a6 murder

[jimornot?]

I read Jean Justice"s book -the English one, and thought it was very lucid, concise and usually to the point .Alphon"s "conversations" with him sometimes seem very bizarre indeed and stray into the sort of nightmarish meanderings---typical of schizophrenia---as is his ability to hold onto enough of a sense of reality and self preservation not to say anything that might later lead him directly to the gallows.
He never gave Acott permission either to look through his case or his clothing---I found that interesting.

hi Norma

True and I wonder why? But I believe he did give up fingerprints and the like without objecting.

Alphon is a mystery man in all this. he seems to have got away pretty much scot-free with his misdemeanours eg positive ID as a burglar, menacing calls to Lord Russell, Charles France etc, assault of Mrs H. I am intrigued to think how he lived his life for the 25 years or so before his death. I wonder if he had any friends he spoke with, what did he do for cash?

It seems incredible that the police only got to Ryan/Hanratty because of their interest in Alphon

atb

viv

did let

[Limehouse]

Hi everyone,

I’ve not been on for quite some time; I’m very busy on some other stuff but I do look in every day.

Just a couple of points really and I might have a bit more time shortly to join the debate.

Norma says about people in Rhyl and their recollections of the case and how some are convinced Hanratty was there and was hanged as an innocent man.

I’ve told this tale on here once before but it was yonks ago so I’ll give it another run out.

After reading Paul foot’s book in 1971 and becoming convinced of Hanratty’s innocence, as indeed others were who contribute on here but have now changed their minds, I wrote a letter to our local paper.
At the time I lived in a small village in the Peak District (I live in an even smaller one now) and I used to have a wander down to one of the two pubs in the village.
We used to play darts, dominoes and cards; you know the sort of thing, anyway a policeman started to come in and join us. He was a good sort, he joined in and paid his round when it was his turn so no problem.
A couple of weeks after my letter was published I went to the bar for a round and the bobby was there. He motioned for me to come over to him and said: “So you’re the one banging on about Hanratty being framed; well a bit of advice, Pal keep your thoughts to yourself and don’t go writing any more letters to the paper”.

He meant it alright and after that night he never came in the pub again.

On another note I see that in his debate with Jimarilyn Graham is very adamant about Hanratty’s guilt and how he accepts what Valerie Storie says as beyond reproach. I am mentioning Graham but not singling him out because he is not alone.
But tell me this: Graham has been on here and said that he once, and for a long time, thought Hanratty had been the victim of a miscarriage of justice. If that is so it follows that he must have thought that Valerie Storie was either mistaken or led by Acott. He also must have disbelieved Anderson, Nudds, France, Langdale, the Redbridge witnesses etc. He must also have been sceptical of Acott and Oxford.
He must also have had some belief in Rhyl otherwise why was he a supporter of James Hanratty?

Tony.

Julie,

I was going to mention about your husband not having any recall as to whether your hotel rooms have a bath or a shower. I don’t want to bring your husband’s washing arrangements or lack of them on to here so I will not mention it. I know you will be pleased with me for that.

Hi Tony

Nice to see you back posting. We should hear more from you!

I remember that story about the pub and the policeman but it's important to be reminded of such things every now and then.

Re my husband's washing arrangements - he's a very clean fellow but would struggle to remember whether he'd showered or bathed that morning (or any morning!). His mind is filled with higher thoughts - such as how to rescue the entire London Taxi Trade from disaster and he leaves the 'trivia' pf everyday living for me to arrange!

Have a good day.

[Limehouse]

Hello Tony,

good to see you back on the thread.

Yes, years ago I did consider that Hanratty might have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice, and what I have also said on a number of occasions on this thread is that I don't think he should have been convicted on the evidence presented at his trial. I have also said that had his case been tried in Scotland, the verdict would almost certainly have been 'Not Proven'.

I have, it is true, referred to the days when I was younger, longer-haired and more radical, and to my admiration for Paul Foot; when I read Foot's book when it was first published I inclined to Hanratty's innocence, largely because I felt that if Foot supported a case it was worthy of support. The support of John Lennon was also persuasive, although he soon tired of it and fell by the wayside.

