a6 murder

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie,

I don't agree at all. It was the finding of the cartridge cases and Nudds very dodgy 2nd statement that caused Alphon to be named and hunted. Before that the only connection Alphon had to the crime was the report he was acting suspiciously at the Alexandria Court. There were quite a few of these such reports, so are you suggesting that the police should have searched all the hotels where all these reports originated? That would require a massive amount of resources, and is just not feasible.

KR,
Vic.

No, non no Vic! Alarm was raised against Alphon as early as 27 August when the police were contacted about a man behaving suspiciously at the Alexandra Court Hotel. On checking the name and address given by the man, police discovered they were false. Local police questioned him, reported the incident further up the line and were told to get a full statement about his whereabouts between 21-23 August. After several lies, police managed to ascertain that Alphon had spent the night at the Vienna Hotel the night before the murder.

The police may well have interviewed other men reported to have been behaving strangely in hotels and B&Bs during this period - but how many? And how many of them, on investigation, would have been found to be lying about their name, address and their whereabouts during that week?

I would have thought that, given his dishonesty, a more thorough investigation of his alibi was required and at least a cursory glance at the hotels in which he stayed was warranted. Additionally, where statements were found to differ, all rooms should should have been examined at least briefly. After all, there were not that many rooms in the Vienna Hotel.

[Limehouse]

Hi Norma,

Why keep repeating only half the story?

Nudds first took Hanratty out, and put Alphon in the frame.
Then he took Alphon back out the frame, and put Hanratty back in.

And you think the 2nd is "his biggest porky yet", but evidently trust the 1st implicitly. So much so, you quote it willy-nilly.

KR,
Vic.

Yes, but Vic, it seems to me that you are devoted to the Nudd's statement that implicates Hanratty because, without it, a large part of your evidence against Hanratty falls apart. True?

[caz]

Fully up to speed at last.

Caz,
You dont think any of the DNA could have become contaminated? Please.......!

Hi Nats,

It’s not up to me to say whether ‘the DNA could have become contaminated’, whatever that means in practical terms. The appeal judgement was that contamination did not provide a plausible alternative explanation for the matching Hanratty profiles obtained from the hanky and underwear, along with Valerie’s profile on the latter (from her vaginal fluid) and one other, attributed to Gregsten’s semen. The fact is, contamination alone could not account for a total absence of the guilty party’s DNA. The 1961 group O semen stain was the most substantial of the three bodily fluids in question. Any secondary traces from Hanratty, accidentally transferred at a later date, would presumably have left the least amount of DNA.

So it was sod’s law that the only evidence that mattered, which had also been the most substantial deposit, disappeared without trace, while DNA from all the more minor deposits stayed put to be identified 40 years on? Not very likely, is it? The results were exactly as one would expect with Hanratty as the rapist, so I don’t know what more could reasonably be demanded by way of evidence.

The whole thing stinks to high heaven if you ask me.

Seems you don’t need to be asked, Nats. You’re just going to tell us anyway - using resolved miscarriages of justice to support the rotten smell under your own nose.

It’s pointless because the more resolved cases you shove under our noses, the less you can argue for an unresolved miscarriage of justice in Hanratty’s case. If he is so obviously the innocent victim of one, despite the outcome of the appeal, it begs the question why those still trying to defend him don’t have the goods required to force a resolution. What are today’s equivalents of Paul Foot (the Paul Feet, if you will) doing about it, apart from wasting oxygen on a Jack the Ripper site, posting their impotent personal opinions?

BTW there are witnesses who saw a stranger in a field that afternoon and others who saw a similar man over several weeks.He looked a lot more like Alphon than Hanratty which makes me wonder again about the £5,000 he received just prior to the trial in 1961. Sounds like he was at least "involved" even if he wasnt the murderer.

If Alphon had received a large unexplained payment just prior to the crime, you’d be saying something. As it is, any money paid into this con artist’s account after he had become infamous in this extremely high profile case, as a short-lived suspect, is not evidence of anything. And again, who’d be daft enough to pay Alphon for services rendered and trust him not to turn Queen's evidence and sing like a canary, especially if he had come close to the noose himself? He wasn’t exactly the type to leave well alone and keep his head down after Valerie had failed to recognise him.

