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

[Graham]

Regarding lack of sighting in Marsh Lane of anyone resembling Hanratty, I think this is not really relevant. I'm sure the local householders had much better things to do than look out for, and note the appearance, of passers-by. When I walked the area, it wasn't exactly Oxford Street in terms of pedestrians, but there were people out and about on foot.

Lord Russell of Liverpool in his book Deadman's Hill: Was Hanratty Guilty? notes that there had been attempts at house-breaking in the houses on and near Marsh Lane. Not that he was specifically pointing the finger at Hanratty, but perhaps Jim had indeed tried his luck there in the recent past. Also, Valerie said that when the gunman forced his way into the car, one of her first impressions was that 'he was a burglar'. It's known that most of his jobs were done in up-market outlying areas of London, so it's not out of the question that he'd done jobs in the remoter parts of the Slough/Maidenhead area.

Graham

[Graham]

I think that the age of Charles France (and the fact that he was balding and in the habit of wearing spectacles) would have precluded him from being a considered a suspect in the murder.

As you say in your next paragraph, I would suggest that France's main fear was not to be accused of the crime itself, but as an accessory, in which case he would probably be looking at 20+ years if tried and found guilty. I can't (obviously) state with any authority that France was the man who placed the gun on the bus, but someone did; and France knew, and Hanratty never denied it, that the back seat was Hanratty's favoured place of disposal. If it was Hanratty himself who put the gun under the seat, then given what he had told France he was almost signing his own death warrant.

Graham

[NickB]

My apologies for being unclear. When I said ‘for example, Hanratty trying out his new gun’ I meant using it for the first time in a hold-up – not shooting practice.

In the Today articles Valerie refers to receiving letters from strangers who mention the affair, so it must have been widely known by then. She also reiterates that at the point of abduction they were planning the car rally.

Mike and I had been asked to help plan a car rally for the motor club at work. We were talking about this when we drove into that deserted field that night when everything exploded.

It all began so ordinarily. Not a night for the wild, the unexpected, the terrible. Certainly not a night for any sort of anguish.

We sat in our car – a Morris Minor – and we were finalizing plans for the next motor rally, a rather ambitious eighty-mile route.

[Spitfire]

I don’t think it is surprising that a suspicious man was not seen in the vicinity of Marsh Lane that evening if the hold-up was opportunistic – for example, Hanratty trying out his new gun. He always had the option to postpone the hold up for another time and occasion. Only if he was confident he had not been seen would he have proceeded.

Hanratty as an experienced, if inept, burglar would have appreciated the danger to his liberty if apprehended going equipped for theft, and would undoubtedly have appreciated the consequences of being arrested in possession of a firearm and ammunition. It is quite possible that he thought that holding the couple up in their Morris Minor was a better bet than wandering around the area after dark and being picked up by the police.

[Spitfire]

He took it back to where it came from, i.e., Charles France. Who, scared shitless no doubt, did what I think I'd have done and got rid of the gun in a way that lifted suspicion from himself and directly onto the man who France now suspected of being the A6 killer, i.e., James Hanratty.

I think that the age of Charles France (and the fact that he was balding and in the habit of wearing spectacles) would have precluded him from being a considered a suspect in the murder.

If he had supplied the gun to Hanratty, then disposing of it in a way that brought the crime back to Hanratty could only implicate him as an accessory before and after the crime.

[cobalt]

I don’t think it is surprising that a suspicious man was not seen in the vicinity of Marsh Lane that evening if the hold-up was opportunistic – for example, Hanratty trying out his new gun. He always had the option to postpone the hold up for another time and occasion.

Opportunistic? The gunman was packing more cannon than the Woolwich Arsenal. He was on a mission of some sort, prepared for a shoot out Cagney style. He could not have been traipsing country roads with all that lot stuffed in his suit pockets.

Postpone the Hold Up? This is a timely reminder of the threadbare motivation presented by the prosecution. This crime was no Hold Up, a crime which would have been over and done with in a matter of minutes. It was something else.

[Natalie Severn]

I don’t think it is surprising that a suspicious man was not seen in the vicinity of Marsh Lane that evening if the hold-up was opportunistic – for example, Hanratty trying out his new gun. He always had the option to postpone the hold up for another time and occasion. Only if he was confident he had not been seen would he have proceeded.

