The Rhyl Alibi

[Victor]

I'd go so far as to say that the 'Liverpool Telegram' was JH's attempt to establish his whereabouts, viz-a-viz an alibi.

Hi Graham,

It reeks of a deliberate attempt to provide a smidgen of tangible evidence, at least to me. It's just way too covenient, although the one thing that couldn't be manipulated, the actual date and time of dispatch, renders it worthless.

KR,
Vic.

[NickB]

I also recollect Alexei Sayle relaying that his father had told him he stayed in the exact room that Hanratty alleges to have stayed in at Ingledene, hence undermining the alibi, although that may be his father exaggerating his role.

Whoever it was gave evidence:
"... the records which revealed only one single room in which James Hanratty could have stayed (room 4, occupied on 21, 22 and 23 August by a witness called in rebuttal) ..."

[Graham]

Hi All,

I'm still not 100% convinced that an old-fashioned 'telephone telegram' necessarily advised the recipient of its place of origin. The odd thing about Hanratty's 'Liverpool Telegram' to Dixie France is that the France family had a telephone at their flat. I'd go so far as to say that the 'Liverpool Telegram' was JH's attempt to establish his whereabouts, viz-a-viz an alibi.

Regarding the Rhyl Witnesses as a body, I think that the opportunity for the citizens of a small, boring, more-dead-than-alive North Wales seaside town to feel themselves involved in a massive national news-story proved irresistable, at least to some of them. JH's defence-team commented that at least one of the men behind the counter of the left-luggage office at Liverpool's Lime Street Station seemed keen to 'be in on the act'; no reason to suppose that the good people of Rhyl were any different. JH had been to Rhyl before, there is no way of knowing how many people he met and spoke to during that visit, so it's very possible that at least a few of them 'thought' they had encountered him at the crucial time when in fact they were 'remembering' details of a previous visit.

I think even Paul Foot began to have a few doubts about the veracity of the Rhyl Alibi.

Cheers,

Graham

[Victor]

The conversation i am referring to, where Evans was talking to the landlady, happened in Court, Hatchett, so i am not referring to a long-forgotten conversation. She was advised by the Judge not to talk to other witnesses, yet she and Evans were seen in conversation; when asked what they were talking about she denied it had anything to do with the times she had seen Hanratty, but apparently it had been overheard and it had.

Hi all,

Grace Jones, the Ingledene Landlady, had given evidence and during the lunch break was seen talking to Terry Evans by a juror, apparently about identifying Hanratty, but she told the judge they'd only discussed lunch and this was interpretted as a lie, so undermined her credibility.

Also Hanratty sent postcards (I believe) from Ireland to Louise Anderson and his parents so has some history of keeping in touch.

I also recollect Alexei Sayle relaying that his father had told him he stayed in the exact room that Hanratty alleges to have stayed in at Ingledene, hence undermining the alibi, although that may be his father exaggerating his role.

KR,
Vic.

[babybird67]

That is true Babybird. But I am not too sure that I would go along with the idea that the witnesses in Rhyl were self motivated. Remembering specific details about conbersations that took place some time ago can be prone to inaccurraces. If the witnesses are wrong I would be more inclined to believe that they were the result of human frailty rather than deliberate misconception.

Take care.

HI Hatchett

yes i would agree...i don't think there was deliberate dishonesty involved in their identifications, at least not in all of the cases (not sure about Evans). But memory is constructive...people sometimes fill in gaps and think they are recalling actual events.

The conversation i am referring to, where Evans was talking to the landlady, happened in Court, Hatchett, so i am not referring to a long-forgotten conversation. She was advised by the Judge not to talk to other witnesses, yet she and Evans were seen in conversation; when asked what they were talking about she denied it had anything to do with the times she had seen Hanratty, but apparently it had been overheard and it had. (Sorry i can't recall where i have picked up this information from...if anyone can shed any further light on it, i'd be grateful...have i got it wrong?)

take care also

Jen x

[Hatchett]

That is true Babybird. But I am not too sure that I would go along with the idea that the witnesses in Rhyl were self motivated. Remembering specific details about conbersations that took place some time ago can be prone to inaccurraces. If the witnesses are wrong I would be more inclined to believe that they were the result of human frailty rather than deliberate misconception.

Take care.

[babybird67]

hi Graham

The Rhyl Witnesses suggest to me (a) a series of mistakes on their part; (b) prompting by Terry Evans to 'admit' they had seen Hanratty at the crucial time; (c) a desire to 'get in on the act' for a bit of local notoriety; (d) maybe a genuine desire to help a man whose life was in danger. I don't think Sherrard was even in the slightest way convinced by the Rhyl Alibi (which of course he was obliged to investigate).

