A6 Rebooted

[George Dixon]

[QUOTE=Alfie;n705151]




The notion that Ewer somehow masterminded the intimidation-gone-wrong episode doesn't bear a moment's scrutiny.
Have to disagree with you on this.

If he wanted Janet for himself, why would he intervene just when Gregsten was on the verge of leaving her?
It is my belief that their " friendship " had started before the killing.

[Alfie]

It is my belief that their " friendship " had started before the killing.

(a) Do you have any evidence to support this belief?

(b) If true, hiring an intimidator/killer at this juncture makes even less sense.

[Graham]

The notion that Ewer somehow masterminded the intimidation-gone-wrong episode doesn't bear a moment's scrutiny.
Have to disagree with you on this.

Well, if you can provide concrete evidence that Ewer was behind some kind of plot to frame Hanratty, go ahead and tell us about it.

Ewer was actually Janet Gregsten's brother-in-law, and for a time she lived in the same house as the Ewers. After Michael's murder, the Ewers gave shelter to Janet and her two sons. Some time later, she and Ewer did have an affair, which neither of them denied. However, when he interviewed Janet not long before he died, he wrote that he no longer felt that the A6 Crime had been 'masterminded' by Ewer, nor did he any longer feel that Janet was the vengeful harpie he had always imagined her to be, because of her husband's various affairs. In 1967 (I believe) Ewer sued Paul Foot, Foot's publisher Jonathan Cape, and the Sunday Times for libel, on the basis that they implied he, Ewer, had something to do with the A6 Crime, and received settlements from both Cape and the Times.

Graham

[NickB]

I thought Justice invited Ewer down to his cottage for a weekend. If Alphon was still hanging around the cottage at that time, they would have met then.

[Alfie]

I thought Justice invited Ewer down to his cottage for a weekend. If Alphon was still hanging around the cottage at that time, they would have met then.

Can you recall where you read that Nick? Can't find a reference to it in Murder vs Murder.

[Graham]

Ewer wrote what he claimed was a 'true record' of his involvement with the A6 Case, and this was published by the Sunday Times on 16 May 1967 (I believe). Point 10 stated:

I would like to place on record that I have never at any time met James Hanratty or Peter Alphon. After the trial, Mr Alphon, who appears to be a raving lunatic, made my life intensely disagreeable with persistent telephone calls, some of them of a threatening nature.

I don't recall reading anywhere that Ewer had ever met Alphon, nor that he had spent a weekend at Justice's cottage.

Graham

[NickB]

Can you recall where you read that Nick? Can't find a reference to it in Murder vs Murder.

It was in a section from "Le crime de la route A6" that Jim posted here ...
https://forum.casebook.org/forum/soc...4415#post54415

But on reflection I think that was after Alphon and Justice had become estranged.

[Alfie]

It was in a section from "Le crime de la route A6" that Jim posted here ...
https://forum.casebook.org/forum/soc...4415#post54415

That meeting seems to have occurred sometime around mid-1963, and according to Foot (p. 322), Justice and Alphon met for the last time in Oct 1962 (although they continued to talk over the telephone).

The passage Jimarilyn supplied contains a quote from Ewer that George Dixon may have been referring to above, although it wasn't Alphon recalling it but Justice:

"Afterwards I invited Bill to my country cottage and he spent most of that weekend fishing. He knew quite well that I had decided to restore the good name of Hanratty. I told him I intended to write a book, and his reply was "If you speak about me or Janet then you will have me to answer to, and I am not Alphon."

[George Dixon]

[QUOTE=Alfie;n705158]

(a) Do you have any evidence to support this belief?
Do you believe that they just " happened " to fall in love soon after the killing. I simply do not. It was handy for Janet that Ewer was a much better lover than her late husband. How did she put it " she was finally able to enjoy sex.

[Alfie]

[QUOTE=George Dixon;n705189]

(a) Do you have any evidence to support this belief?
Do you believe that they just " happened " to fall in love soon after the killing. I simply do not. It was handy for Janet that Ewer was a much better lover than her late husband. How did she put it " she was finally able to enjoy sex.

So 'belief' only then.

[moste]

[QUOTE=George Dixon;n705189]

(a) Do you have any evidence to support this belief?
Do you believe that they just " happened " to fall in love soon after the killing. I simply do not. It was handy for Janet that Ewer was a much better lover than her late husband. How did she put it " she was finally able to enjoy sex.

Well said George, I'd forgotten she had said that . And your absolutely right regarding what would have been the most likely scenario where Ewers affections lay. As for snide remarks , take no notice, all new posters usually get it from the 'Hanratty was guilty band'. As for concrete evidence about anything, forget that , this case is marbled with deceit , corruption, lies,and a certain someone who managed to spend the rest of their lives in the knowledge that they sent an innocent man to the gallows , simply because they didn't have the humility,to acknowledge the true events of that fateful night. And Hey, that's my 'Belief'.

On Cobalts remark, re Grahams original view of Hanratty's innocence.I came across the post where he admitted that some years back, and was going to pull him on it, I didn't, but am glad you did. Rather than clinging to the DNA fiasco which in his heart of hearts he knows was an absolute 'gong show',he 'crosses the floor' on the belief that the said gong show switches everything around from his original beliefs, that Hanratty was framed.

[Graham]

OK Moste, if Hanratty was framed, please give us the benefit of your huge knowledge of this case and tell us:

1] why Hanratty
2] by whom
3] why.

Graham

[moste]

OK Moste, if Hanratty was framed, please give us the benefit of your huge knowledge of this case and tell us:

1] why Hanratty
2] by whom
3] why.

