a6 murder

[reg1965]

Michael Clark

Hi All
I spoke to Bob Woffinden this evening and there seems to be no more to tell in the saga of Michael Clark. Apparently a wide ranging investigation to ascertain his present whereabouts (in the mid 90's) was carried out but to no avail. No picture I'm afraid. He just seems to disappear off of the radar in 1965. He had an aunt in Herefordshire but all she could give was his hair colour which was mousey brown therefore not at all like Hanratty. This is all in Woffinden (1997).
The story of the Spanish sailor appears to have been invented by the prosecution and swallowed by the defence. Whereby any follow up would have been nigh on impossible. Bloody good isn't it?
Reg

[Limehouse]

Hi everyone,

Something has happened in recent days that has put a rather different complexion on the A6 case for me.

Last summer, a young Polish man was found brutally murdered on the river embankment in the city where I live. Since then, an on-going investigation has been conducted and last week the police made an arrest.

The person arrested is 18 years old. He is a Lithuanian youth and since last September I have been teaching him English. He is a well-behaved young man, quiet, fits in well with the other students and is always polite and respectful towards me. He does not always work as hard as he could, but he generally responds postively to some gentle encouragement.

I cannot, in any way, come to terms with the person I have have sat next to and worked alongside countless times being responsible for such a brutal act of violence - one that ended the life of a young husband and father.

So, could I be wrong to doubt that Hanratty was responsible for the A6 crimes? After all, I did not even know Hanratty. I knew this boy and I could not have imagined that he was capable of such a crime.

[jimornot?]

[QUOTE=Limehouse;73566]Hi everyone,

Something has happened in recent days that has put a rather different complexion on the A6 case for me.

hi Julie

I am sorry you have had this shock and I agree, it does make you wonder what you realy know about people. Sadly I knew 2 people who, many years ago, were involved in separate crimes. One was convicted of murder, the other of manslaughter. I knew the murderer in particular pretty well and it was such a huge shock and devastated his family. That said, I can't quite imagine how you feel given the time you spent with the lad and the trust you would have placed in him

As regards Hanratty, we will of course never know and I have to say like Jimarilyn, I found his letters from jail very convincing but as has been covered before, perhaps this was self delusion. He wasn't a particularly pleasant fellow at best.

Hope you put this behind you soon

best wishes

Viv

[jimarilyn]

Milky thoughts, part 2

Evening all (no it's not George Dixon)

The morning after the murder a gunman forced his way into the home of Audrey Willis.
The same gunman did a repeat act less than 2 days before James Hanratty's execution (who said lightning doesn't strike twice ?)
Her description of this man was that he had a long and thinnish pale face, a sallow complexion, and deep-set brown eyes. He had dark brown hair (smoothed back) which was receding at the sides and was aged about 30 (wonder who this reminds me of ?).
This gunman asked her for a glass of milk, which she duly gave.
The day previously (23rd of August) the murder car stopped outside Nevill & Griffin's dairy (probably on the gunman's instructions) to buy some milk from a milk machine (but nobody had any sixpenny pieces).
If they were two different gunmen, they sure liked a glass/carton of milk.

regards,
James.

Hi All,

Further to this earlier post of mine perhaps it is worth mentioning that it seems Peter Alphon was partial to a glass or two of the white stuff.
Jean Justice got to know Alphon very well in the aftermath of the A6 murder.
Just over a month after James Hanratty's execution it seemed as if Alphon was about to make a written confession to the murder.
On page 114 of his book Justice writes.....

"On Sunday, May 13th, I went to the Rubens Hotel where Peter was staying at the time. I had been to Brighton for the weekend and had returned rather late. It was, I remember, about eleven-fifteen when I reached the hotel. Peter, who was clearly upset, saw me for only a few minutes, said he was moving next day to the Imperial Hotel and invited me to meet him there..

