A6 Rebooted

[NickB]

How the doubts about Alphon began:

"When I said I had been convinced that she [Janet] had nothing to do with it, Alphon scoffed: ‘You’ve been duped.’ He was ‘sure’ she had been involved, but not so sure that he could prove it.

When I played him part of Mrs Gregsten’s taped conversation with me, Alphon seemed perplexed. It occurred to me, watching him carefully, that he really didn’t know as much as he pretended. He certainly didn’t know what he alleged – that Mrs Gregsten was the prime mover in commissioning the murderer.

I started to wonder whether perhaps, if Alphon was the murderer, he had no idea who commissioned him; or even whether he had not done the murder himself, but had become involved in it in some other way."

[Graham]

I wonder, had he been spared, if Foot might have given thought to the question: if Hanratty and Alphon are both innocent, then who did commit the A6 murder?

Graham

[cobalt]

Graham,

Apologies for misattributing the theory regarding Matthews. It was NickB who initially put it forward.

Regarding Foot’s commentary on Alphon listening to Mrs Gregsten’s tape, I see less than an investigative reporter at work. If Alphon was the murderer then he could hardly have been surprised by Mrs Gregsten denying all knowledge of a plot. After all, a paid enforcer (I won’t use the word assassin or ‘hitman’ since that seems not to have been the purported purpose of the enterprise) knows that ignorance is part of his paymaster. What was Alphon supposed to say? ‘Bill told me she was in for it. Honest Paul. I’m shocked.’

As the only person who ever admitted to the A6 murder Alphon has to worthy of more investigation. Particularly since he was seen in the locus prior to the crime. Let us be clear and not confuse two different types individual: Alphon was not the sort of fantasist who turns up, almost inevitably, at some police desk to confess to a major crime. Most of these people are well known to the police in their day to day activities and are disregarded on the spot.

On the contrary he was sought after by the police, very possibly because of underworld information that he was a loose cannon. Far from glorying in his 15 minutes of fame he was lying low and actually denied the crime. Until that moment he had been apparently happy to ghost around in his subsidised demi-world. This was not, until the moment he was arrested, a man who had sought publicity.

So for me, he was not a fantasist. An odd man, maybe one who played the media interest? That is a possible explanation for his later actions. But at the outset he was not some psychologically deranged character who wanted to commit some appalling crime which would make him a household name. He may, and I stress may, have developed this persona after the event. But until he was arrested Alphon was a man basking in anonymity.

[Graham]

Cobalt,

1] there is not, and never has been, the slightest supportable evidence that there was some kind of plot/conspiracy behind the murder of Michael Gregsten. If you can provide such evidence, then please do so.

2] Alphon was an oddball, pure and simple, and he retracted his confessions to the crime at as rapid a rate as he made them. Have you seen the film of his interview in Paris? It is almost a minor masterpiece in double-talk, and he had the poor interviewer tied in knots. Later, he denied that he had confessed in Paris to the murder! You say he isn't a fantasist, but have you read his detailed written 'confession' as published by Woffinden? It has at least one 'deliberate mistake'.........

There is also the matter of the presence of Mr Jean Justice with regard to Alphon's imagined involvement in the A6 Case. If anyone in this whole sorry saga muddied the already-cloudy waters it was Justice.

Alphon not a man who sought publicity? Yet immediately prior to turning himself in to the police he telephoned two newspapers (I believe it was two) to advise them of what he was doing. OK, he did that also to cover himself in case matters turned against him. Which they did.

He could have been a politician.......

Incidentally, there were many more false 'confessions' to the A6 than Alphon's. Cases such as the A6 always attracted nutters - reference the Yorkshire Ripper and the murder of Jill Dando. Apparently the police were driven almost barmy by the number of false 'confessions' in the Dando case.

3] Have you read "Shadows Of Deadman's Hill" by Leonard Miller? If not, I suggest you try and get a copy - may not be easy as it's out of print now and quite rare. I bought it when it was published, and found it offered some convincing counter-arguments to the claims made by Alphon and also the pro-Hanratty writers about the case.

