Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Scene of the Crimes: Mitre Sq, The demise is almost complete - by c.d. 40 minutes ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by Graham 58 minutes ago.
Scene of the Crimes: Mitre Sq, The demise is almost complete - by Herlock Sholmes 60 minutes ago.
Visual Media: London 1924 in colour - by Herlock Sholmes 1 hour and 5 minutes ago.
Scene of the Crimes: Mitre Sq, The demise is almost complete - by Sam Flynn 1 hour and 23 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by rjpalmer 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (8 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Mitre Sq, The demise is almost complete - (7 posts)
Torso Killings: torso maps - (7 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (7 posts)
Visual Media: London 1924 in colour - (6 posts)
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - (6 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Social Chat > Other Mysteries > A6 Murders

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #4791  
Old 04-30-2018, 02:59 AM
Alfie Alfie is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 200
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB View Post
Sunday Times magazine comments on the id parade ...

(For some reason they think he was the only man in shirtsleeves and had black hair.)
"At a parade at Guy’s Hospital three wks before, Miss Storie picked out the wrong man, a Spanish sailor."

"... she had been operated on the day before."

"Hanratty was almost certainly the only man with a Cockney accent on the parade."

"He was the only man in shirtsleeves."

"Hanratty’s flaming Irish hair ..."

"The black was growing out on the day of the parade ..."

Five errors and one instance of baseless speculation - not bad going for such a short article.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4792  
Old 04-30-2018, 04:42 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 903
Default

Yet this is the article Woffinden cites for France taking the post card to the police, which is just stated as a fact without any supporting evidence.

They took a photo of cornfield, but it is ridiculously small ...
Attached Images
 
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4793  
Old 05-02-2018, 06:50 AM
Alfie Alfie is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 200
Default

Foot makes a good point when he writes that sometime between Nudds' first statement (Sept 15) and his second (Sept 21), "something happened which convinced the police that Alphon, not Ryan, was their man." (p.70)

In regards to the first statement, it seems the police left Nudds free to tell the truth as he remembered it. In the second, it is pretty apparent to me that they leaned on him and he lied in order to incriminate Alphon.

So what happened in the interim to make the police set their sights so firmly on Alphon?

Did they receive some info or tip-off pointing them in his direction, as Foot conjectures?

Or was it a case of a force under extreme pressure a month past the murder becoming desperate enough to try and fit up their most likely suspect?

I'm more than inclined to believe the latter - hence Alphon's subsequent bitterness and his desire to drag British justice through the mud.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4794  
Old 05-02-2018, 11:30 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 903
Default

What happened in the interim was Galves statement on 20-Sep.

To go back ...

On 27-Aug the police phoned the Vienna to ask if Alphon had stayed there, and requested someone to confirm it in a written statement at a police station. As we discussed recently, they probably spoke to Nudds - and normally he would have been the person to have gone along to confirm it. But he was fired on 5-Sep, so it was Galves who made the 6-Sep written statement.

After the cartridge cases were discovered, the police took a second statement from Galves in which she revealed that she had not personally seen Alphon arrive. Two days later Nudds made his first statement, on 15-Sep.

The police then took a further statement from Galves on 20-Sep in which she was unable to resolve the contradictions in the statements so far (Woff 258-9) which, apart from the registry entry, left Nudds first statement as the only thing exonerating Alphon. They phoned Nudds and asked him again about Alphon, indicating this was who they were after, and invited him in to make a second statement the following day.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4795  
Old 05-03-2018, 03:43 AM
Alfie Alfie is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 200
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB View Post
What happened in the interim was Galves statement on 20-Sep.

To go back ...

On 27-Aug the police phoned the Vienna to ask if Alphon had stayed there, and requested someone to confirm it in a written statement at a police station. As we discussed recently, they probably spoke to Nudds - and normally he would have been the person to have gone along to confirm it. But he was fired on 5-Sep, so it was Galves who made the 6-Sep written statement.

After the cartridge cases were discovered, the police took a second statement from Galves in which she revealed that she had not personally seen Alphon arrive. Two days later Nudds made his first statement, on 15-Sep.

