A6 Rebooted

[ansonman]

1] The inference seems to be that, as no-one actually saw Hanratty during his journey to the cornfield, he was never there.

2] On the other hand, he claimed to have travelled by bus from Liverpool to Rhyl and back again, yet as far as I'm aware nobody claimed to have seen him on either bus or at the respective bus stations. Therefore I think I am justified in applying similar logic per [1] above and say that he never made either journey at the critical time of the A6 Crime. Which he didn't.

FWIW, I've always felt that he arrived at the cornfield by walking down Marsh Lane, possibly from Taplow station, or a bus-stop, which would account for his immaculate appearance, according to Valerie's description. And of course it was dark, or nearly dark, when he tapped on the car's window.

Graham

The first person Storie spoke to after the attack (John Kerr), asked her what had happened, to which she replied "We picked up a man near Slough" which is why it was originally thought to be a hitch hiker killing.

According to Foot, Storie is quoted as saying:

"That morning....I began to tell my fantastic story. Miraculously, I could remember every detail".

I have always found it intriguing as to why she changed her account from picking up a man near Slough, to being accosted in a cornfield.

Not only is there no evidence that Hanratty was in a cornfield, there is no evidence that the attacker accosted the couple in a cornfield.

Ansonman

[Alfie]

I have always found it intriguing as to why she changed her account from picking up a man near Slough, to being accosted in a cornfield.

Not only is there no evidence that Hanratty was in a cornfield, there is no evidence that the attacker accosted the couple in a cornfield. Ansonman

My guess is she changed her account because somebody (Acott?) convinced her to tell the truth.

Valerie had a lot of time to think while lying paralysed on the side of the road. I imagine one thing she pondered was, "How can I explain being parked up at night in a cornfield with a married man without bringing shame on us and everybody concerned with us?"

The hitch-hiking story probably seemed a good way out of this fix until somebody - most likely a cop - explained that they'd need a true account of what happened if they were to set about finding the perpetrator.

So there was evidence putting Hanratty in the cornfield: Valerie's eyewitness testimony.

[Hannibal Hayes]

Ok, going off track a bit .... &* eacuse me if this has already been clarified, but .....

Didn't DNA testing about 10/15 years ago confirm conclusively that JH was in the car/at the scene?

Again, apologies if this has been done to death.

[Graham]

Neither Valerie nor Gregsten made much of a secret of their affair. Valerie's parents knew about it, and although it's likely they didn't fully approve, nevertheless made little or no fuss. Janet Gregsten also knew about the affair, as she knew about Mike's other affairs, and likewise said little or nothing. In fact, she said that as she was unable to give Mike the sex he needed, she was content to allow him his various indiscretions.

As far as I'm aware, the only known dissenters to the affair were elements of the senior management at The Road Research Lab, members of whom actually visited Janet and Mike at home, and were it seems told where to go. Someone, or so it's said, wrote to the RRL a letter condemning the affair, but whether any action was taken apart from that mentioned above, I don't know. Nor was the author of the letter, if it existed, ever identified.

I rather suspect, given that she was a person of very strong and independent character, Valerie probably couldn't have cared less about just where the gunman entered their car and their lives, and if she had been advised for decency's sake to tell the world that she and Mike had picked up a hitch-hiker rather than being surprised canoodling in a car in a cornfield, she soon dropped that invention, told the truth, and stuck to it.

But as with much concerning this case, we will never know for sure.

Graham

[Alfie]

Agree with most of that Graham. Valerie does seem to have been her own woman who cared little for what other people thought of her.

But the news of Gregsten's murder and her rape and attempted murder would go nationwide - worldwide even. This was 1961. Every man and his dog would be talking about it and poring over the salacious details.

If it became widely known that they'd been carrying on in "hole-and-corner" fashion then it wasn't just her parents and Janet that would be enduring the finger-pointing and whispering-behind-backs. It was Mike's mother and aunty and his two sons, and all his and Valerie's close relatives and friends.

I think she might have weighed this up and decided on the hitch-hiking story - initially at least - until she was persuaded otherwise. Then the somewhat risible "planning a motor rally" story was concocted instead, which at least had the merit of placing the opening scene of the crime in the correct place.

[Graham]

I imagine one thing she pondered was, "How can I explain being parked up at night in a cornfield with a married man without bringing shame on us and everybody concerned with us?"

She stuck for some time to her story that she and Gregsten were 'planning a car rally', which I feel certain the police requested her to do, less for the sake of decorum and more to maximise public sympathy for her, and antipathy towards the defendant. She soon dropped this deceit once the trial was over.

