Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A6 Rebooted

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • OneRound
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    The fact that Mrs D claimed to be certain it was the Monday when the man came in asking for directions, and Hanratty was provably in London at the time, means there are only two possible conclusions: she misidentified the man as Hanratty, or she got the day wrong despite her certainty. Her witness testimony was therefore flawed and inherently unreliable. That being so, there can be no guarantee that if the man did come in on the Tuesday, she'd have been able to remember and recognise him from the photo she was shown of Hanratty.

    I'm not sure Hanratty defenders can have it both ways. If the rape victim herself is not trusted to have identified the right man when face to face with Hanratty and hearing him speak, because she had picked out the wrong man at the first id parade, when the suspect was Alphon, who was rightly eliminated as a result, then how can Mrs D be trusted to have correctly identified - from a mere photo - a man she was certain had come into her shop on the Monday, a day too early to have been Hanratty? I wonder what her reaction would have been to hearing Hanratty's distinctive London accent?

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Hi Caz - good as always to hear from you.

    A couple of points arising for me.

    Am I a ''Hanratty defender''? Yes but only from a legal viewpoint. By that, I mean I don't consider he got a fair deal before or at trial. As for his innocence, that's being driven on a different bus and I'm not on it.

    As a Hanratty (legal) defender, can I ''have it both ways''? I'm not sure I should actually need to. Mrs D should have have only needed to come into the mix if a sufficient case against Hanratty had been built and was required to be countered. I'm not convinced it was. I fully appreciate Hanratty significantly harmed his own chances by changing his alibi but nonetheless it was Valerie Storie's identification and testimony that most of all built the case and ended up putting a rope around his neck. As we know, Valerie identified the wrong man on the first parade. Whilst still having great personal sympathy for her, that misidentification would have significantly discredited her identification and testimony to me had I been on the original jury. Only one man shot and killed Michael Gregsten. Only that one and the same man raped Valerie. Harsh though it may seem but for me Valerie had to either pick the right man the first time or at the very least acknowledge she was unsure and pick no one. It should not have been a situation of ''keep coming back to a different parade until you pick out the latest suspect and then we'll charge him''.

    As an additional concern, what would have happened if Valerie had got it wrong on the first parade by picking out Alphon? She might just as easily have done so.

    Best regards,
    OneRound







    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    The fact that Mrs D claimed to be certain it was the Monday when the man came in asking for directions, and Hanratty was provably in London at the time, means there are only two possible conclusions: she misidentified the man as Hanratty, or she got the day wrong despite her certainty. Her witness testimony was therefore flawed and inherently unreliable. That being so, there can be no guarantee that if the man did come in on the Tuesday, she'd have been able to remember and recognise him from the photo she was shown of Hanratty.

    I'm not sure Hanratty defenders can have it both ways. If the rape victim herself is not trusted to have identified the right man when face to face with Hanratty and hearing him speak, because she had picked out the wrong man at the first id parade, when the suspect was Alphon, who was rightly eliminated as a result, then how can Mrs D be trusted to have correctly identified - from a mere photo - a man she was certain had come into her shop on the Monday, a day too early to have been Hanratty? I wonder what her reaction would have been to hearing Hanratty's distinctive London accent?

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

    I've had the same issue several times, it appears to be an exclusive quirk of vBulletin. I particularly enjoy when it generates a lengthy stream of symbols that aren't even in my keypad. Adds character eh?
    Yeah, then even when you edit them out ,they come back with a vengeance . Ok ,so not just me, thanks for that. I feared someone was circumventing my thread involvement, because I was closing in on the true A6 killer LOL.

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    replied
    Originally posted by moste View Post
    I asked admin to look into the corrupt messaging when I post ,I know it’s not my IPad, because it’s fine on other sites.
    I've had the same issue several times, it appears to be an exclusive quirk of vBulletin. I particularly enjoy when it generates a lengthy stream of symbols that aren't even in my keypad. Adds character eh?
    Last edited by Al Bundy's Eyes; 11-10-2021, 11:28 AM. Reason: Ironically, it's re-corrupted Moste's post in the quote!

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    I asked admin to look into the corrupt messaging when I post ,I know it’s not my IPad, because it’s fine on other sites.

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    Originally posted by moste View Post

    I stand corrected old chap. That is indeed where I previously read of Gormans involvement in a case of skullduggery.

    Bert Balmer, surely everyoneâ€à‚™s Bête noire
    Consider the immorality of the mentality, ‘Hang the burglar ,I cant find the murderer’. A double whammy for so called policemen like these .They acknowledge the accomplishment of bringing a killer to Justice, take the accompanying promotion that may be in the offing.then smugly congratulate them selves for permanently taking off the streets an habitual miscreant. Doesn’t scum like this leave a nasty taste. Sorry, off topic, I know.
    Last edited by moste; 11-03-2021, 04:25 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    Originally posted by OneRound View Post

    Hi moste,

    I'm genuinely not sure about that. He was though definitely the prosecuting counsel in the Cameo Murders case where George Kelly was hanged and Charlie Connolly was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment largely in part due to the lies and non-disclosures (as subsequently determined by the Court of Appeal) of your old bete noire Bert Balmer.
    Best regards,
    OneRound
    I stand corrected old chap. That is indeed where I previously read of Gormans involvement in a case of skullduggery.

