A6 Rebooted

[Natalie Severn]

Michael Sherrard QC .He did his best defending James Hanratty but at 33 was still very young for such a case and relatively inexperienced and he never claimed otherwise.He became a great advocate-one of the best in Britain .It was with much sadness I learnt of his death.

[Graham]

When in his summing-up the judge told the A6 jury that Hanratty 'does not have to prove his alibi', he meant that the defendant had placed his alibi (or in JH's case 2 alibis) before the jury, and it was the duty of the jury either to accept it, in which case he would be acquitted, or to reject it, in which case he would (almost certainly) be found guilty. The jury rejected it. And not surprisingly. I and others have stated many times in the past that had JH stuck to his original 'Liverpool Alibi' then there was a very good chance it would have been accepted - of course, one cannot be certain of this. However, when he realised that he could not, if and when pressed to do so, prove his 'Liverpool Alibi' - this realisation dawning on him obviously before the judge's summing-up - he panicked and changed it to the 'Rhyl Alibi' which, he hoped, the jury might believe. Sherrard warned him, as is well known, and insisted that JH effectively exonerate him, Sherrard, from any responsibility should the case collapse, which it did. Sherrard knew what he was doing; Hanratty didn't. Yet Hanratty was prepared to take a huge risk, and it didn't work.

I will also repeat again, that had the A6 Case been tried in Scotland, the chances are that the verdict would have been 'not proven', but only if Hanratty had kept his gob well and truly shut about Rhyl and anything to do with Rhyl.

So - I wonder if those who claim that Hanratty was innocent might put us all out of our misery and let us in on the Big Secret: who DID commit the A6 Crime?

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Graham,
The chances are that had the trial taken place anywhere but Bedford the verdict would have been not guilty-which was why they made sure it did take place in Bedford.
Norma

[caz]

When in his summing-up the judge told the A6 jury that Hanratty 'does not have to prove his alibi', he meant that the defendant had placed his alibi (or in JH's case 2 alibis) before the jury, and it was the duty of the jury either to accept it, in which case he would be acquitted, or to reject it, in which case he would (almost certainly) be found guilty. The jury rejected it. And not surprisingly. I and others have stated many times in the past that had JH stuck to his original 'Liverpool Alibi' then there was a very good chance it would have been accepted - of course, one cannot be certain of this. However, when he realised that he could not, if and when pressed to do so, prove his 'Liverpool Alibi' - this realisation dawning on him obviously before the judge's summing-up - he panicked and changed it to the 'Rhyl Alibi' which, he hoped, the jury might believe. Sherrard warned him, as is well known, and insisted that JH effectively exonerate him, Sherrard, from any responsibility should the case collapse, which it did. Sherrard knew what he was doing; Hanratty didn't. Yet Hanratty was prepared to take a huge risk, and it didn't work.

I will also repeat again, that had the A6 Case been tried in Scotland, the chances are that the verdict would have been 'not proven', but only if Hanratty had kept his gob well and truly shut about Rhyl and anything to do with Rhyl.

So - I wonder if those who claim that Hanratty was innocent might put us all out of our misery and let us in on the Big Secret: who DID commit the A6 Crime?

Graham

As usual Graham, the big questions are ducked.

1) Why, if Hanratty really had interacted with a dozen or so people in Rhyl, all of whom were able to remember the man and their encounters with him much later, did Hanratty himself have no such memories, and no faith in his genuine alibi finding any support?

2) Why, if he truly thought he could no more prove he'd stayed in Rhyl that night than in Liverpool, did he exchange one unprovable tale for another and expect anyone on the jury to believe either?

It seems clear from the desperation that drove him to that point, that for him no Rhyl witnesses could have existed, which is why he couldn't expect any support from that direction, and he clearly had no clue that anyone would offer it. An innocent man in his situation would have been beyond crazy not to mention his overnight stay in Rhyl, if he had spoken to just one other person while there.

3) Who else could have committed this crime and what case can be made against them?

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

As usual Graham, the big questions are ducked.

1) Why, if Hanratty really had interacted with a dozen or so people in Rhyl, all of whom were able to remember the man and their encounters with him much later, did Hanratty himself have no such memories, and no faith in his genuine alibi finding any support?

