A6 Rebooted

[OneRound]

What he said on that day cannot possibly be challenged unless he wanted to be found guilty, which was obviously not the case. To change a false alibi part through a trial is risky enough. To change a false alibi for another false alibi is absolutely unbelievable.

The fact that the Rhyl alibi was supported by so many other witnesses adds to its credibility but even without the witnesses it's difficult to accept that he would have wanted to trade one false alibi for another false alibi. This for me makes the Rhyl alibi stand up. The supportive witnesses add to the credibility.

Ansonman

Hi again Anson - you obviously believe Hanratty was in Rhyl at the crucial time. Do you also believe he stayed at Ingledene then?

I ask as the second does not automatically follow from the first. Whilst I doubt the Rhyl alibi as a whole, to my mind Ingledene is a particularly unconvincing part.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Spitfire]

What he said on that day cannot possibly be challenged unless he wanted to be found guilty, which was obviously not the case. To change a false alibi part through a trial is risky enough. To change a false alibi for another false alibi is absolutely unbelievable.

The fact that the Rhyl alibi was supported by so many other witnesses adds to its credibility but even without the witnesses it's difficult to accept that he would have wanted to trade one false alibi for another false alibi. This for me makes the Rhyl alibi stand up. The supportive witnesses add to the credibility.

Ansonman

According to Foot, Hanratty spent one night in an attic room with bath and was then moved to another and more conventional bedroom, yet Hanratty does not mention this. I wonder why. He was quite capable of a very accurate description of his lodging accommodation for the previous night at the Vienna but still he insisted that his accommodation was nothing out of the ordinary, and that he had the same room for the two nights of his uneventful stay in the jewel of the North Welsh coast.

I am driven to the conclusion that Jim when pressed for an account of where he was on the night of 22 August realised that to say he was staying in guest house in a room which was a bathroom but had had a bed installed in it would put the landlady in trouble. Jim was nothing if not a gent, and the thought of besmirching the good name of the landlady who had so kindly offered him the unconventional accommodation horrified him. Jim therefore hit upon the plan to say he was in Liverpool for the relevant night with three thieves who could not be named at an address which likewise could not be named. Jim had calculated that despite Miss Storie's, Trower's and Skillett's identification of him, the good offices of unnamed criminals living at an unspecified address would carry great weight with the jury and would undoubtedly get him off, and more to the point would not get his kindly landlady into trouble.

The sceptic might ask, " why did he change his alibi?", and a very good question that would be too. I think that there was a lot going on for Jim round about his arrest, committal and trial and that he simply forgot why he had given a false alibi in the first place and his natural inclination to fess up and to tell the truth came to the fore.

[ansonman]

Hi again Anson - you obviously believe Hanratty was in Rhyl at the crucial time. Do you also believe he stayed at Ingledene then?

I ask as the second does not automatically follow from the first. Whilst I doubt the Rhyl alibi as a whole, to my mind Ingledene is a particularly unconvincing part.

Best regards,

OneRound

Hi OneRound.

Yes I do, and its worth having a look at the start of the thred "scan of Hanratty Statement re: Rhyl alibi", which is listed several threds below this one.

We know that the prosecution savaged Mrs Jones, the landlady (but then they had to) but her story was supported by her daughter who was not called as a witness. She later explained that Hanratty was given the attic room because the house was full.

Finally, to quote Woffinden: "If only the defence had been aware of it, far from the discovery of Mrs. Jones being a "solitary miracle", there were a little cluster of them. Within 24 hours of the first unofficial announcement "several persons" were entirely on their own, volunteering information about Hanratty's visit to Rhyl. If a few news items produced such an instant response, what might a proper inquiry have yielded?"

Regards,

Ansonman

[ansonman]

According to Foot, Hanratty spent one night in an attic room with bath and was then moved to another and more conventional bedroom, yet Hanratty does not mention this. I wonder why. He was quite capable of a very accurate description of his lodging accommodation for the previous night at the Vienna but still he insisted that his accommodation was nothing out of the ordinary, and that he had the same room for the two nights of his uneventful stay in the jewel of the North Welsh coast.

I am driven to the conclusion that Jim when pressed for an account of where he was on the night of 22 August realised that to say he was staying in guest house in a room which was a bathroom but had had a bed installed in it would put the landlady in trouble. Jim was nothing if not a gent, and the thought of besmirching the good name of the landlady who had so kindly offered him the unconventional accommodation horrified him. Jim therefore hit upon the plan to say he was in Liverpool for the relevant night with three thieves who could not be named at an address which likewise could not be named. Jim had calculated that despite Miss Storie's, Trower's and Skillett's identification of him, the good offices of unnamed criminals living at an unspecified address would carry great weight with the jury and would undoubtedly get him off, and more to the point would not get his kindly landlady into trouble.

