A6 Rebooted

[moste]

Balmerism and Corruption , are synonymous . Balmer was wielding the power in his hands, to get results on cases ,by hook or by crook,and didn’t give a Tinkers cuss, who was sent down innocently, or incredibly even hanged. As long as he was seen to get his man. I would wager he was giving Acott the benefit of his advice on how to deal with scoundrel Hanratty, who had the audacity to trespass on Balmers sacred Liverpool ground,

[Pcdunn]

Good posts both , Cobalt , I now have a hankering for Dickens’ Pickwicks adventures in particular. I haven’t read that one in 30 years. I do seem to recall a section where Dickens goes off on a digression, where he explains in depth his perception of the workings of a murderers mind. Quite a fascinating chapter if I recall.

19th century novelists of the "dear reader" school would tend to do that, particularly if the digression was on a topic in which they had a personal interest.
I recall being puzzled by the long passages in "Les Miserables" about the sewers of Paris and their deficiencies, until I learned later that water quality was a pet interest of Victor Hugo's.

[moste]

19th century novelists of the "dear reader" school would tend to do that, particularly if the digression was on a topic in which they had a personal interest.
I recall being puzzled by the long passages in "Les Miserables" about the sewers of Paris and their deficiencies, until I learned later that water quality was a pet interest of Victor Hugo's.

Right you are.

[Derrick]

It's all gone quiet again hasn't it?

Can anybody point me to incontrovertible proof that James Hanratty was the A6 murderer beyond any doubt whatsoever.

Yes, maybe we have a feeling or perhaps a gut instinct or maybe by adding up circumstantial evidence which leads us to believe that he is indeed guilty but just believing isn't really good enough to hang a noose around somebody's neck and then open the trap-door is it?

Surely we need to KNOW beyond ANY DOUBT that someone is TRULY guilty of a crime to then pass sentence. No?

Delboy

[djw]

Hello, I notice a new book about this case has been released called The Long Silence: The Story of Hanratty and the A6 murder by Valerie Storie, the Woman who Lived to Tell the Tale written by Paul Stickler.
A Freedom of Information request has also been submitted requesting the release of the Matthews report into the case here https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...coming-1590935

Finally, I have been trying to get hold of the works on the case by Norma Buddle, can anyone help me out?

[cobalt]

To answer Derrick’s point, I don’t think that absolute mathematical proof is often available in a murder case. ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt’ means that the jury are satisfied the prosecution has made the case convincingly and that they can be confident in their verdict. But that is not the same as 100% certainty. Nor should their verdict be reached on the balance of probability drawn from what they consider the superior narrative offered up to them: ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ requires a higher level of proof than that.

Was the A6 Case proved beyond a reasonable doubt? Valerie Storie was surely the key witness for the prosecution and the only person who ever saw James Hanratty in Taplow or carrying a gun for that matter. The jury were prepared, it seems, to accept her testimony as being truthful (which I’m sure it was) and accurate (which I’m not so sure about.) Having done that, it was a small step to believe that Hanratty was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Which brings us back to Sherrard. It was crucial to Hanratty’s defence that the testimony given by Valerie Storie was cast in doubt before the jury. She had but a fleeting glimpse of her attacker and had picked out another person on an ID parade, so there was enough ammunition to work with. For whatever reasons this did not happen. Sherrard was not able to sow enough doubt about Valerie Storie’s ID evidence in the minds of the jurors

[caz]

To be fair, cobalt, we don't know that Valerie would still have picked out the wrong person on that first ID parade if Hanratty had been there.

Also, if the jury considered it a matter of whether to accept Valerie's testimony or one of Hanratty's two alibis, I can see how they reached a verdict of guilty beyond reasonable [if not all possible] doubt. IF the jury got it wrong - a big IF in hindsight, given the supporting DNA evidence - then I feel Hanratty's lies were as much, if not more to blame than Valerie's honestly held beliefs about the man who raped and shot her.

I would not have expected the DNA evidence - from the knicker fragment and also the hankie found with the murder weapon - to support Valerie's account if she had picked out Hanratty in error, and he had no knowledge or involvement whatsoever. His family clearly expected the DNA evidence to endorse their belief in his innocence, but it had the opposite effect.

As I've said on many an occasion, the hankie does it for me every time. I have seen no other reasonable or credible explanation for the DNA match to Hanratty.

