A6 Rebooted

[cobalt]

Graham is absolutely correct that £5,000 was an outlandish amount of money to pay an assassin in 1961. Most commentators who believe Alphon was involved in the A6 Case are of the opinion that he received monies for keeping silent about what he knew, not for any bungled ‘'hit,’' and that once the money dried up he started mouthing off to all and sundry. The theory is he could do this with relative impunity since UK justice was not going to admit it had hanged an innocent man, preferring to label him a crank howling at the moon. This impression of Alphon is pretty much the one that survives to this day; his name rarely appears without the epithets '‘drifter'’ or '‘loner’' attached.

The real Alphon is less well known. He appears to have had a circle of friends, prior to the trial at least, but rather like the motoring club members who knew Gregsten and Ms. Storie their voices have never been made public. Alphon was something of a self-styled intellectual with an interest in Theosophy and Right Wing politics, unusual in a man normally associated with dog tracks and selling almanacs. His performance at the Paris hotel in the mid 1960s is rather impressive and probably an indicator that this was not some benighted social outcast but rather a man capable of impressing his views on others. If Alphon was on the fringes of society it was because he chose to be, not because he was incapable of attracting social interaction.

Alphon’'s political sympathies are of interest to me since the fascist movement in the UK ‘had a bad war’ and was only able to regroup in the late 1950s when a new generation much the same age as Alphon- people like Jordan, Tyndall and Webster- began to make their mark. Oswald Mosley, the man who thought we fought the wrong war, was still around as a rallying figure but after being knocked unconscious in Manchester in the early 1962 kept a lower profile thereafter. It has been reported that Alphon attended meetings of far right groups and that would certainly fit with his moralistic utterings when interviewed in Paris. Such groupings are always infiltrated by the security services and I have a lingering suspicion that Alphon was an informer paid to report on such activities, hence his ready income. Any link with Ewer, who may have been either a sympathiser or a security services asset, could have come from there.

All conjecture of course, but I wonder if those of us suspecting the framing of Hanratty and subsequent cover up have been too focused on the crime itself. Moste and myself have long thought there was a political element not just to the subsequent cover up but connected to the A6 investigation itself.

[moste]

Hi everyone. I am new here so am looking for some assistance.

I was 12 years old when the murder was committed but remember it well from the coverage in the media. Some years later I used the case and Paul Foot's book as the basis for a course I was teaching in Newham. After that, I pretty much forgot about it except when it cropped up in the press, usually as a result of Foot's campaigning. My impression was always that he had it about right when he indicated that although it was not possible to prove Hanratty's innocence, it was very unlikely he committed the crime. I was therefore surprised by the result of the DNA investigation, but simply assumed I must have got it wrong.

Since discovering this site a few weeks back I have gone over the case in my mind a good deal and am now more than ever convinced he was innocent of the murder, and if he had any involvement at all it was peripheral.

There are too many posts for me to trawl through so I would like to ask a few questions which I am sure would have been covered at some point but which would be difficult for me to find quickly.

Can anybody tell me something about Ewer, his background and whether he was formally questioned at all? Some posts seem to suggest he was respectable and law-abiding, others that he was a serious underworld figure. I grew up in the East End at the time of the Krays and their names were well known. I never met them, although I once boxed as a schoolboy at their club, Repton. I also heard of the Richardsons but they came later and I had moved out of the East End by then. I think they covered a different patch anyway. I never heard of any William Ewer, which is surprising if he was a significant gangster. Although I was never involved in such matters, I did work for a year in a North London garage where there were some distinctly dodgy goings on and one tended to know who the local villains were, but until I read Foot's book I didn't know of any Ewer, underworld villain or otherwise. I see he ran an umbrella repair shop in Swiss Cottage. It is not unknown for crooks to have a legitimate 'shop front', but umbrellas?! Just how much business did he do?

