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

[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.

[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."

[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 -

[Natalie Severn]

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

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

[Natalie Severn]

Still haven't had any detective work on who visited gregstens landlord in Windsor to warn him about Gregstens marital status and the danger of harbouring a married man. Who do you think it was ? If it had been the 7 or 8 months heavily pregnant Janet Gregsten then I reckon we would have heard a out it properly as it is it remains an undisclosed statement but on police files.

[Natalie Severn]

Interesting everybody ducking this.

Let us not forget that William Ewer ,by his own confession, [see Sunday Times May 16th 1971 ],was racing round Swiss Cottage 'after Hanratty" panting outside the steamed up windows of Dorothy Morrell's flower shop, making a pest of himself demanding to be 'let into the back' of a photographer's shop in Swiss Cottage a few doors away from the flower shop-bringing police to the scene having phoned Scotland Yard to say he thought he had 'caught the killer'!Not content with all this he said he also went into Burtol's Dry cleaners just opposite his very own 'antiques''umbrella' 'art' shop where reporters swore Janet Gregsten gave them a story on the 2nd day of September 1961about having had an 'intuitive sighting' of the A6 killer.[by the way she had told reporters,according to them,that she had been hanging a William Steer painting in the window----just for the record---anyone dare guess what that would be worth today? £26 million -give or take a few thousand pounds----some 'umbrella shop' this---that belonged to one William Ewer---who was listed in the 1961 phone business directory as an Art Dealernot an umbrella shop man !

So this is the man -William Ewer,who Charles France visited just days before he committed suicide--to 'apologise' for his brother -in - law , Michael Gregsten's death!WHAT?????

One has to admit its odd---the flower shop/dry cleaner/photographer events ---was Ewer desperate to deflect attention from someone else, someone other than Hanratty ---doing so by pointing this very big finger at Hanratty?

I believe it might help to know who called on Michael Gregsten's landlord in Windsor in either August or September 1959--- just a month or two before Janet Gregsten delivered her second child on October 4th 1959---to say the landlord should not be giving lodgings to this 'married man'-who was having an affair?

And the jury in Bedford were told nothing whatever about any affair Valerie Storie and Michael Gregsten were having of course!

[caz]

Interesting everybody ducking this.

To be fair, Nats, I do find your 'stream-of-consciousness' posts hard to follow at times, and when I can follow them I wonder how relevant the information would be, either towards getting a further appeal, or indeed as part of that appeal.

It strikes me that you'd need a much stronger and more concise argument, if the evidence simply isn't there to overturn the DNA results, or otherwise demonstrate the impossibility of Hanratty committing the crime.

Suspicious characters were bound to show up in a case like this one, muddying the waters and allowing for all sorts of conjecture from those who believe an innocent Hanratty must have been set up from start to finish, apparently by everyone else directly or indirectly involved, from his friends and associates and the real killer, to the police, the forensics people and the entire justice system.

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

To be fair, Nats, I do find your 'stream-of-consciousness' posts hard to follow at times, and when I can follow them I wonder how relevant the information would be, either towards getting a further appeal, or indeed as part of that appeal.

It strikes me that you'd need a much stronger and more concise argument, if the evidence simply isn't there to overturn the DNA results, or otherwise demonstrate the impossibility of Hanratty committing the crime.

Suspicious characters were bound to show up in a case like this one, muddying the waters and allowing for all sorts of conjecture from those who believe an innocent Hanratty must have been set up from start to finish, apparently by everyone else directly or indirectly involved, from his friends and associates and the real killer, to the police, the forensics people and the entire justice system.

Love,

Caz
X

It has already been demonstrated how a completely innocent man WAS convicted of murder and it did not involve a 'set up' from a whole group of collaborators. First, it took a group of girls to falsely and maliciously identify Kiszco as having 'flashed' them. Secondly, it took a group of police officers applying pressure to obtain a 'confession' after endless hours of questioning. Thirdly, those same police officers withheld crucial forensic evidence from the defence and finally, this resulted in the jury rejecting an alibi that was true, resulting in a conviction.

It is unlikely a whole group of people set out to purposefully secure a conviction against Hanratty but I believe evidence was planted, I believe evidence was withheld, I believe some witnesses made false statements, I believe some witnesses gave evidence to prevent themselves facing criminal charges and I believe statements were altered.

Regardless of who asked for the forensic tests, because of all the reasons I have outlined above, I believe the DNA evidence to be unreliable.

