The attack on Swedish housewife Mrs Meike Dalal on Thursday, September 7th 1961

[Dupplin Muir]

Ed James wrote:

As ever , really interesting and detailed stuff. Would France have shown such keen interest if he and Hanratty had been engaged in a joint venture to put the frighteners on Gregsten? Or was it a feigned interest in front of Charlotte France?

More likely France wanted to know where JH had stayed so that he could plant the cartridge cases there.

[Dupplin Muir]

Another US case with some relevance to the A6 murder:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8HS-9FQXQY

[Natalie Severn]

[QUOTE=Ed James;353257]Hi Nats

As ever , really interesting and detailed stuff. Would France have shown such keen interest if he and Hanratty had been engaged in a joint venture to put the frighteners on Gregsten? Or was it a feigned interest in front of Charlotte France?

What about the France/Hanratty relationship after the murder and the rape?
Did it continue largely as before ? Or, if in partnership with the gunman, did France show a tendency to keep Hanratty as a rapist away from his daughter or wife? I think not. I recognise that, contrary to Miller, Woffinden contends that Hanratty behaved exactly as he did before on his return to London.

But what can we glean from France's known behaviour?

Atb
Ed[/]

Hi Ed,
Hanratty appeared to his girl friends to behave normally.He goes to Dry Cleaners [31st August date of his alleged sighting by Janet Gregsten] buys mother some flowers 1st September ,does a spot of burglary at Edgware on 2nd Sept.buys some clothes in Whitechapel and is seen there by William Ewer who followed him there .4th sept he flies to Dublin to get Irish Driving licence and returns 11th Sept .Took Carol France to Battersea fun fair.Later takes his cousin Gladys Deacon to Battersea Funfair in a sports car he has put a deposit on on 20th Sept .Meets Mary Meaden aged 22 on Sept 27th and takes her out in his new car and to see Harry Seacombe at London Palladium.Both then and for years afterwards she describes him as 'gentle and shy -he blushed easily.' and that he showed 'gentleness and impeccable behaviour towards her'. This description of his behaviour tallies with what others said about him at the time including Charles and Charlotte France .He was locked in a few passionate embraces with 16 year old Carol France only a few weeks before however but Carol too describes him as 'gentle and kind' despite getting up to some hanky panky with him on and off which Hanratty told his barrister that Charles France, her father would have strongly disapproved of.

[Ed James]

after the murder,he told him casually that he had spent the previous Monday night at a Paddington hotel.Dixie France immediately showed great interest in this information.When Hanratty told him it cost £1.7s 6d
for bed and breakfast ,France expressed disbelief and would not leave him alone until he produced the receipt for the money with the billhead,Vienna Hotel, Sutherland Avenue.

Hi Nats

As ever , really interesting and detailed stuff. Would France have shown such keen interest if he and Hanratty had been engaged in a joint venture to put the frighteners on Gregsten? Or was it a feigned interest in front of Charlotte France?

What about the France/Hanratty relationship after the murder and the rape?
Did it continue largely as before ? Or, if in partnership with the gunman, did France show a tendency to keep Hanratty as a rapist away from his daughter or wife? I think not. I recognise that, contrary to Miller, Woffinden contends that Hanratty behaved exactly as he did before on his return to London.

But what can we glean from France's known behaviour?

Atb

Ed

[Natalie Severn]

Charles France said that Hanratty showed him the Vienna hotel bill, not that he asked to see it. Charlotte France gave evidence that Hanratty also showed her the bill later that day.

