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

[Natalie Severn]

Well Victor,neither identikit drawing shows a man with eyes like a carbuncle-which is how Bill Ewer described the eyes of the man he saw!
But yes,I have always found it strange that Alphon was suspected by the guests at the Alexander Hotel only a day or so after the murder.Alphon claims in one of his "confessions" that he was "shopped"--that is possible in the panic that followed the tragic events that arose over the "hold up in the cornfield"!
Norma

[Victor]

Thankyou Julieq for this,

I agree, and welcome from me too Julieq.

I still find it a bit difficult to reconcile Bill Ewer noticing a young man going into a shop because he looked like the description especially if this was based in any way on the early identikit because that first identikit didnt look like Hanratty and the sighting had to be early September before he went to Ireland [the date given was around September 4th].

Hi Norma,

You accept that Alphon was fingered in a different hotel because he was "acting strangely" and this trail lead back to Vienna, where Hanratty had stayed the night before, and later cartridge cases from the murder weapon were found, but not that Ewer (the brother-in-law of the murdered man) could be looking out for someone acting suspiciously?

Also Charlotte France thought the Identikit looked like Hanratty and told him so, so why couldn't others?

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Thankyou Julieq for this,
The details you have filled in here are really helpful and sound more like what may have happened and how the story grew .I still find it a bit difficult to reconcile Bill Ewer noticing a young man going into a shop because he looked like the description especially if this was based in any way on the early identikit because that first identikit didnt look like Hanratty and the sighting had to be early September before he went to Ireland [the date given was around September 4th].But the rest of what you write makes a lot of sense,
Best wishes,
Norma

[jimornot?]

on the 25th february 1995 the Guardian Weekend magazine published an article under the heading The Murder That Won't Die it was based on series of interviews Janet Gregston had with Pual Foot shortly before her death in January 1995. She stated that she saw him at the cleaners story was an invention of the tabloid press. She had neither seen nor had an intuition about anyone
She admitted that shortly after her husbands death she had begun a sexual relationship with Bil Ewer but insisted it did not provide any motive for the murder. In the days following the murder she had moved into the house in Goldhurst Terrace owned by Ewer and her half sister Valerie,on receiving £2000 pounds compensation from her husbands employers she had given it to Ewer as part payment on a deposit towards a larger house in Wentworth Road Golders Green Which she moved into with her 2 young sons, her sister and Ewer shared the house with them ,and the affair continued here for another 8 years finally ending when she moved out in 1969.
She stated that she now believed in Hanraty's innocence and offered to assist in any way she could to clear his name, she now thought it most likely that Alpon was her husbands killer.Sadly J G died on the 18th January shortly after giving the interview.
After her death Paul Foot telephoned Ewer During the conversation Ewer reafirmed his view that Hanratty had been guilty. He confirmed Janets claim that cleaners shop story was a fabrication he did concede that certain aspects of the story were true , he had followed a man In Finchley Road who he felt looked like the description of the murderer he had observed him going into a photographers or possibly the florist shop next door ,he had spoken to the manager then called the police. He did not know if the man was in fact Hanratty. He admitted to the 8 year affair with Janet but claimed it provided no basis for a motive to the murder He concluded by saying, People can dream up what they want but I know the truth
Hope this is some help
regards julie q

Terrific thanks Julie and a warm welcome to you. As ever, I am intrigued where people get their info. Is there a source you, Norma or anyone can give someone like me (admittedly pretty lazy) to find out more on these 'side' issues? i am intrigued to know more about all the characters and how their lives changed asa result of this case and include in this of course the gragsten children, the France family, Michael Hanratty

I hadn't realised Ewer had admitted at least part of his story was true.

