A6 Rebooted

[cobalt]

Otterman62,

The point you raised about motive has always been a problem, although to be even-handed about it, the prosecution is under no more obligation to provide a motive that Hanratty was to provide an alibi.

Like you, I have always been more concerned with the events leading up to the attack. On this forum a great deal of argument surrounds the Liverpool/Rhyl alibi, which is understandable given that a definitive verdict would probably clear the case up once and for all. However I sometimes wonder if the alibi is a distraction, since the case against Hanratty would have been just as flimsy if he had been in the London area at the time flitting between lodging houses and the dry cleaners.

Motive aside, one gaping hole in the prosecution case is how Hanratty managed to arrive at the cornfield in the first place. He was carrying a gun and a fair amount of ammunition, so it is highly unlikely he travelled by public transport. If he had stolen a car to get there, as was Hanratty’s want, then one would have expected that fact to surface quite quickly in the investigation. That leaves the possibility (or probability in my view) that the murderer, be it Hanratty or someone else, was driven to the area by an accomplice.

And what was going to be his method of leaving the area after the planned ‘stick up,’ presumably bearing a few more kilos in cash or loot? Maybe Hanratty often stole cars after robberies, I don’t know; but he was carrying a gun on this occasion, it is alleged, so you would imagine his means of hot footing it out of the area had been considered beforehand. But no detail of this has emerged.

The cornfield story itself is totally reliant on the testimony of Valerie Storie. There is, I think, corroboration of the car being in the cornfield in the late evening, but none understandably about who or how many people were in the car. Ms Storie herself said, to the first person she spoke to after her ordeal, that she and Mr Gregsten had picked up ‘a hitch hiker.’ Given her condition, that may just have been an understandable slip of the tongue, and of no significance. Or it may be that their encounter with the murderer was slightly different than the account given in court.

[Spitfire]

I feel bound to say that the person who corrupted the "alibi scene" the most was James Hanratty himself. He clearly lied about being in Liverpool on the night of 22 August and changing his alibi did him no favours at all. The jury saw through Hanratty and must have come to the conclusion that he was not in Ingledene, or any other Rhyl boarding house for that night.

I think that the prosecution, hampered as they were by the latest of Hanratty change of alibi, did sufficient to show that Hanratty could not have stayed in Ingledene. There simply was not enough room for him on the night of 22 August. Paul Foot in his book is driven to saying that Hanratty must have stayed in the attic bathroom with its famous green bath. Yet Hanratty does not say that his room had a bath, it had a sink. The attic room did not have curtains as claimed by Hanratty, it had a skylight.

[Spitfire]

A lot of people have spent much time and effort in trying to rationalise Hanratty's actions on the night he killed Michael Gregsten. To try to do this is futile. We just do not know what was going on in his warped mind.

Why he was at Dorney Reach? What had he done in the hours since he left the Vienna? What did he hope to achieve by abducting Gregsten and Storie? Are all questions which can only be answered by speculation.

There are some folk who have a touching belief that Hanratty could not commit such a crime and therefore he did not. Some even go so far as to accuse the late Peter Alphon even though Hanratty's Counsel at the 2002 appeal expressly stated that Alphon was not the murderer.

IMHO, Hanratty failed to prove his alibi and jury were right to reject it. The trial judge must have been alive to this, as he warned the jury that it was not necessary for Hanratty to prove his alibi, but was necessary for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The jury members were all present in court. They heard the evidence. They had to opportunity to assess the demeanour of the witnesses and the accused. They must have formed a very poor opinion of James Hanratty, especially when it became apparent that his first alibi story was a lie in material parts.

[Kerry1983]

Have you asked the previous occupants about internal photos?

Hanratty describes the bathroom: “Green bath round, sink green to match bath.” After two words I cannot decipher he says “Lavatory and bath room combined.” So it is a room with a green bath, green sink and lavatory.

Then he describes the bedroom: “In bedroom was a small desk.” It is clear from this, and further descriptions he made, that the bathroom and bedroom are two separate rooms.

The obvious inference is that the green bathroom was the one he used for washing etc. But apparently it would not have been because it was a reserve bathroom tucked away in the attic marked ‘Private’. So normally Hanratty would not have seen the green bathroom.

Instead of admitting this might be a reason why Hanratty did not stay there, Foot turns it around and claims that Hanratty slept in the room.
“Hanratty never said he slept in the attic room with the bath, but how would he have known about it if he hadn't?”

No, i don't know who the previous occupants are really, only their names but i wouldn't know how to contact them, I just thought there might be some onlinne somewhere.

When i moved in, the bathroom with the green bath was the only bathroom in the house so i wouldn't say it was a reserve one. It did have the private sign on the door, i took it down myself when we were decorating. Also it's not an attic room, it's just simply a room on the third floor. There was a separate lavatory on the second floor but no other bathroom in the house.
Most of the rooms had sinks in them aswell but not all. Isn't it possible that if he did stay in one of the bedrooms then he would have washed in the 'Private' bathroom?

[Dupplin Muir]

Spitfire wrote:

Some even go so far as to accuse the late Peter Alphon even though Hanratty's Counsel at the 2002 appeal expressly stated that Alphon was not the murderer.

But he shouldn't have. FSS were (dishonestly) peddling LCN DNA testing as reliable and Mansfield took their statements at face value. As stated in the paper I posted a while ago, it's actually not that rare to recover no DNA after a rape - and even less likely when evidence has been stored God-knows-how for 40 years. It is perfectly possible that Alphon did carry out the rape but left no traces.

