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

[moste]

I’m certain that Hanratty was framed, I don’t know about Alphon. He was a nobody. Mathews knows the truth though.

[ansonman]

Wonder who will inherit his personal copy of the report together with his notes and observations when he dies?

[moste]

Wonder who will inherit his personal copy of the report together with his notes and observations when he dies?

Mmh, good question .
I f it would be as revealing as we believe would it make front page and national tv 60 years on

[moste]

I typed in on Google 'Retiree Chief Superintendent Roger Mathews of the Met.' this morning, and a page came up from the Guardian making reference to an obituary from 2020 April. I hope this is a total coincidence, since Sherlock had posted he was under the impression that Mathews was Ill in hospital fairly recently. However reading the article, it does appear rather ominous .They report this chap as 71 when he passed away ,which would make our Roger around 40 when he spent his time on the A6 case. Also, although they cover much of the detectives work throughout his career ,they don't allude to his intensive work on the A6 case.
Can anyone elaborate further on this article ? As I say it would be a big coincidence if its a different person.

[OneRound]

I typed in on Google 'Retiree Chief Superintendent Roger Mathews of the Met.' this morning, and a page came up from the Guardian making reference to an obituary from 2020 April. I hope this is a total coincidence, since Sherlock had posted he was under the impression that Mathews was Ill in hospital fairly recently. However reading the article, it does appear rather ominous .They report this chap as 71 when he passed away ,which would make our Roger around 40 when he spent his time on the A6 case. Also, although they cover much of the detectives work throughout his career ,they don't allude to his intensive work on the A6 case.
Can anyone elaborate further on this article ? As I say it would be a big coincidence if its a different person.

Hi moste - just a coincidence. Different person albeit same name and also a career spent researching criminal matters. However, the gentleman who died two years ago was a criminology lecturer and author, not a former police officer.

Best regards,
OneRound

[moste]

Oh ok , just that we don’t know much about Mathew’s activities outside of police work , but your right the article would mention his being a senior police man I guess.

[ansonman]

You may recall that A D. Whitehead wrote to the Home Office back in 2020 requesting a copy of the Mathews report. He or she has continued to request to read the report:

The Matthews report on the A6 murder (1996) - cais Rhyddid Gwybodaeth i Home Office - WhatDoTheyKnow

The Home Office is now saying that they do not hold the information requested:

Dear D Whitehead

Freedom of Information Act 2000 Request (Our Reference 59087)

Thank you for your email of 11 June 2020 in which you ask for a copy of the report on the
A6 murder and James Hanratty which was made to Hom e Secretary Michael Howard on
29 May 1996 by Detective Chief Superintendent Roge r Matthews.

Your request has been handled as a request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

I apologise for the delay in responding to your request. The Home Office aims to reply to
FOI requests within 20 working days. Unfortunately , this is not always possible. I am sorry
for the delay in your case.

Following a search of our records, I can confirm the Home Office does not hold the
information which you have requested.

Please note that some files originally held by the department were transferred to the
Ministry of Justice, following a machinery of government change.
You may wish to contact them for further information at the following link:
xxxx.xxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx

Given the subject matter of your request, The National Archives may hold the information
you are seeking. If you have not already done so, you may wish to write to them.
Contact details can be found on their website as follows:
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/

If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent internal review
of our handling of your request by submitting a complaint within two months to

---

xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx, quoting reference 59087. If you ask for an internal review,
it would be helpful if you could say why you are dissatisfied with the response.

As part of any internal review the Department's handling of your information request would
be reassessed by staff who were not involved in providing you with this response. If you
were to remain dissatisfied after an internal review, you would have a right of complaint to
the Information Commissioner as established by section 50 of the FOIA.

A link to the Home Office Information Rights Priva cy Notice can be found in the following
link. This explains how we process your personal information:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/information-rights-privacy-notice


Yours sincerely



J Conquest
Information Rights Adviser

So who does have the report?

[cobalt]

It would seem the report is held either by The Ministry of Justice or The National Archive. I assume there are other copies in existence aside from Matthews’ personal one.

The reluctance to publish the report in 1996 would have centred on two issues. One would have been the damage to the reputation of UK justice, although mistakes can be admitted to so long as they can be attributed to older methods and practices no longer in use. The other consideration would have been the impact on the undisputed victim of the A6 Case, Valerie Storie, who possibly unwittingly sent an innocent man to his death.

Miss Storie died a few years ago so that difficulty has been removed. However another problem has arisen in regard to the 2002 Appeal which was dismissed largely on DNA evidence. If the Matthews Report undermines the subsequent DNA evidence presented at appeal then there are serious implications for the criminal justice system, in which DNA evidence is regarded as something of a gold standard.

[moste]

Wow. Any old crutch will do to procrastinate in this case they must thanking god for Covid wonderful example of choking bureaucracy

[moste]

It would seem the report is held either by The Ministry of Justice or The National Archive. I assume there are other copies in existence aside from Matthews’ personal one.

The reluctance to publish the report in 1996 would have centred on two issues. One would have been the damage to the reputation of UK justice, although mistakes can be admitted to so long as they can be attributed to older methods and practices no longer in use. The other consideration would have been the impact on the undisputed victim of the A6 Case, Valerie Storie, who possibly unwittingly sent an innocent man to his death.

Miss Storie died a few years ago so that difficulty has been removed. However another problem has arisen in regard to the 2002 Appeal which was dismissed largely on DNA evidence. If the Matthews Report undermines the subsequent DNA evidence presented at appeal then there are serious implications for the criminal justice system, in which DNA evidence is regarded as something of a gold standard.

Valerie gone But then there is the two Gregsten boys

[djw]

The FOI to the Ministry of Justice is https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...coming-2014529

[djw]

The Ministry of Justice have responded that they do not hold the information and the Home Office previously said they do not either. A search on the National Archives brings up a variety of results.

[caz]

Miss Storie died a few years ago so that difficulty has been removed.

I realise Valerie's identification of Hanratty continues to be a 'difficulty' for his loyal defenders, but that sentence of yours could have been worded a bit more sensitively, cobalt!

Love,

Caz
X

[cobalt]

Indeed, point taken! I also wrote that Valerie Storie possibly unwittingly sent an innocent man to his death but that is incorrect: the decision to carry out the full force of the law was made by the judicial system; Ms. Storie was merely a witness within that process.

I don’t see myself as a loyal defender of James Hanratty, more a person who is unconvinced that justice was done in this particular case. If the prosecution case is strong enough then it should be able to contend with the issue of William Ewer’s settlement with the Sunday Times newspaper being made public, as well as the Matthews Report as well.