A6 Rebooted

[OneRound]

...

So it comes down to the impossibility of it being Hanratty if it was a Monday and it was a useless bought alibi versus Hanratty being correct and Mrs Dinwoodie having gotten her days mixed up.

Did Hanratty go into another shop that Tuesday and ask for Tarleton Road, a non-existent throughfare? It would seem not as the police must have inquired in every sweet shop in the Scotland Road.

So what are the odds of 2 different men asking for Tarleton Road in 2 different shops on consecutive days in that week in August. Much, much, longer than Leicester winning the title again this year, I'll bet.

Del

Hi Del,

An alibi bought for the wrong day would not be useless if it could help muddy the waters and create doubt.

Admittedly not a patch on an alibi for the right day but there again it would not have been a buyer's market.

Btw, I'm struggling to follow your final two paragraphs. I'm not aware of anyone suggesting there was more than one man asking for those directions. It was either Hanratty or it wasn't. Mrs Dinwoodie seems clear as to which side of the fence she came down.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Sherlock Houses]

Hi Nick

I have seen contemporary newspaper reports with much of the same content as the Torygraph.

To me the most important aspects are that Mrs Dinwoodie stated, in reply to Mr Sherrard's question, that she was sure it was the Monday because her granddaughter was serving with her and that the man asked for directions to places that Hanratty himself had put up in his alibi.

There was no mention of Cowley serving at all, he might have been around on the Tuesday but I doubt he was behind the counter or in the shop at all for that matter all day, everyone needs a break.

Besides, Mrs Dinwoodie was an extremely reluctant witness. Her husband complained to the police of harassment by defence agents and made 2 statements to that effect, which I have seen.

Furthermore, we all know how unreliable human memory can be. Miss Storie and the Rhyl witnesses have all been shown to be fallible whether Hanratty was guilty or not. This is especially true when trying to recollect exact times of events.

On top of that Mrs Dinwoodie was taken ill and her recollections of the material day may have become confused if she didn't realize that Miss Ford did indeed serve behind the counter on the Tuesday afternoon, which Miss Ford is adamant she did. Mrs Dinwoodie may not have known who Miss Walton was and assumed she was another child customer. And also I am not sure whether Miss Ford mentioned that Mr Cowley was actually in the shop on the Tuesday whilst she was there.

So, if Miss Ford was needed to serve that Tuesday afternoon then Mr Cowley must have vacated the shop for a period of time.

Both Mrs Dinwoodie and Miss Ford picked out photographs of Hanratty and signed them as such. Firstly one photograph (naughty police) and then from a set of 13 or so.

So it comes down to the impossibility of it being Hanratty if it was a Monday and it was a useless bought alibi versus Hanratty being correct and Mrs Dinwoodie having gotten her days mixed up.

Did Hanratty go into another shop that Tuesday and ask for Tarleton Road, a non-existent throughfare? It would seem not as the police must have inquired in every sweet shop in the Scotland Road.

So what are the odds of 2 different men asking for Tarleton Road in 2 different shops on consecutive days in that week in August. Much, much, longer than Leicester winning the title again this year, I'll bet.

Del

Now now Derrick, will you please refrain from making such perfect sense. You've echoed my own feelings regarding this matter almost 100%. The only thing you have left out is that missing hour (4.00pm to 5.00pm) of Hanratty's on the Monday when he vacated the France's home to take a magic carpet ride (Aladdin style) to David Cowley's sweet shop and back. Voila !

[NickB]

In his book Foot said: “Two days later, Mrs Dinwoodie gave her evidence. She said that Hanratty had come into the sweet shop on the Monday.”
(my italics)

I do not see how anyone reading her evidence could regard this to be a fair account of it, as she referred throughout merely to “a chap who resembled” him.

The myth about Dinwoodie’s evidence has been built up around this misrepresentation - that she was sure about whether it was Hanratty but unsure about the date. In fact it was the other way round.

[OneRound]

In his book Foot said: “Two days later, Mrs Dinwoodie gave her evidence. She said that Hanratty had come into the sweet shop on the Monday.”
(my italics)

I do not see how anyone reading her evidence could regard this to be a fair account of it, as she referred throughout merely to “a chap who resembled” him.

The myth about Dinwoodie’s evidence has been built up around this misrepresentation - that she was sure about whether it was Hanratty but unsure about the date. In fact it was the other way round.

Nick - very good post. Perfect sense.

OneRound

[Sherlock Houses]

Sherrard: “What time of the day was it that this man came in and had this conversation with you?”