all the best

Viv

[julie q]

she saw him at the cleaners

on the 25th february 1995 the Guardian Weekend magazine published an article under the heading The Murder That Won't Die it was based on series of interviews Janet Gregston had with Pual Foot shortly before her death in January 1995. She stated that she saw him at the cleaners story was an invention of the tabloid press. She had neither seen nor had an intuition about anyone
She admitted that shortly after her husbands death she had begun a sexual relationship with Bil Ewer but insisted it did not provide any motive for the murder. In the days following the murder she had moved into the house in Goldhurst Terrace owned by Ewer and her half sister Valerie,on receiving £2000 pounds compensation from her husbands employers she had given it to Ewer as part payment on a deposit towards a larger house in Wentworth Road Golders Green Which she moved into with her 2 young sons, her sister and Ewer shared the house with them ,and the affair continued here for another 8 years finally ending when she moved out in 1969.
She stated that she now believed in Hanraty's innocence and offered to assist in any way she could to clear his name, she now thought it most likely that Alpon was her husbands killer.Sadly J G died on the 18th January shortly after giving the interview.
After her death Paul Foot telephoned Ewer During the conversation Ewer reafirmed his view that Hanratty had been guilty. He confirmed Janets claim that cleaners shop story was a fabrication he did concede that certain aspects of the story were true , he had followed a man In Finchley Road who he felt looked like the description of the murderer he had observed him going into a photographers or possibly the florist shop next door ,he had spoken to the manager then called the police. He did not know if the man was in fact Hanratty. He admitted to the 8 year affair with Janet but claimed it provided no basis for a motive to the murder He concluded by saying, People can dream up what they want but I know the truth
Hope this is some help
regards julie q

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Julie,

I believe the whole thing is hogwash from the Reporters - therefore I see no reason to conclude, as you have, that Janet and Ewer's honest is in doubt. If the reporters lied about the story, then they could quite easily lie about their source.

I don't find it surprising what Ewer said about Anderson, which basically boils down to "I don't know her, but as we're in the same line of business then we may have both attended the same function without being introduced to eachother"

KR,
Vic.

Hi Victor,
I think what needs to be separated out possibly is Bill Ewer"s own 15 point statement for the Sunday Times in May 1971 ,to "set the record straight" from his point of view,and the supposed "intuitive sighting" by Janet Gregsten soon after the murder in 1961. Although Bill Ewer"s statement refers to the supposed sighting in late August/early September 1961 and relates to when Hanratty sent Flowers to his mother from the florists shop opposite to Bill Ewer"s antiques/Umbrella shop in Swiss cottage Arcade, it is Ewer himself who says saw Hanratty ,when he was taking a coffee break and seeing a well dressed young man with staring eyes paying his coffee bill at the counter, and he wondered then,whether this could be the A6 gunman.The flower shop later confirmed that a Mr Ryan had indeed been into her shop [opposite Bill Ewer"s shop and had done so twice in August to send flowers to his mother and Mr John Wood swore on oath at the trial that Hanratty brought them into his Dry cleaning shop---also only a few yards opposite Mr Ewer when he had also had his trousers tapered at the Dry cleaners. Hanratty took them in on 21st August at 11 am and picked them up on 4th September.
Moreover Ewer emphasises in his 15 point statement that Charles France,a neighbour,came to "apologise" over what had happened to his brother in law Gregsten.Ewer says he hardly knew him and wondered why he was apologising!

[Victor]

There are two things I can conclude from this/these report(s):

1) if the whole thing is hogwash then Ewer's and Mrs Gregstern's honesty is called into question

2) if the story is true Ewer obviously knew Anderson and there is a line of enquiry here that was never followed up.

Hi Julie,

I believe the whole thing is hogwash from the Reporters - therefore I see no reason to conclude, as you have, that Janet and Ewer's honest is in doubt. If the reporters lied about the story, then they could quite easily lie about their source.

I don't find it surprising what Ewer said about Anderson, which basically boils down to "I don't know her, but as we're in the same line of business then we may have both attended the same function without being introduced to eachother"

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma

Fair points, thanks

I think the 5 hour fide was for 'finking' time myself but if I had to go with the scaring off threory I agree it would have been a plan to do just that and no more

atb

viv

Moving on to the

Thanks viv,
Far more Londoners say "finking" for thinking and "fru" for thru than you realise! And many are bidialectal!

Norma

[jimornot?]

