a6 murder

[RonIpstone]

Hello Vic,

My opinion, which is the one that counts, is that the Police had a suspect in Alphon and they needed Nudds to move him into Room 24 so he could have been shown to have discarded, or at least have been in a position to discard, the spent gun cartridge cases. Nudds obliged and the cops were happy, but Val Storie did not recognise Alphon, presumably because Alphon had not been in the Moggie Minor and had not raped her.

As a side note, if Val is right in her recollection of the ID parade, then the Police topped their own incompetence by failing to make clear to her that she should only make a positive identification, and that if she could not, then she should not identify anybody else on the basis that he looked a bit like the rapist/murderer but was not.

Putting the matter neutrally, in failing to accept Nudds' first statement at face value, the Police obtained the second statement which led to them being able to put Alphon forward as a possible suspect for Valerie Storie to identify. This backfired and all right thinking people would have to regard (1) Miss Storie's ability to identify the culprit as suspect (2) Nudds recollection as to who was the last Caucasian to occupy Room 24 as suspect and (3) the Police's ability to investigate the crime fairly and competently as suspect.

The judge thought the same and summed up for an acquittal. The prosecution seems to have been saved by the Bedfordshire jury who swallowed the prosecution case.

Ron

[Victor]

My opinion, which is the one that counts, is that the Police had a suspect in Alphon and they needed Nudds to move him into Room 24 so he could have been shown to have discarded, or at least have been in a position to discard, the spent gun cartridge cases. Nudds obliged and the cops were happy, but Val Storie did not recognise Alphon, presumably because Alphon had not been in the Moggie Minor and had not raped her.

Hi Ron,

I agree with the above, but the fact that Nudds obliged, doesn't mean that the cops did anything wrong (other than believing or investigating the lies), there is a distinction between whether the police were complicit in forcing Nudds to lie, or whether Nudds lied of his own volition.

As a side note, if Val is right in her recollection of the ID parade, then the Police topped their own incompetence by failing to make clear to her that she should only make a positive identification, and that if she could not, then she should not identify anybody else on the basis that he looked a bit like the rapist/murderer but was not.

Absolutely.

Putting the matter neutrally, in failing to accept Nudds' first statement at face value, the Police obtained the second statement which led to them being able to put Alphon forward as a possible suspect for Valerie Storie to identify.

It's whether the police forced Nudds to make the 2nd statement, or he misguidedly tried to help them out and volunteered the lies.

This backfired and all right thinking people would have to regard (1) Miss Storie's ability to identify the culprit as suspect (2) Nudds recollection as to who was the last Caucasian to occupy Room 24 as suspect and (3) the Police's ability to investigate the crime fairly and competently as suspect.

1. Yes
2. "J Ryan" was in the Vienna guest book, that fact doesn't depend upon Nudds recollection.
3. If Nudds volunteered the lies, then that shouldn't smear police ability.

The judge thought the same and summed up for an acquittal. The prosecution seems to have been saved by the Bedfordshire jury who swallowed the prosecution case.

The judge summed up fairly. The jury doubted Hanratty's alibis because the 1st was changed, casting a shadow over the Rhyl alibi, for which there was no significant corroboration, especially if The Ingledene was full on the 1st night and Hanratty didn't say he slept in the bathroom.

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

LOL. Loads of comical stuff lately. Watch out Steve, Tony, Julie and Larue, you have been warned and chastised, we're not right thinking people. I think some boastful and arrogant person has had too much of the demon drink lately.

[RonIpstone]

This backfired and all right thinking people would have to regard (1) Miss Storie's ability to identify the culprit as suspect (2) Nudds recollection as to who was the last Caucasian to occupy Room 24 as suspect and (3) the Police's ability to investigate the crime fairly and competently as suspect.

LOL. Loads of comical stuff lately. Watch out Steve, Tony, Julie and Larue, you have been warned and chastised, we're not right thinking people. I think some boastful and arrogant person has had too much superior Talisker single malt whisky.

Why do you mark out Steve, Tony, Julie, Larue and presumably yourself as 'not right thinking'? I assume further that you only speak on your own behalf, so with which of the 3 propositions enumerated in my earlier post quoted above do you disagree?

I await your reply with interest.

[Victor]

Well Ron, I cannot see that you've been "boastful and arrogant" as the original quote "superior Talisker single malt whisky" definitely refers to you, although he later amended that to "demon drink" presumably to try and smear me.

Thank you for the discussion last night and this morning, as everyone can read it was polite, considerate and a mature exchange of opinion.

