Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A6 Rebooted

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

  • In 1960, a year before the A6 Case, Harold Pinter had his first major play performed, called The Birthday Party. In my opinion it remains a powerful piece of work and was impressively produced by the BBC some years ago, with Pinter himself and Julie Walters taking two of the parts.

    The reason I mention this is because of Graham’s very clear account of the circumstances regarding how Alphon and Hanratty found themselves guests (though not apparently at the same time) in the Vienna Hotel. Pinter’s play is set in a seaside boarding house, run by a middle-aged couple, and seems to be a rendition of empty, humdrum existence until two menacing characters appear on the scene. They clearly have a mission to carry out but their precise reasons for coming there are never made clear. It seems they have been directed to the boarding house after failing to find other accommodation. There is also a suggestion that some of the characters have met before and that one of them is being targeted. The menacing characters are clearly assuming false names- one calls himself Goldberg - and their behaviour switches from extreme politeness to threatening violence depending on who is around them at the time. A disturbing play which poses more questions than it answers.

    Which takes us back to the hotel arrangements of Alphon and Hanratty at the relative times. Hanratty intended to leave for Liverpool on the evening of the 20th August but was too late to catch the train, so sought accommodation at Broadway House only to be redirected to the Vienna Hotel. His claim that he then left the following morning, the 21st August, for Liverpool would seem reasonable behaviour in the known circumstances. Changing his mind and heading for Taplow carrying a load of ammunition on the chance of a hold-up is not impossible, but far less likely.

    Alphon was effectively a day behind. He left Southend on the morning of the 22nd August, met his mother at her work, went to see a film, tried to lodge at Broadway House, then went to see his mother again near her home before arriving at the Vienna Hotel around 2300 hours. It would be interesting to know which film Alphon watched and also why he needed to see his mother in between his two hotel visits, since he had already seen her earlier in the day. His alibi for the afternoon of the 22nd August rests on the cinema, his mother and the hotel manager of the Vienna Hotel. From memory, his mother was not absolutely certain of the day of his visit and the hotel manager gave a series of contradictory statements relating to rooms, although he always stated Alphon did indeed check in at the hotel. There is an asterisk against his name in the hotel register which we are told signifies the last occupant to arrive on a particular day. He checked out calmly on the morning of the 23rd according to the manager.

    Which takes us back to Pinter and the Theatre of the Absurd. We have Ryan (Hanratty) arriving by chance from Broadway House and staying in Room 24, later to become Room 6, before becoming Room 24 again. The day he leaves, Durrant (Alphon) is also redirected from Broadway House and is allocated Room 6, which becomes Room 24, becoming Room 6 again. Of that Glickberg (Nudds) is eventually certain. Nudds confesses he was trying to help the police fit-up Alphon (who he has never met previously it seems) but is now telling the truth to help convict Hanratty, a known criminal like Nudds himself, but who do not apparently recognize each other as such. This non-descript hotel has now housed the two major suspects in the most horrific crime in recent memory, but no one is remotely aware of this at the time since the crime has not happened yet.

    It is only after the crime, when bullet shells linked to the crime are found in Room 24, that the significance of the hotel becomes apparent. These shells have lain undiscovered, in the folds of a chair, for a number of weeks. Nudds by his own account is a man eager to help the police, yet he (or his cleaning staff) failed to detect a vital piece of evidence which was under his nose.

    As Graham says, it is unlikely the Vienna Hotel was the ‘dosshouse’ it is often called in accounts of the A6 Case. Hanratty was a flash git whilst Alphon saw himself as a bit of a toff; they both had the option of staying with family or friends rather than lodge in a dosshouse. Rather like the boarding house in Pinter’s play, the Vienna Hotel seems to be the focal point of something that belies its low-key façade. A knocking-shop where illicit sex can be conducted? A safe-house for police informers like Nudds himself? A place where criminal equipment (such as revolvers) can be safely stored and re-distributed? A place where ‘bent’ cops can settle up with criminals? I don’t have Pinter’s grasp of mystery or vision, yet I am sure that there is something rotten in the heart of Vienna.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by cobalt View Post
      It would be interesting to know which film Alphon watched
      Last edited by NickB; 12-21-2017, 08:40 AM.

