a6 murder

[RonIpstone]

.................... then Acott dragged Nudds back in and intensely grilled him for hours to try and get to the truth.

And 'the truth' was the first statement given by Nudds ten days earlier on 25 September 1961. The intense grilling was on 21 September when Nudds made the false second statement.

Nudds had many flaws in what appears to have been an unpleasant character but if he had a propensity to lie, then it would only manifest itself when there was something in it for him. In making the first statement which exonerated Alphon but implicated Hanratty, Nudds had no reason to lie and thus told the truth. When he was grilled for hours by Acott et al, he was given a reason to lie and did so in his second statement.

Why Acott did what he did is the mystery of this case. Why could he not have waited to see if Valerie Storie identified Alphon before rearranging Alphon's sleeping arrangements for the night of 22 August?

[Victor]

I presume you meant ‘Acott’.

Hi Nick,

Either would do, Acott for the evidence and Alphon for the alibi.

But the documentary evidence of the guest book and the receipt book meant that, in the Hanratty trial, the prosecution did not have to rely on Nudds.

I agree.

Swanwick said to the jury:
'Do not rely on Nudds unless there is documentary corroboration available.'

In an Alphon trial, the prosecution would have had to say the opposite:
‘Ignore the documentary evidence – rely on Nudds.’

And we know what people think of Nudds!

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

The story of the cancellation by Mr Bell of the Vienna Hotel"s "Room 6" is false.
The " corroboration of documentary evidence " pertaining to the hotel guest book of The Vienna that you quote Mr Swanwick referring to ,may be in need of a "make over" or a "reality test"---,viz Mr Bell"s booking for room 6 has been scored out in the hotel diary--- as if the booking had been cancelled--- yet in the hotel register is to be found a signature Mr Bell who apparently spent a happy night of 22nd August in Room 9!

Hi Norma,

I can think of at least 2 innocent explanations for that:-

1. Bell is not that unusual a surname and it could be a different Mr Bell.
2. Mr Bell booked 2 rooms and his guest\business colleague didn't show and he cancelled the 2nd booking.

In any case that could be corroborated by the Broadway House hotel.

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

And 'the truth' was the first statement given by Nudds ten days earlier on 25 September 1961. The intense grilling was on 21 September when Nudds made the false second statement.

Nudds had many flaws in what appears to have been an unpleasant character but if he had a propensity to lie, then it would only manifest itself when there was something in it for him. In making the first statement which exonerated Alphon but implicated Hanratty, Nudds had no reason to lie and thus told the truth. When he was grilled for hours by Acott et al, he was given a reason to lie and did so in his second statement.

Why Acott did what he did is the mystery of this case. Why could he not have waited to see if Valerie Storie identified Alphon before rearranging Alphon's sleeping arrangements for the night of 22 August?

How can you possibly know when Nudds was likely or unlikely to lie? Did you know him personally? He was a completely unrealiable witness - much more unrealiable than any of the wintesses in Rhyl or those described by Julieq whose testimonies were undisclosed.

[Victor]

And 'the truth' was the first statement given by Nudds ten days earlier on 25 September 1961. The intense grilling was on 21 September when Nudds made the false second statement.

Hi Ron,

I thought the 2nd statement was volunteered after he had colluded with Snell and dreamt up the "moving rooms\leaving a note" preposterousness, whereas after Alphon was not selected at the ID parade, Acott angrily called them in and gave them no chance to collaberate and grilled them to get the 3rd statement.

Nudds had many flaws in what appears to have been an unpleasant character but if he had a propensity to lie, then it would only manifest itself when there was something in it for him. In making the first statement which exonerated Alphon but implicated Hanratty, Nudds had no reason to lie and thus told the truth. When he was grilled for hours by Acott et al, he was given a reason to lie and did so in his second statement.

Nudds wanted to ingraciate himself to the police, so gave the 2nd statement to curry favour - and he told them what he thought they wanted to hear - Alphon (their only named suspect at the time) was in the room with the cartridge cases, and thus gave Acott a reason to investigate him further.

Why Acott did what he did is the mystery of this case. Why could he not have waited to see if Valerie Storie identified Alphon before rearranging Alphon's sleeping arrangements for the night of 22 August?

It's the 2nd statement that gave Acott the reason to put Alphon on the ID parade.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

How can you possibly know when Nudds was likely or unlikely to lie? Did you know him personally? He was a completely unrealiable witness - much more unrealiable than any of the wintesses in Rhyl or those described by Julieq whose testimonies were undisclosed.

Hi Julie,

I can see your point, however, I read it as more likely to lie, rather than likely to lie - comparative instead of absolutes.

I agree he's a completely unreliable witness, and without him the case against Alphon collapses.

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie,
re Supt Acott and his integrity or otherwise over the case against James Hanratty

I am unable to agree with you over Supt Acott Julie.Yes Supt Acott had an outstanding record of War Service,thats true.
But what do we know of his work as a policeman? Possibly he was very competent in a number of cases. However,in the case of James Hanratty I recall what Michael Sherrard said in 2002 "I really couldnt bring myself to take in that those who had concealed the evidence in a capital case could have been as wicked as that"
and added-this time specifically referring to Supt Acott :
MICHAEL SHERRARD: When you're eyeball to eyeball with a senior police officer who swears in a good loud voice that your client said this, that and the other and you were going to challenge him, there's something between you and the officer which gives you the feeling he's not coming clean.
Kind Regards
Norma

Hi Norma

I explained myself badly in my post. References were made to Acott's police 'record' which appears distinguished but as my post went on the explain (or tried to!) his methods were questionable and may have caused serious criminals to escaope justice.