As we have only Valerie’s account of what happened in the car it is speculation to say she was told to withhold the gunman’s dialogue about her relationship with Mike at the trial. She testified that the gunman handed them a three penny piece saying it was a wedding present, indicating that she was not under such an edict. As I have said before, the defence were free to probe further if they thought it would be to their benefit.

Hang on Nick. If you have ever been to Marsh Lane you will know it has quite a few houses around one side of it + a farm house in the middle of it and cars passing through Marsh Lane regularly to the main Bath Road. It would be ridiculous to choose such a site to be practising with a gun quite frankly.Anyway nobody ever came forward to say they heard any gun go off and there were people putting a bike away in the farm house who definitely would have heard had the gunman been practising there . Its ridiculous and pure conjecture without any proof of a single sighting of any gunman or sound of a gun going off anytime that day or night in or near the cornfield.Whoever the gunman was certainly did not do any shooting near Marsh Lane -nothing happened until he was thirty miles or more away.
As far as Valerie's account is concerned it makes no reference to her affair with Gregsten.In fact a pile of camouflage has taken place about them both reading maps and then chatting in a darkening cornfield about them.That is a staggering omission if you think about it. I don't believe it was easy for the defence to cross examine Valerie with regard to her sex life ,especially as she was in a very vulnerable state still on a stretcherin court,brought by ambulance , recovering from bullet wounds ,rape,trauma , Gregsten's death etc .I don't believe it would have gone down well in court for the defence to put her on the spot like that, insensitive to her fragile state.I do believe though that Valerie would have readilly admitted the relationship's sexual basis if she had been allowed to as in the June of 1962 she spoke about it in a magazine series of two . Clearly Acott had advised against divulging it in court and Valerie was compliant.But it was wrong and misleading of Acott and the prosecution to have done so.

[NickB]

I don’t think it is surprising that a suspicious man was not seen in the vicinity of Marsh Lane that evening if the hold-up was opportunistic – for example, Hanratty trying out his new gun. He always had the option to postpone the hold up for another time and occasion. Only if he was confident he had not been seen would he have proceeded.

As we have only Valerie’s account of what happened in the car it is speculation to say she was told to withhold the gunman’s dialogue about her relationship with Mike at the trial. She testified that the gunman handed them a three penny piece saying it was a wedding present, indicating that she was not under such an edict. As I have said before, the defence were free to probe further if they thought it would be to their benefit.

[Natalie Severn]

There is evidence to support the claim that France wasn't just the rather harmless petty villain he's been made out to be. As has been stated on these boards many times in the past (mostly by me) he was also "manager", if that's the right word, of The Harmony Cafe in Archer Street, just down the road, literally, from The Rehearsal Club, and at The Harmony he kept a small arsenal of weapons in case of problems in his caff. I don't doubt for a moment that he could have supplied a gun, if asked by 'a mate' such as Hanratty. I kind of get the flavour that, immediately after the Crime, Hanratty hot-footed it back to London in the Morris and immediately confronted France along the lines, "You got me this shooter, there's a big problem, now get rid of it!" Yes, he could have lobbed it into The Thames, or got rid of it en route to London in a pool or a river or bushes or whatever, but he didn't. Hanratty's mind didn't work like that. He took it back to where it came from, i.e., Charles France. Who, scared shitless no doubt, did what I think I'd have done and got rid of the gun in a way that lifted suspicion from himself and directly onto the man who France now suspected of being the A6 killer, i.e., James Hanratty.

Graham

Thanks Graham,
Welcome Back! We are in Wales again and the weather has been sunny and warm!
The problems for me surround the lack of any sightings by anyone of Hanratty himself in the vicinity of Marsh Lane on that day or any other -whereas a man was sighted on the 22nd by the Cobbs and Mr Newell .He was also seen a couple of times previously lurking about around Marsh Lane and the man looked nothing like Hanratty,having a receding hair line, sallow complexion,very dark eyes and resembling the photofit feature by feature.
So my belief is that the man must have been dropped off at the cornfield close to where the Morris Minor was parked.I also believe it is impossible to know to what extent Acott may have influenced Valerie in her recollection of what happened. How do we know the gunman wasn't having a go at threatening them for being engaged in an extra marital affair quite a bit of the time ? Valerie's recollections of what the gunman said in the car regarding this were not to be allowed in court in case they prejudiced the prosecution case so crucially we have only Valerie's word on what was said and nothing was allowed to come out in court about what she and Gregsten had actually been doing in that car. Sometimes I see Acott as a sort of Les Dawson type Svengali cautioning Valerie never to mention anything to do with 'down below' that might disturb the equanimity of the suburban jurors.So the truth never really came out and Valerie was discouraged from telling it by Basil 'secrets and lies' Acott ! Yes I agree with you about much of how you see France-a dark horse but a bit of a hopeless one.

