Valerie Storie's 3 part story as published in 'Today' magazine, June 1962

[Derrick]

...change of alibi was known as an 'ambush alibi' as it gave the police and the prosecution little or no opportunity to follow it up and check details...

Much the same as what the prosecution did to the defence over the discovery of Mrs Dinwoodie.

Sherrard only knew about her late in the proceedings at Ampthill.

He was furious and demanded from Acott to know when he thought that it would be obliging of him to have told the defence of her existence.

Furthermore Sherrard believed that if Mrs Dinwoodie had appeared at the magistrates court that a decision of no case to answer may have been forthcoming.

[Graham]

A boarding house built on straw?

I think I'm right in saying that it was the Panorama programme in 1966 that first gave a real boost to the possibility of Hanratty being in Rhyl at the key time.

I watched this programme a couple of years ago. What really struck me was how much ''the Rhyl alibi'' was based on the claims of the newspaper seller Charlie Jones (aka Charles White). He of course later acknowledged that his claims were a pack of lies and he had been pressured into making them by Terry Evans.

Best regards,

OneRound

The basic problem for the defence was that the Rhyl 'witnesses' all came forward in the wake of media publicity generated by the change of alibi and by Mrs Jones' court-appearance. Also at least one 'witness' came forward years after the event - to what end? A bit late by then. It would have been mightily impressive had a resident of Rhyl come forward before the trial began. But no-one did. JH's change of alibi was known as an 'ambush alibi' as it gave the police and the prosecution little or no opportunity to follow it up and check details. Not uncommon back then, but these days no longer permitted.

Graham

[caz]

It's a well known phenomenon that regardless of how many hundreds or thousands of freckles [of the spotted variety] might be visible on a person's face, [particularly in mid-summer] they somehow magically disappear at night under artificial lighting and freckles can no longer be spotted by anyone. A face then assumes a very pallid, ghost-like complexion. They do however tend to re-surface come daybreak at the touch of a fairy's wand, and you can spot a freckle again.

I must be the exception however, as my fully freckled face retained all of it's freckles while watching TV in the evenings, by lamplight, as a youth and teenager. No matter how much I wished they'd just up and go.
Very perplexing

Nice try, SH, but I simply don't accept that heavily freckled young men with dyed hair and recognisable Cockney accents would have been ten a penny in Rhyl in 1961, and that Hanratty would therefore not have stuck out sufficiently to be remembered by anyone he had seen or spoken to during the daylight hours of Wednesday, when he supposedly spent the time fruitlessly walking the streets trying to find "John" (who was actually Terry Evans). Not one of the Rhyl witnesses mentioned Hanratty being heavily freckled, which begs the question why not?

As for Valerie, his freckles didn't make her doubt that he was indeed the gunman when she picked him out of the second line-up. And only she knew whether she might not have seen or made a mental note of freckles when briefly seeing his face during her lengthy ordeal in the car.

If Valerie ought to have recalled freckles in that situation, how do the Rhyl witnesses get an entirely freckle-free pass?

In addition, an innocent Hanratty, on a two-night visit to Rhyl that week, would have had no pressing reason to avoid people seeing his face or his hair, or to avoid meeting and speaking to anyone, while a guilty Hanratty over the same time period down south would have had the best reason in the world to avoid all potential witnesses.

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

It should also be remembered that a juror reported to the Court that he had overheard Grace Jones and Terry Evans discussing the case during the lunch interval, strictly against the rules. The Judge admonished them for this breach, and their reliability as witnesses was seriously compromised. Another factor which must have influenced the jury against the Rhyl 'alibi'.

Evans did, or so it appears, sympathise with Hanratty and helped the defence's investigation in Rhyl. Amongst other claims, Evans said that Ernie Gordon, the proprietor of Dixie's Cafe, had told him that someone who looked like Hanratty had visited his cafe to ask where he could find 'John' who worked at the fairground. Interestingly, when the defence and later the campaigners for Hanratty's innocence approached Mr Gordon, he declined to be interviewed. Why? If he really did think he'd seen Hanratty in his cafe, why did he decline to discuss it? Taken together with Charlie Jones' original evidence, which he later admitted was given as a result of his being 'put up to it' by Evans, it all seems rather odd to me.

Graham

[Spitfire]

A boarding house built on straw?

I think I'm right in saying that it was the Panorama programme in 1966 that first gave a real boost to the possibility of Hanratty being in Rhyl at the key time.

I watched this programme a couple of years ago. What really struck me was how much ''the Rhyl alibi'' was based on the claims of the newspaper seller Charlie Jones (aka Charles White). He of course later acknowledged that his claims were a pack of lies and he had been pressured into making them by Terry Evans.

