A6 Rebooted

[NickB]

Kerr initially thought that Valerie said her name was Mary so there were communication difficulties, which is understandable given the situation. In the more stable conditions at hospital she was recorded as saying the hair was dark. She also said that the gunman had given the name 'Jim'. So you can believe either that Kerr misheard or that Valerie shortly afterwards changed her description.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi HS,

John Kerr always maintained that Valerie Storie told him that the gunman had "llight fairish hair". This is a bit difficult to reconcile with what he is alleged to have said in any police statement he may have made.
The attached two "Newcastle Journal" articles from the Committal Hearings in November 1961 and the Trial itself in January 1962 help to clarify things a little....

Hi SH,

Thanks for those interesting snippets. So it looks like the paper that couldn’t be produced at the Committal Hearing was still missing at the time of the trial but a sheet of paper which had accompanied the missing one had been found; on the back of which was writing that wasn’t Kerr’s (so likely done by a police officer)? It’s difficult not to raise an eyebrow especially when there is a discrepancy in regard to later descriptions.

How did the police respond to Kerr saying that Valerie had said that the killer had ‘light fairish hair’?

[Sherlock Houses]

In the first Police broadcast (by Telex) at 10.50 am it was ‘alleged that suspect gave his name as Brown.’ No hair colour was mentioned. But Kerr, in his statement, had said that Valerie had said that the man had brown hair and he made no mention of a name. So how did Brown (hair colour) become a name?

The author suggests that the confusion occurred because a passing motorist spoke to Valerie and she said, when asked who’d done it, “Brown. He’s taken my car.”

As Kerr was the first person that spoke to her and that she had told him that the killers hair was Brown, I find it difficult not to see this as incompetence rather than some kind of ‘understandable error.’ The Telex was for police only and was to help them catch the killer so hair colour was important. And surely they would have known that this was a stranger, initially thought to have been a hitchhiker, so why would he have given his surname to his two victims? Or any surname for that matter?

Hi HS,

John Kerr always maintained that Valerie Storie told him that the gunman had "llight fairish hair". This is a bit difficult to reconcile with what he is alleged to have said in any police statement he may have made.
The attached two "Newcastle Journal" articles from the Committal Hearings in November 1961 and the Trial itself in January 1962 help to clarify things a little....

[caz]

Hi Moste,

I think you may be placing too much weight on Valerie Storie's use of the word 'ironically.' The way you interpret it is perfectly sound but in everyday conversation the word is often used a little more loosely.

I think she simply means to say that had the killer appeared in the cornfield a few months later than he did, then neither she nor Michael Gregsten would have been there to fall victim to him.

Exactly my thoughts, cobalt.

Wrong time, wrong place kind of thing.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

No more talk of apologies for going over old ground ,you may twig something everyone has missed.
when I signed up on here 11 years ago people werenât always very nice, some had been posting away for many years and didnât seem overly enthusiastic about new blood. I just felt as in your case someone looking at things from a different angle ,could help with the understanding of what was making the characters tick in this incredibly sad saga.

Cheers Moste

[NickB]

There appears to have been some confusion on behalf of the police in the early stages and it;s difficult for me to see how it came about?

Yeah I think the main weakness of the book is that it is too defensive of the police.

As mentioned, on the Channel 4 programme the police officer who first interviewed Valerie says it was 'blue eyes' from the start. So I think on that it was just police error, as Woffinden acknowledges.

[moste]

Finished watching the channel 4 programme , Valerie explains leaving the cornfield then on to the A6 road , loads of important stuff left out which in my opinion leaves her story ,to say the least ‘Wanting’. But this ,it has to be said is a perfect exercise in how to portray a person as a guilty as hell individual.
Interesting question, I didn’t realise a Chief Superintendent Ian Russell spent a year with a team on deciphering the entire case. Chief Superintendent Roger Mathews did exactly the same. I wonder if they conferred, ? You know , compared notes as it were.

[moste]

No more talk of apologies for going over old ground ,you may twig something everyone has missed.
when I signed up on here 11 years ago people weren’t always very nice, some had been posting away for many years and didn’t seem overly enthusiastic about new blood. I just felt as in your case someone looking at things from a different angle ,could help with the understanding of what was making the characters tick in this incredibly sad saga.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'll be interested to hear what you think about it. For me, it failed in its claim of being the book Valerie would have written. I just didn't get that feeling, and he seemed to be more concerned about defending the police. I recommend the Channel 4 documentary I linked to on the previous page, and the appeal judgement is good for basic points.

