PDA

View Full Version : Mrs Gregsten"s "intuition" [Feb.19th 1962]


Natalie Severn
10-10-2010, 12:34 AM
N.B. Under the rules governing contempt of court,"The Daily Sketch" could not publish this story until after a verdict had been arrived at:
Two days after Hanratty"s conviction on February 19th 1962 the following story appeared in The Daily Sketch:

Amazing Story of Mrs Gregsten"s Intuition
SHE SAW HIM AT THE CLEANERS,

......Only eight days after the murder---when Scotland Yard were without a positive clue to the killer-Mrs Gregsten pointed to Hanratty and said"

"Thats the man the police are looking for!"



Mrs Gregsten"s 50 year old brother-in-law *, Mr William Ewer,had taken her to his antique shop in the station arcade at Swiss Cottage,North London,to try to help her get over the tragedy which struck her life.
On the morning of August 31st,Mrs Gregsten wasstanding in the shop window
helping Mr Ewer hand a picture--a Wilson Steer* interior.Suddenly she clutched Mr Ewer"s arm and pointed to a man with jet black hair wal;king into Burtol"s cleaners shop only two yards across the arcade.
"Thats the man,He fits the description" she said."But its more than that ,I"ve got an overpowering feeling that its him"...........
Said Mr Ewerlast night,"I calmed her down.......I went into the cleaners later and talked to the manageress"
She told me the man had brought in a green suit on August 21st to have a tear in the coat mendedand the trousers tapered.He had called in that day to ask if it was ready.He gave the name J.Ryan and an address in St John"s Wood.
Neither Mr Ewer or the police knew that J.Ryan was an alias of James Hanratty or that he stayed with Charles Dixie France ,in the road named, only a mile away.

[Mr Ewer then said he went in search of the man]
The next day he went to a cafe in Finchley Road.As he sat drinking a cup of tea and pondering the almost hopelessness of the A6 murder he spotted a pair of hand -made Italian shoes
My eyes travelled upwards to a well cut blue suit.Then I found myself staring into those blue eyes again.It was the same man.
Stunned by this miracle ,according to the story,Mr Ewer decided to follow the man.He watched him go into aflorists shop in finchley Road.Then,acting on impulse,HE RANG SCOTLAND YARD. A Squad car arrived.I introduced myself and told the police my story. The police[the article doesnt say which police]then made inquiries at the florists shop,and the manageresss there,a Mrs Dorothy Morrell,told them that the man had come in on September 1st and said he wanted to send some roses to his mother-a Mrs Hanratty of 12 Sycamore Grove,Kingsbury.

The article continues:

A report was made to Scotland Yard, but the murder Squad had never heard of Jimmy Ryan---or Kingsbury Road....
.....but Bill Ewer could not rest.He walked into the shop of a "business associate"-58 year old Mrs Louise Anderson,who has an antiques business in Greek Street Soho,
He did not know that Hanratty,whom Mrs Anderson had befriended,had been in the shop only that morning.[/I]
On the very same day as the Sketch article,a very similar article appeared in the Daily Mail by Bernard Jordan.
The publication of these articles was the first indication that Scotland Yard had Hanratty"s name and his alias long before they started to hunt him as the murderer.
[Its worth noting that up to that morning, the 31st August, neither in her detailed conversations with policemen nor with the identikit experts had Valerie Storie spoken of the killer"s blue eyes.On the contrary she had told police after the murder he had "deep set" brown eyes".]
Taken from "Who Killed Hanratty" by Paul Foot.

* Mr Ewer apparently later became Mrs Gregsten"s lover.
* Wilson Steer---a Chelsea painter whose work commands very substantial sums of money

Stephen Thomas
10-10-2010, 02:44 AM
Mrs Gregsten"s 50 year old brother-in-law *, Mr William Ewer,had taken her to his antique shop in the station arcade at Swiss Cottage,North London,to try to help her get over the tragedy which struck her life...

Taken from "Who Killed Hanratty" by Paul Foot.



Hi Norma

As I mentioned to you at the Conference I lived for ten years in the Swiss Cottage/West Hampstead/Finchley Road area (1969-1979) and so did Paul Foot who was a near neighbour though I was only on nodding terms with him. He would I'm sure have definitely noticed the absolutely amazing coincidence of out-of-towner Mrs Gregston being in the habit of mooching about inside Hanratty's and Alphon's quite small North London patch.

Limehouse
10-10-2010, 11:03 AM
Great subject for a post Norma.

I have always been intrigued by this aspect of the case. Did these events actually happen - or were they an attempt to boost the Gregten family funds?

I am also interested to note that the article describes how 'Ewer went to the shop of a business associate louise Anderson'. Ewer denied he knew Anderson so how did the paper get this informatioon for the article. Surely if the article was the result of an interview between Ewer - Mrs Gregsten and the reporter - the information could only have come from Ewer?

There are two things I can conclude from this/these report(s):

1) if the whole thing is hogwash then Ewer's and Mrs Gregstern's honesty is called into question

2) if the story is true Ewer obviously knew Anderson and there is a line of enquiry here that was never followed up.

Natalie Severn
10-10-2010, 11:20 AM
Hi Norma

As I mentioned to you at the Conference I lived for ten years in the Swiss Cottage/West Hampstead/Finchley Road area (1969-1979) and so did Paul Foot who was a near neighbour though I was only on nodding terms with him. He would I'm sure have definitely noticed the absolutely amazing coincidence of out-of-towner Mrs Gregston being in the habit of mooching about inside Hanratty's and Alphon's quite small North London patch.

Thanks Stephen,
This accounts for Paul Foot being able to interview the woman in the flower shop,Mrs Dorothy Morrell,who would have been a neighbour of his.Mrs Morrell was still the manageress at Caters Flower shop in 1970,when Paul Foot interviewed her.
Importantly Mrs Morrell remembered the visit by Hanratty very well and confirmed to him that "two plainclothes policemen made inquiries about him,soon afterwards"
This means , as Paul Foot asserts,that the name of Hanratty"s mother was known to police soon after 31st August.Similarly that Mr Ewer had informed Scotland Yard about the Flower shop visit at the time.
Ewer said that the Sketch story was not accurate but it was never made clear which "aspects" of the story were not accurate.[note,he did not deny the story].However, Peter Duffy,The Sketch reporter confirmed in public on a BBC Panorama Programme in November 1966,that it was indeed accurate .Moreover that police were put on the trail of James Hanratty as early as the beginning of September 1961 and this was also confirmed by The Daily Mail and The Daily Sketch by Mrs Dorothy Morrell, the woman in the flower shop.
Norma

Natalie Severn
10-10-2010, 11:27 AM
I have always been intrigued by this aspect of the case. Did these events actually happen - or were they an attempt to boost the Gregten family funds?

Hi Julie,I hope my post,which crossed with yours demonstrates that Hanratty was indeed seen by Mrs Dorothy Morrell the manageress of the flower shop in Swiss Cottage on that specific date and that Scotland Yard sent two plainclothes policemen to interview her.
So Mrs Hanratty"s name was known,and it was therefore known by police and by late August/early September 1961, that "Ryan" was her son and that Ryan =Hanratty.
Norma

Limehouse
10-10-2010, 05:29 PM
Hi Julie,I hope my post,which crossed with yours demonstrates that Hanratty was indeed seen by Mrs Dorothy Morrell the manageress of the flower shop in Swiss Cottage on that specific date and that Scotland Yard sent two plainclothes policemen to interview her.
So Mrs Hanratty"s name was known,and it was therefore known by police and by late August/early September 1961, that "Ryan" was her son and that Ryan =Hanratty.
Norma

Hi Norma

What I meant by 'was it true?' is the 'she saw him at the cleaners' aspect. Can we honestly believe that the police were able to make a connection between J Ryan and Mrs Hanratty (weeks before the Irish crash and the 'official' version of how the connection was made) simply on some supernatural moment experienced by Mrs Gregtern?? Did the police really take these events seriously based on the version of the story printed in the papers - or was there some other information passed to them at the same time that was never made public?

If these events (Mrs Gregtern's 'funny feeling - not Hanaratty visiting those shops) really formed part of the enquiry into the A6 crime then it makes the evidence presented against Hanratty and the outcome of the trial even more suspect.

Natalie Severn
10-10-2010, 06:52 PM
Hi Norma

What I meant by 'was it true?' is the 'she saw him at the cleaners' aspect. Can we honestly believe that the police were able to make a connection between J Ryan and Mrs Hanratty (weeks before the Irish crash and the 'official' version of how the connection was made) simply on some supernatural moment experienced by Mrs Gregtern?? Did the police really take these events seriously based on the version of the story printed in the papers - or was there some other information passed to them at the same time that was never made public?

If these events (Mrs Gregtern's 'funny feeling - not Hanaratty visiting those shops) really formed part of the enquiry into the A6 crime then it makes the evidence presented against Hanratty and the outcome of the trial even more suspect.

Thanks Julie,

What seems to be clear is that police were involved in questioning a series of shopkeepers in the arcade---not only the florist [Mrs Dorothy Morrell] and Burtol"s Dry Cleaners but also a photographers shop belonging to an ex-policeman .But no,I do not think it set them on Hanratty"s trail at this juncture.They appeared to have regarded the matter as just another trail leading nowhere .
What I believe is essential to bear in mind though is that aspects of the story were later corroborated by Mr Ewer himself to The Sunday Times,by Mrs Dorothy Morrell, the manageress of the flower shop in Swiss Cottage , by the photographer and by Mr John Wood, the manager of Burtol"s Dry Cleaners.
Mr Ewer admitted his involvement in a full 15 point statement he made to "The Sunday Times " on May 16th 1971,in what he called "the true record of my involvement with the A6 murder case" .The statement stated it was he himself who had noticed Hanratty in Swiss Cottage -he says it was "probably early September" that " Ryan"/Hanratty was actually in the same coffee shop at the counter where Ewer was taking a break from business and that Hanratty had next gone either into the photographers shop or the florists next door to it .So Ewer had then "gone looking for the "smartly dressed young man with staring eyes" he had seen going into one of their their shops just minutes before. He drew a blank.The Photographer"s shop manager,an ex-policeman who remembered the incident had not seen him.The Florists shop was all; steamed up so he couldnt see who was inside .However, sometime after the incident when the name Ryan had become public, Mr Ewer went back to the Dry Cleaners,two yards away and directly opposite his shop and enquired if a man named Ryan had ever been there .They said he indeed had .
And the evidence supplied by Burtol"s Dry Cleaners was given at the trial.
See next post:-

Limehouse
10-10-2010, 07:01 PM
It's amazing that at this stage - with no proper and fully collaborated description of the killer - Ewer and Mrs Gregsten could be so sure they had seen her husband's killer. It's just totally weird - not that Hanratty visited those shops - but that Ewer was so sure he had bumped into his brother-in-laws killer not once - but twice - close to his place of work. It is equally weird that the person he spots and is so sure is the killer - is known to an associate of his.

