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

[cobalt]

Moste,

Albeit conjecture, I would be interested in hearing more of how you see the case. The meeting of the two parties as in the official version is implausible to say the least, and convinces no one really. Only an idiot could be believe the official version of the lone gunman in the cornfield, complete with zero forensics. Ms Storie's version of events cannot be left unchallenged, in fact I suspect it is incomplete and decontextualized.


Any roads, we have the sober advice of Graham and Caz at our disposal, so let us test the evidence and the conjecture. That is the power of this site. They are both good people and will test every thing we say in order to come closer to the truth, I hope.

[caz]

Only an idiot could be believe the official version of the lone gunman in the cornfield, complete with zero forensics.

But dear cobalt, we have now been told that two unidentified fingermarks were found among the 'myriad' hairs, fibres and identified fingermarks also found.

How is that 'zero forensics'?

How is that evidence of 'suppression'?

I believe there was a lone gunman in the cornfield, so while it's nice to be called a good person, I can't offer any sober advice if I'm also an idiot, can I?

It's just as well I never take personal offence, isn't it?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Interestingly we can feel free to make comparisons between Ms.Stories changes of story, and changes of, identifying the supposed assailant, with Hanratty's elaborations of his alibi.

Now that I do find offensive, on Valerie's behalf. You can feel free because we are lucky enough to have freedom of expression, so I can feel free to say such comparisons are bang out of order.

Hanratty flat out lied about his whereabouts on the night of the murder. He either lied about staying in Liverpool, or lied about staying in Rhyl, or lied about both. He was a liar and habitual criminal.

There is no evidence that the surviving victim of this terrible crime lied about anything in her version of events. In the circumstances, it would have been amazing had she noted and consistently recalled exact locations from the point when she and Gregsten were no longer alone. We know she spent hours up close and personal with the intruder, having to listen to his voice while Gregsten drove, fearful of how it would all end, so I don't find it the least bit surprising that she would be 100% certain if she heard that same voice again.

Yet Valerie is accused not only of being an unreliable witness, but knowingly changing her story, while the Rhyl crew, claiming to recall brief, unremarkable sightings of a man several months after the event, while being shown the one photo of Hanratty (!), are held up as examples of infallible witnesses.

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

I do sometimes wonder if Valerie Storie ever visits this Forum......to be honest, I hope she doesn't.

I can only suggest, as I've done plenty of times in the past, that those who do not agree with her version of events provide us with their versions of how and by whom this crime was committed, together with rock-solid proof of any claims they care to make.

Graham

[moste]

I do sometimes wonder if Valerie Storie ever visits this Forum......to be honest, I hope she doesn't.

I can only suggest, as I've done plenty of times in the past, that those who do not agree with her version of events provide us with their versions of how and by whom this crime was committed, together with rock-solid proof of any claims they care to make.

Graham

Hi Graham.
I don't agree with Valerie's version of events .I can provide you with my own version of events, which would not include 'arguing with the killer for about 15 minutes (per Paul Foot.) whether or not her sweetheart of 4 years was dead or not .It would not include (per Bob W.) A dialogue which involved "What shall I call you? I must call you something."(this, after the murder, but before the rape) It would not include the sharing of a cigarette earlier, with a chap who was pointing a gun at your head. It wouldn't involve assisting the assailant with advice as to where a good place to 'kip "would be.
Just to name a few. And No I don't have any rock solid proof. I just don't believe Valerie's take on things

[Sherlock Houses]

I don't agree with Valerie's version of events .I can provide you with my own version of events, which would not include 'arguing with the killer for about 15 minutes (per Paul Foot.) whether or not her sweetheart of 4 years was dead or not .It would not include (per Bob W.) A dialogue which involved "What shall I call you? I must call you something."(this, after the murder, but before the rape) It would not include the sharing of a cigarette earlier, with a chap who was pointing a gun at your head. It wouldn't involve assisting the assailant with advice as to where a good place to 'kip "would be.
Just to name a few. And No I don't have any rock solid proof. I just don't believe Valerie's take on things

Given Valerie's change of description on August 31st 1961 regarding the gunman's eyes [they were no longer deep-set and brown but icy-blue and saucer-like] what I find totally unfathomable is how she proceeded, 3 and a half weeks later, to identify Michael Clark as the A6 killer.

