a6 murder

[simon]

Hi Tony,
I'm afraid I'm unable to help regarding Alphon's desire to meet and talk. Maybe there's something in one of Foot's fortnightly Guardian columns from the '80s/90s ? What I do have, somewhere (shed ? attic ?) is the article he wrote after suddenly hearing from Janet Gregsten, and their subsequent conversation. He liked her, I think, and - as I quoted from one of his columns that I did manage to find - she put his mind to rest about the bizarre Swiss Cottage 'sighting' that the newspapers had made such a meal of. When the weather's a bit warmer, I'll brave the shed and see what I can find!

Regards, Simon

[Tony]

Hi Tony,
I'm afraid I'm unable to help regarding Alphon's desire to meet and talk. Maybe there's something in one of Foot's fortnightly Guardian columns from the '80s/90s ? What I do have, somewhere (shed ? attic ?) is the article he wrote after suddenly hearing from Janet Gregsten, and their subsequent conversation. He liked her, I think, and - as I quoted from one of his columns that I did manage to find - she put his mind to rest about the bizarre Swiss Cottage 'sighting' that the newspapers had made such a meal of. When the weather's a bit warmer, I'll brave the shed and see what I can find!

Regards, Simon

Hello again Simon,

As I say I have not been able to trace anything about these events but they do seem somewhat amazing if they are true.

Why did, the by now publicity shunning, Alphon suddenly phone Janet and ask for a meeting to discus the case in Ireland. How did he know her telephone number; did he know her from the past; what on earth would make him think she would hop onto a plane to go and meet him; did he tell her something that has never been made public before prompting her to contact Paul Foot?
Why did Paul Foot hot foot it round to Janet’s house? What could have been behind all this?
If it happened it is very strange indeed.

Does anybody know anything about these events?
I can only assume that Alphon was about to break something sensational about the case; he would hardly want a meeting to discuss the weather would he?

If this happened it’s important we know more details.

Tony.

[Sara]

Now that is an ethical discussion, of course some people can act in an unprofessional manner, but do you really believe a reputable scientist would risk their career by blatantly lying?

I believe that scientists are capable of twisiing matters (inc interpretations) to give the benefit of the doubt to their own point of view, yes. And there have been recent cases of such (eg Meadows). There may also be the odd really bad apple who is actually corrupt; and people may get into such professions with a hidden agenda dicated by their own life experiences, views, or psychological quirks.

The notion of lawyers (or doctors, policemen and scientists) who are the most influential people in a courtroom, being impartial and objective, is naive nonsense imo.

As noted above, a friend of mine who was a frequent expert witness freely admitted he always did his best to 'get them off' for reasons of his own political convictions. And he was dealing with psychopaths as well as villains! He also taught graduate forensic psychiatrists for a long time....

[simon]

Hello again Tony,
It's certainly intriguing about Alphon. As for Foot hot-footing (!) it round to Janet, I don't think that's mysterious. After all, he'd written a book that could be seen as implicating her in the murder. She contacted him (because of whatever Alphon was up to ?) because she wanted to put her side of the story. Apart from anything else, it would have been bad manners to ignore her..but I'm sure he was delighted - as well as surprised - to get that phone call.

Simon

[Victor]

I believe that scientists are capable of twisiing matters (inc interpretations) to give the benefit of the doubt to their own point of view, yes. And there have been recent cases of such (eg Meadows). There may also be the odd really bad apple who is actually corrupt; and people may get into such professions with a hidden agenda dicated by their own life experiences, views, or psychological quirks.

Hi Sara,
The general view is always going to be distorted because it's only the high-profile really bad cases that you get to hear about, the vast majority of people of all professions are professional and ethical, and the bad apples like Meadows and Shipman get caught out in time.

The notion of lawyers (or doctors, policemen and scientists) who are the most influential people in a courtroom, being impartial and objective, is naive nonsense imo.

Impartial and objective is different to ethical, afterall, they are usually asked to give their professional OPINION.

KR,
Vic.

[Tony]

Hello again Tony,
It's certainly intriguing about Alphon. As for Foot hot-footing (!) it round to Janet, I don't think that's mysterious. After all, he'd written a book that could be seen as implicating her in the murder. She contacted him (because of whatever Alphon was up to ?) because she wanted to put her side of the story. Apart from anything else, it would have been bad manners to ignore her..but I'm sure he was delighted - as well as surprised - to get that phone call.