This is a very strange aspect of the case that bothers me very much. Ewer's role in these events seems very sinister to me.

Natalie Severn
10-10-2010, 07:16 PM
Hanratty said in his statement that he had put his green suit in the cleaner"s at Burtol"s in Swiss Cottage on the morning of August 21st, a fact confirmed by Mr John Wood, the supervisor.Mr Wood gave evidence on oath that he had received the suit from a man who gave the name Ryan and the address 72 Boundary Road ,London NW8.It was brought in about 11am 21st August 1961.
The Janet Gregsten sighting was supposed to have been on 31st August when she was supposed to have been hanging a Wilson Steer in Mr Ewer"s shop.
I can"t find the date when the suit was actually collected but it would be interesting to discover it was on this very day! The Steer painting,by the way, would have been worth a fortune even then---so if that was the sort of "antique" Mr Ewer was selling,he was quite a rich man!
Another very important point Mr Ewer made in his "true record" was that he may have known Louise Anderson as a "business acquaintance"!!!!!
Food for thought!

Natalie Severn
10-10-2010, 07:22 PM
Thanks Julie,
Certainly there is something hugely bizarre about all this.
Acott,in 1971 is on record as calling the case a "Gas Meter job" meaning someone from "inside the family" had done the job!Did he mean "had paid someone to have the job done ?" or someone from "inside the family" actually "did the job?'
:scratchchin:

Derrick
10-10-2010, 08:31 PM
Thanks Julie,
Certainly there is something hugely bizarre about all this.
Acott,in 1971 is on record as calling the case a "Gas Meter job" meaning someone from "inside the family" had done the job!Did he mean "had paid someone to have the job done ?" or someone from "inside the family" actually "did the job?'
:scratchchin:

Why did Ewer wait until nearly ten years after the murder to sue against newspaper reports when he could have sued 2 days after the trial?

He acknowledges knowing Anderson as a business associate.

Ewer did not instigate any plot but was blackmailed by Alphon, who performed the murder off the cuff so to speak after hearing Ewer's tale of Gregstens adultery. Ewer's police and establishment contacts came in handy in protecting Alphon.

Once Hanratty's trial was sent to Bedford, Ewer could rest a bit more comfortably and stop paying Alphon's blackmail money.

Bill must have been shitting himself if the truth got out. He could have had his neck in a noose for accessory to murder after the fact.

Derrick

Limehouse
10-10-2010, 08:36 PM
Why did Ewer wait until nearly ten years after the murder to sue against newspaper reports when he could have sued 2 days after the trial?

He acknowledges knowing Anderson as a business associate.

Ewer did not instigate any plot but was blackmailed by Alphon, who performed the murder off the cuff so to speak after hearing Ewer's tale of Gregstens adultery. Ewer's police and establishment contacts came in handy in protecting Alphon.

Once Hanratty's trial was sent to Bedford, Ewer could rest a bit more comfortably and stop paying Alphon's blackmail money.

Bill must have been shitting himself if the truth got out. He could have had his neck in a noose for accessory to murder after the fact.

Derrick

An interesting theory Derrick. How did Alphon frame Hanratty? I suppose he must have had some help?

NickB
10-10-2010, 08:37 PM
I can"t find the date when the suit was actually collected

4th September, just before leaving for Ireland.

Natalie Severn
10-10-2010, 09:29 PM
4th September, just before leaving for Ireland.

Thanks Nick. Do you know where might I find that information?
Norma

Natalie Severn
10-10-2010, 09:38 PM
Ewer did not instigate any plot but was blackmailed by Alphon, who performed the murder off the cuff so to speak after hearing Ewer's tale of Gregstens adultery.

But how could Alphon blackmail Ewer unless Ewer had asked him to do something about it? If all Ewer did was tell Alphon- or whoever - some tale about his brother in law,Gregsten"s adultery, what had he to fear?There was nothing to blackmail him for really---he was perfectly entitled to moan about it-even gossip about it.

Natalie Severn
10-11-2010, 12:55 AM
He acknowledges knowing Anderson as a business associate.
but says he did not know her,"However,as we were both in the antiques business it is possible that she may have had some glancing acquaintance with me as a result that she did know me"[a somewhat contradictory statement].

added to which Louise Anderson stated "she did know Mr Ewer before the murder"[Woffinden]

So Bill Ewer had an "antiques shop" only 2 to 3 yards across the arcade to the dry cleaners where we know Hanratty took his green checked suit to be tapered on 21st August and which he picked up on 4th September .We know too that he went to Mrs Dorothy Morrell ,the florist, who had records of the sales, to send his mother,Mrs Hanratty flowers [on two occasions-first sending his mother gladioli which Mrs Morrell stated was in August [but before the A6 murder ] and then sending her Roses which was after the event ,both these shops-dry cleaners and florists being only a few paces away from Mr Ewer and his "antiques" business .I can"t help thinking Hanratty might have been a bit interested in someone like Mr Ewer who was in the same line of business as his friend ,Louise Anderson and had probably called in to see if he could do business with him once or twice!
Mr Ewer also stated in his 15 point statement that he had been harassed to death by [B]Alphon who apparently made numerous telephone calls to him of a threatening nature["he made my life intensely disagreeable after the trial with persistent telephone calls,some threatening" ] and he also stated that he had been visited by Charles France who apologised to him for what had happened to Mike Gregsten----why on earth would Charles France visit Bill Ewer to apologise over the murder?

jimornot?
10-11-2010, 05:24 AM
Hi Norma

What I meant by 'was it true?' is the 'she saw him at the cleaners' aspect. Can we honestly believe that the police were able to make a connection between J Ryan and Mrs Hanratty (weeks before the Irish crash and the 'official' version of how the connection was made) simply on some supernatural moment experienced by Mrs Gregtern?? Did the police really take these events seriously based on the version of the story printed in the papers - or was there some other information passed to them at the same time that was never made public?

.....

hi julie

I think the answer is NO

also if the police had identified hanratty as Ryan why did they have to get info from Mr leonard - please see recent posts on main thread

Hogwash as you stated before but not necessarily created by Ewer. I think it was a journo story simple as that

atb

viv

jimornot?
10-11-2010, 05:30 AM
Hanratty said in his statement that he had put his green suit in the cleaner"s at Burtol"s in Swiss Cottage on the morning of August 21st, a fact confirmed by Mr John Wood, the supervisor.Mr Wood gave evidence on oath that he had received the suit from a man who gave the name Ryan and the address 72 Boundary Road ,London NW8.It was brought in about 11am 21st August 1961.
The Janet Gregsten sighting was supposed to have been on 31st August when she was supposed to have been hanging a Wilson Steer in Mr Ewer"s shop.
I can"t find the date when the suit was actually collected but it would be interesting to discover it was on this very day! The Steer painting,by the way, would have been worth a fortune even then---so if that was the sort of "antique" Mr Ewer was selling,he was quite a rich man!
Another very important point Mr Ewer made in his "true record" was that he may have known Louise Anderson as a "business acquaintance"!!!!!
Food for thought!

Hi Norma

Earlier in the main thread I think it was confirmed/ considered that ewer sold the odd expensive goods on commission, there was a very expensive item sold at auction ostensibly by him - can't find that link at the moment. Graham around post 285 referred to him as an umbrella salesman and occasional antique dealer

I was certain the story about the cleaners was fabricated by the journalist who admitted it. I thought ewer sued about it too

It is a most odd thing to admit to and I think likely to be dismissed had it been heard by the jury. Also if Ewer had been involved in a frame up, he surely wouldn't draw attention to himself by such a stupid story.

Had heard of the plainclothes men visiting but a) is it a verifiable story? b) assuming it was to do with the A6 murder it may not be significant as it was probably routine at the timne

i think Mrs gregsten also denied the story about the cleaners (and i also think she came round to thinking Hanratty was innocent)

atb

viv

jimornot?
10-11-2010, 05:34 AM
But how could Alphon blackmail Ewer unless Ewer had asked him to do something about it? If all Ewer did was tell Alphon- or whoever - some tale about his brother in law,Gregsten"s adultery, what had he to fear?There was nothing to blackmail him for really---he was perfectly entitled to moan about it-even gossip about it.

Agreed Norma

jimornot?
10-11-2010, 05:40 AM
b----why on earth would Charles France visit Bill Ewer to apologise over the murder?[/I]

Hi Norma

If he truly did of course.

If he did, it could be linked to his knowledge that hanratty did it and shame at having taken a murderer in and even possibly helped procure a gun.

pure speculation on my part but that same feelings of shame may have led to his suicide.

Any thoughts / more knowledge on his suicide notes? I have a gut feeling he'd have let on in some way if he'd felt guilty about incrminating hanratty or admit in an oblique way some involvement?

atb

viv

jimornot?
10-11-2010, 05:46 AM
Thanks Julie,
Certainly there is something hugely bizarre about all this.
Acott,in 1971 is on record as calling the case a "Gas Meter job" meaning someone from "inside the family" had done the job!Did he mean "had paid someone to have the job done ?" or someone from "inside the family" actually "did the job?'
:scratchchin:

hi Norma

As far as I know Acott never doubted hanratty's guilt - did he? In the absence of anything pertaining to that, I think he was saying the case was as simple as a gas meter job which I would imagiune were pretty easy to solve.

atb

viv

Limehouse
10-11-2010, 08:52 AM
hi julie

I think the answer is NO

also if the police had identified hanratty as Ryan why did they have to get info from Mr leonard - please see recent posts on main thread

Hogwash as you stated before but not necessarily created by Ewer. I think it was a journo story simple as that

atb

viv

But clearly - the answer cannot be 'no' because the police established - by visiting the florists - that a J Ryan had sent flowers to a 'Mrs Hanratty' and the police were alerted to this fact by Ewer as a result of Ewer and Janet Gregsten (we are asked to believe) spotting him from the window of Ewer's shop and having an overpowering moment of certainty that the man they saw was the killer.