Graham

[Alfie]

The 36A bus and the planting of the gun

Woffinden, p. 191-2 of the hardback edition, says:

"Why, having had two opportunities, was the Crown so reluctant to call Pamela Patt? Her statement was not disclosed to the defence at the time, and I only discovered it thirty years later. This was what she had to say:

'By the time we got to the Harrow Road, the bus was full and remained like this until we arrived at Victoria ... In the first journey to Kilburn the passengers were all regular ones ... I did not see anything suspicious during the whole of this journey.'"

I'm always a bit suspicious when I see quotes with " ... " bits omitted. Anybody have a record of the full statement?

Anyway, Woffinden continues:

The significance of this is that during the time the bus was travelling through what Swanwick described as those 'parts of London with which Hanratty was very closely connected', it was full. If the Crown had disclosed it, it would have demonstrated that the opportunities for Hanratty to have deposited the gun during the morning run were all but non-existent - and there was no other time in which he could have done so."

As I understand it, the 36A's morning run started in New Cross and finished in Kilburn. It would have been crowded until Victoria, then relatively empty for the rest of the outward run. And on the way back it would similarly have been full on its run into the city and sparsely patronised afterwards.

Both Woffinden (and the prosecution?) seem to have assumed that the gunman must have boarded the bus somewhere between Victoria and Kilburn - so that he either wouldn't have had the chance to dispose of the gun (too crowded) or would have been noticed as a non-regular by Miss Patt.

But what was to stop him joining the crowds heading for the City and waiting till they thinned afterwards before hiding his weapon?

[NickB]

I'm always a bit suspicious when I see quotes with " ... " bits omitted. Anybody have a record of the full statement?

You are right to be suspicious.

The bit left out by the three dots was revealed in the Appeal:

‘Pamela Patt's statement (taken on 26 August 1961) was to the effect that the passengers during the northern part of the journey to West Kilburn were all regulars, with one exception. At 6.10am a young man of dirty appearance, wearing a dirty raincoat got on near the Grosvenor Hotel and went to the upper deck, where he was the only passenger for a time. On the return journey the bus was full between Harrow Road and Victoria.’

The man was 'about 25, 5 ft. 7 ins., medium build, thick wavy hair, mousey colour, clean shaven.'

[Alfie]

You are right to be suspicious.

The bit left out by the three dots was revealed in the Appeal:

‘Pamela Patt's statement (taken on 26 August 1961) was to the effect that the passengers during the northern part of the journey to West Kilburn were all regulars, with one exception. At 6.10am a young man of dirty appearance, wearing a dirty raincoat got on near the Grosvenor Hotel and went to the upper deck, where he was the only passenger for a time. On the return journey the bus was full between Harrow Road and Victoria.’

The man was 'about 25, 5 ft. 7 ins., medium build, thick wavy hair, mousey colour, clean shaven.'

Thanks Nick

I've had the impression that Woffinden would do everything he could to put Hanratty's case in the best possible light, but that's just plain dishonest.

[Graham]

Later in his book Woffinden describes the strange occurrence at the Appeal when a woman in the public gallery, as the court was clearing, shouted out, "He didn't do it! You ought to ask the conductor on the 36 bus". With that she left the court and disappeared. The incident was widely reported, but as far as is known the mystery woman was never seen again. Note that she shouted conductor and not conductress.

However, Woffinden points out that it was generally understood that the woman was referring to Pamela Patt. The afternoon bus did however have a male conductor.

Interesting that referring to Pamela Patt's statement - which he carefully edited - he said that it contained no vital information. Hmmmm....a statement in which her description of the lone young man isn't a million miles from that of James Hanratty?

Woffinden was pretty good with ellipses - there are others in his book which I won't bore you with now.

Graham

[cobalt]

Graham,

I am not convinced by your argument that Alphon was a harmless eccentric. He was totally different to those inadequates who turn up at police station counters and claim they have committed the latest high profile murder. Alphon was around 30 years old and had never, to my knowledge done this once.

In terms of the Jill Dando case- another murder without apparent motive- he resembles not the annoying list of ‘confessors’ but rather more Barry George, the man who was initially convicted then later released for the crime. George was an odd character drawn into the case by circumstantial evidence and convicted principally by forensic evidence which was later deemed suspect.
George has generally stayed out of the limelight since, very unlike Alphon who, once thrust into the public eye, more than milked his 15 minutes of infamy into something resembling a mini career. There are those who think Alphon did this not just for the attention he sought, but also for financial gain.

