A6 Rebooted

[Graham]

Nats,

But who would the person or persons be who'd go to such extreme lengths to scare off Gregsten and Valerie from their relationship?

Gregsten's parents were divorced and he was raised largely by his grandmother and his aunt - in fact, the Morris Minor belonged to his aunt. He was unstable and had a nervous breakdown.

Janet Gregsten came from a dysfunctional family who, as far as I can tell, couldn't have cared less about her. She attempted suicide.

Again, as far as I can make out, the one common factor between the two families is that they were permanently short of money, as were Michael and Janet after they were married. I would suspect that even in 1961 hiring a gunman to do anything wasn't cheap.......

So, if a member or members of one or both of their families decided to put an end to the illicit affair between Michael and Valerie, who would it/they have been, and if they decided to hire a gunman, where would the money come to pay him? And is there any history of previous family attempts to end the relationship? Not as far as I can tell - the only one I can find is that their mutual employer at the RRL gave them a rather paternal warning, and Valerie told him to get stuffed.

William Ewer? Don't think so. He may well have fancied Janet something rotten, but if he wished to break up her marriage I think he was not the kind of person to resort to the kind of violence that ultimately resulted in a murder and an attempted murder, and a rape. I rather suspect he was the kind of bloke who'd write a long and rather stuffy letter to Gregsten.

And don't forget that at the time Michael and Janet were having serious marital difficulties and were living apart. It was really only a matter of time before they seperated, and maybe Ewer was biding his time. Who would pay a gunman to break up an affair when it was plain to all who knew them that Michael's and Janet's marriage was on the rocks and that they'd never get back together?

There never was any reason whatsoever for anyone to hire a gunman to scare Michael and Valerie into calling it a day. Totally illogical.

No, the A6 Case began when a disgruntled, ill-educated, not very intelligent to the point of being backward, but hugely egotistical young man had just acquired a gun and decided to put it to good use around the area of Dorney Reach, where he knew there were some rather isolated, but obviously wealthy, houses. Or maybe he intended to hold up a garage on the main road, or an off-license. At any rate, he was frustrated in whatever his intentions were, and decided to scout the area to see if, as a last resort, he could make some profit out of holding up a courting couple in a car.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Graham,
But you know that is pure speculation about Hanratty.Nobody saw him or anyone like him anywhere near Dorney Reach.No forensics to link him to the car---or to the used cartridges in the Vienna.No fingerptints on the gun.Yet Mr and Mrs Cobb and Mr Newell saw someone who looked very like Valerie's identikit picture at 2.30 pm in Marsh Lane.The man had smooth dark brushed back hair,slightly receding.A pale sallow skin and dark eyes and he wore a neat smart dark suit.He was carrying a rolled over plastic bag with something inside it.These people went to the police the day Valerie's identikit was produced because the stranger looked so like the identikit.

This talk about Hanratty"s inabilities is also in doubt according to Michael Sherrard who knew him better than anyone having chatted with him daily.He was in fact very quick on the uptake and with the repartee.And very likeable.And he was a car thief and expert driver.[the gunman tried unsuccessfully three times to get the MM into gear and couldnt find the lights.]
Hanratty didn't go to Dorney Reach.It wasn't his neck of the woods.

As far as William Ewer is concerned I believe we have a clue.The Romans used to say in each trial,'Who gained?' and Ewer gained Valerie.So we have a motive for the murder.

We don't know enough about any of these people.Gregsten himself,why was he so hard up? He was a physicist-earning good money but flat broke.Did he gamble? Was someone fed up with his debts to them?

The only type of person who would do it on the spur of the moment [in my opinion] is one who was callous and a bit mad.It could have been someone like that .................someone like that knifed a man to death in North Wales a few years back---he had come off his medication and told the man off about his dog.The next thing was he killed him.

Nite
Norma

[babybird67]

As far as William Ewer is concerned I believe we have a clue.The Romans used to say in each trial,'Who gained?' and Ewer gained Valerie.So we have a motive for the murder.

What???? I don't think Ewer gained Valerie!

And why do you feel comfortable accusing people like William Ewer of murder without a shred of evidence?

[Graham]

Nats,

But you know that is pure speculation about Hanratty.Nobody saw him or anyone like him anywhere near Dorney Reach

Valerie Storie would disagree with that.

No forensics to link him to the car

Or anyone else, Alphon included.

This talk about Hanratty"s inabilities is also in doubt according to Michael Sherrard who knew him better than anyone having chatted with him daily.He was in fact very quick on the uptake and with the repartee.And very likeable.

This too is speculation. Quick on the uptake, so he altered his alibi half-way through his trial??

The Romans used to say in each trial,'Who gained?' and Ewer gained Valerie.So we have a motive for the murder

.
This is also speculation. And for 'Valerie' read 'Janet'.

As far as Gregsten is concerned, from the small amount of information we have about him, he was a very likeable, personable, rather sophisticated bloke, but with an eye for the ladies and some of the good things in life. I'm not sure if he was actually a professionally-qualified physicist - he certainly failed his finals in physics. I rather suspect he was something like a senior technician, and if so he wouldn't have been on a fat salary at a Government-funded institute. But this is getting speculative, so I'll stop right here....

