A6 Rebooted

[Graham]

PS: As far as honesty goes, Sherrard proved himself an honest man when he expressed his relief that the wrong man wasn't hanged.

[Sherlock Houses]

Dearie, dearie me, what a totally predictable response to my 16 very valid points [and also Moste's, re. the Regent garage] regarding the inconsistency and unreliability of Storie's evidence. That's right combat these points with a series of "so whats" or "does it really matters".
Yes, it most certainly does matter. For Heaven's sake stop being a Valerie Storie apologist, her unreliable evidence sent an innocent man to the gallows.

[Sherlock Houses]

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?

Ignoring, for the time being, the 'so whats' and 'does it matters' and concentrating on points 2 and 3...

Re. point 2, just where in my original post did I say that the gunman was in the front seat ??

Re. point 3, so what you are basically saying is that a very experienced police officer [Supt Morgan] couldn't read, on camera, the notes he had before him ?? When it was of the utmost importance that an accurate description of the gunman be issued to all the viewers watching his midday bulletin, that Wednesday, on TV ?? Do you have any evidence for this ?

[cobalt]

I can see some goalposts being moved on this site. SH was challenged to come up with some examples of Valerie Storie’s evidence being false or misleading, which he managed to do without much difficulty. Now that he has done so, the significance of these mistruths or half truths is being examined; but that was never part of the ‘remit’ offered to him in the first place. He was asked to identify examples of false or misleading evidence and he has done so. His overriding point, I think, was to remind everyone that the evidence provided by the most important prosecution witness was open to question.

The evidence presented in respect of what the attacker allegedly said is not easy to digest. He wants to convince the victims that he is ‘a desperate man’ and has done ‘CT’; in fact he ‘has done the lot.’ The last expression is still widely used colloquially, and I can see that it might bolster his case for being taken as serious threat. However the ‘CT’ expression would be unknown outside of the criminal fraternity and I assume meaningless to either Gregsten or Valerie Storie. Maybe the attacker was caught up in his criminal argot but it is a strange expression to use unless to a fellow criminal or policeman. Then there is the question of why he should feel it necessary to blurt out his criminal CV in any case since he was, it is widely assumed, intending to commit some kind of robbery then vanish, hoping to escape detection. Why give the police a sporting chance?

Valerie Storie’s identification sits at the heart of his conviction of course and cannot be supported by the theory she only failed to pick out Hanratty on the first parade because he was not there. Had she picked out someone very similar to him then perhaps this line of argument might have some mileage; it appears the man she mistakenly identified was not like James Hanratty. And what if- I know it is conjecture- Hanratty’s alibi at Rhyl had been confirmed and Ms. Storie had subsequently picked out the man she believed guilty at a third ID parade: would we then be told that she only failed on two previous occasions because the guilty man was not present?

[Graham]

For Heaven's sake stop being a Valerie Storie apologist, her unreliable evidence sent an innocent man to the gallows

And I could say - and do - in response: for Heaven's sake stop being a James Hanratty apologist. He was guilty. He did it. He lied - twice - when under oath. He was unable to prove either of his alibis. His defence counsel eventually agreed with the verdict. If you believe that he was innocent, please put your money where your mouth is and tell us, in very precise terms, why you think that, and then tell us just who you think did murder Michael Gregsten and rape and paralyse Valerie Storie for life. Not difficult, is it? Not difficult at all if you are in possession of this information. But totally impossible if you are not; and I do not for one moment believe that you are in possession of any hard information which will prove Hanratty's innocence of the A6 Crime.

For years, I and other posters to this Forum have asked - nay, begged - JH's supporters to at least suggest who was the A6 criminal if he wasn't. Result: nowt. Nowt because you can't. Because Hanratty was guilty as charged and you are unable to accept that as fact.

SH, I believe from what you've posted previously that you are close to the Hanratty family. I can fully understand your empathy with them, and support for them, even after 58 years have passed. But surely there must come a time when the inevitable must, sadly, be faced: Jim Did It. There has been no new evidence to support his innocence. There have been two appeals, both unsuccessful. There was talk in 2010/11 of a third appeal, which never happened. It never happened because no new evidence could be adduced to convince the Court of Appeal that grounds for a new appeal existed - if it ever got that far, that is. If you or anyone else who believes in Hanratty's existence possess new evidence that would support his innocence, then for God's sake let's hear it! If there is none, then it seems to me increasingly pointless that this Forum should continue. All the arguments since the year dot have come to nothing; all the arguments have been circular. It goes on and on. You cannot convince me of Hanratty's innocence; I cannot convince you of his guilt. That is the long and short of it.

