A6 Rebooted

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is very remiss of Stickier for not mentioning Usher's hand.

On p191 of his book Paul Foot clarifies the matter about the withered hand or arm.....

Thanks SH, I’ll have a look in Foot’s book when I get chance as I don’t have it with me at the moment. My Stickler book is the Kindle version.

[NickB]

Yeah it's William Usher - withered hand; Peter Stringer - false arm.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yeah it's William Usher - withered hand; Peter Stringer - false arm.

What’s weird about the Stickler book is that when I searched ‘Usher’ I only got 2 responses.

‘It is almost certain that at some time he deposited his suitcase with William Usher at the left luggage office at Lime Street station, but neither occurred on Tuesday, 22 August.’

and

‘It could have been on this occasion that he spoke to Kempt and Usher.’

So if these are the only two mentions that means he doesn’t mention Usher’s withered hand or even give him any introduction. He just drops his name into the story twice and moves on.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What’s weird about the Stickler book is that when I searched ‘Usher’ I only got 2 responses.

‘It is almost certain that at some time he deposited his suitcase with William Usher at the left luggage office at Lime Street station, but neither occurred on Tuesday, 22 August.’

and

‘It could have been on this occasion that he spoke to Kempt and Usher.’

So if these are the only two mentions that means he doesn’t mention Usher’s withered hand or even give him any introduction. He just drops his name into the story twice and moves on.

I’ve just come to this:

“He now claimed that he had never mentioned the word ‘arm’ – his solicitor must have written it down incorrectly – but instead he had said ‘hand’.”

No mention of Usher though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well I just finished the Stickler book and I’ve been thinking about how I view the case in general. It’s certainly an intriguing one - but was Hanratty guilty? I certainly couldn’t come down on either side with absolute confidence but I’d have to swing the balance in favour of guilty. There’s no point on me giving the arguments for guilt because you all know them far better than I do. But…for me there is definitely room for doubt. Plenty that is unanswered. Maybe if I read the other new book my opinion might skew in the other direction and I wouldn’t bet any money on my getting the verdict correct. As a comparison, I can’t be sure that my opinion on the Wallace case is correct but I’m far more confident of Wallace’s guilt than I am of Hanratty’s.

[Sherlock Houses]

As a comparison, I can’t be sure that my opinion on the Wallace case is correct but I’m far more confident of Wallace’s guilt than I am of Hanratty’s.

Similarly to you HS re. the Wallace case I can't be 100 % sure that my strong belief in Hanratty's innocence is correct. The Wallace case intrigues me and although I have read a few books about it over the years I know next to nothing compared to the vast majority who post on the Wallace threads. For what it may be worth I tend to sway towards Wallace's innocence. Curiously enough for the last year or more I happen to spend most Tuesday afternoons at my friend Steve's, we are both passionate about music. Steve lives in Menlove Gardens West.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Similarly to you HS re. the Wallace case I can't be 100 % sure that my strong belief in Hanratty's innocence is correct. The Wallace case intrigues me and although I have read a few books about it over the years I know next to nothing compared to the vast majority who post on the Wallace threads. For what it may be worth I tend to sway towards Wallace's innocence. Curiously enough for the last year or more I happen to spend most Tuesday afternoons at my friend Steve's, we are both passionate about music. Steve lives in Menlove Gardens West.

On a Tuesday too. I’m glad that you didn’t say that he lived at Menlove Gardens East SH I think it’s fair to say that most favour Wallace’s innocence and he might have been. I strongly favour his guilt but perhaps I’ve been guilty of being a little over-confident in past debates, especially as we had one poster who you could have left in a room with The Pope, The Dalai Lama and Gandhi and after less than 5 minutes they’d have had him on the floor kicking the life out of him. The wind-up merchant of the century. It’s difficult to stay balanced when faced with someone like that.

I don’t know what the split is on here in terms of who goes for guilt and who goes for innocent? I believe that Caz goes for guilty for example (she and I are both go favour a guilty Wallace) The A6 is a fascinating case though SH. I’m going away for a few days on Monday, when I get back I’m thinking of getting the Harriman book although I’m slightly wary of the science-heavy side of it.