I too am waiting to see which of your 3 rational propositions James disagrees with, as they seem to me to be exactly the sort of thing he's been arguing for throughout this thread.

KR,
Vic.

[caz]

Yes, I was wondering that too, Ron. A case of jimarilyn reading too quickly and seeing what he was expecting to see, perhaps?

That there was no conspiracy, or at least one in which the Police were involved, to frame Hanratty is demonstrated by the fact that the Police ignored Jimmy Ryan, the last Caucasian occupant of Room 24, and made Alphon the prime suspect. A conviction against Alphon would be impossible without an identification from Val Storie, so the case against Alphon collapsed and the Police had to look elsewhere...

Hi Ron,

Indeed they did. But if Val had instantly picked out Alphon and said she was convinced he was the right man, don't you think the police would have been equally convinced? Or were they well aware that they had put a man in that first line-up on manufactured evidence and had just kept their fingers crossed?

Evidence can be manufactured against someone, or nudged along, but the police can still suspect that person and he can still be guilty. With Alphon they were on the wrong track, but the surviving victim took care of that and the case rightly collapsed.

I'm not so sure that the police pluck too many murder suspects out of thin air and proceed to fit them up, without any reason to think they could be the guilty party, or knowing them to be innocent. If anything they get too confident, too soon, about being on the right track, and then go all out to confirm their initial suspicions when hard evidence is often lacking.

One wonders what would have happened if Valerie had not survived. A double murder could only have increased the pressure for a conviction, but how strong a case could have been brought against anyone under those circumstances?

The police MOST definitely, early on in the search for the killer, stated that the suspect's eyes were brown. Alphon had brown eyes. They put him on an identity parade. They would not have done so if they knew for certain that the suspect's eyes were blue at that stage. If it was a debacle. it was one started by the police.

But I thought Alphon’s eyes were hazel, Limehouse. And they still put him in that parade, even though they initially stated the gunman had brown eyes, and - I suspect - when this came to Valerie’s attention she corrected it to blue. By this point they could hardly have known ‘for certain’ what colour the bugger’s eyes were! But I really think too much is being made of this. They suspected Alphon and it seems they entertained realistic hopes at the time that Valerie would recognise him as her attacker, hazel eyes and all. She didn’t. And I do think their disappointment would have been genuine.

Love,

Caz
X

[Victor]

I'm not so sure that the police pluck too many murder suspects out of thin air and proceed to fit them up, without any reason to think they could be the guilty party, or knowing them to be innocent. If anything they get too confident, too soon, about being on the right track, and then go all out to confirm their initial suspicions when hard evidence is often lacking.

Hi Caz,

It seems there are many similarities between Alphon and Sean Hodgson, who also made a false confession, was also the same blood type as the murderer and was also eventually proved innocent because of a DNA result by FSS.

And then there is Stefan Kiszko, who also made a false confession. He was originally suspected after two girls gave false evidence about him exposing himself.

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

Why do you mark out Steve, Tony, Julie, Larue and presumably yourself as 'not right thinking'? I assume further that you only speak on your own behalf, so with which of the 3 propositions enumerated in my earlier post quoted above do you disagree?

I await your reply with interest.

The answer to your question is quite obvious, Steve. Just have a re-read of the first sentence of your post 5396.

As you said in another very recent post your opinion is the only one that counts. Personally I've never heard such arrogance.

In addition why did you change the content of my original post ? This is totally against forum rules. I never wrote such a thing as anyone can see by reading my original post before it was changed.

Please don't change the content of any future posts I might submit !


A big Paul Foot admirer.

[jimarilyn]

Just for clarification purposes this is what was written at the beginning of post 5396..............................

I have not changed the content of this post.

In that all right thinking people now think that James Hanratty was rightly convicted of murder it must follow that his case was not one of injustice, and Foot's crusade rightly failed to clear Hanratty's name.

[jimarilyn]

Yes, I was wondering that too, Ron. A case of jimarilyn reading too quickly and seeing what he was expecting to see, perhaps?

Absolutely not, Premium member Caz.

Incidentally hazel eyes are a shade of brown.

[RonIpstone]

Yes, I was wondering that too, Ron. A case of jimarilyn reading too quickly and seeing what he was expecting to see, perhaps?

Hello Caz,
Agreed. A prickly individual isn't he?

Indeed they did. But if Val had instantly picked out Alphon and said she was convinced he was the right man, don't you think the police would have been equally convinced? Or were they well aware that they had put a man in that first line-up on manufactured evidence and had just kept their fingers crossed?

