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

[Graham]

that dreadful old ratbag Caz

Oh come now, you do yourself an injustice. I just had a peek at your profile, the public one that is, and there you are with your sister.....

Graham

[caz]

No need for the personal remarks Caz ...not that big I hope

You know I didn't mean it like that, Nats. I meant you are all grown up and don't need the men to defend you from that dreadful old ratbag Caz.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The question to ask about William Ewer and Janet Gregsten's possible involvement in the A6 is not, in my opinion,whether one or both were in some way involved , but rather in what way they were involved?
How could either William Ewer or Janet Gregsten possibly have 'identified' Hanratty so soon after the murder-6 days to be precise -a murder that took place 50 miles away---and the day after the gunman's description was changed on 31st August 1961 from the gunman having deep set brown eyes to saucer like light blue eyes?

You've answered your own question, Nats. They couldn't have done. No more than Valerie could have described the real Hanratty's eyes - saucer like light blue ones - if her rapist had actually had deep set brown ones. Another vanishingly unlikely coincidence?

I refuse to accept that William Ewer ever intended any physical harm to come to either Valerie or Michael Gregsten...

Then don't accept it. I don't either. It's crystal clear to me that Ewer made up the story of Janet 'identifying' the blue-eyed Hanratty by some form of sixth sense, so nothing he claimed in hindsight about the 'sighting' incident can be trusted without sound supporting evidence from the supporting cast list, including firm dates and police confirmation - which I don't believe we've seen yet (unless I've missed it?).

Also Neither Ewer nor France were so stupid as to stage the 'she saw him in the cleaners' story unless they wished to have Hanratty as the scapegoat.

But it would have been a stupid thing for Ewer to stage at the beginning of that September, and especially to 'boast' about publicly after the trial, if he was even indirectly involved and had been trying to lead the police to Hanratty, because the whole thing sounded like such a terribly implausible coincidence, plus the police had been led to Hanratty, who had subsequently hanged.

If Ewer really had telephoned Scotland Yard to inform them of his (no, sorry, Janet's) quite astonishing 'vision' that early in the game, would they not have come to smell the same very large rat as some of us here seem to be smelling now? Isn't it infinitely more likely that Ewer was able to gather all sorts of titbits from attending the trial and reading the papers and possibly making his own local enquiries into the bargain, learned about the (genuine) police visit to the florist (of whatever date), where they learned that Hanratty had been a customer and sent flowers to his Mum, and finally sold his own 'extraordinary' story to the papers, making out that he and Janet had played pivotal roles in getting justice for her murdered husband?

Once the police realised Ewer's tale was so much bullshit (which they would have done if their records showed no such telephone call from him), there would have been no cause to suspect him of being any more personally involved than his natural instincts to look out for the victim's widow.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Fisherman

The latest announcement on the most popular names for last year put Muhammad at the top of the list for boys names in London.

HTH Del

That's good news, Del, if it helps keep my beloved multicultural London free of Daily Mail reading racists.

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

As for the now priceless Holbein,clearly Ewer was in with multi millionaires by now -the big time wheelers and dealers of the Art houses and auction rooms.Of that there is no question at all.

Maybe, Nats, but as Sherlock House's recent post confirms, the Holbein was bought by Ewer who was acting as an agent for the actual anonymous buyer. No doubt, though, that Big Bill made a handsome commission out of the deal.

I've not been able to find out very much about William Ewer and his dealings, but the surname 'Ewer' is not uncommon in the arts world, and I wonder if there is any relationship. I haven't found anything - so far - to suggest that William Ewer was up there with the big boys in the art world. Had he been, I'm sure he'd be easier to locate.

Graham

[Graham]

Hi Nats and Pat Dunn,

Pat, you beat me to it! God alone knows why I recall that R&M Laugh-In expression, but it must have impressed me because I still use it. How sad is that? I also remember that show first time round....oh dear.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Pc Dunn! Ha Ha !

[Pcdunn]

If this is a rude word Graham I shall have to report you to the headmaster.

"Bippie" (also spelt "bippy") : a made-up word in the phrase "You bet your bippy!" from the late Sixties comedy program Rowan's and Martin's Laugh-In. (And I watched it first-run!- sigh.)

[Natalie Severn]

The Appeal, Section 131, says on this day she described the eyes as blue to Inspector Mackle who was in charge of constructing the identikit image.

Certainly the first description that came out within hours were of a man with dark brown eyes and deep set .This I have always accepted may have been due to police error-having heard it wrong.
However I am not talking about whether the eyes were indicated to be blue or brown .I am talking about his eyes being described for the identikit photo that Valerie contributed to as dark...and that can mean dark blue or dark brown.Its the tonal description that is important here---together with Acott's annotated description of Michael Clark's 'dark eyes'.

[Natalie Severn]

It is not my statement, I have quoted Bob Woffinden. I suggest you read the page I have referred to (page 50 1999 Pan edition).

