a6 murder

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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]

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?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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"

[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.

[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).