A6 Rebooted

[cobalt]

I think Derrick's point is that Ewer was never married to Mrs Gregsten, who remained his sister-in-law only. The error was mine.
I think it is accepted that William Ewer and Janet Gregsten were in a close relationship, indeed living in the same property, for around eight years following the death of her husband.

[moste]

I think Derrick's point is that Ewer was never married to Mrs Gregsten, who remained his sister-in-law only. The error was mine.
I think it is accepted that William Ewer and Janet Gregsten were in a close relationship, indeed living in the same property, for around eight years following the death of her husband.

So common law then, well, what the hell ?

[cobalt]

Ewer’s actions prior to the trial are worthy of more investigation. Yet the police seemed to have placed in him in some kind of purdah. A lucky man.
His actions after the trial are just as worthy of investigation, especially give Alphon’s claim of a family motive. Alphon could be talking out of is backside of course, but he made a connection that has some resonance given what transpired.

Just for the sake of argument let us consider the following:- I am in no way implying it has any relevance to the facts on the ground. Let us suppose Ewer benefited financially from the death of Michael Gregsten. Would any insurance company of any repute not have delved deeply into the arrangements between William Ewer, Mr Gregsten and Mrs Gregsten before signing a cheque?

The reason I ask this purely hypothetical question is that a relationship did develop, or maybe even exist, at the time of a serious murder trial. Yet the response of the police, who investigate criminal law, seems to have been weaker than that what we would expect from a workaday insurance company. How can a criminal investigation operate more casually than a civil one? Is this perhaps what Matthews was alerted to in his investigation, the one in which it is claimed he believed three people were involved in the murder: and that none of these was Hanratty?

Why was Ewer never taken into custody? He tried hard enough. What was his alibi for the evening of 21st August 1961. Who confirmed it? His wife? I think it was. Just as Alphon’s alibi was his mum. Did he ever visit the Taplow Inn? Had he ever met Mrs Anderson? Or even Dixie France, who seemed to know him? Why did he telephone the police and ask them to come to Swiss Cottage almost a month before James Hanratty was put in the frame for the A6 murder? Had he ever met Peter Louis Aphon, perhaps the self-styled Sam Spade of Slough? What were Ewer’s bank details for the period 1961-1962? None of this seems to have been investigated.

[Spitfire]

What was his alibi for the evening of 21st August 1961.

Why should anyone connected with this case require an alibi for 21st August 1961?

[Alfie]

JH in the condemned cell refers a couple of times in his letters home to a Mrs McGee. Anybody know who she was?

[ansonman]

Ewer’s actions prior to the trial are worthy of more investigation. Yet the police seemed to have placed in him in some kind of purdah. A lucky man.
His actions after the trial are just as worthy of investigation, especially give Alphon’s claim of a family motive. Alphon could be talking out of is backside of course, but he made a connection that has some resonance given what transpired.

Just for the sake of argument let us consider the following:- I am in no way implying it has any relevance to the facts on the ground. Let us suppose Ewer benefited financially from the death of Michael Gregsten. Would any insurance company of any repute not have delved deeply into the arrangements between William Ewer, Mr Gregsten and Mrs Gregsten before signing a cheque?

The reason I ask this purely hypothetical question is that a relationship did develop, or maybe even exist, at the time of a serious murder trial. Yet the response of the police, who investigate criminal law, seems to have been weaker than that what we would expect from a workaday insurance company. How can a criminal investigation operate more casually than a civil one? Is this perhaps what Matthews was alerted to in his investigation, the one in which it is claimed he believed three people were involved in the murder: and that none of these was Hanratty?

Why was Ewer never taken into custody? He tried hard enough. What was his alibi for the evening of 21st August 1961. Who confirmed it? His wife? I think it was. Just as Alphon’s alibi was his mum. Did he ever visit the Taplow Inn? Had he ever met Mrs Anderson? Or even Dixie France, who seemed to know him? Why did he telephone the police and ask them to come to Swiss Cottage almost a month before James Hanratty was put in the frame for the A6 murder? Had he ever met Peter Louis Aphon, perhaps the self-styled Sam Spade of Slough? What were Ewer’s bank details for the period 1961-1962? None of this seems to have been investigated.

Hi Cobalt,

On 16th May 1971 the Sunday Times published a statement made by Ewer (see pages 380 - 382 of Woffinden) which included the following:

"9. I only met Charles France once in my life. I remember he came into my shop after the trial was over. He came to offer his apologies for Mr. Gregsten's death. He said it had all been most regrettable. I remember calming him down and saying that justice had been done in a fair and open trial. He had no reason to reproach himself. I told him to go home to his wife and lead a normal life. I later heard that he had committed suicide".

