a6 murder

[larue]

hi NickB

The expression “on ice” has commas either side and is preceded by the word “kept”. Same again with “frozen”. commas either side and preceded by the word “retained”. If he simply meant “kept” and “retained” this is a strange way to put it.

there are no commas in the original quote from the book. i'm sure that the on ice, and frozen remarks mean storage. i seriously doubt that there was any frozen water involved.

I am wary of autobiographies in which all the writer’s actions were perfect and everyone else’s were mischievous. I wonder Larue (and thanks for the excerpts!) if he mentions anything that counts against his side of the case.

if you mean, does he admit any mistakes he made in the defence, then no, not as such, though he does acknowledge the fatal problem the change of alibi caused.

i have thought for a long time, that maybe he did not explain the outcome of this clearly enough to jh, to the extent that i believe he should have threatened to resign as defence counsel if jh insisted in going in the box, to indicate the seriousness of jh's action. but jh had his own way, and it cost him his neck...

one could call that a defence failing, i suppose...

[RonIpstone]

2] Sherrard himself says that, had Durand taken the case as leader, he may well have not even given JH the chance to change is alibi.

I am not sure how he could have done that other than by advising Hanratty not to give evidence.

[larue]

His blatant and deliberate falsification of the Durand situation is just pure dishonesty or abysmal recollection and research compounded by inadequate fact checking. Take your pick.

wow! the first part of that statement is a very serious accusation Vic. i would have used a softer expression, like 'sloppy research verification', or the good old-fashioned 'mistake'.

i hope his lawyers aren't watching...

[Victor]

wow! the first part of that statement is a very serious accusation Vic. i would have used a softer expression, like 'sloppy research verification', or the good old-fashioned 'mistake'.

Acknowledged, I was in a bad mood this morning and felt Julie was being unfair, when I was trying to give plausible explanations for the comments you quoted.

i hope his lawyers aren't watching...

With his memory I wouldn't represent myself either!

I still think that the "kept on ice" and "retained frozen" comments mean "kept in a fridge" rather than just "kept", which simply isn't true prior to 1991.

KR,
Vic.

[NickB]

When Sherrard was told about Rhyl, he couldn’t really respond with: “Never mind that, lie and say you were in Liverpool.”

I don't see Hanratty sticking to his Liverpool alibi, after admitting to his defence team it was untrue, and still taking the witness stand.

[Victor]

When Sherrard was told about Rhyl, he couldn’t really respond with: “Never mind that, lie and say you were in Liverpool.”

How about "If you change your alibi you'll hang". He did make him sign the statement about it being completely Hanratty's responsibility and that he understood the advice not to change it.

I don't see Hanratty sticking to his Liverpool alibi, after admitting to his defence team it was untrue, and still taking the witness stand.

So why did he need to take the stand?

KR,
Vic.

[RonIpstone]

I still think that the "kept on ice" and "retained frozen" comments mean "kept in a fridge" rather than just "kept", which simply isn't true prior to 1991.

If not "kept in a fridge" the implication is that some steps were taken to preserve the exhibits, whereas the reality seems to be that no one got round to destroying these particular exhibits.

It should be remembered that in the mid-nineties these exhibits gave the Hanratty supporters (myself included) hope that they would provide the conclusive evidence to exhonerate Hanratty.

[NickB]

So why did he need to take the stand?

I was reacting to Graham’s summary of Sherrard’s position that not taking the stand was a possible (rather than necessary) action if maintaining the Liverpool alibi:

“… had JH stuck to the Liverpool Alibi (and also, possibly, not taken the witness stand) he may well have been acquitted.”

[Victor]

It should be remembered that in the mid-nineties these exhibits gave the Hanratty supporters (myself included) hope that they would provide the conclusive evidence to exhonerate Hanratty.

Absolutely Ron, along with the brief ray of hope from the Rhesus negative factor found on Hanratty's blood donor card, although that was dashed when it was revealed that semen doesn't contain the Rhesus factor.

KR,
Vic.

[RonIpstone]

Absolutely Ron, along with the brief ray of hope from the Rhesus negative factor found on Hanratty's blood donor card, although that was dashed when it was revealed that semen doesn't contain the Rhesus factor.

KR,
Vic.

Very true, Victor. I just wish I had spelt 'exonerated' correctly.

[RonIpstone]

His blatant and deliberate falsification of the Durand situation is just pure dishonesty or abysmal recollection and research compounded by inadequate fact checking. Take your pick.

