A6 Rebooted

[louisa]

However, there is one rather unpleasant aspect that has been creeping into this debate for some time, and that is the totally unjustified denigration of the late Valerie Storie. She told the truth as she saw it. It is as simple as that.

Thank you.

Graham

It was far from simple. She lied and continued to lie.

She was in that car with a married man and had been there many times before and I think we can be fairly certain they were not discussing car rallies. That was the first lie, but possibly an understandable one. She was the kind of woman that all married women should fear.

I have sympathy with anyone who is paralysed but our sympathy should not cloud our judgement. She was not 'heroic' but did what anyone would have done in those circumstances.

Becoming disabled does not suddenly make somebody into a wonderful person and I think people treated her with kid gloves instead of getting a bit tough and trying to discover why she had altered the description of her attacker so drastically.

The Defense could not 'get tough' with Valerie because it would be seen as harassment and the public, naturally, had a lot of sympathy with her, at that time.

It was what Det. Acott wanted though. He was as much of a crook as any of the other characters in this story.

She gave a detailed eye witness account to the first person on the scene - the man doing the road census. And look how accurately it matches Alphon!

If she had just changed it slightly afterwards it may have got by but to change it COMPLETELY? (!).

Peoples' memories do not improve with age, they always decrease.

However, the die was cast. Valerie had told the police that her attacker now looked exactly like Hanratty.

Why? That is anyone's guess and this is perhaps the biggest mystery of all, but she changed to Hanratty after she had been visited by Mrs. Gregston. How I would love to have been a fly on the wall during that visit.

She could have told the truth, giving the reason why she lied, before he was hanged, but she chose not to. For me, that was unforgivable.

[NickB]

Then, after a visit from Gregston's wife she changed it to "His eyes were blue and saucer like"

On 26th August Valerie told Inspector Mackle, who constructed the identikit image, the eyes were blue. On 28th August her first signed statement described the eyes as blue.

Janet's first visit to the hospital was nearly a month later on 20th September.

[Alfie]

The fact that the gunman obviously could not drive a car should have been one of the main points of the trial.

...

She initially told police that the gunman had small deep set eyes. Then, after a visit from Gregston's wife she changed it to "His eyes were blue and saucer like"

You really ought to do a bit more research.

It was never alleged that the gunman couldn't drive, only that he was a bad driver, which Hanratty was according to a number of witnesses.

And Valerie didn't initially say the gunman had small deep set eyes.

Here's her earliest description of him, as told to Kerr at the scene:

"According to the statement which John Kerr made that afternoon, ‘I asked her what the man was like and she said, ‘He had big staring eyes ...'" (Woffinden)

I'd just add that reading your maligning of Valerie, with totally misleading statements, marks a low point of my time on this board.

[uncle_adolph]

I'm not sure I would call Valerie a liar. I think that is a little harsh.

What I would say is that she convinced herself and continued to convince herself that Hanratty was the killer when the reality was she had no idea. And in that she was helped by the fact that the police suspect in the second ID parade was made pretty obvious to her by his appearance.

Her identikit to ultimately identifying Hanratty is pretty much a quantum leap.

[Graham]

Louisa,

your last post is frankly disgraceful and almost totally wrong.

Graham

[Graham]

What I would say is that she convinced herself and continued to convince herself that Hanratty was the killer when the reality was she had no idea. And in that she was helped by the fact that the police suspect in the second ID parade was made pretty obvious to her by his appearance.

Her identikit to ultimately identifying Hanratty is pretty much a quantum leap.

She did in fact tell the police, prior to ID Parade No 2, that her memory of the man was fading. However, as she later stated after the parade, as soon as she saw Hanratty she knew he was the man. I can't accept that she had no idea what her attacker looked like.

With regard to Hanratty's appearance, Kleinmann, who was present at the parade (even though he kept everyone waiting by turning up late), rejected Acott's suggestion that all the men on the parade wear surgeon's caps to cover their hair. His argument was that he knew that it was Hanratty's eyes that were the giveaway, and wished to divert attention from them to his weird hair. It didn't work.

Hanratty was actually at the Frances' flat with the family watching TV when the Identikit images were shown on the screen. Charlotte France looked at them and said to Hanratty, "Doesn't that one look like you?" So I would have to say that it couldn't have been all that inaccurate.

Graham

[louisa]

Those eye witness accounts...

VALERIE STORIE: "I made a mistake. The man had nothing to do with the, with the case. It was just one of those things".

Both of VS's identikits show a man with dark eyes yet Hanratty's were light blue.