I took Jeremy with me on Monday evening, for there had been something vaguely disturbing about Peter that made me unwilling to face him alone. When he joined us in the lounge of the Imperial, we were both profoundly shocked by his appearance. He was not wearing a tie and he had not shaved that morning. He complained that his stomach was out of order, that he could neither eat nor sleep and that the only drink he could keep down was milk. Jeremy left us on our own for a while in order to give Peter an opportunity to hand over the confession. When he came back, a little after eight, Peter had gone to bed. The promised confession seemed farther away than ever."

Many adults nowadays are averse to drinking milk because of their lactose intolerance. I guess that was the situation back in 1962 also. It seems Alphon had no such intolerance.

Personally speaking, I like milk. Especially the kind that affects my memory...'Milk of Amnesia'


regards,
James

[burkhilly]

Hi everyone

I've been off reading about DNA for the last couple of weeks - and although not an expert by any imagination I've found the information very enlightening. Will post in a couple of days when I've a bit of time to put things into words.

I'd appreciate feedback which leads to debate, and is not just dismissal. As a relative newcomer to this site, I've noticed that many contributors no longer contribute which is a shame.

As Tony has said quite recently we mustn't forget that the tragic events led to a man's death and a young woman being confined to a wheelchair. However, up until 2002, many people thought that JH was innocent, me included. Some of us continue to believe in JH's innocence, whilst some of us believe he's guilty. This is a facinating case so let's keep on debating with respect shown to each other and the differing opinions individuals have.

Thanks!

[SCREAMER]

Hi people. What a fascinating thread this is. So many questions. So little time unfortunately! Anyway I find it quite impossible to believe Jimmy did it, despite the DNA evidence. There's so much that simply doesn't add up, no matter what the DNA believers say. For starters why did Jimmy have his hair re-died black shortly after the murder. Seems the height of foolishness to me. What about those phone calls Alphon [presumably] made threatening Valerie Storie while she lay in hospital? Also can someone please explain why Alphon offered to recompense the Hanrattys for the loss of their son? Oh and why was Alphon so reluctant to submit his clothes for forensic examination? How can the eyewitness testimony of the woman in the sweetshop and the people in Rhyl be so casually dismissed? So many questions, but so little time! Another day perhaps. Keep posting people!
Love and hugs and regards,
Screamer [aka I-firmly-believe-in-Hanratty's-innocence-and-if-he-did-do-it-then-we-really-have-entered-the-Twilight-Zone]

[jimornot?]

Welcome Screamer - it IS a wonderful thread and I learn a lot from the contributions made. Very impressive knowledge on each side of the debate.

You are right about things not adding up and the list could go on for ages. I am amazed Alphon didn't seem to get cautioned / charged (investigated even?) for his alleged threatening actions - didn't he also assault Mrs Hanratty without attracting police action? But perhaps he was just a publicity seeker, very astutely manipulating perceptions?

Some people indicate seeing someone similar to Alphon in the vicinity of the initial hold up before and on the day of the crime. And his odd behaviours certainly attracted the attention of the police after the crime. It is little wonder some of us (me for starters) can't quite accept his innocence. But if he was an accessory to whatever degree, why did he continue to court attention and risk attracting possible prosecution? Very odd all round.

If H didn't do it then Alphon for me, would be the prime suspect and then we could consider why - as a warning that went wrong, some other motive? But I'm not (yet) as sure as you that Hanratty was innocent. Then again if I was on the jury and armed with the data from this thread, even with the DNA I think there is reasonable doubt as to Hanratty's guilt


ATB

Viv


PS As a matter of interest, does anyone know in what way(s) the statement by Nudds implicating Alphon has been 'proved' as a lie?

[Victor]

Welcome Screamer - it IS a wonderful thread and I learn a lot from the contributions made. Very impressive knowledge on each side of the debate.

Welcome Screamer.

You are right about things not adding up and the list could go on for ages. I am amazed Alphon didn't seem to get cautioned / charged (investigated even?) for his alleged threatening actions - didn't he also assault Mrs Hanratty without attracting police action? But perhaps he was just a publicity seeker, very astutely manipulating perceptions?

Definitely "dripping with coincidences". Alphon was charged and cleared of assaulting Mrs Hanratty.

PS As a matter of interest, does anyone know in what way(s) the statement by Nudds implicating Alphon has been 'proved' as a lie?