      Comment


      • I don’t think I have seen The Last Sunset but the narrative line is strong, although as a film it may be the fag end of the Hollywood western which was dying in the early 1960s. Are there links to Alphon?

        Perhaps. It is a film about morality and boundaries, about a killer who cannot be arrested because he is in Mexico but is accompanied on a cattle drive by a lawman who intends to arrest him at a later date. It may be significant that the cattle drive is merely a vehicle for the characters to interact and that this journey has no other purpose. There is an illicit love interest which turns out to be, unwittingly, incestuous, since the killer has fallen in love with his daughter. At the end of the film the killer, deliberately, allows himself to be outgunned by the lawman presumably in the name of natural justice.

        Over to the cinematists and social commentators I fear.

        Comment


        • As you are all aware I am interested in proving Alphon’s alibi. I have read back on this site and two claims are made regarding it.

          1. Alphon’s father denied that his wife met their son Peter Alphon on the evening of 22nd August, the night/early morning of the crime. This interests me, because according to Alphon’s account, he had already met his mother in the morning, and was now being shunted between Broadway House and the Vienna Hotel. The purpose of this meeting would not be clear. Additionally, I believe Mrs. Alphon was not prepared to commit herself absolutely to the date on which she met her son. Why did he introduce the second meeting with his mother as part of his alibi? This part of the alibi seems weak, meaning Alphon is not fixed in any location from around mid afternoon.

          2. The reason I say this is that, according to a previous contributor, Nudds claimed in his original statement that Alphon checked into the Vienna Hotel in the early afternoon. This was at a time when police were making routine enquiries and Nudds was not under pressure to assist police in obtaining evidence against a man who had been named as a suspect in the inquiry. It is probably the most promising situation they ever had from which to elicit something resembling the truth from Nudds. It is only fair to say that Nudds’ original statement claimed Alphon was in Room 6, not Room 24 where the shells were found.

          Then again, if Alphon arrived on the afternoon of the 22nd August, where does this leave the Broadway Hotel transfer story? Did it happen in the afternoon? Or has it been a confusion embedded in the course of events from the start of the investigation, one of Caz’s ‘mucking fuddles’ as with the brown//blue eyes as she would like us to accept?

          We all know of the grief endured by Mrs. Jones of Rhyl whose boarding house register fell apart at the trial. But her register may have been a model of efficiency when compared to the Vienna Hotel register, which I am not sure was presented at trial. Acott and his assistant gave different dates as to when they took possession of the hotel register, which means there may have been a tidying up exercise on said register. Also, the asterisk bothers me quite a bit. Why was it necessary to asterisk the last arriving guest when a simple time entry would suffice? And what if another guest arrived at 2am in the morning and asked for lodgings- would they remove the asterisk and enter it against the latecomer? Were there any other asterisks in the register?
          Could the asterisk signify something else? Would a hotel manager know if a guest was in his room? Only Nudds appears to have seen Alphon on the evening/of the 22nd August. His wife/partner did not. And the maid, Galves, had finished work before his alleged arrival at 2300. If it was so late, why did Alphon not just go home and stay with his mum?

          The next established sighting of Alphon is around 1145 on August 23rd when Ms Galves, back on duty, goes to his room at the Vienna Hotel and tells him to check out. I am not convinced that Alphon’s movements between midday on the 22nd- midday 2rd3 August are accounted for.
          Last edited by cobalt; 12-21-2017, 04:44 PM.

          Comment


          • Hi all, I am just getting acquainted with this case and don't mean to intrude on serious conversation with my novice grasp of this case

            Could someone kindly tell me

            1) What is the reason that this case is so popular? Other cases where the guilt of the executed seems more in doubt (Timothy Evans) do not seem to be as discussed here.

