The Rhyl Alibi

[babybird67]

I am currently looking in greater detail at the Rhyl alibi, and this thread is to discuss issues thrown up in the matter.

There seem to be quite a few inconsistencies in the Rhyl alibi to my mind.

For example, the bus from Liverpool to Rhyl left at 6pm and arrived at 8.19. Hanratty would have had only 75 minutes between his stated time of arrival in Liverpool and the time the bus to Rhyl left to do all of the following, which he describes as doing:

got off the train;
had a wash in the station;
put property in the left-luggage office, and made enquiries outside the station about Carleton, Tarleton or Talbot Road;
got on and off a bus;
gone to the sweet shop in Scotland Road, walked back to Lime Street, looked for but been unable to find the road;
gone for a meal;
discussed the sale of a watch;
decided to go to Rhyl, presumably collected what he had left at the left luggage office, found the bus station and got on the bus. (this is from the Appeal Judgement,

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j1166/HANRATTY.htm

article 188)

Is it credible that he was able to do all these things in that period of time before the bus to Rhyl departed?

This is without even considering the contradiction in his evidence that he didn't leave Liverpool for Rhyl until 7.30pm, at which time there was no bus departing to Rhyl anyway! In fact, from what i have read so far regarding the Rhyl alibi, it could double as quite a handy collander!

What do other contributors think? (more to come)

[caz]

Hi bb,

Hanratty knew he would hang if found guilty. An innocent man who knew he was nowhere near the crime scene at the time would have told the truth about his real whereabouts and stuck to it, regardless of what minor naughties he may have been up to. Changing his story was the last resort of a desperate man caught out in the lies he needed to tell if his neck was to be saved. The jury saw through him - we were not there.

And his DNA mingled with his victim's eventually confirmed it.

Love,

Caz
X

[richardnunweek]

Hi Caz,
Iin absolute agreement, unfortunately this thread is all about prolonging the truth.
I have summed up this case many times, its quite easy really. Hanratty was guilty as charged, he appears to have been the type that would have sworn on his familys lives to have saved his own, he knew his family believed in him , and that knowledge, and an increasing public awareness had him plead his innocence right to the end.
Simply it was his only chance.
Ii would bet a pound to a penny, if Valerie Storey was to read this post , she would nod her head in agreement.
Regards Richard.
My flak jacket is now in place.

[Bob Hinton]

Hi Caz,
Iin absolute agreement, unfortunately this thread is all about prolonging the truth.
.

Totally with Richard on this one.

[babybird67]

Hi bb,

Hanratty knew he would hang if found guilty. An innocent man who knew he was nowhere near the crime scene at the time would have told the truth about his real whereabouts and stuck to it, regardless of what minor naughties he may have been up to. Changing his story was the last resort of a desperate man caught out in the lies he needed to tell if his neck was to be saved. The jury saw through him - we were not there.

And his DNA mingled with his victim's eventually confirmed it.

Love,

Caz
X

Caz i quite agree but there are people who seem to think this alibi was 'true' which is why i am looking at it in more detail...how can it be true that Hanratty left Liverpool for Rhyl at 7.30pm when the bus left much earlier than that?

Of course this then leads also to the discrediting of at least three witnesses, all of whom state they saw Hanratty and spoke to him in Rhyl at 7.30pm, when according to his own testimony, he was still in Liverpool at that time.

It is no wonder the jury found him guilty!

[Victor]

Of course this then leads also to the discrediting of at least three witnesses, all of whom state they saw Hanratty and spoke to him in Rhyl at 7.30pm, when according to his own testimony, he was still in Liverpool at that time.

Hi Jen,

Bob Woffinden and Paul Foot both go to very long lengths to prove how unreliable Identification evidence is, only of course they use it to undermine Skillet, Trower and Storie's identifications but everything they say applies just as well to those alleged sightings in Rhyl.

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

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

[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]

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

Actually no, I'm teetotal.

[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

[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.

[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

[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 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

[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