A6 Rebooted

[uncle_adolph]

There are different descriptions of what Hanratty’s hair looked like at the time of the crime.

No doubt....otherwise it seriously undermines the value of Valerie's own identification that she couldn't spot something so obvious. It also makes OR and Graham's comments regarding his "unusual hair colouring" in Liverpool and on the bus to Rhyl so much nonsense.

[Graham]

It also makes OR and Graham's comments regarding his "unusual hair colouring" in Liverpool and on the bus to Rhyl so much nonsense

Please remind us what comments you are referring to. As for myself, I don't recall making much comment at all with regard to his hair-colour, whatever that might have been at the time of the crime. As NickB points out, there were various descriptions of it.

Graham

[uncle_adolph]

Please remind us what comments you are referring to. As for myself, I don't recall making much comment at all with regard to his hair-colour, whatever that might have been at the time of the crime. As NickB points out, there were various descriptions of it.

Graham

Post #3414 (and mine #3417) refers.

[Graham]

Yes, but I didn't make any specific statement as to what his 'odd coloured hair' actually looked like - it seems that at the time of the murder his hair may not have been quite 'normal', but no-one seems to agree just what it did look like. Of course, by the time Hanratty had been arrested and placed on the i.d. parade his hair was doubtless entirely different - Valerie was drawn to his eyes rather than his hair to make her identification.

Graham

[uncle_adolph]

Yes, but I didn't make any specific statement as to what his 'odd coloured hair' actually looked like - it seems that at the time of the murder his hair may not have been quite 'normal', but no-one seems to agree just what it did look like.

Then why make the comment that he had "odd-coloured hair" if you don't know that that was the case; indeed, if no one knows what it actually did look like?

[OneRound]

No doubt....otherwise it seriously undermines the value of Valerie's own identification that she couldn't spot something so obvious. It also makes OR and Graham's comments regarding his "unusual hair colouring" in Liverpool and on the bus to Rhyl so much nonsense.

Uncle - those who believe in Hanratty's innocence and the Rhyl alibi attribute a lot of credence to the comments about his distinctive hair as provided by the individuals he allegedly spoke to in Rhyl when seeking a B and B.

If his hair was so noticeable when he arrived in Rhyl, why wasn't it noticeable when he was travelling there on the bus?

Regards,

OneRound

[Graham]

Then why make the comment that he had "odd-coloured hair" if you don't know that that was the case; indeed, if no one knows what it actually did look like?

I expressly used the term 'odd-coloured' as opposed to 'highly noticeable', or 'distinctive', which as One Round points out is what his supporters argue was the case.

This as far as I'm concerned is all specious anyway, as he was nowhere near Rhyl at the time.

Graham

[Derrick]

...Valerie was drawn to his eyes rather than his hair to make her identification...

Not on the first ID parade she wasn't. Clark's eyes were brown.

[moste]

Uncle - those who believe in Hanratty's innocence and the Rhyl alibi attribute a lot of credence to the comments about his distinctive hair as provided by the individuals he allegedly spoke to in Rhyl when seeking a B and B.

If his hair was so noticeable when he arrived in Rhyl, why wasn't it noticeable when he was travelling there on the bus?

Regards,

OneRound

If Hanratty's hair had been noticeable by fellow passengers, or the bus guard ,whilst travelling to Rhyl It would have mattered not a jot. Because the idea of anyone remembering something as trivial as that 5 months and 1 week later is very silly.
On the other hand if a face to face conversation had taken place between Jim and Chris Larman on a street corner, Jim explaining his plight for digs now it was getting dark, and depending further on the impression Jim had made on this local man, then there's every reason to believe Larman s statement could have made all the difference.
I say 'could' have because like myself Larman would certainly have realised eventually, that Hanratty sadly was framed , and was going to hang even if 50 witnesses had been found in Rhyl.

[moste]

Not on the first ID parade she wasn't. Clark's eyes were brown.

