a6 murder

[SteveS]

hello everyone

I believe that it is well established that a certain William Ewer, the brother-in-law of Janet Gregsten, was well known to issue writs of libel that pertained to his alleged involvement in the A6 murder.

Why then did Mr Ewer not issue a writ against the Daily Sketch for their "She saw him at the cleaners" article published on the 19th February 1962?

In 1971 Lewis Chester of the Sunday Times tried to interview Basil Acott. All Mr Acott would say is:

To us it always seemed a simple gas-meter case.

For those not acquainted with the jargon, a gas-meter case means an inside job. The Sunday Times printed the Acott story on the 9th May 1971.

The Sunday Times, on the 16th May 1971 published a statement from Mr Ewer. It consisted of 15 points. (Woffinden, 1999. p380-382)

In it Mr Ewer confesses to having called the police and telling them of the incident, sometime in early September 1961.

One would have to imagine that early in September meant a week or so, at least, before the 11th, when the cartridge cases were found in room 24 at the Vienna Hotel. In fact the Daily Sketch reported that that the sighting was 8 days after the murder. This would then be on the 31st August.

Why is it that Mr Ewer did not sue the Daily Sketch, as would be his usual response, but wait some 9 years, after prompting from Mr Chester, to issue this statement?

If the police were called, what was their action? According to Foot, (1988, p51) the police went to a florists and adduced that a young man called J Ryan had ordered flowers to be sent to his mother, A Mrs Hanratty, on the 1st September 1961.

The police now knew of the name Ryan, and his mothers name Hanratty.

What were the police playing at? Did the police themselves not place any reliabilty on the identikit pictures? They had already gone to the Vienna over Alphon and released him, on Nudds' say so, and without any thorough investigation at all. It was not until Alphon was not identified by Valerie Storie on the 24th September that Mr Acott went back to the Vienna and called back Nudds. Nudds was sacked on the 11th September over a missing £5 and was a professional police informant. Charles France knew of Hanratty's stay at the Vienna Hotel by the 26th August at the latest, he already knew of Hanratty's favourite hiding place for unwanted goods. Charles France apologised to Mr Ewer over Gregstens, regrettable, death. Mr Ewer knew (as a business associate) Mrs Anderson and Mrs Anderson seemed to know where in the France's house a gun was kept.

So, again, why didn't Willaim Ewer sue for libel?

Strange!

Thnx
Steve

[Tony]

hello everyone

I believe that it is well established that a certain William Ewer, the brother-in-law of Janet Gregsten, was well known to issue writs of libel that pertained to his alleged involvement in the A6 murder.

Why then did Mr Ewer not issue a writ against the Daily Sketch for their "She saw him at the cleaners" article published on the 19th February 1962?

In 1971 Lewis Chester of the Sunday Times tried to interview Basil Acott. All Mr Acott would say is:



For those not acquainted with the jargon, a gas-meter case means an inside job. The Sunday Times printed the Acott story on the 9th May 1971.

The Sunday Times, on the 16th May 1971 published a statement from Mr Ewer. It consisted of 15 points. (Woffinden, 1999. p380-382)

In it Mr Ewer confesses to having called the police and telling them of the incident, sometime in early September 1961.

One would have to imagine that early in September meant a week or so, at least, before the 11th, when the cartridge cases were found in room 24 at the Vienna Hotel. In fact the Daily Sketch reported that that the sighting was 8 days after the murder. This would then be on the 31st August.

Why is it that Mr Ewer did not sue the Daily Sketch, as would be his usual response, but wait some 9 years, after prompting from Mr Chester, to issue this statement?

If the police were called, what was their action? According to Foot, (1988, p51) the police went to a florists and adduced that a young man called J Ryan had ordered flowers to be sent to his mother, A Mrs Hanratty, on the 1st September 1961.

The police now knew of the name Ryan, and his mothers name Hanratty.

