a6 murder

[Victor]

i would suggest that there may be those who would not have considered MG to be Mr Nice Guy, for having a string of affairs, despite having a wife and two kids of his own, plus, leaving semen on VS's underwear suggests they had unprotected sex. what would your prediction be of MG's actions should VS have become pregnant by him??? do you think he would have showed her consideration and married her???

Hi Larue,
I'm not at all surprised, but there is no evidence that he was doing anything other than moving on with his life after the collapse of his marriage. He had a wife and 2 kids, but lived seperately to them, the relationship was over but maybe not completely according to Janet. Predicting the development of the MG-VS relationship had they survived is futile and unhelpful because it could go either way and there's no proving either.

(MG sounds and behaves a lot like my father who has now married a lot younger woman and has 2 daughters who are 35 years younger than me! Second marriages do sometimes work.)

but you have me puzzled with your assertion that MG 'sacrificed himself'.

Well it was stretching the evidence, he had at least one chance to escape and leave VS in the car with the gunman and didn't, and the shooting incident suggests an escape attempt (although VS denies it), so it could be interpretted that he risked his life in an attempt to obtain freedom for himself and VS only failed and paid for it with his life.

Hi Vic
Are you really saying that she was really that depraved and such a bad person that she deserves to be crippled for life, and now not only does she have Gregsten's life on her conscious, but also Hanratty's because the rotten harlot brought it all on herself.
No, he is not.

Best wishes

Viv

Hi Viv,

The man is hanged, mainly on your identification. A very serious thing; the man you picked is now dead and it’s down to you. You can’t ever have any doubts. Never again can you think; “I made one mistake, have I possibly made another?”

How else can you interpret the emblodened sentence? He clearly states that Valerie is responsible for Hanratty's death, and not the politicians who legislated for the death sentence, the home secretary who refused the pardon, the judge and jury who convicted, and Hanratty himself who committed the crime in full knowledge of the penalties should he kill someone and get caught. To me putting even the slightest sliver of responsibility on the victim is abhorrent.

KR,
Vic.

[larue]

Predicting the development of the MG-VS relationship had they survived is futile and unhelpful because it could go either way and there's no proving either.

hi Vic
you're not wrong there, though did i not read somewhere that VS herself stated she thought their relationship was going nowhere and she was waiting for it to fizzle out? [all the more reason to use contraception, i would have thought?]

Second marriages do sometimes work.

you're dead right there mate!

Well it was stretching the evidence, he had at least one chance to escape and leave VS in the car with the gunman and didn't, and the shooting incident suggests an escape attempt (although VS denies it), so it could be interpretted that he risked his life in an attempt to obtain freedom for himself and VS only failed and paid for it with his life.

hmmm, good point, though i would like to think that few blokes would leave their ladyfriend in the lurch, especially with a gunman.

[Victor]

did i not read somewhere that VS herself stated she thought their relationship was going nowhere and she was waiting for it to fizzle out? [all the more reason to use contraception, i would have thought?]

Hi Larue,
That would be interesting if you could remember where you read it, I can't recall having seen it.

Contraception in the pre-1980s HIV\AIDS scare period was rare and I'm not surprised it wasn't used.

hmmm, good point, though i would like to think that few blokes would leave their ladyfriend in the lurch, especially with a gunman.

Yes, I'd like to think so too. Alphon clearly disagreed with us according to his "confessions".

I can't remember if Mike had any other known affairs apart from with Valerie.

I'm not certain about "known" as in the other participants were positively identified, although there are suggestions that Janet was aware that he'd slept with several other women.

KR,
Vic.

[Harry the Hawker]

quick question

This is a fascinating case. I've just finished reading Paul Foot and am half way through Woffinden. Was it ever made public who the 'Mr X' was accused by Alphon of masterminding the plan to separate Gregsten & Storie (and who allegedly paid him 5,000 pounds to do so)?

Forgive me if this is common knowledge or has been referred to before on the threads!

Cheers,
Harry

[Victor]

This is a fascinating case. I've just finished reading Paul Foot and am half way through Woffinden. Was it ever made public who the 'Mr X' was accused by Alphon of masterminding the plan to separate Gregsten & Storie (and who allegedly paid him 5,000 pounds to do so)?

Hi Harry,

Mr X is thought to be William Ewer, who did live with Janet Gregsten for a while afterwards, and was her brother-in-law. This gives the motive that he wanted Janet for himself so got rid of the unfaithful Mike.

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

Hi Victor & Larue,

I can't remember if Mike had any other known affairs apart from with Valerie.

My reading of the situation is that Mike was a serial adulterer but involved usually in short-lived affairs. I think his affair with VS was somewhat more stable.

