Tweet
Originally posted by Graham
View Post
-
You'll need great patience! -
My, such originality !Originally posted by Spitfire View Post*************************************
"A body of men, HOLDING THEMSELVES ACCOUNTABLE TO NOBODY, ought not to be trusted by anybody." --Thomas Paine ["Rights of Man"]
"Justice is an ideal which transcends the expedience of the State, or the sensitivities of Government officials, or private individuals. IT HAS TO BE PURSUED WHATEVER THE COST IN PEACE OF MIND TO THOSE CONCERNED." --'Justice of the Peace' [July 12th 1975]Comment
-
Even though it's accepted by the vast majority of commentators that Alphon had nothing to do with the A6, the above quote from SH's post does tend to bear out what Spitfire very rightly stated with regard to JH's supporters' lack of veracity and ability to twist facts.Why did Peter Alphon go into HIDING for five days immediately following the murder ?
Alphon did NOT 'go into hiding' - if he really did wish to do so (assuming he was the killer, which of course he wasn't) does anyone seriously think he would select as his hiding-place a rather up-market and very visible hotel such as The Alexandra Court? On the contrary, he'd have found himself some sleazy bed-sit somewhere, such as the one in which Bob Woffinden met him years after the event.
Mr Sims, the manager of The Alexandra, didn't contact the police because Alphon had never left his room in days; it was because of the racket he made when he actually was in his room. Nearby guests complained. Over the phone Mr Sims gave the police the name and address used by this annoying guest; the police checked it out and found it was false. This in itself would have warranted a visit from them, which they carried out on the morning of Sunday 27 August. Lo and behold, Alphon, the 'hiding man', wasn't in! So the two detectives returned in the evening. This time, he was in and was taken to a local police station after his suitcase was searched. In it was found the copy of a recent Daily Express the headlines of which were the A6 murder. This, to some of JH's supporters, was damning evidence that Alphon was the killer. The fact that the A6 remained front-page headlines and was featured on TV and radio for weeks after the event, along with the fact that the nation was gripped by it, means nothing. Plus the fact that he must have left the hotel to buy the paper seems to have been overlooked.
Another point which I made recently and which seems not to have been noticed was that Alphon told the precise truth as to his whereabouts on the night of the murder. Had he genuinely been involved, does anyone seriously think that he wouldn't have lied about where he was? He could have told the police he'd spent that night under Southend Pier (he admitted he actually did sleep there on the night of 21st August), and the police wouldn't have been able to discredit him.
GrahamLast edited by Graham; 11-16-2016, 03:18 AM.We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver BlazeComment
-
How do you know Alphon didn't lie about his alibi? Was it not his mother who provided him with one? Not the most reliable of sources when a son is on a murder rap. It certainly beats sleeping under Southend Pier, which makes Hanratty's Rhyl alibi gold-plated by comparison. It was a no brainer for Alphon to go with the mother alibi.
The Alexandra Hotel story has elements of the Swiss Cottage sighting, in that it is too pat by half. First of all any credible hotel manager would have slung Alphon out on the first night if he was disturbing other guests. This happened last week, when I was on holiday in Estonia, and a drunken husband turfed out by his wife was raving about her all night. He was kicked out the next morning following complaints by several of us guests unlucky enough to be on the same landing. So why would an upmarket hotel tolerate such behaviour from a customer who was apparently registered under a false name in any case? Even back in 1961 it was possible for a hotel to require some form of identification.
Alphon was fingered all right, but I doubt that it was from the hotel manager. The police were being served him up on a plate, but they could not make the case against him.Comment
-
Gawd, here we go again.....
Cobalt, Alphon was cleared of any involvement in the A6 crime when Valerie Storey failed to pick him out on the first ID parade. His alibi that he was with his mother for a time on the night of the murder was borne out by his mother, but Woffinden appears to put some spin on this. However, it's fairly certain that the police didn't believe him, but I don't think he was lying.
Re: the Alexandra Court. Look, Alphon wasn't playing loud music in his room or entertaining a pair of local whores; all he was doing, according to Miss Perkins who had the room next door, was 'pacing up and down'. Wow, what a heinous crime! Although in fairness to Miss Perkins, a former landlady of Alphon's said he did much the same when he was staying in her house. Anyway, in view of the fact that the police's appeal to accommodation proprietors was connected with their A6 investigation, Mr Sims contacted the police. I believe the Alexandra Court was a residential hotel, with full-time paying guests, so any temporary guest who was a nuisance would doubtless raise a refined eyebrow or two. Alphon was interviewed, his case inspected, his whereabouts on the murder night asked for, told to re-register in his real name, and to behave himself. With that, the police lost interest in him until the cartridge cases were found at The Vienna.
