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

[Graham]

Yes,but sometimes I wonder if a sort of 'displacement anxiety' was in operation. OMG WHAT?!? WANTED FOR MURDER NOW? What's all that about then?
So instead of Hanratty attending to the really serious charge of murder he attends to the much less serious 'wanted for burglary 'and fixes his mind on avoiding the police at any cost in case he gets put inside for burglary for five years!

Strange, isn't it, that when myself and others suggested that Hanratty, altough guilty, went into denial with regard to the crime, we were poo-poohed as talking a load of nonsense.

Gut,

But what doesn't make sense to me (and I am pretty sure the jury) is if the Liverpool alibi was true, why not stick to it? If the Rhyl alibi was true why not use it n the first place. If neither were true well he has no alibi, I suspect that this basic reasoning sent him to the gallows

This is what I've been saying for years. Had JH stuck to the Liverpool alibi, even though his 'mates' couldn't be traced and/or turned their backs on him, this would at least have sowed a seed of doubt, however small, in the minds of the jury - I'm certain of that. Valerie's i.d. aside, the evidence against Hanratty was mostly circumstantial - even the hankie around the gun could have been explained as a fit up by someone with a grudge against him. The Rhyl 'alibi' was I think what really put the noose around his neck, as his presence in Rhyl at the crucial time has never been proved. I'm still totally certain that Hanratty was guilty.

BTW, the case of Tony Mancini was described as the greatest ever defence against a charge of murder. True though that might be, the fact is that Mancini claimed to have discovered his girl-friend's body, and neither the police, the forensics (under Sir Bernard Spilsbury himself, no less) nor the prosecution were able to prove to the court's satisfaction that he hadn't found the body, as he claimed.

Graham

[GUT]

Can I put it this way if I was his brief, I'd have kicked the cat when I got home after that change, because he was as good as done, unless he came out with a darn good explanation for the change and we all know he didn't.

[NickB]

When Sherrard said a better defence lawyer would not have given Hanratty the chance to change his alibi, I think this indicates he did ‘kick the cat’.

He went on to say: “The whole balance of the case had been altered by the late alibi”.

[GUT]

When Sherrard says a better defence lawyer would not have given Hanratty the chance to change his alibi, I think this indicates he did ‘kick the cat’.

suspect you are right there.

Probably also threw his wig at the wall.

[uncle_adolph]

But what doesn't make sense to me (and I am pretty sure the jury) is if the Liverpool alibi was true, why not stick to it? If the Rhyl alibi was true why not use it n the first place. If neither were true well he has no alibi, I suspect that this basic reasoning sent him to the gallows.

But the whole point was that the "friends in Liverpool" alibi was a complete fabrication given (correct me if I am wrong here) when he first spoke to Acott in the previous October. It was a totally giveaway alibi....rather like these "I was at home watching TV" alibis you see on reality police shows where the accused doesn't give it a moments thought. He probably thought it would never come to his being arrested and put on trial for murder, that it would all somehow go away but he just got in too deep. And then when he did come forward with the Rhyl alibi....well, it was too late and the damage was done.

If he'd used the Rhyl alibi from the start, well, with more time available and the supposed sightings he might well have been found not guilty notwithstanding Mrs Jones performance in the witness box. But I don't think being truthful (assuming it was) ever crossed his mind.

PS Enjoyed being on here the last few days having re-found this forum. Amazing how this case lives on! But will be away on hols the next two weeks....hence the impending silence.

[Graham]

Hanratty did actually know at least one person in Liverpool, a man called Terence McNally whom Hanratty had met in prison in 1957 (or so he said). McNally admitted to Gillbanks that he did indeed know Hanratty, but refused to offer any further assistance stating that, quote, 'if Hanratty is not willing to open up, why should I?' (I have never quite understood this statement, TBH).
Gillbanks also interviewed Francis Healey who had also met Hanratty in prison; he lived in a flat in the Bull Ring, which is where Hanratty initially claimed he had spent the night of 22 August, but Gillbanks concluded that Hanratty did not stay there that night. It was actually Gillbanks who suggested to Sherrard via Kleinmann that Hanratty should be taken under guard to Liverpool to point out the flat. It was further arranged to serve a sub poena upon Mcnally, who apparently hit the roof and stated that he had not met Hanratty since 1958 when they were in Lewes Prison together. He also said that during the week commencing 21 August he as working the 7.00am - 3.00pm shift at Dunlop Rubber and was at his work every day of that week. With that Gillbanks gave up on further inquiries in Liverpool.