Hi viv,
I really dont see it that way.As far as Supt Acott was concerned the gunman was Hanratty.What happened to Gregsten was a capital offence, accident or no accident [of the gun being fired in panic].Moreover there was 23 year old Valerie,who was raped, shot several times, left for dead,has never been able to walk since. So Supt Acott,if he thought Hanratty was the killer and rapist,might not have cared much about whether or not the pair in the cornfield were having an affair.If he thought it was some kind of "gas meter "job in 1961/2 ,he never hinted at it at that time,so presumably he didnt think that in 1961/2.What Acott wanted was to bring the killer to justice and he believed he had.
Acott may have later wondered why such a bizarre crime was committed,with the "confessions" of Alphon suggesting it and hitting the headlines periodically etc and Alphon"s talk about a "central figure".
But I am not suggesting that someone in the family of Michael Gregsten hired someone to "kill"---not at all.The suggestion thats been made is that the gunman might have been hired to "scare off Valerie"---hence the five hour ride in the MM going nowhere---why,if the motive was murder and rape didnt he shoot Gregsten in the cornfield ?
If anyone from the family of Michael Gregsten was in anyway involved in it it would seem to have had a much less wicked intention---and no intent to murder or rape.
Best
Norma

Hi Norma

Fair points, thanks

I think the 5 hour fide was for 'finking' time myself but if I had to go with the scaring off threory I agree it would have been a plan to do just that and no more

atb

viv

Moving on to the

[Natalie Severn]

Hi viv,

let's also contemplate his involvement in a the plan to scare MG - why on earth would he raise his head this way?

Lets look at this again.It took Bill Ewer ten years to "raise his head".Ten years during which he tells us he was [I]hounded by threatening calls [/I]from Alphon..He gave his 15 point statement to the Sunday Times in 1971 to limit the damage of having Alphon shooting his mouth off to all and sundry.
Don"t forget Alphon was going on French television to talk about how he was "approached" by the central figure etc .Highly intelligent as we know he was, he was astute and careful enough to thread his story through with improbable events.He even explains this saying he did this out of "self -preservation" ---he says did not want to hang or to go to prison for life so he deliberately skewed parts of what he said. Its all in Woffinden"s book.If you want to know what Alphon said you can read the transcript there ,as reported by The Sunday Times.He talks about how he was part of a small group of people who hung round "dog tracks" etc,how he got to know key players etc
In my view,Alphon was far more likely to have been chosen to do the mad job of careering round North London and Bedford for five hours putting the frighteners on the couple in the cornfield.Highly intelligent and apparently
up for it, he would also have understood the need to have a "patsy" like Hanratty.
Anyway,"Whitechapel" is on soon,so I must go----read up on Woffinden!
Cheers,
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

Hi viv,
I really dont see it that way.As far as Supt Acott was concerned the gunman was Hanratty.What happened to Gregsten was a capital offence, accident or no accident [of the gun being fired in panic].Moreover there was 23 year old Valerie,who was raped, shot several times, left for dead,has never been able to walk since. So Supt Acott,if he thought Hanratty was the killer and rapist,might not have cared much about whether or not the pair in the cornfield were having an affair.If he thought it was some kind of "gas meter "job in 1961/2 ,he never hinted at it at that time,so presumably he didnt think that in 1961/2.What Acott wanted was to bring the killer to justice and he believed he had.
Acott may have later wondered why such a bizarre crime was committed,with the "confessions" of Alphon suggesting it and hitting the headlines periodically etc and Alphon"s talk about a "central figure".
But I am not suggesting that someone in the family of Michael Gregsten hired someone to "kill"---not at all.The suggestion thats been made is that the gunman might have been hired to "scare off Valerie"---hence the five hour ride in the MM going nowhere---why,if the motive was murder and rape didnt he shoot Gregsten in the cornfield ?
If anyone from the family of Michael Gregsten was in anyway involved in it it would seem to have had a much less wicked intention---and no intent to murder or rape.
Best
Norma

[jimornot?]

Where is this evidence?Can you point me too it? Everything he said in the witness box contradicts this.