[Graham]

There is evidence to support the claim that France wasn't just the rather harmless petty villain he's been made out to be. As has been stated on these boards many times in the past (mostly by me) he was also "manager", if that's the right word, of The Harmony Cafe in Archer Street, just down the road, literally, from The Rehearsal Club, and at The Harmony he kept a small arsenal of weapons in case of problems in his caff. I don't doubt for a moment that he could have supplied a gun, if asked by 'a mate' such as Hanratty. I kind of get the flavour that, immediately after the Crime, Hanratty hot-footed it back to London in the Morris and immediately confronted France along the lines, "You got me this shooter, there's a big problem, now get rid of it!" Yes, he could have lobbed it into The Thames, or got rid of it en route to London in a pool or a river or bushes or whatever, but he didn't. Hanratty's mind didn't work like that. He took it back to where it came from, i.e., Charles France. Who, scared shitless no doubt, did what I think I'd have done and got rid of the gun in a way that lifted suspicion from himself and directly onto the man who France now suspected of being the A6 killer, i.e., James Hanratty.

Graham

[Graham]

Actually Graham, that photo is now a good five years old, and features me on the right and my ex husband's niece on the left, but I'm easily flattered so thank you kind sir.

Love,

Caz
X

Caz,

where shall I send the £25 to?

Graham

[Graham]

Been away, wished I hadn't bothered, weather rubbish.

Just a quick comment or two re: "She Saw Him At The Cleaners".

Janet Gregsten said that the man it was said she saw on 31 August had "blue staring eyes". Even if you believe that Janet actually claimed to have seen such a man, how could she know that he had such eyes as, according to Foot, blue eyes had never been mentioned at that time as part of the A6 killer's ID? However, on 28 August, Valerie said in an amended statement that the man had "icy blue, large saucer-like eyes". She never actually said that her attacker had brown eyes.

Even if the police did visit the florist's shop after Ewer's phoning them, and even if they did learn that someone called Ryan had sent flowers to someone called Hanratty at a given address, then so what? At that stage of the investigation the names 'Ryan' and 'Hanratty' meant nothing to the police. Only after the discovery of the cartridge cases at The Vienna on 11 September did the name 'Ryan' come to the attention of the police, and even then they appeared to make no connection with the 'Ryan' in the Vienna register to the 'Ryan' who had ordered flowers at the florist's. Given that the A6 invesitgation was of extreme importance, both nationally and to the police, either they never cross-checked their records or they were incompetent. Or they were so deluged with claimed sightings of the dreaded A6 killer they simply didn't have the man-power to follow up every lead.

Me, I rather think that they just shrugged their shoulders and got on with other things.

Graham

[moste]

Here is a photo of Burtol cleaners.

Here is a view of the arcade with Burtol’s just visible on the left.

Ewer’s shop was at ‘7, The Station Arcade, Swiss Cottage’.

If Ewer’s shop was in the arcade, how could Burtol’s have been ‘two yards across’ and visible from it?

Good question,the answer to this will almost certainly be, that it was possible to pass through Burtols all the way to the back, revealing an exit\entrance into the arcade.(clever architects in those days.)

[Natalie Severn]

I have read the Sunday Times articles. What sprang out at me was that there was a deafening silence on the question of whether Ewer was paid for the ‘cleaners’ story. If he had been paid (as I expect he was) this would provide an alternative explanation.

The Sunday Times must have asked Duffy if a payment had been made. Why did they not reveal his answer?

Good thinking !But not every story would be paid for Nick.If for example William Ewer was engaging journalists in conversation himself about this tale in between breaks from the trial at a pub where journalists were drinking apparently at the Merry Widow,this would not normally be paid for .But if they then checked the story out with Janet Gregsten, then she would certainly be paid for her part of story.

[Natalie Severn]

Nats,

I assume you’ve seen Tom Foot’s article on the subject.

Yes I did thanks Nick-in fact I included it in my book!