a6 murder

[Natalie Severn]

Vic,
I have just noticed your above post. I need to be given an exact source as I am unable to find it in "wikipedia".I would need for example to know exactly:

1]when Michael Sherrard is alleged by Wikipedia to have made such remarks,
2] his addressees,
and
3] the topic and title of the article in which it was found .
Without this information I would be unable to establish,merely from Wikipedia ,the strict syntactic accuracy of the quote, the context in which it was allegedly made and what else he said in terms of implication and connotation.
I would also like to know whether this was said before his autobiography was published in 2009?
In his 2009 biography , he makes clear he thinks evidence was tampered with/fiddled with by police at the time and that much of what Hanratty said was proven,in this regard ie "by modern forensic hand-writing tests " to be the truth.
To have finished his entire chapter,in the year 2009 , about this famous case with a question mark about the "evidence" submitted suggests that in 2009 he still continues to totally [U]mistrust[/U]and /or question any and all "evidence" ever submitted does it not?
When,in his final paragraph he gives us his conclusion he is at pains,it would seem to remind us that the DNA "evidence "came from the very same police source who thought it necessary to keep "for 31 years , on ice,Valerie Storie"s knickers and the handferchief that wrapped the gun.The very same police,Acott and Oxford, who ,he reminds us, were proven,by modern forensic techniques to have "tampered and fiddled" with the evidence.
Thanks ,
Norma

[babybird67]

Norma

are you suggesting Acott and Oxford were able to have superhuman prescience about the development of DNA techniques that were to occur four or five decades later and managed to fiddle the DNA by somehow erasing the real rapist's DNA whilst magically leaving Hanratty's, Storie's and Gregsten's all intact? How do you think it was possible to separate all those DNA strands from eachother?

Or are you suggesting this fiddling came later? If it came later, are you accusing the independent scientists of colluding with or falsifying the DNA results under the influence of later Police corruption?

Why would Police now want to undermine their own careers by fiddling results when Acott and Oxford are no longer around and would not be bothered by any revelation of alleged innocence?

Why don't you read the Judgement in reference to the DNA results again:

here:

http://www.denverda.org/DNA_Documents/Hanratty.PDF

But that is to ignore the results of the DNA profiling. With regard to the knicker fragment we have what Dr Whitaker would describe as a typical distribution of male and female DNA following an act of sexual intercourse leading, to the obvious inference that the male contribution came from James Hanratty. For that not to be the case we would have to suppose that the DNA of the rapist, also of blood group O, had either degraded so as to become undetectable or had been masked by James Hanratty's DNA during the course of a contaminating event. Moreover, we would also have to suppose that Valerie Storie's DNA had remained in its original state, or at least detectable, and had escaped being overridden by DNA from James Hanratty. The same would have to be true of the DNA attributed to Michael Gregsten. Finally, we must visualise a pattern which is wholly consistent with sexual intercourse having taken place in which Valerie Storie and James Hanratty were the participants.

(my emphases)

Contamination was considered as a possible reason to find Hanratty's semen on those knickers. The reasons this is not a plausible explanation are that a small amount of contamination could not completely erase the larger amount of semen that would have been ejaculated during sex by the 'real' rapist. Also, read the bits i have underlined...the distribution and pattern found showed sexual intercourse had taken place. These experts work with these methods all the time. In rape cases, it is extremely important to be able to prove sexual intercourse actually took place...that's one of the way they do it. Sex took place between Hanratty and Storie. She did not consent. He raped her. He killed Michael Gregsten. Those are the cold hard facts of the matter and I am sorry they remain unpalatable to you, but that's the truth.

[Victor]

Vic,
I have just noticed your above post. I need to be given an exact source as I am unable to find it in "wikipedia".

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."

I would need for example to know exactly:

1]when Michael Sherrard is alleged by Wikipedia to have made such remarks,

He is not alleged by wikipedia to have made the remarks, the link to the quote is on wikipedia - on the James Hanratty page, in the External Links section at the bottom, clearly labelled "The wrong man was not hanged."

2] his addressees,

You are correct in that it was a talk given by Sherrard to the Law Society, and appears to be a comment by an attendee to the talk.

3] the topic and title of the article in which it was found.

It was a talk, adn I don't know those exact details.

Without this information I would be unable to establish,merely from Wikipedia ,the strict syntactic accuracy of the quote, the context in which it was allegedly made and what else he said in terms of implication and connotation.