There is also a lot of info on this site. It would be good if it was summarised in a sticky thread, but I suppose each 'side' would complain that it had been wrongly represented!

Hi Nick,

I’m not far into the book and my apologies to all for repeating what everyone on here knows inside out btw.

In the first Police broadcast (by Telex) at 10.50 am it was ‘alleged that suspect gave his name as Brown.’ No hair colour was mentioned. But Kerr, in his statement, had said that Valerie had said that the man had brown hair and he made no mention of a name. So how did Brown (hair colour) become a name?

The author suggests that the confusion occurred because a passing motorist spoke to Valerie and she said, when asked who’d done it, “Brown. He’s taken my car.”

As Kerr was the first person that spoke to her and that she had told him that the killers hair was Brown, I find it difficult not to see this as incompetence rather than some kind of ‘understandable error.’ The Telex was for police only and was to help them catch the killer so hair colour was important. And surely they would have known that this was a stranger, initially thought to have been a hitchhiker, so why would he have given his surname to his two victims? Or any surname for that matter?

It’s difficult to weigh this one up. It’s not a huge issue of course but if it’s an example of incompetence then it’s hard not to wonder what else might have been down to incompetence.

Then in the 5.40 broadcast the description has the killer with brown eyes and brown hair but no name. The author wonders how ‘Brown’ went from being a hair colour to a name to an eye colouring. I’m guessing that the eye colouring came into it after Valerie had had time to think? Then there was a special notice issued by the Met’s CRO: “MAN – BROWN. Born about 1936, smooth face and big eyes.”

There appears to have been some ‘confusion’ on behalf of the police in the early stages and it’s difficult for me to see how it came about?

[cobalt]

Hi Moste,

I think you may be placing too much weight on Valerie Storie's use of the word 'ironically.' The way you interpret it is perfectly sound but in everyday conversation the word is often used a little more loosely.

I think she simply means to say that had the killer appeared in the cornfield a few months later than he did, then neither she nor Michael Gregsten would have been there to fall victim to him.

[moste]

[QUOTE=NickB;n834385]Valerie Storie was interviewed in 2002 for a documentary shown on Channel 4. At 1.07 you can see the policewoman who first talked to Valerie say "She never changed her description ..."

Interesting. At approx. 34 mins Valerie believes, ‘Her romance with Mike would have been over if another 6 months had gone by . Because he wouldn’t have left his boys . Then she maintains ‘the ironic thing is ,had the killing and rape not happened when it did ,they probably would have broke up in a few months , IT would never have happened. Admitting that the whole purpose of the exercise by the killer was to force the two apart. I have never picked up on this before, I was under the false impression that she had not a clue why the man was in the car , all very confusing.
Also ,what is the general feeling of Valerie’s statement that she had been to Mikes home, met with Janet inferring her acceptance of the situation. In another situation they may have been friends. All seems so bizarre.

[NickB]

I took the leap and bought the Sticker book on Kindle which I’ll start reading tonight.

I'll be interested to hear what you think about it. For me, it failed in its claim of being the book Valerie would have written. I just didn't get that feeling, and he seemed to be more concerned about defending the police. I recommend the Channel 4 documentary I linked to on the previous page, and the appeal judgement is good for basic points.

There is also a lot of info on this site. It would be good if it was summarised in a sticky thread, but I suppose each 'side' would complain that it had been wrongly represented!

[Herlock Sholmes]

I know itâs a phantom phenomena. It only happens from my IPad on this site, nowhere else. Iâve even asked the administrators about it to no avail. Sorry,bloody nuisance.

No problem Moste. The complete weirdness of technology.

[moste]

I know it’s a phantom phenomena. It only happens from my IPad on this site, nowhere else. I’ve even asked the administrators about it to no avail. Sorry,bloody nuisance.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think I posted a very few times on the A6 thread but I didn’t want to be irritating by asking questions that were obvious to everyone else on here.

I took the leap and bought the Sticker book on Kindle which I’ll start reading tonight.

I know less about tech that I do about the A6 case so I have to ask what those symbols are that appear with your posts. I don’t see them with anyone else’s posts. I’m assuming that they don’t just appear on my iPad? I’ll cut and paste an example…

‘ kindle’ ?