Nudds made 3 statements.
1st - "alibi" for Alphon implicates Hanratty (J Ryan)
2nd - strongly implicates Alphon
3rd - 2nd statement is a lie, 1st is true - "alibi" for Alphon implicates Hanratty (J Ryan)

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

William Nudds's 2nd Statement

Hi people. What a fascinating thread this is. So many questions. So little time unfortunately! Anyway I find it quite impossible to believe Jimmy did it, despite the DNA evidence. There's so much that simply doesn't add up, no matter what the DNA believers say. For starters why did Jimmy have his hair re-died black shortly after the murder. Seems the height of foolishness to me. What about those phone calls Alphon [presumably] made threatening Valerie Storie while she lay in hospital? Also can someone please explain why Alphon offered to recompense the Hanrattys for the loss of their son? Oh and why was Alphon so reluctant to submit his clothes for forensic examination? How can the eyewitness testimony of the woman in the sweetshop and the people in Rhyl be so casually dismissed? So many questions, but so little time! Another day perhaps. Keep posting people!
Love and hugs and regards,
Screamer [aka I-firmly-believe-in-Hanratty's-innocence-and-if-he-did-do-it-then-we-really-have-entered-the-Twilight-Zone]

Hi SCREAMER,

A warm welcome to this fascinating thread and a very impressive post. Please stick around as much as possible and don't go AWOL like a few others.
Jimornot (another very impressive poster) mentioned William Nudds's second statement in the post following yours. This was a very detailed and convincing statement which was corroborated by the Vienna Hotel records. I believe it's well worth putting on this thread and hope the majority of posters feel the same way too.

Here it is in it's entirety (as copied from Paul Foot's book) :--


"Since I made my last statement to you on 15th September 1961 I realise that what I told you in that first statement was wrong. I was confused and made an honest mistake about the booking and arrival of the man named Durrant that I then told you about. I am now perfectly clear about everything that happened at the Vienna Hotel in regard to Durrant.

At about 11 am on Tuesday, 22nd August 1961, my wife told me she had just received a booking from a man who gave the name of Durrant and asked for a room for one night. I made an entry in the hotel diary which is used for recording bookings on page 234 under Tuesday, 22nd August, 1961, which read 'Mr Durrant, One Night'.

I saw Durrant arrive at the Vienna Hotel at 1 pm on 22nd August 1961. My wife and I were together at the reception desk. He was given the key to his room and was shown to the room by my wife. At 1 pm, when I booked Durrant into the hotel I could see by the hotel booking sheet that we had no single or small rooms to offer him. We never turn a guest away if it is at all possible to accommodate him, and so, in accordance with general practice at the hotel, I allotted him room No. 24 which is a large room in the basement containing two double and one single beds.

I explained to Durrant the position of the hotel accommodation and pointed out to him 1) that although the normal charge for bed and breakfast for a single person for one night was £1.7.6. the charge for occupying a large room like room No. 24 was £2.15.0. and 2) if other guests arrived later that day or night he would have to agree to others sharing room No. 24 with him. Durrant agreed to these terms and I and my wife took him to room No. 24 and gave him the key to that room.

When he entered room No. 24, Durrant chose the single bed, which is in the alcove immediately to the left of the door as one enters the room, and he put his suitcase on the armchair which is at the foot of the bed behind a narrow partition which prevents the chair being seen from the doorway. The basement room is level with a park which looks like an ordinary garden when one looks out of the window. Durrant asked me what was outside the window, and I said a park. He walked round the room and said to me : 'I don't like a basement. I prefer a room upstairs'. I said to Durrant : 'All our single rooms are booked, but if one should become vacant, I'll let you have it, and move you into it.'

Durrant left his case in room 24, the key of which he had already been given, and we all went back to the reception desk. He paid me £1.7.6. and agreed that if he had to spend the night in the large room he would pay the extra money to make up the £2.15.0. before he left the hotel the next day. I was therefore unable to give him a receipt then as the transaction was not completed, and I would have done so next day when I knew for certain whether it was to be £1.7.6. or £2.15.0.

