a6 murder

[babybird67]

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?

[babybird67]

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?

[babybird67]

thanks vic

Hi Jen,

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."

KR,
Vic.

Cheers Vic. That's essentially what i understood his position to be and what I would consider most people's to be...that the first trial could have been better but that doesn't change the fact that ultimately justice has been done. If Sherrard can accept that, considering the high esteem he is held in by most, I dont understand why others can't accept that too.

Nice find re: Rerrick Nick. Liars usuallu trip themselves up at some point...see Hanratty lol.

Jen

[Graham]

In post 8 of the Christopher Larman thread Derrick wrote:
“As I have said b4 I am completely at a loss to try to fathom what could be lost by calling all known Rhyl witnesses at the first appeal.”

But Derrick did not say this before, Reg did.

Yes Nick, Derrick's a dead ringer for Reg, as I think most of us figured out from his first posts. Well spotted.

Graham

[Black Rabbit]

This thread was, for a while, very interesting and informative. A brilliant source of information with great links for further reading, reference and research etc.

However, over the last month or so it has descended into what can only be described as a childrens playground where pathetic name calling and petty back-stabbing has become the norm, not pretty when it comes from people who are supposedly adult.

Also, there would appear to be those posters, who are prepared to sit in their ivory towers, assuming to know all there is to know about the A6 murder case etc beyond all question, and who are all too quick to cut down and childishly hurl insults and belittle anyone who may hold a different view to themselves.

There also seems to be a lot of arguing and squabbling over the same points time and again. Maybe this is an indication that this thread has finally run its course and is no longer constructive or serves any further useful purpose.

As such, due to the direction that this thread has sadly taken, it may be as well (should things continue along the same vein) if the administrators/moderators locked/closed this thread.

[NickB]

Vic was suggesting that several new posters were obvious sock puppets of Reg. There is no evidence for this except for the similarity of their view points.

In post 8 of the Christopher Larman thread Derrick wrote:
“As I have said b4 I am completely at a loss to try to fathom what could be lost by calling all known Rhyl witnesses at the first appeal.”

But Derrick did not say this before, Reg did.

[Natalie Severn]

brown nose number 3:

[I can"t open my zip!

Help!!![brown nose 2 has browned his CK"s]
Vic:Give yourself a good wipe!

"Reg" has been glimpsed by brown nose 1:

[he has bushy red hair like a fire on the top of his head and bushy red eyebrows ,big bristling and twitching mustache,red chin ,huge freckles ,military bearing---has a glove and a whip.....]

Brown nose 3 :Unbutton yourself Vic,quick !

[Victor]

the quote where Sherrard admits he accepts the wrong man was not hanged for the A6 murder? Can someone tell me the date?

Hi Jen,

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

But there's no specific date on it.

By the way, I don't think it is an inconsistent position to take that one can wish the original trial had been fairer in terms of disclosures yet still accept now that justice has in fact been done.

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."

KR,
Vic.

[babybird67]

can someone pinpoint...

the quote where Sherrard admits he accepts the wrong man was not hanged for the A6 murder? Can someone tell me the date?

many thanks

Jen

By the way, I don't think it is an inconsistent position to take that one can wish the original trial had been fairer in terms of disclosures yet still accept now that justice has in fact been done.

[Victor]

So you think,Vic,that Michael Sherrard QC is actually suggesting when he says," 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" that he meant that literally ? You do realise Linda Goldman,also a lawyer, co-wrote the biography with Michael Sherrard? Is she too likely to have thought the police kept Valerie"s knickers in a tub of ice cubes for 31 years?

Hi Norma,

Back to Sherrard - ridiculing the comment, and not quoting the "frozen" passage which is essentially a repeat of the "on ice" comment misses the point. Try going for a literal version of "frozen" - yes I think he means kept in a fridge\freezer.

Here we have a highly intelligent,highly successful lawyer,Michael Sherrard, with a wealth of legal experience behind him showing compassion,sensitivity , total commitment,an astute awarenes of all the legal intrigues that go on throughout his long biography--a man who became one of the foremost advocates of his generation with a long and highly distinguished career.

Indeed, he was a good advocate, and being a good advocate usually entails have a blinkered viewpoint of the clients integrity.

His autobiography contains errors therefore is not a reliable source for comments on Hanratty.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

I have not 'confused' them at all. Some days ago - Vic was suggesting that several new posters were obvious sock puppets of Reg. There is no evidence for this except for the similarity of their view points. I returned that Ron and Vic share similar view points and could therefore be one and the same person. It was a tongue-in-cheek remark meant to highlight the fact that we have to trust that posters are genuine individuals and not multiple personalities.

I think it is totally unfair to accuse someone of something without evidence just because their view is different from yours.

Hi Julie,

If it was only that they have a different view to me then you'd have a point, but it's not just that, it's a plethora of nuances. See above.

KR,
Vic.

[babybird67]

I have not 'confused' them at all. Some days ago - Vic was suggesting that several new posters were obvious sock puppets of Reg. There is no evidence for this except for the similarity of their view points. I returned that Ron and Vic share similar view points and could therefore be one and the same person. It was a tongue-in-cheek remark meant to highlight the fact that we have to trust that posters are genuine individuals and not multiple personalities.

I think it is totally unfair to accuse someone of something without evidence just because their view is different from yours.

The evidence is there. It is not the similar viewpoints. It is the carbon copy posting style as i have highlighed in the post i made that you have just quoted from. Ron and Vic have similar viewpoints but totally and utterly different styles of writing and expressing themselves....Reg/Steve/Clive/Rerrick are one and the same person as evidenced from their postings which are all the same...same viewpoint, same expressions, same posting style, same professed expertise in LCN etc etc...there are no deviations whatsoever in any of these posters styles of posting. That IS evidence that they are the same person, which I, and many others, firmly believe to be true.

[Victor]

So here we have it - the evidence that our camp can be ridiculed and lampooned and even insulted openly and yet when we come back with a little humour the knives really go in.

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.

I don't condon sock puppetry but I don't accuse people of being one without evidence. Having a similar posting style to someone else does not make them a sock puppet. Arguing from the same view point does not make them a sock puppet.

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.

[Natalie Severn]

brown nose or number 2::--Reg and his sock puppets are crossing the Alps chaps---- run for cover lads!

BROWN NOSE-double number 2 aka VIC :

Don"t be so frightened chaps---just unbuckle your belts---he won"t hurt you!

[Limehouse]

How can you possibly confuse Ron and Victor? They have completely different postings styles, totally different angles on what they say and how they say it. Ron very rarely quotes anything whereas Victor always does. Ron writes fiction, good fiction actually, and uses humour and sarcasm to make his salient points...Victor tends to argue with ruthless logic and get straight to the point. Totally, totally different. Besides neither of them are cowards or afraid to stand by what they say as who they are.

Not so Steve, Reg, Clive, and now the infamous Rerrick, who proclaims himself A6 expert from the hilltops (or Alps), bangs on as if expert on LCN DNA, insults everyone who disagrees with him...all his posts are carbon copies of himself and his sock puppets. He hasn't even got the creativity to create a sock puppet with a slightly different psychotic persona to the one he genuinely has!

I have not 'confused' them at all. Some days ago - Vic was suggesting that several new posters were obvious sock puppets of Reg. There is no evidence for this except for the similarity of their view points. I returned that Ron and Vic share similar view points and could therefore be one and the same person. It was a tongue-in-cheek remark meant to highlight the fact that we have to trust that posters are genuine individuals and not multiple personalities.

I think it is totally unfair to accuse someone of something without evidence just because their view is different from yours.