a6 murder

[Derrick]

And those inconsistencies were almost totally down to differences in timing.

But then, if the timings had fitted, wouldn't the prosecution simply have said that Hanratty had bought the Rhyl alibi as well.....after all, that was how he got the sweet shop alibi, wasn't it?

Evening Uncle A
Spot on.
I am waiting for someone to confirm Hanratty's airport booking and ticket from Merseyside to Heathrow (nearest to Dorney) on the early evening of 22nd August 1961.

A private charter would obviously have been out of Hanratty's pocket range seeing as he went to Liverpool to sell goods in the first place because he was short of dough through Anderson having emptied the till on his previous outings.

Derrick

[NickB]

No, Sherrard talked about the timing inconsistencies and then added "the statements in other respects did not find support from Hanratty".

[julie q]

Acott's 12 Points

SUPT. Acott did not have to elicit 12 points in eliminating Alphon.One would have been quite sufficient, namely a verifiable alibi for the night of the murder. This he significantly failed to do
Regards Julie q

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

The police do get it wrong...Sean Hodgson, Stefan Kiskzo, Barry George. What I do refuse to believe is that one corrupt or mistaken policeman means that all of them are.
KR,
Vic.

Re: Supt Acott, Vic,I found it astonishing that he placed so much faith in Nudds and Langdale. Nudds changed his statements very significantly and several prisoners who were with Hanratty when he was awaiting trial and did exercise with him and did know him, totally refuted what Langdale said.But Supt Acott chose to believe these two men.Why?
Louise Anderson received stolen goods.Superintendent Acott was observed at the Bedford Hotel on the Embankment ,taking a fresh statement from Louise Anderson.As she had made five statements already this was most improper,according to Bob Woffinden.Graham Swanwick told the judge the statement should cease.Louise Anderson,like Nudds ,appears to have changed her story out of all recognition from when she rang Hanratty"s parents and told them they had nothing to worry about---that it must all have been a big mistake etc and her later "change of story" tallies with her not being charged for having received stolen goods,once this " secret" was out .So to me anyway ,it appears she ended up ,like Nudds, saying what Supt Acott wanted her to say . She too was in a vulnerable position after all and could have gone to jail as a receiver,had she not played ball.

[uncle_adolph]

No, Sherrard talked about the timing inconsistencies and then added "the statements in other respects did not find support from Hanratty".

....a conclusion with which Mansfield did not agree. Sherrard had precious little time at his disposal; he had to make the best use of it that he could in preparing the appeal and he must have been more than a little influenced by Mrs Jones inept performance in court. I think I am right in saying that Sherrard never said what these "other respects" were but I have always thought that Mrs Jones testimony was something to do with it.

[NickB]

....a conclusion with which Mansfield did not agree.

That is why I say all the points at the 2002 appeal were about the trial and first appeal being materially flawed. But Sherrard knows what Hanratty said and Mansfield doesn't. I read that Sherrard visited Hanratty almost every day during that period.

I have always thought that Mrs Jones testimony was something to do with it.

I have always thought that the suitcase was something to do with it.
If Larman did see Hanratty it must have been soon after he arrived –but there was no suitcase.

SUPT. Acott did not have to elicit 12 points in eliminating Alphon.One would have been quite sufficient, namely a verifiable alibi for the night of the murder. This he significantly failed to do
Regards Julie q

So after Valerie had not identifed Alphon, what would have been the case against him? Presumably Nudds is your key witness.

[Natalie Severn]

Nick B wrote:

I have always thought that the suitcase was something to do with it.
If Larman did see Hanratty it must have been soon after he arrived –but there was no suitcase.

from Paul Foot"s book:[page 234]
In the lawyer"s notes, scribbled on a rough piece of paper while Hanratty talked in his cell about his visit to Rhyl,there occurs this passage:

Left little leather hyde case .Landlady about 50 like my mother.I was wearing the double- breasted striped suit.Said I could leave my case,I will pick it up later."
If Hanratty booked into Ingledene and settled down for the night,why would he leave his case?
If he had booked in and gone out for a drink or a meal,why would he say he would "pick the case up later"?

So it would appear that Hanratty had been allowed to leave his case while he looked round for a place with rooms left.

[NickB]

So it would appear that Hanratty had been allowed to leave his case while he looked round for a place with rooms left.

But Larman directed a man to Ingledene. If this man were Hanratty after he had dropped off the case, he wouldn't have accepted a direction to somewhere he knew already was full.

