Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A6 Rebooted

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by OneRound View Post
    Hi Spitfire,

    A few comments on your post above.

    1. I too have not seen Lee's statement or any such photo. However, the Court of Appeal in their 2002 judgement (para 152 (i)) referred to the driver as allegedly seen by Lee to have been 'wearing a woollen pom-pom hat' and that 'there was such a hat' in the boot of the car. For such a comment to be made, I am confident the Court of Appeal and certainly the Crown (in opposing the appeal upon behalf of Hanratty) would have insisted upon clear evidence of the hat being in the boot.
    However, as I posted the other day, this still doesn't prove that Lee didn't hear about the hat from somewhere else.
    Hello OR,

    I don't think the Court of Appeal could or would rule one way or the other as to whether the sightings were true or whether there was a pom-pom hat in the car or not. It was the fact that there was evidence of those facts that should have been disclosed to the defence who could have then made the decision to run with it or not.
    2. Your point in (c) would appear to be a good one. Certainly based on understandable logic and sound common sense. However, and this is not to rubbish your point, but there seems precious little of that in what went on in the hours before the murder.
    I agree that this crime was as unfathomable as any but in trying to kill Valerie Storie the murderer was showing the basic signs that he did not want to be caught, and one way of ensuring that would be to make sure that he and the murder car went their separate ways before the bobbies began their searches for it.

    4. With regard to your final para, I take and tend to go along with your own view. However much the car had been cleaned (so as not to incriminate the true perpetrator(s) as per other posters), the driver was still running a risk when he drove the car to Avondale Crescent. That risk clearly increased the longer the driver waited to abandon the car. There again, perhaps that is too logical!
    I would still like to know though if any beat copper was in Avondale Crescent that morning or afternoon. If one was and he didn't see the car, that is a massive plus for the Hanratty camp.
    If the car had been cleaned why were the bullets and blood clots not disposed of? Someone posted an inventory of all items which were sent to Dr Nickolls the forensic scientist, I'll see if I can find it, but my recollection is that there were items from the murder car which were subject to his examination.

    S

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Derrick View Post
      I said nothing of the sort. I said:
      I beg your pardon.

      But my point still stands that driving the car and abandoning it at 7 am in a quiet suburban street near a tube station entails risks which are nothing compared to that which you believe happened. Namely a drive northwards for 130 miles or so, to Matlock; the donning of a colourful hat at about 8.30am, for who knows how long; a 160 mile journey southwards towards the Big Smoke, driving through the outskirts of one of the world's biggest cities in world's most wanted criminal vehicle at rush hour between 5.30 and 6.30 pm.

      Comment


      • It was NatalieSevern who posted "almost the entire inventory" of items taken into the custody of the forensic scientist, Dr Nickolls. Why we don't get the entire inventory I am not sure.

        Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
        Here is almost the the entire inventory from witness statement Nickolls.I have omitted the half dozen or so items received re VS only comprising 7 items and included were her undergarments.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Spitfire View Post
          ...driving through the outskirts of one of the world's biggest cities in world's most wanted criminal vehicle at rush hour between 5.30 and 6.30 pm...
          In 1961 there were around 6.5 million licensed vehicles on the UK's roads. In 2014 that had risen nearly 6-fold to just under 36 million.

          The rush hour of 1961 is nothing compared to the rush hour of today.

          Additionally, who knows why he drove north? To pick up someone else? Maybe. But that doesn't mean that this route was not planned or unintentional as some have made out.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Derrick View Post

            The rush hour of 1961 is nothing compared to the rush hour of today.
            What has happened to the busy thoroughfares of east London in 1961 to which you were recently referring?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Spitfire View Post
              What has happened to the busy thoroughfares of east London in 1961 to which you were recently referring?
              Just comparing the business of either morning or evening traffic. I imagine that they were about the same and in reply to issues that you and others had raised.

              Comment


              • Anyway, when is it that Wm Lee first mentioned the pom-pom hat and what evidence is there that such an item was present in 847 BHN? It must be strong evidence if it is incontrovertible.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Spitfire View Post
                  Hello OR,

                  I don't think the Court of Appeal could or would rule one way or the other as to whether the sightings were true or whether there was a pom-pom hat in the car or not. It was the fact that there was evidence of those facts that should have been disclosed to the defence who could have then made the decision to run with it or not.

