The attack on Swedish housewife Mrs Meike Dalal on Thursday, September 7th 1961

[Sherlock Houses]

From the notes that James Mackle made on August 26th when he visited Valerie Storie to construct the Identikit picture:

1st page – "eyes blue, deep set"

5th page – "EYES - large blue eyes not sunken, flush with face"

Det-Sgt Mackle used E49 coding when he and Miss Storie compiled the famous identikit photo. E49 is the code for very dark eyes. The American inventor of the Identikit system, Hugh McDonald, helped train the UK police in the use of the system and he studied the said identikit photo. It was his expert opinion that E49 coding had been used in determining the eye colour. Had the eyes been a lighter colour a different code would have been used by Det-Sgt Mackle.

Just to reiterate, as this is very important, E49 coding represents very dark eyes .

This would help to explain why Valerie picked out the dark-eyed Michael Clark in the September 24th identification parade. And as has been mentioned more than once on this forum she understood fully that she shouldn't pick out anyone from the line-up unless she was sure he was the A6 gunman.

[NickB]

Valerie Storie first mentioned the colour of the gunman's eyes on August 28th

From the notes that James Mackle made on August 26th when he visited Valerie Storie to construct the Identikit picture:

1st page – "eyes blue, deep set"

5th page – "EYES - large blue eyes not sunken, flush with face"

[Sherlock Houses]

Hi Del,
Sorry, I must have missed where she actually said the gunman had pale blue eyes. But if she did say that, and you can give me the exact source, I can't for the life of me understand why the word 'icy' kept being used instead, since there can be no possible ambiguity with 'pale', can there?

Derrick never mentioned "pale", it was you who did so, so why are you attributing to him something he didn't say ?

Incidentally Valerie Storie first mentioned the colour of the gunman's eyes on August 28th, a full 5 days after the murder. Her previous descriptions of the gunman's eyes only stated that they were large and staring. On August 26th she chose E49 coding for the eyes while helping Det-Sgt Mackle compile the ident-kit photo. E49 is the coding for DARK eyes.

Also she described the eyes on August 28th as ICY-BLUE ( couldn't resist impersonating SF there), no confusion at all about it. She was definitely not describing an "icy" expression whatever that may mean.

[caz]

I nearly forgot...

Remind me again when Valerie first claimed the gunman's eyes were blue. Was it before or after your blue-eyed boy entered police consciousness?

If it was before, then I submit that this obsessive clutching at pale, as opposed to any other, less pale shade of blue, is deliberately distracting from the point: whoever committed the crime had blue eyes according to the only surviving witness. So who do you favour as the culprit? And what colour eyes did he have?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Ok. Andrew Scott as Moriarty in Sherlock, doesn't have the darkest eyes and the iciest expression in them.

Oh come on, SH:

http://tinyurl.com/he5q5t7

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

For the very simple reason Caz in that she said so.

Sherrard told the jury that Hanratty's eye colour was a much darker blue.

The plain fact of the matter is that Storie didn't have the faintest clue what the A6 murderer looked like anyway.

On these boards, it appears that every time Storie's identification is questioned, the goal posts are moved!

Hi Del,

Sorry, I must have missed where she actually said the gunman had pale blue eyes. But if she did say that, and you can give me the exact source, I can't for the life of me understand why the word 'icy' kept being used instead, since there can be no possible ambiguity with 'pale', can there?

If one talks about an icy sea, for example, one thinks of deep, freezing cold waters of a dark inky blue - not the pale aqua associated with warm summer shallows.

Funny that Sherrard had to tell the jury that Hanratty's eye colour was a 'much darker blue'. Could they not see for themselves, if Valerie described the gunman's as 'pale' (and not merely 'icy'), that the shade was not right for the man in the dock?

What is also funny is that I have just been reading on the other thread various comments made by Hanratty supporters that blue eyes cannot be 'dark' by any stretch of anyone's fertile imagination! So just how dark was 'much darker blue' meant to be, and if Hanratty's eyes were not pale in colour but 'much' darker, how does that help to make him innocent exactly?

Love,

Caz
X

[Derrick]

A very astute observation Derrick.

The ref needs to make sure that the posts are firmly cemented into the ground henceforth.
How are you sure Valerie didn't mean this, how do you know Valerie didn't mean that and how do you know Valerie didn't mean the other ? I ask you !!

Exactly Houses ole' man.

