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

[NickB]

Mrs Galves' statement that she saw black gloves in Alphon's suitcase

This is not in Galves original statement which just refers to ‘very dirty clothing’.

It is interesting that Woffinden quotes extensively from Galves statements and in each case provides a reference number so you can look up the statement date. Then in the final section ‘The Resolution’ he mentions that she saw a pair of gloves and provides no reference.

Perhaps it was from Woffinden’s conversation with Galves when he visited her in Spain more than 30 years later.

[Graham]

This is not in Galves original statement which just refers to ‘very dirty clothing’.

It is interesting that Woffinden quotes extensively from Galves statements and in each case provides a reference number so you can look up the statement date. Then in the final section ‘The Resolution’ he mentions that she saw a pair of gloves and provides no reference.

Perhaps it was from Woffinden’s conversation with Galves when he visited her in Spain more than 30 years later.

In my 1999 paperback copy, P. 427, BW writes:

What was absolutely relevant, however, was what Juliana Galves saw when she opened the door of his [Alphon's] room at the Vienna at 11.45am to tell him that he had to leave by noon. Alphon was by the wash-basin, washing his hands. The suitcase was lying open by the bed. As soon as the door opened, Alphon moved to close the suitcase. As he did so, Galves noticed that it contained 'very dirty clothing'. What particularly caught her eye, however, was the pair of black ladies gloves lying on top.

There is no reference attached to this, but BW refers to the gloves again on P430 and P449, so it seems to me that he is trying hard to establish the existence of those gloves.

I do know that BW visited Mrs Galves in Spain, but haven't read any transcript of their discussion. I can't say if the black gloves were in Alphon's suitcase or not. However, it does make one wonder if words were being put into Mrs Galves' mouth.

Graham

[Derrick]

I was implying, and you know very well that I was...

How could I know what you were implying when you were discussing the cleaning of the murder car and not...

...that JH wouldn't have left HIS fingerprints in the car if he had been wearing gloves.

However, taking on your point, how could the murderer avoid leaving fingermarks when Miss Storie herself said that during the sexual assault the gunman took off one of his gloves, helped by Miss Storie herself?

Surely he must of put his un-gloved hand somewhere, if only just to steady himself!

Try to imagine the situation in an enclosed place Graham. Putting oneself in the place is one of the first guidelines in understanding most things, especially physics.

Yet neither of the two unknown fingermarks found in the car matched either Alphon or Hanratty.

HTH
Del

[moste]

How could I know what you were implying when you were discussing the cleaning of the murder car and not...



However, taking on your point, how could the murderer avoid leaving fingermarks when Miss Storie herself said that during the sexual assault the gunman took off one of his gloves, helped by Miss Storie herself?

Surely he must of put his un-gloved hand somewhere, if only just to steady himself!

Try to imagine the situation in an enclosed place Graham. Putting oneself in the place is one of the first guidelines in understanding most things, especially physics.

Yet neither of the two unknown fingermarks found in the car matched either Alphon or Hanratty.

HTH
Del

Putting oneself in the place mentally,Something I believe is done by all good detectives,not just the tv ones.

Where the unidentified fingerprints were in the car,is a very important aspect . Had the assailant steadied himself while clumsily forcing himself on the girl,and a print was discovered on the top of the back of the seat,then this would be a strong indication that the print belonged to the rapist,corroborating Ms.Stories Story. Does anyone know where the prints were found?
On another issue Ms. Storie has left us now,Lord rest her soul. and obviously did not leave a post Mortem letter with any of the news papers.Does anyone know if Det.Superintendent Mathews is still alive? .I would like to know,(though I realize it's likely I never will) Was it nessesary for him to sign the official secrets act?For that matter did Valerie Storie,and others ?
I have googled Mathews,s full title in the past and it has taken me immediately to A6 Murder . Now it does,t take me anywhere!

[moste]

Ok Mathews is still on Google, must have misspelled something.

