a6 murder

[Victor]

Vic, can I
1] ask you why you left out the final sentence of this paragraph which ofcourse completely changes its meaning?

Hi Norma,

What the hell are you talking about? I haven't missed that line out at all, and if you actually read my post I use those specific sentences as direct evidence that your previous reasoning is demonstrably flawed...

The full quote is:-
Mr Sherrard said, "The wrong man was not hanged. That was an immense relief to me." However, his opinion of the original prosecution remains unchanged. "The evidence was too weak to justify conviction. I still hold that view."

Breaking that down into the 4 sentences attributed to MS, we have:-
The wrong man was not hanged. The state did not execute an innocent man.
That was an immense relief to me. MS is incredibly relieved that the state hasn't executed an innocent man, maybe because he felt some responsibility because he defended Hanratty, and didn't manage to get him released despite the fact he thought the case was weak (see below). Or it could be his feelings of failure and inadequacy have reduced because Hanratty actually was guilty and he didn't make such a pig's ear of defending him.
The evidence was too weak to justify conviction. The jury was wrong in convicting him.
I still hold that view. The appeal judges were wrong to state "The DNA evidence made what was a strong case even stronger. Equally the strength of the evidence overall pointing to the guilt of the appellant supports our conclusion as to the DNA."From paragraph 211 of the judgement.

Whereas the last 2 sentences I quoted above are critising the work of the "his three colleagues the judges", and "questioning their judgement".

It now just smacks of you squirming desperately to avoid answering a direct question. You reminded me of Michael Howard in that famous interview with Jeremy Paxman.

2]What you have linked us to is a report without a by line.We need to know who wrote it.It is not a verbatim account of Michael Sherrard"s talk at all.There is no date on it and most of the talk is missing and impossible to locate .
So how can we find out who wrote it up?

I completly agree that we should find some verification or corroboration of the details reported, and if you check out the URL it links to the City of London School for Girls, and the trail seems to ebb out there.

Without the full report ,its date and the name of the reporter how can we check it for accuracy?

That's an interesting viewpoint so how does that relate to your stated position regarding that highly dubious, and publically denied "She saw him at the cleaners" newspaper report you started a thread about?

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Vic,

Originally Posted by Victor
It's here -> http://web.archive.org/web/200502121...k/hanratty.htm

But there's no specific date on it.

That's essentially what he says in the penultimate paragraph - Mr Sherrard said, "The wrong man was not hanged. That was an immense relief to me." However, his opinion of the original prosecution remains unchanged.

The recent DNA tests would seem to prove conclusively that Hanratty did in fact commit the crime for which he was executed. Mr Sherrard said, "The wrong man was not hanged. That was an immense relief to me." However, his opinion of the original prosecution remains unchanged. "The evidence was too weak to justify conviction. I still hold that view."

Vic, can I
1] ask you why you left out the final sentence of this paragraph which ofcourse completely changes its meaning?

2]What you have linked us to is a report without a by line.We need to know who wrote it.It is not a verbatim account of Michael Sherrard"s talk at all.There is no date on it and most of the talk is missing and impossible to locate .
So how can we find out who wrote it up?
Without the full report ,its date and the name of the reporter how can we check it for accuracy?

[NickB]

By this late stage in the trial, he's aware his life is at stake yet he invents this **** and bull story about a conversation in a sweet shop which he knows can never be corroborated?

Actually he came up with the sweet shop story on 13th October, the same day he was arrested.

[Victor]

Vic,
I have just noticed your above post. I need to be given an exact source as I am unable to find it in "wikipedia".

It's here -> http://web.archive.org/web/200502121...k/hanratty.htm

But there's no specific date on it.

That's essentially what he says in the penultimate paragraph - Mr Sherrard said, "The wrong man was not hanged. That was an immense relief to me." However, his opinion of the original prosecution remains unchanged. "The evidence was too weak to justify conviction. I still hold that view."

