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

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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

[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

[ansonman]

For my money, to believe Langdale was telling the truth and to believe that the Rhyl alibi was false can only lead to one conclusion: Hanratty wanted to be found guilty and he wanted to hang. This is, of course, absolute rubbish, but to me it is the only reasonable conclusion if we are to believe Langdale and disbelieve Rhyl.

You confess your guilt to another screw, knowing full well that he'll be only too eager to alert higher authority (and earn remission) and then you change your false alibi to another false alibi part way through the trial.

One question that anyone believing this rubbish might ask is "why not save time and plead guilty?" to which the obvious answer is "he wouldn't have wanted to upset his Mother".

Ansonman

[Graham]

Having got my hands on my books again, I re-read the Langdale accounts in both Foot and Woffinden. I never gave the Langdale evidence much credence when I first read the books (a long time ago) and I don't give it much now. Even the judge and Swanwick had reservations about it, the latter advising the jury to treat this evidence with caution. Acott, too, seemed in two minds about it. That Langdale told this tale to a fellow prisoner within hearing of an escorting hospital warder (Eatwell) is not in dispute, but the judge made the comment that it was told 'very loudly' to ensure that Eatwell heard him. So what moved Langdale to come out with this story? If it was the police (and I very much doubt it) it would appear to have backfired. Was it off his own bat? Did some unknown person put him up to it? And why Langdale anyway? He claims he was the 'only other prisoner' who walked with Hanratty when they were both in Brixton Prison, but this is denied by other prisoners whom Sherrard interviewed.

Possibly the only real result was to sow just a little seed of doubt in the minds of the jury, but I would doubt that they swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

As has recently been remarked, the Langdale Incident has tended to be overlooked by those of us interested in the A6 Case; perhaps with some justification. I still believe that Hanratty was guilty, by the way.

As for Langdale, I believe when he got out of clink and decided to go straight he started a mini-cab business.

Graham

[Sherlock Houses]

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.

Methinks you've got your tongue planted firmly in your cheek with this statement.
James Hanratty had neither icy blue, pale blue or even faded blue eyes. He had normal blue eyes like almost half of the UK population.
It must be obvious to the vast majority of folk what icy blue eyes means.......

Just in case anyone besides yourself is in any doubt about the colour of icy blue eyes I'll let the Collins English dictionary say something......

[Sherlock Houses]

No doubt you'll try to find fault with Collins's definition......

[caz]

Hi SH,

But assuming Valerie was not consulting her Collins at the time, and could simply have been recalling the icy expression in the gunman's eyes (you know, as in cold and emotionless and bugger all to do with the colour), what is your problem here? How are you so sure she meant the shade of blue was icy, as in pale, and was therefore using the right definition to identify the wrong man, and presumably got the actual killer's eye colour wrong anyway, if you favour a brown-eyed assailant?

If you accept the killer probably didn't have the warmest look in his eyes as he set about putting the couple through the worst ordeal of their lives, then he could have had the deepest brown eyes you ever saw and still have stared at Valerie with an expression as cold as ice. Think Andrew Scott as Moriarty in Sherlock, and tell me he doesn't have the darkest eyes and the iciest expression in them.

Love,

Caz
X

[Derrick]

...How are you so sure she meant the shade of blue was icy, as in pale...

For the very simple reason Caz in that she said so.

Sherrard told the jury that Hanratty's eye colour was a much darker blue.

The plain fact of the matter is that Storie didn't have the faintest clue what the A6 murderer looked like anyway.

On these boards, it appears that every time Storie's identification is questioned, the goal posts are moved!

[Sherlock Houses]

On these boards, it appears that every time Storie's identification is questioned, the goal posts are moved!

A very astute observation Derrick.

The ref needs to make sure that the posts are firmly cemented into the ground henceforth.
How are you sure Valerie didn't mean this, how do you know Valerie didn't mean that and how do you know Valerie didn't mean the other ? I ask you !!

[Sherlock Houses]

Think Andrew Scott as Moriarty in Sherlock, and tell me he doesn't have the darkest eyes and the iciest expression in them.

Ok. Andrew Scott as Moriarty in Sherlock, doesn't have the darkest eyes and the iciest expression in them.

[Derrick]

A very astute observation Derrick.

The ref needs to make sure that the posts are firmly cemented into the ground henceforth.
How are you sure Valerie didn't mean this, how do you know Valerie didn't mean that and how do you know Valerie didn't mean the other ? I ask you !!

Exactly Houses ole' man.