A6 Rebooted

[Alfie]

I've never read anywhere that Storie told Mackle that the killer's eyes were blue. I'm sure this will come as complete news to very many people. Do you have a source for this ?

Hawser: “The next description was given to Mr James Mackle ... He retired some seven years ago but recently – in August 1974 – some of his notes were discovered. These included the notes of his interviews with Miss Storie for the Identikit picture which she approved and which was one of the two issued ... He saw Miss Storie on 26th August 1961 and made these notes. He had to have several interviews with her. The relevant parts are as follows: 1st page: “Man 25/30 years approx; ht 5 ft 6 in maybe less; eyes blue ..."

[louisa]

Do you have a link for that because I can't find reference to it anywhere on the net?

[Spitfire]

Hawser: “The next description was given to Mr James Mackle ... He retired some seven years ago but recently – in August 1974 – some of his notes were discovered. These included the notes of his interviews with Miss Storie for the Identikit picture which she approved and which was one of the two issued ... He saw Miss Storie on 26th August 1961 and made these notes. He had to have several interviews with her. The relevant parts are as follows: 1st page: “Man 25/30 years approx; ht 5 ft 6 in maybe less; eyes blue ..."

That accords with what is said in paragraph 131 of the Court of Appeal's judgement in 2002.

The evidence that Val told Mackle that the assailant's eyes were brown seems to come from the poster Tony, the very same Tony who posted that Hanratty admitted in evidence that the hankie in which the gun was found belonged to him. No one else seemed to have noticed that particular bit of evidence, in similar fashion no one else seems to have it chapter and verse that Valerie specified a coded eye section which equated with brown eyes.

I would therefore take Tony's pronouncements with a pinch of sodium chloride. Further, my recollection of Woffinden's book was that he was satisfied that Val was consistent with her 'blue eyes' description.

[Graham]

Sherlock Houses has reproduced Tony's 'Identikit' post above - I have to admit I don't remember seeing it at the time. But I do very well remember his post in which he said that Hanratty in court identified the hankie as his; I thought at the time that this would be about the last thing a Hanratty supporter would want to hear. Why on earth would someone post such mis-information?

Incidentally, Woffinden also quotes a later editor of 'Police Review' as commenting that in his knowledge no-one was ever identified on the evidence of an Identikit.

Graham

[Alfie]

Louisa ...

Hawser report, page 21.

[louisa]

Am I right in thinking there were no finger prints anywhere in the car - on the gun or on the cartridges? No finger prints of any sort. Not Hanratty's or anyone elses? If Hanratty was careless enough to leave his spent cartridges in his hotel room - why was he careful enough to wipe them of prints?

And another little detail has been bothering me....I presume VS removed her knickers before getting raped? If so, how did Hanratty's DNA get onto them?

And the gun and cartridges found under the bus seat.......60 cartridges? Is that right? Did the gunman actually carry 60 cartridges around with him, plus the loaded gun?

[Sherlock Houses]

Hawser: “The next description was given to Mr James Mackle ... He retired some seven years ago but recently – in August 1974 – some of his notes were discovered. These included the notes of his interviews with Miss Storie for the Identikit picture which she approved and which was one of the two issued ... He saw Miss Storie on 26th August 1961 and made these notes. He had to have several interviews with her. The relevant parts are as follows: 1st page: “Man 25/30 years approx; ht 5 ft 6 in maybe less; eyes blue ..."

The above is an edited version of paragraph 127 of Hawser's 1975 blinkered and whitewash report. He was unbelievably dismissive throughout his report of any evidence which didn't accord with his own 'establishment' orientated viewpoint.

Attached are pages 21 to 25 [nothing edited or omitted] pertaining to Valerie Storie's varying descriptions of the gunman.
These pages need to be read carefully.....

[NickB]

I notice that mistakes are often not corrected and instead just built upon. So, to re-iterate:

1. On 26-Aug, Storie told Mackle the killer’s eyes were blue – sources Hawser and Appeal.

2. On 28-Aug, Storie’s statement describes “icy blue large saucer-like eyes” - sources Hawser, Appeal and Woffinden.

[Spitfire]

The above is an edited version of paragraph 127 of Hawser's 1975 blinkered and whitewash report. He was unbelievably dismissive throughout his report of any evidence which didn't accord with his own 'establishment' orientated viewpoint.

Attached are pages 21 to 25 [nothing edited or omitted] pertaining to Valerie Storie's varying descriptions of the gunman.
These pages need to be read carefully.....

