A6 Rebooted

[cobalt]

What I find particularly distasteful is your continued speculation that things happened very differently on the murder night from the way the surviving victim described them.


This sentiment could apply equally to another possible victim, one who did not survive. His name was James Hanratty, and you would not have to search far on this site to find his every action and utterance called into question and his general character demeaned. Yet for many who have read up on the case there exists the possibility, no matter how remote, that a miscarriage of justice took place.

We are all attempting to shine some light on this perplexing case, from whichever angle we come, and that will on occasion cause discomfort. However I believe we have a duty to search for a fuller truth in this case, and oppose any voices which wish to limit our debate. If that means questioning the account of Valerie Storie then so be it.

At the same time we also have a duty to remember that amongst all the legalities and forensics and armchair psychology there were human lives at issue in the A6 case, and that this is not a game of Cluedo. I thought that Limehouse’s recent post, where she related a personal memory of grief to the situation of Valerie Storie, was a very powerful piece of writing and a reminder of that duty.

[OneRound]

Hi Caz,

I follow your reasoning but it was of course still pretty daft or incompetent of Hanratty to then go and leave the gun on his own usual doorstep. That naturally enough still attracted more attention to him than if he had dumped it miles away from both Liverpool and London. I am sure you agree.

I would add that I strongly share your concern about the tone and comments in moste's recent posts.

Best regards,
OneRound

[moste]

What I find particularly distasteful is your continued speculation that things happened very differently on the murder night from the way the surviving victim described them.


This sentiment could apply equally to another possible victim, one who did not survive. His name was James Hanratty, and you would not have to search far on this site to find his every action and utterance called into question and his general character demeaned. Yet for many who have read up on the case there exists the possibility, no matter how remote, that a miscarriage of justice took place.

We are all attempting to shine some light on this perplexing case, from whichever angle we come, and that will on occasion cause discomfort. However I believe we have a duty to search for a fuller truth in this case, and oppose any voices which wish to limit our debate. If that means questioning the account of Valerie Storie then so be it.

At the same time we also have a duty to remember that amongst all the legalities and forensics and armchair psychology there were human lives at issue in the A6 case, and that this is not a game of Cluedo. I thought that Limehouse’s recent post, where she related a personal memory of grief to the situation of Valerie Storie, was a very powerful piece of writing and a reminder of that duty.

You put it as it is, thanks for that.
I knew I had read Ms. Storie mention somewhere about the Chilterns. I found it in the second installment in the newspaper that SH uploaded. She states:
"I remember we were doing our best, over a few drinks, to work out a system of penalty marks, for the ambitious all day rally, we were trying to organise through the Chiltern Hills". I found this quite interesting as the Chilterns begin a few miles north of Slough, running in a north westerly direction, petering out around Barton-le -clay,about 4 or 5 miles shy of Clophill.
I mean call me suspicious, but of the multitude of 80 mile round trips they could have come up with, they planned for this one.

[Spitfire]

You put it as it is, thanks for that.
I knew I had read Ms. Storie mention somewhere about the Chilterns. I found it in the second installment in the newspaper that SH uploaded. She states:
"I remember we were doing our best, over a few drinks, to work out a system of penalty marks, for the ambitious all day rally, we were trying to organise through the Chiltern Hills". I found this quite interesting as the Chilterns begin a few miles north of Slough, running in a north westerly direction, petering out around Barton-le -clay,about 4 or 5 miles shy of Clophill.
I mean call me suspicious, but of the multitude of 80 mile round trips they could have come up with, they planned for this one.

Moste,

You still haven't explained who drove the Morris Minor from the scene of Gregsten's execution to Avondale Crescent. You have suggested that Valerie Storie was lying (she could hardly be mistaken) in saying that the murderer was in the car at the time of the shooting, and have stated that the murderer was never in the car.

So I ask again, if the murderer was never in the car, who drove it away from Deadman's Hill on the morning of 23 August 1961, if not the murderer?

