A6 Murder who wrote the letter to Gregsten's boss complaining of the relationship?

[Natalie Severn]

By August 22nd 1961 the marriage of Michael and Janet Gregsten had been in difficulties for some time.The 3 year love affair between Valerie Storie and Gregsten had intensified and on 1st August 1961 Gregsten had taken what seemed like an irrevocable step to end his marriage.He took a flat in Maidenhead and told his wife he would be moving in on 27th August 1961.
Gregsten had taken 'digs' before [though not his own flat] both in Slough and in Windsor which he had stayed in during the week returning to the family home in Abbot's Langley every weekend.This was in 1960.He had returned to live at home shortly before the birth of his second son who was born on 12th October 1960 .
However it was while he was lodging in Windsor in 1960 that Gregsten's landlord was visited and advised not to let the flat as Gregsten was a married man.

QUESTION i]: Who was it who visited Gregsten's landlord?[/I]

Meanwhile the Director of the Road Research Laboratory where Gregsten worked received a letter complaining of the relationship which he acted upon by calling the couple in to advise against the liaison.

QUESTION ii]: Who wrote the letter?

There is evidence that this was not Janet Gregsten ---though she may have been behind both events.

[EddieX]

By August 22nd 1961 the marriage of Michael and Janet Gregsten had been in difficulties for some time.The 3 year love affair between Valerie Storie and Gregsten had intensified and on 1st August 1961 Gregsten had taken what seemed like an irrevocable step to end his marriage.He took a flat in Maidenhead and told his wife he would be moving in on 27th August 1961.
Gregsten had taken 'digs' before [though not his own flat] both in Slough and in Windsor which he had stayed in during the week returning to the family home in Abbot's Langley every weekend.This was in 1960.He had returned to live at home shortly before the birth of his second son who was born on 12th October 1960 .
However it was while he was lodging in Windsor in 1960 that Gregsten's landlord was visited and advised not to let the flat as Gregsten was a married man.

QUESTION i]: Who was it who visited Gregsten's landlord?[/I]

Meanwhile the Director of the Road Research Laboratory where Gregsten worked received a letter complaining of the relationship which he acted upon by calling the couple in to advise against the liaison.

QUESTION ii]: Who wrote the letter?

There is evidence that this was not Janet Gregsten ---though she may have been behind both events.

I don't think I can answer either question. Paul Foot in his book clearly implies that the letter and the visit were the result of the actions of Janet Gregsten and her family "...doing everything in their power to discourage the relationship."

I am not sure how valid the inference is that if you would be desperate enough to write to your husband's boss and to visit your husband's landlord then you would certainly be desperate enough have him abducted at gunpoint.

By the way, Foot has Anthony Gregsten being born in 1959.

[Natalie Severn]

I don't think I can answer either question. Paul Foot in his book clearly implies that the letter and the visit were the result of the actions of Janet Gregsten and her family "...doing everything in their power to discourage the relationship."

I am not sure how valid the inference is that if you would be desperate enough to write to your husband's boss and to visit your husband's landlord then you would certainly be desperate enough have him abducted at gunpoint.

By the way, Foot has Anthony Gregsten being born in 1959.

But my inference isn't that Janet Gregsten wrote to her husband's boss-and certainly not that it was she who 'visited' the landlord of Gregsten's digs in Windsor---after all she was something like 8 months pregnant when whoever made the visit did so---Gregsten had been in digs in Slough for a few months before and it was when he was in digs in Windsor it happened -
It doesn't matter which year the 2nd son was born really [1959 or 1960], the point is that Gregsten had moved out at the time -and had been away on holiday with Valerie Storie for a week too -all while Janet Gregsten was pregnant- and that it was during her pregnancy that someone from her family made the 'visit'.Its worth bearing in mind that the only people who helped Janet after the murder were Bill Ewer and his wife, ie Janet's half sister -also named Valerie-who took her and her two sons to live with them after the murder.
So I wonder who wrote the letter because by all accounts it was not Janet nor was it Janet who warned off the Windsor landlord.