Graham

[Limehouse]

Is it worth mentioning, once again, that several weeks before the events of that August night Hanratty told a girlfriend that he was 'going up to Liverpool soon'. He also told Frances' wife that he was 'going to Liverpool to see his aunt'. He did indeed have an aunt in Liverpool. In reality, of course, he wanted to off-load some loot from various robberies because he had been unable to get a decent price in London (or, perhaps, the gear was 'too hot' to sell in London?'.

It is clear then that Hanratty certainly intended to visit Liverpool at around the time of the incident. This means there are perhaps three possibilities:

1. He went to Liverpool as briefly and then went on to Rhyl.
2. He went to Liverpool and did not go on to Rhyl but claimed he did because no one in Liverpool would vouch for him.
3. He claimed he was going to Liverpool in order to claim an alibi for a crime he knew he was going to commit - this puts a whole new complexion on the events that night.

As it is no secret that I do not believe he was guilty of the crime, I believe he planned the visit to Liverpool and indeed he went to Liverpool and then to Rhyl.

People claiming the Liverpool alibi was a complete fiction should consider the fact that he had told people in advance he was making this trip and the likely reason for that is that he fully intended to take the trip.

I don't think I am making much sense here. Does anyone know what I am trying to say??

[Graham]

Hi Julie,

JH was in Liverpool in July. On 23 July he pinched a car which he abandoned (along with a friend who went with him) in Shrewsbury, and then hitched to Cardiff where he got a National Insurance card. From there he hitched to Rhyl where he got a job on the dodgems at the fairground. Here he met Terry Evans and spent the night at his house, but then disappeared with a pair of shows Evans had lent him, as by now Hanratty was quite literally on his uppers. From Rhyl he hitched to Liverpool from where he worked his way back to London.

I'm not sure of the purpose of this entire expedition, but as far as I can tell he made no contact with his 'friends' in Liverpool, and had no stolen goods to fence. If he did have an aunt in Liverpool, it would seem he didn't contact her during his visit in July. However, it seems highly likely that he used recollections of his visits to Rhyl and to Liverpool to construct his alibis.

Graham

[GUT]

Is it worth mentioning, once again, that several weeks before the events of that August night Hanratty told a girlfriend that he was 'going up to Liverpool soon'. He also told Frances' wife that he was 'going to Liverpool to see his aunt'. He did indeed have an aunt in Liverpool. In reality, of course, he wanted to off-load some loot from various robberies because he had been unable to get a decent price in London (or, perhaps, the gear was 'too hot' to sell in London?'.

It is clear then that Hanratty certainly intended to visit Liverpool at around the time of the incident. This means there are perhaps three possibilities:

1. He went to Liverpool as briefly and then went on to Rhyl.
2. He went to Liverpool and did not go on to Rhyl but claimed he did because no one in Liverpool would vouch for him.
3. He claimed he was going to Liverpool in order to claim an alibi for a crime he knew he was going to commit - this puts a whole new complexion on the events that night.

As it is no secret that I do not believe he was guilty of the crime, I believe he planned the visit to Liverpool and indeed he went to Liverpool and then to Rhyl.

People claiming the Liverpool alibi was a complete fiction should consider the fact that he had told people in advance he was making this trip and the likely reason for that is that he fully intended to take the trip.

I don't think I am making much sense here. Does anyone know what I am trying to say??

Totally clear to me.

[Natalie Severn]

That hypothesis has some merit.

However by the start of his trial he "HAD" to know he was in trouble.

agreed but it dawned on him too late to change the original story he told to Acott on the first day he rang him.

[Graham]

Hi again Julie,

1. He went to Liverpool as briefly and then went on to Rhyl.
2. He went to Liverpool and did not go on to Rhyl but claimed he did because no one in Liverpool would vouch for him.
3. He claimed he was going to Liverpool in order to claim an alibi for a crime he knew he was going to commit - this puts a whole new complexion on the events that night.

or 4. He abducted Gregsten and Storie on the evening of Tuesday 22 August, committed murder, rape and attempted murder, then drove back to London during the 23 August where he abandoned the car. What he did, and where he stayed, on the evening/night of 23 August and the morning of 24 August is not known and probably never will be, but on Thursday 24 August at about 8.30pm he sent a telegram to Dixie France from Liverpool, so we do know that he had arrived in Liverpool at some time prior to that.

That's the simple truth of the matter as I see it.

