Valerie Storie's 3 part story as published in 'Today' magazine, June 1962

[Graham]

One small but I feel significant question arises.....if those who consider Hanratty innocent, and that Alphon had nothing to do with the A6 Case, then can one of them perhaps suggest who they think actually did it? I've asked this same question quite a few times over the years I've been on these boards, and answer there has been none.

Someone, and I'm sorry but I can't remember who, said on this forum years ago that there have been no death-bed confessions, no anonymous letters to newspapers, no darkened-out televised interviews, no nothing. Not a single whisper from some dying East End lowlife who croaked that 'he knew Jim didn't do it, because', etc., etc.

I know for a fact that at least one Hanratty supporter expected there to be a last letter from Alphon confessing to the crime - but even if there was, who would have believed the lying sod? Now, there are probably those who await publication of a final letter from Valerie Storie admitting that her evidence was fabricated....

I am certain that Acott & Co very seriously and studiously interviewed known members of the criminal fraternity and also non-criminals who might have 'helped in their inquiries', but if they actually learned anything from such interviews, then nothing so far as I know has been made public. We do know, though, that Alphon was not the first person to have been interviewed regarding the A6, but I doubt if we will ever know the identities of other interviewees, 55 years later.

Graham

[Limehouse]

It is a very good question Graham, but one that I cannot answer. When I very first studied the case forty or more years ago I would have said that Alphon was guilty and Hanratty was innocent but I have not believed that scenario for very many years.

I think there are so many worrying aspects to this case, almost certainly evidence that has been supressed and/or tampered with and witnesses leaned on, that it is very difficult to draw any conclusions categorically.

For me, the location of the crime and its obscure motivation make me lean towards a planned abduction with MG and VS in mind - for what purpose seems unclear but various scenarios have been chewed over on these boards many times before.

Who could have carried out that abduction? Someone who:

1. Wore gloves, removed them when he raped VS but left no DNA trace of himself in the car.
2. Seemed to be an incompetent driver.
3. Looked like Michael Clark on the first identity parade but James Hanratty on the second.
4. Had aspects of a cockney dialect in his speech.

If this person was not Hanratty we can also conclude that:

5. This person either had direct access to, or knew someone who had direct access to Hanratty's dirty laundry (i.e. the hanky)
6. Knew that Hanratty deposited unwanted loot from robberies under the back seat of London buses - or knew that this was a popular place to deposit unwanted loot.
7. Knew that Hanratty was out of London and knew why he was out of London and knew he would therefore be unlikely to be able to provide a credible alibi.

Given the circles he mixed in, any of his peers might have been willing to frame him for a price, especially to settle old scores.

[cobalt]

I’m not sure if point number 1 is absolutely correct. There may have been forensic material collected which could not be attributed to any significant party, but which belonged to the perpetrator.

If Hanratty was subsequently ‘fitted up’ by members of the criminal fraternity, this possibility must have been one that experienced detectives would have considered; especially when evidence began falling into their laps. Maybe they were happy to be led down this path, but if they had suspicions, then there might have been a danger that the whole case would unravel at the trial.
In addition, once Hanratty was in the dock for a capital crime, might he not have been tempted to offer a few names to the police as to where they should actually be looking? If ‘fitted up’ he must have had a fair idea who the players were. Honour among thieves does not stretch as far as the gallows.

Regarding Alphon, he first came to police attention due to his odd behavior in a hotel was reported to police in the days following the crime. This was, admittedly, in response to a specific request put out by police to hotel owners and the like, I think. However, do we know if his behavior was ever so unsettling at any time prior to the crime that he was ever asked to leave a hotel; or if indeed the police were previously contacted concerning his behaviour? In short, was Alphon’s behaviour in the days following the A6 crime out of character even for him, or just par for the course.

[Graham]

Good posts both, Julie and Cobalt. Couple of comments:

For me, the location of the crime and its obscure motivation make me lean towards a planned abduction with MG and VS in mind - for what purpose seems unclear but various scenarios have been chewed over on these boards many times before.

I believe it was Lewis Hawser who first suggested that JH might have been 'sent' to the cornfield. I have never believed in any form of pre-crime conspiracy in the A6 Case. I don't believe there was a motive for the crime; it was a chance encounter of a criminally-inclined man with a new toy - a gun - and an innocent courting couple in a car.

