A6 Rebooted

[ansonman]

The Matthews Report is now available at https://discovery.nationalarchives.g...ls/r/C20846951

Many thanks indeed for the update.

It’s not the report but rather a briefing note that commences at page 35. Presumably the previous pages comprise the report. Nonetheless, it’s fascinating and you deserve much recognition for having obtained it.

l downloaded it earlier today for free. Essentially, Matthews concludes that Hanratty’s conviction was unsafe and recommendeds that the case be referred to the Court of Appeal. He doesn’t say who he thinks committed the murder but says that the case against Alphon was much greater than the case against Hanratty.

What stands out for me, and which l was unaware of, is the ID parade in which Storie eventually identified Hanratty. Matthew’s makes the following observation:

”It would appear that his (Hanratty) was the only London accent among members of the parade”.

Unbelievable.

Thanks again djw.

Ansonman

[djw]

I think 35 is the page numbering applied by the National Archives (or someone other than Matthews). You can see on page 45, Matthews refers to the outset of the paper where he suggests referring the case to the Court of Appeal which is on page 35. The National Archives held the Appeal documents in several batches and the Matthews report was held within a batch of the appeal.

[OneRound]

Many thanks indeed for the update.

It’s not the report but rather a briefing note that commences at page 35. Presumably the previous pages comprise the report. Nonetheless, it’s fascinating and you deserve much recognition for having obtained it.

l downloaded it earlier today for free. Essentially, Matthews concludes that Hanratty’s conviction was unsafe and recommendeds that the case be referred to the Court of Appeal. He doesn’t say who he thinks committed the murder but says that the case against Alphon was much greater than the case against Hanratty.

What stands out for me, and which l was unaware of, is the ID parade in which Storie eventually identified Hanratty. Matthew’s makes the following observation:

”It would appear that his (Hanratty) was the only London accent among members of the parade”.

Unbelievable.

Thanks again djw.

Ansonman

Hi again Ansonman - been a while.

At James Hanratty's posthumous appeal in 2010, Michael Mansfield QC, acting upon behalf of the family, referred to the ID parade as ''incurably unfair''. I can only agree with that and firmly believe that Hanratty was shamefully let down at the time by his solicitor Emmanuel Kleinman who raised no objection.

In case of interest, the use of volunteers or stooges at ID parades and some personal experiences have recently been discussed on the Bible John: A New Suspect thread.

I'll comment separately about Matthews more generally.

Best regards,
OneRound

[ansonman]

Hi OneRound,

Indeed it has.

I’m more than surprised that so far, only three of us have commented on what I believe to be possibly the most interesting document ever to be shared on this thread. I never knew that Hanratty was the only member of the ID parade who spoke with a London accent. Certainly I don’t recall reading about that fact in the many books I’ve read on the case over the years.That alone was grounds enough for his brief to have insisted that the parade be abandoned.

Will look into that Bible John thread.

Look forward to reading your further comments.

Best regards,

Ansonman

[cobalt]

I’m more than surprised that so far, only three of us have commented on what I believe to be possibly the most interesting document ever to be shared on this thread.

I've not been able to download the document. I'm obviously aware of the summary findings by Matthews, but is there any commentary made by him that indicates he has addressed specific areas of conflicting evidence which has surrounded the A6 Case for all these years.

[Spitfire]

I've not been able to download the document. I'm obviously aware of the summary findings by Matthews, but is there any commentary made by him that indicates he has addressed specific areas of conflicting evidence which has surrounded the A6 Case for all these years.

Why can you not download it?

Have you created a free account?

If not, do so.

Once that's done it is free to download.

[Spitfire]

At long last, the famous Matthews Report is allowed to be viewed by those who have paid (indirectly) for its compilation.

Matthews did not unearth any new evidence and merely expressed the opinion that there was not enough evidence to warrant Hanratty being brought to trial.

It was heartening that Matthews expressed the view that DNA evidence could resolve the case, as indeed it eventually did.

