A6 Rebooted

[Derrick]

...I would just flag that at Hanratty's trial, fellow prisoners spoke of their conversations with him. They were called by the defence to speak in support of Hanratty's denial of involvement with this crime and in an attempt to rebut Langdale's statements to the court. Even if Hanratty didn't know Evans' proper name at the time, the opposite most certainly was not the case. Furthermore, Evans knew where Hanratty was if he wanted to reach him.

But all of Hanratty's visitors and mail would be screened. Any connection to Evans would quickly be discovered by the authorities.

I didn't follow your comment about Henry Parry ''putting Sayle into Ingledene that week for the prosecution''. I thought Sayle's own evidence did that together with his signature in the guest book (something that Hanratty failed to do for any of the different nights and any of the different rooms he stayed there)...

Sayle said he stayed there but where in the testimony is there any mention of him signing the guest book.

In the first instance he was just brought into court so Mrs Jones could identify him, which she didn't and as among the very last witnesses to ask him if he recognized Hanratty, which he didn't.

My view is that Parry told the police that he sent Sayle to Mrs Jones' that week without any other evidence to back it up. The police then contacted Sayle and he agreed without much thought about it.

He was never questioned at all about his stay there by either prosecution or defence counsel.

No one else who stayed at Ingledene that week remembers seeing Mr Sayle at all.

Sauce for the goose and all that.

Del

[NickB]

Sayle’s first appearance in court was not just to ask if Jones could identify him. It was during Jones evidence after she claimed that Hanratty had stayed in room 4; Sayle was brought in and testified that he had stayed in room 4.

Sayle was there on business. He would have needed tangible evidence (eg a receipt) of his stay at Ingledene to reclaim his bill. This would have been on the union’s files together with other documentary evidence of him being sent to Rhyl and what he did there.

The defence acted as if the guests produced at trial were genuine (asking if they remembered seeing Hanratty there) so it seems likely that there was documentary evidence to support this. Ingeledene had a guest book and it would be normal for customers to sign in, as Jim did at the Vienna. The book must have had some entries for that week; what were they?

[OneRound]

But all of Hanratty's visitors and mail would be screened. Any connection to Evans would quickly be discovered by the authorities.



Sayle said he stayed there but where in the testimony is there any mention of him signing the guest book.

In the first instance he was just brought into court so Mrs Jones could identify him, which she didn't and as among the very last witnesses to ask him if he recognized Hanratty, which he didn't.

My view is that Parry told the police that he sent Sayle to Mrs Jones' that week without any other evidence to back it up. The police then contacted Sayle and he agreed without much thought about it.

He was never questioned at all about his stay there by either prosecution or defence counsel.

No one else who stayed at Ingledene that week remembers seeing Mr Sayle at all.

Sauce for the goose and all that.

Del

Hi again Del - you appear to have missed my point about a prison visitor. I was not suggesting a message was passed directly to Hanratty by such a visitor. My speculative suggestion was of an indirect route - from visitor to another prisoner and then onto Hanratty. That was why I flagged him having access to other prisoners as clearly demonstrated by his own defence during trial.

As for discrediting Sayle, I feel Nick has shown that goose to be cooked.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Derrick]

Sayle’s first appearance in court was not just to ask if Jones could identify him. It was during Jones evidence after she claimed that Hanratty had stayed in room 4; Sayle was brought in and testified that he had stayed in room 4...

Evidence for this?

[NickB]

Are you saying that Sayle did not testify that he stayed in room 4? The books about the case place him in room 4, they must have got that from the trial.

Swanwick brought him in at that point to present the person who had stayed in room 4.

Appeal section 76:
"the records which revealed only one single room in which James Hanratty could have stayed (room 4, occupied on 21, 22 and 23 August by a witness called in rebuttal)"

[Spitfire]

Joe Sayle, being as he was a trade union representative with communist leanings, could hardly admit to staying one of Rhyl's many luxury five star hotels, so when presented with the opportunity of admitting to staying in Room 4 of the down at heel boarding house, he took it and didn't care if it were true or not.

Foot describes Joe Sayle as being the prosecution's most impressive witness (page 230) and does not question whether what he was saying in evidence was true or not. It should be remembered that Foot himself had communist tendencies and indeed edited the Socialist Worker for a time and would hardly be likely to do the dirty on a fellow leftie.

[NickB]

Even Alexei says his dad stayed “in the small front room on the first floor”.

I think he would have come across as an impressive witness and not the sort of person to give evidence in a capital trial if he was in any doubt of his facts.

[Graham]

Even Alexei says his dad stayed “in the small front room on the first floor”.

I think he would have come across as an impressive witness and not the sort of person to give evidence in a capital trial if he was in any doubt of his facts.