Valerie said the killer was a little taller than herself [she was 5ft 3 and a half inches]. Michael Clark however was 5ft 9 inches tall.
Valerie described the gunman as being of slender build. Michael Clark was heavily built.
Valerie described the gunman's hair as 'straight, well-greased, dark brown, brushed straight back, slightly receding at temples'. Michael Clark had dark short-cropped hair.
Valerie [at least from August 31st on] said the gunman had large, icy-blue, staring, saucer-like eyes. Michael Clark, wait for it, had..........Dark eyes.

This defies belief.

And Valerie perfectly understood before that September 24th ID parade that she was not to pick out anyone unless she was satisfied in her own mind that he was the A6 killer.


I can fully understand those people who believe she had no [or very little] idea of what the gunman looked like.

[cobalt]

I did not intend my previous post to be offensive to others on this site. I will try to choose my words more carefully.

My reference to ‘zero forensics’ was in respect of there being no forensic evidence from the car presented in the prosecution of James Hanratty. This is generally accepted as a puzzling anomaly in respect of the investigation, given the time he was alleged to have been in the vehicle and the nature of the crimes themselves. There are other puzzles as well, such as why a gunman carrying not just a loaded gun but also a fair amount of ammunition, turned up out of the blue in a corn field. That’s before we take into consideration the baffling nature of a journey which ended so awfully. Any one of these would raise an eyebrow in a capital case, but collectively they place a rather large question mark over the prosecution of James Hanratty, and by implication the testimony of Valerie Storie.

I should imagine there are a number of contemporaneous statements made by Ms Storie to the police which are not in the public domain, so the reliability of the evidence she gave in court may not be easy to judge. The most important evidence she gave, crucial to Hanratty’s conviction, was her identification of him as the assailant in the car. This identification is obviously undermined by a previous misidentification, something she is on record as saying, ‘Was just one of these things.’ You might have thought that picking out an innocent man from the first identity parade would have caused Ms Storey to question her ability to identify the killer, but strangely, it seems to have actually helped her at the second time of asking.

The witnesses from Liverpool and Rhyl were not confronted with an identity parade, so misidentification was, admittedly, not an issue for them. However they provide convincing evidence that Hanratty did actually visit these places, even if only two of them are prepared to be specific about dates and times. Apart from Valerie Storie, whose identification changed, no one can place Hanratty near the extended crime scene. No other witness has ever placed him at Dorney Reach or Deadman’s Hill.

In order to be convinced that she had identified the right man, Ms Storey asked the members of the second line-up to speak so she could hear their voices. This was a reasonable request since, by her own admission, she had only caught a fleeting glimpse of his face. Yet, quite astonishingly, her brother-in-law William Ewer was able to ‘identify’ Hanratty without even needing to engage him in conversation. Ewer did attempt to play the incident down in later years, but apart from two journalists there were, I think, three shop assistants/managers who corroborated this weird tale of him spotting what he suspected was the A6 murderer - before the police had Hanratty down as a suspect.

[Derrick]

...
I can fully understand those people who believe she had no [or very little] idea of what the gunman looked like...

Exactly!

[Spitfire]

What has all this got to do with the attack on Swedish housewife Mrs Meike Dalal on Thursday, September 7th 1961?

