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

[OneRound]

We don't know what went through the minds of the jury men when they came to consider their verdict. Their deliberations are a closed book. It was not just Miss Storie's evidence against Jim's though. Into the mix came Skillett and Trower whose evidence tended to show that Jim was driving the murder car on the morning of 23 August. There was the evidence from the Vienna, which tended to show that the owner of the murder gun had stayed in Room 24, as had Jim. And of course Langdale, dismissed by most commentators but was he by the jury?

What may have eventually did for Jim may well have been the appearance and evidence of Mrs Miracle Jones. If, as seems to be the case, there was no way that Hanratty could have stayed at Ingledene, at least in a room remotely similar to the one described by him, then that would have cast a huge shadow over his evidence.

Another hard hitting post there, Spitfire.

I feel you are right to flag Langdale. As you say, he's pretty much ignored by everyone these days. Even the Court of Appeal made no reference to him when giving their concluding comments and setting out factors which made it too much of a coincidence for Hanratty to be anything other than guilty. However, whether he made any impact on the jury is unknown. Even a small impression may have been the difference between life and death.

Is anything known as to what became of Langdale? I wonder if Hanratty's team checked that out for the 2002 appeal. Given he was in prison when he gave evidence against Hanratty in 1962, he probably didn't have much of a character and reputation to besmirch. However, if I had been Mansfield, I would still have wanted to throw in any further dirt about Langdale that might have emerged in the intervening forty years.

As for Mrs Miracle Jones ... she was really the forerunner to DNA for the defence. Expected to prove their man's innocence when first brought forward but ultimately highly damaging.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Derrick]

...Into the mix came Skillett and Trower whose evidence tended to show that Jim was driving the murder car on the morning of 23 August...

Hi Spitfire

This is, in my view, one of the problems for Hanratty just via their identification. But, again in my view it was Blackhall who cemented their identification.

His original statement was fairly vague and only certain that the car was a Morris Minor; no mention of the reg number. It was his second statement that was damning and suspect. He was taken to see the actual car before that second statement was made so was shown the red stripes and the green label which sealed the id.

The whole A6 shooting match ('scuse the pun) is just one stitch up after another.

Del

[Spitfire]

His mistake was, as has been implied on the other thread, to suppose that by telling the truth he could convince a jury of his innocence. Maybe it was one of the few times in his life Hanratty did tell the truth, but by then he was like the boy who called 'Wolf' and the jury, understandably, preferred the less than convincing evidence of Valerie Storie.

We don't know what went through the minds of the jury men when they came to consider their verdict. Their deliberations are a closed book. It was not just Miss Storie's evidence against Jim's though. Into the mix came Skillett and Trower whose evidence tended to show that Jim was driving the murder car on the morning of 23 August. There was the evidence from the Vienna, which tended to show that the owner of the murder gun had stayed in Room 24, as had Jim. And of course Langdale, dismissed by most commentators but was he by the jury?

What may have eventually did for Jim may well have been the appearance and evidence of Mrs Miracle Jones. If, as seems to be the case, there was no way that Hanratty could have stayed at Ingledene, at least in a room remotely similar to the one described by him, then that would have cast a huge shadow over his evidence.

[cobalt]

You don't have to convince me that Hanratty was an inveterate liar. Every criminal is in one form or another. So are the police much of the time.

His mistake was, as has been implied on the other thread, to suppose that by telling the truth he could convince a jury of his innocence. Maybe it was one of the few times in his life Hanratty did tell the truth, but by then he was like the boy who called 'Wolf' and the jury, understandably, preferred the less than convincing evidence of Valerie Storie.

[Spitfire]

Well he lied to somebody - unless it is your opinion that he could have been in two places at once. And if that is your opinion, why not three places? Liverpool with friends, a guest house in Rhyl and a car on the A6?

What else would you call it, if not lying to the police about his whereabouts on the murder night? And didn't he admit he had lied about staying that night in Liverpool?

Talk about defending the indefensible

Your sarcasm is misplaced I think. I was referring to the testimony Hanratty gave in court, as I think was stated clearly.
He claimed he was in Rhyl at the time of the murder and whether you choose to believe or not believe this is a matter of opinion.
The relationship between Gregsten and Miss Storie as laid out before the jury was less than the full truth, and that is a matter of fact, as later acknowledged by Miss Storie herself.

Quite right that Hanratty told only the one tale to the jury. This was at odds with the account given to Acott, the one given to his solicitor and counsel, and as far as one can tell, the account given to his friends and family.

Therefore Hanratty either lied to the people mentioned over a period of three months or so, and told the truth to the jury, or he lied to both. The jury's opinion was that he was lying to them, which seems to me to be fair enough

[cobalt]

Well he lied to somebody - unless it is your opinion that he could have been in two places at once. And if that is your opinion, why not three places? Liverpool with friends, a guest house in Rhyl and a car on the A6?

What else would you call it, if not lying to the police about his whereabouts on the murder night? And didn't he admit he had lied about staying that night in Liverpool?