However, on coming back to the A6 Case a number of years later, and re-reading Foot's book rather more carefully, I came to the conclusion that Foot was wrong. I still think that Foot was a great investigative journalist, but you can't be right all the time, and I do believe he backed the wrong horse as far as Hanratty goes. It was very easy to believe in Foot's reasoning that Alphon was the murderer, that Hanratty was stitched up, etc., etc., but closer scrutiny has convinced me that none of this holds water. The Rhyl Alibi looks convincing at first sight, but read deeper and it becomes very plain that there is nothing in it. I would never deny that Acott's behaviour was anything other than unethical as far as non-disclosure of evidence is concerned, but I can't under any circumstances accept Hanratty's Rhyl Alibi. I feel sure that had he not changed his alibi he might have stood a chance. I'm also fairly well convinced that the physical appearance of Valerie must have had a serious effect upon the jury.

I also read Jean Justice's 'Murder v. Murder' about the time it was published, and even while I felt that Hanratty might have been innocent this book struck me as being the work of a nut-case - or more accurately, a pair of nut-cases. I don't think Justice did any real favours for Hanratty in the long run. I could probably write a book myself on why I believe that Hanratty was guilty.....

By the time I joined this thread on the pre-crash Forum, I was convinced that Hanratty was guilty, and remain convinced. You have to understand that in the radical 1960's it was very cool to support virtually anything that would rankle the perceived Establishment at the time. I went on anti-Vietnam demo's, although I can hardly believe that that Graham and this Graham are the same person.

You asked a reasonable question, Tony, and I hope I've given you a reasonable answer.

KR,

Graham.

Hi Graham

As always - I admire your honesty. I can also see how a young man could be hailed by such issues in the 1960s and 1970s and then come down to earth on reflecting a little more deeply in early middle age. I too have modified my radical tendencies in recent years and - believe me - I have fleeting doubts about Hanratty at times (especially when you argue so convincingly and rationally). However - (have to use these rotten dashes as my comma key is still indisposed and it is just not in me not to punctuate!) there are aspects of this case that just do not add up to Hanratty and that may well be because there are so many bits to the puzzle that have been smothered for some reason.

One question Graham - would you still go on an anti-Vietnam war demo - given exactly the same circumstances?

Julie

[Limehouse]

Welcome back Viv

Hi Viv

Nice to see you posting again and adding so much to the debate.

Julie

[Tony]

Hi Tony

Nice to see you back posting. We should hear more from you!

I remember that story about the pub and the policeman but it's important to be reminded of such things every now and then.

Re my husband's washing arrangements - he's a very clean fellow but would struggle to remember whether he'd showered or bathed that morning (or any morning!). His mind is filled with higher thoughts - such as how to rescue the entire London Taxi Trade from disaster and he leaves the 'trivia' pf everyday living for me to arrange!

Have a good day.

Hello Julie,

I know that this is going over old ground but; well that’s about all we can do really for now at any rate.

After the murder Peter Alphon had about £7,500.00 paid into his bank account.

Some explain away £2,500.00 as paid to him by newspapers and out of court settlements.

As £2,500.00 is as far as they can reasonably go in their own minds that leaves £5,000.00 unexplained.

“Oh he was a very successful gambler. He will have won it at the dogs. Ye that’s it he won it at the dogs”

I can tell you that there are few gamblers who are regularly successful. Yes there’s plenty of them that come into the pub where I go for a beer or five and all these superb, knowledgeable gamblers, the scourge of the bookies, never seem to increase their prosperity at all.

I’m not saying they have to spend some nights sleeping rough under the pier as did Mr Alphon just that they never seem any better off. I think most of them would secretly agree they would have been better investing their stake monies in a pension scheme over the years.

So here we have it Mr Alphon the penniless, homeless, almost tramp like figure suddenly transforms himself into a legal expert and is able to sue all and sundry for tremendous amounts of dosh but not only that he has become a leading expert in the mysterious art of turning over the bookies.

The comparisons for his new found wealth are as follows:

Out of Court Settlements etc:

£2,500.00 in 1961 in today’s values equates to: £41,700.00 using the retail price index or £93,500.00 using average earnings.

Wins at the Dog Track:

£5,000.00 in 1961 in today’s values equates to: £83,400.00 using the retail price index or £187,000.00 using average earnings.

Seems to have been a shrewd operator Mr Alphon or there must have been some strange newspaper proprietors or Senior Police Officers falling over themselves to give a ‘down and out’ that kind of pay out.

As for the bookies; well make your own minds up. You don’t see many poor bookies but they must have been faster than the hare when Pete walked into the betting enclosure.