[Natalie Severn]

But Larman directed a man to Ingledene. If this man were Hanratty after he had dropped off the case, he wouldn't have accepted a direction to somewhere he knew already was full

Larman is remembering all this six months after the event.Hanratty"s small "hyde" case may not have been noticed.You try to remember six months back whether somebody had a bag or not.You may remember certain features of their appearance....a nice suit,tinted hair etc but you may not remember whether or not they had a "small hyde case"or some such item with them.

[Victor]

Hi Derrick,

That was covered by my second point - Kleinmann's press article. It was he who briefed Sherrard.

which refers to...

I think that Michael Sherrards comment that the statements were not consistent with the evidence which James Hanratty had given is a pretty significant reason for dismissing the evidence. And if he thought that then why would the jury think differently?

I specifically mentioned the reason, and to summarise it by saying...

Comments some 6 years after the appeal by Hanratty's former solicitor.

...smacks of glossing over crippling inadequacies in the alibi.

If Hanratty booked into Ingledene and settled down for the night,why would he leave his case?
If he had booked in and gone out for a drink or a meal,why would he say he would "pick the case up later"?

So it would appear that Hanratty had been allowed to leave his case while he looked round for a place with rooms left.

If Hanratty had booked into Ingledene why would he need to go out looking for lodgings?
If he had booked in and gone for a meal or drink, why didn't he say so, and why would he still be looking for lodgings?
If he had left his case at the Ingledene and gone searching for proper lodgings because they only had the attic room, why didn't he say so?
If had slept in different rooms on different nights, why didn't he say so?
If his bedroom had a bath in it, why didn't he say so?
If he had tried to sell a watch to Dutton in Rhyl, why didn't he say so (instead of just Liverpool)?
If he had been searching for lodgings and been Bounced around between Vincent, Walker, and Ingledene, why didin't he say so?
He'd previously slept with Evans, why didn't he go searching for the house and knock on a few doors in the area to see if they knew where a man with a star tattoo lived nearby? Evans couldn't be that hard to find.

Also Nick's question...

But Larman directed a man to Ingledene. If this man were Hanratty after he had dropped off the case, he wouldn't have accepted a direction to somewhere he knew already was full.

Larman is remembering all this six months after the event.

If Hanratty had revealed this alibi at the appropriate time instead of 6 months later then that would not be an issue.

Hanratty"s small "hyde" case may not have been noticed.You try to remember six months back whether somebody had a bag or not.You may remember certain features of their appearance....a nice suit,tinted hair etc but you may not remember whether or not they had a "small hyde case"or some such item with them.

Doesn't Larman's statement specifically say the man had no luggage? If you think he could be mistaken about a small detail like that then how reliable do you think his identification is going to be?

And you would remember someone saying "I've already tried there, can you think of somewhere else?"

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Re: Supt Acott, Vic,I found it astonishing that he placed so much faith in Nudds and Langdale. Nudds changed his statements very significantly and several prisoners who were with Hanratty when he was awaiting trial and did exercise with him and did know him, totally refuted what Langdale said.But Supt Acott chose to believe these two men.Why?

Hi Norma,

Did Acott place any faith in Nudds? After Nudds volunteered the extremely dodgy 2nd statement, and the case against Alphon collapsed, then Acott dragged Nudds back in and intensely grilled him for hours to try and get to the truth. I think Acott didn't trust Nudds at all, but that was the only lead he had at the time and so had to try and salvage what he could. If you completely discount Nudds then the Vienna guest book and Hanratty himself link him to the cartridge cases, and that's all we need to know.

Langdale was put in the frame by his guard - Eatwell(?) - and might have been seeking leniency, and Acott investigated and put the information forward for Swanwick to use or not. I personally don't find it very convincing, but in hindsight it might be true, who knows?

So to me anyway ,it appears she ended up ,like Nudds, saying what Supt Acott wanted her to say. She too was in a vulnerable position after all and could have gone to jail as a receiver,had she not played ball.

I find that suggestion to be basically accusing Acott of corruption, and as Julie (Limehouse) recently posted, Acott's career is unblemished.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

SUPT. Acott did not have to elicit 12 points in eliminating Alphon.One would have been quite sufficient, namely a verifiable alibi for the night of the murder. This he significantly failed to do

Hi Julie q,

I agree a solid alibi would have done, but Alphon unfortunately had no choice other than to rely on Nudds which isn't a nice position for anyone to be in, at least he appearred in the Vienna Guest Book, which is significantly better than Hanratty's alibi in Rhyl.

Once the execution had taken place I think Alphon was provoked by Justice et al into making stupid (and innaccurate) "confessions" to stay in the limelight and get some easy money - I don't class facing an audience and high-profile and notoriously challenging interviewer as "easy".

