A6 Rebooted

[Sherlock Houses]

Do you think it was the Regent near London Airport or the Shell at Kingsbury Circle?

Unless Valerie Storie was mistaken she seemed pretty adamant that they filled up at the Regent near London Airport. She explained why she was certain of this, it was because Gregsten didn't like Regent petrol in his tank and that was the brand of petrol served at that filling station.

[Sherlock Houses]

And what if he made a mistake filling out the book?

A really gut question. And one that doesn't appear to have been considered before.

[GUT]

A really gut question. And one that doesn't appear to have been considered before.

If it was done with a gun to his head, how accurate would it be?

[Derrick]

Does anyone know where we can find Lee's statement that the incident he allegedly witnessed occurred at 8.30 am and not 6.30 am?...

Hi Spitfire

All I can say here is to reiterate what Roger Matthews said in 1999 which was to the effect of any determined investigator could have found out pretty much every thing about this case in the last 30 odd years.

HTH
Del

[Spitfire]

Hi Spitfire

All I can say here is to reiterate what Roger Matthews said in 1999 which was to the effect of any determined investigator could have found out pretty much every thing about this case in the last 30 odd years.

HTH
Del

It doesn't really help.

Neither Paul Foot nor Bob Woffinden seem to have discovered the 8.30 am sighting in Matlock in their investigations into the case.

[Derrick]

...Neither Paul Foot nor Bob Woffinden seem to have discovered the 8.30 am sighting in Matlock in their investigations into the case.

As you are surely aware, Paul Foot was unaware of any of this additional evidence of the sighting of the car when he wrote his book way back in 1971.

Bob Woffinden's book was initially written in 1997 just as the CCRC took up the case. His 2nd edition was published just a few months after the CCRC referred the case back to the Court of Appeal.

If you read his short introduction to the 1999 Pan edition you may get the answer to your question. Lee's statement must have come to light just after he finished the updated version.

I hope that that puts this piece of evidence in some sort of context for you viz Foot and Woffinden's books.

[Sherlock Houses]

If you read his short introduction to the 1999 Pan edition you may get the answer to your question. Lee's statement must have come to light just after he finished the updated version.

I hope that that puts this piece of evidence in some sort of context for you viz Foot and Woffinden's books.

In that short introduction Derrick, Woffinden includes the following very pertinent sentence...."Our understanding of the case has naturally evolved over the years, as pieces of information have trickled into the public domain, notwithstanding the endeavours of the authorities to suppress them."

I hate that word suppress.


To suppress•

prevent the dissemination of (information).

"the report had been suppressed"


synonyms:

censor, redact, keep secret, conceal, hide, keep hidden, hush up, gag, keep silent about, withhold, cover up, smother, stifle, muzzle, ban, not disclose, not breathe a word of;

[Derrick]

...In that short introduction Derrick, Woffinden...

Hi Sherlock

I thought it might be useful to reproduce the introduction, of that edition, in full for those who haven't (for reasons only they themselves can explain) got this fine book.

On 29th March 1999, the Hanratty case was finally referred back to the Court of Appeal after the Criminal Cases Review Commission had considered it for two years. The CCRC had been able to re-examine the case in its entirety, having had access to all the available material. Thankfully, the volume of documentation and exhibits that had survived the passage of time was considerable.
Fresh interpretations of some aspects of the case were indicated by newly uncovered statements. In particular, there is one area of the case which is now dramatically changed. I have not attempted to incorporate this fresh perspective into the general narrative. Our understanding of the case has naturally evolved over the years, as pieces of information have trickled into the public domain. notwithstanding the endeavours of the authorities to suppress them. So, apart from a few minor emendations, the narrative remains as it originally was. The fresh material is considered in its appropriate place, at the end.
Bob Woffinden, London, June 1999

I have emboldened the one telling sentence that hopefully goes someway in answering Spitfires question. This can only, for sure, refer to the Redbridge sightings, the mileage and the sightings in other parts of this fair land. Page 443 of the book (2nd ed, 1999) outlines the CCRC findings and it starts with this part of the case.

Del

[Spitfire]

Hi Nick

This is what is so bloody infuriating about this case. So many errors in so called official documents.

This is another glaring error in the ruling judgement at p152(i). Lee's statement says he saw the grey Morris Minor car, 847 BHN, at 8:30am and not 6:30am. He later bought an evening paper, realised that he had seen the murder car and rang the police about an hour later. The fact that he described the driver as wearing a pom pom hat is to me incontrovertible evidence. There was indeed a pom pom hat found later in the boot of the car.

