A6 Rebooted

[Sherlock Houses]

But Sherrard said their statements "did not find support from Hanratty" so there was no point in presenting them. What they had to lose was the prospect of clemency.

Might I ask when was Sherrard supposed to have said this ?

[NickB]

Sunday Times, 30-Sep-68.

Sherrard said the statements of Larman, Walker and Vincent were not consistent with the evidence which Hanratty had given as to identification, detail and time and that “the statements in other respects did not find support from Hanratty himself”.

[Spitfire]

Because of legal professional privilege, Sherrard could not disclose why he did not use the Rhyl witnesses at the 1962 appeal.

If he had had instructions from Hanratty which were inconsistent with the statements of Mrs Walker, Mr Larman and Mrs Vincent, then this is most likely to be the reason why Sherrard did not use those statements.

We should remember that Sherrard had heard all the evidence given at the trial, he had numerous conferences with his client during and after the trial, and was therefore seized of more information regarding the case than anyone posting on this board, yet he abandoned the Rhyl alibi. I believe he did so for good reasons.

[Sherlock Houses]

Sunday Times, 30-Sep-68.

Sherrard said the statements of Larman, Walker and Vincent were not consistent with the evidence which Hanratty had given as to identification, detail and time and that “the statements in other respects did not find support from Hanratty himself”.

It was Hanratty's solicitor, Kleinman, who wrote this letter, not Sherrard. Paragraph 198 of the 2002 judgement is in error again as it is in quite a number of other areas.

Paragraph 198 states....

"Following an article clearly critical of the way in which James Hanratty had been defended, in a letter to the Sunday Times dated 30 September 1968, his solicitor, without divulging matters covered by professional privilege, explained the reason for the decision not to seek to call that evidence before the court on the basis that the statements were not consistent with the evidence which James Hanratty had given."

Kleinman, not Sherrard, was Hanratty's solicitor. Sherrard was his barrister, his defence counsel.


Having stated that it was Hanratty's solicitor who wrote this letter to The Times it then carelessly adds........

"In his letter, Mr Sherrard added that, after the trial, he did see statements of Mr Larman and other potential witnesses which were considered for the purposes of appeal. He goes on to add that he need not rehearse the reasons for not seeking to adduce any of this evidence at the appeal."

[Sherlock Houses]

Christopher Larman

Paragraph 191 of the 2002 Judgement states.......

"The same is not so in relation to Christopher Larman who came to the attention of the police as late as 15 February (after the summing up had started but before the jury retired on 17 February). "

This is totally incorrect. Christopher Larman made his statement to Detective Inspector Robert Fields at Staines Police Station on Monday, February 12, a full 3 days earlier.

[Spitfire]

It was Hanratty's solicitor, Kleinman, who wrote this letter, not Sherrard. Paragraph 198 of the 2002 judgement is in error again as it is in quite a number of other areas.

Paragraph 198 states....

"Following an article clearly critical of the way in which James Hanratty had been defended, in a letter to the Sunday Times dated 30 September 1968, his solicitor, without divulging matters covered by professional privilege, explained the reason for the decision not to seek to call that evidence before the court on the basis that the statements were not consistent with the evidence which James Hanratty had given."

Kleinman, not Sherrard, was Hanratty's solicitor. Sherrard was his barrister, his defence counsel.


Having stated that it was Hanratty's solicitor who wrote this letter to The Times it then carelessly adds........

"In his letter, Mr Sherrard added that, after the trial, he did see statements of Mr Larman and other potential witnesses which were considered for the purposes of appeal. He goes on to add that he need not rehearse the reasons for not seeking to adduce any of this evidence at the appeal."

Sherrard wrote a letter to the appellant's solicitors which is referred to and quoted from in paragraph 192 of the judgment.

There is no carelessness on the part of the Mr Justice Leveson in this part of the judgment. Kleinman, the solicitor, wrote a letter to the Times in 1968, and Sherrard, the barrister, wrote a letter to the appellant's solicitors before the 2002 appeal. Kleinman, in his letter states that the decision not to call the witnesses was due to inconsistencies between their accounts and Hanratty's. Whereas, Sherrard, in his letter, states that he need not rehearse the reasons for not seeking to adduce this evidence.

