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

[Spitfire]

The Panorama program does not state when the police actually interviewed Mrs Morrell and the other shopkeepers, in certainly did not give the impression that it was on the 1st September 1961 as a result of the alleged call from Ewer to the police.

It was interesting to watch the program again. I think I saw it many years ago. I was struck by the consistency of Terry Evans and Grace Jones in saying that all that they could say was 'yes' or 'no'. This, of course, is nonsense, witnesses are required to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Many things about the A6 trial can be debated, but there is no doubt that Mrs Jones or Terry Evans lied under oath when asked what they were talking to each other about when spotted by the eagle eyed juryman.

It was also interesting to see that the room that Hanratty stayed in according to Mrs Jones was room No 4. According to Foot, p 230, this was the small room at the front on the first floor, and again according to Foot this was occupied by Joe Sayle from 21 to 24 August. If Mrs Jones had told the jury this, it would not have done Hanratty any good at all.

There was, of course, no mention of staying in bathrooms, leaving cases and going out looking for better accommodation and meeting Mesdames Vincent and Walker et al. Mr Jones had a room available from cancellation. That room was No 4 at the front, on the first floor and she let Jim Hanratty occupy it for two nights. The jury did not accept this.

[Sherlock Houses]

Peter Duffy convincing??? He couldn't convince an alcoholic to get down to Lidl if they were giving whisky away. I've seen this Panorama prog before (in fact I've got it on video tape) and it's as unconvincing now as it was nearly 50 years ago.

That may well be your own personal opinion Graham but I suspect it is very much a minority opinion. Most impartial observers I would say would be impressed upon listening to Peter Duffy's story. Duffy comes across as very convincing in this interview. There's no hesitating on his part or any of the nose-touching [very often a sign of deceit] which the totally unreliable James Trower displays during his interview.

Had the story been untrue, or even sniffed of any invention on Duffy's part, the editor wouldn't have touched it with the proverbial barge pole.
It's also quite revealing that there was no legal action taken by Ewer subsequent to the story's publication. Very odd indeed if the newspaper article was untrue.

Duffy had no axe to grind with anyone and what makes his story even more persuasive is that he was of the opinion that Hanratty was guilty of the A6 murder.

[Natalie Severn]

Had the story been untrue, or even sniffed of any invention on Duffy's part, the editor wouldn't have touched it with the proverbial barge pole.
It's also quite revealing that there was no legal action taken by Ewer subsequent to the story's publication. Very odd indeed if the newspaper article was untrue.

My ex worked as a Journalist on Fleet street for thirty years from being a very young journalist of 22 . No way would the Daily Mail have dared permit a story of fabrication regarding a trial of such National Interest and challenge.Not only subeditors would have studied the journalist's words for potential libel but all national Newspapers have a rigorous system of legal advice which would have refused to touch such a story if it had no substance.

[NickB]

I agree that Ewer would have said the things to Duffy that are attributed to him and are in quotation marks. Ewer was the liar. At the time Ewer probably thought it was a harmless wheeze, but when Foot's book came out it came back to bite him. He then made a statement to the Sunday Times, who quickly showed that he also lied in that.

[Ed James]

[I][I]
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.

And Cobalt wrote in post 821:'Ewer’s motives for going public with his steering operation are slightly puzzling. He was not a man desperate for money, nor does he appear a reckless character keen for his 15 minutes of fame. He must have realised the scepticism that was going to greet his story, and even the potential danger that his prior knowledge might bring upon him.'

The first thing to say is that Ewer's motive was apparently extremely strong because he felt impelled to seek out journalists to tell them the story. It was not a case of them coming to him. I am immediately struck by the comparison of Ewer forcefully insisting on looking at the back of the photographers ,on his search for Hanratty, perhaps ensuring that his actions stuck firmly in the mind

I think Ewer's most probable motive was to pre -empt any revelation from a police or other source (eg shopkeepers) that he had personally identified Hanratty at an early stage. It would have looked decidedly odd, and raise more suspicion, not to have said anything about this extraordinary aspect after Hanratty had been found guilty.

Trying to explain the sighting story if it came out first from another source would have been even more difficult. I wouldn't ever rule out journalistic error , but I think the essential thrust of the story that Ewer drew police attention to Hanratty is true.As to the suggestion that Janet Gregsten initiated the sighting, subsequently denied by Janet and Ewer, this has the smack of Ewer seeking to use feminine intuition to explain how he had interest in Hanratty.

Ed

[Natalie Severn]

[I]

I think the essential thrust of the story that Ewer drew police attention to Hanratty is true.As to the suggestion that Janet Gregsten initiated the sighting, subsequently denied by Janet and Ewer, this has the smack of Ewer seeking to use feminine intuition to explain how he had interest in Hanratty.

