a6 murder

[Natalie Severn]

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.

She named Alphon to the police and told them he was the man who attempted to rape her on September 7th.
In other words she identified Alphon as the man who had attacked her and told her he was the A6 Killer.

There is no mention that I can find of any identification of September 29th that exonerated Alphon.Can you can point me to where it says this happened?
Thanks

[Graham]

What actually happened was that after the first i.d. parade when Mrs Dalal said she recognised him, Alphon was charged with GBH. However, on 29th September Alphon was put on another parade (Mrs Dalal was not present) and he was picked out by the two men from whom he was collecting almanacs at the exact same time Mrs Dalal was attacked. Perfect alibi, and the charge against Mrs Dalal was dropped.

Graham

[NickB]

There is no mention that I can find of any identification of September 29th that exonerated Alphon.Can you can point me to where it says this happened?

The Paul Magee site, mentioned before, which appears to have expired.

The entry for this day was:

Friday 29 September

11:00 A.M.
Peter Alphon is placed on another identity parade and then brought before Mortlake magistrates and released on bail.

Detective Superintendent Bob Acott and Oxford go to Dublin, Ireland in pursuit of second suspect.

8:30 P.M.
James Hanratty senior learns from the press that his son is now the new ‘A6 murder’ suspect.

I see that Graham has now clarified what happened. My assumption was incorrect!



Incidentally, although only indirectly related to this case - I found this interesting.

[Natalie Severn]

What actually happened was that after the first i.d. parade when Mrs Dalal said she recognised him, Alphon was charged with GBH. However, on 29th September Alphon was put on another parade (Mrs Dalal was not present) and he was picked out by the two men from whom he was collecting almanacs at the exact same time Mrs Dalal was attacked. Perfect alibi, and the charge against Mrs Dalal was dropped.

Graham

Thanks Graham. I too found a source which Paul Foot referred to :

page 303
......."he was picked out by witnesses from a firm supplying almanacs near Leicester Square who said he had been in their shop at the time of the Dalal assault......These witnesses were found and delivered by the police."

The firm supplying almanacs being Alphon"s employers.

[B]So in this particular instance ,the identification of Alphon by Mrs Dalal,the victim another vicious attack so close to the A6 murder in timing , ---meant for nothing at all--was dismissed in fact ? Why so I wonder ?

And as big a mystery ,which Paul Foot and Bob Woffinden are also at pains to point out, is why the fingerprints we know were taken at Mrs Dalal"s flat were kept as a secret . Foot and Woffinden ask why nobody was ever told whether or not they matched those found in the Morris Minor.
Why was that I wonder?
a] Why ignore/diminish Mrs Dalal"s identification of Alphon of 23 rd September
and
b] Why was information about the fingerprints found in Mrs Dalal"s flat and their match or non-match to those discovered in the Morris Minor,never divulged?

[Victor]

Hanratty was the defendant - not a witness.

Hi Julie,

Hanratty took the stand and gave evidence which is obviously what Babybird was referring to - Hanratty's evidence was much more unrelieble that Valerie's.

Welcome back BB and Graham.

KR,
Vic

[Victor]

....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!

Hi Norma,

You accuse me of talking bollocks and then produce this! Michael Clark was just some Tom Dick or Harry just like the others on the parade, and to think he was in any risk of being sentenced to death is just delusional, the only one at risk on that parade was Alphon.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Vic---Oh for crying out loud---I was simply illustrating how hazardous identification error can be.Not seriously suggesting Michael Clark could have been arrested after such a mis-identification , on the other matter- I was just a bit surprised by you saying earlier that Mr Bell could have had a double when his entry was scored out.I thought you were being flippant-sorry,no harm intended,
KInd Regards Norma

[babybird67]

Hi Julie,

Hanratty took the stand and gave evidence which is obviously what Babybird was referring to - Hanratty's evidence was much more unrelieble that Valerie's.

Welcome back BB and Graham.

KR,
Vic

That's exactly what I was referring to, thanks Vic. It never ceases to amaze me how Nudds is spoken of as unreliable because he was a criminal (a point with which i utterly agree) but the same standards of reliability are not equally applied to Hanratty. It's the inequity of the situation that always strikes me as rather odd.

And thanks for the welcome back, to you, Graham, Norma and everyone else who has welcomed me.

[Derrick]

That's exactly what I was referring to, thanks Vic. It never ceases to amaze me how Nudds is spoken of as unreliable because he was a criminal (a point with which i utterly agree) but the same standards of reliability are not equally applied to Hanratty. It's the inequity of the situation that always strikes me as rather odd.

Well perhaps you don't quite understand the criminal trial process.

The onus is on the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; the defendant doesn't even have to open his or her mouth.

It is immaterial if Hanratty lied or not as it was his neck that was under the most threat.

