A6 Rebooted

[Graham]

If Hanratty was cutting his teeth as an armed robber then I still have a problem as to why he would be in the Taplow area; there must have been courting couple sites in the London environs which he knew from personal experience, places he could have made an easier getaway from if things went wrong.

I would guess he wanted somewhere relatively quiet in which to begin his hoped-for career as a stick-up man. Many of his burglaries were committed in the quiet and posher suburbs of West London. It's interesting that his claimed 'mistake' in going to Paddington rather than Euston suggests to me that as Paddington is the station for trains to Slough, Maidenhead, etc., (and also Taplow) then this is the station from which he left London. Quite what he was doing in the daylight hours between leaving London and arriving at the cornfield will doubtless never be known. Maybe he popped in to see his pal Donald Slack who lived at Ealing, on the same line from Paddington as Slough and Maidenhead.

Graham

[NickB]

Louise Anderson testified that he visited her that morning. She lived near Paddington. Natalie thought this might be why he walked in that direction.

If he wanted to get a train from Euston, around which there were many guest houses, why did he try to get into the Broadway House Hotel? It is not particularly near Euston, and actually looks nearer Paddington.

And if he was in that area anyway, he could have stayed the night with Anderson or France. But of course then he wouldn’t have been able to try out the mechanisms of his gun in privacy.

Woffinden says Jim would have got to Euston about 10.45, and explains how the only train that is compatible with his evidence (long wait at Euston, train stopped at Crewe) is the one that arrived in Liverpool at 4.54. The Appeal Court questions how Hanratty could then do all the things he said he did before the bus left at 6. Just one of the many things any revised edition of his book would have to address.

[Graham]

Louise Anderson testified that he visited her that morning. She lived near Paddington. Natalie thought this might be why he walked in that direction.

Do Foot and Woffinden mention this, Nick, as I can't recall reading it?

Looking at the street map, Greek Street (assuming that's where LA lived at the time) is actually closer to Euston than Paddington, by a good way. The Vienna Hotel, however, is much nearer Paddington than Euston.

Incidentally, I just happen to have an old 1972 hardback London road map, showing The Vienna Hotel on Sutherland Avenue, which rather suggests to me that it wasn't quite the down-market dive that it's often described.

Graham

[NickB]

Woffinden page 201:

Swanwick: "Do you remember the last occasion you had seen him before?"

Anderson: "Yes, it was on the 22nd, on the Tuesday morning."

Justice Gorman: "One moment - "

Anderson: "He said he was going to Liverpool."

Swanwick: "In the morning?"

Anderson: "Yes. That was early in the morning, but he had not stayed at my flat that night."

I take it she is referring to him visiting her flat near Paddington. He had stayed there on the Saturday night and the Sunday night, which is why she says he had not stayed there on the Monday night.

[Spitfire]

I think that it is fair to say that Woffinden states that Louise Anderson is lying on the point of Hanratty coming to her flat on Tuesday morning, 22nd August and that she is also lying on several other parts of her evidence.

Yet, Hanratty's first choice of hotel was the Broadway House Hotel in Portman Square which (according to a modern-day Google Maps direction planner) was only 0.6 mile from Louise Anderson's flat in Cambridge Court, Sussex Gardens.

The Broadway House Hotel was about 1 mile from Paddington and about 1.7 miles away from Euston.

The Broadway was more convenient for Louise Anderson's flat and Paddington Station than it was for Euston Station.

[NickB]

Woffinden says Anderson was lying on certain points because: "All were either contradicted, or not supported in any sense, by the rest of the evidence". But I cannot find any such contradictions.

One of the points Woffinden claims she lied about is: "That he was wearing his suit just before the murder but not wearing it straight afterwards." But her evidence here is entirely consistent with that of the Frances who said that Hanratty returned on the Saturday wearing slacks and stayed with them until the evening. Anderson said he arrived at her place on the Saturday evening wearing slacks.

[Graham]

I'm a long way from my books at the moment, but as far as I can recall Woffinden gives Greek Street, Soho, as Anderson's address. Or was that where her shop was while her flat was in Sussex Gardens?

Graham

[Spitfire]

Her shop was in Greek Street, and her small flat or bed-sit was at Cambridge Court in Sussex Gardens.

[Graham]

Her shop was in Greek Street, and her small flat or bed-sit was at Cambridge Court in Sussex Gardens.

Thanks, Spitfire - I'd plumb forgotten as it's quite a long time since I re-read my A6 library. Sussex Gardens is, of course, a stone's throw from Paddington Station. Anderson must have been doing all right, as even back then Greek Street and Sussex Gardens were quite desirable addresses. No 57 Greek Street, which is where Anderson's Juna Antiques was located, is now a club.

