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

[cobalt]

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

I think the opposite. The police who visited the Hanratty household were investigating a robbery. No one knows if they saw any flowers at all, or whether they saw a card which identified the particular shop that had sent them. This has all been supposition from the Prosecution Case on this site; as far as I am aware there is no corroboration of this assumption. The likelihood is they saw no flowers and no card. Whatever information were they going to glean from a Florist's Shop?

Secondly, according to Natalie, these were plain clothes police assigned to the A6 murder making enquires at the Florists' Shop. That, if verifiable, indicates the enquiry was not about a potential robber but about a potential murderer. That means Hanratty/Ryan was in the frame. But on what basis? Well only what you call the 'strange story' given down the telephone by Ewer. At the time the police gave it little credence.

But interesting that Ewer did not try to contact a local bobbie, or even by telephone the local police. He was, I am pretty sure, an inside man who knew which number to call, at Scotland Yard. His business was to all intents and purposes a 'front' and his contacts with police integral to who he was. His alleged right wing affiliations are much more likely to have been a result of him infiltrating and reporting on the activities of any neo fascists oddballs like Alphon. Ewer is reeking of MI5.

Interestingly, Ewer knew Valerie Storie, Michael Gregsten. Janet Gregsten, Louise Anderson and Dixie France. That is a wide range of people to know from one murder case. He also, possibly, had met James Hanratty and Peter Alphon. If ever anyone deserved more scrutiny in the SA6 Murder case it was William Ewer.

And no one has yet dealt with my question: why, if Ewer had prior knowledge, did he divulge this to the newspapers. He was at risk by doing so, unless he thought he was (MI5) fireproof.

[cobalt]

Graham,

Is it not time to stop this strawman argument that Alphon or AN OTHER was paid the ludicrous sum (by 1961 standards) of £5,000 to kill Malcolm Gregsten. No one on this site, so far as I aware, has ever suggested this. Indeed a number of contributors sympathetic to Hanratty have pointed out that it is ridiculous. Yet you continue to cling to this as some basis of your argument. It demeans you.

The claim is not that Ewer paid this money to have Gregsten 'seen to.' (Which would be much more likely than his being killed.) But rather that Ewer, or people known to him, were themselves in grave danger following the events of 1961.
These events were monumental: a high profile killing of a family man; the widowhood of an innocent woman. the orphaning of two children; the paralysation of a woman in the springtime of her life; the judicial murder of a man innocent of the crime.
Add to that horrific list this possibility: that seemingly respectable parties had been involved and were desperate to continue to elude the law, and then I think £5,000 was cheap, even by 1961 values. And I do not think that money came solely from Ewer.

[Graham]

Cobalt,

you are a relative newcomer to this forum, and therefore I am quite prepared to accept that you don't have too strong a grasp of what's been debated here in the past. Believe me, there are, and have been (and you don't have to look too far back into the past) those who appear to seriously believe that Ewer coughed up five grand to have Gregsten sorted out. I do NOT as you say 'cling to this as the basis of my argument'; I use it merely to point out how, to my mind (which I think is rather more practical than yours, no offence meant) that Ewer had absolutely nothing to do with Gregsten's murder. Incidentally, Gregsten's first name was 'Michael', not 'Malcolm' as you posted which, I dare to suggest, highlights the somewhat tenuous grasp you have of this incredibly complicated case.

The second paragraph of your post is, I am afraid to say, utter crap. I would like to hear your views on precisely who the money came from, if it didn't come from Ewer. Or are you, as I suspect, just making it up as you go along?

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

[I][I]
Secondly, according to Natalie, these were plain clothes police assigned to the A6 murder making enquires at the Florists' Shop. ........

Hi Cobalt-Dorothy Morrell said they were plain clothes detectives but I have always understood they came from Highbury Police Station and that the name J.Ryan meant nothing to them.Best Nats

[Natalie Severn]

Ewer had absolutely nothing to do with Gregsten's murder.
Graham

So Graham how do you account for the billion to one chance of William Ewer picking out the right man-a man who happened to be drinking in his coffee shop on September 1st 1961, as being the A6 murderer -identified 'because of his big blue staring eyes-like a carbuncle on his head' the man being James Hanratty , who would hang for the A6 murder?