Victor,

Mind you Woffinden did not do much better in explaining Durand's absence from the trial. At page 169 of the Pan paperback edition he writes:

"Unhappily, at just this juncture, Durand was caught up with a problem of professional etiquette, having over-zealously fought a libel case. The Bar Council suspended him for a year, and he had to withdraw from the case."


This is fairly wide of the mark.

Foot, so far as I can see, does not explain why Mr Durand did not have to travel to Bedford, and why the defence of Hanratty had to be entrusted to a 33 years old junior barrister. Although Police misconduct, or at least the misconduct of one officer, led to Hanratty being deprived of the services of leading counsel, even Foot could not have suggested that this was part of the conspiracy to procure the conviction of Hanratty. Or could he?

RI

[Victor]

Mind you Woffinden did not do much better in explaining Durand's absence from the trial. At page 169 of the Pan paperback edition he writes:

"Unhappily, at just this juncture, Durand was caught up with a problem of professional etiquette, having over-zealously fought a libel case. The Bar Council suspended him for a year, and he had to withdraw from the case."

Hi Ron,

It's a bit hypocritical to be effective saying "If Hanratty had been defended by Durand, a man who was on suspension for recommending that one of his clients perjure himself, he may have escaped the death penalty"

Although Police misconduct, or at least the misconduct of one officer, led to Hanratty being deprived of the services of leading counsel, even Foot could not have suggested that this was part of the conspiracy to procure the conviction of Hanratty. Or could he?

Well really it was Durand recommending that a Police Officer misbehave, and the officer followed that advice, so Foot couldn't really blame the police for that.

KR,
Vic.

[SteveS]

I'm very shortsighted and without my lenses or glasses I have no trouble reading, or recognising a face from short distances such as a couple of feet, much longer than that and it gets blurred, but short distances are fine. Such is the nature of shortsightedness.

I am also shortsighted and wear milk bottle type glasses. I cannot read anything without my glasses unless it is a few inches from my face. Far from being the nature of shortsightedness as you see it, there are many other people in the world for which your condition is not the nature. We are all different Victor or had you not noticed. Perhaps you should get your eyes tested.

Storie's eyesight is under question. She was in the back seat of the car when she had the view of the killer and she didn't have her glasses on. FACT.

...in Derek Christians case, she kept pointing out the number of witnesses who said the car was white not silver when in reality there were only 2 eyewitnesses to the crime and one said white, and the other silver or white...

Plus both men, who were tractor drivers, knew Derek Christian well; but were too far away to give a positive ID of the man one way or another, which was a shame for Derek because if they had been closer they could have said he wasn't the man. Beside the car (Derek's was a silver Montego), Marie Cundall, the best other witness, said that the man, with frenzied eye's, she saw in a white car was clean shaven whilst Derek had a "mature goatee beard" and ritually wore a Sheffield Wednesday hat.

In fact the Plod failed to record the tyre marks of the speeding escaping car and made no use of the footprints at the scene of the crime at trial.

The excuses given by the wretched coppers involved were:

For the tyre marks: "Useless from an evidential point of view" and for the footprints: Because the prosecution could find no shoes of Derek's which fitted the imprints.

The murder weapon itself was the type used routinely by all the potato cutting operatives who worked at the same potato factory (McCains) as Derek! Yet Derek was not a potato cutter. Quite a few of the 1800 knives of that type bought in by McCains in the previous 2 years had been stolen. The old bill suggested that the knife was acquired by Derek by way of a locker clear out that he and 6 others performed. Another 1000 people worked at McCains!

Plus no fingerprints were found on the knife and no gloves belonging to Derek were presented.

Hardly conclusive evidence as to Derek's guilt is it?

Victor you should read the book again and actually pay attention this time.

For instance you tell me what makes the late Gordon Park, Luke Mitchell, Sion Jenkins and John Taft guilty of murder, in each case, beyond a reasonable doubt. Because it is beyond me.

Take it off forum and PM me when you have set up a new thread with your answers.

[Victor]

I am also shortsighted and wear milk bottle type glasses. I cannot read anything without my glasses unless it is a few inches from my face. Far from being the nature of shortsightedness as you see it, there are many other people in the world for which your condition is not the nature. We are all different Victor or had you not noticed. Perhaps you should get your eyes tested.

Hi Steve,

Shortsightedness is named because sufferers can normally clearly see things a short distance away, but not long - their short-distance sight is normal hence the name. As people age they tend to get more longsighted due to the eye muscles weakening and contracting less, but of course people are not all affected equally and other conditions such as astigmatism can cause deviations from the norm.

