A6 Rebooted

[Sherlock Houses]

Check your Woffinden again. He states that on 27 August the Hanratty 'family' were told by police that James was wanted for housebreaking. Woffo does not say it was Acott and Oxford who contacted the family; just the 'police'. I can only repeat what your hero says, and see no real reason to doubt it.

I have checked Bob's book again. The relevant passage can be viewed on page 134 of his book where he says that a Det-Sgt Elliott from Ruislip police station visited the family home on August 27th [no mention of his parents not knowing where he was, though] in connection with two burglaries committed in Ruislip [early April] and Northwood [2nd/3rd August] in which the burglar left his fingerprints which were later matched to Hanratty's fingerprints.
Quite how you make the giant leap from this to your conclusion that this "strongly suggests that the police were, thanks to Valerie's evidence, viewing James Hanratty as an A6 murder suspect long before the 'Irish Connection' I find totally baffling. What on earth have two burglaries in Ruislip and Northwood got to do with the A6 murder investigation ?? Incidentally it wasn't Acott and his sidekick who contacted the family. Acott [according to his own solicitor] had never heard of James Hanratty prior to September 25th.

PS. To set the record straight Bob ain't my 'hero'.

[moste]

The police investigation was carried out from all accounts ,completely omitting the fact that Gregsten and Storie had been lovers for a number of years. Otherwise Ewer, Jean Gregsten, the Road Research office employees and probably many others would have been grilled at great length in order to satisfy themselves that this wasn’t in fact (and what it may well have been) a jealous love triangle affair. Or do I have this wrong?
Initially they would surely have been seriously looking at this as the most likely scenario, why did they suddenly drop this idea like a hot potato?
The Marsh lane folks, I read somewhere were not questioned for quite sometime after the event ,whether anything suspicious had been heard or observed, I find that quite incredible.So too with the Maulden folks, very little police activity .Why would they not question everyone in both vicinities thoroughly, door to door immediately , why was Stories word taken as gospel right from the get go? Fishy!

[Graham]

With regard to the visit by the police (in the shape of DS Elliott as SH points out) I find it rather more than coincidental that this occurred only 5 days after the Crime. Had Elliott's visit happened before the crime, then yes, I'd go along with this. I simply cannot help but feel that the eyes of the police were already focussing upon James Hanratty as a potential suspect. And by the way, I never said that it was Acott and Oxford who visited the family on 27 August - I simply said 'the police'. Even given her grievous injuries, it is not in my opinion completely out of the question that Valerie may well have referred to CT and 'done the lot'. I would seriously suggest that the police were playing a kind of 'waiting game' - after all, they could do little else, as neither they nor his family knew just where Hanratty was at the time. Incidentally, the news that the police had visited his house on the 27 August was broken to him on or close to 22 September, by his cousin Eileen Cunningham to whom he gave a lift in his newly-acquired (but already knackered courtesy of his crap driving) Sunbeam Alpine.

Graham

[Sherlock Houses]

why was Stories word taken as gospel right from the get go? Fishy!

Fishy indeed, Moste. I personally don't place too much store in Storie's story as she can demonstrably be proven on lots of occasions to have lied, altered her evidence and suffered from very convenient memory loss. When you seriously think about it she could have come up with any version of events and there would be nobody there to contradict her. Alphon certainly wasn't going to come forward and challenge certain statements of hers.

[Sherlock Houses]

With regard to the visit by the police (in the shape of DS Elliott as SH points out) I find it rather more than coincidental that this occurred only 5 days after the Crime. Had Elliott's visit happened before the crime, then yes, I'd go along with this.

You're ignoring the fact that Elliott had been made aware of Hanratty's matching fingerprints [re. the two burglaries] on August 22nd, the day before the A6 murder occurred. Excuse the nitpicking but Elliot's visit to the Hanratty home was 4 days after the murder not 5 days. Doing a Spitfire there and no doubt he will take Moste to task for calling Mrs Gregsten Jean instead of Janet.

[Graham]

I personally don't place too much store in Storie's story as she can demonstrably be proven on lots of occasions to have lied, altered her evidence and suffered from very convenient memory loss.

A few examples of these claims will make interesting reading.

Graham

[Sherlock Houses]

A few examples of these claims will make interesting reading.

