A6 Rebooted

[NickB]

Well if Hanratty had never come up with the Rhyl alibi I believe all the lengthy discussion on here about it would have been about the Liverpool alibi instead. I can imagine those convinced he was in Rhyl arguing, with equal conviction, that he was in Liverpool.

The Sunday Times commissioned an artist’s impression of the 3 men in Liverpool, which you can see at the bottom of the cutting below.

[Spitfire]

Swanwick : 'Are you suggesting that a day or two ago is the first time you have ever realised that in a case of this nature you ought to tell the truth?'

Hanratty : "I want to make this quite clear; it was put to me the other day that if I did not tell the names and addresses of the three men at Liverpool my life was at stake."

This ties in with what Sherrard said in his autobiography, that it was when he warned Hanratty that when questioned in court about the Liverpool alibi he “would have to give answers” that Jim changed his alibi.

Sherrard's autobiographical recollection is demonstrably at fault.

At page 97 Sherrard gives the impression that Hanratty insisted that he should be called to give evidence. Sherrard warns of the dangers and that he will be asked questions about his alibi which he must answer. At this point Hanratty discloses the Rhyl alibi for the first time.

The foregoing may well have happened. It could not have happened when Sherrard said it happened, to wit, two or three weeks into the trial.

In fact the trial began on Monday 22nd January and by Friday 26th January Kleinmann was in Rhyl making inquiries. Hanratty must have disclosed his Rhyl alibi to Sherrard in one of the conferences at the end of each day's hearing during the first week of the trial.

The prosecution closed its case on 6th February after calling 55 witnesses. It was then that Sherrard disclosed for the first time that the Liverpool alibi was a lie (at least insofar as it related to the murder evening/morning) and that the true alibi was the Rhyl one.

Swanwick in cross-examining Hanratty asserted that the prosecution was unaware of the Rhyl alibi until 4.30pm on 6th February. Foot writes that the Rhyl alibi was first disclosed by on the 23rd, 24th or 25th of January, so the defence kept the alibi to itself for at least 12 days or possibly 14 days. Why?

The only rational explanation is that Sherrard wanted to keep his options open. He could wait until the end of the prosecution case and then make the decision whether to call Hanratty or not. Sherrard had the written authorisation given by Hanratty on 29th January to pursue the Rhyl alibi. Yet for some reason it took unitl 5th February before the photo was taken of Hanratty outside the court. It would seem that the defence had fairly easily found John aka Terry Evans and he, Terry Evans, assisted in the search for the mysterious landlady.

My own view is that some time in the week 29 Jan to 2 Feb Terry Evans and Kleinman had found Mrs Gladys Jones and had discovered that Ingledene matched Hanratty's description in certain material particulars (as Mike Sherrard would say), Mrs Jones remembered that she had had a single male guest aged in his mid-twenties stay at Ingledene in the preceding August. All that was required was a positive identification hence the need for the photo taken on 5th of Feb.

It would seem that the decision to run with the Rhyl alibi was taken by Sherrard on 5 or 6th Feb when he had word that Mrs Jones had made a positive identification of Jim.

Sherrard's book is strangely silent on all this. There is the strange tale of the bobby bringing the typed up statement which the solicitor had lost (had stolen from him) but there is no mention whatsoever of Mrs Jones or the motley crew of Rhyl alibi witnesses or potential witnesses. I suspect that Sherrard curses the day Mrs Jones got involved in the case. If she had said that she did not have room for any single guests as she was full that week (as seemed to be the case) or had not made an identification of Hanratty, then I believe that Sherrard would most probably not have run with the Rhyl alibi and would have kept Jim in the safety of the dock rather than have him torn to shreds by Swanwick or Lane.

[NickB]

One thing I noticed in a section of Swanwick's summing up (below) is that Sherrard announced that Hanratty's criminal past should be revealed just before Acott gave evidence. That dates it as Thursday 1st February.

I think this is the point at which Sherrard had decided that Jim would give evidence. As a career criminal with no cover job, he would not have been able to answer many questions if his criminal record had continued to be concealed.

However I suppose Sherrard may still have been keeping his options open about whether to run with Rhyl or Liverpool.

