A6 Rebooted

[Spitfire]

According to the new book by Paul Stickler (page 125) the parade took 11 minutes, a detail recorded by Inspector Ballinger who completed the necessary form. Although Sherrard put to Valerie that she took 20 minutes, she refuted this by saying she did not think it took that long. The length the second parade took was not conclusively resolved at the trial. Whether it be 11 or 20 minutes, it did not amount to instantaneous recognition. How long should it take to spot a carrot in a bunch of bananas?

[ansonman]

Quite.

I have Stickler's book but I haven't read it yet. Some very interesting photographs which I haven't seen before.

The 20 minutes was taken from Woffinden. Foot says she looked up and down the line for some ten minutes before asking them to say the sentence. She looked at them again and finally spoke. Be it 11 or 20 it's still rather a long time.

[ansonman]

It's interesting that at the first ID parade the men in the line up were not asked to say anything. I wonder if it would have made any difference if they had? Presumably, having picked out the wrong man, she was advised to have the men speak at the second ID.

This is an extract from Foot:

"As soon as she discovered from Acott that the man she had picked out was not the man he was seeking, Miss Storie broke down almost uncontrollably, shouting "I've made a mistake! I've made a mistake!" (Daily Telegraph, September 25th, 1961.) Exactly what sort of a mistake she thought she had made was clarified later - by Miss Storie herself at the trial:

Q. You now know, do you not, that there was a man on that parade called Peter Alphon?
A. I know now.
Q. And when it appeared that you had identified some other person on that parade did you not afterwards say that there was a fair resemblance between Alphon and the man who attacked you?
A. When am I supposed to have said that?
Q. Some time after that parade?
A. Some time afterwards, yes.
Q. Can you tell us to whom you made this observation?
A. In the first instance, I believe it was a doctor at Stoke Mandeville hospital.
Q. And later?
A. I am not sure whether it was Superintendent Acott or not.
Q. May it have been Superintendent Acott?
A. It may have been, but I do not remember.

At any rate, soon after the parade, Valerie Storie said that the man she picked out looked like the newspaper photographs of Peter Alphon, which appeared in the press after his release".

[NickB]

The length the second parade took was not conclusively resolved at the trial.

Swanwick got the last word 'correcting' it to 11 minutes in his summing up. I suppose Kleinman could have objected if he felt strongly about it being 20 minutes.

What I find difficult to understand in Stickler is how he thinks Acott was passive in taking Nudds second statement. The 8 hours suggests it took a lot of hammering out. Although Woffinden believes Nudds 2, it seems that he is more concerned than Stickler about the dodgy activity of the police allowing Nudds to confer with Snell before interviewing her and Acott's "We got him!" visit to Valerie.

[Spitfire]

I have re-read Valerie's articles published in 1962 and reproduced in their entirety in the thread on this forum under the title "Valerie Storie's 3 part story as published in 'Today' magazine, June 1962" in which on two occasions she stated that she took 20 minutes, even going so far as to say that 20 minutes was the maximum allowed. From Stickler's book it seems that Valerie regarded these articles as a "betrayal" in that words had been put into her mouth by whoever had ghostwritten the articles. Approach anything you read in the press with caution and look for independent verification.

[ansonman]

I'm not sure why she should regard the articles as a betrayal. Presumably she was payed for them and I would have thought that the publisher would have shown her the drafts before publication, so that she could ok them. They were published at weekly intervals and so it's not as though they grabbed a story and ran it without her consent.

[Spitfire]

I'm not sure why she should regard the articles as a betrayal. Presumably she was payed for them and I would have thought that the publisher would have shown her the drafts before publication, so that she could ok them. They were published at weekly intervals and so it's not as though they grabbed a story and ran it without her consent.

According to Stickler, she got £300. I doubt whether she would have had the foresight to retain any editorial control.

[NickB]

One thing in the Today article that might have annoyed her was the inference that her parents knew about the affair, or at least this is how I interpret the significance of them finding out he was married.

There are many times in the Stickler book when he explains what happened for the first time - like when Hanratty first came up with the Rhyl alibi. Several of the things we have pondered about on this forum are revealed.

However I think the lack of detail sometimes borders on being misleading. For example, at Alphon's press conference in the Hotel du Louvre a question is included which was actually in the ITN interview afterwards when he was lolling on his bed in another hotel.

I can see how Stickler would want to keep the narrative flowing for the casual reader rather than satisfy A6 nerds like me, but he could have pleased both types of readership by expanding the 'Notes' section. Talking of which, I don't know why he has sometimes used people's initials rather than their full names. For Epilogue Note 5 he says this is to protect a prisoner's name, but the passage appears to be a police interview with Hanratty rather than something one of his fellow prisoners said.

Also I would like to know when the police took possession of the Irish postcard to Mrs Hanratty; in response to the burglary enquiries or not until Acott's visit.

[moste]

Quite.

I have Stickler's book but I haven't read it yet. Some very interesting photographs which I haven't seen before.

The 20 minutes was taken from Woffinden. Foot says she looked up and down the line for some ten minutes before asking them to say the sentence. She looked at them again and finally spoke. Be it 11 or 20 it's still rather a long time.

Hey Ansonman. I wondered if you had read the Stickler book yet? I have 4 books on the A6 case and wondered if this latest effort was worth the money or trouble. From what Nick is saying it sounds like the author has access to facts we have not been party to. Could this guy be an ex cop, maybe it’s worthwhile if only for the photographs. What do you think?