Both the £2,500.00 and the £5,000.00 look highly suspicious to me.

Tony.

[Limehouse]

Hi Tony

I agree that it would be almost impossible to win that much on the dog even now. My daugher - as a student - worked as a dog carer at Peterborough Greyhound Track and also at a kennels and it is just not possible to win large amounts on the dogs. Also in 1961 - only on track betting was permitted - there were no betting shops.

Horse racing provided more opoortunities for larger wins but I don't think Alphon bothered much with horses.

That amount of money in the 1960s would have bought him a comfortable house - so why did he live the itinerant life for so long?

Good points.

Julie

[Graham]

Hi Julie,

thanks for your kind comments. As to whether I'd demonstrate against Vietnam in 2010, I'd have to say I don't know. Times were different in the sixties, and the Vietnam was was seen as much as a manifestation of Big Business as the bullying of a small nation by a much larger one. I think if anything like it happened again, I'd probably register my disapproval, but as to a march - my knees wouldn't let me! What saddens me today is that the younger generations don't seem to have the slightest interest or concern in what's going on around the world - I can't recall, for example, any major street demo's against Blair's attitude to Iraq (probably because Saddam Hussain had his own agenda for expansion).

Julie/Tony,

I would say that the reason Alphon didn't buy a nice house and settle down is the simple fact that he was a total layabout and eccentric. He plainly enjoyed the nomadic life he led. As to his bank-account, I think it's significant that he showed it to Paul Foot only after the details of who paid in his fat cheques had been deleted by the bank. I think he wanted Foot to believe that he'd been paid for the A6 job. He did get out-of-court settlements both from the police and for libel (if i recall he had a solicitor - was it McDougall or something like that?) and he did sell his story to at least one newspaper. I agree, what he had was a lot of lolly, but I can't accept any of it came from any shadowy Central Figure...certainly not Ewer or the Gregsten family, both of whom seemed rather down at heel.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Viv,

Gregsten was living alone in a flat (in Windsor?) at the time of his murder, so presumably had he and Valerie wanted sex they could have gone there and had it off in comfort all night, rather than in the confines of a Moggie Minor. Maybe they really were organising a car rally. I don't think it matters, to be honest.

As far as Jean Justice and his published 'confessions' of Alphon are concerned, I think it relevant to mention that both his books were published in France by well-known pornographers.

Graham

Hi Graham,
Janet Gregsten, with two infants to look after , one born during his three/four year affair with Valerie, didnt want a divorce.She told "The People" in February 1962,"It"s true that our marriage was at its lowest ebb ,but so far as I was concerned there was no question of divorce."
Mike Gregsten may not have wanted to take Valerie to his newly acquired flat
the minute he had moved into it and curtains were still likely to twitch from interested neighbours!

Also do you know who the publishers of Justice"s book were -in France- because the French publishers, "Gallimard" for example often published author" s work who would have been banned over here at the time but not in France.
Norma

[jimornot?]

alphon's money

................ As to his bank-account, I think it's significant that he showed it to Paul Foot only after the details of who paid in his fat cheques had been deleted by the bank. I think he wanted Foot to believe that he'd been paid for the A6 job. He did get out-of-court settlements both from the police and for libel (if i recall he had a solicitor - was it McDougall or something like that?) and he did sell his story to at least one newspaper. I agree, what he had was a lot of lolly, but I can't accept any of it came from any shadowy Central Figure...certainly not Ewer or the Gregsten family, both of whom seemed rather down at heel.

Graham

hi all

if Alphon won some of this from his gambling would he have received cheques in those days?

Any idea what the average libel payouts (even out of court settlements) were in those days?

Alphon didn't seem to live the high life even after such windfalls

atb

viv

PS thanks for the welcome back Julie, I look in pretty much every day but don't always have time to post and also because I just don't possess the knowledge most of you have. Then of course just like school days if you speak up once in class, you seem to do so all through the llesson. so after this burst of activity I'll probably slink down behind my desk, most likely sneakily defacing it with schoolboy jokes

[Graham]

Hi Graham,
Janet Gregsten, with two infants to look after , one born during his three/four year affair with Valerie, didnt want a divorce.She told "The People" in February 1962,"It"s true that our marriage was at its lowest ebb ,but so far as I was concerned there was no question of divorce."
Mike Gregsten may not have wanted to take Valerie to his newly acquired flat
the minute he had moved into it and curtains were still likely to twitch from interested neighbours!

