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

[GUT]

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.

So he's been inside and doesn't realise that innocent people get convicted.

[Graham]

There are so many permutations, question-marks, doubts and un-truths about both the Liverpool and Rhyl 'alibis' that you could quite rapidly go nuts trying to fathom them all out. As a believer in JH's guilt, I think the following is probably just about what actually happened with regard to the Liverpool part of JH's story:

- JH said he made a mistake and went to Paddington instead of Euston station on the morning of 22 August. This is odd, as he had taken the train to Liverpool on several previous occasions and therefore knew it started from Euston. (As it happens, Paddington is the London station for trains to Slough and Maidenhead, and also Taplow, a stone's throw from the cornfield).

- JH's stated train times were wrong.

- JH claimed he shared a compartment all the way to Liverpool (about 5 hours) with a number of people he described, including the famous 'clerky gent'. No-one came forward to confirm this.

- JH claimed he went to the left luggage at Lime Street. The evidence given by the two men who worked there was confused and contadictory, and rejected by Sherrard who felt that they 'wanted to get in on the act'. (They weren't the only ones.....)

- JH said he went to a sweet-shop to ask directions to Carlton, Tarleton Avenue or whatever. This, he claimed, is where his contact Aspinall lived.
Enter Mrs Dinwoodie, who was only trying to be helpful, but was mistaken, and her evidence is worthless thanks to an officer of Liverpool Police who showed her just one photo - that of Hanratty, which she identified as the man who came in to ask directions. However, she later said she thought the man was Scottish or Welsh....

- No-one called Aspinall was ever identified.

- Mr Kempt remembered a man coming to him on the steps of his billiard hall, but couldn't be specific about the date. He went on holiday on 26 August - JH was definitely in Liverpool on the 24th, so it is highly likely that this is the date Mr Kempt saw him or someone like him. JH also said that Mr Kempt was a well-known figure in Lime Street, and that he'd seen him prior to this incident.

- JH claimed he failed to locate his Liverpool contacts on the 22 August or thereafter. Yet, when he knew he was suspected of the A6 murder and fled to Liverpool on 7 October, he quite easily found his contacts (presumably McNally and Healey, perhaps others) and offered them £250 to provide with a credible alibi for the night of 22 August. They refused. Well, I would have too.

There is simply no credible or concrete evidence to support JH's claim that he was in Liverpool at the time of the A6 crime. Then, of course, the scene shifts to Rhyl......

Graham

-

[Natalie Severn]

Clearing up the myths about Hanratty

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.

.

Hi Cobalt,
Hanratty never went near Borstal he finished his education at St James Catholic School at the age of 14 years and nine months which was the age most working class children left school [90%].He was born to caring parents .He worked [unhappily]for a year sorting rubbish at Wembley Council where his father worked as a dustman .It was during this time he fell from his bicycle and landed on is head and was hospitalised which appears to have given rise to his exasperation with his lot as he ran away from home soon after, though he did return to take a regular job for 3 years at a Wembley Park firm that made breeze blocks.
Hanratty's criminal career ,as recorded, did not begin until he was 18 when he was put on probation for a year for taking and driving away a car without consent or insurance.It was towards the end of his probation period for this that he was charged with his first offence for housebreaking and stealing of property. This happened after he had found his way to SOHO and was excited by the allure of its bright lights ,girlie shows and seedy glamour which seduced this 17 year old 'child' by modern legal definition who found he could obtain 'easy money' too for stylish clothing and eventually a sports car which he drove for just a week or two .A child who had left school at 14 without any qualifications ,found a few years later he could earn fast money gambling . Dog racing ,playing the tables etc etc .He said however that at this time he was 'tutored' by Charles France in 'bits and pieces' [small jewellery and silver items fenced and sold to Antique dealers like Louise Anderson and William Ewer]. France was also an ace rummy player but he had acquired 5 criminal convictions by the age of 20 mostly for stealing and earned 6 more convictions during the war when Hanratty was still only a toddler . Hanratty told his lawyer,"I met him when I was a teenager and didn't know the ropes .I had lots of dealings in bits and pieces.He was more experienced." and " He learned me previous occasions when I was younger .This though appears to have begun his 'training' as a small time crook 'specialising' in jewellery and silver .He later of course received post graduate ' training between the ages of 18 and 24 in crime 'in prison from seasoned criminals.He was in and out of prison for the next 5 or 6 years for theft and burglary.He was found guilty in four separate trials and sentenced to three separate terms of imprisonment.
These are the facts about his schooling and criminal background which be found both in Foot and Woffinden's books.
re the word 'compulsive'I wonder if this is accurate.Do you mean in the 'OCD' sense or in the sense of 'as a way of life' ?

