A6 Rebooted

[NickB]

Is anyone good at reading Kleinman’s handwriting?

On the first page of the thread scan of Hanratty statement re Rhyl alibi Natalie posted his notes that (presumably) were given to Gillbanks.

The description of the guest house appears to be:

Front of house was living room.
Green bath round, sink green to match, bath not enclosed – *. Lavatory & bath room combined.
In bedroom was a small desk.
2 tables in room at back where I had breakfast. Bacon, egg and sausage and plate of cornflakes. Bread and marmalade on the table.
Coat rack in the hall one [that] stands up with a round mirror on it.

There are some words I can’t read at *, “wash” might be one of them.

[OneRound]

Actually , I don't disagree with anything anyone has to say on Hanrattys whereabouts,after 5 30 on the Tuesday 22nd Aug. For me Ms.Dinwoodie,and the two little girls are as solid as a rock. Especially when compared with the prosecutions witnesses .

Hi Moste - given Mrs Dinwoodie said the sweetshop incident occurred on Monday 21st August, that rock doesn't seem too solid to me. I do though take your point about the prosecution witnesses (a major reason why I have always maintained that Hanratty should not have been convicted even though I have very considerable doubts as to his innocence).

I'll repeat here a question I've asked before but which has never been fully answered to my anorak satisfaction.

Hanratty's supporters state that as Hanratty was demonstrably in London on Monday 21st August and as no one else could have invented such a unique story, then it has to have happened on Tuesday 22nd August.

My question is - why did the incident have to occur on one of those two dates? I appreciate that Mrs Dinwoodie was not around later that week but why did the incident have to occur that actual week? Could it not have occurred in an earlier or later week? If Mrs Dinwoodie was wrong about Monday 21st August (as Hanratty's supporters claim), does it really follow that Tuesday 22nd August is the only alternate date?

Apologies if I'm missing something obvious here (suspect I am - not helped by no longer having the Foot and Woffinden books) but would much appreciate someone, regardless of their side of the fence, clarifying this.

Best regards and many thanks,

OneRound

[Graham]

Re: Kleinmann's handwriting, I have a copy of the statement somewhere in my computer, but don't know where for certain. Will look another time.

According to Woffinden, Gillbanks, at the time he was going around Rhyl knocking on doors with just the one photo, that of Hanratty, came across Mrs J at Ingledene who said on her doorstep that she did recognise the man in the photo. Later, she changed this to saying she thought she recognised the man in the photo. Not quite the same.
At the time of that visit, Gillbanks must either have stepped into the hall or over Mrs J's shoulder seen what was in the hall, but what he reported does not tally with Hanratty's description of the hall at Ingledene. Gillbanks then apparently asked Mrs J if she had a 'green bath in the attic', and she said she did. But I can't recall - and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong - that Hanratty even mentioned an 'attic' in his statement. And the lady who now owns Ingledene (and without back-tracking through the posts I'm afraid I can't remember her name) said that Ingledene doesn't actually have an attic - and only one bathroom at the front of the house, I believe.

Now over the years I've stayed in numerous, possibly hundreds, of B&B's, pubs, hotels (never doss-houses as far as I am aware...), and I never saw a bed in a bathroom or vice versa. Even in 1961 the owners and proprietors of accommodation available to the public were open to inspection by the local competent authority who, I am certain, would have viewed with displeasure a bed in a bathroom or vice versa. I had a relative who owned a large B&B in Cliftonville, 5 or 6 guest-rooms, and my mother and I stayed there a number of times between about 1955 and 1965. This place was somewhat more up-market than Ingledene, but even so had only one public bathroom-cum-toilet, and only one public w.c. I can remember more than once waiting for one or the other to be vacated. During one stay we noticed that the inside locks on the bedroom doors were new, and my relative said he'd been obliged to change the old locks as they were not considered secure enough. This isn't really relevant to Ingledene, except to emphasize my contention that Mrs J would never have been allowed to get away with a bed in a bathroom or vice versa.

I say again, Hanratty's description of Ingledene and his claimed August visit to Rhyl was a fiction, based on at least one earlier visit together with the recollections of B&B's he'd stayed in around the country. It is not impossible that he based his description of Ingledene upon the B&B he stayed in prior to his arrest in Blackpool. Was that place ever checked out? One final point, is it known if Hanratty's defence or anyone else involved with the case actually made a full and close inspection of Ingledene?

Sorry for length of post.

Graham

[Derrick]

Are you saying that Sayle did not testify that he stayed in room 4? The books about the case place him in room 4, they must have got that from the trial.

Swanwick brought him in at that point to present the person who had stayed in room 4.

Hi Nick

That is what I am saying because that is the fact of the matter.

Sayle was brought into court on the morning of the 12th February for Mrs Jones to identify, which she didn't. It was Swanwick who suggested that Sayle stayed in room 4 for 3 days.

After Sayle was brought in Swanwick asked Mrs Jones if she remembered him staying at Ingledene; the exchange continued;

GJ) I don't remember him staying in our house.
S) If he says he stayed in your house on August 21st, 22nd and 23rd what do you say?
GJ) It surprises me.
S) If Mr Sayle says he was sent across from the Windsor Hotel and stayed would he be right?
GJ) I wouldn't deny it, because I am not sure.

If Sayle had signed the guestbook then Swanwick wouldn't have needed to ask these questions. He would have just shown it to the court. All this is is just Sayle's word against Mrs Jones' without any evidence to back it up.

My view is that Parry was the Crown's source of Sayle's stay and that he was wrong about the dates; Sayle just agreed as he couldn't remember either when contacted by the prosecution.