I would need for example to know exactly:

1]when Michael Sherrard is alleged by Wikipedia to have made such remarks,

He is not alleged by wikipedia to have made the remarks, the link to the quote is on wikipedia - on the James Hanratty page, in the External Links section at the bottom, clearly labelled "The wrong man was not hanged."

2] his addressees,

You are correct in that it was a talk given by Sherrard to the Law Society, and appears to be a comment by an attendee to the talk.

3] the topic and title of the article in which it was found.

It was a talk, adn I don't know those exact details.

Without this information I would be unable to establish,merely from Wikipedia ,the strict syntactic accuracy of the quote, the context in which it was allegedly made and what else he said in terms of implication and connotation.

As I said it isn't from Wikipedia, go and check the link.

I would also like to know whether this was said before his autobiography was published in 2009?

Yes it was.

In his 2009 biography, he makes clear he thinks evidence was tampered with/fiddled with by police at the time and that much of what Hanratty said was proven,in this regard ie "by modern forensic hand-writing tests" to be the truth.

He is making conclusions based upon testing in a field that is different from his area of expertise - he's a lawyer (or whatever legal professional title) and is commenting upon ESDA testing and going against the opinions of the professional expert who performed the test.

To have finished his entire chapter,in the year 2009, about this famous case with a question mark about the "evidence" submitted suggests that in 2009 he still continues to totally mistrust and/or question any and all "evidence" ever submitted does it not?

The quote in my post suggests that the evidence was not strong enough, not that he mistrusts it, but sure his opinion could have changed although I don't know why it should.

When,in his final paragraph he gives us his conclusion he is at pains,it would seem to remind us that the DNA "evidence" came from the very same police source who thought it necessary to keep "for 31 years, on ice, Valerie Storie"s knickers and the handferchief that wrapped the gun.The very same police,Acott and Oxford, who ,he reminds us, were proven,by modern forensic techniques to have "tampered and fiddled" with the evidence.

Right, here he is using his expertise and formulating an argument but basing it on an innaccurate series of assumptions as has repeatedly been pointed out:-
1. The police did not deliberately retain the samples.
2. They were not "on ice" or "frozen".
3. They were stored seperately and discovered seperately by 2 different sets of police officers (one being the Met Police Labs, the other Bedfordshire Constabulary).
4. Acott and Oxford didn't work for either the Met or Bedford.
5. The ESDA tests and the expert who conducted them do not support the conclusions Sherrard reached.

So do I take it that you refute the fact that Sherrard made those statements?

What conclusions do you draw from the information available, which is after all what we are all doing about the evidence in this case.

KR,
Vic.

[babybird67]

Norma

are you suggesting Acott and Oxford were able to have superhuman prescience about the development of DNA techniques that were to occur four or five decades later and managed to fiddle the DNA by somehow erasing the real rapist's DNA whilst magically leaving Hanratty's, Storie's and Gregsten's all intact? How do you think it was possible to separate all those DNA strands from eachother?

Or are you suggesting this fiddling came later? If it came later, are you accusing the independent scientists of colluding with or falsifying the DNA results under the influence of later Police corruption?

Why would Police now want to undermine their own careers by fiddling results when Acott and Oxford are no longer around and would not be bothered by any revelation of alleged innocence?

Why don't you read the Judgement in reference to the DNA results again:

here:

http://www.denverda.org/DNA_Documents/Hanratty.PDF

But that is to ignore the results of the DNA profiling. With regard to the knicker fragment we have what Dr Whitaker would describe as a typical distribution of male and female DNA following an act of sexual intercourse leading, to the obvious inference that the male contribution came from James Hanratty. For that not to be the case we would have to suppose that the DNA of the rapist, also of blood group O, had either degraded so as to become undetectable or had been masked by James Hanratty's DNA during the course of a contaminating event. Moreover, we would also have to suppose that Valerie Storie's DNA had remained in its original state, or at least detectable, and had escaped being overridden by DNA from James Hanratty. The same would have to be true of the DNA attributed to Michael Gregsten. Finally, we must visualise a pattern which is wholly consistent with sexual intercourse having taken place in which Valerie Storie and James Hanratty were the participants.

