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

[Natalie Severn]

[I]

I think the essential thrust of the story that Ewer drew police attention to Hanratty is true.As to the suggestion that Janet Gregsten initiated the sighting, subsequently denied by Janet and Ewer, this has the smack of Ewer seeking to use feminine intuition to explain how he had interest in Hanratty.

Ed

Thanks Ed,
Myself I believe Janet knew an a lot more about what happened than we are led to believe.The pictures of her at Valerie Storie's bedside [21 and 22 September 1961] reveal a rather determined looking Janet Gregsten and a very vulnerable looking Valerie Storie though the papers ,still in the dark [apparently] about the relationship between Valerie Storie and Michael Gregsten describe the meeting between the two women as being friendly with Janet stating Valerie is 'her friend'To me that smacks of dishonesty .Paul Foot casts a much more searching eye on Janet Gregsten than Bob Woffinden does who appears to have been bowled over by Janet Gregsten's charms.We do not receive any impression of anything from him but realistic descriptions of her in Foot's 1971 book.He is not fooled .He is certain she suffered greatly and was extremely unhappy because of Gregsten's affair and also that she would have suffered even greater financial hardship than she was already if he left her and took a flat in Maidenhead on the 27th August 1961.

[Ed James]

[I][I]
And no one has yet dealt with my question: why, if Ewer had prior knowledge, did he divulge this to the newspapers. He was at risk by doing so, unless he thought he was (MI5) fireproof.

And Cobalt wrote in post 821:'Ewer’s motives for going public with his steering operation are slightly puzzling. He was not a man desperate for money, nor does he appear a reckless character keen for his 15 minutes of fame. He must have realised the scepticism that was going to greet his story, and even the potential danger that his prior knowledge might bring upon him.'

The first thing to say is that Ewer's motive was apparently extremely strong because he felt impelled to seek out journalists to tell them the story. It was not a case of them coming to him. I am immediately struck by the comparison of Ewer forcefully insisting on looking at the back of the photographers ,on his search for Hanratty, perhaps ensuring that his actions stuck firmly in the mind

I think Ewer's most probable motive was to pre -empt any revelation from a police or other source (eg shopkeepers) that he had personally identified Hanratty at an early stage. It would have looked decidedly odd, and raise more suspicion, not to have said anything about this extraordinary aspect after Hanratty had been found guilty.

Trying to explain the sighting story if it came out first from another source would have been even more difficult. I wouldn't ever rule out journalistic error , but I think the essential thrust of the story that Ewer drew police attention to Hanratty is true.As to the suggestion that Janet Gregsten initiated the sighting, subsequently denied by Janet and Ewer, this has the smack of Ewer seeking to use feminine intuition to explain how he had interest in Hanratty.

Ed

[NickB]

I agree that Ewer would have said the things to Duffy that are attributed to him and are in quotation marks. Ewer was the liar. At the time Ewer probably thought it was a harmless wheeze, but when Foot's book came out it came back to bite him. He then made a statement to the Sunday Times, who quickly showed that he also lied in that.

[Natalie Severn]

Had the story been untrue, or even sniffed of any invention on Duffy's part, the editor wouldn't have touched it with the proverbial barge pole.
It's also quite revealing that there was no legal action taken by Ewer subsequent to the story's publication. Very odd indeed if the newspaper article was untrue.

My ex worked as a Journalist on Fleet street for thirty years from being a very young journalist of 22 . No way would the Daily Mail have dared permit a story of fabrication regarding a trial of such National Interest and challenge.Not only subeditors would have studied the journalist's words for potential libel but all national Newspapers have a rigorous system of legal advice which would have refused to touch such a story if it had no substance.

[Sherlock Houses]

Peter Duffy convincing??? He couldn't convince an alcoholic to get down to Lidl if they were giving whisky away. I've seen this Panorama prog before (in fact I've got it on video tape) and it's as unconvincing now as it was nearly 50 years ago.

That may well be your own personal opinion Graham but I suspect it is very much a minority opinion. Most impartial observers I would say would be impressed upon listening to Peter Duffy's story. Duffy comes across as very convincing in this interview. There's no hesitating on his part or any of the nose-touching [very often a sign of deceit] which the totally unreliable James Trower displays during his interview.

Had the story been untrue, or even sniffed of any invention on Duffy's part, the editor wouldn't have touched it with the proverbial barge pole.
It's also quite revealing that there was no legal action taken by Ewer subsequent to the story's publication. Very odd indeed if the newspaper article was untrue.

Duffy had no axe to grind with anyone and what makes his story even more persuasive is that he was of the opinion that Hanratty was guilty of the A6 murder.

[Spitfire]

The Panorama program does not state when the police actually interviewed Mrs Morrell and the other shopkeepers, in certainly did not give the impression that it was on the 1st September 1961 as a result of the alleged call from Ewer to the police.

It was interesting to watch the program again. I think I saw it many years ago. I was struck by the consistency of Terry Evans and Grace Jones in saying that all that they could say was 'yes' or 'no'. This, of course, is nonsense, witnesses are required to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Many things about the A6 trial can be debated, but there is no doubt that Mrs Jones or Terry Evans lied under oath when asked what they were talking to each other about when spotted by the eagle eyed juryman.