Yet if the prosecution are prepared to scrape the bottom of the barrel, as in this case, with witnesses who are plainly out to please the old bill (Nudds) or to escape longer sentences (Langdale and Anderson) then that doesn't strike me as odd but the usual rules of the adversarial game as far as I can see.

Any inequity is perhaps in your own view of Nudds and Hanratty as criminals that is removed from the context of the above situation.

It was quite possible that the majority of the jurors at Bedford took an instant dislike to Hanratty and his criminal character and would not be moved to anything other than a guilty verdict.

Derrick

[Graham]

Hi Norma,

And as big a mystery ,which Paul Foot and Bob Woffinden are also at pains to point out, is why the fingerprints we know were taken at Mrs Dalal"s flat were kept as a secret . Foot and Woffinden ask why nobody was ever told whether or not they matched those found in the Morris Minor.
Why was that I wonder?

There is no record that any fingerprints, other than those of Gregsten,
Valerie and other persons with 'legal' access to the car, were ever found in the Morris Minor. As I've often said before, one of the mysteries of the A6 Case is the apparent lack of forensic evidence in the car. OK, if there were no fingerprints then that could be explained by the killer wearing gloves - but no fibre from clothing? No soil from shoes which might have been traced to the field in Dorney? Not a single hair?

Graham

[babybird67]

Derrick

Well perhaps you don't quite understand the criminal trial process.

Au contraire, R...Derrick. If you had actually read my post, you would have seen I was not talking about the trial at all. I was talking about the way people who are so ready to discredit Nudds and Langley and to dispute their veracity because they were career criminals, with very good reason i might add, are the same people who accept the lame 'it wasn't me guv i am innocent' from Hanratty, another career criminal.

The onus is on the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; the defendant doesn't even have to open his or her mouth.

You're quite right. They don't have to. However, when they do, and a barrel of lies tumble out of it, lies which said defendant then admits to, as in changing their alibi because they KNOW they have already submitted a false one, it isn't going to look terribly good in front of any right thinking person, let alone twelve of them.

It is immaterial if Hanratty lied or not as it was his neck that was under the most threat.

Lol. Nice approach to justice there. It isn't immaterial to Gregston's sons and wife, and Valerie Storie whether he lied. They were victims of his actions and of his lies. And it is precisely BECAUSE his neck was under threat that he had the strongest motive for lying. Contrast that with people trying to suggest that the victim was lying...that she would have a single motive to...it's laughable really, if it wasn't so offensive.

Yet if the prosecution are prepared to scrape the bottom of the barrel, as in this case, with witnesses who are plainly out to please the old bill (Nudds) or to escape longer sentences (Langdale and Anderson) then that doesn't strike me as odd but the usual rules of the adversarial game as far as I can see.

yes Derrick i know...nasty old prosection using Hanratty's own acquaintances as witnesses. They should have asked his Sunday school teacher in and the whole of the WI, who all would have given him such a glowing reference. It might have escaped your notice that Hanratty was a career criminal and hung around with these 'bottom of the barrel' people, although he seems yet again miraculously to have escaped being tarred with the same hypocritcally applied brush. Can you explain how the main three identifcation witnesses, who saw Hanratty either at the scene or in the car, and picked him from a line out, could possibly be described as coming from the bottom of the barrel, when none were criminals?

Any inequity is perhaps in your own view of Nudds and Hanratty as criminals that is removed from the context of the above situation.

A context you have imposed on my post when it wasn't there in the first place? Nice debating style. Similar to someone else's i remember. My comment was not about the trial. It was about the inequitable approach taken by Hanratty supporters and the hypocrisy in dismissing SOME criminals as credible witnesses whilst accepting as gospel what another criminal with the biggest motive to lie says. If you don't mind, old bean, i will decide what is the relevant context to my own posts, not you.

It was quite possible that the majority of the jurors at Bedford took an instant dislike to Hanratty and his criminal character and would not be moved to anything other than a guilty verdict.

Derrick

It is also quite possible that they took their duty as jurors in a serious murder trial seriously, listened to all the evidence, weighed up the witness testimony of Valerie Storie against a known liar, who came into court and TOLD everyone he had lied about his original alibi, and came to the conclusion that him being seen and identified at the scene of the crime by Valerie, and in the car by two independent witnesses later, along with the cartridge cases, his hankie round the gun, it being hidden in a place he admitted hiding his unwanted items, his professed intention to procure a gun for the express purpose of putting people through the trauma of armed robbery, along with the fact that he could not prove where he was on the night of the murder, might just have been enough to convince them he was guilty.

Of course we all know the DNA evidence proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that those jurors got it right. Thank God. Or Valerie Storie might not have been his last victim.

[RonIpstone]

...................the defendant doesn't even have to open his or her mouth.

