A6 Rebooted

[moste]

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?

Your right about nothing found in the car in the way of evidence.Sherrard was quite observant on the matter. No prints,no hair, no fibre.he could even have elaborated even further and said 'no corn field debris, no shreds of chaff ,no tiny pieces of seed , no fragments of soil, someone said on these boards maybe the killer vacuumed the back of the car ! I said maybe the killer didn't get into the car where Storie said he did !
Oh dear dear, how could anyone say such a thing about the poor girl?

[NickB]

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.

This is what I mean by mistakes being repeated after they are shown to be false.

Ingrams said of Foot: “Paul was a genuinely benevolent person who was often loath to meet any of his potential victims because he was afraid he might like them too much.” This may be why he did not talk to Janet Gregsten in the preparation for his book. Had he done so he would have not had to wait until she contacted him in 1994 before he changed his mind about her.

[Graham]

This is what I mean by mistakes being repeated after they are shown to be false.

Ingrams said of Foot: “Paul was a genuinely benevolent person who was often loath to meet any of his potential victims because he was afraid he might like them too much.” This may be why he did not talk to Janet Gregsten in the preparation for his book. Had he done so he would have not had to wait until she contacted him in 1994 before he changed his mind about her.

As I've said before, I always turned to Paul Foot in [I]Private Eye[I] first. I could never empathise with his politics, but I admired his pursuit of injustice - and on more than one occasion he was big enough to admit he was mistaken. As indeed did Bob Woffinden regarding his investigation of the Bamber Case - after fighting Jeremy Bamber's corner for a long time he later came to the conclusion that he was guilty.

Regarding Foot and the A6, I began to suspect that Foot was also slowly coming round suspecting that Hanratty was after all guilty, but because of his respect and admiration for the Hanratty family he did not openly say so. He was also honest enough to admit revising his earlier belief that Alphon was the A6 killer and that Janet Gregsten was a vengeful woman hell-bent on punishing her husband.

As an aside, does anyone know if Woffinden still has any interest in the A6?

Graham

[louisa]

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.

But she would not have been able to put her knickers back on after she had been shot. It's doubtful she would have bothered to fiddle about with her underpinnings after the rape, so they would have been left either on the car seat or on the floor. If she was going to bother doing anything with them I think she would have put them in her pocket.

Talking of which - I have an idea she told Acott that her glasses were in her pocket throughout this ordeal.

[louisa]

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!

That's an interesting theory Moste.

It was a strange old world back then. The jury (and the public) were never told that VS was having sex in that car with a married man - (who should have been at home with his wife and children). It would have gone against the moral fibre of the times and could easily have swung the jury (those upright burghers of Bedfordshire) against her. I suspect they would have lost a lot of sympathy for her.

Instead they were fed the lie that Valerie and Gregston were in that car talking about car rallies.

Re: Blood groups. I believe that both Alphon and Hanratty shared the same blood group 'O'

[louisa]

Regarding Foot and the A6, I began to suspect that Foot was also slowly coming round suspecting that Hanratty was after all guilty, but because of his respect and admiration for the Hanratty family he did not openly say so.
Graham

No way. I suspect that couldn't be further from the truth.

[Spitfire]

As an aside, does anyone know if Woffinden still has any interest in the A6?

Graham

According to Bob's website, the A6 case is unresolved and a new edition of his book is being planned.
Bob on the web

[Alfie]

But she would not have been able to put her knickers back on after she had been shot. It's doubtful she would have bothered to fiddle about with her underpinnings after the rape, so they would have been left either on the car seat or on the floor. If she was going to bother doing anything with them I think she would have put them in her pocket.

You really should do a bit of research instead of continuing to make a fool of yourself on this forum.

Here's Valerie's own account, recounted in more than one of the books on the subject ...

"... he sat back and he said, ‘You have not had much sex have you?’ I said, ‘Can I put my knickers back on?’ He said, ‘yes’."

[louisa]

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.

I think she said that her glasses were initially in her pocket but then she put them on later (well she would say that, wouldn't she?).

