A6 Rebooted

[George Dixon]

Hi George,



To question Valerie Storie'’s testimony has always been a delicate area since she was lucky to escape with her life from the events of 22^nd August 1961 and she showed great fortitude thereafter. However anyone who doubts the prosecution case has at some point to confront her testimony and question her version of the conversation and events from the time of the ‘pick-up’ as she initially described it, to the shooting in the lay by.

Hi Cobalt.

I do question Val`s testimony, I simply do not buy it.

How does it go ?

A car thief, who can not drive, decides to progress his criminal career.

So he gets a " shooter " and takes the next step in said career by becoming a " stick up man "

So where does this North London man go for his first outing as a stick up man ?

Of course - a field in Dorney !

And of course he took lots of spare ammo. Was he going to a stick up, or The Gunfight At The OK Coral ? The whole point of a stick up is that you do not shoot.

I will not waste any more time, we all know how it goes.

My view is this, something was going on, something nefarious, and I think that it was something, how can I put it, something significant.

Two people were shot, and in my opinion a man was framed and then hanged. So I think that there had to be a lot going on. Events on this scale do not happen lightly.

So yes, I question her account. The possibility exists that she knowingly sent a innocent man to be hanged. Of course what happened to her was terrible, but what of Jim. If, as I suspect, he was innocent, then that was far worse.

[Spitfire]

If he really was in Rhyl, why had he not mentioned it to anyone before? He could not provide a satisfactory answer and so resorted to lying about that too.

The question which runs on from that, is why did Hanratty change his defence in the middle of the trial from one obvious lie to another equally obvious lie? He must have been warned of the dangers of doing this, yet do it he did.

[moste]

Some questions of you establishmentarians border on the ridiculous and are thus unanswerable. There will always be tons more questions than answers in any sphere of life. Why for instance did Valerie Storie pick out a dark-eyed, heavily built man with short cropped hair [the complete opposite to Hanratty] in the first ID parade when according to her the gunman had icy-blue, saucer like eyes and greased back hair ???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDTvLldOgZs

In a word, ‘Acott’.

[cobalt]

'Hanratty was more of a drifter in the sense that he burgled in London, Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool'

Sorry Cobalt but I am totally unaware of any burglaries committed by Hanratty in those highlighted cities, perhaps I've overlooked something all these years.


SH,

Any apologies due are mine. He presumably had criminal contacts in these areas outwith London but there is no record of a burglary being committed by Hanratty.
I think it was established that Hanratty stole a car in either Leeds or Manchester area.

[moste]

Hi Cobalt.

I do question Val`s testimony, I simply do not buy it.

How does it go ?

A car thief, who can not drive, decides to progress his criminal career.

So he gets a " shooter " and takes the next step in said career by becoming a " stick up man "

So where does this North London man go for his first outing as a stick up man ?

Of course - a field in Dorney !

And of course he took lots of spare ammo. Was he going to a stick up, or The Gunfight At The OK Coral ? The whole point of a stick up is that you do not shoot.

I will not waste any more time, we all know how it goes.

My view is this, something was going on, something nefarious, and I think that it was something, how can I put it, something significant.

Two people were shot, and in my opinion a man was framed and then hanged. So I think that there had to be a lot going on. Events on this scale do not happen lightly.

So yes, I question her account. The possibility exists that she knowingly sent a innocent man to be hanged. Of course what happened to her was terrible, but what of Jim. If, as I suspect, he was innocent, then that was far worse.

Hi George.
Yes , if someone lies, and in court commits perjury , but you can’t prove that they did ,then your between a rock and a hard place ,as they say.
Whether you are pressured by outside influences, or omit something , ,or add something that you shouldn’t ,it’s still lying.
When Storie gave her identification she lied, or, Hanratty wasn’t the killer! When the photo fit expert sat down with her and carefully pieced together all aspects of the perps facial features, including dark eyes, the final result was a picture looking quite like Peter Alphon, and nothing remotely akin to Hanratty. Possibly due to being tutored ,or,well,why even guess? The point is she lied.
Valerie Stories attestation in one account is that ‘I had to peel Mikes fingers from the steering wheel in order to remove him from the car,’ and then on another account, ‘The man had Mike pass up a duffle bag from the front of the car ,during his attempt to do just that the gunman fired twice through Mikes head’. Now I don’t know if anyone cares to call in the advice of experts in this field , but I don’t feel the need to. One of the two descriptions of Mikes murder is a lie. Personally I favour the former as being the most likely, because ,having read into the effects of cadaveric spasm, and how and why it occurs, and the fact that Storie quite probably wouldn’t have had any knowledge of such a phenomenon I’m settling for that option .

