A6 Rebooted

[NickB]

Swanwick: “You had, until 4.30 yesterday afternoon led the prosecution on a wild goose chase?”

Hanratty: "Yes sir, yes."

Swanwick: “I suggest that you invented this alibi over the weekend.”

Hanratty: "You will see in due course."

Hanratty did not reveal that actually he had told his defence a week or so before that weekend!

As you know I have queried this delay before. The only explanation I can think of is that during this period the defence were desperately trying to get Hanratty to drop his Rhyl alibi.

In court when trying to explain why he had previously withheld the alibi Hanratty talked about how he did not feel that he could tell the intimidating Acott. But he also did not tell his defence counsel, whom he described as his friends and clearly admired. I find it difficult to see how, when they sat down to go through what he did in the murder week, he would have told them about the false Liverpool alibi if he had really been to Rhyl. I think Sherrard felt the same.

[OneRound]

Hanratty did not reveal that actually he had told his defence a week or so before that weekend!

As you know I have queried this delay before. The only explanation I can think of is that during this period the defence were desperately trying to get Hanratty to drop his Rhyl alibi.

In court when trying to explain why he had previously withheld the alibi Hanratty talked about how he did not feel that he could tell the intimidating Acott. But he also did not tell his defence counsel, whom he described as his friends and clearly admired. I find it difficult to see how, when they sat down to go through what he did in the murder week, he would have told them about the false Liverpool alibi if he had really been to Rhyl. I think Sherrard felt the same.

Hi all - good and interesting posts from Nick above and, before that, Spit.

I'm pretty sure Nick's explanation is correct although the note of 29 January 1962 and timed at 5 pm signed by Hanratty [Natalie provided a scanned copy on the separate thread] appears clear and categoric in its instructions to his solicitors and counsel about ''the Rhyl alibi story''. It is certainly couched in legal terms.

Swanwick accused Hanratty of leading ''the prosecution on a wild goose chase'' until (apparently) 4.30 pm on 6 February. As someone who has been very critical of Acott's non disclosures in this case, it is only fair to say that Sherrard's own silence concerning Rhyl helped keep that wild goose chase running in its final week.

I appreciate that defendants had the right in 1962 to introduce a so called ambush alibi at trial. However, I don't know if defence counsel had any obligation at that time to promptly report to the judge and prosecution counsel any formal instructions concerning a change of original alibi. Perhaps they didn't then. However, even if not and to quote my old granddad, it seems 'a rum do'.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Spitfire]

Hi Nick and OR,

Nick, I hadn't realised you'd raised the point previously.

I can't believe that the defence would have done nothing in Rhyl for the week commencing 29 January 1962. The clear written instructions of that date were to find the landlady of the boarding house and Sherrard and Kleinman must have acted on those instructions. In which case Gillbanks would have been in Rhyl during the second week of the trial.

Is it possible that Gillbanks found Mrs Jones earlier than we have been led to believe? Could he have found Ingledene, discovered that it had a green bath in the attic and that the landlady, who resembled Hanratty's description of her, recalled a single male staying there in the preceding August. A photo of Hanratty would be needed to confirm that he was that man, as there was no visitor's book saying a J Ryan or J Hanratty had stayed there.

I don't think that Sherrard had any duty to the prosecution or to the court to inform either of the change of alibi, although the longer the Liverpool deception continued, the worse it would look for Jim. However as he had maintained his Liverpool alibi since before his arrest, an extra week of continuing the Liverpool pretence would make little difference. It did however enable the defence to keep its options open. Until Sherrard mentioned the Rhyl alibi, it would have been perfectly feasible for Hanratty to stay out of the witness box. Unlikely as it might have been, the prosecution had not conclusively proved that the Liverpool alibi was a lie, and the defence still had Mrs Dinwoodie to support the part of the Liverpool alibi which was not an admitted lie.

Once evidence was discovered that supported the Rhyl alibi, a decision had to be made and given Hanratty's instructions, the only realistic course of action was to run with this alibi. The photograph of Jim was taken on the 5 February and shown to Mrs Jones on the following day(if Woffinden is right and Foot wrong). Once she confirmed that the man in the photo was the man whom she remembered staying the previous August, then Sherrard could let the cat out of the bag which he did to Swanwick's annoyance at 4.30 pm on 6 February.

[Spitfire]

I should mention that the account given by Sherrard in Wigs and Wherefores page 98 is to the effect that Hanratty immediately on announcing his change of alibi had given a statement to his Solicitor which had been typed up somewhere in Bedford and which was to be delivered to Sherrard at his hotel in that town that evening.

Unfortunately the clerk delivering the statement, either dropped it or had it pick pocketed by the Bedfordshire constabulary, at any event when he arrived to give Sherrard the statement he did not have it. Sherrard sent him back to see where it had gone to, and when showing him out, who should be there at the door but a "nice" policeman who had the manilla envelope containing Jim's new alibi.

Sherrard concludes this tale by saying, "The police were in Rhyl before I had finished reading the statement."

I am not sure how much of this account a serious student of the A6 Murder should accept.

[OneRound]

Hi again folks,

An interesting exchange between Swanwick and Hanratty, as per Nick's post.

S: I suggest that you invented the alibi over the weekend.
H: You will see in due course.

Did Hanratty know then that Mrs Jones had been located?

I recall in one of the tv documentaries John Kerr saying that Hanratty did not come across well at trial and referred to him as seeming ''cocky''. That is contrary to the views of some others who feel Hanratty stood his ground well. The exchange above may support Kerr's view.

