A6 Rebooted

[Natalie Severn]

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

The Sherrard quote-verbatim:

Michael Sherrard:"It is often said that Hanratty changed his alibi from Liverpool to Rhyl and thats really not quite right.The Substance * of the Liverpool alibi was maintained.
There was the evidence of the lady in the sweetshop,Mrs Dinwoody,who,if she was anything like right had Hanratty in Liverpool.He [Hanratty] couldn't have imagined or invented that episode and it was supported by that lady in material particulars, so that was of great importance*.It drove the prosecution,at one stage, to solemnly suggest that Hanratty might have been in Liverpool and that there was an air service from Liverpool to the south that was regular and that he might have come down for the occasion and then gone back to Liverpool,Rhyl or whatever and that seemed ridiculous."

* Sherrard's emphasis.

taken from the Horizon programme --16th May 2002 after the appeal result .Sherrard is pointing out the fact that Hanratty's alibi did not ultimately depend on Rhyl.

[Graham]

No Nats - as usual you choose to 'misunderstand'. You are trying to convince the world that James Hanratty was innocent of the A6 Crime. He was found guilty at his trial in 1962, and the appeal in 2002 failed, and upheld the original verdict. The proof of his innocence is therefore upon you as far as this discussion goes. Prove to me that James Hanratty was innocent as you claim, and I will believe you. So far you have failed.

Graham

[EddieX]

The proof of Mr Sherrard's belief in the Rhyl alibi is demonstrated by the fact that he never sought to call further witnesses for Hanratty's appeal. This point was made by the court in the 2002 appeal.

Mrs Grace Jones chose to perjure herself by lying about what she and Evans had discussed outside the courtroom. That was hardly Mr Swanwick's fault. Moreover it was shown that all her letting rooms were let to other guests and there was simply no room at the inn for Hanratty. This has led to the absurd suggestion that Hanratty slept in the attic room with the green bath. Absurd because Hanratty remembered the green bath, but never said he slept in that room. His room had a sink, not a bath.

MRS OLIVE DINWOODIE (not DINWOODY)did give support in 'material particulars' to Hanratty's claim that he entered a sweetshop on the Scottie Road to ask for directions. Unfortunately for Hanratty his recollection of the incident and MRS DINWOODIE'S do not coincide in all material particulars, most noticeably the date on which this occured; Dinwoodie saying the Monday, Hanratty the Tuesday.

[Natalie Severn]

Unfortunately for Hanratty his recollection of the incident and MRS DINWOODIE'S do not coincide in all material particulars, most noticeably the date on which this occured; Dinwoodie saying the Monday, Hanratty the Tuesday.

and the the prosecution ,who took her statement very seriously indeed -told the court he could have caught -a plane or a helicopter-from Liverpool airport to get to the cornfield in Buckinghamshire......! WHAT?
did you ever hear such ridiculous nonsense as that suggestion-a plane? from Speke? talk about scraping the barrel......did they know where it was and how long it took to get to that airport?

[will go through the Monday /Tuesday evidence some other time-ever read her granddaughter's statement about serving lollipops on the Tuesday between 4 and 5 ?]

[Graham]

Purely out of interest, here's my Post 1089 with regard to the Liverpool Sweet Shop 'Alibi':

A couple of comments regarding JH's Liverpool Alibi:

1] He said he, for whatever reason, wrongly went to Paddington station instead of Euston yet by his own admission had travelled by train from London to Liverpool a number of times previously. Is it just coincidence that Paddington is the station which connects London with places like Maidenhead and Slough?

2] JH said he caught either the 10.55 or 11.55 train. No trains left Euston for Liverpool at those times. There was a train leaving at 10.35am arriving Liverpool at 3.25pm. But JH said he arrived at Liverpool between 4.00 and 5.00 pm. Mrs Dinwoodie said the man who asked for directions came into her shop at about 4.00pm but on the Monday.