[ansonman]

Hi Moste,

Yes I have read it.

Stickler joined Hampshire Constabulary in 1978 and spent the majority of his time in CID. As it says on the cover notes, The Long Silence is, in essence Storie's posthumous autobiography. That has to mean that it's one sided, which it is. It's well written and summarises the case well. It tells us very little about what we already know. One thing that is new, to me at any rate, concerns John Kerr. Stickler writes:

"What Kerr did next would be subjected to extreme scrutiny for the next forty years and would result in one of the principal criticisms to be levelled at the police" (p51)

Later, on page 123 he writes:

"Kerr's supervisor, John Carrington, and another colleague, Jeffrey Claughton, reported that it was obvious that Kerr had been understandably extremely distressed when they arrived on the scene, and he was attempting to give his clipboard to anyone who would take it so that he could leave the scene as quickly as possible. One witness thought he had seen Kerr writing notes when he was talking to Valerie as she lay in the road, so it was imperative to trace the clipboard. However, rather than Kerr having handed it to a police officer, as he had testified, Barron (Det. Super.) established that he had in fact given it to his supervisor, but had said nothing about making any notes. The clipboard had been taken back to County Council offices in Bedford. Barron's investigation report concluded that any notes that Kerr may have made had been mislaid there, and a letter on which Kerr had incorrectly noted the registration number of the Morris Minor was found in Claughton's desk drawer. Claughton had subsequently used it as scrap paper to make some calculations. Barron further concluded that if there had been any further notes, they too would have been used as scrap paper in the Council Office and probably later discarded".

That is certainly news to me. I don't buy a word of it. I accept that Kerr was distressed but I do not believe that he gave his notes to anyone but the police.

P138:

"Witness number eleven for the prosecution was John Kerr, the Oxford undergraduate who had spoken to Valerie in the layby that morning and now said he had made notes on a piece of paper that he subsequently handed to a senior, uniformed police officer."

"Kerr went through his story again, saying that he had been told by Valerie that they had been held up by a gunman around 9.30 the previous evening. He had written down her name and address and the man's description as having large starring eyes and light-fairish hair. Swanwick handed to him the document that had been recovered from Bedford County Council and asked him to confirm that it was the piece of paper he had with him that morning. He was able to confirm it, but when he was asked to comment on the incorrect registration number written on the rear of the form he said that it was not his writing".

"In cross-examination, Sherrard picked up on the issue of a piece of paper that Kerr said he had handed to a police officer. It contained the first description of the assailant as given to him by Storie and it had gone missing".

I have absolutely no doubt that he did give the notes to the police, as did Kerr, and he should know.

P123:

"The incident at the committal hearing when John Kerr announced that he had passed some notes to the police was of considerable concern. McDermott immediately recognised the implications, as had detective Superintendent Barron, who was sitting in court when the drama unfolded. The position was made even worse when Kerr told the court that he handed the piece of paper to a uniformed, senior officer who had pips on his shoulder and was wearing brown gloves. The three uniformed officers who had been at the scene in August - Chief inspector Oliver and inspectors Edward Milborrow and Robert Webster - were paraded before Kerr and he identified Webster. Webster had no knowledge of such an incident and said so."

For me, this confirms that Kerr did indeed hand his notes to the police. Stickler says the opposite.

Is the book worth the money or trouble? On balance I think it is and for two reasons. Like you, I had four books on the case before I bought it and so it makes sense to keep the collection up to date. Secondly, you are as expert on the case as anyone and I would be surprised if, having read the book, you didn't pick up on other issues in addition to the above.

I hope this helps.

Ansonman

[moste]

Hi Ansonman. Thank you so much for this. It certainly does help, I will go ahead with a purchase. The detail of Mr. Kerr actually recalling the pips on the uniform and brown gloves ,plus identifying Webster as the cop he handed the clipboard to, is for me highly indicative of a person who, far from being traumatized by the event, so as to misremember issues, can for me be regarded as a solid witness, and a sound starting point for the investigation.
Along with many other occurrences where the A6 police investigations sounded oh so iffy ,the information above goes hand in hand with the state of the Met, at the zenith of its corruption.

[ansonman]

What struck me very early into the book is that Stickler begins with a great deal of detail but makes no reference to John Kerr until Part 2 of the book, 51 pages in. Indeed, I had to look up Kerr in the index to see if he'd been omitted altogether. I have since concluded that whereas Stickler's intention was to brush Kerr under the carpet, if not out of the picture, he has in fact achieved the opposite and shone a headlight on police corruption which began at the very start of the investigation and continued throughout.

[NickB]

However, rather than Kerr having handed it to a police officer, as he had testified, Barron (Det. Super.) established that he had in fact given it to his supervisor,

Yeah this is an example of where I would have liked to be given more information to justify the claim.

Also with the question of where Evans was at the time Hanratty claimed he went to Rhyl searching for him. Stickler says he was serving at a cafe near Dixie's, but what is his source? If this was part of Evans testimony it would be a strange omission by Woffindon.

[cobalt]

Since the author has chosen the word 'established' then he should indeed expand upon his point.

[moste]

Being an ex CID man, I wonder if Stickler attempted to avail himself of Chief Superintendent Roger Mathews words of wisdom ?
since this is a work of Stories posthumous autobiography, probably not. Even so, it would be hard to imagine a cop taking on a work of this kind, without at least referencing or acknowledging the massive efforts of Mathews and his crew.