Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A6 Rebooted

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • This is confusing . So ,Alphon is not being suspiciously devious and uncooperative by making the statement" Yes but they're in hotels and pawnbrokers and I'm not telling you where they are."
    Basically then, Woffinden omitted the bit about having trousers in Thomsons?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by cobalt View Post
      'A pair of trousers in Thompson on the Uxbridge Road' is hardly the same as being 'open and helpful.' Why were they there, when, and for what purpose? Was this regular behaviour by Alphon? I thought his mother did his laundry.

      Underwear? Socks? Shoes? Jacket? Shirt? Handkerchief?

      It seems to me that Alphon was throwing Acott a crust.

      Why was a man subsidized by his family, a man who often stayed in hotels, sleeping under a pier? Why not go home and stay with his folks?
      Good points,and since he spent most of his time sponging off his mother ( a leech if ever there was one) I wonder if it occured to him , when his ship came in,to buy her a lovely bungalow in the leafy superbs. Of course if he had ,it would only have left him around 5000 pounds for his dog habit ,poor chap!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by cobalt View Post

        Underwear? Socks? Shoes? Jacket? Shirt? Handkerchief?
        Plastic suit with rubber buttons and/or Velcro fastenings?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by moste View Post
          Does anybody have a transcript of Alphon's interview by Kilner?


          Woffinden does I believe!
          Woffinden offers small excerpts (p. 47, p. 423) but mostly gives a selective summary of the statements Kilner and Dean made almost a month later (Sept 18, 20) (pp. 45-8). I'd like to see a transcript of the interview - one that wasn't distorted by Woffinden's spin - if anybody can point me to it.

          Comment


          • Woffinden also says Alphon was lying by saying “a girl showed me to my room”. Although he described her later as “the woman who booked me in” because he said ‘girl’ this is taken to mean Galves. But I think it is clear that he was referring to Snell.

            In Nudds first statement he said: “My wife took him to his room.”

            As mentioned, in Nudds second statement he says this again but later alters it to say that he also went with Alphon to his room. These two sentences show that Nudds was changing his story, but both are carefully omitted by Woffinden in his reproduction of the second statement.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by NickB View Post
              Woffinden also says Alphon was lying by saying “a girl showed me to my room”. Although he described her later as “the woman who booked me in” because he said ‘girl’ this is taken to mean Galves. But I think it is clear that he was referring to Snell.

              In Nudds first statement he said: “My wife took him to his room.”

              As mentioned, in Nudds second statement he says this again but later alters it to say that he also went with Alphon to his room. These two sentences show that Nudds was changing his story, but both are carefully omitted by Woffinden in his reproduction of the second statement.
              Yes, Woffinden castigates the police and prosecution for withholding evidence from the defence, but seems quite happy to do it himself when the facts clash with his theories. There's a word for that ...

              Comment


              • Originally posted by moste View Post
                This is confusing . So ,Alphon is not being suspiciously devious and uncooperative by making the statement" Yes but they're in hotels and pawnbrokers and I'm not telling you where they are."
                Basically then, Woffinden omitted the bit about having trousers in Thomsons?
                Miller is making the point that, as Woffinden transcribed that part of the interview, it seems intended to make Alphon appear un-cooperative, when in fact he wasn't being so. It's a small point, I grant you, but important for all that.

                Graham
                We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

                Comment


                • I have not seen the Miller book, but I think a more precise explanation for Woffinden abridging Alphon’s reply is that he wanted to display a stark contrast between Hanratty surrendering all his clothes to Acott and Alphon who “wouldn’t let him have anything”.

                  My reading of the interview is that by the end of it Acott realised he had not got the murderer and Alphon sensed this: “I feel a lot better now”. This ties in with what Acott said at the trial (“As I was confident, he was not picked out by any of the witnesses.”) and what DS Brooks said: “He was very relieved when the CID at Putney agreed to take him off his hands and charge him with the Dalal offence.” As mentioned, only then was Alphon given a solicitor.

                  Comment


                  • Yes, but they are in hotels and pawnbrokers and I'm not telling you where they are.

                    Acott: I shall have every pawnbroker visited and I shall probably find them. Have you got any bags or cases?


                    Is there any evidence (outside of what Matthews might have gained access to) that Acott actually followed through on this threat? Or did he just take what Alphon offered?

                    Comment


                    • As Alphon was publicly exonerated of being the A6 Murderer by Hanratty's counsel during the 2002 appeal, one would have thought that that would have been the end of it, but evidently not.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Graham View Post
                        Miller is making the point that, as Woffinden transcribed that part of the interview, it seems intended to make Alphon appear un-cooperative, when in fact he wasn't being so. It's a small point, I grant you, but important for all that.

                        Graham
                        Hi Graham

                        Miller's presentation of this evidence was discredited by this post some years back after a spat between SteveS and BabyBird67:



                        This should help others too who are engrossed on this current debate.

                        Delboy

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Derrick View Post
                          Hi Graham

                          Miller's presentation of this evidence was discredited by this post some years back after a spat between SteveS and BabyBird67:



                          This should help others too who are engrossed on this current debate.

                          Delboy
                          It's a question of interpretation and I don't, and didn't, agree with SteveS's interpretation. He was also an extremely agressive and sarcastic person - calling authors 'idiots' on a public forum is not the way one persuades other posters to agree with him.

                          Graham
                          We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Graham View Post
                            ...It's a question of interpretation...
                            Originally posted by Graham View Post
                            Miller is making the point that, as Woffinden transcribed that part of the interview, it seems intended to make Alphon appear un-cooperative, when in fact he wasn't being so. It's a small point, I grant you, but important for all that.

                            Graham
                            I don't think one needs to even interpret the last 2 lines of the Alphon interview which Miller failed to include.

                            It is fairly and squarely a REFUSAL on Alphon's part to disclose the location of some of his belongings, which you said in contradiction was; "It's a small point, I grant you, but important for all that."

                            That's about the long and short of it, isn't it?

                            Comment


                            • Alphon's behaviour on this site has been described as 'open and helpful.'

                              It is clearly far less than that. He was guarded and nervous, and for what reason? Were his clothes actually chased down (as threatened by Acott) and subjected to analysis? It seems not. Why not?

                              Spitfire, when not rubbishing Moste's rubber tunic theory with a schoolboy raspberry, is now consigned to rubbishing any theory which leads to Hanratty's innocence. Yet if memory serves me right, Spitfire was once an advocate of that very theory. There is no conviction stronger than that of the convert, I suppose.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by cobalt View Post
                                Alphon's behaviour on this site has been described as 'open and helpful.'

                                It is clearly far less than that. He was guarded and nervous, and for what reason? Were his clothes actually chased down (as threatened by Acott) and subjected to analysis? It seems not. Why not?

                                Spitfire, when not rubbishing Moste's rubber tunic theory with a schoolboy raspberry, is now consigned to rubbishing any theory which leads to Hanratty's innocence. Yet if memory serves me right, Spitfire was once an advocate of that very theory. There is no conviction stronger than that of the convert, I suppose.
                                It is not a "rubber tunic" theory, it is a plastic suit with rubber buttons or possibly Velcro fastenings theory. I have never been an advocate of this theory.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X