What is the evidence concerning the rape? I understand that no charge was brought and I guess it was widely supposed this would have been to avoid unnecessary distress for Miss Storie, especially in view of the murder charge. Am I alone in wondering whether it actually took place and was not an embellishment after the event? I ask because it seems to me that when she was admitted to hospital in a critical condition she would have undergone a very thorough examination and any sign of rape would probably have been noted and commented upon by the medical staff. Personally, I always find rape a difficult crime to comprehend because I find the idea of sex with an unwilling partner unattractive and bizarre. In this case there was also the presence of a gorey dead body in the car which even in more propitious circumstances would have been a bit small for that kind of activity. Did anybody ever check out the rape story, or was the victim's word simply accepted at face value?

That will do for now. My thanks to all contributors to this fascinating site for helping to shed light on this extraordinary crime.

I look forward to all responses.

Warm regards to everyone.


Yossel.

Welcome Yossel
In his book, ‘40 years of murder’Keith Simpson the highly celebrated home office pathologist ,examined Storie and asserted ‘ there was evidence of rape’
that’s about it I think, other than Ms. Stories version of events. Storie was supposedly raped at gun point, so unless the rapist purposely abused her during the attack, then I don’t know that I believe Simpson on this account. Storie made no hint of the man being rough in any way, in fact they exchanged first names, and the ‘rapist ‘ apparently alluded to her’ not being very experienced’.(?) I would say Simpson was affected by the events beyond what would normally be expected from a professional of his eminence. Storie also alluded to ( for what it was worth) ‘ the whole thing lasting only a minute or two’ .
I have come to the conclusion, from all I have read , that Mr. and Mrs Storie knew nothing at all about her love affair with Gregsten, they saw much less of him than we are lead to believe, and they thought of him as simply a friend , a big brother, if you will , someone who she enjoyed motor rallying with ,along with all the other folks in the club. Valerie knew that if her parents knew the truth of her real involvement , (Gregsten married with two children and all,) they would have been absolutely mortified. Herein lies the crux of her dilemma. Imagine, Gregsten shot dead, her shot up badly but surviving , and here she is with Gregstens semen permeating her underwear.How can she defend her virtue? What will Mummy and Daddy think of her?Well,if she had been raped.....

[Alfie]

I have come to the conclusion, from all I have read , that Mr. and Mrs Storie knew nothing at all about her love affair with Gregsten ...

Valerie herself wrote in 'Today' in June 1962: "Someone tittle-tattled [about the affair] to my mother. When she asked me if it was true and I said 'Yes,' my parents still left me alone."

[Yossel]

Cobalt

Yes, all very interesting and perfectly plausible but as you acknowledge, largely conjecture. I guess we will never know now. At least we all seem to be agreed that whatever the £5,000 was for, it wasn't for a simple hit, and a bungled one at that.


Moste

The rape is a distasteful subject which is perhaps why it isn't much commented on. Thank you for the information. Again, I guess we'll never know, but personally I have difficulty believing anyone other than an utterly deranged psychopath could have raped Miss Storie in the back of a Morris Minor with the gory dead body of her lover on the adjacent seat. It's particularly difficult to imagine Hanratty doing this; perhaps less so the nuttier Alphon but even that is a bit of a stretch. I'm keeping an open mind on this one (as on many aspects of the case!) although on balance I marginally tend to the view that there was no rape, or at least not in the way Storie testified.

Thank you both. I find your comments utterly absorbing.

Yossel.

[Graham]

Had his personality not verged upon the weird, Peter Alphon could have made something of himself. As far as the sums of money he received are concerned, according to Foot at least £2500 of it came from selling his story to various newspapers. Foot is also confident that Alphon did indeed win considerable sums at the greyhounds. However, as I mentioned above, it seems Alphon spent all that dosh just as rapidly as he'd 'earned' it. Foot adds that between 3 November 1961 and 16 December 1961 Alphon wrote cheques amounting to £4721. Foot also states that during this period Alphon bought a greyhound, and suggests that the cheque for £1000 was for the dog. In addition to all this, Alphon lived for some months at the 4-star Ariel Hotel near London Airport, and travelling into London by hired car most days. Then there were legal fees he paid to his solicitors Galbraith and Best for his libel action(s). A total of £3300 was paid in cash into his account in amounts of between £100 and £850 over a period of about six weeks. Very likely at least some of this comprised winnings at the dog-track. His deposit account was gradually emptied and closed on 2 April 1962 - just before Hanratty's execution.