Love,

Caz
X

[cobalt]

The first ID parade was carried out fairly and the police suspect, Alphon, was not identified. Had the individuals been asked to speak we have no idea if Alphon, depending on what accent he favoured at the time, would have been identified by Valerie Storie or not. Maybe he would and none of us would be here. The speaking element was introduced at the second ID parade which makes it different from the first, and it has been reported that Hanratty’s clumsy efforts at dyeing his hair made that parade less than satisfactory.

There is a problem inherent in all ID parades and which may have led to what happened. The victim knows for sure that the police have someone ‘in the frame’ otherwise there would be no need to have an ID parade at all. So there is pressure on the victim to pick out the likely lad that the police have spent a great deal of time putting on that parade. This is not the same as being asked to identify a suspect from a book of police photos, which the victim realises may not contain the guilty party. An ID parade is only organised when the police have a certain confidence that they actually have the specific culprit in the line up and that could explain the two identifications made by Valerie Storie. She felt duty bound to finger someone.

The handkerchief I have never seen in as clear a light as Caz does. Police basements generally lose materials in the years after a murder case has been judged, which is only natural, but occasionally some artefact is discovered. What is remarkable is that these discovered artefacts- whether material evidence or lost statements- inevitably bolster the case as required politically at the time. The Stephen Lawrence case which caused tremendous embarrassment for the police saw a breakthrough when some evidence of fibre transfer was discovered on garments in a black bin bag down in the inevitable police basement. So two of the gang who attacked Lawrence were jailed. On the other hand the names of the Birmingham bombers from 1974 are widely known and one has effectively confessed, available on youtube. Yet given the delicacy of Northern Ireland’s politics it is fortunate that no forensic material has been discovered in the basement to establish a case that the UK government basically wants to draw a line under. The basement can reveal or conceal as required.

The A6 Case retains a political element in respect of capital punishment and the credibility of the UK legal process including the appeals procedure. From memory I think the handkerchief disappeared for a few years and then was found in a police basement. Was it actually Hanratty’s? Probably, but the police obtained quite a few articles of his clothing at the time. Was it even the same handkerchief that the presumed murderer carelessly left while depositing the gun? I am sure it was a handkerchief and I have no doubt DNA from James Hanratty was detected on it. That’s as far as I can go with the handkerchief.

So does that make me an advocate of corruption? I think it does, but I have distinguished previously between the police investigation and the legal system itself. The A6 investigation may have been poor, but I don’t believe it was corrupt. Vulnerable witnesses were no doubt threatened and badgered into tailoring statements but that is part and parcel of any high profile case. The police believed they had their man and maybe they did: I can’t prove otherwise. Any corruption that occurred came after the verdict when the legal system, under political pressure, fought might and main to draw a line under a case that has never really gone away. A few artefacts have emerged from the police basement and there might even be some more to follow, all damning to James Hanratty, but the case will not lie down, not even when William Ewer’s protected statements are revealed around 2053.

[caz]

The first ID parade was carried out fairly and the police suspect, Alphon, was not identified. Had the individuals been asked to speak we have no idea if Alphon, depending on what accent he favoured at the time, would have been identified by Valerie Storie or not. Maybe he would and none of us would be here.

And if Hanratty had not been identified by Valerie at the second ID parade, the police would quite rightly have had to let him go, just as they had to let Alphon go after the first parade.

The double standard here always troubles me. The suggestion seems to be that if only Valerie had identified Alphon, by speech if necessary, all would have been well, and if he'd hanged as a result, good riddance to bad rubbish. The smell of poor policing hanging over the investigation would somehow never have existed with Alphon firmly in the frame and friendless, despite the same lack of any forensic evidence putting him in the car, and no evidence ever connecting him to the crime itself.

Alphon never got the chance to defend himself in court, but he doesn't apparently deserve the presumption of innocence that Hanratty had and lost.

Love,

Caz
X

[cobalt]

It’s a reasonable point made by Caz: that in our haste to exculpate James Hanratty there is a danger that we end up throwing Peter Alphon under the very same bus! The dodgy Vienna Hotel testimony by Nudds was as damning to Alphon in one version as it was to Hanratty in another. We can’t have it both ways which is why I have tended to ignore Nudds’ testimony, for example, as utterly useless. Likewise the ID evidence of Mrs. Lanz placing Alphon as an occasional customer in the hotel where the victims had been drinking that night (which she claimed was given to the police soon after the murder) cannot carry more weight than the disputed ID of Valerie Storie.