As I said it isn't from Wikipedia, go and check the link.

I would also like to know whether this was said before his autobiography was published in 2009?

Yes it was.

In his 2009 biography, he makes clear he thinks evidence was tampered with/fiddled with by police at the time and that much of what Hanratty said was proven,in this regard ie "by modern forensic hand-writing tests" to be the truth.

He is making conclusions based upon testing in a field that is different from his area of expertise - he's a lawyer (or whatever legal professional title) and is commenting upon ESDA testing and going against the opinions of the professional expert who performed the test.

To have finished his entire chapter,in the year 2009, about this famous case with a question mark about the "evidence" submitted suggests that in 2009 he still continues to totally mistrust and/or question any and all "evidence" ever submitted does it not?

The quote in my post suggests that the evidence was not strong enough, not that he mistrusts it, but sure his opinion could have changed although I don't know why it should.

When,in his final paragraph he gives us his conclusion he is at pains,it would seem to remind us that the DNA "evidence" came from the very same police source who thought it necessary to keep "for 31 years, on ice, Valerie Storie"s knickers and the handferchief that wrapped the gun.The very same police,Acott and Oxford, who ,he reminds us, were proven,by modern forensic techniques to have "tampered and fiddled" with the evidence.

Right, here he is using his expertise and formulating an argument but basing it on an innaccurate series of assumptions as has repeatedly been pointed out:-
1. The police did not deliberately retain the samples.
2. They were not "on ice" or "frozen".
3. They were stored seperately and discovered seperately by 2 different sets of police officers (one being the Met Police Labs, the other Bedfordshire Constabulary).
4. Acott and Oxford didn't work for either the Met or Bedford.
5. The ESDA tests and the expert who conducted them do not support the conclusions Sherrard reached.

So do I take it that you refute the fact that Sherrard made those statements?

What conclusions do you draw from the information available, which is after all what we are all doing about the evidence in this case.

KR,
Vic.

[NickB]

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?

Actually he came up with the sweet shop story on 13th October, the same day he was arrested.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Vic,

Originally Posted by Victor
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 recent DNA tests would seem to prove conclusively that Hanratty did in fact commit the crime for which he was executed. 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."

Vic, can I
1] ask you why you left out the final sentence of this paragraph which ofcourse completely changes its meaning?

2]What you have linked us to is a report without a by line.We need to know who wrote it.It is not a verbatim account of Michael Sherrard"s talk at all.There is no date on it and most of the talk is missing and impossible to locate .
So how can we find out who wrote it up?
Without the full report ,its date and the name of the reporter how can we check it for accuracy?

[Victor]

Vic, can I
1] ask you why you left out the final sentence of this paragraph which ofcourse completely changes its meaning?

Hi Norma,

What the hell are you talking about? I haven't missed that line out at all, and if you actually read my post I use those specific sentences as direct evidence that your previous reasoning is demonstrably flawed...

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.

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

It now just smacks of you squirming desperately to avoid answering a direct question. You reminded me of Michael Howard in that famous interview with Jeremy Paxman.

2]What you have linked us to is a report without a by line.We need to know who wrote it.It is not a verbatim account of Michael Sherrard"s talk at all.There is no date on it and most of the talk is missing and impossible to locate .
So how can we find out who wrote it up?

I completly agree that we should find some verification or corroboration of the details reported, and if you check out the URL it links to the City of London School for Girls, and the trail seems to ebb out there.

Without the full report ,its date and the name of the reporter how can we check it for accuracy?

That's an interesting viewpoint so how does that relate to your stated position regarding that highly dubious, and publically denied "She saw him at the cleaners" newspaper report you started a thread about?

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

The recent DNA tests would seem to prove conclusively that Hanratty did in fact commit the crime for which he was executed. 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."

Vic, can I
1] ask you why you left out the final sentence of this paragraph which ofcourse completely changes its meaning?

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.

Nothing more to add...

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Vic,
Lets stay calm can we.
The paragraph you asked me to read in the post I addressed omitted the final line.It therefore changed the meaning,of your quote in that particular post .I then went immediately to the link you gave me and discovered there was no reference whatsoever to the source. Not even to the Wikipedia page which must be available just this,like this:

The recent DNA tests would seem to prove conclusively that Hanratty did in fact commit the crime for which he was executed. 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."



