Excellent stuff, Nick. Thanks again.
Arguments for and against Hanratty going back and forth more than fifty years ago just as they do today.
Couple of examples of the assortment of claims.
Hanratty was a car thief and a good driver, according to his supporters. Hanratty never passed a driving test and was an appalling driver, according to others. However, his supporters respond that even if he was that bad a driver, he would still be able to operate the gears of one of the simplest cars on the road.
Trower is sure he saw Hanratty driving the car. Hogan says Trower couldn't have done. Trower counters by saying it was Hogan who took him back to the police to report the sighting.
Whilst Ansonman pops out to buy fence panels for the writers of the 1966 article, I would just emphasise the doubts and uncertainties it raised. That in turn backs up my long held view that guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It does though probably also back up the view that Hanratty should not have changed alibis and alienated the jury in the process.
Last edited by OneRound : 03-13-2017 at 04:33 AM.