No.You say 'if in the course of researching your book you came across anything to contradict the passage which you have quoted [from Woffinden] you should say what it is.'
And I did so saying her identification of a heavily built 5ft 9 in Michael Clark who had dark eyes,taken together with the help she gave to the dark eyed man depicted in the identikit photo of 26th August 1961 [3 days after the murder] resoundingly contradicts what is being inferred by Woffinden i.e. that Valerie indicated from the start that the man had 'icy blue saucer like eyes and was slender and stood 5ft 6 ins tall.
Why did Valerie pick out his opposite in Michael Clark if anything that has been claimed about what Valerie said is true?

[NickB]

why on earth did Valerie direct and help to control the construction of an identikit photo on August 26th ,that showed a man with normally set dark eyes ? and definitely not icy blue or saucer like?

The Appeal, Section 131, says on this day she described the eyes as blue to Inspector Mackle who was in charge of constructing the identikit image.

[Spitfire]

Then why on earth for crying out loud did she pick out Michael Clark on her first identification parade who was a heavily built man who was 5 feet 9 inches tall with dark eyes?
and why on earth did Valerie direct and help to control the construction of an identikit photo on August 26th ,that showed a man with normally set dark eyes ? and definitely not icy blue or saucer like?
and yes, in the course of writing my book I certainly,most definitely came across much that contradicts your statement.

It is not my statement, I have quoted Bob Woffinden. I suggest you read the page I have referred to (page 50 1999 Pan edition).

[Natalie Severn]

The rest of your 'theory' is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

This is not true.Try to be a bit subtle and nuanced instead of the crass bully boy .You simply can't dismiss all those articles by journalists working for the Sunday Times or the work of Paul Foot ---and many many others ---too many to mention here.When you make such blanket dismissals of other people's research work you reveal yourself to be boorish and embarrassingly misogynist.
PS decided the word 'lying' was not quite accurate so removed it.What I mean is that there can be no truthful quest if you are to dismiss all the evidence to the contrary by a journalist such as Paul Foot for example who lived near Swiss Cottage and many other journalists who worked for The Sunday Times and Daily Herald and Daily Mail as well as researchers ---other than Woffinden.

[Natalie Severn]

On this you appear to disagree with Woffinden who has had sight of Miss Storie's various statements.

I quote from page 50 of Woffinden's book (1999 Pan edition)

'An analysis of Valerie Storie's statements reveals that she first told police about this [gunman's striking blue eyes] on Monday 28 August 1961, while she was still at Bedford.;"The description of the man is aged between twenty-five and thirty, about 5 feet 6 inches, proportionately built, slender, brown hair, clean shaven, a very smooth, pale face, with icy-blue large saucer-like eyes."

...Valerie Storie never at any stage described the murderer as having 'brown eyes''

Then why on earth for crying out loud did she pick out Michael Clark on her first identification parade who was a heavily built man who was 5 feet 9 inches tall with dark eyes?
and why on earth did Valerie direct and help to control the construction of an identikit photo on August 26th ,that showed a man with normally set dark eyes ? and definitely not icy blue or saucer like?
and yes, in the course of writing my book I certainly,most definitely came across much that contradicts your statement.

[Spitfire]

I believe France sold on his bits and pieces -silver napkin rings, odd bits of jewellery etc to Ewer who being 'in the trade' with his little umbrella shop to give shade , clearly was able to create a front for various 'Art deals' some a bit shady like the selling of the William Steer - Steer being such a hugely important English landscape painter the sale of which would have brought him huge profits-even then and I mean huge.As for the now priceless Holbein,clearly Ewer was in with multi millionaires by now -the big time wheelers and dealers of the Art houses and auction rooms.Of that there is no question at all.
The question to ask about William Ewer and Janet Gregsten's possible involvement in the A6 is not, in my opinion,whether one or both were in some way involved , but rather in what way they were involved?
How could either William Ewer or Janet Gregsten possibly have 'identified' Hanratty so soon after the murder-6 days to be precise -a murder that took place 50 miles away---and the day after the gunman's description was changed on 31st August 1961 from the gunman having deep set brown eyes to saucer like light blue eyes?

On this you appear to disagree with Woffinden who has had sight of Miss Storie's various statements.

I quote from page 50 of Woffinden's book (1999 Pan edition)

'An analysis of Valerie Storie's statements reveals that she first told police about this [gunman's striking blue eyes] on Monday 28 August 1961, while she was still at Bedford.;"The description of the man is aged between twenty-five and thirty, about 5 feet 6 inches, proportionately built, slender, brown hair, clean shaven, a very smooth, pale face, with icy-blue large saucer-like eyes."

...Valerie Storie never at any stage described the murderer as having 'brown eyes''


If, during the course of researching your book, you came across anything to contradict the passage which I have quoted, then you should say what it is.

It is generally accepted that the murder took place in the early hours of 23 August 1961, so by my calculations 6 days after "to be precise" would be the early hours of 29 August 1961. What happened then?

The rest of your 'theory' is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.