Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A6 Rebooted

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I've just been checking out Jean Justice's book again and came across a reference that I have been looking for for months!

    Hanratty described to police a man he had sat near to on the train on the way to Liverpool. He described the man in detail - right down to his smart cuflinks.

    Whilst in prison after his conviction and awaiting his appeal - Hanratty wrote to his mother and mentioned he had had a letter from the man confirming that he had indeed travelled to Liverpool on that day and remembered Hanratty.

    An appeal must have gone out for this man in order for him to have written to Hanratty. I wonder what happened to this letter and whether it was followed up?

    Comment


    • Hi Limehouse,

      Hmmm. So you only have Hanratty's word - to his mother - for this crucial witness confirmation, yet you smell no rat? Why on earth would this witness have written, impotently as it turned out, to Hanratty himself, and not made sure the message also got through to whoever needed it to make the vital difference at that first appeal? Think about it. What good could it possibly have done to raise an innocent man's hopes in such a cruel and pointless way, assuming the witness concerned ever existed? It makes no sense. If an establishment 'rat' had tried to hush something like this up, the witness concerned could have gone to the papers with his story at the very least. If he had something of his own to hide, why write to Hanratty at all?

      Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
      If he was inventing all this he was taking amazing risks while he was on trial for his life!
      Well, Nats, if he was guilty, he was rather obliged to invent something while on trial for his life! He had already taken the most amazing risk after committing the crime itself, by leaving the scene without checking if Valerie could still be alive.

      You believe he was innocent, which involves him taking an even more amazing risk - and an entirely unnecessary one - by not mentioning his innocent little stay in Rhyl when he was first sought for murder and needed to account for his movements. It proved a fatal risk, didn't it?

      Do you imagine, if he had stuck with the Liverpool alibi and been convicted, with a similar media circus of controversy and doubt, that any one of your eleven witnesses would have come forward independently before his first appeal, to swear that they had seen or spoken to him in Rhyl, if he had never once claimed to have gone there himself? They either recognised him and could place him there on the crucial date, or they didn't and couldn't.

      Originally posted by Limehouse View Post
      To be fair Caz - whether Alphon was guilty of the A6 crimes or not - there is some evidence that he was unstable and possibly dangerous...
      Fair, Limehouse? Would it have been fair to accuse Hanratty, or anyone else for that matter, on the basis of 'some' evidence that he was 'unstable' and 'possibly' dangerous? A nuisance phone caller, who was not convicted of a physical assault (regardless of how strong you find the evidence - irony, anyone?) does not a rapist and murderer make, any more than you feel a certain career villain deserved to be charged with such a crime.

      Why is it that you instinctively trust both these dodgy characters when they spin a line that is so clearly to their advantage? One is your career villain, claiming written confirmation of a crucial train journey (which never materialised); the other is your unstable, possibly dangerous nuisance, claiming to be a ruthless killer, to put the wind up someone or earn himself a windfall. I wouldn't trust either to tell me the time of day honestly.

      Does it not strike a bum note that Alphon 'confessed' to the A6 crime in front of television cameras? This may not be the behaviour of a stable person, but if he was a rapist and murderer to boot, he was clearly stable enough to stop well short of incriminating himself. And he could hardly have counted on his DNA playing ball and absenting itself from the material evidence, let alone Hanratty's DNA doing the decent thing and standing in for him. Don't forget Alphon was alive for all the testing and he should have been bricking it if he was guilty and hadn't planned on spending the rest of his natural behind bars.

      I can absolutely understand why the police thought Alphon was their man to begin with. Their wishful thinking would have been egged on by the twit on the telly with his "brown eyes, deep set, er, not deep set" muddle. It hardly inspired confidence in their ability to take down and communicate accurate information from the victim! There is no evidence that she changed her rapist's eyes from brown to blue, but plenty right there for her having to correct a Chinese whisper version.

      Originally posted by Derrick View Post
      Hanratty was asked why he didn't go back to Rhyl to seek out his alibi just before his arrest.

      His answer was fairly straightforward and logical. He explained he could hardly knock on doors seeking out the house he had stayed in when he was, by then, wanted for murder.
      Yes, Derrick, we've been through all this. Nats and I agreed that he could hardly have done that, whether or not he had actually stayed there when he later said he did. The question has moved on to why he did not behave like 'all innocent defendents before and after' and failed to be up front about all his movements "oop north" while the crucial events "darn sarf" were taking place. Simply believing that 'because he was innocent...everything would work out ok' doesn't even begin to explain his complete failure to help himself in this regard until it was far too late to do a bit of good, and could only result in the worst possible outcome.

