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

[Natalie Severn]

The article is clearly written when Michael Howard was Home Secretary, a position he had to relinquish when Labour won the May 1997 election, so how does this support your contention that despite the 2002 appeal judgment Dt. Supt. Roger Matthews wanted a new inquiry?

Matthews wanted a new inquiry in 1996/7.Matthews continued to believe in Hanratty's innocence after the appeal judgment of 2002 ..as he still does and presumably he would still like a new inquiry since he hasn't ever retracted from that position to my knowledge.

[Spitfire]

Hanratty about to be cleared

Here's another one from the Indie from 23 October 2011 which suggests that despite the 2002 Appeal Judgment Hanratty is about to be cleared. Hanratty to be cleared.

[Spitfire]

The date of that article must be wrong. Michael Howard was Home Secretary only until 1997.

In 1999 the Metropolitan Police appointed Steve Dann to be Senior Investigating Officer on cold cases, the most high profile of which was the A6 murder. He studied the Matthews Report and its supporting documentation and came to a different conclusion. In 2001 Dann left to be Police Ombudsmen in Northern Ireland.

Thus the Met were no longer supportive of the Matthews Report by the time of the Appeal.

Quite right. Dann

[Spitfire]

It certainly does appear from this report in the Independent that despite the 2002 appeal judgment , Det,Supt Roger Matthews' wanted a new inquiry on the basis of his findings and that the evidence regarding Alphon to have been examined .

The article is clearly written when Michael Howard was Home Secretary, a position he had to relinquish when Labour won the May 1997 election, so how does this support your contention that despite the 2002 appeal judgment Dt. Supt. Roger Matthews wanted a new inquiry?

[Natalie Severn]

The date of that article must be wrong. Michael Howard was Home Secretary only until 1997.

In 1999 the Metropolitan Police appointed Steve Dann to be Senior Investigating Officer on cold cases, the most high profile of which was the A6 murder. He studied the Matthews Report and its supporting documentation and came to a different conclusion. In 2001 Dann left to be Police Ombudsmen in Northern Ireland.

Thus the Met were no longer supportive of the Matthews Report by the time of the Appeal.

Not true Nick .The date may not be right but your conclusion is wrong. It was in fact the strength of what was in the Matthews Report that it was put forward by the Home Office to the CCRC .Baden Skitt ,Chief Constable of Hertfordshire ,was appointed to take charge of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and Baden Skitt btw also believed Hanratty to be innocent on the basis of the Matthew's report's findings. Baden Skitt while in charge of the CCRC took the review forward to the 2002 appeal.
The point being made here and being reported by the Independent is that on the basis of the Matthews Report of 1996/7 ,a new Investigation should have been launched and the case against Peter Alphon re-examined.This as you know never happened.

[NickB]

The date of that article must be wrong. Michael Howard was Home Secretary only until 1997.

In 1999 the Metropolitan Police appointed Steve Dann to be Senior Investigating Officer on cold cases, the most high profile of which was the A6 murder. He studied the Matthews Report and its supporting documentation and came to a different conclusion. In 2001 Dann left to be Police Ombudsmen in Northern Ireland.

Thus the Met were no longer supportive of the Matthews Report by the time of the Appeal.

[Natalie Severn]

The A6 article in The Independent 22nd October 2011

It certainly does appear from this report in the Independent that despite the 2002 appeal judgment , Det,Supt Roger Matthews' wanted a new inquiry on the basis of his findings and that the evidence regarding Alphon to have been examined .