[Natalie Severn]

Graham, I have just noticed your above post and agree the 'diversion' to Paddington is puzzling.But I really do think he may well have been calling on Louise Anderson's that morning to collect 'bits and pieces' from her flat which was just round the corner from Paddington Station.
Louise Anderson lived in Paddington just a 2 minute's walk from Paddington Station and Hanratty lived at both Anderson's and France's flat throughout August .So I sometimes wonder if he went back there either to collect some of the 'bits and pieces' left in his cases or to collect similar stuff he had left in a Paddington Station locker -just round the corner from Louise Anderson's ?
He possibly wanted these extras to sell in Liverpool or Rhyl-Rhyl being where ,only a month before, Terry Evans agreed he could find people who would buy it or fence it for him .Remember he told the police about his cases being at Louise Anderson's saying they were free to take the cases and search them which they did].
p.s. no good asking the obvious about why , if that was the case, he never told the police that ?.... somehow so typical of his misguided reasoning and obfuscations -the telling of 'half truths' and other dodges about.

[Spitfire]

My reading of the case would suggest that Hanratty phoned Acott three times, twice on 6th and once on 7th October. On the first two occasions Hanratty did not mention his Liverpool alibi, it was only on the last phone call that he disclosed that (a) that Liverpool was where he was phoning from and (b) that was where he had been on the night of 22nd August 1961. He also phoned the Daily Mirror on the 6th and did not mention his Liverpool alibi.

I conclude that Hanratty decided upon his Liverpool alibi after much thought, rather than as being 'blurted out' as has been suggested above.

That Hanratty had mentioned to several of his acquaintances his intention to travel to Liverpool earlier in August is a factor which is in his favour. Yet the force of this is much reduced by the paucity of any corroborative evidence of Hanratty's Liverpool excursion. Also if Hanratty had been planning an armed robbery, then he would have wanted to deflect suspicion away from himself by putting the word about that was not in the London area.

The abduction of Gregsten and Storie was unplanned, but Hanratty did intend some criminal activity with his newly acquired shooter.

[Graham]

Another point regarding JH's earlier misdemeanors is that he was sentenced in March 1958 to three years corrective training (CT) and because of unsatisfactory behaviour he earned no remission and served every single day of his sentence. Valerie said that the gunman told her that he'd done CT and 'done the lot', meaning the entire sentence. I believe he was one of only half a dozen people around that time who had to serve their entire CT sentence.

Graham

[caz]

Its my personal belief that Hanratty was still confident he could prove his innocence right up to the day he told Sherrard about the Rhyl alibi. He bluffed his way through because he never thought he would be found guilty ---neither did any of the journalists or bookmakers btw who were following the trial!

Hi Nats,

So those following the trial thought he would be acquitted? How does that work with modern accusations that the trial was deliberately and unfairly skewed against him by the authorities? How were the journalists and bookmakers (seriously? bookmakers?) so thoroughly fooled, and how was the jury 'got at' to produce the desired verdict without these interested parties noticing anything untoward? Subliminal messages perhaps?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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?

I don't know, Del. Why do you think he did this? If the real gunman didn't dye his hair, Hanratty should have been in the clear if he had obviously streaky dyed black hair on the night of the murder and was in Rhyl for anyone there to see 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?

Why did he fix what wasn't broke? The police were after Hanratty for other reasons, not because anyone had described the gunman as having streaky dyed black hair. In fact, your whole argument is that the gunman was someone else, who presumably didn't sport dyed hair. What did Hanratty think he had to fear, whether he went back to black, or changed to orange or sky blue pink?

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

Did they? Could you explain how they knew this? And if this was the case, would it not have been wiser for Hanratty to shave it all off or crop it very short and start growing his natural colour back quick sharp? You can't hang someone for it.

Those were the circumstances in which Hanratty was picked out in the identity parades.

Right, so Valerie picked out Hanratty partly because he was the only one with an obvious dye job and she was aware this applied to the latest police suspect (even though she hadn't noticed her attacker had dyed hair)? How on earth did this get past the defence team, or did they object in the most strenuous fashion?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor

12:00AM BST 18 Oct 2000

THE body of James Hanratty, who was hanged in 1962 for the notorious A6 murder, should be exhumed in the interests of justice, three Appeal Court judges said yesterday.

James Hanratty: exhumation would be 'rather a pointless exercise', said the family's solicitor

The Crown believes that DNA tests on Hanratty will provide conclusive proof that he shot and killed the scientist Michael Gregsten and raped and shot Valerie Storie, his mistress, leaving her for dead. Hanratty's relatives have always maintained his innocence and claimed that DNA tests on trial exhibits linking him to the crime were unreliable and should be disregarded.

Members of his family did not oppose yesterday's appeal by the Crown Prosecution Service, although Tamsin Allen, their solicitor, said the exhumation was "rather a pointless exercise". However, Hanratty's aunt is buried in the same plot at Carpenders Park cemetery in Watford, Hertfordshire, and her daughter objected to the grave being disturbed.