It may - however - have been some weeks before the police connected up this J Ryan/Hanratty link to the Irish crash JRyan/Hanratty link.

Natalie Severn
10-11-2010, 01:41 PM
hi Norma

As far as I know Acott never doubted hanratty's guilt - did he? In the absence of anything pertaining to that, I think he was saying the case was as simple as a gas meter job which I would imagiune were pretty easy to solve.

atb

viv

Well thats just not a serious comment to make viv.Acott certainly thought Hanratty was guilty and tampered with evidence , withheld crucial statements,selected witnesses and manoevred behind the scenes to get Bedford rather than the Old Bailey to prove it.You have only to glance at MIchael Sherrard"s revulsion- see below- about the way the whole trial was rigged to question the integrity of the statements and behaviour of Supt"s Acott and Oxford over this:

MICHAEL SHERRARD: The public were cheated, the system was cheated. I don't regard myself as having been cheated. I, I'm really an intermediate player, but Hanratty was hanged. He was cheated. If the other material that was not disclosed to us would have made the difference, so it, it's fair to say that there seems to be a strong argument at least for saying that the trial was fatally flawed and the word fatal has a real significance in this context.

Consider carefully these recent [May 2002] statements made by Hanratty"s trial barrister ,Michael Sherrard CBE,QC ,who became one of this countries leading QC"s:
MICHAEL SHERRARD CBE ,QC (James Hanratty's trial barrister): I really couldn't bring myself to take in that those who had concealed the evidence in a capital case could have been as wicked as that.

Now as Dave,[Protohistorian] on the main thread is demonstrating currently
you cannot afford to ignore evidence.Judging from Sherrard and other"s remarks about the withheld evidence that later came to light,the tampered with and altered statements alleged to have been made by Hanratty ---/altered ie "rewritten" by Supt"s Oxford and/or Acott,
The Janet Gregsten story which "myth" has pronounced fake has been proven to have a very strong basis in facts, facts that were admitted to by Bill Ewer- her brother-in -law and later her lover- in his 15 point statement for The Sunday Times :
a] EWER"s "s "antiques shop" stood just two to three yards from the Dry Cleaners where Hanratty took his green suit to be tapered on 21st August---[Proven in court by John Woods on oath]and where he collected it from on August 4th.

b] EWER"s antique"s shop was also opposite and a few yards from the florists shop where Dorothy Morrell testified Hanratty had sent flowers twice to his mother in August 1961[gladioli and roses].
c] The Sunday Times printed EWER"s "True Record" in May 1971 which includeed these sightings.

So are you refusing to accept evidence?

jimornot?
10-11-2010, 02:04 PM
[QUOTE=Natalie Severn;150285]Well thats just not a serious comment to make viv.


Hi Norma

Am I missing something here? On the one hand you refer Acott as saying about the gas meter job and infer as (I thought) you did about an inside job, then you point out how Acott thought Hanratty guilty and fabricated evidence against him. I'm just pointing out the obvious that it can't be both ways, so unless Acott changed his mind (and he didn't) then teh gas meter reference does not have the significance (I thought) you were placing on it

atb

viv

NickB
10-11-2010, 02:07 PM
MICHAEL SHERRARD: If the other material that was not disclosed to us would have made the difference it's fair to say that there seems to be a strong argument at least for saying that the trial was fatally flawed

The 2002 appeal examined this very carefully and found that the undisclosed material would not have made the difference.

Natalie Severn
10-11-2010, 02:30 PM
[QUOTE=Natalie Severn;150285]Well thats just not a serious comment to make viv.


Hi Norma

Am I missing something here? On the one hand you refer Acott as saying about the gas meter job and infer as (I thought) you did about an inside job, then you point out how Acott thought Hanratty guilty and fabricated evidence against him. I'm just pointing out the obvious that it can't be both ways, so unless Acott changed his mind (and he didn't) then teh gas meter reference does not have the significance (I thought) you were placing on it
atb
viv
They are not counterposed viv.Acott probably guessed the family of Michael Gregsten were involved [gas meter job] but believed Hanratty was the hitman!

jimornot?
10-11-2010, 03:07 PM
[QUOTE=Natalie Severn;150285].................


Now as Dave,[Protohistorian] on the main thread is demonstrating currently
you cannot afford to ignore evidence.Judging from Sherrard and other"s remarks about the withheld evidence that later came to light,the tampered with and altered statements alleged to have been made by Hanratty ---/altered ie "rewritten" by Supt"s Oxford and/or Acott,


Hi Norma

I too would like to know why they did that and posed that question before. But there is also evidence you seem to be disregarding that Hanratty himself had not indicated errors in the transcription given to the court - why would that be ?

re the janet Gregsten story - you are choosing to believe it as true. I don't have the ability to reference things (time and laziness as reasons included) but I am certain she denied it was true. If so, then surely her word would mean something and is better than that of any journalist? It would also fly in the face of the fact it was reported by Foot, I think, that she became convinced of hanratty's innocence - but I am not sure if that was true (how would we know?) her sons ceratinly weren't of that persasion.

I am equally sure Ewer denied the story and I think this is covered by Woffinden, if not Foot.

I am interested to see the Sunday Times article - any reference for it please? But it would mean little anyway if ewer later said he'd been misquoted surely? Officialdom has denied Ewer tipping off the police - see
Hansard '...Nor is it the case that the police were put on the trail of Hanratty as a result of information received from Mr. William Ewer..'

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1971/oct/28/james-hanratty

which makes your quote in the first post open to debate to say the least (your quote was '...Mr Ewer decided to follow the man.He watched him go into aflorists shop in finchley Road.Then,acting on impulse,HE RANG SCOTLAND YARD. A Squad car arrived.I introduced myself and told the police my story....')

so I am not refusing to accept evidence - I just don't find what you class as evidence as watertight facts. {as an aside, I had to smile when accused of this - I'd say there is no evidence I have ever done this in any posts to this site :laugh4:} I accept the facts as given about his shop, I accept too that he possibly came into cvontact with Anderson, probably could have had hanratty or France trying to sell him something too. There are lots of coincidences but all circumstantial nothing definitive for anyone to assert assumptions made from these coincidences as facts

What is your take on Ewer please? If you think he was involved in a plot, why do you think he'd raise his profile and risk any credibility with such a miraculous but frankly implausible intervention? the fact he had successfully sued others for their stories of his involvement indicates there are no facts available to support such claims

atb

viv

jimornot?
10-11-2010, 03:09 PM
[QUOTE=jimornot?;150287]
They are not counterposed viv.Acott probably guessed the family of Michael Gregsten were involved [gas meter job] but believed Hanratty was the hitman!

oh come on Norma, why didn't he pursue a case against them then?

atb

viv

jimornot?
10-11-2010, 03:10 PM
The 2002 appeal examined this very carefully and found that the undisclosed material would not have made the difference.

thanks nick so why did they change it I wonder?

atb

viv

Natalie Severn
10-11-2010, 06:07 PM
[QUOTE=Natalie Severn;150291]

oh come on Norma, why didn't he pursue a case against them then?

atb

viv

Hi viv,
I will return to the other matter you raise later,but regarding Supt Acott:

a] it stands to reason that Acott"s main concern had to be to get a conviction for the A6 case and he appears to have become convinced the gunman was Hanratty at some point around 25th September.
b] One of the difficult issues regarding the trial was the 4 year relationship that had developed between the 37 year old married man and father of two young children, Michael Gregsten and the young 23 year old Valerie Storie.
None of the Bedford jury were ever told anything about "an affair" between them. Therefore they were in the dark about whether a motive could have existed regarding Gregsten"s family wanting the affair to end.So such a matter was never raised.

Since it was never raised at the trial Supt Acott could hardly have begun suggesting he had an inkling that it might be a "gas meter " job and that the gunman may have been hired by somebody in the family !
Best
Norma

Natalie Severn
10-11-2010, 06:22 PM
But there is also evidence you seem to be disregarding that Hanratty himself had not indicated errors in the transcription given to the court - why would that be ?
Where is this evidence?Can you point me too it? Everything he said in the witness box contradicts this.

re the janet Gregsten story - you are choosing to believe it as true.

No,viv,I am not.What I said was that "aspects" of it are clearly true-viz the proof on oath at Hanratty"s trial from Mr John Woods, manager of the Dry Cleaners opposite Mr Ewer"s shop about where and when in August and early September ,Hanratty took his green suit to be tapered .
Ewer"s ""true record" ie his own 15 point statement for The Sunday Times" written in 1971 , which he never alluded to as false---ie he never claimed the story was anything other than that was what he had said/written for The Sunday Times.

I believe Mrs Gregsten,who later became his lover may have been hanging up a "Wilson Steer" painting -for example- in his shop when all this happened .But whether she was or was not,certain very significant aspects of the story are clearly true and were said .Hanratty was seen by Bill Ewer going into a shop opposite Ewer"s in Swiss Cottage soon after the murder.Charles France did go and "apologise" to Ewer for the killing of Gregsten.Ewer did say he was a business acquaintance of Louise Anderson.Ewer was in the same business as Louise Anderson --in that he sold antiques.Charles France and Louise Andserson bioth dealt in "antiques' etc etc

jimornot?
10-11-2010, 08:56 PM
[QUOTE=jimornot?;150293]

.......
Since it was never raised at the trial Supt Acott could hardly have begun suggesting he had an inkling that it might be a "gas meter " job and that the gunman may have been hired by somebody in the family !
Best
Norma

Hi Norma

except you are indicating he that is precisely why he refers to a gas meter job or am I misunderstanding this.

I see the logic in what you said on point b but don't see why he would not secure further convictions later. It seems odd that he shoudl further highlight the inadequacies of his investigation in such a way

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on our interpretations of his gas meter reference.

all the best

Viv

jimornot?
10-11-2010, 09:34 PM
Where is this evidence?Can you point me too it? Everything he said in the witness box contradicts this.

[/B]

No,viv,I am not.What I said was that "aspects" of it are clearly true-viz the proof on oath at Hanratty"s trial from Mr John Woods, manager of the Dry Cleaners opposite Mr Ewer"s shop about where and when in August and early September ,Hanratty took his green suit to be tapered .
Ewer"s ""true record" ie his own 15 point statement for The Sunday Times" written in 1971 , which he never alluded to as false---ie he never claimed the story was anything other than that was what he had said/written for The Sunday Times.

