Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A6 Rebooted

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

  • Graham
    replied
    Moste, I think it was Alfie who said the book is a 'novel', which it is. I've never read it, but intend to.

    Graham

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    Just finished the read, ‘Deadman’s Hill, by Roger Forsdyke’ .As Graham said you have to remember it is a ‘novel’ . It certainly holds your interest , though the jerking from reality to ‘make believe’ seems a little childish I thought . You are not sure until towards the end whether the author is going to come out as a believer in Hanratty’s innocence , or guilt. He goes into a lot of detailing to bolster his argument. I was surprised and not a little disappointed that ‘The year of the Mathews’ was not even hinted at. As a fiction which Forsdyke freely acknowledges, I would give 6 out of 10. As a non fiction , well ,he is modest enough to admit that his work is propagated from the more esteemed authors.

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    30 years before Hanratty’s Conviction .We had William Herbert Wallace’s trial.
    “In an unprecedented move, the Court of Criminal Appealquashed the verdict on the grounds that it was "not supported by the weight of the evidence", and Wallace walked free.[8] The decision meant that the jury was wrong — appeals are usually brought on the basis of bad decisions by the presiding judge at the original trial, or by the emergence of new evidence.“

    Sherrard concentrated his efforts using the above tactics of challenging Judge Gormans ‘ bad decisions In his summing up . Instead of highlighting (as in 1931, ) ‘the jury were wrong with their verdict.’ due to the evidence being too week.
    Another example, for me of Sherrard showing his naivety, if not down right ineptitude.

    Leave a comment:


  • Graham
    replied
    Originally posted by Spitfire View Post
    It was Victor Durand QC who initially held the brief to defend Hanratty. Unfortunately for Vic, and perhaps for Jim too, he had been temporarily suspended from practice by the Bar Council for his part in the Meek v Fleming debacle. A good account of that case can be found here in this adjournment debate in the Commons. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-h...meek-v-fleming
    Blimey, no wonder my mother told me never to talk to policemen....

    Graham

    Leave a comment:


  • Spitfire
    replied
    It was Victor Durand QC who initially held the brief to defend Hanratty. Unfortunately for Vic, and perhaps for Jim too, he had been temporarily suspended from practice by the Bar Council for his part in the Meek v Fleming debacle. A good account of that case can be found here in this adjournment debate in the Commons. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-h...meek-v-fleming

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X