A6 Rebooted

[Sherlock Houses]

What is it that's said about sarcasm ?

Isn't it acknowledged by many as the lowest form of shi.. oops I mean wit.

[Spitfire]

You and the "much to be desired of" 2002 Court of Appeal are in error yet again. Derrick has pointed out to you more than once on this forum that William Lee's sighting was at 8.30 am. Yes, 8.30 am not 6.30am.

I cite the Court of Appeal as authority and your authority is "Derrick". I am prepared to consider that the Court of Appeal may have got it wrong, either through an accidental typographical error or as the Hanrattyites might think through a devious plan to discredit the saintly Jim's case. Are you prepared to consider that Derrick may be in error?

Is there any third party reference source which can be relied upon?

Does it matter a great deal? 8.30 a.m or 6.30 a.m either time would be fatal to 847 BHN being parked in Avondale Crescent at a time consistent with the prosecution case.

Anyway the Court of Appeal has it at 6.30 a.m and Derrick two hours later, in similar manner, Sherlock Houses has Mrs Dalal as "Swedish" and Mrs Dalal maintains she is German.

[Sherlock Houses]

I cite the Court of Appeal as authority and your authority is "Derrick".

Ahhh, the infamous Court of Appeal judgment. Enough said.
Derrick has had access to William Lee's statement which is why he was able to state categorically that Lee's sighting was 8.30 am, not 6.30 am.

Does it matter a great deal? 8.30 a.m or 6.30 a.m either time would be fatal to 847 BHN being parked in Avondale Crescent at a time consistent with the prosecution case.

Yes, it matters a great deal. That's the whole point, for Goodness sake ! If Lee's sighting of the murder car in Matlock is genuine then it invalidates completely Skillett and Trower's evidence and alleged encounter with the murder car around 7 am'ish. Hence it couldn't have been the murder car parked in Avondale Crescent at that time.

Anyway the Court of Appeal has it at 6.30 a.m and Derrick two hours later, in similar manner, Sherlock Houses has Mrs Dalal as "Swedish" and Mrs Dalal maintains she is German.

The newspapers of the day which were my source, erroneously had Mrs Dalal down as being Swedish. So what if it was a German or Swedish lady Alphon attacked ?

Spitfire incidentally has Janet Gregsten meeting Valerie Storie on AUGUST 31st, just 8 days after the murder. He doesn't say if this encounter took place in William Ewer's 'umble umbrella repair shop or if it took place at the seriously ill (at that time) Valerie Storie's bedside. Please enlighten us all if you will.

[Graham]

Woffinden (at least in the paperback issue of his book that I have) doesn't mention the Matlock 'sighting' at all. So - could someone be kind enough to tell me (a) when Mr Lee's statement was taken and (b) did the defence use his claimed sighting during the trial?

Incidentally, Woffinden seems to go along with the CCRC investigation conducted by Skitt that the car wasn't parked in Avondale until early evening, possibly shortly before Alan Madwar saw it. Also, Woffinden says that a lady living in Avondale also drove a grey Morris Minor which she parked on the road, and suggests that 'earlier' claimed sightings of the murder car could well have been this one.

Graham

[Spitfire]

Yes, it matters a great deal. That's the whole point, for Goodness sake ! If Lee's sighting of the murder car in Matlock is genuine then it invalidates completely Skillett and Trower's evidence and alleged encounter with the murder car around 7 am'ish. Hence it couldn't have been the murder car parked in Avondale Crescent at that time.

It is not possible to drive the 160 miles or so from Matlock to Ilford in 35 minutes. A 6.30 am sighting at Matlock, if proved, would be inconsistent with a 7.05 a.m. sighting in Ilford.

[OneRound]

Woffinden (at least in the paperback issue of his book that I have) doesn't mention the Matlock 'sighting' at all. So - could someone be kind enough to tell me (a) when Mr Lee's statement was taken and (b) did the defence use his claimed sighting during the trial?

Incidentally, Woffinden seems to go along with the CCRC investigation conducted by Skitt that the car wasn't parked in Avondale until early evening, possibly shortly before Alan Madwar saw it. Also, Woffinden says that a lady living in Avondale also drove a grey Morris Minor which she parked on the road, and suggests that 'earlier' claimed sightings of the murder car could well have been this one.

Graham

Hi Graham,

I can answer (b) for you. The defence didn't use Lee's claimed sighting at trial as they were not aware of it. That was one of the non disclosures complained of at the 2002 Appeal.

Whilst acknowledging that Lee was ''the most impressive'' of those claiming to have sighted the car so as to invalidate the car being in Avondale as prosecution witnesses stated, the Court of Appeal took the view that his identification must have been ''flawed'' due to the discrepancy with the odometer recordings. The odometer recordings were also not disclosed and that too was complained about.

The Court of Appeal appeared to speculate that Acott may have seen no need to disclose Lee's claimed sighting due to the odometer recordings. My own view is that the defence should have been made aware of both Lee's claim and the odometer recordings in order to at least have the opportunity to try and find support for the former and discredit the latter. Being dead by the time of the 2002 Appeal was a good career move for Acott as it resulted in him being given the benefit of much doubt and not having to explain awkward matters (others as well as this).

That all said, (a) is certainly a key question and I don't know the answer to that. Obviously Lee's credibility would significantly fall if his statement was taken after what he claimed to see was already in the public domain.

