a6 murder

[Victor]

Tsk, tsk Caz, 'virtually unique' - sorry but there's no such thing, something is either unique, or it isn't. However, I do agree with your point.

How about something that is unique in the virtual world? Is that virtually unique?

KR
Vic

[caz]

Hi Stewart,

I think you can say that something is so unusual that it borders on being unique. In other words, not actually unique but not far short of it. I meant it in that way.

What you can't have are degrees of uniqueness, so something can't be a little bit unique, fairly unique or very unique.

But I'm glad you agree with my point.

Love,

Caz
X

[Stewart P Evans]

But

Hi Stewart,
I think you can say that something is so unusual that it borders on being unique. In other words, not actually unique but not far short of it. I meant it in that way.
What you can't have are degrees of uniqueness, so something can't be a little bit unique, fairly unique or very unique.
But I'm glad you agree with my point.
Love,
Caz
X

But you can't have virtually unique. I wouldn't have picked you up on it but...

Anyway, you are usually word perfect. But I'm not - I make lots of errors when I type qwikckly.

[Limehouse]

Hi Tony,

Hanratty said that he'd 'seen an attic room in which there was a green bath'; he never said that he'd actually slept in this room. I have a vague feeling that Paul Foot is partly responsible for this confusion.

Cheers,

Graham

That's fair enough, but what difference does it make whether he stayed in it or not if he actually described it and was proven to be correct?

[RonIpstone]

That's fair enough, but what difference does it make whether he stayed in it or not if he actually described it and was proven to be correct?

Hi Julie
Let us call the visitor recollected by Mrs Jones and daughter Mr X.

Mr X stayed in a room with a green bath.
Hanratty did not stay in a room with a green bath.
Therefore Mr X was not Hanratty.
And Ingledene was not Hanratty’s guesthouse.

Ron

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie
Let us call the visitor recollected by Mrs Jones and daughter Mr X.

Mr X stayed in a room with a green bath.
Hanratty did not stay in a room with a green bath.
Therefore Mr X was not Hanratty.
And Ingledene was not Hanratty’s guesthouse.

Ron

Hello Ron,

So, Hanratty made up the green bath - but there really was an attic with a green bath in it in Rhyl?

I agree Graham has a point when he states that, had Hanratty stuck to his Liverpool story, he would have had a greater chance of convincing the jury that he was not the A6 killer.

Caz too has a point - why not just say he was in Rhyl in the first place? Why didn't he say that he travelled on to Rhyl from Liverpool? I think he did have an explanation for this but I haven't got my books to hand (computer has been relocated) so I'll have to pop off and check that out. I also want to go into this green bath a bit further as I'm convinced I've missed something somewhere.

Must be my age. I've got terrible trouble with my memory and thinking skills lately. I've started to refer to the photocopier as 'the microwave' again. I thought I'd got out of that habit! I get some strange looks at work I can tell you.

[RonIpstone]

So, Hanratty made up the green bath - but there really was an attic with a green bath in it in Rhyl?

Hello Julie,

All I am saying is that the evidence establishes that Hanratty did not stay in a room with a green bath, and that the mystery guest identified as Hanratty by Mrs Jones must (according to Mrs Jones's daughter) have stayed in a room with a green bath. Therefore the mystery guest cannot have been Hanratty.

The above does not necessarily mean that Hanratty did not travel to Rhyl on 22 August 1961, or that he did not stay in a guesthouse in Rhyl which had a green bath. It means that the guesthouse could not have been Ingledene.

The jury was given a choice of two possible places in which Hanratty could have been on the night of 22 August and the following morning. One involved him being the murderer/rapist on the A6; the other a resident in Ingledene. If the Ingledene option could be discounted then the jury was left with Hanratty as murderer.

With the benefit of hindsight it is easy to say that Hanratty made a mistake switching (strictly adding to) his alibi. It is equally likely that had he stuck to an exclusively Liverpool alibi, this would have blown up in his face as the Ingledene alibi was to do so.

Again, with the benefit of hindsight, it might have been safer for Hanratty not to leave the safety of the dock and venture into the witness box to give evidence, but again the Crown probably had enough evidence to subliminally persuade the jury that his failure to give evidence was an admission of guilt.

My own view, for what it is worth, is that Hanratty intended to do a 'stick up job' somewhere west of London, and before leaving the Frances he decided that a Liverpool alibi would be needed. The particular crime he committed was not premeditated, but that he would commit a crime was, and the likewise so was the alibi.

The alibi in its inception did not require Hanratty to go to Liverpool, merely that he told the Frances that he was off to the Pool, this should deflect any suspicion of the underworld (and Police informers) that the newly armed Hanratty had committed whatever stick up job Hanratty was going to commit.

