a6 murder

[Victor]

Hi Norma,

What exactly was an "immense relief" to him?

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]

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

[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

[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.

[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

[Victor]

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

For **** sake Norma, how many times does the link need to be posted before you'll go and check it out! It is against the copyright law for me to post any more of it!

KR,
Vic

[BiffityBiff]

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

Hi Norma. This sounds quite intriguing. Look forward to hearing more.
Ian

[Natalie Severn]

For **** sake Norma, how many times does the link need to be posted before you'll go and check it out! It is against the copyright law for me to post any more of it!

KR,
Vic

I think I remember this being an address to the "Law Society".If it is, then it needs to be understood that it would have been against professional etiquette if not a breach of professional conduct,to have said otherwise.Nobody could expect an eminent lawyer such as a QC to be perceived as not only refusing to abide by the decision of his three colleagues the judges, who made the ruling at the Appeal Court,but to also be questioning their judgement and criticising their work.Therefore all this quote can do is instruct us , that in that context,to that audience, he gave the only statement he could.After all,he was not just discussing the case of James Hanratty at that meeting,
Norma

[Victor]

I think I remember this being an address to the "Law Society".If it is, then it needs to be understood that it would have been against professional etiquette if not a breach of professional conduct,to have said otherwise.Nobody could expect an eminent lawyer such as a QC to be perceived as not only refusing to abide by the decision of his three colleagues the judges, who made the ruling at the Appeal Court,but to also be questioning their judgement and criticising their work.Therefore all this quote can do is instruct us , that in that context,to that audience, he gave the only statement he could.After all,he was not just discussing the case of James Hanratty at that meeting,

Hi Norma,

In that case, please explain the following sentence..."The evidence was too weak to justify conviction. I still hold that view."

That is a direct criticism of the judgment and says that he believes they got it wrong.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

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....

Hi Ian,

I should have welcomed you earlier, but I can only access the website by iPhone in the evenings, and Safari isn't great for quoting posts.

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.

The DNA is conclusive, there is no way to account for the tests to accurately determine 2 of the 3 profiles, missing the actual pertetrator, and detecting an additional profile from contamination - that's 3 disjointed hoops to jump through which would be an unbelievable feat of cellular acrobatics.

The trouble with and Rhyl alibis is that they rely on identification evidence, which conflicts with 3 other sets of identification evidence, and the passage of time between the events and the witnesses coming forward - a delay due solely to Hanratty and his attempt to introduce an ambush alibi - renders them highly dubious. Hanratty gave only generalised descriptions of his supposed stay in Rhyl - a grey haired lady with a green plant in the hallway and a coat rack - the one specific detail he gave concerned the green bath in the attic, but that too was not entirely accurate because he didn't mention the bed in the same room.

I notice Norma has started a thread concerning the sweetshop alibi, so it'll be interesting to see how she accounts for having to undermine part of Mrs Dinwoodie's alibi - it happened on the Monday when Hanratty was undoubtedly in London - without undermining the rest.

KR,
Vic.

[BiffityBiff]

Hi Ian,

I should have welcomed you earlier, but I can only access the website by iPhone in the evenings, and Safari isn't great for quoting posts.


The DNA is conclusive, there is no way to account for the tests to accurately determine 2 of the 3 profiles, missing the actual pertetrator, and detecting an additional profile from contamination - that's 3 disjointed hoops to jump through which would be an unbelievable feat of cellular acrobatics.

The trouble with and Rhyl alibis is that they rely on identification evidence, which conflicts with 3 other sets of identification evidence, and the passage of time between the events and the witnesses coming forward - a delay due solely to Hanratty and his attempt to introduce an ambush alibi - renders them highly dubious. Hanratty gave only generalised descriptions of his supposed stay in Rhyl - a grey haired lady with a green plant in the hallway and a coat rack - the one specific detail he gave concerned the green bath in the attic, but that too was not entirely accurate because he didn't mention the bed in the same room.

I notice Norma has started a thread concerning the sweetshop alibi, so it'll be interesting to see how she accounts for having to undermine part of Mrs Dinwoodie's alibi - it happened on the Monday when Hanratty was undoubtedly in London - without undermining the rest.