[cobalt]

Cheers, I was able to download the Matthews Briefing Note. It's pretty thin gruel and a long way short of being a report that would convince anyone either way about Hanratty's guilt or innocence. Why it had to remain secret for about 30 years is unclear.

When the DNA evidence emerged later- evidence which has been well discussed on this site- Michael Hanratty claimed that Matthews had spoken to the family and was at a loss to explain how the results established Hanratty's guilt. Assuming Michael Hanratty is relating the meeting accurately, this is clearly at odds with Matthews' Briefing Note which is quite equivocal on Hanratty's guilt. I could understand that Matthews might have been surprised by the turn of events, but according to Michael Hanratty the policeman was more in a state of bewilderment. There is nothing contained in the Briefing Paper to explain Matthews allegedly being convinced of Hanratty's innocence.

In his Briefing Paper Matthews does touch on the issue of police misconduct, particularly in respect of conflicting statements made by Acott and Oxford concerning when the Vienna Hotel register was taken into police custody. He notes that the later date, 20th September, was the day before the Glickbergs came up with version III of their evidence and Matthews' phrase that this is 'a matter of some concern' is as far as he is able to take the matter. (Although it is debatable whether any document provided by the Glickbergs on any date would be worth the paper it is written on.)

Like Hanratty and Alphon, the Glickbergs were inveterate liars which makes any assessment of their conflicting evidence difficult. The fact they all adopted aliases at various times speaks to their honesty. But if either of Hanratty or Alphon produced a false alibi then it is not hard to see why they did so with a murder charge hanging over them. What's in it for the Glickbergs? Their first version exonerates Alphon and is often assumed to be the nearest to the truth so far as they understood that concept. It's possible Alphon paid them for an alibi I suppose, but then you think they might have mentioned this when concocting version II. Version III is, from memory a rehash of version I, and quite how this was supposed to put the Glickbergs in the good offices of the investigators is a matter that is not easily explained.

Perhaps that is the gist of Matthews' investigation. The alibi provided for Alphon was contradicted and then exhumed by the crucial witnesses at the Vienna Hotel, so was effectively worthless. The ID of Hanratty by Valerie Storie came after she had previously identified another man and relied upon his accent, a feature which seemed to mark him out from others in the ID parade.

[OneRound]

Thin gruel indeed, cobalt.

I suspect the so called Matthews Report is actually the same as the Briefing Note addressed to ''Commander'' (probably Roy Ramm) other than some topping and tailing when sent to the Home Office. I say this as the Briefing Note appears finalised and makes no reference to any more detailed accompanying document or report produced by Matthews.

Matthews' work and that of his team (twenty people, yes? Really that many?) seems to have been confined to reviewing all the available paperwork to the exclusion of any actual investigation or even interviews of those still alive and in good health at the time. Unsurprisingly, he comes up with questions and concerns but a lack of answers and certainty. Even his comment about the highly disturbing oral element of the ID parade and Hanratty apparently being the only person with a London accent is prefaced with, ''It would seem'' rather than providing a definitive statement.

Furthermore, Matthews adds little new to the matters raised by Foot and Woffinden years before. It is a disappointing cop out (no pun intended) that he begins and ends his Briefing Note by recommending the early referral of the case to the Court of Appeal to rule upon matters. I have previously been critical of the Court of Appeal's judgement and remain so (in particular, their over reliance on DNA findings despite the absence of current evidential requirements for its safekeeping and their lack of concern as to Acott's non-disclosures). However, I don't think Matthews did much to help them either way.

Best regards,
OneRound

[djw]

A youtube video uploaded ten days ago by Eryberrie goes into at least the sort of depth the Eccleston documentary should be aiming at https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o9BqwBDUfPI

Another true crime youtuber has delved into the A6 murder and is quite thorough considering their channel is in Spanish. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAsx3GkQJ8w If you set the subtitles to auto translate and click on translate for the comments you will see the sympathy for Valerie is prevalent.

[cobalt]

The Matthews Report is indeed the dead parrot of all reports. OR has highlighted that it took 20 detectives to compile the 'evidence' that Matthews summarised. Job creation on a grand scale.

