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:
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - by Simon Wood 24 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - by harry 1 hour and 4 minutes ago.
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by drstrange169 1 hour and 4 minutes ago.
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by Robert St Devil 1 hour and 11 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - by drstrange169 1 hour and 12 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - (50 posts)
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - (43 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (10 posts)
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - (6 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: East End Photographs and Drawings - (3 posts)
General Discussion: Jack The Ripper and Venus - (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
  #5021  
Old 09-11-2018, 09:56 AM
Alfie Alfie is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 214
Default Et tu Foot?

As everybody knows, Hanratty told Kleinman that he went into the sweetshop on the Scotland Road and asked the woman serving to direct him to Carlton or Talbot Road.

This has always posed a problem for Hanratty's supporters, since Mrs Dinwoodie signed a statement saying "a chap came into the shop and asked me to direct him to Tarleton Road."

Re-reading Foot, it's just struck me that he tries to get around the difficulty by telling his readers that Mrs Dinwoodie recalled a man coming into the shop and "asking the way to Carlton or Tarleton Rd, or something of the kind."

I long ago gave up trusting Woffinden (I've started a list and so far have 17 instances of him playing fast and loose with important facts, or omitting them altogether.) But up till now I've believed that Foot, although partial to the Hanratty cause, laid out the facts as he found them. I have to say that confidence has now been shaken.

It's left me wondering if I've missed other occasions when he's bent the truth to bolster his case. Anybody have any?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5022  
Old 09-11-2018, 03:09 PM
cobalt cobalt is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 282
Default

It might not be a case of 'bending the truth' as you put it.

When Mrs. Dinwoodie made her statement to the police then it had a legal authority. That much is clear.

What she would have done later, is extrapolate on her conversion with Hanratty when questioned personally by Paul Foot. No doubt Foot was asking leading questions, or offering suggestions, the same as the police who took the original statement were.

Foot was no more bending the truth than the police.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5023  
Old 09-11-2018, 10:48 PM
Alfie Alfie is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 214
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cobalt View Post
It might not be a case of 'bending the truth' as you put it.

When Mrs. Dinwoodie made her statement to the police then it had a legal authority. That much is clear.

What she would have done later, is extrapolate on her conversion with Hanratty when questioned personally by Paul Foot. No doubt Foot was asking leading questions, or offering suggestions, the same as the police who took the original statement were.

Foot was no more bending the truth than the police.
If ... But ... Maybe ...

The above is nothing but supposition on your part, and is quite clearly wrong. The full quote from Foot is: "... the police tracked down Mrs Dinwoodie. To their astonishment, no doubt, she told them that she did indeed remember a young man coming into her shop while she was serving and asking the way to Carlton or Tarleton Road, or something of the kind."

I reiterate, an honest reporter would tell his readers what Mrs Dinwoodie actually said to the police, when the memory of the incident was still relatively fresh in her mind.

Foot chose to keep them in the dark, and then to actually mislead them.

Last edited by Alfie : 09-11-2018 at 10:51 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5024  
Old 09-12-2018, 02:23 AM
Alfie Alfie is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 214
Default Whoops!

I've read on further in Foot's book and am red-faced: four pages later he does quote the part of Dinwoodie's statement to the defence in which she says the man asked for Tarleton Road. I was too quick off the mark and apologize to Foot and to Cobalt for my disparaging remarks.

That said, I can only conclude that Foot had Mrs D telling the police "Carlton or Tarleton Road, or something of the kind" in order to muddy the waters.

Last edited by Alfie : 09-12-2018 at 02:33 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5025  
Old 09-12-2018, 09:40 PM
moste moste is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Vancouver Island British Columbia.
Posts: 486
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfie View Post
I've read on further in Foot's book and am red-faced: four pages later he does quote the part of Dinwoodie's statement to the defence in which she says the man asked for Tarleton Road. I was too quick off the mark and apologize to Foot and to Cobalt for my disparaging remarks.

That said, I can only conclude that Foot had Mrs D telling the police "Carlton or Tarleton Road, or something of the kind" in order to muddy the waters.
Did you notice from previous posts, the side street that Cowleys newsagents is on the corner of, is interestingly, Tarlisin street.I have wondered over past years if Jim had actually found the correct address,
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5026  
Old 09-13-2018, 03:45 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 913
Default

Alfie,

You can take back your apology because in 2002 Foot misled Guardian readers in an even worse way.