Why are you "embellishing" Julie"s original statement on the matter, Caz?Julie explained her reason for suggesting this possibility, based on the statements made by another of Valerie"s friends,another of the Road Research Laboratory office, who said he used to go sometimes to the cinema with her and ,once, afterwards going to Dorney Common ,where she had told him Gregsten and she usually stopped.
A single young woman,being strung along by a married man for four years might well have been getting rather fed up with him having his cake and eat it,and to have at the very least been having thoughts of getting a new man.
I dont see why not or that there would have been anything wrong with a twenty two year old single person deciding ,"what"s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander".Its not how I see it myself really I must admit, but it isnt beyond the realms of possibility and its unreasonable for it to have brought about such vicious attacks on a poster of much integrity and commitment to the truth.
Best
Norma

It was beyond the realms of decency, Nats, if not downright libellous, for anyone to make such a vicious and baseless attack on the surviving victim of this vicious and baseless crime. Limehouse routinely bathes herself in compliments from both 'sides' for the higher ground she supposedly occupies, and then she comes out with a stunner like this one, clearly implying that a more plausible solution to her ‘puzzle’ than the one we already have (which is that Hanratty’s DNA was on the underwear from semen he deposited while in the act of rape) could involve the victim having unprotected sex with two different men on the same day, before being raped by a third man who failed to ejaculate.

Not thinking this through properly before posting would have been no excuse, but thinking it through and posting it anyway would have been even worse. What did Valerie do when her underwear was taken away to be examined? Is she supposed to have kept quiet and let them presume they had blood-typed the killer’s semen, knowing it was almost certainly from one of her innocent sexual partners? I suppose the charm was finally wound up when her underwear was further contaminated with DNA from another innocent man she had fingered as the gunman, not caring if Hanratty looked anything like him or not.

But this still leaves you and Limehouse one profile short of a rational solution, this time from the alleged secret lover’s O group semen. Whichever way you look at it, there were two ejaculators to account for originally, and only two male profiles eventually obtained, including Hanratty's. So how can this make any better sense than the rapist’s DNA going missing?

On the subject of identification,statistics have demonstrated that while 20-40 year olds,correctly identify 48% of the time, their identifications are at their most reliable when they identify someone "immediately".The longer it takes,the less reliable the identification is and it will be remembered that Valerie took twenty minutes to decide.[ Older people identify even less reliably and "correctly' only 24-26% of the time.

I wonder where that leaves your famous Rhyl witnesses, Nats. What was their average age when they claimed that the man in a photo (who was by this time on trial for his life) was a stranger they had seen months previously - someone they had no reason to remember or think they would ever see again? I'd say a lot less than 50% reliable without the DNA, and 0% with. Yet you fondly imagine that they were 100% reliable and correct, while the DNA results were 100% unreliable and incorrect. Why is that?

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

Fully up to speed at last.

Hi Nats,

It was beyond the realms of decency, Nats, if not downright libellous, for anyone to make such a vicious and baseless attack on the surviving victim of this vicious and baseless crime. Limehouse routinely bathes herself in compliments from both 'sides' for the higher ground she supposedly occupies, and then she comes out with a stunner like this one, clearly implying that a more plausible solution to her ‘puzzle’ than the one we already have (which is that Hanratty’s DNA was on the underwear from semen he deposited while in the act of rape) could involve the victim having unprotected sex with two different men on the same day, before being raped by a third man who failed to ejaculate.

Not thinking this through properly before posting would have been no excuse, but thinking it through and posting it anyway would have been even worse. What did Valerie do when her underwear was taken away to be examined? Is she supposed to have kept quiet and let them presume they had blood-typed the killer’s semen, knowing it was almost certainly from one of her innocent sexual partners? I suppose the charm was finally wound up when her underwear was further contaminated with DNA from another innocent man she had fingered as the gunman, not caring if Hanratty looked anything like him or not.
Love,

Caz
X

You are twisting what I wrote. Babybird suggested it would not matter at all to the defence if Valerie had had 100 lovers before the rape. I agree with this but pointed out that it would matter if there had been another sexual partner before Gregsten, not necessarily on the same day, who had desposited where the rapist had not. Given that the car was clear of any forensic evidence, it is not impossible to suggest that the rapist may not have desposited anything on Valerie's underwear. I was not meaning any disrespect to Valerie.