      Hanratty robbed himself if he was in Rhyl and thought he would be 'ok' if he just didn't bother to mention it. The only possible reason for not doing so would be if he had committed an even worse crime than the A6 murder while he was there. And I don't think you really wanted to suggest any such thing.

      Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
      I am not inventing a "dangerous personality" for Alphon, Caz.He did this himself through plenty of his own behaviour.
      Unstable is as unstable does, yet Alphon went into this and came out again as smart and free as a bird.

      But what about Hanratty's dangerous personality? If his behaviour didn't make him a danger to strangers minding their own business, it certainly made him bloody dangerous to himself. Who was harmed by the whole Rhyl fiasco? It effectively removed any doubt that might otherwise have remained in the minds of the jury.

      There was no harmless explanation for not mentioning Rhyl at the outset. It proved to be the ultimate act of self-harm - it got him hanged. Isn't it high time to get over his fatal mistake and move on?

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      Last edited by caz; 03-22-2011, 07:53 PM.
      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • Originally posted by caz View Post
        ...There was no harmless explanation for not mentioning Rhyl at the outset...
        Hi Caz
        Actually there is. I mentioned it in my last post.

        It wasn't until Hanratty saw the evidence against him building up, and from people he knew and perhaps trusted, like France and Anderson, that he first realised he was in serious trouble.

        That is why he changed the part of his alibi after the sweetshop incident.

        But what appals me the most here is that why Mrs Jones was accused, by the prosecution, of appearing to give evidence just to gain a bit of publicity for her guest house.

        Just think about that for a moment.

        Why would somebody, in a close knit community go out of their way to try to help someone charged with the most notorious crime of the age for a bit of free advertising if they were not entirely sure?

        There are ghouls who thrive on such things, but surely it would have painted a very bad image of Rhyl. That may have happened but for the fact that nearly a dozen more came forward afterwards to corroborate Hanratty's alibi, some against the wishes of family to not getting involved.

        Derrick

        Comment


        • A number of her neighbours remember Mrs Jones well and among those who knew her very well none remember her as anything other than a kind,gentle woman whose guest house was always immaculately clean and tidy.One person who runs a thriving business a few doors away from Ingledene remembers going with her husband to the Bee Pub or The Labour Club twice a week where they would meet up with Mrs Jones and her husband, Mrs Walker,Mrs Vincent ,Mrs Davies etc ,for a drink and a laugh.This lady made me laugh when she told me,"It was like a village in those days,everybody kept a spotlessly clean house actually ........because if they didn"t they got talked about!
          I agree with Derrick that in general the people are reluctant to talk not at all keen to.When you mention the case you have to be careful not to give the impression that you doubt the word of any of those who came forward---that it was not something people were happy to do at all---get themselves mixed up in a murder case.
          Best
          Norma

          Comment


          • Originally posted by caz View Post
            Hi Limehouse,

            Hmmm. So you only have Hanratty's word - to his mother - for this crucial witness confirmation, yet you smell no rat? Why on earth would this witness have written, impotently as it turned out, to Hanratty himself, and not made sure the message also got through to whoever needed it to make the vital difference at that first appeal? Think about it. What good could it possibly have done to raise an innocent man's hopes in such a cruel and pointless way, assuming the witness concerned ever existed? It makes no sense. If an establishment 'rat' had tried to hush something like this up, the witness concerned could have gone to the papers with his story at the very least. If he had something of his own to hide, why write to Hanratty at all?



            Well, Nats, if he was guilty, he was rather obliged to invent something while on trial for his life! He had already taken the most amazing risk after committing the crime itself, by leaving the scene without checking if Valerie could still be alive.

            You believe he was innocent, which involves him taking an even more amazing risk - and an entirely unnecessary one - by not mentioning his innocent little stay in Rhyl when he was first sought for murder and needed to account for his movements. It proved a fatal risk, didn't it?

            Do you imagine, if he had stuck with the Liverpool alibi and been convicted, with a similar media circus of controversy and doubt, that any one of your eleven witnesses would have come forward independently before his first appeal, to swear that they had seen or spoken to him in Rhyl, if he had never once claimed to have gone there himself? They either recognised him and could place him there on the crucial date, or they didn't and couldn't.



