A6 Rebooted

[caz]

My assumption is very reasonable from a political perspective.

The A6 Case has been a thorn in the side of the legal establishment since 1962 and there have been at least three official enquiries- Nimmo, Hawser and Matthews- in addition to the CCRC judgment. That is a lot of time and money but it was spent to shore up the case against Hanratty specifically and more importantly to sustain public confidence in the judicial system.

Had Michael Clark borne any resemblance to James Hanratty then the ID made by Valerie Storie- very much the corner stone of the prosecution case – would have been immeasurably strengthened. It was would have saved a lot of time and money and quelled disquiet.

Now we can be sure that contemporary photographs of Michael Clark existed and probably still do exist. He served in the armed forces I think and also would have required a passport photo. There is no need to go trawling through his family photograph album: the State already holds copyright on two of his photos. Do you really believe it is credible that the State would not have made these photos available, through whatever channels, if the photos strengthened the case against Hanratty?

I certainly think it's credible, cobalt. From the State's point of view, the case against Hanratty did not need strengthening. A few dissenting voices on the JtR message boards won't change the appeal judgement of 2002.

While we would all like to know what Clark looked like - or rather, who Clark looked like - in the early 1960s, I'm not sure why the State would have seen the least reason to satisfy our curiosity with a photograph, even if the man was the absolute spit of Hanratty.

Love,

Caz
X

[ansonman]

Some years ago I received the following private message from a contributor to this site:

"Thanks David-will have a look certainly.Had very interesting chat with childhood friend who was in flying squad-now retired.He bellowed at me about Hanratty and the DNA proving his guilt.I mentioned the findings of Roger Matthews the senior detective at Scotland Yard who ,leading a team of 20 detectives said he not only believed Hanratty had nothing whatever to do with it ,through having poured through documents,seeing files never made public etc etc but that he should never even have been charged.So my friend rang him as he was a very dear colleague of his.Matthews who was educated at cambridge University, said he still maintained that Hanratty had nothing to do with the A6 murder.That three people were involved-and he named two of them to him ,but my friend has not told me who they were".

Does anyone know if Matthews is still alive and, if so, is contactable?

[moste]

I agree 100% . However would/could Clark’s photograph be available if he didn’t want it to be. Now maybe,but not perhaps until after he had passed away.

[cobalt]

My assumption is very reasonable from a political perspective.

The A6 Case has been a thorn in the side of the legal establishment since 1962 and there have been at least three official enquiries- Nimmo, Hawser and Matthews- in addition to the CCRC judgment. That is a lot of time and money but it was spent to shore up the case against Hanratty specifically and more importantly to sustain public confidence in the judicial system.

Had Michael Clark borne any resemblance to James Hanratty then the ID made by Valerie Storie- very much the corner stone of the prosecution case – would have been immeasurably strengthened. It was would have saved a lot of time and money and quelled disquiet.

Now we can be sure that contemporary photographs of Michael Clark existed and probably still do exist. He served in the armed forces I think and also would have required a passport photo. There is no need to go trawling through his family photograph album: the State already holds copyright on two of his photos. Do you really believe it is credible that the State would not have made these photos available, through whatever channels, if the photos strengthened the case against Hanratty?

[OneRound]

It would obviously be very interesting for us to see a photograph of Michael Clark but its absence surely tells its own story.
Given the disquiet that has persisted over Hanratty's conviction then if Mr. Clark resembled James Hanratty his photograph would have been in the public domain for the last 50 years at least. The Establishment would have ensured that happened in order to protect their legal system.

I would assume there is precious little facial resemblance between Michael Clark and James Hanratty.

Hi cobalt - I follow your reasoning but, in the words of a wise old boss, believe that we should -

Beware the Curse of Assumption.

Best regards,
OneRound

[OneRound]

IâÂÂm not sure that we should not let it be.

Sarah has been sent a lengthy explanatory run down on the whole affair ,and from her reply to Sherlock at the end finishes off with the questionâÂÂCan I ask how Michael fits in with your familyâ and âÂÂIf you have any further information about himâÂÂ, giving us the feeling sheâÂÂs happy to keep the dialogue open. Yet nothing since MalachyâÂÂs correspondence. Could Malachy have received something and not passed it on to Sherlock? a bit confusing.

Hi moste - yes, a bit confusing as you say. Frustrating too, especially as time could well be against us and may even have run out in getting clarification.

I feel that if we don't try to get to the bottom of ''what exactly did Michael Clark look like etc'', we will be repeating Sherrard's mistake at trial of letting this potentially important question fizzle out without even a whimper. Something you have understandably and regularly criticised Sherrard about.

Best regards,
OneRound

[cobalt]

It would obviously be very interesting for us to see a photograph of Michael Clark but its absence surely tells its own story.
Given the disquiet that has persisted over Hanratty's conviction then if Mr. Clark resembled James Hanratty his photograph would have been in the public domain for the last 50 years at least. The Establishment would have ensured that happened in order to protect their legal system.