Hanratty however gave a different account of this incident to his father and mother when they visited him in Brixton prison before the trial.To quote Paul Foot:Hanratty was musing as to the reasons for his friends,the Frances,giving evidence for the prosecution,and he told his parents how ,when he went to see the Frances some three days after the murder,he told him casually that he had spent the previous Monday night at a Paddington hotel.Dixie France immediately showed great interest in this information.When Hanratty told him it cost £1.7s 6d
for bed and breakfast ,France expressed disbelief and would not leave him alone until he produced the receipt for the money with the billhead,Vienna Hotel, Sutherland Avenue.After seeing the dated receipt [21st.08.61] Mr France left the matter alone.Whichever version is right,Mr France had concrete evidence that Hanratty had stayed that night at the Vienna Hotel. page 138 Who Killed Hanratty?
Foot goes on to talk about the 'Back seat of a 36A bus' and how the conversation had arisen about it between Hanratty and France that France had volunteered information to the police about.Foot points out that all Hanratty had said about it was that he used to put the worthless or unwanted 'rubbish' from burglaries under the seat of a bus -rather on the floor- in case people would notice it.France however had Hanratty saying to him,"This is the only seat that lifts up,and it is a good hiding place".[Vol. V11,pp.3,4.] This latter damning evidence.Yet the devil is in the detail here.France's story was about a 'good hiding place' .Hanratty's was about getting rid of rubbish like paste jewellery and the like that people might see lying about and become suspicious about .Apparently when challenged by Sherrard ,France conceded that Hanratty's version was right.

Its sometimes worth pausing here and reminding onseself that Hanratty had only just renewed his contact with France after something like 7 years when Hanratty himself was just a child or teenager 'being taught the ropes' by a France who stole slate off roofs etc and had a fair number of convictions for this and that to his name .Now the situation was reversed and Hanratty was the one with recent 'experience' in burglary, France now the one being taught how to keep guard at burglaries etc or just contenting himself with selling on or fencing ,Hanratty's bits and pieces.So Hanratty was mentoring France now.

[NickB]

Charles France said that Hanratty showed him the Vienna hotel bill, not that he asked to see it. Charlotte France gave evidence that Hanratty also showed her the bill later that day.

I agree it is very plausible that whoever left the gun on the bus had intended to throw it in the Thames but then lost their nerve, fearing that they might be seen doing it.

[Natalie Severn]

Or what was France's reaction to Hanratty after the murder.

Thanks Ed. Yes, understood.However there is the nagging question of France's first reaction- according to Hanratty and never denied by France -of his insistence on seeing Hanratty's bill from the Vienna Hotel for 21st August 1961,immediately on his return from Liverpool.This has always made me curious because France would known Hanratty was in London on night of 21st August because likely have been told by people at the Rehearsal Club like Anne Price etc about Hanratty hanging around there late into the evening of the 21st-and this was the last known ,and important sighting of Hanratty anywhere in the South of England until 25th August apart that is apart from Nudds' who remembered him leaving the Vienna Hotel around 8.30 am on 22nd August .So why did France press to see the bill? My own thoughts are that France having rushed to dispose of the gun on 23rd/24th August , hurriedly took his local 36A bus -it stops at bottom of his road-Boundary Road ,-hoping to dispose of it in the river Thames and the 36A bus in fact was the absolutely correct bus to take for the river Thames as it headed South to Victoria station close to it.However as people started to get on the bus France suddenly lost his nerve-as he did throughout the trial for example and abandoned the idea of going to Victoria hiding the gun under the back seat under a hank-that had also hastily been grabbed from his wife's wash and he got off the bus as soon as he could.It is at this juncture I believe the idea of implicating Hanratty took root-not before.
The so called 'coincidence' of the young gunman/hitman with a London accent talking about being 'on the run from prison ' etc who shared a similar experience to Hanratty would not have been all rare . In fact any young wide boy who frequented the joints of Soho like the Rehearsal Club and inhabited the periphery of the underworld would have been accessible to France who was at the Rehearsal Club day or night, everyday. There are also several glaring mismatches worth noting in the story about the gunman's family background,being on the run-Hanratty was not on the run from Prison on 22nd August 1961nor had he ever attended Borstal etc .Once the A6 murder outrage hit the press and TV those involved in the hiring of the gunman/hitman would have found an miraculously easy scapegoat in Hanratty who , fortunately for France ,had been out of the way ,knew nothing about any of it so couldn't spill any beans on anyone as to who the real gunman was.The next step was to plant those bullets in the room in the Vienna Hotel Hanratty had stayed in---only a few streets away from France's flat ---and also William Ewer's Umbrella /Antiques shop.Hence Hanratty's surprise that France had so earnestly requested to see his bill for the Vienna Hotel of 21st August 1961 the first opportunity France had to collar him about it the moment he set eyes on him after he got back from Liverpool.