The sceptic might ask, " why did he change his alibi?", and a very good question that would be too. I think that there was a lot going on for Jim round about his arrest, committal and trial and that he simply forgot why he had given a false alibi in the first place and his natural inclination to fess up and to tell the truth came to the fore.

We don't need to ask the question "why did he change his alibi?" since we have the answer from the man himself, as quoted by Sherrard:

"I said, look Jim, you'll have to explain why you were in Liverpool. You'll be asked these questions and you will have to reply".
"I can tell you that, sir" he answered. Then he looked down and said, "well actually, I wasn't in Liverpool".

He then gave his account of where he actually was. As I have said previously, no one would change a false alibi to a false alibi part way though a trial for their life.

Ansonman

[Spitfire]

We don't need to ask the question "why did he change his alibi?" since we have the answer from the man himself, as quoted by Sherrard:

"I said, look Jim, you'll have to explain why you were in Liverpool. You'll be asked these questions and you will have to reply".
"I can tell you that, sir" he answered. Then he looked down and said, "well actually, I wasn't in Liverpool".

He then gave his account of where he actually was. As I have said previously, no one would change a false alibi to a false alibi part way though a trial for their life.

Ansonman

Can you point me to any other case where an accused person has persisted with a false alibi and then at a late stage of proceedings changed for an alibi which is then accepted as being true?

[ansonman]

Can you point me to any other case where an accused person has persisted with a false alibi and then at a late stage of proceedings changed for an alibi which is then accepted as being true?

No.

Ansonman

[Graham]

Hanratty was being urgently pressed by his defence to name his 'friends in Liverpool' and to divulge their address or addresses. He named a man called McNally, and also a man called Healey who he said lived in a flat in an area called the Bull Ring. This flat, Hanratty said, was where he had stayed on the night of 22 August. Sherrard dispatched Gillbanks to carry out a search, and traced McNally, who admitted he knew Hanratty but other than that was very unforthcoming. McNally made the odd statement to Gillbanks that, "if Hanratty won't open up, why should I?" This (to me, at least) has never been explained. Gillbanks then contacted Healey, who did live in some flats in the Bull Ring, and Healey admitted that he had known Hanratty in Walton Prison but denied, as Hanratty claimed, that he had ever stayed in his flat.

Sherrard then advised Hanratty that it was possible the judge could order him to be taken under guard to Liverpool and to identify by sight the flat he claimed to have stayed in during the night of 22 August. Sherrard warned him that if this happened and he could not identify the flat, he 'would be lost'. Obviously Hanratty could not do this, became alarmed, and then changed this 'alibi' to the equally-insupportable Rhyl 'alibi'.

I still think that had Hanratty stuck to his original 'alibi', he may well have had a slightly better chance of acquittal - obviously dependent upon whether the judge, per Sherrard's warning, decided to send him to Liverpool to make an impossible identification. He at least knew Liverpool, knew people there, and his London friends were aware of this.

Graham

[Spitfire]

No.

Ansonman

I thought as much, so Hanratty is unique in that for three months or so he deliberately concealed from the police and those charged with his defence, the facts, which if proved to be true, would have proved his innocence of the charge of murder, and then only revealing them at the eleventh hour? Considering the time allowed by Hanratty to the prosecution to check his alibi, I think that they did rather well.

[Spitfire]

Sherrard then advised Hanratty that it was possible the judge could order him to be taken under guard to Liverpool and to identify by sight the flat he claimed to have stayed in during the night of 22 August. Sherrard warned him that if this happened and he could not identify the flat, he 'would be lost'. Obviously Hanratty could not do this, became alarmed, and then changed this 'alibi' to the equally-insupportable Rhyl 'alibi'.

I still think that had Hanratty stuck to his original 'alibi', he may well have had a slightly better chance of acquittal - obviously dependent upon whether the judge, per Sherrard's warning, decided to send him to Liverpool to make an impossible identification. He at least knew Liverpool, knew people there, and his London friends were aware of this.

Graham

Hanratty was a gambler and probably a poor one at that. He would, however, be used to assessing the odds. There must therefore have been some reason which Hanratty believed the change of alibi would offer a better return in the way of a not guilty verdict.

