Mail's feature of 1999 on Hanratty by Roger Matthews

[Graham]

Victor,
Did you never wonder about the wording of number 128 of Lord Woolf's judgement? Viz- "By way of postscript we should record that it has been agreed by Mr Sweeney [Crown prosecution] and Mr Mansfield that in the evidence made available Peter Alphon could not have been the murderer.
It is understood that this agreement arose out of the DNA evidence

Why end the section on DNA evidence with such an insistence?

Hi Nats,

not completely sure what you mean here. As far as I'm concerned, at the time of the DNA tests, Peter Alphon was traced and after due analysis his DNA didn't match any of the DNA's on the various samples, and the police eliminated him as a suspect. If Matthews is suggesting in 1997 (prior to the DNA tests) that Alphon was still considered as, if not a murderer, then part of a conspiracy, his proposal is out of whack with the DNA evidence and also the conclusion of colleagues in the police service. Seriously, does anyone in 2014, still believe that Peter Louis Alphon was either the A6 killer or was part of some devious plot?

Alphon, incidentally, was not necessarily the first suspect; he was, however, the first named suspect.

The hoary old chestnut that someone in either Valerie Storey's or Michael Gregsten's families paid a hired gunman to break up that illicit relationship is, to my mind, absolutely ridiculous. Neither family was exactly well off, for a start. And if, as Alphon the arch-liar claimed, he was paid £5000 to do the deed, then that's around £130000 in today's values. No way. There is, of course, the remote possibility that someone wanted Gregsten out of the way so that he (whoever he was!) could move in and claim Janet Gregsten as his own, but all [I]he[I], whoever he was, had to do was wait, as the Gregstens' marriage was all but over anyway.

Obviously, until and if Matthews' report and/or his promised book is published, we can only - as Holmes would say - possess our souls in patience. But if report or book still push the now discounted and discredited Alphon story, then I'd cheerfully light the bonfire with them next 5th November.

Finally, if there really was a conspiracy involving three persons, as Matthews claims, then I'm reasonably confident that, between them, Foot and Woffinden would have winkled it out.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Victor,
Did you never wonder about the wording of number 128 of Lord Woolf's judgement? Viz- "By way of postscript we should record that it has been agreed by Mr Sweeney [Crown prosecution] and Mr Mansfield that in the evidence made available Peter Alphon could not have been the murderer.
It is understood that this agreement arose out of the DNA evidence

Why end the section on DNA evidence with such an insistence?

[Sherlock Houses]

What integrity? After Hillsborough, Lawrence and de Menezes do the police have any?
Del

I would guess very little.

For anyone on here naive enough to place their faith in the alleged integrity of our police force the following useful link might prove both shocking and enlightening.......

http://www.bentlawyersandcops.com/bent_cops_list.htm

[Derrick]

...
I'd go further, if he doesn't provide evidence of the sort you listed then it must be gross negligence and incompetence, and he should be dismissed as a serving police officer.

He is retired.

Of gawd that old codswallop, if that's true then comments about his reputation are just a smearing of police integrity.

What integrity? After Hillsborough, Lawrence and de Menezes do the police have any?

Del

[Victor]

Hi Nick,

I am suggesting he should provide evidence of the sort I suggested to back up what he describes as the "facts". Otherwise it is just conjecture and opinion.

I'd go further, if he doesn't provide evidence of the sort you listed then it must be gross negligence and incompetence, and he should be dismissed as a serving police officer.

It looks like he simply supports the traditional Alphon theory.

Of gawd that old codswallop, if that's true then comments about his reputation are just a smearing of police integrity.

Kr,
Vic.

[NickB]

For anyone also unable to use the link above this link may work.

[NickB]

I must say that it would be helpful in future if posters give precise references for the information that they quote, especially web based material in the form of a URL. It is what the web was built on after all

I always do, and tried to in this case but the link wouldn't work.

[Derrick]

Victor,

I am suggesting he should provide evidence of the sort I suggested to back up what he describes as the "facts". Otherwise it is just conjecture and opinion.

