a6 murder

[Limehouse]

I thought you were far too young to remember that, Limehouse !!!

It's funny you should mention that Steve, because I was, indeed too young to remember that but what I can remember is a male relative warning me against having anything to do with a male neighbour who wore white socks! This was in the early 70s and my relative thought it was very suspect and was convinced the man (happily married with two children) was 'one of them' (euphenism for homosexual) and that the white socks were a sort of 'sign' to other men of similar persuasion! My relative explained that he was himself warned about this when he did his National Service!

This is why I am sure that most men would not have worn white socks in the early 60s, because it was supposed to be some sort of code to other homosexuals.

[Tony]

If so then Alphon probably would have worn them.

Tony

[Steve]

This is why I am sure that most men would not have worn white socks in the early 60s, because it was supposed to be some sort of code to other homosexuals.

Hi Limehouse

That thought did cross my mind when I read your post about the white socks, but I didn't say anything because I am, of course, totally politically correct and unbiased about these things!

We live in more enlighted times when batting for the opposition is considered to be quite a normal way to live, or so my children keep telling me!

Kind regards
Steve

[Steve]

If so then Alphon probably would have worn them.

Tony

My dear chap, what ARE you suggesting?

[Limehouse]

Hi Limehouse

That thought did cross my mind when I read your post about the white socks, but I didn't say anything because I am, of course, totally politically correct and unbiased about these things!

We live in more enlighted times when batting for the opposition is considered to be quite a normal way to live, or so my children keep telling me!

Kind regards
Steve

Quite so Steve, we do indeed live in more enlightened times and thankfully, people can openly express their sexuality. Unfortunately, my relative is of a generation that has difficulty with anything that is not strictly straight and missionary!

[Steve]

Tony

On a serious note, I have long believed that the real reason Alphon was eliminated from the enquiry was more to do with his sexual inclinations than Acott’s list of points.

I don’t believe he is openly gay or homosexual, probably more asexual in the way Edward Heath supposedly was, but that would have been enough to convince Acott and Oxford that he was not someone capable of raping a young female.

The A6 gunman had to have had a dangerous and criminal ruthlessness, something lacking from Alphon’s persona.

Kind regards,
Steve

[Steve]

Quite so Steve, we do indeed live in more enlightened times and thankfully, people can openly express their sexuality. Unfortunately, my relative is of a generation that has difficulty with anything that is not strictly straight and missionary!

Hi Limehouse

I admit to old-fashion views on this subject, but I do accept that people have a right to live their lives in their own way behind closed doors. I guess my real problem with gay culture is the damage caused to innocent people by predatory homosexuality. I also admit to right-wing views regarding rape; this is a crime that should be punished severely, very severely.

Stepping down from the soap box,
Steve

[Graham]

To whom it may concern,

I have NEVER worn white socks...pale yellow ones, yes, but white - never. As it happens, white socks WERE worn in the 1950's and 1960's, as (sad to say) I well remember. But only with casual clothes, never for example with a suit, collar and tie.

With regard to the gloves, I think we are entering a bit of a grey area here.
Louise Anderson was, not to put too fine a point on it, a crook. Hanratty certainly used her as a fence for his stolen stuff, and if he did, then you can bet your bippie so did others. I would say that Acott and his merry men saw in Louise a splendid opportunity to apply pressure. I would say that she was very severely leaned upon, under threat of prosecution, to more or less do and say what Acott wanted her to do and say. As Steve correctly says, the 'gloves in Alphon's case' were highlighted in Nudds' highly-suspect second statement; chances are that Julianna Galves was also leaned upon, possibly down to some problem with her UK work-permit or whatever foreigners needed to have in those times. It has always struck me as odd that Louise should mention the stolen gloves - frankly, who would care about a pair of gloves that go missing? My reading is, that so long as Alphon was a suspect,
Acott was quite willing to manufacture evidence against him. Alphon did the best thing he could do, and refuse to disclose to Acott the location of his suitcase.

At best, the 'gloves evidence' is simply heresay; at worst, a police attempt at a plant.

With regards to Alphon's sexuality, I too think he was asexual, but had the sheer natural acting ability to lay gay-ness (is that a word?) on thick and heavy when it suited him, apropos Jean Justice and the latter's wealth.

It has often struck me that the 'evidence' emanating from The Vienna Hotel was crude, bungled and misfired, courtesy of good old Basil and his chums.

Cheers,

Graham

[Steve]

Hi Graham

Personally I know nothing about white socks! I did business in Germany during the 1990s with a German gentleman by the name of Karl Hartwig who always wore white socks complete with suit, collar and tie. He was very nice and we met frequently both here and in Germany, but unfortunately I never got to meet his wife.

By the way, what is the significance of wearing pale yellow socks? A penchant for bananas, or a custard addiction?

Yes, Louise dealt in dodgy merchandise, but I guess in those days she was not alone and many others in her industry did so too, probably even the owner of an umbrella repair cum antiques shop in Swiss Cottage. The fact that she was never prosecuted for receiving or handling stolen goods is a pretty conclusive indication that a deal was done with the police; damaging evidence in return for impunity from prosecution.