The first was compiled with the help of Valerie Storie -the main 'eye witness' who initially wrongly identified a totally innocent man, Michael Clark. This first identikit shows a man with a very clear hair line and not as the judge pointed out in his summing up, a man with a distinctive 'widows peak' which Hanratty had and which meant his hair could not be swept back giving a clear hairline as in the photofit.

This first one also shows not only a man with dark eyes but also with light coloured hair which Hanratty did not have on 22nd August as it was dyed black.

The 2nd identikit was compiled by a policeman with the help of Edward Blackhall who rolled down his window to better see and communicate with the MM driver. Blackhall was one of the three main eye witnesses but Blackhall did not recognise James Hanratty on the identification parade and later swore the man he had seen 'looked nothing like Hanratty, which very much cancels out that of Skillett, who was driving his car and was further away than Blackhall from the MM driver.

Yes he did positively identify Hanratty 6 weeks later but the contradictions between the two mens 'eye witness' statements is very very curious. The 2nd identikit also shows that dark eyes had been selected, (not the saucer wide , light blue eyes of the altered 31st August 2nd nation-wide police description]. The man again has a clear hairline, wavy hair brushed back and an oval, staring eyes Valerie spoke of and with an oval face shape like the first identikit - whereas Hanratty had a box like shaped face.

DS Acott had withheld from the court vital witness sightings of the murder car and other pieces of evidence, including Michael Gregsten's car log book where Gregsten had meticulously recorded his mileage driven prior to the night of the murder.

With this information Acott calculated in his own notebook Gregsten's car had travelled over 200 miles before it was abandoned, a fact supported by other undisclosed sightings of the car in different parts of the country and all suggesting a longer journey for the car than Acott proposed to the court.

Had the court known about Gregsten's log book and the conflicting sightings of the car it would have cast doubt on the two witnesses's claim to have seen Hanratty driving the car near the Ilford side street at seven in the morning.

Acott knew that that car wasn't in Ilford at seven o'clock in the morning. He knew that those two witnesses never saw that car, but he still used them.

A man was hanged on this evidence.

[louisa]

She did in fact tell the police, prior to ID Parade No 2, that her memory of the man was fading. However, as she later stated after the parade, as soon as she saw Hanratty she knew he was the man.

Yes, she probably did, from what she had been told.

She took 20 minutes to identify him. They each had to say "Be quiet, will you? I'm thinking"

Although I suspect she already knew who to pick out. Taking her time and asking them to speak was just to make it look more plausible. Acott could not risk her picking the 'wrong' man again and I suspect she had been 'coached' beforehand.

Didn't he touch her on the shoulder and say "Good girl" afterwards?

[Graham]

She actually took 20 minutes to identify him. They each had to say "Be quiet, will you? I'm thinking"

Yes I know. She also said in her women's magazine article that she wanted to make him suffer, so she took a long time before identifying him.

Although I suspect she already knew who to pick out. Taking her time and asking them to speak was just to make it look more plausible. Acott could not risk her picking the 'wrong' man again and I suspect she had been 'coached' beforehand.

Don't you think it's time you stopped digging the enormous hole you're making for yourself, and threw the shovel out?

Graham

[louisa]

Yes I know. She also said in her women's magazine article that she wanted to make him suffer, so she took a long time before identifying him.

I think she ultimately made him suffer a lot more than he ever deserved.


Going from memory, I believe she admitted she wasn't even wearing her glasses during the fateful journey and the rape.

Don't you think it's time you stopped digging the enormous hole you're making for yourself, and threw the shovel out?

You first.

[cobalt]

JPR1975,

I think there are too many players in your conspiracy; besides it would not make much sense for France to expend his energies directing the police towards Hanratty if he himself was the supplier of the gun. And what if Hanratty, facing the inevitability of the gallows, had decided to name names? Or even worse Hanratty might earlier, having seen the ropiness of the prosecution case, tried to turn Queen’s Evidence.

If there was any conspiracy in the early days of the investigation it seems more likely to have been fingering Alphon. He was the man allegedly reported for his odd behavior in a hotel and brought to police attention well before James Ryan. (I think it just as likely the police approached the hotel after ‘information received from reliable sources.’) The cartridge cases at the Vienna Hotel were as capable of ‘framing’ Alphon as much as they were Hanratty. The ID composite wasn’t doing him any favours either. His alibi was never scrutinized the way Hanratty’s later was, and may have been equally porous. (I don’t think your mother is the most credible alibi witness.) If Alphon’s rambling performance in the Paris hotel is any guide, then a jury viewing him in the dock would have needed little convincing that he was the type of character who could drive around Slough for a few hours engaging in pointless narrative. So if there was indeed a conspiracy, and it was against Alphon, then he must have been thankful that Valerie Storie was not ‘coached’ beforehand.