Acott went over the top in court in answering the question, and should have been better prepared for it.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Vic,
All Hanratty had wanted to do when he made his calls to Supt Acott was to convince the police he had not done the murder-without falling into the hands of the police .He tried to think of people who he could persuade would ring Scotland Yard and say that he had been nowhere near Taplow the previous August.He rang round newspapers too---Barry Harding was one of the journalists at "THe Mirror" who took a call from him-- and there were several others .The penny had dropped---Hanratty had suddenly realised he wasnt wanted for the housebreaking after all --for which he would still have got five years--- but for murder which meant the death sentence.So he panicked which is totally understandable.Desperately he must have realised that since there was nobody in Rhyl he could rely on to get in touch with the police on his behalf-he had to therefore appeal to his burglar friends in Liverpool to stand alibi for him for a bit of financial reward!So although he knew that none of his Liverpool acquaintances were aware of his visit to the city on 22nd-he reckoned "honour among thieves" and so on - might prevail - and be more reliable than the Rhyl landlady whose name he did not know and whose address he could not remember.
Once arrested things went from bad to worse.Either he stuck to his story which he knew could not be substantiated or he told a new ,true,story that might well not be substantiated.However he was confident of one thing---as he saw it---and that was that his innocence would ,in the end," see him through" this ordeal-so he continued with the LIverpool story.But his friends,understandably in my view, were not willing,even for £250 -to get involved-.
So, in spite of the damage he had done to his case by lies about" friends in liverpool he had stayed with on 22nd August ,despite it being so late in the day,it appears from what is known now that he could not bear the frightening prospect of the brilliant Swanwick eating him alive in the witness box when he began telling a story he knew to be false.
Poor Michael Sherrard---he must have been at his wits end.Hanratty did not have to go into the witness box but he was totally determined to.And he insisted not only that he would give evidence but that he was going to tell the Rhyl story to boot.Some barristers might have walked away at that point---handed it over to someone else,but its a testimony to Michael Sherrard's integrity and psychological insight into the mind of Hanratty,needing to get into that witness box and plead for his life ,himself,that he did not contemplate betraying him in any way.
Hear Paul Foot:
There was one alternative open to Sherrard;not to call Hanratty at all.[he explains why this could have worked on page 219].The drawback was that it would look like the defence had something of importance to hide.Mr Sherrard always believed that one of the main proofs of Hanratty"s innocence was his client"s attitude and bearing,which he wanted the jury to see.
Vic,I have discussed this case with a highly regarded,professional person in Rhyl who knew most of the witnesses from Rhyl;eg Betty Davies,her next door neighbour at the time;Ivy Vincent whose daughter she went to school with;Mrs Jones her well liked good neighbour; Margaret Walker,another decent kind lady.Each and every one of them ,she told me,remembered Hanratty; and none of them ever wavered in their belief that it was Hanratty they saw on Tuesday 22nd of August as it was getting dark in Rhyl.They can"t all be wrong---and they weren"t the only ones--Mr Dutton came forward too and several others.
Perhaps Mr Larman had forgotten about the small hyde case,Hanratty too may have forgotten some of the details, from six months previous.He and Sherrard must have been quite overwhelmed as the trial neared its conclusion with Mr Sherrard not only having to try to convince the jury of his client's innocence, but also having to take urgent phone calls from Kleinman and Gillbanks throughout that week.It must have been an intolerable situation to be in.And make no mistake,Mr Swanwick was not only just as brilliant as Mr Sherrard but he was a lot older and therefore more experienced than Hanratty"s 33 year old barrister.
Norma
Tell you what---go to Rhyl library and have a chat with a few of the librarians there and ask them what they think! You will get quite a shock I can tell you!

[NickB]

Alphon unfortunately had no choice other than to rely on Nudds which isn't a nice position for anyone to be in

I presume you meant ‘Acott’.

But the documentary evidence of the guest book and the receipt book meant that, in the Hanratty trial, the prosecution did not have to rely on Nudds.

Swanwick said to the jury:
'Do not rely on Nudds unless there is documentary corroboration available.'

In an Alphon trial, the prosecution would have had to say the opposite:
‘Ignore the documentary evidence – rely on Nudds.’

[Natalie Severn]

"reliable" corroboration of documentation?

Nick,
The story of the cancellation by Mr Bell of the Vienna Hotel"s " Room 6" is false.
The " corroboration of documentary evidence " pertaining to the hotel guest book of The Vienna that you quote Mr Swanwick referring to ,may be in need of a "make over" or a "reality test"---,viz
Mr Bell"s booking for room 6 has been scored out in the hotel diary--- as if the booking had been cancelled--- yet in the hotel register is to be found a signature Mr Bell who apparently spent a happy night of 22nd August in Room 9!