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

[Graham]

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

That's a bit rich, after accusing me of telling 'porkies'.

Graham

[Graham]

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

If you bothered to read my post, I never referred to anything you said.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

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.

Hi Spitfire ,
I have seen Ewer's statement which is in Woffinden's book page 380 but I don't have the book with me in Wales where I am atm.I also have an in-depth article in London published in the Sunday Times all about the inconsistencies in William Ewer's statement regarding his early September sighting in the trail leading to Hanratty.
One of the leading arguments against Ewer is his lack of precision about exactly what he found 'inaccurate' in the Daily Sketch and Daily Mail articles-especially about the date he did the following of Hanratty early in September and the exact involvement of police.
Paul Foot's interview with Mrs Dorothy Morrell in August 1970 confirms that police were put on the trail of James Hanratty on 1st September 1961 .Dorothy Morrell was the manageress of Cater's Florist in Finchley Road and she corroborated the visit of Hanratty to her flower shop and the visit of the police soon afterwards and she corroborated the reference to this made in both Daily Mail and Daily Sketch articles dating the sighting as September 1st. This was long before Hanratty became a police suspect in early October 1961.There is an additional report by Robert Traini of the Daily Herald of the Murder squad immediately being put on the trail of the newly described suspect of 31/08/61 with the large icy blue eyesand this report is dated September 2nd 1961.

[Natalie Severn]

If you bothered to read my post, I never referred to anything you said.

Graham

Your reply suggested you never bothered to read my post and were misinterpreting my argument Graham.That was what I found offensive.

[Graham]

William Ewer, in a statement he made to the Sunday Times of 16 May 1971, regarding the 'She Saw Him At The Cleaners' tale, said that Janet Gregsten had not been in any way involved. He also said that in September 1961 he was in a cafe and saw a man with 'quite unusually staring eyes'. So he telephoned the local police and that was that. Only later, when it was public knowledge that the police were looking for a man called J Ryan did Ewer go to the Burtol shop tp ask if anyone called Ryan had been a customer, and they confirmed this. OK, Ewer may have turned a strange story into something like a Greek drama, and exaggerated some 'facts' just a little, but as Leonard Miller correctly points out, journalists were involved from the start of this story, and journalists, quote, 'seem chronically incapable of transmitting any information with 100% accuracy'.

Ewer, in 1971, sued the Sunday Times and Jonathan Cape, publishers of Who Killed Hanratty? for libel. Cape settled out of court for £1000, and the Sunday Times also settled out of court for what is believed to have been a much larger sum. Leonard Miller, writing his book Shadows Of Deadman's Hill in 2001, apparently found out that Ewer was still alive at that time. If so, he would have been in his nineties and, although he had definite grounds for further legal action for libel, took none.

It should also be remembered that in 1994, at her invitation, Paul Foot met Janet Gregsten, and confessed himself surprised that she was, quote, 'impressive, quite unlike the jealous demon of my imagination'. (London Review Of Books 1997).

Finally, posters have alluded to the £5000 they allege Ewer paid Alphon to commit the crime. As I posted a long time ago, in 1964 the Krays forked out only £1000 to a 'professional' hitman (Jack 'The Hat' McVitie) to get rid of a gangland rival (the hitman failed, and the Krays did him in). Later, in 1974, it was alleged that Lord Lucan had hired a professional hitman to kill Lady Lucan. One of His Lordship's close associates said that Lucan could never have done this, as he could never at that time lay his hands on the £2000 cash that such a hitman would require. So if Ewer forked out five grand for an amateur nutter like Alphon to bump off an ordinary man like Gregsten, Ewer was either naive, crazy, or both. Ewer as a monied Mr X? Never.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

William Ewer, in a statement he made to the Sunday Times of 16 May 1971, regarding the 'She Saw Him At The Cleaners' tale, said that Janet Gregsten had not been in any way involved. He also said that in September 1961 he was in a cafe and saw a man with 'quite unusually staring eyes'. So he telephoned the local police and that was that.

Graham

But that was not all Graham. Dorothy Morrell testified to Paul Foot in a recorded interview August 1970 she gave to him that she remembered the police visit and them coming into her shop and speaking to them in early September 1961 very well.She said that the young man who came into her shop and ordered flowers for his mother gave his name as J.Ryan and sent the card attached to the flowers he paid for "To Mum " on September 1st 1961 and addressed it to "Mrs Hanratty of Sycamore Grove Kingsbury," and yet the young chap had written his name down as J.Ryan which she remember having queried with him.

