a6 murder

[Limehouse]

I am entiltled to have an opinion and no, carol does not know that have wrote things on this website but to be perfectly honest i couldnt care less if she did know. I have writen these things because i believe them to be of somewhat true to a certain extent, i mean nobody really knows the truth do they because those most closely involved are not here anymore are they Reg!
I know however that Gregsons in laws were responsible for his death, i know this because his brother in law who owned an antique shop in swiss cottage wanted Storie scared off and Gregson beaten, the brother paid Dixie France and John Russell to do the job they then paid Alphon to carry it out. It went not according to plan they needed a scape goat and Dixie knew the perfect man guess who? You got it right James Hanratty, he was very close to carol at this time and Daddy didnt like it he thought to himself i can kill two birds with one stone, but he couldnt deal with the guilt of dragging his sweet little family and the apple of his eye and of course the hanging of an innocent man so he put his head in the oven, literally now if thats not the act of guilt then i dont know what is. If carol was to read this she would know who i am.

If this story is true, and Alphon was paid to scare the couple but it went wrong, why was it necessary to frame Hanratty? Surely they should have had enough evidence to convict Alphon (or it should have been possible to 'produce' the evidence as you are suggesting they did in order to frame Hanratty). If it was a frame up of this sort, it must have involved a lot of people and must have been very complex and forward thinking to influence even the outcome of DNA evidence in the future?

In my view, it is much more likely that Hanratty was paid to disrupt the relationship, things went wrong and he ended up taking the whole rap. This would explain why he changed his alibi - he was clearly expecting his Liverpool alibi to be verified.

[Tony]

If this story is true, and Alphon was paid to scare the couple but it went wrong, why was it necessary to frame Hanratty? Surely they should have had enough evidence to convict Alphon (or it should have been possible to 'produce' the evidence as you are suggesting they did in order to frame Hanratty). If it was a frame up of this sort, it must have involved a lot of people and must have been very complex and forward thinking to influence even the outcome of DNA evidence in the future?

In my view, it is much more likely that Hanratty was paid to disrupt the relationship, things went wrong and he ended up taking the whole rap. This would explain why he changed his alibi - he was clearly expecting his Liverpool alibi to be verified.

Hello and Happy New Year to you Limehouse,

Well I don’t know whether I want to be involved in this; interesting though it is, but I would have to take issue with you on a point.

You say: “why was it necessary to frame Hanratty.”

Well it would have been very necessary to frame someone because if as you say they had enough evidence to convict Alphon then the paymasters of Alphon would have been exposed and would undoubtedly have shared the same scaffold as him. The law states that the employer of a hit man is equally guilty of murder even if he has a cast iron alibi.

Tony.

[jimarilyn]

I am entiltled to have an opinion and no, carol does not know that have wrote things on this website but to be perfectly honest i couldnt care less if she did know. I have writen these things because i believe them to be of somewhat true to a certain extent, i mean nobody really knows the truth do they because those most closely involved are not here anymore are they Reg!
I know however that Gregsons in laws were responsible for his death, i know this because his brother in law who owned an antique shop in swiss cottage wanted Storie scared off and Gregson beaten, the brother paid Dixie France and John Russell to do the job they then paid Alphon to carry it out. It went not according to plan they needed a scape goat and Dixie knew the perfect man guess who? You got it right James Hanratty, he was very close to carol at this time and Daddy didnt like it he thought to himself i can kill two birds with one stone, but he couldnt deal with the guilt of dragging his sweet little family and the apple of his eye and of course the hanging of an innocent man so he put his head in the oven, literally now if thats not the act of guilt then i dont know what is. If carol was to read this she would know who i am.

Hi Blue Moon,

I agree, you are most certainly as entitled to your opinion as anyone else on this thread
I must say I'm intrigued by your posts and if you can genuinely shed new light on the matter, I for one would welcome it, as so very much about this case has been swept under the carpet over the last 47 years.
I've not heard the name John Russell mentioned before in connection with the case, can you elaborate any on who he was and what relationship he had with Dixie France ?

regards,
James

[Limehouse]

Hello and Happy New Year to you Limehouse,

Well I don’t know whether I want to be involved in this; interesting though it is, but I would have to take issue with you on a point.

You say: “why was it necessary to frame Hanratty.”

Well it would have been very necessary to frame someone because if as you say they had enough evidence to convict Alphon then the paymasters of Alphon would have been exposed and would undoubtedly have shared the same scaffold as him. The law states that the employer of a hit man is equally guilty of murder even if he has a cast iron alibi.

Tony.

Hello to you Tony and a happy new year to your also.

I take your point entirely, but by the same token, hiring a hit man and then framing an innocent man also carried an element of risk, not least consipracy to murder and perverting the course of justice.