The police then took a further statement from Galves on 20-Sep in which she was unable to resolve the contradictions in the statements so far (Woff 258-9) which, apart from the registry entry, left Nudds first statement as the only thing exonerating Alphon. They phoned Nudds and asked him again about Alphon, indicating this was who they were after, and invited him in to make a second statement the following day.
The relevant part of Galves' Sept 20 statement reads: "I do not understand that part of the entry ‘£1 7s 6d deposit’ because if the guest Durrant had telephoned the hotel in the morning he could not have paid a deposit before his arrival. If he telephoned this hotel in the morning, there was no need for him to call at the Broadway House before coming here. If he had come direct to this hotel without calling at the Broadway and had paid for his room here he would have been given a receipt signed by the Glickbergs or myself, and there would have been no need to show in the hotel diary that he had paid a deposit of £1 7s 6d."

Then there's Foot (pp68-9): "... the hotel documents ... had been seized and studied by the police. These included the relevant pages of the hotel register, signed by the guests; a hotel diary in which the manager recorded bookings as they came in on the phone; and a booking sheet in which the overall position as to bookings was recorded on a large chart. ... The last signature in the register for August 22 is Durrant … marked down for room 6 (1 person). ... in the diary for August 22 the last entry reads ... 6 Mr Durrant. 1 night. Deposit: £1.7.6. There is also a receipt book with carbon copies of receipts issued to guests. ... There is no receipt recorded for Durrant. ... Nudds’ second statement says that he received a telephone call from the Broadway House Hotel late in the evening to the effect that a Mr Bell had cancelled his booking, and, in the hotel diary, the entry: 1 s[ingle] Mr Bell 1 Night Deposit £1, had been scored out as if the booking had been cancelled. In the hotel register, however, there was a signature for Mr Bell ... The story about the cancellation of room 6 by Bell was false."

Taken together, these two passages strongly suggest to me that the Vienna's books were doctored. Take out the '£1 7s 6d deposit' entry, and the line drawn through Mr Bell's name, and reinstate the missing copy of Durrant's receipt, and the books would confirm Alphon's alibi and Mrs Galves would no longer be confused.

Who doctored them? Not Nudds. The Vienna's books would have been taken into the police's hands on or shortly after Sept 11, when the cartridge cases were found. That only leaves the police. It's my belief that Acott and Oxford, after speaking to Galves and in advance of calling in Nudds and Snell, concocted the story about Alphon temporarily occupying Room 24, and later arriving back at the Vienna after everybody was in bed. Then it would have been just a matter of getting the ever-obliging Nudds to put his name to it.

The one thing that could have blown the story apart was somebody from the Broadway House Hotel attesting that yes, indeed, Durrant was booked into the Vienna by us at about 8.30 pm on the night of August 22. Foot tries to throw doubt on this aspect of Alphon's alibi by saying "If they [the two Jewish employees of the Broadway who Alphon in a 1967 Sunday Times article said he'd spoken to] had been interviewed by Superintendent Acott after the murder and had said that Alphon had visited the hotel at about 8.30 on the evening of the 22nd, Mr Acott would surely have mentioned it when explaining at Bedford why he had eliminated Alphon from his inquiries."

But if he'd doctored the Vienna's books to try and fit Alphon up, this is the last thing Acott would have wanted to do.

Interestingly, the Sunday Times reporters contacted Pichler at the Broadway who thought he remembered Alphon arriving at about 9pm that evening, and recollected that one of his managers (now dead) was interviewed afterwards by the police. Given the elaborate story the police were compelled to invent, I can only surmise that the manager told them that yes, indeed, Alphon did call in that evening.

It occurs to me now though that Acott was taking a hell of a risk. If he had managed to get Alphon in the dock, wouldn't the first person his brief called as a witness for the defence be the Broadway manager?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4796  
Old 05-03-2018, 04:19 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 903
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfie View Post
It occurs to me now though that Acott was taking a hell of a risk. If he had managed to get Alphon in the dock, wouldn't the first person his brief called as a witness for the defence be the Broadway manager?
This alibi appears to be exactly what the police did establish in 1967 (Woff 359) and may have not made public, as Alphon said it would be, because the police realised it would have exposed previous coverings up.

