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

[Graham]

Hi Nats and Pat Dunn,

Pat, you beat me to it! God alone knows why I recall that R&M Laugh-In expression, but it must have impressed me because I still use it. How sad is that? I also remember that show first time round....oh dear.

Graham

[Graham]

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.

Maybe, Nats, but as Sherlock House's recent post confirms, the Holbein was bought by Ewer who was acting as an agent for the actual anonymous buyer. No doubt, though, that Big Bill made a handsome commission out of the deal.

I've not been able to find out very much about William Ewer and his dealings, but the surname 'Ewer' is not uncommon in the arts world, and I wonder if there is any relationship. I haven't found anything - so far - to suggest that William Ewer was up there with the big boys in the art world. Had he been, I'm sure he'd be easier to locate.

Graham

[caz]

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

That's good news, Del, if it helps keep my beloved multicultural London free of Daily Mail reading racists.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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?

You've answered your own question, Nats. They couldn't have done. No more than Valerie could have described the real Hanratty's eyes - saucer like light blue ones - if her rapist had actually had deep set brown ones. Another vanishingly unlikely coincidence?

I refuse to accept that William Ewer ever intended any physical harm to come to either Valerie or Michael Gregsten...

Then don't accept it. I don't either. It's crystal clear to me that Ewer made up the story of Janet 'identifying' the blue-eyed Hanratty by some form of sixth sense, so nothing he claimed in hindsight about the 'sighting' incident can be trusted without sound supporting evidence from the supporting cast list, including firm dates and police confirmation - which I don't believe we've seen yet (unless I've missed it?).

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.

But it would have been a stupid thing for Ewer to stage at the beginning of that September, and especially to 'boast' about publicly after the trial, if he was even indirectly involved and had been trying to lead the police to Hanratty, because the whole thing sounded like such a terribly implausible coincidence, plus the police had been led to Hanratty, who had subsequently hanged.

If Ewer really had telephoned Scotland Yard to inform them of his (no, sorry, Janet's) quite astonishing 'vision' that early in the game, would they not have come to smell the same very large rat as some of us here seem to be smelling now? Isn't it infinitely more likely that Ewer was able to gather all sorts of titbits from attending the trial and reading the papers and possibly making his own local enquiries into the bargain, learned about the (genuine) police visit to the florist (of whatever date), where they learned that Hanratty had been a customer and sent flowers to his Mum, and finally sold his own 'extraordinary' story to the papers, making out that he and Janet had played pivotal roles in getting justice for her murdered husband?

Once the police realised Ewer's tale was so much bullshit (which they would have done if their records showed no such telephone call from him), there would have been no cause to suspect him of being any more personally involved than his natural instincts to look out for the victim's widow.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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

You know I didn't mean it like that, Nats. I meant you are all grown up and don't need the men to defend you from that dreadful old ratbag Caz.

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

that dreadful old ratbag Caz

Oh come now, you do yourself an injustice. I just had a peek at your profile, the public one that is, and there you are with your sister.....

Graham

[Graham]

With regard to the 'fingering' of William Ewer as the mysterious and evil Mr X behind the A6 Crime, I do feel that there was something of a political agenda behind all this. As far as I'm aware - and as always I stand to be corrected - the first inkling that there might have been some sort of conspiracy was when Louis Blom-Cooper asked the (frankly, quite reasonable question), "Was Hanratty sent to the cornfield?" And if so, who sent him?

Forget for a moment all the rubbish about the cleaner's, and intuitive sightings of Hanratty. After she was widowed, Janet Gregsten, obviously alone, vulnerable and distraught, and with two kids to bring up, was looking for help. She herself said that her affair with Ewer 'just happened', as I believe it did. Unfortunately, for someone like Paul Foot this was manna from Heaven. Plainly, he was looking for a reason why the A6 ever happened, and perhaps like a lot of people both then and now he was unable to accept that it was a random crime perpetrated by an unbalanced character. Straightaway, at least in my opinion, Foot saw a motive for the crime: Ewer lusted after his sister-in-law, and had to have her by whatever means were open to him, and rubber-stamped it all by having an eight year 'affair' with her. The fact that Foot was a member of the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party, whose avowed intent (when they weren't and aren't squabbling amongst themselves) was and probably still is to destabilise the Establishment. Or their perception of the Establishment, at any rate. Foot went after Ewer, although as an experienced journalist with the often-sued-for-libel Private Eye he was very careful not to name him. To his public, Ewer was Mr X, the evil brain behind the A6 Crime. Ewer was a member of the class Foot hated - a self-made, reasonably well-off man, right-wing, confident, and definitely minor Establishment. A perfect target. And when Ewer also turned out to be a romancer of the highest order, Foot had his man - at least he had his man in print, although I do wonder if deep within his basically-honest soul Paul Foot was aware that it was his politics and not his investigative powers that were drawing him along.