As I have previously stated, when I first posted on this thread I was almost 100% sure Hanratty was innocent. However, I've never been fully convinced that Alphon guilty - so perhaps my thinking is just completely muddled! I am now more than 60% sure Hanratty was guilty but I am not convinced it was a random crime and I do think the evidence was manipulated in some way to incriminate Hanratty. I just don't believe he carried a gun, wrapped in his own hanky, along with SIX boxes of cartridges onto a bus and hid them under the back seat. Neither do I believe he carried six boxes of cartridges around with him on the night of the abduction. I don't believe anyone would do that.

[Graham]

Guys,

Can we please put things into perspective?

First, Michael Gregsten's only brother-in-law via Janet was Janet's brother John, about whom virtually nothing is known (at least so far as I can tell) except that he was at boarding-school in his youth. Woffinden implies that she didn't get on very well with her family.

Second, I assume that the 'brother-in-law' Blue Moon refers to is William Ewer, who was Janet's brother-in-law, as he was married to her sister Valerie. To my mind, if a family feels it necessary to break up an illicit relationship, then it's usually kept within the family - I hate to sound elitist - but both Gregsten's and Janet's families were pretty straight-down-the-line educated middle-class(ish), and I just can't imagine such people back in the stuffy sixties getting involved with shady characters from the East End. If their was any family pressure, when probably it was administered via Gregsten's and Storie's superiors at the Road Research Lab. Only surmise, though, but it is known that someone in authority at the RRL interviewed them about their relationship. They were, after all, Civil Servants - and Civil Servants should (cough, cough) set an example.

Third - and most important - Ewer sued left, right and centre re: his implied knowledge of, and association with, Gregsten's murder. He sued Paul Foot and his publisher Jonathan Cape for £1000 and - again according to Woffinden - the Sunday Times for a much larger amount. I honestly think that this in itself must be some proof, at least, that Ewer had nothing to do with the A6 Murder. Libel actions were and are taken very, very seriously indeed.

Fourth, after her husband's death, Janet and William Ewer lived together for a number of years, and I can hardly imagine that she would have even wanted to know him had she any evidence whatsoever that he, Ewer, was in some way responsible for her husband's murder.

Fifth, even if Ewer had instigated the A6 Murder, he would be charged only (!) with being an accessory to murder - bad enough in itself, and he'd have got a stiff sentence, but he wouldn't have hanged.

Sixth, and sorry to repeat this as it has been stated ad nauseam, the facts of the case are that Hanratty happened upon the Morris Minor purely by chance - what he was doing in Dorney Reach at the time is anyone's guess, but the chances are he'd been down there on a house-breaking expedition perhaps following an unsuccesful evening at Slough dog-track - and that Alphon's subsequent involvement was purely coincidental, yet ultimately profitable for Alphon once he had been cleared. Alphon himself admitted to being scared stiff of being nailed for the crime, but once he was out of the frame he made the most of it.

I can't say what Charles France's actual involvement was, although it's not too difficult to make an educated guess or two, but unless Blue Moon knows a lot more than he's saying I honestly don't see France as a prime-mover in the A6 Case. Perhaps he did indirectly shop Hanratty, but I don't think we'll ever know France's true involvement.

Yes, Blue Moonis entitled to his opinion, but I think that by saying that he gives his game away - he is just stating his opinion and not actual, concrete knowledge. I believe he should take Reg's advice and be a bit careful.

Cheers,

Graham

[jimornot?]

hi all

Hope your wife was understanding about your faux-pas Tony. Sounds like another Acott family revelation is ready to be unleashed on the world soon.

I share your confusions Limehouse and move across the scales between hanratty innocent or guilty and now plain unsure. I can't see hanratty as being involved in a pre-arranged hit and it seems pretty sure to me that someone else planted the gun on the bus. If so, it seems only two options 1) to ensure h paid for the terrible crime or 2) to frame him. If the latter, Blue Moon's fascinating (but alarming) posts give one potential answer to that scenario.

But why choose Alphon for the hit (if indeed they did)? What do we know of Alphon's background prior to the murder? I still cannot see why the police let Alphon go so readily after the ID parade, his alibi wasn't that strong and to me the identikit resembled him very closely. It seems he was free to come and go as he pleased pretty quickly so what was it that so convinced the police?

Finally, just a couple of quick questions. Anyone heard of any reasonably recent actions of / views expressed by Michael Hanratty?

From the old thread (maybe Graham will know this) did Michael Sherrard ever respond to the letter sent to him (by Larue)?

All the best to everyone for 2009

Viv

[jimornot?]

Hi Graham

I hadn't read yours before posting my earlier message. I have to say your reply is very well reasoned and immediately made me discount the Ewer involvement as a result. The point about suing for libel is a good one, he must have felt very sure of his ground... and it does seem madness that Janet would have a relationship with him if she knew of his direct involvement in her husbands death, albeit if it was not intended.