Ed

Thanks Ed,
Myself I believe Janet knew an a lot more about what happened than we are led to believe.The pictures of her at Valerie Storie's bedside [21 and 22 September 1961] reveal a rather determined looking Janet Gregsten and a very vulnerable looking Valerie Storie though the papers ,still in the dark [apparently] about the relationship between Valerie Storie and Michael Gregsten describe the meeting between the two women as being friendly with Janet stating Valerie is 'her friend'To me that smacks of dishonesty .Paul Foot casts a much more searching eye on Janet Gregsten than Bob Woffinden does who appears to have been bowled over by Janet Gregsten's charms.We do not receive any impression of anything from him but realistic descriptions of her in Foot's 1971 book.He is not fooled .He is certain she suffered greatly and was extremely unhappy because of Gregsten's affair and also that she would have suffered even greater financial hardship than she was already if he left her and took a flat in Maidenhead on the 27th August 1961.

[cobalt]

Thanks for addressing my question Ed.
So far the Prosecution Case regarding Ewer's actions rests on 4 main grounds.

1. Ewer never said anything such thing and it was all the invention of a newspaper journalist.

2. Ewer said something of this ilk, but it was all exaggerated out of proportion by an imaginative newspaper journalist.

3. Ewer did indeed say all of this, but he was only doing so as a bit of a jape and nothing can really be read into it.

4. Ewer did act a bit strange around the time, but his so called identification led nowhere and was not of any substance in the conviction of Hanratty.

Of the above, only point 4 really stands up to examination. It is true that the case against Hanratty was in no way based on any of Ewer's (or Janet Gregsten's) intuitions in nearly September 1961. But in fact it matters not a jot whether the police were inspired to visit a Florist's Shop on Ewer's say so or not. The telling fact is that Ewer was fingering Hanratty before the police had him in their sights.

The crucial point is that Ewer had prior knowledge. His outpourings to journalists was, in the context of a capital case, highly dangerous and I am glad Ed has attempted an answer. My own feelings are similar: that Ewer thought it better to offer the story to the tabloid press (complete with a mystical twist involving Janet Gregsten) than for it to surface from unofficial police sources at a later date.

He was a worried man, and obviously with good reason. He had steered the police towards Hanratty only for them to look elsewhere. That was of no great consequence for him until the cartridges turned up at the Vienna Hotel, and then Hanratty was securely in the frame. The big question was, and remains: how did Ewer manage to finger Hanratty BEFORE the cartridges were found?

[Spitfire]

Of the above, only point 4 really stands up to examination. It is true that the case against Hanratty was in no way based on any of Ewer's (or Janet Gregsten's) intuitions in nearly September 1961. But in fact it matters not a jot whether the police were inspired to visit a Florist's Shop on Ewer's say so or not. The telling fact is that Ewer was fingering Hanratty before the police had him in their sights.

The crucial point is that Ewer had prior knowledge.

Unless there is evidence that the police acted on Ewer's report to them, or there exists a report at Scotland Yard dated circa 1st September 1961 detailing Ewer's identification of the suspect, then there is only Ewer's word that he made such a report to the police.

I will attempt an explanation.

Friday's Euromillions winning numbers which I correctly predicted were 4,7,39,44 and 45 with the lucky stars being 3 and 5.

Now I have stated that I correctly predicted the winning numbers and those undoubtedly were the winning numbers. How amazing is that? Pretty amazing I would say as the odds of so doing are over 100 million to one.

The sceptics amongst you might say, you've only announced your prediction after the draw and we don't believe you. But if I could prove that I acted on my prediction and bought a ticket and won, you would believe me, I think.

So what evidence is there apart from Ewer's statements after the trial, that before the hunt for Hanratty was made public, he had identified a suspect and gone to the police? The answer I think is none.

[NickB]

If anyone can find the article by Paul Foot in the Guardian Weekend section on 25-Feb-95 we'll be able to see what Ewer said when Foot phoned him after Janet's death. I think this was the last time he commented on the case.

It appears (from other posters) that roughly he reiterates what he had said to the Sunday Times. This includes saying that he did not know if the man he saw was Hanratty. He also confirms that the cleaners sighting was untrue.

In the same article Foot writes about a series of interviews he had with Janet shortly before she died. She also denies the cleaners story and Foot says he believes her "utterly".

[cobalt]

Spitfire,

Your lottery ticket analogy breaks down rather quickly since you did not post at least some of the winning numbers before the draw, which is what Ewer was doing.
He was backing a hunch in the photographer’s shop which did not come up, but got close enough since it transpired the police did make a connection with Hanratty in the neighbouring florist’s shop. He managed to do this a month before the draw was made.