[NickB]

[QUOTE=cobalt;n706710]Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool'
[LEFT]Sorry Cobalt but I am totally unaware of any burglaries committed by Hanratty in those highlighted cities, perhaps I've overlooked something all these years.


I thought he robbed a house in Liverpool on 25-Jul-61.

[Spitfire]

‘I had to peel Mikes fingers from the steering wheel in order to remove him from the car,’

And where and when was this statement made, and where can we see it?

[moste]

From 2016

Yes, I knew exit wounds can make a fearful mess. Is it possible Sherlock, for you to scan and upload said photos of Gregsten, from page 82 , or would there be a copyright problem do you think ?
I find the following, something of an anomaly, (which I have added to my long list) M G was told to pass up the duffel bag from the front foot well. As we know, according to V S, he turned about 90 deg. leaning to his left at the same time, immediately the gun was fired. Now I have been reading about a thing called 'caderveric spasm'. Its a phenomena, known to the medical world as rare, and only occurs in people dying suddenly in a shock/trauma situation. The result, is a rigor mortise like muscle tensing, and almost always affects the arms, wrists, and hands of the victim. This phenomena according to Valerie's testimony, certainly had M G in its grip, since she state's according to Lord Russell, ' Mikes hands were gripping the steering wheel. When I touched them they were stone cold'. And in another article (I can't remember where)'I had to peel Mikes fingers off the wheel'. Now, I myself and I suspect a few of us, have, observed the effect of a human being, executed by a shot through the head, film footage , Tiananmen Square China, JFK Dallas, and the like. Therefor I would suggest the most likely effect of Gregstens double shot to the head would be for him to slump across Valerie's side of the car winding up on her lap. As it was, M G is supposedly sat upright gripping the wheel (I imagine, head forward against the steering). This position I would attribute to, a gun being thrust through the passenger window, and MG dispatched tout suite, This scenario would satisfy why there was zero forensic evidence of a third person in the car, THERE WASN'T ONE.
I have just finished Keith Simpsons ' Forty Years of Murder' I don't recommend it for the squeamish!. However his attention to detail, and wondrous astuteness as each chapter unfolds, victim by victim, case by case, leaves one filled with awe at his expertise, and professionalism. Then comes the let down. To wit, The A6, Murder, No explanations of findings at the scene from a pathologist stand point required here. No in depth, minute detail of wounds to the victims ,as in other cases, No mention at all of the above mentioned "Cadaveric spasm' No need to go into any serious discussion on this case eh? after all Valerie was there, wasn't she, and as we've all learned that's all that's needed!

Just a word on the obsession of plastic \ rubber suites. The Story of a killer being in the back seat of the car and leaving absolutely zero evidence of having been there , prompted me to respond that in order for this to be the case and the fact that it would appear that the car was not scrupulously cleaned, lead me to the fanciful notion that the killer would have to have been donning a pair of coveralls of the latest early 60s vogue . The actual truth of the matter is that I have been of the opinion for a long time now,that the journey to deadman’s hill in the Morris was made by only the two victims. My reasoning for this being that the story of the journey from the cornfield is too fantastic, and also that I have satisfied myself at least that Storie was a lier.

[Spitfire]

This position I would attribute to, a gun being thrust through the passenger window, and MG dispatched tout suite, This scenario would satisfy why there was zero forensic evidence of a third person in the car, THERE WASN'T ONE.

How did the car get to Avondale Crescent?

Neither MG nor VS could have driven it so a third person must have.

(In answering the above question, by popular demand, do not reiterate the plastic suit with rubber buttons theory.)

[Spitfire]

First of all, I am not aware of anyone who believes Valerie Storie knowingly gave false testimony against James Hanratty. She had no reason to identify anyone other than the man who killed her lover and paralysed her, so she clearly gave her evidence in good faith. She may have been mistaken or she may have been correct, but if she made a mistake it was an honest one.

And here we are again.

The actual truth of the matter is that I have been of the opinion for a long time now,that the journey to deadman's hill in the Morris was made by only the two victims. My reasoning for this being that the story of the journey from the cornfield is too fantastic, and also that I have satisfied myself at least that Storie was a lier (sic).