Best regards,

OneRound

The Panorama programme is still available to view on Youtube and I had another look at it last night.

In support of the Rhyl alibi there appeared, Mrs Jones, Terry Evans and Charlie Jones aka White, (the newspaper vendor).


Mrs Jones was sure that Hanratty visited her guesthouse just after 7pm on Tuesday 22 August 1961. She was able to fix the day and date as she had had a guest leave and had a room free, namely Room 4. This, I believe, is the small single room on the first floor of Ingledene at the front of the property, and which was proved at the trial to have been occupied by Mr Sayle on the nights in question. There was no mention by Mrs Jones of Hanratty staying in the attic bathroom.

Mr Evans was quizzed by the Panorama interviewer as to whether Hanratty would have had reason to visit Evans in Rhyl for the purpose of disposing of stolen goods. Evans had told the trial that he himself would not buy stolen goods, but he wanted to add that he knew people who would, which was not something that had come out in evidence.

The striking thing about Mrs Jones and Mr Evans interviews is that the both complained that all you are allowed to say in court in giving evidence is "yes" or "no". This is patently absurd. The oath enjoins the witness to tell the truth and the whole truth, not just to give monosyllabic answers to questions. Those parts of the transcript of the trial which have found their way into the public domain indicate many answers clearly indicate many occasions where witnesses have given more expansive answers than "yes" or "no".

Mr Charlie Jones was the last of the three called in support of the Rhyl alibi. He remembers the Tuesday specifically because someone had asked him for the Rhyl Journal and Advertiser (a good read and well priced) but as this only came out on a Wednesday he was unable to oblige. Mr Jones recognised Hanratty from a photograph as the person who approached him near the bus station soon after 7pm and asked him where he could find "Terry". Mr Jones did not know who Terry was. Hanratty then asked where was the fairground. Mr Jones gave directions. Mr Jones was then asked by Hanratty where he could find digs. Mr Jones was able to refer Hanratty to Mrs Grace Jones (no relation) at No 19 Kinmel Street.

Mr Jones, despite selling newspapers, had not seen a photograph of Hanratty until after Terry returned from the trial and showed him a photograph, from which Mr Jones was able to recollect the events of that fateful Tuesday evening.


There are lots of things which are unhelpful to Hanratty from this interview. First, the time is wrong in that Hanratty can only have got to Rhyl at the earliest by 8.19pm. The time does coincide with Mrs Grace Jones 7pm estimate when Jim pitched up at her boarding establishment. Second, Jim Hanratty only knew Terry Evans as "John" so would be unlikely to be asking for a "Terry". Third, Jim Hanratty never mentioned being directed to Ingledene, or anywhere else, by any newspaper vendor.

Mr Charlie Jones was to subsequently retract this interview.

Valerie Storie appeared at both the beginning and end of the programme. She was certain that Hanratty was the murderer/rapist. If this came over in the witness box as well as it did on telly, one can see why the jury voted in the way which they did.

[Sherlock Houses]

"The strange case of the disappearing freckles"

It's a well known phenomenon that regardless of how many hundreds or thousands of freckles [of the spotted variety] might be visible on a person's face, [particularly in mid-summer] they somehow magically disappear at night under artificial lighting and freckles can no longer be spotted by anyone. A face then assumes a very pallid, ghost-like complexion. They do however tend to re-surface come daybreak at the touch of a fairy's wand, and you can spot a freckle again.

I must be the exception however, as my fully freckled face retained all of it's freckles while watching TV in the evenings, by lamplight, as a youth and teenager. No matter how much I wished they'd just up and go.
Very perplexing

[OneRound]

A boarding house built on straw?

I think I'm right in saying that it was the Panorama programme in 1966 that first gave a real boost to the possibility of Hanratty being in Rhyl at the key time.

I watched this programme a couple of years ago. What really struck me was how much ''the Rhyl alibi'' was based on the claims of the newspaper seller Charlie Jones (aka Charles White). He of course later acknowledged that his claims were a pack of lies and he had been pressured into making them by Terry Evans.

Best regards,

OneRound

[GUT]

Perhaps I should add that the evidence need not be 'inarguable'. All that would be required would be some credible evidence that corroborated his Rhyl story which would be sufficient to induce in the mind of a member of the jury that there was some element of doubt as to whether Hanratty had been in Rhyl.

My view is that the jury came to the conclusion that Hanratty had not stayed at Ingledene. If Hanratty had said that he slept in a room with a green bath, and Mrs Grace Jones had come along and said she let the bathroom to Hanratty, then that might be something to consider as introducing the necessary reasonable doubt. Unfortunately for Hanratty, this did not happen.

Yep had that happened he may have walked.

But even then the change in alibi would have been a problem for the defence.

