a6 murder

[Limehouse]

Welcome back Tony!

[Graham]

Hi Tony,

Yes, I'd read that about Goddard - disturbing, but nevertheless what I suppose is a human reaction to such circumstances as he was quite often in.

Hi Limehouse,

Good post, but:

1] VS was and is 100% convinced that Hanratty was the man. I appreciate that this isn't easy to accept if you think he was innocent, but nevertheless it was and is convincing evidence, and must stand until such time as she is proved to be wrong.

2] I don't agree with your analysis. JH may have had learning difficulties, but why should that prevent him from carrying out a relative fluent conversation with someone? He was able to give evidence at his trial, after all.

3] JH was not a shrinking violet, and admitted to whacking someone who tried to mug him. His pictures present a pretty fit bloke. He obtained the gun for one thing and one thing only - to assist him in armed robbery for bigger hoped-for gains than his burglaries, and one has to assume that he was prepared to use it. Whether or not he actually set out that evening to rob and, if necessary, kill is a moot point - personally I doubt it. I think events overwhelmed him.

4] Some evidence (not a "huge" amount) was held back from the defence, but whether or not this would have had a significant effect is debatable. Sherrard didn't seem to make much of it prior to the appeal.

I agree that it is highly likely that the car wasn't driven direct to where it was abandoned, and there is rather circumstantial evidence that it was seen, butthese sightings could not, and cannot, be proven. Agreed also that the 'London Sightings' are not very reliable, and it's by no means certain what time the car was actually abandoned. But I don't think this alters the fact that the car was driven to London after the crime, may have been spotted enroute, and was parked close to a tube-station.

5] Some of Acott's and Oxford's notes were indeed subjected to ESDA testing and they were indeed found to have been tampered with. I don't have my books close to hand so can't check to see precisely what these tampered-with notes actually were, but as I recall whatever was on them and whatever was changed weren't seen by any commentator to be crucial. What was highly significant is the fact that Acott appeared to have no qualms about tampering with evidence, and that in itself is disturbing.

Ive said it before and I'll say it again that the prosecution evidence at JH's trial wasn't what anyone would describe as rock-solid - in fact, much of it was pure guesswork. Had JH stuck to his Liverpool Alibi and not taken the stand, I still think the chances are that he'd have been acquitted, and the A6Case would almost certainly have gone down as an unsolved crime.

Cheers,

Graham

[jimarilyn]

Welcome back Tony!

Yes, indeed, welcome back Tony. Your knowledge, understanding and humour have been much missed these past few weeks.

Sounds like that Judge Goddard would be good at throwing pancakes in the air.
Unbelievable !

[Limehouse]

Hi Tony,

Yes, I'd read that about Goddard - disturbing, but nevertheless what I suppose is a human reaction to such circumstances as he was quite often in.

Hi Limehouse,

Good post, but:

1] VS was and is 100% convinced that Hanratty was the man. I appreciate that this isn't easy to accept if you think he was innocent, but nevertheless it was and is convincing evidence, and must stand until such time as she is proved to be wrong.

2] I don't agree with your analysis. JH may have had learning difficulties, but why should that prevent him from carrying out a relative fluent conversation with someone? He was able to give evidence at his trial, after all.

3] JH was not a shrinking violet, and admitted to whacking someone who tried to mug him. His pictures present a pretty fit bloke. He obtained the gun for one thing and one thing only - to assist him in armed robbery for bigger hoped-for gains than his burglaries, and one has to assume that he was prepared to use it. Whether or not he actually set out that evening to rob and, if necessary, kill is a moot point - personally I doubt it. I think events overwhelmed him.

4] Some evidence (not a "huge" amount) was held back from the defence, but whether or not this would have had a significant effect is debatable. Sherrard didn't seem to make much of it prior to the appeal.

I agree that it is highly likely that the car wasn't driven direct to where it was abandoned, and there is rather circumstantial evidence that it was seen, butthese sightings could not, and cannot, be proven. Agreed also that the 'London Sightings' are not very reliable, and it's by no means certain what time the car was actually abandoned. But I don't think this alters the fact that the car was driven to London after the crime, may have been spotted enroute, and was parked close to a tube-station.

5] Some of Acott's and Oxford's notes were indeed subjected to ESDA testing and they were indeed found to have been tampered with. I don't have my books close to hand so can't check to see precisely what these tampered-with notes actually were, but as I recall whatever was on them and whatever was changed weren't seen by any commentator to be crucial. What was highly significant is the fact that Acott appeared to have no qualms about tampering with evidence, and that in itself is disturbing.

