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

[Spitfire]

Hi again Uncle Adolph - agreed. It remains a matter of debate whether the new alibi was the truth. No witnesses were ever found to satisfactorily confirm it. There were though perhaps sufficient alleged sightings to create reasonable doubt.

Best regards,

OneRound

Sherrard obviously did not think much of the Rhyl alibi or the witnesses in support of it. He did not seek to adduce further evidence in 1962 appeal by calling further witnesses, and as far as I can see, it was not a ground of appeal that the rejection of the Rhyl alibi by the jury was perverse.

[NickB]

I don't doubt Sherrard's intentions. I just wonder if he went too far.

If Sherrard believed the Liverpool alibi it was perfectly reasonable of him to ask Hanratty to reveal the details of it and point out the consequences of not doing so. It only appears harsh in retrospect because we know that Hanratty was lying and therefore could not provide the details.

But JH may have changed it when he was in the box
anyway.

Hanratty came up with the Rhyl alibi on 29th January, when Sherrard got him to sign the ‘disclaimer’ which included the sentence: “Please try to find the landlady in the house there.” But it was over a week later that Gillbanks was despatched to find her. Perhaps Sherrard spent that time trying to change his mind.

[OneRound]

If Sherrard believed the Liverpool alibi it was perfectly reasonable of him to ask Hanratty to reveal the details of it and point out the consequences of not doing so. It only appears harsh in retrospect because we know that Hanratty was lying and therefore could not provide the details.

Hi Nick - I acknowledged in my first post today that it was ''only right'' for Sherrard to emphasise that it was obviously and massively in Hanratty's interests for him (Hanratty) to reveal details of the Liverpool alibi.

Where I was querying whether Sherrard went too far was in spooking Hanratty about the judge ordering him to be taken to Liverpool to identify the flat (as per Spitfire's post). I don't believe the judge would have done that and explained why earlier.

You refer to what Sherrard may have ''believed''. Admittedly with the element of some hindsight, I am making the point that Hanratty may have been better off if Sherrard had suspended his belief and not over egged the possibility of his client being taken to Liverpool mid trial. Going back to Graham's post, I doubt that Birkett ever had much belief in what Mancini told him but that didn't do his client any harm.

Finally, let me acknowledge that just as Hanratty didn't help himself, he didn't help Sherrard either. Furthermore, Sherrard was a dedicated and caring counsel. However, I still feel his performance in court and at appeal gets given an overly sympathetic ride on these threads.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Limehouse]

But a jury will be more forgiving of a victim that lies [the poor dear was traumatised] than an accused who does the same [he couldn't be traumatised by what he's going through could he?]

You are right, of course, but the point I am trying to make is that lying about one thing does not make one guilty of everything. The victim was possibly responsible for telling a version of the 'truth' to save her family, and MGs, from unfair judgement.

[Natalie Severn]

But why then lie about Liverpool.

Having blurted out this impulsively to Acott on the telephone on 6th October he had to stick to it.His main concern on that day was resisting going to see the police because he knew they were looking for him for burglary and he could get 5 years . He didn't think to be more careful or circumspect about this absurd murder charge [because he thought like a man who knew he hadn't anything to do with it ] than flippantly saying he had stayed with 3 men in Liverpool etc But when he actually tried to get any of his friends in Liverpool to cover for him-men often living in fear of a police raid with flats full of stuff that had 'fallen off a lorry' etc he found not one of them was willing to face 12 years in prison for lying on oath .Hanratty didn't realise until too late that he was in very deep do do.

[Natalie Severn]

Natalie,


Swanwick did his job: Sherrard didn’t.

Sherrard was out of his depth and had told Hanratty this .Hanratty trusted him and wanted nobody else.Sherrard did his best but his best wasn't up to it.
Swanwick would not be allowed to abuse a witness today like he did Mrs Jones ,which caused a collapse of her equanimity and presence of mind.
I believe the very same thing happened intermittently with Hanratty-but he was tougher and kept pulling himself together.

Cobalt -I really don't take that position over Hanratty because of my politics.I have studied cases of psychological trauma in my job as a linguistic assessor and in my studies and when I was training to be a teacher.I have also studied the effects of enforced separation from parents which in Hanratty's case was WW2 evacuation which for some children may well have proved traumatic.Certainly I believe it interrupted his learning and acquisition of literacy -he was away from school for a year between the ages of 6 and 7 years old approx . all of which may have combined to throw him off course at school blocking off opportunities to better himself and setting up a spiral of failure.
But hey! Whoever committed this vile crime- killing Gregsten who certainly didn't deserve to die and then shockingly raping an innocent young woman and shooting her 5 times ,whoever did this deserved to pay the price in my book . But this case raises so many questions doesn't it ? It wasn't Hanratty.There are far too many anomalies.