[Spitfire]

Perhaps I should add that the evidence need not be 'inarguable'. All that would be required would be some credible evidence that corroborated his Rhyl story which would be sufficient to induce in the mind of a member of the jury that there was some element of doubt as to whether Hanratty had been in Rhyl.

My view is that the jury came to the conclusion that Hanratty had not stayed at Ingledene. If Hanratty had said that he slept in a room with a green bath, and Mrs Grace Jones had come along and said she let the bathroom to Hanratty, then that might be something to consider as introducing the necessary reasonable doubt. Unfortunately for Hanratty, this did not happen.

[Spitfire]

There's not much point asking a question to which you know the answer. (Unless you are barrister in court, of course.)

The scenarios I outlined were clearly hypothetical. ('Let us suppose...')

I am asking a question to which I do not know the answer.
What evidence would those, convinced of James Hanratty's guilt, accept as being inarguable in relation to the alibi he presented at trial?

Ok, if it's a bona fide question, I'll have a go at answering it.

If Hanratty had been arrested in Rhyl on the night of 22nd August 1961 and kept in the cells overnight, fingerprinted and put up before the local magistrates court on the morning of 23rd August, then that should do the trick.

[GUT]

There's not much point asking a question to which you know the answer. (Unless you are barrister in court, of course.)

The scenarios I outlined were clearly hypothetical. ('Let us suppose...')

I am asking a question to which I do not know the answer.
What evidence would those, convinced of James Hanratty's guilt, accept as being inarguable in relation to the alibi he presented at trial?

Until you see it how can you know?

The two big problems with his alibi, as I see it are...

1. The late change, if he had a real alive why go with Liverpool first

2. It seems it was dropped like a hot potato at appeal.

[cobalt]

There's not much point asking a question to which you know the answer. (Unless you are barrister in court, of course.)

The scenarios I outlined were clearly hypothetical. ('Let us suppose...')

I am asking a question to which I do not know the answer.
What evidence would those, convinced of James Hanratty's guilt, accept as being inarguable in relation to the alibi he presented at trial?

[GUT]

For those convinced of Hanratty’s guilt, I doubt there ever could be a piece of evidence which is considered strong enough to support his alibi. I would welcome suggestions from those so minded, as to what they would consider inarguable evidence of his being in the Liverpool/Rhyl area at the time of the murder.

Let us suppose the following:

An old family photo, found last week in an attic in Lancashire, shows Hanratty, clearly in Rhyl, in the background reading that day’s newspaper? Not good enough. It has been photo-shopped. Or the man is not Hanratty. Not enough freckles. Or too many freckles. Or Hanratty liked to read newspapers weeks after they were printed.

A signed and dated entry in a boarding house register? Not good enough. The date was falsified by Hanratty when the landlady turned to get his room key. Or he had a criminal associate who forged his signature.

Evidence emerges that Hanratty was arrested by the police, on the day, for trying to sell watches in the street? Not good enough. The culprit, a local criminal, gave his name as Hanratty in order to fool the cops. No charges were pressed.

Hanratty went to a lawyer’s office in Rhyl and swore on testimony, dated 22nd August, that he was James Hanratty of London visiting the area? Not good enough. He clearly had an associate creating an alibi for him. The lawyer remembered the colour of his hair being very unusual.

And so on, and so on.

And do any of those exist??

[cobalt]

For those convinced of Hanratty’s guilt, I doubt there ever could be a piece of evidence which is considered strong enough to support his alibi. I would welcome suggestions from those so minded, as to what they would consider inarguable evidence of his being in the Liverpool/Rhyl area at the time of the murder.

Let us suppose the following:

An old family photo, found last week in an attic in Lancashire, shows Hanratty, clearly in Rhyl, in the background reading that day’s newspaper? Not good enough. It has been photo-shopped. Or the man is not Hanratty. Not enough freckles. Or too many freckles. Or Hanratty liked to read newspapers weeks after they were printed.

A signed and dated entry in a boarding house register? Not good enough. The date was falsified by Hanratty when the landlady turned to get his room key. Or he had a criminal associate who forged his signature.

Evidence emerges that Hanratty was arrested by the police, on the day, for trying to sell watches in the street? Not good enough. The culprit, a local criminal, gave his name as Hanratty in order to fool the cops. No charges were pressed.

Hanratty went to a lawyer’s office in Rhyl and swore on testimony, dated 22nd August, that he was James Hanratty of London visiting the area? Not good enough. He clearly had an associate creating an alibi for him. The lawyer remembered the colour of his hair being very unusual.

And so on, and so on.

[Spitfire]

I think that the most eloquent comment on the strength of the Rhyl alibi comes from Sherrard's failure to rely upon it in the Court of Criminal Appeal. He must have regarded it as hopeless.