A6 Rebooted

[cobalt]

Hi Graham,

Not a very fair assessment of Paul Foot in my opinion. When you said:

he felt it his duty to make every attempt to uphold the inalienable rights of the 'little man' against those he felt to be responsible for class- and state-repression.

there is a suggestion that this is rather a quaint attitude to adopt. Heaven help us if it is! There was time when the Labour Party existed to do this very thing, back in the days before it bailed out the banking system. The Liberal Party under Joe Grimond also used to adopt a very strong position in defence of the ‘little man.’ Even that party of corporate capital, the Conservative Party, was want to stand up for individual liberty. All of these major political parties at one time clearly operated on the basis that the right of the ‘little man’ was indeed ‘inalienable,’ so if such an idea has become a quaint preserve of the SWP then perhaps it is time the UK electorate examined its moral compass.

Paul Foot was not, so far as I am aware, a man who hated the bourgeoisie. He was middle class himself and so were most of his friends and colleagues. As you probably know it was George Orwell who pointed out that the word ‘bourgeois’ is only ever used as an insult by people who are members of the bourgeoisie themselves! So was Paul Foot a hypocrite?

I don’t think so. He objected to certain values that are associated with a middle-class outlook on life: self-satisfaction, moralizing towards one social inferiors while indulging one’s social superiors, a readiness to accept orthodoxy, cultural philistinism. None of these, to be fair, are attitudes exclusive to the middle class, but are perhaps more clearly observed amongst them. Paul Foot himself represented what many would regard as the better middle-class values: belief in the rule of law; freedom of speech and association; the duty of the citizen to be informed in order to hold power to account. None of this would impair his judgment or make him any more ‘gullible’ than those who accept the official version of the A6 Case.

So far as I am aware Paul Foot never deviated from his belief that James Hanratty was innocent of the A6 murder.

[cobalt]

Those who accept the official version of the A6 Case generally see Alphon as a man capable of Machiavellian cunning, a drifter caught up by chance in the events who then squeezed every ounce of money and attention he could from it thereafter. Any statement he made can be dismissed as the fantasising of an inadequate who lived in his own demi-monde.

Surprisingly little is actually known about Alphon beyond this. Paul Foot did manage to see a bank account with an inexplicably high amount of money paid in, but we seem to be unaware of the bread and butter elements of his life before and after the trial, such as how and where he lived, what relationships he was able to form, how his political take on life developed, what music he enjoyed, which football team he supported. For a man accused of seeking the limelight he seemed able to live his life in the shadows.

His significance to the A6 case is obvious. First of all, he was the first person taken in for questioning, allegedly on the basis of information received from a hotel manager. The reasons for this are confused. In some accounts his erratic behaviour is unsettling the guests. In others he has lain low in his room for a number of days, suspicious behaviour similar to that of the recently executed police killer Padola, an inquiry led by Acott. I would suggest another factor in play here: police informers guiding Acott and his men towards a person they believe is involved in the A6 case. Both criminals and the police want such cases cleared up as soon as possible.

One of the photo-fits produced by the police in the days after the crime bears an unmistakable likeness to Alphon.

Alphon is also identified by the manageress and some customers as a man who occasionally frequented a public house in the vicinity of the cornfield where the crime originated. The manageress, from memory, believed he was in her premises on the evening of the crime.

As a strong suspect, Alphon is consequently put on an identification parade. It is not clear whether all his clothing from the crucial period was ever located by the police, far less subjected to forensic testing. His alibi for the time of the murder is supplied by his mother.

Alphon is also identified as lodging in a hotel where bullets linked to the crime are later discovered, although the contradictory nature of testimony makes it unclear whether he was ever in the actual room where they turned up.

Alphon is later identified as a man who attacked a housewife subsequent to the A6 crime. He is never prosecuted for this offence. His father is variously described as a records clerk at Scotland Yard or holding a senior position.

None of the above, save for my own conjecture in relation to the reasons for Alphon first being ‘fingered,’ is seriously contested. None of them rely on claims made by Alphon. So when he began claiming to be the A6 murderer (the attack on the housewife was the first time he did so I understand) he was doing so from a pretty strong basis of circumstantial evidence. He was not some deranged inadequate piecing together information from newspaper reports and then handing himself in to the nearest police station to ‘confess.’