            2) What is the general consensus of opinion here? Is it overwhelmingly in favor of Hanratty's guilt or is there a sizeable contingent of genuine doubters.

            Thanks, and let me know if this should be moved to a more appropriate sub-forum (amazing how many forums and threads this case alone has!), I would be glad to oblige.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
              Hi all, I am just getting acquainted with this case and don't mean to intrude on serious conversation with my novice grasp of this case

              Could someone kindly tell me

              1) What is the reason that this case is so popular? Other cases where the guilt of the executed seems more in doubt (Timothy Evans) do not seem to be as discussed here.

              2) What is the general consensus of opinion here? Is it overwhelmingly in favor of Hanratty's guilt or is there a sizeable contingent of genuine doubters.

              Thanks, and let me know if this should be moved to a more appropriate sub-forum (amazing how many forums and threads this case alone has!), I would be glad to oblige.
              Hi AS,

              welcome to the A6!

              I'm old enough actually to remember the A6 Murder, and at the time, due to its ferocity - a murder, a rape and an attempted murder - it was big news. It's significant to note that at the time of Hanratty's execution there was not the public outrage at the doing of injustice to a possibly-innocent young man as there was, for example, in the Derek Bentley case. However, as time went on, and other people (some notoriously odd) became involved, the left-wing investigative journalist Paul Foot took a serious interest and set out to prove that James Hanratty had been innocent. He was backed up some years later by another excellent investigative journalist, Bob Woffinden, and so the debate picked up momentum. I wouldn't say, in fairness, that the A6 Case, and its subsequent debate, has grabbed lasting public interest in the same way as other, more recent, disputed murder cases have, but because of the claims made by various people, serious doubt has been generated regarding Hanratty's guilt.

              At one time the A6 was the most popular thread on these boards, but I think if you asked 'the man in the street' in 2017 what he knew about it, the response would almost certainly be that he'd never heard of it. I guess if you really felt a need to pick up on the A6, then you'd have to start with the books by Foot and Woffinden and, if you can get a copy now, the short book by Leonard Miller (who unlike the first two named authors believed Hanratty was guilty...as I do).

              As to consensus on these boards, years ago some of the most vicious debate ever seen on a discussion forum took place here on the various A6 threads, with both sides of the argument getting well stuck in. Not for me, really, to judge what the current consensus is.....but you know now what I think.

              Best,

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

              Comment


              • Originally posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
                Hi all, I am just getting acquainted with this case and don't mean to intrude on serious conversation with my novice grasp of this case

                Could someone kindly tell me

                1) What is the reason that this case is so popular? Other cases where the guilt of the executed seems more in doubt (Timothy Evans) do not seem to be as discussed here.

                2) What is the general consensus of opinion here? Is it overwhelmingly in favor of Hanratty's guilt or is there a sizeable contingent of genuine doubters.

                Thanks, and let me know if this should be moved to a more appropriate sub-forum (amazing how many forums and threads this case alone has!), I would be glad to oblige.
                Hi AS,

                Glad you could join us.

                Here is a very useful link for your Christmas reading:



                I'll be gone shortly, but will return after the festivities to catch up.

                Merry Christmas All.

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                Comment


                • Originally posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
                  Hi all, I am just getting acquainted with this case and don't mean to intrude on serious conversation with my novice grasp of this case

                  Could someone kindly tell me

                  1) What is the reason that this case is so popular? Other cases where the guilt of the executed seems more in doubt (Timothy Evans) do not seem to be as discussed here.

                  2) What is the general consensus of opinion here? Is it overwhelmingly in favor of Hanratty's guilt or is there a sizeable contingent of genuine doubters.

                  Thanks, and let me know if this should be moved to a more appropriate sub-forum (amazing how many forums and threads this case alone has!), I would be glad to oblige.
                  Hello A.S.

