Valerie Storie's 3 part story as published in 'Today' magazine, June 1962

[Dupplin Muir]

Every time this "The wrong man was not hanged" is quoted, it can always be tracked back to the same source - an article written by someone with a reputation for making things up. It's always phrased in exactly the same words, which should make anyone suspicious. Surely if Sherrard had ever said anything to support this point of view he'd have used somewhat different wording on occasion? Relying on a tainted source makes no sense unless you are a zealot with a closed mind.

[Natalie Severn]

Every time this "The wrong man was not hanged" is quoted, it can always be tracked back to the same source - an article written by someone with a reputation for making things up. It's always phrased in exactly the same words, which should make anyone suspicious. Surely if Sherrard had ever said anything to support this point of view he'd have used somewhat different wording on occasion? Relying on a tainted source makes no sense unless you are a zealot with a closed mind.

Ah Yes DM Ha! Ha ! now I remember-the journalist who is attributed with this nonsense quote was notorious for making it all up ! I must dig out a few more of his howlers!
I have scrutinised every statement Michael Sherrard made both at the time and in the years since including the chapter devoted to the case in his Autobiography written only a few years ago in 2009.Nowhere does he make any such statement .Nowhere does he ever imply he thinks James Hanratty was guilty .
Of course he is careful as a lawyer not to contradict the appeal judgement directly but he is emphatic about his own doubts about the LCN DNA in his final paragraphs.

[Natalie Severn]

Your Kind of Guy Graham ?

Do you really trust the hearsay evidence of this man who wrote about the following?
In December 1997 Alexander Baron who wrote the following article you quote, was charged with Violations of the Malicious Communications Act and fined by a Magistrates Court in London in 1998 on the charge of sending anti-semitic leaflets to Jewish Courts and to Police Stations.[and for other similar offences besides ].
Must admit these offences are far from the 'howlers' I thought to have found on the internet ---quite outrageous and appalling frankly.

Hi Nats,

sorry to say that you are mistaken. I've posted this little article before:

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 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."
..........


Graham

[Spitfire]

The 'wrong man was not hanged' comes from a report of a speech made by Sherrard to Law Society students at City University London.

I think Sherrard initially thought that Hanratty was going to be a good witness and was keen for him to give evidence. That opinion must have been shattered when Hanratty substantially altered his alibi for the night of 22/23 August 1961 half way through the trial.

As Valerie Storie's evidence was undoubtedly weakened by her misidentification of a control as the murderer in the first ID parade, this was nothing compared to the effect that the change of alibi had on Hanratty's evidence.

Sherrard did not seek to adduce any further evidence in support of the Rhyl alibi in the 1962 appeal, and merely sought to impugn the verdict on technical grounds relating to Gorman J's summing up of the evidence.

Forty years later Mansfield QC was placed in a similar position by the DNA tests showing Hanratty to have been the murderer/ rapist. He too was forced to attack the trial procedure with similar lack of success. He was, however, able to exonerate Alphon.

Nearly five years ago on the BBC Radio 4 a further appeal was threatened for the new year of 2011 but no such appeal has been forthcoming. Geoffrey Bindman and his firm have removed all reference to the Hanratty case from their website, where once it had been in pride of place. A tacit admission that the game is up, that the wrong man was not hanged, that Alphon did not do it and most of all, that the brave and fearless Valerie Storie made the correct identification in 1961.

[NickB]

Sherrard’s attitude appeared to change over time.

In the Woffinden documentary, buoyed up at the high watermark of the ‘Hanratty is innocent’ campaign, he suggested that the Rhyl alibi was just an extension of the Liverpool one.

But after the last Appeal he said a wiser counsel would not have given Hanratty the chance to change his alibi, adding: "The whole balance of the case had been altered by the late alibi.”

I think Sherrard initially thought that Hanratty was going to be a good witness and was keen for him to give evidence.

Sherrard did not want Hanratty to take the stand. Hanratty changed his alibi because Sherrard told him that if he gave evidence he could not avoid questions about the Liverpool alibi.

