Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Robert St Devil 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Sam Flynn 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Robert St Devil 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Sam Flynn 4 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Abby Normal 4 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Abby Normal 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (38 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Social Chat > Other Mysteries > A6 Murders

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #4191  
Old 11-17-2017, 06:50 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,450
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moste View Post
Blinkers. .Blinkers.. Head in the sand.. Blinkers

Allowing horror of the fate of the two in question to foggy up what may well have happened.
True, as with Grahams post I am speculating, but hey! what if Storie was lying all along. then answers must lie elsewhere.
Storie was accommodating a married man with two young children, for four years. Somebody pass the sick bag! By the way, I believe she lied where she claimed her parents knew all about it. sorry, just my opinion.

Does anyone have any input with regards to the final resting place of the so called .38 bullets, given the obvious line of projection. I mean anyone other than the ostriches. PS. I knew it was Storie actually for Valerie I prefer Story
Hi moste,

In case you hadn't noticed, Valerie Storie is not the one on trial here and it's a criminal, not a moral case, from 1961, not 1861.

If you have nothing nice to say about the victim, and have no sympathy for what happened to her, it would be better if you said nothing at all.
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4192  
Old 11-17-2017, 07:09 AM
Alfie Alfie is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 99
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB View Post
Alfie,

I cannot find any third party reference showing whether Trower attended Alphon's id parade.

With regard to your PM, here is a link to the Evening Times committal report where Nudds said he left employment at the Vienna at midday on 5-Sep-61. The excerpt below from the Telegraph says he took up his job at the mosque on 9-Sep-61.

However Crocker’s evidence (which I can post if you wish) does appear to conflict with this and imply that he sacked them when he visited on 11-Sep-61.
Thanks Nick. I have Crocker telling the court that he visited the Vienna on Sept 11 “to assist Mrs Galves after the Glickbergs had left”. Do you have something additional to that?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4193  
Old 11-17-2017, 07:16 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 750
Default

Crocker gave his trial evidence on 29-Jan-61 but very little is reported about it. Below is how the Telegraph reported his committal evidence.

You asked if Nudds was fired on 5-Sep, why was there a delay in Crocker visiting? I recall reading somewhere Crocker saying his duties included going to the Vienna every Monday, and 11-Sep was a Monday.
Attached Images
  
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4194  
Old 11-17-2017, 07:42 AM
Alfie Alfie is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 99
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB View Post
Crocker gave his trial evidence on 29-Jan-61 but very little is reported about it. Below is how the Telegraph reported his committal evidence.

You asked if Nudds was fired on 5-Sep, why was there a delay in Crocker visiting? I recall reading somewhere Crocker saying his duties included going to the Vienna every Monday, and 11-Sep was a Monday.
Thanks again, Nick. The DT's wording is not unambiguous, but it does rather invite the reader to think that Crocker fired Nudds and Snell on Sept 11.

Anyone know Woffinden's source when he says Crocker allowed the couple to stay the night and leave the Vienna the following morning? Does any other source verify this?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4195  
Old 11-17-2017, 07:52 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 750
Default

That could still have happened but the previous Monday.

If it happened on 11-Sep/12-Sep, Crocker would not be assisting Galves 'after the Glickbergs had left'.

At the committal Sherrard made much of Nudds being sacked on the same day that the cartridge cases were found.

Sherrard: “They were found on September 11. Surprise, surprise!”

The implication was that when Nudds was sacked he decided to plant them.

As you can see, after Sherrard’s cross examination the defence asked Nudds to ‘correct’ his departure date to 5-Sep. I assume that Sherrard checked this out and found it to be true, because he did not use the same tactic at the trial.