I just had a shufti at Foot was was surprised to be reminded that Mike sought counselling, including from a Harley Street psychiatrist! Who paid for that, then, as the Gregstens were supposedly permantly strapped for cash?
The fact is that Janet Gregsten absolutely refused to agree to a divorce, and it seems that because of this she turned a bit of a blind eye to Mike's infidelities, doubtless for the sake of their two sons.

If all of this had come out in court during the trial, it would've made the A6 Case even more sensational.

Mr X is thought to be William Ewer, who did live with Janet Gregsten for a while afterwards, and was her brother-in-law. This gives the motive that he wanted Janet for himself so got rid of the unfaithful Mike.

Ewer as Mr X who coughed up 5 grand to have the husband of the object of his lecherous desire bumped off just doesn't, and never did, make sense to me. Fair enough, stranger things have happened when it comes to motives for murder, and there's no doubt at all that Ewer really did fancy Janet Gregsten, and he doubtless was aware that she would never agree to a divorce, but it still doesn't add up. Not being a hit-man nor conversant with hit-man techniques, I'd have thought that if Gregsten really was the intended victim then the gunman would have selected a better locale and just got it over with instead of riding around the countryside for a few hours.

I'm also far from convinced that Ewer would have been able to raise such a figure as £5000, which I estimate at today's values = around £150000+.
He was a small-trader in antiques, supposedly repaired umbrellas (not exactly a full-time occupation, I'd have thought) and might have been a bit naughty in his dealings, cf. his knowing Louise Anderson, a recognised fence. Not the man, I'd have thought, to fork out that sort of cash to have someone blown away. I rather think that "Mr X" a.k.a. "The Central Figure" is the figment of certain over-active imaginations.

Cheers,

Graham

[Victor]

I just had a shufti at Foot was was surprised to be reminded that Mike sought counselling, including from a Harley Street psychiatrist! Who paid for that, then, as the Gregstens were supposedly permantly strapped for cash?

Us!!! He was a Civil Servant remember.

[larue]

Hi Larue,
That would be interesting if you could remember where you read it, I can't recall having seen it.

hi Vic
when i next get a bit of 'me' time, i'll try to locate the source of this.

Contraception in the pre-1980s HIV\AIDS scare period was rare and I'm not surprised it wasn't used.

ah, dear Vic. most of your posts are cogent, reasoned, and very well presented, but occasionally you do make a remark that raises my eyebrows, and this is one of them. where on earth do you get the idea that contraception was rare before the '80's???? during the '70's, one could easily obtain condoms in almost every chemist/pharmacy, and many other stores besides, and by this time, of course, a lot of women were on the pill.

in the early sixties, however, the pill was available by doctor's prescription only, and then only for married women. condoms were available, but far more discreetly so. usually in the barber's, or 'gents hairdressers'. remember them? 'something for the weekend, sir???'

in the one i was frequently dragged to, as a schoolboy, there was an intriguing sign which read 'use ONA surgical rubberware, and keep your fellow countrymen employed'. i puzzled about this, but in the way that schoolboys will, i soon learned what it meant. thank goodness for older brothers, and friends with older brothers. there was a rather tacky joke doing the rounds at the time, which ran something like this:

first kid: where's Arizona?

second kid: dunno

first kid: floating down the river with a knot in it.

[groans]

strange innit? i can remember that joke from the early sixties, but can't remember where i read about the VS/MG affair, which must have been within the last 4 years. ah well, that's old age for you

[Victor]

where on earth do you get the idea that contraception was rare before the '80's???? during the '70's, one could easily obtain condoms in almost every chemist/pharmacy, and many other stores besides, and by this time, of course, a lot of women were on the pill.

Hi Larue,

Are you really saying that contraception was more prevalent in the 70's than the 80's? I don't deny that it was available, but it certainly wasn't as readily available as today, particularly as you noted women needed a Doctor's prescription for the pill, condoms were all hidden away and had to be requested, vending machines were rare (if they existed at all)

I am firmly of the opinion that condom use vastly increased as a direct result of the government AIDS campaign in the 80's, which was the intended affect.

I do remember getting my haircut at the Barbers though.

KR,
Vic.