Ive said it before and I'll say it again that the prosecution evidence at JH's trial wasn't what anyone would describe as rock-solid - in fact, much of it was pure guesswork. Had JH stuck to his Liverpool Alibi and not taken the stand, I still think the chances are that he'd have been acquitted, and the A6Case would almost certainly have gone down as an unsolved crime.

Cheers,

Graham

Hi Graham,

As always, your points are hard to disagree with! However:

1. VS is convinced that Hanratty was the man who abducted her and Gregsten and she picked him out at the second identity parade. That much cannot be denied. However, she was equally sure that the man she selected on the first identity parade was also the right man. Her evidence must count for a great deal, of course, but she also claims to have only caught a glimpse of the man responsible during the attack and there was a lot of confusion over the description of her attacker in the early hours following her discovery in that lay-by. How is that that the intitial description, even if taken by accident or if mis-heard, just happened to fit quite precisely the first suspect?
2. Learning difficulties of the type that i believe Hanratty suffered do not prevent one from having a fluent and even articulate conversation. However, people with such difficulties do not generally use, or understand, language traits such as metaphor, similie and pun. This is nothing to do with intelligence but more related to the way in which language is decoded and made sense of.
3. Your points about a possible motive - the desire to take his criminality to new heights is a fair one and one that we have discussed previously. I can accept that if, a big if, Hanratty was looking for new challenges, he may have gone out with the intention of 'trying out' the act of armed robbery. I could accept that much more readily if he hadn't just happened to stumble across a man whose brother-in-law was a known associate of a friend of Hanratty's. I could accept it more readily if Hanratty had been somewhere near his own 'manor' and was therefore remotely likely to have randomly picked a couple, one of whom had such an association. What is harder to accept is the idea of Hanratty wandering out into unknown territory miles from anywhere, with a gun and five or six boxes of cartridges bulging from his clothing, hiding out who knows where before the crime and managing to pop up in the cornfield looking immaculate - without drawing attention to himself. Was he invisible immediately prior to the crime? Wouldn't someone have notice this man in a well-cut, made-to-measure suit with considerable bulges apparent rattling like a pinball machine?
4. According to a Horizon Tv programme, available on You Tube, an enormous amount of evidence was witheld. Someone quoted 12,000 documents (although that seemed excessive to me - they would not have had time to compile that amount evidence prior to the trial, never mind withold it).
5. Senior policemen corrupting statements by the accused shows that they were dishonest and it makes me wonder whether other evidence was also corrupted. For example, the cartridges being 'placed' in the hotel room and the hanky being wrapped aroung the gun to incriminate Hanratty. Additionally, as some of the prosecution witnesses were known to the police (Nudds and Langdale for example) it re-enforces the suspicion that some witnesses were 'leaned on' and/or were far too keen to gain favour by giving false evidence. It shows that the whole police investigation stank.

I agree that had Hanratty not changed his alibi and had not testified, he would probably have been acquitted. I wonder what he would have gone on to do with the rest of his life?

[Graham]

Hi Limehouse,

How is that that the intitial description, even if taken by accident or if mis-heard, just happened to fit quite precisely the first suspect

?

I think that there is a good deal of subjective interpretation reference the suspect-descriptions and the Identikits. Personally, I have never been able to equate the 'Alphon' Identikits with the man himself, although I'm aware that there are people who would swear that the resemblance is uncanny.

2. Learning difficulties of the type that i believe Hanratty suffered do not prevent one from having a fluent and even articulate conversation. However, people with such difficulties do not generally use, or understand, language traits such as metaphor, similie and pun. This is nothing to do with intelligence but more related to the way in which language is decoded and made sense of

.

I can't really comment, and bow to your greater knowledge. No recording of JH speaking was ever made (or survives), but it seems he did have a difficulty in expressing himself, especially in 'formal' rather than 'informal' conversation, but VS says he hardly shut up while he was in the car.

I could accept that much more readily if he hadn't just happened to stumble across a man whose brother-in-law was a known associate of a friend of Hanratty's. I could accept it more readily if Hanratty had been somewhere near his own 'manor' and was therefore remotely likely to have randomly picked a couple, one

William Ewer was actually Janet's brother-in-law. I can do no better than to quote Sherrard and say that this case is 'dripping with coincidence'.

