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

[Graham]

If, as Cobalt says, the Liverpool police at the time were corrupt and feared, then perhaps Mrs D felt intimidated by DC Pugh and his questions, and went along with him, as it were. I know my own mother was scared stiff of the police and for no good reason other than that they represented Authority.

Perhaps someone did actually walk into the shop and ask for directions - we'll never know, but whoever it was it certainly wasn't Hanratty. As for Mrs D's 'identification', it would have been impressive and acceptable had she been shown photos of a number of different men including Hanratty, and had picked out Hanratty from them. As it was, just being shown the one photo is not really an identification at all, and I wouldn't mind betting that (a) poor Mrs D wished she'd kept her mouth shut; (b) DC Pugh had a sound reprimand as a result of his incompetence. (Incredible that exactly the same error occurred reference Mrs Jones).

By the way, OneRound, I think the man Hanratty met in prison was called Healey. He lived in the Bull Ring flats, was interviewed by Gillbanks and vehemently denied that Hanratty had stayed with him on the night of 22 August.

Graham

[Derrick]

...Perhaps someone did actually walk into the shop and ask for directions...

Oh come off it Graham, Mrs D gave evidence that someone did come into the shop asking for the directions that Hanratty specified and she ID'ed him as James Hanratty, at first from one photo and then again, a different photo, from a number of others, which she then signed on the back. As did Miss Ford.

[Graham]

Oh come off it Graham, Mrs D gave evidence that someone did come into the shop asking for the directions that Hanratty specified and she ID'ed him as James Hanratty, at first from one photo and then again, a different photo, from a number of others, which she then signed on the back. As did Miss Ford.

Oh you come off it, too, Derrick. The sweetshop and Ingledene were largely products of Hanratty's imagination helped a little in terms of detail by previous visits to Liverpool and Rhyl, and also by the 'assistance' of the two ladies concerned. Neither of these 'alibis' was sound enough to convince the jury, and that's the long and the short of it. Quite simply, on the evening of 22 August 1961 James Hanratty was in a cornfield near Taplow.

Graham

[cobalt]

Hi Graham,

Surely you must accept the double standards regarding ID in the Hanratty case. There are a number of possible sightings of Hanratty, in both Liverpool and Rhyl, at times crucial to the case. I accept these sightings are not in themselves sufficient to convince Hanratty’s opponents, yet a few weeks ago I asked what evidence would be convincing, and only one anti-Hanratty voice rose to the challenge. From memory I think he needed Hanratty arrested and fingerprinted by the Liverpool CID on the night of the murder. Fair enough. But this shows the difficulty of establishing a watertight alibi.

Hanratty was a criminal who mixed mostly with criminals. His alibi was bound to weak, especially in the Merseyside area where the police had a reputation not just for fitting up suspects, but mere associates of suspects. This, remember, was in the days of capital punishment. All Hanratty had left was landladies and newspaper vendors. And these were interviewed by ex-Liverpool detectives such as Joe Gillbanks, whose ID evidence was perplexingly contaminated. I think even you have acknowledged the inexplicable errors made by experienced former policemen purportedly trying to establish Hanratty’s alibi.

If the same quality of evidence claiming that Hanratty was in Merseyside was presented showing Hanratty in London, or more pertinently in the Taplow cornfield at the relevant time, then I have absolutely no doubt that yourself, Caz and many others would be screaming from the rooftops about its significance.

[OneRound]

Hi Cobalt,

I actually accept there are elements of double standards regarding identification in the Hanratty case. That's a large factor in my belief that ''Jim did it'' but his guilt was not fairly and reasonably proved.

Much of the case against Hanratty at trial centred around identification. For me, it had a lot more credibility than the sweetshop and Rhyl defence ''alibis'' but was still not strong or certain enough to justify conviction. However, it was good enough for the jury. That is what mattered then and still does today, especially following the 2002 Court of Appeal ruling.