Woffinden regards this part of the statement as "the most amazing" and goes on to say:

"Why would France, a man he had never met, go into Ewer's shop to offer his apologies for Michael Gregsten's death? Why would he do so several months after the event, and not more immediately? Why would he need calming down? What was he reproaching himself for? Admittedly, there may be answers to some questions; what we do not understand is why France was behaving in this way in the company of someone he didn't know".

So yes, he had met Dixie France. Question is, was the above the first time?

Regards,

Ansonman

[Spitfire]

JH in the condemned cell refers a couple of times in his letters home to a Mrs McGee. Anybody know who she was?

No idea. In which letters is she mentioned?

[NickB]

Ewer’s actions prior to the trial are worthy of more investigation. Yet the police seemed to have placed in him in some kind of purdah.

The Sunday Times said that 9 of his ‘15 points’ were demonstrably inaccurate or contradicted what he had said elsewhere. He even admitted some of it was untrue in a subsequent interview with them.

“But in a further interview last Thursday Mr Ewer admitted that he had had much more frequent contacts with the police. It was for example, a policeman who had told him that Hanratty had been in the cleaners shop. Also he had spoken to police officers a number of times before the trial.”

[Graham]

Ewer himself went into the Burtol cleaners shop and discovered from staff that the man Janet saw was a "J Ryan". He did nothing until the next day when he saw the man again and then he rang the police. A PC arrived and reported to Ewer that the man had ordered roses for a Mrs Hanratty in Kingsbury, to 72 Boundary Road, which was the road the France family lived in. According to Woffinden No 72 did not exist. And that was that. The police made no further investigation as there was absolutely nothing to connect "J Ryan" with Mrs Hanratty at the time, as the name Hanratty wasn't yet connected with the A6. Also, it seems that "J Ryan" had taken his suit to Burtol's the day before the A6 murder.

Later, in his Sunday Times statement of 16 May 1971, Ewer denied that Janet had been in any involved in the Burtol "sighting". In this statement, Ewer said he was in a cafe near to his shop when he saw a smartly-dressed young man with "quite unusually staring eyes", and contacted the police. (Why?) Only when, according to his story, the police said they were looking for a man called Ryan in connection with the A6 did he speak to the staff at Burtol's.

As Leonard Miller points out, if Ewer and Janet were 'brilliant conspirators who plotted the A6 murder and successfully framed Hanratty', why should Ewer tell the Burtol story to a pair of journalists during a boozy evening in a pub? Also, as Miller says, if Ewer really was part of a conspiracy to frame Hanratty, why on earth should he gallop around London trying to find out who the smartly-dressed young man was when he knew already?

The A6 Case was riddled with odd-balls, Ewer being one of several.

Graham

[Alfie]

No idea. In which letters is she mentioned?

Feb 28 to his mother: "... give my love to Auntie Ann and Mrs McGee"

Middle of March to his mother: "I'm going to write to Mrs McGee tomorrow as I'm sure you've discussed the case with her"

Mar 24 to his parents: "I wrote to Mrs McGee and also to Auntie Annie"

Apr 1 to his mother: "Give my love to Aunty Annie and also Mrs McGee"

He also refers in these letters to a Sister Catherine. Any idea what her relationship to him or the family was?

[gallicrow]

Sister Catherine

I think Sister Catherine was the Head of St James Catholic School (a convent school) which Hanratty attended.

[Graham]

Auntie Annie was the mother of his cousin Eileen Cunningham. Mrs McGee, it is assumed, was either a neighbour or a friend of the family.

Graham

[OneRound]

Three reasons why James Hanratty should not have been convicted for the A6 murder.

MMO.
Means
Motive
Opportunity.


1.MEANS:
There was no direct link between Hanratty and the gun. (Cartridges conveniently found weeks later in a hotel bedroom and handkerchief had to suffice.) He had no record previously of handling a firearm. His fingerprints were not found on the weapon. Nor was, astonishingly, any forensic material found which linked him to the murder.

2. MOTIVE:
Hanratty had no discernible motive, apart from one later constructed by the investigating officers. The desire to play the ‘big man’ with a gun could have applied to hundreds of wannabe criminals, including Alphon by the way. Hanratty knew neither Michael Gregsten nor Valerie Storie. Hanratty had no record of violence.

3.OPPORTUNITY:
Hanratty (unlike Alphon) was not observed by anyone at or near the locus of the crime- save for Valerie Storie whose identification evidence was undermined by an earlier ‘identification.’ Her earlier police description was later altered to fit Hanratty.

The later DNA? The DNA which confirmed the dodgy verdict? Pretty ambiguous at best. Mixed samples are a matter for subjective interpretation, as can be seen in the ‘assumption’ that some of the DNA indicators came from Michael Gregsten. The small samples retained, and conveniently found by the police (after having being ‘lost’) are of dubious veracity in a murder trial.

