non-provenance of 'wrong man was not hanged'

[OneRound]

Yes-the trial by police sounds possible One Round , so maybe the schoolgirl misinterpreted the other remark .But whether this was supposed to have been said at a girl's private school's debating society or their 'law society' or whatever it was certainly not the 'just the sort of thing' Shirley Sherrard or his barrister colleague would have attributed to him .It also completely contradicts everything he himself has written -including what he wrote in 2009 in his Autobiography or anything he has ever spoken about on the public media .

Natalie - as I've already posted, credit to you for what you've unearthed so far. However, for this investigation to be complete it needs to end up with the talk and at least some of those present at it (or, as some posters have suggested, certainty that the talk never took place).

I accept that Mr Sherrard may not have been aware of this article being on the net. However, the (in)famous line - ''the wrong man was not hanged'' - from it has appeared in newspaper articles over the years including some during the lifetime of Mr Sherrard. Even if Mr Sherrard did not immediately see those articles himself, it seems odd that none of his well read colleagues did either or, if they did, that they didn't draw his attention to them so that he could publicly rebut them.

Moste, in particular, considers it very unlikely that a professional and learned individual such as Mr Sherrard would have used such language or, if he did, it has been quoted out of context. Moste may be right but without more detail either way, it remains a game of opinions.

My own on the case as a whole is that the wrong man was not hanged but he should never have been convicted on the evidence presented at trial.

Maybe that's not so different from what Mr Sherrard was trying to convey.

I'll leave this one there.

Regards,
OneRound

[caz]

I've moved (and slightly reworded) the following related post of mine from another thread:

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by moste
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.

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.

Love,

Caz
X

PS Seems a simple enough quote not to get completely backwards. The City of London School for Girls is not known for turning out dullards, and Sherrard's 'immense relief' would need to have been a student's invention if he was actually saying the exact opposite.

[Natalie Severn]

Natalie - as I've already posted, credit to you for what you've unearthed so far. However, for this investigation to be complete it needs to end up with the talk and at least some of those present at it (or, as some posters have suggested, certainty that the talk never took place).
OneRound

Hi One Round,
Regarding this unsigned ,undated report that appeared on the internet : My source of information is Linda Goldman,who is a London barrister and was a close colleague and friend of the late Michael Sherrard until his death a few years ago and she co-authored with him his autobiography six years ago in 2009 entitled 'Wigs and Wherefores'.
Linda Goldman also met with Shirley Sherrard a few weeks ago and discussed the matter with her after scrutinising her extensive files on the case to find any hint of evidence for the story you quote and neither Linda or Shirley have any knowledge of Michael Sherrard ever saying anything to this effect.
I suggest now that you ,One Round or Caz begin to try to search out the provenance for these words with at the very least the name of the person who authored the report and a date other than you simply regurgitating a factually incorrect story made up by we know not who on the internet.
Without such solid facts the story remains meaningless and without a shred of concrete evidence to substantiate it .The onus is on you to provide some concrete proof to this effect.I am certainly not willing to spend any more time on it.

[Natalie Severn]

Clutching at straws ?

Hi Caz,
Regarding your belief in the authenticity of the unsigned ,undated report that made it appearance 'on the internet' some time ago and that you refer to in your post :
So far the only reference available is to an obscure talk without any title which was allegedly given by the late Michael Sherrard QC to a group of teenage girls possibly pupils at the London School for Girls, some words from which said talk ,have been posted by an anonymous person on the internet .Can you please be factually precise about the provenance of these words and find out who wrote the report in which the words at issue were quoted and when the report was written ?
So far all we know is that it "appeared" on the internet undated and without a named author ?
Thanks ,
Best Wishes
Norma

[Spitfire]

Maybe that's not so different from what Mr Sherrard was trying to convey.

I'll leave this one there.

Regards,
OneRound

I've moved (and slightly reworded) the following related post of mine from another thread:





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.

Love,

Caz
X

PS Seems a simple enough quote not to get completely backwards. The City of London School for Girls is not known for turning out dullards, and Sherrard's 'immense relief' would need to have been a student's invention if he was actually saying the exact opposite.

I agree.

The evidence is that Mr Sherrard gave an address at The City of London School for Girls some time between 10 May and 8 November 2002 and a synopsis of what he said was published on that school's website on 8 November 2002.