Since then, it is effectively innocence that needs to be established. The sweetshop and Rhyl ''alibis'' with all their associated uncertainties don't cut it, however much they get repeated. They may muddy the waters but they don't show an innocent man was hanged.

Other factors have been put in the mix over the years to raise questions about police conduct before and at trial. Some understandably so. However, nothing said by Hanratty before his execution or at any time by his supporters goes any distance to demonstrate his innocence. The best reason for that is he was guilty.

Best regards,

OneRound

[cobalt]

The sweetshop and Rhyl alibis are stronger than the alternative. Hanratty, a known London villain, was apparently able to move around his locus and the Taplow cornfield without anyone seeing him? More tellingly, that includes the host of paid police informers who are part and parcel of what we, law abiding citizens, are encouraged to be believe is the rule of law. London is awash with them, yet nobody saw Hanratty during the crucial times. What an Elephant in the Room.

There were plenty of Liverpool criminals who kept their counsel regarding Hanratty, and for reasons that I have outlined might well have been down to self interest. What is missing is the plethora of police informers who saw/heard/smelled Hanratty on his way to the field in Taplow. They were not called, because Hanratty was never there. They do not exist. The best that could be conjured up, after the fact, was a risible cell confession. Why would the prosecution have needed that if the case was strong enough?

[GUT]

People keep talking about his alibi, the biggest problem was the last minute change.

[Spitfire]

What is missing is the plethora of police informers who saw/heard/smelled Hanratty on his way to the field in Taplow. They were not called, because Hanratty was never there.

They (the plethora of police informers) may not have been called because they (the plethora etc.) were not there to see Hanratty who was there. Unless you want to say which police informers etc. were in the Dorney Reach vicinity on the evening of 22 August 1961, who would have recognised Hanratty and who could have been called to give evidence. Do you know of such folk?

They do not exist.

Precisely. They (the plethora etc.) do not exist because they were not there to see Hanratty who the jury concluded was there.

[Derrick]

Graham

The sweetshop and Ingledene were largely products of Hanratty's imagination helped a little in terms of detail by previous visits to Liverpool and Rhyl, and also by the 'assistance' of the two ladies concerned.

So Graham, Hanratty made a previous visit to Liverpool did he? Sounded out a lady in a sweetshop about specific directions did he? Then, sometime later the very same story is corroborated by a lady in a sweetshop as Hanratty described.

But not only that, she actually picked out a photograph of Hanratty, twice, signing the second as being him. Furthermore she could have only been in the shop that week in August on the Monday and Tuesday.

When Hanratty visited Rhyl in July he only stayed one night, at Evan's house. Hardly equivocal with him having stayed two nights at Ingledene and his having being the only guest breakfasting in the family's back room that season which looked out onto a tiled yard, is it eh?

Well?

Neither of these 'alibis' was sound enough to convince the jury, and that's the long and the short of it...

Mr Justice Gorman told the jury that lack of, or a false alibi, were not to be regarded as a sign of guilt in any way. So the jury were directed to not convict on lack of alibi.

Well?

Besides, your 11 point post the other day doesn't disprove Mrs D's identification of Hanratty in any way at all. She Id'ed him and corroborated his account of asking for the specific directions. She was wrong about the day as he was in London on the Monday. He was in Liverpool at 5pm on the Tuesday.

Your arguments about Hanratty's alibi are just not convincing.

Del

[Graham]

Your arguments about Hanratty's alibi are just not convincing.

Neither are yours.

Oh, and by the way, Bob Woffinden suggests that not only did DC Pugh make the elementary mistake of showing Mrs D just the one photo of Hanratty, which right away effectively negated her ID, but he also suggested to Mrs Cowley that this man was asking for directions to 'Talbot or Tarleton Rd'. Mrs Cowley passed this on to Mrs D who then said, or is supposed to have said, that she remembered a man asking for Tarleton Road. Unfortunately, Mrs D said that this man came into the shop between 3.30 and 4.00pm, which does not fit in with Hanratty's defence's claim that he caught the 12.15pm train from London which arrived at Liverpool Lime Street at 4.45pm.

