non-provenance of 'wrong man was not hanged'

[Natalie Severn]

I recently approached a close colleague of the late Michael Sherrard QC,Hanratty's trial barrister , to find out if this lady had any knowledge at all about whether the words "the wrong man was not hanged"could be attributed to Michael Sherrard ,either in recent times or in the past .This esteemed friend and colleague , who is herself a barrister ,took the trouble of searching through every file on the case available to her and since she is both a friend of Shirley Sherrard, his widow , was even able to ask Shirley whether or not she knew anything at all about such a sentence ever having been uttered by her husband,the late Michael Sherrard QC.Neither women had any knowledge whatever of such a phrase being uttered by Michael Sherrard QC -not even a hint in all the extensive files available to her of any words to that effect ever having been uttered by Michael Sherrard QC.

[Dupplin Muir]

Well, I think we can dismiss the quote as hearsay by a journalist who heard what he wanted to hear, rather than what was actually said.

[gallicrow]

The provenance of this quote has been known for years and has been posted several times on this forum. It was a summary of talk given by Sherrard to the Law Society of the City of London School for Girls. This probably took place sometime in October 2002 (based on what appears on archives of the news section on the school's website) and I would guess that it was a teacher or possibly a student rather than a journalist who wrote the summary.
Here is the earliest example of it on archive.org:
http://www.clsg.org.uk/hanratty.htm

It seems pretty clear to me that the person who wrote the summary is quoting what Sherrard said during this talk (or at least their memory of what he said) and is not their own opinion.

[Graham]

The provenance of this quote has been known for years and has been posted several times on this forum. It was a summary of talk given by Sherrard to the Law Society of the City of London School for Girls. This probably took place sometime in October 2002 (based on what appears on archives of the news section on the school's website) and I would guess that it was a teacher or possibly a student rather than a journalist who wrote the summary.
Here is the earliest example of it on archive.org:
http://www.clsg.org.uk/hanratty.htm

It seems pretty clear to me that the person who wrote the summary is quoting what Sherrard said during this talk (or at least their memory of what he said) and is not their own opinion.

I posted that short summary on here a few weeks ago, Gallicrow; maybe you missed it. Nats seems to believe that it was written by some journalist called Alexander Baron, but I've seen no proof of that claim. As I said previously, as it was a quote from a talk given to The Law Society, I would think that had Mr Sherrard been misquoted by whoever wrote that article, the Society or Mr Sherrard himself would have come down rather heavily on the writer, and the article removed from the internet at the very least.

Graham

[OneRound]

I posted that short summary on here a few weeks ago, Gallicrow; maybe you missed it. Nats seems to believe that it was written by some journalist called Alexander Baron, but I've seen no proof of that claim. As I said previously, as it was a quote from a talk given to The Law Society, I would think that had Mr Sherrard been misquoted by whoever wrote that article, the Society or Mr Sherrard himself would have come down rather heavily on the writer, and the article removed from the internet at the very least.

Graham

Credit to Natalie for what she's found out so far but, rather in line with Graham's post, I do feel this investigation needs to end up at Mr Sherrard's talk to The Law Society.

OneRound

[gallicrow]

I posted that short summary on here a few weeks ago, Gallicrow; maybe you missed it.
Graham

No, I didn't miss your post. However the link has been posted on at least three other occasions, the first time was back in 2007/2007:
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=218&page=15

Natalie Severn has posted a great deal on the Hanratty forums and the volume of her posts often drowns out everyone else, sometimes making the threads nigh on impossible to read. I wanted to ensure that this one, in which she seems to think that she has proven that Sherrard never made the "wrong man was not hanged" remark, contained the link that I think proves that he very probably did make it.

[Natalie Severn]

Credit to Natalie for what she's found out so far but, rather in line with Graham's post, I do feel this investigation needs to end up at Mr Sherrard's talk to The Law Society.

OneRound

What 'Law Society??? ' .....? This is all utter nonsense.The so called "law Society" in question -as far as any provenance goes- is that of a private London Secondary School with no more claim having a "law society " than that of a local boy scouts for goodness sake.Its sheer piffle the whole thing.

[Sherlock Houses]

Natalie Severn has posted a great deal on the Hanratty forums and the volume of her posts often drowns out everyone else, sometimes making the threads nigh on impossible to read. I wanted to ensure that this one, in which she seems to think that she has proven that Sherrard never made the "wrong man was not hanged" remark, contained the link that I think proves that he very probably did make it.

I beg very strongly to disagree with your assessment and rude dismissal of a poster who has contributed enormously to the A6 threads. She has contributed tons more to the discussion [and unearthed much valuable material] than yourself.
The vague alleged remark of Mr Sherrard's to some law society claims no authorship nor date of when this address took place which is very suspicious to say the least. There is no independent corroborative evidence or reference for this anywhere else.

[Natalie Severn]

I would think that had Mr Sherrard been misquoted by whoever wrote that article, the Society or Mr Sherrard himself would have come down rather heavily on the writer, and the article removed from the internet at the very least.

Graham

But this secondary school outfit wasn't/isn't a bona fide 'Law Society ' and Mr Sherrard himself like his wife and his lawyer colleague would not likely have known about it or been the least bit interested in this amateur outfit being used to spread lies about his words.

[Natalie Severn]

No, I didn't miss your post. However the link has been posted on at least three other occasions, the first time was back in 2007/2007:
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=218&page=15

Pure waffle .Please follow through your own link which simply shows a brief report by an anonymous scribe about Michael Sherrard QC giving a talk at something calling itself a 'Law Society'...but when you try to find out more information for example the address of this so called 'Law Society" or the name and title of the reporter the link tells you "ERROR -and that it has been removed ."

[Natalie Severn]

The initials CLSG = City of London School for Girls .So Michael Sherrard QC went to their "Law Society" because they invited him to come and speak and and a sixth form girl gave a report on it -like they would for similar CLSG societies like their 'Debating Society 'for example .

[OneRound]

What 'Law Society??? ' .....? This is all utter nonsense.The so called "law Society" in question -as far as any provenance goes- is that of a private London Secondary School with no more claim having a "law society " than that of a local boy scouts for goodness sake.Its sheer piffle the whole thing.

Natalie - the question doesn't concern the status and calibre of the particular society but whether Mr Sherrard spoke there and, if he did, what he said.

To my mind, other comments attributed to Mr Sherrard - in particular, warning of the dangers of ''trial by police'' - sound just the sort of thing he might reasonably have said.

Regards,
OneRound

[moste]

Natalie - the question doesn't concern the status and calibre of the particular society but whether Mr Sherrard spoke there and, if he did, what he said.

To my mind, other comments attributed to Mr Sherrard - in particular, warning of the dangers of ''trial by police'' - sound just the sort of thing he might reasonably have said.

Regards,
OneRound

I don't agree this is something Sherrard would likely say. I think this poster said it about right: "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. All the same good work on your research Natalie.I myself would much sooner accept that Mrs Sherrard would have known had her husband used this controversial phrase, rather than than some comment made by a high school girl writing a review on a lecture.

[Natalie Severn]

Natalie - the question doesn't concern the status and calibre of the particular society but whether Mr Sherrard spoke there and, if he did, what he said.

To my mind, other comments attributed to Mr Sherrard - in particular, warning of the dangers of ''trial by police'' - sound just the sort of thing he might reasonably have said.

Regards,
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 Severn]

Thanks Moste and SH for your kind words. We need to keep this as real and as close to the truth as possible !