Graham

[Spitfire]

There was talk in 2010/11 of a third appeal, which never happened. It never happened because no new evidence could be adduced to convince the Court of Appeal that grounds for a new appeal existed - if it ever got that far, that is.

It is true that the Hanratty supporters put forward the notion that there would be yet another appeal but none has yet materialised. It should be pointed out that the Hanrattyites, as I like to call them, obtained the next best thing to a further appeal and consequential acquittal, I refer to the extensive review of the case conducted by the esteemed and highly rated author, Norma Buddle, and her book published under the title "The A6 Murder: Was Hanratty Innocent?". The answer, I believe, was that he was indeed innocent of the charge for which he was required to forfeit his life.The judgement of Ms Buddle must trump anything uttered by their lordships in the Court of Appeal.

As I have said on previous occasions, this is definitely a case of ABH.

[cobalt]

The issue of whether Hanratty’s defence counsel believed him guilty came up some time ago on this forum and from what I remember this was attributed to a spoken remark made at a small legal gathering. No first hand oral or written evidence was produced to support this claim so far as I can recall. Given Mr. Sherrard’s commitment to the Hanratty family it is very unlikely he would ever have voiced such an opinion even if he had held it.

It is not the duty of those who believe Hanratty was wrongly convicted to provide another suspect any more than it has been in previous controversial cases. Sometimes, as in the case of the Birmingham Six and Stefan Kiszko, other culprits have been identified and even convicted after the original verdicts were quashed or found unsafe. However the chances of any other culprit being pursued by the authorities while a man is still imprisoned for a crime are pretty much non-existent. Since James Hanratty was found guilty by a court of law in 1962 and given that his punishment was execution there is no desire on the part of the UK political or legal system to admit the possibility of a mistake.

I would encourage those who believe that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred in the A6 Case to resist any calls to go off on wild goose chases. The existing evidence, or perhaps more pertinently the alarming gaps in some of the evidence, is material enough to argue from.

[moste]

¿[QUOTE=Graham;n713494]

And I could say - and do - in response: for Heaven's sake stop being a James Hanratty apologist. He was guilty. He did it. He lied - twice - when under oath. He was unable to prove either of his alibis. His defence counsel eventually agreed with the verdict. If you believe that he was innocent, please put your money where your mouth is and tell us, in very precise terms, why you think that, and then tell us just who you think did murder Michael Gregsten and rape and paralyse Valerie Storie for life. Not difficult, is it? Not difficult at all if you are in possession of this information. But totally impossible if you are not; and I do not for one moment believe that you are in possession of any hard information which will prove Hanratty's innocence of the A6 Crime.
ts
For years, I and other posters to this Forum have asked - nay, begged - JH's supporters to at least suggest who was the A6 criminal if he wasn't. Result: nowt. Nowt because you can't. Because Hanratty was guilty as charged and you are unable to accept that as fact.

SH, I believe from what you've posted previously that you are close to the Hanratty family. I can fully understand your empathy with them, and support for them, even after 58 years have passed. But surely there must come a time when the inevitable must, sadly, be faced: Jim Did It. There has been no new evidence to support his innocence. There have been two appeals, both unsuccessful. There was talk in 2010/11 of a third appeal, which never happened. It never happened because no new evidence could be adduced to convince the Court of Appeal that grounds for a new appeal existed - if it ever got that far, that is. If you or anyone else who believes in Hanratty's existence possess new evidence that would support his innocence, then for God's sake let's hear it! If there is none, then it seems to me increasingly pointless that this Forum should continue. All the arguments since the year dot have come to nothing; all the arguments have been circular. It goes on and on. You cannot convince me of Hanratty's innocence; I cannot convince you of his guilt. That is the long and short of it.