Try as he might, Foot admits he could never, from his (mostly) telephone interviews with Alphon, piece together anything approaching a cohesive story of who and what Alphon was, and his part, if any, in the A6. He says that Alphon chopped and changed his stories on a daily basis and gives examples. On the very last page of his book, Foot suggests that it is possible that Alphon led him, and everyone else, a 'fantastic dance', which I think is an accurate description.

Graham

[Yossel]

Had his personality not verged upon the weird, Peter Alphon could have made something of himself. As far as the sums of money he received are concerned, according to Foot at least £2500 of it came from selling his story to various newspapers. Foot is also confident that Alphon did indeed win considerable sums at the greyhounds. However, as I mentioned above, it seems Alphon spent all that dosh just as rapidly as he'd 'earned' it. Foot adds that between 3 November 1961 and 16 December 1961 Alphon wrote cheques amounting to £4721. Foot also states that during this period Alphon bought a greyhound, and suggests that the cheque for £1000 was for the dog. In addition to all this, Alphon lived for some months at the 4-star Ariel Hotel near London Airport, and travelling into London by hired car most days. Then there were legal fees he paid to his solicitors Galbraith and Best for his libel action(s). A total of £3300 was paid in cash into his account in amounts of between £100 and £850 over a period of about six weeks. Very likely at least some of this comprised winnings at the dog-track. His deposit account was gradually emptied and closed on 2 April 1962 - just before Hanratty's execution.

Try as he might, Foot admits he could never, from his (mostly) telephone interviews with Alphon, piece together anything approaching a cohesive story of who and what Alphon was, and his part, if any, in the A6. He says that Alphon chopped and changed his stories on a daily basis and gives examples. On the very last page of his book, Foot suggests that it is possible that Alphon led him, and everyone else, a 'fantastic dance', which I think is an accurate description.

Graham

Thanks Graham.

Alphon may well have had occasional wins at the dogs but what about the losses? He simply does not have the credentials of a successful professional gambler. As for buying a greyhound for £1,000 I can give you a good yardstick here. My dad owned a number in the early 60s. He generally paid about £25 for a modest animal which would run in the lower grades at Clapton (one of the better and most popular tracks) and win in their turn. He once paid £125 for a dog I remember well, Mount Music Rebel. This was an exceptional sum but proved worth it as the dog turned out to be very good, won many races and competed at th highest level. Even so I think the Old Man would have bitten the hand off anybody offering him a grand for the animal. If any dog did change hands at that sort of price I should think the transaction, the dog and the owner would have attracted a fair bit of attention within the greyhound racing fraternity but frankly I am sceptical.

Dad took me with him to a number of tracks back then, notably Hackney, Clapton, Walthamstow and Hendon. Never made it to Slough. My impression is that it was a bit downmarket but maybe others here know better. The sport was very much more popular then that it is now so it is entirely believable that Alphon (and Hanratty) visited various tracks from time to time. Anyone betting in large amounts would however become known as a 'name' and the more prominent might even get the occasional mention in the racing press, but there is nothing to suggest Alphon was in that kind of league.

In short, I'm dismissive of Alphon's stories about betting winnings and the like and regard them as no more than a thin cover for whatever was really going on. It surprises me Foot gave them any credence whatever.

Atb

Yossel

[Spitfire]

First of all, I am not aware of anyone who believes Valerie Storie knowingly gave false testimony against James Hanratty. She had no reason to identify anyone other than the man who killed her lover and paralysed her, so she clearly gave her evidence in good faith. She may have been mistaken or she may have been correct, but if she made a mistake it was an honest one.

How about this then? Only one of many of this poster's attempts to question the veracity of Valerie Storie's evidence, not on the grounds that she was mistaken but that she lied. She lied about the rape, she lied about the journey to Deadman's Hill and so on and so forth.