[/B]

No,viv,I am not.What I said was that "aspects" of it are clearly true-viz the proof on oath at Hanratty"s trial from Mr John Woods, manager of the Dry Cleaners opposite Mr Ewer"s shop about where and when in August and early September ,Hanratty took his green suit to be tapered .
Ewer"s ""true record" ie his own 15 point statement for The Sunday Times" written in 1971 , which he never alluded to as false---ie he never claimed the story was anything other than that was what he had said/written for The Sunday Times.

I believe Mrs Gregsten,who later became his lover may have been hanging up a "Wilson Steer" painting -for example- in his shop when all this happened .But whether she was or was not,certain very significant aspects of the story are clearly true and were said .Hanratty was seen by Bill Ewer going into a shop opposite Ewer"s in Swiss Cottage soon after the murder.Charles France did go and "apologise" to Ewer for the killing of Gregsten.Ewer did say he was a business acquaintance of Louise Anderson.Ewer was in the same business as Louise Anderson --in that he sold antiques.Charles France and Louise Andserson bioth dealt in "antiques' etc etc

hi Norma

What specifically did he say on trial that indicates the evidence was tampered with? How does this marry up with Nick's point to the effect that careful check indicated nothing significant was omitted?

Can't find the references yet re Ewer denying the story - any help from others appreciated. I [B]may[B] be wrong re Ewer in which case I apologise in advance but until certain I think / take the view you are choosing to believe the newspapers and interpret the intuition story as as fact. It sounds like nonsense to me but without doing this to death, lets go with the story as something he did say, let's also contemplate his involvement in a the plan to scare MG - why on earth would he raise his head this way?

Anyone know of references to Mrs G denying the story as well?

Ewer indicated he [B]may[B] have met Anderson which undermines any statement they were business acquaintances. One is vaugue in the extreme, the other more definitie that they had met. Again who do we chooseto believe, apparently Ewer said both things but only one can be true?

I dont have an argument about the location of the shop or France going in to apologise (although who revealed this? If it was Ewer and he was involved in the plot it beggars belief he'd tell all and sundry). Anderson and Ewer in same business (altho' I understand from this thread that his main business was umbrellas). It doesn't necessarily follow Ewer took in stolen goods and having denied meeting France in the past the potential link beteeen them seems a non starter

I can see I'll have to ferret out the books when ther'es time and see if I can get to the bottom of my theory (?) that Ewer denied the story. until then.....

all the best

viv

[jimornot?]

[QUOTE=Natalie Severn;150303]

.......
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

Hi Norma

except you are indicating he that is precisely why he refers to a gas meter job or am I misunderstanding this.

I see the logic in what you said on point b but don't see why he would not secure further convictions later. It seems odd that he shoudl further highlight the inadequacies of his investigation in such a way

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on our interpretations of his gas meter reference.

all the best

Viv

[Natalie Severn]

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 ?

Where is this evidence?Can you point me too it? Everything he said in the witness box contradicts this.

re the janet Gregsten story - you are choosing to believe it as true.

No,viv,I am not.What I said was that "aspects" of it are clearly true-viz the proof on oath at Hanratty"s trial from Mr John Woods, manager of the Dry Cleaners opposite Mr Ewer"s shop about where and when in August and early September ,Hanratty took his green suit to be tapered .
Ewer"s ""true record" ie his own 15 point statement for The Sunday Times" written in 1971 , which he never alluded to as false---ie he never claimed the story was anything other than that was what he had said/written for The Sunday Times.

I believe Mrs Gregsten,who later became his lover may have been hanging up a "Wilson Steer" painting -for example- in his shop when all this happened .But whether she was or was not,certain very significant aspects of the story are clearly true and were said .Hanratty was seen by Bill Ewer going into a shop opposite Ewer"s in Swiss Cottage soon after the murder.Charles France did go and "apologise" to Ewer for the killing of Gregsten.Ewer did say he was a business acquaintance of Louise Anderson.Ewer was in the same business as Louise Anderson --in that he sold antiques.Charles France and Louise Andserson bioth dealt in "antiques' etc etc

[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