[uncle_adolph]

Sherrard was out of his depth and had told Hanratty this .Hanratty trusted him and wanted nobody else.Sherrard did his best but his best wasn't up to it.
Swanwick would not be allowed to abuse a witness today like he did Mrs Jones ,which caused a collapse of her equanimity and presence of mind.
I believe the very same thing happened intermittently with Hanratty-but he was tougher and kept pulling himself together.

So far as Swanwick was concerned it wasn't a question of getting at the truth. He was being paid to secure a result whether the accused was innocent or guilty and of course he did that extremely well.

I have often wondered if he had been leading for the defence would things have turned out differently? I think it is fair to say he was far more of an adversarial counsel than Sherrard was; he would certainly have probed far more deeply into Valerie's changed description and the matter of the ID parade. This was not a time for sentiment or sympathy, not when a man's life was at stake. I don't think either would have mattered to Swanwick.

[GUT]

Hanratty came up with the Rhyl alibi on 29th January, when Sherrard got him to sign the ‘disclaimer’ which included the sentence: “Please try to find the landlady in the house there.” But it was over a week later that Gillbanks was despatched to find her. Perhaps Sherrard spent that time trying to change his mind.

My point was that someone said if Sherrard hadn't visited JH every day in the cells JH wouldn't have had the chance to tell hm of the changed alibi, mine was that JH may have simply bought it out in the box. The real point is that it is unfair to criticise Sherrard for visiting James every day.

[GUT]

You are right, of course, but the point I am trying to make is that lying about one thing does not make one guilty of everything. The victim was possibly responsible for telling a version of the 'truth' to save her family, and MGs, from unfair judgement.

No I agree, but it is how the jury perceives it that counts, and once they loose trust in you, you are in trouble.

[GUT]

Hanratty didn't realise until too late that he was in very deep do do.

I have real trouble with that, charged with murder, if convicted the hangman comes to visit, innocent as a new born or guilty as sin, I have trouble believing that anyone other than a simpleton didn't appreciate the depth of the "do"

[Natalie Severn]

I have real trouble with that, charged with murder, if convicted the hangman comes to visit, innocent as a new born or guilty as sin, I have trouble believing that anyone other than a simpleton didn't appreciate the depth of the "do"

Yes,but sometimes I wonder if a sort of 'displacement anxiety' was in operation. OMG WHAT?!? WANTED FOR MURDER NOW? What's all that about then?
So instead of Hanratty attending to the really serious charge of murder he attends to the much less serious 'wanted for burglary 'and fixes his mind on avoiding the police at any cost in case he gets put inside for burglary for five years!

[GUT]

Yes,but sometimes I wonder if a sort of 'displacement anxiety' was in operation. OMG WHAT?!? WANTED FOR MURDER NOW? What's all that about then?
So instead of Hanratty attending to the really serious charge of murder he attends to the much less serious 'wanted for burglary 'and fixes his mind on avoiding the police at any cost in case he gets put inside for burglary for five years!

That hypothesis has some merit.

However by the start of his trial he "HAD" to know he was in trouble.

[cobalt]

I think there may have been considerable naivety from both Hanratty and Sherrard.

Hanratty was familiar with borstal and prison, yet seemed to believe that British justice could not, or maybe would not, hang an innocent man; I am sure many of those he met on his travels would have told a different tale. Here was a compulsive criminal who actually believed in British Justice. As the trial developed, he realised with increasing concern what others had learned before him.

As for Sherrard, to believe that a plea for clemency was possible is incomprehensible. I can appreciate that he had to utilise every mechanism available to his client, but surely he did not hold back certain lines of defence in the hope of a reprieve, as some have suggested on this site. The guilt or innocence of Hanratty has always been there to be argued: but the ultimate punishment for the man deemed guilty of the crime committed at Deadman's Hill could never have been in any doubt.

[uncle_adolph]

That hypothesis has some merit.

However by the start of his trial he "HAD" to know he was in trouble.

I am sure he realised that only too well but by this stage he had been "running" the Liverpool alibi for several months. So how could he start the trial by saying he'd been telling lies all along?

I am sure lots of us have been in that position, I know I have, where you know something is wrong but rather than admit it you simply go along with it.....and then you compound the error. It's something you appreciate through experience.

[GUT]

I am sure he realised that only too well but by this stage he had been "running" the Liverpool alibi for several months. So how could he start the trial by saying he'd been telling lies all along?

I am sure lots of us have been in that position, I know I have, where you know something is wrong but rather than admit it you simply go along with it.....and then you compound the error. It's something you appreciate through experience.

But what doesn't make sense to me (and I am pretty sure the jury) is if the Liverpool alibi was true, why not stick to it? If the Rhyl alibi was true why not use it n the first place. If neither were true well he has no alibi, I suspect that this basic reasoning sent him to the gallows.