Graham. I believe , in your heart of hearts that you think Hanratty was innocent ! You have admitted as much in past years (since we are quoting from past forum memories) The huge DNA Whitewash was the,’ ‘make your mind up time ‘’ .You chose to accept the outcome of that
farcical malarkey, because you couldn’t bring yourself to accept that it constituted the final jigsaw pieces ,that the home offices slotted together ,to put the whole damn James Hanratty business to bed once and for all.
However I would love for you to continue playing the devils advocate, we’ will keep building possible scenarios ,you guys keep knocking em down. P.s. just for the record . pre- DNA. What was your main reason for believing in Hanrattys innocence?

[Graham]

Oh well, the response is much as I expected...again. Nothing much changes here. It goes round and round and round, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
At least the hysteria amongst Hanrattyistas of past years has subsided and the debate is much quieter. However, I haven't changed my views with regard to JH's guilt. I once said that I thought him 99% guilty, as I do like to live a little room for movement, as it were. And that's how it is. New evidence and new evidence only can afford any prospect of an alteration in my views; and there is none. I doubt if there ever will be.

Moste is right - very early on I did feel that JH had been wrongly convicted, but that was mainly because in my relative starry-eyed youth I was a big admirer of Paul Foot, writing in Private Eye. He had done wonders in overturning other guilty verdicts, and he put in many hours of hard graft in the A6 Case. However, after a long gap of some years, I came back and re-read his book, and my opinion altered. I didn't like the way he effectively dismissed Valerie Storey as dishonest, and I didn't care much for his assumption, which he later modified, that Janet Gregsten was behind the whole thing. He also seemed satisfied that Alphon was the A6 killer, again an assumption he modified much later. And also he had a little too much left-wing polemic for my liking - that never bothered me when I was much younger, but it does now. But there you go - time and life move on.

Carry on, chaps!

Graham

[moste]

Oh well, the response is much as I expected...again. Nothing much changes here. It goes round and round and round, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
At least the hysteria amongst Hanrattyistas of past years has subsided and the debate is much quieter. However, I haven't changed my views with regard to JH's guilt. I once said that I thought him 99% guilty, as I do like to live a little room for movement, as it were. And that's how it is. New evidence and new evidence only can afford any prospect of an alteration in my views; and there is none. I doubt if there ever will be.

Moste is right - very early on I did feel that JH had been wrongly convicted, but that was mainly because in my relative starry-eyed youth I was a big admirer of Paul Foot, writing in Private Eye. He had done wonders in overturning other guilty verdicts, and he put in many hours of hard graft in the A6 Case. However, after a long gap of some years, I came back and re-read his book, and my opinion altered. I didn't like the way he effectively dismissed Valerie Storey as dishonest, and I didn't care much for his assumption, which he later modified, that Janet Gregsten was behind the whole thing. He also seemed satisfied that Alphon was the A6 killer, again an assumption he modified much later. And also he had a little too much left-wing polemic for my liking - that never bothered me when I was much younger, but it does now. But there you go - time and life move on.

Carry on, chaps!

Graham

Hi Graham,

To quote Hercule Poirot, when questioning Col. Abuthnot in ‘’Murder on the Orient Express’’

”” That’s certainly an answer” “! Have a nice evening .

[Sherlock Houses]

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!

I take it that you're referring to Elsie and Stanley Cobb and their neighbour Frederick Newell here, Moste. The plod were incredibly negligent and remiss in not following up these important witnesses's statements of August 30th 1961. The Cobbs and Newell had been struck by the resemblance of the Valerie Storie compiled identikit photo, shown on TV the night before and in that morning's newspapers, to the stranger they witnessed outside their home around 2.30 pm on August 22nd. It would appear that these three potentially vital witnesses were more than a little puzzled as to why no police had approached them over the course of the previous week to check whether they had seen any suspicious strangers in the area on that fateful Tuesday. So concerned were they about the matter that they themselves took the positive step of contacting the police on Wednesday August 30th. In effect it was they who were doing the police's work. So much for unacceptable police incompetence.