(my emphases)

Contamination was considered as a possible reason to find Hanratty's semen on those knickers. The reasons this is not a plausible explanation are that a small amount of contamination could not completely erase the larger amount of semen that would have been ejaculated during sex by the 'real' rapist. Also, read the bits i have underlined...the distribution and pattern found showed sexual intercourse had taken place. These experts work with these methods all the time. In rape cases, it is extremely important to be able to prove sexual intercourse actually took place...that's one of the way they do it. Sex took place between Hanratty and Storie. She did not consent. He raped her. He killed Michael Gregsten. Those are the cold hard facts of the matter and I am sorry they remain unpalatable to you, but that's the truth.

[Natalie Severn]

Vic,
I have just noticed your above post. I need to be given an exact source as I am unable to find it in "wikipedia".I would need for example to know exactly:

1]when Michael Sherrard is alleged by Wikipedia to have made such remarks,
2] his addressees,
and
3] the topic and title of the article in which it was found .
Without this information I would be unable to establish,merely from Wikipedia ,the strict syntactic accuracy of the quote, the context in which it was allegedly made and what else he said in terms of implication and connotation.
I would also like to know whether this was said before his autobiography was published in 2009?
In his 2009 biography , he makes clear he thinks evidence was tampered with/fiddled with by police at the time and that much of what Hanratty said was proven,in this regard ie "by modern forensic hand-writing tests " to be the truth.
To have finished his entire chapter,in the year 2009 , about this famous case with a question mark about the "evidence" submitted suggests that in 2009 he still continues to totally [U]mistrust[/U]and /or question any and all "evidence" ever submitted does it not?
When,in his final paragraph he gives us his conclusion he is at pains,it would seem to remind us that the DNA "evidence "came from the very same police source who thought it necessary to keep "for 31 years , on ice,Valerie Storie"s knickers and the handferchief that wrapped the gun.The very same police,Acott and Oxford, who ,he reminds us, were proven,by modern forensic techniques to have "tampered and fiddled" with the evidence.
Thanks ,
Norma

[Victor]

You know the answer to that Vic.A jury of laymen convicted Hanratty.So no problems in that respect.In the case of the appeals judges decided.

Hi Norma,

My replies yesterday seem to have vanished in the server migration, so here it is again:-

The full quote is:-
Mr Sherrard said, "The wrong man was not hanged. That was an immense relief to me." However, his opinion of the original prosecution remains unchanged. "The evidence was too weak to justify conviction. I still hold that view."

Breaking that down into the 4 sentences attributed to MS, we have:-
The wrong man was not hanged. The state did not execute an innocent man.
That was an immense relief to me. MS is incredibly relieved that the state hasn't executed an innocent man, maybe because he felt some responsibility because he defended Hanratty, and didn't manage to get him released despite the fact he thought the case was weak (see below). Or it could be his feelings of failure and inadequacy have reduced because Hanratty actually was guilty and he didn't make such a pig's ear of defending him.
The evidence was too weak to justify conviction. The jury was wrong in convicting him.
I still hold that view. The appeal judges were wrong to state "The DNA evidence made what was a strong case even stronger. Equally the strength of the evidence overall pointing to the guilt of the appellant supports our conclusion as to the DNA."
From paragraph 211 of the judgement.

Now you said...

I think I remember this being an address to the "Law Society".If it is, then it needs to be understood that it would have been against professional etiquette if not a breach of professional conduct,to have said otherwise.Nobody could expect an eminent lawyer such as a QC to be perceived as not only refusing to abide by the decision of his three colleagues the judges, who made the ruling at the Appeal Court,but to also be questioning their judgement and criticising their work.Therefore all this quote can do is instruct us , that in that context,to that audience, he gave the only statement he could.

Whereas the last 2 sentences I quoted above are critising the work of the "his three colleagues the judges", and "questioning their judgement".

