A6 Rebooted

[Spitfire]

One of the problems of arguing in favour of the Rhyl alibi is that Sherrard, Hanratty's brief, did not pursue this line of defence in the Court of Appeal. Sherrard would have been privy to confidential information disclosed to him by Hanratty, which would be subject to legal professional privilege.

Hanratty told Sherrard things which made the statements of Mesdames Walker and Vincent and Mr Larman useless for the purpose of the appeal. The position was put in para 200 of the CCA's 2002 decision as follows:-

"Finally, the solicitor’s observation that “the statements in other respects did not find support from Hanratty” cannot be ignored; his reasons are unknown although his instructions, in the end, would be conclusive."

I cannot recall any public utterance by Sherrard post trial to support the Rhyl alibi, although I stand to be corrected on this. Sherrard did continue to support the Liverpool part of the alibi in interviews, and had stated, in his usual urbane fashion, that Hanratty's account found support from Mrs Dinwoodie in material particulars.

[Derrick]

..."Finally, the solicitor’s observation that “the statements in other respects did not find support from Hanratty” cannot be ignored; his reasons are unknown although his instructions, in the end, would be conclusive."...

The solicitor was Kleinman, not Sherrard.

[NickB]

Talking of Kleinman, it is interesting that when Hanratty was found guilty and he announced to the press they would Appeal, he then made a public plea for the man on the train to come forward – not anyone in Rhyl.

In his 2009 book ‘Wigs and Wherefores’ Sherrard wrote:

I went to the cells on my routine visit.
“I want to go into the box, sir.” Hanratty insisted. I was not happy about that.
I said: “Look Jim, you’ll have to explain why you were in Liverpool. You’ll be asked questions and you will have to reply.”
“I can tell that, sir” he answered. Then he looked down and said: “Well actually, I wasn’t in Liverpool.”

Sherrard pondered what would have happened if Victor Durand had lead the defence instead, as he’d intended.

I think he would not have gone down to the cells each day as I did before the court rose That might not have given Hanratty the chance to change his alibi.

The whole balance of the case had been altered by the late alibi, the subject of fearsome prosecution criticism.

So it seems that he regretted the Rhyl alibi because it was a tactical mistake. It could also be argued he never believed it and that is why he got Hanratty to sign the ‘disclaimer’.

I have been advised in great detail as to the importance of my being absolutely truthful about my alibi story. The statement I made to Mr Kleinman in which I explained about going from Liverpool to Rhyl on the 22 Aug 1961 is true. I hereby instruct my solicitors and counsel to proceed on the basis of the true story about Rhyl. Please try to find the landlady in the house there. This has been read to me : I fully understand it and hereby sign to this effect.

In the absence of anyone credible from Rhyl, Mrs Dinwoodie was Sherrard’s star witness. I think this is why he looks back on her evidence with such fondness. But at the time it must have been devastating when she said the sweetshop incident happened on the Monday, particularly as she asserted this in response to his questioning - before Swanwick had said anything.

[Graham]

As I and others have suggested many times before, over the years, had JH stuck with his Liverpool Alibi he may have stood a chance of being acquitted, even if it was a pack of lies.

Unfortunately, he felt that he had no option but to change it. He told the defence that he stayed in Liverpool with three men, one of whom was called McNally. The two had met in jail. JH said that this man lived in a flat in an area called the Bull Ring off Scotland Road. JH also mentioned a man called John, a woman called Lil, and two children also lived in the flat, along with an un-maed third man. JH said that one of the men had a warrant out against him for an unpaid debt concerning a television. Neither the local police nor Joe Gillbanks were ever able to come up with the name of anyone who fitted this description, presumably after the police checked outstanding warrants at Liverpool Court.

Gillbanks said he checked about 23 blocks of flats in the area, came up with nothing, and suggested to Sherrard that JH should be brought to Liverpool to identify the flat himself. This never happened.

As it turned out, McNally was eventually found in January during the trial, and went ape at JH's suggestion that he was a fence. He hadn't seen JH for four years, he said, had a good job and didn't need to go illegal, and also that he knew no-one in the area of Liverpool indicated by JH.

The other man, Aspinall, mentioned by JH, was never traced. I don't know if any great effort was put into trying to trace him.


