A6 Rebooted

[Sherlock Houses]

I no longer have access to the various books but don't believe Hanratty was ever asked this at trial, let alone admitted the handkerchief was his. I recall some clown on here years ago producing a purported trial statement from Hanratty about the hanky but that was probably no more than a bad joke.

Somehow I don’t feel that Tony will take kindly to you referring to him as a clown. Tony, a very knowledgeable and perceptive poster who has contributed much to the A6 threads has been a keen student of the case since he first bought Paul Foot’s book when it was published in 1971.

[moste]

Mmh, strange for me because I remember Tony as someone who having sifted through all the relevant facts,as indicated in the spitfire entry , concluded as I do that he was framed.
It seems ,rather than loosening his collar though, if that statement of his accepting ownership of said hanky was factual, he was indicating to the jury what an absolute farce the prosecution case was, and the irresistible conclusion has to be that he is being made a scapegoat. Unfortunately for Hanratty he was in Bedford and not the Old Bailey.

[Spitfire]

Hi moste and all,

I no longer have access to the various books but don't believe Hanratty was ever asked this at trial, let alone admitted the handkerchief was his. I recall some clown on here years ago producing a purported trial statement from Hanratty about the hanky but that was probably no more than a bad joke.

The Court of Appeal certainly made no reference to any such admission by Hanratty in their 2002 judgement which would be surprising if he had.

Other regulars on this thread, such as Spitfire, may know more or better.

Best regards,
OneRound

Hi OR,

I think the originator of the myth that Hanratty admitted ownership of the handkerchief in the witness box, was a poster called “Tony” on the original and closed A6 Murder thread.

Tony wrote as follows

”Of course there is the hanky wrapped round the gun left on the bus which also had Hanratty’s DNA on it. But why would Hanratty do such a stupid thing as risk being caught boarding a bus with boxes of ammunition and a large hand gun when he could simply have dumped it all in the river. I don’t think he would have. Nobody would have.
Did anyone else have access to Hanratty’s dirty washing? Well, of course, we know they did.
But the evidence was presented in court and, despite what people say about Hanratty telling lies; he agreed at once it was his hanky. Well a strange liar indeed; it was just as if he was loosening his collar in readiness for the noose.“

As this thread is closed, it is not possible to do a direct quote or provide a link, but the post was made on 6 July 2009 at 6.24pm at post #4032.

S

[OneRound]

Just a thought in answer to something Caz mentioned.wasnâÂÂt Hanratty asked in the dock âÂÂIs this your handkerchief â to which he answered yes ?

Hi moste and all,

I no longer have access to the various books but don't believe Hanratty was ever asked this at trial, let alone admitted the handkerchief was his. I recall some clown on here years ago producing a purported trial statement from Hanratty about the hanky but that was probably no more than a bad joke.

The Court of Appeal certainly made no reference to any such admission by Hanratty in their 2002 judgement which would be surprising if he had.

Other regulars on this thread, such as Spitfire, may know more or better.

Best regards,
OneRound

[caz]

Yes, moste, I think you may be right. At least in this instance, Hanratty would have been telling the truth, as his DNA was found on it many years later.

Why he'd have admitted this, especially if he had hidden it on the bus himself, along with the murder weapon, is anyone's guess. It could not have been identified as his at the time.

But we have to remember that he changed his alibi, effectively admitting that he had lied about his whereabouts, which was just as much of an own goal. He certainly didn't help himself and made the prosecution's job easier than it should have been.

Love,

Caz
X

[moste]

Just a thought in answer to something Caz mentioned.wasn’t Hanratty asked in the dock “Is this your handkerchief “ to which he answered yes ?

[moste]

Wow! Quite a powerful man then from what we can tell.
On the,’how capable was he of setting into motion an assassination ‘. This would be a question of :how burning up inside was he at not having access to the woman of his desires this last few years .?How much welling up of hatred for Gregsten had taken place .?I recall reading Janet’s feelings on divorce which due to her own experience at home she found abhorrent, waste of time then Ewer hanging back in the shadows for that eventuality.
This same guy who sues the Sunday times ,and have it’s contents kept secret ,is the chap who causes a major stir dashing around Swiss cottage insisting he has the A6 killer on the end of his line , and having questioned local shop keepers gets the police involved.Not knowing the extent of the relationship with France is true ,but, we DO know there was a relationship ,and that its highly likely that Ewers explanation of that persons visit is probably lies.
Hats off to the vigilant reporters who must have been watching the likes of Ewer like a hawk.

[ansonman]

'The A6 Murder' (James HANRATTY): libel proceedings brought against Times Newspapers Ltd...

Catalogue description'The A6 Murder' (James HANRATTY): libel proceedings brought against Times Newspapers Ltd...