I was just musing on, what a massive difference it probably would have made, if, instead of the terrible violence that was visited on Valerie Storie, she had just been left unhurt by Gregstens dead body, as she had apparently begged for.
The defence completely unfettered from the bias of such a pitiful heartrending sight of Valerie, with her broken and part lifeless body.
How then might Sherrard have been more able to dig and delve and drive on into Valeries accounts ,and finally expose what much more likely was the real truth, that she actually knew and remembered ,next to nothing of her assailant.

[NickB]

But Valerie would only have been left unhurt if she had not seen and heard enough to recognise her assailant.

A ‘what if’ I have been musing on is: What if Justice had not spent a year grooming Alphon for his role? I wonder if the ‘innocent’ campaign would have taken off at all or, alternatively, if it would have been more effective.

[Derrick]

But Valerie would only have been left unhurt if she had not seen and heard enough to recognise her assailant.

But in all honesty, there is no doubt that her now fully known history of identification in this case is ropey to say the least. Certainly nowhere near good enough to hang a man.

A ‘what if’ I have been musing on is: What if Justice had not spent a year grooming Alphon for his role? I wonder if the ‘innocent’ campaign would have taken off at all or, alternatively, if it would have been more effective.

A very good point seeing as Alphon led the A6 committee a merry dance for decades really and that Brockway's initial interventions in the Common's centred on allegations against Alphon sourced from Fox and Justice.

[OneRound]

But in all honesty, there is no doubt that her now fully known history of identification in this case is ropey to say the least. Certainly nowhere near good enough to hang a man.



A very good point seeing as Alphon led the A6 committee a merry dance for decades really and that Brockway's initial interventions in the Common's centred on allegations against Alphon sourced from Fox and Justice.

Hi Del,

Whilst we are on opposite sides of the fence as to whether Hanratty ''did it'', I have long maintained that his guilt was not proved fairly and beyond reasonable doubt. For me, Miss Storie's evidence - which was such an important part of the prosecution's case - lacked the necessary reliability for a conviction. On that at least, we agree.

Does your comment about Alphon leading ''the A6 committee a merry dance'' reflect a view that he (Alphon) had no involvement with the crime other than opting to cash in later and so distracted campaigners upon behalf of Hanratty from looking for the real killer?

Best regards,

OneRound

[Derrick]

...Does your comment about Alphon leading ''the A6 committee a merry dance'' reflect a view that he (Alphon) had no involvement with the crime other than opting to cash in later and so distracted campaigners upon behalf of Hanratty from looking for the real killer?...

Hi OR
Yep...that pretty much sums it up.

Just like Hanratty, there is and never was any really convincing evidence that Alphon was the A6 murderer.

The defence, by trying to put Alphon in the frame as the murderer, just played into the hands of the prosecution in the long run, I believe. Ultimately the Crown can just turn round and say well if it wasn't Alphon then it must have been Hanratty, you more or less said so yourself. This is exactly what happened at the appeal in 2002.
Del

[Spitfire]

Hi OR
Yep...that pretty much sums it up.

Just like Hanratty, there is and never was any really convincing evidence that Alphon was the A6 murderer.

The defence, by trying to put Alphon in the frame as the murderer, just played into the hands of the prosecution in the long run, I believe. Ultimately the Crown can just turn round and say well if it wasn't Alphon then it must have been Hanratty, you more or less said so yourself. This is exactly what happened at the appeal in 2002.
Del

Most of the Hanrattyites subscribe to the view that it was Alphon what done it. The great writers on the case, Foot, Woffinden and Buddle all say it was Alphon. Jeremy Fox and Jean Justice likewise plump for Alphon being the miscreant responsible for the tragic events of the early morning of 23 August 1961. Even the Hanratty family solicitor for the 2002, Geoff Bindman, expressed the view in the 1995 Channel 4 documentary that Alphon should be compelled to give samples for DNA analysis. And many posters on this forum have expressed the view that either Alphon did it or, at least, his involvement cannot be ruled out.

Yet those of us on the other side of the debate are prepared to accept the word of Mike Mansfield Q.C. for Hanratty in 2002 that Alphon had nothing at all to do with the murder.