3] JH said there was a 'clerky gent' on the train to Liverpool, wearing gold cufflinks initialled with the letter 'E'. Is it (again) a coincidence that he burgled a house in Harrow on 12 August and nicked six sets of gold cufflinks initialled with the letter 'E'?

4] Peter Usher, one of the men on duty at Lime Street Station left-luggage, was doing the 6.00am to 2.00pm shift on the day JH claimed he was there - see above the times he gave for his arrival at Lime Street. Usher claimed to remember a man whose name he thought was 'Ratty', but JH himself said he used a false name. Sherrard did not call Usher as a witness because his evidence would not 'fit' JH's claimed arrival time, and also because Sherrard thought that Usher was showing an unhealthy need to "get in on the act".

5] Re: the sweetshop. There were 29 sweetshops in Scotland Road. JH claimed the one he went into was opposite a cinema. Years ago on this thread a poster (Steve) took some photos of the site upon which Mrs Dinwoodie's shop, now demolished, had stood. This was 408 Scotland Road, a much altered thoroughfare since 1961. However, Steve suggested (if my memory is reliable) there was no sign that this shop stood opposite a cinema.

6] Mrs Dinwoodie was shown only one photo, that of JH, by DC Pugh who interviewed her, against all acceptable police procedure.

7] Mrs Dinwoodie said that she thought the man who asked about 'Tarleton Avenue' had a Scots or Welsh accent - JH spoke with a cockney accent. (OK, I concede that Mrs D may not have met too many cockneys in Liverpool, but she almost certainly had spoken to Scots and Welsh people).

8] Mrs Dinwoodie's grand-daughter helped out in the shop at times. JH said that a 'little girl' was in the shop when he called in. Mrs D said it was 'definitely the Monday, because I was alone on the Tuesday, and my grand-daughter was with me only on the Monday'.

9] Mrs Dinwoodie said the man called in her shop at about 4.00pm. Getting back to timing, if JH had caught the 10.35 train from Euston which arrived Liverpool at 3.25pm, he could not have been in Mrs D's shop at 4.00pm as according to his own statement he had a wash and a cup of tea at Lime Street Station before catching a bus to Scotland Road.

10] Mrs Dinwoodie said she was unwell on the day the man asking for Tarleton Road came into the shop; the next day she was very ill.

11] Finally, Mrs D's statement that the man was asking for 'Tarleton Road or Avenue' was actually derived from second-hand evidence. The shop's owner, Mrs Cowley, was interviewed by DC Pugh who told her that the police were 'looking for a man who came into a sweetshop on Scotland Road asking for directions to Tarleton Road or Avenue. Mrs Cowley passed on this information to Mrs D before she, Mrs D, was interviewed by DC Pugh on his return to the shop. That was the occasion when he showed her just the one photo, that of James Hanratty. In other words, Mrs D's recollection that 'the man' was asking for Tarleton Road or Avenue came indirectly, via the police, from JH himself. I wonder if DC Pugh got the bollocking he deserved?

I simply cannot accept that James Hanratty was in a Liverpool sweetshop on the afternoon of 22 August 1961 as he claimed.

Sorry for the length of this post.

Graham

[EddieX]

I simply cannot accept that James Hanratty was in a Liverpool sweetshop on the afternoon of 22 August 1961 as he claimed.

Sorry for the length of this post.

Graham

Graham, a good summary if I might say so.

Of all the nonsense spouted in favour of Hanratty's innocence there is one nugget of evidence which might have persuaded me, had I been on the jury, to acquit JH and that is the sweetshop alibi provided by Mrs Dinwoodie. It seems to be accepted that someone asked for directions from Mrs D on either Mon 21 Aug or Tues 22 Aug, but who asked and what he asked for are open to debate.

There is no doubt that the manner in which DC Pugh conducted his inquiries produced a result which favoured JH, but that should not have weighed against him with the jury.

