Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A6 Rebooted

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

  • Observer
    replied
    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.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	resized.jpg
Views:	0
Size:	74.1 KB
ID:	737221

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Graham
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • NickB
    replied
    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."

    Leave a comment:


  • 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:


  • Graham
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    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.



    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    Originally posted by OneRound View Post

    Hi moste - The relevant legislation as quoted by Graham appears to make clear that the judge could compel a trial to proceed with only eleven or even ten jurors. However, there's still no reason I'm aware of why Sherrard couldn't at least have approached Justice Gorman and asked for the trial to be abandoned and restart with twelve jurors. After all, as you emphasise, it was a capital case where a further juror could have made all the difference to whether the accused walked free or died. Gorman might have been unmoved but just possibly such a request could have been successful.

    Imo, a more confident barrister with greater experience and gravitas would and should have given it a go. However, and before Graham reminds us , it was Hanratty who insisted on Sherrard representing him.

    Best regards,
    OneRound
    Wholeheartedly agree , but that piece of legislation re judge having last say on jury numbers , well, to my mind is just another example of ‘The Law Is An Ass’ Hanratty insisting on anything? Well, he was a pillock wasn’t he?
    Incidentally, correct me if I’m wrong Hanratty only insisted on Sherrard representing him on the appeal . I think the original Top Barrister was suspended , and Sherrard stepped into his shoes, for the actual trial ,a much junior man
    P.S. there are some who believe that if the first choice Barrister had been available( just forget his name) he would very likely have destroyed the prosecutions witnesses carte blanche. Starting with Storie. I guess we’ll never know.
    Last edited by moste; 06-04-2020, 09:07 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • OneRound
    replied
    Originally posted by moste View Post

    I read your post ,which doesn’t address , the refusal of the defendant to continue with less tan 12. In other words, can a judge force a trial to continue with less than 12,? I would think not!
    Hi moste - The relevant legislation as quoted by Graham appears to make clear that the judge could compel a trial to proceed with only eleven or even ten jurors. However, there's still no reason I'm aware of why Sherrard couldn't at least have approached Justice Gorman and asked for the trial to be abandoned and restart with twelve jurors. After all, as you emphasise, it was a capital case where a further juror could have made all the difference to whether the accused walked free or died. Gorman might have been unmoved but just possibly such a request could have been successful.

    Imo, a more confident barrister with greater experience and gravitas would and should have given it a go. However, and before Graham reminds us , it was Hanratty who insisted on Sherrard representing him.

    Best regards,
    OneRound

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    Are these shutterstock photo’s copyright?

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    Originally posted by Graham View Post

    That's not how the Law worked then - I don't know if anything has changed since 1961. See Post 6269.

    Graham
    So how did the law work in ‘61 then Graham re this issue?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X