A6 Rebooted

[moste]

Just to make reference to the courtroom action ,re, questioning of Acott by Sherrard. when asked what Michael Clark looked like.

Acott: I can give a full description of the man picked out on that parade.

Sherrard: Would you tell me whether he was ,as Dr. Rennie has told us, a fair- haired man?

Acott : No, he was not.I have his full description.I have had this man physically examined… I can tell you this from my own knowledge:

5 feet nine inches tall, dark short cropped hair,about 27 years of age, and heavily built

Sherrard: Is the man available by any chance?

Acott: He was some time ago, but I cannot say off-hand.

Above, as per Bob Woffinden ‘The final verdict’ page 247.

This line of questioning by Sherrard petered out frustratingly inadequate. In fact if Sherrard wasn’t going to take any issue with Acotts final words on the matter , it’s amazing that Hanratty’s solicitor didn’t jump into the fray. In fact ,if Hanratty himself had been a little more intelligent , he would have insisted on continuing the line of enquiry to have Michael Clark produced in court ,as an exhibit.
This farce has been discussed on these boards before I know, but then reading further on the next page of the book
‘Thirty years later ,Clark proved infuriatingly impossible to trace.He left the country in 1965 and emigrated.However,I did locate his closest Surviving relative,an aunt living on the Welsh borders. She recollected his hair as being of a general mousey colour, which appears to corroborate Dr.Rennies description and not Acotts.’

[NickB]

Acott did make a special visit to Valerie after putting out an appeal for Alphon and I think it is reasonable to presume that he said to her what you suggest. However I would think 'once bitten twice shy' would apply to the Hanratty parade and she would be less inclined to accept the same assurance from him again.

I guess in this regard we (including Sherrard) would seriously need to see Michael the RAF man photo.

Colour photos of him must exist and this is one piece of 'new' evidence in this case which I still expect to come to light. Surely any professional investigator would be able to obtain a photo from a relation or the RAF.

[ansonman]

Just thinking about the photofits and the ID parades. We know that Acott was certain that in Alphon, he had his man. Is it conceivable that Storie, prior to the ID parade in which Alphon took part, did not ask Acott why he was so certain that he had his man? Is it not highly likely that Acott said to Storie words to the effect that "the man who did this to you and murdered Michael is in the ID parade which you are about to see?" Is it conceivable that Acott advised Storie that all she had to do was have another look at her photofits and pick out the man who most resembled same. We don't know what the RAF guy she did pick out looked like. One would imagine that he didn't look more like the photofit than Alphon but who knows? What we do know is that she chose the wrong man and the case against Alphon collapsed.

So we now move to the ID parade in which Hanratty took part. Let's assume that Acott has said to Valerie that he got it wrong. Alphon was not the man that did for her. He had an alibi and we all make mistakes. However, this time we definately do have our man. Once again she asks Acott how he can be so sure and once again he tells her why. Only this time, he goes a bit further. He knows only too well that he cannot suffer another ID balls up. Joe Public is getting highly impatient for a conviction and neither Acott nor Valerie can risk getting things wrong for a second time. Would it be surprising if Acott didn't say as much to Storie? So he tells her that one of the men behind the screen is absolutely the murderer and all she has to do is identify him. Would he go so far as to tell her that Hanratty was number 6 in the line? Probably not but let's not forget just how much was resting on the outcome of her identification. Did any of the other men have a cockney accent? My guess is that Acott went as far as he could to spell out to storey who was the guilty man, short of actually pointing to him. We know that Hanratty was the only one in the line wearing flannel trousers and suede shoes.

If Acott was able to convince Storie that this time the guilty man was without a doubt in the line up, she might have been able to convince herself that whoever sounded most like the murderer was the murderer. After all, she barely saw his face at all on the murder night.

[cobalt]

Hi Moste,

I retain my position that Hanratty was probably not guilty of the A6 crime but I am not sure we can read much into photofits. The so called ‘Bible John’ killings in Glasgow in the late 1960s led to what has become an iconic image in Scottish culture: a photofit created via a witness who was in the company of the killer in a dance hall for at least an hour and shared a taxi with him for a short period. The woman was reportedly very satisfied with the photofit which was later developed by an artist into a colour portrait yet the case remains unsolved. She attended many ID parades, was confident she could pick out the man, but never did. I think she died last year, still unable to help solve her sister’s death.

The Peter Sutcliffe photofits tell a similar story. Some of the survivors of his attacks helped create what seem to us, in hindsight, very good likenesses; yet these did little to help the inquiry until he was caught by chance. Perhaps police photofits were often the equivalent of fools’ gold.

Like you I think the most productive avenue for opening up the A6 Case lies not in Rhyl/Liverpool, not in North London but in Taplow where the saga began.

[moste]

Thank you, cobalt, on behalf of Valerie, as she no longer has a voice.

If Alphon had looked to her like the gunman, as in the photofit she had approved, her motivation for picking him out and getting justice would have been through the roof.

Love,

Caz
X

I guess in this regard we ( including Sherrard) would seriously need to see Michael the RAF man photo.