Dinwoodie: "About 4.15 to 4.30.”

Asked to examine a photograph, Mrs Dinwoodie agreed that she had signed it as being the person whom she had seen in the shop.

Sherrard: “Do you see anyone in court that looks like that man?”

Dinwoodie: “Yes.”

Mrs Dinwoodie nodded towards the dock.

Almost 4 months earlier however, Mrs Dinwoodie in her original statement told Det-Constable Pugh of Liverpool police that the incident took place between 3.30 pm and 4.00 pm. Some confusion had obviously crept into her mind regarding this which I suppose is understandable given that she had been questioned on this crucial matter so many times between October 17th and December 5th 1961, a 7 week period when Hanratty's defence team knew absolutely zilch about her existence.

[Derrick]

Hi OR

...An alibi bought for the wrong day would not be useless if it could help muddy the waters and create doubt..

But Hanratty had already given his movements for all day Monday! Why would he try to buy an alibi that conflicted with his own movements for the day before the murder?

...Btw, I'm struggling to follow your final two paragraphs. I'm not aware of anyone suggesting there was more than one man asking for those directions...

Me neither, but it doesn't stop me from positing it, however unlikely it may seem. Much like most of the positing going on here already.

Del

[OneRound]

Hi OR


But Hanratty had already given his movements for all day Monday! Why would he try to buy an alibi that conflicted with his own movements for the day before the murder?

....

Del

Hi Del,

My speculation (and I emphasise it is speculation) is that Hanratty needed to buy an alibi for Tuesday, the day of the kidnapping leading to the murder.

Either he was sold a pup (ie an alibi for Monday, the wrong day) or he could only get an alibi for the Monday and in desperation chose to go with that hoping the incident would be recalled although not the actual day. I recently posted that it would not have been a buyer's market.

I am not the greatest fan of the Court of Appeal's 2002 judgement. However, I do feel they had a point when they doubted the time available to Hanratty to fit in the sweetshop incident and all the other things he claimed to do on the Tuesday between allegedly arriving at Lime Street and heading off to Rhyl.

Anyway, as I acknowledge and emphasise, the above is speculative on my part. A person should not be convicted on that. You may be aware that since appearing on this forum I have maintained the view that whilst Hanratty 'did it', his guilt was not fairly and reasonably proven. Particularly in line with Mansfield's arguments in 2002, I would have allowed the appeal upon behalf of Hanratty due largely to non-disclosures before and at trial.

However, whilst doubts can be cast on the validity and integrity of parts of the prosecution case, there is nothing I have read or watched to persuade me that Hanratty was innocent. In contrast, you have stated your belief in his innocence based on 'all the known facts of the case'. I again repeat my genuine request for your take on all events concerning the murder of Michael Gregsten and including, if you think the case, the framing of James Hanratty.

I may not agree with your conclusions but I would be very interested and would seriously consider them. Can I say or ask fairer than that?

Best regards,

OneRound

[ansonman]

The real alibi

[QUOTE=OneRound;408917]Hi Del,

"Either he was sold a pup (ie an alibi for Monday, the wrong day) or he could only get an alibi for the Monday and in desperation chose to go with that hoping the incident would be recalled although not the actual day. I recently posted that it would not have been a buyer's market".

Hi OneRound,

We also have the testimony of Trevor Dutton:

"What brought everything back to me was when one of my customers read part of a newspaper report to me and mentioned that Hanratty claimed he had tried to sell a watch in Rhyl. I recalled on my return home that a man had offered to sell me a gold watch in Rhyl one day in the Summer. I pondered over this because I could not remember exactly when it was. I then suddenly realised I had been to the bank-Barclay's Bank, High Street, Rhyl - one day in August, and this was the only time in August I had visited the bank. This morning I checked up with my in book, and this visit was made on 23rd August 1961".

So perhaps Hanratty bought an alibi for the Wednesday also?

Ansonman

[Graham]

Hanratty never claimed to have tried to sell a watch in Rhyl, but he did claim to have tried to sell one in Liverpool, to the man Kempt outside the billiards hall, and this was confirmed by Kempt, although Kempt was unsure of precisely when this occurred.

If Hanratty had told his defence prior to Mr Dutton contacting them that he had tried to sell a watch in Rhyl, then that would have been extremely impressive. Mr Dutton's statement is also diluted by his description of the accent of the man he claimed tried to sell him a watch - he said the man had 'an accent I can't place...more like a dialect...possibly Irish or cockney or a mixture of both". Of course, Hanratty had an Irish name and Irish parents, but as was established during his pre-trial examination he had an accent typical of most Londoners of his age and background, i.e., pure cockney, without a trace of Irish.

