Mrs Gregsten"s "intuition" [Feb.19th 1962]

[Natalie Severn]

He acknowledges knowing Anderson as a business associate.

but says he did not know her,"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"[a somewhat contradictory statement].

added to which Louise Anderson stated "she did know Mr Ewer before the murder"[Woffinden]

So Bill Ewer had an "antiques shop" only 2 to 3 yards across the arcade to the dry cleaners [Burtol"s]where we know Hanratty took his green checked suit to be tapered on 21st August and which he picked up on 4th September .We know too that he went to Mrs Dorothy Morrell ,the florist, who had records of the sales, to send his mother,Mrs Hanratty flowers [on two occasions-first sending his mother gladioli which Mrs Morrell stated was in August [but before the A6 murder ] and then sending her Roses which was after the event ,both these shops-dry cleaners and florists being only a few paces away from Mr Ewer and his "antiques" business .I can"t help thinking Hanratty might have been a bit interested in someone like Mr Ewer who was in the same line of business as his friend ,Louise Anderson and had probably called in to see if he could do business with him once or twice!
Mr Ewer also stated in his 15 point statement that he had been harassed to death by Alphon who apparently made numerous telephone calls to him of a threatening nature["he made my life intensely disagreeable after the trial with persistent telephone calls,some threatening" ] and he also stated that he had been visited by Charles France who apologised to him for what had happened to Mike Gregsten----why on earth would Charles France visit Bill Ewer to apologise over the murder?

[jimornot?]

Hi Norma

What I meant by 'was it true?' is the 'she saw him at the cleaners' aspect. Can we honestly believe that the police were able to make a connection between J Ryan and Mrs Hanratty (weeks before the Irish crash and the 'official' version of how the connection was made) simply on some supernatural moment experienced by Mrs Gregtern?? Did the police really take these events seriously based on the version of the story printed in the papers - or was there some other information passed to them at the same time that was never made public?

.....

hi julie

I think the answer is NO

also if the police had identified hanratty as Ryan why did they have to get info from Mr leonard - please see recent posts on main thread

Hogwash as you stated before but not necessarily created by Ewer. I think it was a journo story simple as that

atb

viv

[jimornot?]

Hanratty said in his statement that he had put his green suit in the cleaner"s at Burtol"s in Swiss Cottage on the morning of August 21st, a fact confirmed by Mr John Wood, the supervisor.Mr Wood gave evidence on oath that he had received the suit from a man who gave the name Ryan and the address 72 Boundary Road ,London NW8.It was brought in about 11am 21st August 1961.
The Janet Gregsten sighting was supposed to have been on 31st August when she was supposed to have been hanging a Wilson Steer in Mr Ewer"s shop.
I can"t find the date when the suit was actually collected but it would be interesting to discover it was on this very day! The Steer painting,by the way, would have been worth a fortune even then---so if that was the sort of "antique" Mr Ewer was selling,he was quite a rich man!
Another very important point Mr Ewer made in his "true record" was that he may have known Louise Anderson as a "business acquaintance"!!!!!
Food for thought!

Hi Norma

Earlier in the main thread I think it was confirmed/ considered that ewer sold the odd expensive goods on commission, there was a very expensive item sold at auction ostensibly by him - can't find that link at the moment. Graham around post 285 referred to him as an umbrella salesman and occasional antique dealer

I was certain the story about the cleaners was fabricated by the journalist who admitted it. I thought ewer sued about it too

It is a most odd thing to admit to and I think likely to be dismissed had it been heard by the jury. Also if Ewer had been involved in a frame up, he surely wouldn't draw attention to himself by such a stupid story.

Had heard of the plainclothes men visiting but a) is it a verifiable story? b) assuming it was to do with the A6 murder it may not be significant as it was probably routine at the timne

i think Mrs gregsten also denied the story about the cleaners (and i also think she came round to thinking Hanratty was innocent)

atb

viv

[jimornot?]

But how could Alphon blackmail Ewer unless Ewer had asked him to do something about it? If all Ewer did was tell Alphon- or whoever - some tale about his brother in law,Gregsten"s adultery, what had he to fear?There was nothing to blackmail him for really---he was perfectly entitled to moan about it-even gossip about it.

Agreed Norma

[jimornot?]

b----why on earth would Charles France visit Bill Ewer to apologise over the murder?[/I]

Hi Norma

If he truly did of course.

If he did, it could be linked to his knowledge that hanratty did it and shame at having taken a murderer in and even possibly helped procure a gun.

pure speculation on my part but that same feelings of shame may have led to his suicide.

