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: Hutchinsons statement.... - by harry 1 hour and 4 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Joe Barnett´s alibi accepted lightly? - by c.d. 1 hour and 11 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Joe Barnett´s alibi accepted lightly? - by harry 1 hour and 28 minutes ago.
Letters and Communications: An experiment - by c.d. 2 hours ago.
Conferences and Meetings: Jack the Ripper East End Conference 2017: London - by jmenges 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - by c.d. 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Scene of the Crimes: Dorset Street Photo - (32 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Joe Barnett´s alibi accepted lightly? - (28 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - (27 posts)
Letters and Communications: An experiment - (27 posts)
Mary Ann Nichols: Lambeth Workhouse - (3 posts)
Witnesses: Finding Israel Schwartz - (3 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
  #3131  
Old 04-04-2016, 09:36 AM
moste moste is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Vancouver Island British Columbia.
Posts: 384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock Houses View Post
Remembering James Hanratty today on the 54th anniversary of his state murder by this inglorious, deep-rooted and corrupt political/legal establishment that's been in force in these islands since the year dot. An establishment that truth and justice is a complete stranger to.

Remembering too Martin Luther King on the 48th anniversary of his murder by the nefarious US political elite. R.I.P Martin.
HEAR HEAR !
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3132  
Old 04-18-2016, 10:56 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 716
Default

How could Woffinden say that Galves “directly confirmed the veracity” of Nudds second statement?

When Alphon first gave his Vienna alibi, on 27-Aug, the police phoned the Vienna and were told that Alphon/Durrant had arrived on 22-Aug at 11.30pm.
Subsequently Galves was asked to confirm the 11.30pm arrival in writing (as shown in the police notes) which she did on 6-Sep. This original statement can be regarded as a ‘composite’, but it if the prosecution were correct Nudds and Snell had already left the Vienna by then.

On 13-Sep Galves clarified that she did not see Alphon until 23-Aug, but her 20-Sep statement said:
Quote:
“at about 10pm, just before I went to bed, I told the Glickbergs that their guest, who was expected to arrive late, could occupy room 6.”
Thus Alphon had not yet arrived at 10pm and room 6 would be immediately available for him when he did. Further it was her duty each morning to put a star in the register against the last person who had arrived the previous night.

So although she did not personally see Alphon arrive, she knew that he must have done so after she went to bed.

When Storie didn’t pick out Alphon, on 24-Sep Galves was interviewed again and had nothing of significance to add. If Galves had agreed with Nudds second statement she would have had significant things to add or change, but instead she stood by her previous statement - which paved the way for Acott to re-question Nudds and Snell.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3133  
Old 04-18-2016, 11:48 AM
OneRound OneRound is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 391
Default

Further to Nick's last post, I believe Ms Galves might have been of more help to Hanratty's supporters if she had subsequently been asked to confirm (or not) her earlier statements.

In particular, her statement about seeing a pair of woman's gloves on or in Alphon's suitcase (apologies but this is from memory as I don't currently have the books). If that was actually true, it of course doesn't prove Alphon murdered Gregsten but it is bl**dy odd and would make me think that he might well have been involved in some real way that we don't know about.

If her statement was untrue and made as a result of pressure from Acott, that in itself does nothing to establish Hanratty's innocence. However, it would be a massive pointer to unacceptable police conduct leading up to and throughout Hanratty's trial which could have resulted in the ''guilty'' verdict being put aside.

Best regards,

OneRound
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3134  
Old 04-19-2016, 01:49 AM
Graham Graham is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 3,001
Default

Nick, unless I'm mistaken Nudds and Snell were sacked on 11 September following Robert Crocker's visit to investigate the theft of £5. He fired them on the spot but allowed them to stay that night and leave the following morning, the 12th. During this visit he and Mrs Galves carried out an inspection of the place and subsequently found the cartridge cases in Room 24. The rest is history.

The entire 'Vienna Hotel Thing' is, to my mind at least, possibly the most complex and perplexing chapter in the whole A6 Case.

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
  #3135  
Old 04-19-2016, 02:55 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 716
Default

Graham,

At the committal Sherrard asked Nudds on what date he left the Vienna. Nudds replied 12-Sep, and Sherrard made great play of it being the day after the discovery of the cartridge cases. This exchange seems to be what Woffinden bases his story on about how Crocker sacked Nudds and Snell on the same day as discovering the cartridge cases.

But after Sherrard’s questioning the prosecution kept Nudds in the witness box and asked him to clarify when he and Snell physically departed from the Vienna, and he said that it was at mid-day on 5-Sep. So 12-Sep would have been merely the date that their employment terminated, having been paid a week’s wages in lieu.

