non-provenance of 'wrong man was not hanged'

[OneRound]

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

Natalie - your insertion of the word ''about'' is, at best, misleading. You were asked about your earlier claim that Alexander Baron wrote the article and not whether he wrote about it.

OneRound

[OneRound]

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.

Well, there was no comeback when the quotation attributed to Mr Sherrard - ''the wrong man was not hanged'' - appeared in subsequent newspapers and books.

OneRound

[Graham]

Natalie - your insertion of the word ''about'' is, at best, misleading. You were asked about your earlier claim that Alexander Baron wrote the article and not whether he wrote about it.

OneRound

Thank you, One Round - you beat me to it. Perhaps Nats will be kind enough to tell us precisely what this Baron bloke wrote about it, or even better, post his article or whatever it was. Well, Nats?

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

Graham, One Round etc
I am only interested here in whether any one of you is able to provide any proof whatever from anywhere that Michael Sherrard believed that James Hanratty was guilty of the crime for which he was hanged . The following statements made in 2002 , together with Sherrard's other emphatic statement on the same nationwide television programme ,Horizon, of 16th May 2002 [ie a programme made after the appeal judgement of 10th May 2002 ] that the murder car contained 'not a trace of Hanratty's blood ,hair or fibres ' is proof enough for me that he had reached no such conclusion.
If you all want to go round in circles with One Round fine...but count me out,
Wishing you all the Very Best during the Pantomime season [which seems to have started a little early on the A6 thread ] Cheers Nx

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.

[Graham]

As for me, Nats, I am really only interested in why you stated that someone called Alexander Baron wrote that report on Sherrard's talk to the Law Society, but now you are saying that it wasn't him at all, but a schoolgirl! Come on Nats, get real. Had that report been completely false, as you claim it is, don't you think that it would have been challenged long ago? It is, as many people on this thread agree, extremely likely beyond any argument that Sherrard stated that 'the wrong man wasn't hanged'.

And who, pray, is this Alexander Baron bloke anyway? You've never enlightened us on that score. Do tell.

Graham

[cobalt]

And who, pray, is this Alexander Baron bloke anyway? You've never enlightened us on that score. Do tell.

I have commented on another thread who this dubious character, Alexander Baron, is.

He has taken the name of a British screenwriter of the 1950s in order to give his posts a degree of credibility.

He is as trustworthy as Alphon on matters relating the A6 murder. In fact, less so.

[Graham]

And who, pray, is this Alexander Baron bloke anyway? You've never enlightened us on that score. Do tell.

I have commented on another thread who this dubious character, Alexander Baron, is.

He has taken the name of a British screenwriter of the 1950s in order to give his posts a degree of credibility.

He is as trustworthy as Alphon on matters relating the A6 murder. In fact, less so.

Cobalt, me old mucker, I am quite aware as to who Alexander Baron the screenwriter and novelist was, but just who is the 'Alexander Baron' that Nats originally claimed is the author of the 'wrong man, etc' article? My main concern is that just a couple of weeks ago Nats was absolutely insistent that this Alexander Baron had written that article, but now, all of a sudden, she is saying that it was penned by a schoolgirl. So what on earth is she actually saying here? Is there something going on behind the scenes, so to speak?

Graham

[moste]

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.

I'm afraid as soon as Mr. Sherrard Trained his sights on Judge Gorman and his summing up, he hanged Hanratty right there!
Why he chose not to buy Hanratty time by introducing the fact that there were a number of witnesses willing to testify coming out of Rhyl, only Mr. Sherrard would have known .One thing is certain, the Judges of the criminal appeal only knew that Hanratty had very foolishly made a change to his alibi, they were not aware of any witnesses that had made themselves available after the fact. This was Sherrards fault and his alone. In much the same way that Sherrard could have wrapped things up much earlier, by insisting that Stories first choice in an I D parade was not brought into court. Hanratty liked Sherrard very much, and insisted on him for his appeal, however I believe this faith was unfounded. Even Sherrard himself admitted later, a more experienced defence council would probably have got him off. Furthermore,
Sherrard had the option of advising his client thus "Once we have convinced the court of your movements up to your visit to the sweet shop and the short time afterwards back into the centre of Liverpool, there is nothing more for you to say in your defence of this crime. In other words after lets say 5.15pm/5.30pm as we already know it was impossible to have committed the crime, So, you are not required to explain your movements or whereabouts after this time!"