It's unlikely that somebody (especially a woman) would wear glasses during a lovemaking session, or even immediately afterwards, (unless she was going to do a bit of reading!)

And to put on her glasses after they had been hijacked would have alerted the gunman to the fact she was now wearing glasses and could see more clearly. Well I think he would have made a comment, and possibly taken them from her. And that's why I think she would have kept her glasses in her pocket throughout the entire ordeal.


If the gunman had got into the car specifically to murder Gregston then why didn't he kill him straight away instead of having him drive around for hours?
.
.
.

[louisa]

You really should do a bit of research instead of continuing to make a fool of yourself on this forum.

Here's Valerie's own account, recounted in more than one of the books on the subject ...

"... he sat back and he said, ‘You have not had much sex have you?’ I said, ‘Can I put my knickers back on?’ He said, ‘yes’."

I have already stated that it has been a while since I read my books on this case. I am prepared to accept that sometimes I am in error.

However, Alfie, I would say that you are the one making a fool of yourself on this forum, by being unnecessarily rude to another poster.

This is supposed to be a friendly discussion but it seems to be dominated by some who do not remember what it is like to be novice

[Graham]

According to Bob's website, the A6 case is unresolved and a new edition of his book is being planned.
Bob on the web

Hmmm, that should be worth waiting for...assuming it happens, unlike the much-vaunted new appeal about 4 years ago.

Graham

[Alfie]

I have already stated that it has been a while since I read my books on this case. I am prepared to accept that sometimes I am in error.

However, Alfie, I would say that you are the one making a fool of yourself on this forum, by being unnecessarily rude to another poster.

This is supposed to be a friendly discussion but it seems to be dominated by some who do not remember what it is like to be novice

Try not posting until you know what you're talking about then.

And try to refrain from slagging off the totally innocent party in the Hanratty case - Valerie Storie.

[louisa]

Try not posting until you know what you're talking about then.

And try to refrain from slagging off the totally innocent party in the Hanratty case - Valerie Storie.

I can now understand why this thread got removed for quite a while. Posters such as you give forums a bad name.

If the lady was a relative of yours then your comments would be understandable.

I gave my opinions, the same as you have given yours, and I will go on giving mine whether you like it or not.

"The totally innocent party"? She was an unreliable eye witness and a man was hanged on her say-so.

You may have been on this thread for a long time but you do not OWN it. There is room for other opinions besides your own.

If I am in error in the future then just say so, without being rude, but that may be an impossibility for somebody like you.

[NickB]

Hmmm, that should be worth waiting for...assuming it happens, unlike the much-vaunted new appeal about 4 years ago.

Although that page on Woffinden's site mentions things happening this year, I wonder how recently he revised that particular paragraph. The page dedicated to Hanratty is more circumspect: “The Forensic Science Service successfully argued that the new tests conclusively proved Hanratty’s guilt, and an appeal in 2002 was thus rejected.”

This forum alone has discovered errors on virtually every page of his book and so a ‘new edition’ would be widely ridiculed unless it were substantially rewritten. If he had written a balanced book in the first place then I believe it would have been far more successful and still in print.

One of the biggest problems he would have is how to deal with Alphon. He was aware of Foot’s change of mind about Alphon when he published originally but decided to go ahead anyway with implicating Alphon. If he dropped Alphon, as the defence team did at the 2002 Appeal, it would leave a big sinkhole at the centre of his argument.

[Graham]

Nick,

my Hmmm, that should be worth waiting for.... was intended to be just a little sarcastic..... Who knows, if he's finally accepted that it wasn't Alphon or Hanratty, then maybe he's got some real sensational news for us....or not.

That's also quite an old photo of him, so perhaps the site hasn't been updated for some time. Speaking purely personally, that TV doc of his, The Mystery Of Deadman's Hill didn't do him many favours - I found it very one-sided, and at times, especially towards the end, it descended into mawkishness which I found somewhat unpalatable. It certainly isn't the worst TV doc about the A6, but it could have been much better.

Graham