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

[Graham]

.A report was sent to Scotland Yard but the murder squad had never heard of Jimmy Ryan ,the name the man gave to Mrs Morrell.

And the name Ryan didn't figure in police inquiries until September 11 when the cartridge cases were found at The Vienna and Acott and Co descended upon the place like avenging angels (that is, once the case had been shown forensically to have been fired by the murder weapon - which didn't take long).

Nats, you may have forgotten that after the trial, both Ewer and Janet Gregsten dismissed the story as 'an invention of the gutter press', and they weren't far wrong. Ewer described the story as 'a farrago of nonsense', and Janet agreed, saying that 'it is absolute total nonsense - it's come out of Duffy's (Daily Sketch journalist) imagination'. She added that Bill Ewer 'wouldn't say that because there isn't any basis on which to say it'.

To this day, it's still not 100% certain how the police made the vital connection that Ryan was Hanratty, but you can bet your pension it was nothing to do with 'She Saw Him At The Cleaners'. Or whatever.

Of course Ewer had no idea that James Hanratty had been in Louise Anderson's shop on the morning of Hanratty's visit to her. Why should he? The name 'Hanratty' was unknown to him.

Graham

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

William Ewer's statement of 16.05.61 The Sunday Times article

And the name Ryan didn't figure in police inquiries until September 11 when the cartridge cases were found at The Vienna and Acott and Co descended upon the place like avenging angels (that is, once the case had been shown forensically to have been fired by the murder weapon - which didn't take long).

Nats, you may have forgotten that after the trial, both Ewer and Janet Gregsten dismissed the story as 'an invention of the gutter press', and they weren't far wrong. Ewer described the story as 'a farrago of nonsense', and Janet agreed, saying that 'it is absolute total nonsense - it's come out of Duffy's (Daily Sketch journalist) imagination'. She added that Bill Ewer 'wouldn't say that because there isn't any basis on which to say it'.

To this day, it's still not 100% certain how the police made the vital connection that Ryan was Hanratty, but you can bet your pension it was nothing to do with 'She Saw Him At The Cleaners'. Or whatever.

Of course Ewer had no idea that James Hanratty had been in Louise Anderson's shop on the morning of Hanratty's visit to her. Why should he? The name 'Hanratty' was unknown to him.

Graham

Graham

Why are you telling tell such great porkies Graham? Whats the idea? I never said anything about any story of Janet Gregsten's.
Why not read Dorothy Morrell's statement -page 51 of Foot's book about the incident to which I am referring explaining how William Ewer had brought the police to her shop on Sept 1st 1961 where she showed them the names Hanratty and Ryan on a card sent by Hanratty to his mum from her flower shop on 1st September 1961? The report on this incident is in Scotland Yard.It dates to 6 days after the murder and the day after the description of the gunman's eyes changed colour and shape!!!!And what is more William Ewer led the police to Mrs Dorothy Morrell in a crystal clear attempt to frame or finger Hanratty who he said he had followed round the shops because he looked like the renewed description on the A6 gunman.
Sorry Graham but it is you who seem to be living in denial----come on- you must know by now that William Ewer fully admitted in a statement to the Sunday Times of May16th 1971 that it was he,William Ewer and not Janet Gregsten who had chased Hanratty round[/B] Finchley Road on 1st September 1961 from the coffee shop to the photographers shop and then to the flower shop which is where Mrs Morrell was required to give a statement to the police about the flowers she had sent to Mrs Hanratty on J.Ryan's instructions on Sept 1st 1961.Ewer says in his own statement that he rang Scotland Yard about this man with eyes like carbunkles who he had first seen in the coffee shop early in September 1961 .Nothing at all to do with those reporter's feature stories you mention of the Mail and Sketch both written after the trial ended in 1962 . The Police report of the event I have described is on record in Scotland Yard. .And I never said anything about when the name Ryan figured in police enquiries-they didn't have any idea who Ryan was on September 1st-it was just a name.As for Ewer's visit to Louise Anderson's shop you did not read what I said properly .