What is, to me, significant about Ewer’s tale, is his uncertainty over the ID of Hanratty. He had to explain his odd actions in following a member of the public, since there were a number of witnesses to his behaviour including (some us strongly suspect) the police themselves. But when his ‘steer’ towards Hanratty was disregarded by the police, he found himself in an extremely awkward position when Hanratty was eventually collared following the second ‘steer’ of the cartridges. He was now the man who knew too much.

The best way out of this awkward situation was to shift responsibility for the sighting on to the grieving widow, a source few would have felt comfortable questioning. His only other recourse was to claim coincidence, and suggest that perhaps the man he was following was not Hanratty.

[moste]

And Cobalt wrote in post 821:'Ewer’s motives for going public with his steering operation are slightly puzzling. He was not a man desperate for money, nor does he appear a reckless character keen for his 15 minutes of fame. He must have realised the scepticism that was going to greet his story, and even the potential danger that his prior knowledge might bring upon him.'

The first thing to say is that Ewer's motive was apparently extremely strong because he felt impelled to seek out journalists to tell them the story. It was not a case of them coming to him. I am immediately struck by the comparison of Ewer forcefully insisting on looking at the back of the photographers ,on his search for Hanratty, perhaps ensuring that his actions stuck firmly in the mind

I think Ewer's most probable motive was to pre -empt any revelation from a police or other source (eg shopkeepers) that he had personally identified Hanratty at an early stage. It would have looked decidedly odd, and raise more suspicion, not to have said anything about this extraordinary aspect after Hanratty had been found guilty.

Trying to explain the sighting story if it came out first from another source would have been even more difficult. I wouldn't ever rule out journalistic error , but I think the essential thrust of the story that Ewer drew police attention to Hanratty is true.As to the suggestion that Janet Gregsten initiated the sighting, subsequently denied by Janet and Ewer, this has the smack of Ewer seeking to use feminine intuition to explain how he had interest in Hanratty.

Ed

Absolutely agree with this analogy. And Ewers motive, in the final analysis... Janet Gregsten.
I wonder whether Ewer had any children from an earlier marriage, I wonder if he was a good Dad for Anthony and Simon. I wonder what happened to Valerie Ewer after her sister waltzed off with her husband? I guess we'll never know.

[Natalie Severn]

There is a lot we don't know about Janet Gregsten.The fact that William Ewer decided to go out of his way to protect her from the poverty of being an abandoned wife by thwarting Michael's attempts to leave her seems very clear to me.Hiring help via France his neighbour [and maybe his fence in stolen silver bits and pieces] to help him administer Gregsten a damn good hiding and see off this girl friend of his seems perfectly to fit this busy bee of a character noted and remarked upon by at least four journalists who were present throughout the trial .I am sure Janet Gregsten was a charming woman btw -though Paul Foot was rather less enchanted in the early days of his research of course as everyone on here must know.

[NickB]

“Suddenly she clutched at Mr Ewer’s arm and pointed through the window to a man with jet black hair walking into a Burtol cleaners shop only two yards across the arcade.”

Here is a photo of Burtol cleaners.

Here is a view of the arcade with Burtol’s just visible on the left.

Ewer’s shop was at ‘7, The Station Arcade, Swiss Cottage’.

If Ewer’s shop was in the arcade, how could Burtol’s have been ‘two yards across’ and visible from it?

[Ed James]

.

So what evidence is there apart from Ewer's statements after the trial, that before the hunt for Hanratty was made public, he had identified a suspect and gone to the police? The answer I think is none.

Hi Spitfire

Plenty of supporting evidence of the truth of Ewer's statement me thinks.

Ewer's initial statement is indeed powerful evidence of its broad truth because: he never wavered from the main thrust despite being heavily probed by journalists and the potential risk of being contradicted by the police; his statement is effectively supported by the shopkeepers' own description of the events and Ewer's zealous behaviour (of which the natural culmination of any so concerned citizen would be to contact the police); there seems to be firm evidence from Mrs Morrell of police attending.

I hope that your strong conviction of Hanratty's guilt is not in some way leading you wrongly of leaning towards an unsustainable argument that Ewer simply made up the story of contacting the police for some unspecified purpose.

The fact that the police did not successfully follow up on Ewer's lead is not anunknown in large, highly pressured enquiries.

I will give you another possibility as to why Ewer revealed to journalists the claim of identifying the killer and reporting the sighting to the police : it actually put him clearly on the side of seeking the culprit , and not being a party to the abduction.

What is odd for me is if Ewer had genuinely pursued Hanratty, why did he not sustain the claim and ,for example, say at his 11 September interview that he / Janet had sighted a credible suspect and reaffirm details. Perhaps at that point he judged this difficult to raise as police for apparently the first time were showing interest in him?

ATB

Ed

[Fisherman]

I am totally and utterly uninterested in the A6 case.

I am, however, Swedish.

And I have never, ever seen a name that even remotely reminds me of the purportedly Swedish "Meike Dalal".

Just how Swedish is that name...?