So is what you are saying that until Valerie Storie saw Mrs Gregsten on 31 August she maintained that the assailant had BROWN eyes but from and after the visit of Mrs G she changed that to BLUE eyes?

[Sherlock Houses]

So is what you are saying that until Valerie Storie saw Mrs Gregsten on 31 August she maintained that the assailant had BROWN eyes but from and after the visit of Mrs G she changed that to BLUE eyes?

??? Where exactly did Storie see Mrs Gregsten on August 31st ???

[louisa]

And that is what Paul Foot stated in his book. Valerie's description of her attacker completely changed after JG's visit to her hospital bed.

I would love to know what was said. I don't believe for a minute that those two women remotely liked eachother so there must have been something else on the agenda.

[Spitfire]

??? Where exactly did Storie see Mrs Gregsten on August 31st ???

I've no idea.

The suggestion has been made that Miss Storie changed her description of the assailant's eyes as a result of the visit of Mrs Janet Gregsten. The Hawser Report clearly indicates that Miss Storie was saying the suspect had blue eyes well before any visit from Mrs Gregsten.

[moste]

And that is what Paul Foot stated in his book. Valerie's description of her attacker completely changed after JG's visit to her hospital bed.

I would love to know what was said. I don't believe for a minute that those two women remotely liked eachother so there must have been something else on the agenda.

An important area of the saga.Dislike of Storie by Janet ,you would imagine would be an understatement. Two visits in 24 hours? Something odd here.One of the authors referred to Janet as a lovely person.Lets give her the benefit of the doubt and say ,she wanted to hear from the horses mouth what had happened ,commiserations, and condolences all round and so forth.
Then the second visit. Why? What further discussions were likely to be needed,in person.Why wasn't she or Valerie asked to elaborate on these meetings by the authors? Or did they ask, and were told 'mind your own business'.

On your mention of the knickers being removed before her rape .This would have made little difference ,because the knickers would almost certainly have been stained to some degree and DNA deposited after the knickers were put back on.
In that layby Storie being reasonably compos mentis ,knew that ,if she survived this horrendous ordeal there would be thorough medical examinations.It would then be apparent that sexual activity had taken place.
I don't believe Mr and Mrs Storie perceived the true involvement of Michael with their daughter ( or Valerie didn't think they did) therefore it was vitally important to her that the only way sexual activity could have taken place, was because it was forced on her. Obviously conjecture is involved here.
I'm not convinced she was raped! Talk of O pos secretor blood group , AB blood group, assumed from Gregsten ,ASSUMED ?FROM FORENSIC SCIENTISTS!

[moste]

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.



You first.

Interestingly, one of the anomalies I have listed, is :When the assailant climbed into the car (claimed to be in the corn field ) and killing Valerie was not part of the plan ,why would he not take her glasses away from her,' and
throw them under the seat or what ever. I had only understood from Valerie's evidence ,that she wasn't wearing her glasses at a particular moment in time.But perhaps she hadn't had them for the whole event.
She was hardly going to admit not wearing them the whole time when giving evidence, since she was very short sighted, and there was going to be all kinds of things she was supposed to have seen not least her assailant .
I'm as sure as can be, The killer got into the car specifically to murder Gregsten,
Probably with the involvement of Ewer. And Storie was a complete surprise and major problem for him.

[moste]

Am I right in thinking there were no finger prints anywhere in the car - on the gun or on the cartridges? No finger prints of any sort. Not Hanratty's or anyone elses? If Hanratty was careless enough to leave his spent cartridges in his hotel room - why was he careful enough to wipe them of prints?

And another little detail has been bothering me....I presume VS removed her knickers before getting raped? If so, how did Hanratty's DNA get onto them?

And the gun and cartridges found under the bus seat.......60 cartridges? Is that right? Did the gunman actually carry 60 cartridges around with him, plus the loaded gun?

Just checking. On YouTube .A plastic case for holding 100 x.38 live cartridges measures approx.7inch x5 inch x 2 inches thick. This would slip snug into a deep suite jacket pocket but with a bit of a bulg .back then they probably came in cardboard boxes 12 to a box ,so 5 boxes in all ,
Didn't I read somewhere that the assailent slapped his pocket and said these are the bullets? And Storie said ' they sounded like marbles? Anyhow , If they were loose in his pocket ,at some point they were packed back into the boxes ,as I think this is how the cleaner found them in the depot.
Fantastic stuff eh?