[caz]

Perhaps Caz and those who scoff at the Rhyl alibi are correct; it was concocted at the last minute when Hanratty realized his genuine alibi of being in Liverpool was a non-runner.

Hi cobalt,

On the basis of recent posts, I'd agree that it might be more likely on balance that the Liverpool alibi was genuine than the rather desperate Rhyl one. Ironically, if Hanratty supporters are beginning to think in this way, it implies they don't have much more confidence in all those Rhyl witnesses than I do!

But for me there is still that hankie... plus all the other bad luck involved in a successful frame-up of an innocent Hanratty. Whoever put the gun on the bus could hardly have thought, when doing so, that this would automatically implicate Hanratty without help - and that would have to come from direct contact with the police to tell them about Hanratty's known hiding place, or there would have been no connection to make.

Love,

Caz
X

[Alfie]

Sherrard's autobiographical recollection is demonstrably at fault.

At page 97 Sherrard gives the impression that Hanratty insisted that he should be called to give evidence. Sherrard warns of the dangers and that he will be asked questions about his alibi which he must answer. At this point Hanratty discloses the Rhyl alibi for the first time.

The foregoing may well have happened. It could not have happened when Sherrard said it happened, to wit, two or three weeks into the trial.

In fact the trial began on Monday 22nd January and by Friday 26th January Kleinmann was in Rhyl making inquiries. Hanratty must have disclosed his Rhyl alibi to Sherrard in one of the conferences at the end of each day's hearing during the first week of the trial.

The prosecution closed its case on 6th February after calling 55 witnesses. It was then that Sherrard disclosed for the first time that the Liverpool alibi was a lie (at least insofar as it related to the murder evening/morning) and that the true alibi was the Rhyl one.

Swanwick in cross-examining Hanratty asserted that the prosecution was unaware of the Rhyl alibi until 4.30pm on 6th February. Foot writes that the Rhyl alibi was first disclosed by on the 23rd, 24th or 25th of January, so the defence kept the alibi to itself for at least 12 days or possibly 14 days. Why?

The only rational explanation is that Sherrard wanted to keep his options open. He could wait until the end of the prosecution case and then make the decision whether to call Hanratty or not. Sherrard had the written authorisation given by Hanratty on 29th January to pursue the Rhyl alibi. Yet for some reason it took unitl 5th February before the photo was taken of Hanratty outside the court. It would seem that the defence had fairly easily found John aka Terry Evans and he, Terry Evans, assisted in the search for the mysterious landlady.

My own view is that some time in the week 29 Jan to 2 Feb Terry Evans and Kleinman had found Mrs Gladys Jones and had discovered that Ingledene matched Hanratty's description in certain material particulars (as Mike Sherrard would say), Mrs Jones remembered that she had had a single male guest aged in his mid-twenties stay at Ingledene in the preceding August. All that was required was a positive identification hence the need for the photo taken on 5th of Feb.

It would seem that the decision to run with the Rhyl alibi was taken by Sherrard on 5 or 6th Feb when he had word that Mrs Jones had made a positive identification of Jim.

Sherrard's book is strangely silent on all this. There is the strange tale of the bobby bringing the typed up statement which the solicitor had lost (had stolen from him) but there is no mention whatsoever of Mrs Jones or the motley crew of Rhyl alibi witnesses or potential witnesses. I suspect that Sherrard curses the day Mrs Jones got involved in the case. If she had said that she did not have room for any single guests as she was full that week (as seemed to be the case) or had not made an identification of Hanratty, then I believe that Sherrard would most probably not have run with the Rhyl alibi and would have kept Jim in the safety of the dock rather than have him torn to shreds by Swanwick or Lane.

Good deducing, Spitfire, and very likely what happened, imo.

After his complaints about the prosecution's non-disclosures, I don't think you can say he was "strangely silent" on his own, though. Understandably silent, more like.

Small correction: think you'll find it was Gillbanks in Rhyl on Jan 26, not Kleinman.

[NickB]

One of the most ridiculous things Sherrard said was:

“It is often said that Hanratty changed his alibi from Liverpool to Rhyl. That’s really not quite right; the substance of the Liverpool alibi was maintained.”

Woffinden recounts Hanratty’s statements and inserts the Rhyl alibi into the middle section of the Liverpool one, apparently without realising the contradictions this produces.