After a brief hearing in the Court of Appeal, Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, sitting with Mrs Justice Steel and Mr Justice Richards, concluded that Hanratty's exhumation would be "desirable" in the interests of justice. Prosecution lawyers will now ask Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, formally to authorise the exhumation in advance of a new appeal hearing against the safety of Hanratty's conviction, expected to be heard next May.

I'm not entirely surprised the exhumation was called "rather a pointless exercise" after the initial DNA tests suggested he was linked to the crime after all. Had those initial tests gone the other way, but still left a question mark, I'd have expected the family's solicitor to push for the exhumation to remove it for good.

I think the point is that before any DNA tests were done, Hanratty's defenders were the ones who most wanted to see them done, and would have stood by any favourable result at all costs. They most certainly would not have gone on to play the 'unreliable' card, or been happy with any argument for favourable tests being 'disregarded'.

If the tests really needed to be disregarded, they could not have been used to clear Hanratty any more than to confirm his guilt.

Love,

Cynical Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

Another point regarding JH's earlier misdemeanors is that he was sentenced in March 1958 to three years corrective training (CT) and because of unsatisfactory behaviour he earned no remission and served every single day of his sentence. Valerie said that the gunman told her that he'd done CT and 'done the lot', meaning the entire sentence. I believe he was one of only half a dozen people around that time who had to serve their entire CT sentence.

Graham

Thanks Graham the CT remark is of interest but as far as I am concerned its just as likely to be part of an attempt by the gunman to emulate Hanratty who was conveniently out of the way supposedly in Liverpool .Look,so much of Valerie's account of what the gunman said to her is such a mismatch - suggesting a family upbringing quite unlike Hanratty's and a journey through the education system punctured by nonsense about being in Borstal and 'institutions' - very far from the truth about his schooling in an ordinary Catholic school until the age of 14 years 9 months.
Yes, no question, Hanratty had been in jail since he was a teenager his first offence in 1954 at the age of 16 was of taking a motor bike without the owner's consent.The second was in 1955 for housebreaking .He was placed on remand and by the time the case reached court on October 6 he had 4 more counts of housebreaking to take into account. He was still ,by current law, a child and he tried to commit suicide at this point.He was released in 1957 but by July was stealing cars and abandoning them again with a pal a few times.Four months in Walton Prison Liverpool followed .In 1958 more stealing of cars .This time the sentence was severe : Three years of corrective training CT . It seems clear to me that Hanratty suffered not only from the learning difficulties apparent at his Catholic school -where the nuns remembered him fondly , but also with possible mental health problems in the sense of having both ADHD [Attention deficit disorder ] that continued whether confined in prison ,something teachers are trained to look out for in teenagers in particular but in all children nowadays,who,like Hanratty are inattentive and who have been reprimanded or punished on frequent occasions .
Hanratty continued to commit offences - breaking into a store and running away twice from prison so that by his 19th birthday 58 of his 66 month sentence had elapsed.
Nevertheless none of Valerie's descriptions of the account the gunman gave her, of his history - other than the CT stuff match Hanratty's career either at school or in prison. Hanratty was attracted to fast cars and pretty young girls as well as the seedy side of life in SOHO .He was also an expert at stealing them and driving them away which is why I don't believe this Soho loving 24 year old with a series of pretty girls lined up wanting to give evidence on his behalf -saying what a 'kind sweet 'gentlemanly' young man' he was to them, had taken such an overwhelming fancy to Valerie Storie, an attractive young woman it's quite true true,but hardly his type to the extent he was so overcome by raw lust that he was prepared to commit murder and rape over her , arriving in Taplow by train in a sweat of lust , gun and 25 cases of ammunition in hand.
And how come nobody,not a single person , ever saw Hanratty or anyone else making their way to that cornfield? This young man in his new Sunday best suit heading in an uncontrolled lather to a cornfield in the middle of country fields ,with a handkerchief tied mask -like over his face ?Nobody ever saw Hanratty or the gunman enter that field .Why not if he walked there from the station?
So again I wonder ,may not Gregsten and Valerie ,after their 'map reading' session and kiss and cuddle was over and as it grew dark in the field ,begun driving through Slough towards Valerie's house to drop her off there when Gregsten 'stopped to pick up a man? "
Those were Valerie's first words apparently ....'we picked up a man in Slough' -made first to John Kerr and a little later ,according to a police officer they picked up a man in Slough who was thumbing a lift- presumably in the dark?

