a6 murder

[Graham]

I trust you can provide examples/evidence of Jean Justice's "largesse" towards Peter Alphon, Graham. Along with plenty of others I'd be very interested to know what this consisted of.

Oh, just the dinners, lunches, nights out, country-cottage weekends, general boozy entertainments at the Half Moon Street flat at which Alphon guzzled Guinness. All of which can be read in Foot and Woffinden. In Foot's book there's a nice photo of Alphon being wined and dined in the company of Jeremy Fox and Valerie Perkins (wife of Justice's chauffeur Geoff Perkins) and looking rather chuffed with himself. How's that?

Also, why would I withdraw my welcome to RonIpstone just because he believes Hanratty to be guilty ? Just like Steve, who no longer posts on this thread, he comes across as a very knowledgeable student of this murder mystery. Quite a mean spirited statement of yours, I would say.

Yes, Ron certainly is knowledgeable, no doubt about it, and I rather think it came as a bit of a surprise to you when he confessed to being a JimDidItIte, which class of posters you very rarely, if ever, congratulate on their knowledge or interpretation of the A6 Case. For "mean spirited" read "sarcastic", and you've got it.

Graham

[jimarilyn]

Oh, just the dinners, lunches, nights out, country-cottage weekends, general boozy entertainments at the Half Moon Street flat at which Alphon guzzled Guinness. All of which can be read in Foot and Woffinden. In Foot's book there's a nice photo of Alphon being wined and dined in the company of Jeremy Fox and Valerie Perkins (wife of Justice's chauffeur Geoff Perkins) and looking rather chuffed with himself. How's that?

How's what ? You really ought to try and obtain a copy of Jean Justice's 1964 book "Murder vs Murder" book Graham, which will inform you otherwise. You might then be rather surprised to learn of Alphon's generosity towards the brothers Justice and Jeremy Fox. He, himself was very well off financially at the time he first met them in February 1962 and he kept company with them for only about 7 months.
Incidentally Jean Justice's chauffeur was called Gordon not Geoff. And Valerie was not his wife. She was not his daughter either, as Peter (PLA) once suggested. If related to him at all she was probably his sister or cousin.

Yes, Ron certainly is knowledgeable, no doubt about it, and I rather think it came as a bit of a surprise to you when he confessed to being a JimDidItIte, which class of posters you very rarely, if ever, congratulate on their knowledge or interpretation of the A6 Case. For "mean spirited" read "sarcastic", and you've got it.

Totally untrue Graham as you well know. If you took the time and care to look at some of my posts on this thread you will see that I have often given credit to the likes of yourself, your good friend Steve and other Jimdiditites and congratulated them on their knowledge of the case. There are some antagonistic Jimdiditites however whose knowledge and understanding of the case leaves much to be desired and who I usually give a wide berth to.

Being the intelligent bloke that you are Graham, I'm sure you're aware of what they say about sarcasm.

[Graham]

James,

indeed, sarcasm may well be the lowest form of wit, but it's one of the most effective.

I do, though, stand corrected regarding Mr Perkins' first name, but not with regard to Justice's largesse towards Alphon .

Graham

[larue]

hi all

i must say it's rather disapointing to see members of this thread bowing out because of posts that could be deemed to be insulting or of an abusive nature.

when i started this thread, my intent was to restart the discussion that had existed before the server crash, which was, as i recall, quite polite and civilized. i.e. within the framework of rules that we all agreed to abide by when we signed up for our accounts.

it was never my intention to make this thread some kind of contest, or indeed a slanging match between those of opposing viewpoints regarding Hanratty's guilt or otherwise.

'tis a shame to see that that is what it appears to descending to.

[P.L.A]

Our Peter (RIP)

I’ve said it before, but surely any conspirators would have ensured their hired assassin had a bit of practice in driving a Morris Minor before embarking on the crime. If there was any pre planning, it was rather amateurish.

I’m sure the amounts of money Foot claims were in Alphon’s bank account would have paid for a thoroughly professional job – not a botch up by an attention seeker.