Ewer, as we know, won considerable damages for libel, and fairly too, I'd have to say. I think that if any aspect of Ewer's involvement, if indeed there was one, prior to the Crime, suggests itself for deep investigation, it is his relationship with Louise Anderson, a friend of Hanratty. Though Ewer more or less denied that he knew her, he could not deny that he had definitely never met her. I would just love to have recordings of the conversations, both before and after the Crime, between Ewer and Anderson. I'll say no more about this, at least not at this stage, as it would be seen as rank conjecture.

Finally, as we know, Dixie France went along cap-in-hand to Ewer to 'apologise' for the murder of Michael Gregsten. Why? What had France got to do with it? In my honest opinion over the 20+ years I've been interested in the A6, France supplied Hanratty with the gun and got rid of it on the 36A bus in a manner he knew would incriminate James Hanratty.

Just speculation, folks, nothing more.......well, not quite. And as is usual with me, sorry for the length of this post.

Graham

[cobalt]

Graham,

You seem to be accepting the concept of a conspiracy, but at the same time consider that Hanratty was guilty. This is actually quite a legitimate position to take on this site. It is completely bonkers of course, but well established.

What you call the 'rubbish' of the Ewer sighting is far from that: everything points to a (failed) attempt to fit up Hanratty, which then had to be given a second wind by the planting of cartridges in the Vienna Hotel.

This is a case not of coincidence, in which few of us really believe. Hanratty was put in the frame and the police snatched up the opportunity.

[cobalt]

Graham,

On an earlier post you attempted to explain the police presence at the florist's in Swiss Cottage down to the fact that the police had already seen the flowers at the Hanratty household (at which they were presumably investigating a burglary)

Assuming the police actually saw the flowers and the accompanying note - and that is a massive piece of conjecture, in fact lets stop there for a moment.

But even if they did, why on earth would they go back to a bloody florists? To find out what? His preference for dahlias? Your whole argument is risible. You are claiming that the flowers were some important link in the chain of evidence of a minor crime, whereas all the evidence points towards the A6
police investigation having been tipped off that a suspect was in the area.

And as for Ewer, I think Paul Foot did a poor job there. There is too much unexplained about his relationships, his political affiliations. his financial situation, his social contacts. Which had led me to believe he was a protected man.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Graham. regarding your views about Paul Foot and whether he was biased in favour of the Hanratty family.I do believe he was very fond of Mr and Mrs Hanratty and their son Michael . But your argument does not hold water when you put Paul and his politics and his personal friendship to one side and make a serious assessment of the view on the street-in this case Fleet Street, then home to very many journalists.Paul Foot was not the only journalist who questioned the verdict as you must know.Lewis Chester not only questioned it but believed William Ewer 'a very dubious character indeed.In 1971 Chester,a journalist for the Sunday Times contacted the photographer's assistant ,who disputed Ewer's recollection of events ,Chester also studied the identikit Valerie had drawn up which he insisted revealed a man with dark eyes-deep set dark or brown eyes in fact as described on 23rd /24th in almost all news reports.Then there was Peter Duffy of the Daily Mail who I found perfectly credible and has been described by Woffinden as a 'conscientious journalist' who checked it all out for himself [the 'intuition' story ] ; Alex Finer and Nelson Mews of the Sunday Times .George Hollingbery who I knew and was a man of integrity -Bernard Jordan.Paul's lifelong friend the then Private Eye Editor Richard Ingrams also believed Hanratty was a victim of a miscarriage of justice.Tony Mason a freelance journalist from Slough consistently questioned the A6 verdict from the outset.nx

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Caz-as I said before you are of course entitled to your opinion-no question ! I think though ,as one journalist at least hinted,Ewer may not have been quite right.More than once they indicate he was an oddball. But he loved Janet -first as a sister later as her lover .nx

[Spitfire]

It is completely bonkers of course, but well established.

