A6 Rebooted

[ansonman]

The text of one of his last letters is perplexing. What could he have meant by "They are going to crucify us all"?

Why write "I have done what was honestly right, but will be so twisted as to make it as though I was an associate of this filthy act"?

Whatever was meant was enough to make him take his own life.

[OneRound]

Caz,

Apologies if I came across as being rude to you or OneRound. I read the original concept as suggesting that the person who disposed of the gun was carrying out some devilishly crafty plan to ''frame' a random fellow criminal who would know all about stashing goods in the back seats of buses. Read that way, it seemed an outlandish idea. The way you have presented it here is a fairer interpretation, I can see.

My own musings on this important aspect of the A6 Case are as follows. It is unclear why the killer decided not to jettison the weapon shortly after the crime. One possibility might be that he felt duty bound to return the weapon which he had hired, lest he fall victim to a vicious punishment beating gangland style. However when offering to return the weapon he was told in no uncertain terms to get rid: immediately. By now it would be known that the female victim had survived and was being questioned in hospital, adding to the panic.

The killer might have feared being snitched on, or in his paranoia, fearful that detectives were closing in on him swiftly. Maybe they already had him under observation? In that febrile state of mind, ditching the weapon and other ammunition under the seat of an an omnibus in the Big Smoke made as much sense as anything else. We tend to assume it was done by one man but there may have been two involved in order to aid concealment. Or a man and a woman.

No problem, cobalt. It's a forum of facts, thoughts and theories.

I take your point about a couple being involved to aid concealment but, there again, if going to that sort of trouble, wouldn't the chosen hiding place have been better? Do you have two people at all in mind?

Best regards,
OneRound

[cobalt]

Yes, I do.

The murderer must have had somewhere to stash his ammunition. He could not have been carting around 5 boxes of ammo whether involved in burglary or even armed robbery as the prosecution case suggested. Common sense suggests otherwise, something that should have been exposed more at trial by Sherrard..

Therefore on returning to London by means of the murder car, he on return to London either decided or was ordered to dispose of the revolver and any ammunition as fast as possible. From his stash. This he did under the back seat of a London bus.

Dixie France or even Louise Anderson may have been involved in this exercise, as possible holders of his stash. This theory neither incriminates nor absolves Hanratty from the crime.

[caz]

Or as has been mused on before France stashed the weapon and ammo plus hanky with Jimmies monogram on it,then tells the cops that Hanratty liked that place for getting rid of stuff. Simple as.

That might have worked, moste, if the hanky had Hanratty's monogram on it, or some other distinguishing feature, but I have seen no evidence for it.

If the only evidence was some unidentifiable snot on the hanky, and France's word for it that Hanratty hid unwanted stolen goods under bus seats, he either wasn't very bright, or wasn't trying very hard to frame him. He'd have been inviting suspicion on himself, if anything, for saying this about a known associate, if he knew Hanratty had nothing to do with the crime and therefore might have been able to prove it.

There must have been a hundred more effective ways of throwing Hanratty under the bus, so to speak, innocent or otherwise, if that was the purpose. I'm not buying it.

Next!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Caz,

Apologies if I came across as being rude to you or OneRound. I read the original concept as suggesting that the person who disposed of the gun was carrying out some devilishly crafty plan to ''frame' a random fellow criminal who would know all about stashing goods in the back seats of buses. Read that way, it seemed an outlandish idea. The way you have presented it here is a fairer interpretation, I can see.

My own musings on this important aspect of the A6 Case are as follows. It is unclear why the killer decided not to jettison the weapon shortly after the crime. One possibility might be that he felt duty bound to return the weapon which he had hired, lest he fall victim to a vicious punishment beating gangland style. However when offering to return the weapon he was told in no uncertain terms to get rid: immediately. By now it would be known that the female victim had survived and was being questioned in hospital, adding to the panic.

The killer might have feared being snitched on, or in his paranoia, fearful that detectives were closing in on him swiftly. Maybe they already had him under observation? In that febrile state of mind, ditching the weapon and other ammunition under the seat of an an omnibus in the Big Smoke made as much sense as anything else. We tend to assume it was done by one man but there may have been two involved in order to aid concealment. Or a man and a woman.

Morning cobalt,

No worries. Your observations here are entirely reasonable. Whoever had those highly incriminating items on his or her person immediately before boarding the bus would have been on high alert for anyone looking at them "in a funny way", or finding their behaviour suspicious. It would have been the most natural thing in the world. As soon as they were safely alone upstairs, their best bet would have been to lift the seat, dump the evidence and get off at the next stop.

While reading your post, it crossed my mind that the person choosing this method was likely to have been a regular bus user, and may not have had easy access to private transport at the time. With a car or van, it would have been so much easier to drive to a remote and unfamiliar spot to dispose of the items where they would be found, if that was the object, or where they might never be found, if that was preferable.

If you had to hop on a bus to get a murder weapon from A to B - any B - as quickly as possible, I could see how the nerves might set in on the journey and lead to what happened in this case.

Love,

Caz
X

[NickB]

Pamela Patt, the bus conductress, said the passengers were all regulars with one exception; at 6.10am a young man of about 25 got on at the Grosvenor Hotel and went to the upper deck where he was the only passenger for a time.

Of course once you invoke the conspiracy theory that is a magic wand to answer everything. e.g. Q - Why did the killer call himself Jim? A - Because it was part of a conspiracy to frame Hanratty.

[cobalt]

The revolver and ammunition were found around 9pm so there is no way of knowing at what time on 24th August the items were deposited.

The prosecution suggested they were put there in the early morning, perhaps because it fitted with the recollection of Pamela Patt the bus conductress. But although she gave a description of a passenger that resembled Hanratty, I can't find any evidence that she appeared at an ID parade to identify him.

[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!

[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

[Sherlock Houses]

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

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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