[moste]

Good stuff from the past:
Detective Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 487

Default Liverpool.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello everyone,

Wow things are happening quickly on this board. I’ve not had chance to say welcome to Reg. So a very warm welcome to you Reg.

The Liverpool alibi to me seems very important. Swanwick accused Hanratty in court of somehow buying it.
Mrs Dinwoodie was the sole person who could verify Hanratty’s appearance in Liverpool. She was in the sweetshop on the 21st and 22nd August and a man came in on one of those days and asked if she could direct him to Tarleton Road. She didn’t know Tarleton Road but knew Tarleton Street. She wasn’t at the shop after the 22nd of August. Asked in court if she recognised the man she pointed to Hanratty and said he resembled the man. The police had already accepted that Hanratty was in London on the 21st so it must have been the 22nd.
Mr Swanwick accepted Mrs Dinwoodie as an honest witness.
Nobody, least of all Mr Swanwick, could explain how he could have been in Liverpool in the early evening and then turned up a few hours later at the cornfield so how could the prosecution get over this problem?
Mr Swanwick put it to Mrs Dinwoodie that possibly someone who resembled Hanratty had come into her shop and asked for directions to Tarleton Road (obviously this ‘lost’ person was also looking for the same mistaken Tarleton Road not Tarleton Street).
If Hanratty was not the man as Mr Swanwick says then how on earth would Hanratty have known about this event ever taking place?
Even the Judge told the jury: “Do you think it is likely that there were two people making similar enquiries? It is up to the prosecution to prove he was not there.”

I think the odds on this scenario are millions to one. Possibly in the same league as the DNA odds.

Also with regard to the Liverpool alibi Hanratty said he tried to sell a watch at a billiard hall but was prevented from doing so by the manager, Mr Kempt who was standing on the steps outside and refused him entry. Mr Kempt confirmed this incident took place exactly as Hanratty stated. He wasn’t sure of the date but was going on holiday on 26th August so he said it was before that.
Swanwick asked the Judge when summing up to remind the jury that this was possibly a conversation between Mr Kempt and somebody else; and the accused somehow got to know about it and used it to suit his own ends. Or it was Hanratty but on another occasion.
It was at this point Mr Sherrard said things were beginning to remind him of Alice in Wonderland.

Tony.

Add to above, from 2008,( and I can not for the life of me find an argument against Hanratty being in Liverpool.)
The inescapable fact, (and I have to think that it must have been considered before,) that not one individual has come forward to say "Hold on a second, the fellow who was supposed to be talking to your alibi witness was actually me, not this Hanratty bloke! Not a single person has said" Oh! Ingledean, that's right, that would have been me", or "Listen, about Mrs. Jones? No she must have that wrong, it wont have been that cockney, I was the guy in the B&B that day and I'm from Luton ".You see what I'm saying, nobody at all has come forward to our knowledge to thwart the alibis of Hanratty. I find that a very interesting fact.
Cheers Steve.

[Sherlock Houses]

Paragraph 198 of Court of Appeal judgement

Sherrard wrote a letter to the appellant's solicitors which is referred to and quoted from in paragraph 192 of the judgment.

There is no carelessness on the part of the Mr Justice Leveson in this part of the judgment. Kleinman, the solicitor, wrote a letter to the Times in 1968, and Sherrard, the barrister, wrote a letter to the appellant's solicitors before the 2002 appeal. Kleinman, in his letter states that the decision not to call the witnesses was due to inconsistencies between their accounts and Hanratty's. Whereas, Sherrard, in his letter, states that he need not rehearse the reasons for not seeking to adduce this evidence.

I think you will need to read paragraph 198 more carefully. That is the paragraph I am referring to, not paragraph 192. NickB stated in his post that the Sunday Times, September 30th 1968 letter was written by Sherrard when in fact it was written by Kleinman. Paragraph 198 is dealing with this particular letter not a letter [mentioned 6 paragraphs earlier] written by Sherrard in 2002. In full it reads as follows.......

