A6 Rebooted

[caz]

I've said it before...

Is it not double standards for anyone to argue that Hanratty was hanged for Alphon's crimes, when there was never a case for the latter to answer? Where is the evidence that Alphon was ever in the car; ever handled the gun, the hanky or the pom pom hat; or ever entered the room where the cartridge cases were found?

Those who have no doubt in Hanratty's innocence need to come up with an alternative suspect who ticks all the right boxes.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

William Lee was an interesting witness but no more than that. As I understand he only contacted the police regarding the registration number after it had been broadcast on TV. He was unable to find the original piece of paper he had scribbled down the number on. I think he was an honest man but like Valerie Storie, maybe his evidence was not as strong as we like to think.

The pom pom hat introduces a Monty Python element into the crime. Why was it worn, if at all? Was it to hide Hanratty's appalling hair dye? But why do this in darkness? There are other dubious witnesses who can confirm the pom pom hat with the car. And were no follicles retrieved, as you have suggested should have been? No one on this site has ever seen a photo of the intriguing pom pom hat, in either colour or black and white, as far as I know. Yet its existence is acknowledged. Quite perplexing , as is the lack of DNA from the murder car itself. No photos have emerged of that either so far as I am aware.

Unlike the famous handkerchief, it seems the pom pom is immune to DNA. Every time Caz brings up the handkerchief in future, I will feel obliged to mention the pom pom hat. What happened to it?

Perhaps the police made the pom pom hat disappear early on, when they had Alphon in their sights?

Love,

Caz
X

[moste]

Photos of the inside of the car were published in Sticklers book "The long silence" last year. One would not think that a murder took place in it.

Just in passing, it looks like a roll bar has been installed, typical in adapted rally cars.Not a big deal, except its common knowledge that Gregsten loaned the Morris from his Mother/Aunt. Interesting, you wouldn't think the ladies would be on board with that.

[OneRound]

Hi again Fishy,

Valerie Storie's misidentification of Michael Clark was in the September a few weeks after the murder. It followed gun cartridges from the murder weapon being found at a cheap hotel at which both James Hanratty and Peter Alphon had stayed.

Alphon was the number one suspect at this time and it was he and not Hanratty who was on this first parade. Once Valeries Storie failed to pick out Alphon and wrongly identified Clark (a total innocent making up the numbers in the lineout), police attention then moved away from Alphon and focused on Hanratty.

Valerie Storie never suggested her picking out Clark was anything other than an honest mistake and, tbf to her, she was still hospitalised and gravely injured at the time. Nonetheless (and assuming innocence on Alphon's part), an equally honest mistake by Valerie Storie could just as easily have resulted in her picking Alphon. If so, that would almost certainly have seen Alphon charged with murder and ... well, who knows what would also have happened. However, it is just possible that the opportunity for her to assert the guilt of Hanratty may then have gone forever.

Regards,
OneRound

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy - Fair enough although maybe just as well for Michael Clark that you weren't standing by with a noose when Valerie Storie first identified him.

Regards,
OneRound

What were the circumstanses surrounding that identifcation , and how long after that did it continue ?

[FISHY1118]

Any quotes by Valerie Storie , especially the one you allude to from the rag mag. Which she initialised to be releases four months after Hanratty was hanged innocently. All sounds very fishy Fishy.

i think it was in her book as well

[moste]

Rape victim speaks out at last about Hanratty; CRIME: Valerie Storie still convinced that justice was done.


She said yesterday, "I identified the guilty man. I looked in his eyes and he looked in mine. I knew who he was and he knew that I recognised him. I had found the guilty person, " she said.


Good enough for me . Guilty

Any quotes by Valerie Storie , especially the one you allude to from the rag mag. Which she initialised to be releases four months after Hanratty was hanged innocently. All sounds very fishy Fishy.

[OneRound]

Rape victim speaks out at last about Hanratty; CRIME: Valerie Storie still convinced that justice was done.


She said yesterday, "I identified the guilty man. I looked in his eyes and he looked in mine. I knew who he was and he knew that I recognised him. I had found the guilty person, " she said.


Good enough for me . Guilty

Hi Fishy - Fair enough although maybe just as well for Michael Clark that you weren't standing by with a noose when Valerie Storie first identified him.

Regards,
OneRound

[FISHY1118]

Rape victim speaks out at last about Hanratty; CRIME: Valerie Storie still convinced that justice was done.


She said yesterday, "I identified the guilty man. I looked in his eyes and he looked in mine. I knew who he was and he knew that I recognised him. I had found the guilty person, " she said.


Good enough for me . Guilty

[moste]

No, I have had no further news Moste about Roger Matthews. It is my understanding that several years ago Roger was planning to write an autobiography in which he was intending to reveal some of the crucial findings his investigative team had uncovered in their searching inquiry into the A6 Murder case which led them to their firm belief that James Hanratty was totally innocent of the murder of Michael Gregsten. Being the conscientious and honest policeman he was, he was in effect about to 'rock the police boat', It seems that much external pressure was applied to him from within the police force, not to go ahead with his book if he wanted to safeguard his pension rights. Consequently Roger found himself placed in a very unenviable prediament. The autobiography never materialised.

Well ,Sad, but thanks for this anyway.

[Sherlock Houses]

Anything new here SH ?

No, I have had no further news Moste about Roger Matthews. It is my understanding that several years ago Roger was planning to write an autobiography in which he was intending to reveal some of the crucial findings his investigative team had uncovered in their searching inquiry into the A6 Murder case which led them to their firm belief that James Hanratty was totally innocent of the murder of Michael Gregsten. Being the conscientious and honest policeman he was, he was in effect about to 'rock the police boat', It seems that much external pressure was applied to him from within the police force, not to go ahead with his book if he wanted to safeguard his pension rights. Consequently Roger found himself placed in a very unenviable prediament. The autobiography never materialised.

[gallicrow]

It was pretty obvious who the bloodstains belonged to so there was no need to present swabs from this at the trial to show that Gregsten had been murdered in the car.
The police would have been after semen, hair or fibres from clothes left by the rapist/murderer. No such evidence was presented at the trial, so either there wasn't any, or there was and it didn't match Hanratty, and so was discarded.

[ansonman]

if you zoom into the photo you can see the extent of bloodstains on the floor of the passenger seat and to the back of the passenger seat and floor beneath. This was hardly a professional post crime valet of the interior and so one would have assumed that there must have been DNA available and yet none appears to have been found.

[ansonman]

Photos of the inside of the car were published in Sticklers book "The long silence" last year. One would not think that a murder took place in it.

[cobalt]

William Lee was an interesting witness but no more than that. As I understand he only contacted the police regarding the registration number after it had been broadcast on TV. He was unable to find the original piece of paper he had scribbled down the number on. I think he was an honest man but like Valerie Storie, maybe his evidence was not as strong as we like to think.

The pom pom hat introduces a Monty Python element into the crime. Why was it worn, if at all? Was it to hide Hanratty's appalling hair dye? But why do this in darkness? There are other dubious witnesses who can confirm the pom pom hat with the car. And were no follicles retrieved, as you have suggested should have been? No one on this site has ever seen a photo of the intriguing pom pom hat, in either colour or black and white, as far as I know. Yet its existence is acknowledged. Quite perplexing , as is the lack of DNA from the murder car itself. No photos have emerged of that either so far as I am aware.

Unlike the famous handkerchief, it seems the pom pom is immune to DNA. Every time Caz brings up the handkerchief in future, I will feel obliged to mention the pom pom hat. What happened to it?