The attack on Swedish housewife Mrs Meike Dalal on Thursday, September 7th 1961

[NickB]

The Sunday Times said that Mr Ewer was not consciously or knowingly involved in the crime nor was any other member of the family. So it must have been what the paper said about the ‘cleaners’ story that its lawyers decided could not be substantiated.

The phrase “said Mr Ewer last night” in the Sketch article indicates it was rushed into print. There would not have been time to check it properly. I believe that simply visiting Swiss Cottage would have shown the story to be faulty - because the two shops did not face each other.

The Sunday Times played into Ewer’s hands by not probing the most obvious motivation for the ‘cleaners’ story – greed - and suggesting a more sinister one. So he was able to hit the jackpot again and win more damages.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Nats,

But if you are arguing that this is evidence for Janet's involvement, and for deliberately trying to lead the police with her uncanny 'intuition' to an innocent scapegoat in the form of Hanratty, isn't this entirely at odds with the post by Sherlock Houses, claiming that Janet came to believe Hanratty was innocent?

Can you think of any possible reason why Janet would ever have expressed such a belief, if she knew damn well he was innocent because she had tried to get him framed as early as September 1st, 1961, to protect herself and her husband's actual killer from the long arm of the law?

Love,

Caz
X

I don't think in terms of Janet never changing .The Janet with a baby and young child in August 1961 whose debt ridden husband was about to leave her in deep financial straights was surely a different person once her children were growing up with the affluent brother in law William Ewer of Hampstead and Golders Green to support them and help her care for them.I have stated recently that I don't believe either William Ewer or Janet or the gunman ever intended that Gregsten should die or cause Valerie or Gregsten any physical harm .But in the event he did ,probably through Gregsten trying to disarm him in the total darkness of the A6 lay by , a tragic outcome of a botched plan to threaten and try to terrorise the couple into splitting up ,first in the darkened field of Dorney Reach ,then under the cloak of darkness in a moving vehicle along the A4 and A6 until they reached the desolate destination of Deadman's Hill.The gunman himself despite botching it got away.Afterwards the very last thing anyone involved in the plan to scare the couple wanted was to lead police to the real gunman....so Hanratty became the scapegoat for the crime by default.
If you think about it, the judge and jury were led all along to believe Valerie and Gregsten were just good mates interested in road maps etc so everyone was in the dark at the trial that they were lovers and in my view Valerie was told she must keep up this pretence by Acott who made dissimulation of the real events his business and his [and Oxford's ]alone , offering up the deranged cowboy theory to mystify and send people off on the wrong direction.I believe Valerie would have chosen to tell the truth left to herself ,about her relationship with Gregsten if she had been allowed but was warned not to. For the entire story we have only Valerie's word which may have had to omit elements of the gunman's diatribe in the car in order for her to avoid any cross questioning of her relationship with Gregsten in court .As it was nobody asked the question.

[Natalie Severn]

The Sunday Times said that Mr Ewer was not consciously or knowingly involved in the crime nor was any other member of the family. So it must have been what the paper said about the ‘cleaners’ story that its lawyers decided could not be substantiated.

The phrase “said Mr Ewer last night” in the Sketch article indicates it was rushed into print. There would not have been time to check it properly. I believe that simply visiting Swiss Cottage would have shown the story to be faulty - because the two shops did not face each other.

The Sunday Times played into Ewer’s hands by not probing the most obvious motivation for the ‘cleaners’ story – greed - and suggesting a more sinister one. So he was able to hit the jackpot again and win more damages.

Paul Foot's son Tom spoke with me a few years back about these arcades and explained how they were constructed and he saw no contradiction what ever in the dry cleaners story.He also pointed out where Charles France's flat was and I realised I had just come past it in the 31 bus! Its not more than a ten minute walk from where Ewer's Umbrella/Antiques shop was.
Of course the Sunday Times had to cover themselves saying that about William Ewer---- but read between the lines. I have the document here and as soon as I get time I will transcribe some of it .They prove he told some outlandish porkies, Mr Ewer.

[Natalie Severn]

Thank you for that information. I shall look out for The Sunday Times when I next visit a newsagent on a Sunday morning.

I believe that The Sunday Times, (along with Paul Foot and Jonathan Cape Ltd), was sued by William Ewer and was forced to settle out of court with the payment to him of substantial damages (as was Jonathan Cape Ltd).

Presumably the legal advisers of the paper were not as sanguine about the prospects of the court coming to the same conclusion as the opinion expressed above with reference to the paper's journalists' reliability.

Not at all.They knew-of course they did .They simply decided to publish and be damned! Lewis Chester btw remained one of their most reliable investigative journalists and was considered to be one of the finest journalists in the British Isles .