198. It follows that statements from each of these witnesses were in the possession of James Hanratty’s legal advisers well before the 13 March 1962 when the matter came before the Court of Criminal Appeal. Following an article clearly critical of the way in which James Hanratty had been defended, in a letter to the Sunday Times dated 30 September 1968, his solicitor, without divulging matters covered by professional privilege, explained the reason for the decision not to seek to call that evidence before the court on the basis that the statements were not consistent with the evidence which James Hanratty had given. He went on:

“Quite apart from inconsistencies as to identification and detail (as well as some mutually contradictory features) there was no point in seeking to rely on the evidence of Mr Larman, Mrs Walker and Mrs Vincent because their statements (even without the test of cross-examination) did not match Hanratty’s evidence on the crucial issue of time. He could not have spoken to any of these people at 7.30 p.m. because his evidence on oath was that he did not leave Liverpool by coach for Rhyl until after 7.30 p.m. and that when he arrived at Rhyl it was late evening and dark. It was, of course, not dark at Rhyl at 7.30 p.m. That the statements in other respects did not find support from Hanratty himself added substantially to the difficulties.”

In his letter, Mr Sherrard added that, after the trial, he did see statements of Mr Larman and other potential witnesses which were considered for the purposes of appeal. He goes on to add that he need not rehearse the reasons for not seeking to adduce any of this evidence at the appeal.

[Spitfire]

I think you will need to read paragraph 198 more carefully. That is the paragraph I am referring to, not paragraph 192. NickB stated in his post that the September 30 1968 letter was written by Sherrard. In full it reads as follows.......

198. It follows that statements from each of these witnesses were in the possession of James Hanratty’s legal advisers well before the 13 March 1962 when the matter came before the Court of Criminal Appeal. Following an article clearly critical of the way in which James Hanratty had been defended, in a letter to the Sunday Times dated 30 September 1968, his solicitor, without divulging matters covered by professional privilege, explained the reason for the decision not to seek to call that evidence before the court on the basis that the statements were not consistent with the evidence which James Hanratty had given. He went on:

“Quite apart from inconsistencies as to identification and detail (as well as some mutually contradictory features) there was no point in seeking to rely on the evidence of Mr Larman, Mrs Walker and Mrs Vincent because their statements (even without the test of cross-examination) did not match Hanratty’s evidence on the crucial issue of time. He could not have spoken to any of these people at 7.30 p.m. because his evidence on oath was that he did not leave Liverpool by coach for Rhyl until after 7.30 p.m. and that when he arrived at Rhyl it was late evening and dark. It was, of course, not dark at Rhyl at 7.30 p.m. That the statements in other respects did not find support from Hanratty himself added substantially to the difficulties.”

In his letter, Mr Sherrard added that, after the trial, he did see statements of Mr Larman and other potential witnesses which were considered for the purposes of appeal. He goes on to add that he need not rehearse the reasons for not seeking to adduce any of this evidence at the appeal.

I know that you are talking about para 198, but that paragraph refers to a letter written by Sherrard and which is introduced into the narrative in para 192. As I said before, there are two letters, one by Kleinman to the Times and another by Sherrard to the appellant's solicitors.

[Spitfire]

Paragraph 191 of the 2002 Judgement states.......

"The same is not so in relation to Christopher Larman who came to the attention of the police as late as 15 February (after the summing up had started but before the jury retired on 17 February). "

This is totally incorrect. Christopher Larman made his statement to Detective Inspector Robert Fields at Staines Police Station on Monday, February 12, a full 3 days earlier.

It seems that Acott was handed a message from the Staines Police on at 9.10 pm 15 February 1962. The Staines Police having received a message recorded as having come from Mrs (sic) Christopher Edward Larman at 8.15 that day.

Other than the potentially faulty recollection of individuals several years after, there is no evidence that Mr Larman went in person to the Staines Police on Monday 12 February and made a statement.

The documents proved in court before the Court of Appeal, show that this statement is correct.

[NickB]

I apologise for mixing up Kleinman and Sherrard.

Mrs Dinwoodie was the sole person who could verify Hanratty’s appearance in Liverpool. She was in the sweetshop on the 21st and 22nd August and a man came in on one of those days and asked if she could direct him to Tarleton Road.

On 13-Oct-61 Kleinman, or perhaps it is safer to say the defence team, notified police of the sweetshop alibi. In this first statement it is claimed Hanratty asked for “Carlton or Talbot Road”. (section 54 of the 2002 Appeal)

After Mrs Dinwoodie's evidence became known to the defence, in further statements Hanratty is said to have asked for “Carlton or Tarleton Road”. Thus he morphed what he had originally claimed to have said into something resembling what Mrs Dinwoodie had said.