I would assume there is precious little facial resemblance between Michael Clark and James Hanratty.

[gallicrow]

[QUOTE=Spitfire;n778759]

Am I correct in thinking that Gladys Lily died in 2000 and that Michael's dad Herbert William died in 1968?

Yes for Gladys Lily Falkner / Clark / Keast.

Not sure about Herbert William Clark. The death in 1968 might be him. Another alternative - according to the 1939 register Herbert was born on the 18th November 1907, and someone called William Herbert Clark with date of birth 18th November 1905 died in Chatham in 1988. This is probably a coincidence, but whoever registered his death might have switched his forenames around and got the year of his birth wrong. Stranger things have happened (that horse becoming Pope, for one...)

[moste]

Hi Spit,

Obviously, I would be happy to do so. I almost said in my last post that I and probably others here would be more than willing. However, I felt that Sherlock would not trust my delicacy and that it would therefore be wrong to volunteer anyone else.

I don't actually see the problem here. For my money, Sherlock did most of the diplomatic hard yards in his communication of 29th April 2020 to Sarah reproduced by him above.

Regards,
OneRound

I’m not sure that we should not let it be.

Sarah has been sent a lengthy explanatory run down on the whole affair ,and from her reply to Sherlock at the end finishes off with the question’Can I ask how Michael fits in with your family’ and ‘If you have any further information about him’, giving us the feeling she’s happy to keep the dialogue open. Yet nothing since Malachy’s correspondence. Could Malachy have received something and not passed it on to Sherlock? a bit confusing.

[OneRound]

OR

Perhaps you might offer to draft a suitable delicately phrased request. I am sure it would be appreciated by Sherlock H.

I think that the Sarah in question is the late Michael A F Clark's step-niece and thus 30 years or so younger than he was.

Hi Spit,

Obviously, I would be happy to do so. I almost said in my last post that I and probably others here would be more than willing. However, I felt that Sherlock would not trust my delicacy and that it would therefore be wrong to volunteer anyone else.

I don't actually see the problem here. For my money, Sherlock did most of the diplomatic hard yards in his communication of 29th April 2020 to Sarah reproduced by him above.

Regards,
OneRound

[Spitfire]

[QUOTE=gallicrow;n778673]

Well in the 1939 register Gladys is called Gladys Clark and living with her husband, Herbert Clark, but by 1942 she seems to be living with Richard Keast in Weymouth as there is a notice in the London Gazette announcing that she intends to take the surname Keast. My guess is that she left her son, Michael Clark, with Herbert. I think Richard had two children born in the 1920s from his marriage, both of whom are now dead. Then he and Gladys had two children, born in the 1940s, one of whom died in 2019. Richard Keast died in 1949.

Thanks for that Gallicrow. That explains a lot.

Am I correct in thinking that Gladys Lily died in 2000 and that Michael's dad Herbert William died in 1968?

Woff has Michael A F Clark emigrating in 1965 and we now know he died in the UK in 2018 but when did he return? I assume it was sometime after Woff's book was written.

Footy was unable to discover the identity of the man picked out by Storie in the Alphon ID parade and repeated the rumour that the man was a Spanish sailor.

One can only assume that Michael Arthur Falkner Clark having been wrongly identified by Valerie Storie wanted no more involvement in the case.

[Spitfire]

Hi again Sherlock - a couple of points:

1. If you don't ask the step-sister for a photo and/or details of Michael's appearance, there's no way you'll hear anything from her. Obviously the request should be delicately phrased.

2. The longer you leave it, the more likely it is she will have died.

Having got this far and well done on that, stop faffing about and instead try to finish the job.

Regards,
OneRound

OR

Perhaps you might offer to draft a suitable delicately phrased request. I am sure it would be appreciated by Sherlock H.

I think that the Sarah in question is the late Michael A F Clark's step-niece and thus 30 years or so younger than he was.

[OneRound]

Such patronising condescension . Why don't you get off your butt and do some research yourself ?

Sherlock,

I don't mean to be condescending. I again congratulate you on having successfully explored so far but do wonder if you appreciate the enormity of having come closer than all others, including Foot and Woffinden, to cracking an important feature of this case. It just seems so frustrating not to go on and try to finish the job.

Regards,
OneRound

[gallicrow]

[QUOTE=moste;n778655]

I believe that Michael was (Nanna) Gladys's son, not her husband.[/
I can't see her son working, because she alludes to leaving him.

Well in the 1939 register Gladys is called Gladys Clark and living with her husband, Herbert Clark, but by 1942 she seems to be living with Richard Keast in Weymouth as there is a notice in the London Gazette announcing that she intends to take the surname Keast. My guess is that she left her son, Michael Clark, with Herbert. I think Richard had two children born in the 1920s from his marriage, both of whom are now dead. Then he and Gladys had two children, born in the 1940s, one of whom died in 2019. Richard Keast died in 1949.

[moste]

It may be that Sarah has become embroiled in the A6 murder saga. ( poor lady) given that Malachy gave her more in-depth info.