There is another possibility of course: that by drawing attention to himself as the A6 murder suspect and making ambiguous statements about his involvement, he was, in common parlance ‘hiding in plain sight.’ If Alphon was the murderer, he knew he had very little to fear. First of all the police had failed to collect evidence against the first time round. Secondly, even if he confessed all in a written statement, he knew the authorities were unlikely to endure the public humiliation of having to admit they hanged the wrong man. To my knowledge the UK judicial system has never actually admitted to executing the wrong man (although in the case of Timothy Evans this was maintained through a technicality.) And Evans did sign a ‘confession’ which he later retracted, which could be used as a mitigating circumstance in the miscarriage of justice. Hanratty never did so.

The same authorities are in no hurry to release the Matthews Report either which presumably either states, or implies, a conspiracy lay behind the killing. So any evidence of conspiracy is limited, although I would contend the behavior of William Ewer at Swiss Cottage, some time before the arrest of James Hanrattty, is circumstantial evidence of such a conspiracy.

An extract from the Paris interview is on youtube somewhere. I remember seeing the full interview at the time, I think the programme was called 24 Hours and introduced by Cliff Michelmore, and being struck by the dramatic claim being made. It certainly made an impact on me, possibly because the A6 Case was the first murder case I had been able to follow in the Press, back in 1962 as an 8 year old. It was front page news, but I was at that time unaware of the misgivings about the verdict and just assumed Hanratty was guilty.

So to hear Alphon ‘confess’ a few years later was an eye opener, hence my interest in acquiring Foot’s book soon after it was written. I have read Miller’s as well, but several years ago and little of it has been retained to my memory.

As for Alphon being a potential politician, I think you are on the wrong boat there as well. A politician has to be able to command the respect of those around him to get nominated in the first place, then generally adhere to a party line thereafter. There is no real evidence Alphon was capable of doing either. A car salesman or estate agent maybe.

[Graham]

Cobalt,

I am not convinced by your argument that Alphon was a harmless eccentric

I doubtless described him as eccentric, but not harmless.

If you've done your reading, you'll know that before he 'confessed' to the murder he underwent what he himself described as a gruelling interview with Acott and Oxford. Indeed, he surrendered himself at Scotland Yard once he knew he was an A6 suspect. Falling under the 'spell', if that's the right word, of Jean Justice, he then made a series of 'confessions' all of which contain within them false details. He admitted that he and Justice were 'out to get' Alphon, and for whatever reason appeared to think that his false confessions would do just that. (In a way they did, as Acott in particular was vilified as a policeman who had effectively hanged an innocent man).

There are those who think Alphon did this not just for the attention he sought, but also for financial gain

He did benefit financially from the A6 Case, in that he received settlements from (I think) two newspapers he sued for libel, and also enjoyed a very lavish lifestyle courtesy of the deep pockets of Justice and Fox.

There is another possibility of course: that by drawing attention to himself as the A6 murder suspect and making ambiguous statements about his involvement, he was, in common parlance ‘hiding in plain sight.’

I don't think so.

the behavior of William Ewer at Swiss Cottage, some time before the arrest of James Hanrattty, is circumstantial evidence of such a conspiracy.

Nonsense. Re-read previous posts and also Miller, if you can get a copy.

An extract from the Paris interview is on youtube somewhere.

All of it was on YouTube at one time. Alphon should have been nominated for an Oscar!

As for Alphon being a potential politician, I think you are on the wrong boat there as well.

Cobalt, please! My tongue's still sore from being stuck so firmly in my cheek as I wrote this!

Graham

[cobalt]

Graham,

Regarding Ewer, I am confident I have read all the posts, and none of them disprove the following: that almost a week after the A6 murder Ewer contacted the police regarding a suspect he had seen in the Swiss Cottage area on two occasions. This suspect was almost certainly James Hanratty, a man known as a cat burglar to the police at that time and nothing more. How Ewer was able to anticipate the direction of the police enquiry is inexplicable, and I have no memory of Miller offering nothing much more than the papers made it up. They may have gilded the lily, but the police were alerted by Ewer. Totally inexplicable. Evidence of a conspiracy? Yes. Police failure to investigate this aberration- more evidence of a conspiracy. Shut up Ewer. Shut up Alphon. Nobody is listening. Hanratty is going to hang. If Foot was an SWP man on mission, then Miller was Media Studies lecturer out of his depth.

