A6 Rebooted

[Limehouse]

Caz - It sounds as if you are making a statement of fact about Hanratty. Whether he lied or not regarding his whereabouts is a matter of some conjecture.

Hi Louisa

By his own admission, Hanratty lied about spending the night in Liverpool. However, this does not mean he lied about the whole trip to Liverpool/Rhyl and the reasons for his lies about Liverpool has been explored on this thread.

Alphon was also a liar. If his was guilty, he lied about his alibi, but if he was not guilty, he lied about being guilty! In my opinion, his alibi concerning the attack on Mrs Dahl was also questionable. He claimed to have been buying almanacs from his regular supplier and this was confirmed by two employees whom Alphon knew well and regularly bought almanacs from. In short, he regularly supplied them with business. Mrs Dahl identified Alphon in the line up but his alibi was accepted.

[caz]

Caz - in your above post you wrote:

"That's an extraordinary thing to claim, Louisa. How are you remotely qualified to judge what sort of person typically commits a thankfully all too rare crime like this, and how they are likely to behave afterwards?"

I could equally ask you the same question because your last paragraph states::

"Hanratty behaved in exactly the way a desperate, but not very bright criminal would have behaved after committing a desperate, not very bright one-off capital crime."

Hi Louisa,

But I was only stating the bleedin' obvious here. This was a desperate, not very bright crime for anyone to have committed - one which meant the death penalty for anyone convicted of it, and one where the rape victim was left alive to tell the tale. Whoever did this would have been obliged to lie under questioning or swing for it, and Hanratty (guilty or not) undoubtedly did lie concerning his whereabouts and movements while the crime was being committed.

What you were saying was very different. You saw Alphon's extremely unusual behaviour as typical of someone who had committed a crime of this nature. You said 'we might expect' the offender to behave as Alphon did. So I just wondered how many such cases you had come across, and how many times the guilty party had behaved in such a manner.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

What if the person responsible for the A6 crime had committed equally mad and dangerous crimes (such as armed robberies and kidnaps) and had been punished for those but never identified as the A6 killer?

You are looking for an identical crime, but if it was such an unplanned, one-off event as you seem to think, the man responsible could have gone on to other types of crime and been caught and punished, but never identified as the A6 killer.

This all a bit silly now, Limehouse. A man was hanged for the A6 crime and nothing that could reasonably be compared with it happened following this man's arrest. I am not 'looking' for an identical crime, but I can safely say that the person responsible for this one was never again willing or able to carry out a similar offence. Hanging is a pretty effective way of stopping someone going on to commit any more crimes, mad, dangerous, serious or petty.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Caz - It sounds as if you are making a statement of fact about Hanratty. Whether he lied or not regarding his whereabouts is a matter of some conjecture.

Hanratty told two contradictory stories about where he was and what he was doing there, so he either lied about one or both of them.

Simples.

Love,

Caz
X

[louisa]

Caz - this is what you said I said:

"You said 'we might expect' the offender to behave as Alphon did".


Just to refresh your memory, this is what I actually said:

"However, if it was Alphon then, for my money, post-murder, he behaved in the kind of erratic way that we might expect an unbalanced person to behave after committing these crimes"


We are going to have to accept, as has been pointed out in Limehouse's last post, that both Hanratty and Alphon lied. I fully believe that Hanratty started telling the truth when he realised that his life depended upon it.

Nobody can say what was in the minds of either party so all we can do is make educated guesses, to the best of our abilities, using the information that we have been given.

[louisa]

Hi Louisa,

I just wondered how many such cases you had come across, and how many times the guilty party had behaved in such a manner.

X

Now Caz, I'm sorry but you're forcing me to pose the same question to you, because you wrote this:

"Hanratty behaved in exactly the way a desperate, but not very bright criminal would have behaved after committing a desperate, not very bright one-off capital crime."

[Limehouse]

This all a bit silly now, Limehouse. A man was hanged for the A6 crime and nothing that could reasonably be compared with it happened following this man's arrest. I am not 'looking' for an identical crime, but I can safely say that the person responsible for this one was never again willing or able to carry out a similar offence. Hanging is a pretty effective way of stopping someone going on to commit any more crimes, mad, dangerous, serious or petty.

Love,

Caz
X

You are still missing my point. The A6 killer could have got clean away with the A6 crime but never again carried out a similar crime. However, he could have been responsible for a series of serious crimes, for which he was punished but not hanged (because hanging had by then been abolished). He could have spent the rest of his life after conviction in prison, he could have died there, and he could have never been identified as the A6 killer - because after all, nobody would be asking him about a crime for which a man had already been hanged - and he would not be telling.

[Limehouse]

Hanratty told two contradictory stories about where he was and what he was doing there, so he either lied about one or both of them.

Simples.

Love,

Caz
X

But lying about where you were/were not and what you did/did not is not solid evidence of guilt of murder and rape.

Alphon also lied, frequently, during and after his period as a suspect. His lies were not evidence of his guilt.

[Graham]

I think Alphon's lies to the police ought to be put into perspective. After the manager of The Alexandra Court complained to the police about Alphon's crazy behaviour (following Acott's plea to hotels and lodging-houses), the only 'authentic' lie he told to the police was to give a false name and address (Frederick Durrant of Horsham) per The Alexandra's guest-book. Shortly aftewards, at Blackstock Road Police Station, he gave his real name and his parents' address. He also gave them some personal information, none of which seems incorrect or even exaggerated. On being instructed by the police to do so, he re-registered at The Alexandra using his real name and his parents' address.

Obviously Alphon's interview was part of the A6 investigation, but there is no evidence to suggest that Alphon suspected this, or that the police told him. He told them freely that he'd stayed at The Vienna on the night of 22 August again, one assumes, without linking that to the A6 investigation. The police saw no problems with what he told them, and let him go.