I have spoken with Paul Foot's son about all this when I was writing my book,which includes an extract by Tom Foot himself and Tom told me his father Paul had kept a vast number of his notes of that time-still with the family .Tom stated that his father was convinced of Hanratty's innocence and that the DNA must have been faulty and like Det Supt Roger Matthews and others who had had access to the files ,remained convinced that Hanratty had been wrongly accused .A few weeks later I spoke with Mat Foot also Paul Foot's son now a leading Human Rights Lawyer in the City of London .Paul Foot was known throughout journalism as a journalist of great integrity who was interested in reaching the truth about this extraordinary case and whose research into all the statements and articles by journalists was thorough and second to none.

[cobalt]

NickB,

You are suggesting that the phone call by Ewer (which he is on record as admitting he made) and the police making enquiries at the florist shop are unconnected.

First of all, how often did Hanratty pop in to the florist’s? I assume his mother only had one birthday a year, so the phone call by Ewer and the police making enquiries at the florist’s shop must have been contemporaneous.

Secondly, would police seeking a man in connection with robbery really feel they could get some sort of lead by tracing back flowers to the shop from where he had sent them? That is if they ever saw the flowers, or the card with which they arrived.

Thirdly, why send plain clothes police to make such a tenuous enquiry, some of whom Natalie has stated were connected to the A6 murder enquiry?

[cobalt]

Spitfire,

I think you are clutching at straws in your reading of Ewer's actions. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that the man who aroused Ewer's suspicions and James Hanratty might not have been the same man.

Surely if Ewer was prepared to go to the lengths of phoning the police with his suspicions then the man he saw must have made a powerful impression upon him. It defies belief that he could not confirm whether this was Hanratty or not after attending the trail. It would render his initial phone call meaningless.

That is before we ask the statisticians to calculate the odds of the murdered man's brother-in-law happening, purely by chance, to identify by mistake an innocent member of the public with staring blue eyes going about his lawful business- but one who happened to be visiting the very shops where the actual murderer with staring blue eyes was conducting his own business at the same time.

[Spitfire]

Spitfire,

I think you are clutching at straws in your reading of Ewer's actions. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that the man who aroused Ewer's suspicions and James Hanratty might not have been the same man.

Surely if Ewer was prepared to go to the lengths of phoning the police with his suspicions then the man he saw must have made a powerful impression upon him. It defies belief that he could not confirm whether this was Hanratty or not after attending the trail. It would render his initial phone call meaningless.

That is before we ask the statisticians to calculate the odds of the murdered man's brother-in-law happening, purely by chance, to identify by mistake an innocent member of the public with staring blue eyes going about his lawful business- but one who happened to be visiting the very shops where the actual murderer with staring blue eyes was conducting his own business at the same time.

I am not suggesting anything.

I have merely stated that which Ewer stated in his Sunday Times statement on 16th May 1971. It is Natalie Severn who is relying on that statement. Have a read again of the recent posts on this thread.

[Graham]

This is what Ewer said in the Daily Sketch article of 19 February 1962 with regard to seeing for the second time the man with the staring blue eyes:

In a cafe he says he saw the same man he claimed to have seen when in his shop with Janet Gregsten. And he mentions specifically the blue eyes. The man walked out of the cafe and Ewer followed him across Finchley Road to a shop in Northways Parade. He thought it was a photographer's, but when he asked there he was told no-one had been in. He used the photographer's phone to call Scotland Yard and a police car arrived. The police made inquiries in all the shops in the Parade and got to Cater's, the florists. Mrs Morrell, the florist, said that the man had placed an order, but had left before Ewer or the police got there. She said that he came in on 1 September and ordered some roses to be sent to his mother, whose name he gave as Mrs Hanratty of kingsbury. He also bought a card and wrote on it, according to Mrs Morrell, "Don't worry - everything's all right" [I thought Hanratty was virtually illiterate - Graham.

Mrs Morrell says she thought there was something strange about the man, and she said to him, "What have you been up to?" He then walked out. She said that when the police arrived she checked her records and found that the same man had sent a bunch of gladioli to his mother during August, before the A6 murder.

