It would be unfair to compare the alibi evidence of the two, to show either that Hanratty was not in Liverpool on 22 August 1961 or that Wallace, who undoubtedly went towards the Menlove Gardens triangle, did so in an ostentatious fashion so that he would have had alibi witnesses.
Fair comment Spitfire, but perhaps some cross-fertilisation might shed some insight on the A6 Case.
The case against Wallace is partly that he telegraphed his movements towards the non-existent address, at one point even asking a policeman for directions, in order to establish an alibi. He certainly seemed to spend a great deal of time and effort in finding a place that simply did not exist. Hanratty did none of this, so could not have been consciously seeking to create an alibi.
Of course there is one major difference: Wallace was perhaps seeking to create an alibi for a crucial time slot, whereas Hanratty was allegedly attempting to develop one rather late after the event. In such a scenario, Hanratty did not want to draw too much attention to himself regarding times and dates. Better that he was seen in the area around the approximate time, apparently acting normally for his chosen lifestyle.
Yet there is one witness statement that backs up Hanratty’s alibi, one that is potentially stronger than either the sweetshop or boarding house elements. That is the statement by Mr. Dutton regarding his being approached by a young Londoner in Rhyl and being offered a watch for sale, a meeting he thinks can be time stamped by his subsequent visit to a post office or bank. Unfortunately, neither his identification of Hanratty nor his certainty over the time and date were ever tested in court. So far as I am aware Hanratty himself never offered up a memory of this meeting, which opens up the probability that it was another person who approached Dutton.
Then again, how many Cockney spivs were operating in Rhyl at that time?
Fair comment Spitfire, but perhaps some cross-fertilisation might shed some insight on the A6 Case.
The case against Wallace is partly that he telegraphed his movements towards the non-existent address, at one point even asking a policeman for directions, in order to establish an alibi. He certainly seemed to spend a great deal of time and effort in finding a place that simply did not exist. Hanratty did none of this, so could not have been consciously seeking to create an alibi.
Of course there is one major difference: Wallace was perhaps seeking to create an alibi for a crucial time slot, whereas Hanratty was allegedly attempting to develop one rather late after the event. In such a scenario, Hanratty did not want to draw too much attention to himself regarding times and dates. Better that he was seen in the area around the approximate time, apparently acting normally for his chosen lifestyle.
Yet there is one witness statement that backs up Hanratty’s alibi, one that is potentially stronger than either the sweetshop or boarding house elements. That is the statement by Mr. Dutton regarding his being approached by a young Londoner in Rhyl and being offered a watch for sale, a meeting he thinks can be time stamped by his subsequent visit to a post office or bank. Unfortunately, neither his identification of Hanratty nor his certainty over the time and date were ever tested in court. So far as I am aware Hanratty himself never offered up a memory of this meeting, which opens up the probability that it was another person who approached Dutton.
Then again, how many Cockney spivs were operating in Rhyl at that time?
Comment