Best regards,

OneRound

[NickB]

His book has been quoted on this forum before, and the bit that sprang out at me was:
“I think he [Victor Durant] would not have gone down to the cells each day as I did before the court rose. That might not have given Hanratty the chance to change his alibi.”

As he thinks Durant would have won the case, this suggests that he considers the alibi change to be a mistake. As does this:
"The whole balance of the case had been altered by the late alibi, the subject of fearsome prosecution criticism."

The clear written instructions of that date were to find the landlady of the boarding house

And they didn’t start looking for another week. Which is why I think the note was part of their efforts to get him to drop Rhyl, hoping that when it was put in writing formally he might be jolted into seeing sense and not sign. The efforts to dissuade him could have continued afterwards and, if successful, the note rescinded.

[Spitfire]

Foot suggests that the search for Hanratty's Rhyl digs commenced as soon as Hanratty first informed his legal team of his new alibi. Page 220 "Gillbanks left at once for Rhyl." And at p 221 after Hanratty's statement of 29 January, "The information was sent at once to Gillbanks." Also the note of 26 January made by Kleinman or someone in his office refers to Gillbanks being in Rhyl.

The question then becomes when did Hanratty and his legal team in Bedford have the information conveyed to them from Gillbanks in Rhyl? On this Foot and Woffinden disagree. Foot says 7 February and Woffinden 6 February. My hunch would be that Woffinden is right and that Sherrard unleashed the Rhyl alibi on the afternoon of 6 February having had information that there was evidence to substantiate it.

[NickB]

If my reading of Woffinden is correct he has the sequence as follows:
1. Hanratty signs the note;
2. Photographs are taken of Hanratty;
3. Gillbanks is sent to Rhyl.

This makes more sense to me, as Gillbanks would need the photos when he made enquiries. It means that he came across Ingledene quite quickly, but all he needed to do was find a guest house with a green bath and a co-operative landlady.

In section 186 of the Appeal, the defence complains that information the prosecution obtained about the Liverpool-Rhyl bus timing was not disclosed. If the 1962 defence team had been investigating for a week they would have found out information like this themselves.

[Spitfire]

If my reading of Woffinden is correct he has the sequence as follows:
1. Hanratty signs the note;
2. Photographs are taken of Hanratty;
3. Gillbanks is sent to Rhyl.

This makes more sense to me, as Gillbanks would need the photos when he made enquiries. It means that he came across Ingledene quite quickly, but all he needed to do was find a guest house with a green bath and a co-operative landlady.

In section 186 of the Appeal, the defence complains that information the prosecution obtained about the Liverpool-Rhyl bus timing was not disclosed. If the 1962 defence team had been investigating for a week they would have found out information like this themselves.

That is the impression I get from reading Woffinden's account, but Foot at page 220 writes:

"The first document mentioning the Rhyl alibi in the defence papers is one of the many hurried scrawls written, literally on the back of an envelope, by someone in Mr Kleinman's office. It is dated January 26th -- that is the Friday of the first week of the trial:

'Gillbanks phoned...have traced people H stayed with in Rhyl.He stayed with man referred to as John, who is in fact Terry Evans and who has an old taxi. H stayed overnight and stole a pair of shoes. Evans has never seen him since.'

"


Then the note goes on:

'There is such a cafe as described...Hundreds of bed and breakfast houses which back on railway station and which have no front gardens."

So, if Foot is right about the note, Gillbanks was looking for B & Bs in Rhyl as early as January 26th. I can't believe that Foot has imagined this note, and I can't understand why Woffinden doesn't include it in what purports to be a comprehensive narrative.

[Derrick]

...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...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...

How true Spitto.

The photo of Hanratty could not possibly have been taken on the 5th October as he hadn't even been arrested then.

Dello

[Spitfire]

How true Spitto.

The photo of Hanratty could not possibly have been taken on the 5th October as he hadn't even been arrested then.

Dello

My mistake, 5 February 1962.

The photograph of Jim was taken on the 5 February and shown to Mrs Jones on the following day(if Woffinden is right and Foot wrong). Once she confirmed that the man in the photo was the man whom she remembered staying the previous August, then Sherrard could let the cat out of the bag which he did to Swanwick's annoyance at 4.30 pm on 6 February.

As anyone reading the thread would have discovered.

[NickB]

One of the pages from the Sunday Times magazine article ...

[OneRound]

Many thanks, Nick. I found that page from the Sunday Times magazine article fascinatng. If you are able to post other pages, it would be much appreciated.

Btw, the final quote in the extract appears to again show Kleinman more concerned with his own reputation than anything else.

Best regards,

OneRound

[NickB]

Another page ...

[OneRound]

Excellent stuff, Nick. Thanks again.

Arguments for and against Hanratty going back and forth more than fifty years ago just as they do today.

Couple of examples of the assortment of claims.

Hanratty was a car thief and a good driver, according to his supporters. Hanratty never passed a driving test and was an appalling driver, according to others. However, his supporters respond that even if he was that bad a driver, he would still be able to operate the gears of one of the simplest cars on the road.

Trower is sure he saw Hanratty driving the car. Hogan says Trower couldn't have done. Trower counters by saying it was Hogan who took him back to the police to report the sighting.

Whilst Ansonman pops out to buy fence panels for the writers of the 1966 article, I would just emphasise the doubts and uncertainties it raised. That in turn backs up my long held view that guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It does though probably also back up the view that Hanratty should not have changed alibis and alienated the jury in the process.

Best regards,

OneRound