a6 murder

[Natalie Severn]

My friend, who knew Mrs. Gregsten, is a well-known TV and film scriptwriter and what he told me was in private conversation. However, when we are next in touch I shall discuss the matter with him and see if he is willing to share his recollections. It may not be possible as the family might object to her and what she said being discussed.

That is really kind of you Stewart.
Best
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

Absolutely, Graham, both camps are guilty of this.

True!

[Stewart P Evans]

Material

Hi Stewart,
I think that, what would have been considered perverted in 1961 would not necessarily be considered so now. Additionally, indulgence in what might be considered perverted adult material, does not necessarily mean that person is likely to act on it. If police were in possession of material that indicated Hanratty had violent tendencies of a sexual nature, surely they should have been placed before the jury as evidence?

The material was of the nature of a BDSM type and thus indicating an assumed preference. Of course those who read about that sort of thing and like looking at such photographs do necessarily indulge in the actual practises themselves. I was reluctant to post this information as it was never presented and was, apparently, at the time inadmissible. However it was enough strongly confirm the views of the investigating officers.

[Natalie Severn]

I have noticed in this thread the tendency to dispose of witness testimony that does not fit a particular person's own theorising or ideas by attacking the character and reputation of the witness.

I was a police officer for nearly thirty years and I have taken hundreds of witness statements. In criminal cases, of their mere nature, many witnesses are often criminals themselves and have bad reputations. It is a very old ploy of defence counsel, authors, and amateur theorists to dispose of this inconvenient evidence when it does not suit their arguments by attacking the witness ad hominen. Paul Foot is a prime example of an author doing this.

However, this does not mean that such witnesses always lied, nor that their statements were false.

Stewart,
I bet you never came across anyone quite like this Nudds chap though who changed his story three times, implicating Alphon or Hanratty,seemingly on an alternating basis!
I agree though that Paul Foot did seem a bit ready to point the finger at Alphon-so hardly a totally impartial position.
Best
Norma

[RonIpstone]

Stewart,
I bet you never came across anyone quite like this Nudds chap though who changed his story three times, implicating Alphon or Hanratty,seemingly on an alternating basis!

Hello Norma or Natalie,

How do you work out that Nudds changed his statement three times. True he made three statements, the first he changed for the second (first change) and the second he changed for the third (second change). I make that two changes; although the third and the first statements, insofar as they relate to the case itself, were substantially the same, so strictly there was one change which Nudds rescinded at the behest of DS Acott.

I realise that one should not attack the departed and Acott and Oxford are no longer with us, but one really has to to ask why they did so much to hinder the case against Hanratty? They had ascertained from Nudds that Hanratty was the last Caucasian to occupy the room in which the spent cartridge cases had been found. They should really have found Hanratty and seen whether he was the A6 Murderer, but no, they lean on Nudds and he changes his story to put Alphon in Room 24. Having established a reasonable 'suspicion' that Alphon could have done it, the pride of the Yard then put Alphon on an ID parade in which Miss Storie seems to have been told that she had to identify the person most like the person than killed Gregsten and raped her whether or not that person was in her opinion the person who murdered and raped.

In one fell swoop DS Acott managed to damage the credibility of two of his witnesses. If he had sought out Hanratty, Miss Storie would have identified him and Nudds' evidence would have been beyond reproach.

There was no doubt that Nudds was a liar and a fraudster, and that one could not trust a word he said, but he would only be inclined to fib where it was to his advantage. It was no skin off his nose whether Hanratty or Alphon were to be prosecuted and hanged for the crime, so with no pressure on him he could give his account of events accurately, which resulted in his first statement. As mentioned he had a propensity to lie, and lie he did when DS Acott re-interviewed him for the second statement. We can only assume that it was in Nudds's interests to lie, and lie he did. Why it was then in Nudds's interests to lie? Only Nudds and the investigating officers would be privy to those reasons.