And of course Acott's actions in determining the age of the person first identified by Valerie Storie fall into the bonkers category too.

Perhaps slightly off topic,
But why is Acott so precise in the dating of the suspect (7.12.35.) I consider myself, at my advanced years, as a reasonable judge of a person's age, but I could never be as precise at Acott.

Was he suggesting some horoscope significance? 7.12.35 is very precise, ludicrously so. From photos most of us, of a certain age perhaps and aware of fashions at the time, would put Hanratty in his early 20s and Alphon in his late 20s early 30s. You could hardly be more exact than that.

[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''


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.

In addition to my earlier post pointing out the obvious mismatch between Michael Clark ,the man Valerie wrongly selected as the A6 killer in her first identity parade and James Hanratty viz MC was 5ft 9 ins ,heavily built and had dark eyes whereas Hanratty was 5ft 7ins very slim and had light blue eyes , I have been able to access Woffinden's book at last and am able to illustrate how questionable the above assertion is that an analysis of Valerie Storie's statements--er--what statements? where? on what date exactly ?...and recorded by whom ? .... stating without supporting evidence that it reveals she said so and so on 28th August about the man having ' icy blue eyes" where else is this recorded?
The quote you have posted from page 50 of Woffinden is actually what appears to be unsupported by any evidence .
When I searched footnote 19 of Chapter 5 from which it is taken it gives no information except for VS4-the VS stands for Valerie Storie I assume -but what on earth does the 4 stand for and where is the precise source for her having said this on or before 28th August 1961 ?

In contrast every newspaper of 23rd and 24th August 1961 carried the same description of a man with deep set brown eyes.

The National and Local newspapers of the 23rd and 24th August 1961 are unanimous in stating that the man had 'deep set brown eyes'
viz:
Evening News 23 August1961: the man had deep set brown eyes
Daily Mirror 24 August 1961 : the man had deep set brown eyes
Daily Mail ditto ditto
Daily Telegraph ditto ditto
Daily Herald ditto ditto

This statement common to ALL newspapers came from Valerie Storie and tallies absolutely with the identikit photo she helped direct of a man with dark eyes which were deep set . As the Windsor ,Slough and Eton Express of [August 25th] put it "The only description of the man wanted for questioning by police is the one given by Miss Storie in her gravely ill condition." Of course it has to be accepted that when Valerie's health returned a little she may have had a more distinct memory of the man's eyes and their colour but on the other hand she is quoted as having said not long after this that her memory [of her 'fleeting glimpse' of the man's face] 'was fading'.

[Spitfire]

In addition to my earlier post pointing out the obvious mismatch between Michael Clark ,the man Valerie wrongly selected as the A6 killer in her first identity parade and James Hanratty viz MC was 5ft 9 ins ,heavily built and had dark eyes whereas Hanratty was 5ft 7ins very slim and had light blue eyes , I have been able to access Woffinden's book at last and am able to illustrate how questionable the above assertion is that an analysis of Valerie Storie's statements--er--what statements? where? on what date exactly ?...and recorded by whom ? .... stating without supporting evidence that it reveals she said so and so on 28th August about the man having ' icy blue eyes" where else is this recorded?
The quote you have posted from page 50 of Woffinden is actually what appears to be unsupported by any evidence .
When I searched footnote 19 of Chapter 5 from which it is taken it gives no information except for VS4-the VS stands for Valerie Storie I assume -but what on earth does the 4 stand for and where is the precise source for her having said this on or before 28th August 1961 ?

In contrast every newspaper of 23rd and 24th August 1961 carried the same description of a man with deep set brown eyes.

The National and Local newspapers of the 23rd and 24th August 1961 are unanimous in stating that the man had 'deep set brown eyes'
viz:
Evening News 23 August1961: the man had deep set brown eyes
Daily Mirror 24 August 1961 : the man had deep set brown eyes
Daily Mail ditto ditto
Daily Telegraph ditto ditto
Daily Herald ditto ditto

This statement common to ALL newspapers came from Valerie Storie and tallies absolutely with the identikit photo she helped direct of a man with dark eyes which were deep set . As the Windsor ,Slough and Eton Express of [August 25th] put it "The only description of the man wanted for questioning by police is the one given by Miss Storie in her gravely ill condition." Of course it has to be accepted that when Valerie's health returned a little she may have had a more distinct memory of the man's eyes and their colour but on the other hand she is quoted as having said not long after this that her memory [of her 'fleeting glimpse' of the man's face] 'was fading'.

