A6 Rebooted

[Spitfire]

It [the hanky] was not wrapped around the gun. It was placed on top of it and the ammo boxes.

On the issue of handkerchief ,covering, or wrapping, gun: I really fail to see the significance of how the evidence was stored in its place under the back seat, or am I again missing a deeper meaning?

According to my Oxford dictionary, re "Nit Picking":Looking for small or unimportant errors or faults, especially in order to criticize unnecessarily:

Perhaps Derrick can explain to moste the deeper meaning of the significance of why it matters whether the hanky was covering or enclosing the gun.

I agree with moste that this does seem like nit picking although perhaps I would not have used that phrase.

[NickB]

But Mrs Anderson had told them the previous week that she did indeed know Mr Ewer before the murder and furthermore that Mr Ewer had told her of the 'intuitive sighting'when they met during the trial.

As mentioned before, I think William Ewer was the man alluded to when Louise Anderson was giving evidence at the trial. She was asked if she had been approached in the hotel at lunchtime on Friday by a man. She said she had. She was then asked: “Was that the man sitting behind my learned friend?” and she replied “Yes”. The judge then stopped any further questioning about him.

It is interesting that the NoTW Louise Anderson interview appeared on 27th November 1966. The Panorama programme was also in November 1966, and the following month there was a Sunday Times investigative report by Brian Moynahan and Peter Laurie. So there appears to have been a general resurgence of interest in the case at that time.

Another article worth retrieving (referred to by a previous poster) would be one in The Guardian Weekend supplement on 25th February 1995 entitled ‘The Murder That Will Not Die’. Apparently this is based primarily on a series of interviews with Janet Gregsten, shortly before she died, but also includes interviews with William Ewer and Peter Alphon.

[Sherlock Houses]

Re. Edwin Cooke's interview of August 25th 1961.

On August 25th 1961 Edwin Cooke was interviewed by the BBC concerning his discovery of the loaded gun, handkerchief, 5 boxes of .38 ammunition and loose bullets.
This short, 80 second clip was until fairly recently available for viewing on the BBC website under the heading "On this day". It is no longer on their website for some unknown reason after having been there for some years.

Mr Cooke's actual words on camera........"and eventually I come to the end seat, picked it up and saw a handkerchief and a box of cartridges. I picked the cartridges up and opened it and thought..well if kiddies got hold of this ??????????? [hard to make out what Mr Cooke is saying here] ......and I thought of this murder and took it down to the office..the gun and the packet of cartridges I found with it [interviewer then asks how many packets and if the gun was loaded to which Mr Cooke answers "five" and "yes"]. There was some spare shots as well and I gave to Jimmy Page, the ??????? foreman, and told him to ring the police and he did so." .....

Interviewer : "Did you recognise the gun ?"
Mr Cooke : "Well I did, yes, it was an Enfield 1940."
Interviewer : "You've handled guns before have you ?"
Mr Cooke : "No..never... not that kind of a gun..but..I wasn't in the army, but I know what it was."
Interviewer : "And did it occur to you to think of fingerprints, did you touch the gun ?"
Mr Cooke : "..The first thing in my mind. The gun had a serrated butt. I picked it up by the butt between my fingers. Put all the cartridges in the handkerchief and walked down with it hanging underneath my hand."


James Hanratty might have had certain learning difficulties but he was street-wise and not stupid. He told his brother Michael that had he been the A6 gunman he would have thrown the gun in the Thames.

Just like the vast majority of people would have done.


PS. That BBC interview of Edwin Cooke can be viewed on Youtube via the following link.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATU43xBN8Uc

[caz]

It [the hanky] was not wrapped around the gun. It was placed on top of it and the ammo boxes.

I stand corrected, Del. Thanks.

Hanratty, however, remains convicted of placing his hanky on top of his murder weapon.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Sure, the briney would have been the only way to dispose of the gun for the killer to have done with it forever.

But that is not what happened.

The gun was put on the bus specifically to be found.

Yes, but I believe it was Hanratty's desperate attempt to give himself some sort of alibi. More or less as the gun was found, he was sending that telegram from Liverpool. He arguably hoped to convince the police that he couldn't have done both. If someone else planted the gun, it was yet another opportunity for Hanratty to have had a genuine alibi without their knowledge. They didn't know at that time that Hanratty would be unable to prove he was many, many miles away a) shortly before, during or shortly after the crime itself, or b) shortly before, during or shortly after the murder weapon was being hidden on the bus.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The hanky was Hanratty's. The MtDNA tests done in 1997 proved that. There is no contamination issue at all with the hanky.