I have my eyes tested annually to compensate for my personal natural variances.

Storie's eyesight is under question. She was in the back seat of the car when she had the view of the killer and she didn't have her glasses on. FACT.

Valerie was shortsighted, and is most likely to have been typical for people with that condition, which is what I was suggesting. The growth of the availability of non-prescription glasses in supermarkets suggests that many people can have perfectly normal sight with these off-the-shelf solutions.

Bt the way, I though you (or was it another of the Jimdidnotdoitites) were challenging whether she was in the back or front of the car when the passing car headlights lit up Hanratty's face. Hardly a FACT, if you want to challenge it.

Beside the car (Derek's was a silver Montego)

Hang on, I thought he had 2 cars available to him.

Marie Cundall, the best other witness, said that the man, with frenzied eye's, she saw in a white car was clean shaven whilst Derek had a "mature goatee beard" and ritually wore a Sheffield Wednesday hat.

Again, she was not a witness to the crime, she had an encounter with a suspicious man who may not have been the murderer.

In fact the Plod failed to record the tyre marks of the speeding escaping car and made no use of the footprints at the scene of the crime at trial.

Your over-reliance on evidence from the scene which may be incidental makes me pause, I didn't hear the full evidence and refuse to conclude a miscarriage has occurred from the little that I am aware of.

for the footprints: Because the prosecution could find no shoes of Derek's which fitted the imprints.

Again, those footprints were from the scene, but are not definitely the murderers.

The murder weapon itself was the type used routinely by all the potato cutting operatives who worked at the same potato factory (McCains) as Derek!

Yes, there was a link between the murder weapon and Derek's workplace, and I freely admit that isn't conclusive proof of his guilt, but it is another link between him and the crime.

Plus no fingerprints were found on the knife and no gloves belonging to Derek were presented.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!

Hardly conclusive evidence as to Derek's guilt is it?

The evidence presented in the clearly biased book is not conclusive, but I wasn't a jury member and I have not heard the complete evidence. What I have read does not convince me of his innocence.

Victor you should read the book again and actually pay attention this time.

I have read the book twice and read further on the innocent.org website and remain unconvinced by the biased evidence presented.

For instance you tell me what makes the late Gordon Park, Luke Mitchell, Sion Jenkins and John Taft guilty of murder, in each case, beyond a reasonable doubt. Because it is beyond me.

My goal wasn't to find evidence of those peoples' guilt, it was to evaluate the cases presented by the book, and Ms Lean did not convince me with her arguments.

Clearly Barbara Taft seemed to have an ulterior motive and appeared to make incriminating but unreliable statements about her ex-husband and had I been on the jury I would have found it difficult to believe her, but I have the luxury of not having to rely solely on the evidence presented by the prosecution so do not have to accept that John Taft buried his clothing at 11:30pm (which seems very dubious to me) and then returned to the victims house to move her car and leave the same fibres (presumably from the clothes he'd previously buried) as found at the crime scene, which is a temporal impossibility. I do find it stange that Barbara mentioned the page ripped from a diary, and then a different diary was found with a page torn out, that is suspicious.

That same luxury is available to us in the Hanratty case, circumstantial evidence may indicate guilt, but we don't have to solely rely on evidence presented at the trial (eg. the DNA evidence), and can offer alternative explanations that fit the facts but were not made by the Prosecution. I recently purchased Louis Blom-Cooper and found his discussion of the Louise Anderson "gloves" evidence absolutely correct in being withheld from the jury, but find it telling that Jimdidnotdoitites can claim "Hanratty never wore gloves" which was never presented before the jury when we have direct contradiction of this. I place Stewart P Evans recent revelation on this thread in this same category, interesting but possibly biased.

Take it off forum and PM me when you have set up a new thread with your answers.

Sion Jenkins (or Billie-Jo) has a thread here somewhere but I've not posted there and do not intend to, I certainly wouldn't want him near a child of mine.

I think it's innocent.org that has a forum about the book (and specifically Simon Hall), but I have no intention of posting there and urinating on their bonfire. Post a link if you find it.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

I think it's innocent.org that has a forum about the book (and specifically Simon Hall), but I have no intention of posting there and urinating on their bonfire. Post a link if you find it.

OK, it's here -> http://www.wronglyaccusedperson.org....-No-Smoke.aspx

KR,
Vic.