You make some excellent points as always Graham.

Regarding those quoted above, i would agree. Evans' prompting of the witnesses is of especial concern...i think i read somewhere that the landlady had also lied about what she was talking to Evans about...can you confirm this and perhaps give a link/reference for where i might be recalling this information from?

Also there are the points about identification being a difficult area of evidence. How likely is it that someone would remember an anonymous face in a hotel as much as one would remember the features of a man raping one? VS had a very good reason for remembering her rapist...no such imperative was in place for any of the Rhyl witnesses.

cheers Graham

Jen x

[babybird67]

hi Hatchett

thank you, yes, era and context is exceptionally important. I take your point (which was excellent!)

Having established then it was 'normal' for the time, does anyone know if it was something Hanratty habitually did? If this was the only time he sent one, for example, that would look suspicious to me. What do you think?

your kind regards are returned with interest

[Hatchett]

Hi Babybird

I don't know whether the France's were use to receiving telegrams from Hanratty, but the era must be taken into account. Not everyone was on the telephone in those days, and all calls had to go through the operator. Telegrams were cheap and quick. So it would have been more usual to send a telegram in those days than today. In other words it would not have been looked on, I believe, as unusual.

Kind regrards as always.

[babybird67]

hi Nick, good post and

good point regarding the telegram and one which i was intending to query...how often was Hanratty in the habit of sending telegrams to his friends advising them of his whereabouts? Was this out of character/unusual in any way? You seem to imply that it was in regards to the France family, to whom he was close, so one would expect them to have been recipients of more than one if it was something that Hanratty usually did. Do you have any further information on this point?

thanks

Jen

[NickB]

I think the telegram was confirmed as coming from Liverpool.

The purpose was to provide evidence of his whereabouts should it be needed in future. I expect he did this soon after arriving in Liverpool, as he would want to send it as soon as he could.

I believe the ‘Imperial Hotel’ bit was his way of attempting to make it less obvious than saying something to the effect of: “I hereby establish written evidence that I am in Liverpool”. There was no harm in mystifying the France family about the Imperial Hotel as they would be mystified enough by receiving a telegram.

[Graham]

Had Hanratty signed the visitors' book at Ingledene, then we wouldn't be discussing his involvement in the A6 Case - it would have gone down in history as one of the most perplexing unsolved crimes of all time. But we know he didn't sign the book - his 'evidence' that he stayed there is very wishy-washy and unconvincing. If it's correct in any detail, then in my view it must be that he stayed there at an earlier time. But his description of Ingledene could be any boarding-house anywhere. And of the other guests staying at Ingledene at the crucial time (one of them was the father of the comedian Alexei Sayle, by the way) not one of them who was traced and questioned could recall anyone who came even close to Hanratty. It won't do to say that he wasn't noticed because he ate his breakfast away from the other guests - he must have been seen around the house had he actually been there.

The Rhyl Witnesses suggest to me (a) a series of mistakes on their part; (b) prompting by Terry Evans to 'admit' they had seen Hanratty at the crucial time; (c) a desire to 'get in on the act' for a bit of local notoriety; (d) maybe a genuine desire to help a man whose life was in danger. I don't think Sherrard was even in the slightest way convinced by the Rhyl Alibi (which of course he was obliged to investigate).

All of this, of course, comes down to the old, old question: if he wasn't in Rhyl, then where was he immediately after the crime prior to his Thursday evening telegram to Dixie France? Remember that in this telegram he gave his address as The Imperial Hotel, Russell Square, London. It was a telephone telegram, and I think I'm right in saying that there was no way that the place of origin of a telephone telegram could be verified in those days. I think it's odds on that he remained in the London area immediately after the crime.

Graham

[jimarilyn]

You really are a big Bucks Fizz fan, aren't you James?

Actually no, I'm teetotal.

[Victor]

The Rhyl Alibi has been tried and trusted and proven true.
I rename it the Real Alibi.

"Real Alibi" as in you have to prefix with "real" otherwise people couldn't tell if you are being serious or not, just like the "Real" Bucks Fizz, who were actually Dollar and not the Eurovision winners at all.

Tried... Nope, it's never been before a jury.
Trusted... Only by the gullible.
Proven true... Only in "The Land of Make Believe" - You really are a big Bucks Fizz fan, aren't you James?

[jimarilyn]

The Rhyl Alibi has been tried and trusted and proven true.
I rename it the Real Alibi.