Mrs Dinwoodie

[NickB]

The Daily Telegraph's report of Mrs D's evidence ...

[NickB]

Re-arranging the clippings

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]

Thanks, Nick.

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

Best regards,

OneRound

[Spitfire]

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

[OneRound]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.