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

[Derrick]

Aha! Well, that makes more sense. And of course it is no big deal, I was just fascinated and surprised by the - very - odd name.
Thanks, Graham!

Fisherman

The latest announcement on the most popular names for last year put Muhammad at the top of the list for boys names in London.

HTH Del

[Sherlock Houses]

Attachment from old thread........

Yep SH -Umbrella repair man my foot! A very successful Art House dealer in fact-on this occasion via the multi million pound empire of Sotheby's

I recall reading something about this on the old thread Natalie. I've pinched the following attachment from that particular thread which gives more information on that Sotheby's auction.

Re. whether Ewer was a freemason I definitely remember reading something to that effect several years ago. It would definitely fit.

Ewer was definitely an art dealer from at least 1948 to 1969 and is listed in the London Phone books as such.

He moved from The Arcade, Swiss Cottage to Regent Street around 1965/66.

[Sherlock Houses]

He moved from The Arcade, Swiss Cottage to Regent Street around 1965/66.

No he didn't soft lad, he moved to Oxford Street not Regent street. Cut out the deliberate mistakes will you ?

If that November '69 auction at Sotheby's is anything to go by it would seem that 'anonymity' was the name of the game.

[Natalie Severn]

The question is not whether Ewer lied, but to what extent he lied.

The Sunday Times claimed that, in Ewer’s statement to them, 9 of the 15 points were demonstrably inaccurate or contradicted what he had said elsewhere.

I believe France sold on his bits and pieces -silver napkin rings, odd bits of jewellery etc to Ewer who being 'in the trade' with his little umbrella shop to give shade , clearly was able to create a front for various 'Art deals' some a bit shady like the selling of the William Steer - Steer being such a hugely important English landscape painter the sale of which would have brought him huge profits-even then and I mean huge.As for the now priceless Holbein,clearly Ewer was in with multi millionaires by now -the big time wheelers and dealers of the Art houses and auction rooms.Of that there is no question at all.
The question to ask about William Ewer and Janet Gregsten's possible involvement in the A6 is not, in my opinion,whether one or both were in some way involved , but rather in what way they were involved?
How could either William Ewer or Janet Gregsten possibly have 'identified' Hanratty so soon after the murder-6 days to be precise -a murder that took place 50 miles away---and the day after the gunman's description was changed on 31st August 1961 from the gunman having deep set brown eyes to saucer like light blue eyes?

I refuse to accept that William Ewer ever intended any physical harm to come to either Valerie or Michael Gregsten.This man, who became a mover and a shaker in the Art World -dealing with Steers , Holbein and the like, was not at that stage interested in anything more than helping Janet deal with what he saw as a wastrel of a husband of hers ,a man who not content with fathering her two small children had to have a mistress and what was even worse,up to his ears in debt was now about to abandon them physically and financially.Ewer was nearly 20 years older than Janet,she was his wife's sister and had only them to turn to.It was beholden on him as the older man in the family to try to sort this character Gregsten out. Give him a good seeing to.Thing was he wasn't keen on getting his own hands dirty.So hire a guy with a gun who will put the frighteners on ,leave no traces,and tell them both to quit their game or next time it would be for real.Who would believe them if they had gone to the police about it? Answer is Nobody.Who got him the gun? why France.Who got him a gunman? Possibly France did that too but one person it most definitely was not was Hanratty.He was never seen in London or the South East in that Cornfield or by a station master a train user or a farmer -not once anywhere after he left the Vienna Hotel.But 14 people came forward to say they had seen him in either Liverpool or in Rhyl .Also Neither Ewer nor France were so stupid as to stage the 'she saw him in the cleaners' story unless they wished to have Hanratty as the scapegoat.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Caz,


Hi Nick,

despite Nats's recent post, you can bet your bippie

If this is a rude word Graham I shall have to report you to the headmaster.

[Natalie Severn]

By the way, Nats is a big girl
Love,
Caz
X

No need for the personal remarks Caz ...not that big I hope

[Spitfire]

I believe France sold on his bits and pieces -silver napkin rings, odd bits of jewellery etc to Ewer who being 'in the trade' with his little umbrella shop to give shade , clearly was able to create a front for various 'Art deals' some a bit shady like the selling of the William Steer - Steer being such a hugely important English landscape painter the sale of which would have brought him huge profits-even then and I mean huge.As for the now priceless Holbein,clearly Ewer was in with multi millionaires by now -the big time wheelers and dealers of the Art houses and auction rooms.Of that there is no question at all.
The question to ask about William Ewer and Janet Gregsten's possible involvement in the A6 is not, in my opinion,whether one or both were in some way involved , but rather in what way they were involved?
How could either William Ewer or Janet Gregsten possibly have 'identified' Hanratty so soon after the murder-6 days to be precise -a murder that took place 50 miles away---and the day after the gunman's description was changed on 31st August 1961 from the gunman having deep set brown eyes to saucer like light blue eyes?

On this you appear to disagree with Woffinden who has had sight of Miss Storie's various statements.