(Edit): our posts crossed, Alfie. I remember the A6 Case very well, and when my old man heard that the couple were 'planning a car rally', his response was, "Yeah? In a cornfield at night? Course they were!!"

Graham

[Alfie]

Ok, going off track a bit .... &* eacuse me if this has already been clarified, but .....

Didn't DNA testing about 10/15 years ago confirm conclusively that JH was in the car/at the scene?

Again, apologies if this has been done to death.

Hi Hannibal

Yes, that was the finding of the 2002 Court of Appeal judgment, a decision I happen to agree with.

But there's a few posters on this forum who will tell you the testing process was flawed and/or the samples contaminated, so that DNA wrongly incriminated Hanratty.

[cobalt]

Hannibal,

Technically speaking it could be argued the DNA results did not actually establish Hanratty was at the scene. There were no for example no soil or cereal deposits found on his clothing linking him to the cornfield, although this could easily be explained by the fact he was not arrested until weeks after the crime. More surprisingly, there was at the time no forensic evidence of value obtained from the car. Since the car had long been demolished by 2002 and no reference made to samples retained, there is nothing specific to link Hanratty to the car.

Of course, this is all appears rather academic since incriminating DNA attributed to Hanratty was identified as being on the clothing of Valerie Storie. Many people, quite sensibly, accept the scientific data and assume that although the police investigation in 1961 was rather ham-fisted, and the evidence at trial probably less than conclusive, that at least justice was done.

One minority view is that the DNA low copy method is very sensitive and that the slightest, albeit inadvertent, contamination of exhibits over the years has produced a false positive.
Another minority view is that the UK justice system is highly protective of its own credibility, and would never want to admit it had mistakenly executed an innocent man, the more so since Hanratty protested his innocence from first to last and the A6 Case became very high profile. This view inevitably leads towards conspiracy, claiming the samples were tampered with before being forwarded for examination, or that the results announced were misleading.

[ansonman]

Agree with most of that Graham. Valerie does seem to have been her own woman who cared little for what other people thought of her.

But the news of Gregsten's murder and her rape and attempted murder would go nationwide - worldwide even. This was 1961. Every man and his dog would be talking about it and poring over the salacious details.

If it became widely known that they'd been carrying on in "hole-and-corner" fashion then it wasn't just her parents and Janet that would be enduring the finger-pointing and whispering-behind-backs. It was Mike's mother and aunty and his two sons, and all his and Valerie's close relatives and friends.

I think she might have weighed this up and decided on the hitch-hiking story - initially at least - until she was persuaded otherwise. Then the somewhat risible "planning a motor rally" story was concocted instead, which at least had the merit of placing the opening scene of the crime in the correct place.

She spoke with Kerr 5 hours after the murder. Her lover had been brutally murdered, she had been raped, shot 5 times and left for dead. Is it not the more likely that what she told Kerr was truth rather than an attempt to hide the truth? She must have known, long before speaking to Kerr that there was every likelihood that she too would die from her injuries. Is it not more likely that she would be determined to give Kerr information that would help find the murderer than not?

It was only after her survival that she changed not only the details of where the murderer sprang from but also what he looked like. She told Kerr that the murderer had "light fairish hair". At the time of the attack Hanratty's hair was dyed black.

The question arrises as to why she changed these crucial details once she knew she would recover. It can only be that she was encouraged to do so by the police.

Ansonman

[Alfie]

She spoke with Kerr 5 hours after the murder. Her lover had been brutally murdered, she had been raped, shot 5 times and left for dead. Is it not the more likely that what she told Kerr was truth rather than an attempt to hide the truth? She must have known, long before speaking to Kerr that there was every likelihood that she too would die from her injuries. Is it not more likely that she would be determined to give Kerr information that would help find the murderer than not?

It was only after her survival that she changed not only the details of where the murderer sprang from but also what he looked like. She told Kerr that the murderer had "light fairish hair". At the time of the attack Hanratty's hair was dyed black.

The question arrises as to why she changed these crucial details once she knew she would recover. It can only be that she was encouraged to do so by the police.

Ansonman

What she said to Kerr comes down to 'he said - she said'. She disputed his light fairish hair recollection, saying she described it as brown.

I find it odd that some posters are willing to accept the recollections of almost everybody BUT Valerie.

What makes you think that Kerr recalled exactly what she told him? Don't forget that he mistakenly thought she told him her name was Mary. I'd say it's quite possible that he got other details of what she said wrong as well.

[Graham]

And of course the police 'lost' Kerr's written details of his conversation with Valerie.

