A6 Rebooted

[Natalie Severn]

I note a very glaring inconsistency in all this Graham----that out of all the amazing array of crooks, liars and police snitches whose testimony the police and prosecution relied upon to obtain a conviction to execute a man of 25 -and execute him on the flimsiest of evidence imaginable---theirs is the testimony you and others on here appear to have swallowed hook, line and sinker-YET---when you get witnesses from Rhyl - just ordinary folk- going about their business who bothered to go to the police station and make police statements out of a sense of duty --- you refuse to believe anything they say!

Best
Norma

[Limehouse]

I am still wondering why all these people in Rhyl wanted to defend a man who is supposed to have murdered a young husband and father, raped a young woman, attempted to murder her and in doing so, left her paralysed for life. Were they all so dishonest and keen to seek publicity for themselves or did they believe an injustice would/had been done?

[NickB]

* 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).

The jury may well have thought that Alexei Sayle's dad proved quite a lot.

Mrs Jones said that she had put the person she thought was Hanratty in room number 4, but Joe Sayle gave evidence that he had stayed in that particular room on 21st, 22nd and 23rd August.

[Natalie Severn]

The jury may well have thought that Alexei Sayle's dad proved quite a lot.

Mrs Jones said that she had put the person she thought was Hanratty in room number 4, but Joe Sayle gave evidence that he had stayed in that particular room on 21st, 22nd and 23rd August.

except that Alexis Sayle's dad was there to attend a trade union conference and was out from 7.30 am until 9-10 pm each day he was there.Therefore why on earth would he have seen Hanratty ?How many of the other guests does anyone ever see in a Bed and Breakfast? We stay in them regularly in Stratford on Avon when we travel from London to North Wales by car and at most we see two or three guests if we appear at the most popular time in the Breakfast room-between 8 am and 9 am---but breakfast is served between 6 or 7 am and 9 and several people have been and gone by then like Joe Sayle had---quite obviously.
And actually in Kleinman's notes taken down the evening Hanratty broke in the middle of his murder trial and told Michael Sherrard he had gone on from Liverpool to Rhyl on the 22nd August he describes the notable feature of the room he stayed in as having ' a green bath'
which was the only unlicensed room in the boarding house-actually an attic bedroom which as he described was on the second floor.
Not only that but as a matter of interest anybody reading the description Hanratty gave of the ground floor back room he said he breakfasted in cannot but be impressed by the fact the it matched the back room of Ingledene in every detail given i.e. down to the two tables and the window looking onto a paved square patio which Ingledene had.

[caz]

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.

Hi Limehouse,

Well the point is that Hanratty either didn't talk to 'all those people in Rhyl' or he unaccountably failed to register them at all, along with their supposed potential to have saved his neck. Why else would he have put all his eggs in the one bottomless basket, hoping that members of the criminal fraternity would not only lie for him and put him in Liverpool overnight instead of innocently snoring in Rhyl, but also be believed?

You cannot claim that Hanratty said or did anything because he fully believed, like Kizco, that his innocence would eventually be proven. You don't know what he really believed, but clearly he could not have believed his innocence would save him if he was in fact guilty, as convicted.

The useless Rhyl alibi is not about the lack of bus tickets or his signature in a guest house register; it would and should have given the jury cause for reasonable doubt had he provided it at the start, in sufficient detail that would allow the story to be independently confirmed by at least one of 'all those people' who claimed, too late, to have talked to him that night.

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

Hi Limehouse,

Well the point is that Hanratty either didn't talk to 'all those people in Rhyl' or he unaccountably failed to register them at all, along with their supposed potential to have saved his neck. Why else would he have put all his eggs in the one bottomless basket, hoping that members of the criminal fraternity would not only lie for him and put him in Liverpool overnight instead of innocently snoring in Rhyl, but also be believed?

You cannot claim that Hanratty said or did anything because he fully believed, like Kizco, that his innocence would eventually be proven. You don't know what he really believed, but clearly he could not have believed his innocence would save him if he was in fact guilty, as convicted.

