A6 Rebooted

[Graham]

Hi Graham,

I think it's very unlikely that the judge would actually have done that. I wonder if Sherrard spooked Hanratty too much.

With the considerable benefit of hindsight, Hanratty might even have been better off from the very start in taking a leaf out of Alphon's book and claiming throughout that he slept (not 'kipped') under Southport pier or some such similar place on his tod. Whilst he obviously wouldn't have been able to prove that, there at least wouldn't be the risk of his Liverpool mates contradicting it or Mrs Jones giving the impression it was impossible.

I recall you mentioning McNally before. Tantalising snippet of conversation from him.

Best regards,

OneRound

Hi OR,

I think in fairness that Sherrard was doing his job and wisely warning Hanratty of all possibilities and liabilities regarding his inability to prove the Liverpool 'alibi'. I can't offhand think of a precedent in which a judge ordered a defendant to be taken in person to a particular place to prove an alibi, but it was of course perfectly possible for Mr Gorman to do so in Hanratty's case. And as his client's life was in danger, Sherrard could not afford to pull any punches whatsoever.

Yes, old Alphon was a wily cove, and knew full well that the police wouldn't be able to disprove his claim of kipping under Southend Pier, or on a park bench somewhere. My own feeling is that Hanratty was simply naive, and was probably genuinely surprised when his Liverpool 'mates' didn't back him up. But then, as I think McNally was saying in his strange question, why should they?

Graham

[Graham]

That Sherrard believed the new alibi, in the dreadful circumstances that it was revealed, says it all for me. And that was before the Rhyl witnesses came forward

.

But as I posted, I don't believe that Sherrard did believe the new Rhyl 'alibi' as being the unalloyed truth - after all, he drew up a document that effectively put his client's life on the line if the 'alibi' couldn't be proven. Unfortunately, in the police and in the legal profession, the old adage "once a liar, etc", applies.

The Rhyl 'alibi' had been discussed, debated, argued and fought over on these boards almost since time immemorial, or so it seems to me, and I'm not going to 'go circular' again on this. All I would say is that it never was, and never will be, proved beyond all doubt that Hanratty was anywhere other than in a Morris Minor at the critical time.

The basic reason why the much-vaunted new appeal in 2011 didn't go ahead was that there was no new evidence to present to the Court of Appeal to show that Hanratty was elsewhere that night, and that hasn't changed.

Graham

[ansonman]

.

But as I posted, I don't believe that Sherrard did believe the new Rhyl 'alibi' as being the unalloyed truth - after all, he drew up a document that effectively put his client's life on the line if the 'alibi' couldn't be proven. Unfortunately, in the police and in the legal profession, the old adage "once a liar, etc", applies.

The Rhyl 'alibi' had been discussed, debated, argued and fought over on these boards almost since time immemorial, or so it seems to me, and I'm not going to 'go circular' again on this. All I would say is that it never was, and never will be, proved beyond all doubt that Hanratty was anywhere other than in a Morris Minor at the critical time.

The basic reason why the much-vaunted new appeal in 2011 didn't go ahead was that there was no new evidence to present to the Court of Appeal to show that Hanratty was elsewhere that night, and that hasn't changed.

Graham

My last word on this particular part of the debate is that:

a) It was never proved beyond reasonable doubt that Hanratty committed the crimes

b) His QC believed him to be entirely innocent of the crime.

c) You never met Hanratty but you were able to see through him, whereas Sherrard could not.

Ansonman

[Alfie]

McNally made the odd statement to Gillbanks that, "if Hanratty won't open up, why should I?" This (to me, at least) has never been explained.

I take it to mean: "If Hanratty won't name the people he says he stayed with, why should I?"

[Spitfire]

My last word on this particular part of the debate is that:

a) It was never proved beyond reasonable doubt that Hanratty committed the crimes

It certainly was to the satisfaction of the jury,

b) His QC believed him to be entirely innocent of the crime.

By the end of the trial Sherrard had all but abandoned the Rhyl alibi. Mrs Miracle Jones's evidence had been demolished. Sherrard did not seek to adduce further evidence at the appeal, preferring to attack the summing up of the judge as his grounds of appeal.

c) You never met Hanratty but you were able to see through him, whereas Sherrard could not.

The jury saw Hanratty and convicted him.

[Graham]

It was never proved beyond reasonable doubt that Hanratty committed the crimes

As Sherrard said, The wrong man was not hanged.

His QC believed him to be entirely innocent of the crime.

How do you know?

You never met Hanratty but you were able to see through him, whereas Sherrard could not

Pardon?

Graham

[OneRound]

Hi OR,

I think in fairness that Sherrard was doing his job and wisely warning Hanratty of all possibilities and liabilities regarding his inability to prove the Liverpool 'alibi'. I can't offhand think of a precedent in which a judge ordered a defendant to be taken in person to a particular place to prove an alibi, but it was of course perfectly possible for Mr Gorman to do so in Hanratty's case. And as his client's life was in danger, Sherrard could not afford to pull any punches whatsoever.