The Liverpool-Rhyl join at the front end does not work because Jim says he got the 7.30pm bus and arrived at the guest house after dark. His real visit to Rhyl was in the middle of the day, so he wouldn’t have known that the last bus left at 6pm. As a consequence he crams too many things into his short time in Liverpool since his arrival at 4.54 (Woffinden) or 4.45 (time given in court).

Spitfire’s post 3071 shows why the Rhyl-Liverpool join at the back end does not work either. There are no '3 men', and he stays at a bed and breakfast in New Brighton instead.

[Graham]

The weekend prior to his arrest Hanratty was in Liverpool and he was able to locate his friends at that time - but not apparently during his claimed visit in August - to offer at least one of them Ł250 to back up his alibi for the 22 and 23 August. Predictably, they told him where to go. As I recall, these men were named McNally, Heaney and Aspinall, and the first two agreed that they'd both met Hanratty in prison. I'm not sure if 'Aspinall' wasn't merely a product of Hanratty's imagination, as I can find no reference to anyone of this name in my books. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong in this respect.

I agree with Nick that Sherrard was somewhat off the mark in saying that Hanratty 'maintained the substance' of the Liverpool alibi. I think that had he stuck with it, and not concocted Rhyl, he may have been in with a (very slight) chance. But as Sherrard warned him, if he, Hanratty, could not provide the court with details of his friends' addresses, then the judge could feasibly have ordered for him to be taken under guard to Liverpool - in which case if he failed to identify the home of any of his friends, he would, in Sherrard's phrase, 'be lost'.

Graham

[Spitfire]

Small correction: think you'll find it was Gillbanks in Rhyl on Jan 26, not Kleinman.

Quite right, my apologies, the first document recording the Rhyl alibi, according to Foot, is a note dated 26 January made by someone in Kleinman's office recording a telephone call from Gillbanks in Rhyl

[NickB]

As I mentioned in post 3290 there is evidence that a solicitor sitting behind Sherrard, who I presume to be Kleinman, did have discussions with Mrs Jones before she gave the 'perfect' answers to Sherrard.

Below is some trial stuff concerning her evidence from the Telegraph, although there is also a lot of detail in the Glasgow Evening Times.

[Alfie]

Ingledene's "attic"

Good stuff, Nick. Keep them coming!

Interesting that Mrs Jones told the court the green bath was in the attic. Didn't a subsequent owner of Ingledene say the bathroom with the green bath was on the first floor, and that Ingledene didn't have an attic room?

[Graham]

Looking at a photo of Ingledene's frontage, the ground and second floors have large bay windows, and there is a smaller window under the gable end, at second floor level. This strongly suggests that Ingledene did indeed have an attic, but Alfie is quite correct when he recalls the current owner posting on this Forum that the bathroom was on the first floor. So where in fact was/is the bathroom? First floor or attic? Or were/are there two bathrooms at Ingledene?

In Nick's clipping there is mention of a suggestion that Hanratty might have used certain features of Terry Evans' house, including a green bath, when he constructed his description of the Rhyl B&B he claimed to have stayed in.

Graham

[NickB]

It is the smaller window at second floor level. The current owner regarded it as more accurately described as being on the second floor rather than in the attic.

In the Daily Post (linked to below) you can see how Ingledene looked at the time, but cutting off just below the green bathroom. Notice it says 'Ingledene' in big letters above the front door. If Hanratty had stayed there this would have been one of the features which would have enabled him to return there on his second night.

There is also a photo of the bus station.

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/crime-files-reopened-james-hanratty-11074437

[NickB]

Another 1961 photo - this one of the Stevonia. Contained in an online cutting from the Lancashire Evening Post.

https://res.cloudinary.com/jpress/image/fetch/w_700,f_auto,ar_3:2,c_fill/https://www.lep.co.uk/webimage/1.7528183.1445438155!/image/2828498903.jpg

[Graham]

The current owner regarded it as more accurately described as being on the second floor rather than in the attic.

Did I say first floor? I meant second....

Graham

[Graham]

Notice it says 'Ingledene' in big letters above the front door.

Hardly miss-able, and if he stayed there it's a pity (for him) that he couldn't remember the name of the house after his arrest. But of course he may have pleaded his illiteracy.

Graham