What is harder to accept is the idea of Hanratty wandering out into unknown territory miles from anywhere, with a gun and five or six boxes of cartridges bulging from his clothing, hiding out who knows where before the crime and managing to pop up in the cornfield looking immaculate - without drawing attention to himself. Was he invisible immediately prior to the crime? Wouldn't someone have notice this man in a well-cut, made-to-measure suit with considerable bulges apparent rattling like a pinball machine?

Well, JH liked the doggies and may well have known the area from his visits to Slough dog-track, and he may well have reconnoitred the area before the fateful evening. Even today, the area around Dorney Reach is surprisingly rural, with a fair share of posh houses. I've always thought that JH was there to do a proper stick-up job on a posh house, but for whatever reason failed in this enterprise and, being a very impulsive and probably easily-frustrated character, he went for the next best thing and held up a car. Had he any sense at all, he'd have gone home. Re: his immaculate appearance, he could have taken a taxi to the general area. (No, I know that no taxi-driver ever came forward, but either this or - and now we get into the realms of conspiracy-theorising - he was driven to Dorney Reach). We'll never know.
Like you I've always found it highly odd that he would have God-knows-how-many rounds of ammunition on him - was he expecting a shoot-out or something? Or - here's a thought - had he only that evening collected the gun + ammuntion from whoever supplied it to him?

12000 documents withheld from the defence?? I don't think so... But I have to add that, so far as I'm aware, the police files on the A6 Case have never been made public. (If someone has any information about this, I'd be glad to hear it).

Witnesses were certainly leaned on during the A6 investigation, and I'd say none were leaned-on heavier than Dixie France and Louise Anderson. Nudds and Langdale were old lags and long-time informers, so maybe they took it all in their stride, but France killed himself and Anderson was a nervous wreck during the trial.

What would JH have done with the rest of his life had he been acquitted? Who knows? Probably carried on much as before making a living out of crime.
Another favourite villain of mine, Tony Mancini of Brighton Trunk Murder infamy, kept his head well down after he was acquitted, but towards the end of his life confessed. Tony was a nasty piece of work, but intelligent with it, and during his trial played to a 'T' the part set out for him by Norman Birkett, his highly-skilful defence counsel. Somehow I can't see JH coming even close to Mancini's acting ability under pressure....

All good stuff.

Cheers,

Graham

[Victor]

1. VS is convinced that Hanratty was the man who abducted her and Gregsten and she picked him out at the second identity parade. That much cannot be denied. However, she was equally sure that the man she selected on the first identity parade was also the right man. Her evidence must count for a great deal, of course, but she also claims to have only caught a glimpse of the man responsible during the attack and there was a lot of confusion over the description of her attacker in the early hours following her discovery in that lay-by. How is that that the intitial description, even if taken by accident or if mis-heard, just happened to fit quite precisely the first suspect?

Hi Julie,
How do you know she was equally sure that Michael Clark was the gunman? I've mentioned this before but maybe she felt under some obligation to pick someone out at the ID parade, so selected Clark as the "closest match" rather than "it was definitely him". She has never expressed doubts about her ID of Hanratty.

Undoubtedly there was a lot of confusion over the initial description, but how many points exactly were mentioned, and how "precisely" did they fit Alphon? If you are just talking about a 30~ish man, with brown hair, brown eyes, average build, 5ft+, then other than the age that pretty much is spot on for me and loads of others.

3. Your points about a possible motive

I think that the issue of an apparent lack of motive is true for whoever you think committed the crime, and when you add in the fact that VS and MG stopped at a different place first then this means that any conspiracy theories are somewhat doomed, or at least rendered highly unlikely.

4. According to a Horizon Tv programme, available on You Tube, an enormous amount of evidence was witheld. Someone quoted 12,000 documents (although that seemed excessive to me - they would not have had time to compile that amount evidence prior to the trial, never mind withold it).

12,000 documents includes statements taken by people who had little relevant evidence, such as people stopped in Redbridge who said they'd seen nothing.

5. Senior policemen corrupting statements by the accused shows that they were dishonest and it makes me wonder whether other evidence was also corrupted. For example, the cartridges being 'placed' in the hotel room and the hanky being wrapped aroung the gun to incriminate Hanratty. Additionally, as some of the prosecution witnesses were known to the police (Nudds and Langdale for example) it re-enforces the suspicion that some witnesses were 'leaned on' and/or were far too keen to gain favour by giving false evidence. It shows that the whole police investigation stank.

