Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A6 Rebooted

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

  • Originally posted by Alfie View Post
    According to the Glasgow Herald, during his summing up, the Judge "reminded the jury that the burden of proof rested with the prosecution, and said that if there was a conflict of evidence, 'then members of the jury, because of the burden proof is the concern of the Crown, you will decide in favour of that version which is in favour of the defence and not the Crown.'"

    Was this in fact how British trials were conducted then? If it was, then surely it was an open invitation to any defendant to deny the validity of any evidence that conflicted with his alibi?

    Trower: "I saw the defendant drive into Avondale Crescent."

    Hanratty: "But I wasn't there my Lord, I was in Liverpool at the time."

    Judge: "If the defendant says he was in Liverpool, then the witness must be mistaken."

    And doesn't the fact the jury convicted Hanratty suggest that they went against the Judge's instruction and decided that where there was conflicting evidence, Hanratty was lying?
    For the benefit of all who are reading this thread here is the said Glasgow Herald article in it's entirety....
    Click image for larger version  Name:	HERALD 52.jpg Views:	0 Size:	192.8 KB ID:	709795
    *************************************
    "A body of men, HOLDING THEMSELVES ACCOUNTABLE TO NOBODY, ought not to be trusted by anybody." --Thomas Paine ["Rights of Man"]

    "Justice is an ideal which transcends the expedience of the State, or the sensitivities of Government officials, or private individuals. IT HAS TO BE PURSUED WHATEVER THE COST IN PEACE OF MIND TO THOSE CONCERNED." --'Justice of the Peace' [July 12th 1975]

    Comment


    • I donít think that is what the judge meant, Alfie. A denial, such as that given by Hanratty, is not evidence.

      I think the judge was drawing attention to issues such as the conflicting identification evidence by Trower and Mrs. Jones. If the jury attached similar weight to these pieces of evidence, then in that event they should err on the side of safety and accept the defence claim.

      It is possible that the jury accepted this advice, but felt that the ID evidence from Valerie Storie was stronger than any conflicting evidence.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Alfie View Post
        If Hanratty caught a direct Liverpool train on Thursday morning could he have reached Liverpool in time for a 2.30 session ?
        Would that be a cards session or court session ?

        Levity aside, and looking at the matter logically it makes perfectly sound sense that after alighting from the bus in Skelhorne Street Hanratty would then cross the road to Lime Street Station and leave his pigskin case there. After his midday meal he would have walked the very short distance to The Futurist Cinema on Lime Street with the intention of watching the 1.30pm screening of 'Ben Hur'. Deciding against paying 15 shillings for the only available seats there he would probably have turned right and walked along Lime Street, passing the Empire Theatre [or perhaps have taken the short cut through the station] and then turning right again onto London Road and walking the approximate 100 yards to the Odeon Cinema where the afternoon screening of 'The Guns of Navarone' was scheduled to begin at 2.30.
        I'm guessing that he would have left the Odeon around 5.15pm [the film is just over two and a half hours in length] and then made his way to the Main Post Office on Victoria Street about half a mile away in order to send his telegram to the Frances. He may well have wandered around the city centre for an hour or so before trying unsuccessfully to gain admission to watch the Winstone/Jackson fight at the Stadium near Tithebarn Street a few minutes walk away.
        *************************************
        "A body of men, HOLDING THEMSELVES ACCOUNTABLE TO NOBODY, ought not to be trusted by anybody." --Thomas Paine ["Rights of Man"]

        "Justice is an ideal which transcends the expedience of the State, or the sensitivities of Government officials, or private individuals. IT HAS TO BE PURSUED WHATEVER THE COST IN PEACE OF MIND TO THOSE CONCERNED." --'Justice of the Peace' [July 12th 1975]

        Comment


        • To clarify matters somewhat and for the benefit of any readers not familiar with Liverpool City Centre attached is a google map showing the various locations mentioned in post #5598 and not a million miles from each other... Click image for larger version

Name:	Liverpool City Centre map.jpg
Views:	107
Size:	200.9 KB
ID:	709884

          1 = Liverpool Boxing Stadium on Bixteth Street.
          2 = Main GPO on Victoria Street.
          3 = Odeon Cinema on London Road.
          4 = Futurist Cinema on Lime Street.
          *************************************
          "A body of men, HOLDING THEMSELVES ACCOUNTABLE TO NOBODY, ought not to be trusted by anybody." --Thomas Paine ["Rights of Man"]

          "Justice is an ideal which transcends the expedience of the State, or the sensitivities of Government officials, or private individuals. IT HAS TO BE PURSUED WHATEVER THE COST IN PEACE OF MIND TO THOSE CONCERNED." --'Justice of the Peace' [July 12th 1975]