To cover myself with the hotel accounts, I added 'Deposit £1.7.6.' to the previous entry, 'Mr Durrant, one night', which I had made in the hotel diary on page 234 when Durrant made his initial booking by telephone that morning. The word 'deposit' in front of £1.7.6. shows that this is the amount of money I received from Mr Durrant, but was only a deposit towards the amount of £2.15.0 which Durrant would have had to pay had he occupied room 24 all night.

Durrant was in a hurry to get out of the hotel, and I cannot remember whether or not he signed the hotel register that day, but I rather feel on reflection that it was left for him to sign early next day. This is not an uncommon practice with guests who are in a hurry and that would explain why Durrant's interest in the hotel register is the last entry under 22.8.1961, and I know that a good number of the dates in the first column used to be put in by the Spanish woman Mrs Galves when she was checking the register for her accounts in the mornings. At that time, I noticed that Durrant had a smart appearance, something like a commercial traveller, wore neat clothes and a clean white shirt, was well shaven and had hair neatly smoothed down with grease. He was, however, in a bit of a flurry and certainly in a hurry to get out of the hotel. Durrant told me that he was going out and would not be back until late. when I asked him how late, he replied 'I may be very late. Do not wait up for me.'

I the explained to him that the key he had to his room fitted the street door to the hotel, and I asked him, if the hotel was locked when he returned, not to ring the front door bell and disturb us or the guests, but to unlock the street door with his room key, be sure to close the door behind him, and find his way to his room. I also told Durrant to tip-toe into his room in case we had to put another guest into that room, and I also pointed out to him that if, through a cancellation we managed to find a single room I would notify him if he returned after we had gone to bed, by pinning a note for him on the door of room 24 or on the reception desk, telling him his new room number and where it would be.

When we had finished this business at the desk, Durrant left us to go to his room No. 24, but I remember now that he came up shortly afterwards and went staright out of the hotel, and he was not wearing a hat or overcoat and I do not think he was carrying anything at the time. Some time during that evening, pretty late, and probably between 9 pm and 11 pm, Mr Pichler, my employer and owner of the hotel, telephoned me from the Broadway House Hotel and told me that the booking he had previously given us for Mr Bell and to whom we had already allotted room No. 6, a room on the second floor containing one single bed, could now be cancelled.

My wife and I sat up late that night, as was our usual custom, watching television and talking together while we waited in case there were any late guests arriving at the hotel. We sat in the lounge, which is next to the reception hall and desk, and from that position we could see and hear anyone entering or leaving the hotel. At 2 am, on the morning of the 23rd August, my wife and I decided to go to bed.

At that time Durrant was the only guest who had not returned to the hotel. The rest of the guests had long retired to their rooms and none were in the public rooms of the hotel. Before retiring to bed, I and my wife decided to leave a note for Durrant, notifying him of the change of his room. At the reception desk I took a sheet of pale blue paper from a scribbling pad which we keep for such purposes on the reception desk, and on it I wrote with my Biro pen the heading 'Mr Durrant' in large letters which I underlined, and underneath this I wrote, 'I have been able to change your room to a single - No. 6. Herewith the key to the door. Manager'.
I placed this note on top of the pen tray in the centre of the reception desk where it could not be missed by anyone coming to the reception desk. I and my wife went to our room in the basement and retired to bed. As always, we left a small light on over the reception desk.

My wife and I got up at 7 am that morning, 23rd August, 1961, and we both went to the kitchen which is next door to our room in the basement, and we spent the next hour in the kitchen preparing breakfasts for the guests. At 8.0 am my wife went upstairs to the dining room on the ground floor and she was then engaged on her own serving breakfasts to the guests. This necessitated her coming down to me in the kitchen from time to time, collecting a breakfast and taking it upstairs to a guest, and for the next hour and a half she would have been fully occupied in these duities and would have spent much of that time in the basement kitchen with me preparing tea trays and collecting breakfasts. This was a particularly busy morning as the hotel was particulary full. I remained in the kitchen until about 9.50 am when I asked my wife whether there were any more breakfasts wanted.