[NickB]

The whole story Ewer told could have been built around only 2 facts:

1. On 31-Aug-61 Janet visits Ewer’s shop and together they study the identikit pictures in the paper.

2. On 1-Sep-61 Ewer thinks he sees someone resembling the man depicted enter a photographers shop and goes in, but he is not there.

Then after Hanratty’s arrest Ewer would have come across information, from police interviews and during the trial, that could be imaginatively connected to these facts in such a way as to make a scintillating story.

In particular:

1. He hears that the day before the abduction Hanratty had taken a suit into the dry cleaners opposite his shop. What if after he and Janet had studied the identikit pictures they had looked out of the window and seen Hanratty go into the cleaners?

2. He hears that the police had visited the florists near the photographers shop asking about Hanratty. (The police had visited Hanratty’s parents to notify them he was wanted for house breakings and would have seen the flowers sent to his mother.) What if after going into the photographers shop he had phoned the police and this had caused them to visit the florists?

I suspect he did a deal with Associated Newspapers (publishers of the Sketch and Mail) that ensured he was suitably recompensed for his story.

[Graham]

Porkies? Be careful, Nats - you once got me banned for less than that.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Porkies? Be careful, Nats - you once got me banned for less than that.

Graham

What I was saying Graham was that I never said what you were saying I had said !

[Natalie Severn]

The whole story Ewer told could have been built around only 2 facts:

1. On 31-Aug-61 Janet visits Ewer’s shop and together they study the identikit pictures in the paper.

2. On 1-Sep-61 Ewer thinks he sees someone resembling the man depicted enter a photographers shop and goes in, but he is not there.

Can we keep to reality here Nick or are you too ,like Graham appears to be, unaware of the facts surrounding all this which are on record in Scotland Yard ?
This police report still exists in Scotland Yard, as far as I am aware ,which documents William Ewer's call to them on the afternoon of September 1st 1961 about a man with large blue eyes who Ewer thought might be the A6 killer who answered the new description issued the day before changing his eyes from 'brown ,deep set staring' to 'large light blue staring' who William Ewer believed he had just seen entering Cater's the Florists in Finchley Road on September 1st 1961.The man did indeed turn out to be James Hanratty who William Ewer had been following on that day from shop to shop viz from the coffee shop where he first spotted Hanratty >Photographers shop> Dorothy Morrell's Florist Shop where police took a statement from Mrs Morrell [this statement still in Scotland Yard -who was the manageress there .She told police about a bunch of flowers that had been sent by a J.Ryan[James Hanratty ] to Mrs Hanratty of Sycamore Grove that day.
No need for further far fetched stuff about reporter's who may have made up stories about Janet Gpregsten's Intuition .....lets just stick to what we definitely know about this .and which is on record and dated September 1st 1961.

[NickB]

I know that William Ewer claimed, in the Sketch article, to have called the police on 1-Sep-61, but where is any corroboration of his claim?

Similarly when you look at the shops he claims to have gone into in hot pursuit, apart from Edmund King at the photographers, where is any corroboration of his claim?

[Spitfire]

Can we keep to reality here Nick or are you too ,like Graham appears to be, unaware of the facts surrounding all this which are on record in Scotland Yard ?
This police report still exists in Scotland Yard, as far as I am aware ,which documents William Ewer's call to them on the afternoon of September 1st 1961 about a man with large blue eyes who Ewer thought might be the A6 killer who answered the new description issued the day before changing his eyes from 'brown ,deep set staring' to 'large light blue staring' who William Ewer believed he had just seen entering Cater's the Florists in Finchley Road on September 1st 1961.The man did indeed turn out to be James Hanratty who William Ewer had been following on that day from shop to shop viz from the coffee shop where he first spotted Hanratty >Photographers shop> Dorothy Morrell's Florist Shop where police took a statement from Mrs Morrell [this statement still in Scotland Yard -who was the manageress there .She told police about a bunch of flowers that had been sent by a J.Ryan[James Hanratty ] to Mrs Hanratty of Sycamore Grove that day.

Some questions spring to my mind following that outpouring.

Have you seen the report which you say still exists in Scotland Yard?

Are you saying that by reason of the information imparted by Ewer to the police, the murder squad were made aware on 1st September 1961 that Ewer suspected Ryan to be the murderer?