[Spitfire]

We are all attempting to shine some light on this perplexing case, from whichever angle we come, and that will on occasion cause discomfort. However I believe we have a duty to search for a fuller truth in this case, and oppose any voices which wish to limit our debate. If that means questioning the account of Valerie Storie then so be it.

Cobalt

I am attempting to resolve a point raised by moste.

He says that Valerie's account is wrong in that the murderer was never in the Morris Minor. Yet we know that the car was eventually found in Avondale Crescent on the evening of 23 August 1961. How did it get there? Most people believe that the murderer drove it there, moste, by implication says that this cannot be so, as the murderer was never in the car.

If the murderer drove the car on the morning (of even the afternoon) of 23 August, then he must have been in that car to do so.

I have no objection to people raising questions as to the veracity of Valerie Storie, but to ask those questions and raise those issues and then run away from any debate, in my opinion, is not on.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

I follow your reasoning but it was of course still pretty daft or incompetent of Hanratty to then go and leave the gun on his own usual doorstep. That naturally enough still attracted more attention to him than if he had dumped it miles away from both Liverpool and London. I am sure you agree.

I would add that I strongly share your concern about the tone and comments in moste's recent posts.

Best regards,
OneRound

Hi OneRound,

Oh yes, Hanratty was nothing if not incompetent. He may have taken Dixie France into his confidence, and Dixie may have advised him to dispose of the gun immediately and then put as much distance between it and himself as possible. "Where shall I put it?" "Oh I'm sure you'll think of somewhere, Jim."

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

We are all attempting to shine some light on this perplexing case, from whichever angle we come, and that will on occasion cause discomfort. However I believe we have a duty to search for a fuller truth in this case, and oppose any voices which wish to limit our debate. If that means questioning the account of Valerie Storie then so be it.

Hi cobalt,

I would certainly not wish to 'limit' the debate. Similarly I hope you would respect my right to express an opinion on its nature when adding to it myself. If moste wants to question Valerie's account that's entirely his choice, and we can all learn something from the choices made by our fellow posters.

At the same time we also have a duty to remember that amongst all the legalities and forensics and armchair psychology there were human lives at issue in the A6 case, and that this is not a game of Cluedo. I thought that Limehouse’s recent post, where she related a personal memory of grief to the situation of Valerie Storie, was a very powerful piece of writing and a reminder of that duty.

It most certainly is not a game of Cluedo. So perhaps we can get back to what moste was suggesting, and how it could possibly work with the known facts. Let's not limit that debate. I'm up for it if you are.

Love,

Caz
X

[moste]

running in a north easterly direction.Apologies

[NickB]

Bob now quotes Hanratty (page128):

'I was on my own. I came back about 10 o'clock. I went back to the flat, picked up my luggage and took a large sum of cash with me. I went to the station about 10.15. I again put my case in the left luggage-it was a different man-I gave him a 6d tip.’


Has Bob just transplanted the events of 24th August 1961 of the first alibi story into the second alibi story? What flat is Bob talking about? How can Hanratty have put his luggage in the left luggage office twice without removing it in between times? Where has the large amount of cash appeared from?

More questions than answers.

A couple of other strange bits in Woffinden that I do not think have been mentioned before.

- When describing how Acott and Oxford visited Hanratty's parents on 26th September (page 101) asking about Hanratty's whereabouts, Woffinden says:
"James and Mary were, of course, unable to assist in any way, not having heard from him since early July."
But they must have received the postcards from Ireland; Woffinden says Anderson received hers on 11th September.

- Woffinden asks (page 149) about Storie's evidence at the committal:
"Why, at a public hearing, was this crucial part of evidence suddenly held in camera?"
He does not realise this was done at the special request of Sherrard.

[Sherrard: “It is clear that some portions of her evidence may well be the subject matter of legal argument as to its admissibility in due course. Such arguments could prejudice the events if it was published before the trial. On these grounds my application is that her evidence ought to be taken in camera.” The application was granted.]