Welcome Yossel
In his book, ‘40 years of murder’Keith Simpson the highly celebrated home office pathologist ,examined Storie and asserted ‘ there was evidence of rape’
that’s about it I think, other than Ms. Stories version of events. Storie was supposedly raped at gun point, so unless the rapist purposely abused her during the attack, then I don’t know that I believe Simpson on this account. Storie made no hint of the man being rough in any way, in fact they exchanged first names, and the ‘rapist ‘ apparently alluded to her’ not being very experienced’.(?) I would say Simpson was affected by the events beyond what would normally be expected from a professional of his eminence. Storie also alluded to ( for what it was worth) ‘ the whole thing lasting only a minute or two’ .
I have come to the conclusion, from all I have read , that Mr. and Mrs Storie knew nothing at all about her love affair with Gregsten, they saw much less of him than we are lead to believe, and they thought of him as simply a friend , a big brother, if you will , someone who she enjoyed motor rallying with ,along with all the other folks in the club. Valerie knew that if her parents knew the truth of her real involvement , (Gregsten married with two children and all,) they would have been absolutely mortified. Herein lies the crux of her dilemma. Imagine, Gregsten shot dead, her shot up badly but surviving , and here she is with Gregstens semen permeating her underwear.How can she defend her virtue? What will Mummy and Daddy think of her?Well,if she had been raped.....

[Graham]

Yossel,

in fairness to him, Foot said he was only guessing that Alphon's £1000 pay-out was for a growler. He also didn't really make any guesses as to the payment into Alphon's account of the 9 cheques from £800 to £100 value. Foot mentions that Alphon, some years after the A6, was living in a cheap hotel where the room cost only £1 a night. When Foot interviewed him in 1969, all of Alphon's bank-records from 1961 and 1962 had been destroyed, so there was no way anyone could inspect the cheques that were paid in and those that he paid out. No records were available of his deposit account, into which he paid the 9 cheques mentioned above. Foot never got to the bottom of Alphon's somewhat astonishing financial dealings, and I don't believe anyone else has since. Seems like 'easy come, easy go' was our Pete's byword.

Graham

[Yossel]

Yossel,

in fairness to him, Foot said he was only guessing that Alphon's £1000 pay-out was for a growler. He also didn't really make any guesses as to the payment into Alphon's account of the 9 cheques from £800 to £100 value. Foot mentions that Alphon, some years after the A6, was living in a cheap hotel where the room cost only £1 a night. When Foot interviewed him in 1969, all of Alphon's bank-records from 1961 and 1962 had been destroyed, so there was no way anyone could inspect the cheques that were paid in and those that he paid out. No records were available of his deposit account, into which he paid the 9 cheques mentioned above. Foot never got to the bottom of Alphon's somewhat astonishing financial dealings, and I don't believe anyone else has since. Seems like 'easy come, easy go' was our Pete's byword.

Graham

Yes, I think that last sentence sums him up.

[Alfie]

Re-reading reports of the trial, I'm left a little confused by Sherrard's insistence that the Vienna Hotel documents (diary, room chart, register) supported Nudds' second statement.

Here he is during his cross-examination of Nudds: "Q: ... Are you telling the jury now upon your oath that the situation at Scotland Yard or wherever it was you were taken was such that you were just made to tell any story? A. No. I wasn't made at all. I never said that at all. The police did not tell any lies. What lies I told, I told on my own initiative. The police did not tell me to tell lies. Q. The lies you told were all supported by these documents? A. I suppose so."

And here he is during his closing statement to the jury: "Mr Swanwick suggested in opening, and I agree with him, 'Do not rely on Nudds unless there is documentary corroboration available'. Be careful. If you look at the documents, then story No 2 is true. There is no doubt about that."