[cobalt]

Hi Graham,

I may be a relative newcomer to the site, but I have following the case since I first read about it in the newspapers as a boy in 1962. I have read most of the postings on this site over the years. I also read Paul Foot's book when it came out.

My background is not the judicial/legal one many of this site seem to have, and I acknowledge their experience and judgment in that regard. However I am a engaged citizen of the UK, and having attended grammar school ((or its Scottish equivalent) am well versed in condescending put downs from those in authority. Later, as a trade unionist, I became familiar with such tactics.

Your own background may be less clear (you assured me you were not a policeman), but never deviates far from confidence in the authorities getting things right. Now they may have done this in the case of Hanratty. The fact that Ewer was steering the police towards Hanratty, as any sensible interpretation of the events of early September 1961 would suggest, does not of itself make Hanratty innocent. Ewer may have been acting on information available to him and steering the police towards the guilty party. Perhaps things turned out for the best. But if you are trying to suggest Ewer's story was fabricated by the newspapers you are fighting a losing battle I fear.

You said my second paragraph was 'utter crap.' Well, most of it was just putting in context the death of a husband, the paralysation of a young woman and the widowing of a mother with two children. Not much to contend there I think. You might not like the idea that UK justice hanged an innocent man, which finished the paragraph, but we know this has been acknowledged by the state on at least three occasions.

But it is little wonder the Prosecution Case on this forum wants to break any link between Ewer and the police activity in North London in early September 1961. For if they cannot do this- and it seems very likely that the Matthews report was able to establish such a link- then it is clear, whatever the rights and wrongs of Hanratty's guilt, that Hanratty was being presented to the authorities. That is anyone’s definition of a conspiracy.

Getting Gregsten's first name wrong was careless on my behalf, but if you believe that is the measure of a person's grasp of the case then you are probably confined to pedantry. You are angry, I think, because I have brought up the matter of your repeated strawman argument regarding the £5,000 'hit' on Gregsten. No one has ever seriously claimed this on the site, yet you continue to refer to it. So every time you refer to it, I will remind the forum it is baloney

[Spitfire]

So Graham how do you account for the billion to one chance of William Ewer picking out the right man-a man who happened to be drinking in his coffee shop on September 1st 1961, as being the A6 murderer -identified 'because of his big blue staring eyes-like a carbuncle on his head' the man being James Hanratty , who would hang for the A6 murder?

It is certainly would be nowhere near a billion to one chance of randomly making a correct identification. Probably a half of a million to one chance would be more accurate.

Although both Foot and Woffinden quote the Daily Sketch story extensively neither provide any corroborating evidence, such as a report at Scotland Yard showing that Mrs Morrell was interviewed by the murder squad with reference to the A6 Murder on 1st September 1961. The absence of such corroboration in either of the two works seems to suggest that Daily Sketch story was a bit of tale.

[cobalt]

Based on London’s population in 1961 the chances of Ewer stumbling upon the murderer would have to be about 8 million to 1. Given that some here are suggesting Ewer ‘only’ identified someone else who looked rather like Hanratty, then the odds could only accumulate, especially since this ‘look-a-like’ who visited the same shops has never surfaced from that day forth.

Accepting Ewer’s ad hoc identification of Hanratty is like digging a hole for the Prosecution Case, which is why strenuous efforts are being made to break the link between his telephone call to the police (not contested I think) and the police visit to the Florist’s (incontestable I think.) There is also the small matter of his making himself a nuisance in a photographic shop around the same time.

[Natalie Severn]

Although both Foot and Woffinden quote the Daily Sketch story extensively neither provide any corroborating evidence, such as a report at Scotland Yard showing that Mrs Morrell was interviewed by the murder squad with reference to the A6 Murder on 1st September 1961. The absence of such corroboration in either of the two works seems to suggest that Daily Sketch story was a bit of tale.