KR,
Vic.

Hi Victor,
Hmm so JH simply made up the story of the sweetshop conversation? By this late stage in the trial, he's aware his life is at stake yet he invents this **** and bull story about a conversation in a sweet shop which he knows can never be corroborated? Well what an extraordinary coincidence that a young man looking like Hanratty just happened to be in Mrs Dinwoodie's shop asking for directions on that very same day. I don't have my books handy, but as I recall, Mrs Dinwoodie's granddaughter Barbara also served behind the counter whenever children needing serving and according to Hanratty there was a young girl helping serve on that particular day. According to her friend, Barbara did help to serve on the Tuesday as well as the Monday if I remember correctly. Sorry for rambling on 'cause you've most likely gone over all this before [how do I access this separate thread by the way??], but no one [so far] has yet been able to explain away these weird "coincidences"- to my satisfaction anyway.
Regards
Ian
PS I've found the other threads!

[Victor]

Hmm so JH simply made up the story of the sweetshop conversation? By this late stage in the trial, he's aware his life is at stake yet he invents this **** and bull story about a conversation in a sweet shop which he knows can never be corroborated?

Hi Ian,

Who knows? I wouldn't want to speculate too much about it - the other thread is here, or the whole collection of threads here

Well what an extraordinary coincidence that a young man looking like Hanratty just happened to be in Mrs Dinwoodie's shop asking for directions on that very same day.

Sherrard said the case was dripping with coincidences starting with Alphon and Hanratty staying in the Vienna Hotel under assumed names on consecutive nights, for one night only

Mrs Dinwoodie's granddaughter Barbara also served behind the counter whenever children needing serving and according to Hanratty there was a young girl helping serve on that particular day. According to her friend, Barbara did help to serve on the Tuesday as well as the Monday if I remember correctly.

Foot says so, but there's no corroboration for it. There was another customer there who did give evidence at trial, I can't remember his name though.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

In that case, please explain the following sentence..."The evidence was too weak to justify conviction. I still hold that view."

That is a direct criticism of the judgment and says that he believes they got it wrong.

KR,
Vic.

You know the answer to that Vic.A jury of laymen convicted Hanratty.So no problems in that respect.In the case of the appeals judges decided.

[Victor]

You know the answer to that Vic.A jury of laymen convicted Hanratty.So no problems in that respect.In the case of the appeals judges decided.

Hi Norma,

My replies yesterday seem to have vanished in the server migration, so here it is again:-

The full quote is:-
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."

Breaking that down into the 4 sentences attributed to MS, we have:-
The wrong man was not hanged. The state did not execute an innocent man.
That was an immense relief to me. MS is incredibly relieved that the state hasn't executed an innocent man, maybe because he felt some responsibility because he defended Hanratty, and didn't manage to get him released despite the fact he thought the case was weak (see below). Or it could be his feelings of failure and inadequacy have reduced because Hanratty actually was guilty and he didn't make such a pig's ear of defending him.
The evidence was too weak to justify conviction. The jury was wrong in convicting him.
I still hold that view. The appeal judges were wrong to state "The DNA evidence made what was a strong case even stronger. Equally the strength of the evidence overall pointing to the guilt of the appellant supports our conclusion as to the DNA."
From paragraph 211 of the judgement.

Now you said...

I think I remember this being an address to the "Law Society".If it is, then it needs to be understood that it would have been against professional etiquette if not a breach of professional conduct,to have said otherwise.Nobody could expect an eminent lawyer such as a QC to be perceived as not only refusing to abide by the decision of his three colleagues the judges, who made the ruling at the Appeal Court,but to also be questioning their judgement and criticising their work.Therefore all this quote can do is instruct us , that in that context,to that audience, he gave the only statement he could.

Whereas the last 2 sentences I quoted above are critising the work of the "his three colleagues the judges", and "questioning their judgement".

So which is it? What do you think was "an immense relief" to Sherrard in the context of the full quote above?

KR,
Vic.