I think we all believe that in those days the police attitude to solving crimes was that you did whatever was necessary to get the job done. The police certainly had a lot more freedom to act how they saw fit pre-PACE, and even pre-Sir Robert (this is a major contribution towards road safety) Mark.

Juliana Galves, from memory, left the country at some point between the murder and Paul Foot’s book? I’m by no means certain and again stand to be corrected on this, but I feel that she could have made a more substantial contribution to the Vienna Hotel information that she actually did. Her evidence was much more creditable than the Nudds’.

Kind regards
Steve

[Graham]

So you too knew Karl Hartwig and his infamous white socks? Ach, sooo...!

Regarding the Vienna Hotel, I'm almost inclined to say that any so-called 'evidence' (apart from the discovery of the cartridge-cases) emanating from that source has to be treated with an almightily-large grain of salt...

Cheers,

Graham

[JIMBOW]

Hi all. Since living in the Cookham area in 1971 and reading, with fascination, the serialization of Foot's book in 'The Sun' (that distinguished periodical that still exists today) en-route to, would you believe, Paddington each morning, I have been intrigued (nay, fascinated) by the A6 murder. I should point out that the express from Maidenhead passed right through Taplow station, without stopping, but I well remember the station sign as it flashed by. Can't say I was ever at the Old Station Inn, mind!! May I compliment you all (as other 'newcomers' have done) on the extremely civil manner in which you conduct yourselves, even when expressing a differing opinion to the person you're replying to.

Was in B'Pool last year (on holiday from Canada) and spotted the Stevonia on Central Drive (just like Steve's pic). Hope to be able to join in and even contribute to this fascinating forum (albeit from Calgary!!) in the future. next time I'm home I plan on taking a trip to the area in question, including Dorney Reach and maybe even Deadman's Hill itself.

I well remember going over from Northern Ireland to work in Cookham and the (late) wife and I staying at the rather expensive Bear Hotel (in 1971, 9-10 years after the murder) and the very kind receptionist there, sensing that we were a young, recently-married couple and, as such, not too well-heeled, directing us instead (after a couple of costly evenings at the Bear) to the somewhat less-expensive Elva Lodge (still in existence).

Regards,
Jim

[larue]

It has often struck me that the 'evidence' emanating from The Vienna Hotel was crude, bungled and misfired, courtesy of good old Basil and his chums.

me too, [including the cartridge cases], but, it was good enough to get jh hung though!

[larue]

The A6 gunman had to have had a dangerous and criminal ruthlessness, something lacking from Alphon’s persona.

this could almost be said of jh too, but what aboot alphon's use of the telephone as a terror weapon? jean justice said he was a master of it.

[Steve]

May I compliment you all (as other 'newcomers' have done) on the extremely civil manner in which you conduct yourselves, even when expressing a differing opinion to the person you're replying to.

Hello Jim, and welcome

Interest in the A6 murder is international!

Thank you for your kind comments about the civility on this thread. There is only one contributor who occasionally feels the need to lapse into making personal attacks, but when people do that it usually means that he or she is losing the argument, don't you think?

Cookham – I remember visiting a nightclub in Cookham in the mid-70s, can’t recall the name but it might have been on High Street and I remember reaching the club by climbing a flight of stairs and seeing a darkened room with several guys wearing dark glasses!!!

Another night club at that time was in Bourne End and at the time I went there it was being used for the outside shots of Fawlty Towers.

Looking forward to your further contributions.

Kind regards,
Steve

[Limehouse]

To whom it may concern,

I have NEVER worn white socks...pale yellow ones, yes, but white - never. As it happens, white socks WERE worn in the 1950's and 1960's, as (sad to say) I well remember. But only with casual clothes, never for example with a suit, collar and tie.

With regard to the gloves, I think we are entering a bit of a grey area here.
Louise Anderson was, not to put too fine a point on it, a crook. Hanratty certainly used her as a fence for his stolen stuff, and if he did, then you can bet your bippie so did others. I would say that Acott and his merry men saw in Louise a splendid opportunity to apply pressure. I would say that she was very severely leaned upon, under threat of prosecution, to more or less do and say what Acott wanted her to do and say. As Steve correctly says, the 'gloves in Alphon's case' were highlighted in Nudds' highly-suspect second statement; chances are that Julianna Galves was also leaned upon, possibly down to some problem with her UK work-permit or whatever foreigners needed to have in those times. It has always struck me as odd that Louise should mention the stolen gloves - frankly, who would care about a pair of gloves that go missing? My reading is, that so long as Alphon was a suspect,
Acott was quite willing to manufacture evidence against him. Alphon did the best thing he could do, and refuse to disclose to Acott the location of his suitcase.

At best, the 'gloves evidence' is simply heresay; at worst, a police attempt at a plant.

With regards to Alphon's sexuality, I too think he was asexual, but had the sheer natural acting ability to lay gay-ness (is that a word?) on thick and heavy when it suited him, apropos Jean Justice and the latter's wealth.

It has often struck me that the 'evidence' emanating from The Vienna Hotel was crude, bungled and misfired, courtesy of good old Basil and his chums.

Cheers,

Graham

Hi Graham,

Great post. I agree totally (except the socks bit, I wish I'd never mentioned white socks as I now feel rather foolish).