Oh, and another 'by the way' - Mrs D said all this happened on the Monday. But of course, according to your specious argument, the dear lady didn't even know what day it was......

But what the hell, you believe what you want to, sunshine. Makes no odds to me.

Graham

Graham

[Graham]

What is missing is the plethora of police informers who saw/heard/smelled Hanratty on his way to the field in Taplow.

I just don't understand what you're trying to get at here. What 'police informers'? Just what are you talking about? Are ylou suggesting that James Hanratty's every move was monitored by 'police informers'? You seem to forget that it was after dark when Hanratty tapped on the window of the Morris Minor. He could have arrived at, or near to, the cornfield via a taxi. his usual mode of transport according th Bob Woffinden. Someone could have dropped him off there. We'll never know.

I wonder if you are getting confused with the claimed 'sightings' of Peter Alphon by people living near to the cornfield? If so, these people were not 'police informers', and the 'sightings' were almost certainly the fruits of the amazing imagination of one M. Jean Justice.

Graham

[cobalt]

Graham,

I think you know perfectly well to whom I am referring. Hanratty was a professional criminal and mixed in criminal circles. There are people within that community who make a sparse living, or have the odd 'job' overlooked, by providing information to the police. Hanratty himself may have had made use of this himself in his time.

Once Hanratty was put in the frame for the A6 case, then it was open season on him as far as the touts were concerned. Anyone who had seen him near London or the locus had a story to tell, for a price. With his bizarre hair colouring he might have found it hard to keep a low profile, but this he amazingly managed to do.

No person 'helpful to the police' has ever emerged to claim his prize of seeing Hanratty on a train, or boarding a taxi. Much more tellingly, what we have is a number of people from the Liverpool/Rhyl area. none of whom had connections with the criminal world, claiming to have seen Hanratty at the relevant time.

As for Hanratty taking a taxi to Taplow cornfield- surely you would have to ask the question why?
And how did Hanratty manage to conceal a weapon and a fair amount of ammunition about his person as he scraped out the coppers for the fare? If he was so intent on trying out his new weapon, as the prosecution suggested, why not just hold up the taxi driver? The taxi driver could have sold his story to the tabloids for a fair amount of money.

[Graham]

Cobalt,

the evidence of people who claimed to have seen Hanratty in Liverpool and/or Rhyl is totally unreliable and/or discredited. Even Sherrard came to accept this. There is no concrete proof that he was in either place at the critical time. If you believe there is such concrete proof, then let's hear it.

Are you by chance referring to Charles France when you accuse me of knowing 'perfectly well' to whom you are referring? If so, say so, otherwise name another name. Hanratty may well have been a 'professional criminal', but he was not 'big time' and in fact there is evidence to believe that he was shunned by the big-time crooks he apparently sought to emulate. I can't quite see him rubbing shoulders with the Krays, for example. He was a small-time crook who for whatever reasons developed big-time ambitions, and to back them acquired a gun. He may or may not have obtained this gun from France - who, for your information, ran the Harmony Cafe in Archer Street, Soho, and was well-known for keeping an 'arsenal' of weapons under the counter.

Hanratty in his evidence tried to build up some credibility for his specious alibi by describing people he'd seen on the train both to, and from, Liverpool. These people never came forward. These people never existed unless they were in Hanratty's memory from previous journeys.

To suggest that it would not be possible for Hanratty to swan around via a taxi when he was tooled-up with gun and ammo is frankly silly. He did so on buses and also presumably in taxis when he was clanking around with nicked metallic goods. And what does 'scraping out coppers' mean, please? Taxis were his preferred means of local transport. I was merely suggesting that he might have taken a taxi to Dorney Reach, not stating that he did so. He could have walked it from Taplow Station for all I know - I did, years ago. It's not far.

