A6 Rebooted

[cobalt]

There can be little doubt, on either side of the debate, that Dixie France supplied the murder weapon. The police were alerted to this early on from their famous source-‘information received’- presumably by professional criminals who were alarmed by the A6 murder not just on an emotional level, but because it infringed on their day to day activities.

It might have been expected that the police concentrate their lines of enquiry in the area where the murder occurred, but there is little evidence they did so. From the outset they seemed to have focused on London as the scene. Why they did this has never been made clear.

From what I can gather a few names were being put forward. France was clearly one of them, and as a manager of a dubious club was an easy target to lean on. There was at least one other name put forward that none of us seem to know much about; I think he was questioned for around 48 hours then released. He remains anonymous, and presumably no DNA was ever been taken from him at a later date.

The other two we are well familiar with. Peter Alphon was ‘brought to police attention’ a few days after the crime. This phrase is a euphemism for police informant I imagine; after all, staying in your hotel room is hardly likely to disturb the other guests. He may have been put forward by disgusted, family loving criminals appalled at the crime, or just been a convenient patsy. I have never believed the hotel manager was the source of police information. It must have been an informant who steered them in that direction.

In a similar vein a few days later, James Hanratty was brought to police attention by William Ewer, the sharp eyed shopkeeper of Swiss Cottage. Nothing came of this initially, leaving Ewer with egg on his face. Later he had to construct some Mystic Meg scenario to take off the heat. However, this in itself is no indication of Hanratty’s innocence; it may have been that Ewer had information linking Hanratty to the crime and believed this was the best way to let the law take its course.

What is required is for the Matthews report to be published, albeit in redacted form. This senior detective believed Hanratty was innocent, and for a reason, having had access to stuff to which we can only offer conjecture. I can understand that when Valerie Storie was alive, that her interests had to be balanced against those of the Hanratty family. She had suffered enough, and made a life founded upon an honest judgment she made at the time of the trial. It would be a harsh man who told her, in later life, she had unwittingly sent an innocent man to the gallows.

If the Matthews report is crap, then presumably the Met itself is pretty crap at detection. Or the Matthews Report is rather substantial, and the Low Copy DNA is pretty crap. It’s either one of the two. But only one of these has been offered to the public.

[moste]

If Dixie France did supply the weapon , since he had( as has been noted )a veritable arsenal under the counter at his place of work, then it would be more likely he ,that had a shooter hidden away in an upstairs airing cupboard in his home.After all, it was I should imagine with much fear that he uttered those, unexplained words 'they,re going to crucify us all.'

The anomaly of police concentrating their lines of enquirer elsewhere other than around the murder scene,and indeed, In the area of the corn field, tells me that something other than a regular run of the mill murder investigation was taking place here.
The next morning after the crime, Scotland Yard was called in ,detective Gwen Woodin from Beds. who had been by Valerie,s side most of the time that Valerie wasn't being treated, had been keeping notes of any words or utterances Valerie may have spoken. Meanwhile coming up from London we have a Chief super and his bag man. Firstly I should imagine,after a hearty breakfast, they arrive at the murder scene,hang around there for a good while, then head up to Bedford, where presumably after a nice lunch , they finally arrive atBedford hospital . Remember VS is critically Ill And may die From her wounds at any moment,
Woodin offered her notes to the Scotland Yard people this was now late afternoon by the way ,anyhow she was politely told 'oh we won't need those we will be interviewing her ourselves later. Woodin thought this all very odd.
These are just a couple of oddities that make one think ,something not quite right here!

[Spitfire]

It might have been expected that the police concentrate their lines of enquiry in the area where the murder occurred, but there is little evidence they did so. From the outset they seemed to have focused on London as the scene. Why they did this has never been made clear.