[Sherlock Houses]

R.I.P James Hanratty

Remembering James Hanratty today on the 54th anniversary of his state murder by this inglorious, deep-rooted and corrupt political/legal establishment that's been in force in these islands since the year dot. An establishment that truth and justice is a complete stranger to.

Remembering too Martin Luther King on the 48th anniversary of his murder by the nefarious US political elite. R.I.P Martin.

[moste]

Remembering James Hanratty today on the 54th anniversary of his state murder by this inglorious, deep-rooted and corrupt political/legal establishment that's been in force in these islands since the year dot. An establishment that truth and justice is a complete stranger to.

Remembering too Martin Luther King on the 48th anniversary of his murder by the nefarious US political elite. R.I.P Martin.

HEAR HEAR !

[NickB]

How could Woffinden say that Galves “directly confirmed the veracity” of Nudds second statement?

When Alphon first gave his Vienna alibi, on 27-Aug, the police phoned the Vienna and were told that Alphon/Durrant had arrived on 22-Aug at 11.30pm.
Subsequently Galves was asked to confirm the 11.30pm arrival in writing (as shown in the police notes) which she did on 6-Sep. This original statement can be regarded as a ‘composite’, but it if the prosecution were correct Nudds and Snell had already left the Vienna by then.

On 13-Sep Galves clarified that she did not see Alphon until 23-Aug, but her 20-Sep statement said:

“at about 10pm, just before I went to bed, I told the Glickbergs that their guest, who was expected to arrive late, could occupy room 6.”

Thus Alphon had not yet arrived at 10pm and room 6 would be immediately available for him when he did. Further it was her duty each morning to put a star in the register against the last person who had arrived the previous night.

So although she did not personally see Alphon arrive, she knew that he must have done so after she went to bed.

When Storie didn’t pick out Alphon, on 24-Sep Galves was interviewed again and had nothing of significance to add. If Galves had agreed with Nudds second statement she would have had significant things to add or change, but instead she stood by her previous statement - which paved the way for Acott to re-question Nudds and Snell.

[OneRound]

Further to Nick's last post, I believe Ms Galves might have been of more help to Hanratty's supporters if she had subsequently been asked to confirm (or not) her earlier statements.

In particular, her statement about seeing a pair of woman's gloves on or in Alphon's suitcase (apologies but this is from memory as I don't currently have the books). If that was actually true, it of course doesn't prove Alphon murdered Gregsten but it is bl**dy odd and would make me think that he might well have been involved in some real way that we don't know about.

If her statement was untrue and made as a result of pressure from Acott, that in itself does nothing to establish Hanratty's innocence. However, it would be a massive pointer to unacceptable police conduct leading up to and throughout Hanratty's trial which could have resulted in the ''guilty'' verdict being put aside.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Graham]

Nick, unless I'm mistaken Nudds and Snell were sacked on 11 September following Robert Crocker's visit to investigate the theft of £5. He fired them on the spot but allowed them to stay that night and leave the following morning, the 12th. During this visit he and Mrs Galves carried out an inspection of the place and subsequently found the cartridge cases in Room 24. The rest is history.

The entire 'Vienna Hotel Thing' is, to my mind at least, possibly the most complex and perplexing chapter in the whole A6 Case.

Graham

[NickB]

Graham,

At the committal Sherrard asked Nudds on what date he left the Vienna. Nudds replied 12-Sep, and Sherrard made great play of it being the day after the discovery of the cartridge cases. This exchange seems to be what Woffinden bases his story on about how Crocker sacked Nudds and Snell on the same day as discovering the cartridge cases.

But after Sherrard’s questioning the prosecution kept Nudds in the witness box and asked him to clarify when he and Snell physically departed from the Vienna, and he said that it was at mid-day on 5-Sep. So 12-Sep would have been merely the date that their employment terminated, having been paid a week’s wages in lieu.

In the trial reports I cannot see any reference to Sherrard returning to the point of Nudds and Snell leaving the Vienna on 12-Sep (in the questioning of Nudds, Snell or Crocker) so presume that he accepted the prosecution’s date.