We should remember that JH was a betting man, and as such used to assessing odds. If there were 29 sweetshops on the Scottie Road then it would be impossible to disproove that he had not been in one of them. So in that regard inventing an alibi which involved going into a sweetshop was a shot to nothing. And JH might get lucky, as it is quite common for folk to go into a newsagents to ask for directions, and one such person might have done so on 22 Aug in any one of the 29 shops. All that JH needed was for the shopworker to have a less than perfect memory as to what the directions-seeker looked like and for what he was asking directions. In this respect Hanratty's gamble almost paid off.

I suspect of the nine and a bit hours the jury was out deliberating quite a few hours were spent on Mrs D.

[Natalie Severn]

Purely out of interest, here's my Post 1089 with regard to the Liverpool Sweet Shop 'Alibi':

5] Re: the sweetshop. There were 29 sweetshops in Scotland Road. JH claimed the one he went into was opposite a cinema. Years ago on this thread a poster (Steve) took some photos of the site upon which Mrs Dinwoodie's shop, now demolished, had stood. This was 408 Scotland Road, a much altered thoroughfare since 1961. However, Steve suggested (if my memory is reliable) there was no sign that this shop stood opposite a cinema.

I will answer the points you make regarding Mrs Dinwoodie* specifically another time and will give each some research-ofcourse Julie or another poster might like to do so instead of me and thats fine.

So a couple of specific points about your above point 5

I don't know whether there was or was not a cinema near the bus stop in Scotland Road but will be able to find that out over the next week or so.

I have however a copy of some police notes taken on 30.12.1961 recorded during an interview with Hanratty.

Hanratty's recorded description of the position of the sweet shop and the landmarks nearby are recorded thus :

"says it was a corner shop by traffic lights and gents toilets and ladies toilets.
Mrs Dinwoodie was by the cigarettes in far counter."

Everything underlined in the above statement is accurate.The sweetshop stood on a corner close to traffic lights and opposite both ladies and gents toilets-indeed the remains of that construction can still be seen today.There is no mention of Hanratty referring to any cinema near the sweet shop when he was being questioned by police on 30.12.1962-but we will double check other statements about it he may have made.
*regarding the spelling of Dinwoodie.My apple computer of 2012 re-spells Dinwoodie with a 'y'.....sorry about that I hadn't noticed until Ron pointed it out

[Graham]

Thanks for that, Eddie.

And what you say about Mrs D and the person who came into her shop asking for directions merely strengthens my argument that had JH stuck to his Liverpool alibi, the jury might well have been convinced. Or at least if not convinced, given him the benefit of the doubt. Which, in a trial that might end in a death-sentence, is very, very important.

I'm sure that you're right - the jury must have really sweated over the sweet-shop evidence.

But what really convinces me that the Rhyl 'alibi' is hollow, is Sherrard's insisting upon JH agreeing to and signing an indemnity - Sherrard, as a responsible counsel, was merely following his client's instructions in this regard, but at the same time was ensuring that his client was fully aware of the potentially awful risks involved. Had Sherrard, after due discussion, consultation and consideration, felt that the Rhyl 'alibi' might hel0p his client, the indemnity would never have been insisted upon.

I sometimes wonder if things might have ended up somewhat happier for JH had the investigating police along the Scottie Road had more than just the one photo....we'll never know.

Graham

[Graham]

JH told Sherrard that he was looking for Carlton or Tarlton Avenue. He said that a woman told him that Carlton Avenue was a 2d bus-ride away along the Scotland Road. He said he put the same question to "two or three other people, then got on a bus. He got off the bus at some later time and place and went into:

"a sweet-shop and tobacconist. I asked for Carlton Avenue or Tarlton Avenue. She said no Carlton Road around here. Woman and young girl. I had pin-striped suit on. Woman came to door of shop and showed me the bus-stop which was near it. The sweet-shop is in the Scotland Road, opposite a picture-house [or cinema, for Natalie's benefit]. A woman and young girl there. I asked them the way to Talbot Road, then said Carlton Road. The woman said, "This is Bank Hall, and you have to get on a bus and go into town". Bank Hall joins Scotland Road. I did not get to Carlton Road. I could not find the street."

