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

[Natalie Severn]

I'm not sure how "of late" is but this is on this forum from April 2015.

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

[Natalie Severn]

It's Dinwoodie not Dinwoody.

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.

My apple computer respells this as Dinwoody .Its what's termed a 'typo' and sometimes one misses them .Get over it.

[moste]

I'm not sure how "of late" is but this is on this forum from April 2015.

Hell! I love that post by Natalie its so, 'Me',
Dinwoodie, Dinwoody, WTF. wind your neck in for Buddha's sake.

[Spitfire]

Regarding the strawman argument, it is a concept dating back to Aristotle, but probably the term has been around for the last 30 years. The context makes the meaning clear I think. By setting up the improbable notion that Ewer (or anyone else) splashed out a ludicrous sum of £5,000 for a 'hit' on Gregsten, it is easy to dismiss the notion, and then by implication any other argument that involves Ewer as being involved in the A6 events. But in truth no one here has, of late anyhow, ever suggested that Ewer paid £5,000 to have Gregsten disposed of, so it is a strawman argument constructed to make the idea of a conspiracy involving Ewer less credible.

I'm not sure how "of late" is but this is on this forum from April 2015.

Hi Caz !
surfing the internet the other day came across these snippets ---there were a lot more in similar vein -it appears Angus Huck knows quite a lot about Criminal Law -think he is a lawyer -anyway he can be found on a page about 'LibDems 'and more recently on a page titled Cash for Honours . Certainly thought it fitted with some of my own theories about the case:

Angus Huck 25th Jul '07 - 3:18pm
"Laurence, I think I ought to answer my questions:-
(1) Because Hanratty actually was in Rhyl on the night Michael Gregsten was murdered.
(2) Because Valerie Storie was attacked by Peter Louis Alphon, who had brown eyes. (Her first and only accurate account was given to David Kerr, an Oxford University student, a few hours after the attack. Kerr’s written record was destroyed by Bedfordshire Police.)
(3) Because William Ewer paid Peter Louis Alphon £5,000 to kill Michael Gregsten and frame Hanratty. (Ewer wanted his hands on Gregsten’s wife, but that was not the reason he gave Alphon.)
(4) Because Ewer either bribed or blackmailed all these people to give evidence against Hanratty.
And I will provide answers to two further questions:-
(1) How is it that Hanratty’s semen was found on Valerie Storie’s knickers?
BECAUSE the Police put it there. Remember, in 1996 the Police were claiming there was no semen on Valerie Storie’s knickers. A few days before he was arrested, Hanratty had sex with Gladys Deacon in the back seat of his car in Kenton. He practiced coitus interruptus and ejaculated over his trousers. He then placed these trousers, unlaundered, in a suitcase, which he handed over to the Police after his arrest.
(2) How is it that Rab Butler declined to commute Hanratty’s death sentence?
BECAUSE he put his duty as a Freemason above his duty as a Minister of the Crown. “Private Eye” said it was because he was a “flabby-faced old coward”, which may also be true."
ps Caz -Charlotte France seemed to enjoy doing everybody's dirty washing and remember she admitted doing Hanratty's last wash which included his hankies. Didn't France nip down Boundary Roadwhere his flat was to that 36A bus that stopped at the bottom of his road with that pesky gun - grabbing one of Hanratty's old hankies to wrap round it so he didn't leave his finger prints on it ---and put it under the back upstairs seat it where Hanratty once told him you could hide junk? Makes sense to me Caz.

[Spitfire]

Astonishing how grotesque the prosecution case was really with hardened criminals and liars like 50 year old Nudds and Langdale and shady characters like Louise Anderson and France giving evidence for the prosecution against Hanratty -Langdale's extremely suspect evidence instrumental in the rejection of Hanratty's appeal and yet decent law abiding people like Mrs Dinwoody , Trevor Dutton and Margaret Walker and Dorothy Morrell and the photographer shop manager are all smeared on here or suggestions made of them having contributed to some sort of fabrification of one kind or another or their evidence torn to pieces while mostly silence is maintained about these known criminals who were the thrust of the prosecution evidence .Thank goodness for Paul Foot setting the record straight.

It's Dinwoodie not Dinwoody. If you want to be taken seriously on this get the basics right.

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.

[Spitfire]

You do realise that nobody is suggesting apart from yourself that the police did anything much at all at the time they were telephoned except go and see Dorothy Morrell and the photographer take a few notes from Ewer and dismiss ,correctly I suspect,the whole thing as being of no help whatsoever at that early stage ? Their report held at Scotland Yard will reflect this too I should think. The link was not made to Ryan or Hanratty at this very early stage -Sept. 1st -except by William Ewer in his odd rush around after his suspect on Finchley High Street who happened to be, I repeat, James Hanratty.

I just want evidence that the police attended Mrs Morrell in the early part of September 1961.

So far you've told me that Mr Ewer's statement in the Sunday Times backs up all your 'salient' points. It doesn't. Moreover Foot's book is curiously silent on this, merely quoting the February 1962 article in the Daily Sketch.

I've no doubt that Hanratty visited the florist and Burtols dry cleaners, and I've no doubt that the respective shopkeepers were interviewed by the police.

What I question is when this was and whether it came about as a result of anything said or done by Ewer.

[Spitfire]

Accepting Ewer’s ad hoc identification of Hanratty is like digging a hole for the Prosecution Case, which is why strenuous efforts are being made to break the link between his telephone call to the police (not contested I think) and the police visit to the Florist’s (incontestable I think.) There is also the small matter of his making himself a nuisance in a photographic shop around the same time.

Perhaps you can help me, I've tried with Natalie Severn and I find myself going round in circles.