With regard to Rhyl, JH's description of Mrs Jones was inaccurate. He said she was about 50, average build, wore glasses, and her hair was grey. Mrs Jones was actually only around 5'2", had fair hair, and did not regularly wear glasses. Again, she was shown (by Gillbanks) only the one photo - that of JH.
Gillbanks reported to Sherrard that Mrs Jones couldn't be certain when, and in which room, the man stayed. She said that JH might (only might) have been one of her guests. However, as I said recently, when her other guests were traced not one of them could remember seeing anyone who resembled JH during the critical time-period.

Incidentally, Gillbanks said that 'hundreds' of B&B's in Rhyl backed onto, or where near to, the railway tracks - JH said he could hear the trains, but so could a few hundred other holidaymakers in Rhyl.

With regard to Ingledene itself, JH said that there was a green plant in a bowl in the hall. Gillbanks contradicted this, stating that he himself saw a vase containing artificial flowers. (Yes, I concede that Gillbanks' visit was more than 4 months after JH's claimed stay at Ingledene, and Mrs Jones may well have had a little change of decor in her hall).

Re: the almost legendary green bath, ages ago on this thread there was a discussion concerning the usual colour of baths in those days, and it was agreed that the vast majority of baths were green or white. So Ingledene was the only Rhyl B&B with a green bath? Or the only B&B he'd ever stayed in that had a green bath?

JH said that his room had curtains and a wash-basin. The room at Ingledene that contained the (in)famous green bath had neither curtains nor a sink. JH never actually said that he slept in a room containing a bath. There was a green bath at Ingledene, but it was in a room marked "Private" and according to Gillbanks even if the door of this room was open, the bath couldn't be seen.

Finally, contrary to more legend, JH never said he had to change rooms at Ingledene - Foot and Woffinden suggested that he probably had, but only to fit in with their own arguments and contentions.


Graham

[Derrick]

...With regard to Rhyl, JH's description of Mrs Jones was inaccurate. He said she was about 50, average build, wore glasses, and her hair was grey. Mrs Jones was actually only around 5'2", had fair hair, and did not regularly wear glasses...

Inaccurate?

Hanratty didn't say she was about 30 or about 70 years old. She was 58 I believe and looked younger.
He didn't mention a height and he also didn't say she was obese or a skinny minny either.
It wasn't as if Mrs J was 20/20 vision, she did wear glasses occasionally and how does Leonard Miller know that she wasn't wearing them when she answered the door to Hanratty on that evening?
Hanratty didn't say she had grey hair...he said she had greyish hair.

[Spitfire]

If Hanratty had said that he slept in a room with a bath, and if Mrs Jones had said that she put Hanratty in a room with a bath, then there might be some force in the Ingledene part of the alibi.

The prosecution to the satisfaction of the jury showed that there was no room for Hanratty in Ingledene and Mrs jones did not have available to let a room such as the one described by Hanratty.

it is true that there would have been room in the attic bathroom with the infamous green bath, but Hanratty never claimed to have slept in such a room.

The prosecution not only persuaded the jury but Sherrard himself, who gave up any reliance on Rhyl and Ingledene in the fight for Hanratty's life.

[Derrick]

In the Panorama program on the case from November 1966 (at 32 minutes in) the narrator, taking up what Hanratty had said, says;

near the railway station, a few doors from a betting shop, he said, there was a boarding house where he had found a room.

That boarding house was Ingledene.

[NickB]

In the thread ‘scan of Hanratty statement re Rhyl alibi’ post 7, Natalie has the map that Gillbanks used to locate Ingeldene.

You come out of the coach station and go along the main road past Woolworths to a picture house.

‘There was a picture house on the main road going towards a bridge. It was one of the turnings on the right going towards a concrete bridge (humped back) with a rail.'

On Google Maps you can go to Apollo Bingo (which was the picture house) and look around. Ahead is the bridge (over the railway) and to your right is Kinmel Street. You can go up Kinmel Street and see Ingledene, which is now numbered 60.

Natalie also has his first description of inside the house:
Front of house was living room.
Green bath round, sink green to match bath not enclosed. ? house. Lavatory and bath room combined.
In bedroom was a small desk.
2 tables in room at back where I had breakfast.
Coat rack in the hall one [that] stands up with a round mirror on it.

[Spitfire]

In the Panorama program on the case from November 1966 (at 32 minutes in) the narrator, taking up what Hanratty had said, says;

Quote:
near the railway station, a few doors from a betting shop, he said, there was a boarding house where he had found a room.



That boarding house was Ingledene.

All of which information could have been gained without stepping inside Ingledene.

If Hanratty had had to sleep in a bathroom in the attic, then that should have been included in his description of his digs.

