Mail's feature of 1999 on Hanratty by Roger Matthews

[NickB]

Are you certain Sherrard did not disclose the alibi before 4.30 pm on 8th February?

I presume you mean 6 February.

From the 2002 Appeal:
The Rhyl Alibi “only came to the attention of the police on 6 February, the twelfth day of the trial, when Mr Sherrard opened the defence case.”

From the trial, 7 February:
Swanwick - You had, until 4.30 yesterday afternoon, led the prosecution on a wild goose chase?
Hanratty - Yes, sir, yes.
Swanwick - By telling a pack of lies, firstly to Mr Acott, about the three men?
Hanratty - That’s right, sir.
Swanwick - All lies?
Hanratty - That’s right, sir, yes.

as their son's evidence at the trial did not include any reference to an attempt to sell a gold watch in Rhyl it could not be considered

I don’t know how reliable this report is but it says “Hanratty said he remembered trying to sell a watch to a well built man in [the] High Street.”

[Natalie Severn]

Derrick -Yes indeed working on much of this from memory ....Larman was indeed in Australia and not in New Zealand and Callaghan was Home Secretary...not Prime Minister.
Massive case this and everything does need to be double checked.I noticed myself in another book on the case that Louis Blom -Cooper in fact changed his mind several times about his belief in Hanratty's innocence.For example in 1997 he had reverted back again to believing he had committed the crime.
Norma

[Derrick]

...Christopher Larman either who was in New Zealand]...Prime Minister Callaghan responded to a letter from Mr and Mrs Hanratty some time in 1967 or 1968...

Norma
It might help your case somewhat if you actually got the basic facts right on a regular basis.
Larman was in Australia and Harold Wilson was Prime Minister in 1967/8.

HTH
Del Boy

[Natalie Severn]

If Trevor Dutton’s evidence was significant, do you know why it wasn’t submitted for consideration by the Appellant in the 2002 Appeal?

Sherrard talks about the timing contradictions then says “the witness statements in other respects did not find support from Hanratty”, so he is referring to issues other than the timing.

Incidentally, something that strikes me about the papers you obtained is that Hanratty gave details about the Rhyl Alibi on 29 January 1962, and signed his instructions about it on that date. But Sherrard did not disclose the Rhyl Alibi to the police or the court until 4.30pm on 6 February – 8 days later.

You raise some excellent points Nick.Are you certain Sherrard did not disclose the alibi before 4.30 pm on 8th February?

re The Trevor Dutton evidence ;it was never even presented by Det Supt. Douglas Nimmo when he wrote up the report of his 1967 findings because he had never interviewed him - the reason why not being known .But his testimony was never given any serious consideration by the prosecution from the start [Nimmo didn't interview Christopher Larman either who was in New Zealand] . It has been noted that there were 19 names and addresses presented in all after 6th February 1962 as witnesses but Nimmo only took the trouble to interview 8 of these and according to Bob Woffinden there is no way of knowing from Nimmo's report exactly when all these names supplied to the defence were made e.g. were they all or most of them supplied while the trial was in progress for example ?
Returning to Trevor Dutton: Prime Minister Callaghan responded to a letter from Mr and Mrs Hanratty some time in 1967 or 1968 after Mr Dutton's 1961 statement to Abergele police became known, to say that[he is ignoring it basically ] as their 'son's evidence at the trial 'did not include any reference to an attempt to sell a gold watch in Rhyl it could not be considered " -and he adds a few more words along the lines of there being no reliable means of identification made by Mr Dutton anyway.
The point I would make here is that James Hanratty knew nothing whatever about Trevor Dutton's statement of 9th February to Abergele police and neither did Michael Sherrard because it was never passed on to him [he said ] so Hanratty could hardly have commented on it could he? He was also warned about the Rhyl witnesses Walker, Vincent and Larman since Sherrard was wary of their statements with regard to the 7.30 timings though he did submit their names to the Home Secretary 3 weeks before Hanratty was executed but no inquiry was ever made by any policeman or Home Office personnel of these three people to see whether their testimony,individually or collectively could substantiate the alibi.

