A6 Rebooted

[Derrick]

...As a matter of interest, if you met Hanratty in the afterlife and discovered he had committed this vile crime after all, what would your feelings be towards him then?...

Blimey...

He was in Liverpool but not on Rhyl but could be in the afterlife!

Dazzling.

Del.

[moste]

Blimey...

He was in Liverpool but not on Rhyl but could be in the afterlife!

Dazzling.

Del.

I know eh? what a strange question.

So if he is guilty and I meet him, I'll be in hell to.

[moste]

What about Mrs Dinwoody. Do you know something about Helicopter companies in the north west that we don't.

[moste]

Hi Caz. quote;"If he had got the willies about Rhyl and changed again, and said he spent the night in Chester, would you find that believable too, on the grounds that he wouldn't have introduced it if it wasn't true?"
No!
Love Steve.

[moste]

Hi Caz. quote"You seem to misunderstand what an alibi is. The Liverpool alibi did not remain 'a constant' throughout, and the Rhy visit was not an 'expansion' of that alibi"

This from Mr. Sherrard. from the 1992 documentary
"It is often said that Hanratty changed his alibi from Liverpool to Rhyl.That really is not quite right.The substance of the Liverpool alibi was maintained!"

[Graham]

Hi Caz. quote"You seem to misunderstand what an alibi is. The Liverpool alibi did not remain 'a constant' throughout, and the Rhy visit was not an 'expansion' of that alibi"

This from Mr. Sherrard. from the 1992 documentary
"It is often said that Hanratty changed his alibi from Liverpool to Rhyl.That really is not quite right.The substance of the Liverpool alibi was maintained!"

But Mr Sherrard was careful to advise Hanratty to sign a statement to the effect that he, Hanratty, was solely responsible for this change in alibi, and that he was prepared to accept any consequences arising. In this short statement he also requested his defence team to make every effort to find 'the landlady' in 'the house' in Rhyl.

I think what Mr Sherrard meant in his 1992 statement was that Hanratty did not flatly deny that he had been to Liverpool, but he was now saying that at some time during the day of 22nd August he left Liverpool by bus and went to Rhyl, arriving there at a time of day which meant he could not have been in the cornfield at Dorney Reach. Hence the 'substance' of the Liverpool alibi was, in legal terms, maintained.

Sherrard's fear was that judge could have ordered Hanratty to be taken to Liverpool to identify the flat in which he claimed to have stayed (and which Joe Gillbanks totally failed to find). Had that happened, and Hanratty could not identify the flat then, as Mr Sherrard put it to him, 'he would be lost'.
I suppose the judge could also have ordered Hanratty to be taken to Rhyl to identify Ingledene, but if this was ever put to him by Sherrard I can't find any record of it.

Mrs Dinwoodie was never quite sure if it was the Monday or Tuesday when a man came into her shop asking for Carlton Road.

Graham

[NickB]

In fact in all her statements Mrs Dinwoodie said it was the Monday. In court Sherrard did his best to try and get her at least to say it was either day, but she said she was 'certain' it was the Monday.

Incidentally by the time of the trial the Bull Ring had changed to Gerrard Gardens, so he had already changed his alibi to a certain extent.

[Limehouse]

Thanks, OneRound.



Oh absolutely. Similarly, those who know me don't regard me as a hang 'em and flog 'em type. I just hoped my observations on this particular subject had not given that impression to anyone.

Love,

Caz
X

No Caz, I have certainly never considered you a 'hang 'em and flog 'em' type. In this particular case, your arguments are very skilful with a passion for the real victims.

Kind regards,

Julie

[Graham]

In fact in all her statements Mrs Dinwoodie said it was the Monday. In court Sherrard did his best to try and get her at least to say it was either day, but she said she was 'certain' it was the Monday.

Incidentally by the time of the trial the Bull Ring had changed to Gerrard Gardens, so he had already changed his alibi to a certain extent.

Initially, Mrs D dithered a bit, not really sure if it was the Monday or Tuesday, but in court she said it was Monday. Of course, if it wasn't Hanratty at all who Mrs D claimed she spoke to, and I don't believe that it was, then the whole sweetshop thing goes up in a puff of smoke.

The sweetshop, by the way, is long gone.

Graham

[NickB]

I can find no evidence that Mrs D dithered at all.

In her first statement on 17th October she said it was “definitely” the Monday.