Peter

[jimornot?]

hi all

i must say it's rather disapointing to see members of this thread bowing out because of posts that could be deemed to be insulting or of an abusive nature.

when i started this thread, my intent was to restart the discussion that had existed before the server crash, which was, as i recall, quite polite and civilized. i.e. within the framework of rules that we all agreed to abide by when we signed up for our accounts.

it was never my intention to make this thread some kind of contest, or indeed a slanging match between those of opposing viewpoints regarding Hanratty's guilt or otherwise.

'tis a shame to see that that is what it appears to descending to.

hi Larue

your work in setting this thread up again was not wasted. It remains an excellent forum but the attempts to provoke reactions with challenges and reference to posts ages old gets a bit irksome. But it was often this way in the 4500+ previous posts and found a higher level shortly afterwards. So don't despair

It is a pity people have said they will not post anymore and I hope they will change their minds because we ALL need stimulus to get the old grey matter working even if to shoot down (as best we can) what we perceive to eb a nonsensical theory. Hopefully we can do so in a balanced way even though emotional investment may be very high

It seems to me to be a real threat to this forum for people to get bored. i'm afraid I have nothing I can add to anything written before - I will try - and I can't quite see what new subject matter can be introduced that would re-engage spirited (but courteous) debate

Come on Tony, come on Dupplin M - where is the new revelation you hinted at? We need it

ATB

Viv


And IMHO the forum would benefit if Julie (Limehouse) stayed.

[jimornot?]

secrecy

I was not aware that there was any such secrecy. Government papers are available after 30 years, unless they are specifically restricted for publication, I did not think that this had happened with the Hanratty papers.

I had thought that the Police files on the case had been available to the Hanratty defence team for quite some time, even Bob Woffinden seems to have access to them for researching his book published in 1997.

Who else has archived material, and why is it said they are secretly withholding it?

Hi Ron

SteveS a few posts ago indicated some of the papers would not be released until later in the 2030's. I thought I had read elsewhere something similar but have been unable to find proof of this.

for the time being if we assume this is correct it does seem unusual and I wonder why it would be the case - it can't be a matter of national security for example. Could it be something to do with the fact Miss storie is (thankfully) still around?

atb

viv

[jimornot?]

Hi all

SteveS's post was 4560 - "... By that I mean that Home Office papers and records in other cases are not withheld from public scrutiny under Freedom of Information exceptions (as they are now) as they are in Hanratty and Alphons case. Foot knew this from very early on in his investigations into the case in the late 1960's. Some records in the Hanratty case are withheld from public viewing until well into the 2030's...."

I think this was also referred to previously or maybe in one of the books but can't confirm

cheers

viv

[Henry63]

There seems to be a number of people who see criminals as glamorous and when they get caught as victims. Never mind about the criminals victims, they don't count. Its this type of syndrome that seems to present with some here, with the denial of an out and out criminals obvious guilt. Its more emotion than logic. Or the type of hero worship that the Krays attracted often from women.

Inspired by watching the program on Johnny cash just now. He wasn't even a criminal just pretended to be one, it worked for him.

[jimornot?]

I’ve said it before, but surely any conspirators would have ensured their hired assassin had a bit of practice in driving a Morris Minor before embarking on the crime. If there was any pre planning, it was rather amateurish.

I’m sure the amounts of money Foot claims were in Alphon’s bank account would have paid for a thoroughly professional job – not a botch up by an attention seeker.

Peter

Hi Peter

That is a very fair point. In thinking about how Peter Alphon suddenly had such large sums of money I, for one, had not even thought about how easily anyone with a vested interest could have got a professional job as you state

I am not convinced PLA (not you of course) got the money from gambling and doubtful if it all came from Jean Justice ( I thought it was in his bank before JJ linked up with him but don't know that). But you are right, he could not have got it as pay off for warning the lovers off - I doubt people would have to pay that much even 47 years on.