But what does the ESDA prove? You can't even eliminate the possibility that a page was re-written at the time, in front of the witness, because too many crossings out happened. Therefore you can't conclude that any statements were "corrupted".

I agree that had Hanratty not changed his alibi and had not testified, he would probably have been acquitted. I wonder what he would have gone on to do with the rest of his life?

That brings up interesting possibilities like whether he'd be re-tried and imprisoned when the DNA results became known!

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Hi Victor,

You wrote [I]I]How do you know she was equally sure that Michael Clark was the gunman? I've mentioned this before but maybe she felt under some obligation to pick someone out at the ID parade, so selected Clark as the "closest match" rather than "it was definitely him". She has never expressed doubts about her ID of Hanratty.[/I]

This is an astonishing conclusion. She felt obliged to pick someone out? How closely did Michael Clark resemble Hanratty? He must have been closer in resemblence to Alphon because the police would have been obliged to find similar looking men to the suspect. She isn't sure when faced with a line of men that fitted her original description, but when faced with Hanratty she is sure? Why, if she was sure about the description of the man, didn't she turn to Acot and Co at the first identity parade and say - none of these men fit the description because the man who attacked me had large, staring blue eyes and these men have brown eyes?

You wrote: Undoubtedly there was a lot of confusion over the initial description, but how many points exactly were mentioned, and how "precisely" did they fit Alphon? If you are just talking about a 30~ish man, with brown hair, brown eyes, average build, 5ft+, then other than the age that pretty much is spot on for me and loads of others.

The original description was of a man, 30ish with brown eyes, dark hair, swept back and receeding at the sides. This much more closely fits Alphon than Hanratty, who had blue eyes.

In response to my claims that statements had been tampered with after they had been taken a signed, you wrote:

But what does the ESDA prove? You can't even eliminate the possibility that a page was re-written at the time, in front of the witness, because too many crossings out happened. Therefore you can't conclude that any statements were "corrupted".

It has been established and admitted by senior police officers that the statements were changed after Hanratty had signed them. This was obviously done to give amunition to the prosecution during cross-examination. Hanratty told his solicitor and his barrister that quotes in the statement allegedly made by him to the police were not made by him at all and things that he did say were eliminated. When notes made by his solicitor and barrister during these conversations were cross checked with the tampering found on the statements, hanratty was found to have been telling the truth. There is no doubt that Acot and Co conducted a dirty investigation.

Re whether, if Hanratty had been accquitted, he would have been re-arrested following the revelations DNA evidence - his defence team would have a field day claiming that:

1) contamination could have happened when Hanratty's garments and Storie's knickers were thrown together into a box during each day of the trial
2) abosolutley no other trace of Hanratty was found at the scene of the murder - not a hair, a fibre, a skin cell, a drop of fluid, debris from his skin under Storie's nails - nothing. Neither was a trace found of anyone else. Skeptics might conclude someone did a thorough wipe of that car to ensure no one else's presence came to light. The same people might conclude that evidence that did link to Hanratty - the gun on the bus and the cartridges in the hotel room - had not a trace of Hanratty on them. Only the hanky found with the gun had Hanratty's forensic evidence on it. Strange that.

[Victor]

You wrote How do you know she was equally sure that Michael Clark was the gunman? I've mentioned this before but maybe she felt under some obligation to pick someone out at the ID parade, so selected Clark as the "closest match" rather than "it was definitely him". She has never expressed doubts about her ID of Hanratty.

This is an astonishing conclusion. She felt obliged to pick someone out?

Hi Julie,

Obliged to pick someone out, or pressured, as in Acott saying something like "We think we've found the guy, all you need to do is pick him out of a line-up. He's definitely there, and we're pretty sure it's him."

How closely did Michael Clark resemble Hanratty? He must have been closer in resemblence to Alphon because the police would have been obliged to find similar looking men to the suspect.

Now that is one of the important questions. Woffinden met Clark's aunt who said he has "blue-ish eyes" but didn't have a photo as he'd emigrated, therefore your assumption that he was similar to Alphon is wrong on the eye colour, and we all know about Hanratty looking like "a carrot in a bunch of bananas" for his line-up.

She isn't sure when faced with a line of men that fitted her original description, but when faced with Hanratty she is sure?

I thought we sorted this one, it's not her description, it's a police description that was confused, mis-heard or mistaken.