[caz]

Mrs Jones' daughter gave an interview on television explaining that her mum was full that week and would have told Hanratty that he could only stay in the attic room which was private and for which he paid 12 shillings and sixpence

here are extracts from the notes Hanratty dictated minutes after telling Sherrard about Rhyl in the midst of his trial for murder on 29th January 1962 at Bedford Jail :
Hanratty's answers in following way on being questioned by Kleinman his solicitor :
[Questions -what did he have with him and what was he wearing and who answered the door to him ?

Answers -that he had with him when he arrived at the guest house the little leather hyde case and that he was wearing the double breasted striped suit . The landlady answered the door who was about 50 and like his mother.
[he asks her if he can leave the case and he would pick it up later ]
I originally booked for one night and then booked for another

Asked if he could describe the house he gives the following:
Front of house was living room;green bath surround,sink green to match ,bath not enclosed.
stated that in the bedroom was a small sink.

This suggest to me that he may have stayed in the attic room first -which was the overflow room but that when a room became free the following night he stayed in the room with the sink
2 tables in room at back where I had breakfast -describes breakfast etc etc only saw the woman in the house-did not see the man---this then was what they had to go on + a surprisingly accurate map attached of the road the house was in.
[I myself once stayed in an 'over flow ' private room in a B&B in Stratford on Avon arriving rather late on way back from parents in North Wales .I was asked to pay cash as they didn't normally rent the room out etc]

I'm sorry Nats, but none of that actually addressed my question, which was:

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?

You said Hanratty would not have seen much of the other guests, and made the point that this included Mr Sayle because he was gone by 7.30 am. Are you suggesting there was a rigid system when it came to allocating breakfast tables to specific guests, but not when it came to putting them up in an otherwise private attic room?

Also, did Hanratty himself claim to change rooms for his second night, or is this pure speculation to make his account fit the facts better? Would anyone directly involved have forgotten this change of rooms had it actually happened that way?

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

My reading of the case would suggest that Hanratty phoned Acott three times, twice on 6th and once on 7th October. On the first two occasions Hanratty did not mention his Liverpool alibi, it was only on the last phone call that he disclosed that (a) that Liverpool was where he was phoning from and (b) that was where he had been on the night of 22nd August 1961. He also phoned the Daily Mirror on the 6th and did not mention his Liverpool alibi.

Spitfire you are mistaken here .Please read the following conversation between Barry Harding,the Mirror's assistant news editor who took Hanratty's call on the 6th October .He rang the mirror almost at once after speaking to Acott.This is the exchange he had with him:

Hanratty: I am innocent,but I cannot give myself up to the police .I can prove I was in London on the Monday and I went to Liverpool on the Tuesday morning. The murder was on a Tuesday wasn't it?

Barry Harding Have you got an alibi?

Hanratty Yes I was there doing business with some friends.I can't involve them for various reasons .
Daily Mirror October 7th ,1961

[Natalie Severn]

I'm sorry Nats, but none of that actually addressed my question, which was:

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?
X

Hi Caz,According to the daughter of Mrs Jones in a filmed interview with Panorama [I think it was Panorama ]Hanratty ate breakfast in their quarters She said her mother was not supposed to let the attic bathroom with its bed in it as a B&B room -it was against B&B regulations and whenever she did it was due to being full and people being unable to find anything else .Such guests she said would breakfast in their private quarters but were expected to vacate the B&B during the daytime.She added her mother let such guests know this and never insisted they take it, she said-far from it as it was used as a bedroom from time to time by the family themselves .

On the question of where he slept I have already answered this question a few posts back Caz, viz he implied to Kleinman he paid first twelve and sixpence then decided to stay another night and gave her another twelve and sixpence.All this was said on 29th January 1962 while his trial was going on to a profoundly shocked defence.But in these hurried notes taken by Kleinman ,is the Implicit suggestion that he was up in the 'attic' room at the top of the house with the green bath -otherwise how did he know about it? but also ,again implicit rather than spelt out ,that he had stayed in a room with a sink -not the attic room. However when Swanwick made his full onslaught on Hanratty's replies it threw his presence of mind--he said so in court-I am confused,I can't remember I have stayed in so many B&B"s -and just as Swanwick's style threw Mrs Jones so did it throw him and he resorted to blurting out inaccurate blustery replies.

[NickB]

Barry Harding Have you got an alibi?

Hanratty Yes I was there doing business with some friends.I can't involve them for various reasons .
Daily Mirror October 7th ,1961

And of course Hanratty disputed the police record of the Friday night phone call, saying he did tell Acott about the Liverpool alibi and that he would be going there “to interview and see if these people would stand by my alibi”. He said that after saying this he expected the police “would be watching the stations” so he stole a car.

[Limehouse]

So he's been inside and doesn't realise that innocent people get convicted.

Indeed. Because each time he was inside he was there because he had broken the law and he knew full well he deserved to be there. Undoubtedly, he spoke to people who were 'innocent' whilst he was inside because almost everyone inside claimed to be 'innocent'.