DS Acott was lucky because the case came before a rather dim Bedfordshire jury, a more astute collection of individuals would have been very reluctant to hang an individual, even one so wasted as Hanratty, on evidence where the principal witness had wrongly identified the culprit on a previous ID parade, and where there were good grounds for believing that at least one other witness had been got at by the investigating officers.

Ron

[Victor]

I bet you never came across anyone quite like this Nudds chap though who changed his story three times, implicating Alphon or Hanratty,seemingly on an alternating basis!

And I get accused of trolling!

Nudds changed his story once, and reverted to his original story once, only in Norma-world does 1+1=3

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

"Mr Durrant, One Night. Deposit £1.7s.6d. "

The two empty cartridge cases were discovered in room 24 of the Vienna Hotel on September 11th by Robert Crocker and Juliana Galves.
Robert Crocker believed the empty cartridge cases had something to do with Frederick Durrant (aka Peter Louis Alphon). He must have had good reason to believe this and that at some point on August 22nd Durrant had set foot in room 24.
William Nudds (aka Jack Glickberg) and Florence Snell were fired on the same day, ostensibly for the theft of five quid.
From September 11th onwards the police set up a base at the Vienna and had access to all the hotel's records (register, diary, etc.,).
Juliana Galves's statement of September 12th mentioned that around 11.00am on August 22nd, Florence Snell (aka Mrs Glickberg) had told her she'd just received a telephone booking from a man (Durrant/Alphon) who said he would be arriving late that night. (this fully corroborated what Nudds had to say in his second statement of September 21st, a full nine days later).
William Nudds's first statement of September 15th incriminated neither Alphon nor Hanratty.
The police were obviously unimpressed by this first statement regarding Durrant which was why they summoned him back for a second statement 6 days later. This must have had something to do with what they'd discovered in the hotel's diary regarding Durrant. They had the hotel diary before them and could see with their own eyes the entry..."Mr. Durrant, One Night. Deposit £1.7s.6d". They knew this entry was in Nudds's own handwriting and it contradicted completely what Nudds had told them in his first statement. In that first statement he had lied and said that it was Snell alone who had dealt with Durrant. The police knew the entry was in Nudds's handwriting, not Snell's, and that Nudds had lied. They also noticed something EXTREMELY important..... something that cannot be over-stated.......the 50% deposit of £1.7s.6d. This deposit could only have been paid in person at the hotel and was proof that Alphon had been expecting [because all the single rooms were fully booked] to occupy a double room which cost £2.15s.0d. Room 24 was such a room. So sometime after his telephone booking around 11.00am on August 22nd, Durrant/Alphon must have turned up in person at the hotel to pay the 50% deposit towards a large room. The transaction was incomplete at that time and no receipt could be given. Nudds's detailed and very persuasive second statement mentioned that Durrant/Alphon turned up at the hotel a couple of hours after his telephone call and that he was shown and allotted room 24 and given the key to it.

Nudd's second statement has the strong ring of truth and believability to it. Quite unlike his two other fabrications.

[jimarilyn]

Here once again for anyone who may have missed it when first posted about 16 months ago is a post of mine with Nudds's second statement in full.......

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

[RonIpstone]

They had the hotel diary before them and could see with their own eyes the entry..."Mr. Durrant, One Night. Deposit £1.7s.6d". They knew this entry was in Nudds's own handwriting and it contradicted completely what Nudds had told them in his first statement. In that first statement he had lied and said that it was Snell alone who had dealt with Durrant. The police knew the entry was in Nudds's handwriting, not Snell's, and that Nudds had lied. They also noticed something EXTREMELY important..... something that cannot be over-stated.......the 50% deposit of £1.7s.6d. This deposit could only have been paid in person at the hotel and was proof that Alphon had been expecting [because all the single rooms were fully booked] to occupy a double room which cost £2.15s.0d. Room 24 was such a room. So sometime after his telephone booking around 11.00am on August 22nd, Durrant/Alphon must have turned up in person at the hotel to pay the 50% deposit towards a large room. The transaction was incomplete at that time and no receipt could be given. Nudds's detailed and very persuasive second statement mentioned that Durrant/Alphon turned up at the hotel a couple of hours after his telephone call and that he was shown and allotted room 24 and given the key to it.