I went to the cells on my routine visit. “I want to go into the box, sir.” Hanratty insisted. I was not happy about that.
I said: “Look Jim, you’ll have to explain why you were in Liverpool. You’ll be asked questions and you will have to reply.”

Or in Hanratty words: "It was put to me the other day that if I did not tell the names and addresses of the three men at Liverpool my life was at stake."

[Spitfire]

Thanks for that.

The quote appears to come from Sherrard's book, Wigs and Wherefores which is more extensively quoted here by Tony at post 2939 on a thread which has been closed. Wigs and Wherefores

I went to the cells on my routine visit. “I want to go into the box, sir.” Hanratty insisted. I was not happy about that.
I said: “Look Jim, you’ll have to explain why you were in Liverpool. You’ll be asked questions and you will have to reply.”
“I can tell that, sir” he answered. Then he looked down and said: “Well actually, I wasn’t in Liverpool.”

I haven't got the book, so cannot vouch for the accuracy of any quote.

For not the first time, I might have been misled by Paul Foot, who writes in Who Killed Hanratty? (Penguin 1988 edition) at page 219 as follows:

There was one alternative open to Mr Sherrard: not to call Hanratty at all...
...Mr Sherrard always believed that one of the main proofs of Hanratty's innocence was his client's attitude and bearing, which he wanted the jury to see.

[Natalie Severn]

Spitfire,
I see you are jumping from one thing to another to avoid addressing the trustworthiness of the source of this alleged remark attributed to Michael Sherrard .The source has been identified as Alexander Baron the man described in the following statement.It is clearly bogus .

Your Kind of Guy Graham ?

Do you really trust the hearsay evidence of this man who wrote about the following?
In December 1997 Alexander Baron who wrote the following article you quote, was charged with Violations of the Malicious Communications Act and fined by a Magistrates Court in London in 1998 on the charge of sending anti-semitic leaflets to Jewish Courts and to Police Stations.[and for other similar offences besides ].
Must admit these offences are far from the 'howlers' I thought to have found on the internet ---quite outrageous and appalling frankly.

[cobalt]

I do not know if Alexander Baron is the sole source for Sherrard's alleged remark. It may be there is a more reliable source available. Here is a flavour of Baron's writing style, notable for its misogyny, hyperbole, self aggrandisement, and general malice.


I had come to expect this of both race agitators and the likes of the Socialist Workers Party who if they can find some way to affix the word racist to any person, document or institution will dismiss that person, document or institution as unworthy of belief, unworthy of even a hearing, and indeed unworthy of or even dangerous for, anyone else to hear them. Of course, the loony left are not able to inflict a blanket censorship on their perceived enemies now that we have the Internet, although they still try. I had not expected this same unthinking denial from the likes of the Guardian or the so-called Independent, though in retrospect I should have. For several years I was literally the only person in the world proselytising the truth about this case; how damning is that of the Western media?


I had also had extensive and bitter experience of liars, from the first girl I ever asked out - who accepted twice and stood me up both times - to plausible cranks, fantasists and fabricators who validated ESP, flying saucers, psychic detectives, and more prosaically alleged government conspiracies like the phony Kennedy Assassination cover up; and non-governmental fabrications like the Column 88 Nazi Underground hoax, the many identities of Jack the Ripper, and all manner of frightened little women whose cry of rape resulted in some poor sap or other spending years in gaol.

[Spitfire]

As I have written above the 'wrong man was not hanged' remark comes from an address made by Michael Sherrard to Law Society students some time in 2002 (but before 8 November 2002).

[Natalie Severn]

"[I][B]JAMES HANRATTY'S BARRISTER TAKES THE STAND

In short there is no evidence that Baron was the originator of the 'wrong man was not hanged remark' which was published and republished on the website of a respectable university.

Academic research is almost always careful to quote its source Spitfire .In this case there is a complete absence of a credited source except the one connected with the statement of Alexander Baron.When I get time I will write to a colleague of Sherrard who worked closely with him and ask if there is any substance to this claim.

