a6 murder

[Graham]

Hi Julie,

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).

I appreciate your kind comment, thank you. I do feel that I have been more sinned against than sinning, without mentioning names of course.

However, please understand that when our own dear Norma misrepresents Sherrard to the extent that she'd have us believe he was referring to Alphon rather than Hanratty, the blood of even an English gentleman does tend to begin to simmer, if not come to the boil.

Maybe Black Rabbit is right: maybe this thread has developed into a verbal ping-pong.

I think what is desperately needed for the A6 debate to move forward is some new information, but I can't see any coming, at least not in my lifetime.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

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.

Jen,

Surely you and Vic can see the ambiguity in what Sherrard said?

Norma

[Natalie Severn]

However, please understand that when our own dear Norma misrepresents Sherrard to the extent that she'd have us believe he was referring to Alphon rather than Hanratty,

Thats not at all what I said.Its you who are "misrepresenting" him.Anyway I don"t give a sh*t.I dont give a fukk.

[Natalie Severn]

Julie,
If you want help I am here with a cart load of manure.JUst give the word.

[babybird67]

nope

Jen,

Surely you and Vic can see the ambiguity in what Sherrard said?

Norma

Can't speak for Vic although apparently i am his mouthpiece but there is no ambiguity at all in what he said. He can't possibly have been speaking about Alphon....he was not on trial so no feeling of relief would be relevant.

[Graham]

Norma, there is no ambiguity in what Sherrard said. Quite plainly, he implied that he was relieved that Hanratty was guilty as charged and that he, Sherrard, had not defended an innocent man.

Anyone fancy a drink somewhere this coming weekend?

Graham

[babybird67]

whereabouts are you Graham?

I'll be in the london area over the next few days...oh Midlands...might not be much good then would have been nice to have met you

Jen x

[Graham]

I'll be in the london area over the next few days...oh Midlands...might not be much good then would have been nice to have met you

Jen x

Ah well....such is life.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Hello Graham,
I am in Wales until Tuesday--but , thankyou, it would be really good for us to meet up sometime .
To Jen and Graham,
Reading the chapter through on Hanratty that Sherrard wrote with his co-author Linda Goldman in 2009, we have his verbatim quotes and nowhere is there any reference to anything about the "wrong man not being hanged" or such like.Quite the contrary.He appears as perplexed as Foot was over the ruling and how and why the knickers and hanky were "kept on ice" by the police for 31 years.
Best
Norma

[babybird67]

just because it isn't in his book...

doesn't mean he didn't say it Norma. He's on record as having said it and the meaning is quite clear.

[Natalie Severn]

Well then we have to agree to differ,Jen.The meaning is ambiguous as far as I am concerned-and intentionally so it would appear--especially in the context of what else he has had to say to about the matter.

[Victor]

Norma, there is no ambiguity in what Sherrard said. Quite plainly, he implied that he was relieved that Hanratty was guilty as charged and that he, Sherrard, had not defended an innocent man.

Hi Graham,

How unambiguous can you get, it plainly says - The state did not execute an innocent man. Why else would it be an "immense relief" to Sherrard?

Anyone fancy a drink somewhere this coming weekend?

Anyone around the Brighton area?

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Your post was grossly offensive to Norma and myself.

Hi Julie,

Why? All I did was turn the tables on you - you suggested Ron and myself might be sock-puppets, and I vulgarly said that Norma might be yours. I'm glad you were offended, that was the intention and clearly demonstrates that to call someone a sock-puppet without evidence is unpleasant.

Admittedly I then took a swipe at Jimarilyn by restating my belief that he is a sycophant, which I have explained previously.

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.

You don't like it when someone turns the tables on you do you? Ron has been using unflattering words to describe "your camp", but this is a practice that has been going on since the thread was started - Jimdiditites I think was the first phrase used - it has a Caz Morris style to me - so to only start objecting now is bizarre, it's entirely expected that terminology for various sides of a dispute evolves - the most famous example of this would be a hero of mine, Fred Hoyle, he believed in the Steady State theory of the universe, and ridiculed the rival theory by calling it - the Big Bang theory, which of course was adopted and is now the prefered explanation for how the universe started.

Incidentally in a similar vein, I had an idea to call people in Jimarilyn's camp Al-phonies and see I've even shown it's a light-hearted comment by including a smilie.

I responded with a glimmer of humour to a post made by Norma and your reply was totally repulsive.

I completely reject the suggestion that you can post a reply on a public forum and expect only the person you direct it to to reply, you chose to make it public not me.

I've explained above why I'm quite happy for you to find the comment repulsive - it was intended to highlight the repulsiveness of your own comments.

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.

And here you are just being a massive hypocrit, in one sentence, that's quite an achievement. I think you need to explain it too, because I'm at a complete loss to find how breaking site rules classifies as my "narrow interpretation".

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.

Have you? I think the deaf ears and closed minds are in your camp, but that's entirely expected if you want to polarise the argument.

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).

OK Julie, if you would be so kind, please answer a few questions for me:-
1. Did you know that the poster previously called Reg had come back onto the boards under at least one new pseudonym?
2. Do you think that the posts of Derrick are remarkable similar in tone and content to those of Reg?
3. Why or why not?

I'm starting to suspect that your recent posts are brimming with feigned indignation which may imply insider knowledge. Just a suspicion I have.

KR,
Vic.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Graham,

How unambiguous can you get, it plainly says - The state did not execute an innocent man. Why else would it be an "immense relief" to Sherrard?


Anyone around the Brighton area?

KR,
Vic.

Vic,
It is because what you are failing to do is to discern from the many statements I have posted about what Michael Sherrard actually thought about the "evidence" that came from the 1961 trial and what he actually said to TV journalists after the appeal judement in May 2002 .
When I talk about ambiguity I am recognising the " legalese" in some of his statements-a deliberate linguistic ploy used frequently by lawyers to camouflage meaning. By taking a single sentence from the complexity of his interpretations you are falling into a kind of linguistic elephant trap especially when you suggest that Michael Sherrard is "himself " saying Hanratty was guilty.

Sherrard does not say he himself thinks the DNA proves Hanratty"s guilt.He says he thinks the Court will think so.


Here are his words again, given directly after the appeal ruling in 2002 :

: "So, do you think he did it?[actor telephoning Sherrard from 1961 Bootleg Theatre Company]

Sherrard- answering we are told " in the only way he could"

I think the COURT is going to think so


That does not mean he thought the court was right to think so,nor does it mean he thought Hanratty was guilty.

[Natalie Severn]

You don't like it when someone turns the tables on you do you?

Neither do you Vic!