Appeal section 76:
"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)"

Sayle was called as a rebuttal witness on 13th February along with messrs Williams and Sutch. All 3 were sworn in for the first time.

All they were asked was whether or not they recognized Hanratty. Sayle was not cross-examined at all about anything else.

Del

[Derrick]

...Joe said that as he was out of the place early in the morning and not getting back until late in the evening he couldn't actually claim to having seen Hanratty; but then none of the other traced guests at Ingledene that week could remember seeing Hanratty or anyone resembling him. Essentially because he wasn't there...

Sayle's union meetings were, more than likely, pretty boozy affairs and that he probably didn't remember the place he stayed in anyway.

As Hanratty had his breakfast in the Jones' own living room it wasn't surprising that none of the other guests saw him.

[NickB]

It was Swanwick who suggested that Sayle stayed in room 4 for 3 days.

When did Swanwick say that? If he had said it and not Sayle, Sherrard would have questioned Sayle about it.

All they were asked was whether or not they recognized Hanratty.

I think they were asked more than that. Looks like Swanwick took them through all the guests they could remember, because one of the things Such said when cross-examined by Sherrard was “I mentioned the other people as I recalled them.”

the records which revealed only one single room in which James Hanratty could have stayed

This indicates that the records revealed something. We know they did not reveal Hanratty, but I doubt they were completely blank for that week.

[OneRound]

Sayle's union meetings were, more than likely, pretty boozy affairs and that he probably didn't remember the place he stayed in anyway.

As Hanratty had his breakfast in the Jones' own living room it wasn't surprising that none of the other guests saw him.

Hi Del - you certainly seem to want to have your cake (or breakfast) and eat it!

If Hanratty was a bona fide paying guest in room 4, why did he need to eat in the Jones' own living room and why didn't he need to sign the guest book?

To use your own term, I find 'ridiculous' your assertion that Sayle was prepared and able to come into a capital trial virtually off the street, tell lies for no reason and have them accepted.

It was surely through the guest book that Sayle and others were traced.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Derrick]

It was surely through the guest book that Sayle and others were traced.

Evidence please.

[NickB]

The information given about the three guests who testified was:

1. Thomas Williams: he, his wife and daughter stayed 19-26 Sep in rooms 6 and 8.

2. Douglas Such: he, his wife and child stayed 19-23 Sep in room 1.

3. Joe Sayle: he stayed 21-24 Sep in room 4.

I can’t believe Swanwick simply announced this information. It must have been given in evidence - from the guest book or the witnesses or both.

[Derrick]

When did Swanwick say that? If he had said it and not Sayle, Sherrard would have questioned Sayle about it.

I've just told you when Swanwick said it...12th February! Sayle wasn't sworn in until the next day, as I have said.

I think they were asked more than that. Looks like Swanwick took them through all the guests they could remember, because one of the things Such said when cross-examined by Sherrard was “I mentioned the other people as I recalled them.”

But that is not the same as Sayle testifying that he stayed in Room 4 on those crucial days. They were only asked who they identified, including Hanratty. Besides, nobody remembers Sayle ever being there. Sayle would most likely have had breakfast in the main room, however early he said that he went out for the Union jolly up. Who would turn down a decent breakfast?

This indicates that the records revealed something. We know they did not reveal Hanratty, but I doubt they were completely blank for that week.

I believe that the records revealed Mr Williams and Mr Sutch and no one else. There was probably someone else in room 4 on the Tuesday, who never signed in, and it was free on the Wednesday. Hanratty then most likely had breakfast in the back room on both days to avoid any discrepancy on the Jones' part seeing as he was a non paying guest of sorts.

[Derrick]

...I can’t believe Swanwick simply announced this information. It must have been given in evidence - from the guest book or the witnesses or both...

Sorry to appear sarcastic Nick but where did you get this information from?

We need to get to prima facie records don't you think?

[NickB]

Yes but for that we need the trial transcripts.

All we have are abbreviated newspaper reports (I presume your latest excerpt was from the Guardian) which show a conflict about Jim and Joe being in Room 4. Foot and Woffinden could have enlightened us on this point, but chose not to.

[Spitfire]

Yes but for that we need the trial transcripts.

All we have are abbreviated newspaper reports (I presume your latest excerpt was from the Guardian) which show a conflict about Jim and Joe being in Room 4. Foot and Woffinden could have enlightened us on this point, but chose not to.

The Court of Appeal would have had the trial transcripts. The defence team in 2002 would have had the transcript. It is clear that Woffinden and Foot each had access to the trial transcript when writing their respective books.

All of the foregoing accept that it was proved at the trial that Joe Sayle stayed in Room 4 for the nights of 21,22 and 23 August 1961.

[OneRound]

The Court of Appeal would have had the trial transcripts. The defence team in 2002 would have had the transcript. It is clear that Woffinden and Foot each had access to the trial transcript when writing their respective books.

All of the foregoing accept that it was proved at the trial that Joe Sayle stayed in Room 4 for the nights of 21,22 and 23 August 1961.

The Court of Appeal were certainly clear and satisfied.

From para 72 of their 2002 judgement:
''The prosecution also relied on evidence to the effect that there were eight adults and at least five children staying at the guesthouse during the week of 19 - 26 August 1961 suggesting that there was no room for James Hanratty in addition.''

[NickB]

The Room 4 clash was reported in the newspapers as a key event but in Woffinden’s long account of Jones testimony it is omitted. Although he mentions Sayle being in Room 4, he does not reveal that Jones claimed Hanratty stayed in Room 4 at the trial and on Panorama years later.