But, I am open to be persuaded yet again. That is the beauty of this thread for us undecideds.

all the best

Viv

PS do you know if there ever was a response from Michael Sherrard to the letter sent by Larue ages ago?

[Graham]

But why choose Alphon for the hit (if indeed they did)? What do we know of Alphon's background prior to the murder? I still cannot see why the police let Alphon go so readily after the ID parade, his alibi wasn't that strong and to me the identikit resembled him very closely. It seems he was free to come and go as he pleased pretty quickly so what was it that so convinced the police?

Quite a lot is known of Alphon prior to the A6 Case - read Foot and Woffinden! My impression is that he was a pretty intelligent bloke but something of a drop-out, a drifter, a bum, whatever. He also boasted that he was a Fascist, anti-Establishment, and so forth. As far as I can tell, when he wasn't picked out on the ID parade any case the police had on him fell apart. Plus, the police also accepted his alibi - that he had met his mother on August 22nd at a time which made it impossible for him to be at Dorney Reach at the crucial time. It's what Alphon did after he was cleared that makes his involvement so interesting, but I stick to what I've always maintained - that he saw the opportunity for £££'s and went for it for all he was worth. Plus, our old friends Justice and Fox latched onto him. Much good did it do him, by all accounts....

Alphon only got involved courtesy of the manager of The Alexandra Court. Had it not been for that, it's extremely doubtful if the 'Frederick Durrant' who stayed at The Vienna would ever have been identified. He would have been just another guest, who stayed one night and then disappeared into the blue yonder for ever.

Ewer really must have had a water-tight case to sue for libel - had his actions failed, he'd have been well and truly fried for breakfast.

Although we haven't heard from Larue for ages, the last I knew was that Sherrard didn't respond to his letter. I'd have been surprised if he had, to be honest. But it was a damned good effort on Larue's part.

Also, I don't know if Michael Hanratty has made any recent input. I have the impression that the DNA results somewhat knocked the steam out of the 'official' (for want of a better description) campaign to establish JH's innocence. If you Google 'James Hanratty', 'A6 Case', and so forth, there's nothing new apart from what we discuss here on Casebook. Although the A6 Case thread here on Casebook is obviously very popular, it would seem that as far as the public is concerned it has virtually no surviving interest at all.

Cheers,

Graham.

[jimarilyn]

Hi Graham,

Re. your post 2855....( paragraphs 1 to 6 )

Firstly, I would definitely classify William Ewer as Michael Gregsten's brother-in-law (in much the same way as my father John and my Uncle Steve were brothers-in-law, married respectively to my mother Jane and her sister Mary).

Secondly, William Ewer it would very much appear was involved with 'shady' characters from the East End ( such as Dixie France and Louise Anderson ).

Thirdly, I find it very revealing that Ewer was ultra careful not to issue libel/slander charges against either Peter Alphon or the A6 Murder Committee. I suppose he had to take some stance later on against Paul Foot otherwise it wouldn't have looked too good for him, three separate parties either libelling or slandering him and him not doing anything about it.

Fourthly, I hardly think that Ewer would confess to Janet that he was responsible for her husband's murder, in fact I would guess he'd go to great lengths to reassure her of quite the opposite. Janet, being an intelligent woman, must have seriously wondered to herself throughout their seven or eight year affair whether Ewer ( who, it seems did not care much for Michael Gregsten ) was the prime mover behind the murder. Their relationship ended in 1969. Did the unfaithful Ewer then return to his wife Valerie, I wonder ? It's very interesting to note that towards the end of her life, Janet was of the opinion that James Hanratty was innocent of her husband's murder.

Fifthly, less than 190 years ago accessories to murder were hanged.

Sixthly, what facts are these ? Unlike Peter Alphon, nobody has ever come forward claiming to have seen James Hanratty in Dorney on August 22nd 1961. There has never been any evidence that Hanratty had ever visited Slough in his life, let alone Slough Greyhound Stadium. This cannot be said of Alphon however, who knew the area very well and was a frequent visitor to the dog-track there.

Re. Blue Moon, he/she claims to be a relative of Carole France and if so might be privvy to certain knowledge/information which the rest of us are ignorant about. He/she would have spent considerable time in Carole's company over the years and may be able to offer valuable insight/knowledge into this aspect of the case. Que sera sera.

regards,
James

[Graham]

James,

Just like Blue Moon and anyone else posting here, you're entitled to your opinions, mate!

Cheers,

Graham

[jimornot?]

[QUOTE=Graham;59810]Quite a lot is known of Alphon prior to the A6 Case - read Foot and Woffinden!