[Ed James]

Because I am not persuaded but any other of the motives attributed to Hanratty, I am trying to test out the potentially only remaining Hanratty motive. This is that he was hired to put on the frightners but was kept in the dark as to the true reason for the hiring and believed some powerful underworld figures lay behind France. Not only would Hanratty in these circumstances not want to upset them but as Nick says identifying France would only have confirmed Hanratty's own guilt.

I agree that Mr X seeking to implicate Hanratty would be highly risky of leading the trail back to Mr X , especially as both Hanratty and France were fragile. But I wanted to test the scenario out against other things others more knowledgeable than me know.

For example, the Hanratty phone call along the lines Dixie , Dixie they want me for the A6 murder. Or as Nats has set out that in the days to the run up to the abduction, Hanratty didn't come into face to face contact with France. Or what was France's reaction to Hanratty after the murder.

[Natalie Severn]

But in the scenario proposed France was the middle man and there would be no reason for him to identify 'Mr X' to Hanratty. Even if he had done, why would Hanratty have identified him and confirmed his own guilt as the murderer?

I wasn't suggesting that if Hanratty was the hitman he might identify Mr X to Hanratty ,Nick.I believe on the contrary that Hanratty had nothing whatever to do with it and that was one of the reason's he was packed off to Liverpool with his newly laundered case of clothes.
I was suggesting that if Mr Ewer or Mrs Ewer ,Janet's sister [for example] did ask France to find a hitman to do a frightener job on Gregsten, neither Ewer,his wife or Janet would ever have pointed the finger at Hanratty-if Hanratty was the hitman because that would begin to lay a trail back to them immediately.However if Hanratty was NOT the hitman they had employed it would make good sense to start a bogus identification campaign of Hanratty as decoy AWAY from who the person France had arranged through his contacts in the underworld he regularly met at the Rehearsal Club/Solomon's gym etc

[NickB]

But in the scenario proposed France was the middle man and there would be no reason for him to identify 'Mr X' to Hanratty. Even if he had done, why would Hanratty have identified him and confirmed his own guilt as the murderer?

[Natalie Severn]

HI Nats
Far fetched? How does the scenario sit with what we know, for example Hanratty's intercepted prison letter to France?

ATB

Ed

Thanks Ed.Regarding the intercepted prison letter to France : Both Hanratty and France [and of course Louise Anderson] had contacts in the criminal world especially when it came to selling on the stuff Hanratty got from burglaries.France had told Police that Hanratty disposed of his unwanted trinkets from burglaries under the back seat of a bus-not denied by Hanratty but clearly very harmful to his case as it turned out since the gun was found under the back seat of the 36 A bus.So Hanratty says in his letter to France he isn't happy about what France is about to testify in court about this but 'whatever you say will be the truth ' [and he adds that as he is innocent anyway it won't make any difference].This is before the case has had its preliminary hearing in court remember.Then he says that likewise he knows France won't like what he is 'about to do' and presumably this is about him saying in court that France was his 'fence' for his stolen goods ---for which France could have gone to prison.
Going on to your main point that Hanratty was the hit man. It makes no sense. If as is being suggested William Ewer -or at least somebody in Janet Gregsten's family -paid to have a hit man put the frighteners on Gregsten for being about to leave Janet that week leaving her financially destitute ,whoever it was who engaged the hitman would not want to have the finger pointed at Hanratty if it really was Hanratty who had had been the hitman!!!Hanratty could then have pointed the finger straight back and said -"Ewer hired me!"And that too could have been seen in law as a capital offence even though there may never have been any intention by whoever it was who hired the gunman -or dropped him by the cornfield in Dorney Reach- to cause either car passenger death or physical injury .
AtB Nats