Why, if she was sure about the description of the man, didn't she turn to Acot and Co at the first identity parade and say - none of these men fit the description because the man who attacked me had large, staring blue eyes and these men have brown eyes?

Who says they all had brown eyes? You can't prove that and it's unlikely as noted above.

The original description was of a man, 30ish with brown eyes, dark hair, swept back and receeding at the sides. This much more closely fits Alphon than Hanratty, who had blue eyes.

Alphon and another million men in the country at the time.

It has been established and admitted by senior police officers that the statements were changed after Hanratty had signed them. This was obviously done to give amunition to the prosecution during cross-examination. Hanratty told his solicitor and his barrister that quotes in the statement allegedly made by him to the police were not made by him at all and things that he did say were eliminated. When notes made by his solicitor and barrister during these conversations were cross checked with the tampering found on the statements, hanratty was found to have been telling the truth. There is no doubt that Acot and Co conducted a dirty investigation.

I don't think it has been established or admitted, what's the source for this information? Hanratty was sort of found to have been telling the truth about bits, such as the Trevonne break-in and stolen jacket, but other parts were unverified, like where he dumped his Hepworth's jacket. Of course "unverified" is the generous interpetation, a more realistic one would be to say Hanratty lied about it.

Re whether, if Hanratty had been accquitted, he would have been re-arrested following the revelations DNA evidence - his defence team would have a field day claiming that:

1) contamination could have happened when Hanratty's garments and Storie's knickers were thrown together into a box during each day of the trial
2) abosolutley no other trace of Hanratty was found at the scene of the murder - not a hair, a fibre, a skin cell, a drop of fluid, debris from his skin under Storie's nails - nothing. Neither was a trace found of anyone else. Skeptics might conclude someone did a thorough wipe of that car to ensure no one else's presence came to light. The same people might conclude that evidence that did link to Hanratty - the gun on the bus and the cartridges in the hotel room - had not a trace of Hanratty on them. Only the hanky found with the gun had Hanratty's forensic evidence on it. Strange that.

Without going too much into the DNA and cluttering up this thread, basically:-
a) The fragment from the knickers never went to the trial, it was cut out beforehand.
b) The possibility of contamination could not be eliminated, the actuality of contamination was eliminated because of the results obtained.

Re-phrasing your paragraph 2 gives "The only forensic evidence found was from Hanratty (other than the victims)". And for the gun to be planted it means that there must either be a conspiracy for the entire crime and hence the switch to the cornfield is a problem, or that Hanratty gave or left the gun with Dixie France who dumped it on the bus without leaving any of his forensic information.

KR,
Vic.

[JIMBOW]

Whilst reading again Foot, the enigma of Peter Alphon and my thoughts that he may not be quite the drifter the media told us etc and rather like Mr Miller who read one passage in Foots' book and was certain of Hanratty's guilt, i thouhgt about the following which I have never seen picked up/commented on.

When on trial in 1966 for the nuisance calls to Lord Russell Alphon was tried at the magistrates court. his Barrister was a Mr Sebag Montefiore. Unusual for starters that a barrister rather than a solicitor represented a client in a magistrates court then in 1966. However Mr Montefiore, famous now for writing a rather good biography of Stalin and well known for being to the right of politics-fitting in with what we have read about Alphon, did not even then come cheap. Legal aid in the form of 1966 then would not have paid total amount for a barrister of his repute to appear in a magistrates court. In 1966 the libel cases against the media etc had all been as we know well settled previously, thus the question must be asked-where exactly did Alphon get the money to pay for a barrister of the calibre of Mr Montefiore who would I suggest only appear in a Magistrates court unless the fee was worthwhile!!

His solicitors Galbraith and Best were also rather well to do as practices go.
Again where was the money coming from a drifter, and also the connections to hire such legal people.

Hi John,

I'm not sure about the 'money angle' and how it was that Alphon always seemed to have sufficient of 'the readies' but, as far as the lack of convictions go, he did not get off lightly on every occasion, as witness the Fedzuk case, where he was found guilty of having stolen three quid from a Hungarian lady at King's Cross station and where the evidence, even according to Paul Foot, was 'less than satisfactory' and the prosecution's case was 'not very convincing'. In fact, wasn't it this conviction that threw Alphon into such a fury that he first talked about setting up the Paris news conference?