Looked like Michael Clark on the first identity parade but James Hanratty on the second.

For my part, I believe that on the occasion of the first ID parade, Valerie felt she had to pick someone out, and decided on Clark. At the second parade, she was in no doubt at all and picked JH.

In addition, once Hanratty was in the dock for a capital crime, might he not have been tempted to offer a few names to the police as to where they should actually be looking? If ‘fitted up’ he must have had a fair idea who the players were. Honour among thieves does not stretch as far as the gallows.

Excellent point, Cobalt. If JH did pass on any names to the police, then they haven't come down to us.

With regard to Alphon, it seems to me that the bloke was basically an eccentric and somewhat unstable nut-case, who swanned aimlessly around London and the South-East, picking up bits of work as and when, and sponging off his mother and doubtless others too. I don't doubt that he had his fair share of brains and cunning - his filmed interview in the Paris hotel room was an almost-masterly performance in which he tied the rather clueless interviewer into knots. He also took Jean Justice for all he was worth, and it's sometimes difficult to figure out who was leading whom in this oddball relationship. He was, though, without a doubt, involved in the A6 through simple coincidence.

Alphon did have a (minor) criminal record, and was described as a weird and eccentric individual by people who had encountered him, but I don't know if his performance at The Alexandra Court was unique - somehow I doubt it.

Graham

[Ed James]

Who else might have done it?

One small but I feel significant question arises.....if those who consider Hanratty innocent, and that Alphon had nothing to do with the A6 Case, then can one of them perhaps suggest who they think actually did it? I've asked this same question quite a few times over the years I've been on these boards, and answer there has been none.


Graham

First , where I come from. I believe that there a number of factors that can give rise to the firm belief that Hanratty was guilty, but equally that there are other ones that suggest his innocence(eg the absence of a compelling motive provided by the Crown for the bizarre events). Being open minded may seem indecisive after so much debate but it does allow a constant shifting of known evidence and a desire for more .

I am not surprised that other names have not convincingly come forward, as Dixie France , most likely the supplier of the murder gun and knowing much more than he revealed to the police , committed suicide.

On 30th December 2008 , poster Blue Moon , who perhaps unconvincing in some ways and claimed to be a relation to Carol France, implicated John Russell , Charlotte France's brother in a plot to scare off Valerie Storie. If the abduction was a family affair (with or without Hanratty's involvement, the wider underworld would not have been able to offer information. Though somehow, not satisfactorily explained, France did come to the police attention but was treated quite leniently.

Regardless of the value of the suggestion of France's brother - in - law's involvement , it would be interesting if anything more was known about John Russell. Was he the butcher brother who supplied meat to the France family? And is it the case as posted some time ago by Natalie Severn on the other mysteries thread that the murder gun was found to have blood residue which was actually determined as animal blood?

regards

Ed

[NickB]

Regardless of the value of the suggestion of France's brother - in - law's involvement , it would be interesting if anything more was known about John Russell.

The Sunday Times interviewed James Russell, described as Dixie France’s brother-in-law, who ran a trucking business. I don't know if he was also known as John. All he said was that Hanratty was an appalling driver, and Mrs Russell said she would never let him drive her.

[OneRound]

...
For my part, I believe that on the occasion of the first ID parade, Valerie felt she had to pick someone out, and decided on Clark. At the second parade, she was in no doubt at all and picked JH.
...

Graham

Hi Graham,

If your belief is correct (and in my humble opinion you're right much more than you're ever wrong on these threads), that was an utterly dreadful situation that had been allowed to develop on the occasion of the first ID parade. It may have even resulted in no second parade taking place.

I don't know or forget exactly how many were on the first parade but, in line with your belief, there was always then around a one in twelve or even a one in ten chance that Alphon would have been picked. If he had, what would have happened next?

Would Acott still have come up with his list of reasons as to why the A6 murderer wasn't Alphon? I rather doubt it.

Would a Roy Langdale type have come forward with claims of a 'confession' from Alphon? I wouldn't have bet against it.

Would Valerie Storie have backtracked and said she picked the wrong man? I'll leave that answer to you all individually.

The list of questions and possible answers go on. So do the consequences ....

