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

[Graham]

Hi Moste and Graham - it has often been referred to on this forum that Hanratty made such a statement at his trial but I have been unable to find anything to substantiate that. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal in 2002 attributed considerable significance to Hanratty's DNA being found on the hanky. That would very much be at odds with Hanratty having acknowledged that the hanky was his - if he had done so, his DNA would reasonably have been expected to be found on the hanky and would not therefore have been significant.

Genuinely happy if details can be supplied to show I am wrong. Such details would certainly call into question the Court of Appeal's reasoning.

Best regards,

OneRound

Hi OR,

now you mention it I'm not 100% certain that I have read in any book that JH acknowledged the hankie was his. I know it's been stated as being so on these boards in the past, but with what provenance (if any) I can't tell. However, it would have been easy for France to obtain one of JH's hankies as Charlotte France did laundry and ironing for him. The significance of JH being identified via the hankie alone wouldn't have applied, as there obviously was no DNA testing in those days. So if JH did agree that the hankie was his, then it could only have come from his pocket or via someone who had access to his clothes, i.e., Dixie France.

I haven't re-read Paul Foot for ages, will do so when time allows.

Graham

[Spitfire]

Why would Dixie want the gun to be discovered and traced back to Hanratty, if he, Dixie, had supplied the gun to Hanratty? It just does not make sense. In those circumstances it would be in Dixie's interest that the gun was not discovered, and if discovered, could not be traced back to Hanratty.

[uncle_adolph]

Why would Dixie want the gun to be discovered and traced back to Hanratty, if he, Dixie, had supplied the gun to Hanratty? It just does not make sense. In those circumstances it would be in Dixie's interest that the gun was not discovered, and if discovered, could not be traced back to Hanratty.

But is there any proof that Dixie supplied this particular gun to Hanratty? If there is no definite link then the circumstances of the gun's discovery make perfect sense as there would be no evidence whatsoever to connect Dixie with it.

[Graham]

Why would Dixie want the gun to be discovered and traced back to Hanratty, if he, Dixie, had supplied the gun to Hanratty? It just does not make sense. In those circumstances it would be in Dixie's interest that the gun was not discovered, and if discovered, could not be traced back to Hanratty.

I hear what you say, Spitfire, but it makes even less sense that JH didn't just toss the gun out of the car (figuratively speaking) on his way back from Deadman's Hill and have done with it. Why on earth would he leave the gun in a place, i.e., the back seat of a bus, that he later admitted he had told Dixie about? Was JH really that dim? I can only think that (a) he really was; or (b) he gave the gun to Dixie to get rid of and Dixie decided to cover his own back.

The whole thing's weird.

Graham

[Graham]

But is there any proof that Dixie supplied this particular gun to Hanratty? If there is no definite link then the circumstances of the gun's discovery make perfect sense as there would be no evidence whatsoever to connect Dixie with it.

No, of course there's no definite proof that Dixie supplied the gun; as there isn't any definite proof who actually did, if not him. JH said that he'd asked his pal Donald Slack about a gun, but Slack utterly denied supplying one to him (as he would). In court, JH said words to the effect that if he had wanted a gun, he could have easily got one 'anywhere in Soho' where 'teenagers can get them'. (So why did he ask Slack if all he had to do was nip down to Soho?). I only suggested France as the source of the gun as he, France, was a criminal associate of JH's and was known to keep a veritable arsenal of weapons under the counter at the Harmony Cafe in Archer Street. Yes, I know - speculation, but JH obviously got the gun from someone, somewhere.

The evidence to connect France to the finding of the gun is that he told the police that JH had told him about getting rid of stuff under the back seat of a bus, and JH agreed that he had indeed told France. Circumstantial evidence very likely, but just the sort of thing to stick in the minds of the jury.

Graham

[cobalt]

Alfie,

The circumstances surrounding Ewer and the Swiss Cottage shops was fully discussed around post 880.

Those who believe Hanratty was guilty claim that Ewer was 'gilding the lily' in a similar fashion to Alphon. The problem with this is that whilst Alphon was an acknowledged fantasist, it is stretching credulity to believe that Ewer was of the same kidney. He was a low key businessman who kept his own counsel for the most part. His behavior at the trial attracted much attention.

We know that the police were making enquiries around the shops at Swiss Cottage in early September. What we do not know for sure, is whether these enquiries were connected to the A6 murder, although it seems they probably were.

If, and it is a big if, these enquiries were sparked by one William Ewer then we are looking at nothing less than conspiracy. Ewer was STEERING the police towards Hanratty when he was not even on the police radar.

I assume, and have nothing more than this to support my suspicion, that the Matthews report had access to the reasons for this apparent routine enquiry at Swiss Cottage, and realized what was going on. Hanratty was being set up as a red herring. I do not think anyone involved believed Hanratty would actually hang. He was being used to deflect attention from the actual participants.

