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

[Sherlock Houses]

I'd say the meaning depends on whether or not a hyphen is included: icy-blue = pale blue; icy blue = blue eyes with an icy expression.

Struth !! I have definitely heard it all now.

[caz]

Wrong yet again caz. Tony never maintained any such thing. Not to worry though as I feel almost sure you'll get something correct one of these days.

Here is what I was thinking of, and you were the one quoting Tony...

I've located Tony's post [#3268] from the old A6 thread.
This was what he had to reveal...........

Hello Graham,

I quote you from your post 3267:
“Not a lot of evidence to point to the A6 killer having brown eyes....is there?”

The first identikit picture compiled solely by Valerie and which looked remarkably like Mr Alphon, despite your own doubts about this was compiled and aided by the identikit expert.
As Vic says it was in black and white, I think they still may be nowadays, but the ‘coach’ would have explained to her the procedure. She had not done one before.
As you know there are different types of hair, noses, lips ears and such like. But colour is a feature even though it is in black and white; such as for the colour of the hair
Similarly eye colours can be selected and the ‘coach’ has to explain exactly what colour codings are referred to with the hair, lips and eyes.
There are 104 codings for eyes. E10 illustrates blue eyes. Valerie chose E49 which depicts dark eyes.
Dark eyes are not blue eyes by any stretch of the imagination.
Can you let me know how Valerie, very shortly after the murder when her memory was freshest, chose E49 eyes to be published to help in the search for the killer?
She simply must have told the expert coach the man had dark or brown eyes and not blue.

Tony.

To me, Tony is saying that dark eyes cannot be blue, implying that blue eyes cannot be dark. Yet Hanratty's eyes were said to be a 'much darker blue' than the shade Valerie is said to have meant when describing the killer's eyes.

I'll leave you with that thought... and hope someone can make sense of it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

For SH's benefit, basically to put another little nugget of information within his grasp, the idea that the handkerchief found with the gun was personalised came from a former poster called Tony, who was actually a Hanratty supporter. He posted what many of us, myself included, took to be a genuine courtroom exchange between Hanratty and the prosecution. Unfortunately, as it later transpired, it seemed that for reasons of his own Tony was having a little joke, and he made up the whole exchange. In fairness to him, he probably did it to demonstrate what a daft notion it would have been had Hanratty actually agreed that the hankie was his and dropped himself even further into the mire. Trouble is, Tony did it rather too well.......

Graham

[Sherlock Houses]

To me, Tony is saying that dark eyes cannot be blue, implying that blue eyes cannot be dark. Yet Hanratty's eyes were said to be a 'much darker blue' than the shade Valerie is said to have meant when describing the killer's eyes.

I'll leave you with that thought... and hope someone can make sense of it.

As is your wont you have chosen to twist another poster's [this time Tony]words to suit your own agenda. You have even forgotten what you've written in a recent post where you claim that Tony said blue eyes can only ever be pale.

Tony claimed no such thing. He wrote dark eyes are not blue eyes by any stretch of the imagination and I completely agree with him as I feel sure 90% of people would too (there always seems to be the contrary 10% doesn't there ?).

Ask any normal person on the street what DARK EYES mean and I bet the overwhelming majority of them would say brown or black eyes.

[Alfie]

Struth !! I have definitely heard it all now.

It's called grammar. It's not all that difficult to understand.

[Sherlock Houses]

Unfortunately, as it later transpired, it seemed that for reasons of his own Tony was having a little joke, and he made up the whole exchange. In fairness to him, he probably did it to demonstrate what a daft notion it would have been had Hanratty actually agreed that the hankie was his and dropped himself even further into the mire. Trouble is, Tony did it rather too well.......

Tony was an honest bloke, he was not an inventor and made it quite clear whenever he was jesting. Have you not considered the possibility that Tony had access to the full trial transcript and was quoting from it ?

[Graham]

Tony was an honest bloke, he was not an inventor and made it quite clear whenever he was jesting

Well, he didn't make it very clear in this particular instance.

Have you not considered the possibility that Tony had access to the full trial transcript and was quoting from it ?

Stone me, SH, of course I considered that possibility, and not just me, either. He wouldn't have been the only poster with a transcript, but as no-one else came on to support what he said, I (and others) are now of the opinion that he had invented that exchange possibly for reasons per my previous post. And in retrospect, had Hanratty genuinely identified the hankie as his, then this would have incriminated him even further; but as neither Woffinden, Foot nor Miller refer to this, then I am now content that it was an exchange that never actually took place in court.

Graham

[Graham]

Wrong yet again caz

Well now, the very title of this thread contains a mistake made by.....da-daaah! Yes, Mr SH himself!

Graham

PS: and this thread has gone a little, er, off-thread, what?

[Sherlock Houses]

Well now, the very title of this thread contains a mistake made by.....da-daaah! Yes, Mr SH himself!