2) Why, if he truly thought he could no more prove he'd stayed in Rhyl that night than in Liverpool, did he exchange one unprovable tale for another and expect anyone on the jury to believe either?

!]Who said Hanratty had no such memories? What he actually said was that he had knocked on quite a few doors in Rhyl and there were no vacancies -perfectly understandable incidently in the late evening of August in Rhyl -a very popular holiday resort in 1961.And regarding the late witness statements [known about by Hanratty only after he had been sentenced to death he certainly remembered Mrs Walker and her 'big' dog---!
Or are you referring to Mr Trevor Dutton? If so then neither Sherrard nor Kleinman nor Hanratty or anybody else knew anything about the detailed statement Mr Dutton, a Kinmel Bay councillor and a man of high integrity and standing in his local community- made in Abergele police station on February 9th 1962.That statement was withheld unseen by anybody until 1967. Mr Larman's statement was also withheld and despite him making it on February 12th it was only discovered when he himself rang Sherrard's office having heard the man he believed he had seen in Rhyl on 22nd August was to be hanged.
As for the landladies there was no reason whatever why they should lie they were all,all five of them perfectly ordinary women who had no wish-and the lady who still lives still has no wish to be involved even now and still less then in a murder trial---quite -unlike all the proven liars and police informers the prosecution wheeled in and used to make out their shoddy case!

As for Graham at least he has the integrity to acknowledge the trial was flawed.
But Graham and Caz -I really have no idea who the murderer was.How could I? I now know that only a few blocks from where the murder car was found were a couple of places real London villains and gangsters hung out----which could be a link I suppose to wherever the killer got cleaned up of the blood on his trousers and shoes.But all I know is that I do not believe Hanratty had anything to do with it.But it doesnt follow that because I believe ,-and I am NOT alone in this in fact Basil Skitt [ Chief Constable of Hertfordshire and an Assistant Commissioner of Scotland Yard ] and Roger Matthews [a very senior detective ]who looked into every file and aspect of the case , believed that Hanratty was innocent but why should I, or they for that matter ,know who the gunman actually was ?----true they may have a better clue than me ofcourse but thats something we do not know and would not be made public even if they had .However Baden Skitt is on record ,apparently,as saying just after the 2002 appeal ,"We know he was innocent-we just can't explain the DNA"

By the way: can we please stick to the legal facts of the alibi : The statements and testimony of the Liverpool sweetshop lady, Mrs Dinwoody, to both prosecution police and defence form the substantive alibi and did not change That part of his alibi remained intact.The alteration to the alibi concerned where he had stayed that night.

[Graham]

As for Graham at least he has the integrity to acknowledge the trial was flawed.

I did not say that the trial was 'flawed'. I said that if Hanratty hadn't decided to change his alibi there was a chance he might have been acquitted. I also said that had the trial beein under Scottish law a verdict of 'not proven' might have been reached.

Not so long ago you and others who believe(d) in Hanratty's innocence seemed convinced that the real killer was Alphon. Now it appears that he's no longer in the frame. Then we had a suggestion that the real killer was set in concrete under a motorway bridge or something like that; now you're saying you haven't got a clue who the 'real' killer was after all. It's interesting to note that after Alphon insinuated himself into the A6 Case the police kept tabs on him - for example they knew where he lived when they wanted his DNA sample at the time of the appeal. Now I can assure you that had they anyone else at all 'in the frame' for the A6 Case, then they would have kept equal tabs on that person (or persons) while he was alive. I cannot recall that the police, even those like Skitt and Matthews who seem to think that Hanratty was innocent, have ever mentioned even the remotest possibility that anyone else was ever 'in the frame'. I just wonder if Foot and Woffinden ever investigated anyone else, or even had a name or names they could follow up - if they did, they've never said so.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Graham,

Whatever your views ,and yes, I understand your qualifications - by today's standards the trial was deeply flawed.
Can I ask you why you would think I would know who the killer was?
-I was given to understand some time ago that either Roger Matthews or Baden Skitt -----and it seems likely it was Roger Matthews who led the twenty strong team of detectives looking into all the files and information on the case etc ------did indeed have a view as to who the killer was but that has never been revealed-[if indeed he did and its not just a suspicion]. Mr Matthews views were reported by the lawyer Mr Geoffrey Bindman .He said that after a lengthy investigation Matthews concluded that Hanratty was entirely innocent and had been wrongly hanged-and that his own views on hanging had changed as a result he no longer believed in capital punishment.