[Sherlock Houses]

Think Andrew Scott as Moriarty in Sherlock, and tell me he doesn't have the darkest eyes and the iciest expression in them.

Ok. Andrew Scott as Moriarty in Sherlock, doesn't have the darkest eyes and the iciest expression in them.

[Sherlock Houses]

On these boards, it appears that every time Storie's identification is questioned, the goal posts are moved!

A very astute observation Derrick.

The ref needs to make sure that the posts are firmly cemented into the ground henceforth.
How are you sure Valerie didn't mean this, how do you know Valerie didn't mean that and how do you know Valerie didn't mean the other ? I ask you !!

[Derrick]

...How are you so sure she meant the shade of blue was icy, as in pale...

For the very simple reason Caz in that she said so.

Sherrard told the jury that Hanratty's eye colour was a much darker blue.

The plain fact of the matter is that Storie didn't have the faintest clue what the A6 murderer looked like anyway.

On these boards, it appears that every time Storie's identification is questioned, the goal posts are moved!

[caz]

Hi SH,

But assuming Valerie was not consulting her Collins at the time, and could simply have been recalling the icy expression in the gunman's eyes (you know, as in cold and emotionless and bugger all to do with the colour), what is your problem here? How are you so sure she meant the shade of blue was icy, as in pale, and was therefore using the right definition to identify the wrong man, and presumably got the actual killer's eye colour wrong anyway, if you favour a brown-eyed assailant?

If you accept the killer probably didn't have the warmest look in his eyes as he set about putting the couple through the worst ordeal of their lives, then he could have had the deepest brown eyes you ever saw and still have stared at Valerie with an expression as cold as ice. Think Andrew Scott as Moriarty in Sherlock, and tell me he doesn't have the darkest eyes and the iciest expression in them.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sherlock Houses]

No doubt you'll try to find fault with Collins's definition......

[Sherlock Houses]

Hi SH,
Are you perhaps making the understandable leap from icy to pale? If we equate the icy with cold and staring instead, we just get large and blue. The icy bit would relate to the temporary expression in those eyes, not the shade or depth of colour.

Methinks you've got your tongue planted firmly in your cheek with this statement.
James Hanratty had neither icy blue, pale blue or even faded blue eyes. He had normal blue eyes like almost half of the UK population.
It must be obvious to the vast majority of folk what icy blue eyes means.......

Just in case anyone besides yourself is in any doubt about the colour of icy blue eyes I'll let the Collins English dictionary say something......

[Graham]

Having got my hands on my books again, I re-read the Langdale accounts in both Foot and Woffinden. I never gave the Langdale evidence much credence when I first read the books (a long time ago) and I don't give it much now. Even the judge and Swanwick had reservations about it, the latter advising the jury to treat this evidence with caution. Acott, too, seemed in two minds about it. That Langdale told this tale to a fellow prisoner within hearing of an escorting hospital warder (Eatwell) is not in dispute, but the judge made the comment that it was told 'very loudly' to ensure that Eatwell heard him. So what moved Langdale to come out with this story? If it was the police (and I very much doubt it) it would appear to have backfired. Was it off his own bat? Did some unknown person put him up to it? And why Langdale anyway? He claims he was the 'only other prisoner' who walked with Hanratty when they were both in Brixton Prison, but this is denied by other prisoners whom Sherrard interviewed.

Possibly the only real result was to sow just a little seed of doubt in the minds of the jury, but I would doubt that they swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

As has recently been remarked, the Langdale Incident has tended to be overlooked by those of us interested in the A6 Case; perhaps with some justification. I still believe that Hanratty was guilty, by the way.

As for Langdale, I believe when he got out of clink and decided to go straight he started a mini-cab business.

Graham

[ansonman]

For my money, to believe Langdale was telling the truth and to believe that the Rhyl alibi was false can only lead to one conclusion: Hanratty wanted to be found guilty and he wanted to hang. This is, of course, absolute rubbish, but to me it is the only reasonable conclusion if we are to believe Langdale and disbelieve Rhyl.

You confess your guilt to another screw, knowing full well that he'll be only too eager to alert higher authority (and earn remission) and then you change your false alibi to another false alibi part way through the trial.

One question that anyone believing this rubbish might ask is "why not save time and plead guilty?" to which the obvious answer is "he wouldn't have wanted to upset his Mother".

Ansonman