Graham

[babybird67]

as far as I am aware

EWER never had a relationship with VALERIE. Especially unlikely after she was crippled by Hanratty.

[Natalie Severn]

Ewer did not have a relationship with Valerie ok my mistake Graham realised that.but hedid have an extremely passionate one with Janet gregsten the murdered man's widow.in fact thejournalists at the trial were gobsmacked by the way he behaved fussingand faffing and being very very busy.it's all on record so read it up babes!as for Ewer hiring a man forthe purpose of
Murder that is not what I said so don't misquote me please, Jen its important. murder happened clearly by accident otherwise gregsten would have been shot in the field at dorney reach. All Ewer needs to be at that point in time was disturbed to see his beloved sister in law whom hehad known since she was a child in hampstead cheated on by gregsten and left to look after two children with no money and a vulnerable situation.he had money and wantedto protect her from thelife she facedas a hard up single mother of two.
Graham I agree gregsten appearsto have had mental healthproblems too and Valerie with her calm personality,youth and fresh beauty as well as her high intelligence must have been a delightful companion and with her similar interests in car rallies etc probably took him away from all the worries he had.
But no doubt about it Ewer must always have had a weak spot for his gorgeous sister in law Janet gregsten.as Leonard Cohen explains in his famous song "her beauty overthrew him! That song and the biblical story it is takenfrom somehow explains it all for me.
Best
Norma (apologies for many typos sent with my phone in motorway caf!

[babybird67]

so...

you're convicting William Ewer of murder on the basis of a Leonard Cohen song and the Bible?

[Natalie Severn]

you're convicting William Ewer of murder on the basis of a Leonard Cohen song and the Bible?

Well if you are determined to see it like that ok no problem.David actually had his rival - the desired woman's husband that is ,sent to the front so he would die in battle.and David would not have been the first man to see off his rival by any means necessary!!!
Love is all they say
Nx

[Limehouse]

Nats,

And don't forget that at the time Michael and Janet were having serious marital difficulties and were living apart. It was really only a matter of time before they seperated, and maybe Ewer was biding his time. Who would pay a gunman to break up an affair when it was plain to all who knew them that Michael's and Janet's marriage was on the rocks and that they'd never get back together?

There never was any reason whatsoever for anyone to hire a gunman to scare Michael and Valerie into calling it a day. Totally illogical.

No, the A6 Case began when a disgruntled, ill-educated, not very intelligent to the point of being backward, but hugely egotistical young man had just acquired a gun and decided to put it to good use around the area of Dorney Reach, where he knew there were some rather isolated, but obviously wealthy, houses. Or maybe he intended to hold up a garage on the main road, or an off-license. At any rate, he was frustrated in whatever his intentions were, and decided to scout the area to see if, as a last resort, he could make some profit out of holding up a courting couple in a car.

Graham

Hi Graham

Mike and Janet were not living apart at the time of his death but he WAS planning to move out the following weekend. Their marital difficulties arose from lack of money and Mike's inability to stay faithful to his wife. I must agree with Norma on her question about why the Gregstern's were so hard-up. OK - so Mike's money as a technician in the RRL may not have paid an enormous salary but I bet it was a decent income compared with a lot of young couples at that time.

I would not rule out the relationship between MG and VS having a role in the crime. That does not mean it was a hitman hired by the family - but someone who was disturbed by the relationship for some reason.

I don't see why Hanratty should have been disgruntled and his lack of education was hardly his fault. I don't subscribe to the idea he was backward - and if he WAS - he should not have been hanged. Holding up a couple in a car was not Hanratty's style at all. He was a man who crept into people's houses when they were out. He stole cars when their owners were absent. He was not a confrontational sort of person. If - in the unlikely event he was going to rob a couple in a car - he would have gone for something much more classy than a Morris Minor. At the time he was not desperate for money. He told Accot he had a sum put away for a rainy day and he had some loot from a recent robbery that he was trying to sell in Liverpool and Rhyl.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Julie,
I don't have my books with me at the moment but either Woffinden or Foot makes specific mention of Gregsten being a physicist---another time he is referred to as simply a scientist.Its when a male colleague and friend is talking about him and saying what a first rate mind he had etc---- anyway one or other of the authors above discusses his work 'as a scientist' not as a technician.

It has to be remembered also that somebody from the Gregsten family wrote to Valerie Storie and Mike Gregsten's employer's and complained about their affair.I believe that is of significance when discussing whether or not somebody in the family may have hired someone to put the frighteners on them.After all they both got hauled in and told they were causing problems with their behaviour and Valerie's response was said to have been that they should 'mind their own business' -so clearly,whoever wrote to the firm about them had their noses put out of joint by being told to get stuffed.
We know very little about Ewer---it really surprised me to learn that no sooner was the trial over and Janet attempting to recuperate from the shock than Ewer was hurrying to comfort her and even got his leg over etc all this was very unconventional in 1962/3 with someone like a grieving and widowed sister in law .So I see the family as rather unusual frankly and I can't think of who else would have written to the firm about Gregsten"s affair if it wasn't Janet---and it seems it was not,so who could it have been other than Ewer?Surely not Gregsten's two maiden aunts or his doting mother? And anyway his side of the family are said not to have liked Janet very much apparently.