Foot claims that she suggested Tuesday in an interview with Don Smith for the Daily Herald at about this time. But if she really said this why doesn’t Foot quote it from the Daily Herald article?

[Graham]

It was the interview with Don Smith I was thinking of. According to him, Mrs D initially said that she thought the man had come into the shop on the Tuesday, but she had been asked so many questions by so many people she was no longer sure of this. I agree that Foot should have quoted the Daily Herald article, which I have never seen, rather than his interview with Smith nearly 10 years afterwards.

Graham

[moste]

It was the interview with Don Smith I was thinking of. According to him, Mrs D initially said that she thought the man had come into the shop on the Tuesday, but she had been asked so many questions by so many people she was no longer sure of this. I agree that Foot should have quoted the Daily Herald article, which I have never seen, rather than his interview with Smith nearly 10 years afterwards.

Graham

But isn't the chief issue with the incident, the fact that the granddaughter who worked all day with Mrs.D. on the Monday, was the tie to Mrs.D. remembering that the man came in asking directions whilst the little girl was in the shop.
Its easy to see how she may have overlooked, or not remembered ,the half hour or so on the Tuesday that young Barbara Ford was in the shop at the crucial period of Hanratty's alibi (being quite unwell to boot) Square this with the proven fact that Hanratty was, according to numerous witnesses, in London on the Monday,and we have something like a firm alibi. Even though the jury was subject to a half wit statement about where he went next, they must have been looking hard and long at this series of events in Liverpool, especially after the poor, and incompetent suggestion by the prosecution, of the ability of someone being in two places at once. This ludicrous and, really unbelievable statement (prosecution must have wished they hadn't said that, as soon as it left his mouth )Lay even more credence to JHs alibi.

[NickB]

I agree the prosecution appear to have muddied the water unnecessarily. They should have just stuck to their central theme: that if it was the Monday it couldn’t have been Hanratty. I suspect that in the full transcript this comes through more clearly, as summarised in section 76.x. of the Appeal.

However I don’t think the Tuesday scenario is as straightforward as you suggest, because of the question of when the granddaughter was serving.

In fact Foot rejects the timings given by Olive Dinwoodie and her granddaughter Barabara Ford - but accepts the timing given by the friend Linda Walton. The only apparent basis he has for doing this is that Linda gives the timing he wants to hear and the other two do not.

Even if you accept Linda’s minority report on the timing you then have her statement that: “Barbara was standing in front of the counter most of the time with me.” So you are reduced to the man just happening to come in at a moment when Barbara went behind the counter to serve children.

[Derrick]

...I suspect that in the full transcript this comes through more clearly, as summarised in section 76.x. of the Appeal...

Hi Nick

Section 76.x of the appeal ruling dealt solely with the evidence that the prosecution relied on and nothing more. Certainly not from what the whole transcript might provide.

Del

[Derrick]

...In fact Foot rejects the timings given by Olive Dinwoodie and her granddaughter Barabara Ford - but accepts the timing given by the friend Linda Walton. The only apparent basis he has for doing this is that Linda gives the timing he wants to hear and the other two do not.

Even if you accept Linda’s minority report on the timing you then have her statement that: “Barbara was standing in front of the counter most of the time with me.” So you are reduced to the man just happening to come in at a moment when Barbara went behind the counter to serve children.

Hi Nick

Mrs Dinwoodie was examined by Mr Sherrard thus; (OD=Mrs Dinwoodie, MS=MIchael Sherrard)

OD) Mr Cowley sent me a note asking me to come down to the shop on the Monday and to bring the girl with me. Barbara, my granddaughter, was with me on the Monday.
MS) Did that assist you at that time in fixing which of these two days it was, the fact that there had been this reference to the child?
OD) Yes.
MS) Which of the two days did you think it was?
OD) The Monday.
MS) If it had not been for your fixing the date by reference to your grandchild, do you think you would have been able to remember which of the two days it was?
OD) No, sir.

It was only the fact that her granddaughter was serving in the shop that made her decide on which day the man came in asking for the material directions.

I seem certain that minors, ie Miss Ford and Miss Walton, could not give evidence, so that part of the facts in the case were not heard in court.

But what we do know is that Barbara Ford did serve behind the counter on the Monday and the Tuesday and that Mrs Dinwoodie testified that the man came in when her granddaughter had served behind the counter.

Hanratty could well have come into the shop just after Miss Ford had been serving.

Therefore there has to a reasonable doubt as to Hanratty's whereabouts.

Del