Norma

[EddieX]

He said that after a lengthy investigation Matthews concluded that Hanratty was entirely innocent and had been wrongly hanged-and that his own views on hanging had changed as a result he no longer believed in capital punishment.

But since then Mr Mansfield QC declared in court that Peter Alphon was not the murderer and the late Michael Sherrard has said that the wrong man had not been hanged, meaning the right man had been hanged.

[Natalie Severn]

I think the identity evidence is most problematic too...If I've got this right, after all those hours in close proximity with the killer, she initially describes a suspect who looks nothing like Hanratty...Different eye colour even...

Then she positively IDs someone other than Hanratty (again who looks nothing like him)...then at long last she picks out Hanratty and modifies her suspect description to match him (Prompted? One has to wonder)...

I know one should show respect and understanding for a witness who suffered so much, but frankly I wouldn't condemn a rotten egg based on Stories sense of smell...sorry!

Dave

I agree Dave.I missed this! Also Valerie's identification would not be allowed today.You cannot positively identify somebody else wrongly,as Valerie did ,and then go on to a second 'identification'.
I am concerned too about the five inconsistencies in Valerie's statements i.e. the very apparent mismatch between five of her statements made at the Committal in November 1961 and the ones she made later at the trial in Jan/Feb 1962 drawn out by Michael Sherrard at the trial.
I would draw people's attention to the memory of Jackie Onassis when Jack Kennedy was shot through the head at her side.Initially she totally denied that she had crawled on her hands and knees on the back of the car almost immediately after the shooting.Then she saw the newsreel clips and said she had no memory whatever of her action.Her mind had blocked out the trauma.
Keep posting Dave-excellent points.

[Limehouse]

Regarding Hanratty's alibi and his behaviour after it was announced he was wanted for the A6 crime, I think some people are failing to appreciate what an impact this had on Hanratty and to what lengths the police were willing to go to secure a conviction.

To illustrate what I mean, I am going to use another case as a comparison to show how an innocent man was convicted of a murder he did not commit and how, even though he had an alibi, this was disregarded by the jury and he was convicted.

But first, let's just see what frame of mind Hanratty may have been in.

When he left prison, it seems Hanratty wanted to go straight. |At least, he certainly didn't want to go back to prison. He attempted to settle down, and joined his father in a window-cleaning venture. As is well recorded, Hanratty walked away from this and returned to his bad habits.

His plans to visit Liverpool were discussed with various friends long before the night of 21/22 August. In fact, at least a week before the events of that night, Hanratty was discussing plans to visit Liverpool. It appears he told Mrs France he was going to visit his aunt. In fact, he did have an aunt in Liverpool but had not seen her for some years.

Hanratty's true plans for Liverpool were to sell the proceeds of recent robberies. He felt he could not get decent enough prices for them among the fences he knew in London (including LA, who was low on funds). Thus, he planned to venture north.

When it was announced that Hanratty was wanted for the A6 crime, he spoke to police on the telephone, explaining that he was completely innocent of the crime, but that he would not give himself up because it meant him returning to prison for the robberies he had carried out since last leaving prison. He had to confess to these robberies, because they formed part of his alibi. His reason for being in Liverpool, and not in Slough or thereabouts. Hanratty was convinced that the mistake would soon be recognised, he could not possibly be found responsible for the crime because he did not do it, and it would soon be made obvious that he did not do it. Therefore, he would not return and face justice for his other crimes. he could stay on the run and the mistake would soon be rectified.

Of course, this did not happen.

Now, let's turn to a similar scenario. Stefan Kiszco was maliciously and wrongly identified by a group of girls as the man who had exposed himself to them around the time of the murder of Lesley Moleseed in `1975. Stefan was a shy man, a sufferer of Cushings Syndrome, which made him barrel shaped, socially awkward, and more importanly, infertile. He was bullied by local children and shunned for his difference, which made him an easy target when police were searching for the murder of Lesley.

