a6 murder

[Natalie Severn]

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....
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.
Ian

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

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

There's the quote, what exactly was an "immense relief" to him?

The link is on the wikipedia page for James Hanratty and I gave it in reply to Jen yesterday.

KR,
Vic

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

[BiffityBiff]

Alibis

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....
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.
Ian

[Victor]

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."

Hi Norma,

There's the quote, what exactly was an "immense relief" to him?

The link is on the wikipedia page for James Hanratty and I gave it in reply to Jen yesterday.

KR,
Vic

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

What exactly was an "immense relief" to him?

KR,
Vic

Vic,
Unless you contextualise this and explain how the phrase came to be said,how would I know what was an immense relief to him?

[Victor]

Hi Norma,

What exactly was an "immense relief" to him?

KR,
Vic

[Natalie Severn]

You don't like it when someone turns the tables on you do you?

Neither do you Vic!

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Graham,

How unambiguous can you get, it plainly says - The state did not execute an innocent man. Why else would it be an "immense relief" to Sherrard?


Anyone around the Brighton area?

KR,
Vic.

Vic,
It is because what you are failing to do is to discern from the many statements I have posted about what Michael Sherrard actually thought about the "evidence" that came from the 1961 trial and what he actually said to TV journalists after the appeal judement in May 2002 .
When I talk about ambiguity I am recognising the " legalese" in some of his statements-a deliberate linguistic ploy used frequently by lawyers to camouflage meaning. By taking a single sentence from the complexity of his interpretations you are falling into a kind of linguistic elephant trap especially when you suggest that Michael Sherrard is "himself " saying Hanratty was guilty.

Sherrard does not say he himself thinks the DNA proves Hanratty"s guilt.He says he thinks the Court will think so.


Here are his words again, given directly after the appeal ruling in 2002 :

: "So, do you think he did it?[actor telephoning Sherrard from 1961 Bootleg Theatre Company]

Sherrard- answering we are told " in the only way he could"

I think the COURT is going to think so


That does not mean he thought the court was right to think so,nor does it mean he thought Hanratty was guilty.

[Victor]

Your post was grossly offensive to Norma and myself.

Hi Julie,

Why? All I did was turn the tables on you - you suggested Ron and myself might be sock-puppets, and I vulgarly said that Norma might be yours. I'm glad you were offended, that was the intention and clearly demonstrates that to call someone a sock-puppet without evidence is unpleasant.

Admittedly I then took a swipe at Jimarilyn by restating my belief that he is a sycophant, which I have explained previously.

For months now those of us who doubt Hanratty's guilt have been putting up with jibes - inappropriate nicknames - childish games with our names - challenges to our moral integrity and intelligence and condescending attitudes from people who claim the moral and intellectual high ground.

You don't like it when someone turns the tables on you do you? Ron has been using unflattering words to describe "your camp", but this is a practice that has been going on since the thread was started - Jimdiditites I think was the first phrase used - it has a Caz Morris style to me - so to only start objecting now is bizarre, it's entirely expected that terminology for various sides of a dispute evolves - the most famous example of this would be a hero of mine, Fred Hoyle, he believed in the Steady State theory of the universe, and ridiculed the rival theory by calling it - the Big Bang theory, which of course was adopted and is now the prefered explanation for how the universe started.

Incidentally in a similar vein, I had an idea to call people in Jimarilyn's camp Al-phonies and see I've even shown it's a light-hearted comment by including a smilie.

I responded with a glimmer of humour to a post made by Norma and your reply was totally repulsive.

I completely reject the suggestion that you can post a reply on a public forum and expect only the person you direct it to to reply, you chose to make it public not me.

I've explained above why I'm quite happy for you to find the comment repulsive - it was intended to highlight the repulsiveness of your own comments.

Additionally - because I refuse to condem a poster for failing to fall into your narrow interpretation of how someone should express their views and argue their corner you make catty remarks like a big girl - backed up by your little feathered mouthpiece.

And here you are just being a massive hypocrit, in one sentence, that's quite an achievement. I think you need to explain it too, because I'm at a complete loss to find how breaking site rules classifies as my "narrow interpretation".

I have tried to make peace - I have tried to acknowledge and plea for mutual respect but it has fallen on deaf ears and closed minds.

Have you? I think the deaf ears and closed minds are in your camp, but that's entirely expected if you want to polarise the argument.

Well sod you Vic and your camp (with the exception of Graham who has always treated me with the upmost respect and is the only one among you who treats people fairly whatever side of the fence they are on).

OK Julie, if you would be so kind, please answer a few questions for me:-
1. Did you know that the poster previously called Reg had come back onto the boards under at least one new pseudonym?
2. Do you think that the posts of Derrick are remarkable similar in tone and content to those of Reg?
3. Why or why not?

I'm starting to suspect that your recent posts are brimming with feigned indignation which may imply insider knowledge. Just a suspicion I have.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Norma, there is no ambiguity in what Sherrard said. Quite plainly, he implied that he was relieved that Hanratty was guilty as charged and that he, Sherrard, had not defended an innocent man.

Hi Graham,

How unambiguous can you get, it plainly says - The state did not execute an innocent man. Why else would it be an "immense relief" to Sherrard?

Anyone fancy a drink somewhere this coming weekend?

Anyone around the Brighton area?

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Well then we have to agree to differ,Jen.The meaning is ambiguous as far as I am concerned-and intentionally so it would appear--especially in the context of what else he has had to say to about the matter.

[babybird67]

just because it isn't in his book...

doesn't mean he didn't say it Norma. He's on record as having said it and the meaning is quite clear.

[Natalie Severn]

Hello Graham,
I am in Wales until Tuesday--but , thankyou, it would be really good for us to meet up sometime .
To Jen and Graham,
Reading the chapter through on Hanratty that Sherrard wrote with his co-author Linda Goldman in 2009, we have his verbatim quotes and nowhere is there any reference to anything about the "wrong man not being hanged" or such like.Quite the contrary.He appears as perplexed as Foot was over the ruling and how and why the knickers and hanky were "kept on ice" by the police for 31 years.
Best
Norma

[Graham]

I'll be in the london area over the next few days...oh Midlands...might not be much good then would have been nice to have met you

Jen x

Ah well....such is life.

Graham

[babybird67]

whereabouts are you Graham?

I'll be in the london area over the next few days...oh Midlands...might not be much good then would have been nice to have met you

Jen x