Where is the evidence that Mrs Morrell was interviewed by the police in early September 1961?

[Spitfire]

Based on London’s population in 1961 the chances of Ewer stumbling upon the murderer would have to be about 8 million to 1. Given that some here are suggesting Ewer ‘only’ identified someone else who looked rather like Hanratty, then the odds could only accumulate, especially since this ‘look-a-like’ who visited the same shops has never surfaced from that day forth.

If you are going to include women, children and the elderly then you would gave about 8 million to select from. As the suspect was a Londoner male and in the 25 to 30 age range, I think we can narrow the number down to less than 8 million. It certainly isn't a billion.

[cobalt]

Hi Graham,

Your posts seem to accept the notion that Ewer did make an identification and contact the police. It matters little whether the man was Hanratty or not.
Either he identified Hanratty and seemed to have knowledge of his involvement long before the police themselves. Or he identified an innocent member of the public who happened also to have unusual blue eyes, who went to the same shops at Hanratty but has never been seen or heard from since. If the latter, then the case is even more coincidental than before and stretches our credulity even further.

Regarding the strawman argument, it is a concept dating back to Aristotle, but probably the term has been around for the last 30 years. The context makes the meaning clear I think. By setting up the improbable notion that Ewer (or anyone else) splashed out a ludicrous sum of £5,000 for a 'hit' on Gregsten, it is easy to dismiss the notion, and then by implication any other argument that involves Ewer as being involved in the A6 events. But in truth no one here has, of late anyhow, ever suggested that Ewer paid £5,000 to have Gregsten disposed of, so it is a strawman argument constructed to make the idea of a conspiracy involving Ewer less credible.

[Natalie Severn]

The absence of such corroboration in either of the two works seems to suggest that Daily Sketch story was a bit of tale.

You do realise that nobody is suggesting apart from yourself that the police did anything much at all at the time they were telephoned except go and see Dorothy Morrell and the photographer take a few notes from Ewer and dismiss ,correctly I suspect,the whole thing as being of no help whatsoever at that early stage ? Their report held at Scotland Yard will reflect this too I should think. The link was not made to Ryan or Hanratty at this very early stage -Sept. 1st -except by William Ewer in his odd rush around after his suspect on Finchley High Street who happened to be, I repeat, James Hanratty.

[Natalie Severn]

Astonishing how grotesque the prosecution case was really with hardened criminals and liars like 50 year old Nudds and Langdale and shady characters like Louise Anderson and France giving evidence for the prosecution against Hanratty -Langdale's extremely suspect evidence instrumental in the rejection of Hanratty's appeal and yet decent law abiding people like Mrs Dinwoody , Trevor Dutton and Margaret Walker and Dorothy Morrell and the photographer shop manager are all smeared on here or suggestions made of them having contributed to some sort of fabrification of one kind or another or their evidence torn to pieces while mostly silence is maintained about these known criminals who were the thrust of the prosecution evidence .Thank goodness for Paul Foot setting the record straight.

[Graham]

Can you, Cobalt or Nats, show me where in any of my posts, I have stated one way or the other that the blue-eyed man Ewer claimed to have seen was actually Hanratty? What the term 'strawman argument' means, I have no idea. Probably another exxample of 21st century new-speak. All I ask of you guys is that you read what other people post on this Forum. Not too difficult, is it?

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Although both Foot and Woffinden quote the Daily Sketch story extensively neither provide any corroborating evidence, such as a report at Scotland Yard showing that Mrs Morrell was interviewed by the murder squad with reference to the A6 Murder on 1st September 1961. The absence of such corroboration in either of the two works seems to suggest that Daily Sketch story was a bit of tale.

I believe Paul Foot had a record of the Cater's receipt book in which the purchases by Hanratty of gladioli [August] and roses[1st September ] are documented i.e. dated together with the name given by the sender as well as the dates and costs of these purchases.Such a record of his visit will undoubtedly be in the vast collection of data anyway in the possession of the Foot family as it constituted the main source material for his book and articles on the case .There is absolutely no need to be smearing the man in the photographers shop and Dorothy Morrell by suggesting its all a bit of a tale they were inventing about the police being telephoned and arriving to question them etc when Ewer himself confirms that he did ring the police on that specific occasion about the man he was chasing after in their shops on the Finchley Road on September 1st 1961 who happened to be James Hanratty.

[cobalt]

Based on London’s population in 1961 the chances of Ewer stumbling upon the murderer would have to be about 8 million to 1. Given that some here are suggesting Ewer ‘only’ identified someone else who looked rather like Hanratty, then the odds could only accumulate, especially since this ‘look-a-like’ who visited the same shops has never surfaced from that day forth.

Accepting Ewer’s ad hoc identification of Hanratty is like digging a hole for the Prosecution Case, which is why strenuous efforts are being made to break the link between his telephone call to the police (not contested I think) and the police visit to the Florist’s (incontestable I think.) There is also the small matter of his making himself a nuisance in a photographic shop around the same time.

[Spitfire]

So Graham how do you account for the billion to one chance of William Ewer picking out the right man-a man who happened to be drinking in his coffee shop on September 1st 1961, as being the A6 murderer -identified 'because of his big blue staring eyes-like a carbuncle on his head' the man being James Hanratty , who would hang for the A6 murder?

It is certainly would be nowhere near a billion to one chance of randomly making a correct identification. Probably a half of a million to one chance would be more accurate.

Although both Foot and Woffinden quote the Daily Sketch story extensively neither provide any corroborating evidence, such as a report at Scotland Yard showing that Mrs Morrell was interviewed by the murder squad with reference to the A6 Murder on 1st September 1961. The absence of such corroboration in either of the two works seems to suggest that Daily Sketch story was a bit of tale.