[Natalie Severn]

As I have written above the 'wrong man was not hanged' remark comes from an address made by Michael Sherrard to Law Society students some time in 2002 (but before 8 November 2002).

But who scribed it? Who can vouch for him having said this? There is no by line which is extremely curious and quite possibly an indication that whoever wrote it did not want his or her name on it in case they were sued for libel.

[Spitfire]

Sherrard's 'the wrong man was not hanged' remark was first captured by the WaybackMachine robots on 8 November 2002, when those bots visited the website www.clsg.org.uk and the web page http://www.clsg.org.uk/hanratty.htm
I give a link to the WaybackMachine capture for 8 November 2002

The website www.clsg.org.uk was and is the web address of the City of London School for Girls (A non-denominational independent day school, for girls aged 7 to 18, aiming for excellence in the education and development of young women in the heart of the City of London). I assume that the school has or had a Law Society for the benefit of its students studying or intending to study law, and it was to those members of that society that Mr Sherrard made his remarks. It is worth repeating the synopsis of what Mr Sherrard said

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."

It is unfortunate that the author of the report does not attach her (or his) name, but it is more than likely that the author was either a student or teacher (as at November 2002) of that august academic institution. It is however said that the author of the report is one Alexander Baron. Why he is attributed with the authorship? I confess I have no idea. Perhaps someone could explain. True enough, he wrote an article published on 9 December 2012 in which he linked to a 2005 version of the WaybackMachine's capture of the web page first published on 8 November 2002, but that hardly makes him the author or originator, and yet that is the claim made against him. Why?

I am satisfied that the remarks attributed to Mr Sherrard were made by him shortly before 8 November 2002 to students of the Law Society at City of London School for Girls, and are not the invention of Alexander Baron as appears to be suggested.

[Spitfire]

Academic research is almost always careful to quote its source Spitfire .In this case there is a complete absence of a credited source except the one connected with the statement of Alexander Baron.When I get time I will write to a colleague of Sherrard who worked closely with him and ask if there is any substance to this claim.

So Baron writes an article published in 2012 with a link to a web page published in 2002 and the only inference is that Baron is the author of the web page? What nonsense.

[Graham]

Yes, I'd like to know why Nats is so sure that this bloke Baron is the author of that piece.

The only Alexander Baron I'd ever heard of was an author, mostly about his experiences during WW2. I did have a look at the other Baron's Twitter page, and he strikes me as a self-styled political commentator with strong views. He and his comments mean nowt to me.

With regard to what Sherrard said, I would suggest that the Law Society probably just used the facilities of the girls' school as a convenient venue for their meeting. Sherrard was well-known as an after-dinner speaker and lecturer on legal matters. I have no doubt whatsoever that he said what the short article claims - if it had been bogus then I'm sure both Sherrard and the Law Society would have come down on the writer like a ton of bricks. The article, at the very least, would have been erased from the internet.

Nats demands 'credited sources' for claims concerning statements made by people associated with the A6 Crime - I hope Nats remembers that next time she, for example, claims that William Ewer engaged a gunman to sort out Michael Gregsten.

Graham

[Sherlock Houses]

I find it rather strange and puzzling that Mr Sherrard makes no reference to this alleged remark of his in "Wigs and Wherefores".

According to two posts from Graham on the Mrs Dalal thread, namely 288 and 290, this alleged address took place either on February 12th 2005 or February 22nd 2005, which conflicts with Spitfire's claim that it took place sometime during 2002 before November 8th at some girl's school where he assumes that a Law Society existed. Spitfire assumes a lot I might add. I can find absolutely no evidence that this school has or ever had any law society.

It's a very vague and threadbare Internet article, the first sentence of which states that Michael Sherrard.... "came to City to talk to members of the Law Society". Came to City ??? Which City for goodness sake ? Did Sherrard visit the Etihad Stadium ? Was he a City fan perhaps ? No definite article used there. Author anon, no comeback there is there ? Says it all.

I'd take it all with the proverbial pinch of salt.