A6 Rebooted

[cobalt]

Hi Graham,

Well an alibi can be true, so Alphon gave them his alibi which showed he could not have been in Taplow around 9pm. Until Nudds got leaned on presumably.

[NickB]

If the police's new chief suspect parked the murder car in Avondale Crescent at c. 7.10 am, he wouldn't have arrived back at the Vienna until 8.00-8.30 am at the earliest, by which time, presumably, at least some of the guests in the "particularly full" hotel would have checked out. If Nudds was telling the truth, wouldn't the note and key have been noticed prior to that time by Galves (or whoever was manning reception - Nudds was in the kitchen, he says, and Snell was serving breakfasts)?

Because Galves had to get up early she went to bed at around 10pm. In her statement she said that at that time Durrant had not arrived yet. When she got up in the morning she saw that Durrant had been checked in and put a star against his name as the last person to have arrived the previous day.

Before getting Nudds third statement Acott went back to Galves. Woffinden said she had nothing to add, which is more significant than it seems as Nudds second statement had been in conflict with Galves previous statement. Had Acott proceeded on the basis of Nudds2 this conflict would have presented a problem - in addition to any Broadway statement.

[OneRound]

Maybe I should have been more direct.

Who? William Ewer. He had arranged, or perhaps just encouraged, the ultimatum in the car and was now linked to an appalling crime.

Why? To send the police off on a wild goose chase and give things a chance to settle down.

Why Hanratty? He was known indirectly to Ewer and was a convicted criminal. He was well known to France who suggested him to Ewer as a temporary diversion. Which turned out to be permanent.

Righty ho folks - first off, I hope you are all keeping well and safe.

Secondly, a bit of advice if I may, particularly as there has been precious little Government guidance on this particular matter. If you are having a bath and the bath develops a leak, make sure that your computer router is not in a downstairs room immediately beneath the bathroom! Never a good thing to happen and that's even more the case since Lockdown.

Trusting that'll do as an explanation, my apologies nonetheless to Cobalt and others for not responding properly and sooner to the answers to my earlier question as to ''why those directly or indirectly responsible for Gregsten's murder would want to set up Hanratty''.

Whilst genuinely appreciating Cobalt's answers and his feelings on the matter, I just can't see that anyone who had arranged the murder would then try to implicate an innocent party. Surely far safer to stay low and not run the risk of drawing attention to yourself.

Also, picking on an innocent man was leaving things incredibly to chance. Who could predict that an innocent patsy wouldn't be able to produce a witness or some other evidence (a ticket stub, a receipt, an entry in a boarding house register, etc) to fully prove his innocence and redirect the headlights on those trying to frame him?

Accordingly, I don't believe there was a conscious attempt to set up Hanratty by another or others directly or indirectly responsible for Gregsten's murder. However, that is not the same as saying that the police's conduct was fair and reasonable throughout the investigation and trial. In my opinion, it was not.

What is my opinion worth? Diddly squat, I guess; especially, as the Court of Appeal has ruled otherwise. Worth perhaps noting though that Acott not revealing Lee's alleged sighting of the murder car was referred to in the Court's judgement as representing ''the high watermark of non-disclosure in this case''. Different Court of Appeal judges might have gone further than that and ruled it unfair and unreasonable. Possibly, and not for the first time, Hanratty and his supporters were unlucky in the particular individuals they were up against.

I would add that Moste - and thank you for your responses as well - tends to lump Hanratty being framed by others and police misconduct all in as one. As far as I am concerned, they are two different aspects.

Best regards and good to be back,
OneRound

[Alfie]

Because Galves had to get up early she went to bed at around 10pm. In her statement she said that at that time Durrant had not arrived yet. When she got up in the morning she saw that Durrant had been checked in and put a star against his name as the last person to have arrived the previous day.

Before getting Nudds third statement Acott went back to Galves. Woffinden said she had nothing to add, which is more significant than it seems as Nudds second statement had been in conflict with Galves previous statement. Had Acott proceeded on the basis of Nudds2 this conflict would have presented a problem - in addition to any Broadway statement.

Good point, Nick, the star thing had slipped my mind. Really makes you wonder how Acott could think Nudds 2 would fly.

[Sherlock Houses]

Some reasons to suppose that Alphon was involved in the A6 Case.