Graham

[Sherlock Houses]

As it is no secret that I do not believe he was guilty of the crime, I believe he planned the visit to Liverpool and indeed he went to Liverpool and then to Rhyl.

People claiming the Liverpool alibi was a complete fiction should consider the fact that he had told people in advance he was making this trip and the likely reason for that is that he fully intended to take the trip.

I don't think I am making much sense here. Does anyone know what I am trying to say??

You are indeed making sense, Limehouse. He told his friend Ann Pryce and the Frances that Monday [21st] that he was going to Liverpool. He obviously planned to be away for several days hence the reason for Charlotte France laundering his dirty clothing and then packing his brown pigskin case with enough clothes to last 5 days. And Liverpool, lo and behold, was the very place where several witnesses placed him and corroborated his story in such an impressive way.

The reason for Hanratty's trip seems fairly obvious. He had known contacts in Liverpool such as McNally and Aspinall, ex-fellow prisoners who in all likelihood would be able to help him offload some of the stolen jewellery, particularly the expensive gold watch. He probably reasoned also that it would be much safer trying to sell such 'hot' items well away from London. If unsuccessful in Liverpool there was always the option of travelling the 40 or 50 miles to Rhyl to meet up again with Terry Evans, with whom he'd struck up an instant friendship 4 weeks earlier. There was no great rush for the itchy-footed Hanratty to get back to London, he had a suitcase full of clean clothes and the added attraction of yet another fairground.

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie,

JH was in Liverpool in July. On 23 July he pinched a car which he abandoned (along with a friend who went with him) in Shrewsbury, and then hitched to Cardiff where he got a National Insurance card. From there he hitched to Rhyl where he got a job on the dodgems at the fairground. Here he met Terry Evans and spent the night at his house, but then disappeared with a pair of shows Evans had lent him, as by now Hanratty was quite literally on his uppers. From Rhyl he hitched to Liverpool from where he worked his way back to London.

I'm not sure of the purpose of this entire expedition, but as far as I can tell he made no contact with his 'friends' in Liverpool, and had no stolen goods to fence. If he did have an aunt in Liverpool, it would seem he didn't contact her during his visit in July. However, it seems highly likely that he used recollections of his visits to Rhyl and to Liverpool to construct his alibis.

Graham

Hello Graham,

Yes, I agree with all of the above. However, after this trip, he told his girlfriend he was going to Liverpool soon. I don't have my notes handy, but I think it was around August 14.

Don't forget, also, that Mrs France washed and ironed all his laundry in preparation for the journey he told her he was about to take.

So, either he knew he was going to need an alibi in advance - or he fully intended to go to Liverpool - or somewhere.

I seem to making more sense to myself this morning.

[Limehouse]

Hi again Julie,


or 4. He abducted Gregsten and Storie on the evening of Tuesday 22 August, committed murder, rape and attempted murder, then drove back to London during the 23 August where he abandoned the car. What he did, and where he stayed, on the evening/night of 23 August and the morning of 24 August is not known and probably never will be, but on Thursday 24 August at about 8.30pm he sent a telegram to Dixie France from Liverpool, so we do know that he had arrived in Liverpool at some time prior to that.

That's the simple truth of the matter as I see it.

Graham

A possibility indeed - so did he know in advance he was going to do the above and therefore made sure a few people in advance knew about his trip to Liverpool so that he would have an alibi? Or, did he fully intend to go to Liverpool and at the last minute, obtained a gun and wandered out to the Berkshire countryside? If the latter is the case, it's a very strange thing to do and not at all in keeping with Hanratty's previous method of working.

I think the 'simple truth' is very hard to detect in this crime!

[Limehouse]

I think there may have been considerable naivety from both Hanratty and Sherrard.

Hanratty was familiar with borstal and prison, yet seemed to believe that British justice could not, or maybe would not, hang an innocent man; I am sure many of those he met on his travels would have told a different tale. Here was a compulsive criminal who actually believed in British Justice. As the trial developed, he realised with increasing concern what others had learned before him.

As for Sherrard, to believe that a plea for clemency was possible is incomprehensible. I can appreciate that he had to utilise every mechanism available to his client, but surely he did not hold back certain lines of defence in the hope of a reprieve, as some have suggested on this site. The guilt or innocence of Hanratty has always been there to be argued: but the ultimate punishment for the man deemed guilty of the crime committed at Deadman's Hill could never have been in any doubt.

I that's spot on cobalt. He did indeed believe he could not possibly be found guilty of a crime of such magnitude when he was, in fact, innocent.