I believe Mrs Gregsten,who later became his lover may have been hanging up a "Wilson Steer" painting -for example- in his shop when all this happened .But whether she was or was not,certain very significant aspects of the story are clearly true and were said .Hanratty was seen by Bill Ewer going into a shop opposite Ewer"s in Swiss Cottage soon after the murder.Charles France did go and "apologise" to Ewer for the killing of Gregsten.Ewer did say he was a business acquaintance of Louise Anderson.Ewer was in the same business as Louise Anderson --in that he sold antiques.Charles France and Louise Andserson bioth dealt in "antiques' etc etc

hi Norma

What specifically did he say on trial that indicates the evidence was tampered with? How does this marry up with Nick's point to the effect that careful check indicated nothing significant was omitted?

Can't find the references yet re Ewer denying the story - any help from others appreciated. I may[B] be wrong re Ewer in which case I apologise in advance but until certain I think / take the view you are choosing to believe the newspapers and interpret the intuition story as as fact. It sounds like nonsense to me but without doing this to death, lets go with the story as something he did say, let's also contemplate his involvement in a the plan to scare MG - why on earth would he raise his head this way?

Anyone know of references to Mrs G denying the story as well?

Ewer indicated he [B]may[B] have met Anderson which undermines any statement they were business acquaintances. One is vaugue in the extreme, the other more definitie that they had met. Again who do we [B]chooseto believe, apparently Ewer said both things but only one can be true?

I dont have an argument about the location of the shop or France going in to apologise (although who revealed this? If it was Ewer and he was involved in the plot it beggars belief he'd tell all and sundry). Anderson and Ewer in same business (altho' I understand from this thread that his main business was umbrellas). It doesn't necessarily follow Ewer took in stolen goods and having denied meeting France in the past the potential link beteeen them seems a non starter

I can see I'll have to ferret out the books when ther'es time and see if I can get to the bottom of my theory (?) that Ewer denied the story. until then.....

all the best

viv

Natalie Severn
10-11-2010, 09:37 PM
Hi viv,
I really dont see it that way.As far as Supt Acott was concerned the gunman was Hanratty.What happened to Gregsten was a capital offence, accident or no accident [of the gun being fired in panic].Moreover there was 23 year old Valerie,who was raped, shot several times, left for dead,has never been able to walk since. So Supt Acott,if he thought Hanratty was the killer and rapist,might not have cared much about whether or not the pair in the cornfield were having an affair.If he thought it was some kind of "gas meter "job in 1961/2 ,he never hinted at it at that time,so presumably he didnt think that in 1961/2.What Acott wanted was to bring the killer to justice and he believed he had.
Acott may have later wondered why such a bizarre crime was committed,with the "confessions" of Alphon suggesting it and hitting the headlines periodically etc and Alphon"s talk about a "central figure".
But I am not suggesting that someone in the family of Michael Gregsten hired someone to "kill"---not at all.The suggestion thats been made is that the gunman might have been hired to "scare off Valerie"---hence the five hour ride in the MM going nowhere---why,if the motive was murder and rape didnt he shoot Gregsten in the cornfield ?
If anyone from the family of Michael Gregsten was in anyway involved in it it would seem to have had a much less wicked intention---and no intent to murder or rape.
Best
Norma

Natalie Severn
10-11-2010, 10:14 PM
Hi viv,
let's also contemplate his involvement in a the plan to scare MG - why on earth would he raise his head this way?
Lets look at this again.It took Bill Ewer ten years to "raise his head".Ten years during which he tells us he was hounded by threatening calls [/I[I]]from Alphon..He gave his 15 point statement to the Sunday Times in 1971 to limit the damage of having Alphon shooting his mouth off to all and sundry.
Don"t forget Alphon was going on French television to talk about how he was "approached" by the central figure etc .Highly intelligent as we know he was, he was astute and careful enough to thread his story through with improbable events.He even explains this saying he did this out of "self -preservation" ---he says did not want to hang or to go to prison for life so he deliberately skewed parts of what he said. Its all in Woffinden"s book.If you want to know what Alphon said you can read the transcript there ,as reported by The Sunday Times.He talks about how he was part of a small group of people who hung round "dog tracks" etc,how he got to know key players etc
In my view,Alphon was far more likely to have been chosen to do the mad job of careering round North London and Bedford for five hours putting the frighteners on the couple in the cornfield.Highly intelligent and apparently
up for it, he would also have understood the need to have a "patsy" like Hanratty.
Anyway,"Whitechapel" is on soon,so I must go----read up on Woffinden!
Cheers,
Norma

jimornot?
10-11-2010, 10:16 PM
Hi viv,
I really dont see it that way.As far as Supt Acott was concerned the gunman was Hanratty.What happened to Gregsten was a capital offence, accident or no accident [of the gun being fired in panic].Moreover there was 23 year old Valerie,who was raped, shot several times, left for dead,has never been able to walk since. So Supt Acott,if he thought Hanratty was the killer and rapist,might not have cared much about whether or not the pair in the cornfield were having an affair.If he thought it was some kind of "gas meter "job in 1961/2 ,he never hinted at it at that time,so presumably he didnt think that in 1961/2.What Acott wanted was to bring the killer to justice and he believed he had.
Acott may have later wondered why such a bizarre crime was committed,with the "confessions" of Alphon suggesting it and hitting the headlines periodically etc and Alphon"s talk about a "central figure".
But I am not suggesting that someone in the family of Michael Gregsten hired someone to "kill"---not at all.The suggestion thats been made is that the gunman might have been hired to "scare off Valerie"---hence the five hour ride in the MM going nowhere---why,if the motive was murder and rape didnt he shoot Gregsten in the cornfield ?
If anyone from the family of Michael Gregsten was in anyway involved in it it would seem to have had a much less wicked intention---and no intent to murder or rape.
Best
Norma

Hi Norma

Fair points, thanks

I think the 5 hour fide was for 'finking' time myself but if I had to go with the scaring off threory I agree it would have been a plan to do just that and no more

atb

viv

Moving on to the

Natalie Severn
10-11-2010, 10:22 PM
Hi Norma

Fair points, thanks

I think the 5 hour fide was for 'finking' time myself but if I had to go with the scaring off threory I agree it would have been a plan to do just that and no more

atb

viv

Moving on to the

Thanks viv,
Far more Londoners say "finking" for thinking and "fru" for thru than you realise! And many are bidialectal!

Norma

Victor
10-12-2010, 04:12 PM
There are two things I can conclude from this/these report(s):

1) if the whole thing is hogwash then Ewer's and Mrs Gregstern's honesty is called into question

2) if the story is true Ewer obviously knew Anderson and there is a line of enquiry here that was never followed up.

Hi Julie,

I believe the whole thing is hogwash from the Reporters - therefore I see no reason to conclude, as you have, that Janet and Ewer's honest is in doubt. If the reporters lied about the story, then they could quite easily lie about their source.

I don't find it surprising what Ewer said about Anderson, which basically boils down to "I don't know her, but as we're in the same line of business then we may have both attended the same function without being introduced to eachother"

KR,
Vic.

Natalie Severn
10-12-2010, 05:00 PM
Hi Julie,

I believe the whole thing is hogwash from the Reporters - therefore I see no reason to conclude, as you have, that Janet and Ewer's honest is in doubt. If the reporters lied about the story, then they could quite easily lie about their source.

I don't find it surprising what Ewer said about Anderson, which basically boils down to "I don't know her, but as we're in the same line of business then we may have both attended the same function without being introduced to eachother"

KR,
Vic.

Hi Victor,
I think what needs to be separated out possibly is Bill Ewer"s own 15 point statement for the Sunday Times in May 1971 ,to "set the record straight" from his point of view,and the supposed "intuitive sighting" by Janet Gregsten soon after the murder in 1961. Although Bill Ewer"s statement refers to the supposed sighting in late August/early September 1961 and relates to when Hanratty sent Flowers to his mother from the florists shop opposite to Bill Ewer"s antiques/Umbrella shop in Swiss cottage Arcade, it is Ewer himself who says saw Hanratty ,when he was taking a coffee break and seeing a well dressed young man with staring eyes paying his coffee bill at the counter, and he wondered then,whether this could be the A6 gunman.The flower shop later confirmed that a Mr Ryan had indeed been into her shop [opposite Bill Ewer"s shop and had done so twice in August to send flowers to his mother and Mr John Wood swore on oath at the trial that Hanratty brought them into his Dry cleaning shop---also only a few yards opposite Mr Ewer when he had also had his trousers tapered at the Dry cleaners. Hanratty took them in on 21st August at 11 am and picked them up on 4th September.
Moreover Ewer emphasises in his 15 point statement that Charles France,a neighbour,came to "apologise" over what had happened to his brother in law Gregsten.Ewer says he hardly knew him and wondered why he was apologising!