Since virtually the entire area has been demolished and rebuilt since 1961, it can't be established one way or the other if No 408, Mrs Dinwoodie's shop, was opposite a cinema as JH said it was. If it can be shown that it was, then JH's alibi would be reinforced. If it can be shown that it wasn't opposite a 'picture house', then JH's alibi takes a turn for the worse. Rather astonishingly, neither Foot nor Woffinden bother to discuss this rather important point.

I await with baited breath Natalie Severn's comments, especially with regard to her promised 'research'.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

I sometimes wonder if things might have ended up somewhat happier for JH had the investigating police along the Scottie Road had more than just the one photo....we'll never know.

Graham

To All,
although its perfectly true that a junior police officer did show Mrs Dinwoodie just the one photo and that despite her immediate recognition of Hanratty it was not how he should have acted nonetheless :
... [regarding identifying Hanratty] 'soon after confirming the one photograph,Mrs Dinwoodie was again shown several photographs,including one of Hanratty different to the one she had confirmed in the first place.Once again ,promptly and without any doubt, Mrs Dinwoodie selected the photograph of Hanratty as the man who had come into her shop. Paul Foot page 196.
The police accepted that the man Mrs Dinwoodie recognised was Hanratty and only some tried to prove she had seen him on the Monday 21st in fact, and by all accounts, they got themselves tied up in knots over it because one lot of police had him in Liverpool on Monday 21st and another lot of Police had him in London on Monday 21st!

[Graham]

One other little point about JH and the Sweetshop. Here's what Mrs Dunwoodie said about the man who came in asking for directions:

"I could hardly understand him when he asked for directions to Tarleton Road. I told him I did not know that road, only Tarleton Street. Several others, customers, came into the shop and I said perhaps they could help him and I went on serving and did not even notice him go out. He was hard to understand. I thought he was Scots or Welsh".

Sherrard said that JH "had a normal and average young Londoner's voice". According to Lord Russell of Liverpool, JH was examined by an expert in speech and phonetics and he could not detect any such regional traits, i.e., Scots or Welsh, in JH's speech. In other words, the man Mrs Dinwoodie said came in asking for directions could not have been James Hanratty.

Graham

[EddieX]

I think the whole alibi scenario reeks of implausibility. I cannot believe that JH travelled 200 miles from the Smoke to the Pool for the purpose of selling stolen property to fence whose address he clearly did not know. Supposing he found the mysterious Carlton or Tarleton Avenue, he did not seem to have a number to locate the house. Was he proposing to knock on every door on the avenue to ask whether Aspinall the fence lived there?

In fact where did Aspinall actually live?

[Limehouse]

I think the whole alibi scenario reeks of implausibility. I cannot believe that JH travelled 200 miles from the Smoke to the Pool for the purpose of selling stolen property to fence whose address he clearly did not know. Supposing he found the mysterious Carlton or Tarleton Avenue, he did not seem to have a number to locate the house. Was he proposing to knock on every door on the avenue to ask whether Aspinall the fence lived there?

In fact where did Aspinall actually live?

Hanratty had several people in mind when he travelled to Liverpool to try to sell the loot. He was not soley relying on the Tarleton/Carlton Avenue contact.

The prosecution team obviously did not think the Liverpool alibi 'reeked with implausibility' as they seriously suggested Hanratty may have taken a plane from Liverpool to the south in order to wander round the wilds of Buckinghamshire looking for a likely stick-up.

This suggestion was made because they took seriously the testimony of a lady who described having a conversation with a man about directions to Tarleton/Carlton Avenue.

Mrs Dinwoodie seemed unsure whether it was the Monday or Tuesday but as many witnesses placed Hanratty in London on the Monday, it must have been the Tuesday.

[silver101]

Mrs Dinwoodie's Sweet shop

If the man was not Hanratty then how did Hanratty know that someone resembling him had been in that shop asking for Tarleton road?

[Limehouse]

If the man was not Hanratty then how did Hanratty know that someone resembling him had been in that shop asking for Tarleton road?

That's a good point Silver.