a6 murder

[NickB]

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.

But he wasn’t.

I am sure then that D Supt Acott's 12 points would have been binned

The 12 points were drawn up after Valerie had not identified Alphon.

We don’t know what Alphon’s lawyers would have found once they got to work. Perhaps guests who saw him at the Vienna (he was very noticeable at the Alexandra Court) directly contradicting Nudds.

Also, at about the same time as Valeries non-identification of Alphon, the Ryan-Hanratty link was established. So Hanratty would have entered the picture anyway. Even if Alphon had not been replaced immediately by Hanratty as the prime suspect – it could have happened at any time thereafter.

[RonIpstone]

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 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.


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

KR,
Vic.

Hello Vic

The impression I have gained was that the first Nudds statement was the joint effort of Nudds and Snell given by them to the police at Nudds's digs. Acott was not satisfied with this and brought them in to be interviewed separately. This produced the second statement. The third statement is in effect a rehash of the first with an explanation of sorts as to why the second statement took the form it did.

If Nudds and Snell had wandered into the Yard with the tale to tell which resulted in the second statement, then I could buy the story that they wanted to ingratiate themselves with the rozzers. The facts indicate that Acott brought them in to be 'interviewed' and after sustained grilling they acceded to the nonsense of deposits and moving rooms etc. which was put to them by Acott.

One also has to ask, why Acott should think that the second statement was a work of fiction merely because Storie had not identified Alphon. My suggestion is that he knew it was fictitious because he was the author of the fiction.

Ron

[Natalie Severn]

NickB

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derrick
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.

But he wasn’t

....and Valerie identified Micheal Clark as Michael Gregsten"s killer and her rapist.
Bloody good job he wasnt just any Tom Dick or Harry wasnt it? ------- I mean titter ye not!---the way things went poor old Michael Clark could have been up before the beak and sentenced to death by the Bedfordshire bogey men before you could say Bob Acott"s your Uncle!

[Graham]

Well, I couldn't keep away for ever.

As I've always understood it, Nudds Statement No 1 was made totally voluntarily, and it is remarkable in that it gives Alphon a concrete alibi, i.e., that he in the guise of F Durrant had arrived at The Vienna at about 11.30pm so could not have been in the Morris Minor. It is also the first time that the name J Ryan is introduced into the case. It's always been my belief that Nudds No 1 didn't hugely please Acott because he, Acott, was at the time making serious attempts to pin the A6 Murder onto Alphon. So Nudds was hauled into Scotland Yard and grilled, and subsequently produced Nudds No 2 in which amazingly Alphon/Durrant hasn't arrived back at The Vienna by 2.00am so Nudds and Snell leave a note for him advising that Room No 6 is now vacant (due to the cancellation of Mr Bell's booking).

Prior to Nudds No 3, Alphon had voluntarily arrived at Scotland Yard for interview, and had not been identified by Valerie. Acott therefore needed some corroboration with regard to his secondary suspect, J Ryan, so he hauled Nudds in once more and between them they came up with Nudds No 3 which very effectively restored Alphon's 'perfect alibi' to him. Nudds No 3 also handed Acott his alternative and final suspect: J Ryan.

I would have to say that, although I fall short of labelling Acott as 'corrupt', he certainly was not beneath manipulating both his witnesses and their evidence to his own advantage. He must have been desperate for a pinch in the A6 Case, and must have viewed Nudds (and Snell) as his major opportunity to get one.

Graham

PS: nice to be back. Can we please try hard to be friends on this thread?

[RonIpstone]

Welcome back Graham.

Your understanding of Nudds's statements is similar to mine.

Ron

[Limehouse]

Absolutely lovely to have you back Graham.

[Graham]

Thanks Ron. Nice to be back.

Someone recently asked what happened to the car? On the pre-crash boards someone, possibly Steve or Larue, said that after the closure of the case the car was impounded by Bedfordshire Police and, when no-one claimed it (like, who would? Gregsten's aunt? Don't think so...) after a given period it was sent to a scrap-yard.

Graham

[Graham]

Absolutely lovely to have you back Graham.

Thank you, Julie.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Great to see Babybird and Graham back

[Graham]

Great to see Babybird and Graham back

When did Babybird come back?

Graham

PS: Just found her post! Welcome back! It seems we're coming out of the woodwork tonight!

[Joseph]

One also has to ask, why Acott should think that the second statement was a work of fiction merely because Storie had not identified Alphon. My suggestion is that he knew it was fictitious because he was the author of the fiction.

Interesting and surprising viewpoint. This would mean that Acott was a totally untrustworthy and corrupt police officer with scant regard for truth and justice.

[NickB]

merely because Storie had not identified Alphon.

That's not the only thing that happened after the 2nd statement:
- Alphon and his parents were interviewed.
- Alphon was not identified by anyone.
- Then the Ryan-Hanatty connection was made.

[Natalie Severn]

That's not the only thing that happened after the 2nd statement:

- Alphon was not identified by anyone.

re your first statement:
Alphon was indeed "identified" by someone after the 2nd statement ---Mrs Dalal identified him as her attacker on 23rd September 1961-just two days after Nudds second statement.On 24th September Alphon was held on the Mrs Dalal assault charge - Mrs Dalal having been viciously attacked in her home in Barnes on 7th September by a man who claimed he was the "A6 killer" .

[NickB]

Mrs Dalal identified him as her attacker on 23rd September 1961

On the 23-Sep id parade she did not put her hand on Alphon’s shoulder but collapsed behind a screen and said things that indicated him.

Magee reports that there was another id parade on 29-Sep. I presume that Alphon’s lawyer claimed the first had not been a correct identification and demanded it be done again, and that at the 29-Sep id parade she failed to identify Alphon.

This would explain why he was released immediately after the 29-Sep id parade and on 3-Oct was found ‘not guilty’ at Mortlake Magistrates court and awarded 50 guineas.

Alphon was indeed "identified" by someone.

Actually he was identified (as one of two) by Nudds. I'm not sure what Nudds was doing on an id parade for either Alphon or Hanratty, as both agreed they were at the Vienna. In Alphon's case, I presume that he wanted Nudds to identify him.

[RonIpstone]

I'm not sure what Nudds was doing on an id parade for either Alphon or Hanratty, as both agreed they were at the Vienna. In Alphon's case, I presume that he wanted Nudds to identify him.

Nick

This would be a belt and braces job on the part of Acott. At trial it might be contended that any statement made by the accused was inadmissible, in which case it might be necessary to prove that Hanratty or Alphon had been at the Vienna.


Ron