[NickB]

I have read the Sunday Times articles. What sprang out at me was that there was a deafening silence on the question of whether Ewer was paid for the ‘cleaners’ story. If he had been paid (as I expect he was) this would provide an alternative explanation.

The Sunday Times must have asked Duffy if a payment had been made. Why did they not reveal his answer?

[NickB]

Nats,

I assume you’ve seen Tom Foot’s article on the subject.

[Natalie Severn]

Nats,

I assume you’ve seen Tom Foot’s article on the subject.

Yes I did thanks Nick-in fact I included it in my book!

[Natalie Severn]

I have read the Sunday Times articles. What sprang out at me was that there was a deafening silence on the question of whether Ewer was paid for the ‘cleaners’ story. If he had been paid (as I expect he was) this would provide an alternative explanation.

The Sunday Times must have asked Duffy if a payment had been made. Why did they not reveal his answer?

Good thinking !But not every story would be paid for Nick.If for example William Ewer was engaging journalists in conversation himself about this tale in between breaks from the trial at a pub where journalists were drinking apparently at the Merry Widow,this would not normally be paid for .But if they then checked the story out with Janet Gregsten, then she would certainly be paid for her part of story.

[moste]

Here is a photo of Burtol cleaners.

Here is a view of the arcade with Burtol’s just visible on the left.

Ewer’s shop was at ‘7, The Station Arcade, Swiss Cottage’.

If Ewer’s shop was in the arcade, how could Burtol’s have been ‘two yards across’ and visible from it?

Good question,the answer to this will almost certainly be, that it was possible to pass through Burtols all the way to the back, revealing an exit\entrance into the arcade.(clever architects in those days.)

[Graham]

Been away, wished I hadn't bothered, weather rubbish.

Just a quick comment or two re: "She Saw Him At The Cleaners".

Janet Gregsten said that the man it was said she saw on 31 August had "blue staring eyes". Even if you believe that Janet actually claimed to have seen such a man, how could she know that he had such eyes as, according to Foot, blue eyes had never been mentioned at that time as part of the A6 killer's ID? However, on 28 August, Valerie said in an amended statement that the man had "icy blue, large saucer-like eyes". She never actually said that her attacker had brown eyes.

Even if the police did visit the florist's shop after Ewer's phoning them, and even if they did learn that someone called Ryan had sent flowers to someone called Hanratty at a given address, then so what? At that stage of the investigation the names 'Ryan' and 'Hanratty' meant nothing to the police. Only after the discovery of the cartridge cases at The Vienna on 11 September did the name 'Ryan' come to the attention of the police, and even then they appeared to make no connection with the 'Ryan' in the Vienna register to the 'Ryan' who had ordered flowers at the florist's. Given that the A6 invesitgation was of extreme importance, both nationally and to the police, either they never cross-checked their records or they were incompetent. Or they were so deluged with claimed sightings of the dreaded A6 killer they simply didn't have the man-power to follow up every lead.

Me, I rather think that they just shrugged their shoulders and got on with other things.

Graham

[Graham]

Actually Graham, that photo is now a good five years old, and features me on the right and my ex husband's niece on the left, but I'm easily flattered so thank you kind sir.

Love,

Caz
X

Caz,

where shall I send the £25 to?

Graham

[Graham]

There is evidence to support the claim that France wasn't just the rather harmless petty villain he's been made out to be. As has been stated on these boards many times in the past (mostly by me) he was also "manager", if that's the right word, of The Harmony Cafe in Archer Street, just down the road, literally, from The Rehearsal Club, and at The Harmony he kept a small arsenal of weapons in case of problems in his caff. I don't doubt for a moment that he could have supplied a gun, if asked by 'a mate' such as Hanratty. I kind of get the flavour that, immediately after the Crime, Hanratty hot-footed it back to London in the Morris and immediately confronted France along the lines, "You got me this shooter, there's a big problem, now get rid of it!" Yes, he could have lobbed it into The Thames, or got rid of it en route to London in a pool or a river or bushes or whatever, but he didn't. Hanratty's mind didn't work like that. He took it back to where it came from, i.e., Charles France. Who, scared shitless no doubt, did what I think I'd have done and got rid of the gun in a way that lifted suspicion from himself and directly onto the man who France now suspected of being the A6 killer, i.e., James Hanratty.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

There is evidence to support the claim that France wasn't just the rather harmless petty villain he's been made out to be. As has been stated on these boards many times in the past (mostly by me) he was also "manager", if that's the right word, of The Harmony Cafe in Archer Street, just down the road, literally, from The Rehearsal Club, and at The Harmony he kept a small arsenal of weapons in case of problems in his caff. I don't doubt for a moment that he could have supplied a gun, if asked by 'a mate' such as Hanratty. I kind of get the flavour that, immediately after the Crime, Hanratty hot-footed it back to London in the Morris and immediately confronted France along the lines, "You got me this shooter, there's a big problem, now get rid of it!" Yes, he could have lobbed it into The Thames, or got rid of it en route to London in a pool or a river or bushes or whatever, but he didn't. Hanratty's mind didn't work like that. He took it back to where it came from, i.e., Charles France. Who, scared shitless no doubt, did what I think I'd have done and got rid of the gun in a way that lifted suspicion from himself and directly onto the man who France now suspected of being the A6 killer, i.e., James Hanratty.