Last edited by NickB : 11-17-2017 at 08:01 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4196  
Old 11-17-2017, 08:27 AM
Alfie Alfie is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 99
Default

Yes, Sherrard's silence does seem to be the clincher. It's hard to imagine him ignoring the chance to point out a Nudds error or falsehood.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4197  
Old 11-17-2017, 08:50 AM
cobalt cobalt is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 198
Default

One possible explanation for the ‘double dates’ of Nudds’ sacking may be that while he was told to clear off on the 6th, he returned on the 11th to receive a week’s wages due to him, something only the manager Crocker could authorize. Most workers in the UK are paid a week in arrears, so Nudds would be fully entitled to return on a Monday, when Crocker visited, to settle up and collect his cards.

Crocker was described in one article as a ‘trainee telephonist’ which seems at odds with a man who was previously over-seeing four hotels. Is much known about him beyond this? He was, after all, the person who effectively made the connection between Hanratty and the murder weapon.

In a case littered with aliases, Nudds’ certainly takes the biscuit. Whereas ‘Ryan’ and ‘Durrant’ are unexceptional, Nudds decides to take the name ‘Glickberg.’ In an era when many Jewish people anglified their names, Nudds chooses a name which would actually draw attention to himself. Are there any reasons for why he did this? Was it the name of his female companion?

Nudds’ testimony at the hearing seems very weak. His story of protecting two prisoner officers from attack has the unmistakable ring of falsehood to it. So too his claims that in order to go ‘straight’ he likes to give information to the police; anyone genuinely trying to live an honest life would try to keep at arms’ length from the police, so this is tantamount to admitting he still has criminal dealings. He even admits to the motivation of revenge for informing on criminals. Given the contradictory nature of his statements to the police, there must have been a case for the judge at trial to rule Nudds’ testimony inadmissible.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4198  
Old 11-18-2017, 05:19 AM
Spitfire Spitfire is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 517
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cobalt View Post
Given the contradictory nature of his statements to the police, there must have been a case for the judge at trial to rule Nudds’ testimony inadmissible.
How would this have helped Hanratty (or anyone else for that matter)? It was only Nudds' second (subsequently retracted) statement that provided any evidence for the existence of an occupant of Room 24 after Hanratty and before the discovery of the cartridge cases.

To say that Nudds' evidence was inadmissible would have the effect denying the defence the opportunity to cross-examine Nudds on the fact that he had said that Alphon had booked into Room 24 on the night of the murder. Without Nudds how would the jury have known that there was a possibility that Alphon had left the used cartridge cases in Room 24?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4199  
Old 11-18-2017, 09:37 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 750
Default

Talking of Alphon ...

As I posted here previously, I got the impression (simply from their exchanges) that Acott had made up his mind about Alphon’s innocence before he had finished interviewing him. Indeed Acott said at the trial: “by the end of the interview with him I was satisfied in my mind.”

Also in the Telegraph’s report below, I thought it interesting how seriously Sherrard pursued the idea of a bushy eyebrow in the identikit pictures. Foot mentioned how Swanwick also became involved in the discussion about the strange eyebrow.

It was probably this eyebrow discussion that led Swanwick to ask his most peculiar question:

Swanwick: “Mr Hanratty, do you always hold your right eyebrow higher than your left?"

Hanratty: “I don't know sir, because I cannot see it."
Attached Images
  
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4200  
Old 11-21-2017, 07:29 AM
Alfie Alfie is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 99
Default The Hepworth suit

Just came across this in Hawser (p32):

"It subsequently transpired that [Hanratty's] description of the breaking into two houses in this area [Stanmore] on or about the 1st October and the stealing of a black jacket was correct: but the Hepworth jacket which he said he had abandoned in a recreation ground was not found. It is perhaps of some significance that evidence was given by the witness who sold the suit to Mr Hanratty that the labels from the trousers and waistcoat had been removed."

I'm not sure what Hawser is hinting at here: that the seller inspected the trousers and waistcoat after they were collected from Louise Anderson's flat and noted they'd been tampered with, implying that an attempt had been made to disguise their origin (and ergo their ownership)? Thoughts anyone?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.