All these three witnesses described the stranger's hair as being either dark [Elsie Cobb], dark brown or black [Stanley Cobb], or very dark [Frederick Newell]. Newell and Elsie Cobb estimated his age as between 25 and 30 and also commented on his dark or very dark eyes. Newell and Stanley Cobb described his complexion as very pale[Cobb] or very sallow [Newell]. Quite unusual I'd say for a young man during the height of summer. Maybe someone who liked to spend much of his time indoors such as in a library, cinema or pub. It's amazing how similar their descriptions of this stranger match Valerie Storie's description of the gunman, especially when you consider Storie's original description of the gunman's hair..."straight, well-greased, dark brown, brushed straight back, slightly RECEDING AT TEMPLES" " with Stanley Cobb's description.... "dark brown or black, brushed back and inclined to RECEDE AT THE TEMPLES".I wonder who that could possibly put you in mind of ?



The Cobbs's dog was barking at the stranger who was carrying a rolled up white carrier bag. I wonder what could have been in that bag ? Bearing all the above in mind I believe that there is a strong possibility that this stranger to the Dorney area on the afternoon of August 22nd 1961 could well have been the A6 gunman

[Sherlock Houses]

But, Grandmother, what big and staring [and hypnotic] eyes you have....

[cobalt]

It’s hard to argue against Graham’'s logic that unless new evidence were to turn up, then opinion in the A6 Case is unlikely to move. New evidence is highly unlikely for a number of reasons. First of all the case is now almost 60 years old so any material witness as yet undiscovered will have likely passed on. Secondly, evidence is best pursued by the police themselves, not well meaning activists like the A6 Committee, and since the case is officially closed then we can assume the police are making absolutely no enquiries whatsoever. Thirdly, even if some potential nugget of information fell into their laps, then the police would have zero motivation to follow it up.

I’ll give an example of the problem from today’'s Scottish media concerning a murder case which attracted national attention in 2005. The person convicted of killing his girlfriend was a 15 year old boy portrayed in the tabloids as a drug-addled, sex mad Goth. Three years ago a workman, unconnected to either the convicted youth’s or victim’s family, found a six inch knife which had been deliberately hidden inside the stonework of a traditional dyke style wall. Since this was around 300 yards from the scene of the murder ten years earlier he carefully lifted it with pliers, placed it in a plastic bag and took it to the police.

Since then we have no idea what has been done with it. The knife may be a red herring of course, placed there for reasons totally unconnected to the crime. Then again it may be the actual murder weapon- the girl was stabbed repeatedly- but unable to provide any forensic evidence due to the passing of time. Most likely however, it has simply been put away and forgotten about since a person is already serving a sentence for the crime and the police- who were criticised heavily for their investigation by legal officials- have no desire to open a potential Pandora'’s box.

[moste]

Yes S H. This pretty much outlines one of a number of issues I have with the pursuit of Hanratty
It’s almost as if ,all of a sudden, Acott and the chief investigating officers stopped in their tracks! Because Alphon was not picked out on the identity parade ,although it seemed they had their man, they dropped him like a brick. Why! Basically they pretty much had to say to Alphon after the failed I D , ‘ ok, your free to go ‘ but why loose all interest in him.Its almost as though he had been found not guilty by a jury ,and now ,could gloat, and blow raspberries at the law with impunity. Very strange!

[moste]

Hey there Cobalt. I believe the best equipped people to pursue the evidence Is a very concerned and clever investigative journalist. Didn’t Bob Woffinden say to Michael Hanratty at a meeting they were at ‘ ‘I’’m going to prove your brothers innocence’,’or something of that nature. I hear what your saying about Graham’s logic, and the 60 years time gone, but look at the Wallis case from 30 years prior , and even JTR. When interested parties read as much information as possible, and sift through the large amounts of anomaly’s in a case like the A6, many of us are left saying ‘ wait a minute, there is something very seriously wrong here’. Graham’s logic doesn’t provide for this , and those who choose may argue as they do, the jury found him guilty , all of the evidence points to that , and that’s all there is to it. Some of those people have spent the best part of 12 years trying to convince the likes of me that we are wasting our time !
But the truth is and I’m sure you agree, as far as the A6 case is concerned , there is most certainly something seriously wrong with the original investigation and conviction .I believe the establishment and the police know this, Chief Super. Roger Mathews certainly knew it ,Foot ,and Woffinden felt very strongly that this was so , and I haven’t given up on something emerging that will completely exonerate James Hanratty.