Originally Posted by NickB
I believe Sherrard and Kleinman were very competent but, even if they weren't, Hanratty maintained Kleinman and said he wanted Sherrard to conduct the case. I suspect the reason for this is that Hanratty thought that Sherrard and Kleinman believed in him (and I think they did until the Rhyl alibi) and that other solicitors/barristers might not be so gullible.
I don't see how complete disclosure could have saved him, and doubt that the level of nondisclosure was abnormal for that time, and he didn't murder a 'local'.
After the execution he had the luck of people like Foot/Woffinden presenting his case in a highly biased way. The Court of Appeal said that even without the DNA it would have upheld the guilty verdict.
Hi again Nick - thanks for your response.
Why do you say that Kleinmann was ''very competent''? It's a genuine question. I particularly feel he let his man down badly on the identification parade.
Sherrard was undoubtedly hardworking and dignified but I'll hand over on this aspect to my cyber pal Graham and let him regale us about the Brighton Trunk Murder or something equally grisly from the past where a murderer got off due to a canny brief.
Complete disclosure may not have saved Hanratty but should he have been denied it going in the mix to the jury? I don't have time to check now but I'm pretty certain the Court of Appeal in 2002 referred to such disclosure as being required ''even by the standards of the day'' or something very similar.
I take your point about the blinkered approach of campaigners like Foot and Woffinden. With regard to your last sentence, the Court of Appeal were very astute in ensuring that their judgement could not be challenged.