                  In answer to your questions;

                  1. I think that it is generally accepted that Timmy Evans was innocent of the crime for which he was executed. The establishment tried to save face when Brabin J. reported to the Home Secretary that Evans more than likely did not kill baby Geraldine but more than probably killed his missus Beryl. In the event, the government paid compensation to Evans's family and Evans was pardoned posthumously.

                  Hanratty's guilt was different. The crime was bizarre in that it had no motive. The principal witness, Val Storie, had misidentified a totally innocent man in an earlier ID parade before identifying the hapless Hanratty. A lot of folk including the trial judge, the defence counsel and several commentators thought that Hanratty's guilt had not been proved to the necessary degree required to support a conviction for capital murder.

                  The campaign for Hanratty's innocence was very high profile. John Lennon got involved for instance. Several good, well-written books appeared on the subject advocating Hanratty's innocence by Lord Russell, Paul Foot and Bob Woffinden and they all seemed to make out the case that Hanratty was not guilty. Indeed Foot and Woffinden went further and claimed that Peter Alphon was perpetrator of the crime.

                  Hanratty was hanged in 1962, the last UK hangings took place in 1964 but Hanratty's case was the last in which there was any doubt as to the guilt of the culprit. The A6 murder occurred in an age which has long since gone but which a fair few of us can still recall. All of which adds to the interest in the case which may not pertain to earlier murder cases.

                  2. There is no general consensus of opinion. Each side has its adherents. I hope you read up on the case and give us your opinion. It will be refreshing to have a pair of unbiased eyes look at the case.

                  If you can get hold of Bob Woffinden's book then that is what I would suggest you start off with, as he wrote with access to more material than was available to Paul Foot. I would also read the judgment in the Court of Appeal which finally disposed of any chance of a Hanratty acquittal, I give the link below.

                  The Judgment of the Court of Appeal in R v Hanratty

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
                    Hi all, I am just getting acquainted with this case and don't mean to intrude on serious conversation with my novice grasp of this case

                    Could someone kindly tell me

                    1) What is the reason that this case is so popular? Other cases where the guilt of the executed seems more in doubt (Timothy Evans) do not seem to be as discussed here.

                    2) What is the general consensus of opinion here? Is it overwhelmingly in favor of Hanratty's guilt or is there a sizeable contingent of genuine doubters.

                    Thanks, and let me know if this should be moved to a more appropriate sub-forum (amazing how many forums and threads this case alone has!), I would be glad to oblige.
                    Welcome to the renowned A6 forum; please intrude, we all did at one stage.

                    My 2d's worth on top of what the others have already contributed.

                    1) The Evans case was, IMHO, a complete and utter tragedy in the Shakespearean sense of tradegy. The A6 murder was an horrific event but the investigation then until now has been a complete and utter balls up. The police didn't have a clue and relied on the shittiest witness evidence and suppressed vital information that could have led to no case for Hanratty to answer. 2 of which are vitally important. Michael Clark and the Matlock sighting of the murder car.

                    2) I am totally convinced that Hanratty is innocent. I am not alone. Others completely disagree and others still are not totally convinced one way or the other.

                    What are your ideas for re-appropriation?

                    Comment


                    • Hello AS,

                      The A6 Case may not seem so exceptional to an American reader but it was a truly shocking crime in the UK at the time and still retains the ability to shock even today. Motiveless shootings of courting couples are almost unheard of here and even in the US it would be unusual, I imagine, for the perpetrator to ride in the car for a number of hours before committing the crime. So, the lack of a convincing motive has always lent the A6 crime an air of mystery.

                      The Death Penalty also looms large, for as another contributor noted Hanratty was the last man to go to the gallows protesting his innocence. His case has therefore been an important one for those opposed to the restoration of capital punishment, which was a highly debated topic around the time of Paul Foot’s book.

                      The bewildering amount of coincidences which surround the case are also a source of continuing intrigue, the main one being the police initially arresting a man who happened to stay at the same hotel as the man later convicted. The later confession to the crime by the first suspect made the case an international story in the mid1960s.