Alphon admitted that he often checked into hotels using a false name, and left without paying. Back in those halcyon days i.d. was rarely asked for.
Can you please enlarge upon your statement that 'Alphon was fingered all right'?
GrahamWe are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver BlazeComment
-
I think we all know about Valerie Storie's ID parade. That lies at the heart of the case.
Miss Perkins complained because he was pacing up and down which as you say is hardly a heinous crime. Yet the manager did not turf Alphon out, or tell Miss Perkins to find a quieter hotel, but instead saw fit to phone the police on that basis? That sounds absolute baloney to me. And when Mr Sims discovered that Alphon was registered under a false name, he let him stay? More baloney.
The double standards in this case crop up all the time on this site. Dudds of the Vienna is understandably viewed as a unscrupulous villain who would sell his grandmother for profit. Yet Mr. Sims is instinctively perceived as an upstanding citizen carrying out his civic duties. I won't offer any conjecture regarding Miss Perkins.
I think Alphon was 'fingered' by the criminal fraternity who wanted to return to business as usual.Comment
-
Cobalt, let me see if I can help you here:Originally posted by cobalt View Post
1] The important point of Valerie's first ID parade was not that she picked out some unknown airman, but that she did NOT pick out Alphon, who was at the time Acott's prime (indeed, only) suspect. With that, his case against Alphon collapsed, at least as far as the A6 was concerned.
2] Under normal circumstances, Mr Sims would doubtless have knocked on the door of Alphon's room and informed him (very politely, of course) that a guest had complained of his strange behaviour, viz. pacing up and down, and would he please be good enough to desist? However, these were not normal circumstances. Acott's appeal to hotel, B&B and boarding-house proprietors was made in connection with one of the most appalling crimes of the 20th century. Mr Sims was aware of this. Doubtless hoping that his suspicions were not about to be realised, he responded to Acott's appeal like a good citizen. Once he'd been interviewed and released he told the police that he'd be staying at The Alexandra Court until 30th August, but whether he did so or not, and whether he paid his bill or not, is not recorded as far as I'm aware. But where are the 'double standards' here? Alphon had been a naughty lad, and had been caught out and told off.
3]What on earth is that supposed to mean?I won't offer any conjecture regarding Miss Perkins.
4]Can you please let us know how and for how long the 'criminal fraternity' had been aware of the existence of Peter Louis Alphon, a faceless drifter?I think Alphon was 'fingered' by the criminal fraternity who wanted to return to business as usual
This is conjectural nonsense, but if you do happen to have any hard evidence that this 'criminal fraternity' (you mean like the Krays?) actually shopped Alphon, do please let us know.
GrahamWe are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver BlazeComment
-
Hi Sherlock,Originally posted by Sherlock Houses View Post
I saw this this documentary when it first aired and a couple of times since. I take it from your 'great patience' comment that you are not impressed.
Just two comments from me now.
1. I have always found the appearance by the former RAF policeman odd and unconvincing. Do you or others have views on that?
2. Those of us who comment about double standards by the defence team in their claims as to whether DNA can establish innocence or guilt will lap up the about turns featured.
Regards,
OneRoundComment
-
No no no!Originally posted by Graham View Post
I wasn't suggesting Gregsten was doing anything ,only suggesting he MAY have been doing something.
I want to know why it was necessary for him,a car rally man,and living a long way from work , to decide his only option due to chronic cash flow problems ,was to sell his MM ? I think I'm right in saying that it was after his decision to do this ,that Janet, as a last resort flogged his piano to relieve the financial situation ,and maybe at the same time ,bring Mike to his senses.
His money was certainly disappearing somewhere.
The Gregstens were in a government subsidized flat .Janet agreed to share Mrs Cattons wages ,her friend and neighbour, in exchange for looking after their son,since Janet was going to be at home anyway with a two year old of their own.This on the face of things all sounds like a doable setup.
I would like to invite folks on here to give consideration to the above facts, but if you come up with anything plausable.keep it to yourself!Comment
-
Hi OR,1. I have always found the appearance by the former RAF policeman odd and unconvincing. Do you or others have views on that?