There are two main reasons for excluding Alphon as a suspect.
The first is the failure of Valerie Storie to pick him out at the ID parade. Unfortunately she did pick out someone else, so her reliability, on this occasion at least, was limited. Nor did she hear any of the parade speak, as happened at the second ID parade.
The second is the lack of forensic evidence to suggest Alphon had ever been in the car in which the crimes took place. This should be pretty definitive in clearing him as a suspect, but again there is a problem: the convicted killer, Hanratty, could claim the same. In fact, this forensic report has occupied quite a deal of comment on this site but if it exists in any comprehensive form it must be buried inside the Matthews Report.

On the basis of the above, anyone who suspects Peter Alphon of being the A6 killer may of course be mistaken, but hardly gullible.

[OneRound]

Hi cobalt,

As I'm sure you are aware - from para 128 of the Court of Appeal's 2002 judgement:
''By way of postscript we should record that it has been agreed by Mr Sweeney [QC for the Crown] and Mr Mansfield [QC for James Hanratty deceased] that on the evidence now available Peter Alphon could not have been the murderer. It is understood that this agreement arose out of the DNA evidence.''

I have always been very surprised that Mansfield apparently agreed to that. Given that the reliability of the DNA evidence was being disputed by the Hanratty camp, I do not see how their QC could rule anyone in or out.

It was suggested on here some time ago that this was a tactical concession by Mansfield as the Court of Appeal were so far apart from him on other matters. Maybe that was so. However, I remain unconvinced that taking Alphon out of the equation did Hanratty any favours.

Best regards,

OneRound

[cobalt]

Hi One Round,

A tactical decision is how I would interpret it as well. There is simply not enough evidence to prove to anyone's satisfaction that Alphon was the A6 murderer, so it would have made more sense to focus on the weakness of the evidence against Hanratty.

[OneRound]

Hi again cobalt,

Again re Alphon: apologies as I no longer have the books but didn't Julianna Galves testify that she saw a pair of woman's gloves on his suitcase?

I've long since thought that this could have been followed up over the years by Hanratty's supporters and more made of it.

If she had stuck by this, it of course wouldn't prove any guilt on the part of Alphon but it would further confirm his oddness and perhaps increase doubts.

Alternatively, she might have acknowledged it was untrue and that she only said it due to pressure from Acott. Whilst that would have done nothing to show any innocence of Hanratty, it nonetheless would have demonstrated unsatisfactory conduct from Acott which might have been put to good use at the 2002 appeal.

There was also something about Alphon having an old (well, not that day's) newspaper covering the murder. Not proof of anything whatsoever but another little thing you might want to include in the mix.

Forgive me if I'm totally off track here but didn't Hanratty go to another hotel which was full before ending up at the doss house where he stayed and the bullets were found? I may be imagining this (it's so long since I read things) but did Alphon stay at that first hotel?

For me, Alphon was not the murderer but I speculate that he might have had some involvement with the events of that night. There do seem to be quite a few coincidences knocking around (even if I've invented the odd one!). Could Alphon have known Hanratty? Whether he did or not, I certainly agree with others that he milked the situation.

Best regards,

OneRound

[NickB]

I've seen nothing in any of Galves statements about gloves. It appears to be something that arose out of a conversation she had with Woffinden many years later when he visited her in Spain.

What Galves did say (13-Sep) is:
“At about 10pm, just before I went to bed, I told the Glickbergs that their guest, who was expected to arrive late, could occupy room 6.”

Thus Durrant had not yet arrived at 10pm. The following morning she put a star against his name in the register as the last person to check in.

So Alphon was in his room in the Vienna when Gregsten was murdered.

[Graham]

Check, Nick. Woffinden was careful not to imply that Mrs Galves had made any statement to the police about seeing the gloves; she certainly as far as I'm aware wasn't asked about gloves in court. Foot mentions Mrs Galves' entering Alphon's room and seeing the open suitcase on the bed, but he has her saying that it contained only dirty linen. No mention at all in Foot about her seeing black gloves in his suitcase.

Graham

[OneRound]

Nick and Graham,

Thanks. An absence of books and memory doing for me there.