Graham

[NickB]

I am inclined to believe that he did visit Louise Anderson on the Tuesday morning. She admitted in court that she was not very good on dates, but it could not have been the Sunday or Monday morning because he had stayed at her flat on those nights.

There is something that happened at the trial, just before she gave evidence, which I have not been able to get to the bottom of.

Woffinden (page 197) says that on a day Nudds gave evidence (later identified as Fri-26-Jan) Acott was observed at the Bedford Hotel interviewing Anderson, during which she claimed to have lost a pair of black gloves. Then he claims (page 201) that, just before Anderson appeared as a witness the following Monday, Sherrard argued successfully for this evidence not to be admitted.

There is something wrong here.

Contemporary newspaper reports show that just before Anderson appeared as a witness on the Monday morning it was Swanwick who complained about impropriety, not Sherrard. He said it was “the defence solicitor” (presumably Kleinman) who had interviewed Anderson the previous Friday.

This is how it is reported in the Evening Times:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=oNxAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=A6cMAAAAIBAJ&pg=3439%2C3159502

This was all done in a 40 minute period when the jury were kept out of court and the judge asked the press not to report on the substance of what had been discussed the previous Friday.

Anderson then took the stand and Swanwick raised this matter with her ...

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 this point the judge stopped any further questioning on the subject.

[cobalt]

I would imagine that the defence would have had a copy of the police statements made by Louise Anderson, so any claim about losing gloves would have already been known to them. Do we know if the claim about her losing gloves was later made in court?

Here is another coincidence from the A6 Case. Mrs. Galvez of the Vienne Hotel was reported to have made a statement that she noticed black ladies’ gloves on top of a suitcase in Alphon’s room. This was at a time when Alphon was very much in the frame for the murder. I find it hard to place much reliability on this statement and suspect it was ‘coached’ from her by Acott and his men.

Then we have a similar detail popping up, potentially, in the evidence of Louise Anderson except this time to the detriment of Hanratty.

[Alfie]

Did Mrs Alphon change her story?

While on the subject of Acott possibly concocting something out of nothing to further his aims ...


Acott’s interview with Alphon's mother (Sept 22) and the “smashing” (Foot) of Alphon's alibi for the night of the murder: I’ve seen no direct quote of what Gladys Alphon told Acott, only the report in the Daily Sketch (Sept 23) that she "told detectives that he last visited their home in Gleneagle Rd, Streatham, two months ago."

Since Alphon hadn't said he'd met his mother at home, but on the street nearby, this statement not only leaves his alibi intact, but seems intended to mislead.

So my question is, did Gladys Alphon in fact affirm to Acott that she didn't meet her son anywhere that night, making his account of his movements wrong? Or did Acott finesse things and keep Alphon in the frame with a carefully worded statement to the press?

[NickB]

There is a long section of Acott’s interview with Gladys Alphon on Page 414 of Woffinden, although this was on 13-Sep – not 22-Sep.

Of course by then she was having to think back a few weeks - whereas when Alphon was first interviewed on 27th August, and said he had met his mother at 9.30pm on the 22nd, he only had to think back a few days.

I think that Gladys did give a vague reply, because of what Acott said when he interviewed Alphon.

Acott: “Can you think of anybody who can verify your statement?”

Alphon: “Only my mother. I met her at about 9pm at Streatham that night.”

Acott: “I’ve seen your mother, she’s not certain of the day.”

Alphon: “No, she’s got a very poor memory, but I saw her several times about then to get money from her and I cashed a few cheques but I can’t remember the days.”

Acott: Can you give me details of the cheques so that I might verify the dates?”

Alphon: “Well, there’s a difficulty there - we use different names ... it’s a personal matter, it’s got something to do with an annuity.”

Incidentally, this last thing Alphon said may explain the money that came into his bank account that he showed Foot. Not only income from the annuity itself, but perhaps also the result of shuffling amounts between various accounts.

[Alfie]

Thanks Nick. If Acott got Gladys to concede that she wasn't sure of the day of the meeting, the alibi takes a hit. But I remain to be convinced that Acott didn't bamboozle her into it.

[NickB]

The only thing that throws doubt on Alphon’s alibi is Nudds dubious middle statement.

Galves is accepted as the most reliable Vienna witness and she said that Durrant had still not arrived when she went to bed at 10pm. In the morning she put a star against his name in the register, as the last person to arrive the previous night, and then saw him with her own eyes.

Woffinden says that Alphon left the car in Ilford and then made his way to the Vienna - in order to tie in with his sighting by Galves, checking out and doing the other things for which he has an alibi in the afternoon - but in later editions suggested that the car was not left until the evening.