If you bother to read the "References" given by Woffinden, which can be found at page 474 (Pan 1999 edition), you will be able to answer many of the questions which you pose above.

[Graham]

Thanks Graham. regarding your views about Paul Foot and whether he was biased in favour of the Hanratty family.I do believe he was very fond of Mr and Mrs Hanratty and their son Michael . But your argument does not hold water when you put Paul and his politics and his personal friendship to one side and make a serious assessment of the view on the street-in this case Fleet Street, then home to very many journalists.Paul Foot was not the only journalist who questioned the verdict as you must know.Lewis Chester not only questioned it but believed William Ewer 'a very dubious character indeed.In 1971 Chester,a journalist for the Sunday Times contacted the photographer's assistant ,who disputed Ewer's recollection of events ,Chester also studied the identikit Valerie had drawn up which he insisted revealed a man with dark eyes-deep set dark or brown eyes in fact as described on 23rd /24th in almost all news reports.Then there was Peter Duffy of the Daily Mail who I found perfectly credible and has been described by Woffinden as a 'conscientious journalist' who checked it all out for himself [the 'intuition' story ] ; Alex Finer and Nelson Mews of the Sunday Times .George Hollingbery who I knew and was a man of integrity -Bernard Jordan.Paul's lifelong friend the then Private Eye Editor Richard Ingrams also believed Hanratty was a victim of a miscarriage of justice.Tony Mason a freelance journalist from Slough consistently questioned the A6 verdict from the outset.nx

Nats, I think you misunderstand the thrust of my earlier post regarding Paul Foot. I am well aware that he wasn't the first journalist to question the verdict at Hanratty's trial, but as far as I'm aware he was certainly the first journalist to make the claim that a "Mr X" was behind the murder. When I first read his 1974 book "Who Killed Hanratty?" in about 1980 or thereabouts, I knew enough of the A6 Case to be aware that Janet Gregsten had an affair, after the murder of her husband, with William Ewer. It didn't take much of an intellectual leap to figure out that Paul Foot's "Mr X" was the self-same William Ewer.

I always had a good deal of respect for Paul Foot's investigative journalism in Private Eye, but a lot less (actually zero) respect for his support of the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party. Richard Ingrams effectively sacked Foot from Private Eye in 1972, I believe, as he didn't like the way Foot invariably supported the unions when there was a strike, irrespective of the rights or wrongs of the dispute. Foot should have got the picture with regard to the Socialist Workers Party when he stood as candidate for Birmingham Stechford in the 1977 general election and got slightly less than 1% of the vote.

Foot worked for the Daily Mirror and was very active in the case of the Bridgewater Four. I suppose I have to admit that he was instrumental in getting their convictions quashed. Foot's salary at the Daily Mirror was a reputed £55000 when he left the paper in 1993, not bad for a professed socialist whose political ideals were frankly odd. He went back to Private Eye, now under Ian Hislop, and did sterling work with regard to the John Poulson exposure and The Birmingham Six, who should forever be glad of his support.

What I was saying in my original post was that Foot, as a red-hot Socialist, was looking for a reason for the A6 Crime beyond James Hanratty's background and personality; Foot needed to look for another reason other than Hanratty's personality, and he found it in William Ewer, who, as I said, was a man who stood for just about everything Foot didn't like. Fleet Street and other journalists within it didn't matter to Foot - in William Ewer he had his target, and within the restrictions of the law he went for it.
With regard to Richard Ingrams, yes, he may well have publicly backed up Foot's argument that Hanratty was innocent, but don't forget that he also sacked Foot for being somewhat too left-leaning.

Finally - at last - if anyone can show me that Ewer was considered to be the evil "Mr X" prior to Paul Foot's pointing the finger at him, apart from the semi-crazy Peter Alphon who, I would suggest, might actually have influenced Paul Foot in this area, I'd be both grateful and interested.

Again, apologies for such a long post.

Graham.