Article begins : "Detectives whose investigation cleared James Hanratty of the A6 murder are unhappy that a new inquiry has not been launched to track down the killer, say police sources.
The Scotland Yard team, under Det Supt Roger Matthews, which concluded Hanratty had been unjustly executed also recommended that a review should be made of the evidence against other suspects.
Not only has Michael Howard, the Home Secretary, unloaded the alleged miscarriage of justice on to the new Criminal Cases Review Commission, but the Home office has given no indication whether a new inquiry would be held, despite receiving the Matthews report eight months ago.
The CCRC begins to look at possible miscarriages of justice this week. But detectives in the Matthews inquiry have no idea what will happen to their call for a new investigation. The 18-month re-investigation decided that Hanratty, a petty burglar, could not have murdered the research scientist Michael Gregsten, 36, and raped and shot his 22-year-old mistress, Valerie Storrie, who was paralysed.
After examining the evidence present at the time the team was of the opinion that Hanratty should not have been charged.Instead, Mr Matthews's team and 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.
But the officers turned their attention from Alphon to Hanratty after a tip-off from William Nudds, an informer and habitual liar. The prosecution of Hanratty, who was 25, concentrated on the theory that a lone gunman had carried out a random attack after finding the couple in their car in a cornfield.
Hanratty was hanged in April l962. Doubts about the conviction played a big part in MPs voting to abolish capital punishment in l965.
Two years later, Alphon confessed in Paris to the rape and murder, but later retracted, a pattern he was to repeat over the years. A man Alphon claimed had set up the attack to deter Gregsten from seeing Ms Storrie was never interviewed by police. Yesterday a Scotland Yard spokesman said: "We were asked to prepare a report by the Home Office and we have presented them with it. We cannot discuss the content of the report; it is strictly confidential."
A Home Office spokeswoman said: "The files have been sent to the Criminal Cases Review Commission ... We cannot comment on the content of the Matthews report."

Bedfordshire

[Natalie Severn]

Well done S.H. Agree with all of Natalie's answer. Although he didn't take both the Gregsten boys, actually it was his oldest lad Simon and the good friend and neighbours boy, who was about his sons age.(point taken though on the coincidence of the two journey's) The all night rallies they had been on in the past are eyebrow raisers in light of the facts of the abduction etc.

I think people may be missing what might possibly be a very significant point here Moste;

viz :Mike's journey to work each day up until 12 months previously was almost to the detail the route via Watford from Abbots Langley to Langley Slough where the Road Research Lab was and where he and Valerie worked .The family home where Mike had lived until the previous 12 months with his wife Janet and their two sons was in fact just over two miles from the very route the gunman directed them through via Watford on the fatal night .Yet the route's significance i.e. from Dorney Reach via Slough up until Watford has always been omitted by writers and investigators of the A6 case -[who have emphasised instead Deadman's Hill and the A6] .Even more remarkably Valerie who must have been aware they were passing close to Mike Gregsten's family home in Abbots Langley never refers to this coincidence despite the likelihood Mike Gregsten wothat identical route from Abbots Langley/ Watford to Langley / Slough - the very same route the three of them took on the night of the 22nd August 1961 -as it is the most direct and obvious route for him to have taken-in 1961 .

[moste]

Sums up my own feelings quite well, Limehouse.
I cannot escape the impression that the 'gunman' [for want of a better expression] knew that both MG and VS, besides being lovers, were very involved in car rallying.
Could the perplexing journey from the cornfield in Dorney Reach to that concrete strip at Deadman's Hill have been a mini-rally of sorts in the gunman's mindset ? Designed to give Mike and Valerie plenty of time to reflect on and seriously consider their illicit relationship and it's possible repercussions ?

If ever this murder mystery were to be made into a movie [extremely unlikely I know due to the many unresolved and loose ends] it would definitely fall into the genre of 'Road movie'. You couldn't make it up......Road Research Laboratory, hi-jacking, A6 road, Car rallying.

Curiously enough a couple or so years ago I watched a quite good British 'B' movie on Youtube which featured Derren Nesbitt. This 1961 movie was released a couple of months before the A6 murder and was called........."The man in the back seat".

It looks like Youtube have taken that movie off, pity, I would like to have watched that one.
This whole thing could be made into a movie I believe. The writer would tie all the numerous loose ends up himself , and have it as a fact based fiction. Interesting thought.
I too think it a strong possibility that the gunman knew their involvement in car rally's , I also believe it not beyond the realms of possibility that the couple knew the identity of the real killer. I wonder how thorough the investigation of the personnel at the road research labs was? What about this Laddie that Valerie had had a fling with?
People cannot seriously be giving any consideration to the idea that this entire series of events came about as an attempt to frighten the couple apart!
Maybe after four weeks, or even if it had dragged on for four months. but FOUR YEARS.

[moste]

So strange that Valerie was keen 'not to be seen' or have 'attention drawn' to them. You would think she would have wanted to be noticed and perhaps challenged. Of course, it's possible she was trying to minimise potential victims.

You would think she would want to be noticed. But what do you mean Julie by, 'trying to minimise potential victims?'
Also, is there not a strong case for believing that the gunman, scanning in the darkness for a left turnoff, was in fact, following a preconceived plan to turn into the layby where the RAC box was. He may have thought they had possibly missed the RAC box on this very dark stretch of road. (Incidentally I hope everyone is on board with the view that 'the gunman needed a kip' which would involve tying the two of them up,was utter nonsense)

[NickB]

I think Valerie did want to be seen. She and Mike had been talking quietly to each other and agreed that they should speed up in rural areas and slow down in the towns where they might see someone who could help.