                      Finally, there may be an element of nostalgia at play. I know that sounds the wrong term to use in a case which led to two deaths and a woman being paralysed for life, but I suspect for many of us on this site it was the first major crime we remember from our childhood. For me, as a seven year old, it was the first crime I was able to read about in detail on the front page of the Daily Express. Perhaps it holds a special position in our memories and we feel a sense of involvement because of that.

                      Comment


                      • Hi AS - glad you've hitchhiked over to the A6. A warm welcome.

                        I feel others here have already addressed your questions well and from different angles. All I'll add is that I see a similarity with the Wallace case in strongly doubting whether Hanratty was fairly convicted beyond a reasonable doubt based upon the evidence presented at trial.

                        For me, Hanratty did it but the case against him at trial was weak and should have been further undermined by the subsequent revelation of police non-disclosures.

                        Best regards,

                        OneRound

                        Comment


                        • Hi Graham, Caz, Spitfire, Derrick, OneRound, and Cobalt:

                          Thanks for your warm welcome and more info on the case. I'm having a read now thru the links that were provided.

                          My initial impression is it might be a case where Hanratty was likely guilty but that the charge was not proved adequately at the time. (certainly not to warrant a death sentence.)

                          This part of the 2002 ruling on the case stands out to me:

                          "The DNA evidence does not “stand alone” and the Court refers to some of the more striking coincidences in the light of the DNA evidence if James Hanratty was not guilty. He would have been wrongly identified by three witnesses at identification parades; first as the person at the scene of the crime and secondly (by two witnesses) driving a vehicle close to where the vehicle in which the murder was committed was found. He had the same identifying manner of speech as the killer. He stayed in a room the night before the crime from which bullets that had been fired from the murder weapon were recovered. The murder weapon was recovered from a place on a bus which he regarded as a hiding place and the bus followed a route he could well have used. His DNA was found on a piece of material from Valerie Storie’s knickers where it would be expected to be if he was guilty; it was also found on the handkerchief found with the gun. The Court concludes that this number of alleged coincidences mean that they are not coincidences but provide overwhelming proof of the safety of the conviction from an evidential perspective."

                          Courts have been known to save their own skin before, such as in the aforementioned Evans tragic case. However, here there is DNA evidence. Is there a particular reason to suspect contamination/corruption outside of the normal tiny glimmer of doubt that come with such tests?

                          Merry Xmas everybody

                          Comment


                          • Hi AS,

                            The Appellant accepted the DNA procedure used. They did this by:

                            1) Agreeing the DNA tests prove Alphon's innocence;
                            2) Saying the DNA tests would prove Hanratty's guilt if the possibility of contamination could be excluded.

                            The court explained why they reject the possibility of contamination, but this was not accepted by the Appellant. I cannot find anywhere a reason given why they did not accept this.
                            Last edited by NickB; 12-23-2017, 03:29 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Hi again AS,

                              Just on the aspect of Hanratty being sentenced to and put to death, there's an associated thread on this forum - ''Appeal for Clemency by Michael Sherrard''. Sherrard was Hanratty's barrister at trial.

                              The Home Secretary had the responsibility for determining whether a reprieve was granted or not to a condemned person. If you have a look at this other thread, you'll see that I am sympathetic to the situation that Butler, the Home Secretary, was placed in.

                              I'm out of time now but I'll comment later on about the DNA. As far as I'm concerned, that puts Hanratty firmly in the soup although some challenges to it can be made.

                              Best regards,

                              OneRound
                              Last edited by OneRound; 12-23-2017, 03:30 AM.

                              Comment


                              • In my view the only way that you can challenge the DNA is to say, as I believe Derrick does, that the method itself was faulty.

                                But as mentioned the Appellant accepted the methodology of the tests. They restricted their objections only to the possibility of contamination, and then did not explain (anywhere that I can find) why they did not accept the court's reason for rejecting contamination.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X