Only when the cartridge cases were found at The Vienna on 11 September did Alphon's name become linked to the A6 investigation. Once the cases were identified as being fired from the A6 gun, the police naturally wanted to know who'd stayed at The Vienna during the critical period, and since, and of course up came the name of Frederick Durrant, a.k.a. Peter Alphon, once more. Juliana Galves said in her first statement that Durrant/Alphon arrived at The Vienna at about 11.30pm and left the next day at about 12.10pm. Her subsequent statement was slightly different - she now said she never actually saw Alphon. Doubtless she was 'encouraged' to say this by DS Acott, who was by now desperate to locate a feasible suspect for the A6.

Alphon's identity was made public, his mother was interviewed, and he gave himself up on 22 September when after advising 2 newspapers what he was about to do he walked into Scotland Yard and asked for Acott. Alphon said he had met his mother during the evening of 22 August and she gave him a suitcase. However, she then said that Alphon had not visited his parents' home for about 2 months and this was taken to blow his alibi apart. Unfortunately for Acott, Alphon had said that he had met his mother in the street at or near Gleneagle Road and had not gone to the house because he didn't get on with his father.

More on this later - got to go!

Graham

[caz]

Well the judge certainly didn't think so, Caz.He was at at pains to point out that a person not having an alibi does not make that person guilty----Alphon had no alibi either!

Er, Nats, if Hanratty had been innocent of this rape and murder, of course he would have had an alibi! Where was he - on a different planet? The fact is, he was unwilling or unable to provide a straight and truthful account of where he actually was, and the jury understandably found this impossible to swallow since his neck was at stake here. Not being able to prove where he was would not have amounted, by itself, to proof of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, of course not. That's what the judge meant and he was quite correct. But as you well know there were other factors that the jury were obliged to take into account before arriving at their guilty verdict.

Alphon needed no alibi - not then, not now. It may have escaped your notice but he was never on trial. Hanratty was - for his life. He knew, even if you don't, how vital it was to make the jury believe he was elsewhere at the time. That's why he felt forced to change his story to one they might actually have believed.

"Nothing in any of those 5 weeks since the murder indicates he had played any part in the A6 atrocity."

And that in no way makes that person innocent, as any appeal judge could tell you. It also may have escaped your notice that the onus has changed for Hanratty. He is now presumed guilty unless or until proof of his innocence - and the mother of all conspiracies and coc*-ups - can be found. Alphon must be presumed entirely innocent in the meanwhile, by anyone with a genuine interest in fair play and justice for all.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Just to refresh your memory, this is what I actually said:

"However, if it was Alphon then, for my money, post-murder, he behaved in the kind of erratic way that we might expect an unbalanced person to behave after committing these crimes"

I know what you said, Louisa. You still have not provided a list of similar crimes which are known to have been committed by an unbalanced person who then behaved as Alphon did - eg claiming personal involvement but always stopping short of actually incriminating himself. So why might we 'expect' anything of the sort?

You are entitled to believe what you want, including that 'Hanratty started telling the truth when he realised that his life depended upon it'.

But are you suggesting he wasn't aware that he was being charged with a capital offence? It was pretty bloody vital to tell the truth if the truth was that he spent the night innocently sleeping in a Rhyl guesthouse! No other alibi could be expected to hold up in court, could it?

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

A quickie - I wanted to edit my last post to change "gave himself up" to "presented himself to the police", but my 30 minutes' have expired. Alphon was wanted only to 'help with inquiries'; he had been accused of nothing.

Gotta go or nasty things will be visited upon me by Mrs Graham.

Graham

[caz]

Now Caz, I'm sorry but you're forcing me to pose the same question to you, because you wrote this:

"Hanratty behaved in exactly the way a desperate, but not very bright criminal would have behaved after committing a desperate, not very bright one-off capital crime."

Easy. I think I can safely say without fear of contradiction that in the vast majority of criminal cases brought to trial, the guilty party will have told some pretty desperate lies in court in order to support a 'not guilty' plea - never mind when the crime meant a death sentence. Telling the truth would involve a plea of guilty and no need for a jury - right?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

You are still missing my point. The A6 killer could have got clean away with the A6 crime but never again carried out a similar crime. However, he could have been responsible for a series of serious crimes, for which he was punished but not hanged (because hanging had by then been abolished). He could have spent the rest of his life after conviction in prison, he could have died there, and he could have never been identified as the A6 killer - because after all, nobody would be asking him about a crime for which a man had already been hanged - and he would not be telling.

Hi Limehouse,

But this is merely idle speculation that leads you nowhere, since you now need actual evidence that the real A6 killer was not hanged before he could commit any more crimes. There is nothing to suggest that anyone escaped justice for this one.

Love,

Caz
X

[louisa]

Easy. I think I can safely say without fear of contradiction that in the vast majority of criminal cases brought to trial, the guilty party will have told some pretty desperate lies in court in order to support a 'not guilty' plea - never mind when the crime meant a death sentence. Telling the truth would involve a plea of guilty and no need for a jury - right?

Love,

Caz
X

Caz - You have totally missed the point of my post. Read it again:-

Caz - in your post #1196 you wrote:

"That's an extraordinary thing to claim, Louisa. How are you remotely qualified to judge what sort of person typically commits a thankfully all too rare crime like this, and how they are likely to behave afterwards?"

I could equally ask you the same question because your last paragraph states::

"Hanratty behaved in exactly the way a desperate, but not very bright criminal would have behaved after committing a desperate, not very bright one-off capital crime."

My point is the question itself. I'll explain. You take me to task for making a judgment with no 'qualifications', yet you yourself keep doing exactly that! (presumably with no qualifications).