[cobalt]

Hi Spitfire,

Just to clarify my comment. I was speaking specifically to the ID made by Valerie Storie in respect of James Hanratty. I normally proceed from the assumption this was made in good faith and not a perverted action aimed at damning an innocent man.

However, her account of the events from Taplow to Deadman's Hill are another matter entirely. Her evidence in respect of what she claims happened was not specifically aimed against James Hanratty when first made, but upon her attacker.

[NickB]

But her first evidence was about someone who 'specifically' said he was called Jim.

[cobalt]

Yossel and Moste are knocking on an interesting door here so I will offer my own observations. Yossel questions whether there actually was a sexual assault on Valerie Storie which puts a completely different complexion on the crime. As it stands we have always assumed we were looking for a killer rapist, a violent and disturbed man. But the minute you remove rape from the equation we are looking for someone capable of executing a married man and then gunning down his lover. The most obvious suspect, the person with the strongest motive to do this, is not a man. It is a woman. A woman spurned. A woman whose husband is about to leave her and her two children. A woman who was driven close to their romantic courting spot, caught them in the act, then spent a good few hours desperately spelling out some home truths. All to no avail. If she and her children could not have her husband then no one else would either. This was no accidental shooting.

Moste has long questioned whether there was ever another man in the car given the lack of supporting forensic evidence. He stumbles however on how the car could have been driven away from the crime scene by a man leaving no trace. Perhaps there was no man. It was driven by a woman who had been in the car previously therefore any evidence she left could be seen as innocent.

Why on earth would Valerie Storie make up a completely false narrative to protect such a woman? She did this from her very first words to John Kerr and elaborated on them thereafter. Because she felt guilty for Michael Gregsten leaving his family and partly responsible for his shooting. She had already taken the father from the children, now she was in a position to take their mother away as well. That was a very heavy responsibility, for testifying would benefit only vengeance. Having done some wrong, she could at least retrieve some goodness from the whole mess by protecting the Gregsten family. When visited by Janet Gregsten in hospital the realisation they had both contributed to killing the man they loved made some sort of bond, so she continued with her tale.

There never was a mystery man in the cornfield so he was made up: a gyspy spiv familiar from 1950s B movies, complete with Cockney jailbird jargon and trademark handkerchief. His eyes and hair changed colour, he never had a genuine name and inevitably his image faded quite rapidly. When Valerie Storie picked out what seemed an obvious '‘plant'’ at the second ID parade she was probably shocked to discover he was in the frame, but to protect the Gregsten family she had to testify against Hanratty.

Bill Ewer pulled out all the stops after his appalling misjudgement in providing the gun. One Ruth Ellis was one too many. He tidied up best he could and even kept a close watch over the woman at his place of work, trying to steer the police when the investigation was going nowhere fast. Not surprisingly, given their shared secret, he and the woman soon became very close. It was damnable what happened to Hanratty but Bill Ewer did his duty as he saw fit, making sure that any sensitive material relating to the case would be embargoed until the Gregsten children had passed on or were in their dotage.

So, quite probably a ‘gas meter’ job as Acott suspected, but the rape claim had them on a wild goose chase looking for some underworld assassin who would spill the beans. They did link the gun to France, put pressure on him via his friend Hanratty, but it lead them nowhere. What about the O group blood secretor whose semen was found on Ms. Storie’s underwear? Surely that proves that there was another man in the car? No it doesn’'t, but I will leave that for another post.

[Yossel]

And the sighting of the Morris Minor on the A12, Cobalt?

Interesting and imaginative theory, but short on supporting evidence, I think.

[moste]

Spot on Cobalt , a better story than Stories!

Borrowing from Chief Superintendent Mathews ‘s observations, where possibly more than one person was involved , The spurned wife is driven to the known location of the lovers, at ‘Deadman’s Hill, and after the deed , can drive back to the capital with relative impunity (from an evidence point of view) , since her forensic footprint is allowed to be in the car, as you allude to. You know, I think that might just work.
We must be careful not to credit Acott with too much honesty . Herbert Balmer in Liverpool rose to great heights in that police force, and if he had been in charge of this investigation, and was in possession of all the relevant facts, his empathy for Mrs Gregsten would have known no bounds, but would have Hanratty hanged in a heartbeat.
I do think given the enormity of this crime and the fact that Liverpool was to some degree in the mix, so to speak, Balmer and Acott would most likely have been in discussions.