There was confusion about the register from the beginning. In her 13-Sep-61 statement Galves said room 24 had not been occupied since 16-Aug. As Woffinden puts it: “However, after a closer examination of the books, it now emerged that the room was occupied.”

Then in the 2002 Appeal, section 166: “Mr Mansfield argues further, that it is legitimate to infer that the hotel register had been altered to conceal the entry in relation to Ryan and that the defence were deprived of the opportunity to submit that the police were prepared to tailor the evidence to fit the theory that Durrant/Alphon was guilty, that someone with knowledge that Alphon was under investigation had planted the cartridge cases; and that the hotel record had been altered in some way.”

Incidentally this proves that Mansfield did not admit to Alphon’s innocence in a moment of madness, it was part of the defence’s case that the police tried to frame him.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4797  
Old 05-03-2018, 05:59 AM
Alfie Alfie is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 200
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB View Post
... Mansfield did not admit to Alphon’s innocence in a moment of madness, it was part of the defence’s case that the police tried to frame him.
Right, but surely if the police or anybody else had planted the cartridge cases in an attempt to frame Alphon they'd have planted them in room 6.

I still can't quite believe how bone-headed the police were in initially ignoring Ryan as a suspect - apparently on the grounds that he'd stayed in room 24 the night before the murder.

Or was it the case that the police, in common with Galves, weren't aware at the time that Ryan had actually stayed in that particular room?

Foot says (p68-9) that Ryan signed the register, but whereas for Durrant he says the register showed the room number (6), he makes no mention of this for Ryan.

Foot also says there was no mention of Ryan in the diary. The only item placing Ryan in room 24 appears to be the booking sheet, "in which the overall position as to bookings was recorded on a large chart."

Perhaps Galves and the police initially consulted just the register and the diary, and only later looked at the chart?

That said, I'd have thought once the cartridge cases were discovered the first thing the police would have asked for was a list of the people who'd recently stayed in room 24.

Edit: Nudds in his second statement says Snell took a booking for Durrant about 11am on the 22nd. Alphon says the Broadway phoned the Vienna at about 8.30 pm and booked him in. This might be a simple memory lapse on Snell's part. But then there's the matter of the Vienna's diary, which was supposed to record phone bookings as they came in. It shows the entry for Durrant as the last for the day. Would Durrant's have been the last entry for the day if the call had been made at 11am? Or is it another indication that Alphon's alibi was sound?

Last edited by Alfie : 05-03-2018 at 06:26 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4798  
Old 05-03-2018, 06:27 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 903
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfie View Post
for Durrant he says the register showed the room number (6)
Apparently also in the diary, indicating that 6 was free at the time of booking. Swanwick said: "The hotel diary shows Durrant in Room 6." (Woff 258)

As I have suggested before, the ‘deposit’ entry for Durrant could have been genuine – to reconcile the Vienna policy of demanding payment up front with Alphon’s desire for a moveable departure date (which appears to have been his normal practice). In other words, he agreed to pay for one night up front on the basis he might stay longer. So when he decided not to stay longer the entry was an anachronism that could be used to support a different story.

I disagree with Woffinden's claim that "the only conceivable explanation is the one which Nudds did give in his second statement" (Woff 259).
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4799  
Old 05-03-2018, 06:39 AM
Alfie Alfie is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 200
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB View Post
As I have suggested before, the ‘deposit’ entry for Durrant could have been genuine ... when he decided not to stay longer the entry was an anachronism that could be used to support a different story.
Good point. It would have placed less of a premium on the imaginative powers of Alphon's fitter-uppers.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4800  
Old 05-03-2018, 06:52 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 903
Default

We discussed the '11am booking' claim in post 4576/7. If 'Room 6' was specified in the diary for Durrant, this is further proof against it.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.