[Spitfire]

Where the unidentified fingerprints were in the car,is a very important aspect . Had the assailant steadied himself while clumsily forcing himself on the girl,and a print was discovered on the top of the back of the seat,then this would be a strong indication that the print belonged to the rapist,corroborating Ms.Stories Story. Does anyone know where the prints were found?

I am having some trouble following your train of thought.

You have previously stated that the murderer was never in the Morris Minor car. When it was pointed out that someone must have driven the car from Bedfordshire to Redbridge, you stated that he must have done so wearing a plastic suit with rubber buttons. Are you now saying that he raped Miss Storie whilst wearing the plastic suit with rubber buttons?

[cobalt]

For all the musings of Moste, he is at least focusing on a very relevant point.
Namely, what happened to the forensic evidence in a car where the murderer sat for a number of hours smoking the odd cigarette, and then killed and sexually assaulted a female?

Even by 1960s standards, which may seem laughable now, there should surely have been enough evidence in terms of fibres, hair, and semen deposits to establish who was actually in that car. Sellotape works wonders in that regard. My late wife, who was a SOCCO, said Sellotape and Superglue were two of the best weapons they had to hand. (I accept that superglue anticipated 1961.) Regarding the so called forensic examination of the murder/rape car, I may be an idiot, but I am not prepared to be taken for an idiot. There is a difference.

It is incredible that we are here in 2016 and none of this can be ascertained beyond doubt from the original forensic examination. (I think you will understand I do not unacceptably accept the DNA results from the underwear of Valerie Storie.)

[Spitfire]

For all the musings of Moste, he is at least focusing on a very relevant point.
Namely, what happened to the forensic evidence in a car where the murderer sat for a number of hours smoking the odd cigarette, and then killed and sexually assaulted a female?

As I understand it Moste's theory is that the gunman did not get into the car 847 BHN at the Dorney Reach cornfield but did get into it at Deadman's Hill lay-by when he was wearing a plastic suit with rubber buttons.

I want to know whether the gunman/murderer/rapist was wearing the plastic suit with rubber buttons when he raped Miss Storie.

[cobalt]

I am aware of Moste's theory in this regard, and like many on this site regard it as untenable.

But it only detracts from an equally untenable theory, one that the prosecution were happy to use at trial: that no forensic material of any substance was found in the murder car.

Forget sneering at Moste's unlikely hypothesis, which had no part in either convicting James Hanratty or finding him innocent. The fact is that the prosecution went into a high profile murder case claiming no significant forensic evidence could be obtained from the locus of a major crime. That is worth more attention that Moste's theory.

[Spitfire]

Moste's theory is based on the premise that Valerie Storie's evidence and in turn her article in 'Today' magazine was a tissue of lies from start to finish.

There was no hold-up by a gunman at Dorney Reach. Mike and Val voluntarily drove to Deadman's Hill for some "skulduggery" which went wrong and ended up with Mike being shot dead by the gunman who then donned a plastic suit with rubber buttons and drove the car to Redbridge where he abandoned it.

That is Moste's theory. I require clarification from Moste as to whether he is saying (1) that Val was also lying about the rape or (2) Val was telling the truth and the rape happened, and if so (3) if the gunman raped Val inside the car, and if so (4) was he wearing the plastic suit with rubber buttons.

As to the forensic report and evidence relied on by the prosecution at the trial, I can only say that I have not seen it but it does not appear to have been the subject of any criticism by the defence at the trial or in either of the appeals therefrom. I expect that Mr Sherrard made full use before the jury of the fact that the forensic evidence showed that no fibres were found in the car that came from Hanratty's clothing.

