Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A6 Rebooted

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

  • Originally posted by NickB View Post
    In a previous book Simpson referred to the bullets as 0.38.
    http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=368455

    So he did change his mind - from 0.38 to 0.32. The absence of a comment from him that he made this change deliberately suggests it was simply an error.
    Hi Nick - I know next to nothing about guns but my immediate inclination here is just to regard it as an error on Simpson's part.

    Whilst us posters remain continually interested in a particular subject, it needs to be realised that the same fascination does not automatically persist for those who were closely involved at the time. Thus mistakes through memory lapses can and do occur. Whilst of interest, such mistakes run the risk of having their significance overplayed.

    Best regards,

    OneRound

    Comment


    • Originally posted by NickB View Post
      In a previous book Simpson referred to the bullets as 0.38.
      http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=368455

      So he did change his mind - from 0.38 to 0.32. The absence of a comment from him that he made this change deliberately suggests it was simply an error.

      I have to hand Prof. Keith Simpson's book "Forty Years of Murder" and it is quite clear on pp 161-7 that it was Michael Gregston who was shot on the 23 August 1961 with a calibre .32 bullet, on the other hand, Michael Gregsten was proved at Hanratty's trial to have been shot with a .38 bullet. I'm sure we have been over this before. Gregston shot with a .32, Gregsten with a .38, two entirely different people shot with two different bullets.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Spitfire View Post
        I have to hand Prof. Keith Simpson's book "Forty Years of Murder" and it is quite clear on pp 161-7 that it was Michael Gregston who was shot on the 23 August 1961 with a calibre .32 bullet, on the other hand, Michael Gregsten was proved at Hanratty's trial to have been shot with a .38 bullet. I'm sure we have been over this before. Gregston shot with a .32, Gregsten with a .38, two entirely different people shot with two different bullets.
        Hi again folks - whilst applauding the penetrative wit and biting humour of Spitfire which must come close to rivalling that of The Krankies, his post does show that Simpson's book and reflections were not entirely error free.

        Best regards,

        OneRound

        Comment


        • All of this is simply going over old ground, which the conspiracy-theorists amongst us are keen to continue occupying......

          Against JH's accent being a giveaway at the ID parade, Acott actually suggested, with regard to JH's somewhat noticeable hair, that all members of the parade should wear surgeon's caps to hide their hair. Very fair suggestion, I'd say. However. Emmanuel Kleinmann refused this on the grounds that it would make JH's icy-blue eyes even more noticeable than they were. I do wonder if, because of this, he may have ended up on the carpet in front of Sherrard's desk.

          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
            All of this is simply going over old ground, which the conspiracy-theorists amongst us are keen to continue occupying......

            Against JH's accent being a giveaway at the ID parade, Acott actually suggested, with regard to JH's somewhat noticeable hair, that all members of the parade should wear surgeon's caps to hide their hair. Very fair suggestion, I'd say. However. Emmanuel Kleinmann refused this on the grounds that it would make JH's icy-blue eyes even more noticeable than they were. I do wonder if, because of this, he may have ended up on the carpet in front of Sherrard's desk.

            Graham
            Hi Graham - are you sure that surgeon's caps were not worn on the parades due to Kleinmann's refusal? I thought it was down to the officers organising the parades not acting on Acott's suggestion and Kleinmann being off the ball and failing to pick up on it. That's my take from the Court of Appeal's 2002 judgement.

            The Court of Appeal also speculated that Acott's suggestion may not have been to do with unfairness being caused to Hanratty by his stand-out hair colour but concern on his (Acott's) part that Valerie Storie and those who claimed to see the driver of the car would fail to identify Hanratty as his hair was now a different colour from when they saw it. I cannot buy into that latter concern. Given the unique colouring (''carrot amongst a bunch of bananas'' etc), Valerie Storie and the others must have cottoned on that Hanratty was the Police's suspect. Otherwise, someone with such a different hair colour would never have been on the parades.