          Comment


          • By a strange coincidence I happened to have reason to travel along Skelhorne Street about 2.50 this afternoon to drop my nephew off at Lime Street Station where he was catching a train back to London.
            *************************************
            "A body of men, HOLDING THEMSELVES ACCOUNTABLE TO NOBODY, ought not to be trusted by anybody." --Thomas Paine ["Rights of Man"]

            "Justice is an ideal which transcends the expedience of the State, or the sensitivities of Government officials, or private individuals. IT HAS TO BE PURSUED WHATEVER THE COST IN PEACE OF MIND TO THOSE CONCERNED." --'Justice of the Peace' [July 12th 1975]

            Comment


            • I thought he sent the telegram at 8.40pm, walked around, tried to get into the boxing, then boarded the ferry to New Brighton.

              How could he have visited the funfair in New Brighton and then returned on the ferry to arrive back at about 10 as he claimed?

              In the defence statement on page 128 of Woffinden he says:

              "I was on my own. I came back about 10 o'clock. I went back to the flat, picked up my luggage and took a large sum of cash with me. I went to the station about 10.15.'"

              What is the flat, and where did the large sum of cash come from?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by NickB View Post
                I thought he sent the telegram at 8.40pm, walked around, tried to get into the boxing, then boarded the ferry to New Brighton.

                How could he have visited the funfair in New Brighton and then returned on the ferry to arrive back at about 10 as he claimed?

                In the defence statement on page 128 of Woffinden he says:

                "I was on my own. I came back about 10 o'clock. I went back to the flat, picked up my luggage and took a large sum of cash with me. I went to the station about 10.15.'"

                What is the flat, and where did the large sum of cash come from?
                And answer came there none.

                More crucial questions that Jim's supporters would rather they weren't asked?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by NickB View Post
                  I thought he sent the telegram at 8.40pm, walked around, tried to get into the boxing, then boarded the ferry to New Brighton.

                  How could he have visited the funfair in New Brighton and then returned on the ferry to arrive back at about 10 as he claimed?

                  In the defence statement on page 128 of Woffinden he says:

                  "I was on my own. I came back about 10 o'clock. I went back to the flat, picked up my luggage and took a large sum of cash with me. I went to the station about 10.15.'"

                  What is the flat, and where did the large sum of cash come from?
                  I would imagine 'the flat' would be the hang out of the gang that Hanratty had latched on to. The large sum of money I would think would be the payout Hanratty received from the fences who frequented 'the flat' ( purpose of his trip to the Pool I should think) Bill and Louise up in London probably told Jim, the stuff was too hot to get rid of locally, hence the trip. Pure speculation of course but certainly an answer!
                  I shouldn't get too excited about time tables re- ferry crossing to New Brighton. It was only a 15 to 20 minute jaunt, after the failed boxing match try, and if the funfair turned out to be a disappointment,he could easily have thought ' oh bugger it ! Ill head for Lime street station'.
                  Just a guess, what do you think? ( Ps. It's only 10 minutes across these days to Seacombe)
                  Last edited by moste; 05-21-2019, 03:19 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Now , I have a question, feel free to speculate. Why did Storie Lie about the description of Gregstens killer?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by moste View Post
                      Now , I have a question, feel free to speculate. Why did Storie Lie about the description of Gregstens killer?
                      She didn't.

                      Why did Jim lie about returning from Liverpool on Thursday's overnight train?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by moste View Post
                        I shouldn't get too excited about time tables re- ferry crossing to New Brighton. It was only a 15 to 20 minute jaunt, after the failed boxing match try, and if the funfair turned out to be a disappointment,he could easily have thought ' oh bugger it ! Ill head for Lime street station'.
                        Just a guess, what do you think? ( Ps. It's only 10 minutes across these days to Seacombe)
                        It's important to bear in mind also Moste, that Hanratty was being asked to cast his mind back almost two months to August 24th and recall as much as possible about the things he did that Thursday morning, afternoon and evening in Rhyl and Liverpool and also the sequence in which he did those things. Undoubtedly no easy task for anyone, in fact I'd say the vast majority of people would have great difficulty in remembering the things they did, the time they did those things and the sequence in which they did them, a mere weekend or two ago.