[NickB]

Nick, Hanratty knew nothing whatever about Trevor Dutton's evidence

If Trevor Dutton’s evidence was significant, do you know why it wasn’t submitted for consideration by the Appellant in the 2002 Appeal?

Sherrard talks about the timing contradictions then says “the witness statements in other respects did not find support from Hanratty”, so he is referring to issues other than the timing.

Incidentally, something that strikes me about the papers you obtained is that Hanratty gave details about the Rhyl Alibi on 29 January 1962, and signed his instructions about it on that date. But Sherrard did not disclose the Rhyl Alibi to the police or the court until 4.30pm on 6 February – 8 days later.

[Natalie Severn]

Yes.


Even if you say Sherrard was mistaken about the contradictions in points 1 and 2, you cannot argue with him about point 3.

Nick,Hanratty knew nothing whatever about Trevor Dutton's evidence whose written witness statement ,made to Abergele Police on February 9th while trial was still in progress and forwarded to Acott in the last days of the trial but was never received by Sherrard or seen by him until Paul Foot got onto it.
Regarding Mrs Walker Sherrard according to Kleinman discounted her evidence at the final hour because of inconsistencies of timings [the 7.30 issue] which in my view was horrendous.Had he thoroughly analysed and investigated Mrs Walker's statement a propos of time , he would have seen the inconsistency in the street lamps coming on at 8.50 when she saw him and Margaret Walker's recollection of that event ,six months later as being 'around 7.30.As it was Sherrard apparently warned Hanratty not to 'go there' because neither she or Ivy Vincent or Christopher Larman could have seen him at 7.30

[Natalie Severn]

I am afraid that you can't simply discount the evidence which you find inconvenient.

[btw re your point about Sherrard---yes-he was terrified that if he used Margaret Walker she might end up being reduced to a nervous wreck by Swanwick as Mrs Jones had.Going into a witness box in a murder trial can cause nervous debility as it did with Charlotte France who fainted,Louise Anderson,who also fainted and Charles France who was put in the bin over it ,tried to jump out of the hospital window and shortly afterwards committed suicide.]

What on earth are you on about here Spitfire?

Lets be quite clear.I am quoting Louis Blom- Cooper who as a trained barrister analysed, in 1963 , the entire trial transcript and discovered many inconsistencies in the evidence .Of crucial importance to him was Valerie's evidence ,whose sole account of what happened was never corroborated by anyone . This is NOT to say Valerie was making things up or lying AT ALL. In America Psychiatrists and legal experts in past twenty years have profoundly affected legal procedure regarding victim's eye identification and memory loss+ flash back inaccuracies ,particularly when that victim has been as severely traumatised as Valerie undoubtedly was.Why not look it up on the net?

[NickB]

Had Hanratty given instructions which were manifestly at odds with the putative evidence of Larman, Walker and Vincent?

Yes.

In a letter to the Sunday Times on 30-Sep-68 Sherrard gave the reasons why “there was no point in seeking to rely on the evidence of Mr Larman, Mrs Walker and Mrs Vincent” at the Appeal.

1. Mutually contradictory features in the witness statements.
2. Contradictions between the witness statements and evidence already given by Hanratty.
3. “The witness statements in other respects did not find support from Hanratty himself.”

Even if you say Sherrard was mistaken about the contradictions in points 1 and 2, you cannot argue with him about point 3.

[Natalie Severn]

re The Rhyl bus---there was only one bus that went from Liverpool to Rhyl in the evening and it went from Liverpool Lime Street Station in 1961.

[Natalie Severn]

John Kerr, the very first witness to speak to Valerie Storie at the scene has always insisted that Valerie had said "We picked up a man near Slough " and :"He had big staring eyes, fairish brown hair,slightly taller than I am five foot three and a half inches."
Michael Clark who Valerie picked out as the A6 killer on the first ID parade stood 5 feet 9 inches tall ,[same height as Alphon who Valerie said she thought Michael Clark ' looked like' ] was 'well built' and had 'mousey brown hair' .
James Hanratty who Valerie picked out the second time round on an ID parade stood 5 feet 7 and a half tall and had dyed black hair that was going streaky on 22nd August.

