a6 murder

[RonIpstone]

So far as we can discern this was to have been Alphon's first foray into the scaring of lovers business, and either his fee for the job was to have been £5,000 or perhaps a lower amount with the difference made up from blackmail after the botched scaring had taken place.

So, why choose Alphon over someone with experience of firearms?

Indeed why should anyone consider that the loner, Alphon, would be up for scaring the lovers? The sociable but criminally inclined Hanratty would be a better bet to approach for the scaring of lovers caper.

If the job had a budget in the region of £5,000 why not get someone in who knew what he was doing? What was the going rate for a contract killing? I would have thought it would be a lot less than £5,000 and where the job did not involve flirting with the gallows, ie scaring of lovers, then the rate should be a lot less.

Once it had gone wrong and murder had been committed with what did Alphon have to blackmail anyone that would not have put his own head in the noose?

If Alphon had been in receipt of a steady and handsome income from blackmail why did he jeopardise that income by associating with Jean Justice?

[Limehouse]

Alphon was already a criminal in 1961. There is a file in the National Archives concerning charges of fraud brought against Alphon by DPP but the file is closed.

Following the A6 crimes Alphon committed numerous crimes against others - including assualt and making malicious and threatening telephone calls.

There is an assumption that - if Ewer was involved in hiring the gunman - he did so in order to frighten the couple. However - what if he wanted Gregsten dead?

[Victor]

As for Bill Ewer, Viv, he was not some humble umbrella repairman as has been suggested elsewhere on this thread. He was listed in the London Telephone Directory of 1961 as an Art Dealer. As Norma has already pointed out he had a Philip Wilson Steer painting on the wall of his Swiss Cottage boutique at the time of the A6 murder. [Steer is widely recognised as the foremost British Impressionist painter of his day and his paintings don't sell for coppers].

Hi James,

Have you any evidence for the Steer painting other than that highly dubious and thoroughly discreditted "She saw him at the cleaners" newspaper account?

He was far from strapped for cash and flourished enough financially to be able to open an Antiques Shop in posh Oxford Street by 1966. Three short years later [around the time of the break-up of his 8 year affair with Janet Gregsten] at Sotheby's he outbid everyone else to buy (on behalf of an anonynous person) a Holbein miniature masterpiece for a then world record price of 21 grand. I wonder if that anonymous buyer could have been none other than himself ??

I image that he would get a "Finder's Fee" or other agent's fee for his work on this, but your suggestion or him spending 21grand on top of the 5grand for bumping off Gregsten is just implausible.

Louise Anderson, an undisputed business acquaintance of Ewer's and in the same line of business as Ewer, paid Hanratty about £600 over a short period of time for ill gotten goods. She was supposedly very short of cash at the time so I wonder if she could have been acting as a middlewoman for Ewer. Fanciful speculation on my part ??? Who knows.

Sorry James you are plain wrong here, Ewer himself disputes the fact that he was a business acquaintance of Anderson, and no-one has produced any solid evidence that they were.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Alphon was already a criminal in 1961. There is a file in the National Archives concerning charges of fraud brought against Alphon by DPP but the file is closed.

Following the A6 crimes Alphon committed numerous crimes against others - including assualt and making malicious and threatening telephone calls.

Hi Julie,

I don't think Alphon was already a criminal - defined as had been successfully prosecuted for a crime - in 1961. In fact I think the only crime he was successfully prosecuted for were the threatening phone calls to Lord Russell, and even that was in his absence. The assault (of Mrs Hanratty) is highly dubious as the provocation by Justice was never examined by a jury nor a magistrate.

There is an assumption that - if Ewer was involved in hiring the gunman - he did so in order to frighten the couple. However - what if he wanted Gregsten dead?

If he wanted Gregsten dead then that would presumably have been the instruction to the gunman, so why the 6 hour car trip beforehand?

KR,
Vic.

[jimornot?]

Hi Viv,

Jean Justice first met Alphon about a week before the Bedford trial ended in February 1962. By this time the vast majority of the £7,569 that was paid into Alphon's deposit and current accounts between October '61 and June '62 had already been deposited.

