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

[Spitfire]

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

Thank you for that.

The above info does not appear in Woffinden's book although I now see it is in Foot's book. Foot comes to the conclusion that the Liverpool alibi was first mentioned to Acott in the evening telephone call on 6th, so that still gives Hanratty plenty of time to select his alibi. The point is that the Liverpool alibi was not blurted out as you suggested.

[Natalie Severn]

[B]My reading of the case would suggest that Hanratty phoned Acott three times, twice on 6th and once on 7th October.[/B] t (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.

Your reading of the case here is wrong.

1]Hanratty phoned Acott three times on the 6th of October ,the last being in the evening at 4 minutes past 11 on 6 October .

2]He certainly and importantly did mention his Liverpool alibi to the Daily Mirror's Barry Harding.


3]When he made his call to Barry Harding at the Mirror it took place almost immediately after viz Paul Foot: Almost at once he rang the Daily Mirror.

[Natalie Severn]

Thank you for that.

The point is that the Liverpool alibi was not blurted out as you suggested.

Ok fair enough.

[Natalie Severn]

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?

X

A lot of people who followed the trial closely believed Hanratty was innocent-not just journalists and bookmakers.A petition of 28,000 signatures was delivered to the Home Office a week before Hanratty was executed showing there was a lot of support for his case .The only way most people heard about the case was via the press and TV so the way it had been reported must have provided information to the effect that this was a man who was going to be found not guilty . Read up for yourself the commotion there was Caz.
As for the modern accusations many flow from the initial doubts held by those journalists who were at the trial and saw they way things were rigged against him.Some are still alive -one still writes -and they still maintain his innocence.

[Spitfire]

A lot of people who followed the trial closely believed Hanratty was innocent-not just journalists and bookmakers.A petition of 28,000 signatures was delivered to the Home Office a week before Hanratty was executed showing there was a lot of support for his case .The only way most people heard about the case was via the press and TV so the way it had been reported must have provided information to the effect that this was a man who was going to be found not guilty . Read up for yourself the commotion there was Caz.
As for the modern accusations many flow from the initial doubts held by those journalists who were at the trial and saw they way things were rigged against him.Some are still alive -one still writes -and they still maintain his innocence.

I disagree.

A lot of people thought that a not guilty verdict was appropriate, not because they thought Hanratty innocent, but because they thought that the prosecution had not established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of James Hanratty.

I will explain.

If you had been on the jury and had come to the conclusion that you were 90% certain that Hanratty had been the murderer, then the 10% uncertainty would mean that you had a reasonable doubt. You should therefore vote for a not guilty verdict. But you would not say that you thought Hanratty was innocent.

I notice that elsewhere on this forum, you make the same mistake with regard to the Matthews report. An opinion that Hanratty should not have been convicted on the evidence, is not equivalent to an opinion that he did not do it.

[Natalie Severn]

A question about the Railway Station staff at Taplow

Does anybody know if railway staff or passengers were asked whether they had seen a man answering Hanratty's description on any of the trains from Paddington on the 22nd August 1961? Did the ticket collector at Tallow get asked? The guard? Did anyone ever come forward to say they had seen a man answering his description on the train or walking away from the station?


I know about the man of about 27 in the dark suit carrying a rolled over white carrier bag who had dark swept back hair, that the Cobbs and their neighbour saw in Marsh Lane on 22nd August at 2.30 pm. and who looked like one of the photofits.Their sighting was never followed up I believe, though they went to the police all three of them and made a statement. But that particular man had hair that was receding from his forehead, a very sallow complexion, a thin nose and very dark eyes whereas Hanratty had a small nose and light blue eyes.

I would really appreciate it if anyone knows the answer to this.[btw I know about the motor cyclist who said he saw a car etc ]Thanks

[Natalie Severn]

I disagree.


I notice that elsewhere on this forum, you make the same mistake with regard to the Matthews report. An opinion that Hanratty should not have been convicted on the evidence, is not equivalent to an opinion that he did not do it.

Roger Matthews is a Cambridge educated ex Scotland Yard chief [and a friend of a close friend of mine actually] ---though I have never met Matthews or even spoken to him.He had a team of 20 detectives working for him for a year with access to material still closed to the public. His report for the Home Office was not just a bookmaker type opinion or journalist's opinion.There are grades of informed opinion. His was well founded on evidence.
As for the public .Yes I think that may well be the case although a large number of people held and still hold the opinion that this was a miscarriage of justice for whatever reason .

[moste]

Does anybody know if railway staff or passengers were asked whether they had seen a man answering Hanratty's description on any of the trains from Paddington on the 22nd August 1961? Did the ticket collector at Tallow get asked? The guard? Did anyone ever come forward to say they had seen a man answering his description on the train or walking away from the station?


I know about the man of about 27 in the dark suit carrying a rolled over white carrier bag who had dark swept back hair, that the Cobbs and their neighbour saw in Marsh Lane on 22nd August at 2.30 pm. and who looked like one of the photofits.Their sighting was never followed up I believe, though they went to the police all three of them and made a statement. But that particular man had hair that was receding from his forehead, a very sallow complexion, a thin nose and very dark eyes whereas Hanratty had a small nose and light blue eyes.