I cannot see why anyone at the school would want to invent such a story for publication on its website.

[Natalie Severn]

I agree.

The evidence is that Mr Sherrard gave an address at The City of London School for Girls some time between 10 May and 8 November 2002 and a synopsis of what he said was published on that school's website on 8 November 2002.

I cannot see why anyone at the school would want to invent such a story for publication on its website.

Spitfire-

this link you have just given is an ERROR all you get when you try to follow it is this so whoever posted it has had it removed viz:
HTTP Error 404.0 - Not Found
The resource you are looking for has been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
Most likely causes:
• The directory or file specified does not exist on the Web server.
• The URL contains a typographical error.
• A custom filter or module, such as URLScan, restricts access to the file.
Things you can try:
• Create the content on the Web server.
• Review the browser URL.
• Create a tracing rule to track failed requests for this HTTP status code and see which module is calling SetStatus. For more information about creating a tracing rule for failed requests, click here.
Detailed Error Information:
Module
***IIS Web Core
Notification
***MapRequestHandler
Handler
***StaticFile
Error Code
***0x80070002
Requested URL
***http://www.clsg.org.uk:80/hanratty.htm
Physical Path
***D:\Data\websites\c\clsg.org.uk\www\webroot\hanr atty.htm
Logon Method
***Anonymous
Logon User
***Anonymous

More Information:
This error means that the file or directory does not exist on the server. Create the file or directory and try the request again.
View more information »

[Spitfire]

Indeed the page is no longer on the school's website.

The Wayback machine captured the webpage first on 8th November 2002 and subsequently on 26th June 2003, 28th August 2003, 18th October 2003, 25th November 2003, 25th February 2004, 2nd May 2004, 16th June 2004, 14th August 2004, 10th December 2004, 12th February 2005 and 29th September 2007. On all these occasions the text of the 'wrong man was not hanged' appeared on the webpage.

On 11th February 2013 the Wayback machine's bots visited the page and got the HTTP Error 404.

The evidence is that the text appeared on the school's website from 8th November 2002 until some time between 29th September 2007 and 11th February 2013 when it was removed.

[moste]

I agree.

The evidence is that Mr Sherrard gave an address at The City of London School for Girls some time between 10 May and 8 November 2002 and a synopsis of what he said was published on that school's website on 8 November 2002.

I cannot see why anyone at the school would want to invent such a story for publication on its website.

Your not wrong Spitfire". Unless... I have it.. She was a 'Hanratty did it fan"
There you go. Case solved!

[Sherlock Houses]

Last night I dreamt I was in Manderley.........or even some law society

Mr Michael Sherrard, I think it was him... or was it Michael Gerrard ? Or was it Steven Gerrard ? Oh sod it, what does it really matter who it was, this lawyer type bloke came to our imaginary sixth form debating society sometime this year between May and November. I think it was then anyhow. If I remember incorrectly he gave some kind of talk about law and said something about the wrong right man, or was it woman, not being hanged. I was dozing off at the time so he could have been talking about anything.
I thought it might be a good idea to go online and put this up on the school's website.

My name by the way is Anne. Anne Onimus . Here's hoping there's no comeback on this.

[Spitfire]

I think that Mr Sherrard had lost any belief which he might have had that James Hanratty was not the A6 Murderer when Hanratty disclosed that the Liverpool alibi was a lie insofar as it related to where and with whom Hanratty had spent the night of 22/23 August 1961.

That Sherrard thought little of the new Rhyl alibi is evidenced by the fact that he did not seek to call any further witnesses in support of that alibi for the 1962 appeal. However Sherrard may have had some nagging doubt that no matter how implausible the Rhyl alibi seemed, it just might have been where Hanratty had been on the murder night. This would account for his relief that the DNA evidence showed that the wrong man was not hanged.

Sherrard's belief was that the evidence adduced by the prosecution in 1962 was not sufficient to support a conviction in a capital murder case. As defending counsel his primary concern would be to demonstrate that the prosecution had not proved its case.

