a6 murder

[jasonww]

Death of Peter Alphon

I have been following this thread for the past few weeks on and off (without having had the time to read it all) after reading Paul Foot's book for the first time over Christmas. It seemed to me that the key person who could provide answers to a lot of the questions that pervade the case was Peter Alphon. It would have been especially valuable to know (a) if he was acquainted with William Ewer (as he seemed to imply) before the murder; (b) the precise sources of the £7,500 that came into his accounts after the murder; (c) if he was acquainted with Charles France at some point before Hanratty was charged with the murder (although the story of the meeting in Southend sounds a bit unlikely). It seems to me possible that Alphon could have committed the murder in the way that he described - except that there are a few inconsistencies with Miss Storie's account of what happened: for example, as far as I recall she did not get the idea (or if she did did not mention) that the gunman was trying to separate her from Gregsten. The mis-managed shooting of Valerie Storie would seem to imply that the gunman did not intend to kill either of them, as Alphon stated - the gun went off spontaneously in reaction to what he thought was a threatening move by Gregsten. Once Alphon was not identified by Valerie Storie in the police line-up, it would have been possible for him to have become part of a frame-up of Hanratty owing to the coincidence of Hanratty's having stayed at the Vienna Hotel at more or less the same time. On the other hand, why would Alphon have needed to frame Hanratty once he was already "in the clear"? Perhaps it was the thought that without another plausible suspect the police might have come back to him and arrested him anyway, even without Valerie Storie's positive identification? In any case, it has now been reported that Peter Alphon has died in a London hospital some time in January (following a fall at home) so it seems that the key surviving protagonist in this case has taken a lot of its mysteries with him to his grave.

[Tony]

I have been following this thread for the past few weeks on and off (without having had the time to read it all) after reading Paul Foot's book for the first time over Christmas. It seemed to me that the key person who could provide answers to a lot of the questions that pervade the case was Peter Alphon. It would have been especially valuable to know (a) if he was acquainted with William Ewer (as he seemed to imply) before the murder; (b) the precise sources of the £7,500 that came into his accounts after the murder; (c) if he was acquainted with Charles France at some point before Hanratty was charged with the murder (although the story of the meeting in Southend sounds a bit unlikely). It seems to me possible that Alphon could have committed the murder in the way that he described - except that there are a few inconsistencies with Miss Storie's account of what happened: for example, as far as I recall she did not get the idea (or if she did did not mention) that the gunman was trying to separate her from Gregsten. The mis-managed shooting of Valerie Storie would seem to imply that the gunman did not intend to kill either of them, as Alphon stated - the gun went off spontaneously in reaction to what he thought was a threatening move by Gregsten. Once Alphon was not identified by Valerie Storie in the police line-up, it would have been possible for him to have become part of a frame-up of Hanratty owing to the coincidence of Hanratty's having stayed at the Vienna Hotel at more or less the same time. On the other hand, why would Alphon have needed to frame Hanratty once he was already "in the clear"? Perhaps it was the thought that without another plausible suspect the police might have come back to him and arrested him anyway, even without Valerie Storie's positive identification? In any case, it has now been reported that Peter Alphon has died in a London hospital some time in January (following a fall at home) so it seems that the key surviving protagonist in this case has taken a lot of its mysteries with him to his grave.

Hello and welcome to you Jason,

Can you let us all know where the report of Mr Alphon’s death can be found?

Tony.

[Tony]

Hi James,

What about the glaring error in the very next paragraph?


Two identikit images were released instead.

KR,
Vic.

Good Morning Vic,

Just finally on the identikit picture:

You really did not need to direct me to Amazon to look at Bob’s book; I have, for some reason, many copies of it anyway.

Valerie Storie compiled the identikit under the guidance of Inspector Mackle of the Met. He was the leading man in that field at that time.

Together they, presumably, attempted to construct something that would give a likeness to the gunman so he could readily be identified. Well you would think so at any rate.

As I said together, or on Valerie’s instructions E49 eyes were chosen and this is without doubt for very dark eyes.

The American Officer who trained the Met officers in the use of identikit work Mr Hugh McDonald has said that if light, or blue, eyes had been chosen the result would have been a different picture.

The majority, I think, do believe the identikit resembles Peter Alphon. At the first ID parade Valerie chose Michael Clark and later said in court Michael Clark and Peter Alphon looked alike.

Tony.

[jimarilyn]

Hello and welcome to you Jason,

Can you let us all know where the report of Mr Alphon’s death can be found?

Tony.

Hi Tony,

It certainly appears that Jason WW is correct. I've just googled the name Peter Alphon and found the following link. Very,very strange that no mention of it was made on TV.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/richard-ingrams/richard-ingramsrsquos-week-we-will-never-know-the-truth-about-the-a6-killer-1570726.html

regards,
James

[Victor]

Just finally on the identikit picture:

You really did not need to direct me to Amazon to look at Bob’s book; I have, for some reason, many copies of it anyway.