Any thoughts / more knowledge on his suicide notes? I have a gut feeling he'd have let on in some way if he'd felt guilty about incrminating hanratty or admit in an oblique way some involvement?

atb

viv

[jimornot?]

Thanks Julie,
Certainly there is something hugely bizarre about all this.
Acott,in 1971 is on record as calling the case a "Gas Meter job" meaning someone from "inside the family" had done the job!Did he mean "had paid someone to have the job done ?" or someone from "inside the family" actually "did the job?'

hi Norma

As far as I know Acott never doubted hanratty's guilt - did he? In the absence of anything pertaining to that, I think he was saying the case was as simple as a gas meter job which I would imagiune were pretty easy to solve.

atb

viv

[Limehouse]

hi julie

I think the answer is NO

also if the police had identified hanratty as Ryan why did they have to get info from Mr leonard - please see recent posts on main thread

Hogwash as you stated before but not necessarily created by Ewer. I think it was a journo story simple as that

atb

viv

But clearly - the answer cannot be 'no' because the police established - by visiting the florists - that a J Ryan had sent flowers to a 'Mrs Hanratty' and the police were alerted to this fact by Ewer as a result of Ewer and Janet Gregsten (we are asked to believe) spotting him from the window of Ewer's shop and having an overpowering moment of certainty that the man they saw was the killer.

It may - however - have been some weeks before the police connected up this J Ryan/Hanratty link to the Irish crash JRyan/Hanratty link.

[Natalie Severn]

hi Norma

As far as I know Acott never doubted hanratty's guilt - did he? In the absence of anything pertaining to that, I think he was saying the case was as simple as a gas meter job which I would imagiune were pretty easy to solve.

atb

viv

Well thats just not a serious comment to make viv.Acott certainly thought Hanratty was guilty and tampered with evidence , withheld crucial statements,selected witnesses and manoevred behind the scenes to get Bedford rather than the Old Bailey to prove it.You have only to glance at MIchael Sherrard"s revulsion- see below- about the way the whole trial was rigged to question the integrity of the statements and behaviour of Supt"s Acott and Oxford over this:

MICHAEL SHERRARD: The public were cheated, the system was cheated. I don't regard myself as having been cheated. I, I'm really an intermediate player, but Hanratty was hanged. He was cheated. If the other material that was not disclosed to us would have made the difference, so it, it's fair to say that there seems to be a strong argument at least for saying that the trial was fatally flawed and the word fatal has a real significance in this context.

Consider carefully these recent [May 2002] statements made by Hanratty"s trial barrister ,Michael Sherrard CBE,QC ,who became one of this countries leading QC"s:
MICHAEL SHERRARD CBE ,QC (James Hanratty's trial barrister):[I] I really couldn't bring myself to take in that those who had concealed the evidence in a capital case could have been as wicked as that.[/I]

Now as Dave,[Protohistorian] on the main thread is demonstrating currently
you cannot afford to ignore evidence.Judging from Sherrard and other"s remarks about the withheld evidence that later came to light,the tampered with and altered statements alleged to have been made by Hanratty ---/altered ie "rewritten" by Supt"s Oxford and/or Acott,
The Janet Gregsten story which "myth" has pronounced fake has been proven to have a very strong basis in facts, facts that were admitted to by Bill Ewer- her brother-in -law and later her lover- in his 15 point statement for The Sunday Times :
a] EWER"s "s "antiques shop" stood just two to three yards from the Dry Cleaners where Hanratty took his green suit to be tapered on 21st August---[Proven in court by John Woods on oath]and where he collected it from on August 4th.

b] EWER"s antique"s shop was also opposite and a few yards from the florists shop where Dorothy Morrell testified Hanratty had sent flowers twice to his mother in August 1961[gladioli and roses].
c] The Sunday Times printed EWER"s "True Record" in May 1971 which includeed these sightings.

So are you refusing to accept evidence?

[jimornot?]

[QUOTE=Natalie Severn;150285]Well thats just not a serious comment to make viv.


Hi Norma

Am I missing something here? On the one hand you refer Acott as saying about the gas meter job and infer as (I thought) you did about an inside job, then you point out how Acott thought Hanratty guilty and fabricated evidence against him. I'm just pointing out the obvious that it can't be both ways, so unless Acott changed his mind (and he didn't) then teh gas meter reference does not have the significance (I thought) you were placing on it

atb

viv

[NickB]

MICHAEL SHERRARD: If the other material that was not disclosed to us would have made the difference it's fair to say that there seems to be a strong argument at least for saying that the trial was fatally flawed

The 2002 appeal examined this very carefully and found that the undisclosed material would not have made the difference.

