A6 Rebooted

[OneRound]

Hi again Anson - a few comments now below on your earlier post. Sorry it took a bit longer than intended.

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

Best regards,
OneRound

[cobalt]

Matthews' remit was to pore over the existing paperwork and offer a recommendation. In that respect he fulfilled his remit but failed to shine any fresh light on a case which had bedevilled the justice system for years. Unless Matthews was empowered to develop that existing evidence- to 'get out from behind his desk' as OneRound put it- then he could do no more than offer an educated opinion same as Nimmo and Hawser had done before him. Unlike these latter two, Matthews is often quite blunt in his criticism of police procedure and coming from a police insider that was breaking new ground, albeit it coming a safe 35 years after the event.

Matthews' focus on the ID parade would have benefitted from nailing the shortcomings down. He says that Hanratty was probably the only Cockney speaker present and (in the DM article) that the 'stooges' had all been born 100 miles outside of London. However their names and addresses of that time were presumably available and they, or their remaining family members, could have been tracked down to confirm this absolutely. (People change their manner of speech over time and place, so being born in Norfolk would not prevent a boy developing a London accent if he moved there for schooling or even work at a young age.)

Matthews also states that the person picked out in the first ID parade looked nothing like Hanratty. I'm not sure if he is relying on Acott's written description here or a photograph, but to prove his point he really needs a contemporary photograph. One such photo has been found and put on this site, but there must have been several more available through police investigation. A picture paints a thousand words as the saying goes.

Amidst all the yellowing files described by Matthews must exist a report from police activity on September 1st 1961 when detectives visited Swiss Cottage arcade as part of an investigation. The accounts offered by William Ewer, who claimed to have called the police, are inconsistent. The contemporary police report must surely establish who called the police in the first instance and what their enquiries were concerned with on the day. We know that a tenuous 'Ryan' connection was made at the time but remain unsure whether this was an outrageous coincidence or whether some personage was attempting to put Hanratty 'in the frame.'

Another yellowing file worthy of inspection would have been the statement made by Mrs Lanz of the Station Inn in March 1962, prior to the execution of Hanratty. I assume it was made after the Hanratty appeal was rejected on 13th March and would therefore have been a highly unwelcome addition to police files since she said that Peter Alphon had been in her premises previous to a staged meeting organised by Fox and Justice. It might mean nothing of course: Alphon had a morbid interest in the case and was keen to insert himself into it, so visiting the Station Inn after 23rd August 1961 would have been entirely in character. However Mrs Lanz, as reported in later newspaper articles, was more specific about seeing Alphon PRIOR to the events of 22nd August. Perhaps she embroidered her story over the years so the actual wording of her statement is important. (I acknowledge that if Mrs. Lanz was correct this in no way makes Hanratty innocent, but it does point to some kind of conspiracy afoot.)

My final yellow file is the one referred to by OR, from Mr Lee and his sighting of the Morris Minor far from its final location. The Appeal Court did spend some time on this issue so it is odd that Matthews does not refer to it at all.

Finally, unconnected with the Matthews Report, my observations on driving unfamiliar cars which I have often had to do over the years and occasionally start up in darkness. Gears are never a problem since they are always in the same position on the gear stick; the exception is Reverse gear which can be north west of 1st gear or more often south east of 4th gear; as an added problem some Reverse gears had a clip below the knob that had to be raised prior to setting it, or alternatively the stick had to be depressed in order to be activated. Finding headlamp buttons, wipers, screen wash and indicators can be a bit trial and error, but never the gear positions. Since Reverse gear was not the issue with the Morris Minor then I cannot believe that a car thief would have needed any instructions on how to get the car moving forwards.