It might have been better for Jim Hanratty if he had done just that and kept the Rhyl nonsense to himself.

[Natalie Severn]

It might have been better for Jim Hanratty if he had done just that and kept the Rhyl nonsense to himself.

Hi Ron,
I have spoken personally to several people in Rhyl who remember the case well,although very young at the time .In particular I spoke to a lady of very sound integrity who holds a very responsible professional position, in the Rhyl area of Denbighshire County Council.
As a child she lived just a few doors away from Mrs Jones and was a next door neighbour to Betty Davies in 1961 ,who still lives in Rhyl and she knows Betty well .Betty Davies made a statement in 1968 following a public meeting in Rhyl called by the A6 committee.:[U]I"I was alone in the house with my small daughter.It was late in the evening,growing dark.The bell rang and I answered the door .A young man was standing on the pavement outside .I"d say he was in his twenties .He had dark hair and was softly spoken.He asked if I could take him in for bed and breakfast."
It was in the late evening of Tuesday 22nd August .Mrs Betty Davies knows the exact date because of Mrs Walker[see below].
Betty Davies remembers that she didnt want to take him in," especially as he had no luggage " , which made her suspicious, this and the fact that her husband,Noel, had not returned from an evening drink.
Her statement is next supported by that of Mrs Margaret Walker, a friend of her mother in law,Mrs Margaret Davies, both of whom lived on the parallel street at the rear of Kinmel Street and whose houses could be reached via their back doors.
Margaret Walker had gone to have a chat with Mrs Margaret Davies about a family matter she had been telling her about previously .While she was there Betty Davies ran in through the back door,the incident is now taken up in the statement by Mrs Margaret Davies ,her mother-in -law:
"She stood in the doorway of the lounge to say a young man had called to ask for digs and she had directed him down the street.I had told her beforehand not to take any man into the house if he was on his own.
[/I]I remember the exact date through the visit of Margaret Walker who remembers the date exactly because of a family matter which was settled on August 25th."-[from statement of Margaret Davies 26/05/1968.]
Margaret Walker actually made four statementsin total about the young man she saw in the evening of 22nd August 1961 in Rhylwho came and asked her about B&B"s in Rhyl.
On 18th February 1962 ,Mr Kleinman acting for the defence,rang Gillbanks asking him to follow through information uncovered by a Daily Sketch reporter:
On 19th February Kleinman was able to enclose statements from Mrs Margaret Walker and Mrs Ivy Vincent [whose daughter my source went Primary to school with].
"The man was about 24/27 years of age,neatly dressed in a dark suit,his hair was dark and brushed back,but there was something not quite natural about it,as though it was streaky or tacky.I have seen photographs of James Hanratty in the weekend papers and they are very much like the young man,but I dont want to commit myself" signed Margaret Walker.This was accompanied by Mrs Ivy Vincent"s statement of 23 South Kinmel Street Rhyl, who corroborated Mrs Walker"s story and had seen the young man at her gate.She stated he went from her to another door and then came to me.
I told him to try the houses at the back in Kinmel Street.
And then there were Mr Dutton and Mr Larman whose statements should be added to the above statements.
My source in Rhyl is adamant that all these women mentioned above were totally decent,good kindly neighbours of hers who were telling the truth about what they say they saw.
So are you saying all these people should be discounted because they were all liars or talking nonsense?
Best,
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Baby Bird,

and came to the conclusion that him being seen and identified at the scene of the crime by Valerie

But did Valerie see his face, since he was masked and it was dark?

It is certainly true that Valerie Storie believed then and has always believed she had identified the masked gunman as James Hanratty in her second identification parade.And certainly I do not think Valerie " lied" She did not. But believing you have identified your rapist and actually having identified him are two different matters.Unfortunately for both victims and their rapists , the history of eye witness testimony in this area particularly,is littered with "fatal" errors and wrong convictions--215 in one count alone recently ,in just one state in America.
Regards,
Norma

[uncle_adolph]

It might have been better for Jim Hanratty if he had done just that and kept the Rhyl nonsense to himself.

Why would Hanratty substitute the obvious lie of the Liverpool alibi with another fabrication? Why would he run a new alibi giving such detail including meetings with various people if it was a lie? If he had just made it up then the chances of it being supported by any of these supposed witnesses would have been virtually nil. Similarly, if the trip had taken place on an earlier occasion and Hanratty was describing that it is absolutely certain that the alibi would have fallen apart. Yet there were many people who supported it including some who pinpointed it to the date or at least approximate date that Hanratty said.

The sweet shop episode could only have taken place on one of two dates but on one of those the prosecution proved he was in London. Thus, it could only have taken place on the 22nd. Similarly, whilst precise timings admittedly do not fit there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Rhyl events took place and the likelihood is they took place on the date argued by Hanratty.

"Nonsense"......I don't think so.