Simon

Hello Simon,

I meant to convey that what could Alphon have possibly have said to Janet that she felt the need to ring Paul Foot up after ignoring him for years. Of course Paul, gentleman that he was, would have speedily made arrangements to meet Janet. But what was in those phone calls from Alphon to Janet and Janet to Paul?

I can only imagine that Alphon came up with something that was new to Janet and it must have been so serious that she felt she had to share it with or get it confirmed by Paul.

I wish I could find the article.

I once met Paul Foot and he was extremely charming, witty and a thoroughly good chap.


Tony.

[simon]

Tony,
You wish you could find the article ? How do you think I feel - I know I've GOT the flipping thing somewhere! Serves me right for not having a proper filing system. All I can say is, I recall no sense of urgency in Foot's article ; no sense that there was any new dramatic evidence about to burst forth. It's a long while since I read it, but the impression I'm left with is that Janet just wanted to have her say. I think I'd have remembered if it were anything more exciting than that. But, as I've said before, if it's true that Alphon was making noises again, and that it was this that instigated her contacting Foot...well, I'd love to know more about that too. How many years is it now since anything was heard from him ?

Simon

[Sara]

... I don't know if all the money was returned, but the gunman gave Gregsten some of the money back to buy petrol.

After the shooting I believe it was only the watches that were returned, the gunman must at some point have strapped Gregsten's watch to Valerie's wrist without her knowing about it. I can't think at what this happened, but according to the reports this is what the gunman must have done.

As you say, very strange,

I've been reading page 24, in which a lot of anomalies are discussed regarding what actually happened in the car, according to the account we have from Valerie. They certainly leave a lot of food for thought!

If the gunman handled the watches there should have been fingerprints on them. Moreover, you can't strap on a watch wearing gloves! (Remember it was Alphon who was seen by a chambermaid with a pair of black gloves on his suitcase - this was in August!). The only inference is that the gunman put the gun down and took off his gloves to strap the watches onto Valerie's wrist - or, that she did it herself earlier, before she was shot... I wonder if she bargained certain matters with the gunman, to a greater extent than we know. As with the tying up of the victims, putting on a watch requires TWO hands - incompatible with holding a gun!

Regarding the identikits, on page 23: They are quite alike but the second one is arguably more like Hanratty's 'face on' photo, and a little less like Alphon.

However, if you blow up the face-on photo of Hanratty found on the Getty website - see
http://tinyurl.com/5pkpok (it's on the second sheet)

- it's very obvious indeed that the photo has been doctored to fit the description (eg sunken eyes) and to be closer to the identikit/s. Look at the mouth! The whole bears little resemblance to the more familiar 3/4 view of Hanratty. Airbrushing and re-touching prints was very common in those days - I'd like to see a print form a negative of this photo! I'd put money on it being quite a lot different

Btw several witnesses are on the pages, inc the student Kerr - it's amazing how middle-aged even very young people looked in those days! - myself included, my clothes and hair were just like my mother's LOL

[reg1965]

Alphon at the Old Station Inn on 22/8/61

Hi

Mary Lanz, the Landlady of the Old Station Inn, Taplow, served drinks to VS and MS as regulars. According to Mrs Lanz they left at about 9:20. (Woffinden, 1997. p3) VS said that they left at about 8:45. (Woffinden, 1997. p31)
Mrs Lanz later confirmed that Alphon was in the pub on that night (with another person). (Foot, 1998. pps414-416)
Michael Fogalty-Waul identified Alphon (as resembling Sidney Tafler) after giving him a lift on Marsh Lane on the night of the murder. He remembered that he had met him a few weeks earlier at Slough dogs and later, 10 days after the trial. The fingerprints left by Alphon on Mr Fogarty-Wauls car on the last meeting were destroyed by a police officer under Mr Fogarty-Wauls nose. (Foot, 1998. pps328-331)

A motorcyclist, David Henderson, passed a field (not the cornfield) just after 21:45 and saw the Morris car parked up with misted rear window and the interior light on. (Woffinden, 1997. p32)

VS said that they arrived at the cornfield at about 21:00 (twilight, so she said) and it was 20 to 25 minutes before they were waylayed.