What were the police playing at? Did the police themselves not place any reliabilty on the identikit pictures? They had already gone to the Vienna over Alphon and released him, on Nudds' say so, and without any thorough investigation at all. It was not until Alphon was not identified by Valerie Storie on the 24th September that Mr Acott went back to the Vienna and called back Nudds. Nudds was sacked on the 11th September over a missing £5 and was a professional police informant. Charles France knew of Hanratty's stay at the Vienna Hotel by the 26th August at the latest, he already knew of Hanratty's favourite hiding place for unwanted goods. Charles France apologised to Mr Ewer over Gregstens, regrettable, death. Mr Ewer knew (as a business associate) Mrs Anderson and Mrs Anderson seemed to know where in the France's house a gun was kept.

So, again, why didn't Willaim Ewer sue for libel?

Strange!

Thnx
Steve

That’s good stuff, Steve,

I have been very busy of late on other matters but it has been very remiss of me not to acknowledge your input.

I will have more time later this week and we must talk at length.

I do know what is going on behind the scenes by the way.

Keep smiling mate we may be getting there.

Tony.

[Victor]

I believe that it is well established that a certain William Ewer, the brother-in-law of Janet Gregsten, was well known to issue writs of libel that pertained to his alleged involvement in the A6 murder.

Why then did Mr Ewer not issue a writ against the Daily Sketch for their "She saw him at the cleaners" article published on the 19th February 1962?

Hi Steve,

What libellous comments were in that article? There's no point issuing a writ if the article contains nothing defamatory.

In 1971 Lewis Chester of the Sunday Times tried to interview Basil Acott. All Mr Acott would say is: To us it always seemed a simple gas-meter case.

I completely agree that that statement is bizarre, however, it could have been made to get rid of the reporter.

The Sunday Times, on the 16th May 1971 published a statement from Mr Ewer. It consisted of 15 points. (Woffinden, 1999. p380-382)

In it Mr Ewer confesses to having called the police and telling them of the incident, sometime in early September 1961.

One incident in the middle of a nationwide hunt for a vicious murderer. How many other "sightings" were reported after the Identikits were issued?

Why is it that Mr Ewer did not sue the Daily Sketch, as would be his usual response, but wait some 9 years, after prompting from Mr Chester, to issue this statement?

Again, where's the defamation? He was probably initially advised to ignore it because he wouldn't get anywhere and then when Foot dredged it all up again to just issue a statement to try to put an end to all the gossip.

If the police were called, what was their action? According to Foot, (1988, p51) the police went to a florists and adduced that a young man called J Ryan had ordered flowers to be sent to his mother, A Mrs Hanratty, on the 1st September 1961.

Highlighted bit says it all really.

They had already gone to the Vienna over Alphon and released him, on Nudds' say so, and without any thorough investigation at all. It was not until Alphon was not identified by Valerie Storie on the 24th September that Mr Acott went back to the Vienna and called back Nudds.

Erm... Wasn't it the disputed alibi with Alphon's mother?

Charles France apologised to Mr Ewer over Gregstens, regrettable, death.

If the gun was France's then that gives one possible reason why Dixie might feel responsible for the death.

Mr Ewer knew (as a business associate) Mrs Anderson...

Mr Ewer's point 8... I did not know or have any business dealings with a woman called Louise Anderson.

and Mrs Anderson seemed to know where in the France's house a gun was kept.

Now I think that point is very significant, I can see no other explanation than Hanratty told her. Can you think of any other possibilities?

So, again, why didn't Willaim Ewer sue for libel?

Foot, Postscript , July 1972, page 422 of the 1988 Penguin paperback...
The libel action with Mr William Ewer has been settled. Nothing in the book has been changed as a result of the settlement.

To me that sounds like a lot of effort for no result.

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Steve wrote: and Mrs Anderson seemed to know where in the France's house a gun was kept.

Victor replied: Now I think that point is very significant, I can see no other explanation than Hanratty told her. Can you think of any other possibilities?


I can see another explanation. She made it up because she was under pressure to paint Hanratty in a poor light to save herself from further investigation concerning the handling and disposal of stolen goods.