The originating poster's error in describing Mrs Dalal as Swedish when she is German does however show how we are all capable of making errors of description, be they relating to physical features or nationality, and this is about all one can take from this thread.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi All.Sorry I have been unable to get back to this thread for several weeks.Been away,moving house [hopefully] etc etc.
Fascinating article SH found in the Guardian of 24-08-1961.In that initial interview with a young John Kerr he appears to clearly remember VS's words-he corrects himself its true but then he is very specific when he states "she was able to say they picked up a man at Slough.This might not be so significant were it not for SH's recent Guardian report in which it is written " The girl whispered to the police they had been shot by a man who thumbed a lift at Slough . These are two early- very early -reports.
The language about 'picking a man up at Slough' is quite precise in both cases so if we take Valerie at her word here ,as quoted in these early reports and bearing in mind her words were uttered before being interviewed properly by police -,then the gunman could indeed have had an pre-arranged lift with Michael Gregsten -and one which Valerie Storie knew nothing about.Or she may have seen in fact -or hazily recalled when speaking to Carr and the police constable - an image of Michael Gregsten drawing up the Morris Minor in -or near Slough where Valerie lived at that time with her parents .She would surely have had a lift back from Gregsten ? Therefore it appeared to her initially to be a case of Gregsten 'picking up a man' there - but with her having no idea why- other than 'he may have been giving a man a lift'.It may be worth remembering that Gregsten's [and Valerie's]work place was in Langley near Slough and Michael Gregsten lived with Janet Gregsten and their two children in Abbots Langley near Watford nearly 30 miles away.He was about to leave the family home and Janet later that week [on 27th August] for a flat in Maidenhead .But anyway isn't it possible he was in the habit of giving workmates a lift along his 28mile route home and at the time it therefore didn't seem that unusual to Valerie him giving a man a lift ? Always remember we have only Valerie's account -we don't have Gregsten's for example who may not have shared everything he said or did with Valerie .I am not suggesting anything ulterior by Valerie here at all.However we do know that Acott was into a bit of doctoring stuff ---desperate for Valerie not to allow their 'liaison dangereuse' with Gregsten to become public knowledge and he seems to have ordered several inclusions and omissions such as the roadworks and the garage in the evidence that several have taken issue already including such notables as the legal expert Blom- Cooper who pointed out a number of discrepancies and who also sat through everyday of the trial taking issue with a number of its procedures as well as the prosecution evidence --eg not only Acott suggesting the garage Valerie refers to was in Kingsbury and not the one near the airport as Valerie insisted but also going to town on how wrong Acott was about the roadworks stuff that was inserted .BTW Andy remains convinced that the route they all took that night in 1961 -as far as Watford anyway -would have been the very same route -almost certainly -that Gregsten took every day on his way to and from work.[Andy my husband] grew up only a stone's throw from the turning towards Harrow they took that night and knows it very well from his childhood.An important part of that route was near the family home and his parent's house in Greenford where his mother lived until a few years ago

[NickB]

Acott suggesting the garage Valerie refers to was in Kingsbury and not the one near the airport as Valerie insisted

This actually worked to the advantage of the defence, who used the fact that Harry Hirons had not identified Hanratty as part of their case for his innocence.

[cobalt]

No one ever identified Hanratty, not at Dorney Reach or Deadman's Hill or anywhere in between.

(Except of course Valerie Storie)

Apart from that, the case was made.

[Spitfire]

I can agree that the evidence against Hanratty was pretty thin and that if he had not lied about being with friends in Liverpool at the time of the murder, then he probably would have got away with it.

Alphon may or may not have assaulted the GERMAN Mrs Dalal but he did not kill Gregsten. That was down to Hanratty who was not the wrong man to be hanged per Mike Sherrard QC.

[Natalie Severn]

That was down to Hanratty who was not the wrong man to be hanged per Mike Sherrard QC.

Source please! Since you are attributing to Michael Sherrard QC this quote as though it were fact can you provide your source Spitfire giving the date and the journal or news media in which it was reported? We have an opportunity here to try to sort out truth from fiction and half-truth and to do this we need factually sourced information . Thanks.

[Spitfire]

A quote from Michael Sherrard in an address to Law Society student members. It's been quoted in the past and a link provided. Essentially Sherrard was relieved that the wrong man was not hanged but was of the view that the original trial evidence did not justify a conviction.