It looks like he simply supports the traditional Alphon theory.

An 'Independent' April 1997 article headed 'Hanratty case - police want to track killer' (claiming to use "police sources") says he:
“concluded the man who carried out the attack on 22 August l961 at Deadman's Hill, Bedfordshire, was probably hired to break up the illicit liaison. His report is believed to recommend that a new inquiry should in particular examine evidence regarding Peter Alphon, a salesman who was the original suspect.”

That article is here http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ha...r-1264556.html

I must say that it would be helpful in future if posters give precise references for the information that they quote, especially web based material in the form of a URL. It is what the web was built on after all

Del

[NickB]

Victor,

I am suggesting he should provide evidence of the sort I suggested to back up what he describes as the "facts". Otherwise it is just conjecture and opinion.

It looks like he simply supports the traditional Alphon theory.

An 'Independent' April 1997 article headed 'Hanratty case - police want to track killer' (claiming to use "police sources") says he:
“concluded the man who carried out the attack on 22 August l961 at Deadman's Hill, Bedfordshire, was probably hired to break up the illicit liaison. His report is believed to recommend that a new inquiry should in particular examine evidence regarding Peter Alphon, a salesman who was the original suspect.”

[Victor]

Hi Nats,

Victor, what if one of the three is still alive-or was in 1999?

How is that relevant to whether the existing evidence is sufficient to conclude that 3 people colluded to abduct a couple in a Moggie in the middle of nowhere?

Perhaps this will throw more light on his report.Apparently there is material in the report the powers that be don't want us to see....Why not?

Again that seemingly contradicts the little extra evidence quote. I'm quite interested in what he has found though and look forward to the book.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Hi Nick,

There are clues in what Matthews wrote indicating what new evidence he has.

How do your suggestions tally with the quote?

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.

Are you saying that if he has (to take your first example) located a new witness to the hold-up, that Foot could have (should have?) found them too?

KR,
Vic.

[NickB]

There are clues in what Matthews wrote indicating what new evidence he has.

“Gregsten wound [the window] down and was forced out of the car at gunpoint.”
He has a witness other than Valerie at the point of hold-up.

“Staff at the Maida Vale hotel said they had not seen Alphon on the crucial night.”
He has evidence that Nudds middle statement is the true one.

“[Hanratty] bore not the remotest resemblance to the man she had identified (wrongly, of course) at the Alphon parade.”
He found Michael Clark.

“[Valerie] was unable to visually identify any one.”
He has evidence to contradict Valerie’s contention.

“Hanratty was the only man on the parade born within a hundred miles of London!!”
He tracked down all id parade volunteers.

“The room [where the bullet cases were found] had been occupied on at least two occasions in the intervening period.”
He discovered a second occupant.

“[Skillet and Trower’s] evidence was totally unreliable – and was in fact rejected at the trial.”
He talked to a juror.

“[Hanratty’s] graphic description of the room [at Rhyl] he had occupied was quite extraordinarily accurate.”
He uncovered another description by Hanratty of the room.

[Natalie Severn]

Victor, what if one of the three is still alive-or was in 1999? Its really no use guessing- Matthews is writing a book.Perhaps this will throw more light on his report.Apparently there is material in the report the powers that be don't want us to see....Why not?

[Victor]

Apparently Roger Matthews concluded in 1996 -and I understand is still firmly convinced- that three people were involved in the A6 crime,one of whom drove the gunman to Dorney Reach.

Hi Nats,

If the above is true then it must mean he had some extra evidence that we haven't seen, but from the first post we have...
(actually it's a quote in post#2 from Derrick, I can't find it in a quick scan of the long 1st post)

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.

...those 2 statements are mutually exclusive, so one of them is wrong, which one?

KR,
Vic.

[Derrick]

A better question would be what have the last few dozen posts got to do with the Matthews Report ? The thread seems to have wandered completely off track.

I agree, over 200 posts devoted to a report that nobody has seen is a little bit excessive...but threads do go off at a tangent very easily.