1. A man bearing a resemblance to him was seen in the Taplow area the afternoon of the murder.
2. The landlady of the Inn where the victims shared their last drink believed she had seen Alphon there around the time of the crime.
3. Alphon was garrulous by nature. So was the murderer according to Valerie Storie.
4. Alphon did not have a driving licence and had no known experience of cars.
5. In the aftermath of the crime Alphon lay out of sight but attracted the attention of fellow residents in the hotel where he was staying, resulting in the police being called.
6. Alphon carried out an apparently motiveless attack on Mrs Delal.
7. Alphon stayed in the Vienna Hotel where cartridge cases were found.
8. Alphon was obstructive when police attempted to obtain his clothing.
9. Alphon was named - by an anonymous caller admittedly - as a person that knew who the killer was.
10. Alphon seemed to feel some personal responsibility for the execution of Hanratty and visited the family to offer his remorse.
11. Alphon was in possession of quite a large sum of money despite having no obvious means of support.
12. From the relative safety of Paris, Alphon effectively admitted his guilt and even provided some kind of motive.

There are a good few more reasons than just 12, Cobalt.

With reference to your 9th reason, I can assure you that the person was no anonymous caller. Bob Woffinden on page 155 of his book names her as a Mrs Rouch. Her name was not Rouch in fact but Rough and she was a genuine caller who apparently had important information to impart to Hanratty's defence team re. the true identity of Michael Gregsten's killer. She was warned not to get involved by the man she was living with at the time [November 1961] and whose child she had recently given birth to.
Mrs Rough had indeed given birth sometime during the 3rd quarter of 1961. Their new born baby, Tony, had his birth registered twice, once in his mother's name and also in his father, Anthony's, name. Mrs Rough married the father in the spring of 1963 to legitimise the relationship.

[cobalt]

SH,
Thanks for reminding me. It is a very intriguing story but alas no more than hearsay evidence in the greater scheme of things.

Hi OR,
Great to have you back. I think you are a very important fulcrum between the two contesting sides on this forum. For the prosecution, Graham is full of context and common sense; NickB is a stickler for fact that has stopped many a Conspiracy Theorist short in his tracks; and Alfie opens up interesting avenues for debate. For the defence I made the odd wild assertion based on meagre fact but am trumped by Moste, who thinks well outside the box, and occasionally seems nearer the mark than any of us! So, a good mix I think.

Regarding your point about Ewer lying low if he were involved in the A6 murder: I can’t argue with that logic outright. But put ourselves in the place of Acott and the investigation team. They had hauled in every armed blagger, car thief and sex fiend they could find in the area and turned up a blank. What next in a case of national importance? Maybe time to look a bit closer at home? To look at that gas meter perhaps?

That is when Ewer acts and pulls on all his resources to create a distraction. The initial distraction at Swiss Cottage was a damp squib and caused Ewer much anxiety in the months that followed; no wonder he attended every day of the trial. The ‘vision’ story at the cleaners was an attempt- and in my view quite a transparent one- to explain the Swiss Cottage police presence. But the cartridge cases which appeared at the Vienna Hotel did what the Swiss Cottage call had not managed to do: to put James Hanratty in the frame. I doubt that Ewer thought Hanratty would stay there- but he did.

[moste]

Moste,

I can’t find a motive for two anonymous gunmen to cut down Michael Gregsten and Valerie Storie. They didn’t mix in high enough society to pick up on any political sex scandals. It’s almost possible there might have been some industrial espionage relating to road safety/cars but an execution is hardly required: just pay Gregsten off, or promote him and hush it all up.

From what little we know, or maybe that should be suspect, about the methods used by our security services the arranged car crash seems to be a tactic employed. This would have been relatively easy to set up with a couple of car rally enthusiasts like Storie and Gregsten. And why did the executioners, or one of them, find it necessary to drive the car back badly to London? Why not leave it there?

As ever, if we accept Valerie Storie’s account we are stuck with the problem of motive. Robbery? Not really. That would have taken about two minutes. Exercise power? Probably, but that must have been wearing thin for all concerned after a few hours. Sex? Seems to have been an impulsive reaction to the murder. If a deranged gunman was playing some cruel game then he was running out of time before daylight broke, so deciding to ‘have a kip’ makes no sense whatsoever.