Kiszco was arrested and questioned for many hours. On and on it went. the police were spitting angery, convinced they had their man. After all, he lived with his mother, and he looked like a nonce, didn't he? On and on they went. Eventually, wanting the questioning and bullying to stop, he broke down and confessed, thinking that if he did so, they would leave him in peace and soon discover that he could not have been the killer. he was innocent, he believed in his innocence and he believed justice and common decency would prevail and they would realise their mistake and let him go.

He even had an alibi. At the time of Lesley's abduction and murder, he was tending his father's grave. His alibi would prove him innocent.

On Lesley's body, police found the semen of her killer. There was no DNA testing at the time, but there was one big clue that would have cleared Stefan. The semen contained sperm. Stefan fired blanks. Cushings syndrome meant he had no sperm. This was never revealed to the jury or the defence. Not until the real killer was identified years later.

Stefan Kiszco, a man with a real alibi, was convicted of Lesley Moleseed's murder and imprisoned. He confessed because he was under enormous strain, but like Hanratty, he believed his innocence would be revealed through further investigation. He believed his alibi would clear him. It didn't.

It is true that Hanratty should have stuck to his original alibi, or mentioned Rhyl right at the start. But what evidence is there that he would not still have been found guilty, based on the case described above? And remember, Hanratty really believed that the truth would come out. Just like Stefan did.

Thankfully, they didn't hang Stefan Kiszco, but he died a broken man, soon after leaving prison.

[caz]

!]Who said Hanratty had no such memories? What he actually said was that he had knocked on quite a few doors in Rhyl and there were no vacancies -perfectly understandable incidently in the late evening of August in Rhyl -a very popular holiday resort in 1961.

Hi Nats,

But he could have been lying again, just as he had lied initially about staying in Liverpool. If he was telling the truth on this particular occasion, what possessed him not to mention all these people from the outset, any of whom could have been asked very early on to confirm that they had turned away a man of his description that night?

However Baden Skitt is on record ,apparently,as saying just after the 2002 appeal ,"We know he was innocent-we just can't explain the DNA"

And there's the rub, because anyone claiming to 'know' Hanratty was innocent must explain the DNA if they have no other way of proving what they think they know. Unfortunately Hanratty will remain guilty in law unless those who 'know' otherwise can come up with the goods. I'm afraid anything that Hanratty said in his own defence won't cut it now. "He would say that, wouldn't he?"

By the way: can we please stick to the legal facts of the alibi : The statements and testimony of the Liverpool sweetshop lady, Mrs Dinwoody, to both prosecution police and defence form the substantive alibi and did not change That part of his alibi remained intact.The alteration to the alibi concerned where he had stayed that night.

But I understood there were problems with Mrs Dinwoody's dates and times that were never completely resolved - or at least they could not have been resolved to the jury's satisfaction. In any case, the jury would have been concerned with where Hanratty claimed to be while the crime was actually being committed, and of course he screwed that one up royally all by himself.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Limehouse,

I'm afraid I see very little in the case against Hanratty that can be compared with that of Stefan Kiszco. If anything the latter demonstrates that serious miscarriages of justice do tend to be exposed and admitted sooner or later.

How many people did Kiszco see or speak to, while tending his father's grave at the time of the crime he could not possibly have committed? His alibi could have been a lot tougher to prove than Hanratty's, if the latter was really talking to all those people in Rhyl, and tucked up in a guest house bed there when the A6 murder was committed.

Stefan Kiszco was totally unlike Hanratty if people were fooled by the latter's lies.

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

Hi Limehouse,

I'm afraid I see very little in the case against Hanratty that can be compared with that of Stefan Kiszco. If anything the latter demonstrates that serious miscarriages of justice do tend to be exposed and admitted sooner or later.

How many people did Kiszco see or speak to, while tending his father's grave at the time of the crime he could not possibly have committed? His alibi could have been a lot tougher to prove than Hanratty's, if the latter was really talking to all those people in Rhyl, and tucked up in a guest house bed there when the A6 murder was committed.

Stefan Kiszco was totally unlike Hanratty if people were fooled by the latter's lies.