"he told his lawyers that in Liverpool he had called at a sweetshop in the Scotland Road to ask the way to Tarleton or Carlton Road. Mrs Olive Dinwoodie gave evidence to say a) that she recalled a man looking like Hanratty calling at her shop and asking the way to Tarleton or Carlton Road ..."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/...kcrime.comment

So Foot now has Hanratty telling his lawyers exactly what Mrs D said in evidence. In fact Hanratty did not tell his lawyers that, nor did Mrs D say that in evidence. He has twisted both to make them the same.

Last edited by NickB : 09-13-2018 at 03:51 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5027  
Old 09-14-2018, 04:35 PM
cobalt cobalt is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 282
Default

I am not sure why the finer detail of the Hanratty alibi is being focused on here. Is it to suggest that Paul Foot was being economical with the truth? If that is the case then I think I have explained earlier how HIS conversation with Mrs. Dinwoodie was likely to have provided more detail and doubt than the official police statement. Paul Foot did, after all, speak to the woman face to face and is entitled to offer his version of her account, the same as the police did. There is nothing dishonest in that. Mrs. Dinwoodie is regarded by both sides as an honest, if fallible witness.

What we do now is that a man, not a local Liverpudlian, asked for directions in her sweetshop on either 21st or 22nd August. What I am not clear on is why such an emphasis is being placed on whether he asked for Tarleton, or Carleton or Talbot etc. It’s remarkable that Mrs. Dinwoodie had as much recall as she did months after the event. Presumably I am missing something here, but if the stranger had asked for Matthew Street and the Cavern Club it would have made little difference. The Beatles did actually play the Cavern Club on the 21st and the 23rd of August, but had Hanratty taken over the drums from Pete Best on either of these nights and been photographed then I doubt that would be evidence enough for those convinced of his guilt. Creating an alibi, they would claim.

Foot spent much time in trying to establish an Hanratty alibi in the Liverpool/Rhyl area with limited success. He did expose some doubt, to his credit, but he was never likely to come up with incontrovertible truth. Alibis are hard enough to prove in the immediate aftermath, never mind a few years down the line. No doubt Stefan Kisko or Paddy Hill could vouch for that. I think Foot should have spent more time on the locus of the crime and also dug deeper into the background of of William Ewer, a man of whom we know remarkably little.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5028  
Old 09-15-2018, 12:47 AM
Limehouse Limehouse is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Cambridgeshire, England.
Posts: 1,881
Default

Hello everyone,

I have been catching up with recent posts and it is nice to see the debate is continuing with far more decorum than has been the case in previous years.

There is a good balance between guilty/innocent/undecided contributors and some interesting angles have been explored.

My views about crime and punishment have changed slightly in recent years. My reactions to prolific criminals have hardened and, although still a passionate believer in Social Justice (the REAL sort, not the joke organisation headed by Ian Duncan Smith) I have become far less tolerant towards those who refuse to make even a small amount of effort to be half-decent citizens.

So, have my views about Hanratty changed? Well, I am 95% certain that Hanratty was innocent for the following reasons:

1. He does not fit in with any reasonable motive for the crime
2. He had no previous history of violence or sexual deviance
3. With the exception of VS, the majority of witnesses for the prosecution had reason to lie about Hanratty's involvement
4. He had an alibi that is supported by a number of people with no reason to lie
5. I have reasonable doubt about the reliability of the DNA evidence.

However, I accept that Hanratty was foolish for introducing his alibi so late in the day and agree that it does throw doubt on its reliability.

There are several things I think stand out concerning the investigation and conviction:

a) We are encouraged to simply accept that the motive was probably 'a robbery gone wrong' which is fair enough UNTIL you consider that there were connections between the victim's brother-in-law and one of Hanratty's associates.
b) If we accept that Hanratty's alibi was unreliable because it was produced so late in the day, then surely we should also accept that the two cartridge cases, so relevant in connecting Hanratty to the crime, were also found rather late (weeks after the crime, and even after the room had been cleaned following Hanratty's departure from the hotel room) and are therefore unreliable evidence? The possibility of them having been planted is strong, I believe.

To me, the whole investigation was rushed, many of the witnesses were unreliable and had reason to point the finger at Hanratty (to save their own skin, in one case) and there is a whole nasty smell that hangs over the entire series of events that is difficult to shift.

Have a good weekend all.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5029  
Old 09-15-2018, 06:16 AM
moste moste is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Vancouver Island British Columbia.
Posts: 486
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Limehouse View Post
Hello everyone,

I have been catching up with recent posts and it is nice to see the debate is continuing with far more decorum than has been the case in previous years.