Could I push my luck and ask you to please confirm or knock another aspect on the head. Before Hanratty ended up at the Vienna, he went to another hotel in the same corporate group which was full - that's right, isn't it? Assuming so, did Alphon have a connection with the first hotel?

Thanks again and best regards,

OneRound

[NickB]

Hanratty went to the Broadway House Hotel in Portman Square but he arrived too late and it was full, so he was directed to the Vienna which was another hotel in the same chain (group of 4 hotels).

The following night Alphon did the same - he was forwarded from the Broadway House to the Vienna.

[Graham]

Hi OR,

On Sunday 20 August JH had intended to go to Liverpool, but missed the last train after staying some time at The Rehearsal Club and also going with a prostitute. He returned to The Rehearsal to call a taxi, and asked the driver to take him to a suitable hotel, which turned out to be The Broadway House, and which was full. He was told by the owner (Mr Pichler) that there was a room available at The Vienna, which he also owned, and JH went there by cab.

Incredibly, the same sequence of events happened to Alphon, who said he left Southend on the morning of 22 August, met his mother at her place of work, saw a movie, and arrived at The Broadway House in the evening. Again it was full, and again the owner advised that there was a room available at The Vienna, which Alphon agreed to take. Alphon went again to see his mother near her house, and arrived at The Vienna around 11.00pm.

As far as I can make out Hanratty and Alphon were not at The Vienna at the same time.

By the way, The Vienna is often described as a 'doss house'. It certainly wasn't The Ritz, but I think it was a bit more up-market than a doss house. It apparently catered largely for commercial travellers (now known as 'reps'...) and having been one myself, on a company expense account, they wouldn't stay just anywhere! In one of the documentaries about the A6 we were given a brief tour-by-camera of The Vienna, and it looked reasonably well-kept.

Graham

[caz]

Atishoo! What about the hankie, chaps?

As far as I am aware, nobody disputed the DNA on it came from Hanratty and only Hanratty.

After that, how could Alphon not have been ruled out, on the basis of no evidence that the two men had ever met, never mind had access to one another's snot rags?

At the time, Alphon would have had no reason to think the hankie would one day be proved beyond doubt to have been handled and used by Hanratty. But did Alphon ever mention it when 'confessing', or say whose it was and how it came to be with the murder weapon? I don't believe he could have had a clue.

Love,

Caz
X

[OneRound]

Thanks again, Graham.

There's certainly nothing there to put Alphon in the frame (and there is no suggestion from me that anyone other than Hanratty was the murderer). However, more coincidences as you outline. Alphon so often seems to be lurking around on the fringes of this case - and before he could manipulate things to cash in on it.

It is for that reason that I am reluctant to totally dismiss Alphon having played some part. Admittedly pure speculation on my part but who today authoritatively knows the full story?

Best regards,

OneRound

[OneRound]

Atishoo! What about the hankie, chaps?

As far as I am aware, nobody disputed the DNA on it came from Hanratty and only Hanratty.

After that, how could Alphon not have been ruled out, on the basis of no evidence that the two men had ever met, never mind had access to one another's snot rags?

At the time, Alphon would have had no reason to think the hankie would one day be proved beyond doubt to have been handled and used by Hanratty. But did Alphon ever mention it when 'confessing', or say whose it was and how it came to be with the murder weapon? I don't believe he could have had a clue.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I wasn't so much saying the DNA evidence didn't rule Alphon out but that imo it was an own goal by Mansfield to concede that it did.

If it excluded Alphon, to my mind it excluded everyone other than Hanratty.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Graham]

Hi Caz,

the 'literature' mentions more than once that as the years went by and Alphon was still trying to cash in on the A6, he appeared to falter on certain details and seemed not to know as much as he claimed to. The infamous televised 'Paris interview' has him more or less stone-walling and not giving direct answers to many of the (admittedly less-than-competent) interviewer's questions.

Graham

[NickB]

In March 1998 when Alphon was faced with the prospect that the DNA tests might show that Hanratty was not the murderer he declared:
''If they say the murderer can't have been Hanratty, I may well insist that they take my DNA sample. I don't want to do that, but if they tested me they would find that my DNA doesn't match either.''

Hence the 2002 Appeal's wording about both sides clearing Alphon:
"It is understood that this agreement arose out of the DNA evidence."