One thing which I do not understand is that if Durrant had to pay a deposit and cough up the full rate for a double room should the Vienna not be able to find him a room mate, then presumably the same should have applied to Ryan the previous night. Yet the Vienna diary shows merely that Ryan paid for one night, there is no mention of a deposit or money paid on account of occupying a large room as a single occupant. Is it said that Ryan paid £2 15s 0d or £1 7s 6d for his room at the Vienna?

[Limehouse]

Hi James, excellent stuff from you today.

Julie

[RonIpstone]

Hi James, excellent stuff from you today.

Julie

Hello Julie,

Do you know if Hanratty (Ryan) paid a deposit of £1 7s 6d or the full rate of £2 15s 0d?

Ron

[Victor]

One thing which I do not understand is that if Durrant had to pay a deposit and cough up the full rate for a double room should the Vienna not be able to find him a room mate, then presumably the same should have applied to Ryan the previous night. Yet the Vienna diary shows merely that Ryan paid for one night, there is no mention of a deposit or money paid on account of occupying a large room as a single occupant. Is it said that Ryan paid £2 15s 0d or £1 7s 6d for his room at the Vienna?

Hi Ron,

Excellent stuff from you today. And blows a total hole in James' post. I wonder how he'll recover from that!



KR,
Vic.

[Dupplin Muir]

Hello all

I'm afraid I can't take seriously the police allegations about Hanratty's 'perverted sexual practices'. It's very common for the cops to smear suspects by spreading false information, or to imply that they have damning evidence that would have blown the jury's socks off if only they'd been allowed to submit it.

I have to associate with police officers in my work, and the utter bigotry and dogmatism they display is truly appalling. Almost universally they seem to believe that the police never arrest the wrong person, still less that the wrong person is ever convicted or (heaven forbid) executed. Given that incompetence and corruption are endemic in every single human activity, I am at a loss to understand why they think the police force, and associated organisations like FSS, are immune from this rule.

As a result of my experience I'm a great believer in the old saying 'anyone who wants to be a policeman can't be trusted in the job!'

DM

[Limehouse]

Hanratty states he thought he paid 17s 6d for his room at the hotel. When he booked in, he was told he might have to share the room if the expected guest also allocated to that room turned up.

Presumable, guests only paid the full rate for the room if they had it to themselves. I can't imagine guests being charged the full rate for a double room if they were sharing it with stangers.

Therefore, I conclude that Hanratty paid a share based on the full rate on the assumption he would be sharing.

[RonIpstone]

Hanratty states he thought he paid 17s 6d for his room at the hotel. When he booked in, he was told he might have to share the room if the expected guest also allocated to that room turned up.

Presumable, guests only paid the full rate for the room if they had it to themselves. I can't imagine guests being charged the full rate for a double room if they were sharing it with strangers.

Therefore, I conclude that Hanratty paid a share based on the full rate on the assumption he would be sharing.

Thanks for that Julie.

The other puzzling thing about Hanratty's accommodation is its situation in Maida Vale and a short walk from Paddington Station, to which the following morning, on his own admission, he would walk. I appreciate that Hanratty had stated that he ended up at the Vienna Hotel having been directed there by owner of the Broadway House Hotel in Portman Square just off Baker Street. Hanratty stated that he had ended up at the Broadway House having been taken there by a cabbie who had been asked to find him an hotel.

Yet if Hanratty had an intention to go to Liverpool the following day and as we know he spent the greater part of the evening of 21 August in Soho, would he not have asked the cabbie to find him a hotel near Euston rather than one near Paddington? He would not have said, "Find me a hotel anywhere in London."

It seems to me to be likely that Hanratty had a fixed intention to go to Paddington and to this end he asked that he be found a hotel in the Paddington area.

The evidence, based on the his choice of hotel for the previous night, is that Hanratty did not intend to go to Euston and then to Liverpool on the morning of 22 August 1961.