A6 Rebooted

[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!

[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]

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.

[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