Cheers,

Jim

[Graham]

Hi John,

I'm not sure about the 'money angle' and how it was that Alphon always seemed to have sufficient of 'the readies' but, as far as the lack of convictions go, he did not get off lightly on every occasion, as witness the Fedzuk case, where he was found guilty of having stolen three quid from a Hungarian lady at King's Cross station and where the evidence, even according to Paul Foot, was 'less than satisfactory' and the prosecution's case was 'not very convincing'. In fact, wasn't it this conviction that threw Alphon into such a fury that he first talked about setting up the Paris news conference?

Cheers,

Jim

Hi Jim,

Alphon pinched her handbag containing the £3, and was apprehended, as they used to say.

According to Woffinden, Alphon seemed convinced that Justice had something to do with this prosecution in an attempt to get him, Alphon, off his, Justice's, back.

I think Alphon was fined £25 and threatened to call a press-conference to reveal all about the A6 Case. He did, but not until 4-5 years later.

Cheers,

Graham

[JIMBOW]

Hi Jim,

Alphon pinched her handbag containing the £3, and was apprehended, as they used to say.

According to Woffinden, Alphon seemed convinced that Justice had something to do with this prosecution in an attempt to get him, Alphon, off his, Justice's, back.

I think Alphon was fined £25 and threatened to call a press-conference to reveal all about the A6 Case. He did, but not until 4-5 years later.

Cheers,

Graham

Hi Graham,

Yes ... 'apprehended' ... I love it. I don't have the Woffinden book so was not aware of that little 'twist' (whereby Justice was maybe trying to put the mockers on Alphon vis-a-vis the Fedzuk prosecution).

Cheers,
Jim

[Graham]

Hi Graham,

Yes ... 'apprehended' ... I love it. I don't have the Woffinden book so was not aware of that little 'twist' (whereby Justice was maybe trying to put the mockers on Alphon vis-a-vis the Fedzuk prosecution).

Cheers,
Jim

"M'Lud. H-whilst proceeding h'in h'a sarf-easterly h-direction h-along Platform Niner h'of King's Crorse h-Station, h'I h'oberved the defenderant h'in the h'act h'of purloining the h-plaintiff's property known h-commonly h'as a h'handbag, and h'I did h'apprehend said defenderant. Allo, allo, allo, sez h'I. H'what's a h-going h'on here, then? sez h'I"

I served on a jury in the early 1970's, and one of the cases was a snatch-and-grab, and the copper who nicked the perp spoke more or less exactly like that. We good citizens and true on the jury-benches could hardly keep a straight h'face, it was so bloody funny.

My take on Justice's (and maybe Fox's) interest in the A6 Case is that Justice in particular was a mischief-maker with some kind of grudge against the powers-that-be, and so long as Alphon served a purpose Justice continued to promote the Hanratty-Is-Innocent angle. I am sure that once Justice had tired of Alphon, yet found him a difficult character to shake off, something like the King's Cross prosecution was perceived as a way of ridding himself, Justice that is, of someone, Alphon that is, who had become little more than a bloody nuisance. Perhaps via Fox, who was a barrister-at-law, the prosecution was hammered home with as much force as could be mustered. Just a thought.

Cheers,

Graham

[JIMBOW]

Alphon, the gun and Southend

Can't help but think that there's something a wee bit strange with Alphon's story about his trip to Southend to dispose of the gun (to Dixie France) as detailed on pg. 369 of Paul Foot's book. He talks about starting off at Paddington, than starting to feel ill and deliberately getting off the train at Liverpool Street. Now I realize from my time in Westcliff (a Southend suburb) that trains from London to Southend do indeed go from L'Pool St (and Fenchurch Street as I recall) but Alphon spoke as if he was having to get off what would otherwise have been a 'through' train from Paddington (please read said page and see what you make of it). For me, it makes me all the more likely to view Alphon as a 'chancer' (or b.s.'er, as they'd say over here).

Jim

[jimarilyn]

Now that is one of the important questions. Woffinden met Clark's aunt who said he has "blue-ish eyes" but didn't have a photo as he'd emigrated,

This is another gross error and totally wrong. Absolutely nowhere does she say that her nephew had blue-ish eyes

What she did tell Bob Woffinden about Michael was that his hair was of a "general mousey colour".

[Victor]

This is another gross error and totally wrong. Absolutely nowhere does she say that her nephew had blue-ish eyes

What she did tell Bob Woffinden about Michael was that his hair was of a "general mousey colour".

Well you've indicated that it's an error, but not that it's totally wrong. For it to be totally wrong you'll need to show that Clark doesn't have blue-ish eyes. Good luck.