Hanratty possibly thought that the judge would be less likely to send him to Rhyl rather than Liverpool. Why he should think that, I don't know. Alternatively, he possibly thought that if sent to Rhyl he would at least be able to a identify a guest house, even in the height of winter signs denoting guest houses would be visible from the road, and so he would at least have a chance of nominating a guest house, saying with his usual lack of particularity regarding his alibi, "I think it was like this one, but I'm not sure." It was a better bet than trying to identify a den of thieves from the street (although in Liverpool?).

[ansonman]

Hanratty was being urgently pressed by his defence to name his 'friends in Liverpool' and to divulge their address or addresses. He named a man called McNally, and also a man called Healey who he said lived in a flat in an area called the Bull Ring. This flat, Hanratty said, was where he had stayed on the night of 22 August. Sherrard dispatched Gillbanks to carry out a search, and traced McNally, who admitted he knew Hanratty but other than that was very unforthcoming. McNally made the odd statement to Gillbanks that, "if Hanratty won't open up, why should I?" This (to me, at least) has never been explained. Gillbanks then contacted Healey, who did live in some flats in the Bull Ring, and Healey admitted that he had known Hanratty in Walton Prison but denied, as Hanratty claimed, that he had ever stayed in his flat.

Sherrard then advised Hanratty that it was possible the judge could order him to be taken under guard to Liverpool and to identify by sight the flat he claimed to have stayed in during the night of 22 August. Sherrard warned him that if this happened and he could not identify the flat, he 'would be lost'. Obviously Hanratty could not do this, became alarmed, and then changed this 'alibi' to the equally-insupportable Rhyl 'alibi'.

I still think that had Hanratty stuck to his original 'alibi', he may well have had a slightly better chance of acquittal - obviously dependent upon whether the judge, per Sherrard's warning, decided to send him to Liverpool to make an impossible identification. He at least knew Liverpool, knew people there, and his London friends were aware of this.

Graham

I would have thought that Sherrard would have advised Hanratty that the judge could order him to be taken to Liverpool well before the start of the trial. In other words, if he was frightened by Sherrard into changing the alibi he wouldn't have waited until part way through the trial to change it.
A more likely scenario is that seeing Swanwick perform in court, Hanratty became very anxious about facing him in the witness box with a story he knew to be untrue. So he realised that if he was to cope in court and give evidence, he must tell the Rhyl story to the court.

I agree that he would have done no worse had he stuck to his original story but he, on reflection foolishly, was determined to tell the truth, albeit too late in the day.

Ansonman

[ansonman]

I thought as much, so Hanratty is unique in that for three months or so he deliberately concealed from the police and those charged with his defence, the facts, which if proved to be true, would have proved his innocence of the charge of murder, and then only revealing them at the eleventh hour? Considering the time allowed by Hanratty to the prosecution to check his alibi, I think that they did rather well.

My reply to Graham's post also deals with your point.

Ansonman

[ansonman]

The Rhyl Alibi

I think another point that is often overlooked about the change in alibi concerns the person who would have been the most difficult to convince as to its credibility, before Hanratty entered the witness box. And that person was, of course, Sherrard himself.

We know that Sherrard was absolutely devastated on hearing the new account of Hanratty's whereabouts on the night of the murder. His whole case preparation had been based on the Liverpool alibi and he would have taken an enormous amount of convincing that this new alibi was the truth.

Hanratty's life was on the line and so was Sherrard's reputation (though this was obviously of lesser importance, its is still highly relevant). That Sherrard believed the new alibi, in the dreadful circumstances that it was revealed, says it all for me. And that was before the Rhyl witnesses came forward.

Ansonman

[OneRound]

Hanratty was being urgently pressed by his defence to name his 'friends in Liverpool' and to divulge their address or addresses. He named a man called McNally, and also a man called Healey who he said lived in a flat in an area called the Bull Ring. This flat, Hanratty said, was where he had stayed on the night of 22 August. Sherrard dispatched Gillbanks to carry out a search, and traced McNally, who admitted he knew Hanratty but other than that was very unforthcoming. McNally made the odd statement to Gillbanks that, "if Hanratty won't open up, why should I?" This (to me, at least) has never been explained. Gillbanks then contacted Healey, who did live in some flats in the Bull Ring, and Healey admitted that he had known Hanratty in Walton Prison but denied, as Hanratty claimed, that he had ever stayed in his flat.

Sherrard then advised Hanratty that it was possible the judge could order him to be taken under guard to Liverpool and to identify by sight the flat he claimed to have stayed in during the night of 22 August. Sherrard warned him that if this happened and he could not identify the flat, he 'would be lost'. Obviously Hanratty could not do this, became alarmed, and then changed this 'alibi' to the equally-insupportable Rhyl 'alibi'.