When she told me there was only one who had not had breakfast, and that was Mr Durrant in room No.6, I went up to room No.6 to ask Mr Durrant whether he was going to have breakfast. I knocked on the door of No.6 but got no reply, so I opened the door with my pass key and looked inside the room. I saw Mr Durrant standing by his bed and pulling on his trousers. I cannot remember now whether the bed was made or unmade, but I do remember that a suitcase lay open on the bed, and I can remember that it contained what appeared to be dirty linen.

I asked Mr Durrant if he wanted any breakfast, and he appeared to be agitated when he said 'No, No, I do not want any'. He appeared dishevelled. His hair was ruffled and he was in need of a shave, and very different from the Durrant when booking him into the hotel the previous day. i said to him : 'Did you sleep well ?' and he said 'yes'. I said to him : 'What time did you get in last night ?' durrant said : '11 o'clock.' I left the room and went back to my wife in the dining room. I said to her : 'No.6 does not want any breakfast. It looks as if he has been drinking last night. He told me he came in at 11 o'clock.' She said : 'He could not, or we would have seen him. He could not have got our note then and would not be in No. 6 now.'

At about 11.45am I saw my wife and Mrs Galves, who were making beds upstairs, and I asked them if they had finished with the rooms. My wife replied : 'No, we have got one more, No. 6 : he is still in his room.' I told them to go to No. 6 and tell him that unless he vacated his room by noon he would be charged for another night's lodging.

I did not see Mr Durrant again, and I was told a little later by my wife that bhe had left the hotel. This statement I have now made is a true account of what happened in the Vienna Hotel on 22nd and 23rd August, 1961. The statements I have made to you before have been inaccurate as to detail because I was confused in my mind as to the comings and goings of the many guests that were using the hotel at that period, but what I have now told you is correct.

In order to clear up any confusion there may have been earlier between Ryan who went into room No. 24 and spent the night of the 21/22 August there, I want to point out the differences between him and Durrant, who entered room No. 24 at about 1 pm on 22nd August, 1961, after Ryan had vacated that room at about 8.30 am that morning. Durrant is five or six years older than Ryan ; he is bigger in build than Ryan ; although they both had dark-coloured hair, Ryan had a quiff which gave him the appearance of having more hair standing up in the air. Whereas Ryan had an accent, possibly Irish, Durrant had no accent, and was better spoken than Ryan ; though they were more or less dressed in equivalent clothes, Ryan was dressed in the style of a younger man ; while Durrant carried a suitcase, Ryan carried a brown holdall and a portable radio with a shoulder strap. The most important difference between the two men was that Ryan was at all times cool, calm and composed, and left our hotel like a normal man who had had a breakfast after a full night's sleep and was leaving for work ; whereas Durrant was flurried, hurried and agitated. This statement has been read to me and it is true.

Signed : J. Glickberg. 21st September, 1961.



Phew !!!!!!!. Have now managed to get my typing speed up to 4 wpm.


regards,
James

[Victor]

Jimornot (another very impressive poster) mentioned William Nudds's second statement in the post following yours. This was a very detailed and convincing statement which was corroborated by the Vienna Hotel records.

Nudds 2nd statement is the one where he colluded and conferred with "his wife" and they gave matching statements.

The 3rd statements were made without the possibility of collusion and denied the 2nd statements.

The Hotel records could match either statement and give no extra corroboration to either.

KR,
Vic.

[jimornot?]

Nudds 2nd statement is the one where he colluded and conferred with "his wife" and they gave matching statements.

The 3rd statements were made without the possibility of collusion and denied the 2nd statements.

The Hotel records could match either statement and give no extra corroboration to either.

KR,
Vic.

Hi Vic hi Jim

Thanks Jim for the taking all that time to type up the statement.

I can't access books at the moment so this is from a rapidly deteriorating memory but I seem to recall the second statement as far fuller than the other 2 and to me (perhaps from a biased viewpoint at that time) more plausible. Playing devil's advocate, IF the police were trying to fit up Hanratty at the time, maybe they leaned on Nudds to 'prove' he'd collaborated with his 'wife'. They didn't seem to have concerns about the second statement (maybe they led that one even?) when they were convinced Alphon was their man.

all the best

Viv

[jimornot?]