julie q
10-13-2010, 10:45 PM
on the 25th february 1995 the Guardian Weekend magazine published an article under the heading The Murder That Won't Die it was based on series of interviews Janet Gregston had with Pual Foot shortly before her death in January 1995. She stated that she saw him at the cleaners story was an invention of the tabloid press. She had neither seen nor had an intuition about anyone
She admitted that shortly after her husbands death she had begun a sexual relationship with Bil Ewer but insisted it did not provide any motive for the murder. In the days following the murder she had moved into the house in Goldhurst Terrace owned by Ewer and her half sister Valerie,on receiving 2000 pounds compensation from her husbands employers she had given it to Ewer as part payment on a deposit towards a larger house in Wentworth Road Golders Green Which she moved into with her 2 young sons, her sister and Ewer shared the house with them ,and the affair continued here for another 8 years finally ending when she moved out in 1969.
She stated that she now believed in Hanraty's innocence and offered to assist in any way she could to clear his name, she now thought it most likely that Alpon was her husbands killer.Sadly J G died on the 18th January shortly after giving the interview.
After her death Paul Foot telephoned Ewer During the conversation Ewer reafirmed his view that Hanratty had been guilty. He confirmed Janets claim that cleaners shop story was a fabrication he did concede that certain aspects of the story were true , he had followed a man In Finchley Road who he felt looked like the description of the murderer he had observed him going into a photographers or possibly the florist shop next door ,he had spoken to the manager then called the police. He did not know if the man was in fact Hanratty. He admitted to the 8 year affair with Janet but claimed it provided no basis for a motive to the murder He concluded by saying, People can dream up what they want but I know the truth
Hope this is some help
regards julie q

jimornot?
10-14-2010, 12:26 AM
on the 25th february 1995 the Guardian Weekend magazine published an article under the heading The Murder That Won't Die it was based on series of interviews Janet Gregston had with Pual Foot shortly before her death in January 1995. She stated that she saw him at the cleaners story was an invention of the tabloid press. She had neither seen nor had an intuition about anyone
She admitted that shortly after her husbands death she had begun a sexual relationship with Bil Ewer but insisted it did not provide any motive for the murder. In the days following the murder she had moved into the house in Goldhurst Terrace owned by Ewer and her half sister Valerie,on receiving 2000 pounds compensation from her husbands employers she had given it to Ewer as part payment on a deposit towards a larger house in Wentworth Road Golders Green Which she moved into with her 2 young sons, her sister and Ewer shared the house with them ,and the affair continued here for another 8 years finally ending when she moved out in 1969.
She stated that she now believed in Hanraty's innocence and offered to assist in any way she could to clear his name, she now thought it most likely that Alpon was her husbands killer.Sadly J G died on the 18th January shortly after giving the interview.
After her death Paul Foot telephoned Ewer During the conversation Ewer reafirmed his view that Hanratty had been guilty. He confirmed Janets claim that cleaners shop story was a fabrication he did concede that certain aspects of the story were true , he had followed a man In Finchley Road who he felt looked like the description of the murderer he had observed him going into a photographers or possibly the florist shop next door ,he had spoken to the manager then called the police. He did not know if the man was in fact Hanratty. He admitted to the 8 year affair with Janet but claimed it provided no basis for a motive to the murder He concluded by saying, People can dream up what they want but I know the truth
Hope this is some help
regards julie q

Terrific thanks Julie and a warm welcome to you. As ever, I am intrigued where people get their info. Is there a source you, Norma or anyone can give someone like me (admittedly pretty lazy) to find out more on these 'side' issues? i am intrigued to know more about all the characters and how their lives changed asa result of this case and include in this of course the gragsten children, the France family, Michael Hanratty

I hadn't realised Ewer had admitted at least part of his story was true.

all the best

Viv

Natalie Severn
10-14-2010, 01:49 AM
Thankyou Julieq for this,
The details you have filled in here are really helpful and sound more like what may have happened and how the story grew .I still find it a bit difficult to reconcile Bill Ewer noticing a young man going into a shop because he looked like the description especially if this was based in any way on the early identikit because that first identikit didnt look like Hanratty and the sighting had to be early September before he went to Ireland [the date given was around September 4th].But the rest of what you write makes a lot of sense,
Best wishes,
Norma

Victor
10-14-2010, 11:36 AM
Thankyou Julieq for this,

I agree, and welcome from me too Julieq.

I still find it a bit difficult to reconcile Bill Ewer noticing a young man going into a shop because he looked like the description especially if this was based in any way on the early identikit because that first identikit didnt look like Hanratty and the sighting had to be early September before he went to Ireland [the date given was around September 4th].

Hi Norma,

You accept that Alphon was fingered in a different hotel because he was "acting strangely" and this trail lead back to Vienna, where Hanratty had stayed the night before, and later cartridge cases from the murder weapon were found, but not that Ewer (the brother-in-law of the murdered man) could be looking out for someone acting suspiciously?

Also Charlotte France thought the Identikit looked like Hanratty and told him so, so why couldn't others?

KR,
Vic.

Natalie Severn
10-14-2010, 12:46 PM
Well Victor,neither identikit drawing shows a man with eyes like a carbuncle-which is how Bill Ewer described the eyes of the man he saw!
But yes,I have always found it strange that Alphon was suspected by the guests at the Alexander Hotel only a day or so after the murder.Alphon claims in one of his "confessions" that he was "shopped"--that is possible in the panic that followed the tragic events that arose over the "hold up in the cornfield"!
Norma

jimarilyn
10-14-2010, 07:12 PM
Good thread.

For the benefit of anyone who may not have a copy of Bob Woffinden's book here is that Daily Sketch article of Feb 19th 1962 in full.

Scanned it from his book [hope he doesn't mind] as it would take too long to type out for a 3wpm person like myself............


Considering that Bill told Paul Foot the story was "a farrago of nonsense" it seems strange (to me anyway) that he never made any attempts to sue Peter Duffy or the Daily Sketch for publishing such a blatantly untrue story.

What's even stranger is that Bill never tried to sue Peter Alphon either, for the very serious allegations Alphon made against him.

He did sue Paul Foot however upon publication of Paul's book in 1971.

I suppose he had to sue someone, somewhere along the line, otherwise things wouldn't have looked too good for him and people might have gotten the wrong impression.

Anyhow here's that article............

jimornot?
10-14-2010, 09:29 PM
.............

Also Charlotte France thought the Identikit looked like Hanratty and told him so, so why couldn't others?

KR,
Vic.

truth is Vic, I think at least one of the identikit pics looks nothing like Hanratty - more like Alphon. Some evidence too (see early post by Jimarilyn) that Alphon resembles both pics at times

all the best

Viv

Victor
10-15-2010, 12:04 PM
truth is Vic, I think at least one of the identikit pics looks nothing like Hanratty - more like Alphon. Some evidence too (see early post by Jimarilyn) that Alphon resembles both pics at times

Hi Viv,

The thing about the Identikits is we are comparing 2 dimensional images, whereas VS et al when constructing them would be forming a 2D representation of her 3D memories.

Charlotte France would therefore be in a better position to say whether that 2D Identikit looked anything like the 3D Hanratty stood in front of her, whereas we can never nor will never be able to do that, as we only have a series of 2D photographs of Hanratty to compare.

Have you ever seen a photograph of yourself that you don't think looks anything like yourself? I have (especially the one's taken towards the end of a night out!)

KR,
Vic.

jimornot?
10-15-2010, 04:45 PM
Hi Viv,

The thing about the Identikits is we are comparing 2 dimensional images, whereas VS et al when constructing them would be forming a 2D representation of her 3D memories.

Charlotte France would therefore be in a better position to say whether that 2D Identikit looked anything like the 3D Hanratty stood in front of her, whereas we can never nor will never be able to do that, as we only have a series of 2D photographs of Hanratty to compare.

Have you ever seen a photograph of yourself that you don't think looks anything like yourself? I have (especially the one's taken towards the end of a night out!)

KR,
Vic.

hi Vic

point taken thanks

I think the camera can mislead but without labouring the point, none of the photos I've seen of Hanratty look like 1 of the identikits and there are quite a few pics of him so it's not a random, odd, photo. Interesting too how different (to me and many others) the 2 identikit pics are - both from the same source too but am i right in thinking they were issued at the same time?

all the best

viv
PS Not sure I've noticed that phenomena re pics of myself but then being an identical twin I supopose I've seen 'myself' more often than would normally be the case

I never leave incriminating evidence of nights out!

jimornot?
10-15-2010, 04:49 PM
Good thread.

For the benefit of anyone who may not have a copy of Bob Woffinden's book here is that Daily Sketch article of Feb 19th 1962 in full.

Scanned it from his book [hope he doesn't mind] as it would take too long to type out for a 3wpm person like myself............


Considering that Bill told Paul Foot the story was "a farrago of nonsense" it seems strange (to me anyway) that he never made any attempts to sue Peter Duffy or the Daily Sketch for publishing such a blatantly untrue story.

What's even stranger is that Bill never tried to sue Peter Alphon either, for the very serious allegations Alphon made against him.

He did sue Paul Foot however upon publication of Paul's book in 1971.

I suppose he had to sue someone, somewhere along the line, otherwise things wouldn't have looked too good for him and people might have gotten the wrong impression.

Anyhow here's that article............

Hi James

welcome back and thanks for this, saved me looking it up.

Do you know who Ewer did sue beyond Paul Foot, I thought there was more than one instance?

seems odd for him to call the story a farrago of nonsense and also admit to parts of it as true. I wish we knew more about him really

al the best

Viv

Victor
10-15-2010, 05:35 PM
I think the camera can mislead but without labouring the point, none of the photos I've seen of Hanratty look like 1 of the identikits and there are quite a few pics of him so it's not a random, odd, photo. Interesting too how different (to me and many others) the 2 identikit pics are - both from the same source too but am i right in thinking they were issued at the same time?

Hi Viv,

One of the Identikits was compiled by Valerie, and the other by a number of the other witnesses including Blackhall. The police could not satisfactorily reconcile the two images, so issued both.

KR,
Vic.

Natalie Severn
10-15-2010, 08:45 PM
Significantly Paul Foot took great care to interview the journalist responsible for the initial story.He says Peter Duffy confirmed it to him when he interviewed him and that Peter Duffy again confirmed it in public on a BBC Panorama programme.Foot as a London Investigative journalist would have known from several inside sources whether or not the story was true.The two crucial corroborative sources are Mrs Dorothy Morrell who sold the flowers to Hanratty to send to his mother which Foot followed up most carefully and cross checked,and the Mr John Wood of the Dry Cleaners who gave evidence of Hanratty being in his shop on 21st August at 11 am and on 4th September, Hanratty also called in to see if his trousers were ready at the end of August.
So I really dont see why the story has to be greeted with such incredulity when Mr and Mrs Ewer had Janet Gregsten and her children staying with them up the road in their big house in Hampstead and when they were trying to help her get over the tragedy,meaning she could well have been to Ewer"s shop to help out,giving her something to do to take her mind off the terrible events of the past few weeks and his shop was just a few yards away from the Dry Cleaners,the florists etc in the arcade etc.