[Derrick]

...Finally, contrary to more legend, JH never said he had to change rooms at Ingledene - Foot and Woffinden suggested that he probably had, but only to fit in with their own arguments and contentions...

But what does that prove?

[j.kettle1]

First post.

As this is my first post I would like to ask a few questions of those more knowledgeable than myself.

1. When Mike Gregsten was leaning over to 'pass up' the duffel bag,presumably from the passenger footwell, why didn't he fall into Valerie Storie's lap when he had been shot?

2. Why were the bullet casings in the back of the car blood spattered?
They had been in the gun and were therefore offered protection should there have been any 'splashback'. Anyway, wouldn't that mean that the gunmans gloves would have to have been covered in blood?

3. Did Valerie have blood on her clothes from the act of removing Mike Gregsten from the car? If not, then why?

4. Janet Gregsten said that she couldn't give Mike the sex he wanted.
Was this the type of sex or the volume?

Thanks,

John

[NickB]

Welcome to the forum John!

I’ll have a stab at your questions, and perhaps others could add to or correct my answers.

1. He was sitting in the centre of the back seat when he fired the shots, so I suppose this means Michael is more likely to have been thrown forward rather than to the left.

2. Foot says there were 2 cartridge cases found in the car but they were actually the two spent bullets, one wedged in the floor and the other embedded in the glove compartment.

For the inventory see post 127 of the thread ‘A6 -location of scene and 2nd appeal’.

3. I would think she did get blood on her clothes, as he made her do it to avoid getting blood on his clothes.

4. I think Janet’s comment is usually interpreted to mean volume.

Valerie said “friendship was all there was between us for a time” and it does appear that they complemented each other well. “I suppose his very difference attracted me.”

Describing herself ...
“I am not a beautiful girl. I am practical, capable, down-to-earth, and always in control of myself.”

... and describing him ...
“Michael had boyish looks and soft brown hair. I immediately got the feeling he was younger than me – although, of course, I knew he was fourteen years older. He was very gentle, very softly spoken.”

“He had a temper, and I can see now that it was my fear of throwing him into a tantrum which made me take a tough and practical line whenever he tried to unload his worries on to our relationship.”

He was also a bit of a bohemian: “For instance, he loved Continental food and Indian curry. I didn’t know very much about that sort of thing.”

She said his wife knew about their relationship, but she did not know if Janet realised how far it went.

“Our first date was at a dance just before Christmas, and I remember Michael asking me in a friendly, jocular fashion if I would be his partner at the dance. I knew he was married, but he said his wife didn’t like dancing.”

“Afterwards he took me home in his car. We stopped at the end of my road, and I remember feeling as we sat in the car and he kissed me goodnight that this was the beginning of something exciting. All sorts of things suddenly seemed possible. I didn’t seem a plain Jane any more.”

[j.kettle1]

@NickB.

Thank you for your reply.

Just a couple of points however about the shooting of Mike Gregsten

Newtons third law (every action has an equal and opposite reaction) applies to both the gunman and the victim in a gun system.
In other words in order for Mike Gregsten to be propelled in any direction then the gunman would have to be propelled, and to an equal extent, in the opposite direction.
Now we know that didn't happen as the bullet entry wounds were virtually on top one another. This couldn't happen if the gunman had recoiled, therefore if there was little or no opposite reaction then Mike Gregsten had little or no forces acting upon him.
Basically what I'm saying is that he was shot in the position that he was found.
Hope this makes sense.

The second point is really a matter of clarification.
My understanding is that the bullet casing is the bit that remains in the gun after the bullet has been fired, hence my original question regarding the casings being blood spattered. I may be wrong so any clarification would be most welcome.

Thanks

John

[Limehouse]

Hi John,

Welcome to the A6 threads.

Forgive me, but are you suggesting that Gregsten was shot outside the car?

[NickB]

I'll pass on Newton's third law.

I don't know what your source is for there being two bullet casings found in the car. I know that Foot claimed this, but it must be wrong.

The inventory list shows that there was 1 bullet from the floor and 1 bullet from the glove pocket. No casings. I assume Foot mis-described the two bullets as casings. The bullets were the ones fired, so that is why they would be blooded.

When the police reported they had established that the gun and ammunition from the bus were related to the murder, they said “two more spent bullets were found embedded in the car’s coachwork.” Those were the two bullets. One bullet embedded in the floor and the other bullet embedded in the glove pocket.