I quote from page 50 of Woffinden's book (1999 Pan edition)

'An analysis of Valerie Storie's statements reveals that she first told police about this [gunman's striking blue eyes] on Monday 28 August 1961, while she was still at Bedford.;"The description of the man is aged between twenty-five and thirty, about 5 feet 6 inches, proportionately built, slender, brown hair, clean shaven, a very smooth, pale face, with icy-blue large saucer-like eyes."

...Valerie Storie never at any stage described the murderer as having 'brown eyes''


If, during the course of researching your book, you came across anything to contradict the passage which I have quoted, then you should say what it is.

It is generally accepted that the murder took place in the early hours of 23 August 1961, so by my calculations 6 days after "to be precise" would be the early hours of 29 August 1961. What happened then?

The rest of your 'theory' is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

[Natalie Severn]

On this you appear to disagree with Woffinden who has had sight of Miss Storie's various statements.

I quote from page 50 of Woffinden's book (1999 Pan edition)

'An analysis of Valerie Storie's statements reveals that she first told police about this [gunman's striking blue eyes] on Monday 28 August 1961, while she was still at Bedford.;"The description of the man is aged between twenty-five and thirty, about 5 feet 6 inches, proportionately built, slender, brown hair, clean shaven, a very smooth, pale face, with icy-blue large saucer-like eyes."

...Valerie Storie never at any stage described the murderer as having 'brown eyes''

Then why on earth for crying out loud did she pick out Michael Clark on her first identification parade who was a heavily built man who was 5 feet 9 inches tall with dark eyes?
and why on earth did Valerie direct and help to control the construction of an identikit photo on August 26th ,that showed a man with normally set dark eyes ? and definitely not icy blue or saucer like?
and yes, in the course of writing my book I certainly,most definitely came across much that contradicts your statement.

[Natalie Severn]

The rest of your 'theory' is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

This is not true.Try to be a bit subtle and nuanced instead of the crass bully boy .You simply can't dismiss all those articles by journalists working for the Sunday Times or the work of Paul Foot ---and many many others ---too many to mention here.When you make such blanket dismissals of other people's research work you reveal yourself to be boorish and embarrassingly misogynist.
PS decided the word 'lying' was not quite accurate so removed it.What I mean is that there can be no truthful quest if you are to dismiss all the evidence to the contrary by a journalist such as Paul Foot for example who lived near Swiss Cottage and many other journalists who worked for The Sunday Times and Daily Herald and Daily Mail as well as researchers ---other than Woffinden.

[Spitfire]

Then why on earth for crying out loud did she pick out Michael Clark on her first identification parade who was a heavily built man who was 5 feet 9 inches tall with dark eyes?
and why on earth did Valerie direct and help to control the construction of an identikit photo on August 26th ,that showed a man with normally set dark eyes ? and definitely not icy blue or saucer like?
and yes, in the course of writing my book I certainly,most definitely came across much that contradicts your statement.

It is not my statement, I have quoted Bob Woffinden. I suggest you read the page I have referred to (page 50 1999 Pan edition).

[NickB]

why on earth did Valerie direct and help to control the construction of an identikit photo on August 26th ,that showed a man with normally set dark eyes ? and definitely not icy blue or saucer like?

The Appeal, Section 131, says on this day she described the eyes as blue to Inspector Mackle who was in charge of constructing the identikit image.

[Natalie Severn]

It is not my statement, I have quoted Bob Woffinden. I suggest you read the page I have referred to (page 50 1999 Pan edition).

No.You say 'if in the course of researching your book you came across anything to contradict the passage which you have quoted [from Woffinden] you should say what it is.'
And I did so saying her identification of a heavily built 5ft 9 in Michael Clark who had dark eyes,taken together with the help she gave to the dark eyed man depicted in the identikit photo of 26th August 1961 [3 days after the murder] resoundingly contradicts what is being inferred by Woffinden i.e. that Valerie indicated from the start that the man had 'icy blue saucer like eyes and was slender and stood 5ft 6 ins tall.
Why did Valerie pick out his opposite in Michael Clark if anything that has been claimed about what Valerie said is true?

[Natalie Severn]

The Appeal, Section 131, says on this day she described the eyes as blue to Inspector Mackle who was in charge of constructing the identikit image.

Certainly the first description that came out within hours were of a man with dark brown eyes and deep set .This I have always accepted may have been due to police error-having heard it wrong.
However I am not talking about whether the eyes were indicated to be blue or brown .I am talking about his eyes being described for the identikit photo that Valerie contributed to as dark...and that can mean dark blue or dark brown.Its the tonal description that is important here---together with Acott's annotated description of Michael Clark's 'dark eyes'.

[Pcdunn]

If this is a rude word Graham I shall have to report you to the headmaster.

"Bippie" (also spelt "bippy") : a made-up word in the phrase "You bet your bippy!" from the late Sixties comedy program Rowan's and Martin's Laugh-In. (And I watched it first-run!- sigh.)

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Pc Dunn! Ha Ha !