Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 25 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 31 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 37 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 41 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Scott Nelson 42 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 45 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (43 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - (28 posts)
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - (23 posts)
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - (6 posts)
General Discussion: Do you think it will be solved? - (2 posts)
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Social Chat > Other Mysteries > A6 Murders

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #4091  
Old 03-08-2017, 11:33 AM
ansonman ansonman is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 144
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derrick View Post
Hi Spitto

He may call it the Final Final Verdict!

Dello
I know someone who would prefer the title to read:

"This matter is now closed"

Ansonman
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4092  
Old 03-09-2017, 12:44 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 915
Default

The recently mentioned Neville and Griffin shop.

Also the garage which the Sunday Times, back in 1966, identified as the Regent garage.
Attached Images
 
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4093  
Old 03-09-2017, 01:05 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 915
Default

Vienna Hotel.

Also, Trower standing at the spot in Redbridge Lane where he claimed to have seen the car.
Attached Images
 
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4094  
Old 03-09-2017, 03:56 AM
Spitfire Spitfire is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB View Post
The recently mentioned Neville and Griffin shop.

Also the garage which the Sunday Times, back in 1966, identified as the Regent garage.
Thanks for that Nick, I thought it would have been a bit of a detour to go to the actual dairy itself on Osbourne St.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4095  
Old 03-09-2017, 02:56 PM
Spitfire Spitfire is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 626
Default

One of the things which this case much teach us is the fallibility of human memory, whether it is in the recall of the facts of an incident or the physiognomy of the perpetrator of a crime.

I have recently acquired a second hand copy of Sherrard's (auto) biography, and have noticed that the authors (Linda Goldman and Mike Sherrard) are not immune from making lapses with regard to the Hanratty case.

First, Ms Goldman who writes (in italics) about Sherrard in the third person claims that Hanratty was the third to the last person to be executed in UK before abolition. In fact seven more criminals were to follow Jim onto the gallows, making Jim's execution the eighth to last.

Second, Mike gives an account of Victor Durand's suspension which involves Durand's conduct of a case before Mr Justice Milmo, whereas in fact the case (Meek v Fleming) involved Mr Justice Streatfield.

Minor lapses of fact I agree but it does not fill one with confidence that the rest of his (and Ms Goldman's) account will be accurate and I have reason to believe it is not where it deals with Hanratty's change of alibi. At page 97 MS writes:

The trial progressed slowly. After two or three weeks...I went to the cells on my routine visit
"I want to go into the box, sir" Hanratty insisted. I was not happy about that. The law did not require him to do so. The only thing I was concerned with that he could contribute sparked from his blank denials of any part in the crime. There were questions that would arise about his alibi which hinged upon him being in Liverpool and meeting three men. He would be asked who they were, their names and why he was visiting.
I said "Look Jim, you'll have to explain why you were in Liverpool. You'll be asked these questions and you will have to reply.
"I can tell that sir," he answered.Then he looked down and said, "Well actually I wasn't in Liverpool."


The trial started on 22 Jan 1961 and Foot reports at p 220 that the first document mentioning the Rhyl alibi was dated 26 Jan 1962, a scribbled note on the back on an envelope written by Kleinman. There was a further and more detailed note dated 29 Jan 1962 which was the Monday of the second week of the trial.

So it would seem that Jim told his lawyers that his Liverpool alibi, insofar as it related to the evening of 22 August and the following day, was a lie a lot early than Sherrard would now have us believe.

Nothing seems to have been done about the change of alibi until the defence team went into action and a photograph was taken of Jim on 5 October, which was then shown to the landladies of Rhyl. This resulted in the discovery of Mrs Grace "Miracle" Jones. Foot and Woffinden disagree on the date when Gillbanks discovered Jones; Foot (p223) has it as 7 February and Woffinden (p226) on 6 February.

I have read that Swanwick alleged in his cross-examination of Hanratty that the prosecution were kept in the dark as to the change of alibi until 4.30 pm on 6 February when (I assume) Sherrard mentioned it in his opening address.

I find this all very odd.Why did the defence do nothing as regards evidence gathering between Hanratty changing his alibi instructions, which may have been as early as 26 January, the Friday of the first week of the trial, but certainly no later than the following Monday, and the taking of the photo on 5 February? It seems inconceivable that nothing should be done in that period but both Foot and Woffinden seem to accept that this did in fact happen.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4096  
Old 03-10-2017, 02:51 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 915
Default

Quote:
Swanwick: “You had, until 4.30 yesterday afternoon led the prosecution on a wild goose chase?”

Hanratty: "Yes sir, yes."

Swanwick: “I suggest that you invented this alibi over the weekend.”

Hanratty: "You will see in due course."
Hanratty did not reveal that actually he had told his defence a week or so before that weekend!

As you know I have queried this delay before. The only explanation I can think of is that during this period the defence were desperately trying to get Hanratty to drop his Rhyl alibi.