Whilst the many notorious criminal gangs of Silsoe, Clophill and Barton-Le-Clay may well have provided a rich seam of potential suspects for the A6 Murder investigators, they probably thought that the murder had been committed by a London man for the following reasons:

1. Miss Storie said he had a London accent;

2. He was aware of the roadworks in the Harrow area;

3. The car was abandoned near a tube station with easy access to central London;

4. The gun was found the day after the murder in London on a bus that had been operating in London;

And if you are correct (I don't think you are though) that there was little doubt that the gun had been supplied by Dixie France who lived and worked in London.

I don't believe that the investigators would have ruled out a suspect living outside London and without seeing the complete A6 file, we don't know how many leads outside the London area were acted upon.

[Alfie]

It might have been expected that the police concentrate their lines of enquiry in the area where the murder occurred, but there is little evidence they did so. From the outset they seemed to have focused on London as the scene. Why they did this has never been made clear.

A wild guess - because the killer had a London accent?

Edit: Spitfire beat me to it.

[moste]

The statement made by Superintendent Roger Mathews along the lines of', Everything I had to work with over the 12 months, re-investigation of this case, was available to the officers of the day, and then his claim that Hanratty hanged unjustly , was pretty damning for the likes of Acott and Oxford, in fact I would even go so far as to say he was more or less saying ' they were inept if not bent'. Nothing, as we know came from this tremendous effort by this officer with all the detectives at his disposal, obviously as a result of hierarchy involvement.What a waste of public monies, makes one consider, that Mathews came up with the wrong goodies, as far as the establishment was concerned.

[moste]

Never believed for a second that Alphons hiding away in his room ,then making noises in the late hours,to disturb another guest so much that she complains to the hotel manager, and he in turn calls the police, and the police in turn put Alphon in the frame. Ridiculous.

[cobalt]

Following a London line of enquiry was perfectly sensible, for the reasons given.

But where were the local house to house enquiries, the enquiries about who usually drove cars into the field, the relationships between the victims, the reconstruction of the events one week later? They seem to have been scant.

Moste makes a very good point indeed. Why were the Met called in so early? Normally police forces are very jealous of their patch, and I well recall the tabloid shouts during the Yorkshire Ripper case for ‘bringing in The Met.’ (As if that was not the most corrupt police body within the entire UK!) The Yorkshire Police declined that particular offer.

Usually these pressures are resisted by the local police, but not apparently in this case, after a less than a day. Why? Had there never been a murder in Bedfordshire until 1961? Was this first ever sexual assault they had ever dealt with ? Obviously, no. So presumably political pressure was brought to bear, especially since August is notoriously called the ‘silly season’ in the newspaper industry. The Soham Murders occurred during the same time and, like the A6 case, were given massive media attention. Under pressure, the government of the day decided to make a gesture.

The Met officers naturally enough focused on the London end of the crime, where all their informants were. They did not pay enough attention to ‘we picked up a man at Slough’ and they seemed to ignore the (potentially very interesting) Matlock sighting of the murder car.

The Matthews should now be published following the death of Valerie Storie. Perhaps he was wrong, perhaps the forensics are conclusive, but let us be adults and make our own judgment. We paid for it. It is ours. Who on this forum objects to that?

[NickB]

I would like to see the report, but I think we have a fair amount of information already to know what was in it.

In 1997 someone, possibly Matthews himself, leaked the outcome to The Independent. In an article on 27-Jan-97 headlined ‘Wrongly hanged: Hanratty is found innocent’ it said Matthews “completed his report last year and is understood to have concluded that Hanratty was wrongly hanged.”

A further article on 31-Mar-97 headlined ‘Hanratty case police want to track killer’ started: “Detectives whose investigation cleared James Hanratty of the A6 murder are unhappy that a new inquiry has not been launched to track down the killer, say police sources. The Scotland Yard team, under Det Supt Roger Matthews, which concluded Hanratty had been unjustly executed also recommended that a review should be made of the evidence against other suspects.”

But who were these suspects?

“His report is believed to recommend that a new inquiry should in particular examine evidence regarding Peter Alphon, a salesman who was the original suspect. But the officers turned their attention from Alphon to Hanratty after a tip-off from William Nudds, an informer and habitual liar.”