The useless Rhyl alibi is not about the lack of bus tickets or his signature in a guest house register; it would and should have given the jury cause for reasonable doubt had he provided it at the start, in sufficient detail that would allow the story to be independently confirmed by at least one of 'all those people' who claimed, too late, to have talked to him that night.

Love,

Caz
X

I think it's been explained countless times why Hanratty didn't mention his Rhyl alibi right at the start.

I think I ought to be careful from now on whenever I stray from my current (adopted) city. I shall start to note every detail of every room I enter. I'll remember the colour of the curtains and bed linen in every hotel I stay in. I'll make a detailed note of all the people I speak to and precisely where they were located at the time I spoke to them.

I shall make a note of every road I walk down and its proximity to the station and other important local landmarks. I shall do all this, just in case I am ever falsely accused of murder, rape and attempted murder.

[Graham]

Hi Julie,

purely out of interest, what do you think is the real reason JH didn't use the Rhyl 'alibi' from the start of the trial?

I'll say again - he should've stuck with his Liverpool Alibi - much less unconvincing than Rhyl. Although one minor point of all this, and something I've never seen explained, is what his acquaintance and Liverpool denizen Terence McNally meant when he said, "If Hanratty does not open up, why should I?" McNally was found by Joe Gillbanks during the latter's search for evidence of JH's Liverpool connections, and that's what McNally said to him after he admitted to knowing JH. Paul Foot just leaves it at that, with no further explanation, and Woffinden doesn't even mention it at all. It's always puzzled me. As has Aspinall, who would appear to be a figment of JH's imagination. Unless, of course, someone can prove otherwise.

However, some time later McNally was served with a subpoena, and according to Foot this really annoyed him. He said he hadn't seen JH for four years, not since leaving Lewes Prison, and that he was now properly employed (at Dunlop Rubber). As Foot states, this effectively killed of JH's Liverpool Alibi, yet I still think it was sounder ground than the Rhyl one, and one he should have stuck with. As he claimed, his Liverpool mates were all rogues, and as such might be expected to deny all knowledge of him, and I do feel that that alone may have given the jury pause to consider that JH was, after all, telling the truth about Liverpool. The only person he claimed to know in Rhyl was also a bit of a fly-by-night, someone JH claimed he had stayed with a month before, yet he, JH, claimed that he couldn't remember this man's name at the time of his claimed visit on 22 August...

The thing about an alibi is that someone accused of a wrong-doing will use it to claim that he couldn't be at the scene of a crime because he was elsewhere at the precise time. It doesn't matter if a judge instructs the jury that the 'accused does not have to prove his alibi' - what he is saying to the jury is: Do you believe it? JH could at least name names in Liverpool - names he plainly remembered when he couldn't remember Terry Evans' name. JH had been to Liverpool before on fencing expeditions (and I think - but am not sure - that he had a relation who lived there). With regard to Rhyl, once he had made the decision to use it, his 'alibi' depended upon his ability to show the jury that he had been there on the night of 22 August, and this he failed to do. This is why Sherrard had him sign an indemnity, because it was quite plain (to me, at least) that Sherrard didn't believe a word of the Rhyl 'alibi'.

Oh, and before I leave the subject, both Mrs Dinwoody in Liverpool and Mrs Jones in Rhyl were shown by the police just one photo for the purposes of establishing an identification - that of James Hanratty.

Finally - sorry for the length of this post - a long time ago I knew a man who was accused by a girl of assault. She named him, and the time and place he was supposed to have assaulted her. As you can imagine the law came down on him hot and heavy, but fortunately for him he was able to show that at the time he was supposed to have been committing assault he was actually in a garage waiting-room while his car was being MoT'd. That, folks, is a proper alibi!

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

I think it's been explained countless times why Hanratty didn't mention his Rhyl alibi right at the start.

I think I ought to be careful from now on whenever I stray from my current (adopted) city. I shall start to note every detail of every room I enter. I'll remember the colour of the curtains and bed linen in every hotel I stay in. I'll make a detailed note of all the people I speak to and precisely where they were located at the time I spoke to them.

