a6 murder

[Graham]

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.

Anyone fancy a drink somewhere this coming weekend?

Graham

[babybird67]

nope

Jen,

Surely you and Vic can see the ambiguity in what Sherrard said?

Norma

Can't speak for Vic although apparently i am his mouthpiece but there is no ambiguity at all in what he said. He can't possibly have been speaking about Alphon....he was not on trial so no feeling of relief would be relevant.

[Natalie Severn]

Julie,
If you want help I am here with a cart load of manure.JUst give the word.

[Natalie Severn]

However, please understand that when our own dear Norma misrepresents Sherrard to the extent that she'd have us believe he was referring to Alphon rather than Hanratty,

Thats not at all what I said.Its you who are "misrepresenting" him.Anyway I don"t give a sh*t.I dont give a fukk.

[Natalie Severn]

You know, i know and the world knows that Sherrard meant he knew the right man had been hanged. You only make yourself look silly trying to twist things.

Jen,

Surely you and Vic can see the ambiguity in what Sherrard said?

Norma

[Graham]

Hi Julie,

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).

I appreciate your kind comment, thank you. I do feel that I have been more sinned against than sinning, without mentioning names of course.

However, please understand that when our own dear Norma misrepresents Sherrard to the extent that she'd have us believe he was referring to Alphon rather than Hanratty, the blood of even an English gentleman does tend to begin to simmer, if not come to the boil.

Maybe Black Rabbit is right: maybe this thread has developed into a verbal ping-pong.

I think what is desperately needed for the A6 debate to move forward is some new information, but I can't see any coming, at least not in my lifetime.

Graham

[Limehouse]

Hi Julie,

So when you do it it's "a little humour" and when I return the favour it's "the knives really go in"? Interesting.


Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Try reading Jen's post again, it's not just the same views that make people suspect sock-puppetry, it's style, content, tone, use of language, phraseology, colloquialisms, &tc. Not forgetting that he's done it before.

Anyway all we've done is vocalise a suspicion and found common ground, it might not be true but there's enough to be suspicious about it.

KR,
Vic.

Absolutely unbelieveable! Your post was grossly offensive to Norma and myself. 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.

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

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.

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.

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).

[babybird67]

There is a world of semantic difference.
Equally: He said---[on the basis of the DNA findings] "The wrong man was not hanged"---at least there was that. Again---semantically this means exactly what it says."The wrong man was not hanged by mistake[presumably he means Alphon]

What he did not say was "the right man was hanged"

Norma what a disingenous interpretation. There would be no relief in regards Alphon since Alphon was in no danger of hanging...he wasnt even on trial. You know, i know and the world knows that Sherrard meant he knew the right man had been hanged. You only make yourself look silly trying to twist things.

[Natalie Severn]

Vic and Graham. I disagree on your interpretations.Read the chapter.What isvery clear is he is saying: the appeal court has ruled on the DNA.I am in no position to contradict them viz
His final paragraphs:
The "buts" are and were many in this extraordinary matter,
In the end the Court of Appeal[NB-not Michael Sherrard] did not think i[U]t was necessary to decide about how the evidence was presented [/U]and whether.as modern tests indicate and as was part of Hanratty"s case,it had been tampered with................
.........
The evidence that confirmed Hanratty"s guilt,so far as the appeal process is concerned,is the DNA.But.............

He is not saying,"the evidence that confirmed Hanratty"s guilt so far as I am concerned,is the DNA.

There is a world of semantic difference.
Equally: He said---[on the basis of the DNA findings] "The wrong man was not hanged"---at least there was that. Again---semantically this means exactly what it says."The wrong man was not hanged by mistake[presumably he means Alphon]

What he did not say was "the right man was hanged"

[Victor]

Reading that chapter from the 2009 biography on the A6 case and reading what Michael Sherrard said on the TV programme after the 2002 ruling on the appeal, it is clear,he has had the most serious reservations about the case that has been made against James Hanratty from the very beginning in 1961 and that he continues to be incredulous about much of what pertains to it.

Hi Norma,

I agree and the quote I posted above says the same thing:-
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."

Michael Sherrard has always played by the rules hasn"t he?
Foot and Woffinden were/are in a totally different profession.

Absolutely, he strongly believes in justice and giving everyone a fair trial - he seems to strongly believe that Hanratty did not get a fair trial, but that justice was done.

Foot and Woffinden are journalists and have painted Hanratty in the best light they possibly could.

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

It works both ways. I posted a long time ago about Tony Mancini, the Brighton Trunk Murderer, who in 1934 was acquitted following a brilliant defence by Norman Birkett. Birkett never really doubted his client's guilt, but got him off by convincing the court that Mancini had no history of violence, no reason to commit murder, and also by coaching him to 'perform' in the witness-box. In 1976 Mancini confessed to the murder (of his girl-friend Violet Kaye). Birkett was dead by then, but had he been alive to hear Mancini's confession, I don't suppose he'd have been particularly concerned. He had acheived what he had been paid to do, i.e., get his client off.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Vic,
Reading that chapter from the 2009 biography on the A6 case and reading what Michael Sherrard said on the TV programme after the 2002 ruling on the appeal, it is clear,he has had the most serious reservations about the case that has been made against James Hanratty from the very beginning in 1961 and that he continues to be incredulous about much of what pertains to it.Given he is no doubt,like the three judges at the Appeal Court,his colleagues from the same profession ,a member of the Law Society,he is in a very difficult position,should people expect him to contradict them .A ruling has been made.Michael Sherrard has always played by the rules hasn"t he?
Foot and Woffinden were/are in a totally different profession.

[Black Rabbit]

Black Rabbit

Locking the thread is a childish suggestion. Why not just exercise self control and not read it anymore if you are that bothered? Why try to censor what other people want to read?

Nobody suggested deleting the thread

[Victor]

" Michael [Sherrard] gave him the only answer he could,"I think the court is going to think so."

Michael Sherrard did not answer: "Yes- I think he did it".

Hi Norma,

It's quite glaring that Michael Sherrard also did not say "No he didn't".

We know he made the mistake about the police deliberately retaining the samples, and them being "on ice" or "frozen" - they were locked away in a drawer and forgotted about.

As for the exhumation - the Hanratty family had already done it, so I can't see the problem with absolutely confirming the DNA match.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

As a lawyer who took silk Michael Sherrard QC was in an invidious position with regard to the judgement made by his colleagues,the three judges at the appeal court.

In his 2009 biography however he is most careful to" qualify" his statements about their judgment thus:


Actor from Boot leg Theatre Company in forefront of exposing anomolies of the case:
from page 103
"So you think he did it", he asked

Linda Goldman then writes:

" Michael [Sherrard] gave him the only answer he could,"I think the court is going to think so."

Michael Sherrard did not answer: "Yes- I think he did it ".

At the end of the chapter on Hanratty , Michael Sherrard again addresses the appeal process:

"The evidence that confirmed Hanratty"s guilt,as far as the appeal process is concerned,is the DNA
But who would have thought that,for 31 years,the police would have kept on ice Valerie Storie"s knickers and the handkerchief that wrapped the gun? Or exhumed him for DNA matches?"-
Michael Sherrard ,"Wigs and Wherefores" 2009.