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

[Sherlock Houses]

Anybody out there searching for clues ?

Recently I have re-read Storie's story which she wrote for 'Today' magazine back in June 1962. A story which for me left much to be desired. Reading the 3 part article you would not have even known that there had been an important earlier ID Parade held on September 24th in which she wrongly identified the heavily built and dark-eyed Michael Clark as her lover's killer. She mysteriously and conveniently avoided mentioning it.

Two particular segments of the second part of that article [June 9th 1962] do make, I strongly feel, intriguing reading. The reason why will become clear....

"Many thoughts ran through my mind in that split second. Relief that it must be a joke, fear in case what was happening was real.
Surely it must be a game, a man playing at gangsters to see what our reaction would be ?
Yes, that was it. I felt so certain about this that I turned to Michael and almost began to giggle. Surely this was toy pistol ?"

"I was afraid now, all right. Yet I still kept thinking that soon we'd wake. This sort of thing just doesn't happen to ordinary people.
It happens on the films. It happens on television. It happens to all sorts of queer people who lead queer strange lives. Not to Michael or me. Not to two ordinary law-abiding citizens. It seemed so farcical, so utterly ridiculous that I almost wanted to giggle.
I remember thinking what an adventure this would be."

Also quite recently I re-read a photostatic copy of a 30 page document which Norma [Natalie Severn] very kindly gave me a few years ago. That document consisted of a transcript of telephone conversations [undated] made between Jean Justice and Peter Alphon from probably 1963, possibly late 1962. An extract from page 28 of that document also makes intriguing reading....

Alphon : ..."I wouldn't think it was a joy ride like those people seemed to think. They thought it was a joy ride you know."

Justice : "Really ?"

Alphon : "Yes, I think so. There was quite a lot of giggling and laughing going on. I mean you have got to have breaks for humour in five hours. It can't all be terror can it ? I mean that."

It's quite remarkable, don't you think, just how similar the memories of this male and female correspond with each other.
Games, giggling, joke, farce, toy pistol, adventure/joy ride.

[a_baron]

The contrived Horseferry Road case had nothing to do with leaflets, anti-Semitic or otherwise. I suggest you do some proper research rather than simply surfing sites of dubious merit.

[Graham]

I may have mentioned this before, but I had a (now deceased) friend who was a member of an ex-servicemen's club in the Midlands. This was a favourite place for the police to seek volunteers for i.d. parades, and my friend said he was on at least one. I don't think he was ever picked out, but he did say a couple of his pals were, which might have come as a bit of a shock at the time, but there was never any question whatsoever that these volunteers could face questioning by the police. There was a modest fee paid to the volunteers, who doubtless all went back to the club and put it over the bar.

Graham

[gallicrow]

ID Parade

I took part in an ID parade in the early 1990s. Two of the witnesses picked the same innocent volunteer and only one, a policeman (the other two were civilians), picked the suspect. Needless to say the volunteer did not get arrested just because 2/3 of the witnesses picked him out!

[caz]

It should not be overlooked that had the poor fellow chosen on the first ID parade not been able to provide a sound alibi for the murder night, he could have hung. In other words on one (and in my view two) occasion VS picked an entirely innocent man even though she knew he could go to the gallows.

Ansonman

No, that's quite wrong, Ansonman.

There was only one man identified by the police as a suspect on each parade: the first time it was Alphon; the second time it was Hanratty.

All others on an ID parade attend voluntarily (or so I believe) and cannot therefore suddenly become suspects, or be obliged to produce an alibi, in the event that a witness picks them out by mistake. Valerie was a bright woman and would surely not have feared any such consequences. She would only have feared not picking out the man who might then have been free to offend again, destroying further lives.

No way could anyone have been hanged (not 'hung') in such circumstances. The suspect would either be charged if picked, or let go if not. Anyone else would be free to go. You'd never get anyone to take part otherwise!

Love,

Caz
X

[Spitfire]

The first and false identification by Valerie Storie must have reduced the probative value of the second identification. The jury were made aware of this. They were also warned of the danger of convicting on identification evidence.Yet they were convinced Hanratty did it and the DNA evidence tends to confirm that they were right.

[Graham]

My view is that Valerie Storie did not have any idea what her assailant looked like never mind what he sounded like.

So if, as you appear to suggest, Valerie's identification of Hanratty at the second parade was purely random, how did his DNA get onto her underwear and also on the hankie found around the gun on the bus? Amazing coincidence, or what?

Ref: your second post, Hanratty had legal representation in the shape of Mr Kleinmann at the second parade, and Mr Kleinmann made no serious objection to the ensuing procedure. Whether 55 years later we like it or not, that is the case.

Graham

[Derrick]

...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...

The 1958 Home Office Circular of 1958 - Crime and Kindred Matters (Guidance on identification evidence) says in the 1st paragraph;

When arrangements are made for a personal identification every precaution should be taken (a) to exclude any suspicion of unfairness or risk or erroneous identification through the witnesses' attention being directed to the suspected person in particular instead of indifferently to all the persons being paraded, and (b) to make sure that the witnesses' ability to recognise the accused has been fairly and adequately tested.

[Derrick]

...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 trial, on 24th January, Ms Storie, under oath, was thus cross-examined by Mr Sherrard:

MS) Did you understand that it was your duty, on the first parade, not to point to anyone unless you were satisfied in your mind that he was your assailant?
VS) Yes
MS) Apparently you were satisfied enough on that occasion to make the identification without hearing the men speak?
VS) Yes.
MS) Can you tell us now what that man looked like?
VS) No.

My view is that Valerie Storie did not have any idea what her assailant looked like never mind what he sounded like.

Del

[ansonman]

The only comment the judge could have made as regards the first ID parade would have been to remind the jury that VS had chosen an innocent man.

This fact could, and in my view should, have rendered any further identifications to be worthless, and I agree entirely with OR's observations on this point.

It should not be overlooked that had the poor fellow chosen on the first ID parade not been able to provide a sound alibi for the murder night, he could have hung. In other words on one (and in my view two) occasion VS picked an entirely innocent man even though she knew he could go to the gallows.

I am not for one moment saying she deliberately chose the wrong man. What I do say is that she was incapable of picking out anyone who committed the crime as demonstrated by her first choice.

Ansonman

[Graham]

Hi OR,

yes, I do take your points on board, but the i.d. parades did not, I assume, contravene any laid-down procedure or law which applied at the time. JH's solicitor, Emmanuel Kleinmann, rolled up an hour late for the parade, and announced that he was satisfied with the arrangements, but did say later that JH's 'dyed hair showed up badly'. Acott had I believe requested that surgical-type skull-caps be issued to everyone on the parade, but this never happened and Kleinmann allowed the parade to go ahead without skull-caps. Woffinden suggests that Kleinmann did not object to the absence of skull-caps as he, Kleinmann, perhaps felt that the wearing of such a cap to hide his highly-noticeable hair might accentuate his 'icy-blue staring eyes', as Valerie had described them. I can't disagree with Woffinden, who said that Kleinmann's performance at the parade was not, quote, 'a landmark of legal representation'. Sherrard, naturally, argued that the parade was unfair even if legal, but the jury were plainly not convinced.

I would suggest that had the judge felt that Valerie's picking-out of another man at the first parade to be worthy of further consideration, he would have commented upon it. Which, I think, he did not do.

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

[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]

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

[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.