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

[moste]

Moste, As you may know I wrote a graphic book of the case originally in four parts but finally bound together in one book entitled ,"The A6 Murder: Was James Hanratty Innocent?" I sent a copy of it to Richard Ingrams[as I quote him in it] who wrote back saying he thought my pamphlets were excellent . He also commented on the LCN DNA research Andrew Buddle my husband had done **which revealed a number of cases where such testing was found to be was grossly inaccurate and misleading starting with the LCN DNA tests that wrongly implicated Sean Hoey in the Omagh bombing and drew scorn from the judge who threw the case out of court.
Mr Ingrams was very supportive but of course this doesn't mean he would be prepared to answer questions about the case.Paul Foot was his best friend and vice versa so he would I am sure be protective of Paul's memory.


** which as well as the LCN DNA contributions from Andy also had direct contributions from James Moore,Julie Lambert and William Beadle....and some of the brilliant casebook research here I must add!

Hi Norma, I bought , read, and thoroughly enjoyed your book in its completed form. I meant to congratulate you and your friends, and family, on a fine effort, some time ago.
I'm sure as you attest to, Richard is a fine fellow, and it probably is, that I screwed up with the email address or something. On the other hand I would certainly be eager to have him understand that I would not knowingly Mar Paul Foots memory in any shape or form, being a huge fan of his. I accept what you say about his protection of a close friend no longer with us, which could answer the question as to why he didn't reply. I was only hoping to have an answer to an innocent question, from a professional investigative journalist, Vis, "Has it been considered there may have been a connection between the two massive news events of 1961."
Cheers Steve.

[moste]

It would appear that Canada's Google "Images" page is different to that of the UK's, Moste, as that particular image of Janet doesn't appear anywhere. The image I was referring to is about 15 or so rows down the UK page.

OK, Ill see if I can tap into the G.E. site UK.

[Ed James]

I feel it far more likely that Acott meant, ''This was a case where it was as easy to identify the criminal as when somebody breaks into a gas meter. Now go away!''.

Best regards,

OneRound

Hi OneRound

Personally, I think you are straining the interpretation but I see where you are coming from. If Acott was fed up by being pestered such a remark (even if ironic) was hardly going to close down interest.

Did Acott genuinely believe it to be an inside job ?We shall never know. His investigative actions didn't support this belief. For example, an early action was to call on guest house/lodging house owners to identify anyone suspicious. This was based on such a successful approach in a previous case - and presumably the perceived nature of the abduction /violent outcome and possibly the gunman's description of himself ( on the run for 4 (?) months).

Acott's approach differs from that of modern policing, where the police routinely and often successfully look close to home , even if not making this public. The principle being who has a motive/who benefits.

Clearly, Janet Gregsten didn't fit any notion of an inside job . It wasn't until 11 September William Ewer was interviewed - but then the discovery of the cartridges that day provided the break through.

My guess is that over the course of the case Acott privately developed suspicions about Ewer , believing that Hanratty had been hired and it all had gone wrong. But in his view he had got the perpetrator and there was no evidence of Hanratty being hired and any suggestion of hiring would fatally undermine the motives that had been put forward.

And ,here is a relevant point, Ewer - despite his strange behaviour identified by Norma - was an impressive, authority figure unruffled on the surface by the attentions of the police, Jean Justice and the Sunday Times , though in retrospect some conflict /contradictions in his accounts were subsequently clear.

ATB

Ed

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma, I bought , read, and thoroughly enjoyed your book in its completed form. I meant to congratulate you and your friends, and family, on a fine effort, some time ago.

Thankyou Moste -really appreciate this-it means a lot .

I was only hoping to have an answer to an innocent question, from a professional investigative journalist, Vis, "Has it been considered there may have been a connection between the two massive news events of 1961."
Cheers Steve.

I think Steve that Richard Ingrams has remained incommunicado for many years over the A6 case except for one or two instances.He has seemed over the years to remain fairly convinced of Hanratty's innocence however .Cheers nx

[Spitfire]

** which as well as the LCN DNA contributions from Andy also had direct contributions from James Moore,Julie Lambert and William Beadle....and some of the brilliant casebook research here I must add!

Did you have access to a full trial transcript? And if so, where did you access it?

[Natalie Severn]

Did you have access to a full trial transcript? And if so, where did you access it?

No-I did try but it was not possible -

[moste]

OK, Ill see if I can tap into the G.E. site UK.

