A6 Rebooted

[NickB]

That wording was on the Magee site too. I wonder which is right.

----

I notice that on the Wikipedia page for Hanratty the two familiar misrepresentations of evidence are stated as facts:

1) Mrs D said she “was unsure whether it was Monday 21 or Tuesday 22 August”.

2) Hanratty said he “stayed in a boarding house near the railway station, in the attic room, which had a green bath”.

[Spitfire]

According to the Times of 9 February 1961, Mrs D said that she was sure that the man requesting directions came in on the Monday and she was sure that her granddaughter was serving at the time.

And the report of 8 February just says;
"Hanratty asked to describe everything he could about the house where he stayed said, the woman who answered the door was about 50, average build and wore glasses. A coat rack in the hall was a big one. He also remembered a green plant in a bowl and a green bath in the attic."

These newspaper reports paraphrase and condense the evidence given and Foot at page 222 gives a more detailed extract of the evidence, which runs as follows:

Q. Was there anything else that you noticed in that house in any other room of the house you went to? Did you notice something?

A There was a green bath.

Q. A green bath?

A. I remember the green bath plainly.

Q. Can you remember whereabouts in the house the green bath was...?

A. In the top part of the house, I would say the attic; in the top part. It might not be the attic, but that is ...

Notwithstanding these answers Foot believes it probable that Hanratty slept in the room with the green bath!

[NickB]

From Telegraph, part of the cross-examination about Rhyl ...

[cobalt]

We seem to have moved seemlessly from discussion of the murder car, to the old chestnut of Hanratty's alibi.

I think it is generally accepted that Hanratty's alibi is impossible to prove, short of being arrested by the Liverpool/Rhyl poliice, to the satisfaction of those who believe he was guilty. Even the trial udge acknowledged that Hanratty was not obliged to prove a negative.

Let's get back to the car.

[Spitfire]

According to the Times report of 26 January 1961 of Charlotte France's evidence, it was she who did Jim's Laundry. She knew of him only as Jim Ryan.

[OneRound]

We seem to have moved seemlessly from discussion of the murder car, to the old chestnut of Hanratty's alibi.

I think it is generally accepted that Hanratty's alibi is impossible to prove, short of being arrested by the Liverpool/Rhyl poliice, to the satisfaction of those who believe he was guilty. Even the trial udge acknowledged that Hanratty was not obliged to prove a negative.

Let's get back to the car.

Hi Cobalt - what the trial judge said was undoubtedly correct although things have somewhat moved on with the jury finding Hanratty guilty and various official enquiries and appeal courts supporting that decision. An alibi for Hanratty or unfairness in the trial process now needs to be clearly established to have any chance of overturning the finding of guilt.

By all means, choose to leave ''the Rhyl alibi'' well alone and request others on both sides do the same. However, if you do that, you must appreciate that ''unfairness in the trial process'' is all that is left open to you and that cut insufficient ice with the Court of Appeal in 2002.

I have no issue with getting back to the car although you may have to take first turn at the wheel and do the steering.

Best regards,

OneRound

[NickB]

Woffinden wrote: “Having committed the crime, and having abandoned the Morris Minor in Redbridge, Alphon returned to the [Vienna] hotel.”

How does he square this with the car being abandoned in the evening?

In Victoria at 4.50pm an old acquaintance Paul Davey had a chance meeting with Alphon (Woffinden page 410) just before he was about to get another top up from his mother at 5.30. Then he checked into the Alexander Court Hotel.

[Spitfire]

Woffinden wrote: “Having committed the crime, and having abandoned the Morris Minor in Redbridge, Alphon returned to the [Vienna] hotel.”

How does he square this with the car being abandoned in the evening?

I don't think he has yet, maybe a new theory will appear in the updated edition of his book upon which he is presently working, although how many editions of a book with "The Final Verdict" in its title one can get away with must surely be limited.