[Natalie Severn]

Hillsborough:an ongoing example of what is meant by a set up and in this case one that is fully followed up by heads of state -ie a cover up reaching the very top of government , the Prime Minister of the time to be precise ,and successive PM's and government figures since. Hillsborough is an ongoing case of great national magnitude of course and it is quite clear the ' setting up' involved not just a couple of policemen because upwards of 162 altered statements were proven by the Hillsborough Independent Inquiry to have been 'fiddled with ' by policemen --ALL these 162 fiddled with statements pertaining to the victims of the disaster and all this took place ,apparently, in order to make it look as though the victims of Hillsborough were responsible for their own deaths;
The smearing of the victims and the fabrication of evidence was set in motion within a few days of the disaster by Sir Kenneth Oxford,then serving Margaret Thatcher in an 'advisory capacity' and as Chief Constable of Merseyside.Yes-the same Kenneth Oxford who was due to have to explain to the 2002 appeal court on the Hanratty case how the notes he had taken during the night he and Acott arrested Hanratty without a solicitor present came to have been 'altered' or ' fiddled with' .


And Caz,can you try for just once to follow other people's reasoning-to see what such links might indicate ?

I am also actually sick and tired of your sarcasm and innuendo ---do us a favour and act with some good manners and courtesy for once.

[Natalie Severn]

Hanratty: the contradictions of William Ewer

The Sunday Times on 23rd May 1971 carried a full page spread --one of a sequence .It was written by three investigative journalists the lead journalist being Lewis Chester with Alex Finer and Nelson Mews assisting. Their conclusion was that the prosecution case omitted more of the background to the murder than it revealed and that had it been full known at the time,it is improbable that Hanratty would ever have hanged. Most of their case rests on the anomalies and inconsistencies in the statements made by William Ewer but also the role played by Charles France.

Paul Foot another investigative journalist of much integrity -another honourable journalist it needs to be said ,also carried out much research into William Ewer and Charles France with much the same conclusions.

This,they insisted was where the concealment and deceptions began.

[caz]

And Caz,can you try for just once to follow other people's reasoning-to see what such links might indicate ?

I am also actually sick and tired of your sarcasm and innuendo ---do us a favour and act with some good manners and courtesy for once.

Hi Nats,

I'm sorry you feel that way. I always try to follow other people's reasoning, or I wouldn't be here debating it, asking questions about it, or saying how difficult I find it to follow at times.

Obviously if Hanratty was innocent of this crime, it all went badly wrong from the start, and kept on going wrong right through to the DNA testing, which Hanratty defenders had called for and had expected to show that someone other than him had committed the rape and murder.

But he could have been guilty and still 'set up' by people who knew or suspected it, or even by people who didn't care if he was guilty or not. And there's the rub, because sadly the emphasis has changed since the 2002 appeal, and the only way you can ever hope to clear Hanratty's name now is if you can come up with clear evidence that he did not commit the crime, or that someone else did. It doesn't matter how much corruption you can uncover in high or low places relating to this or any other case, because that in itself cannot lead logically or evidentially to the conclusion that Hanratty - like Kiszco and all the Hillsborough victims - must have been innocent. Kiszco and every one of those football supporters were provably not responsible for the related deaths.

Demonstrating that the DNA results were unsafe, and that the original conviction was unsafe, would be a first step, but would it be enough to get a further appeal off the ground? I can't see it myself.

I hate to sound so negative and cynical, but I really struggle with how the original verdict is ever going to be seriously undermined, let alone overturned, by anything posted so far on these boards about the case.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Kiszco and every one of those football supporters were provably not responsible for the related deaths.

Carrying on from this, I wonder why you and Limehouse unhesitatingly accepted that the DNA evidence 'proved' Kiszco innocent and Castree guilty instead, while totally rejecting the DNA evidence 'proving' Alphon innocent and Hanratty guilty? How old were the samples when they were tested in the Kiszco case? Why would you trust the methods that were used or the people using them, if they are supposed to be so notoriously flawed and unreliable?

How are you picking and choosing?

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

Carrying on from this, I wonder why you and Limehouse unhesitatingly accepted that the DNA evidence 'proved' Kiszco innocent and Castree guilty instead, while totally rejecting the DNA evidence 'proving' Alphon innocent and Hanratty guilty? How old were the samples when they were tested in the Kiszco case? Why would you trust the methods that were used or the people using them, if they are supposed to be so notoriously flawed and unreliable?

How are you picking and choosing?

Love,

Caz
X

The answer to that is simple Caz. There WAS no DNA testing in the Kiszco case. The forensic evidence in the Kiszco case was there to be identified when he was arrested but the police ignored it and witheld the evidence from the defence. The truth is, the semen found on Lesley contained sperm. Kiszco produced no sperm due to his medical condition.