Ewer was now in an invidious position, since he had fed a line to the police that they had failed to bite upon. When they eventually did, after the finding of the cartridges at the hotel, it seemed that Ewer had prior knowledge, therefore he had to play out his prior knowledge in a mystical story to a credulous press. If pressed by intense police questioning then a different tale might have emerged, but as I have said I think Ewer was Masonic and MI5 so this did not happen. He was a protected man.

He was sweating for sure, and was involved in some capacity. As a byword, I assume Ewer was MI5, which will cheer moste no end, and France was an occasional police informer. He could not have survived otherwise. Alphon was also a police informer, probably of the most useless type, but it satisfied his longing to be accepted in society and no doubt he quoted his father's rank when questioned. Hanratty, to his limited credit, was just a crook. So he hanged.

[Spitfire]

He was sweating for sure, and was involved in some capacity.

Maybe he had forgotten to take off his plastic boiler suit with rubber buttons and/or velcro fastenings.

[moste]

Hi Cobalt."As a buy word,you assume Ewer to be MI5, which will cheer moste no end" ? Well, you flatter yourself somewhat,believing me to be cheered by your assumption ,however had you said,'proved' to be MI5, then cheer would be an understatement,good post anyhow.

[cobalt]

Hello Moste,

Sorry I cannot oblige with more in the way of evidence; there was rather too much conjecture in my last post than is healthy for sparking honest debate, although that is not a weakness confined to our side of the argument.

I know you have long suspected a political involvement in the case, but there is no real tradition of political murder in the modern UK. Even Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, who took up arms against the State, have survived long enough to become accepted into mainstream politics. The British Establishment regularly heaps ridicule and bile upon those it deems as threats- Arthur Scargill and Jeremy Corbyn for example- but these are merely character assassinations. I say ‘merely,’ but in fact Individuals without the backing of a movement- Dr Stephen Ward and David Kelly spring to mind- can actually be hounded to death by this tactic.

Alongside which, Michael Gregsten was presumably very small beer indeed. If Gregsten had chanced upon some mega corruption involving Transport Minister Ernie Marples and his motorway policy of the early 1960s, then assassination would hardly have been needed as an option. Gregesten could have been bribed, promoted (he was a bit short of cash after all) or if all else failed, his character could have been assassinated as a manic depressive ‘love rat.’ The same would apply if Mr. Gregsten, when out on one of his car rallies, had snapped a photo of John Profumo at Cliveden chatting to a Soviet military attaché while Christine Keeler pranced naked around the swimming pool.

Where I feel political influence might have been brought to bear, is in protecting William Ewer. We know a lot about James Hanratty, and a fair amount about Dixie France and Peter Alphon. Paul Foot was a respected investigative journalist so he must surely have done some digging into Ewer’s past associations, yet very little seems to have emerged. Do we know if Ewer saw active service during the war? Was he assigned to Military Intelligence at some time? Was he stationed overseas? Apologies if this has been covered, but I am unaware of much information regarding Mr. Ewer.

[moste]

If people are to believe that Hanratty was indeed guilty as charged,under all of the circumstances we are asked to believe.
Why then is there a direct connection between Hanratty and Michael Gregsten ?
Since Hanratty and Louise Anderson were partners in crime,and Louise and Ewer were business associates, and of course Ewer a brother in law of Gregsten. What an incredible coincidence,or is it? Ewer, possibly with the help of Dixie France,(you remember the guy who shot over to Ewers place to offer condolences and work himself up into a sad state,a guy who apparently had never before met Ewer before or since). Throw in for good measure Alphon,who became a very wealthy man throughout all this,and It's looking like a frame up .There is no proof that I know of that Hanratty knew Alphon, but they had stayed at the same hotel, Alphon was an avid greyhound gambler, and before he hanged, didn't Hanratty concede that it would have been so much different if he had stayed away from greyhound racing,? Or words to that effect.

[cobalt]

You are casting your net very wide moste, but maybe you will catch something worthwhile.

The coincidences are well documented, and I shall refer back to the JFK assassination. Two days before the murder, Lee Harvey Oswald and officer JD Tippit actually shared the same café during the morning, although they did not sit together and there was no suggestion they knew each other. For Oswald this was unexceptional, since he lived very close by. For Tippit it was hard to explain, since his beat was around 3 miles outwith the area. Coincidentally, Oswald was alleged to have killed Tppit two days later.

To murky the waters further, Jack Ruby, the assassin of LHO, was an occasional patron of same café, although he was not there on that occasion. This was a city of at least 1 million people at the time so it seems a great coincidence to me.