Undoubtedly so.

[Graham]

Undoubtedly so.

So how about a few, then?

Graham

[Spitfire]

...Elliot's visit to the Hanratty home was 4 days after the murder not 5 days.

Or a FULL week, as we must now call this gong show.

[OneRound]

I'm trying to decide if Hanratty might have fared better had Sherrard disclosed Valerie and Gregsten's true relationship to the jury. What do you reckon would have been the pluses and minuses of him making her admit to their affair?

Hi Alfie - the flippant answer to your serious and valid question is that Hanratty couldn't have fared any worse.

Personally and more seriously, I do think Sherrard should have taken it to the jury.

Two main reasons.

1. By the moral standards of early 1960s householders (the qualification at that time to be on a jury, I believe), there probably would have been less sympathy then for a married man and the young lady with whom he was having an adulterous affair. Such an affair - together with suggestions from the defence of it involving untruths, if not blatant lies - could also be used to doubt Michael Gregsten and Valerie Storie's integrity and honesty. Whilst that would almost certainly seem appalling and irrelevant to a modern audience, we need to try and assess how matters might have been perceived almost sixty years ago in a Bedfordshire court room.

2. We now know that an attempt had been made to break up their relationship; I'm thinking of the letter to their employer. That could have been introduced at trial to suggest an alernative motive and perhaps get the jury wondering more. Furthermore, the lack of any investigation concerning this aspect could have been used to criticise and cast doubt upon the police investigation as a whole.

Against the above and particularly the polar opposite of 1. is the possibility that Sherrard would have been thought to be ''playing dirty'' and to have totally alienated the jury. To be fair to Sherrard and without the benefit of hindsight, I accept that would have been a risk. However, a more experienced and less gentlemanly defence counsel might have taken the risk and perhaps won.

I think you've suggested previously that a trial like Hanratty's was a tactical battle between prosecution and defence rather than a quest to discover everything relating to the murder of Michael Gregsten. Sadly or not, there's a lot to be said for that.

Best regards,
OneRound

[Sherlock Houses]

So how about a few, then?

Graham

Here's a few to be going on with for the moment, the ones I can remember anyhow.....

Lies :

1] She lied about how long she had known Gregsten, stating at the Trial that it was the middle of 1958 when in fact it was the year before.
2] She lied about the number of times they had been to the Dorney Reach cornfield that 1961 summer--'only a couple of times' when in fact they had been there on numerous occasions.
3] She lied to her parents about the nature of her relationship with Gregsten, a married man.
4] She lied about the gunman thumbing a lift.

Altered evidence :

1] The roadworks evidence changed at the Trial from what was said at the Hearing.
2] The change from the front seat [at the Hearing] to the back seat [at the Trial] when she allegedly saw the gunman's face lit up in the headlights of a passing car..
3] The change of eye colour. On August 23rd the eyes were described [on a lunchtime TV news bulletin] as brown by Superintendent Richard Morgan, yet three days later, on August 26th [according to Hawser's whitewash of a report] they had changed to blue.
4] At the Hearing she said that the gunman replied to her and Gregsten that yes, he was able to drive. By the time of the Trial however his driving ability had progressed amazingly. Storie now said the gunman told them that 'he could drive all sorts of cars'.
5] At the Hearing Storie said that when they got to the junction of the A4 the gunman asked where the road led to and they replied that it went to either Maidenhead or Slough and that the gunman added that he didn't want to go to Slough and that he'd had enough of Maidenhead. At the Trial however her evidence was different and that the gunman said that the Bath road [A4] led to either Maidenhead or London and that he didn't fancy going to London.
6] The gunman's watch. At the Hearing, Storie said the gunman kept looking at his watch and repeating that there was plenty of time. Unbelievably, just two short months later, when cross-examined by Sherrard as to whether he had a watch on she said he may have but she couldn't remember. Struth !

Amnesia :

1] She couldn't remember what Michael Clark looked like.
2] When asked about her remark that Alphon resembled the gunman she asked Sherrard "When am I supposed to have saId that ?"
3] The gunman's watch.
4] She couldn't remember saying at the Committal Hearing at Ampthill that "his hair was a medium brown, definitely not dark brown."