Good morning Tony,

The link wasn't just for you, but so everyone could confirm that I wasn't making things up, or behing unhanded in selecting an obscure photograph to make my point.

I notice that you ignored the question so I'll rephrase it...
Would you say that the eyes in that picture are "dark"?
Would you say that the eyes appear similar to the Identikit?

KR,
Vic.

[Tony]

A bit of Michael Sherrard's book

Hello again Vic,

You are just going to love this my friend.

I post it on here as I hope I take a balanced view of everyone’s opinions and their right to express them. If something is against what I believe in I am still prepared to discuss it or even bring it in myself.

You on the other hand, although you listen to and read all the posts do not appear to have such a balanced view.

Indeed any witnesses for the defence are branded as dishonest, tax-dodging, publicity seeking criminals. When all along all are without exception upright everyday solid citizens.

I do not see you treat Nudds, France, Ewer, Alphon, Anderson and Langdale in the same manner.

So here you go and as I say you will love this; it is an extract from Michael Sherrard’s (MS) biography.

“There has been a suggestion that Hanratty was a hit man and that police were investigating other offences in which they believe he was implicated. He was alleged to have said in the car in which he was arrested “I’ve done the lot”. I treated the words as a boast that was easily explained by his criminal CV. He had, indeed, done the lot: Borstal, corrective training, prison, and preventative detention. The prosecution took the line that he was a small time burglar who had “not done the lot” until now.”

There are two things to consider here:

Firstly MS says there was a suggestion that Hanratty was a hit man. I would like to know where and when it was suggested and by whom. If MS puts this into print it would not be because Jimmy Smith from Grimbsy mentioned it to one of his mates in the pub whilst playing darts. So exactly who said it?

Secondly MS says Hanratty said he said he “had done the lot” in the car in which he was arrested. Very strange.
Is MS mixing the murder car up with the police car?

Tony.

Hang on everybody I’m expecting a real broadside from Vic on this one.

[Victor]

You on the other hand, although you listen to and read all the posts do not appear to have such a balanced view.

Indeed any witnesses for the defence are branded as dishonest, tax-dodging, publicity seeking criminals. When all along all are without exception upright everyday solid citizens.

I do not see you treat Nudds, France, Ewer, Alphon, Anderson and Langdale in the same manner.

Hi Tony,
I think the above is unfair - in post #3180 I said "I also noticed the number of liars involved in this case:- Hanratty, Alphon, Nudds, Langdale, &tc. It was noticable how critical Foot was of the latter 3 and how lenient he was towards Hanratty."

And who, other than Grace Jones, have I branded "dishonest, tax-dodging, publicity seeking criminals"?

And how did you determine that Grace Jones is one of the "upright everyday solid citizens"?

Although Langdale's evidence is suspect, I now wonder if he was telling the truth about Hanratty confessing to him. Obviously that's only a question that can be asked with hindsight.

So here you go and as I say you will love this; it is an extract from Michael Sherrard’s (MS) biography.

“There has been a suggestion that Hanratty was a hit man and that police were investigating other offences in which they believe he was implicated. He was alleged to have said in the car in which he was arrested “I’ve done the lot”. I treated the words as a boast that was easily explained by his criminal CV. He had, indeed, done the lot: Borstal, corrective training, prison, and preventative detention. The prosecution took the line that he was a small time burglar who had “not done the lot” until now.”

Hmm... I thought that Hanratty hadn't done Borstal and PD.

There are two things to consider here:

Firstly MS says there was a suggestion that Hanratty was a hit man. I would like to know where and when it was suggested and by whom. If MS puts this into print it would not be because Jimmy Smith from Grimbsy mentioned it to one of his mates in the pub whilst playing darts. So exactly who said it?

I completely agree - where did MS get that info?

Secondly MS says Hanratty said he said he “had done the lot” in the car in which he was arrested. Very strange.
Is MS mixing the murder car up with the police car?

I think he must be.

Hang on everybody I’m expecting a real broadside from Vic on this one.

You needn't worry that is clearly a mistake on Sherrard's part not yours. It does undermine the veracity of Sherrard's memories concerning the case.

KR,
Vic.

ps Are you backing down on the claims about the "dark" eyes on the Identikit not matching Hanratty?

[Victor]

Hi Reg,

Of course you have to compare evidential and representative profiles but the fact is that DNA profiling using a valid reliable technique like SGM+ if someones profile does not match the evidential profile at any loci then they are excluded, full stop. This is not possible using LCN due to mentioned problems with the procedure.

Yes, they are excluded FOR THAT SAMPLE, that doesn't mean that the person didn't commit the crime, just that their DNA isn't present at that test site.

