A6 Murder who wrote the letter to Gregsten's boss complaining of the relationship?

[Natalie Severn]

Caz,
Michael Sherrard suffered from a severe form of Parkinson's disease in the last two or three years so I doubt very much he was well enough to be issuing a denial about anything---if indeed he had heard anything about the nonsensical 'quote'.
However in 2009 his autobiography was published ,written with the help of another lawyeracting as the scribe I would imagine as Parkinson's sufferer's often have difficulty holding a pen steadily .Anyway -Ms Goldman ,his friend and co-scripter is a lady who discussed several of the sort of issues we discuss quite often with a journalist I have been in contact with recently.Everything in Sherrard's chapter in his 2009 autobiography was his own view of the A6 case and there is no mention of anything remotely like this quote in it ---the absolute opposite in fact.So it is a very strange alleged 'quote' to be bandied about containing the antithesis of everything he said in his book and everything said about the case on camera after the 2002 appeal results.

There has to be a source---somewhere but if there is no way of me or anyone else finding out who the reporter/author actually was of the article containing the alleged quote ---then its a good bet it is either a 'misquote'--- or it has been 'made up' either way it appears to be a' total fiction'---and should be binned asap----I will continue to delve into this btw
Norma

[caz]

Hi Nats,

If that was a misquote, and a serious misrepresentation of Sherrard's views, I'm sure the man himself must have issued a public denial that he had said - or thought - any such thing.

So could you point me to where he did this? What he buried somewhere in his book about it doesn't really change anything if it was not in the form of a strongly worded denial of this specific statement that: "The wrong man was not hanged. That was an immense relief to me."

If there was no subsequent denial it would make it very difficult to prove he never actually said it, and much more likely that he did.

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

Error: 2nd paragraph above post should read May 16th 2002 not 1961
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

In case the link breaks again. This was a short report of a talk given by the late Michael Sherrard to the members of the University of the City of London Law Society, it reads as follows:-



JAMES HANRATTY'S BARRISTER TAKES THE STAND


Michael Sherrard QC, the barrister who defended James Hanratty in one of the most controversial trials of the 20th century, came to City to talk to members of the Law Society about his experiences during the famous Hanratty trial.

I know what the above says .I know too that anybody else at all who reads what Michael Sherrard actually wrote in his published book of 2009 totally contradicts the above words.So why would he say or make such a contradictory statement ?

On 16 May 1961 Sherrard spoke on camera AFTER the 2002 appeal and everything he said on camera contradicts this statement above that you allege came from him.

So please Eddie X if you want this to be taken as anything but a fabrication ,provide the source i.e. tell us who the journalist or author was ie who reported it i.e. the name of the author of the report and its date so it can be checked out -

[EddieX]

In case the link breaks again. This was a short report of a talk given by the late Michael Sherrard to the members of the University of the City of London Law Society, it reads as follows:-



JAMES HANRATTY'S BARRISTER TAKES THE STAND


Michael Sherrard QC, the barrister who defended James Hanratty in one of the most controversial trials of the 20th century, came to City to talk to members of the Law Society about his experiences during the famous Hanratty trial.

The case was tried 40 years ago, and Hanratty was hanged for murder. In 1999 the Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case to the Court of Appeal as DNA taken from members of Hanratty's family was analysed to test its compatibility with DNA samples collected from the crime scene. The results were inconclusive, and Hanratty was exhumed so that samples could be taken directly from his body.

Mr Sherrard's talk was fascinating, and touched on some of the most fundamental precepts of the law. He discussed the circumstances surrounding the original trial, and remarked, "If police officers choose what they'll disclose and what they won't, it becomes trial by police".

The recent DNA tests would seem to prove conclusively that Hanratty did in fact commit the crime for which he was executed. Mr Sherrard said, "The wrong man was not hanged. That was an immense relief to me." However, his opinion of the original prosecution remains unchanged. "The evidence was too weak to justify conviction. I still hold that view."

So, have things changed for the better since that infamous trial 40 years ago? Mr Sherrard believes that the legal system has been substantially improved: "I've got more faith in the police today than I did then."

[EddieX]

That link is not available now for some reason .I want to know the name of the reporter-its important-an anonymous quote is useless as anyone can make anything up they feel like and have it bandied about.I need to be able look it up and cross reference it and whoever it was who reported it.

Reading through the DNA thread it would seem that someone had beaten me to the Sherrard quote.

Hi Norma,

The same Michael Sherrard who said "The wrong man was not hanged"

I guess that means Yes, him included.

KR,
Vic.

[Stevo7395]

Hi Eddie, everyone is entitled their opinion and I'm new to the forum but from what I've read there are some well reasoned and researched arguments both ways. My Dad was a bit of a " Jack the lad " before he settled down and he grew up in Wembley, not far from where JH knocked about. My Dad was never a thief but was a regular at the local dance halls and used to frequent the West End as well. He'd never heard of JH until it happened. One thing he did say that struck me was there was a lot more " respect out of fear " for the Police back then, in his words " if they wanted you or to solve something, they would do whatever to get a result "......that is from someone who was a young man in those days who also got in trouble but more for fighting over girls in bars etc.