I would really appreciate it if anyone knows the answer to this.[btw I know about the motor cyclist who said he saw a car etc ]Thanks

Hi Norma. Good questions.
I recall, (to just change direction for a moment,) a post some time ago, where you were discussing with Julie, the feasibility of the culprit after leaving the car in Avondale cres . making for the nearby George Hotel which was in those days a veritable hang out for the criminal fraternity. I recently took a look at the locations to put them into some kind of perspective, and found it quite interesting that: The walking time from where the car was abandoned to Redbridge tube station is about 2 1\2 minutes, the journey to Wanstead tube is approx. 90 seconds (one stop) and the George Hotel is right across the road when alighting. Thought this not beyond the realms of possibility. To continue on with thoughts of ignored, possible good witnesses.
Its difficult to understand why the one solid piece of evidence was not examined further viz. 'what time the car was abandoned' Whereby a young mother recalls her regular trip to the local shops for something for tea, and on her returning home along Avondale, recalls having to take the push chair into the road to get past a car blocking the pavement, the car wasn't there on her outward trip. she recalled the time precisely and was fairly sure about the description of the vehicle. I can't for the life of me find where I read it now. But wouldn't this have made more sense that listening to the Trower and Hogan disagreement.

[moste]

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”.

I agree. And given that it would appear that Hanratty thought the world of Sherrard. It would only have taken a stern, "If you do this, you will most probably Hang". And I wouldn't mind betting Jim would have dropped the Rhyl alibi like a hot potato ,instead of which, he simply urged him not to change things but if you do ...sign this.

[GUT]

I disagree.

A lot of people thought that a not guilty verdict was appropriate, not because they thought Hanratty innocent, but because they thought that the prosecution had not established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of James Hanratty.

I will explain.

If you had been on the jury and had come to the conclusion that you were 90% certain that Hanratty had been the murderer, then the 10% uncertainty would mean that you had a reasonable doubt. You should therefore vote for a not guilty verdict. But you would not say that you thought Hanratty was innocent.

I notice that elsewhere on this forum, you make the same mistake with regard to the Matthews report. An opinion that Hanratty should not have been convicted on the evidence, is not equivalent to an opinion that he did not do it.

Which is totally wrong, beyond reasonable doubt does not mean 100% certainty. in fact a jury should be directed if asked that the common meaning applies. And that percentages play no part in their decision.

[cobalt]

Does anybody know if railway staff or passengers were asked whether they had seen a man answering Hanratty's description on any of the trains from Paddington on the 22nd August 1961? Did the ticket collector at Tallow get asked? The guard? Did anyone ever come forward to say they had seen a man answering his description on the train or walking away from the station?

They all seem to have passed up on the opportunity to 'get in on the act.'

Meanwhile up in Liverpool/Rhyl, a cast list of luggage attendants, newsvendors, sweet shop owners and landladies seem to have been desperate for their 15 minutes of fame. Which is a bit odd.

[Spitfire]

Which is totally wrong, beyond reasonable doubt does not mean 100% certainty. in fact a jury should be directed if asked that the common meaning applies. And that percentages play no part in their decision.

We will have to agree to differ.

If you say to yourself that you are 90% certain then I would say you were not certain. At least not certain enough to hang a man.

The point is that you could think that Hanratty did it, but vote for a not guilty verdict and that would not mean that you thought he was innocent. This would be especially the case if you were almost certain that he did it, for example if you were 90% certain he did it.

I hope this helps.

[GUT]

We will have to agree to differ.

If you say to yourself that you are 90% certain then I would say you were not certain. At least not certain enough to hang a man.

The point is that you could think that Hanratty did it, but vote for a not guilty verdict and that would not mean that you thought he was innocent. This would be especially the case if you were almost certain that he did it, for example if you were 90% certain he did it.

I hope this helps.

Actually it doesn't help in the slightest. You may care to read some law on the issue.

The law is abundantly clear that Beyond Reasonable Doubt does not mean 100% certain.

[Spitfire]

Actually it doesn't help in the slightest. You may care to read some law on the issue.

The law is abundantly clear that Beyond Reasonable Doubt does not mean 100% certain.

I haven't suggested that 'beyond reasonable doubt' is 100% certainty.

I will have one more go.

If the jury are 'almost certain' (taking care here not to ascribe a percentage)but not certain, then the appropriate verdict is not guilty, but this does not mean that they think the accused innocent.

[GUT]

I haven't suggested that 'beyond reasonable doubt' is 100% certainty.

I will have one more go.

If the jury are 'almost certain' (taking care here not to ascribe a percentage)but not certain, then the appropriate verdict is not guilty, but this does not mean that they think the accused innocent.

But certainty isn't necessary.

So why start with the percentages, you seemed to be saying that 90% wasn't enough.

Where you are right is that a not guilty verdict doesn't mean innocence.