In the Ipswich\Steve Wright case, he was postively identified by his DNA profile.

KR,
Vic.

[Tony]

Hi Tony,
I think the above is unfair - in post #3180 I said "I also noticed the number of liars involved in this case:- Hanratty, Alphon, Nudds, Langdale, &tc. It was noticable how critical Foot was of the latter 3 and how lenient he was towards Hanratty."

And who, other than Grace Jones, have I branded "dishonest, tax-dodging, publicity seeking criminals"?

And how did you determine that Grace Jones is one of the "upright everyday solid citizens"?

Although Langdale's evidence is suspect, I now wonder if he was telling the truth about Hanratty confessing to him. Obviously that's only a question that can be asked with hindsight.


Hmm... I thought that Hanratty hadn't done Borstal and PD.


I completely agree - where did MS get that info?


I think he must be.


You needn't worry that is clearly a mistake on Sherrard's part not yours. It does undermine the veracity of Sherrard's memories concerning the case.

KR,
Vic.

ps Are you backing down on the claims about the "dark" eyes on the Identikit not matching Hanratty?

Hello Vic,

Well not the savaging that I expected by any means.

I don’t know if I am missing something about your question on the colour of JH’s eyes on the front cover of Bob’s book.

I have it in front of me right now and I honestly can’t tell if it is a black and white photo but I assume it must be as it’s the traditional photo but it has a bluish tinge on the cover. That maybe only me and I will accept that it is.
The eyes look dark but we know they were blue. But that is a photo not an identikit. And yes I agree they are both in black and white.

If his eyes were brown or dark brown they would appear darker than shown. They would not be either black or white there are obviously degrees of light and dark on a black and white photo.

Similarly if, on composing an identikit picture, the composer said blond hair you would not expect it to turn out jet black on the identikit. That is why there are so many codings for each feature, but, yes, they are both in black and white.

It does not get us away from the fact that the Met Officer would have told Valerie: “for the purpose of the identikit, which you are not familiar with but I am, E10 would represent blue eyes and E49 would represent dark brown eyes.”
For whatever reason, and we will never know that reason, between them they went for E49.
It could have been a mistake by the officer or he could have done exactly what he was told.
In any event they managed to come up with a very good likeness of Peter Alphon.

Just to end on Mr Alphon it has been confirmed that he passed away last month and I don’t think any of us on here would have wished any ill will on him. I hope he did not suffer and I hope he rests in peace.
He certainly had a most curious life.

I do though suspect that may be the final end to the case.

Tony

[jimarilyn]

Hi Tony,

ps Are you backing down on the claims about the "dark" eyes on the Identikit not matching Hanratty?

Hi Victor,

Why on earth you chose this very poor quality photo of Hanratty to try and illustrate that Hanratty's blueish eyes show up dark is beyond me. Every one of Hanratty's facial features ( eyes,hair, nose, lips, cheek outline ) shows up dark in this b&w front cover photo of Paul Foot's book.
The photo was one of a series taken of Hanratty during his trial at Bedford. A much clearer photo is shown in the magazine publication "Murder Casebook", the difference in quality is unmistakable and clearly shows that Hanratty's eyes are of a lightish colour not dark.
I wish you wouldn't try to distort things Victor just to fit your own beliefs.

Here are the said photos. Judge for yourself


regards,
James

[Victor]

Hi James,

Why on earth you chose this very poor quality photo of Hanratty to try and illustrate that Hanratty's blueish eyes show up dark is beyond me. Every one of Hanratty's facial features ( eyes,hair, nose, lips, cheek outline ) shows up dark in this b&w front cover photo of Paul Foot's book.

Why did I chose the photo from the front of Woffinden? Because I happened to have started re-reading Woffinden again and I would have thought that he would have chosen an obvious photo for the front cover of his book. It happens to show Hanratty with dark eyes.

The photo was one of a series taken of Hanratty during his trial at Bedford. A much clearer photo is shown in the magazine publication "Murder Casebook", the difference in quality is unmistakable and clearly shows that Hanratty's eyes are of a lightish colour not dark.

I don't doubt that there are other photos of him, but selecting the one on the front of a major publication on Hanratty is the most obvious source.

I wish you wouldn't try to distort things Victor just to fit your own beliefs.

I'm not distorting anything, just pointing out a major discrepancy in Tony's argument about the Indentikit.

If the major work on the subject has a picture of Hanratty with dark eyes on it's cover, then surely it's obvious that VS Identikit based upon her view of Hanratty in headlights during a dark night would be similar.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Well not the savaging that I expected by any means.

Hi Tony,
I don't want to savage anything apart from misinformation.

I don’t know if I am missing something about your question on the colour of JH’s eyes on the front cover of Bob’s book.