To me the crime looks like some sort of ultimatum. Or a transaction, a handover going wrong. If Valerie Storie’s account is accurate then it seems any transaction was no more than a blurred idea inside the head of a disturbed man. Then again maybe her account is not complete.

I never cared for the rather unlikely offering that the couple were victims of someone trying to force them apart by intimidation.
And as an alternative to an involvement in a high society sex scandal , or industrial espionage.
Could we possibly be looking at an aggrieved husband , that Gregsten has caused the violation of his marital vows ?

[OneRound]

SH,
Thanks for reminding me. It is a very intriguing story but alas no more than hearsay evidence in the greater scheme of things.

Hi OR,
Great to have you back. I think you are a very important fulcrum between the two contesting sides on this forum. For the prosecution, Graham is full of context and common sense; NickB is a stickler for fact that has stopped many a Conspiracy Theorist short in his tracks; and Alfie opens up interesting avenues for debate. For the defence I made the odd wild assertion based on meagre fact but am trumped by Moste, who thinks well outside the box, and occasionally seems nearer the mark than any of us! So, a good mix I think.

Regarding your point about Ewer lying low if he were involved in the A6 murder: I can’t argue with that logic outright. But put ourselves in the place of Acott and the investigation team. They had hauled in every armed blagger, car thief and sex fiend they could find in the area and turned up a blank. What next in a case of national importance? Maybe time to look a bit closer at home? To look at that gas meter perhaps?

That is when Ewer acts and pulls on all his resources to create a distraction. The initial distraction at Swiss Cottage was a damp squib and caused Ewer much anxiety in the months that followed; no wonder he attended every day of the trial. The ‘vision’ story at the cleaners was an attempt- and in my view quite a transparent one- to explain the Swiss Cottage police presence. But the cartridge cases which appeared at the Vienna Hotel did what the Swiss Cottage call had not managed to do: to put James Hanratty in the frame. I doubt that Ewer thought Hanratty would stay there- but he did.

Thanks, Cobalt. Very kind.

Your reference to the cartridge cases prompts me to throw in a further thought I've had for a while but never voiced here.

Once the police had (somehow) ascertained that Hanratty had stayed in the room in which the cartridge cases had been found, it was understandable and right that they focused attention on him. However, I do wonder if their focus on this find could still have been spread wider.

It's not exactly as if the Vienna was like Fort Knox during and after Hanratty's stay. Who else had definite access to the room? Perhaps more to the point, who might have had access to the room?

Given the role at the Vienna of Nudds, an established liar and proven criminal, those questions cannot be accurately answered but I do wonder if they should have been probed more at the time. It's almost as if it's regarded as a case of, ''only an Indian gentleman stayed in the room after Hanratty and we know from witness statements that an Indian didn't shoot Gregsten, rape Storie and drive the car so the cartridge cases must be down to Hanratty''. Whereas, Nudds could have entered the room at almost any time he was employed at the Vienna plus perhaps any number of his unscrupulous friends and acquaintances. The same sort of comment applies to other staff working at the Vienna. Also, could other guests have been shown this room or gained access to it?

There is no suggestion from me and no evidence to suggest that the Indian gentleman was involved in any way. However, it would have been helpful to particularly seek his views as to whether he used he used the chair in the alcove and his general impressions as to the room's security. Possibly this happened but, without having had the books for a few years, I can't recall. I also wonder if Sherrard could have made more of this.

Best regards,
OneRound

[Graham]

Hello again OR! Nice to see you back.

Your comments re: The Vienna are very interesting. It obviously can't be ruled out that Nudds may well have known Hanratty, but of course this can't be proved now, although I'm fairly sure that Acott would have investigated the criminal acquaintances of both Nudds and Hanratty. I don't believe that the Indian gent was anything whatsoever to do with the cartridges - Galves said that he stayed one night in Room 24 and was then moved for 2 nights to Room 25. I've been racking what passes as my brains trying to remember where I heard that Room 24 was a kinf of 'overflow' room, used when the hotel was busy, and that being a large room it was also sometimes used for storage. The documentary I saw (which is still somewhere in my 'collection', and is actually a tape) showed that Room 24 was large and gloomy, so I suspect that even if the cases were on the chair during Mr Rapur's occupancy, they would not be easily seen. And Crocker stated that the Nudds between them did hardly any work, which is why he went on his tour of inspection to check the state of the rooms.