Yes, old Alphon was a wily cove, and knew full well that the police wouldn't be able to disprove his claim of kipping under Southend Pier, or on a park bench somewhere. My own feeling is that Hanratty was simply naive, and was probably genuinely surprised when his Liverpool 'mates' didn't back him up. But then, as I think McNally was saying in his strange question, why should they?

Graham

Cheers, Graham.

Yes, Sherrard was certainly doing his job. I just wonder whether in this part of it, he did it too well and probed too much. Admittedly said now with massive hindsight but Hanratty could not have ended up any worse off if he had stuck to his Liverpool claim.

I doubt your old pal Norman Birkett had much faith in the innocence of Tony Mancini or wanted to look too hard for it.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Graham]

Cheers, Graham.

Yes, Sherrard was certainly doing his job. I just wonder whether in this part of it, he did it too well and probed too much. Admittedly said now with massive hindsight but Hanratty could not have ended up any worse off if he had stuck to his Liverpool claim.

I doubt your old pal Norman Birkett had much faith in the innocence of Tony Mancini or wanted to look too hard for it.

Best regards,

OneRound

Hi OR,

we'll never know just what Sherrard's reaction was to Hanratty's sudden and very late change of alibi, but I'm fairly confident it wasn't all that positive. I would suspect that Sherrard earnestly advised Hanratty not to change it, but of course he, Sherrard, was under instruction from his client.
Like you, I've always felt that Hanratty really should have stuck to his Liverpool alibi, but he didn't, and the rest is history.

I can virtually guarantee that old Norman thought Mancini a nasty, vicious and murderous little rat (which he was), but he was being well paid to try and get him off, and he did! Fortunately, Norman had gone to his grave before Mancini confessed to the murder. They don't make them like Norman Birkett any more.

Graham

[Graham]

I take it to mean: "If Hanratty won't name the people he says he stayed with, why should I?"

Well, yes....and why indeed should he (McNally, that is)? McNally had a sub-poena served against him, and Gillbanks, when he met him, said he was extremely angry. He also said he hadn't seen Hanratty for four years, which is why I find his question puzzling. But the upshot was that Hanratty's alibi was blown out of the water.

Woffinden says that McNally's house was searched on the night of Hanratty's arrest, which suggests that very early on Hanratty named McNally. Foot, however, doesn't refer to this at all.

I'm still puzzled.....

Graham

[Sherlock Houses]

Finally, to quote Woffinden: "If only the defence had been aware of it, far from the discovery of Mrs. Jones being a "solitary miracle", there were a little cluster of them. Within 24 hours of the first unofficial announcement "several persons" were entirely on their own, volunteering information about Hanratty's visit to Rhyl. If a few news items produced such an instant response, what might a proper inquiry have yielded?"

Quite so Ansonman.

Mrs Margaret Walker was one of these "miracles". A very upstanding and well respected Rhyl citizen she was able to pinpoint the date she encountered a young man outside her home seeking B&B accommodation for 2 nights. Mrs Walker said the man looked very much like James Hanratty, whose photo had been published for the very first time in the Sunday papers of February 18th 1962, the day after the trial ended.
The date of this encounter she was able to establish firmly as Tuesday, August 22nd 1961. The reason for her certainty was that it happened the Tuesday before a very noteworthy family event took place. That family event was the eviction of her son on Friday August 25th.

The following 6 important points are what make Mrs Walker's evidence so powerfully persuasive [unless of course you happen to be a diehard cynic].............

1] The man was about 24-27 years old. Hanratty was 24 at the time.
2] The man asked for accommodation for 2 nights. Hanratty stated that he stayed 2 nights in Rhyl at the relevant time.
3] The man's hair was dark and very eye-catching as it was streaky or tacky in places. This would describe how Hanratty's hair must have looked a couple of weeks after having had it dyed dark by Carole France. The dye would have been in the process of fading and the natural auburn colour beginning to show, hence the noticeable streakiness.
4] The man was not casually dressed, he wore a suit, a dark suit. Hanratty was wearing the dark grey Hepworth suit that week.
5] Mrs Walker's Alsatian dog was at her side by her front gate when the young man approached her. Hanratty's father recalled his son telling him of 'a large dog' accompanying one of the Rhyl women he had asked for accommodation.
6] Mrs Walker stated that this young man was willing to sleep anywhere "on a settee or anything", it didn't bother him where. This tallies perfectly with Hanratty's sleeping arrangements when staying at the Frances or at Louise Anderson's.

[ansonman]

Quite so Ansonman.

Mrs Margaret Walker was one of these "miracles". A very upstanding and well respected Rhyl citizen she was able to pinpoint the date she encountered a young man outside her home seeking B&B accommodation for 2 nights. Mrs Walker said the man looked very much like James Hanratty, whose photo had been published for the very first time in the Sunday papers of February 18th 1962, the day after the trial ended.
The date of this encounter she was able to establish firmly as Tuesday, August 22nd 1961. The reason for her certainty was that it happened the Tuesday before a very noteworthy family event took place. That family event was the eviction of her son on Friday August 25th.

