [aka 2002 Court of Appeal judgment]

140.
The fourth ground of appeal concerns the failure by DS Acott to disclose a note which he had made in his notebook to the effect that the man identified by Valerie Storie on the first identification parade (on which Peter Alphon was standing) had ‘DARK EYES’. A note to that effect was written in the back of his notebook (that is, not in the sequence of events that he recorded whether for evidential purposes or otherwise). Mr Mansfield also submits that this feature is relevant to the attack on the Superintendent’s credibility because when asked to describe the man, the officer only said: “I can tell you this from my own knowledge: 5ft 9in, dark short cropped hair, about 27 years of age and he was heavily built”. Other aspects of the noted description also omitted from his evidence included ‘long round face, square chin, pale complexion, … born 7.12.35’.


DARK EYES not ICY BLUE, HUGE, STARING FLYING SAUCER SHAPE EYES

Miss Storie picked out Michael Clark, knowing full well before the ID parade took place that she should not pick out anybody unless she was sure he was the A6 murderer.

Who knows, perhaps Michael Clark's eyes were a DARK shade of Icy Blue.

[Graham]

There were lots of things written in the notebook including dark eyes, long round face, square chin, pale complexion and born 7.12.35.

Acott offered to read out all the notes: "I think I had better give it in detail from start to finish then."

But before he could do so he was asked whether they comprised his own observations and he replied: "Not all of it".

Sherrard appeared keen to leave it there and move on, but the judge pursued the matter and Acott was asked to read out only what he knew according to his own knowledge.

That is when he said the bit above.

Nick, got to ask - did you get this from the trial transcript? If not, where from?

The reason I ask is that for years and years it's struck me that both Paul Foot and Bob Woffinden have written only what they as supporters of Hanratty want us, the interested public, to read. Not that I blame them - they were both journalists, both in the business of making a point and selling their books. But for the vast majority of people (like me) who are interested in the A6, we have only their books, and a few other publications, plus what we can glean from the internet, to rely on.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

I

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.”

I think we need to see the actual report Nick -I think Roger Matthews did a very thorough job for the home Office and the problem is the Daily Mail has published an article by Matthews which they are required to sub edit and in this case it was sub judice and Matthews has chosen what he will comment on bearing that in mind.I have heard it said before however that there was not one single speaker from London on that ID parade I know Matthews believed there were three people involved and I know that with a great deal of certainty but you will have to take my word for it as he does not refer to that in the Daily Mail report..

[Sherlock Houses]

Acott Notebook entry about Michael Clark

Attached is Basil Acott's description of Michael Clark. It is an extract taken from page 174 of his notebook. You will notice how he has emphasised Clark's dark eyes feature by underlining it. Acott made sure he didn't slip up at the Bedford trial by leaking to the court, jury and judge the fact that Michael Clark was dark-eyed.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Julie,
Nothing there about 'dark eyes', as you suggest he had written in his note-book.

But what we do have is Valerie sanctioning a photofit showing his eyes as dark [and not particularly large ].Extraordinary in view of the fact that a few days later Valerie was talking about this man having as his most striking feature 'ice- blue eyes'----yet having previously given it no significance what ever!

[cobalt]

Perhaps slightly off topic,
But why is Acott so precise in the dating of the suspect (7.12.35.) I consider myself, at my advanced years, as a reasonable judge of a person's age, but I could never be as precise at Acott.

Was he suggesting some horoscope significance? 7.12.35 is very precise, ludicrously so. From photos most of us, of a certain age perhaps and aware of fashions at the time, would put Hanratty in his early 20s and Alphon in his late 20s early 30s. You could hardly be more exact than that.

[cobalt]

ID evidence was discredited by the Hanratty case, and has over the years been more open to be questioned by juries.

Graham's desperate attempts to defend the ID by Valerie Storie are part of the reason why: according to him Ms Storie could, in theory, have wrongly identified the wrong man on say 6 previous occasions- so long as it exonerated the real culprit- only to identify him when faced with him on the 7th attempt!

If Graham is not an ex policeman I will eat my hat, as they say. Double Jeopardy is but a novice compared to his vision of an ID parade. This is stuff and nonsense. How many goes were you prepared to give her?

Answer: enough as it took.

[cobalt]

The clue is in the term IDENTITY PARADE.
The witness is expected to IDENTIFY the perpetrator of the crime. It is not an exclusion process. She is not expected to IDENTIFY who was NOT the perpetrator, as Graham apparently thinks. In identifying Clark she undermined the whole process, whatever spin is put upon it. Her ID is invalid.

If the police term was, say, NEAREST FIT TO WHAT I CAN REMEMBER PARADE then Ms Storie's evidence would resonate through the years and rightly be championed. In fact she could have had a number of goes before hitting on her man; the case might have dragged on to the 1970s before she got it right.

But by then few would have placed any more credence in British justice than Alphon did in his Paris interview.

[cobalt]

Apologies for my misreading of Acott's description which I initially thought was in relation to a general suspect, rather than for a particular member of an ID parade.

[Limehouse]

Surely folks, the point is, if two men (Acott and Dr Rennie) standing in fairly close proximity to a man in broad day light cannot agree on basic characteristics such as hair and eye colour - how can we fully accept VS's description of a man whose face she saw briefly illuminated by a passing car?

[NickB]

Valerie addressed this issue on the Channel 4 documentary:

"It has been said I couldn't possibly identify this man because I only saw him for such a short time but in that situation, where one's senses are very much heightened and one's adrenaline is flowing, it leaves an incredibly strong impression on you.

And I had listened to him talking for the best part of six hours and again, when you are in this state of agitation and someone is talking almost continually, you do not forget that voice. I will never forget that voice."

Nick, got to ask - did you get this from the trial transcript? If not, where from?

From the Appeal.

[Sherlock Houses]

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.

The attached photo of Michael Gregsten accompanied that Daily Express article by Valerie Storie. She stated clearly that he was 5ft 3" and this photo would seem to confirm that as he looks to have a small and slim build. I don't believe that the 5ft 3" is a typo error or can be mistaken for 5ft 8" as there is another '3' mentioned in the article.

It would also tally with the not very complimenatary remark made by the sturdily built Ewer about his brother-in-law.

[Graham]

Well, I think regarding Dr Rennie, we'll have to agree to disagree.

After not identifying Alphon and picking out someone else, Valerie was heard to shout "I made a mistake!" Was she referring to a mistake regarding the man she 'identified', or perhaps referring to the mistake she made in selecting someone because she felt obliged to?

I had a friend years ago who was a member of an ex-servicemen's club in Birmimgham. The club was a favourite source of 'also-rans' for local police ID parades. There was never any shortage of volunteers according to my mate, as they were paid! He said he went on a couple of ID parades, which must have confused a lot of people as he was the dead spit of Leon Trotsky.

Note to Moste

I'm not sure what would be the best marinade for a hat, but enjoy your lunch!

Graham