The Daily Sketch added that a report was sent to Scotland Yard about the above encounter, but the Murder squad had never heard of J Ryan, or the address in Kingsbury he had given.

In this same article, Ewer says he went to see a 'business associate', Louise Anderson, with whom he chatted about the A6 murder.

(Later, in the Sunday Times of 16 May 1971, he denied ever knowing Louise Anderson, but admitted that as they were both in the antiques trade he may have had 'glancing acquaintance' with her). He did indeed say that having seen Hanratty at the trial he could not swear that he and the man he saw in Finchley Road were one and the same. He also said he phoned the police from his own shop, not the photographer's. And, of course, he denied that Janet Gregsten had ever made an 'intuitive' sighting of Hanratty.)

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Spitfire,

It defies belief that he could not confirm whether this was Hanratty or not after attending the trial. It would render his initial phone call meaningless.

There is a lot of obfuscation being attempted by William Ewer in his statements and this nonsense about not being able to confirm whether it was Hanratty he had seen is part and parcel of that.
What is crystal clear however ,from the recorded notes by Paul Foot is :
a] Foot thoroughly investigated those Sketch and Mail Journalist's claims and is adamant that their dates not only tie up with statements and receipts from Mrs Morrell of Cater's the florists of September 1st of a visit by a J. Ryan i.e. by James Hanratty but was able to show Foot her receipt book entry in August 1970 that she had kept with the information about the Hanratty purchases of flowers [he had also been in ordering flowers for his mother earlier that August]that she gave to the police in early September 1961 but also
b] that her statements tie up with statements made by the man in the photographers shop about the William Ewer's visit there which he found annoying as Ewer on finding that the man with eyes like carbuncles [Ewer's description of the man he was following ] was not in his shop had insisted on going into the back of the shop to see if the man had gone there and was hiding-.Once again the photographer shop man remembered the event clearly and remembered being questioned by police afterwards .

[Spitfire]

There is a lot of obfuscation being attempted by William Ewer in his statements and this nonsense about not being able to confirm whether it was Hanratty he had seen is part and parcel of that.
What is crystal clear however ,from the recorded notes by Paul Foot is :
a] Foot thoroughly investigated those Sketch and Mail Journalist's claims and is adamant that their dates not only tie up with statements and receipts from Mrs Morrell of Cater's the florists of September 1st of a visit by a J. Ryan i.e. by James Hanratty but was able to show Foot her receipt book entry in August 1970 that she had kept with the information about the Hanratty purchases of flowers [he had also been in ordering flowers for his mother earlier that August]that she gave to the police in early September 1961 but also
b] that her statements tie up with statements made by the man in the photographers shop about the William Ewer's visit there which he found annoying as Ewer on finding that the man with eyes like carbuncles [Ewer's description of the man he was following ] was not in his shop had insisted on going into the back of the shop to see if the man had gone there and was hiding-.Once again the photographer shop man remembered the event clearly and remembered being questioned by police afterwards .

So you are not now relying on Ewer's statement of 16 May 1971 as you previously said you were?

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.

I can only find one reference to Mrs Dorothy Morrell in Foot's book (1988 ed) at page 51. This merely relies on the Daily Sketch 'story' of 19 February 1962.

[Natalie Severn]

Ican only find one reference to Mrs Dorothy Morrell in Foot's book (1988 ed) at page 51. This merely relies on the Daily Sketch 'story' of 19 February 1962.

Foot wrote several articles at the time aside from his book which have very specific information in .These articles are in London not with me at present .But anyway I would draw your attention to Graham's last post above .Surely that is sufficient to reveal the utter absurdity and dishonesty of William Ewer's claims about not knowing who it was he had been following or why he was following him or when exactly he had been following him......especially when it was James Hanratty on the 1st September 1961 who Ewer was clearly of the impression this man with blue eyes like carbuncles was the murderer of his dearly beloved brother-in -law Michael Gregsten whose wife Janet, William Ewer loved beyond measure and was destined to set up house with as her lusty lover just a few months after the murder! No motive for William Ewer in all this ? No Mr Ewer as Mr X.....oh I really do think so!

[NickB]

NickB,

You are suggesting that the phone call by Ewer (which he is on record as admitting he made) and the police making enquiries at the florist shop are unconnected.

First of all, how often did Hanratty pop in to the florist’s? I assume his mother only had one birthday a year, so the phone call by Ewer and the police making enquiries at the florist’s shop must have been contemporaneous.

