A6 Rebooted

[moste]

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.

[Graham]

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

[Spitfire]

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

[Graham]

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

[moste]

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.

[moste]

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.

[Graham]

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

[NickB]

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."

[Graham]

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

[moste]

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.

[Observer]

Here is a map from the 1950's which shows the electricity pylons in the field where the abduction took place in 1961. I believe there is a photograph which shows the entrance to the field with one of the pylons in the background. Perhaps this map can pinpoint(using the pylon as a reference)the location of the abduction site on Marsh Lane.

[NickB]

Locating the cornfield entrance

- There are only 2 photos which definitely show the entrance. These were taken by Today when Valerie returned to the scene in 1962.

- There is a 3^rd photo which appears to show Valerie opposite the entrance. Her Telegraph obituary has a cropped version; the full photo can be seen by pausing the Fred Dinenage documentary at 26.26.

- The pilon photo (mentioned above) was in Murder Casebook and of unkown authenticity.

- There is a photo purporting to show the position of the car when it moved further into the field. Graham has pointed out that the car featured indicates this is not a contemporary photo.

- The Great Debate on this subject in 2008 identified two possible locations, numbered (1) and (2) here.

(2) was favoured by normally reliable poster Steve who had been told by local residents that this was the spot. But Spitfire has pointed out that the field was described as going down to the river, which fits (1) better.

If the pilon photo is accurate then the map of it above also tends to suggest (1). But it is a matter of examining all the photos and making a judgement.

[NickB]

The Telegraph link doesn't work, but it can be found easily in an internet search.

[Observer]

Locating the cornfield entrance

- There are only 2 photos which definitely show the entrance. These were taken by Today when Valerie returned to the scene in 1962.

- There is a 3^rd photo which appears to show Valerie opposite the entrance. Her Telegraph obituary has a cropped version; the full photo can be seen by pausing the Fred Dinenage documentary at 26.26.

- The pilon photo (mentioned above) was in Murder Casebook and of unkown authenticity.

- There is a photo purporting to show the position of the car when it moved further into the field. Graham has pointed out that the car featured indicates this is not a contemporary photo.

- The Great Debate on this subject in 2008 identified two possible locations, numbered (1) and (2) here.

(2) was favoured by normally reliable poster Steve who had been told by local residents that this was the spot. But Spitfire has pointed out that the field was described as going down to the river, which fits (1) better.

If the pilon photo is accurate then the map of it above also tends to suggest (1). But it is a matter of examining all the photos and making a judgement.

Hi

Thanks for the links, first time I've seen those photos. I'd say the map goes a long way to authenticating the pylon photograph, and as you said it looks as if the location to the North of the farmhouse is the more likely to be the location of the abduction site, there is a pylon directly opposite that site. Also, the first photo of Valerie Storie shows a barbed wire fence running up the field to the left, if you look on Google Earth such a fence exists today, it might not be the original fence, but you never know, some of the fences you see in the countryside are extremely old. The photo of the car in the field poses a problem, the car is to the left of the field entrance, that barbed wire fence would prevent the car from driving into that position. Going again to google Earth, if you look to the left of the modern gate, about 15 feet, you'll see by the footpath a very old gatepost, possibly the original gatepost

[Observer]

By the way, am I right in saying that at the time of the abduction there wasn't actually a gate to the entrance into the field?