Then contra Sherrard, we have this excerpt from Hawser's report: "At the trial the defence made strenuous efforts to establish that the Nudds' second statements implicating Alphon were the truth and that the Hotel records supported this. One of the entries could be said to do this: but in the main they appear to support the original version. The relevant records were these:

The Diary: This showed a payment by Alphon in this form: 'Deposit £1.7.6' Opposite this diary entry was '6'. The suggestion was that the word 'deposit' indicated that the guest was put in a room which was not a single room and that something more might be payable if he remained in that room and would not share it. Robert Henry Crocker who managed the group of hotels of which the Vienna was part, said that if a person were booked in one room and later changed the first entry would be struck out and a second entry substituted. This did not happen on this night in relation to Room No 6.

The Room Chart: Room No 24 had a line through it for that night - showing that it was not occupied.

The Register: Alphon's entry is the last one on 22^nd August and has a star opposite. Mrs Galves the manageress gave evidence that this meant he was the last person to register at the hotel that night. Nowhere in the records is Alphon or anyone else shown as occupying No 24. The only room mentioned in connection with him was No 6."

So the sole piece of evidence corroborating Nudds' second statement seems to be the word 'Deposit' in the diary, an entry which, if Crocker is to be believed, could well have been added some time after Alphon's stay at the Vienna.

If this is so, it raises the question of why Swanwick allowed Sherrard's "the documents support Nudds 2" argument to go unchallenged. Was it, perhaps, a case of Swanwick being unwilling to raise the possibility that the "Deposit" entry in the diary was counterfeit, because this would inevitably beg the question of who was responsible for the deception, and why?

[cobalt]

That sounds like a sensible interpretation as to why Swanwick let the matter ride in court.

Since deposits could not be paid over the phone in the days before credit cards that curious entry made in relation to Alphon is difficult to explain. Was it the handiwork of Nudds, as he clumsily tried to back up his most recent version of events? Or had Alphon visited the hotel earlier than the 22nd August to make a deposit in person? It would be very interesting if we could see what the Vienna Hotel diary looked like when Alphon was first apprehended at another hotel and his alibi checked and confirmed by police.

[moste]

Valerie herself wrote in 'Today' in June 1962: "Someone tittle-tattled [about the affair] to my mother. When she asked me if it was true and I said 'Yes,' my parents still left me alone."

Yes that’s quite correct , this is one of the statements of many ,particularly in the ‘Today’ that I challenge the veracity of.

[Alfie]

Yes that's quite correct , this is one of the statements of many ,particularly in the 'Today' that I challenge the veracity of.

What reason would she have to tell such a lie?

Enlighten us, what are the other "many" statements that you deem to be lies?

[NickB]

Woffinden quotes a section of the trial where the prosecution say that the reference to a deposit is the only thing supporting the 2nd statement and this is meaningless (or a similar word - don't have the book to hand). It would be interested to see the complete section of that exchange to see why they thought it was meaningles.

Spitfire and I have suggested that the initial payment could have been described as a deposit because Alphon was not specific that he wanted to stay only 1 night. His usual practice was to keep his departure date a moving target.

[Spitfire]

Woffinden quotes a section of the trial where the prosecution say that the reference to a deposit is the only thing supporting the 2nd statement and this is meaningless (or a similar word - don't have the book to hand). It would be interested to see the complete section of that exchange to see why they thought it was meaningles.

Spitfire and I have suggested that the initial payment could have been described as a deposit because Alphon was not specific that he wanted to stay only 1 night. His usual practice was to keep his departure date a moving target.

Hello NickB,

Woff quotes this as being said by Swanwick:

"The only entry in those documents on which [the defence] can rely is the word "deposit". That, appearing where it does in connection with Durrant, is in fact ...utterly meaningless. It disappears , in my submission, from the case." (pp 257-9 of Pan ed 1999 Woff Hanratty. The Final Verdict.)

These pages indicate that Swanwick did not accept Sherrard submission on behalf of the defence, so that should answer Alfie's query raised above.

Woff goes on to say that the only conceivable reason for the word "deposit" was that articulated in Nudds2. However, the rigmarole of paying a deposit was never demanded of Hanratty in his occupation of Room 24 the previous night, nor does it seem that anyone else paid a deposit in such circumstances.

Why is it inconceivable that a deposit of £1 7s 6d should not be described as a "deposit" against Durrant/Alphon staying more that one night?