Graham

[Limehouse]

Graham,

I think you know perfectly well to whom I am referring. Hanratty was a professional criminal and mixed in criminal circles. There are people within that community who make a sparse living, or have the odd 'job' overlooked, by providing information to the police. Hanratty himself may have had made use of this himself in his time.

Once Hanratty was put in the frame for the A6 case, then it was open season on him as far as the touts were concerned. Anyone who had seen him near London or the locus had a story to tell, for a price. With his bizarre hair colouring he might have found it hard to keep a low profile, but this he amazingly managed to do.

No person 'helpful to the police' has ever emerged to claim his prize of seeing Hanratty on a train, or boarding a taxi. Much more tellingly, what we have is a number of people from the Liverpool/Rhyl area. none of whom had connections with the criminal world, claiming to have seen Hanratty at the relevant time.

As for Hanratty taking a taxi to Taplow cornfield- surely you would have to ask the question why?And how did Hanratty manage to conceal a weapon and a fair amount of ammunition about his person as he scraped out the coppers for the fare? If he was so intent on trying out his new weapon, as the prosecution suggested, why not just hold up the taxi driver? The taxi driver could have sold his story to the tabloids for a fair amount of money.

Hello Cobalt,

Two interesting points there.

Firstly - France was reputed to have been a police informer. He was also reputed to have been able to obtain guns for the criminal fraternity.

Secondly, as has been discussed many times before - why? Why would anyone approach a couple in a car in a cornfield and accost them in such a way? If the couple were sitting in a high-end car and looked well-to-do one could just about imagine it - but would you go looking for such a couple in a cornfield?

What possible reason could a gunman have for seeking out this couple? A dummy run for a future robbery? Again, why would you go to a cornfield to do that? Why not one of the remote petrol supplying garages that were serviced by a loan person at that time of the evening?

This couple in particular were known by close friends and family to be having a relationship. The only really sensible conclusion to draw is that the gunman thought there was a good chance of finding this couple in that field. No other explanation makes sense to me.

Was Hanratty that gunman? Well, he was certainly a criminal, of that there is no doubt. However, he was a criminal who crept through people's homes when they were absent, leaving his 'dabs' all over the place. He was a criminal who thought that what he did was a 'victimless' crime because he believed the people he burgled would be insured. He was not a criminal who liked to confront the reality of his criminal activities. He was also certainly not a sex offender.

The gunman who carried out that terrible act left no 'dab's and if it was Hanratty, he departed dramatically from his usual habits.

[cobalt]

Graham,

It was you who suggested the daft idea that Hanratty might have taken a taxi to the cornfield in the first place, so there’s not much point ridiculing it. That’s already been done on your behalf. As if the taxi driver would have forgotten that particular hire in the aftermath of what took place.

My point about rooting out loose change was to focus on how awkward it would be to have a gun in one pocket, a box load of cartridges in the other, and rake around in a trouser pocket (presumably the one without a handkerchief) to pay the fare, which in these days rarely cost more than 4/- for a medium distance. One minute you claim that Hanratty regularly carried stolen metal goods on buses, the next you claim that taxis were his preferred means of transport. Then again he may have arrived by train. Or maybe he just walked. I can see why you would want to spread some fog around the method by which the murderer arrived at the cornfield, for it is one of the weakest points in the prosecution case, and one that believers in Hanratty’s guilt would rather gloss over.

Dixie France was hardly the only criminal known to Hanratty. Hanratty was small time in the London scene no doubt, but he was dealing in stolen goods, had been in prison and would have had many contacts in London and outwith the city. That’s a big grapevine. Criminals almost never work alone, and alliances are ever-changing.

Finally, Hanratty’s contact with the underworld would surely have taught him a few basic truths about using firearms. They were to be used as frighteners, picked up just before a job was to be done and returned as soon as possible thereafter. If things went wrong and they were used, they had to be dumped. One thing you would never have done was use public transport when armed, or saunter down a country lane.