No link to the report of the meeting Michael Sherrard QC gave the talk to .No name of the reporter.No date on the report,which I happen to think crucial,given what Sherrard wrote in his 2009 biography.
It is perfectly reasonable to want specific information on a source.It is totally unacceptable to give or accept a source without a name,a date or what the subject matter of that talk was about.

PS
I can see that you did indeed quote the sentence previously .However I was only addressing your post of a few hours ago in which you omitted it.But fair enough,you have quoted it yourself in another post and made the same comment,so it is unlikely you were omitting it intentionally,which is what I was inferring .

[Victor]

The paragraph you asked me to read in the post I addressed omitted the final line.It therefore changed the meaning,of your quote.

Norma,

In which post of mine are the final 2 sentences omitted?

I then went immedicately to the link you gave me and discovered there was no reference whatsoever to the source. Not even to the Wikipedia page which must be available just this,like this:

Have you read and understood what I've posted?

He is not alleged by wikipedia to have made the remarks, the link to the quote is on wikipedia - on the James Hanratty page, in the External Links section at the bottom, clearly labelled "The wrong man was not hanged."

So on James Hanratty's wikipedia page...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hanratty

Scroll down to the bottom and see...

External links
Various websites have taken this cause on:

A6 Murder Casebook Forums
MURDER UK
Criminal Cases Review Commission Referral
Hanratty's defence lawyer: "The wrong man was not hanged".
CPS press release
Law Report on fresh evidence
Innocent.org.uk - Criminal Cases Review Commission

It is perfectly reasonable to want specific information on a source.It is totally unacceptable to give or accept a source without a name,a date or what the subject matter of that talk was about.

Let's see the first paragraph says..."Michael Sherrard QC [...] came to City to talk to members of the Law Society about his experiences during the famous Hanratty trial." so there's a name and a subject matter and the audience.

I happen to agree that it would be very nice to have further details and I'm trying to find them, let's see what I can find, in the meantime what comment do you have on the information we have? I fully realise and expect you to just do Michael Howard (the Prince of Darkness) and dodge the question yet again.

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

May I politely draw everyone's attention to Post No 172 on the Steve Wright thread? No further comment necessary.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

I happen to agree that it would be very nice to have further details and I'm trying to find them, let's see what I can find, in the meantime what comment do you have on the information we have? I fully realise and expect you to just do Michael Howard (the Prince of Darkness) and dodge the question yet again.

Vic,
Thanks for the links which again omit the information I need.
I am unwilling to answer a question about an extract from what --exactly? It is one paragraph supposedly from an article about a meeting to the Law Society -but which journal or newspaper or branch of the media did it appear in?
I need the name of the reporter because without the name of the person who wrote it or the journal it appeared in how can I assess its likely veracity?How do I know it hasnt been misreported? I need a date to work out how the statement attributed to Sherrard tallies with later statements he has made about the case.
Nothing to do with evasion.I need to know these things before I can reach a conclusion about this remark attributed to Michael Sherrard QC.

[Derrick]

Nothing to do with evasion.I need to know these things before I can reach a conclusion about this remark attributed to Michael Sherrard QC.

Hi Norma
I agree. The web page gives no information that one could base a reliable argument on.
Derrick

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma
I agree. The web page gives no information that one could base a reliable argument on.
Derrick

Thanks Derrick.It is quite strange that too.I mean was it actually reported in some newspaper or magazine or just taken from a TV newsreader or something?

[Derrick]

Thanks Derrick.It is quite strange that too.I mean was it actually reported in some newspaper or magazine or just taken from a TV newsreader or something?

Norma
Maybe it was but it isn't even implicit within the body of the text.
It should actually be removed from Wikipaedia as it doesn't pass their standard of being a reputable source.

Derrick

[Natalie Severn]

How do you think it was possible to separate all those DNA strands from eachother?

Or are you suggesting this fiddling came later? If it came later, are you accusing the independent scientists of colluding with or falsifying the DNA results under the influence of later Police corruption?

Jen,
The piece of cloth was kept in conditions that were not at all pristine.It was kept in a brown envelope where the edges had come apart found in a drawer after 31 years that contained other exhibits that had been handled by all and sundry.In the same file was a broken vial,thought to have contained a seminal wash from Hanratty"s trousers.

The hanky was kept in Bedford police station and who knows after 40 odd years where it had been?Who had handled it? Who knows for sure it wasn"t just one of Hanratty"s many white hankies?
The hanky may have simply been a trophy kept back from the trial .