[Dupplin Muir]

Kerry1983 wrote:

Most of the rooms had sinks in them as well but not all. Isn't it possible that if he did stay in one of the bedrooms then he would have washed in the 'Private' bathroom?

Thank you for your interesting insights. Is it possible that it might not have been marked private when Hanratty stayed there?

[Kerry1983]

Kerry1983 wrote:



Thank you for your interesting insights. Is it possible that it might not have been marked private when Hanratty stayed there?

I think it probably was, it was a very old sign. Possibly marked private as it was for the homeowners use only? But as it was the only bathroom in the house though then surely the guests used it to bath etc? Or did they only have the use of the sinks in their rooms for washing?
I still have all the original doors and all the others still have their room numbers on them, 1-6.

[NickB]

it's not an attic room, it's just simply a room on the third floor.

So does it have a skylight or a normal window?

Isn't it possible that if he did stay in one of the bedrooms then he would have washed in the 'Private' bathroom?

I agree and would be interested in other people's views.

Foot proposes that Hanratty slept in the bathroom because it explains how he could have stayed at Ingledene when all the bedrooms were occupied.

[Penhalion]

Please forgive me if this has been covered previously but I haven't had a chance to read through all 250 pages of this thread.

The two competing theories seem to be:

1) Hanratty (small time thug/thief) who was known to work mostly in urban/suburban areas somehow randomly found himself in a rural area while he had a gun and ammunition on him. Seeing a couple parked in a car 'making out' (as the kids say), he decides on a bit of carjacking which then leads to murder, rape, and attempted murder none of which he's ever done before (to our knowledge).

2) The family of Gregsten or Storie hires an unknown person (maybe Hanratty, maybe Alphon) to break up the adulterous couple by scaring them. Finding them in a field, the person threatens and then kills Gregsten (after weird highjinks) and then decides that a bit of rape would go down well before attempting to kill Storie- thereby destroying at least one of the people he was supposedly being paid by the family of.

Seriously??!! Neither of those make any sense!

[Kerry1983]

So does it have a skylight or a normal window?


I agree and would be interested in other people's views.

Foot proposes that Hanratty slept in the bathroom because it explains how he could have stayed at Ingledene when all the bedrooms were occupied.

Hi Nick,

Yes it does have the skylight, i just would never have described it as an attic room. It's next door to one of the other bedrooms on the top floor (it's just another room to us). Maybe the skylight has led to it being called the attic room?

Yes that sounds like a plausible reason to me, especially if it was a private bathroom for the homeowners use only. She could have put him in there and knew he wouldn't have been 'in the way' as the other guests didn't use it?
From what i can gather, the guests had their own private sink in their rooms and they shared use of the single toilet which was on the second floor.

[Kerry1983]

So does it have a skylight or a normal window?


I agree and would be interested in other people's views.

Foot proposes that Hanratty slept in the bathroom because it explains how he could have stayed at Ingledene when all the bedrooms were occupied.

Also, i think i've read somewhere that Hanratty claimed he could hear the trains from where he slept? Is this correct?

[NickB]

Yes he said that.

The landlady, Grace Jones, confirmed in court that there was a bed in the bathroom.

But she said room number 4 was available that week for casual visitors. Joe Sayle (Alexei Sayle’s dad) testified that he stayed in room 4 on the nights of 21, 22 and 23 August.

A newspaper report of her evidence:
part 1
part 2

[Spitfire]

Hello Kerry1983 and welcome to the forum.

Hanratty said in evidence that he had a room at the back of the house, and that he did not bother to draw the curtains. He said that when he awoke he could see a small courtyard.

Is it possible to see the rear courtyard from the bathroom on the top floor.

You say that the green bath was not an attic room, but a room on the third floor.

As Foot describes Ingledene;
On the ground floor at the front is the dining room.
On the first floor there were 4 of the 6 letting bedrooms; rooms 1,2,4 and 6.
On the second floor 2 more letting bedrooms; rooms 3 and 5.


Mrs Grace Jones in her evidence is reported to call the bathroom as being in the "attic" which is why we have been calling it an attic bathroom. You say, however, that it is just a room on the third floor. Were there any other rooms on the third floor. Do you know is any building alterations have been made to Ingledene to alter the room configuration.

If any of Hanratty-did-not-do-it-ites could tell me in what bedroom Hanratty spent the nights of 22 and 23 August 1961, I would be very grateful. If it was the case that he spent the night in the bathroom, why did he not mention the bed and bath being in the same room?

[Spitfire]

Yes he said that.

The landlady, Grace Jones, confirmed in court that there was a bed in the bathroom.

But she said room number 4 was available that week for casual visitors. Joe Sayle (Alexei Sayle’s dad) testified that he stayed in room 4 on the nights of 21, 22 and 23 August.

A newspaper report of her evidence:
part 1
part 2

Hanratty was clear that he could see the rear courtyard from his room. According to Foot Room No 4 was at the front of the house above the front dining room, so even without the presence of Mr Sayle room 4 does not fit the bill.

[Kerry1983]

Just read them both, thank you for that, very interesting.
I wouldn't have thought that a double bed could fit in the bathroom, it's only a small room and the bath was quite big. There wouldn't have been any floor space at all if so and i don't think the door would open.

Room 4 is at the front of the house, the window directly above the front door. I asked about the trains as if he stayed in this room then he wouldn't be able to hear them. Also they can't be heard from the then bathroom? But i guess trains were a lot noisier in those days so possibly?
The only rooms i can hear the trains from are room 1 which is now my bathroom and room 5, my bedroom.