I shall make a note of every road I walk down and its proximity to the station and other important local landmarks. I shall do all this, just in case I am ever falsely accused of murder, rape and attempted murder.

exactly Julie

[Natalie Severn]

I am still wondering why all these people in Rhyl wanted to defend a man who is supposed to have murdered a young husband and father, raped a young woman, attempted to murder her and in doing so, left her paralysed for life. Were they all so dishonest and keen to seek publicity for themselves or did they believe an injustice would/had been done?

......and quite apart from anything else Julie, they didn't want to -certainly Margaret Walker didnt as her husband strongly objected to her getting involved in a murder case---I know that in the case of Betty Davies it was similar ,this woman was possibly the most important of all in backing up Margaret Walker's statement,yet it was only after her conscience made her do so that she eventually in 1967 made a statement for Paul Foot about the entire incident.In 1961 she hadn't felt well enough as that Summer she was getting over the death of her baby and had been in Chatsworth House nursing home during the entire time Hanratty visited Rhyl on the previous occasion of July 26th .She didn't leave the nursing home until the end of July,so she knew, for certain that she had seen the man Margaret Walker and Ivy Vincent saw on the night of 22nd August and not during July.Her statement to Paul Foot and Mr and Mrs Hanratty was corroborated by written statements by her husband Noel and her mother in law Margaret.

[Graham]

Clerk Of The Court: James Francis Hanratty, you are accused that on the night of 22 August 1961 you did wilfully murder Michael Gregsten near the village of Clophill, Bedfordshire. How plead you?

JH: not guilty, your honour. I was actually in Liverpool that night, I was. Honest. No, wait, I tell a lie - I was in Rhyl. Sorry. I really was.

Clerk Of The Court: were you? Oh, right. Well, that's okay then. Off you go, and sorry to have bothered you. Next.


And there really is no more substance to the Rhyl 'Alibi' than my little bit of nonsense above. I am amazed that anyone can be taken in by it. Sherrard wasn't.

G

[Graham]

......and quite apart from anything else Julie, they didn't want to -certainly Margaret Walker didnt as her husband strongly objected to her getting involved in a murder case---I know that in the case of Betty Davies it was similar ,this woman was possibly the most important of all in backing up Margaret Walker's statement,yet it was only after her conscience made her do so that she eventually in 1967 made a statement for Paul Foot about the entire incident.In 1961 she hadn't felt well enough as that Summer she was getting over the death of her baby and had been in Chatsworth House nursing home during the entire time Hanratty visited Rhyl on the previous occasion of July 26th .She didn't leave the nursing home until the end of July,so she knew, for certain that she had seen the man Margaret Walker and Ivy Vincent saw on the night of 22nd August and not during July.Her statement to Paul Foot and Mr and Mrs Hanratty was corroborated by written statements by her husband Noel and her mother in law Margaret.

I honestly can't believe this....if JH really HAD been in Rhyl on the night of 22 August, then why didn't he tell his defence BEFORE the trial began? By doing so it might have given his defence a reasonable and decent opportunity to question the saintly people of Rhyl with regard to any of them having seen JH there on the night in question.

I really am sick and tired of this Rhyl nonsense, for nonsense it most certainly is, and to his everlasting credit Michael Sherrard knew it was nonsense. Yet like all counsels he was bound to accede to the wishes and instructions of his client, something I dare say he regretted for the rest of his life. Sherrard himself said that he suspected the people at Lime Street Station left-luggage office wanted to be 'in on the act', as did in my considered opinion most of the people in Rhyl. I further believe that Joe Gillbanks may well have used considerable persuasive powers to get Grace Jones to agree to attend the trial as a witness, something which she, doubtless, regretted for the rest of her life.

JH was never in Rhyl on the night of 22 August - he was nowhere near Rhyl. He was, first off, in a large cornfield near Dorney Reach, and latterly in the back seat of a Morris Minor.

G

[Natalie Severn]

Graham,
Can you explain why these people would make this story up?