[OneRound]

Well, there was no comeback when the quotation attributed to Mr Sherrard - ''the wrong man was not hanged'' - appeared in subsequent newspapers and books.

OneRound

In the light of a recent question (although a lack of answers) from Natalie, the above is sufficient to persuade me that Mr Sherrard ultimately accepted Hanratty's guilt.

That is not to say that Mr Sherrard ever considered that Hanratty had been fairly convicted. Whilst Natalie accuses me of going round in circles, I regard that as an important point. As Spitfire has also tried to emphasise to Natalie in the past, a belief that guilt was not properly proved does not of itself equate to a belief in innocence.

I am sure that Mr Sherrard's widow and his bestie workmate would understand the significance.

Regards,
OneRound

[Graham]

Re: Moste and Rhyl. Mrs Grace Jones was called as a witness and was torn to shreds by Swanwick. Also, Hanratty said he caught the 'last bus' from Liverpool which would have arrived at Rhyl at about 8.20pm, yet other Rhyl witnesses who claimed to have seen the person they thought might be Hanratty stated they saw him earlier. I have always felt that Sherrard never believed Hanratty's claim to be in Rhyl. And of course it is now not possible to change an alibi - known as an 'ambush alibi' - while a trial is proceeding. I'll say again, had he stuck to his Liverpool 'alibi', he'd have had a better chance of acquittal, IMHO.

Graham

[caz]

Graham, One Round etc
I am only interested here in whether any one of you is able to provide any proof whatever from anywhere that Michael Sherrard believed that James Hanratty was guilty of the crime for which he was hanged . The following statements made in 2002 , together with Sherrard's other emphatic statement on the same nationwide television programme ,Horizon, of 16th May 2002 [ie a programme made after the appeal judgement of 10th May 2002 ] that the murder car contained 'not a trace of Hanratty's blood ,hair or fibres ' is proof enough for me that he had reached no such conclusion.
If you all want to go round in circles with One Round fine...but count me out,
Wishing you all the Very Best during the Pantomime season [which seems to have started a little early on the A6 thread ] Cheers Nx

Hi Nats,

We must be very careful not to confuse issues of legal doubt (such as the sweet shop lady's 'important' account of seeing someone who resembled, but apparently had a different accent from Hanratty; the lack of any potentially incriminating forensic evidence in the car, which would have applied whoever the gunman was) with proven innocence.

Everything I have seen attributed to Sherrard would fit with a belief that the defendant should not have hanged on the evidence as presented at his trial (he did not have to prove he was in Liverpool, Rhyl or anywhere else, although he aided the prosecution by changing his alibi for the actual murder night, suggesting he had no alibi despite no forensics in the car), but that in no way rules out an acceptance that the wrong man was not hanged. The way that sentence is constructed, including Sherrard's immense relief, is very much in keeping with this. How curious, if this Baron chappy, or the schoolgirl, or indeed anyone other than Sherrard, had the insight and imagination to fashion a 'guilty after all' quote that would not totally contradict what the real man had actually said, but in fact complement it all rather well.

Love,

Caz
X

[Victor]

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 read the phrase as the equivalent of "Phew I didn't let an innocent man down and get him hanged" especially when you add the "immense relief to me" part. I find it completely typical for "a person with a legal background, let alone a barrister of high repute" who couldn't bring himself to say "I was on the wrong side, they got the right guy"

KR,
Vic

[OneRound]

I read the phrase as the equivalent of "Phew I didn't let an innocent man down and get him hanged" especially when you add the "immense relief to me" part. I find it completely typical for "a person with a legal background, let alone a barrister of high repute" who couldn't bring himself to say "I was on the wrong side, they got the right guy"

KR,
Vic

Totally agree, Vic.

Best regards,
OneRound