The attack on Swedish housewife Mrs Meike Dalal on Thursday, September 7th 1961

[caz]

Hanratty under severe stress as moments later Kleinman wrote rapid notes as Hanratty dictated what he could remember about a house you entered directly from the street , a green bath at the top ,hearing the noise of railways from his room , the paved courtyard at the back what he had paid and he assisted in a sketch which showed Kinmel Street leading to a cinema and a hump backed bridge-both still there...

...And as you well know there were 8 or 9 other people who remembered seeing Hanratty that night in Rhyl.

So why, oh why, did Hanratty not mention seeing or speaking with all these good, law-abiding people, and instead initially rely on fellow criminals in Liverpool to lie about him staying there and, when that went tits up because they were naturally deaf to his pleas, finally try desperately to describe an inanimate object - 'a house' - that had no ears, eyes or mouth to help him out? You claim to see inside his head, so what was he "finking"?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Just a decade earlier, John Christie wasn't allowed to get away with murder because the authorities didn't want to admit they may have hanged the wrong man, Timothy Evans.


Not the best analogy to choose in respect of Hanratty. John Christie was never charged with the murders of Mrs Evans and her daughter, so the guilt or innocence of Timothy Evans never surfaced as part of Christie’s trial. There was no need to do this, since Christie had enough dead bodies of his own to be going on with: two in his back garden, three in a kitchen cupboard, and his missus under the floorboards. So there was no problem convicting Christie, irrespective of any issue relating to the Evans case.
There are interesting links with the Hanratty case nonetheless.

1. Both executed men were around the same age, came from a similar background, and had a poor educational record.

2. In both cases potentially valuable evidence (the sheet written by Kerr and workmen’s time sheets from Rillington Place) was misplaced by the police.

3. Both men gave differing accounts of their movements in relation to the murders, which ultimately cost them dear.

4. In both cases another credible suspect emerged, although in Evans’ case his accusations against Christie were completely discredited at trial.

5. In both cases subsequent evidence emerged which would almost certainly have led to a different verdict. (Would a jury have convicted Evans had the police searched the back garden properly and found two corpses buried by Christie? Would a jury have convicted Hanratty if Alphon had given his Paris interview earlier?)

6. Both men proclaimed their innocence to the last, and asked their family to clear their name.

Hi cobalt,

An interesting post and I do take your point.

However, my own point was merely that Alphon must have been aware of the Evans and Christie cases and their outcomes, so if he had been guilty and Hanratty innocent, he couldn't have been 100% confident that his confessions would not come back to bite him - and indeed hang him - just because Hanratty had already been convicted of the crime. With overwhelming evidence for Alphon's involvement, he could have gone the same way as Evans, Christie and Hanratty. The authorities would not necessarily have admitted that Hanratty hadn't been involved in some capacity - but that would not have affected Alphon's fate either way.

Love,

Caz
X

[Derrick]

Really? I thought the family were convinced of their boy's innocence and wanted the chance to prove it, while the Crown would have taken the attitude "if it ain't broke...".

Here you make it sound like the family reluctantly agreed to the DNA tests, as if they suspected what the results would reveal.

Surely nobody on Hanratty's side was expecting the worst, while the Crown could hardly have banked in 2002 on flawed tests supporting the original conviction so convincingly.

Love,

Caz
X

Quite right.

Even in Woffinden's original edition of his documentary "Deadman's Hill" in 1992 he says, erroneously, that the DNA evidence is being withheld by the authorities.

The Crown would obviously, throughout, let sleeping dogs lie. I don't know where Norma has gotten her original idea from because I've never heard the defence camp be anything but in favour of the DNA tests.

[caz]

6]Mrs Jones remembered a man with different coloured hair from the bright orange hair he had in court.Wouldn't you unless you were extremely short sighted?Hanratty's hair on 22/23 August 1961 was died black and becoming streaky.In court he had dyed it bright orange--or rather it had turned out that way.

Not sure how this helps, Nats. Of course Mrs Jones would have remembered a man without bright orange hair, whether it was Hanratty before he dyed it that colour - presumably to make himself less recognisable to potential witnesses (odd, don't you think, if he was innocent and therefore needed those witnesses to recognise him again?) - or anyone else she'd seen who didn't sport dyed orange hair.

You might have a point if Mrs Jones stated the man she saw had "streaky looking dyed black hair". Did she?

11] One only rarely gets to see other guests .They come down at different times.
Hanratty wasn't sat out in the dining room with other guests having breakfast all at the same time-few of them were .Alexis Sayle's father for example was out at union conference from 7.30 am until late all the time he was there .Additionally Hanratty had to have his breakfast in the back room because they were full .

If Mr Sayle was out by 7.30 and they were full, there would have been a breakfast table free for Hanratty by 7.30, so why would he have had to eat in the back room unless he demanded his eggs and b at the bloomin' crack of dawn? Who was he, Lord Muck or petty thief?

Love,

Caz
X

[Derrick]

Thank you. That may or may not be right, but no one on behalf of the defence complained about the access afforded to the defence for the purposes of observing the tests. I therefore have assumed that the defence was happy with the observation arrangements.