When they stopped in the two lanes there would be no point in Valerie saying: “Don’t stop here, it is too isolated”; she has to say it was not isolated enough to try and persuade the gunman to move on.

I can imagine the horror they felt when he ordered them to turn into the layby. Mike deliberately drove past and was threatened with being shot if he did not turn round and go back down the A6 and enter it.

Then she may well have regretted saying anything at the other stopping points, as it was apparently more isolated than either of them. On the other hand there were advantages in having passing traffic nearby.

In any case, we don’t know if what Valerie said made any difference - ultimately the gunman decided for himself where to stop.

[Limehouse]

If it was a mini-rally the route doesn’t appear to have been planned.

“After we passed Silsoe, he saw a turning off to the left. He appeared to be looking out of the car on the left-hand side and he saw this turning. He said to Mike, ‘Turn down there’ and we turned down this little lane. I saw a post with a notice on which it said ‘Private, no parking’ I said to the man, ‘We cannot stop here. This is a private road and we shall only draw attention to ourselves’. So he agreed we should turn round and continue northwards on the A6. A little while after he saw another little turning off to the left and he said, ‘Go down there’. After 50 or 100 yards down this little turning there were some houses. Mike stopped by the houses and I again said, ‘We cannot stop here, someone will see us’. And so for the second time he agreed we should turn round and continue going north".

So strange that Valerie was keen 'not to be seen' or have 'attention drawn' to them. You would think she would have wanted to be noticed and perhaps challenged. Of course, it's possible she was trying to minimise potential victims.

[NickB]

If it was a mini-rally the route doesn’t appear to have been planned.

“After we passed Silsoe, he saw a turning off to the left. He appeared to be looking out of the car on the left-hand side and he saw this turning. He said to Mike, ‘Turn down there’ and we turned down this little lane. I saw a post with a notice on which it said ‘Private, no parking’ I said to the man, ‘We cannot stop here. This is a private road and we shall only draw attention to ourselves’. So he agreed we should turn round and continue northwards on the A6. A little while after he saw another little turning off to the left and he said, ‘Go down there’. After 50 or 100 yards down this little turning there were some houses. Mike stopped by the houses and I again said, ‘We cannot stop here, someone will see us’. And so for the second time he agreed we should turn round and continue going north".

[Sherlock Houses]

Reading her account has not changed my view that Hanratty was not the man who accosted them in that field, and I still cannot shift the feeling that none of it quite makes sense. I just have a feeling that there is something missing that might just account for the semmingly pointless ramble that they embarked on that night.

Sums up my own feelings quite well, Limehouse.
I cannot escape the impression that the 'gunman' [for want of a better expression] knew that both MG and VS, besides being lovers, were very involved in car rallying.
Could the perplexing journey from the cornfield in Dorney Reach to that concrete strip at Deadman's Hill have been a mini-rally of sorts in the gunman's mindset ? Designed to give Mike and Valerie plenty of time to reflect on and seriously consider their illicit relationship and it's possible repercussions ?

If ever this murder mystery were to be made into a movie [extremely unlikely I know due to the many unresolved and loose ends] it would definitely fall into the genre of 'Road movie'. You couldn't make it up......Road Research Laboratory, hi-jacking, A6 road, Car rallying.

Curiously enough a couple or so years ago I watched a quite good British 'B' movie on Youtube which featured Derren Nesbitt. This 1961 movie was released a couple of months before the A6 murder and was called........."The man in the back seat".

[Limehouse]

Thank you so much for posting Sherlock. Well done for tracking them down!

I could not read all of it due to my visual difficulties but, using my magnifier, I got most of it and it makes interesting reading.

Valerie was certainly a brave and strong-willed young woman. There is not an ounce of self-pity in her account. She is most candid and her love for Mike shines through.

I have particular admiration for her parents who were loyal and understanding and compassionate even before the events of that terrible night.

Reading her account has not changed my view that Hanratty was not the man who accosted them in that field, and I still cannot shift the feeling that none of it quite makes sense. I just have a feeling that there is something missing that might just account for the semmingly pointless ramble that they embarked on that night.

Kind regards,

Julie