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

[Semper_Eadem]

Hi Graham,

Well I do not think there was anything admirable about Alphon, also I wonder what effect example of his getting away with the attack on Mrs. Hanratty might of had on others.

Although I do notice that Alphon likes to go after Women who have poor reputations. Mrs Dalal was a German Woman married to an Indian if I am not mistaken making her an easy target as too many people probably wouldn't have gotten upset back then when she got attacked given her nationality and her husband's nationality.

Poor Ma Hanratty also made a good victim as her son was a murderer or suspected murderer and there were probably a few folks watching who thought seeing her get attacked by Alphon, Serves you right for raising a Murder.

I know that Myra Hindley's sister and brother-in-law had to endure abuse for being Hindley's relatives and thought to have been mixed up in the crime even though the Brother In Law went to the police with what he knew after he saw Brady murder his last victim.

I wonder who else Alphon went after who might of not pressed charges because they might of thought that it wouldn't have done them any good given who they were. I guess there is a lot of the petty bully in Alphon.

I just wanted to give my two cents worth as I recently watched a documentary on the A6 Murders and remembered this thread. What I did not do was take any notes and I am remembering all of this off the top of my head so apologies if I get anybody's name wrong.

Thanks for your reply Graham and sorry for my late reply.

[Graham]

It's always seemed likely (to me, at any rate) that Alphon was Mrs Dalal's attacker, although precisely what his motive might have been, if he actually needed one, for such an attack, is anyone's guess. He got off because the two blokes who ran the Old Moore's Almanack distribution, for which Alphon worked on and off, said that he was at their premises at the time of the attack. As a result, Alphon received damages from the police, and apparently sold his 'Meike Dalal' story to a newspaper.

The woman he attacked in the street was Mary Hanratty, the mother of James, and he got away with this piece of gratuitous violence, as well. No wonder Woffinden suggests that Alphon was something of an 'untouchable' as far as the police were concerned; I actually think he was simply very lucky.

Nutter though Alphon doubtless was, there is about him a certain something that is (almost) admirable. He was manipulative, clever in a slippery kind of way, and knew how to turn a profit from difficult situations. He may have made a damn good politician in those days when a bit of sleaze wasn't always frowned upon in high circles.

Graham

[Semper_Eadem]

I am still wondering if Alphon was the one who attacked Mrs Dalal! Judging by her reaction to him at that identity parade held on Sept. 23, I bet it is likely he was the one who did it. What I want to know is why was he never prosecuted? Inept Police work or was it because of the nationality of Mrs. Dalal and her husband's nationality. Sounds like there was a lot of slipperiness going on with the London Police.

In answer to Sherlock Houses' original post I think Alphon did attack Mrs Dalal because she made an easy target given who she was and who her husband was. Yes Alphon, who comes across as nutty as a fruit hen from what I have read on him, when I am not reading of him attacking another woman, who made an easy target with her family member on trial for murder. That woman he attacked in public and he got away with that one too. I do not think Alphon was the A6 killer but I do wonder why he got away with threatening women with violence or attacking them.

Interesting thread. Too bad it went off the rails.

[cobalt]

A couple of thoughts on the embargo placed on the William Ewer file. The year 2040 would effectively have made Valerie Storey 100 years old, and redoubtable woman though she proved herself to be, that may have been a factor in setting the date. Any information which undermined her testimony, if indeed that is contained somewhere in the file, would have to have regard to her personal situation.

The 2063 date is intriguing. If it were in relation to William Ewer’s 1973 interview, then the rarely invoked 100 year embargo would take us to 2073. 2063 suggests that the 100 year rule is in relation to the actual date, more or less, of the Hanratty trial. So it appears to me that the sensitive matters are related to the trial, not the Ewer interview per se.

[uncle_adolph]

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?

The point being that if we pre-suppose it was Dixie who planted it then it made perfect sense to use one of Hanratty's hankies. Why would he use anything else? Who knows; he might well have thought that being a "used" one it could be traced back to Hanratty.

[caz]

It's only one persons opinion of what may have been,try and keep some sense of proportion...

That's actually very funny, moste.

...nothing I have posted with regards to what really happened that night is impossible, only improbable, I happen to believe ,less improbable, than the status quo.Sorry if it offends,Ps where is your sparring partner you loved to taunt so much, I liked her.

Nothing you post could offend me personally. I was referring to the friends and families of the victims, who would be wise to stay well away from this poisonous place.

If my 'sparring partner' (I assume you mean Nats?) felt I taunted her and loved it, she should have been more careful to stick with the evidence and not conjure up highly improbable conspiracy theories to blame everyone but Hanratty for the unholy mess he got himself in by using a false alibi, admitting it was false and changing it for one that was no more credible.

I haven't seen Nats for ages, by the way, and wish her well.

Love,

Caz
X

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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.