The treatment of Alphon by the police seems to support my point about a wish to close the case down. The police may have lost interest in him after his ID parade but he subsequently became an absolute nuisance to them and others. There was a serious attack on a woman in her home. There was an assault on Mrs. Hanratty. There were threatening phone calls, some recorded on tape. And of course his performance in Paris where he casually admitted guilt to the A6 murder and attempted murder. All these actions had witnesses to support legal action against Alphon but none was forthcoming so far as I am aware. You might have thought it was in the police and public interest to put a stop to his various antics but the authorities seem to have been more concerned by the prospect of a trial which would have offered Alphon a platform to make his claims.

[gallicrow]

Paul Stickler, the author of the new book about the case, is giving an online talk on the 15th September:
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/the-a...s-167271125439

I've signed up to that and also bought the kindle version of the book. I haven't finished it yet, but haven't found any new revelations so far. It is, needless to say, very much from the "Hanratty did it" point of view. Which is fine by me!

[ansonman]

Paul Stickler, the author of the new book about the case, is giving an online talk on the 15th September:
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/the-a...s-167271125439

I've signed up to that and also bought the kindle version of the book. I haven't finished it yet, but haven't found any new revelations so far. It is, needless to say, very much from the "Hanratty did it" point of view. Which is fine by me!

It's a bit more than that:

"The Long Silence is, in essence, Valerie’s posthumous autobiography"

Which is why I would be reading it.

Ansonman

[Spitfire]

I spent a pleasant few hours in the garden reading Paul Stickler's book The Long Silence. The book was authorised by Valerie Storie's estate and is written by an ex-bobby, so I am sure the tone and contents will come as no surprise.

It is not entirely free of error despite the author taking to task those who in the past have made similar errors of spelling of names etc. For example, Carole France becomes "Carol France"; Meike Dalal was a Swedish national (she was German-born and naturalised British) and the date of the murder is wrong in this passage at p258

Of course Val and Mike were abducted on the evening of 22 August and they were both shot in the early hours of 23 August 1961.

It is admitted that Val and Mike had had sex in the Moggie Minor on the Sunday immediately before the adduction but had not done so on the evening of 22 August. The much-debated thorny question as to how the mystery blood group AB DNA material was detected on the fragment of the knickers she was wearing on the 22 August is not otherwise addressed.

It is alleged that Hanratty's dad had on two occasions tried to knobble witnesses. This must have been discussed in other books but without much prominence.



and the note at note 6



The book contains photographs many of which we have seen before, however courtesy of Bedfordshire cops there are photos of the infamous bedroom/bathroom at Indledene and of Room 24 of the Vienna. There are also photos of the postcard sent by Jimmy from Ireland.



The attic room at Ingledene. This photo must have been available to Woffinden but did not find its way into his work on the A6 Murder. The photo clearly demonstrates that the room described (rear room, curtains, sink etc) by Hanratty was nothing like the attic room.

[OneRound]

...

It is admitted that Val and Mike had had sex in the Moggie Minor on the Sunday immediately before the adduction but had not done so on the evening of 22 August. The much-debated thorny question as to how the mystery blood group AB DNA material was detected on the fragment of the knickers she was wearing on the 22 August is not otherwise addressed.

...

Hi Spitfire,

Thorny indeed.

The Sunday concerned was the 20th. Thus, for the mystery DNA material to be attributable to Gregsten as the Court of Appeal was (too) willing to presume and not a consquence of contamination or Valerie Storie being raped by someone other than Hanratty, she must have been wearing three day old (or more) unwashed knickers.

That's right, isn't it? If so, I struggle with it.

Best regards,
OneRound

[NickB]

I have ordered a hard copy of the book, which reminds me of a paragraph in Valerie's 2002 Daily Mail interview:

"She even said she might return to the 'copious notes' and piles of paper that have accumulated over the years and write her own book about her nightmare."

The non-knicker evidence is often dismissed as circumstantial, but when you put it together (cartridge cases, handkerchief, calling himself Jim etc.) it means that either Hanratty did it or he was framed. Yet the books that claim he didn't do it hardly touch on the reason why, and mechanisms for how, he was framed.

---