It's very significant I feel, to point out that the unaccounted for £5,000 of this £7,569 sum was not paid into Alphon's account in one go. The impression has been fostered on this thread that £5,000 was paid to him in one lump sum. This is absolutely not so, the money was paid into Alphon's account in instalments gradually over the course of a few months. This smacks to me of blackmail. Hush money.

As for Bill Ewer, Viv, he was not some humble umbrella repairman as has been suggested elsewhere on this thread. He was listed in the London Telephone Directory of 1961 as an Art Dealer. As Norma has already pointed out he had a Philip Wilson Steer painting on the wall of his Swiss Cottage boutique at the time of the A6 murder. [Steer is widely recognised as the foremost British Impressionist painter of his day and his paintings don't sell for coppers]. He was far from strapped for cash and flourished enough financially to be able to open an Antiques Shop in posh Oxford Street by 1966. Three short years later [around the time of the break-up of his 8 year affair with Janet Gregsten] at Sotheby's he outbid everyone else to buy (on behalf of an anonynous person) a Holbein miniature masterpiece for a then world record price of 21 grand. I wonder if that anonymous buyer could have been none other than himself ??

Louise Anderson, an undisputed business acquaintance of Ewer's and in the same line of business as Ewer, paid Hanratty about £600 over a short period of time for ill gotten goods. She was supposedly very short of cash at the time so I wonder if she could have been acting as a middlewoman for Ewer. Fanciful speculation on my part ??? Who knows.

Dear all

(btw thanks for this James partic the update on Mr Ewer)

Just picking up with some of the points raised. I agree it is unlikely surely alphon would be chosen as a hit man or someone to scare the lovers off.

The money in the account is an oddity I agree. It is such a large sum....

Anyway you dice it up if Alphon has got the money for some connection with the crime it is yet another extraordinatry coincidence.

Possible scenarios

1. Won at dogs / horses. Just plausible but an extremely lucky run (not even just one good win it bseems). We have (I guess) no evidence of his gambling prowess before or after this? Can't decide on this

2. Blackmail - a)eg Bill Ewer who at least had rich connectiosn - eg in the selling of the item quoted by James. If Ewer was behind it why would he want MG scared off anyway partic in view of his later relationship with Janet? I agree with Vic that if he'd wanted MG killed there'd be no need for the 6 hour car trip - a definite 'no' from me on this

2 b) Could Alphon have blackmailed say Dixie France for him procuring the gun? Did alphon actually know France as he claimed? Maybe explains part of it and coupled with good wins - possible but surely unlikely

in either blackmail scenario (or otehrs), as has already mentioned I can't see who he'd be blackmailing given his part in the crime - how could he let on what he knew without incriminating himself?

3. fee? Why kill them? Why would anyone pay so much? Why choose Alphon? If not originally planned as a murder, as Ron says, the extraordinarily high fee (even for a hit) would be that much lower. I just can't see this.

4. Some other source or combination. Did Mum pay him larger amounts than quoted and try to keep him out of trouble. Surely too high a sum for this?
I assume there would have been no compenation from the police at this stage for wrongful dismissal. Would the papers have paid anything - did they actually get his story in the time frame covered by the payments and surely the case was sub judice??

how was the other 2500 accounted for - anyone know?

all the best

viv

[Limehouse]

Hi James,

Have you any evidence for the Steer painting other than that highly dubious and thoroughly discreditted "She saw him at the cleaners" newspaper account?


I image that he would get a "Finder's Fee" or other agent's fee for his work on this, but your suggestion or him spending 21grand on top of the 5grand for bumping off Gregsten is just implausible.


Sorry James you are plain wrong here, Ewer himself disputes the fact that he was a business acquaintance of Anderson, and no-one has produced any solid evidence that they were.

KR,
Vic.

Although some aspects of the 'she saw him at the cleaners' story are questionable (and by that I mean Mrs Gregsten's intuition that the man passing the window was her husband's killer) there is no question that Hanratty did leave his suit at that cleaners and did send flowers to his mother from that florists. The police were called to investigate the name of the man seen in the florists - so how did the newspaper get hold of this information? Why didn't Ewer shout from the roof tops - soon after the story appeared - that it was all fiction?