            Best regards,

            OneRound

            Comment


            • Hi OR,

              message from Acott to DSI Barron of Bedfordshire police, per Woffinden, undated, but obviously shortly prior to the ID Parade on 13 October:

              Please make arrangements....for witnesses to attend an ID Parade at Bedford....Also make arrangements....for ID Parade to be held at Stoke Mandeville Hospital on 14 October. [Description of age and appearance of men required] Skull caps to be obtained - suggest those worn in operating theatres would be suitable.

              Woffinden says that Kleinmann was aware of the request/suggestion for skull caps, but took no action, and Woffinden says that Kleinmann clearly wished to avoid greater attention being drawn to Hanratty's distinctive eyes. So, in fairness, Acott did suggest skull caps and they were rejected. Although I don't see Kleinmann as anything like a Perry Mason, I feel sure he made the decision to decline skull-caps for reasons he felt were justified. Seems like he made a big mistake. He was also an hour late for the Stoke Mandeville parade, which may or may not be a pointer to his overall efficiency.

              Another lesser point is the fact that Hanratty insisted he be given clothes to wear which were different to his usual dark suit, and this requested was agreed to. He was subsequently loaned other clothes including a sports jacket and cord trousers.

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

              Comment


              • The Alexander Court manager's fateful call ...

                Came across this old post:

                " had the manager of the Alexandra Court Hotel not made that fateful phone-call to the police, we may well have never heard of Peter Louis Alphon, and James Hanratty may well have never been linked to the A6 Case, which would possibly have gone down in history as another unsolved murder."

                Couldn't be more wrong imo. Had Mr Sims not made that phone call, Alphon would've been of no interest to the police following the finding of the cartridge cases in the Vienna Hotel. Instead they'd have had just one man in their sights - the J Ryan who'd occupied room 24 on the night before the murder.

                No Alphon would have meant no conspiracy theories, no incentive for Justice, Foot and the rest of the A6 committee to become involved, no Woffinden, no inquiries, no martyring of James Hanratty, and no maligning of Valerie Storie, Janet Gregsten, Bill Ewer and Dixie France.

                All because Mr Sims didn't tell the batty Miss Perkins where to park it.

                Comment


                • Thanks, Graham. That's helpful and informative as usual. It's a long time since I read Foot and Woffinden and I no longer have the books.

                  Hanratty insisting on a change of clothes is interesting and might cause those proclaiming his innocence to reflect. As you know, my unease relates to how the man was nailed rather than he was the wrong man.


                  Have to go out now but will try to post a bit more tonight concerning another aspect of the 2002 appeal in which the Court to my mind were overly supportive of Kleinmann.

                  Best regards,

                  OneRound

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Alfie View Post
                    Came across this old post:

                    " had the manager of the Alexandra Court Hotel not made that fateful phone-call to the police, we may well have never heard of Peter Louis Alphon, and James Hanratty may well have never been linked to the A6 Case, which would possibly have gone down in history as another unsolved murder."

                    Couldn't be more wrong imo. Had Mr Sims not made that phone call, Alphon would've been of no interest to the police following the finding of the cartridge cases in the Vienna Hotel. Instead they'd have had just one man in their sights - the J Ryan who'd occupied room 24 on the night before the murder.

                    No Alphon would have meant no conspiracy theories, no incentive for Justice, Foot and the rest of the A6 committee to become involved, no Woffinden, no inquiries, no martyring of James Hanratty, and no maligning of Valerie Storie, Janet Gregsten, Bill Ewer and Dixie France.

                    All because Mr Sims didn't tell the batty Miss Perkins where to park it.
                    Hi Alfie - yes, but ... would those finding the cartridge cases at the Vienna have bothered informing the Police if the Police hadn't already been there enquiring about Alphon?

                    Best regards,

                    OneRound

                    Comment


                    • Good point, OneRound. And, more importantly, where would it have left us A6 obsessives?