Graham

I will , If first you will benefit us all with your far superior knowledge , and give us the answers you had for those questions ,pre DNA.!

[cobalt]

Moste can speak for himself. My own observations are as follows.

1. Ewer, Anderson and France were known in some degree to each other. Hanratty was certainly known to the latter two, probably Ewer as well. He was a convicted criminal which I don’'t think any of the others were. He was, in Alphon’'s words, '‘expendable.'’ His movements around the time were known to France, specifically Hanratty’'s stay at the Vienna Hotel. Only when this became significant through public knowledge of Alphon’'s arrest was it possible to implicate Hanratty. Ewer was a security ‘'asset'’ whereby he would have become aware of Alphon attending British Union of Facists small gatherings. Ewer was capable of putting a 100 year embargo on the papers relating to his Sunday Times libel, if any proof were required as to his powerful contacts. Not many umbrella salesmen have that kind of clout. 100 year embargoes are for state security; not even cabinet meetings get that kind of cover.

2. Hanratty was ‘framed’ by those responsible for the events of 22^nd August, 1961. France was undoubtedly involved and had presumably supplied the murder weapon, a fact which became known to the police but never publicly confirmed. Under threat of prosecution France offered up the least he could: information regarding Hanratty’s favourite disposal place. He probably, like Hanratty, did not believe that British justice could hang an innocent man. France'’s suicide took place when he discovered it could, and that he had been complicit.


3. The hardest question of all, even for the prosecution at trial and ever since. Amateur psychology had to fill this gap at trial. Alphon came up with a motive, whatever his role was, to the effect that it was to separate the two lovers. This has been rightly criticised as likely to have had the opposite effect. More likely Gregsten was being given an ultimatum: either go back to your wife and family or make a life with Valerie Storie (and leave your wife at Ewer'’s disposal.) On the night Gregsten was not prepared to give an answer either way, which would have not have pleased Ms. Storie too much, hence her edited account of what was said over those five hours.

So was Hanratty completely innocent of any involvement? That'’s not so clear. He was known to many of those involved in the case and the coincidence of him and Alphon perhaps occupying the same ‘'Gangster Suite'’ in the Vienna Hotel, having both being sent there from the same other hotel, stretches credulity to the limit.

[Spitfire]

It is really a case of ABH.

In this unholy mix of characters we have, in no particular order and certainly not in order of importance or capability:

1. Michael Gregsten, to some an innocent victim of a motiveless crime, to others a wicked Lothario who was engaged in skulduggery in Bedfordshire which resulted in him getting his comeuppance.

2. Valarie Storie, to some, an innocent victim of a motiveless crime, to others a wicked accomplice in MG's skulduggery who lied from start to finish about the identity of her (and MG's) assailant and her rapist.

3. William "Bill" Ewer to some, a bit player in this drama who tried to cash in on the post trial clamour for news of anything to do with the convicted man, the investigation that led to his conviction and anything else relating to his victims or his victims' relatives. To others, WE was the main architect of the whole unhappy "gong show" we now call the "A6 Murder" or as the title of this thread has it "A6 Murders". He pulled the strings of many, if not all, of the other players in our drama or "gong show". It was not for nothing that Bill Ewer or William Ewer, as his mother liked to call him was known in the clubs and jellied eel parlours of 1960s London and its environs as Mr Big. The Krays deferred to him, the Richardsons worshipped him on the altar of criminality. Mad Frankie Fraser said of Billy Ewer, "He (William Ewer) had more clout than Macmillan and more urbanity than Tony Eden. William Ewer liked to collect Commonwealth postage stamps and art deco timepieces. He was also engaged in a passionate affair with MG's widow (see 4 below) which led to Bill ordering the execution of MG and VS.

4. Janet Gregsten, to some, a woman terribly wronged as a result of the A6 Murder, she was left to raise to young children who had been left fatherless by this crime. To others she was engaged in a steamy affair with Bill Ewer (see 3 above) well before the A6 Murder and who must shoulder some, if not all, the blame for the murder. Her lust for Billio, as she liked to call WE,

5. Peter Alphon, to some an eccentric drifter who became involved in the investigation due to his bizarre behaviour after the commission of the crime and his presence in the Vienna Hotel before and after the time when the crime was committed, yet to others he remains a favourite answer to the perennial question, "Who killed Hanratty?" this being despite his informal acquittal by Mr Michael "Mike" Mansfield QC in 2002. We can rest assured that Mike was in the employ not of his ostensible clients, the Hanratty family, but of the criminal underworld led by Bill Ewer.

6. Charles "Dixie" France, to some, a minor figure in the criminal underworld who befriended the hapless Hanratty. To others, the criminal who did WE's dirty work whilst his wife, Charlotte, was doing Hanratty's dirty washing. He supplied the gun to Alphon and put the noose around the ill-fated Hanratty neck. Quite why he wanted to exonerate Alphon and implicate Hanratty is a question he would never be able to answer.

7. Det. Supt Basil Acott or "Bob" as he was known to his friends at the Yard and the villains in the criminal underworld. To some a plodding policeman who rather stupidly went after Peter Alphon as his prime suspect. To others, he was an astute operator but under the control of WE who had directed him to arrest, prosecute and convict Hanratty.

8. Michael Sherrard, to some a very able barrister who acted in the interests of his client, the luckless Jim, and who sought to uphold the highest traditions of the Bar in his defence of his client. To others, he must shoulder most, if not all, of the blame for the unjust conviction of the most certainly innocent Jim with his failure to call additional evidence relating to the Rhyl alibi at the Court of Appeal on the flimsy grounds that the new evidence did not match anything said by his client.

As I said at the start this is a case of ABH.