A6 Rebooted

[moste]

Quite.

I have Stickler's book but I haven't read it yet. Some very interesting photographs which I haven't seen before.

The 20 minutes was taken from Woffinden. Foot says she looked up and down the line for some ten minutes before asking them to say the sentence. She looked at them again and finally spoke. Be it 11 or 20 it's still rather a long time.

Hey Ansonman. I wondered if you had read the Stickler book yet? I have 4 books on the A6 case and wondered if this latest effort was worth the money or trouble. From what Nick is saying it sounds like the author has access to facts we have not been party to. Could this guy be an ex cop, maybe it’s worthwhile if only for the photographs. What do you think?

[NickB]

One thing in the Today article that might have annoyed her was the inference that her parents knew about the affair, or at least this is how I interpret the significance of them finding out he was married.

There are many times in the Stickler book when he explains what happened for the first time - like when Hanratty first came up with the Rhyl alibi. Several of the things we have pondered about on this forum are revealed.

However I think the lack of detail sometimes borders on being misleading. For example, at Alphon's press conference in the Hotel du Louvre a question is included which was actually in the ITN interview afterwards when he was lolling on his bed in another hotel.

I can see how Stickler would want to keep the narrative flowing for the casual reader rather than satisfy A6 nerds like me, but he could have pleased both types of readership by expanding the 'Notes' section. Talking of which, I don't know why he has sometimes used people's initials rather than their full names. For Epilogue Note 5 he says this is to protect a prisoner's name, but the passage appears to be a police interview with Hanratty rather than something one of his fellow prisoners said.

Also I would like to know when the police took possession of the Irish postcard to Mrs Hanratty; in response to the burglary enquiries or not until Acott's visit.

[Spitfire]

I'm not sure why she should regard the articles as a betrayal. Presumably she was payed for them and I would have thought that the publisher would have shown her the drafts before publication, so that she could ok them. They were published at weekly intervals and so it's not as though they grabbed a story and ran it without her consent.

According to Stickler, she got £300. I doubt whether she would have had the foresight to retain any editorial control.

[ansonman]

I'm not sure why she should regard the articles as a betrayal. Presumably she was payed for them and I would have thought that the publisher would have shown her the drafts before publication, so that she could ok them. They were published at weekly intervals and so it's not as though they grabbed a story and ran it without her consent.

[Spitfire]

I have re-read Valerie's articles published in 1962 and reproduced in their entirety in the thread on this forum under the title "Valerie Storie's 3 part story as published in 'Today' magazine, June 1962" in which on two occasions she stated that she took 20 minutes, even going so far as to say that 20 minutes was the maximum allowed. From Stickler's book it seems that Valerie regarded these articles as a "betrayal" in that words had been put into her mouth by whoever had ghostwritten the articles. Approach anything you read in the press with caution and look for independent verification.

[NickB]

The length the second parade took was not conclusively resolved at the trial.

Swanwick got the last word 'correcting' it to 11 minutes in his summing up. I suppose Kleinman could have objected if he felt strongly about it being 20 minutes.

What I find difficult to understand in Stickler is how he thinks Acott was passive in taking Nudds second statement. The 8 hours suggests it took a lot of hammering out. Although Woffinden believes Nudds 2, it seems that he is more concerned than Stickler about the dodgy activity of the police allowing Nudds to confer with Snell before interviewing her and Acott's "We got him!" visit to Valerie.

[ansonman]

It's interesting that at the first ID parade the men in the line up were not asked to say anything. I wonder if it would have made any difference if they had? Presumably, having picked out the wrong man, she was advised to have the men speak at the second ID.

This is an extract from Foot:

"As soon as she discovered from Acott that the man she had picked out was not the man he was seeking, Miss Storie broke down almost uncontrollably, shouting "I've made a mistake! I've made a mistake!" (Daily Telegraph, September 25th, 1961.) Exactly what sort of a mistake she thought she had made was clarified later - by Miss Storie herself at the trial:

Q. You now know, do you not, that there was a man on that parade called Peter Alphon?
A. I know now.
Q. And when it appeared that you had identified some other person on that parade did you not afterwards say that there was a fair resemblance between Alphon and the man who attacked you?
A. When am I supposed to have said that?
Q. Some time after that parade?
A. Some time afterwards, yes.
Q. Can you tell us to whom you made this observation?
A. In the first instance, I believe it was a doctor at Stoke Mandeville hospital.
Q. And later?
A. I am not sure whether it was Superintendent Acott or not.
Q. May it have been Superintendent Acott?
A. It may have been, but I do not remember.

At any rate, soon after the parade, Valerie Storie said that the man she picked out looked like the newspaper photographs of Peter Alphon, which appeared in the press after his release".

[ansonman]

Quite.

I have Stickler's book but I haven't read it yet. Some very interesting photographs which I haven't seen before.

The 20 minutes was taken from Woffinden. Foot says she looked up and down the line for some ten minutes before asking them to say the sentence. She looked at them again and finally spoke. Be it 11 or 20 it's still rather a long time.

[Spitfire]

According to the new book by Paul Stickler (page 125) the parade took 11 minutes, a detail recorded by Inspector Ballinger who completed the necessary form. Although Sherrard put to Valerie that she took 20 minutes, she refuted this by saying she did not think it took that long. The length the second parade took was not conclusively resolved at the trial. Whether it be 11 or 20 minutes, it did not amount to instantaneous recognition. How long should it take to spot a carrot in a bunch of bananas?

