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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[GUT]

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

[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?

[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]

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.

[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

[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]

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]

...I wonder if there was some semblance of reality in what Mrs D said which Hanratty found out about and untruthfully adapted so as to try and crowbar himself and an alibi into the sweetshop at the relevant time...

And I suppose we have to believe that Hanratty obviously found out about the sweetshop from somebody who was his look-alike double as picked out by Mrs D.

[OneRound]

Hi Graham,

That's a good and helpful 11 point post. Particularly for someone like me who no longer has the books. In view of that last aspect, grateful if you could confirm (or not) something concerning the fence that Hanratty claimed he was trying to find in Liverpool.

Didn't Hanratty allege at some point that he knew or knew of this Aspinall chap from an earlier time in prison? If so, couldn't that be checked and followed up by both the prosecution and the defence? Depending upon what was found out, I would have thought that would have helped one side.

I would also be interested in some guesswork from you. Purely out of personal further interest.

I appreciate the purpose of your 11 pointer was to show the sweetshop ''alibi'' as ''unsupportable'' rather than to categorically state what may or may not have happened there on other days. For me, your purpose is successfully achieved.

I just would be interested in whether you think there was ever a visitor there asking for these particular directions or whether it was all simply a figment of Mrs Dinwoodie's imagination planted there by a mixture of Mrs Cowley and DC Pugh? Your post appears to side towards the latter. However, if Mrs D was on a journey of total make-believe she managed to take her granddaughter along with her.

All very confusing although nothing there indicates Hanratty's innocence. For my part, I wonder if there was some semblance of reality in what Mrs D said which Hanratty found out about and untruthfully adapted so as to try and crowbar himself and an alibi into the sweetshop at the relevant time.

As you suggest, Hanratty certainly tried to do similar as regards Rhyl. My own thoughts on Rhyl are that rather than him thinking it up all by himself in his cell in Bedford, someone on the outside belatedly got a message and the idea to him to use it. That ''alibi'' failed miserably and, as you have often said, Hanratty may have walked if it had not been introduced when it was. However, I suspect Hanratty was aware someone would come forward to support his Rhyl claims and so believed that would secure an acquittal, albeit wrongly.

Sorry to also go on a bit and veer away in part from the main thrust of your post.

Best regards,

OneRound

[NickB]

And when you consider that when asked by Sherrard ,"Do you you see someone in the court room who you think could be. That man, " she nodded at Hanratty and said"Him"

That is the question that Sherrard would have asked had he considered Mrs D a friendly witness to the defence, but he didn't.

Instead he brought out the signed photo which the jury had already been told was discredited (because it was the only one she had been shown before signing) and asked if she had signed it and if it depicted Hanratty. She half-heartedly agreed. She could hardly have denied what everyone already knew.

Mrs D then effectively nullified her identification of Hanratty by saying the visitor called on the Monday. She did not do this by accident, as shown by what had happened when she had been interviewed by Kleinman.

She must have been curious to know why the defence were so intent on her not saying it happened on the Monday and I would be surprised if she did not seek out the answer, which was readily available in newspaper reports. So I think it is likely that by the time she testified in court it was the Monday, she knew that Hanratty was in London on that day.

[moste]

A good post Graham. You make a good case for the prosecution.

But neither I, nor those who inhabited the demi-monde of the Liverpool criminal underworld, have your confidence in the Liverpool police force. This was a force which was known to fit up evidence to have suspects hanged. The Cameo Murder case has been acknowledged legally as a miscarriage of justice; the Devlin/Burns case must surely follow in time.

Bert Balmer, Head Honcho of Liverpool CID in 1961, was clearly as corrupt as any of his kindred spirits in South Yorkshire have latterly been found to be regarding Hillsborough.

The private detective who investigated Hanratty's alibi, and who contaminated the ID evidence, was known to Balmer and had served under him. Hanratty would have known all about the Liverpool CID and was, no doubt, very reluctant to use an alibi which involved local criminals. Kelly, the so called Cameo murderer, was but an acquaintance of the likely murderer. That was Balmer's Liverpool of the time: either cough up or you will end up in the dock yourself.

All quite correct, but at the end of the day ,all that Graham has to say is valueless when you consider that Mrs. Dinwoodie probable did have her days wrong ,probably was confused over this funny accent ,And when you consider that when asked by Sherrard ,"Do you you see someone in the court room who you think could be. That man, " she nodded at Hanratty and said"Him"
P S. When I was 21 I arrived at Euston on my way to Ostende on honeymoon ,I had never been to London before , when asking a local vendor where we might get a decent breakfast, was visited by a linguistic outpouring of local dialect which both confused and to some degree ,frightened me and my new bride,as we both agreed at some point we were going to need verbal help in achieving our goal of boarding the boat train at Victoria.I discovered as the years rolled by , that the chap I had entered into a conversation with was actually a local Kingscross lad, who believed these Manchester folk talked funny and were easy to take a rise out of. I had watched episodes of 'No hiding place' and 'Z cars' and the like, But in the case of the elderly Mrs. Dinwoodie on the Scotland Rd. I mean ,don't you agree with me, the 'Pro hang him crowd 'should wake up and smell the coffee? She saw him in the shop, thought he talked funny and remembered her granddaughter being with her, forgetting that she was also with her briefly next day around5 pm .simple as