Are you saying that the police interviewed Mrs Morrell on the 1st September 1961? And from this interview learned that Ryan on 1st September 1961 had sent flowers to Mrs Hanratty of Sycamore Grove?

Have you seen Mrs Morrell's statement given as a result of this interview?

If what you have written is correct, then the murder squad could have known that the suspect Ryan was Hanratty and when the spent cartridge cases were discovered in Room 24 of the Vienna on 11th September, they should have been able to easily reconcile the Ryan in the Vienna's register as James Hanratty. That they did not consider Ryan to be a suspect tends to indicate that either the ramblings of Ewer did not happen, or if they did happen, they were not taken seriously enough to be conveyed to Acott or Oxford.

I agree with Nick B and Graham that most of this is journalistic invention with some minimal basis in fact.

[Natalie Severn]

Some questions spring to my mind following that outpouring.

.

Hi Spitfire ,
Please refer to the Sunday Times article of 16th May 1971 which contains a full statement by William Ewer himself and which confirms every salient point made in my post.viz:
Ewer on 1st September 1961 followed a young man who turned out to be James Hanratty.He wore a blue suit was sipping coffee in the same cafe and had large staring eyes 'like carbuncles'-exactly like,Ewer thought, the new description issued by Scotland Yard of the suspect on 31st August 1961.He followed him to several shops on the Finchley Road ,including the photographer's who was himself an ex policeman . Ewer called police who came.took statements and went away. It corroborates the florist Mrs Morrell who was interviewed by the police she told Paul Foot and confirmed the incident and showed Foot the written evidence of the flower order for Mrs Hanratty[card was addressed to his mum which Mrs Morrell thought odd because the man gave the name of Ryan]-The police had apparently never heard of any Ryan -and nothing further happened though Foot says a report was made by police after their visit and sent to to Scotland Yard. [the report was made by the same police who came and questioned Ewer, Mrs Morrell and the photographer shop manager.
Can I ask you btw Spitfire ,not to make insulting remarks like 'outpouring ' to describe my posts ? Lets try to keep the posts amicable can we .AtB Nats

[moste]

And the name Ryan didn't figure in police inquiries until September 11 when the cartridge cases were found at The Vienna and Acott and Co descended upon the place like avenging angels (that is, once the case had been shown forensically to have been fired by the murder weapon - which didn't take long).

Nats, you may have forgotten that after the trial, both Ewer and Janet Gregsten dismissed the story as 'an invention of the gutter press', and they weren't far wrong. Ewer described the story as 'a farrago of nonsense', and Janet agreed, saying that 'it is absolute total nonsense - it's come out of Duffy's (Daily Sketch journalist) imagination'. She added that Bill Ewer 'wouldn't say that because there isn't any basis on which to say it'.

To this day, it's still not 100% certain how the police made the vital connection that Ryan was Hanratty, but you can bet your pension it was nothing to do with 'She Saw Him At The Cleaners'. Or whatever.

Of course Ewer had no idea that James Hanratty had been in Louise Anderson's shop on the morning of Hanratty's visit to her. Why should he? The name 'Hanratty' was unknown to him.

Graham

Graham

Hi Graham. You did say recently that you were in the process of re-reading Paul Foot's book.
Maybe if its the copy I have, you have not reached page 53, and the build up to his interview with Mrs. Morrell.
Duffy, actually was given the story of the incredible sighting at Swiss Cottage by a good friend and associate. No fewer than four newspaper company's were in on the original story, The whole point is, and you have to read a couple of preceding pages where Foot (as a journalist)gives the run down on the reports, reports only heaven knows what the purpose of them being dreamt up would be, knowing that (a) Ewer would immediately deny everything and (b) possibly might even sue. I say the whole point is, Foot adds all the weight required to the newspaper articles, with his simple interview with Dorothy Morrell. Who confirms Hanratty's visit, and the visit soon after by 'two plain clothed detectives'. Now if you cannot draw a conclusion from this regarding Ewers involvement, then that's too bad.

[cobalt]

The two facts that seem to be unchallenged are:

Ewer did indeed go into the photographic shop and ask about a customer.
The police did indeed question the manageress of the florist’s regarding a recent customer.