But Matthews must have detected some 'feel' for the case based on the reading of the original witness statements. Or perhaps, more alarmingly, statements which were not taken. Our old friend, William Ewer, seems to have been very late to the enquiry.

I'll highlight the difficulty in the A6 case by referring to two contradictory statements. The first is by Nudds when he was approached by police following Alphon's bizarre hotel behaviour in the days following the event. Nudds confirmed Alphon's movements on the evening of the 22nd which effectively supplied an alibi for what took place in Taplow. Now Nudds was such a absolute liar that it is easy to dismiss his statement, but at that time the police were not pursuing anything other than routine enquiries and I assume Nudds was not put under any pressure to make his statement. It's maybe almost possible Nudds was part of some elaborate underworld plot to provide an alibi for Alphon but I would disregard this on the grounds that Nudds would have sold his mother into slavery in order to save his own neck. Therefore the Alphon alibi provided by Nudds has to be considered seriously.

However Mrs Lanz of the Station Inn, the place where Gregsten and Valerie Storie were last seen, casts doubts on Alphon as an innocent bystander to events. Her first statement to police on the 24th was largely perfunctory although she may have mentioned two men she did not know being in the bar that evening. It was only after Fox and Justice dragged Alphon into her premises that she had a sense of having seen Alphon before at the Station Inn. How much this was induced and how much this was genuine we can but ponder; according to Lord Russell in his 1966 speech Mrs. Lang claimed that Alphon was in the Station Inn on the 21st, that is the evening before the murder. Russell had spoken to Mrs. Lanz and was presumably confident in her testimony. This testimony also supports evidence (of a very weak nature) that Alphon was out and about in Taplow 'scouting' the area prior to the crime. This second Lanz statement was made to police in March 1962 just prior to the execution at a time when her memory was reasonably fresh. The detail of what she said has not been reported so far as I am aware and the Hawser Report was vague about what it contained. In later years versions of her recollections were obtained by newspapers and, it seems to me, elaborated. But if she was correct, and Alphon had visited the Station Inn prior to the murder, then the coincidence factor goes off the radar.

So where are we? Or where was Matthews? We have a career criminal called Dudds (in jail at the time of Russells's speech) presenting a clear alibi for Alphon. And we have a presumably honest landlady called Lanz not quite demolishing that alibi but suggesting Alphon was in some way present prior to the crime. What would we have deduced from all that?

[ansonman]

I think that both you and OR are being rather harsh on Matthews. The document to which you refer is not his report. It is a briefing note. As he says towards the end of the document "Throughout this somewhat brief document". So it's hardly the report. I should like to know where the report is and why we can't see it.

Although the note is brief, it nonetheless contains some very interesting information and comments, in my view. For example, the report states at the outset Matthews recommendation that the case should "without equivocation or delay be referred to the Court of Appeal". That's hardly a dead parrot, in my view.

Matthews goes on to say that "I believe that I am in a position to answer any reasonable questions that may be posed as to why I take this stance". Presumably the then Home Secretary didn't feel inclined to take Matthew up on his offer. Matthews states that he also feels that even by the standards and in context of 1962, "the conviction is hardly supportable".

Matthews notes that during Acotts questioning of Alphon, the latter admitted to having clothing elsewhere, but refused to produce or reveal where it was". We must assume that Acott was comfortable to accept this. After Storie failed to identify Alphon at the ID parade, Matthews says "Thus was Alphon eliminated from enquires. It should perhaps be mentioned that he had also raised another alibi of sorts - meeting meeting his mother on the day concerned. She was unable to offer corroboration".

I have previously mentioned my not having known that Hanratty was the only member of the parade who spoke with a London accent, until I read Matthews note.

Referring to the finding of the gun on the bus, Matthews makes the obvious, but accurate comment "I would have thought that the Thames or even the Serpentine would be a far better channel of disposal for an incriminating object".