I still think that had Hanratty stuck to his original 'alibi', he may well have had a slightly better chance of acquittal - obviously dependent upon whether the judge, per Sherrard's warning, decided to send him to Liverpool to make an impossible identification. He at least knew Liverpool, knew people there, and his London friends were aware of this.

Graham

Hi Graham,

I think it's very unlikely that the judge would actually have done that. I wonder if Sherrard spooked Hanratty too much.

With the considerable benefit of hindsight, Hanratty might even have been better off from the very start in taking a leaf out of Alphon's book and claiming throughout that he slept (not 'kipped') under Southport pier or some such similar place on his tod. Whilst he obviously wouldn't have been able to prove that, there at least wouldn't be the risk of his Liverpool mates contradicting it or Mrs Jones giving the impression it was impossible.

I recall you mentioning McNally before. Tantalising snippet of conversation from him.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Graham]

I would have thought that Sherrard would have advised Hanratty that the judge could order him to be taken to Liverpool well before the start of the trial. In other words, if he was frightened by Sherrard into changing the alibi he wouldn't have waited until part way through the trial to change it.
A more likely scenario is that seeing Swanwick perform in court, Hanratty became very anxious about facing him in the witness box with a story he knew to be untrue. So he realised that if he was to cope in court and give evidence, he must tell the Rhyl story to the court.

I agree that he would have done no worse had he stuck to his original story but he, on reflection foolishly, was determined to tell the truth, albeit too late in the day.

Ansonman

Unfortunately, Hanratty did not do logical or predictable. He sat in court listening in doubtless mounting horror as his alibi was effectively dismantled, and saw two of his 'friends', France and Anderson, appear for the prosecution.

There was no reason on the surface why Sherrard should have warned him that his Liverpool alibi was in jeopardy, and with it the outcome of the trial, but I strongly suspect that by the end of the first week of the trial Sherrad was entertaining very strong doubts concerning the veracity of his client. At the start of the second week Hanratty advised Sherrard that his Liverpool 'alibi' was a lie, and that he had decided to 'tell the truth' and that he was actually in Rhyl at the critical time. This was instantly seen by everyone involved that it was what was known as an 'ambush alibi' - an alibi declared at a late stage with the intention of wrong-footing the prosecution who would, hopefully, not have the time or opportunity to disprove it. Such a tactic is now not permitted in British courts.

We should also bear very strongly in mind that Sherrard's immediate reaction was to draw up a hand-written document stating that this decision was Hanratty's and his alone, and he was prepared to accept any and all consequences. To my mind, this demonstrates very clearly that Sherrard, frankly, had just about lost it with his client. So off went Gillbanks and his partner to traipse around the streets of Rhyl in a futile attempt to drum up support for another pack of lies. Hanratty never was in Rhyl at the critical time, and quite how he expected his defence to find support for this particular lie is not recorded.

Graham

[ansonman]

Unfortunately, Hanratty did not do logical or predictable. He sat in court listening in doubtless mounting horror as his alibi was effectively dismantled, and saw two of his 'friends', France and Anderson, appear for the prosecution.

There was no reason on the surface why Sherrard should have warned him that his Liverpool alibi was in jeopardy, and with it the outcome of the trial, but I strongly suspect that by the end of the first week of the trial Sherrad was entertaining very strong doubts concerning the veracity of his client. At the start of the second week Hanratty advised Sherrard that his Liverpool 'alibi' was a lie, and that he had decided to 'tell the truth' and that he was actually in Rhyl at the critical time. This was instantly seen by everyone involved that it was what was known as an 'ambush alibi' - an alibi declared at a late stage with the intention of wrong-footing the prosecution who would, hopefully, not have the time or opportunity to disprove it. Such a tactic is now not permitted in British courts.

We should also bear very strongly in mind that Sherrard's immediate reaction was to draw up a hand-written document stating that this decision was Hanratty's and his alone, and he was prepared to accept any and all consequences. To my mind, this demonstrates very clearly that Sherrard, frankly, had just about lost it with his client. So off went Gillbanks and his partner to traipse around the streets of Rhyl in a futile attempt to drum up support for another pack of lies. Hanratty never was in Rhyl at the critical time, and quite how he expected his defence to find support for this particular lie is not recorded.

Graham

But Sherrard did not believe Hanratty was lying about Rhyl. He was very hacked off indeed about the late revelation but he nonetheless believed it. That alone speaks volumes for me.

Ansonman