Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A6 Rebooted

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

  • Of course if the defence vehemently pleaded with the Judge, to restart the trial with a full jury of 12. It’s highly unlikely ,thinking about it again , that the judge would deny the request , since he would hardly want it on his conscience, that an additional person may have made the difference.So because of this I, think we can be fairly certain that
    no such request was made by Sherrard.



    Comment


    • If you wish to see how a genuine ace of a lawyer dealt with an infamous case in the 1930's, read up on the Tony Mancini 'Body In The Trunk' murder of 1933. Mancini was a ne'er-do-well if ever there was one, had been an 'enforcer' with a London gang, and it was confidently expected that he would hang. But Birkett got him off. I won't go into detail here - there's plenty of info on the net. Mancini confessed to the murder years later, in 1976.

      Moste, with regard to the jury consisting of only 11 persons at Hanratty's trial, the Judge exercised his prerogative in allowing the trial to continue. Sherrard would not have been looked up very favourably had he objected. And yes - Sherrard was second choice for Hanratty's defence. I can't recall the name of the original brief, either, but he was, as you say, under some kind of investigation. Sherrard went on to specialise in company law, IIRC.

      Graham
      We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

      Comment


      • 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

        Comment


        • 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
          We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

          Comment


          • 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.

            Comment


            • 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.

              Comment


              • 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
                We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Graham View Post
                  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
                  I think it was I!

                  Anyone thinking of reading it should be given fair warning of this cringeworthy moment when the police arrive at 72 Wood Lane and ask the man who answers the door for his name.

                  "Pratt" the man said ...

                  "Look you stupid old git - we're making enquiries into a murder. We don't need people like you calling us names and obstructing the course of justice."

                  Comment


                  • Sorry about that, Nick! I still haven't got around to ordering a copy, and I'm not sure if your short extract above hasn't lessened its potential appeal just a tad. And it's highly unlikely that Acott would have divulged to Mr Pratt the true reason why he was calling. But anyway.....

                    Graham
                    Last edited by Graham; 06-09-2020, 03:23 PM.
                    We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by NickB View Post

                      I think it was I!

                      Anyone thinking of reading it should be given fair warning of this cringeworthy moment when the police arrive at 72 Wood Lane and ask the man who answers the door for his name.

                      "Pratt" the man said ...

                      "Look you stupid old git - we're making enquiries into a murder. We don't need people like you calling us names and obstructing the course of justice."
                      Ha, Ha haha . I’d forgotten that bit.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X