So which is it? What do you think was "an immense relief" to Sherrard in the context of the full quote above?

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

In that case, please explain the following sentence..."The evidence was too weak to justify conviction. I still hold that view."

That is a direct criticism of the judgment and says that he believes they got it wrong.

KR,
Vic.

You know the answer to that Vic.A jury of laymen convicted Hanratty.So no problems in that respect.In the case of the appeals judges decided.

[Victor]

Hmm so JH simply made up the story of the sweetshop conversation? By this late stage in the trial, he's aware his life is at stake yet he invents this **** and bull story about a conversation in a sweet shop which he knows can never be corroborated?

Hi Ian,

Who knows? I wouldn't want to speculate too much about it - the other thread is here, or the whole collection of threads here

Well what an extraordinary coincidence that a young man looking like Hanratty just happened to be in Mrs Dinwoodie's shop asking for directions on that very same day.

Sherrard said the case was dripping with coincidences starting with Alphon and Hanratty staying in the Vienna Hotel under assumed names on consecutive nights, for one night only

Mrs Dinwoodie's granddaughter Barbara also served behind the counter whenever children needing serving and according to Hanratty there was a young girl helping serve on that particular day. According to her friend, Barbara did help to serve on the Tuesday as well as the Monday if I remember correctly.

Foot says so, but there's no corroboration for it. There was another customer there who did give evidence at trial, I can't remember his name though.

KR,
Vic.

[BiffityBiff]

Hi Ian,

I should have welcomed you earlier, but I can only access the website by iPhone in the evenings, and Safari isn't great for quoting posts.


The DNA is conclusive, there is no way to account for the tests to accurately determine 2 of the 3 profiles, missing the actual pertetrator, and detecting an additional profile from contamination - that's 3 disjointed hoops to jump through which would be an unbelievable feat of cellular acrobatics.

The trouble with and Rhyl alibis is that they rely on identification evidence, which conflicts with 3 other sets of identification evidence, and the passage of time between the events and the witnesses coming forward - a delay due solely to Hanratty and his attempt to introduce an ambush alibi - renders them highly dubious. Hanratty gave only generalised descriptions of his supposed stay in Rhyl - a grey haired lady with a green plant in the hallway and a coat rack - the one specific detail he gave concerned the green bath in the attic, but that too was not entirely accurate because he didn't mention the bed in the same room.

I notice Norma has started a thread concerning the sweetshop alibi, so it'll be interesting to see how she accounts for having to undermine part of Mrs Dinwoodie's alibi - it happened on the Monday when Hanratty was undoubtedly in London - without undermining the rest.

KR,
Vic.

Hi Victor,
Hmm so JH simply made up the story of the sweetshop conversation? By this late stage in the trial, he's aware his life is at stake yet he invents this **** and bull story about a conversation in a sweet shop which he knows can never be corroborated? Well what an extraordinary coincidence that a young man looking like Hanratty just happened to be in Mrs Dinwoodie's shop asking for directions on that very same day. I don't have my books handy, but as I recall, Mrs Dinwoodie's granddaughter Barbara also served behind the counter whenever children needing serving and according to Hanratty there was a young girl helping serve on that particular day. According to her friend, Barbara did help to serve on the Tuesday as well as the Monday if I remember correctly. Sorry for rambling on 'cause you've most likely gone over all this before [how do I access this separate thread by the way??], but no one [so far] has yet been able to explain away these weird "coincidences"- to my satisfaction anyway.
Regards
Ian
PS I've found the other threads!

[Victor]

Hi folks. This thread is really gripping I must say. Myself, I'm a sort of a James-didn't-do-it person- Inclined towards sitting on the fence perhaps, but no! He surely couldn't have done it. Then again....

Hi Ian,

I should have welcomed you earlier, but I can only access the website by iPhone in the evenings, and Safari isn't great for quoting posts.