In the case of Padola - the beating he received on arrest allowed Padola to claim he could not remember the crime he was accused of. His sentence was deferred until experts copuld examine him to determine whether he was fit to serve the sentence. He may have escaped justice.

In the A6 case - those of us who believe Hanratty's guilt is doubtful therefore believe justice was not done.

I believe the approach Acott took in investigating the A6 crime was based on his previous experience in dealing with Padola. I believe he reasoned that because Padola was a housebreaker capable of murder - Hanratty was also likely to have been capable of murder. He also reasoned that such criminals would go to ground in a B&B or cheap hotel following such a crime. Lo and behold he found Durrant/Alphon - an oddball who looked very promising. When Alphon dropped out of the picture up popped Hanratty - a habitual hotel user with a lot of form.

[NickB]

How can you possibly know when Nudds was likely or unlikely to lie? Did you know him personally? He was a completely unrealiable witness

Exactly.

But he was was not pivotal for the prosection in Hanratty's trial. Swanwick told the jury not to rely on his evidence for Alphon. And his evidence for Hanratty was not contested.

But he would have been pivotal for the prosecution in an Alphon trial.

[Derrick]

Exactly.

But he was was not pivotal for the prosection in Hanratty's trial. Swanwick told the jury not to rely on his evidence for Alphon. And his evidence for Hanratty was not contested.

But he would have been pivotal for the prosecution in an Alphon trial.

Hi Nick
If Alphon had been on trial it would mean he had been picked out of the id parade by Valerie and that would have been pivotal.

I am sure then that D Supt Acott's 12 points would have been binned and the fact that Alphon did not have a alibi for his whereabouts on the day of the murder would have swung it.

You can say that Nudd's statement might have been important but Mrs Galves' sighting of Alphon at midday would have had more of an impact than Nudd's testimony on the minds of the jury.

His mother's lack of certainty of which day she met him would have become the Grace Jones moment of his trial.

Other witnesses such as Mrs Lanz, the Dorney witnesses and Mr Fogarty-Waul would have been the final nails in Mr Alphon's coffin.

There but for the Grace of God go all of us!

Derrick

[Natalie Severn]

References were made to Acott's police 'record' which appears distinguished but as my post went on the explain (or tried to!) his methods were questionable and may have caused serious criminals to escaope justice.

Hi Julie,
Supt Oxford ,his close colleague in the Hanratty case ,also had a very distinguished police career.Yet he lost a case to a senior female policewoman in Liverpool .This senior policewoman detested him,said he was an intimidating bully and her case against him concerned the "faking of documents" in the evidence used against her in her case of unfair dismissal.She won a considerable sum of money against Liverpool and Merseyside Police.
In my view it is quite likely Supt Acott and Supt Oxford were "birds of a feather".
My biggest clue to the integrity or otherwise of Supts Acott and Oxford lies in the use that they made of despicable characters like Nudds and Langdale who were hated and despised by their fellow prisoners.I also think its pretty obvious that a lot of pressure was put on Louis Anderson.
So I dont give a damn what "distinguished record" in the police Acott or Oxford were both said to have had, I wouldnt trust either of them ,not an inch, particularly when they were so desperate for a conviction.
Regards,
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

I can think of at least 2 innocent explanations for that:-

1. Bell is not that unusual a surname and it could be a different Mr Bell.
2. Mr Bell booked 2 rooms and his guest\business colleague didn't show and he cancelled the 2nd booking.

In any case that could be corroborated by the Broadway House hotel.

KR,
Vic.

Please Vic,
lets not talk bollocks
Norma

[babybird67]

How can you possibly know when Nudds was likely or unlikely to lie? Did you know him personally? He was a completely unrealiable witness - much more unrealiable than any of the wintesses in Rhyl or those described by Julieq whose testimonies were undisclosed.

substitute the name 'Hanratty' for 'Nudds'. I'd add both were also much more unreliable witnesses than Valerie Storie.

[Derrick]

So I dont give a damn what "distinguished record" in the police Acott or Oxford were both said to have had, I wouldnt trust either of them ,not an inch, particularly when they were so desperate for a conviction.

Norma
I agree completely with your comments.
People forget that Oxford was Acott's trusted bagman.

Here is Oxford's obit from the independent...hardly the man of the common people is he:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituary-sir-kenneth-oxford-1187338.html

Derrick

[Limehouse]

substitute the name 'Hanratty' for 'Nudds'. I'd add both were also much more unreliable witnesses than Valerie Storie.

Hanratty was the defendant - not a witness.

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie,
Supt Oxford ,his close colleague in the Hanratty case ,also had a very distinguished police career.Yet he lost a case to a senior female policewoman in Liverpool .This senior policewoman detested him,said he was an intimidating bully and her case against him concerned the "faking of documents" in the evidence used against her in her case of unfair dismissal.She won a considerable sum of money against Liverpool and Merseyside Police.
In my view it is quite likely Supt Acott and Supt Oxford were "birds of a feather".
My biggest clue to the integrity or otherwise of Supts Acott and Oxford lies in the use that they made of despicable characters like Nudds and Langdale who were hated and despised by their fellow prisoners.I also think its pretty obvious that a lot of pressure was put on Louis Anderson.
So I dont give a damn what "distinguished record" in the police Acott or Oxford were both said to have had, I wouldnt trust either of them ,not an inch, particularly when they were so desperate for a conviction.
Regards,
Norma

Hi Norma

I agree totally with your analysis - as I have said all along - the investigation was corrupt.