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:
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by Iconoclast 21 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by Joshua Rogan 13 hours ago.
Witnesses: Spratling Vs Enright - by Joshua Rogan 13 hours ago.
Witnesses: Spratling Vs Enright - by Joshua Rogan 14 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by Michael W Richards 14 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by Michael W Richards 14 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Spratling Vs Enright - (7 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - (6 posts)
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - (3 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (1 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
  #4401  
Old 01-20-2018, 03:52 PM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 884
Default

Woffinden says Anderson was lying on certain points because: "All were either contradicted, or not supported in any sense, by the rest of the evidence". But I cannot find any such contradictions.

One of the points Woffinden claims she lied about is: "That he was wearing his suit just before the murder but not wearing it straight afterwards." But her evidence here is entirely consistent with that of the Frances who said that Hanratty returned on the Saturday wearing slacks and stayed with them until the evening. Anderson said he arrived at her place on the Saturday evening wearing slacks.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4402  
Old 01-20-2018, 04:00 PM
Graham Graham is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 3,299
Default

I'm a long way from my books at the moment, but as far as I can recall Woffinden gives Greek Street, Soho, as Anderson's address. Or was that where her shop was while her flat was in Sussex Gardens?

Graham
__________________
We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4403  
Old 01-21-2018, 02:45 AM
Spitfire Spitfire is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 599
Default

Her shop was in Greek Street, and her small flat or bed-sit was at Cambridge Court in Sussex Gardens.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4404  
Old 01-21-2018, 04:57 AM
Graham Graham is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 3,299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spitfire View Post
Her shop was in Greek Street, and her small flat or bed-sit was at Cambridge Court in Sussex Gardens.
Thanks, Spitfire - I'd plumb forgotten as it's quite a long time since I re-read my A6 library. Sussex Gardens is, of course, a stone's throw from Paddington Station. Anderson must have been doing all right, as even back then Greek Street and Sussex Gardens were quite desirable addresses. No 57 Greek Street, which is where Anderson's Juna Antiques was located, is now a club.

Graham
__________________
We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4405  
Old 01-22-2018, 07:10 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 884
Default

I am inclined to believe that he did visit Louise Anderson on the Tuesday morning. She admitted in court that she was not very good on dates, but it could not have been the Sunday or Monday morning because he had stayed at her flat on those nights.

There is something that happened at the trial, just before she gave evidence, which I have not been able to get to the bottom of.

Woffinden (page 197) says that on a day Nudds gave evidence (later identified as Fri-26-Jan) Acott was observed at the Bedford Hotel interviewing Anderson, during which she claimed to have lost a pair of black gloves. Then he claims (page 201) that, just before Anderson appeared as a witness the following Monday, Sherrard argued successfully for this evidence not to be admitted.

There is something wrong here.

Contemporary newspaper reports show that just before Anderson appeared as a witness on the Monday morning it was Swanwick who complained about impropriety, not Sherrard. He said it was “the defence solicitor” (presumably Kleinman) who had interviewed Anderson the previous Friday.

This is how it is reported in the Evening Times:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?i... 39%2C3159502

This was all done in a 40 minute period when the jury were kept out of court and the judge asked the press not to report on the substance of what had been discussed the previous Friday.

Anderson then took the stand and Swanwick raised this matter with her ...

Swanwick: “Were you approached in a hotel at lunch-time on Friday by a man?”

Anderson: “Yes”

Swanwick: “Was that the man sitting behind my learned friend?”

Anderson “Yes”


At this point the judge stopped any further questioning on the subject.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4406  
Old 01-22-2018, 08:20 AM
cobalt cobalt is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 268
Default

I would imagine that the defence would have had a copy of the police statements made by Louise Anderson, so any claim about losing gloves would have already been known to them. Do we know if the claim about her losing gloves was later made in court?

Here is another coincidence from the A6 Case. Mrs. Galvez of the Vienne Hotel was reported to have made a statement that she noticed black ladies’ gloves on top of a suitcase in Alphon’s room. This was at a time when Alphon was very much in the frame for the murder. I find it hard to place much reliability on this statement and suspect it was ‘coached’ from her by Acott and his men.

Then we have a similar detail popping up, potentially, in the evidence of Louise Anderson except this time to the detriment of Hanratty.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4407  
Old 01-22-2018, 12:21 PM
Alfie Alfie is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 182
Default Did Mrs Alphon change her story?

While on the subject of Acott possibly concocting something out of nothing to further his aims ...


Acott’s interview with Alphon's mother (Sept 22) and the “smashing” (Foot) of Alphon's alibi for the night of the murder: I’ve seen no direct quote of what Gladys Alphon told Acott, only the report in the Daily Sketch (Sept 23) that she "told detectives that he last visited their home in Gleneagle Rd, Streatham, two months ago."

Since Alphon hadn't said he'd met his mother at home, but on the street nearby, this statement not only leaves his alibi intact, but seems intended to mislead.

So my question is, did Gladys Alphon in fact affirm to Acott that she didn't meet her son anywhere that night, making his account of his movements wrong? Or did Acott finesse things and keep Alphon in the frame with a carefully worded statement to the press?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4408  
Old 01-22-2018, 01:07 PM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 884
Default

There is a long section of Acott’s interview with Gladys Alphon on Page 414 of Woffinden, although this was on 13-Sep – not 22-Sep.

Of course by then she was having to think back a few weeks - whereas when Alphon was first interviewed on 27th August, and said he had met his mother at 9.30pm on the 22nd, he only had to think back a few days.

I think that Gladys did give a vague reply, because of what Acott said when he interviewed Alphon.

Acott: “Can you think of anybody who can verify your statement?”

Alphon: “Only my mother. I met her at about 9pm at Streatham that night.”

Acott: “I’ve seen your mother, she’s not certain of the day.”

Alphon: “No, she’s got a very poor memory, but I saw her several times about then to get money from her and I cashed a few cheques but I can’t remember the days.”

Acott: Can you give me details of the cheques so that I might verify the dates?”

Alphon: “Well, there’s a difficulty there - we use different names ... it’s a personal matter, it’s got something to do with an annuity.”


Incidentally, this last thing Alphon said may explain the money that came into his bank account that he showed Foot. Not only income from the annuity itself, but perhaps also the result of shuffling amounts between various accounts.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4409  
Old 01-23-2018, 02:05 AM
Alfie Alfie is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 182
Default

Thanks Nick. If Acott got Gladys to concede that she wasn't sure of the day of the meeting, the alibi takes a hit. But I remain to be convinced that Acott didn't bamboozle her into it.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4410  
Old 01-23-2018, 02:36 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 884
Default

The only thing that throws doubt on Alphon’s alibi is Nudds dubious middle statement.

Galves is accepted as the most reliable Vienna witness and she said that Durrant had still not arrived when she went to bed at 10pm. In the morning she put a star against his name in the register, as the last person to arrive the previous night, and then saw him with her own eyes.

Woffinden says that Alphon left the car in Ilford and then made his way to the Vienna - in order to tie in with his sighting by Galves, checking out and doing the other things for which he has an alibi in the afternoon - but in later editions suggested that the car was not left until the evening.
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 04:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.