But it all went wrong, with results that were as incomprehensible as they were tragic, and on the morning of 23 August 1961 Hanratty was in greater need of an alibi that he had previously imagined. He disposed of his gun in the usual hiding place. He took a train from Euston to Liverpool from where he telegraphed the Frances and thereby confirmed his alibi. The discovery of the cartridge cases in the room in Vienna in which Hanratty had slept the night before the murder eventually put the Police on Hanratty's trail. Hanratty never told the Police that he had ventured to Rhyl, moreover he never told any of his acquaintances of this, preferring to drop it as a bombshell on his defence team in the middle of the first week of the trial.

The crime, like many other things James Hanratty did in his short life, was impossible to fathom; his alibi, or rather the elaboration of his alibi, is also difficult to understand.

Ron

[caz]

I also want to go into this green bath a bit further as I'm convinced I've missed something somewhere.

Could it be the Lifebuoy soap?

Love,

Caz
X

[Tony]

Hi Julie
Let us call the visitor recollected by Mrs Jones and daughter Mr X.

Mr X stayed in a room with a green bath.
Hanratty did not stay in a room with a green bath.
Therefore Mr X was not Hanratty.
And Ingledene was not Hanratty’s guesthouse.

Ron

“Hello, Officer.

Together with the rest of the adult population I have been following this murder trial down in Bedford.

My name is Mr X.

I don’t know if it is of any use to you but last August I was in Rhyl for a couple of nights and I stayed at a boarding house that had a green bath. Never seen one of those before and I mentioned it to my wife and mates and even the people that I work with. Well one of them says that this Hanratty character says he stayed in a room with a green bath in the attic and even had breakfast with the landlady and her daughter. So did I.

You don’t think this landlady is confusing this Hanratty fellow with me do you?”

“That’s very interesting, Sir. Come along with me Mr Swanwick might like a word with you Mr X.”

Tony.

[RonIpstone]

Well one of them says that this Hanratty character says he stayed in a room with a green bath in the attic and even had breakfast with the landlady and her daughter. So did I.

Hello Tony,

No, you are missing the point, Hanratty never claimed to have stayed in a room with a green bath. His 'room' according to his evidence had a proper window with curtains, but no green bath, or at least he did not mention it.

The attic room at Ingledene had a double bed, a green bath and a skylight, it was nothing like the room Hanratty described.

I also do not think that Hanratty ever said that he had his breakfast with the landlady and her daughter, just that he ate in a rear room with two tables.

Moreover, it was seems to have not been fully explored (or it if was, it was not recorded in the books about the A6) as to how Mrs Jones, and then Mrs Harris, could have been so date specific about events occurring 6 months previously for which they did not have any written record to assist their memory.

The point should also be made that because Hanratty 'knew' that at least one guesthouse in Rhyl had a green bath in its attic, or the top part of the house, it does not necessarily follow that Hanratty stayed in that guesthouse on 22 August 1961, or on any other night.

Ron

[Victor]

No, you are missing the point, Hanratty never claimed to have stayed in a room with a green bath. His 'room' according to his evidence had a proper window with curtains, but no green bath, or at least he did not mention it.

The attic room at Ingledene had a double bed, a green bath and a skylight, it was nothing like the room Hanratty described.

Hi Ron,

I think Tony is correct in that according to Grace Jones and Harris someone did stay in the attic bedroom with the skylight and green bath on the nights in question, and it obviously wasn't Hanratty (because he claimed to have stayed in a room with a proper window and curtains) therefore there must have been someone else out there who used that room, so theoretically that person could have (or maybe could still) come forward and say something like what Tony proposed.

The problem is there's no evidence anyone has come forward to say that, and Tony suggests that this is evidence that this person doesn't exist, but of course absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no motive for the person to come forward, they didn't sign the guest book so may have nefarious reasons for not wanting to come forward or get involved in a murder investigation at all.

Then there's the added complication that if there is some Mr X staying in the Ingledene who broadly fits the description of Hanratty then they could be the person who met Ivy Vincent, Chris Larman, &tc.

KR,
Vic.

[larue]

Again, with the benefit of hindsight, it might have been safer for Hanratty not to leave the safety of the dock and venture into the witness box to give evidence, but again the Crown probably had enough evidence to subliminally persuade the jury that his failure to give evidence was an admission of guilt.

hi Ron

it would have been much safer for jh to have stayed out of the box and to have kept shtum. had he done this, there is a fair chance he might still be alive today.

in my opinion, the defence made the [literally] fatal error of allowing jh to go into the box. i know sherrard had him sign a waiver accepting responsibility for any consequences, but that was only to cover his own arse. he should have taken a far stronger line, as in 'you go in the box, and you'll need new councel.' i don't think jh was made sufficiently aware of the consequences of testifying.

i totally agree with your comment about the subliminal persuasion of the jury, but i do not believe it was accomplished with hard evidence, just suggestion. swanwick seemed to be a dab hand at throwing ideas at the jury which had no provable basis in fact, and continually harping on about the motive for the crime being that the accused 'wanted to posess himself of the woman' and not forgetting, he had the 'last word' as it were, his closing speech coming after that of the defence.