And if he was listed as an art dealer - what is so unbelieveable about him handling such a painting? Why would the newspaper make that up?

I think it's high feasible that Ewer knew Anderson. Of course he would deny knowing her - she was known to be a handler of stolen goods and she was known to be a close friend of the man who was accused of murdering his brother-in-law in highy indelicate circumstances.

[I"]If he wanted Gregsten dead then that would presumably have been the instruction to the gunman, so why the 6 hour car trip beforehand?"

KR,[/I]

Well - of course - it is not easy to shot a man dead. Such a man may well have thouyght he had the bottle until it came to the actual deed itself.

I don't think the motive for this crime was examined in any detail at all. There are contradictions - such as Acott stating he thought it was a 'gas meter job' when at the same time he at first persued an unsocialble lay-about and secondly a pettry criminal - one of whom - we are asked to believe - stumbled across these two star-crossed lovers in a field on a late summer's evening when his pockets happened to be bulging with a huge gun and overflowing with dozens of cartridges in boxes.

[Victor]

how was the other 2500 accounted for - anyone know?

Hi Viv,

It was payment from newspapers for compensation and his account of being wrongly accused of rape and murder.

It's all explainde in Foot's book.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Although some aspects of the 'she saw him at the cleaners' story are questionable (and by that I mean Mrs Gregsten's intuition that the man passing the window was her husband's killer) there is no question that Hanratty did leave his suit at that cleaners and did send flowers to his mother from that florists. The police were called to investigate the name of the man seen in the florists - so how did the newspaper get hold of this information? Why didn't Ewer shout from the roof tops - soon after the story appeared - that it was all fiction?

Hi Julie,

No-one knows for certain, but I believe "out of respect for the deceased" was mentioned.

And if he was listed as an art dealer - what is so unbelieveable about him handling such a painting? Why would the newspaper make that up?

There's nothing unbelieveable about an Art Dealer having that painting - just no evidence that it actually happened.

I think it's high feasible that Ewer knew Anderson. Of course he would deny knowing her - she was known to be a handler of stolen goods and she was known to be a close friend of the man who was accused of murdering his brother-in-law in highy indelicate circumstances.

That's fair reasoning, but still not proof that they knew eachother, or even knew of eachother.

Well - of course - it is not easy to shot a man dead. Such a man may well have thouyght he had the bottle until it came to the actual deed itself.

Again fair reasoning, killing isn't easy, but to drive around first, and kill and claim it was accidental (He moved too fast, &tc.), and then rape, and then try and kill again suggests to me that killing wasn't the original intention.

I don't think the motive for this crime was examined in any detail at all. There are contradictions - such as Acott stating he thought it was a 'gas meter job' when at the same time he at first persued an unsocialble lay-about and secondly a pettry criminal - one of whom - we are asked to believe - stumbled across these two star-crossed lovers in a field on a late summer's evening when his pockets happened to be bulging with a huge gun and overflowing with dozens of cartridges in boxes.

It depends upon whether "Gas Meter Job" means an inside job, or a simple straightforward case, and your reasoning above strongly suggests the latter.

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Hi Vic

It was clearly not a straight forward case and the evidence for this is the number of old lags they had to drag out of the woodwork and lean on in order to get a conviction.

[Natalie Severn]

Again fair reasoning, killing isn't easy, but to drive around first, and kill and claim it was accidental (He moved too fast, &tc.), and then rape, and then try and kill again suggests to me that killing wasn't the original intention.

Hi Vic,

This is why I believe it was planned----not the murder ,shooting and rape but the 6 hours of going round in circles so to speak.
Had the gunman wanted to kill Gregsten because he wanted to rape Valerie,which is what the prosecution claimed, it would have happened soon after the hold up began.Why wait while you are driven round and round for 6 hours only to nearly get clobbered with a duffle bag?
There was no monetary gain.All that happened was a long boring drive in the dark with a frightened couple----ending in a killing ,a rape and a shooting.[I]No fingerprints[/I] on the car from the gunman,[I]no semen [/I]on the car seat from the gunman,no fibres or hairs from the gun man,no blood could be linked to the gunman---and for over 40 years none of this could be linked to Hanratty ,yet we are now expected to believe that his DNA was found from 1961 on an old piece of cloth found accidently in a police station over 40 years later that had never been stored in suitable laboratory conditions required .