I believe Paul Foot had a record of the Cater's receipt book in which the purchases by Hanratty of gladioli [August] and roses[1st September ] are documented i.e. dated together with the name given by the sender as well as the dates and costs of these purchases.Such a record of his visit will undoubtedly be in the vast collection of data anyway in the possession of the Foot family as it constituted the main source material for his book and articles on the case .There is absolutely no need to be smearing the man in the photographers shop and Dorothy Morrell by suggesting its all a bit of a tale they were inventing about the police being telephoned and arriving to question them etc when Ewer himself confirms that he did ring the police on that specific occasion about the man he was chasing after in their shops on the Finchley Road on September 1st 1961 who happened to be James Hanratty.

[Graham]

Can you, Cobalt or Nats, show me where in any of my posts, I have stated one way or the other that the blue-eyed man Ewer claimed to have seen was actually Hanratty? What the term 'strawman argument' means, I have no idea. Probably another exxample of 21st century new-speak. All I ask of you guys is that you read what other people post on this Forum. Not too difficult, is it?

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Astonishing how grotesque the prosecution case was really with hardened criminals and liars like 50 year old Nudds and Langdale and shady characters like Louise Anderson and France giving evidence for the prosecution against Hanratty -Langdale's extremely suspect evidence instrumental in the rejection of Hanratty's appeal and yet decent law abiding people like Mrs Dinwoody , Trevor Dutton and Margaret Walker and Dorothy Morrell and the photographer shop manager are all smeared on here or suggestions made of them having contributed to some sort of fabrification of one kind or another or their evidence torn to pieces while mostly silence is maintained about these known criminals who were the thrust of the prosecution evidence .Thank goodness for Paul Foot setting the record straight.

[Natalie Severn]

The absence of such corroboration in either of the two works seems to suggest that Daily Sketch story was a bit of tale.

You do realise that nobody is suggesting apart from yourself that the police did anything much at all at the time they were telephoned except go and see Dorothy Morrell and the photographer take a few notes from Ewer and dismiss ,correctly I suspect,the whole thing as being of no help whatsoever at that early stage ? Their report held at Scotland Yard will reflect this too I should think. The link was not made to Ryan or Hanratty at this very early stage -Sept. 1st -except by William Ewer in his odd rush around after his suspect on Finchley High Street who happened to be, I repeat, James Hanratty.

[cobalt]

Hi Graham,

Your posts seem to accept the notion that Ewer did make an identification and contact the police. It matters little whether the man was Hanratty or not.
Either he identified Hanratty and seemed to have knowledge of his involvement long before the police themselves. Or he identified an innocent member of the public who happened also to have unusual blue eyes, who went to the same shops at Hanratty but has never been seen or heard from since. If the latter, then the case is even more coincidental than before and stretches our credulity even further.

Regarding the strawman argument, it is a concept dating back to Aristotle, but probably the term has been around for the last 30 years. The context makes the meaning clear I think. By setting up the improbable notion that Ewer (or anyone else) splashed out a ludicrous sum of £5,000 for a 'hit' on Gregsten, it is easy to dismiss the notion, and then by implication any other argument that involves Ewer as being involved in the A6 events. But in truth no one here has, of late anyhow, ever suggested that Ewer paid £5,000 to have Gregsten disposed of, so it is a strawman argument constructed to make the idea of a conspiracy involving Ewer less credible.

[Spitfire]

Based on London’s population in 1961 the chances of Ewer stumbling upon the murderer would have to be about 8 million to 1. Given that some here are suggesting Ewer ‘only’ identified someone else who looked rather like Hanratty, then the odds could only accumulate, especially since this ‘look-a-like’ who visited the same shops has never surfaced from that day forth.

If you are going to include women, children and the elderly then you would gave about 8 million to select from. As the suspect was a Londoner male and in the 25 to 30 age range, I think we can narrow the number down to less than 8 million. It certainly isn't a billion.

[Spitfire]

Accepting Ewer’s ad hoc identification of Hanratty is like digging a hole for the Prosecution Case, which is why strenuous efforts are being made to break the link between his telephone call to the police (not contested I think) and the police visit to the Florist’s (incontestable I think.) There is also the small matter of his making himself a nuisance in a photographic shop around the same time.

Perhaps you can help me, I've tried with Natalie Severn and I find myself going round in circles.

Where is the evidence that Mrs Morrell was interviewed by the police in early September 1961?