Absolutely. So I take it you don't go along with Norma's claim that there must have been 'gross contamination' of all the evidence, the trial exhibits and so on, during transportation, handling and storage, and that the DNA tests in general were a 'complete joke'. That's good to hear, Del.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

On the issue of handkerchief ,covering, or wrapping, gun: I really fail to see the significance of how the evidence was stored in its place under the back seat, or am I again missing a deeper meaning?

According to my Oxford dictionary, re "Nit Picking":Looking for small or unimportant errors or faults, especially in order to criticize unnecessarily:

Well it was Derrick who picked me up on my impression that the hanky had been found wrapped round the gun, not merely on top of it. But I didn't accuse him of nit picking, so there is no call to accuse Spitfire of continuing it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

As mentioned before, I think William Ewer was the man alluded to when Louise Anderson was giving evidence at the trial. She was asked if she had been approached in the hotel at lunchtime on Friday by a man. She said she had. She was then asked: “Was that the man sitting behind my learned friend?” and she replied “Yes”. The judge then stopped any further questioning about him.

It is interesting that the NoTW Louise Anderson interview appeared on 27th November 1966. The Panorama programme was also in November 1966, and the following month there was a Sunday Times investigative report by Brian Moynahan and Peter Laurie. So there appears to have been a general resurgence of interest in the case at that time.

Another article worth retrieving (referred to by a previous poster) would be one in The Guardian Weekend supplement on 25th February 1995 entitled ‘The Murder That Will Not Die’. Apparently this is based primarily on a series of interviews with Janet Gregsten, shortly before she died, but also includes interviews with William Ewer and Peter Alphon.

Thanks so much Nick-very interesting point you make about that exchange in court that might have been the one the judge referred to .Would love sight of that Guardian weekend supplement you mention of 25th February.It seems nearly all the journalists at the time and in 1971 found William Ewer an odd character and even back then wondered at his involvement.He apparently attended the trial every single day and was seen always supporting Janet Gregsten.At first these journalists appear not to have realised he was her brother in law but when they realised who he was ,even back in 1962,it caused quite a few raised eyebrows and then when they heard the stange stories from their colleagues on the Daily Mail and Daily Sketch about Janet Gregsten's shocked 'recognition' of the murderer they were even more intrigued by all accounts.Wonder what they would have thought if they had read Janet Gregsten's written account of their unbridled passion the very first time they ever 'got it together'-quite a few months after the trial ended apparently they 'fell into each others arms-as if made for each other' ! He clearly thought the world of Janet though probably in a very above board way originally ,and very much wanted to protect her ---in my view all the way along.He had known her since she was a girl of about 14 of course.

[Natalie Severn]

re that telegram from Liverpool

Caz, It may interest you that Hanratty is recorded as telling ex policeman Gillbanks on 30.12.61 that he had collected his clean shirts from Mrs France on 21st August 1961 -that she had washed them for him -Charlotte France and he had been telling them both i.e. Mrs France and Carole France that he was going to see his Aunt in Liverpool.Carole France said she wished she was going with him and went to the top of the road and waited with him until he got a taxi."Before he left though
Mrs France had asked me to send her a card from Liverpool- I can't write well so I sent a telegram- "

[NickB]

It seems nearly all the journalists at the time and in 1971 found William Ewer an odd character and even back then wondered at his involvement.

Then there is the file at the National Archives which was embargoed for 66 years. Apparently this contains a 1973 police interview with Ewer arising out his libel proceedings against the Sunday Times for their 1971 article.

[Natalie Severn]

Then there is the file at the National Archives which was embargoed for 66 years. Apparently this contains a 1973 police interview with Ewer arising out his libel proceedings against the Sunday Times for their 1971 article.

That is SO interesting Nick -I never knew that the police had interviewed Ewer over it.Thanks for that.

[Graham]

Angus Huck

Not that it really matters, but I linked Lib Dem Voice regarding the A6 Case and Angus Huck in particular on my post No 1294 on 29 July 2008. Were you aware of that, Norma?

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Not that it really matters, but I linked Lib Dem Voice regarding the A6 Case and Angus Huck in particular on my post No 1294 on 29 July 2008. Were you aware of that, Norma?

Graham

Graham-have checked back but A6 posts only go as far back on here as 2009-I would like to see your post as I don't recall it no.

[Graham]

Graham-have checked back but A6 posts only go as far back on here as 2009-I would like to see your post as I don't recall it no.

I'll see if I can dig it out for you, but I didn't really make any comment about it at the time.

It was rubbish then, and rubbish now.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Don't bother digging it out Graham----I read Huck's words and since Hillsborough and the 162 witness statements that were proven to have been fiddled with and altered by police nothing would surprise me anymore ...thanks for the offer though x