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

[Derrick]

...So if Mrs D had given way after Kleinman's frustrated observation, and conceded it might have been the Tuesday after all, because she didn't want a hanged man on her conscience, it would have tainted her evidence anyway...

Mrs D's husband made a number of complaints to the Liverpool police about what he considered to be harassment by the defence agents. These were recorded in a couple of statements that the Dinwoodies' made to the police.

Although Mrs D was upset over her treatment at the hands of the defence agents she still agreed to appear as a defence witness. She was not subpoenaed or coerced to appear.

The key points of Mrs D's evidence at trial where;

• she identified Hanratty in the dock as the man that she picked out from the photos that she had been shown as resembling the man who had come into the shop.
• she said that the man had asked for a Tarleton Road which was not a street she knew.
• she could only be sure of the actual day of the man coming in because her granddaughter was serving with her.

And that is all.

The first point comes directly from Mrs D's own identification. The second two corroborate Hanratty's own account of the encounter.

Irrespective of what DC Pugh reported or did not report Mrs D saying, he wasn't a trial witness anyway. Mrs D came to court of her own volition and gave evidence as she remembered it.

But she was taken very ill on the Tuesday and was, most likely, confused over the presence of Miss Ford that afternoon, serving ices and sweets to the little children.

Hanratty said that he asked for Tarleton Road and a young girl was serving. Together, Mrs D and Miss Ford corroborate this. It could not have been the Monday because the prosecution themselves proved he was in London.

[caz]

Hi Nick,

So if Mrs D had given way after Kleinman's frustrated observation, and conceded it might have been the Tuesday after all, because she didn't want a hanged man on her conscience, it would have tainted her evidence anyway.

Good for her that she stuck with what she believed had been the correct day that someone resembling the man in the photo (but sounding nothing like Hanratty) had come in and asked for directions.

I don't see how she could ever have realistically provided the jury with that elusive element of doubt.

Love,

Caz
X

[NickB]

Can you please elaborate on this, Nick? Thanks.

I was referring to what happened when Kleinman took Mrs D's statement.

Olive Dinwoodie and her husband John made additional statements in which they complained about the 'bullying' manner of the defence; and the way in which Kleinman tried to slip in the phrase "I am not sure whether it was the Monday or the Tuesday that the man called" to the statement he had drawn up for her. Quite correctly, she refused to sign it. In frustration, Kleinman blurted out, "There is a man's life at stake."

(Woffinden page 165)

[Graham]

On another subject, the Sunday Times article says:
'On tape, Alphon says he told the couple in the car that they would have to be separated because of their "immorality". Miss Storie denies that the murderer showed any signs of knowing about their relationship. Nor does she remember the murderer saying anything about a "sense of mission" which Alphon talks about on the tape.'

I presume she means he showed no signs of knowing about their relationship when he entered the car.

Nick, in fairness to all concerned, Alphon was a fantasist and was being egged on by one Mr Jean Justice. Justice was showing Alphon a life-style that he, Alphon, could only have dreamed about prior to his being (totally by accident and coincidence) dragged into the whole murky A6 business. Alphon lapped it up. Whether or not Alphon was 'writing his own script', so to speak, or repeated what Mr Justice advised him to, or both, will never be known. Alphon was a total fantasist, a man who believed his own bullshit about himself - and he was also an accomplished actor who had sufficient nouse to make the very most of the situation he found himself in. He had come very, very close to being accused of the A6 Crime, and it is my belief that this in itself was sufficient for him to concoct in his warped mind, ably assisted by Mr Justice, the complete fiction of what he thought might have happened in the Morris Minor that night. He was in the clear, and he could say what he liked once Hanratty was out of the way. The suggestion that he had been hired to 'break up' the relationship between Michael Gregsten and Valerie Storie is totally, completely, insupportable. He had nothing to do with it. His connection with the case stemmed purely from the plain coincidence that he had stayed a night at The Vienna Hotel. One of the many coincidences that Michael Sherrard, quite correctly, stated that this case 'dripped with'.