Best regards,

OneRound

[Graham]

Hi Ed,

On 30th December 2008 , poster Blue Moon , who perhaps unconvincing in some ways and claimed to be a relation to Carol France, implicated John Russell , Charlotte France's brother in a plot to scare off Valerie Storie. If the abduction was a family affair (with or without Hanratty's involvement, the wider underworld would not have been able to offer information. Though somehow, not satisfactorily explained, France did come to the police attention but was treated quite leniently.

1] I re-read Blue Moon's posts and the replies she (I assume Blue Moon was 'she') received, and I agree she was not that convincing. But I do agree that if such a plot existed it would, one hopes, have been kept a very tight secret. In the aftermath of the A6 Case, I believe that neither Charlotte nor Carole France discussed the case, neither did they give an interview. However. one of Carole's younger sisters (sorry, can't recall her name) was interviewed for one of the TV documentaries concerning the A6, and as I remember she was extremely hostile towards Hanratty.

2] Ever since I became interested in the A6 I have always felt that had there been any 'secrets' concerning it, then they would have been known by Dixie France. He attempted suicide twice, the second time successfully, and left behind some hand-written notes and letters, nearly all of which were taken by the police never to be seen again. The one letter that was published, however, was a plea to his wife to believe that he was innocent of any involvement in the actual crime. However, and I've suggested this before, I couldn't rule out France's supplying Hanratty with the gun: France as manager of the hard-nut Harmony Cafe was known to keep a small armoury of weapons there, in case of trouble. He also had plenty of criminal connections, and I wouldn't have thought that getting hold of a gun in those days was any problem for him. As Hanratty himself said, he wanted to be a 'stick-up man' to increase his profits from crime. Woffinden, as expected, strongly suggests that the reason for France's suicide was that he had framed Hanratty. I would suggest that there was at the time a genuine fear on France's part that he could be tried as an accessory in the A6 murder, and if found guilty would have gone down for a long time.

Graham

PS: incidentally, the first suspect hauled in by the police with regard to the A6, was grilled by Acott for sixteen hours, a long time. Who he was we'll never know, but Acott must have had a pretty good reason to hold him for so long.

[Graham]

Hi OneRound,

thanks for your unsolicited testimonial!

The thing is, Valerie couldn't have picked out Hanratty on that first ID parade for the simple reason he wasn't there. This might sound facile, but at that time Hanratty wasn't even in the frame - but Alphon was, and Acott & Co genuinely thought that they had their man. I think Valerie herself said that she felt obliged to pick someone out. Had she picked Alphon, then it's likely that any supporters of his would, even now, be trying to clear his name, had he been found guilty and hanged.

It was obviously not against the law at the time that another ID parade, this time including Hanratty, was organised, at which Valerie was in no doubt at all. The rest is history.

I can't answer your other questions, OR, except to comment that once he was in the clear Alphon 'confessed' to the murder and enjoyed (and profited by) his figurative 'three minutes of fame'.

Graham

[NickB]

Directly after issuing his media appeal for Alphon, Acott visited Valerie Storie. Woffinden suggests: “It is hard to believe he conveyed anything other than the message that the hunt for the A6 murderer was nearing its conclusion.” So on the one side she was told by the officer in charge of the id parade that she was under no obligation to pick anyone, and on the other Acott having said words to the effect: “We’ve got him!”

It is a matter of debate when Acott realised that Alphon was not his man. I believe by the end of Alphon’s interview he had come to this conclusion. He then hurriedly arranged an id parade, now expecting Alphon to be cleared. As mentioned recently, I believe that had Alphon been picked his solicitor would have cried foul saying he should have been there. I also believe that Valerie would have realised her mistake. Alphon would have fought hard for his innocence and so I think a there would still have been a re-interview with Nudds/Snell producing the same retractions.

Alphon only played his ‘confession’ games when he was not at risk.

In March 1998 when Alphon was faced with the prospect that the DNA tests might show that Hanratty was not the murderer he declared:
''If they say the murderer can't have been Hanratty, I may well insist that they take my DNA sample. I don't want to do that, but if they tested me they would find that my DNA doesn't match either.''

[Graham]

DNA samples were indeed taken from Alphon, and no match was found. I find it strange that he insisted he'd never confessed to the murder - his TV footage of his Paris 'Press Conference' contradicted this, as did his various verbal statements and writings. Encouraged, one suspects, by Messrs Justice and Fox. Alphon confessed verbally to, amongst others, Jeremy Fox, Paul Foot and, at the 'Press Conference', to a bunch of journalists at the Hotel du Louvre. Of course, as he genuinely didn't commit the A6 Crime, all these confessions must I think be put down to Alphon's weird personality - any 'normal' person would have put himself as far away as possible from the aftermath of the case. Definitely a suitable case for treatment.