So according to ‘police sources’ the report fingered Alphon. As you know Natalie has posted on here saying Matthews thought three people were involved. This fits in with ‘three-man conspiracy’ Alphon described in his March-69 letter to the Home Secretary.

Then in May-99 Matthews wrote his article in the Daily Mail. I have commented elsewhere on the mistakes in that article. That year the Met appointed Steve Dann to look at the Matthews Report and, after examining its supporting documentation, concluded that it was wrong. Presumably any release of the Matthews Report would be accompanied by Dann’s rebuttal.

Basically Matthews swallowed the line in Foot’s 1971 book. But Foot had moved on. Woffinden made the same mistake, as I shall explore in a separate post ....

[NickB]

In his 1971 book, Foot wrote about Alphon:

“Either he committed the A6 murder, or he has been leading all of us, and me in particular, a fantastic dance.”

At that time Foot declared that he tended to the former. But he moved towards the latter, following three long meetings with Janet Gregsten and two with Alphon. He reported on these in The Guardian on 10-Oct-94 and 25-Feb-95 (a few days after Janet’s death) and supplied the transcripts to Woffinden to assist him in the preparation of his book.

But Woffinden rejected the new information, in the same way he rejected Audrey Willis telling him she was certain her attacker was not Alphon.

Foot’s review of Woffinden’s book on 11-Dec-97 showed the divide between them about Alphon. He described his own view then said:

“Bob Woffinden, by contrast, boldly sets out a scenario which names Alphon as the murderer and explains the conspiracy which led him to the couple in the car, tracing his steps exactly, both in the run-up to the crime and the aftermath. The scenario is tempting, but far from conclusive.”

Foot’s growing scepticism found its logical conclusion in Mansfield’s acceptance that Alphon was innocent.

[Graham]

Good posts, Nick.

I would suggest that the Matthews Report has not been published so far (and probably never will be) because it is now accepted by the MePo, the Home Office, and whoever else, that its conclusions are wrong and based on false premises concerning the A6 Case. I have never accepted that the A6 was as a result of a conspiracy, and unless incontrovertible proof is laid before me, never will.

You are quite correct - Matthews almost certainly followed Foot's thinking as per his 1971 book, but Foot moved on....I think from other evidence that Foot's enthusiasm for the Socialist Workers Party waned just a little over the years, and with it his thinking changed. This is not to say that Foot was at all dishonest - on the contrary, he was exceptionally honest as investigative journalists go, and not just where the A6 Case is concerned. He was able to modify his pre-conceived assessment of certain people in the case. Alphon was involved purely and simply out of sheer coincidence, as Foot came to accept, and also he was led by weird personality - he saw an opportunity to gain from his imagined involvement, and aided and abetted by one Jean Justice (who has a lot to answer for vis-a-vis the A6) put a good few quid into his bank account. I think Alphon quite frankly didn't know when to stop the bus and get off.

Woffinden (and what's he doing these days?) had I think less of a political and more of a business motive for his analysis of the A6 Case than Foot had, but saw, as Foot initially did, great kudos in supporting an uneducated working-class boy against the deprivations of the faceless Establishment. This is not to say that I don't find Woffinden's book intriguing - it is (and not just because it's got a better index than Foot's);
it's simply that I think Woffinden perhaps failed to try to 'look round corners', and accepted that what was laid wide-screened in front of him was the unalloyed truth.

Graham

[NickB]

Graham,

I share your assessment of Foot v. Woffinden.

Although I disagree with Foot’s reaction to the 2002 Appeal, at least he put his head above the parapet and said something rather than skulk in the shadows.

The defence lawyers, on behalf of the Hanratty family, had put forward a post-Alphon submission to the Appeal. As mentioned recently, there was even a suggestion in it that Alphon was framed by the police. On this they were clearly following the Foot line (as revised) rather than the Woffinden one. And they had a wealth of evidence – amassed over the years since Kleinman was first appointed – so they were in the best position to know the strongest defence case.

