PDA

View Full Version : Mrs Dinwoodie


NickB
06-15-2017, 11:32 AM
The Daily Telegraph's report of Mrs D's evidence ...

NickB
06-16-2017, 02:49 AM
The first clip (in the previous post) is from the introduction of the report, which is why I put it first. However if I move it over to the right the clippings should be easier to read ...

OneRound
06-16-2017, 11:48 AM
Thanks, Nick.

Pretty leading questions from Swanwick in his cross-examination of Mrs D, I thought.

Best regards,

OneRound

Spitfire
06-16-2017, 02:06 PM
Thanks, Nick.

Pretty leading questions from Swanwick in his cross-examination of Mrs D, I thought.

Best regards,

OneRound


Indeed they are leading questions, but as Mrs Dinwoodie was the defence's witness the prosecution could ask them. The rule against leading questions only applies to the party calling the witness.

"The rule against ‘leading’ is simply that you must not ask your own witness questions about matters which are in dispute in such a way that you suggest the answer you want your witness to give."

Leading questions (https://www.graysinn.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/members/LBE%20Criminal.pdf)

OneRound
06-17-2017, 12:54 AM
Hi Spitfire,

Good points and thanks for the attachment.

I don't and can't dispute what you say. I suppose I just find it hard to regard Mrs D as (purely) a defence witness given her insistence at Swanwick's prompting that ''this conversation took place on the Monday'' which undermined Hanratty's claim and presumably contributed to the guilty verdict.

There again, Sherrard should have been savvy enough to spot what was likely to happen when he called Mrs D in the first place. Possibly his client left him with no choice.

Best regards,

OneRound

GUT
06-17-2017, 01:37 AM
Thanks, Nick.

Pretty leading questions from Swanwick in his cross-examination of Mrs D, I thought.

Best regards,

OneRound

Ummmm not only are you allowed to lead in cross examination, you should.

OneRound
06-17-2017, 06:56 AM
Ummmm not only are you allowed to lead in cross examination, you should.

GUT - thank you for taking the time and trouble to respond even though your reply comes across as ungracious and unhelpful. A shame you didn't see and/or follow my second post.

OneRound

NickB
06-17-2017, 02:11 PM
I think Sherrard was savvy enough to know what Mrs D was likely to say because Kleinman had interviewed her.

1. You will notice Sherrard refers to the visitor as “the chap whose picture that resembled” rather than Hanratty. So Swanwick is repeating the phrase already used when he asks: “You thought it resembled the chap who had come into the shop, and [that] is as far as you could go?”

2. In answer to Sherrard’s question “Can you say now with certainty ...?” she replies “The Monday.” So again Swanwick is simply referring to what she has already said when he asks if she is certain the conversation took place on the Monday.

Mrs D was certain it was the Monday because:
(a) Barbara was serving with her on Monday;
(b) Cowley’s brother was serving with her on Tuesday.

Foot and Woffinden report (a) because they believe they can muddy the waters by talking about Barbara’s re-appearance with Linda on Tuesday. But they conceal (b).

Indeed they deliberately mislead by saying that (a) was:
- “the one criterion by which Mrs Dinwoodie and Barbara Ford had been able to fix the Monday rather than the Tuesday.” (Foot)
- “the only reason Mrs Dinwoodie had for placing the incident on the Monday rather than the Tuesday.” (Woffinden)

Derrick
06-18-2017, 03:59 AM
That leaves us with the quandary over Hanratty mentioning asking for Tarleton Road in a sweetshop in Scotland Road on the Tuesday and Mrs Dinwoodie corroborating a man asking for the non-existent Tarleton Road and resembling Hanratty.

Hanratty was plainly in London all of the previous day (Monday 21st) as proved by the Crown.

I don't believe that Hanratty sought to buy an alibi as ludicrously put forward by the prosecution.

I believe Mrs Dinwoodie was mistaken as to the correct day; she became ill that Tuesday evening.

Del

GUT
06-18-2017, 04:09 AM
That leaves us with the quandary over Hanratty mentioning asking for Tarleton Road in a sweetshop in Scotland Road on the Tuesday and Mrs Dinwoodie corroborating a man asking for the non-existent Tarleton Road and resembling Hanratty.

Hanratty was plainly in London all of the previous day (Monday 21st) as proved by the Crown.

I don't believe that Hanratty sought to buy an alibi as ludicrously put forward by the prosecution.

I believe Mrs Dinwoodie was mistaken as to the correct day; she became ill that Tuesday evening.

Del

But her evidence was clear it could only have been the Monday if you believe her, and if not it's no alibi anyway.

GUT
06-18-2017, 04:12 AM
GUT - thank you for taking the time and trouble to respond even though your reply comes across as ungracious and unhelpful. A shame you didn't see and/or follow my second post.

OneRound

Sorry to hurt your feelings, but if you want to critique a legal proceeding at least find out what the rules are before claiming someone broke them.

GUT
06-18-2017, 04:20 AM
Ohh and I answer posts as I come to them I don't read every post then go back reading them again to answer them, just in case someone changed their mind.

OneRound
06-18-2017, 04:52 AM
Ohh and I answer posts as I come to them I don't read every post then go back reading them again to answer them, just in case someone changed their mind.

GUT - you seem to suggest that changing one's mind is a bad thing. Surely it's better to come to a forum prepared to listen than act like a braying donkey.