So the first 'witness' who spoke to Valerie herself, although very briefly only partly corroborated Valerie's later accounts.

[Spitfire]

I am afraid that you can't simply discount the evidence which you find inconvenient. The jury heard that evidence and believed it was credible. They also heard the evidence of Mrs Jones and Hanratty and decided that it was not credible.

I am keen to know why Matthews was certain to that Hanratty was innocent, to the extent that non only had the prosecution not proved its case, but that on the balance of probabilities, Hanratty had not committed the crime.

I have given a timeline above which shows that the witnesses (Larman, Walker and Vincent) could have seen Hanratty in Rhyl at about 8.30 pm on 22 August 1961. It is true that there are gaps and inconsistencies as to time, but the basis of an alibi is there.

The question then arises as to why did Sherrard not seek to use this evidence at the appeal? Sherrard was in a better position than Matthews to analyse the evidence, as he had access to the direct instructions of Hanratty. Yet he chose not to call any fresh evidence at the appeal. Why? Had Hanratty given instructions which were manifestly at odds with the putative evidence of Larman, Walker and Vincent? Had Sherrard become mentally scarred with the ordeal of Mrs Jones? Did Sherrard come to the conclusion after Mrs Jones's disaster in the witness box, that Hanratty had not spent the nights of 22 and 23 August in Rhyl?

[Natalie Severn]

So what was France's criminal record like? You know, some actual real evidence!
KR,
Vic.

* Hanratty's words from the trial.

Thankyou Graham for the information you posted.

Here is some specific detail of the evidence asked by Victor re Charles France. France's original name was Charles Frederick Franz [a surname he anglicized to France].Louis Blom-Cooper was at a loss to understand why it was that Charles France,had this 'overweening guilt complex' and he asks,"Did France ,in fact, play some part in the events which led to the A6 killing?

Charles "Dixie' France:-

By the time James Hanratty was born in 1937 Charles 'Dixie' France [born 1919 ] had acquired 5 criminal convictions :two for larceny,one for selling fruit in a restricted place,one for being in unlawful possession of an overcoat and one for stealing lead from the roof of a block of unoccupied dwellings.*
During his twenties in WW2 he collected six further convictions, two for theft and three for ' frequenting a common gaming house'.There were additionally three post war convictions all for gambling offences.

Victor ,regarding your post accusing me of 'smearing Valerie' I was simply quoting a legal expert analysing Valerie's entire testimony; Louis Blom-Cooper Blom -Cooper was in fact a distinguished barrister and legal commentator and he impugned the entirety of her testimony .Blom-Cooper analysed a number of points of evidence,demonstrating for example how totally ludicrous the 'roadworks' evidence was and stating,crucially ,that "Once Storie's evidence was discounted,the only other evidence was Langdale's-[who was a notorious prison grass.]*-from Bob Woffinden,Hanratty :The Final Verdict.

PS Can we now have some 'concrete' evidence about Hanratty's role in the A6 murder rather than repeatedly smearing him and presenting us with your own prejudices and value judgements.

[Victor]

Hi Del,

Hanratty left 2 suitcases at Anderson's flat after he had returned from Ireland on or around the 9th September, some 16, or so, days after the gun was found on the bus. So your point is completely irrelevant,

"Completely irrelevant"? "Clearly demonstrated precedent" is more accurate.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

I am sorry, Victor.I am not trying to 'smear' Valerie, the surviving victim.

Thank you for the apology. On second thoughts, I would characterise this as unintentional "splash-damage" rather than "smearing".

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

With regard to the ID parades and Valerie's ultimate identification of Hanratty as the man who killed Michael Gregsten and raped and shot her, unsatisfactory though they may have been by modern standards, Hanratty's defence team didn't mount a challenge, and the trial judge made no remark concerning it. And of course the jury accepted Valerie's identification of Hanratty.

Graham