A6 -location of scene and 2nd appeal

[caz]

I know quite a bit about Hillsborough, Nats. I even watched the tragedy unfold on tv, three days before my father-in-law died of asbestos-related lung cancer.

Tampering is as tampering does, so maybe you could explain exactly when and how tampering is meant to have taken place in the case we are discussing here, leaving DNA on VS's knickers and Hanratty's hanky, that would be picked up and identified conclusively as Hanratty's after his remains were exhumed and found to be a perfect match, while obliterating any trace of suspect DNA from any other individual.

They can't all have been in on it, from Alphon, France et al, to the police and forensics people, can they??

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

He should have acted like Michael Sherrard and said the wrong man was not hanged.

Ed

Michael Sherrard QC never said this. If you quote him you need to quote your source .Where is it?

Michael Sherrard was at the time,[1962 ] and has ever since, been totally persuaded by Mrs Dinwoody's evidence that James Hanratty was in her shop in Liverpool between 4 and 5 pm on 22nd August 1961.He did not then and does not now accept the prosecution case that James Hanratty 'could have taken a plane from Speke Airport or a helicopter " to get to the Buckinghamshire cornfield for 9.30 pm that day. Moreover ,Sherrard states in the same 2009 autobiography that the two policemen who arrested Hanratty ,Supt Acott and Det Insp Oxford 'fiddled with statements' to obtain a guilty verdict.He also stated ,earlier, in 2002, that he could not believe how anybody could be so wicked [ie to have doctored statements [and withheld evidence] in a capital case.
see transcript of Horizon programme 16 May 2002.]This was after the appeal was lost due to the DNA result.

[Natalie Severn]

I know quite a bit about Hillsborough, Nats. I even watched the tragedy unfold on tv, three days before my father-in-law died of asbestos-related lung cancer.

Tampering is as tampering does, so maybe you could explain exactly when and how tampering is meant to have taken place in the case we are discussing here, leaving DNA on VS's knickers and Hanratty's hanky, that would be picked up and identified conclusively as Hanratty's after his remains were exhumed and found to be a perfect match, while obliterating any trace of suspect DNA from any other individual.

They can't all have been in on it, from Alphon, France et al, to the police and forensics people, can they??

Love,

Caz
X

They WERE all in on it over Hillsborough Caz-thats exactly what happened ---from Kenneth Oxford's initial memo to Margaret Thatcher in April 1989 a few days after the tragedy when he and others decided to smear the victims by putting the blame for the 96 dead in Hillsborough on the 'drunken and ticketless' victims themselves and the campaign reached right to the top and lasted 26 years which is exactly why it is now such a scandal.And oh yes---it was colluded with at the very highest level of government together with certain of the South Yorkshire police + Oxford's initial injection- who was by then Chief Constable of Merseyside.
So yes it is widely believed there was a cover up in the Hanratty case too and Hawser was one of the first to collude with it.
But in so far as the original handling of specimens went contamination could have happened at any time , quite innocently ,from the moment items were brought together at the November 1961 committal each day to the December 1961 handling in the lab etc
There was never a schedule produced in 2002 that had been independently verified, the items were 'destroyed in the tests' and the items themselves were less than a millimetre square in size for crying out loud!

[Graham]

Natalie,

please take a look at this link (I hope it works). But you'll probably say that Sherrard was misquoted, or that someone made it up....anyway, we'll give it a try.

http://www.yasni.co.uk/ext.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.express.co.uk%2Ffeatures%2Fview%2F311689%2F-He-was-the-killer-all-along&name=Michael+Sherrard&cat=fil

Sorry that the link is so long. I'll save the article in case it won't open.

Graham

PS: it does work. I just tried it.

[Natalie Severn]

Natalie,

please take a look at this link (I hope it works). But you'll probably say that Sherrard was misquoted, or that someone made it up....anyway, we'll give it a try.
.

I need the source for this----- there is absolutely nothing in his 2009 autobiography that ever implies Michael Sherrard considered the verdict safe.Absolutely nothing.Quite the contrary,he says that had a more experienced barrister-a silk for example, defended Hanratty he would have walked free and there appears to be no question in his mind that he had ever thought otherwise or would think otherwise.

[Graham]

I need the source for this----- there is absolutely nothing in his 2009 autobiography that ever implies Michael Sherrard considered the verdict safe.Absolutely nothing.Quite the contrary,he says that had a more experienced barrister-a silk for example, defended Hanratty he would have walked free and there appears to be no question in his mind that he had ever thought otherwise or would think otherwise.

