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

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[OneRound]

Hi Graham, One round was asking where it was suggested that Hanratty made the statement that he owned the Hanky. I've been looking in my books,can't find anything on it, I know we were discussing it on here quite a long time ago ,and I took it as a given that.he had made that statement in court ,any thoughts?

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

[moste]

Proof

I've thought for some time that Dixie France's part in the A6 wasn't simply as a friend and mentor of JH; who, as we know, did once say that Dixie had in effect taught him all he knew about illegality. As I said recently, Dixie was a more well-known underground figure than the books give him credit for, and I have very little doubt that getting hold of firearms was easy for him.
I would suggest (even perhaps suspect) that JH badgered Dixie to get him a gun - purely for stick-ups... - and so Dixie did just that. It seems that JH kept the gun, well wrapped up, on top of a cupboard in Dixie's flat. I don't like speculating, but one plausible scenario is that, although the A6 was not planned and happened purely by accident, so to speak, JH panicked and on his return to London sought out Dixie and gave him the gun back. Whether this was a crude attempt on JH's part to implicate Dixie, or just to try and wash his hands of the whole grisly affair, I don't know. For his part, Dixie soon realised what had happened, and made sure that the gun would be found and could be traced to JH - JH did indeed agree that the hankie the gun was wrapped in was his, so was it monogrammed, or what? Dixie could have gone down for a long time as accessory to murder had it been discovered he had supplied the gun, and perhaps it was fear of this that drove him to suicide. They're going to crucify us all - so was France involved in the A6? If he was, then in my view this would shift the goalposts somewhat...but perhaps more on that at another time.

Graham

Hi Graham, One round was asking where it was suggested that Hanratty made the statement that he owned the Hanky. I've been looking in my books,can't find anything on it, I know we were discussing it on here quite a long time ago ,and I took it as a given that.he had made that statement in court ,any thoughts?

[Graham]

I've thought for some time that Dixie France's part in the A6 wasn't simply as a friend and mentor of JH; who, as we know, did once say that Dixie had in effect taught him all he knew about illegality. As I said recently, Dixie was a more well-known underground figure than the books give him credit for, and I have very little doubt that getting hold of firearms was easy for him.
I would suggest (even perhaps suspect) that JH badgered Dixie to get him a gun - purely for stick-ups... - and so Dixie did just that. It seems that JH kept the gun, well wrapped up, on top of a cupboard in Dixie's flat. I don't like speculating, but one plausible scenario is that, although the A6 was not planned and happened purely by accident, so to speak, JH panicked and on his return to London sought out Dixie and gave him the gun back. Whether this was a crude attempt on JH's part to implicate Dixie, or just to try and wash his hands of the whole grisly affair, I don't know. For his part, Dixie soon realised what had happened, and made sure that the gun would be found and could be traced to JH - JH did indeed agree that the hankie the gun was wrapped in was his, so was it monogrammed, or what? Dixie could have gone down for a long time as accessory to murder had it been discovered he had supplied the gun, and perhaps it was fear of this that drove him to suicide. They're going to crucify us all - so was France involved in the A6? If he was, then in my view this would shift the goalposts somewhat...but perhaps more on that at another time.

Graham

[uncle_adolph]

Hi Uncle - just a couple of points on the wording I've put in bold.

I don't believe that at the time there was any known connection between the hanky and Hanratty. That only came decades later with advances in DNA and could not have been foreseen.

If the gun was disposed of by someone wanting it to be found, that does not automatically rule out Hanratty. He could have hidden the gun on the bus hoping that it would be found and retained by another criminal. That other criminal would then have been first in the frame if the gun had ever been found on him. Even though it was a known hiding spot for criminals to check, the excuse, ''I found it under the backseat of a bus'' would have been unlikely to wash given the clamour to charge someone.

Best regards,

OneRound

I may be mistaken here (and I can't check it as my book fell apart and has not been replaced!) but I was under the impression that Paul Foot's book confirmed Hanratty accepted it as his in court. The question must surely have been asked; it would have been extraordinarily remiss of the prosecution not to have pursued the point. But if I am incorrect then I apologise!

But that actually is not quite the point. If you are trying to cover up your guilt why conceal the weapon in your own hankie? It could have been stuffed in a paper bag, or a newspaper or any old rag....it is just nonsense to suppose that a criminal who knew the ropes would use something that could well be traced back to him.

On the other hand, if your motive is to fit someone up.....

[moste]

Just a theory

This tosh would be deeply offensive to the family and friends of the victims - particularly in Valerie's case - if it wasn't so obviously a conspiracy fantasy dreamed up by someone with an unhealthily overactive imagination.

Nobody was 'assassinated' here and this is not something from one of the weirder 60s Avengers scripts. The gunman was a very naughty boy with a new toy and the courting couple were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sorry if that's not exciting enough for you, moste, but there it is. And you do the remaining genuine Hanratty supporters no favours at all. In fact, you are doing a nice little job for the opposition.

I'd urge you to think about that.

Love,

Caz
X

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

[OneRound]

Hanratty identified a hanky as his in court,

Hi Moste - I know that has been said in the past on these threads but I believe it is another myth which has grown up around this case. I have not been able to find reference to any such identification in any of the recognised books or contemporary press reports.

I would be genuinely grateful if you could provide anything to show I am wrong here.

Thanks,

OneRound

[moste]

Known connection between Hanky and Hanratty

Hi Uncle - just a couple of points on the wording I've put in bold.

I don't believe that at the time there was any known connection between the hanky and Hanratty. That only came decades later with advances in DNA and could not have been foreseen.

If the gun was disposed of by someone wanting it to be found, that does not automatically rule out Hanratty. He could have hidden the gun on the bus hoping that it would be found and retained by another criminal. That other criminal would then have been first in the frame if the gun had ever been found on him. Even though it was a known hiding spot for criminals to check, the excuse, ''I found it under the backseat of a bus'' would have been unlikely to wash given the clamour to charge someone.



Best regards,

OneRound

Hanratty identified a hanky as his in court,

[OneRound]

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

The gun wasn't disposed of by someone wanting it to be hidden; it was disposed of by someone who wanted it to be found. And by someone who knew that there would be no trace of Hanratty at the murder scene.

Hi Uncle - just a couple of points on the wording I've put in bold.

I don't believe that at the time there was any known connection between the hanky and Hanratty. That only came decades later with advances in DNA and could not have been foreseen.

If the gun was disposed of by someone wanting it to be found, that does not automatically rule out Hanratty. He could have hidden the gun on the bus hoping that it would be found and retained by another criminal. That other criminal would then have been first in the frame if the gun had ever been found on him. Even though it was a known hiding spot for criminals to check, the excuse, ''I found it under the backseat of a bus'' would have been unlikely to wash given the clamour to charge someone.

Best regards,

OneRound

[uncle_adolph]

But who knew that Hanratty had worn a plastic boiler suit with rubber buttons and/or velco fastenings to commit his despicable crime?

Please don't misinterpret my thoughts as being in agreement with that sort of nonsense!!