Secondly, would police seeking a man in connection with robbery really feel they could get some sort of lead by tracing back flowers to the shop from where he had sent them? That is if they ever saw the flowers, or the card with which they arrived.

Thirdly, why send plain clothes police to make such a tenuous enquiry, some of whom Natalie has stated were connected to the A6 murder enquiry?

The florist said that Hanratty had been in recently wanting to send roses to his mother but could not afford them and sent some other flowers to her instead. Then he returned and sent roses.

I think it likely the police would have visited the florist after visiting the Hanratty family on 27-Aug-61, and extremely unlikely they would have visited the florist after Ewer had phoned them with a strange story.

[Graham]

I can't accept for one moment the picture of William Ewer as the wealthy, right-wing, up-market antiques dealer he has at times been portrayed as being.
There is precious little information about him - Google his name and you get directed to another William Ewer who was a British journalist accused of spying for the USSR. Otherwise, you'll be directed to Casebook and other true-crime and news sites that have run articles on the A6 Case.

'Our' Ewer was married to Janet Gregsten's (nee Phillips) half-sister Valerie. Janet's parents split up, and her mother moved in with another man who had a house in Hampstead. She lived there with her elder sister Toni, her younger brother John, and for a short time her half-sister Valerie lived with Ewer in one room. According to Woffinden, Ewer started up a small antiques business in Swiss Cottage, and combined it with the umbrella-repair business he already had. Now, who on earth ever made a fortune out of repairing umbrellas? Janet described the Swiss Cottage shop as "antiques-cum-pictures-cum-umbrellas-cum-all-sorts-of-junk". In other words, a glorified junk shop. Later, he also had a stall in an antiques market somewhere near Oxford Street (and I can add from personal experience of such that no-one ever made real money from such an enterprise). After the murder, Janet and her boys lived with Mr and Mrs Ewer in Golders Green.

It is known that on at least one occasion Ewer acted as proxy for a buyer interested in a particular painting at a fine-arts auction. Whether this was the Wilson Steer that Janet helped him to hang in his shop, I don't know. (I quite like Wilson Steer as an Impressionist - I think fairly recently one of his paintings, that of yachts at Cowes, went for over £300000).

Now regarding Ewer and Janet. Janet never made much of an attempt to hide her 'affair' with Ewer. This started when Janet was living in Hertfordshire at a time when she was, naturally, at a very low ebb. She admitted she was extremely lonely. Her sister Valerie along with Ewer came to stay with her, then Valerie went back to London on her own. Ewer stayed. Janet said that her affair with him was totally spontaneous and later she regretted it. Frankly, I see nothing here of any long-term 'lusting' after his sister-in-law by Ewer, no carefully-laid plans to replace Michael as the man in her life. As Janet said, it was essentially spontaneous on both their sides. They stayed together until 1969 when Janet moved to Cornwall with her boys. What became of Ewer's wife Valerie I don't think is recorded.

I don't see Ewer as a bad man. Possibly somewhat self-important and possibly not 100% honest, but no big deal. Seems to me that if he had been lusting after Janet long-term, he'd have figured out a non-murderous way of getting close to her. But I do NOT see him as a man prepared to murder, and pay a ridiculous sum of money for that murder to be carried out, in order to possess the woman he lusted after. Maybe he didn't particularly like Michael, but so what? I never got on with my sister-in-law's husband.

Conspiracy theories about the A6 began almost immediately after the crime; I'm not totally sure who first put Ewer in the frame as Mr X (or the Central Figure, put it as you will), but if it was Paul Foot, as I suspect it was, then he as first and foremost a journalist would be the kind of man who looked for a reason, rational or not, for everything. Foot, like others, seemed unable to see the A6 Crime as a purely spontaneous act of wickedness and violence, without any motive at all. It is also likely that he saw in Ewer the kind of person that he, as a member of the silly Socialist Workers Party, detested. I don't think Ewer ever made much of a secret of his political leanings. I suppose it's a measure of Ewer's personality that he and Jean Justice appeared to get on quite well, yet I have a sneaking suspicion that Ewer saw right through Justice.

Sorry to go on a bit, but I do sometimes feel that the whole A6 'thing' needs to be brought back to earth from time to time. And if that sounds pompous, sorry for that, too.

Graham