Nick

[cobalt]

NickB and Graham,

One thing missing from both your nuanced accounts of Paul Foot’s approach to the A6 case is the fact that Foot believed, right until the end, that Hanratty was innocent of the crime. In this Foot never deviated, even after the Low Copy DNA analysis.
He may have altered his opinion regarding the role of Alphon, Ewer and Mrs. Gregsten, but he always protested Hanratty’s innocence. Foot’s membership of the SWP shows a recognition of the power structures that exist in UK PLC (‘democratic monarchy’ antithesis)) and should not be held against him. Indeed as Moste and myself might claim, it gives him a better angle from which to approach the highly dubious evidence presented at trial.

As I stated earlier, Foot’s main support for this conviction were the 14 witnesses which placed Hanratty outside the locus at the time of the crime. In contrast, the witnesses who placed Hanratty at the locus numbered just one- albeit the closest witness there could be in the form of Valerie Storie. That is a serious imbalance to the man on the Clapham omnibus, if not to the jury, although they did not hear from all the witnesses.
The peripheral witnesses regarding the car in London area are generally regarded as unreliable by all parties and can probably be disregarded.

The Matthews report is important because he had access to original material. The decision not to publish must have been political- why would anyone not want wider information brought before the public? Having assigned a highly ranked police detective to come up with a report, why would you disown the findings? Was he really so grossly incompetent? Should he not have been disciplined in the aftermath for producing such a poor report?

And why would a senior police detective, as according to Graham, follow the 1971 line of a stroppy, SWP, investigative journalist like Paul Foot? Back then the police set the SPG on people like Paul Foot- the police are the only group in UK society more right wing than their employers! Name a left wing Chief Constable please. Being a monarchist Christian is a basic requirement on your CV.

Why on earth would Matthews have taken Foot’s book as his starting point? It makes no sense at all, the more so since the Matthews enquiry occurred 25 years after the book was published! Maybe Graham knows something I do not. Maybe there was a reason for Matthews to ‘go native.’ They don’t usually appoint unreliable geezers to these sort of high profile enquiries.

Matthews must have access to what would be, for us on this site, a wealth of information. Was the Matlock sighting of the murder car before or after a national appeal on radio/TV? Very significant timing. Who really fingered Alphon at his hotel? What did Dixie France say, in full, in his interviews? What was the full transcript taken from Valerie Storie, not the edited version? Full transcripts of interviews with Ms Anderson and Alphon. What did the actual forensic examination of the murder car actually reveal, in its entirety? And so on, and so on.

[NickB]

I am in favour of seeing as much information as possible.

Including the interview transcripts showing how the Rhyl statements ‘did not find support from Hanratty himself’ as alluded to by Kleinman.

[OneRound]

I am in favour of seeing as much information as possible.

Including the interview transcripts showing how the Rhyl statements ‘did not find support from Hanratty himself’ as alluded to by Kleinman.

Hi Nick - I do feel the Court of Appeal were generous to Kleinman (and consequently harsh on the Hanratty camp) in accepting that comment at the 2002 appeal without knowing the details behind it.

Kleinman was far from a neutral party (let alone standing up for his executed client) when he publicly made that comment. It was in response to a Sunday Times article slating him for his defence of Kleinman.

Kleinman' conduct in relation to the A6 case has been criticised by many on this forum and others, in addition to the Sunday Times, over the years including Olive and John Dinwoodie (as you, Nick, flagged recently), James Hanratty's father and Mansfield. Not a problem though for the Court of Appeal.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Graham]

Cobalt,

it wasn't me who said that Matthews followed the line of Foot's book....although I agree that it is highly likely that he did.

And yes, Foot was still convinced of Hanratty's innocence until the day he died, but I honestly believed he was not quite as convinced as he once had been. He did say, after meeting him, that he was surprised that Alphon didn't know as much about the A6 Case as he made out...perhaps not an intimation from Foot that he thought Alphon was also innocent, but it's obvious to me that Foot was having a few doubts about the case. As I said earlier, Foot was an honest man.

Graham