Graham

[Semper_Eadem]

Graham,
Sorry to go off topic a teeny bit but the mention of Alphon got me wondering. What I wonder is that Alphon does seem unstable and I can't help but wonder if he might of been the one who attacked Mrs Dalal for giggles.

Mrs. Dalal wasn't sexually assaulted but I wonder if he wanted to scare her just to scare her. Perhaps he tried again and that second assault was unreported given that he seems not actually assault the victim or maybe her husband or boyfriend gave him a good beat down. Just food for thought.

[OneRound]

Hi OneRound,

thanks for your unsolicited testimonial!

The thing is, Valerie couldn't have picked out Hanratty on that first ID parade for the simple reason he wasn't there. This might sound facile, but at that time Hanratty wasn't even in the frame - but Alphon was, and Acott & Co genuinely thought that they had their man. I think Valerie herself said that she felt obliged to pick someone out. Had she picked Alphon, then it's likely that any supporters of his would, even now, be trying to clear his name, had he been found guilty and hanged.

It was obviously not against the law at the time that another ID parade, this time including Hanratty, was organised, at which Valerie was in no doubt at all. The rest is history.

I can't answer your other questions, OR, except to comment that once he was in the clear Alphon 'confessed' to the murder and enjoyed (and profited by) his figurative 'three minutes of fame'.

Graham

Hi Graham,

Thanks for your reply.

Whilst I do dispute anything you say, the key thing for me is that Valerie Storie should have only made one positive identification. There was only the one man who kidnapped her and Michael Gregsten. There was only the one and same man who killed Gregsten. There was only the one and same man who raped her.

I accept it was legal to hold a second parade (albeit not some of the specifics concerning how it was conducted but that is another matter). However, having picked a wrong man before she plumped for Hanratty, Valerie Storie's credibility as a witness was diminished - significantly in my book but obviously not enough for the jury.

It should not have been a situation of ''keep picking someone until the police get the right man on the parade and then see if you can get him''. A dreadful situation that Valerie Storie felt that was the case and acted upon.

Whilst I believe Hanratty was the A6 murderer, I have severe reservations that he was found guilty and hanged largely on the identification of a witness who picked out a different man on every parade she attended.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Graham]

Hi OR,

I do see what you're getting at, but as I understand it the point of the first ID parade is not who she did pick out, but who she didn't, i.e., Alphon. Acott thought he had a sound case against Alphon, and required only Valerie's corroboration that Alphon was her attacker to charge him. Why she picked out someone else I really can't say, other than that she felt obliged to do so. Don't forget that the name Hanratty was not known to the police at that time.

At the second parade, Valerie has stated that she almost instantly recognised Hanratty as her attacker, but didn't pick him out immediately as she wanted to 'make him suffer' or words to that effect (as no doubt he did, and as no doubt all the other men on the parade did, too). By now, of course, Alphon was in the clear and could not be included in another i.d. parade.

Graham

[OneRound]

Thanks again, Graham.

As I am sure you appreciated, my previous post was meant to read, ''Whilst I do not dispute anything you say etc''.

By not picking out Alphon on the first parade, I fully accept the point that Valerie Storie went a long way towards exonerating him. However, I struggle to view what happened on that parade in isolation. She not only (quite fairly) failed to identify Aphon but she also (quite unfairly) identified Michael Clarke. For me, that seriously taints her identification of Hanratty on the second parade.

I regard it as pretty irrelevant that Hanratty was not on the first parade. She obviously couldn't pick out someone who wasn't there. However, she should not have picked out anyone at any time unless properly convinced. Whilst I accept that a second parade was legal, her mistake on the first one causes me to not put too much store by the subsequent identification. For me, there could only be one meaningful bite at that particular cherry.

I've no real wish to comment on Valerie Storie's after the event comment about wanting ''to make him suffer'' or similar. However, I do regard it as wrong that Hanratty was required to speak on his parade when no checks had been carried out on the accents of the other participants. Much as it irks me to side with Michael Mansfield, the QC representing the Hanratty family at the 2002 appeal, as he said that was ''incurably unfair''.

Best regards,

OneRound