Hanratty had an alibi, which would never be good enough for many on this site even if he had hit the Cavern Club and done a filmed duet with John Lennon on ‘Love Me Do.’ (‘It’s just a Cockney who looks like him’. ‘He’s tried to buy an alibi.’) A bit like the date stamped witness who was offered a gold watch by a Cockney on 22 August, which is rather better than ‘duff.’

Unlike Valerie Storie, none of the Rhyl witnesses ever identified someone else in lieu of Hanratty.

Hi Cobalt,

I don't know how intentional it was but you go some way to singing from my song sheet in that post.

Unlike some here, I don't consider that Hanratty was innocent. However, I also do not view his conviction as proved fairly or beyond reasonable doubt. Your opening line is therefore on the money for me in not claiming innocence on his behalf but stating ''he should not have been convicted''.

Perhaps inevitably, I regard some of your points as more significant than others. Some strong, some frankly weak.

For example. Whilst it is of some help to Hanratty's cause that he had no record of previously handling a firearm, I would suggest not all that much. Every armed criminal has always had such an exemplary record until his first conviction.

Where though I feel you are on the weakest ground is with the old favourite of Rhyl. Whilst Hanratty had no obligation to provide a compelling alibi or even any alibi at all, he was always going to be in massive danger once he admitted lying concerning his first alibi and then tried to introduce another with no way of substantiating it.

Where I believe you are on much more solid ground is in respect of Valerie Storie's identification. If she had not picked Hanratty out on the id parade, the case would not have got to trial. Imo, Ms Storie's credibility as a witness was seriously undermined by her having previously picked out someone else on an earlier parade whilst in other ways the second parade featuring Hanratty was inherently unfair. Such unfairness was further increased by police non-disclosures in the build up to and at trial.

As regards ''DNA evidence'', I'll fully acknowledge that I'm no scientist and readily accept the findings do not help Hanratty one jot. However, I remain surprised that these items were considered to so overwhelmingly confirm guilt. Three main reasons for that surprise on my part:

1. The items - a hanky and a knicker fragment - had been missing for the best part of forty years before the 2002 Appeal. During this time, it was not known where the items had been, who had access to them or if anything had been done to them.

2. A broken phial was found with the knicker fragment. If there had been contents in the phial, they may have leaked and caused contamination. Whilst it would be odd for a full phial to be retained in this way, it would be even odder to retain an empty phial.

3. As well as Hanratty's DNA, another man's DNA was found on the knicker fragment. We do not know who that DNA belonged to, when it got there or how.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Graham]

Hi OR,

Unlike some here, I don't consider that Hanratty was innocent. However, I also do not view his conviction as proved fairly or beyond reasonable doubt. Your opening line is therefore on the money for me in not claiming innocence on his behalf but stating ''he should not have been convicted''.

Unfortunately JH was the main architect of his own downfall when he changed his alibi. I've said for ages that had he stuck to his Liverpool story there was a reasonable chance of his being acquitted. I also think that had this case been tried under Scots law, the verdict may well have been 'not proven'.

Where though I feel you are on the weakest ground is with the old favourite of Rhyl. Whilst Hanratty had no obligation to provide a compelling alibi or even any alibi at all, he was always going to be in massive danger once he admitted lying concerning his first alibi and then tried to introduce another with no way of substantiating it.

Have said it before, but JH never proved conclusively that he was in Rhyl when he said he was. Had he but left a signature in a visitors' book, or kept a bus ticket-stub, or given a street name and even a house number with regard to his claimed accommodation, he'd have been off the hook.


With regard to Valerie Storie's credibility (or lack of it), there's a fuzzy delineation in law (and I ain't a lawyer) between what is legal and fair and what is unfair but legal. She didn't pick out Alphon, who was the police's suspect, and that was all that mattered. The law didn't care one way or the other about her picking out Michael Clark or anyone else who wasn't Alphon when she identified JH at the second parade. I would also add that Mr Kleinman had no objections regarding the second parade - rightly or wrongly (and I believe wrongly). Acott had suggested, in the interests of fairness, that all the members of that parade wear 'surgeon's caps' to hide their hair so that JH's didn't stand out (like a carrot in a bunch of bananas, as Sherrard said), but for reasons I don't know Acott's suggestion was never implemented and Kleinman made no complaint.

The DNA is, frankly, done and dusted and analysis cannot, as far as I'm aware, be repeated. The later Court of Appeal accepted the DNA findings as true and reliable, and that, really, was that. I was under the (perhaps erroneous) impression that only one male DNA was found on the knickers, and that it matched the DNA extracted from JH's remains, and also on the hankie and was, therefore, accepted as being JH's. Alphon supplied samples prior to the 2002 Appeal, and his DNA was found neither on the knickers nor the hankie, and he was finally ruled out as a suspect.

Graham

[Alfie]

I think Sister Catherine was the Head of St James Catholic School (a convent school) which Hanratty attended.

You're right. Woffinden mentions her on page 84.