VS's timings are way out. Just as the rest of her testimony was with regard to what really happened before the stick up (planning a car rally! I've heard it called a few things but never a car rally...Come here baby we're going to plan a car rally!), the route taken and the identity of the killer.
Reg

[Sara]

Taking all the extraordinary inter-relations between all the protagonists, and the sightings of various people in relevant locations, I just can't see how anyone can imagine that the attack was random, nor deny the possibility that there was something behind it all, of which we have so far only had fleeting glimpses. Ewer's relationship with Janet Gregsten is another unexplained element which I find suggestive to say the least! - esp since one poster who knows their stuff said that only Ewer could have been the source of Alphon's large payments into his bank.

Neither can I ever accept, as things stand, that Alphon was not involved in some respect. What an amazing coincidence that he should be seen that day so close to the crime scene - and with another man too! What are the chances of Hanratty and Alphon both being in Dorney Wood, and both staying at the Vienna in Maida Vale, on the same day, by happenstance? Nil, I'd say...

I'm starting to wonder, were they both part of some weird plot to frighten or blackmail someone which went horribly wrong

That's if they were both in Dorneywood, of which I have yet to be convinced....
In fact I've yet to be convinced that Hanratty was ever there

[Sara]

Hello Graham ..... (snip of 1st para) .....
I agree with you that the investigating officers would have pressurised Louise and Dixie. We all know it was common practice in those days, and whilst it is frowned upon today, in 1961 the police believed it to be acceptable behaviour.

The Ewer and Anderson connection? As I have said before if it was just coincidence it was quite a staggering one. But then, as you say, Sherrard did remark to that exact effect.

Woffinden never named The Central Figure, but it was apparent from the book that it could only have been Ewer, no other candidate featured in the text. The Ewer/Janet Gregsten connection is the only really plausible motive for sending a gunman after the couple in the cornfield, but if Ewer was wanting Janet for himself, why try and arrange to have her husband ‘persuaded’ to return to the family home and end his relationship with Valerie? It wouldn’t make sense. And, yes, I agree with you that supposing Ewer had the wherewithal to pay a gunman takes some believing.

But suppose Ewer had intended Gregson to be shot? and rather than finding a pro, he used the person nearest to hand, thinking he could rely on / control him? - wrongly as it happened

I think it's wrong to assume that Ewer's business was entirely above board, since any cash-heavy business in these days (and these!) was liable to hide all sorts of things beyond the law, from tax avoidance to money-laundering. Ewer almost certainly had a lot of meny which neve rsaw his regular 'tax-purpose' bank account. It was very easy in those days to have multiple bank accounts, even foreigners had them (inc to my certain knowledge, int he late 60s at least, some big dope dealers). We were very little spied on in those days!

Similarly, to go back to a couple of other posts:

There were an awful lot of drugs floating around the London underworld, for want of a better word, int he 60s (read up on the Keeler trial). Soho, Chelsea, Notting Hill and Bayswater etc were where the criminal world met the jazz scene and 'Bohemia' - Soho especially.

Similarly it would not be hard to get hold of a gun if you mixed in the right circles. Btw, I find it inconceivable that the gunman was carrying six boxes of ammo around with him! - it would weigh a ton!! quite apart from the fact the bulk of such a burden would greatly inhibit freedom of movement.

I can't see how anyone can see the finding of the gun and ammo as anything other than a plant - come to that, the bus cleaner looks more like a CID man or a film extra to me than a lowly LT cleaner LOL (see Getty pic). Most LT staff then as now were black, weren't they?? And did this guy *really* lift the back seat up *every* night? - how convenient that this particular 36A happened to fall into his hard-working hands for cleaning that very night, what??!!

[jimarilyn]

Greetings one and all.

She was the chauffer's daughter.

Peter

Hi Peter,

I know it's been some time since you last posted, but I've recently discovered that Valerie Perkins was definitely not
Gordon Perkins's daughter. Gordon Perkins was 29 in 1962 when he and James Bride-Hennessey ( another friend of Jean Justice ) were arrested for stealing a parking meter.
If she was related to Gordon Perkins at all it definitely wasn't as his daughter.

regards,
James

[Sara]

Further to what I wrote earlier:
<< Regarding the identikits, on page 23: They are quite alike but the second one is arguably more like Hanratty's 'face on' photo, and a little less like Alphon.