I have little doubt there was a conspiracy to some extent. The murderer would hardly have taken public transport then walked unnoticed to the corn field carrying a gun and a bag of ammunition. Nor could he have taken a taxi (that would have been checked surely) or abandoned a stolen car, so he was almost certainly driven close to the spot by person or persons unknown.
Then there is the curious case of the murder car which yielded no forensic evidence. Either this was false information presented by the prosecution, or the murderer received assistance in the cleaning of the car. A conspiracy either way.

[ansonman]

Truth v Lies

I think it is a mistake and diversion to get hung up on VS's motivation when it comes to her identification of Hanratty. The facts are these:

She was an entirely unreliable witness

She was unwavering in her insistance that Hanratty was the murderer

I don't think she lied in her belief that Hanratty was the man.

What's important is that she wasn't in a position to identify who was responsible for the crimes.

Crucially, her unreliable identification and unwavering belief that JH was guilty was the only critical evidence that linked JH to the crime. And resulted in his execution.

I do agree that having steadfastly maintained this position at the trial, she could hardly move away from it afterwards.

Ansonman

[moste]

Yes, she probably did, from what she had been told.

She took 20 minutes to identify him. They each had to say "Be quiet, will you? I'm thinking"

Although I suspect she already knew who to pick out. Taking her time and asking them to speak was just to make it look more plausible. Acott could not risk her picking the 'wrong' man again and I suspect she had been 'coached' beforehand.

Didn't he touch her on the shoulder and say "Good girl" afterwards?

The whole thing was a Sham.At almost every turn,you can pick the prosecution,and the police involvement to piece.

[moste]

She did in fact tell the police, prior to ID Parade No 2, that her memory of the man was fading. However, as she later stated after the parade, as soon as she saw Hanratty she knew he was the man. I can't accept that she had no idea what her attacker looked like.

With regard to Hanratty's appearance, Kleinmann, who was present at the parade (even though he kept everyone waiting by turning up late), rejected Acott's suggestion that all the men on the parade wear surgeon's caps to cover their hair. His argument was that he knew that it was Hanratty's eyes that were the giveaway, and wished to divert attention from them to his weird hair. It didn't work.

Hanratty was actually at the Frances' flat with the family watching TV when the Identikit images were shown on the screen. Charlotte France looked at them and said to Hanratty, "Doesn't that one look like you?" So I would have to say that it couldn't have been all that inaccurate.

Graham

Misleading : France's wife. Would obviously have been referring to the police ID picture ,not Stories.
Yes thats right, the Police ID picture, (supposedly supplied by other witnesses)
I reckon they meant to have the right hand picture as Stories,but they even managed to bungle that too,

[moste]

I agree it is hard to understand why Hanratty, or anyone really, was in that cornfield with a gun. I’ve always assumed he had come from Maidenhead which is about an hour away by foot – simply because it was mentioned. If it was Hanratty’s first attempt at a hold up then perhaps he would not want to do it in an area in which he was known to have burgled before.

In any case I think the primary objective was something else and this went wrong, or his nerve failed, and he stumbled upon the car by accident.

I do not think it was planned because:

1. Valerie and Mike could not easily have been followed because they did not go straight from the Old Station Inn to the cornfield; they went somewhere else first and only moved on later. Someone must have pointed this out to Woffinden after his book came out, because he corrected it in later editions. (Graham spotted this.)

2. Although Valerie said “we had been in the car to that particular spot quite a few times” she also said “we had been there before only a couple of times during the last three months”.

So if a gunman was targeting them, it would have been a remarkable stroke of luck for him to have gone to the cornfield entrance at the same time they chose to be there.

It should be noted in your item (1) Indirect journey ,we are talking( first stop )of Huntercombe lane south ,2 farmers fields away from the Marsh Lane corn field, and Incidently only 500 yards from Valerie's front door in Anthony Way.
Before anyone reaches for their map, the link ,motorway slip road did not exist in 61 and a straight run from Huntercombe Lane to the council estate via a country lane I believe was extant.Almost certainly spotted here by a motorcyclist
I have long thought this brief detour and pull in,indicative of something odd going on,since they knew the area very well,and were in habit of heading over to the corn field after a drinkipoos.
Anyhow, I see nothing in their actions that would dissuade a person intent on carjacking them ,from following up on the plan ,unlike, (if as you say )
Woffinden ,and yourself.