julie q
10-22-2010, 01:12 AM
hi Natalie
Many people who have written about the A6 murder Have alluded directly or indirectly to Ewers involvement but there appears nothing apart from this bizzare story ,in the public domain at least, to substantiate their claims.People on the forum have questioned Ewers financial standing at the time of the murder,J Gregston describes his shop as being part paintings. part antigues , part umberella repairs . part all sorts of junk,Woffinden page 379.For those not familiar with the London Area go to Google Maps street veiw and click on Wentworth Road Golders Green One of the large detached houses in the picture is where the Ewers moved to shortly after the murder.This proves nothing although there appears to have been some attempt to play down the affluence of the Ewer family.
You mention Kenneth Oxford in your last posting and I think this book may be of some interest , No Way Up The Greasy Pole by Alison Halford. Miss Halford was A former assistant chief constable of Liverpool and served for a time under the then Chief Constable K Oxford ,she was dismissed from the force but brought a claim against Liverpool and Merseyside police authority for unfair dismisal. At her tribunal hearing, at which K Oxford was a principal witness against her , she won a considerable some in compensation after claiming documentary evidence against her had been tampered with.While the book does not concern the A6 murder it does give in an insight into the integrity or otherwise of K Oxford. Miss Halford leaves the reader in no doubt describing him as a pugnacious bully who would intimidate anyone to get his own way.
Another book which may interest you is Michael Mansefield Memoirs Of A Radical Lawyer While it touches only briefly with his role in the court of appeal hearing it has interesting chapters on the Fallibilty of Forensic
Science and the challenges of DNA.
I was present in court when the DNA evidence was introduced at the appeal
and while the the strorage .trasportation of exhibits may have possibly led to contamination, a possibility accepted by all parties , and indeed it may have happened. My recollection is that seeing it argued in court by Dr Evison it did not appear all that convincing. Several people close to the case expressed their dismay feeling that wrong strategy had been depolyed and that more emphasis should have be directed to challenging the integrity of LCN DNA which was then in its infancy and even 10 years on arouses controversy
regards julie q

Natalie Severn
10-22-2010, 02:30 AM
Hi Julie,
Thankyou for this post and pointing out about Mr Ewer"s relative affluence around the time of the murder.Also I agree with you entirely about it being the questionable LCN DNA testing that is most worrying although the exhibits certainly do not appear to have been stored in anything like optimal conditions.
It is late now so I think I am going to say goodnight and will return to your post tomorrow evening.
Best Wishes,
Norma

Limehouse
10-22-2010, 10:59 AM
hi Natalie
Many people who have written about the A6 murder Have alluded directly or indirectly to Ewers involvement but there appears nothing apart from this bizzare story ,in the public domain at least, to substantiate their claims.People on the forum have questioned Ewers financial standing at the time of the murder,J Gregston describes his shop as being part paintings. part antigues , part umberella repairs . part all sorts of junk,Woffinden page 379.For those not familiar with the London Area go to Google Maps street veiw and click on Wentworth Road Golders Green One of the large detached houses in the picture is where the Ewers moved to shortly after the murder.This proves nothing although there appears to have been some attempt to play down the affluence of the Ewer family.
You mention Kenneth Oxford in your last posting and I think this book may be of some interest , No Way Up The Greasy Pole by Alison Halford. Miss Halford was A former assistant chief constable of Liverpool and served for a time under the then Chief Constable K Oxford ,she was dismissed from the force but brought a claim against Liverpool and Merseyside police authority for unfair dismisal. At her tribunal hearing, at which K Oxford was a principal witness against her , she won a considerable some in compensation after claiming documentary evidence against her had been tampered with.While the book does not concern the A6 murder it does give in an insight into the integrity or otherwise of K Oxford. Miss Halford leaves the reader in no doubt describing him as a pugnacious bully who would intimidate anyone to get his own way.
Another book which may interest you is Michael Mansefield Memoirs Of A Radical Lawyer While it touches only briefly with his role in the court of appeal hearing it has interesting chapters on the Fallibilty of Forensic
Science and the challenges of DNA.
I was present in court when the DNA evidence was introduced at the appeal
and while the the strorage .trasportation of exhibits may have possibly led to contamination, a possibility accepted by all parties , and indeed it may have happened. My recollection is that seeing it argued in court by Dr Evison it did not appear all that convincing. Several people close to the case expressed their dismay feeling that wrong strategy had been depolyed and that more emphasis should have be directed to challenging the integrity of LCN DNA which was then in its infancy and even 10 years on arouses controversy
regards julie q

Morning Julie

Welcome to the deabte. This is a very interesting post. Thank you.

Julie (Limehouse)

Natalie Severn
10-22-2010, 11:40 AM
Many Thanks julieq.I went to the real estate for Wentworth Road and they have a semi detached,four bedroom house up for sale for 899,990---so tipping one million and that for a semi-detached.I reckon that a big detached house in Wentworth Road would therefore fetch between one million and one and a half million pounds!Not bad!----and its thought Mr Ewer wasn"t well off?

Natalie Severn
10-23-2010, 12:16 AM
Hello again Julie,
Yes,I am indeed familiar with the case of Alison Halford.I am from Birkenhead originally and used to know one or two of the people mentioned in the case.I always thought the case against her had a lot to do with the very strong male culture and bias she referred to,though ,and I think too that Ms Halford appeared to have opted at one time for joining in the milieu of heavy drinkers ,I suppose hoping that "if you can"t beat "em join "em , though everybody who knew her said that although she liked a drink she was very able to hold it and she never appeared drunk .She seems to have been an outstandingly competent police woman too and it seems a shame she had to face such an ordeal .

But yes,I was very interested in what you said with regard to the role Kenneth Oxford played and that the accusations she brought against him of tampering with documentary evidence were apparently upheld and she won significant damages as a result.
I am interested to know too that you attended the appeal and that you didnt find Evison"s findings very persuasive.However the one thing I can say is that none of the evidence had been kept in anything like optimal conditions.I understand that it was early days, in 2002, to argue over the LCN DNA testing carried out.Even today the battle over their reliability or otherwise has not been won in the UK.
I dont know enough about how Michael Mansfield QC tackled the appeal to comment really.But what I read didnt impress me as much as Michael Sherrard ,Hanratty"s trial barrister did, but Sherrard was really very young to take such a case as that on---even though he did go on to become one of the UK"s leading QC"s and advocates,but he was just 33 in 1961 and he himself says he was too emotionally involved with Hanratty who he had grown fond of and Hanratty,in turn ,refused to have anyone but Sherrard to defend him and held onto him tightly ---for dear life.He said the execution of Hanratty affected him [and his young wife] pretty badly.They thought he was going to be acquitted and the result was devastating.

Victor
10-25-2010, 01:37 PM
I understand that it was early days, in 2002, to argue over the LCN DNA testing carried out.Even today the battle over their reliability or otherwise has not been won in the UK.

Hi Norma,

The Reed\Reed\Garmson ruling has resolved a large proportion of the issues by agreeing that LCN where the quantified DNA is above the 200pg threshold is as reliable as SGM+, below the threshold will be argued on a case-by-case basis. It could easily be argued that the battle if not over, is in it's final stages.

I appreciate that it was not quantified in the LCN tests on Hanratty's samples, although there's the quantification step in the SGM+ tests previously done.

KR,
Vic.

julie q
10-26-2010, 10:48 PM
Hi Norma,

The Reed\Reed\Garmson ruling has resolved a large proportion of the issues by agreeing that LCN where the quantified DNA is above the 200pg threshold is as reliable as SGM+, below the threshold will be argued on a case-by-case basis. It could easily be argued that the battle if not over, is in it's final stages.

I appreciate that it was not quantified in the LCN tests on Hanratty's samples, although there's the quantification step in the SGM+ tests previously done.

KR,
Vic.

I stumbled across this forum a few weeks ago and have spent some time reading the previous posts, I am very impressed by effort taken by people on both sides of the argument to uncover scientific detail.
Regarding Natalie Severen's comments vis a vis Michael Mansfield's performance at the court of appeal.I have long been an admirer of M. M. his advocacy has been instrumental in helping to rectify numerous miscarriages of justice,I am afraid however I do not consider the Hanratty appeal ,irrespective of the judgement ,one of the highlights of his career ,perhaps this why so little space is devoted to it in his memoirs.
Michael Sherrard also represented the Hanratty family in an advisory capacity at the court of appeal,many wished he had been leading counsel. After his opening speech M.M. was asked by Lord Woolf if Accot was available to be called or if in fact he was still alive. M.M. appeared not to know that one of the main prosecution witnesses at the original trial was in fact dead.Many people, my self included, are of the opinion the long delay,8 years from the original submission,in bringing the case to appeal court was to exclude Accot from having to testify. It may appear a small point but it seemed to wrongfoot M.M. Much worse was to follow,N Sweeney counsel for the crown then asked that in the light of the evidence the crown intented to introduce did counsel for the appellant now accept that a man called Peter Alphon can no longer be considered as being the murderer.M.M. conceded that this was so.The only evidence the crown were introducing was DNA in accepting that this exonerated Alphon he was in essence accepting the validity of the DNA evidence .It is perhaps little wonder when Dr Evison came to give his evidence it appeared less than convincing, in some respects the argument had already been conceded. It is my recollection that only when junior counsel Henry Blaxland assumed lead role for some aspects of the appeal was it delivered with the passion we had expected . He also appeared to have a greater grasp of the details of the case,the fact that Bob Woffinden's son was a trainee barrister under his tutelage may have helped in this respect.
I believe the judgement had been made however before the case even came to court.The three judges had been given copies of the complete submission several weeks in the advance, they were also aware of the DNA evidence which had already been leaked to the press. I was back in court the following month when after giving their judgement they patronised the Hanratty family and their legal team by praising them for their dignity and diligence and then criticised the C.C.R.C.for the expenditure of resources in bringing the case to court. The C.C.RC.,whose commissioners were present had no right of reply and cannot comment on court judgements.It was left to Geoffery Bindman in a strong worded article in a Times law supplement to write "The fact that later acquired evidence may lead the court to the conclusion that the appellant might have in fact committed the crime of which he is charged must be balanced against the wrong that is done to the individual or,more importantly the justice system, by allowing to stand a conviction which has been obtained by improper or unlawful means"
I think due respect must be given to the CCRC ,they had access to the voluminous
documentation on the case,the only impartial body to have had this privilege,much of which is still not in the public domain,and had interviewed surviving witnesses including V Storie, R Acott ,and K Oxford before presenting their submission. The conclusion they came to was broadly in line with that of superintendent Roger Mathews who carried out a review of the case for the home office in 1996. In an interview with the Daily Mail on May 8
1999 R Mathews emphasized his believe that Hanratty had been wrongly convicted .By the time the case came to the appeal court however Roger Mathew's report had been shelved, Scotland Yard had carried out another review on the case this time the senior investigating officer was Steve Dan who came to a different conclusion.It appears that Mr Dan has been well rewarded for his investigation he has since been appointed assistant chief constable of Hampshire
On another thread there is speculation regarding the character of Hanratty and the reasons for his delinquency,but with respect is this not irrelevant.In 1969 a notorious Glagow criminal Paddy Meehan was convicted for the brutal murder of a woman during the pursuit of burglary at her house. He was senteced to life imprisonment and would have hanged had that option been available. His defence counsel Nicholas Fairbairn was convinced of his innocence and led a campaign to clear his name,eventually leading to an appeal court hearing and the quashing of the conviction ,very unsual in Scotland where the justice system is even more reluctant to overturn jury verdicts than their English counterparts . Nicholas Fairbairn later had commented " Paddy Meehan was one of the most reprehensible and odious individuals I had to represent during my career in criminal law, I considered the Scottish public were well served in many respects by his imprisonment However the man was not guiltly of the crime for which he was incarcerated and it was my duty to fight to clear his name both for him and the reputation of the Scottish justice system" A miscarriage of justice is a miscarriage justice, irrespective of the character of the accused
BEST REGARDS
Julie q