Graham

Thanks Graham,
Welcome Back! We are in Wales again and the weather has been sunny and warm!
The problems for me surround the lack of any sightings by anyone of Hanratty himself in the vicinity of Marsh Lane on that day or any other -whereas a man was sighted on the 22nd by the Cobbs and Mr Newell .He was also seen a couple of times previously lurking about around Marsh Lane and the man looked nothing like Hanratty,having a receding hair line, sallow complexion,very dark eyes and resembling the photofit feature by feature.
So my belief is that the man must have been dropped off at the cornfield close to where the Morris Minor was parked.I also believe it is impossible to know to what extent Acott may have influenced Valerie in her recollection of what happened. How do we know the gunman wasn't having a go at threatening them for being engaged in an extra marital affair quite a bit of the time ? Valerie's recollections of what the gunman said in the car regarding this were not to be allowed in court in case they prejudiced the prosecution case so crucially we have only Valerie's word on what was said and nothing was allowed to come out in court about what she and Gregsten had actually been doing in that car. Sometimes I see Acott as a sort of Les Dawson type Svengali cautioning Valerie never to mention anything to do with 'down below' that might disturb the equanimity of the suburban jurors.So the truth never really came out and Valerie was discouraged from telling it by Basil 'secrets and lies' Acott ! Yes I agree with you about much of how you see France-a dark horse but a bit of a hopeless one.

[NickB]

I don’t think it is surprising that a suspicious man was not seen in the vicinity of Marsh Lane that evening if the hold-up was opportunistic – for example, Hanratty trying out his new gun. He always had the option to postpone the hold up for another time and occasion. Only if he was confident he had not been seen would he have proceeded.

As we have only Valerie’s account of what happened in the car it is speculation to say she was told to withhold the gunman’s dialogue about her relationship with Mike at the trial. She testified that the gunman handed them a three penny piece saying it was a wedding present, indicating that she was not under such an edict. As I have said before, the defence were free to probe further if they thought it would be to their benefit.

[Natalie Severn]

I don’t think it is surprising that a suspicious man was not seen in the vicinity of Marsh Lane that evening if the hold-up was opportunistic – for example, Hanratty trying out his new gun. He always had the option to postpone the hold up for another time and occasion. Only if he was confident he had not been seen would he have proceeded.

As we have only Valerie’s account of what happened in the car it is speculation to say she was told to withhold the gunman’s dialogue about her relationship with Mike at the trial. She testified that the gunman handed them a three penny piece saying it was a wedding present, indicating that she was not under such an edict. As I have said before, the defence were free to probe further if they thought it would be to their benefit.

Hang on Nick. If you have ever been to Marsh Lane you will know it has quite a few houses around one side of it + a farm house in the middle of it and cars passing through Marsh Lane regularly to the main Bath Road. It would be ridiculous to choose such a site to be practising with a gun quite frankly.Anyway nobody ever came forward to say they heard any gun go off and there were people putting a bike away in the farm house who definitely would have heard had the gunman been practising there . Its ridiculous and pure conjecture without any proof of a single sighting of any gunman or sound of a gun going off anytime that day or night in or near the cornfield.Whoever the gunman was certainly did not do any shooting near Marsh Lane -nothing happened until he was thirty miles or more away.
As far as Valerie's account is concerned it makes no reference to her affair with Gregsten.In fact a pile of camouflage has taken place about them both reading maps and then chatting in a darkening cornfield about them.That is a staggering omission if you think about it. I don't believe it was easy for the defence to cross examine Valerie with regard to her sex life ,especially as she was in a very vulnerable state still on a stretcherin court,brought by ambulance , recovering from bullet wounds ,rape,trauma , Gregsten's death etc .I don't believe it would have gone down well in court for the defence to put her on the spot like that, insensitive to her fragile state.I do believe though that Valerie would have readilly admitted the relationship's sexual basis if she had been allowed to as in the June of 1962 she spoke about it in a magazine series of two . Clearly Acott had advised against divulging it in court and Valerie was compliant.But it was wrong and misleading of Acott and the prosecution to have done so.