            Fair, Limehouse? Would it have been fair to accuse Hanratty, or anyone else for that matter, on the basis of 'some' evidence that he was 'unstable' and 'possibly' dangerous? A nuisance phone caller, who was not convicted of a physical assault (regardless of how strong you find the evidence - irony, anyone?) does not a rapist and murderer make, any more than you feel a certain career villain deserved to be charged with such a crime.

            Why is it that you instinctively trust both these dodgy characters when they spin a line that is so clearly to their advantage? One is your career villain, claiming written confirmation of a crucial train journey (which never materialised); the other is your unstable, possibly dangerous nuisance, claiming to be a ruthless killer, to put the wind up someone or earn himself a windfall. I wouldn't trust either to tell me the time of day honestly.

            Does it not strike a bum note that Alphon 'confessed' to the A6 crime in front of television cameras? This may not be the behaviour of a stable person, but if he was a rapist and murderer to boot, he was clearly stable enough to stop well short of incriminating himself. And he could hardly have counted on his DNA playing ball and absenting itself from the material evidence, let alone Hanratty's DNA doing the decent thing and standing in for him. Don't forget Alphon was alive for all the testing and he should have been bricking it if he was guilty and hadn't planned on spending the rest of his natural behind bars.

            Love,

            Caz
            X

            Hi Caz

            I don't think we 'only have Hanratty's word' that the man wrote to him because - as I said in my post - I have heard that this man came forward. Perhaps Derrick or James may know whether this man's statement was used during the appeal.

            My comments concerning Alphon's instability were not made to show that he could have been the murderer but rather to highlight that - if he has been branded over the years - it is surtely because his behaviour has been that of a disturbed personality who did much to draw attention to himself. His motives in doing so are unclear but he was hardly blameless in keeping the focus on himself.

            I keep on saying - time and time again - that I hold no torch for Hanratty and his law-breaking in terms of entering people's homes and stealing their treasures. However - on the evidence presented at the trial and the manner in which some of it was obtained (and I have stated what I mean by that previously) I cannot conlcude that he was the A6 murderer and rapist and the DNA evidence - as obtained and presented - does little to convince me.

            I think it is possible that the man responsible for the A6 horrors got clean away.

            Comment


            • [QUOTE]Quote:
              Originally Posted by Natalie Severn
              If he was inventing all this he was taking amazing risks while he was on trial for his life!

              Caz said: Well, Nats, if he was guilty, he was rather obliged to invent something while on trial for his life! He had already taken the most amazing risk after committing the crime itself, by leaving the scene without checking if Valerie could still be alive.[/QUOTE]

              My point Caz, was that it was a hell of a big risk at that moment in time, if Hanratty simply made the whole story up about Ingledene after what had happened over the Liverpool alibi.If any one of the following statements he made and which were taken down in note form by Kleinman immediately,were invention, he would have risked totally destroying his Rhyl alibi and he did not.Everything he said when describing the house and the road it was in from a distance of six months was accurate.
              Viz:He stayed in a boarding house for two nights
              1]The boarding house backed onto the station[ /]
              2]It was terraced with no front garden [/]
              3]He paid twenty five shillings for the two night stay[/]
              4]The landlady was about 50 [she was 58 but looked younger]
              5]There was a picture house on the main road going towards a concrete bridge [humped backed with a rail[/]
              6]There were two tables in the back where I had breakfast
              7] There was a green bath in the attic
              Best Norma
              Last edited by Natalie Severn; 03-22-2011, 11:02 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Derrick View Post
                Hi Caz
                Actually there is. I mentioned it in my last post.
                By 'no harmless explanation', I meant harmless to Hanratty himself. By failing to mention Rhyl until it was too late, he only succeeded in harming himself - fatally. What's not to grasp about this?

                It wasn't until Hanratty saw the evidence against him building up, and from people he knew and perhaps trusted, like France and Anderson, that he first realised he was in serious trouble.
                Ah, so Hanratty realised the case against him was building into a strong one that put him in serious trouble. Yet the claim here is usually that no evidence worthy of the name was produced at the trial and the case against him was as weak as water. He clearly thought the opposite, hence his desperate and disasterous detour to Rhyl. Which was my point. An innocent man would know he was in serious trouble from the very start, if he didn't make the most of a genuine alibi from the start.

                Imagine if Hanratty had not mentioned Rhyl but someone else, like Mrs Jones, had come forward at some stage to say she was sure he was there at the crucial time. It was bad enough as it was, but how would it have looked if he had then said: "Ah yes, Mrs Jones is right. I was in Rhyl!" Who on earth would have believed it, that way round?