[EddieX]

But my inference isn't that Janet Gregsten wrote to her husband's boss-and certainly not that it was she who 'visited' the landlord of Gregsten's digs in Windsor---after all she was something like 8 months pregnant when whoever made the visit did so---Gregsten had been in digs in Slough for a few months before and it was when he was in digs in Windsor it happened -
It doesn't matter which year the 2nd son was born really [1959 or 1960], the point is that Gregsten had moved out at the time -and had been away on holiday with Valerie Storie for a week too -all while Janet Gregsten was pregnant- and that it was during her pregnancy that someone from her family made the 'visit'.Its worth bearing in mind that the only people who helped Janet after the murder were Bill Ewer and his wife, ie Janet's half sister -also named Valerie-who took her and her two sons to live with them after the murder.
So I wonder who wrote the letter because by all accounts it was not Janet nor was it Janet who warned off the Windsor landlord.

If you are going to rule out Janet as being the person who visited the landlord on the grounds that she was eight months pregnant at the time, then it clearly DOES matter which year she gave birth to her second child.

It cannot be right to say "...by all accounts it was not Janet nor was it Janet who warned off the Windsor landlord." because the account of Paul Foot in his book clearly indicates his belief that it was Janet or her family who visited the landlord and wrote the letter. Foot does NOT exclude Janet.

[Natalie Severn]

If you are going to rule out Janet as being the person who visited the landlord on the grounds that she was eight months pregnant at the time, then it clearly DOES matter which year she gave birth to her second child.

It cannot be right to say "...by all accounts it was not Janet nor was it Janet who warned off the Windsor landlord." because the account of Paul Foot in his book clearly indicates his belief that it was Janet or her family who visited the landlord and wrote the letter. Foot does NOT exclude Janet.

Simon Gregston was born on 12th October 1959.Valerie Storie and Michael Gregsten took a week's holiday together in Devon in the late Summer of 1959-Michael left Janet Gregsten shortly after to live in Windsor where Gregsten's landlord was visited and advised not to let the flat ' as Gregsten [I]was a married man[/I]'.My question is :

Who was it who visited Gregsten's landlord in Windsor? Gregsten moved back to Janet soon after their son Simon was born in October 1959......so Janet would have been 6 or 7 or even 8 months pregnant -since he was there for only a short time see above.Paul Foot does not suggest it was Janet btw---nowhere in the book does he suggest this.
I have tried to post a copy of the birth registration but so far haven't been able to ---will try again tomorrow or Sunday.

[Limehouse]

Hi all,

I would think that whoever wrote the letter may have been the same person who approached the landlord. It is likely that whoever did this knew that MG was in a realtionship outside his marriage and that his marriage was at risk. The people most likely to be aware of this and concerned about it are the people closest to MG, JG and VS.

So, I would conclude that the people most likely are close friends of Janet and MG, members of Janet's family (she was closest to her half sister and her brother-in-law, the Ewers), members of MG's family (his mother and aunt) and members of VS's family (her parents).

I am wondering how much VS's parents knew about her relationship with MG? If VS went on holiday with him, her parents either knew about the relationship, or believed she was on holiday with a girlfriend. If they subsequently found out that she was in this relationship, they may have acted to protect their daughter and to avoid the shame of her possibly moving in with a married man.

On the other hand, with a small son and a new baby to cope with, JG's family may have been outraged at MG's treatment of her and attempted to avoid a marriage break up.

Incidently, employer interference in 'office' relationships extended right into the 1970s. I met my husband at work (first in 1976 but we didn't get together until a couple of years later) and we were both single. He was quite a bit senior to me and we had to keep our relationship secret because it was frowned upon. When we married, I had to resign!

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Julie
Amazing it being as recent as 1979 that interference went on like that! Oh yes their bosses at road research had certainly warned them but face to face not as far as is known by warning outsiders like landlords!but mr and mrs storie liked mike gregsten very much apparently and even when told he was a married man continued to have him round for tea etc as they had on the day of the murder I believe.

[Stevo7395]

There may be more substance in this than we will ever know. A married man having an affair when he had a small child and a pregnant wife would have been very frowned upon back then within a family on either side of the marriage almost like a pregnant teenage girl like my sister became back in 1974.

I was only a kid but I recall the sheer panic on my parent's faces and the looks and remarks by people who lived in our road. It all worked out well and I'm now the proud owner of a nephew, three great nieces and a great nephew but can remember the conversations and tantrums from the time as there was a sense of shame about a young girl being pregnant perhaps like a pregnant married woman with a toddler who's old man had gone over the side with a younger female....If I did that to my wife nobody would be happy in our family but I doubt they would get others to " intervene " but back then who knows ?

