The attack on Swedish housewife Mrs Meike Dalal on Thursday, September 7th 1961

[Spitfire]

Sherrard also had lost faithful in the Rhyl alibi sometime between Mrs Grace Jones's evidence and the Court of Appeal in 1962 as is witnessed by his decision not to call further evidence in support of the alibi.

[OneRound]

Hi all,

Following on from Spitfire's post above and several claims made by Natalie, I have never seen a direct quotation from or attributed to Matthews in which he asserts Hanratty's ''innocence''.

I would very much like to see one.

In the meantime, I would emphasise that there is a difference between a belief in innocence and concern that guilt was not proved fairly beyond reasonable doubt. I do wonder if the latter relates more to Matthews' viewpoint.

Best regards,

OneRound

Hi Natalie,

Your request to Spitfire today reminded me that I am still waiting for you to supply a direct quotation from or attributed to Matthews in which he asserts Hanratty's ''innocence''.

I would be grateful if you can now oblige.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Graham]

Part of Michael Sherrard's address to the Law Society on 12 February 2005:

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."

Graham

[Graham]

Sorry - I highlighted my last post in a bad colour and can't change it. I hope it's readable.

Graham

[Graham]

I'll re-post my attempt at being arty-farty:

Meeting of The Law Society on 22 February 2005

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."

[Graham]

With regard to Mrs Dalal's nationality, it was Bob Woffinden who refers to her as Swedish, but I don't know if he was initially responsible for the error.

Graham

[Spitfire]

With regard to Mrs Dalal's nationality, it was Bob Woffinden who refers to her as Swedish, but I don't know if he was initially responsible for the error.

Graham

Thanks Graham, the point is that we are all human and therefore all capable of making mistakes. Woffinden could make a mistake as to the nationality of Mrs Dalal, as could Kerr in recalling what was said to him by Miss Storie. Or indeed Miss Storie herself could have been responsible for the error.

She should have said words to the effect, " We were held up by a gunman at Dorney Reach near Slough." Whereas what was said or what was recorded by Kerr were words to the effect and I quote from his TV interview, "A gunman had held them up at Slough. Rather she had picked him up at Slough."

This slight discrepancy is seen as throwing doubt on Miss Storie's honesty and exculpating Hanratty and inculpating Alphon.

[Limehouse]

Hi Folks,

Whether or not Sherrad uttered the words 'the wrong man was not hanged' does not make Hanratty a guilty man.

Whether or not Mrs Dalal was Swedish or German makes no difference to the fact that she was attacked.

In my opinion, there was much stronger evidence pointing to Alphon as Mrs Dalal's attacker than there is supporting Hanratty as the A6 killer.

Alphon may well not have been the A6 killer (it does not have to have been an 'either it was Alphon or Hanratty' debate) but he was certainly and unhinged individual who attacked Mrs Hanratty, made numerous nuisance telephone calls and made a very public confession to the crime from a safe distance. They are not the actions of a rational man.

[Limehouse]

With reference to whether or not Valerie claimed to have told Kerr and police 'we picked up a hitchhiker' - isn't it possible that this was done in order to protect MG's family - and perhaps her own, from public judgement over the true nature of her relationship with MG? Was it possible that this was a 'spur of the moment' remark made when she was in shock and much pain with little realisation that the manner in which they were accosted was very important?

[Graham]

No, it certainly doesn't matter if Mrs Dalal was Swedish or German, but as Spitfire quite rightly points out we are all capable of making minor errors such as this.

I don't believe that it was Alphon who attacked Mrs Dalal, even though she did pick him out on an i.d. parade - his alibi was proven and the police accepted it as proven.

Sherrard as a professional lawyer had professional pride, and he admits it was a shattering experience when Hanratty was found guilty. However, he was big enough to accept the ruling of the 2002 Appeal, although not it seems the verdict of the 1962 trial. I've said many times that had Hanratty's trial been in Scotland then the verdict would almost certainly have been 'not proven'; I've also said a few times that had he stuck to his original Liverpool 'alibi', he may well have had a much better chance of acquittal. When it comes down to it, Hanratty was in effect the architect of his own downfall, which Sherrard fully realised at the time, and tried to talk him out of it. When Hanratty stuck to his Rhyl 'alibi', Sherrard did what all lawyers do under similar circumstances and passed all responsibility onto his client.