I agree that the cases could have been 'planted' there at any time between Hanratty's stay and the day Crocker found them, but I am very much of the opinion that they were accidentally dropped by Hanratty when loading his gun.


Graham

[OneRound]

Some reasons to suppose that Alphon was involved in the A6 Case.

1. A man bearing a resemblance to him was seen in the Taplow area the afternoon of the murder.
2. The landlady of the Inn where the victims shared their last drink believed she had seen Alphon there around the time of the crime.
3. Alphon was garrulous by nature. So was the murderer according to Valerie Storie.
4. Alphon did not have a driving licence and had no known experience of cars.
5. In the aftermath of the crime Alphon lay out of sight but attracted the attention of fellow residents in the hotel where he was staying, resulting in the police being called.
6. Alphon carried out an apparently motiveless attack on Mrs Delal.
7. Alphon stayed in the Vienna Hotel where cartridge cases were found.
8. Alphon was obstructive when police attempted to obtain his clothing.
9. Alphon was named- by an anonymous caller admittedly- as a person that knew who the killer was.
10. Alphon seemed to feel some personal responsibility for the execution of Hanratty and visited the family to offer his remorse.
11. Alphon was in possession of quite a large sum of money despite having no obvious means of support.
12. From the relative safety of Paris, Alphon effectively admitted his guilt and even provided some kind of motive.

Hi again Cobalt - a cynic might well be of the view that an extra reason was also waiting and hoping to make an appearance.

Namely, an alleged confession in a prison exercise yard from Alphon to Roy Langdale or another member of the same lowest life food chain.

Put another way, I suspect things would have headed in a different direction if Valerie Storie had mistakenly picked Alphon rather than Michael Clarke and the above is one of them.

Best regards,
OneRound

[OneRound]

Hello again OR! Nice to see you back.

Your comments re: The Vienna are very interesting. It obviously can't be ruled out that Nudds may well have known Hanratty, but of course this can't be proved now, although I'm fairly sure that Acott would have investigated the criminal acquaintances of both Nudds and Hanratty. I don't believe that the Indian gent was anything whatsoever to do with the cartridges - Galves said that he stayed one night in Room 24 and was then moved for 2 nights to Room 25. I've been racking what passes as my brains trying to remember where I heard that Room 24 was a kinf of 'overflow' room, used when the hotel was busy, and that being a large room it was also sometimes used for storage. The documentary I saw (which is still somewhere in my 'collection', and is actually a tape) showed that Room 24 was large and gloomy, so I suspect that even if the cases were on the chair during Mr Rapur's occupancy, they would not be easily seen. And Crocker stated that the Nudds between them did hardly any work, which is why he went on his tour of inspection to check the state of the rooms.

I agree that the cases could have been 'planted' there at any time between Hanratty's stay and the day Crocker found them, but I am very much of the opinion that they were accidentally dropped by Hanratty when loading his gun.


Graham

Thanks, Graham.

I'm conscious that I may come across at times as wanting to have and eat my Hanratty cake. In view of that, I particularly appreciate my return being welcomed.

In line with my opening sentence, I tend to side with you in opining that the cases were accidentally dropped by Hanratty but was most of all emphasising that it does not automatically follow that they were just because he had recently stayed in the room in which they were found.

Best regards,
OneRound

[Graham]

Hi Cobalt,

one or two comments, if I may:

Some reasons to suppose that Alphon was involved in the A6 Case.