Graham

PS: and this thread has gone a little, er, off-thread, what?

Such childishness from an alleged mature poster. What an absolute whopper I made by innocently describing Mrs Dalal as Swedish instead of German. And what a huge difference it makes, lol.

PS. This thread got sabotaged a long time ago despite me trying to get it on track again. I can't help but wonder if it was deliberately side-tracked.

[Graham]

Just setting the record straight, that's all.

Now, what on earth leads you to suspect that this thread has been deliberately hi-jacked? Presumably by one of the nasty people who think Hanratty did it? And if so, for what purpose, pray?

Graham

[moste]

Just setting the record straight, that's all.

Now, what on earth leads you to suspect that this thread has been deliberately hi-jacked? Presumably by one of the nasty people who think Hanratty did it? And if so, for what purpose, pray?

Graham

RIGHT, that's it . All back to the reboot thread until serious information concerning Mrs. Dalal shows up!

[caz]

RIGHT, that's it . All back to the reboot thread until serious information concerning Mrs. Dalal shows up!

Will do, moste. I need to catch up with that thread anyway.

But just before I go...

As is your wont you have chosen to twist another poster's [this time Tony]words to suit your own agenda. You have even forgotten what you've written in a recent post where you claim that Tony said blue eyes can only ever be pale.

I never intended to twist anyone's words, SH. I genuinely thought that because Tony asserted that dark eyes can never be blue, he was also implying that blue eyes can never be described as dark. Very many apologies to the absent Tony for so wickedly misrepresenting him. I am more than happy to acknowledge - and indeed, from personal experience - that blue eyes are not uniformly pale and can sometimes appear dark, or any shade in between, depending on the lighting conditions and pupil size.

By strange coincidence, my current bedtime reading is the book on the Wallace case by Roger Wilkes, where on page 175 he quotes the late, much admired Richard Whittington-Egan coming out with a frankly shocking generalisation, which stopped me in my tracks. Writing up a doorstep encounter with Richard Gordon Parry, whom RWE suspected at the time of being responsible for killing Julia Wallace back in 1931, he included this description:

'His eyes, which are of that bold blue which is traditionally associated with "sex-maniacs" are penetrating and alternately shifty and too-candid'.

I laughed out loud and when my husband asked what was so funny I read the offending sentence to him. He laughed too and said, "So I'm a sex maniac, am I?"

And then it hit me. I have been staring into eyes of the boldest blue for the last five years. And they can appear both pale or deep blue at different times, because in bright light the pupils go like pinpricks, while in very little light they are dilated. I asked hubby if this was right (from his half a century of looking in mirrors ), or was I guilty of confirmation bias? Knowing that he never agrees with me "for a quiet life", but much prefers a "heated debate", especially when it relates to my interest in true crime, I was not expecting him to readily confirm my observation, but he did.

Last word (I sincerely hope) on the subject of Valerie's blue-eyed rapist is that she used the words 'large' and 'staring', in addition to 'icy', and at one point mentioned 'his face staring through me'. RWE could not have summed this up better using his own word, 'penetrating'. What I have not seen quoted anywhere yet is Valerie stating the eyes were 'brown', or anything other than blue, or insisting on the shade, which would have been a tall order for anyone to distinguish in the circumstances, even with perfect vision. The shade of blue would have appeared different in passing car headlights or in the darkness of the back of the car, so it's meaningless to call her an unreliable witness on that count. She knew the eyes were blue, which is what really matters. They would have looked cold too, considering the complete lack of mercy he showed Valerie. He never meant to leave her alive, did he?

Love,

Caz
X

[ansonman]

Hi Caz,

Since going off topic seems to be the vogue at the moment I was interested in your reference to the Wallace case. I got in touch with Roger Wilkes shortly after his book was published and he was kind enough to send me tapes of the "Who Killed Julia" recordings broadcast on Radio City in 1981.

In particular, the interview with John Parkes, on his death bed, comes across as particularly convincing, so far as his pointing the finger at Parry is concerned.

You're probably aware that since then, three more books on the case have been published. "The Murder of Julia Wallace" by James Murphy is extremely well researched and one of the best on the case. John Gannon's "The Killing of Julia Wallace" is also well researched but his take on why the murderer did it is too far fetched for me. Finally "The Telephone Murder" by Ronald Bartle is atrocious. Written by a retired barrister and magistrate who should have known better, it is a very trying read. Pun intended.

Regards,

Ansonman

[caz]

Hi Ansonman,

I just noticed this post of yours. If you happen to see this, could you expand on your comment regarding John Gannon's book on the Wallace case? I haven't read this one and don't particularly want to if his take on the killer's motive is too far fetched. Why does he say Julia was killed and who is his suspect?

Many thanks.

And apologies to all for being off topic.

Love,

Caz
X

[RodCrosby]

And apologies to all for being off topic.

Hi caz

you know there's a dedicated thread - which is hotting up!

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9701&page=100