In the trial reports I cannot see any reference to Sherrard returning to the point of Nudds and Snell leaving the Vienna on 12-Sep (in the questioning of Nudds, Snell or Crocker) so presume that he accepted the prosecution’s date.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3136  
Old 04-19-2016, 04:07 AM
Graham Graham is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 3,001
Default

[quote=NickB;377668]Graham,

Quote:
At the committal Sherrard asked Nudds on what date he left the Vienna. Nudds replied 12-Sep, and Sherrard made great play of it being the day after the discovery of the cartridge cases. This exchange seems to be what Woffinden bases his story on about how Crocker sacked Nudds and Snell on the same day as discovering the cartridge cases.
Hmmmm....Woffinden, Foot and Miller all have Nudds being sacked by Crocker prior to his inspection of the hotel and the discovery of the cases on Monday 11 September. Woffinden and Foot have Nudds then begging to be allowed to stay one more night, to which Crocker agreed. Surely all three writers can't be wrong about the date Nudds left the Vienna? And Nudds too stated it was the 12th (probably about the only honest statement he ever made...).

So either the Nudds were at the Vienna when Crocker visited on the 11th, or they weren't. If they weren't there, how come Crocker said he allowed them to stay one more night?

If Sherrard didn't pursue Nudds' telling the prosecution that he had left the Vienna on the 5th, then he either didn't think it important or missed it. For my money, the Nudds were at the Vienna on the 12th when Crocker called, and left on the 13th.

Like I said, the whole Vienna Hotel Saga is difficult to get one's head around...well, mine at least.

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
  #3137  
Old 04-19-2016, 06:33 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 716
Default

Just to correct a point in my previous post, the prosecution (McDermott) did not keep Nudds in the witness box and ask him the question, but called him back the following day 28-Nov-61.

This is what is reported:
Quote:
Mr Nudds told Mr McDermott that he left his job at the hotel at midday on September 5 and not on September 12 as he stated yesterday.
As such a statement could have been tested by the defence, I do not think the prosecution would have done this unless it was true.

I have already shown (with the reason for Valerie Storie giving her evidence in camera) that Woffinden did not thoroughly examine reports of the committal. I think someone (Foot?) read the 27-Nov reports of Nudds questioning and did not notice the amendment the following day, then the other writers copied.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3138  
Old 04-19-2016, 08:13 AM
Graham Graham is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 3,001
Default

Quote:
I have already shown (with the reason for Valerie Storie giving her evidence in camera) that Woffinden did not thoroughly examine reports of the committal. I think someone (Foot?) read the 27-Nov reports of Nudds questioning and did not notice the amendment the following day, then the other writers copied.
Well, Foot was certainly the first of the three writers on the Case that I mentioned. How odd no-one spotted it before - well done Nick! However, I have to say that given Nudds' reputation as a congenital liar when it suited him, it's still by no means certain what day he did leave the Vienna. I suppose that in real terms it probably makes zero difference to the case as a whole.

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
  #3139  
Old 04-19-2016, 09:04 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 716
Default

Given the manner in which this was done, it appears to be McDermott using Nudds to make a prosecution point. I see it as a simple factual correction. As you say it makes little difference, and thereby McDermott had little to gain. But he would have looked foolish if Crocker and Galves then went into the witness box and disputed it.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3140  
Old 04-20-2016, 06:59 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 716
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham View Post
The entire 'Vienna Hotel Thing' is, to my mind at least, possibly the most complex and perplexing chapter in the whole A6 Case.
There is an intriguing passage in the Appeal (section 166) where Mansfield suggests the mysteries of the Vienna can be explained by the police attempt to frame Alphon.

It does appear that at the time of his second statement Nudds thought the police wanted him to finger Alphon, but I think it is more complicated than that.

A good starting point is Snell’s claim that ‘Durrant’ phoned her at 11am and made a direct booking for one night. She must have confused him with someone else. I think this for two reasons:

1. In his 27-Aug statement Alphon said that he went to the Broadway House first and was diverted to the Vienna. I think it unlikely he made this up.

2. I am not aware of Alphon booking anywhere for one night. His modus operandi was to keep his leaving date a moving target in case he wanted to slip out without paying.

Galves 13-Sep statement raises certain questions, all arising out of an assumption that Alphon did call at 11am. The most pertinent question was: Why does the diary say he paid a deposit?

The police then put these questions to Nudds which he was able to use as a framework for his second statement. He claims that after the 11am phone call he wrote in the diary 'Mr Durrant, one night’ and then added ‘Deposit £1.7.6.’ when Alphon arrived. I notice in the statement there is no full stop after ‘night’.

I suggest what happened is that when Alphon arrived (at 11.30pm) he was confronted by the Vienna policy of demanding payment up front. Not wanting to be specific about a leaving date, he arranged to pay for one night which could be regarded as a deposit. Nudds then made a single entry ‘Mr Durrant, one night Deposit £1.7.6.’

Or perhaps Mansfield is right, and the records were altered.
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 07:26 PM.


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