[larue]

Hi Larue,
Are you really saying that contraception was more prevalent in the 70's than the 80's? I don't deny that it was available, but it certainly wasn't as readily available as today, particularly as you noted women needed a Doctor's prescription for the pill, condoms were all hidden away and had to be requested, vending machines were rare (if they existed at all)

hi Vic

what you say above is true enough. no, i'm not really saying that contraception was more prevalent in the 70's than the 80's, but that it was not difficult for a man to 'take precautions' in the early sixties.

with the social stigma of a single mother hanging over their heads, i have always thought that VS/MG were very remiss in taking chances. f'rinstance, there were several girls in the high school i went to, who 'went to stay with granny' for six months or so, back in the sixties, only to re-appear with a 'baby sister' or 'cousin'

in these enlightened times, of course, teenage girls use a baby[ies] as a ticket for getting a council house, and a carefree life on benefits

I am firmly of the opinion that condom use vastly increased as a direct result of the government AIDS campaign in the 80's, which was the intended affect.

in this Vic, you are totally correct, and i am in complete agreement with you.

[larue]

Hi Victor & Larue,
My reading of the situation is that Mike was a serial adulterer but involved usually in short-lived affairs. I think his affair with VS was somewhat more stable.

The fact is that Janet Gregsten absolutely refused to agree to a divorce, and it seems that because of this she turned a bit of a blind eye to Mike's infidelities, doubtless for the sake of their two sons.

hi Graham

no argument from me on that.

I'm also far from convinced that Ewer would have been able to raise such a figure as £5000, which I estimate at today's values = around £150000+.
He was a small-trader in antiques, supposedly repaired umbrellas (not exactly a full-time occupation, I'd have thought) and might have been a bit naughty in his dealings, cf. his knowing Louise Anderson, a recognised fence. Not the man, I'd have thought, to fork out that sort of cash to have someone blown away. I rather think that "Mr X" a.k.a. "The Central Figure" is the figment of certain over-active imaginations.

i agree with that too!

to put things in perspective re the value of 5 grand [ i know this depends on which yardstick one uses, but from the source below; ] the price of the average house in 1961/62 is shown. and this would be a private house, as council houses were not sold off at that time.

just under 3k for a house!!!!! it almost defies belief.

http://www.wwwk.co.uk/culture/housing/index.htm

1962 £2.9k
1961 £2.7k

[Victor]

to put things in perspective re the value of 5 grand [ i know this depends on which yardstick one uses, but from the source below; ] the price of the average house in 1961/62 is shown. and this would be a private house, as council houses were not sold off at that time.

Hi all,

From http://www.measuringworth.com/index.html

In 2008, £5000 0s 0d from 1961 is worth

£83,359.10 using the retail price index.
£187,395.54 using average earnings

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

My first house (1971) was £3950 and my salary at the time was about £1000, i.e., about 25% of the cost of my house. In 2009 I think the average salary is a lot less than 25% the median cost of a house. Rates were £200 a year in 1971! I sold it for £21000 in 1977 when we moved to the USA.

The other thing that people either forget or don't know about is how hard it was for an ordinary bloke to get a mortgage back then. 25% minimum deposit was needed, and they'd go through your bank-statements with a fine-tooth comb to satisfy themselves that you could afford the repayments. I was turned down by 2 building societies before I was offered a mortgage - monthly repayment precisely £33! It was a different world in those days!

Just to make younger people feel even worse, in 1937 when the new estates were being built in Birmingham, a 3 bedroom semi with a decent-size garden was between £379 and £479, depending on where it was...my friend's parents' house was £399 in 1937...now valued at around £190000...my parents couldn't afford to buy a house when they married in 1939.

Cheers,

Graham

[Victor]

My mum is still in the family home that my parents bought in 1974 for £8,000 it's worth at least £200K now, it was a new estate for Birmingham Overspill (as it was then termed). They had an incredible struggle to make the mortgage and deposit, and were really, really broke for the first few years.

The measuringworth site has 5 different ways of measuring the future value of money but I've never read through them all.

[jimarilyn]

I'm also far from convinced that Ewer would have been able to raise such a figure as £5000, which I estimate at today's values = around £150000+.
He was a small-trader in antiques, supposedly repaired umbrellas (not exactly a full-time occupation, I'd have thought) and might have been a bit naughty in his dealings, cf. his knowing Louise Anderson, a recognised fence. Not the man, I'd have thought, to fork out that sort of cash to have someone blown away. I rather think that "Mr X" a.k.a. "The Central Figure" is the figment of certain over-active imaginations.

At the time of the A6 murder William Ewer was listed in the London Phone Book as an "Art Dealer", not as a humble umbrella repair man.

Sometime between 1961 and 1966 Ewer prospered sufficiently to find the financial means to move from Swiss Cottage to the very posh and upmarket Oxford Street.

Three short years later, acting on behalf of an anonymous person, he bought a (430 year old) one and threequarter square inch Miniature by Hans Holbein for a world record price of £21,000 at Sotheby's.

Deduce from this what you Will.