Hi Graham

Nothing particualr in their accounts as I recall, to indicate Alphon would make a good hit man or even be good for roughing someone up (that said he made a good job later of beinga nuisance with his calls to Lord Russell and others more closely involved in the case etc)

thanks, all the best

Viv

[Sara]

I personally find Blue Moon's postings and scenario pregnant with interesting implications. The sequence of events implied by them comes very close to what I have myself seen as the likliest explanation of the many irreconcilable anomalies and coincidences in the case. I'd very much like to know more! - esp about this chap Russell - who he?

Let's for now set aside the DNA evidence (and anyone who has seriously studied the sholrtcomings of LCN DNA has to!) - and assume there is no evidence against Hanratty other than the gun.

To refute a few 'certainties' which have been suggested to diss Blue Moon's scenario:

Firstly: The widow's attitude to Ewer

Janet Gregsten's marriage to Michael was already on the rocks when he was murdered, and Storie wasn't his first bit on the side - his wife may not have been so averse to the theory that Ewer had been involved as we suppose. Some women find such a frisson of danger positively exciting. I used to know Eunice Yabsley quite well in my youth - we ate oten as a family in the Salcombe restaurant run by her late husband Charlie and later by herself, and I used to go and ride their ponies with their kids in the ealry 60s. My grandparents lived in Salcombe and then my parents from 1964 when they retired - we knew everyone there very well. We all assumed Eunice knew that her second 'husband' the supposed John Allen had murdered his wife and kids - the whole village knew! - but she kept quiet until he left her 12 years later (she then shopped him, gave evidence, and wrote a book about the case). See, among many other links:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article802847.ece

Secondly:

Sueing for Libel is a very good way of keeping people quiet. It's very hard to defend yourself against a charge of libel, since those suing regularly perjure themselves in court. A journalist friend was sued (along with the Sunday Times) by a racehorse trainer over something he (allegedly! I suppose I must say) was heard to call out at a Jockey Club dinner - it was reported to my friend by a shocked waitress. The trainer won the case in court because the racing folk present closed ranks, and all refused to testify - although several had informally confirmed the story in the following days when interviewed on the phone.

Back in the 1950s a trio of very prominent Labour politicians won a libel case against The Spectator; it was revealed many years later that the journal's account had been the truth, and the politicians had lied in court - in fact they even boasted about it to friends a few days after they'd won the case.
Lots here: http://tinyurl.com/9smzwj

Lying in libel cases is par for the course I'd say - only the rich can sue for libel, and only the rich can defend themselves properly as there is no legal aid in such cases. It's a weapon, as often as it's a defence! So I owuld interpret Wever's eagerness to call on his learned freinds with some caution.


Btw I find it a bit rich that we are prepared to sit here discussing intimate details of the personal lives of those involved in this case, inc Storie's knickers, and yet as soon as someone turns up to post who acutally seems to have known some of the protagonsts, a few start waving their hands about in horror! We *are* disucssing a real case, within the living memory of most of us, and involving people still alive, so why be so squeamish?

[Tony]

Contract killings.

Hello Graham,

If you hired a hit man, or to use the more professional term for his occupation a contract killer, to wipe out Reg and the contract killer did so and was subsequently caught then the contract killer would be guilty of murder. You as his paymaster would be guilty of conspiracy to murder. Both, nowadays, would carry exactly the same sentence i.e.: life imprisonment.

It would not matter a jot if when Reg copped it you were dining out with the Chief Constable.

Contract killings are obviously far more common today than they were in the early sixties and more so before that.
I don’t know of a case of contract killing where the hit man was caught and hanged but if it was proved both would then as now have suffered the same fate.

Tony.

Graham I use you and Reg only as examples. Please don’t get any ideas.

[jimarilyn]

I personally find Blue Moon's postings and scenario pregnant with interesting implications. The sequence of events implied by them comes very close to what I have myself seen as the likliest explanation of the many irreconcilable anomalies and coincidences in the case. I'd very much like to know more!


Btw I find it a bit rich that we are prepared to sit here discussing intimate details of the personal lives of those involved in this case, inc Storie's knickers, and yet as soon as someone turns up to post who acutally seems to have known some of the protagonsts, a few start waving their hands about in horror! We *are* disucssing a real case, within the living memory of most of us, and involving people still alive, so why be so squeamish?

Hi Sara,

Very well put, my feelings are the same. I hope Blue Moon sticks around.
I must say I've been very impressed with all your posts, your knowledge and insight into matters pertaining to the case is remarkable and very perceptive.

regards,
James

[simon]

I'm repeating myself, but...

If you want to split up a couple, the very last thing you do is put them in a situation where they're both terrified by the same person/situation. Nothing could be more designed to bring two people closer together. Therefore, in my opinion, that can't have been what the 'conspiracy', if there was one, was all about.