Morality and the family was much more of a focus to gossip and in my opinion taken far more seriously back then and yes I know right or wrong we've moved on from those times and I'm not pointing the finger at Mrs G but the more I think about it and the thought's of Alphon (yes I know some think he's a Crank ) and the Matthews report that there were others involved and the killer was helped.

Anyway just thought I'd chuck my 2 penneth worth in, interesting stuff, cheers, Steve

[Limehouse]

There may be more substance in this than we will ever know. A married man having an affair when he had a small child and a pregnant wife would have been very frowned upon back then within a family on either side of the marriage almost like a pregnant teenage girl like my sister became back in 1974.

I was only a kid but I recall the sheer panic on my parent's faces and the looks and remarks by people who lived in our road. It all worked out well and I'm now the proud owner of a nephew, three great nieces and a great nephew but can remember the conversations and tantrums from the time as there was a sense of shame about a young girl being pregnant perhaps like a pregnant married woman with a toddler who's old man had gone over the side with a younger female....If I did that to my wife nobody would be happy in our family but I doubt they would get others to " intervene " but back then who knows ?

Morality and the family was much more of a focus to gossip and in my opinion taken far more seriously back then and yes I know right or wrong we've moved on from those times and I'm not pointing the finger at Mrs G but the more I think about it and the thought's of Alphon (yes I know some think he's a Crank ) and the Matthews report that there were others involved and the killer was helped.

Anyway just thought I'd chuck my 2 penneth worth in, interesting stuff, cheers, Steve

Hi Steve,

I think there is a lot of sense in what you say. In 1961, a man openly having an affair and leaving his wife and small children would have brought shame on him and visited a stigma on his wife too, even though she was completely innocent.

My family experienced a similar situation to yours. In the mid-60s, my older sister got pregnant and had to marry (aged 17). My parents were terribly upset and the neighbours shunned us, even though my parents had been highly respected prior to this event. My sister is still married to her teenage sweetheart, 47 years later and as a result has three children, six grandchildren and one great grandchild. I wonder how many of those snotty neighbours managed the same?

What makes a family/friend connection to the attack more likely in some people's opinion is the strong possibility that William Ewer (JG's brother-in-law) was at least distantly acquainted with Louise Anderson, stolen goods fence, who got very friendly with Hanratty shortly before the attack. Anderson was introduced to Hanratty, apparently, by Charles France. In the space of a few weeks, Hanratty had been re-acquainted with Charles France (through a chance meeting), newly acquainted with Louise Anderson and became a runner-up suspect in a murder and rape investigation.

[Graham]

Hi all,

1] regarding the ammunition retained by the City of London police, this is news to me too - first I've heard of it. Nice one Nats to get hold of that document. My initial reaction was that it was unconnected to the A6, but now I'm not so sure. I wonder, as Pete does, if there is further documentary evidence that has never seen the light of day.

I can't see how anyone could carry a number of very heavy boxes of pistol ammunition in their pockets, though. VS never mentioned that the gunman carried a bag, but as we know she did say that he rattled the bullets in his pockets 'like marbles'. I think this new find re: ammunition is highly suggestive that there was someone else involved with Hanratty, even though it could well have been only in relation to the obtaining/disposal of the gun + ammunition. (Incidentally, she also specifically said that the gunman had a 'handkerchief' to cover his face, outlaw fashion, rather than a piece of 'cloth'. As JH was habitually a natty dresser, and as he recognised a hankie in court as being his, I think it safe to assume that a hankie it was, and very likely to be the same one used to wrap the gun + ammo found on the 36A bus.

2] the fact that someone was stirring it with MG and VS was, I suggest, a reason why it has long been thought (by some) that there was some kind of conspiracy at the core of this case. All very odd, when you think about it. MG was certainly a highly personable bloke, bohemian and surprisingly 'modern' in his outlook. VS does not come across as your typical early post-war shrinking violet, either. I can imagine their reaction to anyone who poked into their private affair, whether relations, employers, or nosey-parkers. JG said that she understood her husband's need to have extra-marital affairs, which again, for 1961, is slightly surprising. And it also seems that VS and JG actually liked each other, and were friendly - I'm sure that if VS suspected JG of being behind the A6 Crime, she wouldn't have been so well-disposed towards her.