Alexei most certainly did say, echoing his father's words, that Joe stayed "in the small front room on the first floor", i.e. No 4 according to the lady who currently owns Ingledene and who posted here some time ago. The Liverpool Echo carries a brief story about Joe and the Hanratty Trial, per the memories of Alexei, and as soon as I've figured out why I can't post a link to this piece, I'll post a link! Alexei says that his dad was very cut up about having to give evidence (indeed, the final evidence) at a capital trial. Joe said that as he was out of the place early in the morning and not getting back until late in the evening he couldn't actually claim to having seen Hanratty; but then none of the other traced guests at Ingledene that week could remember seeing Hanratty or anyone resembling him. Essentially because he wasn't there.

I and others have said often enough in the past that if Hanratty could sign the book at The Vienna, albeit in an assumed name, then he could have done so at Ingledene had he been there at the crucial time - which of course he wasn't. Neither then, nor ever.

Graham

[Spitfire]

I and others have said often enough in the past that if Hanratty could sign the book at The Vienna, albeit in an assumed name, then he could have done so at Ingledene had he been there at the crucial time - which of course he wasn't. Neither then, nor ever.

Unless he was occupying a room that was not supposed to be a letting room -- such as a bathroom with a bed in it. But then again, Hanratty made no mention of a bath in his room.

[moste]

Evans gave his evidence on 9-Feb-62. I think he said that he had changed jobs and therefore Jim would not have seen him or his taxi at the fairground, but I’ve just garnered this from other posts.

There was a curious incident when the trial resumed after the weekend on 12-Feb. Swanwick told the judge that Evans had been trying to get in touch with the police. He asked the judge to hear what Evans had to say, Gorman agreed and asked the jury to withdraw. Presumably the press were not allowed to report what he said, they just relay that the judge recalled the jury eight minutes later. Grace Jones then continued her evidence.

When Foot went on his first pilgrimage to Rhyl in 1966, Evans told him that he had not been in town on 22-Aug-61. I would be interested if anyone can show that he said this at the trial.

Swanwick asked the judge to hear Evans ,curious indeed!

[moste]

Hi Moste - I accept at least the wording in bold although Del, a strong supporter of Hanratty's innocence seemingly like yourself, considers it 'ridiculous'.

I take it that you and Del also disagree as to Hanratty's whereabouts on the night concerned. Unlike Del's belief in the Rhyl alibi or 'Rhyl shenanigans' as you put it, you appear to have him in Liverpool as per his original claim. The implication of that is that you have no time for the statements of Larman and Walker by which Del places great faith.

Best regards,

OneRound

Actually , I don't disagree with anything anyone has to say on Hanrattys whereabouts,after 5 30 on the Tuesday 22nd Aug. For me Ms.Dinwoodie,and the two little girls are as solid as a rock. Especially when compared with the prosecutions witnesses .

[moste]

But since the concern about a Rhyl alibi is heavy right now I would just add this: If , as is probably the case ,Mrs Jones said to Jim who was desperate,for somewhere to stay since it was getting late,"I have a room which is not actually legal,so Mums the word. Nothing would have been written down, Jim would have lay low, kind of , eating in the family's room,in the morning, and I can't figure out why there is a problem with this scenario.

[moste]

This 'getting in on the act' thing, also to my mind is not a difficult one to get ones head around ,. Trower for example is the perfect example of some one who wants his moment in the limelight. Mrs. Jones on the other hand as well as having a packed house ,would hardly want it to get about that she is illegally boarding lodgers. Not to mention the fact that she Identified Hanratty in court and indicated the week he had stayed at her house in August the previous year, as per Foot, page 226.

[NickB]

Hanratty made no mention of a bath in his room.

Or a bed in the bathroom.

[Graham]

Or a bed in the bathroom.

The lady who owns Ingledene now said on these boards that there was only one bathroom in the house, at least when she bought the place. I have always considered that the 'bed in the bathroom' or conversely the 'bath in the bedroom' was mere invention to assist the cases of Hanratty's supporters, mostly down to Woffinden. And as has been rightly stated here, Hanratty himself made no reference to either.

Not to mention the fact that she Identified Hanratty in court and indicated the week he had stayed at her house in August the previous year, as per Foot, page 226.

This is utterly spurious. Mrs Jones was totally aware that she was being called as a witness in the trial of James Hanratty. Therefore it is obvious (to me, at any rate) that when she entered the witness box and was asked if she recognised the defendant, she could only answer in the affirmative, whether she had set eyes on him before or not as he was the man in the dock. It may have been better had an i.d. parade, including Hanratty, been arranged for Mrs Jones, but it wasn't.

Graham