Love,

Caz
X

So Caz, do you believe all those people in Rhyl were lying or mistaken? Did they imagine talking to Hanratty? Were they simply just trying to claim their 15 minutes of fame?

My point in comparing Hanratty's behaviour with Kiszcos was that both men said things that were not true in order to get the police off their backs and both men did so because they both fully believed that their innocence would eventually be proven. In both cases, crucial evidence was witheld from the jury and the defence team.

People keep banging on about Hanratty's alibi being unproven and unrealiable just because he didn't go home with a pocket full of bus tickets or scrawl a signature in a guest book but in reality, a jury might still reject a truthful alibi as they did with Stefan, if some essential evidence is witheld from them.

[Natalie Severn]

Regarding Hanratty's alibi and his behaviour after it was announced he was wanted for the A6 crime, I think some people are failing to appreciate what an impact this had on Hanratty and to what lengths the police were willing to go to secure a conviction.

To illustrate what I mean, I am going to use another case as a comparison to show how an innocent man was convicted of a murder he did not commit and how, even though he had an alibi, this was disregarded by the jury and he was convicted.

But first, let's just see what frame of mind Hanratty may have been in.

When he left prison, it seems Hanratty wanted to go straight. |At least, he certainly didn't want to go back to prison. He attempted to settle down, and joined his father in a window-cleaning venture. As is well recorded, Hanratty walked away from this and returned to his bad habits.

His plans to visit Liverpool were discussed with various friends long before the night of 21/22 August. In fact, at least a week before the events of that night, Hanratty was discussing plans to visit Liverpool. It appears he told Mrs France he was going to visit his aunt. In fact, he did have an aunt in Liverpool but had not seen her for some years.

Hanratty's true plans for Liverpool were to sell the proceeds of recent robberies. He felt he could not get decent enough prices for them among the fences he knew in London (including LA, who was low on funds). Thus, he planned to venture north.

When it was announced that Hanratty was wanted for the A6 crime, he spoke to police on the telephone, explaining that he was completely innocent of the crime, but that he would not give himself up because it meant him returning to prison for the robberies he had carried out since last leaving prison. He had to confess to these robberies, because they formed part of his alibi. His reason for being in Liverpool, and not in Slough or thereabouts. Hanratty was convinced that the mistake would soon be recognised, he could not possibly be found responsible for the crime because he did not do it, and it would soon be made obvious that he did not do it. Therefore, he would not return and face justice for his other crimes. he could stay on the run and the mistake would soon be rectified.

Of course, this did not happen.

Now, let's turn to a similar scenario. Stefan Kiszco was maliciously and wrongly identified by a group of girls as the man who had exposed himself to them around the time of the murder of Lesley Moleseed in `1975. Stefan was a shy man, a sufferer of Cushings Syndrome, which made him barrel shaped, socially awkward, and more importanly, infertile. He was bullied by local children and shunned for his difference, which made him an easy target when police were searching for the murder of Lesley.

Kiszco was arrested and questioned for many hours. On and on it went. the police were spitting angery, convinced they had their man. After all, he lived with his mother, and he looked like a nonce, didn't he? On and on they went. Eventually, wanting the questioning and bullying to stop, he broke down and confessed, thinking that if he did so, they would leave him in peace and soon discover that he could not have been the killer. he was innocent, he believed in his innocence and he believed justice and common decency would prevail and they would realise their mistake and let him go.

He even had an alibi. At the time of Lesley's abduction and murder, he was tending his father's grave. His alibi would prove him innocent.

On Lesley's body, police found the semen of her killer. There was no DNA testing at the time, but there was one big clue that would have cleared Stefan. The semen contained sperm. Stefan fired blanks. Cushings syndrome meant he had no sperm. This was never revealed to the jury or the defence. Not until the real killer was identified years later.

Stefan Kiszco, a man with a real alibi, was convicted of Lesley Moleseed's murder and imprisoned. He confessed because he was under enormous strain, but like Hanratty, he believed his innocence would be revealed through further investigation. He believed his alibi would clear him. It didn't.

It is true that Hanratty should have stuck to his original alibi, or mentioned Rhyl right at the start. But what evidence is there that he would not still have been found guilty, based on the case described above? And remember, Hanratty really believed that the truth would come out. Just like Stefan did.