                The people of Rhyl were safe as houses once the 'Clear Hanratty' bandwagon got going. I'm surprised more didn't come forward to join in with the tidings of comfort and joy that another innocent man had been murdered by the state. Some may well have convinced themselves that they had been part of history and really had seen or spoken to a wrongly hanged man. It happens.

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                Last edited by caz; 03-23-2011, 02:10 PM.
                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                Comment


                • Hi Caz

                  Originally posted by caz View Post
                  By 'no harmless explanation', I meant harmless to Hanratty himself. By failing to mention Rhyl until it was too late, he only succeeded in harming himself - fatally. What's not to grasp about this?
                  That is what it looks like, as we all seem to accept, yet Hanratty's defence team had nothing to lose in using all of the then known Rhyl witnesses in the appeal. I am at a loss to try to fathom why they didn't.

                  Originally posted by caz View Post
                  Ah, so Hanratty realised the case against him was building into a strong one that put him in serious trouble. Yet the claim here is usually that no evidence worthy of the name was produced at the trial and the case against him was as weak as water. He clearly thought the opposite, hence his desperate and disasterous detour to Rhyl. Which was my point. An innocent man would know he was in serious trouble from the very start, if he didn't make the most of a genuine alibi from the start.
                  I am only going by what has been published about Hanratty's motives for his alibi change. He must have felt that things were starting to look really bad although I believe that the case against him was weak to say the least. That's all I am saying.

                  Originally posted by caz View Post
                  Imagine if Hanratty had not mentioned Rhyl but someone else, like Mrs Jones, had come forward at some stage to say she was sure he was there at the crucial time. It was bad enough as it was, but how would it have looked if he had then said: "Ah yes, Mrs Jones is right. I was in Rhyl!" Who on earth would have believed it, that way round?
                  This is nonsense. How could anybody in Rhyl have known that it was the Hanratty who stayed there for those 2 days from the Hanratty who was on trial for his life? He didn't give his name to anyone and if he did he would probably have used J Ryan. No photographs of Hanratty had been published. In fact the defence had to ask the court for permission to take one so that Rhyl enquires could be carried out.

                  Originally posted by caz View Post
                  The people of Rhyl were safe as houses once the 'Clear Hanratty' bandwagon got going. I'm surprised more didn't come forward to join in with the tidings of comfort and joy that another innocent man had been murdered by the state. Some may well have convinced themselves that they had been part of history and really had seen or spoken to a wrongly hanged man. It happens.
                  Oh dear! Those that did, sometimes against family wishes to not get involved, made statements under oath that what they saw was the truth. Don't confuse the people of Rhyl with scum like Roy Langdale who would have shopped his own mother in exchange for a lighter sentence.

                  Derrick

                  Comment


                  • But what about Hanratty's dangerous personality? If his behaviour didn't make him a danger to strangers minding their own business, it certainly made him bloody dangerous to himself. Who was harmed by the whole Rhyl fiasco? It effectively removed any doubt that might otherwise have remained in the minds of the jury.

                    There was no harmless explanation for not mentioning Rhyl at the outset. It proved to be the ultimate act of self-harm - it got him hanged. Isn't it high time to get over his fatal mistake and move on?

                    Hi Caz,
                    But was Hanratty so dangerous to himself? Perhaps he was but his performance in court in the witness box suggests otherwise.Indeed, he was frequently impressive in terms of the straightforwardness and directness of his replies.For example,when the highly privileged ,highly educated prosecutor, Mr Swanwick, contemptuously and relentlessly drew the jury"s attention to Hanratty"s career , from the age of 16, as a burglar and car thief , Hanratty remained calm and gave direct and appropriate replies . After one such round of attacks by Swanwick, he answered " Sir,I must put this point quite clear. I ain"t a man the court approved of as a good character,but I am not a murderer.This is a murder trial not a housebreaking trial.
                    A point we need to remember---as well as recognising that today Swanwick would not be allowed to rake up these "spent" convictions for theft and present them to the jury.

                    So was Rhyl the ultimate self destruct? Well only if Hanratty knew before he went in the witness box that Swanwick intended not only to destroy his alibi but to destroy Mrs Jones herself,the landlady of Ingledene and the sole witness they had been able to bring to court to testify on Hanratty"s behalf. Mrs Jones was treated to such ridicule , contempt and accusations by Swanwick [eg that she had made it all up in order to "advertise her guest house" etc] that the ordeal ultimately caused her to have a nervous breakdown.