It was also interesting to see that the room that Hanratty stayed in according to Mrs Jones was room No 4. According to Foot, p 230, this was the small room at the front on the first floor, and again according to Foot this was occupied by Joe Sayle from 21 to 24 August. If Mrs Jones had told the jury this, it would not have done Hanratty any good at all.

There was, of course, no mention of staying in bathrooms, leaving cases and going out looking for better accommodation and meeting Mesdames Vincent and Walker et al. Mr Jones had a room available from cancellation. That room was No 4 at the front, on the first floor and she let Jim Hanratty occupy it for two nights. The jury did not accept this.

[Natalie Severn]

Peter Duffy convincing??? Graham

Peter Duffy seemed perfectly legit to me and as Paul Foot said he was not the only journalist on Fleet Street to have been told this strange story by William Ewer with his daily OCD visits to court in and out of the court rooms like a fiddler's elbow apparently and desperate to hob nob with the journalists on the case during the trial .And Duffy is a thousand times more convincing I might add than hardened criminal and police witness William Nudds with his eleven different names /aliases or the other hardened criminal ,police grass and witness for the prosecution Roy Langdale or indeed any of the stream of shady police witnesses at the trial like Louise Anderson and Charles France .

[Natalie Severn]

There were, as we know, two Photofits, and one of them looked sufficiently like Hanratty for Charlotte France to turn to the man himself, when he was at their home and they were watching TV, "Oooh, doesn't that look like you?" or words to that effect.
Graham

Oh but Graham that photofit was not the one Valerie Storie actually helped to compose !In fact Luis Blum Cooper points out,the photofit Charlotte France referred to was a dead ringer for Alphon ![must post them side by side later].

[Graham]

Angus Huck suggested the sum I have emboldened you have emboldened .

Nats, if you seriously believe what Angus Huck (is that Cockney rhyming slang?) had to say about the A6, I think you ought to consider a nice long restful holiday. And as it's on the Lib-Dem Voice website anyway, I wouldn't believe a single damn thing, never mind Angus Huck.

If you really want to get down to complete and utter nonsense about the A6 Case, then get onto the good Rev Lionel Fanthorpe's website, on which some unknown person claims that Gregsten and Storie were bumped off by British Intelligence as they were about to defect to Russia.

Graham

[Graham]

Peter Duffy convincing??? He couldn't convince an alcoholic to get down to Lidl if they were giving whisky away. I've seen this Panorama prog before (in fact I've got it on video tape) and it's as unconvincing now as it was nearly 50 years ago. The more observant amongst Hanratty's supporters may have noticed that when the interview got round to the subject of Photofit, Mr Duffy very much gave the impression that there was just one, and that it looked nothing like Hanratty. There were, as we know, two Photofits, and one of them looked sufficiently like Hanratty for Charlotte France to turn to the man himself, when he was at their home and they were watching TV, "Oooh, doesn't that look like you?" or words to that effect.

The only other thing worthy of note is the link-man's accent - sorry, excent - as he talks about what heppened during the Air Seex Murder. Oh, and I almost forgot - he said that Henretty went orf to Ireland with his gairl-friend, which of course he didn't. He went on his own.

Graham

[moste]

Thank you James terrific ---I have always wanted to hear what Peter Duffy had to say.Foot was convinced he spoke the truth about the entire matter.

Fascinating interview, Duffy is very convincing, and I know newspaper reporters are in the business of selling newspapers ,but I can't see an editor touching this story if it wasn't pretty close to the truth.
And what about that Trower, Hogen difference of opinion, the glaring question for me would be:" So if Mr. Hogen got his days mixed up as suggested by Mr. Trower. Then Mr. Hogen saw a different light grey, Morris Thousand drive by, and into Avondale Crescent did he? I suppose this was one of the two sets of car sightings, that as a result of Mr. sherrards astuteness, made little or no impression on the unbiased Bedfordshire jury.

[Natalie Severn]

This might be an opportune time to allow the writer of that Daily Sketch article to speak for himself. Peter Duffy was interviewed by John Morgan for the BBC's Panorama Special of November 7th 1966.

The relevant part can be viewed in the following link.[between 15 min 20 sec and 18 min 05 sec approx]......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWjJrllcdkM

Thank you James terrific ---I have always wanted to hear what Peter Duffy had to say.Foot was convinced he spoke the truth about the entire matter.

[Sherlock Houses]

Peter Duffy............

This might be an opportune time to allow the writer of that Daily Sketch article to speak for himself. Peter Duffy was interviewed by John Morgan for the BBC's Panorama Special of November 7th 1966.

The relevant part can be viewed in the following link.[between 15 min 20 sec and 18 min 05 sec approx]......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWjJrllcdkM

[Spitfire]

1st September 1961.

Thank you. And where does that information come from?

[Natalie Severn]

I am not smearing Mrs Dorothy Morrell. I just want to know when she was interviewed by the police with regard to the A6 Murder.

1st September 1961.