Woffinden says Anderson was lying on certain points because: "All were either contradicted, or not supported in any sense, by the rest of the evidence". But I cannot find any such contradictions.
One of the points Woffinden claims she lied about is: "That he was wearing his suit just before the murder but not wearing it straight afterwards." But her evidence here is entirely consistent with that of the Frances who said that Hanratty returned on the Saturday wearing slacks and stayed with them until the evening. Anderson said he arrived at her place on the Saturday evening wearing slacks.
Her shop was in Greek Street, and her small flat or bed-sit was at Cambridge Court in Sussex Gardens.
Thanks, Spitfire - I'd plumb forgotten as it's quite a long time since I re-read my A6 library. Sussex Gardens is, of course, a stone's throw from Paddington Station. Anderson must have been doing all right, as even back then Greek Street and Sussex Gardens were quite desirable addresses. No 57 Greek Street, which is where Anderson's Juna Antiques was located, is now a club.
We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze
I am inclined to believe that he did visit Louise Anderson on the Tuesday morning. She admitted in court that she was not very good on dates, but it could not have been the Sunday or Monday morning because he had stayed at her flat on those nights.
There is something that happened at the trial, just before she gave evidence, which I have not been able to get to the bottom of.
Woffinden (page 197) says that on a day Nudds gave evidence (later identified as Fri-26-Jan) Acott was observed at the Bedford Hotel interviewing Anderson, during which she claimed to have lost a pair of black gloves. Then he claims (page 201) that, just before Anderson appeared as a witness the following Monday, Sherrard argued successfully for this evidence not to be admitted.
There is something wrong here.
Contemporary newspaper reports show that just before Anderson appeared as a witness on the Monday morning it was Swanwick who complained about impropriety, not Sherrard. He said it was “the defence solicitor” (presumably Kleinman) who had interviewed Anderson the previous Friday.
I would imagine that the defence would have had a copy of the police statements made by Louise Anderson, so any claim about losing gloves would have already been known to them. Do we know if the claim about her losing gloves was later made in court?
Here is another coincidence from the A6 Case. Mrs. Galvez of the Vienne Hotel was reported to have made a statement that she noticed black ladies’ gloves on top of a suitcase in Alphon’s room. This was at a time when Alphon was very much in the frame for the murder. I find it hard to place much reliability on this statement and suspect it was ‘coached’ from her by Acott and his men.
Then we have a similar detail popping up, potentially, in the evidence of Louise Anderson except this time to the detriment of Hanratty.
While on the subject of Acott possibly concocting something out of nothing to further his aims ...
Acott’s interview with Alphon's mother (Sept 22) and the “smashing” (Foot) of Alphon's alibi for the night of the murder: I’ve seen no direct quote of what Gladys Alphon told Acott, only the report in the Daily Sketch (Sept 23) that she "told detectives that he last visited their home in Gleneagle Rd, Streatham, two months ago."
Since Alphon hadn't said he'd met his mother at home, but on the street nearby, this statement not only leaves his alibi intact, but seems intended to mislead.
So my question is, did Gladys Alphon in fact affirm to Acott that she didn't meet her son anywhere that night, making his account of his movements wrong? Or did Acott finesse things and keep Alphon in the frame with a carefully worded statement to the press?
There is a long section of Acott’s interview with Gladys Alphon on Page 414 of Woffinden, although this was on 13-Sep – not 22-Sep.
Of course by then she was having to think back a few weeks - whereas when Alphon was first interviewed on 27th August, and said he had met his mother at 9.30pm on the 22nd, he only had to think back a few days.
I think that Gladys did give a vague reply, because of what Acott said when he interviewed Alphon.
Acott: “Can you think of anybody who can verify your statement?”
Alphon: “Only my mother. I met her at about 9pm at Streatham that night.”
Acott: “I’ve seen your mother, she’s not certain of the day.”
Alphon: “No, she’s got a very poor memory, but I saw her several times about then to get money from her and I cashed a few cheques but I can’t remember the days.”
Acott: Can you give me details of the cheques so that I might verify the dates?”
Alphon: “Well, there’s a difficulty there - we use different names ... it’s a personal matter, it’s got something to do with an annuity.”
Incidentally, this last thing Alphon said may explain the money that came into his bank account that he showed Foot. Not only income from the annuity itself, but perhaps also the result of shuffling amounts between various accounts.
The only thing that throws doubt on Alphon’s alibi is Nudds dubious middle statement.
Galves is accepted as the most reliable Vienna witness and she said that Durrant had still not arrived when she went to bed at 10pm. In the morning she put a star against his name in the register, as the last person to arrive the previous night, and then saw him with her own eyes.
Woffinden says that Alphon left the car in Ilford and then made his way to the Vienna - in order to tie in with his sighting by Galves, checking out and doing the other things for which he has an alibi in the afternoon - but in later editions suggested that the car was not left until the evening.