Hello!
Yes, it's me, back from working all over the bloody place and not having a moment or two to closely study my favourite thread on these boards.
Regarding Leonard Miller, I have a feeling that I may well have been the first contributor to this thread actually to have read, and reported on, this book, on the old boards prior to the Great Crash. I obtained the book direct from Zoilus Press (who rather like Olympia Press in Paris who published Jean Justice, specialise in off-the-beaten-track stuff) My personal take on Miller (and I am fairly certain that isn't his real name) is that he wasn't God's gift to literature (or journalism), and I said so at the time; I didn't care for his rather twee and ineffective 'dramatisation' of Hanratty's thoughts, and fictionalisation of what he thought and did; and I said so at the time. But the whole point of Miller is that he didn't actually lay claim to carrying out new research - he merely put another spin on the existing knowledge of the case. That is perfectly legitimate as far as I'm concerned, and he has every right to do it, and he wasn't entirely unsuccessful.
Repeating myself for the umpteenth time, I generally accepted Hanratty's innocence (my acceptance being based largely upon my great respect for Paul Foot and all his works) until the DNA results, and then you can bet your ass that I re-read Foot, Woffinden, Blom-Cooper and anyone else I had at hand regarding the A6 Case. This re-reading (which was off-and-on and took a long time) led me to conclude that certain formerly-accepted 'proofs' of Hanratty's innocence were not really 'proofs' at all, rather circumstantial evidence, heresay, whatever. And I think Miller did the same. Example: the 'fact' that up to 11 people claimed to have seen Hanratty in Rhyl at the crucial time is not 'proof' at all. 'Proof' would be his signature in the register of Ingledene or some other boarding-house in Rhyl. Pre-DNA, I was prepared to accept the word of the Rhyl witnesses, but in reality all they are saying is that they 'thought' they saw someone like Hanratty in Rhyl at the time it mattered. Perhaps they were fed leading questions.
I strongly believe that Hanratty was convicted on Storie's i.d. evidence (which I for one would say is not wholly watertight - she herself admitted that 'her memory of the man is fading') which the jury believed, and his change of alibi halfway through the trial. He shot himself right in the foot (pardon the pun). The statement by Terence McNally, who existed, lived in Liverpool and admitted he knew Hanratty, that 'if he [Hanratty] won't open up, then why should I?' has always puzzled me. Hanratty says he stayed in Liverpool with McNally, but at the crucial time? I don't think so - and when Hanratty knew he couldn't prove it, he changed his alibi to Rhyl and effectively did for himself. Sherrard warned Hanratty that the judge could actually order his being taken to Liverpool to locate McNally (and the other men, whoever they were) and that if he, Hanratty, were unable to do that, he would be lost. And McNally, on a subpoena, said that he hadn't seen Hanratty for the four years since he left Lewes prison. The Liverpool Alibi was shot. Hanratty moved his sights to Rhyl, and was able to prove absolutely nothing.
Graham
Yes, it's me, back from working all over the bloody place and not having a moment or two to closely study my favourite thread on these boards.
Regarding Leonard Miller, I have a feeling that I may well have been the first contributor to this thread actually to have read, and reported on, this book, on the old boards prior to the Great Crash. I obtained the book direct from Zoilus Press (who rather like Olympia Press in Paris who published Jean Justice, specialise in off-the-beaten-track stuff) My personal take on Miller (and I am fairly certain that isn't his real name) is that he wasn't God's gift to literature (or journalism), and I said so at the time; I didn't care for his rather twee and ineffective 'dramatisation' of Hanratty's thoughts, and fictionalisation of what he thought and did; and I said so at the time. But the whole point of Miller is that he didn't actually lay claim to carrying out new research - he merely put another spin on the existing knowledge of the case. That is perfectly legitimate as far as I'm concerned, and he has every right to do it, and he wasn't entirely unsuccessful.
Repeating myself for the umpteenth time, I generally accepted Hanratty's innocence (my acceptance being based largely upon my great respect for Paul Foot and all his works) until the DNA results, and then you can bet your ass that I re-read Foot, Woffinden, Blom-Cooper and anyone else I had at hand regarding the A6 Case. This re-reading (which was off-and-on and took a long time) led me to conclude that certain formerly-accepted 'proofs' of Hanratty's innocence were not really 'proofs' at all, rather circumstantial evidence, heresay, whatever. And I think Miller did the same. Example: the 'fact' that up to 11 people claimed to have seen Hanratty in Rhyl at the crucial time is not 'proof' at all. 'Proof' would be his signature in the register of Ingledene or some other boarding-house in Rhyl. Pre-DNA, I was prepared to accept the word of the Rhyl witnesses, but in reality all they are saying is that they 'thought' they saw someone like Hanratty in Rhyl at the time it mattered. Perhaps they were fed leading questions.
I strongly believe that Hanratty was convicted on Storie's i.d. evidence (which I for one would say is not wholly watertight - she herself admitted that 'her memory of the man is fading') which the jury believed, and his change of alibi halfway through the trial. He shot himself right in the foot (pardon the pun). The statement by Terence McNally, who existed, lived in Liverpool and admitted he knew Hanratty, that 'if he [Hanratty] won't open up, then why should I?' has always puzzled me. Hanratty says he stayed in Liverpool with McNally, but at the crucial time? I don't think so - and when Hanratty knew he couldn't prove it, he changed his alibi to Rhyl and effectively did for himself. Sherrard warned Hanratty that the judge could actually order his being taken to Liverpool to locate McNally (and the other men, whoever they were) and that if he, Hanratty, were unable to do that, he would be lost. And McNally, on a subpoena, said that he hadn't seen Hanratty for the four years since he left Lewes prison. The Liverpool Alibi was shot. Hanratty moved his sights to Rhyl, and was able to prove absolutely nothing.
Graham
Comment