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

[Spitfire]

So what happened to the evidence in the car of the gunman who VS said that she and MG were ambushed by in Dorney?

When did this boiler suited gadgee get in at Deadman's Hill?

Was it sometime after VS had passed out or what?

None of the "Redbridge witnesses" mention the driver as wearing a boiler suit.

If Hanratty was the gunman why didn't he dob in this Clockwork Orange type lookalike then?

Perplexing!

These questions and others are answered in this post (I have added the emphasis):

Zero forensics found in the back seat of the car.Hair,Fiber,fingerprints,seeds,corn debris, from the field,from a third party.
Is it possible that the true story may have involved MG arranging to meet with someone,for purposes that involved skulduggery, at the predetermined location near Clophill? Or alternatively,were the couple on a dummy run ,(the all night runs that Valerie loved so much) for the rally they were planning for the weekend,and possibly followed to that spot in Bedfordshire. If as Det. Super. Mathews suggests,more than one person was involved,the murderer may have been driven there,and left at that lay-by to perform his dastardly deed.After which he drives back eventually to Redbridge,wearing one of the latest plastic boiler suits, complete with rubber buttons,and leaves no, or very little evidence of ever having been in the vehicle,nothing that 1960s forensics would find anyhow.Could MGs brother in law have known of this latest venture at the weekend by the lovers,via his heart throb Janet?
All of the above would satisfy (a) why no one saw anyone that night around the corn field (b) why there was no evidence of a third person in the back seat,(c) why no taxi drivers came forward with info.about a fare.(d) Why the people of Dorney were surprised, as were the press, that police presence was very scarce considering this was supposedly the starting point of this crime(locals were not interviewed for some weeks!)(e)how Alphon came into a large sum of money after the murder,could he have been the the shooter, maybe Hanratty the driver to Deadmans hill. And far too many more questions that this scenario would answer,to fit in one post.
By the By
Did anybody have any comments on the notion that it was an extremely coincidental plan they had come up with, for the following weekends 'particularly arduous 80 mile round trip' through the Chilterns? The Chilterns pass by where I lived in the 90s forming the Dunstable downs, and peter out near Barton-Le- Clay just a couple of miles shy of Clophill. I mean call me suspicious but.....

[NickB]

Funnily enough plastic boiler suit type clothing was suggested by Woffinden in the Jeremy Bamber case:

“He would already have put on some kind of protective clothing, in all probability a wetsuit. If he showered in it afterwards, there would be no danger of his clothes being spattered with tell-tale bloodstains.”

To raise a new subject ...

During Valerie’s cross-examination there was the following exchange:

Sherrard : “Do you recognise the name Ronald or Ronnie Lofthouse?”
Storie : “No.”

Who was Ronnie Lofthouse? Why did Sherrard ask her about him?

[Graham]

He must have been very very careful then to not remove the fingerprints of Gregsten's family which were found all over the interior, including the back seat, as per Mr Lewis Nickolls examination.

Unless he was wearing gloves, of course.....

Graham

[Graham]

Hi Nick,

do you know in what context Sherrard asked Valerie about Ronald/Ronnie Lofthouse?

I've just had a scoot around the net, and found a Ronald Lofthouse who was in some way associated with road research, but I don 't think the chronology matches up.

Regarding other individuals the police interviewed with regard to the A6, I can't recall ever seeing any names mentioned. Yet I believe both Foot and Woffinden refer to a number of persons being questioned by police between Alphon's Alexandra Court incident and the cartridge-case find at the Vienna. Obviously nothing ever came of these interviews.


Graham

[cobalt]

I think the rubber suit theory is serving as a distraction to one large problem in Hanratty’s conviction, which is the lack of forensic evidence in the car; a car where a murder and sexual assault were carried out by a man who then drove that car from the scene of the crime.

Valerie Storie’s evidence confirms that the murderer was in both the rear and front of the car. A decent vacuum cleaner might have removed many of the hairs and fibres, however an attempt to do this would have been apparent to an experienced SOCO, as we now call them. To remove all such traces would have been fortuitous in the extreme. The same goes for trying to sponge away bodily fluids from the seats. The lack of fingerprints has been put down to Hanratty wearing gloves, something that must have been established at the time when police questioned Valerie Storie. From personal experience, it is not comfortable to smoke whilst wearing gloves and we know that the murderer smoked during the journey. Incidentally, cars of that era usually had at least a couple of ashtrays, so presumably these were cleaned out otherwise saliva could have been matched to blood groups from the butts.

Graham has referred to a similar case where no useful forensic evidence was found, despite the killer committing the crime in or next to the car, and then driving it away. This would indicate the A6 murder was not unique in supplying no forensics. However, without being sidetracked into another case, the husband’s alibi that he was out of the country at the time of the murder rests on testimony given by a hotel worker 10 days after the event (who could be the French Nudds for all we know, or if you prefer Mrs. Dinwoodie) and two credit card transactions. Even if these were authorized by the husband, there was still a 24 hour window of opportunity for him to have committed the crime, so I would not call it a ‘rock solid’ alibi.