[Ed James]

.If France did obtain the gun and a hit man to scare the couple apart it would not have been Hanratty because if that was the case to implicate Hanratty in the very early stages would have ricocheted on himself,France. Ditto William Ewer.The gunman must have been someone other than Hanratty for that reason alone,if,as Paul Foot's meticulous research indicates ,every Swiss Cottage clue points to the 'Central Figure' being Ewer -as Alphon suggested i.e. that it was Ewer who had approached France to find him a hitman to do the job of putting the frighteners on Michael Gregsten and return him to the wife and children he planned to abandon that week on 27th August -.

HI Nats

An excellent and interesting summary. I want to test out fully the suggestion that Hanratty could not have been contracted to do the job. And would welcome critique of my constructed scenario.

For me the A6 murder has lots of unresolved issues. But the biggest and most important is motive.

I can't buy into theories of a random , opportunistic action , robbery gone wrong, delayed lust for Valerie or some overwhelming desire to exercise control. I agree with Blom Cooper that some very powerful motive led the gunman to enter the car.

To my mind if Hanratty was the perpetrator , the most conceivable motive was that he was engaged to do it. Yet this has not been conventionally advanced - possibly because it cuts across the positions of both camps.

Scenario :What if Mr X /the Central figure contracts with a financially desperate middle man (France) to arrange for the frightners to be put on Gregsten after all else has failed. But Mr X specifies that there must be no link back to him.

France doesn't have the contacts that he holds out to Mr X. How easy then for France to tell the gullible Hanratty that Gregsten has caused serious upset to some (unnamed) important underworld figures , failing to deliver his part of a bargain - largely because he is pre-occupied with an extra - marital affair with some younger woman. He explains that Gregsten is a weak , vulnerable character and the job is an easy one.

Lets say Hanratty has been looking to upgrade to gun crime and France says if you do a good job , your reward is that the big underworld figures will put opportunities your way. A measure of his success will be if he 'separates' the couple, either physically or by Gregsten clearly relenting. But in no circumstances must he let the woman know his purpose or break the underworld code and snitch on the backers of the action.

The false story and the confused objectives given to the gunman may help explain the bizarre drive and 5 hour abduction.

When things go horrendously wrong, a panicked Mr X (who perhaps didn't realise real ammunition would be used ) feels responsibility must fall on Hanratty; and this paradoxically represents the best way of stopping the police beating a path to his door. And assured that the naïve Hanratty won't blow the whistle on his mentor and the underworld backers for reasons of loyalty, fear and acknowledging his own guilt, Mr X works to finger Hanratty.

Torn by affection for Hanratty , fear from himself and his family, genuine disgust for Hanratty's actions, France takes his way out.

Far fetched? How does the scenario sit with what we know, for example Hanratty's intercepted prison letter to France?

ATB

Ed

[Natalie Severn]

Hanratty the doe head that he was,could easily have been targeted as the perfect patsy, weeks, or maybe even months before the actual event. Dixie may have been instrumental in setting JH up with a trip to the north knowing he would be much harder pressed to come up with anything like the kind of alibi he undoubtedly had in and around London on the 21st of August 1961.