There is a good balance between guilty/innocent/undecided contributors and some interesting angles have been explored.

My views about crime and punishment have changed slightly in recent years. My reactions to prolific criminals have hardened and, although still a passionate believer in Social Justice (the REAL sort, not the joke organisation headed by Ian Duncan Smith) I have become far less tolerant towards those who refuse to make even a small amount of effort to be half-decent citizens.

So, have my views about Hanratty changed? Well, I am 95% certain that Hanratty was innocent for the following reasons:

1. He does not fit in with any reasonable motive for the crime
2. He had no previous history of violence or sexual deviance
3. With the exception of VS, the majority of witnesses for the prosecution had reason to lie about Hanratty's involvement
4. He had an alibi that is supported by a number of people with no reason to lie
5. I have reasonable doubt about the reliability of the DNA evidence.

However, I accept that Hanratty was foolish for introducing his alibi so late in the day and agree that it does throw doubt on its reliability.

There are several things I think stand out concerning the investigation and conviction:

a) We are encouraged to simply accept that the motive was probably 'a robbery gone wrong' which is fair enough UNTIL you consider that there were connections between the victim's brother-in-law and one of Hanratty's associates.
b) If we accept that Hanratty's alibi was unreliable because it was produced so late in the day, then surely we should also accept that the two cartridge cases, so relevant in connecting Hanratty to the crime, were also found rather late (weeks after the crime, and even after the room had been cleaned following Hanratty's departure from the hotel room) and are therefore unreliable evidence? The possibility of them having been planted is strong, I believe.

To me, the whole investigation was rushed, many of the witnesses were unreliable and had reason to point the finger at Hanratty (to save their own skin, in one case) and there is a whole nasty smell that hangs over the entire series of events that is difficult to shift.

Have a good weekend all.
Hi Julie. nice to see you on here again,your brief synopsis mirrors my own views pretty accurately. I have a list somewhere of about 30 oddities/enigmas , that give me cause to be very suspicious of the handling of this case by the police and authorities, high on the list of course is the used shells you alluded to in the hotel room.
I wish more could have been revealed by the defence and investigative journalists with regards to Bill Ewer , whose connections to the whole affair in my view are extremely ominous.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5030  
Old Today, 11:08 AM
Sherlock Houses Sherlock Houses is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 443
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moste View Post
Did you notice from previous posts, the side street that Cowleys newsagents is on the corner of, is interestingly, Tarlisin street.I have wondered over past years if Jim had actually found the correct address,
A slight but important correction is in order here Moste. Taliesin Street is actually a couple of streets further on from David Cowley's corner sweet shop [as you head towards St Anthony's RC church]. The side street that the sweet shop was partially on was Taylor Street.

The Liverpool Echo of February 7th 1962 [the first day of Hanratty's trial evidence] includes trial evidence which, very curiously is missing from the dozen or so newspapers [the major ones of the day plus regional ones] I have downloaded over the last decade. I have copied verbatim part of that Echo article which refers very pertinently to the location of the sweet shop.......


After leaving the left luggage office, Hanratty said that he went into Lime Street and he got on a bus and asked the conductor the way to Carlton Road or Tarleton Road, But the conductor did not know the direction.

Mr. Sherrard : "Did you go anywhere in particular and make an enquiry ?" ----"I asked two or three people beforehand, but they did not have a knowledge of Liverpool and so I thought I would ask someone who was a resident. So I went into a sweet shop. It looked like a sweet shop to me. The sweet shop was in Scotland Road.

Hanratty said that he had got on the bus and gone to the sweet shop.
Mr. Sherrard asked Hanratty to tell the court anything he remembered when he got off the bus to go to the sweet shop.

Hanratty said he remembered waiting for the traffic lights to change as he was crossing the road because he was standing on an island. When the lights turned to red he went across and there were some railings to stop children running onto the road. He remembered these because he had to walk round them.



This is precisely what he would have encountered after getting off the bus, as evidenced by the two attached photos from that time.
Attached Images
  
__________________
*************************************
"A body of men, HOLDING THEMSELVES ACCOUNTABLE TO NOBODY, ought not to be trusted by anybody." --Thomas Paine ["Rights of Man"]

"Justice is an ideal which transcends the expedience of the State, or the sensitivities of Government officials, or private individuals. IT HAS TO BE PURSUED WHATEVER THE COST IN PEACE OF MIND TO THOSE CONCERNED." --'Justice of the Peace' [July 12th 1975]
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 07:59 PM.


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