[Graham]

Graham has referred to a similar case where no useful forensic evidence was found, despite the killer committing the crime in or next to the car, and then driving it away. This would indicate the A6 murder was not unique in supplying no forensics. However, without being sidetracked into another case, the husband’s alibi that he was out of the country at the time of the murder rests on testimony given by a hotel worker 10 days after the event (who could be the French Nudds for all we know, or if you prefer Mrs. Dinwoodie) and two credit card transactions. Even if these were authorized by the husband, there was still a 24 hour window of opportunity for him to have committed the crime, so I would not call it a ‘rock solid’ alibi.
Quick reply to this message

See my very recent post re: the Janice Weston Case. I can only repeat what the Bedfordshire Police reported, that is, there were no 'unknown' forensics in the car. Same as the A6.

Graham



Graham

[NickB]

do you know in what context Sherrard asked Valerie about Ronald/Ronnie Lofthouse?

Graham,

This is what happened leading up to the question.

Mr Sherrard told the judge there was one matter he wished to put to Mrs Storie. “I am conscious in a case of this kind that one doesn’t want to mention names in open court that may have nothing whatever to do with the case.” He added “What I wanted to do was put to this witness the name of a certain person.”
Mr Swanwick, asked for his views by the judge, said: “It is a matter for your Lordship. I do not pledge myself not to make use of it.”
Mr Sherrard said he wished to write the name on a piece of paper and pass it to Valerie. The judge said: “I think in the interest of everybody here this should be put quite openly.”

Then there followed the question and answer I reported above.

Also, I’ve been pondering on something you said before – that Alphon did not have legal representation at his id parades. It does appear that MacDougal was not appointed until after he had been charged for the Dalal attack.

Weren’t the police taking an enormous risk on id parades for a potential murder charge by not having a solicitor present to say that he was satisfied with them? Had Alphon been picked, I expect the first thing MacDougal would have done is claim that they were invalid.

[Graham]

He must have been very very careful then to not remove the fingerprints of Gregsten's family which were found all over the interior, including the back seat, as per Mr Lewis Nickolls examination.

Derrick,

could you please tell me where you found this reference to Mr Nickolls, his examinaton of the car, and the Gregsten family fingerprints? Out of curiosity, of course......

Graham

[Spitfire]

Derrick,

could you please tell me where you found this reference to Mr Nickolls, his examinaton of the car, and the Gregsten family fingerprints? Out of curiosity, of course......

Graham

It seems that Derrick has had access to information not widely available. Post 271

[Graham]

However, without being sidetracked into another case, the husband’s alibi that he was out of the country at the time of the murder rests on testimony given by a hotel worker 10 days after the event

There is no doubt whatsoever that Tony Weston was in France over the weekend that Janice was murdered. He was in France to negotiate the purchase of a small chateau near Paris. Not only was his presence there confirmed by the hotel staff, it was also confirmed by an English couple he was showing around the chateau, I believe on the Saturday afternoon. No Nudds in this case (thank God...)

Graham

[cobalt]

If we apply the same scrutiny to the Weston alibi, that has been applied to the Hanratty alibi, then there is some doubt.

Yes, Weston was in France, but he showed the couple round the chateau on the Friday, whilst his wife was killed in the UK on late Saturday/early Sunday morning. The hotel clerk could have been mistaken regarding times in the manner that many think Mrs Dinwoodie was.

My last word on tie Weston case- I shall make any further comments on the relevant site.

[moste]

Gun for hire

[QUOTE=Graham;383507]There is no doubt whatsoever that Tony Weston was in France over the weekend that Janice was murdered. He was in France to negotiate the purchase of a small chateau near Paris. Not only was his presence there confirmed by the hotel staff, it was also confirmed by an English couple he was showing around the chateau, I believe on the Saturday afternoon. No Nudds in this case (thank God...)

Graham[/QUOTE

Yes but surely ,as has been suggested in the past re Bill Ewer, it isn't necessary to be at the scene to be the prime mover, is it?

[Spitfire]

Yes but surely ,as has been suggested in the past re Bill Ewer, it isn't necessary to be at the scene to be the prime mover, is it?

Are you suggesting that it was Mr Ewer who supplied the plastic boiler suit with rubber buttons?

[Derrick]

Unless he was wearing gloves, of course.....

Now how would wearing gloves help the assailant in not removing the fingermarks/fibres/hairs of the Gregsten family members during a thorough clean of the rear of the car - as you suggested was the logical explanation?

As Spitfire has pointed out, I have seen Nickolls' notes and transcripts of his testimony.

Nickolls says that the car was covered in fingermarks from Gregsten's family (front and rear).

Nickolls states that only two unknown fingermarks were found...neither of which matched either Hanratty or Alphon.

HTH
Del

[Graham]

Now how would wearing gloves help the assailant in not removing the fingermarks/fibres/hairs of the Gregsten family members during a thorough clean of the rear of the car - as you suggested was the logical explanation?

I was implying, and you know very well that I was, that JH wouldn't have left HIS fingerprints in the car if he had been wearing gloves. And Louise Anderson is claimed to have stated that a pair of black gloves was missing from her flat. Now you'll counter this by reminding me that JH once said that he 'never used gloves' on his house-breakings, which is why he got caught more than once. Well, maybe at some point prior to the A6 crime the penny dropped, he got wise, and obtained gloves. The mere fact that the car was 'covered' in Gregsten family members' prints, and not one of JH's was found, is I feel rather indicative of his wearing gloves.

It's strange how JH's supporters leap on Mrs Galves' statement that she saw black gloves in Alphon's suitcase as contributing towards proof that he was the A6 killer and not Alphon.

Graham