There are other differences in their accounts. For example, Hanratty claimed the woman in the shop said he should get a bus and came to the door and showed him the bus-stop, but Mrs Dinwoodie said she suggested other customers could help the visitor and went on serving.

At the trial Mrs Dinwoodie nodded towards Hanratty after Sherrard showed her the photograph she had signed and asked if she could see that person in court. The question of valid identification goes back to when she was presented with the photograph to sign.

Finally, she testified that she was certain the visitor had come into her shop on 21st August.

[OneRound]

I know that you are talking about para 198, but that paragraph refers to a letter written by Sherrard and which is introduced into the narrative in para 192. As I said before, there are two letters, one by Kleinman to the Times and another by Sherrard to the appellant's solicitors.

Hi folks - Spitfire is definitely right about the Court of Appeal referring to two separate letters in paragraph 198.

I do though believe there is a point to be made concerning the letter from Kleinman. Context is so important and, not for the only time, Hanratty appears to get the short end of the stick.

In dismissing parts of the appeal grouped together under the heading of 'The Rhyl Alibi', the Court of Appeal stated in para 200:
''... Finally, the solicitor's [Kleinman] observation that ''the statements in other respects did not find support from Hanratty'' cannot be ignored; his reasons are unknown although his instructions, in the end, would be conclusive. In the circumstances, we do not criticise the decision not to seek to call this evidence before the Court of Criminal Appeal [in 1962].''

Whilst that sounds understandable, it does not give any allowance to the circumstances in which Kleinman made his observation. I find this potentially generous towards Kleinman. As the Court noted in para 198, Kleinman's comments were made in a letter to the Sunday Times following an article in that newspaper ''clearly critical of the way in which James Hanratty had been defended''.

Thus, Kleinman was not commenting in a neutral manner for general information. He was, in fact, responding in a defensive manner to criticisms of the way in which Hanratty had been represented. That does not mean Kleinman's comment was necessarily unreasonable or invalid. However, I do feel that in the interests of justice it should have been probed and / or questioned rather than seeming to be accepted at face value; particularly given the Court of Appeal's statement in para 88 that, ''it should be this Court's central role to ensure that justice has been done and to rectify injustice.''

Admittedly, Sherrard's letter to the appellant's (Hanratty's) legal team for the appeal held in 2002 appears to support Kleinman's observation. However, I still consider it should at least have been reviewed in the context in which it was given.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Derrick]

...In dismissing parts of the appeal grouped together under the heading of 'The Rhyl Alibi', the Court of Appeal stated in para 200:
''... Finally, the solicitor's [Kleinman] observation that ''the statements in other respects did not find support from Hanratty'' cannot be ignored; his reasons are unknown although his instructions, in the end, would be conclusive. In the circumstances, we do not criticise the decision not to seek to call this evidence before the Court of Criminal Appeal [in 1962].''

Whilst that sounds understandable, it does not give any allowance to the circumstances in which Kleinman made his observation. I find this potentially generous towards Kleinman. As the Court noted in para 198, Kleinman's comments were made in a letter to the Sunday Times following an article in that newspaper ''clearly critical of the way in which James Hanratty had been defended''.

Thus, Kleinman was not commenting in a neutral manner for general information. He was, in fact, responding in a defensive manner to criticisms of the way in which Hanratty had been represented. That does not mean Kleinman's comment was necessarily unreasonable or invalid. However, I do feel that in the interests of justice it should have been probed and / or questioned rather than seeming to be accepted at face value; particularly given the Court of Appeal's statement in para 88 that, ''it should be this Court's central role to ensure that justice has been done and to rectify injustice.''...

Hi OR

I completely and utterly agree with what you have said here.

I would contrast that with how the CoA refused to criticize Acott due to the fact that he was dead. That is just so uneven handed of the court.

Del

[Sherlock Houses]

I would contrast that with how the CoA refused to criticize Acott due to the fact that he was dead. That is just so uneven handed of the court.
Del

No doubt a good career move on the part of old Baz just 9 months or so earlier.

[Spitfire]

Hi OR

I completely and utterly agree with what you have said here.

I would contrast that with how the CoA refused to criticize Acott due to the fact that he was dead. That is just so uneven handed of the court.

Del

I don't understand, the Court of Appeal refused to criticise Mr Kleinman and it also refused to criticise Mr Acott. What is uneven handed about that?