                    Best,
                    Normax

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
                      A point we need to remember---as well as recognising that today Swanwick would not be allowed to rake up these "spent" convictions for theft and present them to the jury.
                      Hi Norma
                      You have made some excellent points but you are wrong here. Bad character evidence is now allowed, which in my opinion is quite outrageous.

                      The Crown should only rely on evidence under the indictment rather then using past misdemeanours. It is plainly tantamount to a defendant being retried for past crimes.

                      The current trial of John William Cooper shows this in action. See here:

                      http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wa...1466-28384508/

                      Even if Swanwick didn't mention Hanratty's previous form Hanratty himself was sharp enough to make the distinction between murder and housebreaking. Foot did the same in "Who Killed Hanratty" with the chapter headed "Crook Not Murderer".

                      Derrick

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Derrick View Post
                        That is what it looks like, as we all seem to accept, yet Hanratty's defence team had nothing to lose in using all of the then known Rhyl witnesses in the appeal. I am at a loss to try to fathom why they didn't.
                        Since these witnesses were not used, how can you know that the defence team would have had nothing to lose had they done so? It stands to reason that they were not used because it was felt - rightly or wrongly - that it would do Hanratty more harm than good. It's for you to try and fathom why that might have been. Short of the defence team having some collective mental block about what their brief was, it appears that the Rhyl witnesses were considered to be as much good to Hanratty as a chocolate file in a fruit cake.

                        How could anybody in Rhyl have known that it was the Hanratty who stayed there for those 2 days from the Hanratty who was on trial for his life? He didn't give his name to anyone and if he did he would probably have used J Ryan. No photographs of Hanratty had been published. In fact the defence had to ask the court for permission to take one so that Rhyl enquires could be carried out.
                        Yes, and there's the rub. Nobody in Rhyl could have known, much less proved, that they had seen or spoken to 'the' Hanratty, and at the crucial time, if he would have given a false name or no name at all (and they presumably didn't ask for one, or remember what he answered), and all they were given many months down the line was one photo of the man on trial to see if his face rang a bell with them.

                        This is what's nonsense, Derrick. With the best will in the world they could have shown that photo to a hundred people and a goodly proportion would have believed they had seen the man some months previously, especially if they had any idea why it was so important to think back. That's not me confusing them with 'scum', Derrick; it's me equating them with human beings who think they are doing the right thing, but are not actually endowed with superpowers of recollection.

                        If Valerie is meant to have been mistaken when she 'recognised' Hanratty and his voice in the second line-up, shortly after being stuck for hours in a tiny car with her rapist, then left alive and alone on the roadside, to relive the worst night of her life mentally and force herself to retain as much detail of her ordeal as possible, how the heck can you be remotely confident that the Rhyl witnesses were not mistaken about a photo of a stranger who may or may not have crossed their paths on a specific day many months previously: a brief and insignificant encounter on an ordinary day in their lives, with no particular reason to remember either the man or the date?

                        There is no comparison between the two situations, yet you conclude that the victim herself screwed up, sending an innocent man to the gallows, while the Rhyl witnesses must have been totally reliable. A far cry then from the likes of Long, Schwartz, Lawende, Hutchinson and Maxwell - witnesses who made themselves part of another infamous murder case and may have seen nothing or very little.

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        Last edited by caz; 03-24-2011, 07:34 PM.
                        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
                          So was Rhyl the ultimate self destruct?
                          Seems so, Nats. If he had really stayed in Rhyl, saying so right from the start would have given everyone else involved (including your poor Mrs Jones) a decent crack at establishing his undeniable innocence while not undermining their own reputations. It might not even have come to court if reasonable doubt had reared its head in this way.

                          I'm still struggling with what possible advantage Hanratty could have seen in not mentioning a genuine alibi of this nature. And clearly the jury saw no way round it either.

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                          Comment


                          • Hi Caz,

                            [/I]
                            Since these witnesses were not used, how can you know that the defence team would have had nothing to lose had they done so? It stands to reason that they were not used because it was felt - rightly or wrongly - that it would do Hanratty more harm than good. It's for you to try and fathom why that might have been. Short of the defence team having some collective mental block about what their brief was, it appears that the Rhyl witnesses were considered to be as much good to Hanratty as a chocolate file in a fruit cake.
                            Well not really Caz.
                            The reasons appear to be as follows :
                            a] Mr Dutton"s statement to the police in Abergele was made in good time---the very day Hanratty"s defence opened but.........it never reached the defence team ,despite the fact that Dutton had gone to Abergele police station on February 9th,the day the defence opened.He remembered a young man approaching him on 23rd August in Rhyl High Street trying to sell him a gold watch.