A male relative of mine, long gone, was also a serial adulterer in the mid- to late-1950's. We all knew about it in the family, his wife put up with it and just carried on running the house and bringing up their kids. It was just never talked about, certainly not in front of us kids. However, years later we found out that a religious spinster great-aunt had written a couple of admonishing letters to him which, remembering what he was like, he probably had a good laugh over and threw away. The spinster great-aunt certainly never considered hiring a gunman to scare the hell out of him....as far as I know....

G

[Stevo7395]

Hi all, interesting about this city of London ammo find but one or two things I'd like to clear up and this probably old ground but still trying to read all the arguments/debate on both sides.I'm still trying to wade through the posts and I've probably got one or two things wrong but I'm trying to put myself in JH's shoes on that evening and the next day.

1. I'm JH and for my sins a house breaker, car thief and petty criminal and I decide I need to up my game so I get a gun and hitch hike or get the train to the Slough area to check out the posh " drums " out that way.I then walk in broad daylight around houses albeit in a rural area now and NOBODY see's me get off the train at Slough or out of a car that I've just hitched in or walking around ?. I need a lift back to London so I see a car in a field with two people in it and force them to drive to Bedford but all I want to do is get back to London where I come from but decide to bypass it and end up 50 miles north of it ?

2. I've never killed anyone or hurt anyone before but I've just blasted a man to death in the head at point blank range and then raped his passenger and blasted her several times and left her for dead in a field on a main road. I don't break down, throw up or just panic and run off but manage to keep my head and prior to leaving the woman for dead despite being an established car thief I have to get the woman to start the car for me and explain the gears ?

3. I then cool as ice drive in the dead of night either through main roads with Police patrols likely to be about at that time of the morning or I know the lanes like the back of my hands and end up in Redbridge whilst all the time the car is blood stained, I still have the gun on me and the unused ammunition.

4. I end up in Redbridge shortly before 7am at the start of the rush hour but only a few people notice me driving the car and careering down Eastern Avenue ? I abandon the car which I just shot a man and raped a woman in and when found none of my hair, fingerprints or semen are found in it.

5. I then either lay low somewhere nearbye with likely blood stained clothes or get the train to London with the gun and ammo on me in broad daylight in a built up area but nobody sees me walking about or getting on the tube.

6. I manage all this on my own having never killed or raped anyone before but I then have an amazing idea about getting rid of my gun.....why chuck it the Thames or the nearbye River Lea around that area when I can just leave it under a seat of a bus.....simples !

Sorry but these are things I just can't get my head around, probably old ground I know. If JH is the murderer and the court has told us that he is then I honestly believe he did not and could not have acted alone and there must have been others involved and what would have been their motive ?

Cheers for now, Steve

[EddieX]

1. I'm JH and for my sins a house breaker, car thief and petty criminal and ...

2. ...being an established car thief I have to get the woman to start the car for me and explain the gears ?

I think you may have intended to post on another of the A6 threads as this doesn't seem to have much to do about who wrote the letter to Gregsten's boss etc.

I would advise you to do some research on Hanratty's driving capabilities. His driving seems to have been erratic at best. We know that he pranged the hire car in Ireland. It is probable he pranged the Sunbeam he bought after returning from Ireland. His driving skills had attracted the attention of the police on at least one occasion. Apart from his brother, no one else seems to have recognised JH as anything like a good driver.

Hanratty's driving of the Morris Minor on the morning of 23 August, he had bent the car and had cut people up, was pretty much par for the course.

[Stevo7395]

Hi Eddie, No I'm on the right thread mate, my point is that I am convinced JH did not act alone, this thread is about Gregsten's boss and perhaps people trying to intervene, if you read the last few lines of my post I do not believe he acted as a lone desperado who just happens to find a courting couple in a remote field in south Buckinghamshire who makes them drive to a place between Luton and Bedford on a main road, why would you do that and kill one, rape the other and shoot her and take the trouble to drive to North east London and dump the car you had just blown a man's head off.....but you've never been convicted or committed a violent crime before. If what we are told about JH 's previous is true then he was a car thief even his brother tells us he was an accomplished one. A morris minor was a fairly basic car in it's day and if he was a bad driver as you suggest he may have been why stop and have a conversation with a couple in Clophill village ( who Beds police dismissed ) .....what would I be doing had I just done that...keep going and stop for nobody and once you get to the bottom of Deadman's hill going south it's a straight run.