Hi Vic

just following up on my last post...

For those of us unsure of Hanratty's guilt (or even definite about his innocence), the apparent police actions leave something to be desired at best. That helps fuel the suspicion (DNA not withstanding) it might have been a gross miscarriage of justice and so it is easy to take the view of mistrusting anything the police said about the case / evidence etc.

Vic, you often seem to be almost a lone voice on this thread - certainly fter the recent departures from the thread, you are the most regular poster on the Jim-did-it side. Do I recall correctly that you initially thought H was innocent? I think you indicated previously that he should not have been convicted at the trial anyway (and I know Graham felt that).

If it is indeed your view that the initial prosecution was unsafe (even if it MAY have been proved it turned out to be the right result) I would be very interested to know why you felt it was a doubtful decision and what changed your mind about his guilt - if anything outside the DNA

thanks

all the best

Viv

[SCREAMER]

Thanks for your warm welcome folks. Yes I do plan to stick around, James! I wouldn't miss all this for the world.
Regards
Screamer

[SCREAMER]

Hi folks. I've just come across this, from The Independent:


Saturday, 7 February 2009

The name Peter Alphon will mean nothing to today's generation. But because I was a close friend of Paul Foot, who spent years investigating the A6 murder of 1961, for which James Hanratty was later hanged, I lived with the name Alphon almost as closely as he did.


The A6 killer – apparently proved to be Hanratty by recent DNA tests – murdered Michael Gregsten and raped and attempted to murder his girlfriend Valerie Storie, after holding them up with a gun in their car in a field near Taplow.

Alphon was the police's first suspect and he bore a marked resemblance to the original identikit picture produced with the help of Valerie Storie. But it was Hanratty, a small-time crook who had prison sentences for house-breaking and stealing cars, who was later charged and eventually hanged.

The case would have been forgotten had it not been for Alphon's subsequent behaviour, all of which suggested a man suffering acute feelings of guilt. In phone conversations with Paul and other campaigners he spoke obsessively about the case, frequently incriminating himself. In 1967 he called a press conference and announced that he was the murderer. Previously he had even visited Hanratty's parents and offered to compensate them for the loss of their son.

Aside from the details of the evidence was the obvious point that the murderer had been an excitable and unbalanced man, unable to control his sexual urges. The description fitted Alphon but not Hanratty.

The DNA tests of 2002 were generally accepted as proof of Hanratty's guilt. But Paul Foot continued to believe in Hanratty's alibi which he had personally checked out. Any hope that Alphon might finally reveal the truth has now gone. He died in a London hospital last month, following a fall at his home.

[Victor]

Hi Viv,

For those of us unsure of Hanratty's guilt (or even definite about his innocence), the apparent police actions leave something to be desired at best. That helps fuel the suspicion (DNA not withstanding) it might have been a gross miscarriage of justice and so it is easy to take the view of mistrusting anything the police said about the case / evidence etc.

I pretty much agree with all of that. The police actions, Swanwick's actions in court, Alphon's actions are all highly suspect, but that doesn't mean that Hanratty didn't do it, just that there were lots of doubts that should have rung big alarm bells for the original jury.

Vic, you often seem to be almost a lone voice on this thread - certainly fter the recent departures from the thread, you are the most regular poster on the Jim-did-it side. Do I recall correctly that you initially thought H was innocent? I think you indicated previously that he should not have been convicted at the trial anyway (and I know Graham felt that).

Absolutely.

If it is indeed your view that the initial prosecution was unsafe (even if it MAY have been proved it turned out to be the right result) I would be very interested to know why you felt it was a doubtful decision and what changed your mind about his guilt - if anything outside the DNA

Simply the DNA. It conclusively proves Hanratty did it, and there WERE lots of dubious events and situations and coincidences that left huge doubts in my mind until the DNA proved it.

With hindsight I can now look back on the trial data and see that those coincidences were nothing more than coincidental.

KR,
Vic.