                      The more you think about it, the more you realize just what an unlucky geezer Hanratty was.

                      Comment


                      • Crocker phoned the police after the cartridges were found in Room 24, suggesting that they might have something to do with the man, 'Frederick Durrant', who had stayed there and whose alibi for the evening in question had been confirmed to the police by Juliana Galves. However, as Durrant a.k.a. Alphon had stayed that night in Room 6, how come Crocker thought there might be a connection between him and the cartridges? Or am I missing something here?

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

                        Comment


                        • Suitcase?

                          [QUOTE=Graham;444763]Crocker phoned the police after the cartridges were found in Room 24, suggesting that they might have something to do with the man, 'Frederick Durrant', who had stayed there and whose alibi for the evening in question had been confirmed to the police by Juliana Galves. However, as Durrant a.k.a. Alphon had stayed that night in Room 6, how come Crocker thought there might be a connection between him and the cartridges? Or am I missing something here?


                          Also , if as we are told Alphon was shown room 24 ,but was only in there a few minutes before leaving and saying ‘I would much prefer a single room’ prompting the manager to make the suggestion of switching if there was a cancellation ,and then the business of a note being left for Pete for when he returned. Where was his suitcase all this time ? In room 24 one would assume.
                          Who moved it ? Did the note also say ‘by the way your case is still in 24 ,but the door is not locked’ or did Nudds presume to leave his case by the night stand where the key to number six was left ( both , not very agreeable situations) or did Pete lug the suitcase around with him all night? Or am I missing something also?
                          Last edited by moste; 04-12-2018, 09:55 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Suitcase

                            Ok . I now see from Foot, that Pete left the suitcase in room 24 and had the key with him ,so whenever he got back in the early hours ,he had to retrieve his case from 24 then switch keys at reception ,I also see that Foot believes because of the hotel register, that Mr. Bell had signed into room 9.and therefore the room 6 cancellation was false.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by moste View Post
                              Ok . I now see from Foot, that Pete left the suitcase in room 24 and had the key with him ,so whenever he got back in the early hours ,he had to retrieve his case from 24 then switch keys at reception ,I also see that Foot believes because of the hotel register, that Mr. Bell had signed into room 9.and therefore the room 6 cancellation was false.
                              Hi folks - the way that staff and guests were in and out of rooms at the Vienna seems almost like something out of an old Brian Rix farce. Certainly confusing and probably indicating that you didn't have to stay in a particular room overnight to gain access to it or leave something there.

                              Did Sherrard milk this enough at trial? It's a genuine question as I don't know but wonder if it was (another) opportunity missed by the defence and, per Alfie, a continuation of Hanratty's bad luck.

                              Best regards,

                              OneRound

                              Comment


                              • Hi OR,

                                yes, a Brian Rix farce indeed. And i think the script-writer/producer was none other that - da-daaah! - good ole Basil Acott. As soon as he heard of the discovery of the cartridge cases and the name Durrant, he thought he had his man, being, as he almost certainly was, aware of the Nastiness at The Alexandra Court. If one or two aspects of his absolute certainty that Durrant/Alphon was his man didn't quite hold together, then doubtless a couple of sessions with Nudds/Glickberg, call him what you will, with that sad person's criminal record on the table between them, soon put matters right, and all it needed now was for Acott to collar Durrant/Alphon. Which he never actually did, in fact, as Alphon surrendered himself. Everything was fine and dandy, Acott was already all glassy-eyed over his certain promotion to Acott Of The Yard, when out of the blue Valerie Storie failed to pick out Alphon at the ID parade. Drat.

                                OR quite rightly highlights that the Vienna Hotel was an early version of Fawlty Towers, seemingly managed, if that is the right word, by a bloke who wouldn't know The Truth if it smacked him in the face. And then there was Ryan.......

                                Graham

                                (Sorry if this is a bit flippant, but I've not long got in from a great musical night out, and the Famous Grouse is going down a treat).
                                We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X