[Natalie Severn]

[QUOTE=jimornot?;150287]

Well thats just not a serious comment to make viv.


Hi Norma

Am I missing something here? On the one hand you refer Acott as saying about the gas meter job and infer as (I thought) you did about an inside job, then you point out how Acott thought Hanratty guilty and fabricated evidence against him. I'm just pointing out the obvious that it can't be both ways, so unless Acott changed his mind (and he didn't) then teh gas meter reference does not have the significance (I thought) you were placing on it
atb
viv

They are not counterposed viv.Acott probably guessed the family of Michael Gregsten were involved [gas meter job] but believed Hanratty was the hitman!

[jimornot?]

part 2

[QUOTE=Natalie Severn;150285].................


Now as Dave,[Protohistorian] on the main thread is demonstrating currently
you cannot afford to ignore evidence.Judging from Sherrard and other"s remarks about the withheld evidence that later came to light,the tampered with and altered statements alleged to have been made by Hanratty ---/altered ie "rewritten" by Supt"s Oxford and/or Acott,


Hi Norma

I too would like to know why they did that and posed that question before. But there is also evidence you seem to be disregarding that Hanratty himself had not indicated errors in the transcription given to the court - why would that be ?

re the janet Gregsten story - you are choosing to believe it as true. I don't have the ability to reference things (time and laziness as reasons included) but I am certain she denied it was true. If so, then surely her word would mean something and is better than that of any journalist? It would also fly in the face of the fact it was reported by Foot, I think, that she became convinced of hanratty's innocence - but I am not sure if that was true (how would we know?) her sons ceratinly weren't of that persasion.

I am equally sure Ewer denied the story and I think this is covered by Woffinden, if not Foot.

I am interested to see the Sunday Times article - any reference for it please? But it would mean little anyway if ewer later said he'd been misquoted surely? Officialdom has denied Ewer tipping off the police - see
Hansard '...Nor is it the case that the police were put on the trail of Hanratty as a result of information received from Mr. William Ewer..'

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1971/oct/28/james-hanratty

which makes your quote in the first post open to debate to say the least (your quote was '...Mr Ewer decided to follow the man.He watched him go into aflorists shop in finchley Road.Then,acting on impulse,HE RANG SCOTLAND YARD. A Squad car arrived.I introduced myself and told the police my story....')

so I am not refusing to accept evidence - I just don't find what you class as evidence as watertight facts. {as an aside, I had to smile when accused of this - I'd say there is no evidence I have ever done this in any posts to this site } I accept the facts as given about his shop, I accept too that he possibly came into cvontact with Anderson, probably could have had hanratty or France trying to sell him something too. There are lots of coincidences but all circumstantial nothing definitive for anyone to assert assumptions made from these coincidences as facts

What is your take on Ewer please? If you think he was involved in a plot, why do you think he'd raise his profile and risk any credibility with such a miraculous but frankly implausible intervention? the fact he had successfully sued others for their stories of his involvement indicates there are no facts available to support such claims

atb

viv

[jimornot?]

[QUOTE=Natalie Severn;150291]

They are not counterposed viv.Acott probably guessed the family of Michael Gregsten were involved [gas meter job] but believed Hanratty was the hitman!

oh come on Norma, why didn't he pursue a case against them then?

atb

viv

[jimornot?]

The 2002 appeal examined this very carefully and found that the undisclosed material would not have made the difference.

thanks nick so why did they change it I wonder?

atb

viv

[Natalie Severn]

[QUOTE=jimornot?;150293]

oh come on Norma, why didn't he pursue a case against them then?

atb

viv

Hi viv,
I will return to the other matter you raise later,but regarding Supt Acott:

a] it stands to reason that Acott"s main concern had to be to get a conviction for the A6 case and he appears to have become convinced the gunman was Hanratty at some point around 25th September.
b] One of the difficult issues regarding the trial was the 4 year relationship that had developed between the 37 year old married man and father of two young children, Michael Gregsten and the young 23 year old Valerie Storie.
None of the Bedford jury were ever told anything about "an affair" between them. Therefore they were in the dark about whether a motive could have existed regarding Gregsten"s family wanting the affair to end.So such a matter was never raised.

Since it was never raised at the trial Supt Acott could hardly have begun suggesting he had an inkling that it might be a "gas meter " job and that the gunman may have been hired by somebody in the family !
Best
Norma