I believe that VG complained to others about her predicament with hubby's affair and others decided to " sort " it .....just my opinion, cheers, Steve

[Natalie Severn]

I think you may have intended to post on another of the A6 threads as this doesn't seem to have much to do about who wrote the letter to Gregsten's boss etc.

I would advise you to do some research on Hanratty's driving capabilities. His driving seems to have been erratic at best. We know that he pranged the hire car in Ireland. It is probable he pranged the Sunbeam he bought after returning from Ireland. His driving skills had attracted the attention of the police on at least one occasion. Apart from his brother, no one else seems to have recognised JH as anything like a good driver.

Hanratty's driving of the Morris Minor on the morning of 23 August, he had bent the car and had cut people up, was pretty much par for the course.

On the 6th October after James Hanratty had attempted to explain his predicament both in the morning and late at night to Supt. Acott about being wanted for a burglary etc he decided to go on the run.He last spoke to Acott at 11.05 pm and got nowhere being told to hand himself to the police and never mind the consequences sort of thing.So he stole a Jaguar car from Great Portland Street in Central London and dashed up North in it.
Take note of how he did this because it reveals a clear understanding of cars and how they function-and I wonder seriously how many of us on here would be capable of acting so rapidly in such circumstances:
He took down the number on the dashboard and sped down to Soho where he knew a chap who would make up a key quickly from it.He then returned to the Jaguar and drove it to Manchester where he abandoned it and took the train to Liverpool.
No messing-
How many of us have had a minor scrape in a car like he had in Ireland early in September---it was minimal-little more than a scratch....

[Natalie Severn]

Hi all,



2] the fact that someone was stirring it with MG and VS was, I suggest, a reason why it has long been thought (by some) that there was some kind of conspiracy at the core of this case. All very odd, when you think about it. MG was certainly a highly personable bloke, bohemian and surprisingly 'modern' in his outlook. VS does not come across as your typical early post-war shrinking violet, either. I can imagine their reaction to anyone who poked into their private affair, whether relations, employers, or nosey-parkers. JG said that she understood her husband's need to have extra-marital affairs, which again, for 1961, is slightly surprising. And it also seems that VS and JG actually liked each other, and were friendly - I'm sure that if VS suspected JG of being behind the A6 Crime, she wouldn't have been so well-disposed towards her.

A male relative of mine, long gone, was also a serial adulterer in the mid- to late-1950's. We all knew about it in the family, his wife put up with it and just carried on running the house and bringing up their kids. It was just never talked about, certainly not in front of us kids. However, years later we found out that a religious spinster great-aunt had written a couple of admonishing letters to him which, remembering what he was like, he probably had a good laugh over and threw away. The spinster great-aunt certainly never considered hiring a gunman to scare the hell out of him....as far as I know....

G

All very odd indeed Graham----but I don't believe that Janet Gregsten was 'happy' that her husband was leaving her ,leaving the family home in Abbot's Langley and herself and their two children to take up digs he had acquired from 1st August 1961 in Maidenhead miles from Watford and Abbot's Langley! a flat which he was planning to move into on the 27th August.Janet is on record as saying so in fact.
The very fact he had gone on holiday to Dorset with Janet and their sons was to 'try to patch things up'---but it didn't work out and he left half way through.
He did go back to collect them at the end of the holiday and this was just days before he was murdered--as apparently he took two unplanned for days off extra [ie after his annual leave had expired ] going to their flat in Abbots Langley on the afternoon of the 22nd August to take his boys out to the park in Watford -that strangely enough he was to pass again that very night in such very different circumstances with Valerie and the gunman in tow.
I doubt very much indeed either his aunt or his mother would ever have tried to 'get Janet and Michael Gregsten back together-both mother and aunt disliked Janet intensely and called her 'that neurotic woman' and considered Michael was far too good for her[this is on record in BW's book!
But certainly his firm had had them in and complained several times about the affair between VS and MG----but were given very short shrift.However its very unlikely they would have gone so far as to be knocking on Michael Gregsten's landlord's house in Windsor!