In his resume of Bindman's submission, Matthews notes:

"Much attention is paid to the evidence of Miss STORIE and the apparent interpretation placed upon it by the jury. BINDMANS express the view that a full assessment of all her various statements renders it doubtful that confidence could properly have been attached to her identification of HANRATTY. They suggest that not all information concerning her statements was placed before the jury. This does, in fact, appear to be the case. It seems that her initial statement was not used in court. BINDMANS also highlight a glaring inconsistency regarding the gunman's watch".

Later in this section of the note Matthews states "my view is that this is all the more reason to suppose that the gunman was more likely to have been ALPHON than HANRATTY. The latter's criminal record suggests that he was far from being an inexpert driver". Still in this section, referring to Acott, Matthews states:

"He misled the jury about the possibility of bringing before the court the man whom Miss STORIE had initially identified as the gunman. It would appear from the Bedfordshire documents that to have brought this man before the court ought to have been relatively easy".

Finally, I quote the following comments that Matthew makes in the final pages of his note:

"For example, what on earth was a fairly petty, if determined burglar from Kingsbury doing in a cornfield in Dorney Reach, armed? One must also ask how he would have arrived there, and for what possible purpose. No motive for the crimes was ever advanced at the trial."

"ALPHON, in his various confessions, has said that the motive was to break up the relationship between the lovers, and that the impetus came directly or indirectly, from the GREGSTEN family. This would make far more sense than a chance encounter in a field".

"I also have to say that I am far from happy about the evidence concerning the discovery of the bullet cases in room 24, Vienna Hotel. Almost three weeks had elapsed since HANRATTY's occupation of the room. The room had not been unoccupied in the intervening period. It is also hard to believe that even in a hotel of this calibre, no cleaning would have taken place between 22nd August and 11th September".

Thin gruel? I think not.

Ansonman

[OneRound]

Hi anson - as so often, it's a thread of opinions. My overall opinion of the Hanratty case is that he was guilty but his guilt was not proved fairly or beyond reasonable doubt. Of the major writers on the case, that's in line with Lord Russell although in contrast to Foot and Woffinden who veer towards Hanratty's innocence.

It may seem strange that I'm somewhat dismissive of Matthews when his take - certainly of legal guilt - is not that far removed from mine. My disappointment and irritation with Matthews is that he brings little, if anything, new to the table. In my opinion again, an opportunity largely wasted by him and his sizeable team. Rather than actually investigate and talk to / interview remaining individuals from the time (difficult though that would have been), Matthews was content for this taxpayer funded year long exercise to solely be a paper exercise with the many documents being poured over. Yes, that brought up concerns, some of which you and I strongly share, but largely raised years earlier by others including published writers, Bindmans (solicitors to the Hanratty family) and contributors to this forum. Once he had accepted the brief and the cost that would inevitably go with it, I feel we were entitled to a more comprehensive investigation from a senior police officer and his colleagues.

I'll aim to comment on some of your specific points later today or tomorrow.

Best regards,
OneRound

[ansonman]

Hi OR,

You've probably read the article that Matthews wrote in 1999 that was featured in the Daily Mail. If not, it's the first item on the thread immediately below ours "Mails feature of 1999 on Hanratty by Roger Matthews". Do also read the comment immediately below the piece, by Del, which includes the following, which you would undoubtedly agree with:

"In truth, there was little in my confidential report that would not have been available to a committed investigator at any time during the past thirty-seven years."

Ansonman

[OneRound]

Hi OR,

You've probably read the article that Matthews wrote in 1999 that was featured in the Daily Mail. If not, it's the first item on the thread immediately below ours "Mails feature of 1999 on Hanratty by Roger Matthews". Do also read the comment immediately below the piece, by Del, which includes the following, which you would undoubtedly agree with:

"In truth, there was little in my confidential report that would not have been available to a committed investigator at any time during the past thirty-seven years."

Ansonman

Hi Anson - Oh yes, I've read Matthews' article in the Mail including the piece highlighted by Del which I do undoubtedly agree with. Tbf to Matthews and unlike Nimmo and Hawser, he didn't try to sweep things under the carpet. However, I feel that he and his 20 strong team should have attempted to investigate matters far further than they did.

Best regards,
OneRound