I've not watched that documentary (which I have on video tape) for a long time, as I found it slightly cringeworthy - certainly far from being the best of the A6 TV docu's. I do, though, remember a hard-looking character being interviewed who claimed that he was JH's guard when he, JH, was 'on remand' at RAF Halton. Did he also say that JH, a non-smoker, was smoking heavily? As far as I'm aware JH never was at RAF Halton. Someone will doubtless correct me, but I don't think any of the 'major' commentators or documentaries mention this plainly fictional incident. I wonder who came up with it in the first place?
GrahamWe are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver BlazeComment
-
The story appears to originate from an interview with Needham in the Independent.
A volunteer in the line up called Antony Luxembourg said (Woffinden page115): ”We were picked up in a police van to be taken to the hospital. I’d actually been in the van for two or three minutes when I realised that Hanratty was in the van with us.” The volunteers were from RAF Halton and High Wycombe. RAF Halton is very near to the hospital, so Hanratty could well have been held there temporarily, and this could explain his appearance in the van.Comment
-
Blimey, yes, John Needham it was. It's a long time since I saw that Independent article, and I'd forgotten about it. We're in the middle of a big tidy-up here, and nearly all of my books including my A6 stuff are temporarily difficult for me to get at (he said, as good an excuse as any). I have to say that I'm with Foot when he rejects what Needham claimed Hanratty said. Given his continued denial all through the trial and later (well, he had to, didn't he?) I think it would have been somewhat out of character. I never set much value in Roy Langdale's claims, either.
Nick, thanks for the clarification. I would honestly doubt if Hanratty or any other high-profile prisoner would have been held even temporarily at an RAF base, but you never know.
GrahamWe are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver BlazeComment
-
[QUOTE=Graham;400594]Cobalt, let me see if I can help you here:
1] The important point of Valerie's first ID parade was not that she picked out some unknown airman, but that she did NOT pick out Alphon, who was at the time Acott's prime (indeed, only) suspect. With that, his case against Alphon collapsed, at least as far as the A6 was concerned.
I would have thought that picking out some unknown airman was even more important than not picking out Alphon. In choosing an unknown airman she effectively demonstrated that
a) she did not know what her assailant looked like and therefore
b) any subsequent identification could not be relied upon.
Sadly the jury saw otherwise. The unreliable ID did for Hanratty and without it he would not have hung.
AnsonmanComment
-
SHOriginally posted by Sherlock Houses View Post
I completely agree with you on this one. I too have great patience and know what you mean.
The final twenty minutes or so were a travesty of the real truth; so to give the documentary the title of the whole truth is nothing more than a hollow lie.
For starters, Ian Russell did not start his investigation for Scotland Yard in 1997 but sometime after March 1999, when the case had been referred back to the Court of Appeal by the CCRC.
All of the non-disclosed evidence was found by either Woffinden or the CCRC; Russell was only employed by the Met on the orders of CPS to try to come up with counter measures in the face of an appeal hearing.
As for Roger Matthews, he found nothing new that was used in the appeal in 2002. He certainly didn't find anything to do with the movements of the car that day (viz Matlock)
Also; the CCRC referred the case in spite of the original LCN DNA tests done in 1997/8. Those 1997/98 LCN DNA results were thought by the CCRC to be unreliable hence the appeal referral.
Jonathan Whitaker only got involved in 2000 when employed by the CPS. And then he only had residues from 1997/98 to work with.
This film was plainly just an instrument for Storie to put her side of the case. And if it had been left as such then it would have been much the better for it. But the lack of solid factual reportage makes it a poor piece of televisual journalism.
For instance the portrayal of Dixie France as a poor, nervous, ordinary family man was a sickening joke. The man was a ponce, ne'er-do-well petty criminal and police informer for God's sake.
I've seen colanders that hold water better.Comment
-
Hi Graham and Nick - thanks for your responses about Needham, the RAF guy.
I'm pretty sure now I too saw the Independent article some time ago but had forgotten it. That and the quote that Nick supplies from the volunteer on the line up perhaps suggests that Needham could have had some contact with Hanratty at the RAF station. However, I still doubt it was anything like as much as Needham makes out.
The way Needham talks in the documentary about coming across Hanratty having a cigarette (yes, Graham, that's what he said) and a coffee is almost like Hanratty is an invited guest there. All very odd, as I said before. And particularly unconvincing - to me at least - that Hanratty should suddenly take Needham into his confidence and confess.
Also, the tv documentary suggests that Needham brought this out at the time but was not permitted to go to court with it for legal reasons whilst the newspaper article suggests he kept schtum for his own personal reasons.
Nah, don't buy any of it.
Best regards,
OneRoundComment
Comment