                            James Hanratty was sentenced to death on 17th February 1962


                            so the trial was in its final stages when


                            b]Mrs Walker and her neighbour Mrs Vincent went to the police on 8th February 1962; At this time , Mr Gillbanks,[who had found Mrs Jones],was away at the trial in Bedford and sent a request to a Mr Frank Evans,who, in frantic haste, had managed to interview Mrs Walker.He did not manage to persuade the defence, who were in the final stages of pleading for Hanratty"s life, to call any of the people he had interviewed.He later stated to Paul Foot that there seemed to be a lack of clarity over the day- [Tuesday]---[later clarified when Mrs Walker remembered a family matter of importance that had happened at the end of that week six months previously,moreover their immediate neighbours ,Mrs Betty Davies and her husband Noel and mother in law Margaret all remembered the exact date,and after quite some persuasion ,each made statements to Paul Foot in 1968 ,detailing the exact day Mrs Betty Davies had reported seeing the young man at her door.
                            Incidently,Mr Evans had also sent information to Kleinman in Bedford about an elderly lady in River Street who remembered clearly both the date and a young man who,on that date had called wanting B&B but her son refused to allow her to make a statement.Also about a Mr Henry Parry of the Windsor Pub,oppositer Ingledene.But Mr Parry had not wished to get involved in attending trial either.Mr Evans also spoke to three young girls who remembered they had met Hanratty in a cafe and Evans sent word to Gillbanks that they had spoke well of him .

                            Mr Larman needs to be dealt with separately as he went to the police in Staines at about 11 am on February 12th the day before Sherrard rose to sum up his case for the defence.It appears Mr Sherrard knew nothing about the statement at that juncture.

                            Regarding the reason why the new evidence was not referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal,by the defence, concerns the time of arrival Hanratty stated he had arrived in Rhyl.This reason was given by Kleinman in a letter to The Sunday Times, six and a half years later.
                            More later.......
                            Cheers
                            Norma
                            Last edited by Natalie Severn; 03-24-2011, 09:09 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by caz View Post
                              I'm still struggling with what possible advantage Hanratty could have seen in not mentioning a genuine alibi of this nature. And clearly the jury saw no way round it either.
                              .......but you would agree surely that Hanratty had placed himself at somewhat of a disadvantage telling Supt.Acott on the telephone that he could provide really good alibi"s from three men in Liverpool he knew well but who he couldn"t name to him on the telephone etc---in other words his original lie....
                              anyone could have done that ,in his predicament over a burglary,especially if they couldn"t remember the name of the landlady in Rhyl, or the name of the road she lived in....

                              But please don"t forget,in the middle of all this stuff about an alibi,Mr Justice Gorman was emphatic in spelling out to the jury that Hanratty did not need to have an alibi to prove his innocence.
                              In fact Caz,strictly speaking,its for you to prove guilt---not us to prove innocence.And that was never done.That was the miscarriage of justice that took place in February 1962,
                              Best Nx

                              Comment


                              • So the original error,that cost Hanratty his life,was the belief and acceptance by the crown,that Acott, Swanwick and the prosecution had "proved guilt"beyond reasonable doubt.They had not and we would not be arguing here today if they had and any fool would have seen that they hadn"t.But such a mistake just got covered up as time went by,and one lie got buried under another--and another and another...........

                                Regarding the timing, referred to above.
                                Mrs Walker"s statement, made six months after the event,puts the time at about 7.30.However,Mr Gillbanks wrote to Kleinman in a letter dated February 25th:


                                "Mrs Walker fixes the time, owing to her domestic arrangements,and because it was getting dark and the street lights were lit".
                                Sunset in August 1961 in Rhyl, [as Gillbanks letter also stated], was at 8.30 pm.
                                But the street lights,in 1961,in Rhyl,were not lit until a half hour after sunset.Therefore,the time would have been around 9pm,not 7.30 pm and this time tallies exactly with what Hanratty had said.I assume that Mrs Walker in thinking back six months,had not thought through what the time would have been by the clock,
                                Cheers Caz,Norma
                                Last edited by Natalie Severn; 03-24-2011, 10:02 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X