Thankfully, they didn't hang Stefan Kiszco, but he died a broken man, soon after leaving prison.

Thanks for this Julie---a terrific post!An innocent man thrown to the wolves!

[Graham]

The Rhyl 'Alibi'.

Very briefly:

* JH had been in Rhyl on 25 July 1961, and it should be quite obvious that he used memories of this visit to colour his alibi for 22 August 1961.

* his description of Ingledene is vague to the extreme.

* no guest who was genuinely at Ingledene on 22 August had any memory of JH at all (and this includes, by the by, the parents of the comedian Alexei Sayle - not that this proves anything, of course).

* JH's description of Grace Jones was inaccurate

* Grace Jones' credibility was wrecked by Swanwick. Whether or not you approve of Swanwick's methods, he showed her to be less than honest. She was also spotted by a juror in conversation with another witness, in contempt of court rules.

* 19 people came forward to say that they thought they might have seen JH in Rhyl on 22 August. How odd that all these so-called witnesses only remembered seeing JH after the start of the trial and when it was public knowledge in Rhyl that Grace Jones was giving evidence.
Sherrard himself, reference the Lime Street Station left-luggage attendants, said that he felt they were trying to get in on the act. Same at Rhyl, I very strongly suggest.

* the newspaper-seller Charlie Jones eventually admitted that he was leaned on by Terry Evans to say that he saw JH when he claimed he did. How many other 'witnesses' were also 'leaned on' by Terry Evans, one wonders?

* speaking of Terry Evans, he also claimed that Ernie Gordon, who owned Dixie's Cafe, said that a man looking very much like JH had called in to the cafe asking for his whereabouts (even though JH described Terry Evans as 'John'); unfortunately, Mr Gordon denied this and also declined to be interviewed about it.

* 10 years after the event, Mrs Pearl Hughes said she was approached by a young man who said he was looking for someone whose name he did not know, but who was dark-featured and had a mark on his forehead. This 'someone' was almost certainly Terry Evans, who was swarthy and had a star tattoed on his forehead. Mrs Hughes said she recognised the description as that of Terry Evans. Oddly enough, Paul Foot mentions the statement of Mrs Hughes, but Bob Woffinden does not. And why did Mrs Hughes wait a whole decade before coming out with her story? This makes little sense.

* A Mr Murray claimed that he was the barber who gave JH a haircut. JH did actually claim to have visited a barber in Rhyl, but for a shave.
Again, Mr Murray made this statement 10 years after the event, so where was he at the time of the trial?

* Margaret Walker, Ivy Vincent, Trevor Dutton and Christopher Larman all made their statements after the national press had published details of the case and persons in it.

* Trevor Dutton said that the man he claimed to have met had an accent which was, quote, "a mixture of Irish and cockney". JH spoke with a cockney accent with no hint of Irish. But of course he had an Irish name and came from London....which by then was common knowledge via the press.

* Dutton also said that someone had tried to sell him a watch "and that there was a newspaper report of JH claiming to have tried to sell a watch in Rhyl". Sorry, Trev, but JH said he tried to sell a watch in Liverpool.

* Paul Foot said that Dutton was, quote, "very anxious to avoid publicity", but this is peculiar in the light of Dutton becoming a member of the "A6 Committee" delegation to Rhyl. He was photographed with other, more famous, members of the Committee.

* why was only Grace Jones called as a witness at the trial, if as is claimed all of the other so-called 'witnesses' were so reliable? I would suggest the reason is that Sherrard, quite frankly, didn't believe a single word of JH's Rhyl 'alibi', but was willing to 'give it a go' according to his client's instructions in the shape of the highly-unreliable Mrs Jones.

* There really is no hard and inconclusive evidence to place JH in Rhyl on the evening of 22 August 1961, and there is no witness who before God and a court of law could truthfully swear that he or she saw him there at that time.

Finally, from early on the morning of 22 August 1961 to the evening of 24 August, James Hanratty to all intents and purposes disappeared. He came back to London on the 25 August, and said nothing to anyone about having been to Rhyl.

I write this not in the forlorn hope that it may convince anyone who believes in JH's innocence, but really to keep the debate going.

Graham