However, as I have already been accused of lying, bullying and peforming as a sock-puppet for other posters, it matters not what people think of me now does it? I mean they will think what they think.

Oh, an by the way, I don't bathe myself in compliments or occupy the higher
ground. If people pay me compliments, that's nice but hardly my fault.

[RonIpstone]

Oh, an by the way, I don't bathe myself in compliments or occupy the higher
ground.

You ought to. It is quite nice up here.

[Victor]

Yes, but Vic, it seems to me that you are devoted to the Nudd's statement that implicates Hanratty because, without it, a large part of your evidence against Hanratty falls apart. True?

Hi Julie,

No, I believe that Nudds first and third statements that are broadly identical and free from the collusion with Snell that marrs the totally uncorroborated 2nd statement. Therefore I believe the 1st and 3rd statements are more likely to be correct, but the 2nd is hogwash.

I don't believe that Nudds evidence has a large part to play in the case. The hotel guest book and Hanratty himself provide the link to room 24, and hence the cartridge cases found there, which is the full extent of the involvement of the Vienna in the case. I've always considered Nudds 36A bus comment very dubious.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

No, non no Vic! Alarm was raised against Alphon as early as 27 August when the police were contacted about a man behaving suspiciously at the Alexandra Court Hotel. On checking the name and address given by the man, police discovered they were false. Local police questioned him, reported the incident further up the line and were told to get a full statement about his whereabouts between 21-23 August. After several lies, police managed to ascertain that Alphon had spent the night at the Vienna Hotel the night before the murder.

The police may well have interviewed other men reported to have been behaving strangely in hotels and B&Bs during this period - but how many? And how many of them, on investigation, would have been found to be lying about their name, address and their whereabouts during that week?

Hi Julie,

I don't know how many others, Woffinden mentions a number of peripheral reports for Redbridge station &tc.

Alphon was rightly reprimanded for his false name, and re-registered at the Alexandra Court under his correct details. Of course Hanratty did the same registering under the name Ryan. It makes it sound like a fairly common occurence.

I would have thought that, given his dishonesty, a more thorough investigation of his alibi was required and at least a cursory glance at the hotels in which he stayed was warranted. Additionally, where statements were found to differ, all rooms should should have been examined at least briefly. After all, there were not that many rooms in the Vienna Hotel.

A "cursory glance" probably would not have found the cartridge cases lodged down the back of a chair in a totally different room, they were only found when the chair was moved.

I totally contest the idea that "the entire hotel would have been sealed off today and forensics sent in" as Norma posted. The crime scene and the car yes, a hotel where a chastised and alibied suspect spent the murder night, what a waste of resources, apart from the coincidence that another suspect also spent a night there.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Vic,

I totally contest the idea that "the entire hotel would have been sealed off today and forensics sent in" as Norma posted. The crime scene and the car yes, a hotel where a chastised and alibied suspect spent the murder night, what a waste of resources, apart from the coincidence that another suspect also spent a night there.

You may have a point about the sealing off of the Vienna .However following the call from Police to the hotel on 27th August, they took the trouble to interview Juliana Galves at the police station on 6th September and took down her first statement.
Although on this occasion Juliana Galves gave an alibi to Alphon, she withdrew it on 13th September when she made her second statement.In this she said she had not seen Alphon until 11.30 on the 23rd August just before he left.That was the only time she had actually seen him.So he had no alibi that night whatsoever.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi there Caz!

It’s not up to me to say whether ‘the DNA could have become contaminated’, whatever that means in practical terms. The appeal judgement was that contamination did not provide a plausible alternative explanation for the matching Hanratty profiles obtained from the hanky and underwear, along with Valerie’s profile on the latter (from her vaginal fluid) and one other, attributed to Gregsten’s semen. The fact is, contamination alone could not account for a total absence of the guilty party’s DNA. The 1961 group O semen stain was the most substantial of the three bodily fluids in question. Any secondary traces from Hanratty, accidentally transferred at a later date, would presumably have left the least amount of DNA.