Ewer knew Anderson; he denied this initially but later admitted it. Anderson knew Hanratty well. The big question is whether Haratty knew Alphon, in which case we are looking at something that stretches credulity. I suspect they were familiar with each other, nothing more. Or maybe an interested party put them in touch with each other?

The Matthews report suggested there were three players in the A6 murder, and although it was superseded by the DNA tests, this does not make his judgment irrelevant. (He happened, inconveniently, to think Hanratty was innocent.) It is not hard to work out how he arrived at this decision. First of all Hanratty, (if he was the murderer) required a weapon, so that must have been supplied. Secondly he had to have been driven close to the spot of the kidnap. Thirdly, he needed help to dispose of the car and give it a (more than) perfunctory cleaning. That is not a one man job. Especially if he was cavorting around Derbyshire half the night

Since 1961, the British public have sensed that something is missing in this case. And it has not gone away, despite the DNA results.

[NickB]

The Metropolitan Police interviewed William Ewer about the case in 1973 and a file was lodged in the National Archives.

Another poster (Julieq) requested access to the file and was refused.

When I posted previously about the file it had a release date of 2040. This seemed an extraordinarily long time in the future. But last year there was a FOI date review and the embargo was extended even further. Now it will not be available until 2063!

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11542759

[cobalt]

NickB,

Thanks vey much for that information. A 90 year embargo does sound remarkably long, and I doubt if many of us on this site will still be around when the contents are revealed.

We can all speculate about the reasons, but for me it suggests some sensitivity concerning security/intelligence matters.

I would imagine that the Matthews report had access to the file.

[Graham]

The Metropolitan Police interviewed William Ewer about the case in 1973 and a file was lodged in the National Archives.

Another poster (Julieq) requested access to the file and was refused.

When I posted previously about the file it had a release date of 2040. This seemed an extraordinarily long time in the future. But last year there was a FOI date review and the embargo was extended even further. Now it will not be available until 2063!

http://discovery.nationalarchives.go...ls/r/C11542759

I wonder if the MePo interviewed Ewer in connection with his libel suit against the Sunday Times. I do recall JulieQ and her request to access the file. It does seem difficult to understand why such a long release-date applies (I'll be gone by then...) unless national security or serious claims/evidence against a living person might be concerned.

With regard to the former, I can kind of understand Cobalt's wondering about Ewer and his background, about which very little seems to be known.

Oddly enough, the name 'William Ewer' is not that unusual - Google it, and see. He seemed to be a low-key antiques dealer, and also described himself as an 'umbrella repairer', although I find it hard to believe that anyone, even in 1961, could make a living out of fixing brollies. He did, though, from time to time bid at fine art auctions on behalf of other people, so it's presumed he claimed a commission from any successful bid. (In fact, the Wilson Steer interior which Janet Gregsten said she was helping him to hang on the day "She Saw Him At The Cleaners" was bought by Ewer on behalf of an unknown third party.)

There's much more about Ewer than this, but I have to go and attend to other matters.

Graham

[caz]

Yet how convenient the lengths to which Hanratty seemed to go to put himself in the frame.

First, he tells Dixie that the back seat of a bus is a convenient place to dump unwanted stolen goods....then he leaves the gun there. Second, he dumps it not just on any old bus but on a 36A bus which links to the Vienna Hotel and Nudds statement. Third, just in case the police can't work out who dumped it he stuffs it in one of his hankies. Fourth, he leaves the cartridge cases at the Vienna where he's stayed.

I think we all know Hanratty wasn't the brightest spark...

Precisely. That explains everything you observed above. Incidentally, with no DNA testing back then, the only person who could realistically have identified the hankie as one belonging to Hanratty was Hanratty. How would anyone framing him have imagined it would be linked to him? There is no suggestion it bore any distinguishing features until forty years later, when the stains on it finally yielded up his DNA.

...but even he could work out the difference between being tried for petty theft and being tried for murder.

Apparently not, or he would have realised the crucial importance of not lying about his whereabouts on the night of this crime if there had been a non-murderous reason for his being where he claimed to be.

Even he could think of a thousand better ways of disposing of a weapon for it to remain untraceable....perhaps en route back from the A6 in some dense woods or even the broad expanse of the Thames.

As I've suggested many times before, finding the weapon on a London bus when Hanratty was provably in Liverpool might just have saved his bacon had he stuck with his Liverpool alibi. He could then have argued someone else must have left it there because he couldn't be in two places at once (unless it was Rhyl and Liverpool of course ). Chucking the gun in the river would not have helped him establish a week-long stay in Liverpool, besides which there were still those cartridge cases to explain, so we are back to him not being the sharpest knife. It's more problematic to introduce someone who planted the gun in London, knowing Hanratty was so far north, and had been since before the murder. How was that meant to work unless they also knew he would not be seeing, or speaking to, or meeting up with anyone while he was there who could later vouch for him?

Love,

Caz
X