A6 Rebooted

[NickB]

If Nudds hadn’t been fired presumably he would have made the written statement on 6th September. Instead Galves did it and said Alphon “arrived at about 11.30 pm”.

Subsequently, although clarifying that she did not personally see Alphon arrive, she did say that he had yet to arrive when she went to bed. On 20th September she said: “... 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.” Then in the morning she put the star against his name as the last to arrive.

After ‘Nudds2’ was retracted, Galves was interviewed again and had ‘nothing new to add’. But had ‘Nudds2’ not been retracted this subsequent interview with her would have been highly significant. If she had stood by her previous statements the police would have had two contradictory accounts of when Alphon arrived.

[Alfie]

A dodgy bit of Nudds' second statement.

I know, there's more than one dodgy bit, but one that hadn't occurred to me previously struck me just now when reading this passage from it:

"I explained to Durrant the position of the hotel accommodation and pointed out to him 1) that although the normal charge for bed and breakfast for a single person for one night was £1.7.6. the charge for occupying a large room like room No. 24 was £2.15.0. and 2) if other guests arrived later that day or night he would have to agree to others sharing room No. 24 with him. Durrant agreed to these terms and I and my wife took him to room No. 24 and gave him the key to that room."

Why would Nudds and Snell take Alphon to his room? It's hardly a two-person job (in his first statement he said Snell alone did this). The Galves weren't working that day, so wouldn't that have meant leaving the reception desk unattended?

There's also the issue of him quoting Alphon £2 15s for a room that he let Hanratty have the previous night for £1 7s 6d. But what I'm struggling to understand is why he'd say he and his wife accompanied Alphon to room 24. Ideas anyone?

[Alfie]

If Nudds hadn’t been fired presumably he would have made the written statement on 6th September. Instead Galves did it and said Alphon “arrived at about 11.30 pm”.

Subsequently, although clarifying that she did not personally see Alphon arrive, she did say that he had yet to arrive when she went to bed. On 20th September she said: “... 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.” Then in the morning she put the star against his name as the last to arrive.

After ‘Nudds2’ was retracted, Galves was interviewed again and had ‘nothing new to add’. But had ‘Nudds2’ not been retracted this subsequent interview with her would have been highly significant. If she had stood by her previous statements the police would have had two contradictory accounts of when Alphon arrived.

You've a real knack for putting things in a nutshell. Yet more reason to conclude that Nudds' second statement was a lie.

[NickB]

But what I'm struggling to understand is why he'd say he and his wife accompanied Alphon to room 24. Ideas anyone?

In Nudds first statement he said: “My wife took him to his room.” Then Nudds changed his story during his second statement.

If you look at Foot’s version of Nudds2, in the third paragraph after “reception desk” Nudds says: “He was given the key to his room and was shown to the room by my wife.” Now look at Woffinden’s version and you will see that this sentence has been omitted.

Back in Foot’s version in the next paragraph after “sharing room No. 24 with him” Nudds says: ”Durrant agreed to these terms and I and my wife took him to room No. 24 and gave him the key to that room.” Once again Woffinden has omitted this sentence.

So I think that (as Woffinden must have noticed) Nudds is not just contradicting his first statement but an earlier part of his second statement. Why did Nudds change it? Because he wanted to say that he personally was there to see Alphon put his suitcase on the armchair where the cartridge cases were found.

On the question of who showed Alphon to his room, one of the stranger comments by Woffinden is suggesting Alphon said it was Galves. What Alphon actually said was: “a girl showed me to my room”. I think it is obvious Alphon was referring to Snell, and using the word ‘girl’ loosely; indeed he described her later as “the woman who booked me in’.

[Graham]

Very briefly, my feeling - and I suspect that of others - is that Nudds told the truth, more or less, in his first statement. But, as by then Acott was under severe pressure to apprehend someone for the A6, Nudds altered his statement to roughly agree with what Acott wanted him to say, that is to put Alphon well and truly in the frame.

Woffinden was rather adept at ellipses every so often, in order to strengthen his arguments; Leonard Miller picked up on this.

Graham

[Alfie]

Very careless of Acott to let Nudds sign off on his second statement while it contained such a contradiction. One can only surmise that the pressure on him to arrest somebody - anybody - was very great.

Then there is the Bell discrepancy: Bell's signature was in the register, yet Galves in her Sept 20 statement said that Pischler phoned about 9 pm on Aug 22 to say Bell had cancelled his booking so Galves (who was not supposed to be working that day) crossed out his name in the diary and told the Glickbergs that their late arriving guest (Alphon) could now have room 6.

Does this suggest that Acott also pressured Galves into concocting a story that enabled him to move Alphon from room 24 to room 6? If so, does it also suggest that Acott already had in mind the story he wanted to get from Nudds when he interviewed him the following day?