However, if you blow up the face-on photo of Hanratty found on the Getty website - see http://tinyurl.com/5pkpok (it's on the second sheet)
- it's very obvious indeed that the photo has been doctored to fit the description (eg sunken eyes) and to be closer to the identikit/s >>


There are more images of the identikits and photos of Alphon on p43 of this thread, for comparison. I'd like to see them all beside some *undoctored* photos of Hanratty - who has a prominent and squarish jaw, iirc

[Tony]

But suppose Ewer had intended Gregson to be shot? and rather than finding a pro, he used the person nearest to hand, thinking he could rely on / control him? - wrongly as it happened

I think it's wrong to assume that Ewer's business was entirely above board, since any cash-heavy business in these days (and these!) was liable to hide all sorts of things beyond the law, from tax avoidance to money-laundering. Ewer almost certainly had a lot of meny which neve rsaw his regular 'tax-purpose' bank account. It was very easy in those days to have multiple bank accounts, even foreigners had them (inc to my certain knowledge, int he late 60s at least, some big dope dealers). We were very little spied on in those days!

Similarly, to go back to a couple of other posts:

There were an awful lot of drugs floating around the London underworld, for want of a better word, int he 60s (read up on the Keeler trial). Soho, Chelsea, Notting Hill and Bayswater etc were where the criminal world met the jazz scene and 'Bohemia' - Soho especially.

Similarly it would not be hard to get hold of a gun if you mixed in the right circles. Btw, I find it inconceivable that the gunman was carrying six boxes of ammo around with him! - it would weigh a ton!! quite apart from the fact the bulk of such a burden would greatly inhibit freedom of movement.

I can't see how anyone can see the finding of the gun and ammo as anything other than a plant - come to that, the bus cleaner looks more like a CID man or a film extra to me than a lowly LT cleaner LOL (see Getty pic). Most LT staff then as now were black, weren't they?? And did this guy *really* lift the back seat up *every* night? - how convenient that this particular 36A happened to fall into his hard-working hands for cleaning that very night, what??!!

A very good morning to you Sara,

It is a puzzle just why a murderer would leave his gun on the bus. He might just as well have called in at Scotland Yard and left it on the front desk.
If it was left there by the murderer how on earth did he not think to bury it or chuck it in the Thames?

As for the bus cleaner’s diligence it would be interesting to know if he was asked if he ever found any jewellery under the seat which is where Hanratty supposedly told Dixie that that was the very place he disposed of unwanted plunder.

You couldn’t make it up could you? And that is why there will never be a film made about this case; it is just too ridiculous.

Tony.

[jimarilyn]

A very good morning to you Sara,

It is a puzzle just why a murderer would leave his gun on the bus. He might just as well have called in at Scotland Yard and left it on the front desk.
If it was left there by the murderer how on earth did he not think to bury it or chuck it in the Thames?

As for the bus cleaner’s diligence it would be interesting to know if he was asked if he ever found any jewellery under the seat which is where Hanratty supposedly told Dixie that that was the very place he disposed of unwanted plunder.

You couldn’t make it up could you? And that is why there will never be a film made about this case; it is just too ridiculous.

Tony.

Hi Tony,

The placing of the gun under the back seat of that bus is one aspect of the case that really gets the old brain cells working.
Whoever placed it there wanted it to be discovered and knew it would be found sooner or later. A fully loaded gun, some loose bullets and 5 full boxes of ammunition, all conveniently wrapped up in a handkerchief belonging to James Hanratty.
The only reason I can think of for anyone to put a much sought after murder weapon in such a place would be to incriminate someone.
Was it Dixie France who put it there or was it William Nudds or a.n. other ?
I hardly think it was placed there for the true owner to recover at some later date.
The Enfield.38 was duly found around 8.45pm the next day, and according to Edwin Cooke it wasn't there 24 hours earlier. I wonder how many other murder weapons have been found as quickly as this ?
If someone truly wanted the gun to remain undiscovered why not dump it into the River Thames as you say, or even the North Sea off the coast of Southend ?


regards,
James