Tweet
Hi again Anson - a few comments now below on your earlier post. Sorry it took a bit longer than intended.
Best regards,
OneRound
Originally posted by ansonman
View Post
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. Hmm. I don't think we are going to get certainty on this unless a separate report is shown or someone in a position to do so confirms my suspicion that the briefing note is effectively the report. From personal experience of writing briefing notes or executive summaries during my working life, I would always make reference in those to an additional report (if there was one) containing further details. See also my comment under your third para below.
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. His conclusion is completely opposite to that of Nimmo and Hawser and whilst I don't doubt his sincerity, it's still little more than a viewpoint. As said before, little new is added to decades long concerns and doubts or definitely confirmed.
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". Going back to my first point above, I would have expected Matthews to draw attention here to his more detailed report (if there was one) rather than just offering to rock up and answer questions.
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 don't believe that Alphon killed Michael Gregsten but do suspect him of an involvement somehow with the events of the murder (as did Foot in his later years). Imo Acott gave up too soon on Alphon being any sort of cog in the wheel when Valerie Storie failed to identify him on the first ID parade she attended. Similarly, I feel Matthews should have got out from behind his desk and gone out and interviewed him rather than being content for his own suspicions to grow but ultimately lead nowhere.
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. That's not quite what Matthews wrote. He stated, ''It would seem that'' before going on to make this point. In other words, Matthews didn't know for sure. Imo again, he should have found out or, at least, made every effort to do so. The conduct at this ID parade is a very legitimate concern which reflects extremely badly on Hanratty's solicitor at the time. However, it is nothing new or likely surprising. As discussed recently on the Bible John: A New Suspect thread, the volunteers or ''stooges'' alongside Hanratty would have come from the local (Bedfordshire) area and so, unless brought up a Cockney, would inevtiably have had a very different accent.
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". Agreed without doubt but that's where the gun was found and unless going down the route of Hanratty being framed (which Matthews didn't really investigate), it doesn't aid Hanratty's case. Particularly when the hanky in which the gun was wrapped was subsequently shown to contain Hanratty's DNA (I make this point before Caz does).
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". As previously stated, I share Matthews' concerns about Acott's non-disclosures of Valerie Storie's statements plus other matters (especially lorry driver William Lee's alleged sighting of the murder car and the recordings by Gregsten of the milometer which Matthews doesn't apparently mention). I feel some other Appeal Court judges may have regarded the non-disclosures as so serious to have quashed the ''guilty'' verdict regardless of other evidence. PS Can you please remind me about the inconsistency regarding the gunman's watch as I've underlined (I no longer have my books).
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: Matthews is on the kind side concerning Hanratty's driving. He never passed a test and had a prang in Ireland. He probably also stole and drove more upmarket vehicles than a relatively humble Morris Minor, the controls of which may have been unfamiliar to him. I also vaguely recall mentions of him being a reckless driver.
"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". Sherrard should have pushed about this at trial but once more unacceptable from Acott.
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." Yes, but unless anyone is not to believe Valerie Storie as to how the dreadful events began for her that night, an armed man was wandering around a cornfield in Dorney Reach who left no signs of how he got there. It makes little or no sense but it was someone.
"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". Perhaps so but then interview Alphon as a next step.
"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". Agreed. Upon Hanratty vacating the Vienna, it is too often made out to be like Fort Knox. Anyone could have got in or out and Nudds, in the thick of finding the bullet cases, was an inveterate liar and frequent criminal.
Thin gruel? I think not. Honest but reheated and thin when attempts could have been made to serve up something more and better.
Ansonman
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. His conclusion is completely opposite to that of Nimmo and Hawser and whilst I don't doubt his sincerity, it's still little more than a viewpoint. As said before, little new is added to decades long concerns and doubts or definitely confirmed.
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". Going back to my first point above, I would have expected Matthews to draw attention here to his more detailed report (if there was one) rather than just offering to rock up and answer questions.
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 don't believe that Alphon killed Michael Gregsten but do suspect him of an involvement somehow with the events of the murder (as did Foot in his later years). Imo Acott gave up too soon on Alphon being any sort of cog in the wheel when Valerie Storie failed to identify him on the first ID parade she attended. Similarly, I feel Matthews should have got out from behind his desk and gone out and interviewed him rather than being content for his own suspicions to grow but ultimately lead nowhere.
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. That's not quite what Matthews wrote. He stated, ''It would seem that'' before going on to make this point. In other words, Matthews didn't know for sure. Imo again, he should have found out or, at least, made every effort to do so. The conduct at this ID parade is a very legitimate concern which reflects extremely badly on Hanratty's solicitor at the time. However, it is nothing new or likely surprising. As discussed recently on the Bible John: A New Suspect thread, the volunteers or ''stooges'' alongside Hanratty would have come from the local (Bedfordshire) area and so, unless brought up a Cockney, would inevtiably have had a very different accent.
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". Agreed without doubt but that's where the gun was found and unless going down the route of Hanratty being framed (which Matthews didn't really investigate), it doesn't aid Hanratty's case. Particularly when the hanky in which the gun was wrapped was subsequently shown to contain Hanratty's DNA (I make this point before Caz does).
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". As previously stated, I share Matthews' concerns about Acott's non-disclosures of Valerie Storie's statements plus other matters (especially lorry driver William Lee's alleged sighting of the murder car and the recordings by Gregsten of the milometer which Matthews doesn't apparently mention). I feel some other Appeal Court judges may have regarded the non-disclosures as so serious to have quashed the ''guilty'' verdict regardless of other evidence. PS Can you please remind me about the inconsistency regarding the gunman's watch as I've underlined (I no longer have my books).
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: Matthews is on the kind side concerning Hanratty's driving. He never passed a test and had a prang in Ireland. He probably also stole and drove more upmarket vehicles than a relatively humble Morris Minor, the controls of which may have been unfamiliar to him. I also vaguely recall mentions of him being a reckless driver.
"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". Sherrard should have pushed about this at trial but once more unacceptable from Acott.
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." Yes, but unless anyone is not to believe Valerie Storie as to how the dreadful events began for her that night, an armed man was wandering around a cornfield in Dorney Reach who left no signs of how he got there. It makes little or no sense but it was someone.
"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". Perhaps so but then interview Alphon as a next step.
"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". Agreed. Upon Hanratty vacating the Vienna, it is too often made out to be like Fort Knox. Anyone could have got in or out and Nudds, in the thick of finding the bullet cases, was an inveterate liar and frequent criminal.
Thin gruel? I think not. Honest but reheated and thin when attempts could have been made to serve up something more and better.
Ansonman
OneRound
Comment