OneRound

OneRound
06-18-2017, 05:11 AM
That leaves us with the quandary over Hanratty mentioning asking for Tarleton Road in a sweetshop in Scotland Road on the Tuesday and Mrs Dinwoodie corroborating a man asking for the non-existent Tarleton Road and resembling Hanratty.

Hanratty was plainly in London all of the previous day (Monday 21st) as proved by the Crown.

I don't believe that Hanratty sought to buy an alibi as ludicrously put forward by the prosecution.

I believe Mrs Dinwoodie was mistaken as to the correct day; she became ill that Tuesday evening.

Del

Hi Del - one of the issues for me with the sweet shop alibi is that whilst it goes into some commendable detail, that is at variance with the vague way in which Hanratty describes the other events of that day and who else he encountered then.

It comes across to me that what happened in the shop is all that Hanratty has any confidence in talking about. It's almost like he just materialised there and departed in similar fashion. Is that because it was the only memorable thing on the Tuesday that he could recall or was it because it was the only attempted alibi he could obtain?

As flagged by Nick, there's also the matter of David Cowley's brother being in the shop on the Tuesday. Wouldn't he have been the first person that Mrs D would have asked about the whereabouts of Tarleton Road?

Best regards,

OneRound

NickB
06-18-2017, 06:59 AM
That leaves us with the quandary over Hanratty mentioning asking for Tarleton Road.

But at first Hanratty did not mention Tarleton Road. The notes that Natalie obtained show that what he told Kleinman about Aspinall was: “In Lewes he’d given me his address as Talbot or Carlton Road, Liverpool.” This ties in with the Appeal (section 54) which says Kleinman submitted a written statement that the road names Hanratty said he asked for were Carlton and Talbot.

"Talbot or Carlton" had morphed into "Carlton or Tarleton" by the time Hanratty gave evidence. By then he had witnessed Acott being cross-examined about Mrs D's evidence at the committal and earlier in the trial.

I don't believe that Hanratty sought to buy an alibi as ludicrously put forward by the prosecution.

I believe he sought to buy an alibi. I don't know how else you can explain his reason for going to Liverpool - to "see if these people would stand by my alibi". Whether he obtained one is another question.

OneRound
06-18-2017, 08:30 AM
Hi Nick - did Aspinall at any time live in Talbot / Carlton Road or anywhere else in Liverpool sounding at all similar?

If he did, it is even more of a coincidence if someone other than Hanratty should be asking for it.

If he didn't, why was Hanratty asking where it was?

Apologies if covered in the books but I don't have access to them currently.

Many thanks,

OneRound

NickB
06-18-2017, 09:35 AM
I don't think anyone believed Aspinall existed.

Derrick
06-18-2017, 12:13 PM
...Acott being cross-examined about Mrs D's evidence at the committal...
please explain further about this.

NickB
06-18-2017, 01:04 PM
please explain further about this.

His original statement to the defence in October appears to have changed to fit in with Mrs D’s version of the visit. Originally he talked about things like Mrs D walking him to the door and giving him instructions. If he had repeated this in court it would have been apparent that the encounter described was not the same one Mrs D then described.

Incidentally (going off on a tangent) I have read that the Hanratty family did not attend court when Jim gave evidence*. As Mrs D's evidence immediately followed his, I suppose this means they did not see her evidence either.

http://www.hotpress.com/politics/frontlines/theGREATEST-INJUSTICE-of-all/392670.html
* This is from the article linked to above where Michael says:
“The only day we didn’t go to the trial was when Jimmy was giving evidence. Michael Sherrard, his barrister, said Jimmy would be able to concentrate better, because he was always smiling and winking at us and telling us not to worry.”

GUT
06-18-2017, 01:32 PM
GUT - you seem to suggest that changing one's mind is a bad thing. Surely it's better to come to a forum prepared to listen than act like a braying donkey.

OneRound

Nothing wrong with changing your mind, but don't expect people to know you have and start braying when they answer you first post.

OneRound
06-19-2017, 03:30 AM
I don't think anyone believed Aspinall existed.

Hi Nick - given Hanratty claimed to have been in prison with Aspinall, I would have expected this to have been checked this with the prison authorities. True or false, the result would have helped one side. I'm surprised if no such check was carried out.

Best regards,

OneRound

NickB
06-19-2017, 06:44 AM
Those are good points. I think checks must have been made and Aspinall would have been identified had he existed.

Even if he did exist, what I have never understood is how Hanratty could have located him. The streets in Liverpool include 2 Carltons, 2 Talbots and several streets (eg Tarlton) which sound something like each. Did he intend visiting each one and asking around for Aspinall the fence?

OneRound
06-19-2017, 12:39 PM
Those are good points. I think checks must have been made and Aspinall would have been identified had he existed.

Even if he did exist, what I have never understood is how Hanratty could have located him. The streets in Liverpool include 2 Carltons, 2 Talbots and several streets (eg Tarlton) which sound something like each. Did he intend visiting each one and asking around for Aspinall the fence?

Thanks, Nick.

Being very charitable towards Hanratty, I suppose he may not have realised how many similarly sounding streets there were in Liverpool when he headed there. By the same token, he might have thought that once he got the street he would get the man. He did seem to only consider problems when they arose rather than anticipating them.

Best regards,

OneRound