Can you explain why on the other hand you fall for the evidence of a bunch of prosecution witnesses who have all done time---to be specific:

Nudds: assistant manager at Vienna -aged 53 and a notorious police informer who had been in the nick most of his life since his early teens who had only been out twelve days on 22nd August----made three different statements

Langdale: on remand in Brixton and also a well known police informer at the time

Charles France: Had a police record dating from before Hanratty was born

Very important as prosecution witnesses

You believe all these con men yet dismiss with ridicule the Rhyl landladies and
evidence of a Kinmel Bay councillor ,Mr Trevor Dutton!

And lets not get into more fairy tales about poor Micheal Sherrard -may he rest in peace. He never once said he didn't believe the Rhyl witnesses---he barely knew of them since they came forward as they were coming to the end of the trial 230 miles away .Sherrard had only met one of them- Mrs Jones the Ingledene landlady who was viciously attacked and humiliated in court by Swanwick and nearly had a breakdown because of it.

Michael Sherrard believed until the very end that the testimony of Mrs Dinwoody,Hanratty's Liverpool alibi was more than sufficient to prove that Hanratty could not have been seen by her between 4 and 5 pm and then managed a sex attack in Buckinghamshire at 9.30 pm the very same evening.

[Graham]

Graham,
Can you explain why these people would make this story up?

Can you explain why on the other hand you fall for the evidence of a bunch of prosecution witnesses who have all done time---to be specific:

Nudds: assistant manager at Vienna -aged 53 and a notorious police informer who had been in the nick most of his life since his early teens who had only been out twelve days on 22nd August----made three different statements

Langdale: on remand in Brixton and also a well known police informer at the time

Charles France: Had a police record dating from before Hanratty was born

Very important as prosecution witnesses

You believe all these con men yet dismiss with ridicule the Rhyl landladies and
evidence of a Kinmel Bay councillor ,Mr Trevor Dutton!

And lets not get into more fairy tales about poor Micheal Sherrard -may he rest in peace. He never once said he didn't believe the Rhyl witnesses---he barely knew of them since they came forward as they were coming to the end of the trial 230 miles away .Sherrard had only met one of them- Mrs Jones the Ingledene landlady who was viciously attacked and humiliated in court by Swanwick and nearly had a breakdown because of it.

Michael Sherrard believed until the very end that the testimony of Mrs Dinwoody,Hanratty's Liverpool alibi was more than sufficient to prove that Hanratty could not have been seen by her between 4 and 5 pm and then managed a sex attack in Buckinghamshire at 9.30 pm the very same evening.

The burden of proof is on you, Nats. Not me. And so far you've proved nothing.

Incidentally, can you please provide absolute proof with regard to your final statement about Sherrard and Mrs Dinwoody? Can you reproduce Sherrard's own words with regard to this? Of course Hanratty could not have been at Mrs Dinwoody's sweetshop at 4 - 5 pm on 22 August and also carried out a sex-attack in Bucks at about 9.30pm that evening - for the simple reason he was never in Liverpool (or Rhyl) on that day.

Graham

[EddieX]

I think it's been explained countless times why Hanratty didn't mention his Rhyl alibi right at the start.

I think I ought to be careful from now on whenever I stray from my current (adopted) city. I shall start to note every detail of every room I enter. I'll remember the colour of the curtains and bed linen in every hotel I stay in. I'll make a detailed note of all the people I speak to and precisely where they were located at the time I spoke to them.

I shall make a note of every road I walk down and its proximity to the station and other important local landmarks. I shall do all this, just in case I am ever falsely accused of murder, rape and attempted murder.

No my dear, there is no need to worry yourself about such minutiae, but if you were staying in say Brighton at the time of a murder in Bognor do not tell the cops that you were staying in Birmingham.

[Natalie Severn]

You are mistaken Graham-in an English Court of Law the burden of proof is on the prosecution.Several high ranking policemen who saw all the evidence viz Baden Skitt previously Chief Constable of Hertfordshire and the other very senior police officer appointed by Scotland Yard to evaluate the evidence for the appeal ,Roger Matthews ,both believed the case had not only not been proven but should never even have been brought.And this was the case even after the 2002 appeal apparently.