Daft isn't it I just hadn't thought of that before - my interest in this case started after reading Paul Foot's book years ago. It grabbed my attention then and still does after several re-reads. It also influenced my (initial) thinking and I admit it has no doubt helped me see what I wanted to see. This forum has changed my perspective somewhat - thanks - but it is hard to let go of long held conceptions too even if they appear blindingly obvious as this now does. Just an observation, not a criticism of anyone else and probably reveals a lack of intelligence or logic on my part.

Must have a lie down now

good weekend all

Viv

[jimornot?]

There seems to be a number of people who see criminals as glamorous and when they get caught as victims. Never mind about the criminals victims, they don't count. Its this type of syndrome that seems to present with some here, with the denial of an out and out criminals obvious guilt. Its more emotion than logic. Or the type of hero worship that the Krays attracted often from women.

Inspired by watching the program on Johnny cash just now. He wasn't even a criminal just pretended to be one, it worked for him.

Hi Henry

Do you really see it as hero worship or hanratty being a glamorous figure? I'm afraid I just can't go along with that at all but (plse see my last post above) I have found it hard to let go of long held beliefs that were shaken hard by the DNA test and now this forum.

there certainly is honour amongst thieves plus often a warped sense of loyalty generated in some circumstances and the Krays are a good example of this. there is some kind of code in such circles and a bit of glamour does indeed sometimes with that particular territory. But hanratty was very much small time and I think only attracts defenders because they passionately and genuinely believe (rightly or wrongly) in his innocence; nothing more

atb

viv

[Victor]

In thinking about how Peter Alphon suddenly had such large sums of money I, for one, had not even thought about how easily anyone with a vested interest could have got a professional job as you state

I am not convinced PLA (not you of course) got the money from gambling and doubtful if it all came from Jean Justice ( I thought it was in his bank before JJ linked up with him but don't know that). But you are right, he could not have got it as pay off for warning the lovers off - I doubt people would have to pay that much even 47 years on.

Hi Viv,

Have you realised how ridiculous it is to think that the mysterious Mr X would keep making regular payments to Alphon after the murder and the complete fiasco that it was, including being splashed all over the papers? And to top it all, Alphon had been named as prime suspect on BBC News by Bob Acott, given himself up and been released... and I just can't believe he then managed to menace Mr X into giving him regular weekly payments of a couple of hundred pounds!

KR,
Vic.

[SteveS]

Hi all

First of all I would like to welcome back Sara and JamesDean. I have read your posts with great interest and found them to be very insightful and had carried the debate forward in a very positive way especially surrounding the DNA debate.

I would also like to welcome RonIpstone and hope that he stays around and gets involved fully in the debate, especially the DNA aspect.

Anyway down to business, as they say.

I have been aware that Mr Miller has been given a reprieve, by Babybird67, over my stating that he had not have done any ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION into the A6 murder case.

I find this odd as I am right and do stand by what I had originally said. In fact I go further and state that Mr Miller has not only not done any original research but has in fact mislead any gullible readers of his nonsensical book.

Babybird67 refuted my original CORRECT STATEMENT of:

By the way I didn't quote your dear old Lenny Miller, a few posts back, because the man is an idiot. He lifted all of the facts for his book from the other books written about the case and therefore Millers contribution is, well, negligent. It is also pertinent to note that you did not pull me up on that when replying!

with this:

here, for information for those who state Miller has made no contribution to the A6 debate, is precisely an occasion on which being aware of his book is important:
This is based on Woffinden, I presume, who relates this: Acott asked Alphon if he had any clothes anywhere else: Woffinden then quotes the exchange thus:
"Alphon: Yes, but they're in hotels and pawnbrokers and i'm not telling you where they are.
Acott: I shall have every pawnbroker visited and i shall probably find them...Have you got any bags or cases?
Alphon: No.
(BW, 419)
Thus DM you are able to state that Alphon "quite revealingly" refuses to surrender his clothes.
Miller goes back to the original interview to reveal there are important omissions from this exchange, which actually transpired thus:
"Alphon: Yes but they're in hotels and pawnbrokers and I'm not telling you where they are.
Acott: I shall have every pawnbroker visited and i shall probably find them.
Alphon: All right, I've a pair of trousers in Thompson's in the Uxbridge Road.
Acott: Have you got any bags or cases?
Alphon: No."
Miller p 37
So Miller did no original research, eh Steve? There's one bit right there for you. One very important bit which debunks the oft-repeated mistaken view that Alphon 'very revealingly' refused to give up his clothes or their whereabouts.
I don't expect you to acknowledge it though, as it goes against the Hanratty is innocent Bible which must be adhered to at all times. But very very important in my opinion.
DM...were you aware that Woffiden had selectively quoted the exhange in that way? Will you reappraise what you know of this aspect of the case with this in mind?

(my bold)

It is obvious that Mrs Babybird has not quite done her homework on this one as it is also obvious that Miller did not have access to the original interview notes, as he made no reference to them in his so called book.

In fact Mr Miller gleaned this little gem from Bob Woffinden after all. It was gotten from Bob's TV documentary "Deadman's Hill" This particular page from the very same interview can be seen @

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFIRKlnXWNc&feature=related

The page of the interview is shown at about 16 seconds in. As you can see, the interview actually continues thus:

Acott: None at all.
Alphon: Well, I have got one cheap case where I'm staying, but I'm not telling you where that is.
(LAVATORY)

WELL WELL. What do we have here.

This interview took place on the night/morning of the 22/23 September, exactly one month after the murder. His trousers would have been of little use to the police one would suspect. The police noting LAVATORY could only mean that Alphon needed to relieve himself. I would go further and say that at this point Peter Alphon was perhaps shitting himself.

Leonard Miller is the one being COMPLETELY DECEPTIVE. In fact Millers next sentence after that quoted by Babybird67 reads

By missing out Alphon's reply Woffinden succeeds in making Alphon appear suspiciously devious and unco-operative.

Oh dear Mr Miller. If anyone is SUCCESSFUL in misleading anybody (those gullible enough to believe it) it is you.

So Babybird67 are you going to REAPPRAISE WHAT YOU KNOW OF THIS ASPECT OF THE CASE based on the full quote from that interview? If it is to you, as you say, VERY VERY IMPORTANT then what do we make of the rest of your arguments?

To Julie (Limehouse)
Please Don't go. stay and put forward your most welcome and reasoned arguments on this thread.

Thnx
Steve

[Henry63]

Hi Jimornot,

I think you are right, he was too small time, although became slightly more notorious when he became a murderer. At least in the big picture he was small time but its all about small fish in a small pond. He was probably big amongst his associates because of his house breaking escapades and flash dressing. He reminds me of a small time drugs dealer who lived near me in the 60s, he had a flash car and clothes and was a Mr. Big locally and could attract some quite nice looking girls and some admiration from young men until he took too much of his own wares.

Paul Foot was a socialist from a socialist family even though more of the champagne socialists who like to patronise the lower orders possibly to make him feel better about his priviledged position, someone like Hanratty being wrongly hung really fitted his agenda, must have been a blow to him when it became obvious his prodigy really was a very nasty criminal. Even before the DNA results it wasn't a case deserving attention such as Evans or Bently and really undermined real injustices.

[RonIpstone]

I don't see anything wrong with Leonard Miller's book. He may not have gone back to the original source material to write it, but I don't think that he claimed he had. Rather he took the arguments expounded by Foot and Woffinden in their respective books and subjected them to reasoned examination.

Miller accepted the facts as found by the researches of Foot and Woffinden, but took issue with their conclusions. What's wrong with that?

If anyone had been negligent then it would have been Woffinden for failing to give the complete answer given by Alphon to Acott regarding the whereabouts of the former's clothes and personal effects. In a book the length of Hanratty The Final Verdict there could be no excuse for such selective editing of such a crucial plank of the case against Alphon.