This is another shameful episode in the investigation in which Mrs Anderson and Mrs France were transported to court together. Mrs Anderson apparently had no idea who the other woman was but she revealed that Hanratty had told her some time ago that he had hidden a gun in the linen cupboard at the Frances' home.

The testimonies of Nudds and Anderson were a mostly a crock full of lies.

[P.L.A]

A Simple Gas Meter Job

Woffinden’s book offers one explanation of what Acott’s alleged statement meant. This places the emphasis on “gas meter job”.

Could the ex detective have meant the operative word to be “simple”?

Did the A6 investigation team think the solution to the crime was obvious and uncomplicated with no side issues or sub plots – i.e. simple, just like a gas meter job?

I have difficulty believing he meant the case was a simple inside job of conspiracy to murder. This is a contradiction in terms.

We will never know for certain.

Peter.

[Graham]

Hi Peter,

I agree. My interpretation of 'gas-meter job' was and is that a crook saw something easy to pinch and he just went and took it, like nicking money out of a gas-meter. I.e., Hanratty saw the car and decided that a stick-up would be an easy way to make a bit of profit. How wrong he was....

I don't think there is any real tangible evidence to suggest that Acott suspected any kind of conspiracy.

Hi Steve,

Ewer was a weird bloke by all accounts. One of his famous "15 points" was to state that he sought and was given permission to attend Hanratty's trial. Now as we all know a criminal trial is a public event and no-one needs to seek permission to attend. I always thought that that particular statement by Ewer devalued the other points he made.

Cheers,

Graham

[P.L.A]

Permission To Attend The Trial

Could Ewer have meant that he confirmed he was not going to be called as a witness, thus clearing the way for him to sit in the public gallery from the start of the trial?

Your guess is as good as mine.

Peter

[Victor]

Steve wrote: and Mrs Anderson seemed to know where in the France's house a gun was kept.

Victor replied: Now I think that point is very significant, I can see no other explanation than Hanratty told her. Can you think of any other possibilities?

I can see another explanation. She made it up because she was under pressure to paint Hanratty in a poor light to save herself from further investigation concerning the handling and disposal of stolen goods.

Hi Julie,

That explanation doesn't explain how she knew which butchers the bag was from, and secondly why she'd tell a stranger that information.

The testimonies of Nudds and Anderson were a mostly a crock full of lies.

Nudds statements were contradictory, so obviously one was innacurate, but I don't think Anderson was contradicted by any evidence was it?

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Ewer was a weird bloke by all accounts. One of his famous "15 points" was to state that he sought and was given permission to attend Hanratty's trial. Now as we all know a criminal trial is a public event and no-one needs to seek permission to attend. I always thought that that particular statement by Ewer devalued the other points he made.

Could Ewer have meant that he confirmed he was not going to be called as a witness, thus clearing the way for him to sit in the public gallery from the start of the trial?

I can see the validity of that comment Peter, I've given evidence at a criminal trial, and was not permitted in the courtroom until I gave evidence.

KR,
Vic.

[larue]

ooer!!!

larue tiptoes in....

looks around.

'cor, 'taint 'arf gorn quiet in 'ere 'innit? nuffin' fer a fortnite!!!!!!

is that the end of the discussion then?????

larue tiptoes out again, to the sound of his own footsteps......................

[Dupplin Muir]

Hi Larue

No, I am secretly preparing my PMD (Post of Mass Destruction) to devastate the ranks of the 'Jimdiditites'!

DM

[burkhilly]

I'm the same looking in on the thread on a daily basis. Can't wait to see your PMD Dappin Muir.

[SteveS]

Ditto

[Victor]

I'm the same looking in on the thread on a daily basis.

Not every day for me, but most days...

Can't wait to see your PMD Dappin Muir.

I'd like to see something convincing, but I fear it's as likely as the WMD in Iraq.

KR,
Vic.

[larue]

hi Dupplin

Can't wait to see your PMD Dappin Muir.

in triplicate

better make it a good one... there's some folk on this thread that will take quite a lot of convincing.

did i say quite a lot????