Unreliabilty :

1] She said the gunman was immaculately dressed and was aged about 25 to 30. I don't know when the first use of the word 'immaculate' occurred. When Janet Gregsten visited her in hospital however on September 20th she told Janet that the gunman was 'reasonably dressed and in his 30's' and that the car was parked on 'the roadside' when the gunman tapped at the window.
2] She knew her responsibility at the first ID parade on September 24th was not to pick anyone out unless she was sure in her own mind that he was the gunman. The man she picked out, Michael Clark, was heavily built with dark short-cropped hair, about 27 years old and had dark eyes, almost the complete opposite of Hanratty.


No doubt I've missed out a few, if they come to me I'll let you know.

[moste]

Hi SH. I made a start last night, and because of our time difference when reopening my post, you had already posted ,so I deleted .

Your post does the trick however. Good job.

[moste]

Enter in the unreliable list: Storie maintained ‘the gunman had them pull into the Regent garage for petrol at the very busy station by London airport. Yet strangely Acott had a Shell employee ,Harry Hirons of Hendon ,questioned and brought in as a witness from the petrol station at Kingsbury circle, to attend an identity line. Acott commented that he believed Storie to be a very reliable witness, yet ,even though Storie pointed out how she particularly remembered the Regent station because it was her boy friends least favourite fuel , Acott ignored his reliable witness and went with what was most likely a limelight seeking pump attendant!

[Alfie]

Hi Alfie - the flippant answer to your serious and valid question is that Hanratty couldn't have fared any worse.

Personally and more seriously, I do think Sherrard should have taken it to the jury.

Two main reasons.

1. By the moral standards of early 1960s householders (the qualification at that time to be on a jury, I believe), there probably would have been less sympathy then for a married man and the young lady with whom he was having an adulterous affair. Such an affair - together with suggestions from the defence of it involving untruths, if not blatant lies - could also be used to doubt Michael Gregsten and Valerie Storie's integrity and honesty. Whilst that would almost certainly seem appalling and irrelevant to a modern audience, we need to try and assess how matters might have been perceived almost sixty years ago in a Bedfordshire court room.

2. We now know that an attempt had been made to break up their relationship; I'm thinking of the letter to their employer. That could have been introduced at trial to suggest an alernative motive and perhaps get the jury wondering more. Furthermore, the lack of any investigation concerning this aspect could have been used to criticise and cast doubt upon the police investigation as a whole.

Against the above and particularly the polar opposite of 1. is the possibility that Sherrard would have been thought to be ''playing dirty'' and to have totally alienated the jury. To be fair to Sherrard and without the benefit of hindsight, I accept that would have been a risk. However, a more experienced and less gentlemanly defence counsel might have taken the risk and perhaps won.

I think you've suggested previously that a trial like Hanratty's was a tactical battle between prosecution and defence rather than a quest to discover everything relating to the murder of Michael Gregsten. Sadly or not, there's a lot to be said for that.

Best regards,
OneRound

Thanks OneRound, a good post that covers the eventualities I'd say. I'm inclined to think that, on balance, Sherrard ought to have gone for it. Valerie was the lynch pin of the prosecution's case; anything that Sherrard could do to undermine her credibility - and lessen the aura of probity that she seemed to bring to the court - had to work in Hanratty's favour.

[Graham]

Here's a few to be going on with for the moment, the ones I can remember anyhow.....

Lies :

1] She lied about how long she had known Gregsten, stating at the Trial that it was the middle of 1958 when in fact it was the year before.
2] She lied about the number of times they had been to the Dorney Reach cornfield that 1961 summer--'only a couple of times' when in fact they had been there on numerous occasions.
3] She lied to her parents about the nature of her relationship with Gregsten, a married man.
4] She lied about the gunman thumbing a lift.

