Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A6 Rebooted

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

  • Thanks to Graham and NickB for fleshing out the planting of the gun on the 36A bus. The level of knowledge on this site is often quite humbling for dilettantes like myself. I know some of this ground has been gone over before, but sometimes being reminded of details helps to clarify our thoughts.

    The appearance of the elderly woman at the Appeal is like something out of a Thomas Hardy novel, rather like the furmity tent woman who accuses Michael Henchard in The Mayor of Casterbridge. High drama indeed, although we have no way of knowing if, like Henchard’s nemesis, she actually had any valid information at all.

    For all that, and even allowing for the foibles of human nature, it does seem odd that a woman made the effort to attend the appeal, make her outburst and then disappear. Was she encouraged to do so by the defence, so sow some seeds of doubt? Was she an attention seeker? Had she read the newspaper reports and felt there was some kind of injustice? Maybe any one of these, but she is quite specific about her apparent source of information: the bus conductor. Or conductress as might be. Was she on the bus herself? Did she know the conductor/conductress? Or had she just heard some gossip down the local pub?

    Had the ID of the possible gun planter been useful to the prosecution then surely the conductress would have been called as a witness. The case against Hanratty was weak enough to require the inclusion of ‘courtyard confessions,’ so any ballast would have been useful. Her statement is ambivalent really, since the age and height seem pretty accurate but the attire of the suspect seems to clash with Hanratty’s dapper appearance, and as mentioned the hair. Presumably the defence thought there was no advantage in calling her as a witness, although they might have made more strenuous efforts to trace the unknown woman. Or maybe more to the point, take their own depositions from the conductor/conductress rather than rely on police statements.

    Comment


    • The prosecution did not give Patt’s statement to the defence. That is why Mansfield raised it as Ground 11 of the Appeal. However they did provide the statement of the driver Arthur Embleton who named Patt in it and when he attended court. So the defence could have interviewed her.

      Woffinden claims to have ‘discovered’ Patt’s statement. When he reports on it in his book he expurgates the reference to Top Deck Man and replaces it with three dots.

      “In the first journey to Kilburn the passengers were all regular ones ... I did not see anything suspicious during the whole of this journey.”

      The only reason I can think of for him doing this is that he thought the description of Top Deck Man too closely resembled Hanratty.

      Comment


      • PLA's first ID parade

        Sorry to change the subject, but could someone clear up whether Trower attended Alphon's first identity parade? Foot is adamant he didn't (and quotes Blackhall to that effect), while Woffinden says he did. Also Woffinden has the parade occurring at Scotland Yard, while Foot places it at Cannon Row police station. Anyone know which is correct?

        Cheers
        Alfie

        Comment


        • As we both know, newspaper reports specified that the mystery woman was referring to Ernest Brine who was the conductor in the afternoon - when it appears the bus was too busy for anyone to be upstairs alone
          Nick,

          yes, I'd forgotten Mr Brine - thanks for the reminder. I could really do with a full re-read of my A6 books to refresh my ageing memory.

          Obviously, the gun was placed on the bus by somebody at some time. Woffinden speculates about at least one period when the bus was stationary for an extended period, or it happened during the very early morning run. Personally, I still incline to the belief that it wasn't JH himself who placed the gun, but someone acting for him, although obviously I have absolutely no evidence to back this up.

          Is it known if Pamela Patt or Mr Brine gave evidence at the 2002 Appeal?

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

          Comment


          • Alfie,

            I cannot find any third party reference showing whether Trower attended Alphon's id parade.

            With regard to your PM, here is a link to the Evening Times committal report where Nudds said he left employment at the Vienna at midday on 5-Sep-61. The excerpt below from the Telegraph says he took up his job at the mosque on 9-Sep-61.

            However Crocker’s evidence (which I can post if you wish) does appear to conflict with this and imply that he sacked them when he visited on 11-Sep-61.
            Attached Files

            Comment


            • Originally posted by moste View Post
              Blinkers. .Blinkers.. Head in the sand.. Blinkers

              Allowing horror of the fate of the two in question to foggy up what may well have happened.
              True, as with Grahams post I am speculating, but hey! what if Storie was lying all along. then answers must lie elsewhere.
              Storie was accommodating a married man with two young children, for four years. Somebody pass the sick bag! By the way, I believe she lied where she claimed her parents knew all about it. sorry, just my opinion.

              Does anyone have any input with regards to the final resting place of the so called .38 bullets, given the obvious line of projection. I mean anyone other than the ostriches. PS. I knew it was Storie actually for Valerie I prefer Story
              Hi moste,

              In case you hadn't noticed, Valerie Storie is not the one on trial here and it's a criminal, not a moral case, from 1961, not 1861.

              If you have nothing nice to say about the victim, and have no sympathy for what happened to her, it would be better if you said nothing at all.
              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              Comment


              • Originally posted by NickB View Post
                Alfie,

                I cannot find any third party reference showing whether Trower attended Alphon's id parade.

                With regard to your PM, here is a link to the Evening Times committal report where Nudds said he left employment at the Vienna at midday on 5-Sep-61. The excerpt below from the Telegraph says he took up his job at the mosque on 9-Sep-61.

                However Crocker’s evidence (which I can post if you wish) does appear to conflict with this and imply that he sacked them when he visited on 11-Sep-61.
                Thanks Nick. I have Crocker telling the court that he visited the Vienna on Sept 11 “to assist Mrs Galves after the Glickbergs had left”. Do you have something additional to that?