Graham

[Graham]

But she was unhelpful testifying that it was the Monday, when it would have been so much easier for her to say it could have been either day

Barbara Ford also said she thought it was the Monday.

Perhaps it was an act of revenge against the defence because she was incensed by Kleinman’s attempt to trick her - but would she go so far as commit perjury to do this?

Can you please elaborate on this, Nick? Thanks.

Graham

[NickB]

But she was unhelpful testifying that it was the Monday, when it would have been so much easier for her to say it could have been either day. Perhaps it was an act of revenge against the defence because she was incensed by Kleinman’s attempt to trick her - but would she go so far as commit perjury to do this?

On another subject, the Sunday Times article says:
'On tape, Alphon says he told the couple in the car that they would have to be separated because of their "immorality". Miss Storie denies that the murderer showed any signs of knowing about their relationship. Nor does she remember the murderer saying anything about a "sense of mission" which Alphon talks about on the tape.'

I presume she means he showed no signs of knowing about their relationship when he entered the car.

Nick

[Graham]

Nick,

Mrs Dinwoodie first heard from Mrs Cowley that the police were visiting sweet-shops along Scotland Road in connection with the A6 Case, as DC Pugh had already called and spoken to Mrs Cowley. If so, then Mrs D may well have had time to think about what to say when DC Pugh popped in again with his infamous single photograph. He also told her that JH had stated that the shop he claimed to have visited had a woman and a young girl serving; had Mrs D volunteered this information herself before DC Pugh told her about JH's statement, then that would have been somewhat more impressive. Obviously people at the other 28 sweet-shops along Scotland Road were less helpful.

Graham

[NickB]

Foot assumes Mrs D’s connection was that the visitor came in at a particular moment she and Barbara were both behind the counter. My reading of her evidence is that her connection was that he came in on the day that she was serving with Barbara. After all, she knew Barbara called in on the Tuesday and told this to the court.

Foot’s assumption appears to be based on the notion that Mrs D only came up with the connection when Pugh told her that the visitor had seen a woman and child behind the counter. I do not think this is from a contemporary account by Pugh and I find it difficult to believe.

The source appears to be a report written by Gillbanks in February 1962 (see Woffinden page 361) where he says:
“She fixes the day as Monday 21st only because of the alleged remark of Hanratty that a girl was serving in the shop at the time.”

The report goes on to say that Mrs Dinwoodie could easily be confused over the Monday or Tuesday. Sherrard must have been rather sceptical about this having seen Kleinman’s interview and the official complaint made by Mr and Mrs Dinwoodie.

[Spitfire]

But Sherrard knew that the defence’s own interview with Mrs D had come up against the same problem: Mrs D had steadfastly refused to entertain the possibility that the incident could have occurred on the Tuesday. By then the newspapers had reported that Hanratty was in London on the Monday, so I think it is reasonable to deduce that Mrs D knew the implications of what she was saying.

It is said by Foot that the only reason that Mrs Dinwoodie was able to fix the day as being the Monday was because she remembers being assisted by Barbara Ford, and the Monday was the only day when Barbara was working in the shop. It is then said for a time on the Tuesday afternoon Barbara and Linda Walton did visit the shop at about 4pm for about half an hour to an hour, and during this time Barbara would have assisted Mrs D in serving in the shop.

Therefore, so the argument runs, the reason for Mrs D being able to fix the date as Monday also applied to Tuesday afternoon and the incident could have happened on Tuesday afternoon.

Mrs D could have been wrong about the date or she could have been wrong in identifying Hanratty, or indeed wrong on both counts, but for the defence of James Hanratty it would be sufficient if it could be shown that Mrs D could possibly have been wrong on the day the incident occurred and possibly correct on the identification of Hanratty.

All these arguments were rehearsed before the jury which came to the conclusion (we must assume) that it could not possibly have been Hanratty in the shop asking for directions on the Tuesday afternoon.