[Graham]

As I understand it (and it is confirmed by Woffinden) about a dozen photos of fingerprints found inside the car were never produced by either the defence or the prosecution, were apparently never even referred to during the trial, and seemingly were never seen again. I suppose, as Spitfire suggests, that so long as any fingerprint couldn't be linked with his client, Sherrard was relieved and thus let the matter of fingerprints rest. Swanwick then pointed out that he wasn't suggesting that any of the prints were Hanratty's, and there the matter rested. So where are those photos now, one wonders? Similarly, results of checking for fingerprints at the house of Mrs Dalal were never made public. Woffinden, as he would, suggests that these prints really belonged to Alphon, who for whatever reason was being protected by the police, etc., etc.

As Cobalt points out, the modern method of detecting fingerprints inside a car (and even inside a small room) is to leave a petra-dish containing cyanoacrylate adhesive (superglue) inside the car or room. The vapour of this substance then condenses on hard smooth surfaces and clearly shows up any prints that are present. I once saw a televised demo of this technique, and it was quite impressive.

Still, if Hanratty was wearing gloves most of the time, then that would surely reduce the risk of leaving his prints behind. As far as the absence of incriminating fibre traces and soil samples from shoes are concerned, I can't offer any explanation other than he gave the inside of the car a damn good hoovering.

Graham

[Spitfire]

Still, if Hanratty was wearing gloves most of the time, then that would surely reduce the risk of leaving his prints behind. As far as the absence of incriminating fibre traces and soil samples from shoes are concerned, I can't offer any explanation other than he gave the inside of the car a damn good hoovering.

I am not sure how much use soil traces would have been. The gunman walked into the cornfield (if we accept Val's evidence) and walked a bit in the lay-by, so any soil attached to the gunman's shoes would most likely be from those places.

As to hair and clothing fibres, it should be remembered that Valerie Storie was raped by the gunman and one assumes that there was contact between the two and their respective sets of clothing in which transfer of hair and clothing fibres could have taken place. One would therefore expect that if fibres were shed by the gunman's clothes they would be as likely to end up on the clothes of Valerie as on the seats of the Morris Minor. Whilst the gunman had the opportunity of giving the car a hoovering, that did not apply to the unfortunate Valerie Storie.

[Graham]

I obviously don't know what kind of shoes Hanratty was wearing on that fatal night, but whatever they were, I think there was a reasonable chance that they picked up some kind of detritus from the cornfield. Which, one assumes, would be earth - I don't know if it had rained at some time prior to the abduction, but if it had, then the ground would be damp thus making it easier for his shoes to collect at least something from the cornfield, and depositing it into the car. With regard to the lay-by, I'd guess this was tarmac or hard-core, and much less likely to deposit traces on shoes.

As for fibre transfer, I really can't say. In such cases in 1961, was it standard forensic practise to check a rape victim's clothing for traces of fibre from an attacker? I simply have no idea.

Graham

[cobalt]

Thanks for your considered response Graham; I know that we are on different sides of the fence in the Hanratty case, but you have always been up front and acknowledged that the lack of forensic evidence is hard to explain.

And Spitfire, having decided to desist from attacking Moste’s strawman argument, made a very good point I had overlooked; namely that there would surely have been fibre transfer between the murderer and Valerie Storie. I cannot say for sure, but it is inconceivable that it was not standard police procedure to take fibre evidence from a rape victim in 1961; particularly in a case such as this.

None of this makes Hanratty innocent. He may have hoovered the car effectively, although this suggests third party involvement. He may just have been very lucky. However, there remains the doubt about the unattributed forensic material, which clearly could not have belonged to either Hanratty or Alphon. Does it still exist? Will it turn up in a police storeroom some time after my death?

[Spitfire]

And Spitfire, having decided to desist from attacking Moste’s strawman argument, made a very good point I had overlooked; namely that there would surely have been fibre transfer between the murderer and Valerie Storie. I cannot say for sure, but it is inconceivable that it was not standard police procedure to take fibre evidence from a rape victim in 1961; particularly in a case such as this.

I am keen to establish whether it is part of the theory that the rapist/gunman wore a plastic suit with rubber buttons during the act of rape. I have asked the question and I await the reply.