[jimarilyn]

Hi James,Have you any evidence for the Steer painting other than that highly dubious and thoroughly discreditted "She saw him at the cleaners" newspaper account?

What kind of evidence would satisfy you here Victor ? In whose eyes is this a "highly dubious and thoroughly discredited" article ? And what reason would Peter Duffy [a Jimdiditite incidentally] have for inventing such a story knowing that to do so would leave him and his paper wide open to libel action from Ewer ?

Sorry James you are plain wrong here, Ewer himself disputes the fact that he was a business acquaintance of Anderson, and no-one has produced any solid evidence that they were.

No, I'm not. Billy Ewer knew full well where Juna Antiques Shop was and walked in there and chatted with her about the A6 murder. It was years later that Ewer denied knowing Louise Anderson. His cryptic and contradictory statement regarding this reads as follows....
"I did not know or have any business dealings with a woman called Louise Anderson. 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"

Ewer, understandably, denied knowing Alphon too. I wonder how many other people Billy Liar denied knowing ?

[Victor]

What kind of evidence would satisfy you here Victor ?

Hi James,

A variety of evidence could be provided, a receipt, an account from someone who purchased that painting from Ewer, &tc. Just not a dodgy newspaper article.

In whose eyes is this a "highly dubious and thoroughly discredited" article ? And what reason would Peter Duffy [a Jimdiditite incidentally] have for inventing such a story knowing that to do so would leave him and his paper wide open to libel action from Ewer ?

Ewer disputes it, and there's no corroboration from an independant source, and it's so glaringly sensationalist and implausible. Duffy did it to sell more copies of his newspaper.

No, I'm not.

Yes you are. You said "Louise Anderson, an undisputed business acquaintance of Ewer's", yet Ewer disputes it, therefore you are wrong to say "undisputed".

Ewer, understandably, denied knowing Alphon too. I wonder how many other people Billy Liar denied knowing ?

And your evidence that Ewer knew Alphon comes from where? Let me guess, the dodgy Alphon confessions perhaps, that have "the ring of truth" despite containing "deliberate mistakes".

KR,
Vic.

[jason_c]

Hi Vic,

This is why I believe it was planned----not the murder ,shooting and rape but the 6 hours of going round in circles so to speak.
Had the gunman wanted to kill Gregsten because he wanted to rape Valerie,which is what the prosecution claimed, it would have happened soon after the hold up began.Why wait while you are driven round and round for 6 hours only to nearly get clobbered with a duffle bag?
There was no monetary gain.All that happened was a long boring drive in the dark with a frightened couple----ending in a killing ,a rape and a shooting.[I]No fingerprints[/I] on the car from the gunman,[I]no semen [/I]on the car seat from the gunman,no fibres or hairs from the gun man,no blood could be linked to the gunman---and for over 40 years none of this could be linked to Hanratty ,yet we are now expected to believe that his DNA was found from 1961 on an old piece of cloth found accidently in a police station over 40 years later that had never been stored in suitable laboratory conditions required .

DNA tests which Hanratty defenders had campaigned for for many years.

[Victor]

DNA tests which Hanratty defenders had campaigned for for many years.

Hi Jason,

How true, plus the DNA tests were LCN and therefore Hanratty supporters claim that they cannot be used to exonerate someone. Therefore if the results had shown someone else's DNA profile, then that would not mean that Hanratty is innocent.

Oh dear.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

DNA tests which Hanratty defenders had campaigned for for many years.

But now very outdated LCN DNA tests Jason ,outdated and in contention those DNA tests.I think if it went to the European Court of Human Rights instead of to those with a vested interest to rule on behalf of the prosecution, we would have a very different scenario,in 2010/11.Who knows,it may yet happen.
Best Norma