[NickB]

On travelling to Dorney from Liverpool on Tuesday evening Acott said:
“Yes, I think it is possible, but I do not think it happened and I never have thought it happened.”
It is disingenuous to allude to the first part of this sentence while ignoring the rest.

The pertinent exchange between Sherrard and Acott on the subject was when Acott said that Mrs Dinwoodie had always maintained to the police that the sweetshop conversation took place on the Monday, and Sherrard replied that he intended calling Mrs Dinwoodie as a witness.

But Sherrard knew that the defence’s own interview with Mrs D had come up against the same problem: Mrs D had steadfastly refused to entertain the possibility that the incident could have occurred on the Tuesday. By then the newspapers had reported that Hanratty was in London on the Monday, so I think it is reasonable to deduce that Mrs D knew the implications of what she was saying.

[Graham]

Let us know when you have sound proof that Hanratty wasnt in Cowleys when he said he was.

Au contraire...you let us know when you have 'sound proof' that Hanratty was in the sweetshop when he claimed he was.

Graham

[moste]

OneRound,

See my post 122 on this thread and Graham's reply.

He said he went to Liverpool on 7-Oct-61 to get his friends to "stand by their alibi". As the Liverpool alibi turned out to be false, this means set up a false alibi.

(Stand by HIS alibi)?
No it doesn't it means his so called friends refused to give him an Alibi
Let us know when you have sound proof that Hanratty wasnt in Cowleys when he said he was.
The 'only one photo' shown to Mrs. Dinwoodie . May well influence the jury because the law frowns on it, It is only damaging to a defendant because the law is not happy with it. If someone shows you a photo of a person you had chatted with a few weeks back, and you think my goodness that looks just like him,you're going to say just that!(dirty tricks is all)
We can play around with timetables of trains and buses all day long, but when the prosecution start seriously musing over the possible Hanratty usage of a helicopter, you can pretty much take it to the bank that they were screwed by the Dinwoodie alibi. Jim's problem was the gullible jury.

[Spitfire]

If the directions-asking episode had occurred on the Tuesday, rather than the Monday as favoured by both Mrs Dinwoodie and Barbara Ford, would it not also have been witnessed by Linda Walton, who accompanied Miss Ford on her visit to the Scotland Road sweetshop?

Linda Walton seems to have been present for the time that Barbara was in the shop on Tuesday. If neither Mrs D nor Barbara knew where Tarleton Avenue (or something of the sort) was, would not one of them have inquired of Linda Walton if she was aware of such an address? Yet both Foot and Woffinden are both reluctant to say what Linda says on this subject. If she did not witness the man asking for directions, surely this points to it having occurred on the previous day.

[NickB]

That agrees with section 168 of the Appeal:

'Mr Mansfield does not advance any attack on the conduct of the prosecution in relation to that part of James Hanratty's alibi which concerned his departure from London and his arrival and initial movements in Liverpool. The jury heard evidence about the train times from London Euston to Liverpool Lime Street (12.15pm arriving 4.45pm) and it was for them to evaluate the evidence of Olive Dinwoodie and Albert Harding as to the incident in the sweet shop.'

[Graham]

Nick,

Woffinden, on page 163 of my edition, says that it was c). He reasons that it could not be a) because Hanratty said the train stopped at Crewe and this didn’t, and it could not be b) because Hanratty said he waited a long time for the train to arrive. He doesn’t give a reason for it not being d) but I presume this also did not stop at Crewe.

Woffinden then has to move forward the sweetshop timing to after 5. But if Hanratty arrived in Liverpool at 4.54 (or even 4.45) how could he have done all the things he said he did before getting the bus at 6?

Miller states that Hanratty's defence-team decided that it was train (D) in your list. If so, then they must have had good reasons. However, if JH arrived in Lime Street at 4.45pm, then there is no way he was the man Mrs Dinwoodie described coming into her shop at about the time the 'Echoes' were delivered, which she states was at just about 4.00pm.

Graham