                        As I mentioned in a recent post Hanratty would have come out of the Odeon Cinema in London Road around 5.15pm. He would then need to travel the relatively short distance to the main GPO situated in Victoria Street before it closed at 6.00pm in order to send the telegram to the Frances. Now I have never sent a telegram in my life and have no clue as regards to the procedure involved in sending one. Obviously he would have had to pay for the telegram at Victoria Street. The puzzling thing for me is the phoning in of the telegram and why it couldn't be wired from the Post Office itself instead of the forecourt at St. Georges Hall. The time stated on the telegram apparently was 8.40 pm but was that the actual time that it was sent ? If so I believe that Hanratty's 'walking around' [mentioned in Bob Woffinden's book, p128] occurred between the time he left the Victoria Street P.O. [shortly before 6pm most likely] and the sending of the telegram from the forecourt of St. George's Hall. Even if Hanratty had indeed phoned the telegram through at 8.40pm he could easily have made it back from New Brighton Funfair within an hour and a half to two hour timespan, especially as almost all the rides would have closed by about 10.00pm. Hanratty's timing of things was understandably often very awry and when he said he went to the station around 10.15pm it would probably have been around 11.00pm or maybe even later, as he said he had about an hour to kill before his train back to London, which left just after midnight.

                        *************************************
                        "A body of men, HOLDING THEMSELVES ACCOUNTABLE TO NOBODY, ought not to be trusted by anybody." --Thomas Paine ["Rights of Man"]

                        "Justice is an ideal which transcends the expedience of the State, or the sensitivities of Government officials, or private individuals. IT HAS TO BE PURSUED WHATEVER THE COST IN PEACE OF MIND TO THOSE CONCERNED." --'Justice of the Peace' [July 12th 1975]

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Alfie View Post
                          Why did Jim lie about returning from Liverpool on Thursday's overnight train?
                          Just where exactly is the evidence that Hanratty lied about this ? I would dearly love to be directed to it.

                          *************************************
                          "A body of men, HOLDING THEMSELVES ACCOUNTABLE TO NOBODY, ought not to be trusted by anybody." --Thomas Paine ["Rights of Man"]

                          "Justice is an ideal which transcends the expedience of the State, or the sensitivities of Government officials, or private individuals. IT HAS TO BE PURSUED WHATEVER THE COST IN PEACE OF MIND TO THOSE CONCERNED." --'Justice of the Peace' [July 12th 1975]

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sherlock Houses View Post

                            Just where exactly is the evidence that Hanratty lied about this ? I would dearly love to be directed to it.
                            Both Dixie and Charlotte France testified that he arrived at their home at about 9 o'clock on the Saturday morning, August 26, not the Friday morning as Hanratty claimed he had after his train arrived in London from Liverpool.

                            Dixie also swore, contra Jim, that he was wearing a new pair of brown slacks and a grey jacket during that visit, not the Hepworth's suit - something Louise Anderson also noticed when he visited later that day.
                            Last edited by Alfie; 05-22-2019, 04:56 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Alfie View Post
                              Both Dixie and Charlotte France testified that he arrived at their home at about 9 o'clock on the Saturday morning, August 26, not the Friday morning as Hanratty claimed he had after his train arrived in London from Liverpool.
                              Aha ! I thought as much, so it all boils down to the word of those reliable paragons of virtue, the France family, as opposed to Hanratty's word. Compelling evidence indeed.

                              Originally posted by Alfie View Post
                              Dixie also swore, contra Jim, that he was wearing 'a new pair of brown slacks and a grey jacket' during that visit, not the Hepworth's suit - something Louise Anderson also noticed when he visited later that day.
                              According to Louise Anderson, that other paragon of virtue [who sang Hanratty's praises in the October and then turned gangster against him the following month at the Committal Hearing, not to mention also in January at the Trial] Hanratty was wearing something on the Saturday quite different to what Dixie France claimed.... 'very light slacks and a light fawn pullover'.

                              You can always try to have your cake and eat it too, I suppose.



                              *************************************
                              "A body of men, HOLDING THEMSELVES ACCOUNTABLE TO NOBODY, ought not to be trusted by anybody." --Thomas Paine ["Rights of Man"]

                              "Justice is an ideal which transcends the expedience of the State, or the sensitivities of Government officials, or private individuals. IT HAS TO BE PURSUED WHATEVER THE COST IN PEACE OF MIND TO THOSE CONCERNED." --'Justice of the Peace' [July 12th 1975]

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sherlock Houses View Post

                                Aha ! I thought as much, so it all boils down to the word of those reliable paragons of virtue, the France family, as opposed to Hanratty's word. Compelling evidence indeed.



                                According to Louise Anderson, that other paragon of virtue [who sang Hanratty's praises in the October and then turned gangster against him the following month at the Committal Hearing, not to mention also in January at the Trial] Hanratty was wearing something on the Saturday quite different to what Dixie France claimed.... 'very light slacks and a light fawn pullover'.

                                You can always try to have your cake and eat it too, I suppose.


                                So basically your defence of Hanratty boils down to: everybody whose evidence contradicts his version of events is lying? That's a very shaky foundation on which to build a case that seeks to exculpate a self-confessed liar, don't you think?

                                Oh, and compared to Hanratty, Charlotte France WAS a paragon of virtue.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X