[ansonman]

Another thing that bothers me about the ID parade is the length of time it took. She was wheeled up and down, about nine times in all. She asked them to say the sentence twice. She herself wrote that the parade took a full twenty minutes. How on earth can it take so long to identify someone?. Unless, of course, you made a mistake before and you've been told in advance that the guilty man is definitely in the line up.

The first ID parade took about five minutes before she announced "No. 4 is the man".

[NickB]

Alphon was told he could have a solicitor present but declined. Had one turned up I think he would have found a load of things wrong with the ID parade and Alphon's detainment in general. His first question might have been: "Were you cautioned?".

[moste]

Quote: The first ID parade was carried out fairly and the police suspect, Alphon, was not identified. Had the individuals been asked to speak we have no idea if Alphon, depending on what accent he favoured at the time, would have been identified by Valerie Storie or not. Maybe he would and none of us would be here. The speaking element was introduced at the second ID parade which makes it different from the first,

Yes, you know ,I’ve always had a serious problem with the voice ID thing. Valeries exposure to the Cockney accent has to have been very limited , I have mentioned before my mistaking a London football pundit for another . Although from Manchester, during my working career , I worked with and spent lots of time in the company of blokes from the smoke and can say without hesitation I have no problem identifying the lingo of people of many areas of the country including London, as I’m sure many of us can. But 1961 ,a 21 year old somewhat introverted young woman ? The deal seemed to have been centred on the killers inability to pronounce TH! Can no one else not see how ludicrous this is? And the jury, Did they not consider the fact that ,because of the introduction of a request to hear the suspect speak, it indicates that the victim could not identify her assailant visually? And Sherrard, how much emphasis did he put on this, including the fact that literally thousands of Londoners have trouble pronouncing th.

[cobalt]

The date and detail of Mrs. Lanz’s official police statement is important. It seems she has given slightly different accounts to others. We know the date had to be earlier than August 1966 since the following is an extract from Lord Russell’s submission in the House of Lords:

Mrs. Lanz, who is the wife of the landlord of the Old Station Inn at Taplow, whom I have myself interviewed, certainly remembers (and has told the police a long time ago that she does remember) that Alphon was at the Old Station Inn on the night of the 21st. She is not quite sure whether he was there on the night of the 22nd, but he frequently used to go there.

What exactly she means by ‘a long time ago’ is uncertain. Was it after she had been ‘primed’ by Justice and Fox who were clearly active as early as March 1962? Quite likely. At the very least it surely has to be after Alphon’s name and photo became known to the wider public since until then Alphon was no more to her than an occasional customer.

There is a clear and crucial discrepancy between what we know of her official statement and what she claims she said to the police. Mrs. Lanz either added the detail of Alphon visiting the Old Station Inn on 21^st August 1961 at a later date: or her statement was ‘tidied up’ by the police so that the A6 Case could be laid to rest.

[ansonman]

Ansonman,

Thanks for that; I wasn’t aware that an official statement from Mrs. Lanz existed. Her ID of Alphon, if correct, does not remove the coincidence factor but if she cannot be specific about times then mere coincidence becomes more credible. It’s even possible she saw Alphon in her bar after the murder, given that Alphon liked to immerse himself in the A6 Case and was encouraged to do so by Justice and Fox. Is there a date for her official police statement?

As regards the focus of the original investigation, the discovery of the car and the gun obviously moved attention away from Taplow. That is understandable but left holes in the prosecution case that exist to this day. How did the murderer actually get to Taplow since he had no car to return in? When did he arrive? Where was he having refreshments before he struck? Why were there no sightings of him in Taplow or surrounding areas until he appeared in the cornfield?

Cobalt,

You are bang on the money regarding Alphon being in her bar after the murder.

Woffinden P298:

"Justice hit on a new plan. He and Fox decided to take Peter Alphon to the area where the crime has started. Accordingly, in the early evening of Tuesday, 20 March*, the three of them headed west out of London. On the way there, Alphon insisted on stopping for a drink. "The first thing that struck me" recalled Justice, "was that he seemed to know his way round Slough. He said to us , "Don't park here, there's a pub round the corner". The pub was near the Uxbridge Road, where the Slough greyhound stadium was. Alphon gave the impression that he knew both the pub and the stadium very well".

From there, they went to the Old Station Inn at Taplow. Fox ordered a Tio Pepe sherry and Alphon had a Guinness. As they were leaving, Justice managed to linger behind to have a discreet word with the landlady, Mrs. Lanz. He asked her if she recognised either of his two friends. Yes, she said, she did: "the one with the Guinness". She recognized him, she said in a statement to the police, as "a man who had previously been in the bar".

*1962

I don't know the date of the police statement.

[cobalt]

Ansonman,

Thanks for that; I wasn’t aware that an official statement from Mrs. Lanz existed. Her ID of Alphon, if correct, does not remove the coincidence factor but if she cannot be specific about times then mere coincidence becomes more credible. It’s even possible she saw Alphon in her bar after the murder, given that Alphon liked to immerse himself in the A6 Case and was encouraged to do so by Justice and Fox. Is there a date for her official police statement?

As regards the focus of the original investigation, the discovery of the car and the gun obviously moved attention away from Taplow. That is understandable but left holes in the prosecution case that exist to this day. How did the murderer actually get to Taplow since he had no car to return in? When did he arrive? Where was he having refreshments before he struck? Why were there no sightings of him in Taplow or surrounding areas until he appeared in the cornfield?