julie q
10-26-2010, 10:55 PM
Hi Norma,

The Reed\Reed\Garmson ruling has resolved a large proportion of the issues by agreeing that LCN where the quantified DNA is above the 200pg threshold is as reliable as SGM+, below the threshold will be argued on a case-by-case basis. It could easily be argued that the battle if not over, is in it's final stages.

I appreciate that it was not quantified in the LCN tests on Hanratty's samples, although there's the quantification step in the SGM+ tests previously done.

KR,
Vic.

I stumbled across this forum a few weeks ago and have spent some time reading the previous posts, I am very impressed by effort taken by people on both sides of the argument to uncover scientific detail.
Regarding Natalie Severen's comments vis a vis Michael Mansfield's performance at the court of appeal.I have long been an admirer of M. M. his advocacy has been instrumental in helping to rectify numerous miscarriages of justice,I am afraid however I do not consider the Hanratty appeal ,irrespective of the judgement ,one of the highlights of his career ,perhaps this why so little space is devoted to it in his memoirs.
Michael Sherrard also represented the Hanratty family in an advisory capacity at the court of appeal,many wished he had been leading counsel. After his opening speech M.M. was asked by Lord Woolf if Accot was available to be called or if in fact he was still alive. M.M. appeared not to know that one of the main prosecution witnesses at the original trial was in fact dead.Many people, my self included, are of the opinion the long delay,8 years from the original submission,in bringing the case to appeal court was to exclude Accot from having to testify. It may appear a small point but it seemed to wrongfoot M.M. Much worse was to follow,N Sweeney counsel for the crown then asked that in the light of the evidence the crown intented to introduce did counsel for the appellant now accept that a man called Peter Alphon can no longer be considered as being the murderer.M.M. conceded that this was so.The only evidence the crown were introducing was DNA in accepting that this exonerated Alphon he was in essence accepting the validity of the DNA evidence .It is perhaps little wonder when Dr Evison came to give his evidence it appeared less than convincing, in some respects the argument had already been conceded. It is my recollection that only when junior counsel Henry Blaxland assumed lead role for some aspects of the appeal was it delivered with the passion we had expected . He also appeared to have a greater grasp of the details of the case,the fact that Bob Woffinden's son was a trainee barrister under his tutelage may have helped in this respect.
I believe the judgement had been made however before the case even came to court.The three judges had been given copies of the complete submission several weeks in the advance, they were also aware of the DNA evidence which had already been leaked to the press. I was back in court the following month when after giving their judgement they patronised the Hanratty family and their legal team by praising them for their dignity and diligence and then criticised the C.C.R.C.for the expenditure of resources in bringing the case to court. The C.C.RC.,whose commissioners were present had no right of reply and cannot comment on court judgements.It was left to Geoffery Bindman in a strong worded article in a Times law supplement to write "The fact that later acquired evidence may lead the court to the conclusion that the appellant might have in fact committed the crime of which he is charged must be balanced against the wrong that is done to the individual or,more importantly the justice system, by allowing to stand a conviction which has been obtained by improper or unlawful means"
I think due respect must be given to the CCRC ,they had access to the voluminous
documentation on the case,the only impartial body to have had this privilege,much of which is still not in the public domain,and had interviewed surviving witnesses including V Storie, R Acott ,and K Oxford before presenting their submission. The conclusion they came to was broadly in line with that of superintendent Roger Mathews who carried out a review of the case for the home office in 1996. In an interview with the Daily Mail on May 8
1999 R Mathews emphasized his believe that Hanratty had been wrongly convicted .By the time the case came to the appeal court however Roger Mathew's report had been shelved, Scotland Yard had carried out another review on the case this time the senior investigating officer was Steve Dan who came to a different conclusion.It appears that Mr Dan has been well rewarded for his investigation he has since been appointed assistant chief constable of Hampshire
On another thread there is speculation regarding the character of Hanratty and the reasons for his delinquency,but with respect is this not irrelevant.In 1969 a notorious Glagow criminal Paddy Meehan was convicted for the brutal murder of a woman during the pursuit of burglary at her house. He was senteced to life imprisonment and would have hanged had that option been available. His defence counsel Nicholas Fairbairn was convinced of his innocence and led a campaign to clear his name,eventually leading to an appeal court hearing and the quashing of the conviction ,very unsual in Scotland where the justice system is even more reluctant to overturn jury verdicts than their English counterparts . Nicholas Fairbairn later had commented " Paddy Meehan was one of the most reprehensible and odious individuals I had to represent during my career in criminal law, I considered the Scottish public were well served in many respects by his imprisonment However the man was not guiltly of the crime for which he was incarcerated and it was my duty to fight to clear his name both for him and the reputation of the Scottish justice system" A miscarriage of justice is a miscarriage justice, irrespective of the character of the accused
BEST REGARDS
Julie q

Natalie Severn
10-27-2010, 01:05 AM
On another thread there is speculation regarding the character of Hanratty and the reasons for his delinquency,but with respect is this not
irrelevant.

I agree it is completely irrelevant to speculate over the character of Hanratty,in terms of whether or not he was given a fair trial and whether or not he should have been acquitted or whether or not there was a miscarriage of justice.My own reason for addressing the issue of James Hanratty"s character and "curriculum vitae" has to do with the negativity in which his character and life "choices"-if they can be called that, may have been perceived by the Bedford Jury and how a fundamental prejudice about those life choices may have blocked their ability to unravel the case as it unfolded during its presentation in court and consequently resulted in the Bedford Jury not being able to assess the case objectively.



But thankyou Julie q ,for such an informative and helpful post. I for one ,very much appreciate your first hand observations and understanding of the law which is of great help to me .I need a bit more time though to absorb your other comments and observations here ,before I return to some of the issues you raise .
Best Wishes
Norma

Victor
10-27-2010, 12:18 PM
Hi Julie q,

I agree, very thought-provoking posts.

A miscarriage of justice is a miscarriage justice, irrespective of the character of the accused

This statement is significant and has led me to contemplate the possibility that Hanratty may have been framed for a crime he had committed, which in terms of justice (fairness) is just, but in terms of Justice (the law) I presume creates a second criminal of the framer although does not exonerate the framed. Or does it?

KR,
Vic.

RonIpstone
10-28-2010, 08:18 AM
Hi Julie q,

I agree, very thought-provoking posts.



This statement is significant and has led me to contemplate the possibility that Hanratty may have been framed for a crime he had committed, which in terms of justice (fairness) is just, but in terms of Justice (the law) I presume creates a second criminal of the framer although does not exonerate the framed. Or does it?

KR,
Vic.


Vic

I think that the rule is that if the trial had been fatally flawed then Hanratty would have been entitled to be acquitted on appeal even though it could be proved by other means that Hanratty had committed the crime. So if the prosecution had had evidence that tended to show that Hanratty had been framed but did not disclose this to the defence, then it could be said the trial was fatally flawed. It would be a fortiori if the prosecution itself (the Police) had done the framing.

I do not think that in English Law the term 'miscarriage of justice' has any technical meaning. Some might say that there had been no miscarriage of justice if Hanratty had done the crime but had a trial that was fatally flawed; others might say there had been a miscarriage of justice in those circumstances.

Ron

julie q
10-29-2010, 04:32 PM
Hi Ron
Thanks for this I believe the term in English law is unsafe conviction
The CCRC website defines an unsafe conviction--
"An appeal against conviction is not a retrial which looks again at the facts of the case in the way the jury did to decide if the appellant is guilty or innocent
The appeal court will only be concerned with whether or not the conviction is unsafe,in determining this it will consider issues such as whether the trial on a whole was fair , if the judge made correct legal rulings ,the admissibilty of evidence ,non disclosure, evidence not presented at the trial,that the judge summed up the case fairly with the appropriate legal directions."

If we accept that,irrespective of guilt or innocence,that the Bedford trial was unfair, we must conclude that conviction was unsafe
Regards Julie q

Natalie Severn
10-30-2010, 12:23 AM
Hi julie q,
regarding the following remark attributed to Janet Gregsten by Paul Foot after his interview with her in the 1990"s:


She stated that she now believed in Hanraty's innocence and offered to assist in any way she could to clear his name, she now thought it most likely that Alpon was her husbands killer.Sadly J G died on the 18th January shortly after giving the interview.
regards julie q

Do you have any idea why Janet Gregsten came to believe that Hanratty was innocent and that Alphon was her husband"s killer?

regards,
Norma

julie q
11-02-2010, 10:05 PM
She claimed she had formed this opinion after re-reading Paul Foot's book.An opinion not shared by her younger son Anthony,at the time of the court of appeal hearing he was proclaiming his believe that Hanratty was his father's killer and that the hounding and harassment of his mother by journalists had been responsible for the series of heart attacks which eventually led to her death in 1995. I find the latter part of this somewhat strange. The series of interviews she had with Paul Foot prior to the Guardian Weekend article,interviews initiated by Tony Gregston himself, was the first "on the record" contact she had with the press for over 30 years . In the years preceding this she had already suffered ill health and had undergone a heart by pass operation.In 1980 J G left London to live a quiet life in a small Cornish
village called Leedstown before moving to Penzance where she lived until her death. During most of this time the a6 murder was at its most dormant attracting little public or press attention,it is difficult to believe she was being harrased by journalists at this stage in her life.In the early 1990's she was approached by B Woffinden during the production of Mystery Of Deadmans Hill and offered the opportunity to appear on the programme, an offer she declined. She agreed to meet him however and discuss the case provided that what she said was "off the record". It was a suprise therefor when after tranmission of the programme J G lodged a complaint with the Broadcasting Complaints Commission claiming that the "She saw him at the cleaners " sequence had portrayed her unfairly by not including her denial of involvement.The commission adjudicated largely in favour of the producers but said there had been slight degree of inbalance And with a slight alteration to that section they would be allowed to repeat the transmission.