Hi SH. I couldn't download the UK version of G E. Could you enlighten me as to who is the person in the photo 15th line down, under 'William Ewer'.(It is a different page for north America )(for crying out loud)

[Sherlock Houses]

It was there for about a day, Moste, as anyone who might have accessed the Google "Images" page during that time could testify. It has now mysteriously disappeared from that page into cyber space. I should have taken a screenshot of the page.

[moste]

It was there for about a day, Moste, as anyone who might have accessed the Google "Images" page during that time could testify. It has now mysteriously disappeared from that page into cyber space. I should have taken a screenshot of the page.

Interesting. Entering same heading, here in Canada, Second line ,revealed this shot of Janet. Note Mona Lisa like smile, almost sad, but mysterious, and 'The People 'front page headline. Photo probably taken by journalist I would think

[caz]

:

Staying innocently in Rhyl? He was trying to sell stolen goods!

Blimey, moste. So, hand on heart, if you had been facing trial for the capital offence of murder, you'd have kept quiet about the fact you had actually been hundreds of miles away at the time, trying to flog stolen goods?

I'm sorry, but I'd find that nigh on impossible to believe.

Seems the A6 jury did too.

Love,

Caz
X

[Derrick]

...if you had been facing trial for the capital offence of murder, you'd have kept quiet about the fact you had actually been hundreds of miles away at the time, trying to flog stolen goods?...

Caz

I think even you know that Hanratty told the jury that he was in Liverpool trying to fence off stolen goods. In fact the defence put up his criminal record in full because of it.

Del

[caz]

Absolutely, Del. That hadn't escaped me.

My original point was that Hanratty had no possible reason to keep quiet about a genuine and (relatively) innocent stay in Rhyl when facing the death sentence for a cold-blooded murder committed far away by someone else.

Moste pointed out that Hanratty's purpose in Rhyl was not innocent, as if that might explain why he didn't immediately 'come clean' about going there. But as you say, this is plainly ridiculous in view of his initial (false) claim to have stayed in Liverpool on a similarly criminal errand.

Nobody defending Hanratty appears to have a good explanation for his complete silence about Rhyl (even among his friends and family before he knew he was being sought in connection with the A6 murder) until it was too late to help him.

Little wonder the jury saw it as a desperate afterthought by a murderer who had already lied about staying in Liverpool.

Love,

Caz
X

[moste]

Caz...Nobody defending Hanratty appears to have a good explanation for his complete silence about Rhyl (even among his friends and family before he knew he was being sought in connection with the A6 murder) until it was too late to help him.
Complete mystery to me too Caz .However, If he had explained in detail why he had left it so late to give the Rhyl episode,I don't know, maybe something along the lines of a threat from his very heavy mates, threatening to seriously damage his loving family, you know, like the stuff France included in his final letters "they're going to crucify us all".(Paraphrasing) .
Quite possible I think. So my point regarding your latest post ."Hanratty had no possible reason to keep quiet about an innocent stay in Rhyl" when facing the death penalty.
And you know this because???

[Sherlock Houses]

What Hanratty had to say about this......

"My lord, I didn't tell Supt Acott because at that point I did not know the name of the street, the number of the
house, or even the name of the people in the house. At that stage I knew that I was only wanted for
interviewing, not for the actual murder charge ...... or the truth would have been told straight away."

and..........

"At this stage it is quite obvious to a man with a criminal record that to come into the witness box and change
his alibi as I have done is ridiculous if it is not the truth. If I was lying I would keep to my old story. It is quite
obvious to millions of people."

[caz]

Caz...Nobody defending Hanratty appears to have a good explanation for his complete silence about Rhyl (even among his friends and family before he knew he was being sought in connection with the A6 murder) until it was too late to help him.
Complete mystery to me too Caz .However, If he had explained in detail why he had left it so late to give the Rhyl episode,I don't know, maybe something along the lines of a threat from his very heavy mates, threatening to seriously damage his loving family, you know, like the stuff France included in his final letters "they're going to crucify us all".(Paraphrasing) .
Quite possible I think. So my point regarding your latest post ."Hanratty had no possible reason to keep quiet about an innocent stay in Rhyl" when facing the death penalty.
And you know this because???

Because as far as I know, moste, Hanratty was not clinically insane and did not go happily to his appointment with the hangman.

I can't really accept that he could have been even more terrified, either on his or his loving family's behalf, of revealing details of the Rhyl episode sooner, or explaining his reluctance to do so at all. Clearly the advice from Sherrard was not to change alibis by introducing Rhyl into the equation.

Love,

Caz
X