Also do you know who the publishers of Justice"s book were -in France- because the French publishers, "Gallimard" for example often published author" s work who would have been banned over here at the time but not in France.
Norma

Hi Norma,

Janet seemed quite resigned to Mike's extra-marital hanky-panky, blaming herself for her apparent lack of interest in sex.

The publisher of 'Murder v. Murder' was Maurice Girodias of Olympia Press, Paris, who regularly published books no-one else would touch with the proverbial bargepole. For example, he published 'Lolita' by Vladimir Nabokov, considered ultra-naughty at the time, but rather tame by today's standards.
'La Crime de la Route A6' was published by Robert Laffont, Paris, another company specialising in risque stuff.

Justice would never have got a UK publisher for either of his books, for fear of libel actions.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

[QUOTE=jimornot?;142659]hi Norma

True and I wonder why? But I believe he did give up fingerprints and the like without objecting.

Alphon is a mystery man in all this. he seems to have got away pretty much scot-free with his misdemeanours eg positive ID as a burglar, menacing calls to Lord Russell, Charles France etc, assault of Mrs H. QUOTE]



Hi Viv,
Yes,Alphon came to the attention of the police on 27th August because of his erratic behaviour.
It was Jean Justice"s book that convinced me that Alphon had quite severe mental health problems.I think he was quite clearly capable of behaving like the gunman, which does"nt make him the gunman ofcourse.
He was obviously very bright [so why did he never use his intelligence to get a decent job?] and if what he actually said about the murder is examined you can see he never ever forgets to give himself a loophole,so the police would be very hard pressed to pin the murder on him a second time round.But he returns to it again and again and was at one time reportedly troubled about the anguish caused to Mr and Mrs Hanratty by their son"s execution.
Finally he was interested in the bizarre rituals of strange religions ,and in Hitler"s fascism- as were Brady and Hindley, who studied 'Mein Kampf" before setting out to torture and murder young children.
But everything about Alphon points to him having a schizoid personality---which if triggered can develop into schizophrenia where "voices" are heard by the sufferer encouraging them to commit various acts of cruelty in the name of religion or some obscure sect ,ideal , mission or other anti social command.
Now the very first thing a psychiatrist wants to know about a patient who comes to him with depression or anxiety or whatever will be what sort of work record he has and the fact that Alphon was of high intelligence and was semi vagrant at times is a dead give away! Its not always the case---often such people can function reasonably well in society if they find the right niche but when they can"t a breakdown will often occur.Alphon"s work record alone gives the game away.
So I think it very important that the insightful book written by Jean Justice is read ,whatever conclusion you come to about how he went about befriending a mentally ill person like Alphon-which I admit is a bit unethical as far as I am concerned.But maybe Justice thought the means warranted the ends---if it meant the exposure of Alphon as the possible A6 murderer.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,


Justice would never have got a UK publisher for either of his books, for fear of libel actions.

Graham

Thanks Graham--I wondered if it was for this reason.
I think if this was so and it was agreed by all parties ,JG may have expected both Valerie and her husband to be reasonably discreet about getting down to any "hanky panky" straight away to his new flat!
Norma

[Graham]

I wonder how much of what Justice claims Alphon said is actually what Alphon did say or imply, and how much of it is Justice's fertile imagination...

What Justice did was no less unethical that what the police attempted on Colin Stagg, the first suspect for the murder of Rachel Nickell - it's known as a 'honeytrap' or entrapment. The judge at Stagg's trial openly criticised the police.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Very true,Graham . But Foot also met Alphon and had long discussions with him too and came to very similar conclusions---especially about his cold ,emotionless reactions. His "sang froid" can be seen in his interview with the French press.He comes out with stuff that most people would find stomach churning but Alphon delivers in a rather matter of fact,unfeeling way.I noticed too in one of those "interviews" that he used the East London "f" or "ph" for "th" when he said "All phree" instead of " All Three".
Norma

[RonIpstone]

I still find it odd that people are trying to pin the A6 on Alphon despite the fact that he was expressly cleared by the Hanratty legal team during the last hearing in the Court of Appeal. That legal team, it will be remembered, was led by not an establishment lackey but by leading civil rights lawyer and trouble maker, Michael Mansfield. That he should have been so satisfied after reviewing all the evidence should be sufficient for those that have only read what Foot and Woffinden have laid before them.