[Natalie Severn]

I think that Mr Sherrard had lost any belief which he might have had that James Hanratty was not the A6 Murderer when Hanratty disclosed that the Liverpool alibi was a lie

This is a totally absurd claim because far from thinking the Liverpool alibi was 'a lie' , Michael Sherrard ,on camera, on 16th May 1962 made the following statement about that Liverpool alibi.

Michael Sherrard 16th May 2002 in his own words on Horizon Programme:
It is often said that Hanratty changed his alibi from Liverpool to Rhyl and thats really not quite right.The substance of the Liverpool alibi was maintained

Narrator: Even before Hanratty reached Rhyl on the crucial evening a sweetshop assistant had placed him in Liverpool only about 4 hours before the crime began in Buckinghamshire.

Michael Sherrard:There was the evidence of the lady in the sweetshop.It was very important because if she was anything like right she had Hanratty in Liverpool.He could not have imagined or have invented that episode and it was supported by that lady in material particulars-so it was of great importance .It drove the prosecution,at one stage,to solemnly suggest that Hanratty might have been in Liverpool and that there was an air service from Liverpool to the South that was regular and that he might have come down for the occasion and then gone back to Liverpool or Rhyl or whatever.........and that seemed ridiculous.[verbatim quote of 16 May 1962]
Brave words from Michael Sherrard QC and flew in the face of the 3 Appeal Judges who rejected the possibility of contamination [see number 7 "conclusion" of 2002 appeal] and sided with the prosecution's case that the DNA evidence ,standing alone was in fact ,certain proof of James Hanratty's guilt.

[Spitfire]

I think that Mr Sherrard had lost any belief which he might have had that James Hanratty was not the A6 Murderer when Hanratty disclosed that the Liverpool alibi was a lie insofar as it related to where and with whom Hanratty had spent the night of 22/23 August 1961.

This is a totally absurd claim because far from thinking the Liverpool alibi was 'a lie' , Michael Sherrard ,on camera, on 16th May 1962 made the following statement about that Liverpool alibi.

No it's not! Sherrard was lied to by Hanratty with the latter's story of spending the night of 22/23 August in Liverpool with his (Hanratty's) criminal associates.

Hanratty was a convincing conman when he wanted to be and at first Sherrard was taken in. However by the time of the appeal Sherrard had had enough of the alibi nonsense and based his case before the Court of Criminal Appeal on misdirections by the judge.

[Graham]

Nats,

what, may one legitimately ask, has happened to your previous claim that a person called Alexander Baron wrote that article?

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Nats,

what, may one legitimately ask, has happened to your previous claim that a person called Alexander Baron wrote that article?

Graham

Alexander Baron did write about it....please check it out for yourself Graham.

[OneRound]

This is a totally absurd claim because far from thinking the Liverpool alibi was 'a lie' , Michael Sherrard ,on camera, on 16th May 1962 made the following statement about that Liverpool alibi.

Michael Sherrard 16th May 2002 in his own words on Horizon Programme:
It is often said that Hanratty changed his alibi from Liverpool to Rhyl and thats really not quite right.The substance of the Liverpool alibi was maintained

Narrator: Even before Hanratty reached Rhyl on the crucial evening a sweetshop assistant had placed him in Liverpool only about 4 hours before the crime began in Buckinghamshire.

Michael Sherrard:There was the evidence of the lady in the sweetshop.It was very important because if she was anything like right she had Hanratty in Liverpool.He could not have imagined or have invented that episode and it was supported by that lady in material particulars-so it was of great importance .It drove the prosecution,at one stage,to solemnly suggest that Hanratty might have been in Liverpool and that there was an air service from Liverpool to the South that was regular and that he might have come down for the occasion and then gone back to Liverpool or Rhyl or whatever.........and that seemed ridiculous.[verbatim quote of 16 May 1962]
Brave words from Michael Sherrard QC and flew in the face of the 3 Appeal Judges who rejected the possibility of contamination [see number 7 "conclusion" of 2002 appeal] and sided with the prosecution's case that the DNA evidence ,standing alone was in fact ,certain proof of James Hanratty's guilt.

Crucially though I cannot find any support in the above or elsewhere from Mr Sherrard that Hanratty was in Rhyl on the night concerned as he (Hanratty) finally claimed.

Mr Sherrard is continuing to put the defence eggs in the Liverpool basket and reduce the significance of being lied to by his client.

OneRound