[larue]

wow, whoever would have thought a green bathtub would have so much mileage in it? strange, that the alibi seems to be the cause of so much consideration and comment, because, as far as i can see, it is irrelevant and immaterial. the accused was not under any legal obligation to provide an alibi, and even though he did, the defence was not obliged to prove it.

i think too much is being read into the rather sketchy details jh provided of the hotel room, and the famous green bathtub. back in the good old days, when i had a job, i got to stay in many hotels, and i honestly doubt that i could have given a decent description of any room i stayed in, even while i was staying in them, leave alone weeks later, as i was just not that interested. to me, a hotel room is just somewhere to crash for the night. who cares what color the curtains are? another example of the frailties of the 'eye witness'

have a look at this...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8617945.stm

[caz]

wow, whoever would have thought a green bathtub would have so much mileage in it? strange, that the alibi seems to be the cause of so much consideration and comment, because, as far as i can see, it is irrelevant and immaterial. the accused was not under any legal obligation to provide an alibi, and even though he did, the defence was not obliged to prove it.

Hi larue,

While that's undoubtedly true, try telling that to the jury, who were invited to consider the belated Rhyl alibi and concluded that the man providing it was telling porkies and must have felt obliged to do so in a final bid to save his neck.

Hanratty couldn't have it both ways. He didn't want the jury to consider his alibi irrelevant or immaterial all the while he was desperate for them to swallow it whole. And with proof it would have been very far from irrelevant or immaterial. Once out of the bag he couldn't expect it to be put back and disregarded when it smelled like rotten fish to the very people he needed as customers. In short, the jury were not obliged to buy it or to forget what he had tried to sell them.

As for the frailties of the 'eye witness', these are well known and don't really help the case for anyone genuinely remembering that they saw Hanratty in Rhyl on a specific date. How could they be sure, from what they had seen of him since in the media?

This hardly seems remotely comparable to the rape victim herself, who spent hours in a (very) confined space with her attacker, hearing his voice and experiencing his behaviour and body language and manner of speaking, all up close and personal - and who was then presented with the suspect in the flesh, enabling her to make comparisons. If her witness testimony was fraught with frailties, Hanratty was always on a hiding to nothing with his Rhyl witnesses.

Love,

Caz
X

[larue]

Hi larue,

While that's undoubtedly true, try telling that to the jury, who were invited to consider the belated Rhyl alibi and concluded that the man providing it was telling porkies and must have felt obliged to do so in a final bid to save his neck.

Hanratty couldn't have it both ways. He didn't want the jury to consider his alibi irrelevant or immaterial all the while he was desperate for them to swallow it whole. And with proof it would have been very far from irrelevant or immaterial. Once out of the bag he couldn't expect it to be put back and disregarded when it smelled like rotten fish to the very people he needed as customers. In short, the jury were not obliged to buy it or to forget what he had tried to sell them.

hi Caz

good riposte, as usual. however, i still maintain the alibi was irrelevant and immaterial.

consider this: soon after jh was arrested, acott went to see him pdq. After the Superintendent had cautioned him, Hanratty said: "As I told you on the phone I have a perfect alibi for the murder. I'm not worried about the murder, but as I promised you last week I'd tell you the whole story when you caught me, fire away and ask me any questions you like. I'll answer them and you'll see I had nothing to do with it."

ok, so why did not jh trot out his 'perfect alibi' straight away? if he had, acott would have made enquiries and as soon as the alibi had been proven, jh would have walked away free.

also: so why did not jh trot out his 'perfect alibi' at the commital proceedings? if he had, acott would have made enquiries and as soon as the alibi had been proven, jh would have walked away free.

the only answer i can think of is simply that there was no 'perfect alibi'. what came out in court, was a half arsed affair, which may or may not be true. jh may well have been witholding the identities of his criminal friends, as maybe they were not the kind of men who would be too pleased to be dobbed in to the old bill. maybe jh was aware of this and wanted to keep his ears on for a while longer. what we are left with however, is a tale that, while containing aspects that sound plausible, cannot be conclusively proved or disproved.

now consider the words of the judge: The direction now given to juries is similar to that which Mr. Justice Gorman gave to the eleven members of the jury which convicted Hanratty, namely that the prosecution have to prove the charge "so that you and each of you can say, 'I am sure that the prosecution have proved their charge'. At no time does the burden of proof shift to the defence . . . at no stage does it become the burden of the defence to prove Hanratty's innocence."
At no stage and in no circumstances. Not even if the accused has lied or prevaricated in some degree, not even if he has put forward at some stage a false alibi; for the only reason for a false alibi is not, as was suggested to the jury by Mr. Swanwick, guilt.

so i believe there is clear evidence that the jury were told not to consider the alibi. whether they did or not was up to them, but after such an instruction from the judge, whatever alibi was given, it would not have made any difference, unless it were proveable, and as it was not, it becomes worthless, and therefore totally irrelevant and immaterial.