I have experienced Police collusion I'm sure when I was a Special constable back in the day, people who had just dealt with an incident all sitting together in one corner of the collator's office or the parade room with pocket notebooks out and writing statements together, I'm not saying they are all liars but there was collusion I'm sure and it no doubt happens to this day. You only have to look at the Derek Bentley case for more evidence of altered statements, gaps in evidence, Police "lingo " or way of taking and writing a statement to make it look like the prisoner had said that to them to strengthen what the jury "needed " to hear on the day.

In the documentary from 1992 by Wolfenden I'm sure there is a bit in there that says there are boxes of papers that the crown will not release into the public domain for fear by doing so it would endanger living people.....who may they be then ?........I don't believe JH was the murderer, that's not to say he may not have had some involvement somewhere in the crimes but acted with others and they used him as the fall guy and again I believe there's enough evidence within those boxes of paperwork that the crown won't release to show that. Langdale grassing him up and an uncorroborated conversation in a prison exercise yard why would he want to do that ?......The France woman's testimony in court....old man France topping himself just before the execution....why would he do that ?......coz JH was sleeping with his daughter ?....anyway again, just my opinion, cheers.

[Natalie Severn]

I gave you a link on another thread

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=7097&page=6

my post is 174.
.

That link is not available now for some reason .I want to know the name of the reporter-its important-an anonymous quote is useless as anyone can make anything up they feel like and have it bandied about.I need to be able look it up and cross reference it and whoever it was who reported it.

[EddieX]

Look its absolutely fruitless and meaningless to keep on issuing 'alleged quotes' such as this unless you can provide the a LINK to a FULL STATEMENT ? Can't you see how a 'quote" such as this needs to be dated ,contextualised ,substantially sourced ?Can't you get his Autobiography for pity' sake written in 2009 and find out exactly what he thought about Acott,Oxford and the lies,fiddling and altered statements he talks of etc etc ?Just presenting this meaningless 'quote' does nothing to further the debate -its just shoddy research

I gave you a link on another thread

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=7097&page=6

my post is 174.

Sherrard has definitely been reported giving talks in which he has said the wrong man was not hanged. He may have thought that Acott and Oxford did not play the game in the original trial, and may still believe this but that is a different point.

[Natalie Severn]

We've been over this ground in another thread in which I had posted a link to a report of Sherrard addressing a City of London Law College after the Court of Appeal's decision and in which he is reported as saying "..the wrong man was not hanged." Whatever else Sherrard may have thought of the original trial and verdict, after the Court of Appeal's decision he has satisfied himself that the wrong man was not hanged.

Look its absolutely fruitless and meaningless to keep on issuing 'alleged quotes' such as this unless you can provide the a LINK to a FULL STATEMENT ? Can't you see how a 'quote" such as this needs to be dated ,contextualised ,substantially sourced ?Can't you get his Autobiography for pity' sake written in 2009 and find out exactly what he thought about Acott,Oxford and the lies,fiddling and altered statements he talks of etc etc ?Just presenting this meaningless 'quote' does nothing to further the debate -its just shoddy research

[Natalie Severn]

[QUOTE=Natalie Severn;247373]http://atosvictimsgroup.co.uk/tag/leo-mckinstry/[QUOTE]

For those on casebook interested to know the background on the man who is credited with the unsourced,undated quote alleged to have been made by Michael Sherrard QC RE ' the wrong man not being hanged ' ---I have supplied a few links----apparently this Leo McKinstry hack is absolutely notorious for issuing a long list of "unverifiable quotes"including one about Herbert Morrison so outrageous it was the subject of a prize giving for anyone who could find any source for it whatsoever ---and guess what------ The prize has never been claimed!!

Have more on this man who,it appears is happy to 'make up quotes'---and that is a particularly famous one where he misquotes Herbert Morrison......

[EddieX]

http://atosvictimsgroup.co.uk/tag/leo-mckinstry/

Have more on this man who,it appears is happy to 'make up quotes'---and there is a particularly famous one where he misquotes Herbert Morrison........

We've been over this ground in another thread in which I had posted a link to a report of Sherrard addressing a City of London Law College after the Court of Appeal's decision and in which he is reported as saying "..the wrong man was not hanged." Whatever else Sherrard may have thought of the original trial and verdict, after the Court of Appeal's decision he has satisfied himself that the wrong man was not hanged.

[EddieX]

A competent driver wanting to go to Liverpool would have driven all the way to Liverpool, not just to Manchester. Hanratty had to train it from there. Hanratty's modus operandi was to have an accomplice when thieving cars. I believe that Hanratty and friend parted company in Manchester, with the latter left in possession of the Jag. He (the accomplice) probably bought the Chesters Ales which were found in the Jag's boot, and had not intended to abandon the car when it was found.

For one reason or another, there was little point in Hanratty shopping his mate and partner in crime, and to the police it probably seemed unimportant in the overall scheme of things.

[Natalie Severn]

http://atosvictimsgroup.co.uk/tag/leo-mckinstry/

Have more on this man who,it appears is happy to 'make up quotes'---and there is a particularly famous one where he misquotes Herbert Morrison........

[Natalie Severn]

More on Leo McKinstry---famous for peddling nonsense without any requirement to provide evidence for his bigotry---he is of course quoted with approval by the BNP !

http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/vile-rhetoric-of-leo-mckinstry.html