                Comment


                • Crocker gave his trial evidence on 29-Jan-61 but very little is reported about it. Below is how the Telegraph reported his committal evidence.

                  You asked if Nudds was fired on 5-Sep, why was there a delay in Crocker visiting? I recall reading somewhere Crocker saying his duties included going to the Vienna every Monday, and 11-Sep was a Monday.
                  Attached Files

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by NickB View Post
                    Crocker gave his trial evidence on 29-Jan-61 but very little is reported about it. Below is how the Telegraph reported his committal evidence.

                    You asked if Nudds was fired on 5-Sep, why was there a delay in Crocker visiting? I recall reading somewhere Crocker saying his duties included going to the Vienna every Monday, and 11-Sep was a Monday.
                    Thanks again, Nick. The DT's wording is not unambiguous, but it does rather invite the reader to think that Crocker fired Nudds and Snell on Sept 11.

                    Anyone know Woffinden's source when he says Crocker allowed the couple to stay the night and leave the Vienna the following morning? Does any other source verify this?

                    Comment


                    • That could still have happened but the previous Monday.

                      If it happened on 11-Sep/12-Sep, Crocker would not be assisting Galves 'after the Glickbergs had left'.

                      At the committal Sherrard made much of Nudds being sacked on the same day that the cartridge cases were found.

                      Sherrard: “They were found on September 11. Surprise, surprise!”

                      The implication was that when Nudds was sacked he decided to plant them.

                      As you can see, after Sherrard’s cross examination the defence asked Nudds to ‘correct’ his departure date to 5-Sep. I assume that Sherrard checked this out and found it to be true, because he did not use the same tactic at the trial.
                      Last edited by NickB; 11-17-2017, 08:01 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Yes, Sherrard's silence does seem to be the clincher. It's hard to imagine him ignoring the chance to point out a Nudds error or falsehood.

                        Comment


                        • One possible explanation for the ‘double dates’ of Nudds’ sacking may be that while he was told to clear off on the 6th, he returned on the 11th to receive a week’s wages due to him, something only the manager Crocker could authorize. Most workers in the UK are paid a week in arrears, so Nudds would be fully entitled to return on a Monday, when Crocker visited, to settle up and collect his cards.

                          Crocker was described in one article as a ‘trainee telephonist’ which seems at odds with a man who was previously over-seeing four hotels. Is much known about him beyond this? He was, after all, the person who effectively made the connection between Hanratty and the murder weapon.

                          In a case littered with aliases, Nudds’ certainly takes the biscuit. Whereas ‘Ryan’ and ‘Durrant’ are unexceptional, Nudds decides to take the name ‘Glickberg.’ In an era when many Jewish people anglified their names, Nudds chooses a name which would actually draw attention to himself. Are there any reasons for why he did this? Was it the name of his female companion?

                          Nudds’ testimony at the hearing seems very weak. His story of protecting two prisoner officers from attack has the unmistakable ring of falsehood to it. So too his claims that in order to go ‘straight’ he likes to give information to the police; anyone genuinely trying to live an honest life would try to keep at arms’ length from the police, so this is tantamount to admitting he still has criminal dealings. He even admits to the motivation of revenge for informing on criminals. Given the contradictory nature of his statements to the police, there must have been a case for the judge at trial to rule Nudds’ testimony inadmissible.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by cobalt View Post
                            Given the contradictory nature of his statements to the police, there must have been a case for the judge at trial to rule Nudds’ testimony inadmissible.
                            How would this have helped Hanratty (or anyone else for that matter)? It was only Nudds' second (subsequently retracted) statement that provided any evidence for the existence of an occupant of Room 24 after Hanratty and before the discovery of the cartridge cases.

                            To say that Nudds' evidence was inadmissible would have the effect denying the defence the opportunity to cross-examine Nudds on the fact that he had said that Alphon had booked into Room 24 on the night of the murder. Without Nudds how would the jury have known that there was a possibility that Alphon had left the used cartridge cases in Room 24?

                            Comment


                            • Talking of Alphon ...

                              As I posted here previously, I got the impression (simply from their exchanges) that Acott had made up his mind about Alphon’s innocence before he had finished interviewing him. Indeed Acott said at the trial: “by the end of the interview with him I was satisfied in my mind.”

                              Also in the Telegraph’s report below, I thought it interesting how seriously Sherrard pursued the idea of a bushy eyebrow in the identikit pictures. Foot mentioned how Swanwick also became involved in the discussion about the strange eyebrow.

                              It was probably this eyebrow discussion that led Swanwick to ask his most peculiar question:

                              Swanwick: “Mr Hanratty, do you always hold your right eyebrow higher than your left?"

                              Hanratty: “I don't know sir, because I cannot see it."
                              Attached Files

                              Comment


                              • The Hepworth suit

                                Just came across this in Hawser (p32):

                                "It subsequently transpired that [Hanratty's] description of the breaking into two houses in this area [Stanmore] on or about the 1st October and the stealing of a black jacket was correct: but the Hepworth jacket which he said he had abandoned in a recreation ground was not found. It is perhaps of some significance that evidence was given by the witness who sold the suit to Mr Hanratty that the labels from the trousers and waistcoat had been removed."

                                I'm not sure what Hawser is hinting at here: that the seller inspected the trousers and waistcoat after they were collected from Louise Anderson's flat and noted they'd been tampered with, implying that an attempt had been made to disguise their origin (and ergo their ownership)? Thoughts anyone?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X