The day by day doings of Hanratty since he left off window cleaning with his dad and disappeared from his parents home on the Thursday of the 2nd week of July 1961 have him first off visiting Soho and the Rehearsal Club and bumping into Charles 'Dixie' France who he had not seen for many years when France was a not very bright crook who had been Hanratty's 'mentor' along the lines of Fagin.This was when Hanratty was 17 year old . Mrs Roberts ,the owner of the Rehearsal Club described the Hanratty she knew in the Summer of '61 as "so quiet and polite -he was naive you know ,and people would take liberties with him ."
Hanratty may have stayed with the France family after he had left his parents house in Kingsbury where he had been window cleaning but soon was 'on the road' again to Shrewsbury from there to Cardiff then through hitching lifts back via Liverpool on to Rhyl,arriving there on July 25th 1961 where he stayed the night with a fairground worker named Terry Evans aka "John".He heads back to London via Liverpool where he ends up being taken to hospital on the 26th July by ambulance having been attacked by some characters with knuckledusters near Lime Street -possibly because he was selling items of jewellery or a lighter that he had left over from a burglary in nearby Crosby . After being released from hospital he stayed in a hostel and in the morning sold the lighter and a few other items [from the Crosby burglary ] giving him enough money for the train back to London .So from 26th July he stays on and off in London first with desperately broke France in Swiss Cottage who had lost his job as a doorman at the Rehearsal Club and sometimes with Louise Anderson who lived in Sussex Gardens close to Paddington .
Hanratty then burgled a few houses within 10-20 miles of the France's during August ,at least once he even had the help of France but France was hopeless at it so he mostly acted that month as Hanratty's fence possibly selling some bits and pieces to William Ewer who owned an umbrella / antiques shop down the road from France -as well him selling it on to characters in the Soho club world possibly .But both France and Louise began to lack ready cash to pay Hanratty which in my view is why he headed off back to Liverpool and Rhyl where he believed there were people like Aspinall and Terry Evans who could sell stuff on for him or at the very least introduce him to characters who would buy the stuff direct.If France did obtain the gun and a hit man to scare the couple apart it would not have been Hanratty because if that was the case to implicate Hanratty in the very early stages would have ricocheted on himself,France. Ditto William Ewer.The gunman must have been someone other than Hanratty for that reason alone,if,as Paul Foot's meticulous research indicates ,every Swiss Cottage clue points to the 'Central Figure' being Ewer -as Alphon suggested i.e. that it was Ewer who had approached France to find him a hitman to do the job of putting the frighteners on Michael Gregsten and return him to the wife and children he planned to abandon that week on 27th August - the wife in question being Janet Gregsten who was Ewer's wife's sister and at that time she and her children being dear to both of them and therefore needing the protection of both Ewer and his wife .It is inconceivable given their loving care after the event that when they knew Gregsten was about to abandon Janet and her children ,they would not have done everything to help them both in tackling Gregsten for not behaving in a responsible way towards them financially and otherwise and just out of their natural affection for Janet as was evidenced very clearly when they took them into their home following the murder and looked after them all.

[moste]

Posters of the past.

When previous posters of the A6 threads are quoted ,I tend to skip back and take a look at what was going on back then, as is my want. I must say the 19 posts offered by' julieq' I found to be very instructive, fascinating, and illuminating to boot.
I would recommend new comers who wish to learn as much as possible about the mysteries of the A6 murder( as well as the popular books that are available) if time is permitted, read back over the years, to give yourselves an even more in-depth understanding of the case. obviously a lot of ground is rehashed, but there certainly has been some well informed writers on these boards.

[moste]

Motive.

So,' money being the root of all evil', I would say this is the best suggestion for a motive to date. And, if we take insurance scam as motive, then that gives us, Why! we already know Where, and When, we have part of How but not all, and then we need Who!
Nick, Interesting post by Julie q. And if as she said,' Janet received a $2000 compo from Michaels work, and (possibly naively) passed this on to Ewer, well, I think we know enough about this chap for him to be firmly in the frame.
I believe Big Bill had the money, and the means, and the motive, using hired people, to carry this out. Hanratty the doe head that he was,could easily have been targeted as the perfect patsy, weeks, or maybe even months before the actual event. Dixie may have been instrumental in setting JH up with a trip to the north knowing he would be much harder pressed to come up with anything like the kind of alibi he undoubtedly had in and around London on the 21st of August 1961.
I would love to have had a close up through the lens look at Ewers face when the foreman uttered those inglorious words, Guilty my lord.