Graham

[cobalt]

John Kerr comes across well in his ITN interview, a matter of hours after he came across the scene of the crime. He is young, honest and very much the concerned citizen. He is also a young man about to enter university and although a little nervous, is articulate and chooses his words carefully. He quite specifically corrects a wrong impression he feels he may have given, making it clear he was told that the killer was picked up before the weapon was produced. He did mishear ‘Mary’ for ‘Valerie’ but there is no suggestion his police statement was inaccurate regarding times, addresses, the make of the gun, or the car registration. I would have no reservations concerning his testimony.

Valerie Storie did later disagree with two aspects of his testimony, namely the appearance of the killer and the manner in which he gained entry to the car. As Asonman points out, her testimony came following extensive interviews with the investigating officers, and as Graham has pointed out, John Kerr’s verbatim record was lost by the same persons.

‘We picked up a man near Slough’ is in the active, rather than the passive mood, if a little hazy in detail. I think we can rule out a courting couple picking up a lone, male hitch-hiker in the late evening, so the implication is that this was some kind of arranged meeting.

Except, it might be no such thing. If, for a moment, we accept her cornfield version of events, what could Valerie Storie say? She says ‘near Slough’ because John Kerr may never have heard of Dorney Reach. ‘We were hijacked?’ That is a very American expression and inaccurate for the most part since robbery was not apparently the motive. ‘Carjacked?’ The expression did not exist back in 1961 I am pretty sure. ‘We were attacked?’ That suggests there was a violent struggle, which did not occur. It’s not so easy to put into words, especially lying on the ground paralysed after the carnage which has gone before.

Like Ansonman, I believe John Kerr’s testimony is a pertinent second hand source in the A6 Case, however it is possible we could be laying too much significance on to the first words of Valerie Storie.

[Alfie]

Justice's Murder vs Murder book

Just finished reading the above, and My God, what a farrago of nonsense. It reads like something written by a posh, vindictive schoolgirl after finally breaking up with her intermittently abusive boyfriend, but more about that at another time.

There's a couple of things I'd like clarification on, if somebody can help.

First, this, on p.107, following the visit by Justice, Fox and Alphon to the cornfield:

"Although I had felt certain as soon as Peter had said, ‘Let’s stop here,’ it was not until two or three days later that I confirmed that we had indeed been in the cornfield where the murderer had surprised Gregsten and Valerie Storie. Subsequently the Burnham and Slough Police, and also the Chief Constable of Bucks., denied that Alphon was in the field. The local inhabitants were assured that Alphon was in Brixton. One cannot help wondering why the police lied. If they had nothing to hide, they would surely have adopted the line, ‘Alphon is in the clear. He can go where he likes. Justice is a nut case.’ But no such statement was made. I was supposed to have been drunk and Alphon, they insisted, had not been in the locality. I expect the police had their orders."

What is that all about? I thought Justice was able to confirm the location of the cornfield because Fox left a Guinness bottle under the hedge, but he makes no mention of that. Why would the police have become involved?

Then there's this (p.108):

"I rang up Peter and informed him that France had committed suicide. He said, with obvious satisfaction, ‘That’s made my day.’ I learned later that France had left behind him a number of letters, some of which were not made public. I said deliberately in Peter’s presence that the letters would reveal why Hanratty had murdered Gregsten. I remember Peter stating confidently that they would reveal nothing of the sort. He was right. At the end of August [1962], the Home Secretary granted a certain member of parliament’s application to see those letters and it was borne out that they contained nothing incriminating as far as Hanratty was concerned."

This is another incident that has never, as far as I'm aware, been referred to by any other writer on the case. I'm assuming the MP was Fenner Brockway. Anybody know anything further about it?

If accurate, it would seem to give the lie to the theory that France's letters were embargoed because they reveal a conspiracy to frame Hanratty for the A6 murder.

[Batman]

It's really cool they could do familial DNA in 2002. This is the same technique that was used to catch the Grim Sleeper and more recently EARONS.

The science alone suggests the chances it is not being his are extraordinarily high. The only reason they probably had to dig him up was to exclude any other of his relatives.

[moste]

‘What would she likely say’
It is a tricky question, and almost impossible to place yourself in her situation such as it was. She must have been ,though suffering little pain, very uncertain as to whether she was going to survive or not. Yet surely reassured and tremendously relieved that she was finally discovered . The phrase “we picked a man up near Slough” is unfathomable, in the context of everything else that happened to her. Highjacked, carjacked, attacked, as you say Cobalt ,none of which are likely. How about ‘ A man got in the car with a gun’ ?