Alphon a fantasist? I am not so sure as you are. He knew he had a copper bottomed guarantee: the authorities would never prosecute him. This was an impossibility in mid 1960s UK, and would be now. The only apologies which can be offered by the system are after the relevant police and judges are retired or in their dotage. Everyone knows this, Leonard Cohen even sang a song about it. . Look at the allegations stacked up against Leon Britton, Keith Joseph and Greville Janner, which are long standing (I first heard about them in the 1970s) but were never quite investigated at the time (although Janner was named in open court). You might be thrown a few tidbits from popular entertainers, such as Savile, but the Establishment always protects its own.

One fine day, when I am also in my dotage, my grandchildren will tell me that Hanratty has been proved innocent.
And those who damned him will say such things as the powerful and their acolytes always say when exposed: ‘we were led to believe….the evidence certainly pointed that way…. I cannot believe that forensic scientists would do such a thing….Alphon hid in plain sight…police procedures must be reviewed…the jury were misled….Hanratty was the author of his own misfortune…who could believe the police could swear a man’s life away on the gallows? I made a perfectly reasonable mistake…he has only been acquitted on a TECHNICALITY….the review is an anti-establishment political circus…...’
I’ve been hearing it all my life, and I would love to hear it, just one more time, for James Hanratty.

[moste]

"Graham's '1] there is not, and never has been, the slightest supportable evidence that there was some kind of plot/conspiracy behind the murder of Michael Gregsten. If you can provide such evidence, then please do so."

So what your saying is that all evidence pointing to the fact that Ewer tracked Hanratty around Swiss Cottage, in order to finger him with the police is not supportable ? Also, you don't believe a serious possible connection between Ewer and Hanratty via Loius Anderson, is not only feasible but likely!
Graham. Hanratty was framed , please change your verdict.

[NickB]

The only part of the ‘she saw him at the cleaners’ story that can be corroborated is that Ewer thought he saw someone who looked like the person (or persons) portrayed in the identikit picture go into the photographers shop and followed in pursuit.

There is nothing to back up his claim that he phoned the police. He said that he called from the photographer’s shop, but the Sunday Times tracked down the man serving in the shop – Mr Edmund King – who made no mention of such a call.

Mr King’s recollection contrasts with Mr Ewer’s later statement. ‘He was obviously very excited, a bit peculiar’ said Mr King ‘he was quite insistent and asked to see in the back. I told him he could. I took him in the studio at the back. I’m a reasonably public minded chap.’

As you know, I think the police visited the flower shop because of the robberies that had been traced to Jim.

Ewer (eventually) admitted that he had a number of meetings with the police before the trial and they told him that Hanratty had been in the cleaners shop. Presumably they also told him about the visit to flower shop. Ewer put all this together into a fanciful story.

Incidentally ‘she saw him at the cleaners’ was another aspect of the case that Foot changed his mind about after personal interviews with Janet (he believed her denial “utterly”) and a telephone interview with Ewer just after her death.

But old myths die hard.

[moste]

"Ewer (eventually) admitted that he had a number of meetings with the police before the trial and they told him that Hanratty had been in the cleaners shop. Presumably they also told him about the visit to flower shop. Ewer put all this together into a fanciful story."
Hi Nick
But this number of meetings with the police,means he has a major involvement in the proceedings of the investigation! Also it is completely naive to think the police shared anything with Mr Ewer,The police just don't work that way. If they shared anything at all about their findings with Ewer,I would consider that suspicious,he wasn't a policeman for crying out loud.

[NickB]

Perhaps the Met interview will reveal all about Ewer’s strange behaviour. Of course he would have discovered about the cleaners visit at the trial anyway.

On your other point about Louise Anderson, the Sunday Times reported:

“Mrs Anderson told us last week that she did indeed know Mr Ewer before the murder and furthermore that Mr Ewer told her of the intuitive sighting when they met during the trial. She has a clear recollection of this.”

There was an intriguing exchange with her at the trial ...

Swanwick – “Were you approached in a hotel at lunch-time on Friday by a man?”

Anderson – “Yes”

Swanwick – “Was that the man sitting behind my learned friend?”

Anderson – “Yes”

At that point the line of enquiry was stopped by the judge. It seems to me the most likely candidate for the man involved is Ewer. But note that it was the prosecution asking the questions