The following 6 important points are what make Mrs Walker's evidence so powerfully persuasive [unless of course you happen to be a diehard cynic].............

1] The man was about 24-27 years old. Hanratty was 24 at the time.
2] The man asked for accommodation for 2 nights. Hanratty stated that he stayed 2 nights in Rhyl at the relevant time.
3] The man's hair was dark and very eye-catching as it was streaky or tacky in places. This would describe how Hanratty's hair must have looked a couple of weeks after having had it dyed dark by Carole France. The dye would have been in the process of fading and the natural auburn colour beginning to show, hence the noticeable streakiness.
4] The man was not casually dressed, he wore a suit, a dark suit. Hanratty was wearing the dark grey Hepworth suit that week.
5] Mrs Walker's Alsatian dog was at her side by her front gate when the young man approached her. Hanratty's father recalled his son telling him of 'a large dog' accompanying one of the Rhyl women he had asked for accommodation.
6] Mrs Walker stated that this young man was willing to sleep anywhere "on a settee or anything", it didn't bother him where. This tallies perfectly with Hanratty's sleeping arrangements when staying at the Frances or at Louise Anderson's.

Unfortunately, with one notable exception, most of the anti Hanratty's on these threads are diehard cynics and though this is an excellent post, they won't be having any of it.

We have the guy who, whenever it's pointed out that there was not a shred of evidence to link Hanratty to the crime, repeats matra-like, that the jury was satisfied he did it. This guy thinks that the decision of a jury is not only sacrosanct, but always correct.

Then we have the poster who, when confronted with the fact that Storie chose an innocent man from the first ID parade, who looked nothing like Hanratty, responds by saying "that doesn't mean anything". Before adding "she knew it was Hanratty when she saw him". A classic "I'll never forget whatizname" moment.

Oh, and don't go criticising our Val, that is out of bounds and she's suffered enough already. She never got anything wrong and even if she did, it meant nothing.

And don't forget that terribly effective defence council, Sherrard. He never believed in Hanratty's innocence. Even though it took him until the DNA "evidence" was unearthed decades later to say so.

He was a real gent, especially for not having destroyed Valerie as a witness as he could so easily had done. She'd been through enough already.

As for the Rhyl alibi, what a lot of rot. Not only did the jury not buy it, and they are always right, but it was another false alibi. Two on the trot in fact. There were many people who came forward as witnesses in support of the alibi? Liars, every one of them.

What we deranged Hanratty supporters must accept is that he was guilty because the Jury said so. We must ignore the fact that there's not a shred of evidence to link him to the crime. We must ignore that Valerie had forfeited her credibility as a witness by choosing an innocent man and we should follow the arguments of the "he did it brigade" and stop talking tosh.

The notable exception I referred to earlier is the poster who believes in Hanratty's guilt but who also believes that there was insufficient evidence to have found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. He ought to be jolly careful saying things like that. After all the jury found him guilty and they could never be wrong.

Ansonman

[Sherlock Houses]

I can't disagree with anything you wrote in your post [3776] Ansonman, as it's a perceptive and very much to the point posting.

There are far too many Valerie apologists on these threads. Questioning her reliability or integrity is definitely a taboo subject with the apologists. Her unreliability and contradictory evidence are there for anyone with an enquiring and impartial mind to discover. Seek and ye shall find.

When she was reminded on camera in 1966 about her wrongful identification of the innocent Michael Clark all she could say (with a smile bordering on a smirk) was that "it was just one of those things". Astonishing remark really.

[ansonman]

I can't disagree with anything you wrote in your post [3776] Ansonman, as it's a perceptive and very much to the point posting.

There are far too many Valerie apologists on these threads. Questioning her reliability or integrity is definitely a taboo subject with the apologists. Her unreliability and contradictory evidence are there for anyone with an enquiring and impartial mind to discover. Seek and ye shall find.

When she was reminded on camera in 1966 about her wrongful identification of the innocent Michael Clark all she could say (with a smile bordering on a smirk) was that "it was just one of those things". Astonishing remark really.

It was an astonishing remark but the sort of remark still used by her supporters fifty years later. It's a sort of "that meant nothing" remark of the "I'll never forget whatzisname" variety. There are rather a lot of remarks of this sort on these threads. Always attributable to the anti Hanratty's, I should add.

I often wonder what her supporters would have felt if a son of theirs had been charged, convicted and hanged on the basis of what we know to be totally flawed evidence. Don't think they'd have said "It was just one of those things". Or would they?

Best regards,

Ansonman

[Graham]

Hey, I think we've got them rattled!

Graham

[ansonman]

Hey, I think we've got them rattled!

Graham

That's a sort of "that meant nothing" remark of the "I'll never forget whatzisname" variety.

Ansonman