Altered evidence :

1] The roadworks evidence changed at the Trial from what was said at the Hearing.
2] The change from the front seat [at the Hearing] to the back seat [at the Trial] when she allegedly saw the gunman's face lit up in the headlights of a passing car..
3] The change of eye colour. On August 23rd the eyes were described [on a lunchtime TV news bulletin] as brown by Superintendent Richard Morgan, yet three days later, on August 26th [according to Hawser's whitewash of a report] they had changed to blue.
4] At the Hearing she said that the gunman replied to her and Gregsten that yes, he was able to drive. By the time of the Trial however his driving ability had progressed amazingly. Storie now said the gunman told them that 'he could drive all sorts of cars'.
5] At the Hearing Storie said that when they got to the junction of the A4 the gunman asked where the road led to and they replied that it went to either Maidenhead or Slough and that the gunman added that he didn't want to go to Slough and that he'd had enough of Maidenhead. At the Trial however her evidence was different and that the gunman said that the Bath road [A4] led to either Maidenhead or London and that he didn't fancy going to London.
6] The gunman's watch. At the Hearing, Storie said the gunman kept looking at his watch and repeating that there was plenty of time. Unbelievably, just two short months later, when cross-examined by Sherrard as to whether he had a watch on she said he may have but she couldn't remember. Struth !

Amnesia :

1] She couldn't remember what Michael Clark looked like.
2] When asked about her remark that Alphon resembled the gunman she asked Sherrard "When am I supposed to have saId that ?"
3] The gunman's watch.
4] She couldn't remember saying at the Committal Hearing at Ampthill that "his hair was a medium brown, definitely not dark brown."

Unreliabilty :

1] She said the gunman was immaculately dressed and was aged about 25 to 30. I don't know when the first use of the word 'immaculate' occurred. When Janet Gregsten visited her in hospital however on September 20th she told Janet that the gunman was 'reasonably dressed and in his 30's' and that the car was parked on 'the roadside' when the gunman tapped at the window.
2] She knew her responsibility at the first ID parade on September 24th was not to pick anyone out unless she was sure in her own mind that he was the gunman. The man she picked out, Michael Clark, was heavily built with dark short-cropped hair, about 27 years old and had dark eyes, almost the complete opposite of Hanratty.


No doubt I've missed out a few, if they come to me I'll let you know.

Dear me. I comment as follows:

Lies

1] So what?
2] So what?
3] So what?
4] John Kerr reported that Valerie told him that she and Gregsten 'picked up a man'. I think you may well have to consider that Kerr noted what he thought she said. He did say that he thought she said her name was Mary. Valerie herself never said it was a 'hitch-hiker'; the papers did that, next day or the day after. It was Mr Reay, whom Kerr flagged down, who spoke himself to Valerie, and established her real name, which he then passed on to Kerr.

Altered Evidence

1] Did that, and does that, really matter?
2] I don't recall Valerie saying that the gunman was ever in the front seat.
3] It was a police officer who made the mistake, and IIRC he was filmed doing so and correcting it.
4] Why do you call this a 'lie'?
5] So what?
6] Given the unimaginable trauma and effects of what happened to her, it's surprising and also a true testimony to her resilience that Valerie could remember much at all. However, she stated that because of the paralysis taking most of the shock, she was able to tell her story quite coherently (Foot P 31). So maybe the gunman wore a watch? So maybe the gunman didn't wear a watch? And?

Amnesia

1] Can youremember, for example, what a person you saw fleetingly in a shop yesterday looked like? She saw Clark only briefly. She couldn't pick out Hanratty on this parade because he wasn't there. Alphon was, and she didn't recognise him. When she did eventually see Hanratty on ID parade, she spent quite a long time looking at him.
2] I don't recall Valerie saying that she thought Alphon 'looked like the gunman'. She didn't pick him out on the ID parade, did she?
3] See above.
4] John Kerr said that at the crime-scene that Valerie told him her assailant had 'fairish brown hair', similar, she added, to Kerr's.

Unreliability

1] 'Immaculate' or 'reasonably dressed'? Hair-splitting here. She established that gunman was well-dressed.
I don't know if you ever visited Dorney, but at the time of the crime the entrance to the field was rather wide, and right on the road. I don't recall seeing a grass verge, but if there was one, it was narrow. Valerie said that Gregsten parked the car just inside the field, so yes, it would have been close to the roadside. See the photo in Foot's book.
2] As has been stated ad infinitum on these boards, if Hanratty wasn't on that particular ID parade, she couldn't pick him out, could she? I think it is not impossible that Valerie felt she had to pick someone out, whereas on any ID parade it is permissible to pick no-one out if a face isn't recognised. IMHO, this is one of the (very) few times that Valerie muddied the waters of the investigation, but obviously Clark wasn't the gunman and that was an end to it. Or should have been.

Graham