    Bert Balmer, surely everyone’s Bête noire

    Leave a comment:


  • OneRound
    replied
    Originally posted by moste View Post

    Yes, one of the deal breakers for me is Hanratty remembering an elderly lady serving , and a little girl also involved. If , as is the case Hanratty knows, and can prove he was in London on the Monday , and Mr Foot most emphatically insisted , it had to be the Tuesday. For me that had to instill in the jury â Reasonable doubt, it did not, and the judge had to explain as we may recall what in fact reasonable doubt is . For the love of Pete , if Gorman had any conscience and insight he would have immediately closed up shop ,and called for a new trial.( this time with 12 jurors,Mr Sherrard! ). or even fairer, right from the get go, Just as the appeal judges had done in the Wallace case 30 years before , squashed the whole proceedings with the decision, No case to answer Gorman will have remembered that case because I believe he was a member of the prosecution.
    Hi moste,

    I'm genuinely not sure about that. He was though definitely the prosecuting counsel in the Cameo Murders case where George Kelly was hanged and Charlie Connolly was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment largely in part due to the lies and non-disclosures (as subsequently determined by the Court of Appeal) of your old bete noire Bert Balmer.

    Best regards,
    OneRound

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    Sorry for the weird additional letters in my posts, My IPad like myself is getting a bit long in the tooth,Lol.

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    Originally posted by OneRound View Post

    Hi all,

    I may be wrong but ...

    ... whilst Don Smith was certainly entitled to interview Mrs Dinwoodie and understandably attempt to get a better understanding of what had gone on and when, I think he would have been significantly restricted in what he could report at the time (i.e. pre trial).

    As for Mrs Dinwoodie sticking to her (eventual) guns when interviewed by Kleinman, well ... was that her truly remembering or perhaps being influenced by what the police might have said during their visits about not changing her mind?

    Best regards,
    OneRound
    Yes, one of the deal breakers for me is Hanratty remembering an elderly lady serving , and a little girl also involved. If , as is the case Hanratty knows, and can prove he was in London on the Monday , and Mr Foot most emphatically insisted , it had to be the Tuesday. For me that had to instill in the jury ‘ Reasonable doubt, it did not, and the judge had to explain as we may recall what in fact reasonable doubt is . For the love of Pete , if Gorman had any conscience and insight he would have immediately closed up shop ,and called for a new trial.( this time with 12 jurors,Mr Sherrard! ). or even fairer, right from the get go, Just as the appeal judges had done in the Wallace case 30 years before , squashed the whole proceedings with the decision, ‘No case to answer’ Gorman will have remembered that case because I believe he was a member of the prosecution.
    Last edited by moste; 11-01-2021, 03:58 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spitfire
    replied
    As to Mrs Dinwoodie fixing the date, it seems that Barbara Ford, Mrs D's granddaughter, was involved in trying to solve the request for directions. Barbara Ford assisted Mrs D on Monday 21 August but not on the following day. However Barbara did visit the shop on the Tuesday 22 August with her friend Linda Walton. As far as I can ascertain Linda never heard or saw anyone ask for directions when she was in the shop with Mrs D.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spitfire
    replied
    The Daily Herald from 6th December 1961. It will be noticed that there is no byline attributing this piece to any particular journalist. It will also be noticed that Sherratt absolves Acott from deliberately withholding Mrs D's name from the Defence.



    Click image for larger version

Name:	dinwoodie1.jpg
Views:	963
Size:	211.3 KB
ID:	772482


    Click image for larger version

Name:	jimbo1.jpg
Views:	939
Size:	8.3 KB
ID:	772483
    Click image for larger version

Name:	jimbo2.jpg
Views:	940
Size:	204.5 KB
ID:	772484 Click image for larger version

Name:	jimbo3.jpg
Views:	949
Size:	111.9 KB
ID:	772485 Click image for larger version

Name:	jimbo4.jpg
Views:	947
Size:	101.2 KB
ID:	772486


    The second of the reports relates to the trial of Hanratty. Other than in these two reports there is no mention in the Daily Herald of Mrs Dinwoodie's involvement in the Hanratty case.

    I cannot find any report or article attributed to "Don Smith", at the time the chief crime/court reporter for the Daily Herald was Don Cassell. Has Foot confused the names?








    Leave a comment:


  • OneRound
    replied
    Originally posted by NickB View Post

    This is what Foot is implying, but it does not make sense because the police already had her statement saying that it happened on Monday so there was no need to keep badgering her.

    I was hoping Spitfire could find Don Smith's article so we could see what he actually reported at the time, rather than what Foot reports him as recalling 9 years later. Why did Foot rely upon these recollections and not quote from the article itself?

    When Kleinman interviewed Mrs Dinwoodie she showed that she would not be intimidated on the question of which day it occured.
    Hi all,

    I may be wrong but ...

    ... whilst Don Smith was certainly entitled to interview Mrs Dinwoodie and understandably attempt to get a better understanding of what had gone on and when, I think he would have been significantly restricted in what he could report at the time (i.e. pre trial).

    As for Mrs Dinwoodie sticking to her (eventual) guns when interviewed by Kleinman, well ... was that her truly remembering or perhaps being influenced by what the police might have said during their visits about not changing her mind?

    Best regards,
    OneRound

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    Originally posted by NickB View Post

    This is what Foot is implying, but it does not make sense because the police already had her statement saying that it happened on Monday so there was no need to keep badgering her.

    I was hoping Spitfire could find Don Smith's article so we could see what he actually reported at the time, rather than what Foot reports him as recalling 9 years later. Why did Foot rely upon these recollections and not quote from the article itself?

    When Kleinman interviewed Mrs Dinwoodie she showed that she would not be intimidated on the question of which day it occured.
    So what your implying Nick is that Foot is misreporting the weight of the police activity in Liverpool

    Leave a comment:


  • ansonman
    replied
    My comment was in response to Moste's and not NickB

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X