1. A man bearing a resemblance to him was seen in the Taplow area the afternoon of the murder. Heresay. Why wasn't this 'witness' called to an ID parade with Alphon?
2. The landlady of the Inn where the victims shared their last drink believed she had seen Alphon there around the time of the crime. Mrs Lanz original statement to police on Aug 24 made no reference to seeing Alphon or the victims. She said she saw 'two strange men' and that was it.
Also, when Fox saw Alphon years later, the latter stated that he had never actually been inside the pub on the murder night.
3. Alphon was garrulous by nature. So was the murderer according to Valerie Storie.
4. Alphon did not have a driving licence and had no known experience of cars. Contrary to popular opinion, Hanratty was generally regard as a bad driver - ref: his accident in Ireland, and the damage he inflicted to his Sunbeam. And his crunching of the gears as he pulled away from Deadman's Hill.
5. In the aftermath of the crime Alphon lay out of sight but attracted the attention of fellow residents in the hotel where he was staying, resulting in the police being called.Alphon's behaviour at The Alexandra Court was typical of him. A former landlady of his stated that he used to bang around his room at night, keeping the other residents awake.
6. Alphon carried out an apparently motiveless attack on Mrs Delal. And which was dismissed by the police when the distributors of the Almanac he sold said that he had been at their premises at the time of the attack.
7. Alphon stayed in the Vienna Hotel where cartridge cases were found. So did Hanratty. So did plenty of other people.
8. Alphon was obstructive when police attempted to obtain his clothing. According to Woffinden. Read Leonard Miller for another take on this.
9. Alphon was named- by an anonymous caller admittedly- as a person that knew who the killer was. Did that Mrs Rough actually nameAlphon during her call?
10. Alphon seemed to feel some personal responsibility for the execution of Hanratty and visited the family to offer his remorse. And was told where to go.
11. Alphon was in possession of quite a large sum of money despite having no obvious means of support. This has been discussed on here so often I shrink from repeating it!! Briefly, there is no actual proof that any of Alphon's money, per his interview with Foot, came from anything to do with the A6. And in fact Foot eventually had many doubts himself.
12. From the relative safety of Paris, Alphon effectively admitted his guilt and even provided some kind of motive. And if you believe that, you can believe anything! The interviewer was an idiot, and Alphon ran rings around him. And I believe got paid for it, too. If you look at the film, in which Alphon, smart and well-dressed, he's smirking most of the time, and delaying his response to some of the questions. He was having you all on!!!

Graham

(Sorry, it's all come out italicised......)

[moste]

I never cared for the rather unlikely offering that the couple were victims of someone trying to force them apart by intimidation.
And as an alternative to an involvement in a high society sex scandal , or industrial espionage.
Could we possibly be looking at an aggrieved husband , that Gregsten has caused the violation of his marital vows ?

Or rather his wife’s marital vows. It mustn’t be forgotten that our Mikey was something of a Casanova. And thereby a possible motive is in the making. I wonder if the police were as diligent In their investigations as the book writers, though even they didn’t dig deep enough, imo. I do think they were almost as mesmerized as the police with Storie’s account of it all.

[Graham]

Or rather his wife’s marital vows. It mustn’t be forgotten that our Mikey was something of a Casanova. And thereby a possible motive is in the making. I wonder if the police were as diligent In their investigations as the book writers, though even they didn’t dig deep enough, imo. I do think they were almost as mesmerized as the police with Storie’s account of it all.

But Janet was fully aware of Mike's indiscretions and didn't seem too bothered about them. She freely admitted that she couldn't give him the sex he wanted, and thus wasn't particularly concerned about his dallyings with other women, of which she was quite aware. I suppose one could say that for the very early 1960's this was an unusually 'easy' attitude, but it's how it was with Janet. And seriously, how many 'wronged' wives would go to the trouble of 'employing' a gunman to blow their unfaithful husbands' brains out? Give me details of just a couple of such cases from the early 1960's and I might just go along with your scenario. And don't forget that Janet lived extra-maritally with William Ewer for some years after the dust had settled, so if your image of a wronged wife seeking vengeance is true, then it would be the pot calling the kettle black. No, your scenario won't wash, Moste. Think again.

Graham

[OneRound]

...

Hi OR,
Great to have you back. I think you are a very important fulcrum between the two contesting sides on this forum. For the prosecution, Graham is full of context and common sense; NickB is a stickler for fact that has stopped many a Conspiracy Theorist short in his tracks; and Alfie opens up interesting avenues for debate. For the defence I made the odd wild assertion based on meagre fact but am trumped by Moste, who thinks well outside the box, and occasionally seems nearer the mark than any of us! So, a good mix I think.

...

Just to emphasise - and I am fully confident Cobalt would totally agree - that new and returning posters would also be warmly welcomed.

Best regards,
OneRound