One odd point about Mr Dutton and his evidence was that according to Paul Foot, Mr Dutton was 'most anxious to avoid publicity' for whatever reason. Odd, because later on Mr Dutton joined the "A6 Committee" in Rhyl and was photographed with them. Photo is in Foot's book.

I well remember going on holiday in both Rhyl and Colwyn Bay in the late 1950's (very much against my better judgement, but they were the places my parents liked to go) and there were spivs all over the shop.

Sorry, but although at first sight Mr Dutton's evidence is impressive, it just doesn't stand up.

Graham

[ansonman]

Never on a Sunday

I suppose one reason why Hanratty didn't mention the watch selling in Rhyl was that the alibi-man for that day (let's call him Mr Wednesday, as opposed to Mr. Monday - albeit they could have both been the same person) forgot to tell him.

Such an omission would be understandable given that he (Mr. W) was jostling with so many spivs on the day in question and far more than he was use to seeing in somewhere like Liverpool.
I should imagine he just thought "sod this!" and forgot about it. Unless he did tell Hanratty and Hanratty forgot about it.

Ansonman

[Derrick]

I suppose one reason why Hanratty didn't mention the watch selling in Rhyl was that the alibi-man for that day (let's call him Mr Wednesday, as opposed to Mr. Monday - albeit they could have both been the same person) forgot to tell him.

Such an omission would be understandable given that he (Mr. W) was jostling with so many spivs on the day in question and far more than he was use to seeing in somewhere like Liverpool.
I should imagine he just thought "sod this!" and forgot about it. Unless he did tell Hanratty and Hanratty forgot about it.

Ansonman

Do i detect a somewhat tongue in cheek approach to your last couple of posts?

[Derrick]

...If Hanratty had told his defence prior to Mr Dutton contacting them that he had tried to sell a watch in Rhyl, then that would have been extremely impressive...

Hi Graham
I would imagine that at that stage of the trial, having changed his alibi to Rhyl, he was more concerned with conveying the description of the boarding house than other minor details, so his agents could trace the landlady.
Del

[ansonman]

Do i detect a somewhat tongue in cheek approach to your last couple of posts?

Del,

Dot, me?
Dotever next?

Ansonman

[NickB]

he did claim to have tried to sell one in Liverpool, to the man Kempt outside the billiards hall

Below is the Telegraph's report of Kempt's evidence ...

Robert Kempt, billiards hall manager of Claudia Street, Liverpool, said he managed Reynolds Hall in Lime Street, Liverpool.

Answering Mr Anthony Ellison, also for the defence, he recalled standing on the step of the hall last year and having a conversation with a man.

Ellison: “Can you see anybody here today who resembles that man?”

Mr Kempt looked round the court and replied: “No sir. I only saw him for about two minutes.”

He said the man was probably in his mid-twenties and perhaps 5ft 6in tall.

He went on: “The first thing was he said ‘Do you want to buy a watch?’ I said ‘No.’ Furthermore I said to him ‘This is not a saleroom. You are not going in there to sell a watch either.”

Mr Kempt said he started his holiday last year on Aug 26, but he could not say whether the conversation was before his holiday or afterwards.

[Graham]

Hi Graham
I would imagine that at that stage of the trial, having changed his alibi to Rhyl, he was more concerned with conveying the description of the boarding house than other minor details, so his agents could trace the landlady.
Del

Del,

with the change of alibi, his defence would have been desperate to obtain from him any information and detail he could remember concerning what he claimed to have done, and who he claimed to have met in his claimed visit to Rhyl. Indeed, he did come up with quite a bit, apart from Ingledene*. Had Hanratty at that time mentioned that he'd tried to sell a watch, then Mr Dutton's evidence would have been of absolutely vital importance. He contacted the defence via his local police on 9 February; Hanratty changed his alibi on 29 January, so Dutton would have known of this via the media, which I believe first reported this on 7 February, so he was plainly sharp off the mark. things might have been very different for Jimmy.

*Incidentally, it's sometimes forgotten that Hanratty never claimed to have stayed at Ingledene; all he said was that he stayed at a boarding-house by the station and gave a description of the place and the landlady. After knocking on Lord knows how many doors it was Joe Gillbanks who felt that Ingledene was the place and Mrs Jones the landlady.

Graham