                  ...


                  S
                  Spit,

                  You are correct that the Court of Appeal did not categorically rule in 2002 on whether Lee's reported sighting was correct or not. The Court concluded that Lee's evidence must have been 'flawed' [I just adore their use of words!] if the odometer reading was correct.

                  However, para 152 (i) of their judgement effectively has the Court referring to a woollen pom-pom hat being found in the boot of the car as a fact. There must have been clear evidence for the Court of Appeal to do that and for there to be no mention of the Crown being of a contrary view.

                  OneRound

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by OneRound View Post
                    Spit,


                    However, para 152 (i) of their judgement effectively has the Court referring to a woollen pom-pom hat being found in the boot of the car as a fact. There must have been clear evidence for the Court of Appeal to do that and for there to be no mention of the Crown being of a contrary view.

                    OneRound
                    OR,

                    I have posed the question to Derrick who seems more au fait than most on this knotty subject. I am sure that someone mentioned that it was a photograph of the contents of the boot of the car that provided the evidence. But why did Dr Nickolls not take possession of the hat and subject it to analysis?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Spitfire View Post
                      OR,

                      I have posed the question to Derrick who seems more au fait than most on this knotty subject. I am sure that someone mentioned that it was a photograph of the contents of the boot of the car that provided the evidence. But why did Dr Nickolls not take possession of the hat and subject it to analysis?
                      Spit,

                      Perhaps he did .... it wouldn't be the first thing not to be disclosed.

                      OneRound

                      Comment


                      • Ansonman, so far as I am aware, has never subscribed to a rubber suit theory.

                        Spitfire,

                        Before the suit is consigned to the bin, many thanks for above. Please accept my apologies for incorrectly attributing the suit creation to your good self.

                        Regards,

                        Ansonman

                        Comment


                        • As One Round has intimated, it is simply not satisfactory for an appeal court to dismiss Mr. Lee’s evidence as ‘flawed’ on the basis of the mileage readings. These mileage readings are not holy writ; they depend on a number of assumptions, and may be flawed as well.

                          IF Mr. Lee mentioned a green bobble hat in his original statement on the day of the crime, and IF a green bobble hat was later found in the boot of the car, then I would contend that his evidence outweighs that of the mileage readings.

                          Were forensic tests carried out on the bobble hat? We would certainly assume so, yet have any results been reported in the last 56 years? Where is the bobble hat? Can it be retrieved so that DNA testing can be done, as was done on the clothing of Miss Storie? Or has it disappeared down the memory hole?

                          I can see a few reasons for a driver wearing a green bobble hat, and one of them, by the way, is so James Hanratty could disguise his dyed hair. However I suspect this was not the case, for I believe the hat was subjected to forensic testing and like the rest of the car, failed to establish any link between it and James Hanratty. It would be interesting to know what hair follicles were retrieved from the hat.

                          Apologies ansonman for wrongly attributing a discredited theory to you in an earlier post

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by cobalt View Post
                            ...Were forensic tests carried out on the bobble hat? We would certainly assume so, yet have any results been reported in the last 56 years? Where is the bobble hat? Can it be retrieved so that DNA testing can be done, as was done on the clothing of Miss Storie? Or has it disappeared down the memory hole?...
                            Hi Cobalt
                            I do have Lewis Nickolls' bench notes but my papers are still in storage. As soon as I can get them out I will check these out.

                            I doubt if the bobble hat still exists. I imagine, like the log book, all of the cars contents were returned to the Gregsten family and have, subsequently, been destroyed.

                            Del

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Derrick View Post
                              There was no mention of Cowley serving at all, he might have been around on the Tuesday but I doubt he was behind the counter or in the shop at all for that matter all day, everyone needs a break.
                              I thought I had seen mention of Mr Cowley's brother somewhere before and (somewhat belatedly) I have found it.

                              Barbara Ford said: "On the way back from town I called in at the shop about a quarter to five and Mr Cowley's brother was there with Gran."

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by NickB View Post
                                ...I have found it...
                                Hi Nick

                                Nice one. But from where did you get the source?

                                Cheers
                                Del

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X