The above, incontrovertible evidence, appears to be dismissed out of hand by Woffinden in page 444 of his fine book (1999 Pan ed) where he writes as follows:-

" In the wake of the CCRC's referral of the case to appeal, several press reports noted that the car had been sighted as far away as Derbyshire. However, this was plainly wrong. There was 'missing'mileage on the car, but it was not sufficient to get the card north to Derbyshire and back south to London."

"Incontrovertible evidence" or "plainly wrong" the determined investigator will have to make his own mind up.

[Derrick]

Hi Spitfire

..." In the wake of the CCRC's referral of the case to appeal, several press reports noted that the car had been sighted as far away as Derbyshire. However, this was plainly wrong. There was 'missing'mileage on the car, but it was not sufficient to get the card north to Derbyshire and back south to London."

I completely and utterly disagree with Woffinden on this point. The mileage and the statement of Lee are mutually exclusive.

So I plump for the incontrovertible evidence of Lee because of the registration number and the pom pom hat. There was no way that Lee would have known that nearly 40 years later the CCRC would find a colour photo of the contents of the boot of that car and find such a hat. This is evidence that is beyond dispute.

The mileage is therefore wrong.

I still don't see your point though. Let's accept that the Redbridge "morning" witnesses are correct. How does that tally then with the additional 90 odd additional miles as calculated and withheld by Mr Acott.

For what it is worth, and this proves nothing either way, the car had a maximum speed in the region of 77 mph.

"Incontrovertible evidence" or "plainly wrong" the determined investigator will have to make his own mind up.

I have mate and I have seen the evidence. Unlike you I suspect.

Del

[Spitfire]

I have mate and I have seen the evidence. Unlike you I suspect.

Which brings me back to my original question, where can I see the statement of Bill Lee where he states that he saw the murder car at 8.30 am on the A6 in Matlock.

And leads me to pose another question:

Where can one see the photo of the green pompom hat?

As Foot and Woffinden (both determined investigators) had each subscribed to the Alphon-did-it theory, one would have thought that at some point they would have addressed the apparent inconsistency of Alphon being in Matlock at 8.30 am and being back in Room 6 of the Vienna later that morning.

[Sherlock Houses]

I have a copy of Lee's statement and he says 8:30. Julie Q is obviously just reporting the Appeal Courts error. They made loads more too.

Including their statement that Alphon was interviewed by police on September 7th.

[Derrick]

Which brings me back to my original question, where can I see the statement of Bill Lee where he states that he saw the murder car at 8.30 am on the A6 in Matlock.

And leads me to pose another question:

Where can one see the photo of the green pompom hat?

I have already given my answer on that. Do a bit of digging of your own. Perhaps approach sources close to the evidence as Norma has done. I cannot give you any more help here.

As Foot and Woffinden (both determined investigators) had each subscribed to the Alphon-did-it theory, one would have thought that at some point they would have addressed the apparent inconsistency of Alphon being in Matlock at 8.30 am and being back in Room 6 of the Vienna later that morning.

Foot, as I said, was not aware of the additional car material. If you have actually read his book you would know that he worked solely from the then recent (late 60's) release of the defence papers to the Hanratty family.

And, as you have already reminded all of us here, Woffinden accepts the recorded mileage by Acott as being correct.

I still don't really see what you are getting at. What point, if any are you actually making?

I don't understand all of this obsession with Alphon.

Sherrard didn't at any point accuse Alphon of being the A6 killer (your post #1558).

He just pointed out that Miss Storie said that the man she picked out on 24th September looked like Alphon (this was just to highlight that Hanratty didn't look much like Alphon at all) and he also highlighted Acott's reasons for dismissing Alphon as a suspect. Sherrard did this to undermine the credibility of both Storie and Acott. He could not and did not even think of accusing Alphon in court.

It was Jean Justice that took up the Alphon is the killer line, and this Alphon line is going nowhere fast in my opinion and has contaminated the case from pretty much start to finish.

Del

[Derrick]

Including their statement that Alphon was interviewed by police on September 7th.

Also the judges said that there was some AB semen found on Valerie's knickers.

Complete codswallop.

Mr Charles Lewis Nickolls' bench notes and testimony at the trial in 1962 make no mention of AB semen being found at all on Miss Stories knickers (exhibit 26).

Of course Mr Nickolls determined Gregsten's blood group from samples taken during the autopsy.

[Spitfire]

Perhaps approach sources close to the evidence as Norma has done. I cannot give you any more help here.

Well Natalie Severn seems content to rely on the Court of Appeal's recital of the facts. See post 10 here

I still don't really see what you are getting at. What point, if any are you actually making?

I am only trying to find your source of the 8.30 am time for the sighting in Matlock. You seem to be the only one who has picked this up. Well done!