Talk about defending the indefensible

Your sarcasm is misplaced I think. I was referring to the testimony Hanratty gave in court, as I think was stated clearly.
He claimed he was in Rhyl at the time of the murder and whether you choose to believe or not believe this is a matter of opinion.
The relationship between Gregsten and Miss Storie as laid out before the jury was less than the full truth, and that is a matter of fact, as later acknowledged by Miss Storie herself.

[caz]

To set the record straight James Hanratty did not have icy blue or pale blue eyes.

Hi SH,

Are you perhaps making the understandable leap from icy to pale? If we equate the icy with cold and staring instead, we just get large and blue. The icy bit would relate to the temporary expression in those eyes, not the shade or depth of colour.

I'm just trying to understand the objection you were making to my post on the subject of Hanratty having eyes as Valerie described (and I'm assuming here that the 'brown eyes' reference was a mistake by the police, later corrected by Valerie herself, as the one person who had actually seen the gunman's eyes).

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

So you tell me that James Hanratty lied to the jury, but that has to remain a matter of opinion.

Hi cobalt,

Well he lied to somebody - unless it is your opinion that he could have been in two places at once. And if that is your opinion, why not three places? Liverpool with friends, a guest house in Rhyl and a car on the A6?

What else would you call it, if not lying to the police about his whereabouts on the murder night? And didn't he admit he had lied about staying that night in Liverpool?

Talk about defending the indefensible.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sherlock Houses]

Are you trying to claim his eyes weren't blue?

...No

[Alfie]

And you know this how ? From personal observation of James Hanratty when you were a youngster ? You are quite wrong.

To set the record straight James Hanratty did not have icy blue or pale blue eyes.

The following extract is taken from the Daily Mirror of February 14th and forms part of Michael Sherrard's closing address to the Bedford jury from the day before.....

Valerie's description was "icy blue large saucer-like eyes". Nothing about them being pale or pale blue.

Are you trying to claim his eyes weren't blue?

[Graham]

She let them believe that her relationship with Michael Gregsten was nothing more than a Platonic car rally affair, whereas it was much more than that.

As Spitfire points out, her relationship with Gregsten had absolutely nothing to do with the case. I would suggest that had she been totally honest and told the court that she and Gregsten were lovers, the judge would have advised the jury to disregard this. It was not her morals that were on trial here.

Graham

[Spitfire]

I can't see what is 'disturbing' about questioning Valerie Storie's accuracy. Only a person with a strong motivation to protect the status quo could come up with that claim.

Valerie Storie went through an ordeal, so why should her ability to recall events accurately, especially in the aftermath, be considered off limits? Are you suggesting we should not test her testimony? SH has indicated that even great legal minds can get things wrong in the cold light of day many years later. Yet Valerie Storie's testimony has to remain Holy Writ?

In so far as her lying is concerned, that is another matter. You have pointed out she would have had little motivation to protect anyone who had done such injury to her.
But she did mislead the jury. She let them believe that her relationship with Michael Gregsten was nothing more than a Platonic car rally affair, whereas it was much more than that. So you tell me that James Hanratty lied to the jury, but that has to remain a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that Valerie Storie misled the murder trial jury.

The Hanrattyites or Hanrattyistas or whatever they wish to be called on this forum should regard themselves as being bound by the admissions made on Hanratty's behalf by his professional advisors, more particularly Sherrard and Mansfield.

Sherrard has been recorded as saying Valerie Storie gave her evidence honestly. He has never complained that Miss Storie misled the jury. He could have cross-examined her on her relationship with Mr Gregsten if he had thought it would have advanced his client's case. That he did not do so points to his thinking that it was not relevant to the issue in question.

Mansfield said that Alphon had nothing to do with the murder.

All the issues regarding Miss Storie's recollection were before the jury. Most importantly they were aware that she had previously made a false positive identification and that to a certain extent Hanratty's appearance stood out from the crowd.

Yet the jury were certain that Hanratty did it and their view was backed up by the DNA.

[cobalt]

Apologies. Double post.

[cobalt]

I can't see what is 'disturbing' about questioning Valerie Storie's accuracy. Only a person with a strong motivation to protect the status quo could come up with that claim.

Valerie Storie went through an ordeal, so why should her ability to recall events accurately, especially in the aftermath, be considered off limits? Are you suggesting we should not test her testimony? SH has indicated that even great legal minds can get things wrong in the cold light of day many years later. Yet Valerie Storie's testimony has to remain Holy Writ?

In so far as her lying is concerned, that is another matter. You have pointed out she would have had little motivation to protect anyone who had done such injury to her.
But she did mislead the jury. She let them believe that her relationship with Michael Gregsten was nothing more than a Platonic car rally affair, whereas it was much more than that. So you tell me that James Hanratty lied to the jury, but that has to remain a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that Valerie Storie misled the murder trial jury.

[Graham]

Paragraphs 13 to 26 cannot in any sense of the word be described as 'facts' as they are Valerie Storie's version of events of that fateful night which are unverifiable and open to challenge.

That is merely your biased interpretation of Valerie's evidence. There is a disturbing trend on these threads just now to accuse Valerie of, at best, innaccuracy; at worst, lying. Naturally enough, the Hanrattyistas see very little reason to condemn his so-called 'alibis', even though both of them are so paper-thin you can see right through them.

Graham