This record is closed



Opening date: 01 January 2060

• Submit FOI request

More information about the Freedom of Information review process

MEPO 26/341

'The A6 Murder' (James HANRATTY): libel proceedings brought against Times Newspapers Ltd by William EWER, brother-in-law of Janet Gregsten, the widow of the victim, Michael John Gregsten. With photographs

The naming of a defendant within this catalogue does not imply guilt

1973 Jan 01 - 1973 Dec 31

The National Archives, Kew

CR 204/73/2

Public Record(s)

Closed Or Retained Document, Open Description

Closed For 86 years

2020

Health and Safety

Personal information where the applicant is a 3rd party

01 January 2060

[cobalt]

We know very little about William Ewer as regards his educational qualifications, activity during WW2, even if he had any criminal convictions. We know little of his relationship with Dixie France either. However we do know a couple of things that may be relevant to his social standing. Ewer had enough money to take on the Sunday Times in a libel case. He also had enough influence for the details of the settlement to be hidden from public view for around 90 years.

I'm not sure I can buy into the idea of Ewer being a cold blooded hirer of an assassin, although I wouldn't be surprised to discover some MI5/6 connections in his background. But Moste is perhaps offering an interesting variation on the motive first voiced by Alphon ( a man who espoused right wing views as I understand did Ewer.) Namely that the purpose of the gunman was not to break up the relationship between Gregsten and Storie, but rather to insist that Gregsten sling his hook and never darken the door of his family again.

[moste]

For the above to be viable, it would mean as I have suspected all along Ewers hatred of his brothers in law, with his insatiable appetite for flirting and involving himself with ladies of his acquaintance,as divulged by his fellow workers to Bob Woffinden. And of course his tagging Valerie along to gratify his lust whenever he felt the need .couple this with Ewers growing affection for Janet ,and ultimate goal to make her his. With Gregsten gone, a culprit hanged , and the only witness to his skulduggery having topped himself , the road ahead was smooth. Just my take on how the land lay in 1961.

[moste]

https://youtu.be/HGl9tzMNtpE?si=ZussMkmrukD86Xkd

And here is the video that Mr and Mrs John Lennon made. If you look at some of the comments, the Lennons' video certainly gave some people the impression that they, the Lennons, were convinced of Jim's innocence.

yes ,John says he’s not coming down on either side as to Hanratty being innocent or guilty ,he’s just into murder by the state being wrong. But I think your right Spitfire,He does certainly give the impression he believes Hanratty was innocent. He did learn quite a bit about this particular case it seems, and when he alluded to Ewer possibly paying someone to get rid of Gregsten I was pleasantly surprised, I do believe that is where the truth lies. The idea that many people follow of the couple needing to be forced apart (after nigh on 4 years as an adulteress pair) is to my mind ludicrous. Janet apparently was settled in her mind about just leaving them to it ,( if Storie is to be believed)

Ansonmans post got me thinking, we don’t actually have a clue as to what transpired between France and Ewer , other than Ewers statement on France’s visit to his shop. If I recall it was directly after the appeal being turned down. Had France gone round to Ewers to challenge him on the final death sentence which was to be carried out .Had Ewer verbally let France have it with both barrels, hence in the final letter ‘they’ll crucify us all’? Folks may allude to France witnessing for the prosecution, but this also may be Ewers involvement.

[Spitfire]

https://youtu.be/HGl9tzMNtpE?si=ZussMkmrukD86Xkd

And here is the video that Mr and Mrs John Lennon made. If you look at some of the comments, the Lennons' video certainly gave some people the impression that they, the Lennons, were convinced of Jim's innocence.

[Sherlock Houses]

In this December 1969 interview John Lennon makes some pertinent comments about the case........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MG-ta9Qs8E

[moste]

In such a serious case as murder I can never understand the indifference attached to certain issues.For example Pamala Patt could have been interviewed at her home and if Sherrard thought there was mileage to be had ,she could have given evidence in camera. Same with Michael Clark ,clearly Sherrard wanted interaction with Clark otherwise he wouldn’t have questioned Acott about his whereabouts.The defence had to know that the appearance of Clark in court would quite possible have saved Hanratty’s life, if Acott had accurately listed the man’s appearance.So Pamala is not available, she’s Ill, and’ Clark was available but we don’t know his whereabouts now’.something smelly here.p

[NickB]

I believe Patt was supposed to attend the committal but was unwell. Re the ID parade perhaps she had told the police she would not be able to recognise him again, although she would have been asked that in court anyway. The defence were given Patt's name in the driver's statement so they could have pursued her. Maybe both sides were wary of what she might say!

The idea of an unknown accomplice is intriguing. I suppose such an accessory could be relied on to keep quiet, but maybe a deathbed confession from someone is still possible!