It is perfectly reasonable to assume that these events happened around the same time, and that Ewer was involved in both. (Why else would the police be making enquiries at a flower shop?)

So rather astonishingly, by sheer chance, the brother-in-law of the victim’s wife was a step ahead of the police investigating a high profile murder case. Ewer had fingered Hanratty before they did.

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.

[moste]

'Taken from Grahams post' "Of course Ewer had no idea that James Hanratty had been in Louise Anderson's shop on the morning of Hanratty's visit to her. Why should he? The name 'Hanratty' was unknown to him"
I have problems accepting this statement. Hanratty actually lived at Louise Andersons place, over a period of time. It is easy to see that she would be in the fencing business with Jim. How do we know that she didn't take the smaller stuff from him, like gold watches, cuff links, decent jewellery etc. Big Bill, may have been handling the larger stuff like for example Phillip Wilson Steer Interiors. Obviously we don't know this as fact, but we don't know either that Bill didn't know Jim. He knew France well enough to give him a shoulder to cry on. Jims mentor and confidant. Yes very likely Big Bill framed Jim. End of.

[moste]

So what we have is, Sept.1st, Janet and\or Bills vision. Same day, Valerie's transfer to Guys from Bedford, and on same day, a new description of killer by Valerie to detectives at her bedside, suddenly remembering his icy-blue saucer like eyes,

[Spitfire]

Hi Spitfire ,
Please refer to the Sunday Times article of 16th May 1971 which contains a full statement by William Ewer himself and which confirms every salient point made in my post.viz:
Ewer on 1st September 1961 followed a young man who turned out to be James Hanratty.He wore a blue suit was sipping coffee in the same cafe and had large staring eyes 'like carbuncles'-exactly like,Ewer thought, the new description issued by Scotland Yard of the suspect on 31st August 1961.He followed him to several shops on the Finchley Road ,including the photographer's who was himself an ex policeman . Ewer called police who came.took statements and went away. It corroborates the florist Mrs Morrell who was interviewed by the police she told Paul Foot and confirmed the incident and showed Foot the written evidence of the flower order for Mrs Hanratty[card was addressed to his mum which Mrs Morrell thought odd because the man gave the name of Ryan]-The police had apparently never heard of any Ryan -and nothing further happened though Foot says a report was made by police after their visit and sent to to Scotland Yard. [the report was made by the same police who came and questioned Ewer, Mrs Morrell and the photographer shop manager.
Can I ask you btw Spitfire ,not to make insulting remarks like 'outpouring ' to describe my posts ? Lets try to keep the posts amicable can we .AtB Nats

So from the above I gather that you have not seen any report at Scotland Yard regarding Ewer nor have you seen any statement by Mrs Morrell.

I have looked at Ewer's statement which is in Woffinden's book (1999 ed) at page 380 and which (subject to one or two minor abbreviations in BW) was published in the Sunday Times on 16 May 1971 in reply to an outpouring by Paul Foot on 9 May 1971.

Ewer describes sighting a suspect in early September (not specifically 1st September).

Ewer describes the man going into what initially he thought was the photographers and what could have been the florists.

Para 4 Ewer says he reported over the phone his sighting to the local police, which was the last he heard about it. He saw Hanratty at the trial and could not say whether Hanratty was the man he saw.

Ewer went to Burtols the dry cleaners to ask whether a Ryan had ever gone there. This was after it was public knowledge that the police were looking for a suspect called Ryan.

I can find nothing in Ewer's 1971 statement to confirm anything you have written so effusively about reports at Scotland Yard or statements by Mrs Morrell.

[NickB]

The two facts that seem to be unchallenged are:

Ewer did indeed go into the photographic shop and ask about a customer.
The police did indeed question the manageress of the florist’s regarding a recent customer.

It is perfectly reasonable to assume that these events happened around the same time, and that Ewer was involved in both. (Why else would the police be making enquiries at a flower shop?)

As I said, the police visited Hanratty’s parents to notify them that he was wanted for house breakings and would have seen the flowers he had sent. The card would have had the name of the florist and it would be natural for them to call in to see if there was any clue about where he was.