[Hatchett]

Hi All,

You know this thread is getting obsessed with unverifiable speculation. There are all sorts of personalities here being tarnished with things that just cannot be substantiated.

Norma, Hanratty was not an expert driver. I once saw on TV Hanratty's brother saying that Hanratty had taught him to drive, and he actually said that he was not a great driver.

The killing and raping could not have been a "hit". There was nothing professional about it. You have the gunman going into the car haranging the occupants for quite a length of time, and then ordering then to drive on, sending one of them out for petrol, deciding to have a "kip" and then ending up accidently killing one of them and raping the other, and then trying to murder her.

That is not a "hit." That is the work of someone who is off their head and who has started something that he doesnt know how to finish. It is nothing to do with scaring two people out of an affair.

I agree with Graham on this. The lengthy harranging when the murderer and rapist got into the car is the key.

I think Hanratty planned to stage an armed robbery, possibly on a garage, or an off licence, or even a small bank, but at the end of the day his nerve left him.

That made him annoyed and needing to bolster up his ego again.

He saw Gregsten and Valerie in the car. He had the gun and the ammunition. He went into the car at gun point, hanranged them, told them to drive on, and then didnt know what to do with them.

Best wishes.

[Natalie Severn]

Well Hatchett once again its the pot calling the kettle black.Your last four lines are pure speculation and you say I am the one speculating.
Lets look at this objectively with just the FACTS;
At the time of the attack,23/August 1961,Valerie Storie and Michael Gregsten were having an affair that was objected to by both their superiors at work and somebody from the Gregsten family other than Janet.Who was it?
Moreover ,had the jury known about this rum 'to do' they might have put two and two together and asked who it was who felt so strongly about the affair they were having that they wrote to Gregsten and Storie's employers complaining about it.They may also ,if any of them had the nous, asked whether somebody, somewhere, disliked what what going on sufficiently to provide a motive for what appears a senseless murder.

Who gained out of all this?
Certainly not Valerie Storie.
Certainly not Michael Gregsten.
Certainly not James Hanratty.

William Ewer gained thats who!Fact,

I happen to think it a crime that this matter never came up in court and was hidden from the jury---more non disclosure that could have altered the entire course of the trial.[FACT]

You have no evidence whatever for speculating like this about James Hanratty.The chap in Ealing,Slack,when asked, completely denied the inference Acott had put on what he said.He said all that Hanratty had said was that if you seriously wanted to make money out of burglary you would need a shooter.It was said jokingly in the context of a discussion about what money could be made from burglaries.Even if it wasn't it doesn't make Hanratty the mad bloke prowling around in Slough fields in top hat and tails..



So what can be said about William Ewer is that he gained Janet Gregsten,a very attractive and elegant woman by all accounts.[FACT]

[Natalie Severn]

Norma, Hanratty was not an expert driver. I once saw on TV Hanratty's brother saying that Hanratty had taught him to drive, and he actually said that he was not a great driver.

He was able to work out in a few minutes where and how to break into a jaguar and drive it up North---no faffing about.I couldn't do that-could you?
No mention was ever made of him 'grinding gears' or having to be shown how to operate them and turn on car lights.And here we are not talking about Jaguars with a much more complex engine but about one of the simplest,most basic enginse on the market.Its ridiculous to even think that he would have needed Valerie's assistance on this even once,let alone three times and even then driving off in a huge crash of gears that seems to have been par for the course even at the roundabout where whoever it was was seen by Blackhall and Skillett..

[Hatchett]

Hi Norma,

It is hardly speculation when someone has a gun with so much ammunition.

Also it was not a deliberate murder was it? The killer and rapist, went into the car spent a considerable time moaning and grumbling, told the people to drive, sent them out for petrol, and then decided to have a kip!

For goodness sake, doesnt that have all the hall marks of a senseless killing?

Best wishes.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

It is hardly speculation when someone has a gun with so much ammunition.

Also it was not a deliberate murder was it? The killer and rapist, went into the car spent a considerable time moaning and grumbling, told the people to drive, sent them out for petrol, and then decided to have a kip!

For goodness sake, doesnt that have all the hall marks of a senseless killing?

Best wishes.

Hi Hatchett,
I don't think it was deliberate murder but I think the attack was definitely planned.
I know nothing about the amunition---did he have 60 cartridge cases with him? I don't think so.He had a gun and presumably some cartridges.
Hanratty flatly denied he ever used the term kip.Acott said he used the word kip to him three times but the notes showed something very fishy when scientifically examined like Acott or Oxford had overwritten the word 'kip'.

All we have is Valerie's account from her traumatic ordeal from her memory.We don't know how much Valerie actually remembered of the five hours or how much of it was 'prompted' by Mr Acott.