Natalie Severn
11-02-2010, 10:41 PM
Thankyou Julie q,
Thinking of the vastness of London and Greater London,it seems incredible that several of the "main players"in this case , lived or worked or visited within just a short -sometimes very short- walking distance of each other. Hanratty was staying most of the time either just round the corner with Charles France and his family from where Bill Ewer had his shop or with Louise Anderson,a little further away but also within walking distance .And it seems Janet Gregsten sometimes visited Bill Ewer"s shop.
Not only that but we know Hanratty took his trousers into the Dry Cleaners only a few yards from and almost directly opposite Bill Ewer"s shop.He also bought flowers for his mother just a few yards from Bill Ewer"s Antique shop.All this just days before and after the A6 murder.
Additionally, the Vienna Hotel is just a mile down the road where Hanratty "was sent " from The Broadway House Hotel on 21st August leaving only a few hours before Alphon "was sent" from The Broadway House Hotel on 22nd August.Mind blowing "coincidences" really

Victor
11-05-2010, 06:42 PM
The appeal court will only be concerned with whether or not the conviction is unsafe,in determining this it will consider issues such as whether the trial on a whole was fair , if the judge made correct legal rulings ,the admissibilty of evidence ,non disclosure, evidence not presented at the trial,that the judge summed up the case fairly with the appropriate legal directions.

Hi Julie q,

In Hanratty's case the judge was undoubtedly fair, and several commentators Foot and Woffinden included have agreed with this, the only aspect that you have listed that is relevent is the non-disclosure and the CCRC did not accept that it made the trial unfair - although some people question that ruling.

If we accept that,irrespective of guilt or innocence,that the Bedford trial was unfair, we must conclude that conviction was unsafe
Presumably that then opens up the possibility of a retrial along the lines of Sion Jenkins, although with Hanratty having been hanged and a large number of the other witnesses now dead, then what would happen?

KR,
Vic.

Derrick
11-05-2010, 09:57 PM
...In Hanratty's case the judge was undoubtedly fair, and several commentators Foot and Woffinden included have agreed with this, the only aspect that you have listed that is relevent is the non-disclosure and the CCRC did not accept that it made the trial unfair - although some people question that ruling.

The CCRC (Criminal Cases Review Commission) were the ones who decided that the non disclosure was unfair and therefore referred the case back to the CACD. (Court of Appeal, Criminal Division)

I know of no-one who questioned the CCRC's decision to refer. What people were you thinking of?

Presumably that then opens up the possibility of a retrial along the lines of Sion Jenkins, although with Hanratty having been hanged and a large number of the other witnesses now dead, then what would happen?

The conviction would be quashed. Only the Crown (ie The Home Secretary and the CCRC) have the power to pardon.

Derrick

Victor
11-08-2010, 12:07 PM
The CCRC (Criminal Cases Review Commission) were the ones who decided that the non disclosure was unfair and therefore referred the case back to the CACD. (Court of Appeal, Criminal Division)

I know of no-one who questioned the CCRC's decision to refer. What people were you thinking of?

Hi Derrick,

The question obviously reads the non-disclosure was dismissed as not significantly affecting the outcome, and some people question that decision - yourself included.

The conviction would be quashed. Only the Crown (ie The Home Secretary and the CCRC) have the power to pardon.
If the conviction were quashed then presumably it wouldn't be a declaration of Hanratty's innocence, and as he and a lot of the witnesses are dead then nothing further would be required.

KR,
Vic

Natalie Severn
11-29-2010, 02:14 AM
For Jen-an old post but an interesting one with regards to someone who was present at the hearing.

hi Natalie


Many people who have written about the A6 murder Have alluded directly or indirectly to Ewers involvement but there appears nothing apart from this bizzare story ,in the public domain at least, to substantiate their claims.People on the forum have questioned Ewers financial standing at the time of the murder,J Gregston describes his shop as being part paintings. part antigues , part umberella repairs . part all sorts of junk,Woffinden page 379.For those not familiar with the London Area go to Google Maps street veiw and click on Wentworth Road Golders Green One of the large detached houses in the picture is where the Ewers moved to shortly after the murder.This proves nothing although there appears to have been some attempt to play down the affluence of the Ewer family.
You mention Kenneth Oxford in your last posting and I think this book may be of some interest , No Way Up The Greasy Pole by Alison Halford. Miss Halford was A former assistant chief constable of Liverpool and served for a time under the then Chief Constable K Oxford ,she was dismissed from the force but brought a claim against Liverpool and Merseyside police authority for unfair dismisal. At her tribunal hearing, at which K Oxford was a principal witness against her , she won a considerable some in compensation after claiming documentary evidence against her had been tampered with.While the book does not concern the A6 murder it does give in an insight into the integrity or otherwise of K Oxford. Miss Halford leaves the reader in no doubt describing him as a pugnacious bully who would intimidate anyone to get his own way.
Another book which may interest you is Michael Mansefield Memoirs Of A Radical Lawyer While it touches only briefly with his role in the court of appeal hearing it has interesting chapters on the Fallibilty of Forensic
Science and the challenges of DNA.
I was present in court when the DNA evidence was introduced at the appeal
and while the the strorage .trasportation of exhibits may have possibly led to contamination, a possibility accepted by all parties , and indeed it may have happened. My recollection is that seeing it argued in court by Dr Evison it did not appear all that convincing. Several people close to the case expressed their dismay feeling that wrong strategy had been depolyed and that more emphasis should have be directed to challenging the integrity of LCN DNA which was then in its infancy and even 10 years on arouses controversy
regards julie q

Natalie Severn
11-29-2010, 02:18 AM
For Jen-an old post but an interesting one with regards to someone who was present at the hearing.

hi Natalie


Many people who have written about the A6 murder Have alluded directly or indirectly to Ewers involvement but there appears nothing apart from this bizzare story ,in the public domain at least, to substantiate their claims.People on the forum have questioned Ewers financial standing at the time of the murder,J Gregston describes his shop as being part paintings. part antigues , part umberella repairs . part all sorts of junk,Woffinden page 379.For those not familiar with the London Area go to Google Maps street veiw and click on Wentworth Road Golders Green One of the large detached houses in the picture is where the Ewers moved to shortly after the murder.This proves nothing although there appears to have been some attempt to play down the affluence of the Ewer family.
You mention Kenneth Oxford in your last posting and I think this book may be of some interest , No Way Up The Greasy Pole by Alison Halford. Miss Halford was A former assistant chief constable of Liverpool and served for a time under the then Chief Constable K Oxford ,she was dismissed from the force but brought a claim against Liverpool and Merseyside police authority for unfair dismisal. At her tribunal hearing, at which K Oxford was a principal witness against her , she won a considerable some in compensation after claiming documentary evidence against her had been tampered with.While the book does not concern the A6 murder it does give in an insight into the integrity or otherwise of K Oxford. Miss Halford leaves the reader in no doubt describing him as a pugnacious bully who would intimidate anyone to get his own way.
Another book which may interest you is Michael Mansefield Memoirs Of A Radical Lawyer While it touches only briefly with his role in the court of appeal hearing it has interesting chapters on the Fallibilty of Forensic
Science and the challenges of DNA.
I was present in court when the DNA evidence was introduced at the appeal
and while the the strorage .trasportation of exhibits may have possibly led to contamination, a possibility accepted by all parties , and indeed it may have happened. My recollection is that seeing it argued in court by Dr Evison it did not appear all that convincing. Several people close to the case expressed their dismay feeling that wrong strategy had been depolyed and that more emphasis should have be directed to challenging the integrity of LCN DNA which was then in its infancy and even 10 years on arouses controversy
regards julie q

babybird67
11-29-2010, 02:24 AM
For Jen-an old post but an interesting one with regards to someone who was present at the hearing.


Thanks Norma but contamination does not and cannot explain two things:

1/ the distribution of the semen which showed sexual intercourse had taken place...it was not just spilled on, it was there in a manner which was consistent with sexual intercourse having taken place. I wish i could give more details on this, but it was quite clear...these people use these methods all the time to establish whether there has been sexual intercourse in rape trials, they know what they are looking for and they know what they saw.

2/ where the real rapist's profile disappeared to even if the Hanratty profile could be attibuted to contamination (which it could not). There is no possible explanation for three innocent profiles remaining extant on the sample and only the illusory guilty party's being magically erased. Seriously there isn't. Please think about it.

Natalie Severn
11-29-2010, 09:34 PM
Jen,
I take your point here,it is difficult to be going into details.However,I have serious doubts about what the scientist says here about Valerie"s and the rapists body "fluid"s mixing"--which I have read about previously.
I cannot see any woman,particularly Valerie after the horrific ordeal she had been through,being able to release the sort of vaginal lubricants that are released during sexual intercourse.There is a name for them and they are associated with pleasure and enjoyment.There could have been no enjoyment for poor Valerie---.This is such a delicate area now - I don"t know how else to express it.This rape was in no way comparable to normal sexual intercourse generating a normal release of body fluids surely?
Regards,
Norma

Victor
11-29-2010, 10:10 PM
I cannot see any woman,particularly Valerie after the horrific ordeal she had been through,being able to release the sort of vaginal lubricants that are released during sexual intercourse.There is a name for them and they are associated with pleasure and enjoyment.There could have been no enjoyment for poor Valerie---.This is such a delicate area now - I don"t know how else to express it.This rape was in no way comparable to normal sexual intercourse generating a normal release of body fluids surely?

Hi Norma,

I agree that this is a delicate subject, however, I believe the opposite to be the case, there are instances where women who do not normally achieve orgasm during regular sexual intercourse have done so during rape.

KR,
Vic.