Evidence can be manufactured against someone, or nudged along, but the police can still suspect that person and he can still be guilty. With Alphon they were on the wrong track, but the surviving victim took care of that and the case rightly collapsed.

I do not believe that the Police were actuated by any other motive than the desire to catch the perpetrator of the crime whom they believed to be Alphon. Those who think otherwise are sadly misguided. I do not think that it ever occurred to Acott that there could have been another possible suspect who had stayed at the Vienna around the time of the A6 murder, until after Valerie Storie had made her misidentification. After that it was necessary to find out who Jim Ryan was and whether he could have been the culprit.

In fact, as a suspect, Jim Ryan ticked more boxes than Alphon had. But if VS had made a positive identification of Alphon I am sure that he would have been charged, and that on remand he would have found at least one cell mate to whom he would have unburdened his soul and cleared his conscience with damning tales of his involvement in the A6 murder, tales liberally laced with facts that only the real murderer could have known. He would have been convicted and hanged and the bobbies investigating would have put it down as a job well done.

I do not know what would have happened had Hanratty finished off killing VS. There were still the eye witnesses to the driver of the car round about the time it was abandoned on the morning of the murder, but the absence of VS's evidence coupled with the absence of forensic evidence from the car would have made prosecution difficult. I suppose that the answer would have been more cell mates to witness the accused's (whoever that might have been) confession.

Ron

[jimarilyn]

Hello Caz,
Agreed. A prickly individual isn't he?

Prickly ? Yes, I can be prickly on the odd occasion especially when people disregard what they themselves have previously written and refer to a completely different post of theirs which bears no relevance to the one I was addressing. I don't know, perhaps their short term memory is failing them.

I can also sometimes be prickly (for want of a better expression) when a poster is dishonest and alters the content of my post, implying to others that they are my words when in actual fact they are not.

Oh and by the way not half as prickly as some Jimdiditites on this thread.

[RonIpstone]

LOL. Loads of comical stuff lately. Watch out Steve, Tony, Julie and Larue, you have been warned and chastised, we're not right thinking people. I think some boastful and arrogant person has had too much of the demon drink lately.

Ron Ipstone wishes it to be known that it has been brought to his attention that he misquoted the above post in his post 5419 as follows:

LOL. Loads of comical stuff lately. Watch out Steve, Tony, Julie and Larue, you have been warned and chastised, we're not right thinking people. I think some boastful and arrogant person has had too much superior Talisker single malt whisky.

Ron Ipstone regrets the upset caused to any individual by the substitution of the words "superior Talisker single malt whisky." for the words "of the demon drink lately." Ron fully appreciates that the aforesaid misquotation does much to reduce the wit and charm of the original post and is liable to cause distress to those of a sensitive disposition.

Could all forum users read post 5419 with the correct quote given at the top of this post? Thank you.

Ron

[jimarilyn]

Well Ron, I cannot see that you've been "boastful and arrogant" as the original quote "superior Talisker single malt whisky" definitely refers to you, although he later amended that to "demon drink" presumably to try and smear me.

This just proves what a LIAR you are Victor. I did not amend any of my post. My post is exactly as I wrote it ! You're a disgrace !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And no, I was definitely not referring to you with the "demon drink" quip.

Why am I not surprised ??? Par for the course.

[Victor]

This just proves what a LIAR you are Victor. I did not amend any of my post. My post is exactly as I wrote it ! You're a disgrace !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And no, I was definitely not referring to you with the "demon drink" quip.

Actually it does nothing of the sort, a post can be quoted and in the meantime the original poster can edit the post so that the quoted post maintains the original where the post itself displays the new editted version, which is what I assumed had happened. My mistake, now that Ron has confirmed that it was he who amended the quote, then I withdraw my comment. It remains a mistake and not a lie though, so you need to apologise.

However, this is a lie...

As you said in another very recent post your opinion is the only one that counts.

As you'll see if you read Ron's post #5416. Just like the "fading fast" lie.

And this...

Yes, I can be prickly on the odd occasion especially when people disregard what they themselves have previously written and refer to a completely different post of theirs which bears no relevance to the one I was addressing.

Makes no sense, the post Ron referred to and quoted to avoid confusion, contained the "all right thinking people" comment too and was the most recent to do so... see post #5419. Myself, Ron and Caz all thought you were referring to that post. You could have avoided the confusion by quoting the one you intended to refer to.

KR,
Vic.