Tweet
I doubt that if Hanratty had relied solely on his original Liverpool alibi that it would have fared any better than the ones I referred to in my previous post. The fact that a stranger resembling Hanratty asked for directions at a sweet shop in Scotland Road might have been viewed by the jury as reasonable doubt, although there remained a dispute about the date. However JH would then have had to account for his movements for the following two days and his initial alibi about spending the night at a thieves' den in the city was paper thin. He presumably recognised this himself, hence the change of alibi to Rhyl, which in terms of credibility was a case of 'Out of the frying pan into the fire.'
I remain curious about Hanratty's intentions per the Prosecution case. He leaves the Vienna Hotel intent on becoming a stick-up man but, perhaps losing nerve, opts for casing a few joints for burglary in the Taplow area. Why a wannabe stick-up man ever ventured into Taplow in the first place is inexplicable but it may be he prowled around some more fruitful areas before ending up there. Whatever, he must have had some sort of plans in terms of transport to where he was next headed in the late evening, as well as where he was going to sleep. It's unclear what these plans were.
His actions after entering the car seem bereft of any plan whatsoever. If he was the desperate man he claimed to be then the obvious solution was to turf out the passengers in a field then head somewhere he could feel less desperate. The Prosecution case suggested that Hanratty enjoyed the sense of power granted by his weapon but if that was indeed the case it was purely power for power's sake: he was not pursuing any purpose whatsoever.
By the time the car came to a halt in the lay-by any sense of power had surely run its course. He still had the option of turfing out the passengers and heading off into the darkness but, according to Valerie Storie's testimony, Hanratty decided he wanted to sleep. This was obviously a risky move in terms of him being disarmed as well as pointless: he only had a few hours before daybreak. What was his intention then? What would he have been able to do at a later stage that he could not have done when first encountering the couple in the car or at any point in between?
Hanratty was a man of limited intelligence who did not seem to consider actions and consequences very deeply. That might offer some explanation. But for all that, he was reasonably street wise and would have an instinct for self preservation which seemed absent from this crime.
I remain curious about Hanratty's intentions per the Prosecution case. He leaves the Vienna Hotel intent on becoming a stick-up man but, perhaps losing nerve, opts for casing a few joints for burglary in the Taplow area. Why a wannabe stick-up man ever ventured into Taplow in the first place is inexplicable but it may be he prowled around some more fruitful areas before ending up there. Whatever, he must have had some sort of plans in terms of transport to where he was next headed in the late evening, as well as where he was going to sleep. It's unclear what these plans were.
His actions after entering the car seem bereft of any plan whatsoever. If he was the desperate man he claimed to be then the obvious solution was to turf out the passengers in a field then head somewhere he could feel less desperate. The Prosecution case suggested that Hanratty enjoyed the sense of power granted by his weapon but if that was indeed the case it was purely power for power's sake: he was not pursuing any purpose whatsoever.
By the time the car came to a halt in the lay-by any sense of power had surely run its course. He still had the option of turfing out the passengers and heading off into the darkness but, according to Valerie Storie's testimony, Hanratty decided he wanted to sleep. This was obviously a risky move in terms of him being disarmed as well as pointless: he only had a few hours before daybreak. What was his intention then? What would he have been able to do at a later stage that he could not have done when first encountering the couple in the car or at any point in between?
Hanratty was a man of limited intelligence who did not seem to consider actions and consequences very deeply. That might offer some explanation. But for all that, he was reasonably street wise and would have an instinct for self preservation which seemed absent from this crime.
Comment