[OneRound]

I don't think he has yet, maybe a new theory will appear in the updated edition of his book upon which he is presently working, although how many editions of a book with "The Final Verdict" in its title one can get away with must surely be limited.

Ouch!

[Derrick]

I don't think he has yet, maybe a new theory will appear in the updated edition of his book upon which he is presently working, although how many editions of a book with "The Final Verdict" in its title one can get away with must surely be limited.

Hi Spitto

He may call it the Final Final Verdict!

Dello

[ansonman]

Hi Spitto

He may call it the Final Final Verdict!

Dello

I know someone who would prefer the title to read:

"This matter is now closed"

Ansonman

[NickB]

The recently mentioned Neville and Griffin shop.

Also the garage which the Sunday Times, back in 1966, identified as the Regent garage.

[NickB]

Vienna Hotel.

Also, Trower standing at the spot in Redbridge Lane where he claimed to have seen the car.

[Spitfire]

The recently mentioned Neville and Griffin shop.

Also the garage which the Sunday Times, back in 1966, identified as the Regent garage.

Thanks for that Nick, I thought it would have been a bit of a detour to go to the actual dairy itself on Osbourne St.

[Spitfire]

One of the things which this case much teach us is the fallibility of human memory, whether it is in the recall of the facts of an incident or the physiognomy of the perpetrator of a crime.

I have recently acquired a second hand copy of Sherrard's (auto) biography, and have noticed that the authors (Linda Goldman and Mike Sherrard) are not immune from making lapses with regard to the Hanratty case.

First, Ms Goldman who writes (in italics) about Sherrard in the third person claims that Hanratty was the third to the last person to be executed in UK before abolition. In fact seven more criminals were to follow Jim onto the gallows, making Jim's execution the eighth to last.

Second, Mike gives an account of Victor Durand's suspension which involves Durand's conduct of a case before Mr Justice Milmo, whereas in fact the case (Meek v Fleming) involved Mr Justice Streatfield.

Minor lapses of fact I agree but it does not fill one with confidence that the rest of his (and Ms Goldman's) account will be accurate and I have reason to believe it is not where it deals with Hanratty's change of alibi. At page 97 MS writes:

The trial progressed slowly. After two or three weeks...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. The law did not require him to do so. The only thing I was concerned with that he could contribute sparked from his blank denials of any part in the crime. There were questions that would arise about his alibi which hinged upon him being in Liverpool and meeting three men. He would be asked who they were, their names and why he was visiting.
I said "Look Jim, you'll have to explain why you were in Liverpool. You'll be asked these 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."

The trial started on 22 Jan 1961 and Foot reports at p 220 that the first document mentioning the Rhyl alibi was dated 26 Jan 1962, a scribbled note on the back on an envelope written by Kleinman. There was a further and more detailed note dated 29 Jan 1962 which was the Monday of the second week of the trial.

So it would seem that Jim told his lawyers that his Liverpool alibi, insofar as it related to the evening of 22 August and the following day, was a lie a lot early than Sherrard would now have us believe.

Nothing seems to have been done about the change of alibi until the defence team went into action and a photograph was taken of Jim on 5 October, which was then shown to the landladies of Rhyl. This resulted in the discovery of Mrs Grace "Miracle" Jones. Foot and Woffinden disagree on the date when Gillbanks discovered Jones; Foot (p223) has it as 7 February and Woffinden (p226) on 6 February.

I have read that Swanwick alleged in his cross-examination of Hanratty that the prosecution were kept in the dark as to the change of alibi until 4.30 pm on 6 February when (I assume) Sherrard mentioned it in his opening address.

I find this all very odd.Why did the defence do nothing as regards evidence gathering between Hanratty changing his alibi instructions, which may have been as early as 26 January, the Friday of the first week of the trial, but certainly no later than the following Monday, and the taking of the photo on 5 February? It seems inconceivable that nothing should be done in that period but both Foot and Woffinden seem to accept that this did in fact happen.