Well, well, what did I say? You have the source there, Natalie. The reporter Leo McKinstry who wrote the article. Contact him by all means.

This is about the third time this article has been posted to this thread over the years.

G

[Natalie Severn]

Well, well, what did I say? You have the source there, Natalie. The reporter Leo McKinstry who wrote the article. Contact him by all means.
G

As an uncorroborated statement it is totally meaningless, Graham.If you or he can state where,when and in what context this was supposed to have been said when it is in stark contrast to everything Sherrard has written as recently as 2009 then I might take it seriously.
Cheers
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

Channel 4 tonight 8 /11/2012

On the ever increasing number of cover ups and collusions that are at last being 'investigated'!http://www.channel4.com/news/past-on...onal-watershed

[EddieX]

He's said on several occasions that the wrong man was not hanged.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050212101709/http://www.clsg.org.uk/hanratty.htm

He refers on page 104 of his autobiography to the appeal process being determined by DNA, there is no complaint that this was in error.

[Natalie Severn]

He's said on several occasions that the wrong man was not hanged.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050212101709/http://www.clsg.org.uk/hanratty.htm

He refers on page 104 of his autobiography to the appeal process being determined by DNA, there is no complaint that this was in error.

This is a misquote.He never said what has been reported.When Sherrard discusses the case in his autobiography of 2009 he makes it quite clear that despite what the DNA says he is deeply suspicious of why a pair of knickers 'were kept on ice' by police for 42 years! And he says what a pity it was that since Oxford died during the build up to the appeal we may now never hear his explanation for the 'tampered with' police notes.
There is no question whatever that Sherrard retains deep suspicions about everything connected with how Hanratty ever came to be charged.

[Natalie Severn]

He refers on page 104 of his autobiography to the appeal process being determined by DNA, there is no complaint that this was in error.

I don't have 'Wigs and Wherefores" Sherrard's autobiography with me but I can assure you that he makes it quite clear he is deeply suspicious of the whole process vis a vis those stored items.

[Graham]

He's said on several occasions that the wrong man was not hanged.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050212101709/http://www.clsg.org.uk/hanratty.htm

He refers on page 104 of his autobiography to the appeal process being determined by DNA, there is no complaint that this was in error.

Eddie, I fully agree with you. Natalie simply refuses to see it.

I believe I have a video (tape, unfortunately - can't play it) in which Sherrard is filmed saying that the wrong man wasn't hanged. Obviously not proof enough for Natalie. If anyone on these boards can remind me what that programme was, then I'm sure we can find it online.

G

[Natalie Severn]

Eddie, I fully agree with you. Natalie simply refuses to see it.

I believe I have a video (tape, unfortunately - can't play it) in which Sherrard is filmed saying that the wrong man wasn't hanged. Obviously not proof enough for Natalie. If anyone on these boards can remind me what that programme was, then I'm sure we can find it online.

G

Graham,
Have you actually read Sherrard's autobiography? Why not read his book!

[Graham]

Graham,
Have you actually read Sherrard's autobiography? Why not read his book!

I have read it. It was an extremely enjoyable book. My interpretation of what Sherrard said is the same as Eddie's. Yours is not. That's up to you.

G

[Limehouse]

Hi Nats,
But as has been pointed out, if whoever planted the gun knew Hanratty was innocent, and believed he was seeing some of his associates up north when the crime was committed, they were taking one hell of a risk because Hanratty could (and damned well should) have had a cast iron alibi for all they knew, leaving the tiny handful of dodgy characters with access to his hankies well and truly in the frame as the real gunman's accomplices at the very least.
Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz, I have to challenge you on point that it was risky trying to frame Hanratty because he could, and should, have had a cast iron alibi.

France knew Hanratty was going north to dispose of some stolen goods that he could not get a good price for in London. None of Hanratty's criminal associates were going to put their hands up and say 'yep, I saw him'. However, a good few very respectable people DID testify to having seen Hanratty up north and were not believed.

A good few people have been convicted of crimes they were innocent of despite having reliable alibis. Stefan Kisco was one such man. He was convicted of the murder of a little girl, imprisoned for 16 years and terribly damaged by his experience despite there being ample evidence that he was not the killer. His alibi, that he was tending his father's grave with an aunt and visiting a garden centre at the time of the murder was not accepted by the jury even though it was true.