In court when trying to explain why he had previously withheld the alibi Hanratty talked about how he did not feel that he could tell the intimidating Acott. But he also did not tell his defence counsel, whom he described as his friends and clearly admired. I find it difficult to see how, when they sat down to go through what he did in the murder week, he would have told them about the false Liverpool alibi if he had really been to Rhyl. I think Sherrard felt the same.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4097  
Old 03-10-2017, 04:42 AM
OneRound OneRound is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 502
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB View Post
Hanratty did not reveal that actually he had told his defence a week or so before that weekend!

As you know I have queried this delay before. The only explanation I can think of is that during this period the defence were desperately trying to get Hanratty to drop his Rhyl alibi.

In court when trying to explain why he had previously withheld the alibi Hanratty talked about how he did not feel that he could tell the intimidating Acott. But he also did not tell his defence counsel, whom he described as his friends and clearly admired. I find it difficult to see how, when they sat down to go through what he did in the murder week, he would have told them about the false Liverpool alibi if he had really been to Rhyl. I think Sherrard felt the same.
Hi all - good and interesting posts from Nick above and, before that, Spit.

I'm pretty sure Nick's explanation is correct although the note of 29 January 1962 and timed at 5 pm signed by Hanratty [Natalie provided a scanned copy on the separate thread] appears clear and categoric in its instructions to his solicitors and counsel about ''the Rhyl alibi story''. It is certainly couched in legal terms.

Swanwick accused Hanratty of leading ''the prosecution on a wild goose chase'' until (apparently) 4.30 pm on 6 February. As someone who has been very critical of Acott's non disclosures in this case, it is only fair to say that Sherrard's own silence concerning Rhyl helped keep that wild goose chase running in its final week.

I appreciate that defendants had the right in 1962 to introduce a so called ambush alibi at trial. However, I don't know if defence counsel had any obligation at that time to promptly report to the judge and prosecution counsel any formal instructions concerning a change of original alibi. Perhaps they didn't then. However, even if not and to quote my old granddad, it seems 'a rum do'.

Best regards,

OneRound
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4098  
Old 03-10-2017, 06:52 AM
Spitfire Spitfire is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 626
Default

Hi Nick and OR,

Nick, I hadn't realised you'd raised the point previously.

I can't believe that the defence would have done nothing in Rhyl for the week commencing 29 January 1962. The clear written instructions of that date were to find the landlady of the boarding house and Sherrard and Kleinman must have acted on those instructions. In which case Gillbanks would have been in Rhyl during the second week of the trial.

Is it possible that Gillbanks found Mrs Jones earlier than we have been led to believe? Could he have found Ingledene, discovered that it had a green bath in the attic and that the landlady, who resembled Hanratty's description of her, recalled a single male staying there in the preceding August. A photo of Hanratty would be needed to confirm that he was that man, as there was no visitor's book saying a J Ryan or J Hanratty had stayed there.

I don't think that Sherrard had any duty to the prosecution or to the court to inform either of the change of alibi, although the longer the Liverpool deception continued, the worse it would look for Jim. However as he had maintained his Liverpool alibi since before his arrest, an extra week of continuing the Liverpool pretence would make little difference. It did however enable the defence to keep its options open. Until Sherrard mentioned the Rhyl alibi, it would have been perfectly feasible for Hanratty to stay out of the witness box. Unlikely as it might have been, the prosecution had not conclusively proved that the Liverpool alibi was a lie, and the defence still had Mrs Dinwoodie to support the part of the Liverpool alibi which was not an admitted lie.

Once evidence was discovered that supported the Rhyl alibi, a decision had to be made and given Hanratty's instructions, the only realistic course of action was to run with this alibi. The photograph of Jim was taken on the 5 February and shown to Mrs Jones on the following day(if Woffinden is right and Foot wrong). Once she confirmed that the man in the photo was the man whom she remembered staying the previous August, then Sherrard could let the cat out of the bag which he did to Swanwick's annoyance at 4.30 pm on 6 February.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4099  
Old 03-10-2017, 07:22 AM
Spitfire Spitfire is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 626
Default

I should mention that the account given by Sherrard in Wigs and Wherefores page 98 is to the effect that Hanratty immediately on announcing his change of alibi had given a statement to his Solicitor which had been typed up somewhere in Bedford and which was to be delivered to Sherrard at his hotel in that town that evening.

Unfortunately the clerk delivering the statement, either dropped it or had it pick pocketed by the Bedfordshire constabulary, at any event when he arrived to give Sherrard the statement he did not have it. Sherrard sent him back to see where it had gone to, and when showing him out, who should be there at the door but a "nice" policeman who had the manilla envelope containing Jim's new alibi.

Sherrard concludes this tale by saying, "The police were in Rhyl before I had finished reading the statement."

I am not sure how much of this account a serious student of the A6 Murder should accept.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4100  
Old 03-10-2017, 07:45 AM
OneRound OneRound is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 502
Default

Hi again folks,

An interesting exchange between Swanwick and Hanratty, as per Nick's post.

S: I suggest that you invented the alibi over the weekend.
H: You will see in due course.

Did Hanratty know then that Mrs Jones had been located?

I recall in one of the tv documentaries John Kerr saying that Hanratty did not come across well at trial and referred to him as seeming ''cocky''. That is contrary to the views of some others who feel Hanratty stood his ground well. The exchange above may support Kerr's view.

Best regards,

OneRound
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.