Yes Julie, Alphon was unhinged, and physically as well as verbally violent, but there really is no proof whatsoever that he was the A6 killer. He did, though, profit substantially via his imposition into the case. That on its own would lie heavily upon any normal person's conscience.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Graham for the source of the quote . However it is my understanding from Sherrard's autobiography written in 2009 that he believed that after the 2002 ruling he had no other choice than to accept the LCN DNA findings.But he says in his autobiography that he remains very suspicious as to why a portion of Valerie Storie's knickers was ever kept 'on ice' for 42 years. In the previous paragraph he talks about the forensic handwriting tests that revealed alterations by police [Oxford's ] to Hanratty's statements on the night of his arrest and asks what the jury might have made of these and other evidence that has come to light about police tampering and alteration of witness statements .All this is in his book which is in London so I don't have immediate access to it--- but it is in the public domaine-'Wigs and Wherefores' by Michael Sherrard and Linda Goldman[?].It is my view reading his autobiograph he was very far from convinced that the LCN DNA tests were done on cloth that was not only contaminated but also may have been tampered with hence his question why were they 'kept on ice' for 42 years ?

[Natalie Severn]

Hi One Round---here is the quote:

by Sir Geoffrey Bindman :

' [Roger] Matthews concluded that James Hanratty was entirely innocent and had been wrongly hanged.He said his inquiries had led him to change his mind about capital punishment,of which he had previously been a supporter and to which he was now opposed.
[this statement was made to the national press and media by Sir Geoffrey Bindman angered by apparently inexcusable delays by the Home Office in deciding to refer the case to the Court of Appeal ]

In 1996 Roger Matthews Report was produced and accepted by the Home Office as being grounds for a new appeal with the appointment of former Chief Police Constable Baden Skitt to oversee the Commission - a senior police officer who also believed Hanratty was innocent after studying the case in depth .

Background : Sir Geoffrey Bindman had previously made a 400 page submission to the Home Office which contained all the new evidence that had been collected by Bob Woffinden and Sir Geoffrey Bindman . The Home Office had then requested an internal report from Scotland Yard .This report was produced by Detective Chief Superintendent Roger Matthews in 1996.

I have added the following brief profile from The Guardian newspaper of Geoffrey Bindman
"Sir Geoffrey Bindman is a lawyer who has specialised in civil liberties and human rights issues for more than 40 years. In 1974 he founded Bindmans LLP, now one of Britain's leading civil rights practices. He was knighted in 2007 and is a trustee of the British Institute of Human Rights.

[Graham]

With reference to whether or not Valerie claimed to have told Kerr and police 'we picked up a hitchhiker' - isn't it possible that this was done in order to protect MG's family - and perhaps her own, from public judgement over the true nature of her relationship with MG? Was it possible that this was a 'spur of the moment' remark made when she was in shock and much pain with little realisation that the manner in which they were accosted was very important?

Hi Julie,

I think you've hit the nail right on the head here. Valerie's parents, her employers and her colleagues all knew about her affair with MG. As far as her employers were concerned she more or less told them to mind their own business when confronted by them with an accusation of immorality. She could therefore stand her ground with individuals, but given the times and 'official' public attitudes to extra-marital affairs, I am certain she didn't want hers made public. To admit publicly that they were in a car in a field at night would obviously have set tongues wagging - to 'pick up someone' implies that they were on the open road and perfectly innocent.

Graham

[Graham]

Hi Nats,

' [Roger] Matthews concluded that James Hanratty was entirely innocent and had been wrongly hanged.He said his inquiries had led him to change his mind about capital punishment,of which he had previously been a supporter and to which he was now opposed.
[this statement was made to the national press and media by Sir Geoffrey Bindman angered by apparently inexcusable delays by the Home Office in deciding to refer the case to the Court of Appeal ]

So...once again, when will we actually be allowed to see this famous Report? Or could it be that in retrospect its authors have realised that in fact it doesn't prove Hanratty's innocence? Could this be one reason why the much-vaunted third appeal scheduled for early 2013 (I think) has never gone ahead?

Graham

[NickB]

Bindman is the guy who promised the third appeal, claiming that “the only basis on which the Court of Appeal rejected the [second] appeal was the DNA evidence”!!