Basically if Hanratty's eyes can look dark in that photo, then there's no reason why VS shouldn't pick dark eyes for her B&W Identikit.

I have it in front of me right now and I honestly can’t tell if it is a black and white photo but I assume it must be as it’s the traditional photo but it has a bluish tinge on the cover. That maybe only me and I will accept that it is. The eyes look dark but we know they were blue. But that is a photo not an identikit. And yes I agree they are both in black and white.

If you check the photos in the middle, his parents are shown with that photo in a frame from 1971.

It does not get us away from the fact that the Met Officer would have told Valerie: “for the purpose of the identikit, which you are not familiar with but I am, E10 would represent blue eyes and E49 would represent dark brown eyes.”
For whatever reason, and we will never know that reason, between them they went for E49.
It could have been a mistake by the officer or he could have done exactly what he was told.

"would have" or "could have" but not definitely did, so there's room for doubt.

In any event they managed to come up with a very good likeness of Peter Alphon.

It depends which picture you look at.

Just to end on Mr Alphon it has been confirmed that he passed away last month and I don’t think any of us on here would have wished any ill will on him. I hope he did not suffer and I hope he rests in peace.
He certainly had a most curious life.

I'd echo those nice sentiments. I suspect he relished in the notoriety and did everything he could to prolong it, but that's not illegal.

I do though suspect that may be the final end to the case.

What? Are you not hoping for a cartridge case to turn up in his estate?

KR,
Vic.

ps I wonder if the poster called P.L.A. is going to come back now?

[reg1965]

Hi all
The eye colour of Valerie Storie's identikit picture are dark.
So are those from the Redbridge witnesses.
Why release these when Valerie Storie was so adamant that the killers eye's were icy blue. Icy blue would be the opposite of dark when compiling an identikit picture and would have been published as such.
Knowing Valeries identification of the eye colour as icy blue, why did Acott persue Alphon for so long? He must not have had such great confidence in her reliability as an eye witness.
Miss Storie likened Mr Clark to Alphon when picking him out.
Acott's reasons, at trial, for excluding Alphon border on total fiction.

As it seems that Mr Alphon has now shuffled off of this mortal coil then a last chance of a revelation seem to be dashed. C'est La Vie.

As posted by Vic in his post #3297

I'd echo those nice sentiments. I suspect he relished in the notoriety and did everything he could to prolong it, but that's not illegal.

I hope that you do not include Alphons innumerable threatening phone calls as being legal.

Kind regards
Reg

[Victor]

Good morning all,

The eye colour of Valerie Storie's identikit picture are dark.
So are those from the Redbridge witnesses.
Why release these when Valerie Storie was so adamant that the killers eye's were icy blue. Icy blue would be the opposite of dark when compiling an identikit picture and would have been published as such.

The cover of Woffinden shows Hanratty's eyes can appear dark.
That simple fact destroys any arguments concerning the Identikit's eyes not matching Hanratty.
Therefore the assumption highlighted above is just wrong.

I hope that you do not include Alphons innumerable threatening phone calls as being legal.

That's true, those calls were illegal, not in anything like the same league as Hanratty's murder, rape and attempted murder, but you are right he did a minor wrong.

Why do all the conspiracy theories so far (proposed by Alphon, Foot and Woffinden) not include the possibility that Hanratty was involved too? Proving that Alphon and\or France and\or Ewer were involved doesn't prove that Hanratty wasn't involved.

KR,
Vic.

[Tony]

Good morning all,


The cover of Woffinden shows Hanratty's eyes can appear dark.
That simple fact destroys any arguments concerning the Identikit's eyes not matching Hanratty.
Therefore the assumption highlighted above is just wrong.


That's true, those calls were illegal, not in anything like the same league as Hanratty's murder, rape and attempted murder, but you are right he did a minor wrong.

Why do all the conspiracy theories so far (proposed by Alphon, Foot and Woffinden) not include the possibility that Hanratty was involved too? Proving that Alphon and\or France and\or Ewer were involved doesn't prove that Hanratty wasn't involved.

KR,
Vic.

Hello Reg and Vic,

Never thought I’d say that in the same sentence.

I’m away from my books just now but if memory serves me correctly you may be forgetting Mr Alphon’s possible violent assaults on women. Mrs Delal. Audrey Willis and Mrs Hanratty come to mind though.

I knew Vic that you would put Alphon in the ‘minor wrong’ class whereas Mrs Jones was a master criminal.

Actually, Vic, the way you nitpick on every single sentence that anyone posts supporting evidence in Hanratty’s defence it is my firm belief that if you were in court representing either the prosecution or the defence Hanratty would probably be alive today because the trial would still be going on. Of course we would be on to a new judge and jury because they would all have died of old age whilst you were arguing that someone put a comma in the wrong place or whatever.

Tony.