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

[louisa]

The wrong man was hanged. Hanratty could NOT have been guilty of these crimes because the timeline doesn't add up. He couldn't have been in two places at once.

Reading anybody's autobiography is a waste of time because an autobio is self serving and only tells us the good things that the author wishes us to know about themselves. The facts will always be biased and readers must always remember that.

As we now know from plentiful research - eye witness accounts are the least reliable evidence.

Storie's original description of the man who raped and shot her was of a totally different man to the one she described later. Are we really to believe that, over time, Storie's memory improved? Yes, she would have remembered more details, but a face shape, hair colour and style - would they really have changed so dramatically? She originally described a man who looked exactly like Peter Alphon - the polar opposite, lookswise - of Hanratty.

Once she had mis-identified Alphon in the ill-fated line-up then he had immunity and went free, and the detective HAD to find after another man - the public were clamouring that the culprit be caught.

There is more to this story than we know. I believe that Gregson's wife (and her lover) had a hand in the whole thing. Valerie Storie's eye witness ID changed once the wife had visited her in hospital.

Far from having courage - Storie went with the 'plot' and the truth became buried forever.

Everyone will feel sorry for a person who is crippled - but her description of that night and of her attacker became the most crippled part of this horrendous miscarriage of justice.

[a_baron]

"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 ]."

This is simply not true. Get your facts straight before you write anything about me because I always bite back.

[caz]

To me the phrase 'The wrong man was not hanged' sounds strange as a stand-alone sentence. It seems more like the end of a longer sentence. Perhaps Sherrard said something like "I know that many people think that the wrong man was not hanged, but I disagree'. Like a dishonest theatre-manager might turn an unfavourable review into a favourable one, whoever wrote the article simply cut out the words that didn't fit his agenda.

Or DM. Sherrard may well have been giving an explanation to a class of students,a body of would be solicitors,or even an after dinner speech, where, he was explaining how 'there are various ways of making a statement of fact, whereby some statements may be much more ambiguous than others'. I have compared this phrase in the past "the wrong man wasn't hanged' (which I wouldn't think could sensibly be attributed to a person with a legal background, let alone a barrister of high repute) with the more direct phrase 'the right man was hanged' In this latter phrase,there is no room for misinterpretation, however the former phrase is more like a double negative,where we could say 'Alphon was the wrong man,and wasn't hanged', or' France was the wrong man and wasn't hanged'.
I can't see this business being worthy of serious debate to be honest. It would be interesting to see what Natalie comes up with all the same.

Straw man, or clutching at straws?

Surely to goodness, if either of the above 'interpretations' applied, or had Sherrard not said anything of the kind, because he still believed the wrong man was hanged, he would have set the record straight if he cared a fig about Hanratty's family and doing right by them. I see nothing odd about the phrase, particularly as Sherrard allegedly used it in the context of his immense relief to know that the wrong man had not been hanged. In fact, I can't see any other reasonable alternative if he did express his personal relief.

I too would be interested to hear if and when Nats receives any response to her enquiry.

Love,

Caz
X

PS I've just seen there's a more recent thread discussing the response Nats received, so please ignore my final sentence.

[OneRound]

Thanks SH-as I said to Graham I am in the process of following this up in an effort to clarify the matter.

Hi Natalie,

As your post above is from 30th October this year, I assume you have not received an immediate and adamant rebuttal of the comment attributed to Sherrard that ''the wrong man was not hanged''.

Regards,
OneRound

[Spitfire]

Yes Natalie, It sounds like somebody is bordering on the 'straw man argument' attributed in reason weeks to members of the 'Hanratty did it platoon!'

I am not sure what this means, but as Natalie Severn is keen to establish that someone called Alexander Baron was the 'source' of the 'wrong man was not hanged' piece, I am happy to contradict that for reasons already given.

If it then be said that I am bordering on the straw man argument attributed in reason weeks to members of the Hanratty did it platoon, then so be it.

[moste]

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 .

Yes Natalie, It sounds like somebody is bordering on the 'straw man argument' attributed in reason weeks to members of the 'Hanratty did it platoon!'

[moste]

To me the phrase 'The wrong man was not hanged' sounds strange as a stand-alone sentence. It seems more like the end of a longer sentence. Perhaps Sherrard said something like "I know that many people think that the wrong man was not hanged, but I disagree'. Like a dishonest theatre-manager might turn an unfavourable review into a favourable one, whoever wrote the article simply cut out the words that didn't fit his agenda.

Or DM. Sherrard may well have been giving an explanation to a class of students,a body of would be solicitors,or even an after dinner speech, where, he was explaining how 'there are various ways of making a statement of fact, whereby some statements may be much more ambiguous than others'. I have compared this phrase in the past "the wrong man wasn't hanged' (which I wouldn't think could sensibly be attributed to a person with a legal background, let alone a barrister of high repute) with the more direct phrase 'the right man was hanged' In this latter phrase,there is no room for misinterpretation, however the former phrase is more like a double negative,where we could say 'Alphon was the wrong man,and wasn't hanged', or' France was the wrong man and wasn't hanged'.
I can't see this business being worthy of serious debate to be honest. It would be interesting to see what Natalie comes up with all the same.

[Dupplin Muir]

To me the phrase 'The wrong man was not hanged' sounds strange as a stand-alone sentence. It seems more like the end of a longer sentence. Perhaps Sherrard said something like "I know that many people think that the wrong man was not hanged, but I disagree'. Like a dishonest theatre-manager might turn an unfavourable review into a favourable one, whoever wrote the article simply cut out the words that didn't fit his agenda.

[NickB]

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 ?

The news pages on the school’s website are deleted after a while.

This is the oldest news page currently.

You will note that the school is called ‘City’ for short. For example: “the managing director of Europe Economics came to City to talk to the Economics students ...”

You will also see that there is a report called ‘Helen Dunmore Visits The Literary Society’. So why would it be strange for a report about Michael Sherrard visiting the Law Society?

The address I was trying to link to above is:

http://www.clsg.org.uk/news/?pid=0&nid=1&page=17

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks SH-as I said to Graham I am in the process of following this up in an effort to clarify the matter.

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.

[Natalie Severn]

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.

Graham

Alexander Baron the author you first refer to died in 1999 -so long before 2002/ 2005 whatever-he could hardly have commented posthumously .I refer to the only named person so far linked to the quote ,the Alexander Baron who was fined for writing the scurrilous material I quoted above in 1997.He remains so far the only name linked to a report about Michael Sherrard's alleged remark .I am in the process of writing to someone who knew Sherrard well and will see what they have to say.
Regards

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.