A6 Rebooted

[Spitfire]

I seem certain that minors, ie Miss Ford and Miss Walton, could not give evidence, so that part of the facts in the case were not heard in court.

You may seem certain, but equally I am certain that a child could in 1962 (and still can) give evidence.

[NickB]

Barbara Ford’s statement also said that the man came into the shop on Monday.

I think the natural reading of both their statements is that they remembered that he came in on the day that they were serving together.

From the viewpoint of the man asking directions, he goes into the shop and sees a lady and a child serving behind the counter. He doesn’t know whether the child has been assisting all day or just momentarily popped behind the counter. But Mrs D and Barbara know, and this appears to be the basis of their linkage.

[GUT]

I seem certain that minors, ie Miss Ford and Miss Walton, could not give evidence, so that part of the facts in the case were not heard in court.

Not sure where you get that idea from, but it is wrong. Minors give evidence in criminal Courts every day in UK.

[caz]

No Caz, I have certainly never considered you a 'hang 'em and flog 'em' type. In this particular case, your arguments are very skilful with a passion for the real victims.

Kind regards,

Julie

That's very kind, Julie, and much appreciated.

I do see Hanratty as a 'real victim' - of whatever internal demons and external circumstances turned him to crime, petty or serious, and stopped him thinking of those he offended against. What the state did to him was every bit as barbaric in my view as the A6 crime itself.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

As a matter of interest, if you met Hanratty in the afterlife and discovered he had committed this vile crime after all, what would your feelings be towards him then?

So if he is guilty and I meet him, I'll be in hell to.

I couldn't possibly comment, moste...

On second thoughts, toasting forks all round?

Love,

Caz
X

[Derrick]

You may seem certain, but equally I am certain that a child could in 1962 (and still can) give evidence.

Not sure where you get that idea from, but it is wrong. Minors give evidence in criminal Courts every day in UK.

Hi Guys

I accept that what you say is correct.

My concern though is that the defence didn't call Miss Walton, even though she was mentioned at the trial (only as another girl) by Mrs Dinwoodie. This is surely a lapse in the defence's integrity as to providing Hanratty with the best defence possible.

Del.

[NickB]

But Linda Walton's statement makes no mention of seeing a man come in to ask for directions. If only Mrs D and Barbarba saw him, wouldn't this just reinforce Mrs D's testimony that he came in on the Monday?

[Derrick]

But Linda Walton's statement makes no mention of seeing a man come in to ask for directions. If only Mrs D and Barbarba saw him, wouldn't this just reinforce Mrs D's testimony that he came in on the Monday?

Hi Nick

Linda Walton's statement doesn't mention a man but what her statement says quite clearly is that Barbara Ford served behind the counter on the Tuesday after she and Barbara had got back to the sweetshop from their shopping expedition just after 4pm. This would tie in with when Mrs Dinwoodie said that the man called into the shop.

As I pointed out in a previous post Mrs Dinwoodie, in her own testimony, could only say which day the man came into the shop because Barbara was serving behind the counter. Therefore, because of Miss Walton's statement, Miss Ford had served in the shop on both days.

But what is not in conflict is that a man called at the shop where Mrs Dinwoodie was working who closely resembled James Hanratty and asked directions to a Talbot/Tarleton/Carlton thoroughfare just as Hanratty had described he did.

Del

[Spitfire]

But what is not in conflict is that a man called at the shop where Mrs Dinwoodie was working who closely resembled James Hanratty and asked directions to a Talbot/Tarleton/Carlton thoroughfare just as Hanratty had described he did.

The accounts given respectively by Hanratty and Dinwoodie could not be said to be ad idem and doubts must exist as to the timing of the directions inquiry, Mrs D had it just after the Echos had arrived at just gone 4.00pm, which would have made it very difficult for Hanratty to what he said he did if he had arrived at Lime St at 3.25pm.

Allowing for the above however, Mrs D did positively identify Hanratty as the directions inquirer. That she did so from only one photograph was regrettable, but was not Hanratty's fault and should not have told against him.

The jury's deliberations took over ten hours, and IMHO a good deal of this time would have involved the anxious consideration of this aspect of the case, for in reality if Hanratty had been in Liverpool at just gone 4.00pm on the afternoon of 22 August his defence and alibi had been made good.

[Derrick]

...difficult for Hanratty to what he said he did if he had arrived at Lime St at 3.25pm...

Why? Do you know Liverpool and it's surroundings well?

[NickB]

If he was on the 3.25pm train I think the list of things is just about doable.

The suggestion that time was too tight is in section 188 of the Appeal. They appear to base it on Hanratty’s evidence that "The train arrived in Liverpool about 4.30pm” (as quoted in The Times) and deduce that therefore he was on the 4.45 and had only 75 minutes before the bus departed for Rhyl.

[Spitfire]

Why? Do you know Liverpool and it's surroundings well?

He's got to get off train and on to the station concourse, then go and have his wash and brush up, go and get a cuppa and drink the same, put his case in the left luggage, and then set out for Carlton or Tarlton Avenue making inquiries of people and then getting a bus for the short ride to the Scotland Road.

Could that all be done within 40 mins? Possibly, but one gets the impression that Hanratty was not moving within any purpose in his quest to find Aspinall.

I was a regular visitor to the 'Pool in the 1980s and 1990s but rarely go these days. From as far back as I can remember, the taxi rank at Lime Street was right next to the station (where one would expect it to be) and Liverpool taxis very reasonably priced with drivers who were very knowledgeable of the local area.

If Hanratty was at all desirous of finding Carlton or Tarlton Avenue, then hopping into one of the many taxis at Lime Street station should have been his first action.

[Sherlock Houses]

If he was on the 3.25pm train I think the list of things is just about doable.

I know Liverpool very well and the 3.25pm train is not 'just about doable' but plenty doable, with half an hour to spare even allowing for Hanratty's 15-20 minute walk from David Cowley's sweetshop to Lime Street Station.

[Spitfire]

I know Liverpool very well and the 3.25pm train is not 'just about doable' but plenty doable, with half an hour to spare even allowing for Hanratty's 15-20 minute walk from David Cowley's sweetshop to Lime Street Station.

I don't understand. H gets to Liverpool at 3.25pm, the point under discussion is whether he could have got to the Scottie Rd sweetshop by just after 4pm.

[Sherlock Houses]

I don't understand. H gets to Liverpool at 3.25pm, the point under discussion is whether he could have got to the Scottie Rd sweetshop by just after 4pm.

It's quite simple really, just read my post again. The point I was discussing was with reference to NickB's post #2711.