Not quite sure what point, if any, you are trying to make but the defence would, because they had made a submission for appeal, be party to the ongoing investigations by;
Firstly: up until March 1997 - Section C3 of the Home Office.
Then: after March 1997 - The CCRC.

After the CCRC had referred the case back to the CACD in March 1999 the defence had no business in the Crown's own investigations which were carried out by the Metropolitan Police, who spent another 3 years apparently doing that.

Anything the defence wanted to comment on thereafter (March 1999) would have to be done during the appeal hearing itself.

But this was unique because the Crown had never before adduced fresh evidence of their own at a hearing by the CACD.

HTH
Del

[caz]

Quite right.

Even in Woffinden's original edition of his documentary "Deadman's Hill" in 1992 he says, erroneously, that the DNA evidence is being withheld by the authorities.

The Crown would obviously, throughout, let sleeping dogs lie. I don't know where Norma has gotten her original idea from because I've never heard the defence camp be anything but in favour of the DNA tests.

Cheers, Del. I thought I was going slightly mad there for a while.

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

1] This is so inaccurate Graham.I am surprised tbh

Inaccurate in what way, Nats?

Graham

[Derrick]

No he didn't, Nats. Mr Kempt actually said, "I have no idea of the day, date or month, except that it was in the evening time".

Oh yes he did pal.

He said that he couldn't remember the exact date but that it was before he went away on holiday on the 26th August!

You really ought to get your facts straight against the evidence given in this case!

[Derrick]

Well now, Mr Moste. In the case of Mrs Dinwoodie, it was a representative of the law, a DC Pugh of Liverpool Police, who showed Mrs D just the one photo of our Jim.

In the case of Mrs Jones, it was a representative of Hanratty's defence-team, one Mr Joseph Gillbanks, who made a similar mistake on 6 February 1962.

So I take it from this that you reckon Hanratty was stitched up by his own defence-team??? I'd read some books on the case, if I were you.

Graham

Mr Gillbanks, who you know very well from the books that you have read, was a copper for over 30 years.

[Derrick]

...You might have a point if Mrs Jones stated the man she saw had "streaky looking dyed black hair". Did she?..

Did Miss Storie? Did any of the Redbridge witnesses?

And another point. Why did Hanratty have his streaky hair redyed to pretty much the same colour it had been just before the time of the A6 murder by Miss France the weekend after it?

Why did he wait until some 6 weeks later when the old bill were after him to get rid of that tint done by Carole France after the A6 murder?

The whole ******* country knew by the 11th October that the man wanted by the old bill for the A6 job dyed his hair.

Those were the circumstances in which Hanratty was picked out in the identity parades. The way he spoke was also important as he was the only Londoner on the parade and no-one had prepared a parade for vocal recognition.

Del

[NickB]

Even in Woffinden's original edition of his documentary "Deadman's Hill" in 1992 he says, erroneously, that the DNA evidence is being withheld by the authorities.

Even on 31st May 1999 (just before the mother and brother results) Woffinden was still in favour of the tests, expecting that they would exonerate Hanratty. He said in an obituary for Fox: “It is a great sadness that he will not be here for the final denouement in the Hanratty case.”

[Derrick]

Even on 31st May 1999 (just before the mother and brother results) Woffinden was still in favour of the tests, expecting that they would exonerate Hanratty. He said in an obituary for Fox: “It is a great sadness that he will not be here for the final denouement in the Hanratty case.”

The CCRC had already referred R vs Hanratty back to the CACD in March 1999.

The DNA testing on Hanratty's mother and brother had occurred in the previous year at the latest, and the results had already been disclosed to the CCRC.

Your point now is what? Just a quote from BW re: JF? Touching!

[NickB]

Hanratty, it should be clearly understood, all but hanged himself when he changed his alibi.

You could say that, but his defence team had told him that he faced hanging if he pursued the Liverpool alibi.

"I want to make this quite clear; it was put to me the other day that if I did not tell the names and addresses of the three men at Liverpool my life was at stake."

[Graham]

You could say that, but his defence team had told him that he faced hanging if he pursued the Liverpool alibi.

"I want to make this quite clear; it was put to me the other day that if I did not tell the names and addresses of the three men at Liverpool my life was at stake."

Indeed so, Nick. It was suggested that Hanratty might be taken under guard to Liverpool to locate the flat in which he said he'd stayed with friends, as Gillbanks was unable to find it. Sherrard added the rider that, if he was taken to Liverpool and could not find the flat, he 'would be lost'.

Graham

[moste]

Mr Gillbanks, who you know very well from the books that you have read, was a copper for over 30 years.

Hey ,I was just about to say the same thing.
Anyway, not wishing to dodge the simple question put by Graham ...After reading many of the books available on this case, including slogging through Mr.Harrimans The DNA travesty book, and of course reading attentively to all the learned people on this wonderful site I came to the inescapable conclusion (for me at any rate) that there is a conspiracy involved here.