For reference, paras 151 to 157 of the Appeal judgement concentrate on the claimed car sightings.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Sherlock Houses]

It is not possible to drive the 160 miles or so from Matlock to Ilford in 35 minutes. A 6.30 am sighting at Matlock, if proved, would be inconsistent with a 7.05 a.m. sighting in Ilford.

Precisely.
Methinks you must be taking the mickey with this post as I fail to see what point, if any, you are trying to make.

[Spitfire]

Precisely.
Methinks you must be taking the mickey with this post as I fail to see what point, if any, you are trying to make.

Does it matter a great deal? 8.30 a.m or 6.30 a.m either time would be fatal to 847 BHN being parked in Avondale Crescent at a time consistent with the prosecution case.

[OneRound]

Precisely.
Methinks you must be taking the mickey with this post as I fail to see what point, if any, you are trying to make.

Sherlock H,

Surely the point is that 6.30 am or 8.30 am makes no difference if Lee's claimed sighting was genuine. Either way, the car could not have been in Avondale around 7.00 am.

Regards,

OneRound

[Spitfire]

Woffinden (at least in the paperback issue of his book that I have) doesn't mention the Matlock 'sighting' at all. So - could someone be kind enough to tell me (a) when Mr Lee's statement was taken and (b) did the defence use his claimed sighting during the trial?

Woffinden does in his last Hanratty work published in 1999 and dismisses the Lee sighting in Matlock as being plainly wrong. We have discussed this before on this thread, have a look at Posts 1564 onwards.

In page 444 of his fine book (1999 Pan ed) he writes as follows:-

" In the wake of the CCRC's referral of the case to appeal, several press reports noted that the car had been sighted as far away as Derbyshire. However, this was plainly wrong. There was 'missing' mileage on the car, but it was not sufficient to get the card north to Derbyshire and back south to London."

[Sherlock Houses]

Surely the point is that 6.30 am or 8.30 am makes no difference if Lee's claimed sighting was genuine. Either way, the car could not have been in Avondale around 7.00 am.

That's a given, that it makes little difference the 6.30 am or 8.30 am sighting.
You seem to have missed the point I was making with with regard to SF's post where he states that either time would have been fatal [if it was a genuine sighting] to the murder car being found in Avondale Crescent at a time consistent with the prosecution case. Is SF supporting the Hanrattyista's stance here or what by this statement ?

[Graham]

Thanks OR and SF for responses to my questions. Personally, I've never been comfortable with most of the claimed 'sightings' of the murder car, but I have never accepted that the car was seen in Matlock at any time. Nor do I feel comfortable with the milkman's reported sighting of the car in Bedford.

A further claimed sighting which has received little attention is that of the couple who were on Deadman's Hill in the early hours of 23 August and came across a stationary Morris Minor with its headlights on. The couple stopped to speak to the driver in case he had a problem, and the man swore at them and hid his face. Unfortunately this couple failed to report their encounter until, I believe, years afterwards.

Graham

[Spitfire]

That's a given, that it makes little difference the 6.30 am or 8.30 am sighting.

You've backed both horses now. Post 3858 "..it matters a great deal" this one "...it makes little difference..."

[OneRound]

That's a given, that it makes little difference the 6.30 am or 8.30 am sighting.
You seem to have missed the point I was making with with regard to SF's post where he states that either time would have been fatal [if it was a genuine sighting] to the murder car being found in Avondale Crescent at a time consistent with the prosecution case. Is SF supporting the Hanrattyista's stance here or what by this statement ?

Hi again Sherlock H,

Although it's probably fair to say that Spitfire wasn't at the front of the queue when support for James Hanratty was being handed out, I took it he was simply making the same (fair and reasonable, I hope) point as me. Specifically, that IF Lee's sighting was genuine then it scuppers the prosecution's witnesses on this aspect whether it happened at 6.30 am or 8.30 am.

As to whether Lee's sighting was genuine, that is of course another matter. I'm sure Spitfire will have his own views but I don't want to intrude further on your natter with him about that.

Regards,

OneRound

[cobalt]

The Lee sighting might be crucial. It has a better foundation than the sightings by Trower and Skillett, who testified at the trial, for the following reasons.

1. The car was being driven erratically, in line with the chief witness for the prosecution, Valerie Storie.

2. The car was almost certainly not, initially, in London in the place and time claimed at trial, therefore the Matlock sighting is credible.

3. 3. A green bobble hat ( a humorous adjunct I concede) seems to have linked the Matlock sighting and the subsequent discovery of the murder car. Why has this never been developed? DNA anyone?

4. Lee actually gave the correct registration plate number as part of his statement. (Although I concede this may have been coached later.)

Of course we have Gregsten’s logbook to contend with, but its accuracy may have been tempered by his desire for Ms Storie. Would he want his wife to know his weekly mileage, as it were? The mileage readings may even have been tampered with afterwards to make the case ‘fit.’. If that sounds fantastic then ask Sherlock (of the Rillington Place site) what happened to the builders’ timesheets vis a vis Evans and Christie.

But for all that, I think points 1-4 are pretty strong evidence against the car being dumped early in North London, although none of it actually helps Hanratty per se. He could have been driving erratically due to his murderous actions, and have been wearing a green bobble hat to hide his dyed hair.

But if the car, and I concede it is ‘if’ was in Matlock, then who on earth would have had the nerve to drive it back through to London when the police were seeking it? Surely the key piece of missing information is not when Lees saw the car, but when he reported it to the police, for reasons explained earlier by One Round, I think. This information is clearly known to some, but has never been made public so far as I can gather