[Derrick]

...Woffinden was rather adept at ellipses every so often, in order to strengthen his arguments; Leonard Miller picked up on this...

Then Miller did practically the same thing that he accused Woffinden of doing, to hide the fact that Alphon WAS evasive during questioning.


Tut, Tut.

[Graham]

Then Miller did practically the same thing that he accused Woffinden of doing, to hide the fact that Alphon WAS evasive during questioning.


Tut, Tut.

Eh?

Graham

[Alfie]

The case against PLA

On p.84 Foot writes:

What was the case against Alphon [following Storie's failure to identify him]? His alibi was destroyed – by his mother, by Nudds, and by Florence Snell’s failure to identify him. He had deliberately lied about it. He looked like the Identikit picture drawn up by Valerie Storie. He had behaved oddly after the murder. He had been identified by Mrs Dalal as her assailant. On the other hand, he had not been identified by either Blackhall or Miss Storie [or Trower, but Foot had him missing the parade].

My questions: apart from booking in under a false name, what did Alphon deliberately lie about? And why did Snell failing to ID him help to destroy his alibi? Nudds picked him out, after all.

[NickB]

apart from booking in under a false name, what did Alphon deliberately lie about?

And of course Hanratty also booked in under a false name.

And why did Snell failing to ID him help to destroy his alibi?

This would only be relevant if Foot was making a case for Snell not having seen Alphon. But by believing Nudds2 he accepted that she did.

However, to be fair to Foot, subsequently it was him above everyone else on the 'defence' side who set in train doubts about Alphon's guilt which came to its logical conclusion with their exoneration of him in the 2002 Appeal.

[Alfie]

Et tu Foot?

As everybody knows, Hanratty told Kleinman that he went into the sweetshop on the Scotland Road and asked the woman serving to direct him to Carlton or Talbot Road.

This has always posed a problem for Hanratty's supporters, since Mrs Dinwoodie signed a statement saying "a chap came into the shop and asked me to direct him to Tarleton Road."

Re-reading Foot, it's just struck me that he tries to get around the difficulty by telling his readers that Mrs Dinwoodie recalled a man coming into the shop and "asking the way to Carlton or Tarleton Rd, or something of the kind."

I long ago gave up trusting Woffinden (I've started a list and so far have 17 instances of him playing fast and loose with important facts, or omitting them altogether.) But up till now I've believed that Foot, although partial to the Hanratty cause, laid out the facts as he found them. I have to say that confidence has now been shaken.

It's left me wondering if I've missed other occasions when he's bent the truth to bolster his case. Anybody have any?

[cobalt]

It might not be a case of 'bending the truth' as you put it.

When Mrs. Dinwoodie made her statement to the police then it had a legal authority. That much is clear.

What she would have done later, is extrapolate on her conversion with Hanratty when questioned personally by Paul Foot. No doubt Foot was asking leading questions, or offering suggestions, the same as the police who took the original statement were.

Foot was no more bending the truth than the police.

[Alfie]

It might not be a case of 'bending the truth' as you put it.

When Mrs. Dinwoodie made her statement to the police then it had a legal authority. That much is clear.

What she would have done later, is extrapolate on her conversion with Hanratty when questioned personally by Paul Foot. No doubt Foot was asking leading questions, or offering suggestions, the same as the police who took the original statement were.

Foot was no more bending the truth than the police.

If ... But ... Maybe ...

The above is nothing but supposition on your part, and is quite clearly wrong. The full quote from Foot is: "... the police tracked down Mrs Dinwoodie. To their astonishment, no doubt, she told them that she did indeed remember a young man coming into her shop while she was serving and asking the way to Carlton or Tarleton Road, or something of the kind."

I reiterate, an honest reporter would tell his readers what Mrs Dinwoodie actually said to the police, when the memory of the incident was still relatively fresh in her mind.

Foot chose to keep them in the dark, and then to actually mislead them.

[Alfie]

Whoops!

I've read on further in Foot's book and am red-faced: four pages later he does quote the part of Dinwoodie's statement to the defence in which she says the man asked for Tarleton Road. I was too quick off the mark and apologize to Foot and to Cobalt for my disparaging remarks.

That said, I can only conclude that Foot had Mrs D telling the police "Carlton or Tarleton Road, or something of the kind" in order to muddy the waters.

[moste]

I've read on further in Foot's book and am red-faced: four pages later he does quote the part of Dinwoodie's statement to the defence in which she says the man asked for Tarleton Road. I was too quick off the mark and apologize to Foot and to Cobalt for my disparaging remarks.

That said, I can only conclude that Foot had Mrs D telling the police "Carlton or Tarleton Road, or something of the kind" in order to muddy the waters.

Did you notice from previous posts, the side street that Cowleys newsagents is on the corner of, is interestingly, Tarlisin street.I have wondered over past years if Jim had actually found the correct address,