So you say ma"am!

[Victor]

You may have a point about the sealing off of the Vienna .However following the call from Police to the hotel on 27th August, they took the trouble to interview Juliana Galves at the police station on 6th September and took down her first statement.

Hi Norma,

It's very easy to cast the opposite spin on that:- The Police didn't consider it significant enough to even go to the trouble and effort of visiting the Vienna, and asked Juliana Galves to go to her local police station and give a statement when she had the time.

Although on this occasion Juliana Galves gave an alibi to Alphon, she withdrew it on 13th September when she made her second statement.In this she said she had not seen Alphon until 11.30 on the 23rd August just before he left.That was the only time she had actually seen him.So he had no alibi that night whatsoever.

I agree that there is an issue with this. Juliana's first statement gave the collected view of all the hotel staff, supported by the guest book. She did not withdraw that statement, she made a second statement of her own personal experience in which she accurately reported she had not personally seen Alphon until the following morning.

Which leads back to the issue of Nudds. Alphon's alibi therefore rests with Nudds, which is a very precarious position for him to be in, however, the hotel guest book places Alphon at the hotel on the night of the murder and there are the convoluted theories of how he left and returned in the middle of the night to be discovered in his room (6) all dishevelled at 11am.

And then we get the rest of Acott's eleven points, some of which are patently ridiculous.

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

If, as Juliana Galves stated, Alphon had signed the guest-book as Durrant at about 11.30pm that evening, I assume the police checked the guest-book which means that Alphon had an alibi. Mrs Galves also refers to his signature in the guest-book in her second statement. So did Alphon sign the book on the evening of 22 August, or not? If so, how come all the debate that he didn't have an alibi?

There is also the less-concrete evidence from Alphon that he met his mother some time during that evening; she certainly agreed to this, but I believe the time of their meeting was unclear.

Graham

[jimarilyn]

There is also the less-concrete evidence from Alphon that he met his mother some time during that evening; she certainly agreed to this, but I believe the time of their meeting was unclear.
Graham

NO. She most definitely did not say that she saw her son on the evening of August 22nd. Even though he was her son she knew she couldn't corroborate his claim that he had been with her that evening. No wonder the very upset Mrs Alphon collapsed after Acott's second interview of her on September 22nd. She had just cause.

A bit similar in fact to the Edwin Bush case earlier that same year. Bush, who was hanged for murdering Elsie Batten, tried unsuccessfully to have his mother alibi him. Her earlier statement to police however smashed Bush's claim.

[Graham]

NO. She most definitely did not say that she saw her son on the evening of August 22nd. Even though he was her son she knew she couldn't corroborate his claim that he had been with her that evening. No wonder the very upset Mrs Alphon collapsed after Acott's second interview of her on September 22nd. She had just cause.

A bit similar in fact to the Edwin Bush case earlier that same year. Bush, who was hanged for murdering Elsie Batten, tried unsuccessfully to have his mother alibi him. Her earlier statement to police however smashed Bush's claim.

Understood. I just checked Woffinden, which I didn't have handy earlier today.

Cheers,

Graham

[Victor]

NO. She most definitely did not say that she saw her son on the evening of August 22nd. Even though he was her son she knew she couldn't corroborate his claim that he had been with her that evening.

Hi James,

Mrs Alphon said sometime on Tues, Weds or Thursday didn't she? They met regularly and she could remember exact details from a month previously.

No wonder the very upset Mrs Alphon collapsed after Acott's second interview of her on September 22nd. She had just cause.

Her son was accused of murder, rape and attempted murder, of course she would be upset. An accusation like that would upset any mother whether her son was innocent or not.

A bit similar in fact to the Edwin Bush case earlier that same year. Bush, who was hanged for murdering Elsie Batten, tried unsuccessfully to have his mother alibi him. Her earlier statement to police however smashed Bush's claim.

There are lots of historic cases which could be used as comparisons, but ultimately every case is unique is some respect. Alphon was never charged, Bush was hanged the contrast couldn't be more marked.

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

Ultimately it was Valerie's failure to identify that got Alphon off the hook - he was a lucky lad that his alibis in the end didn't have to be more fully tested.

Graham