The DNA results seem pretty conclusive, but I still have nagging doubts, mainly concerning the sweetshop and Rhyl alibis. It's impossible to believe Hanratty could have bought these alibis, and the incredible "coincidence" of a young man matching J.H's description asking Mrs Dinwoodie for directions to Tarleton or Carlton avenue/Rd around the time of the murder? It's all too bizarre for words.

The DNA is conclusive, there is no way to account for the tests to accurately determine 2 of the 3 profiles, missing the actual pertetrator, and detecting an additional profile from contamination - that's 3 disjointed hoops to jump through which would be an unbelievable feat of cellular acrobatics.

The trouble with and Rhyl alibis is that they rely on identification evidence, which conflicts with 3 other sets of identification evidence, and the passage of time between the events and the witnesses coming forward - a delay due solely to Hanratty and his attempt to introduce an ambush alibi - renders them highly dubious. Hanratty gave only generalised descriptions of his supposed stay in Rhyl - a grey haired lady with a green plant in the hallway and a coat rack - the one specific detail he gave concerned the green bath in the attic, but that too was not entirely accurate because he didn't mention the bed in the same room.

I notice Norma has started a thread concerning the sweetshop alibi, so it'll be interesting to see how she accounts for having to undermine part of Mrs Dinwoodie's alibi - it happened on the Monday when Hanratty was undoubtedly in London - without undermining the rest.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

I think I remember this being an address to the "Law Society".If it is, then it needs to be understood that it would have been against professional etiquette if not a breach of professional conduct,to have said otherwise.Nobody could expect an eminent lawyer such as a QC to be perceived as not only refusing to abide by the decision of his three colleagues the judges, who made the ruling at the Appeal Court,but to also be questioning their judgement and criticising their work.Therefore all this quote can do is instruct us , that in that context,to that audience, he gave the only statement he could.After all,he was not just discussing the case of James Hanratty at that meeting,

Hi Norma,

In that case, please explain the following sentence..."The evidence was too weak to justify conviction. I still hold that view."

That is a direct criticism of the judgment and says that he believes they got it wrong.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

For **** sake Norma, how many times does the link need to be posted before you'll go and check it out! It is against the copyright law for me to post any more of it!

KR,
Vic

I think I remember this being an address to the "Law Society".If it is, then it needs to be understood that it would have been against professional etiquette if not a breach of professional conduct,to have said otherwise.Nobody could expect an eminent lawyer such as a QC to be perceived as not only refusing to abide by the decision of his three colleagues the judges, who made the ruling at the Appeal Court,but to also be questioning their judgement and criticising their work.Therefore all this quote can do is instruct us , that in that context,to that audience, he gave the only statement he could.After all,he was not just discussing the case of James Hanratty at that meeting,
Norma

[BiffityBiff]

Hi Ian,
I will return to this tomorrow.You have raised something I was thinking about only the other day----Chief Inspector Elliot"s statement from Mrs Dinwoodie and the two crucial missing paragraphs from his very detailed report when it was submitted to the Home Secretary and which came close to giving Hanratty a very solid alibi for 22nd ---by Mrs Dinwoodie and her granddaughter Barbara Ford.These crucual paragraphs referring to doctors records and the date Mrs Dinwoodie said she had visited her doctor ,were never presented by Mr Nimmo via Mr Acott to the Home Secretary in 1967.It was a very long report-maybe that was why so much was cut, but the missing paragraphs pinpoint the very day she must have seen him in her shop---22nd August as he said.
Other witnesses were also not thoroughly investigated by Mr Nimmo. More later---another report is the Matthews police report which was on the way to exonerating Hanratty of the crime--he was a Scotland Yard Detective--Chief Superintendent Roger Matthews who believed Hanratty was entirely innocent.
Best
Norma

Hi Norma. This sounds quite intriguing. Look forward to hearing more.
Ian

[Victor]

Vic.Who wrote it and what is his source ?Then I can go direct to the source.

For **** sake Norma, how many times does the link need to be posted before you'll go and check it out! It is against the copyright law for me to post any more of it!

KR,
Vic