That's a fair point Moste. Perhaps Hanratty allowed them cigarettes for relaxation, to keep them co-operative, but then there is still the overwhelming question of what on earth his purpose was of being in the car in the first place. To keep them co-operative for what?
Was his motive financial? Clearly not. He took no money and even abandoned the car.
Was his motive sexual? Unlikely, although he did, after several hours, assault Valerie Storie. I am no expert in this field but I understand that sexual arousal can be linked to acts of extreme violence. If this is credible, then the motive would not be sexual, but rather that the sexual assault was a chain reaction to the shooting of Gregsten.
Which brings us no nearer the motive of the murderer entering the car in the first place. Like Moste I am not convinced of the cornfield story. It was odd in 1961, and despite all the crimes we have had to endure reading about in the intervening years, many of them apparently bizarre, there is still something deeply unsatisfactory about the alleged motive for the A6 case.
Why did Hanratty not 'upgrade' from burglary to armed robbery? That might have been a logical move. Why not roll over the odd petrol station which in these days had no CCTV, and were often family owned?
Why go for double murder with no robbery at all? It is totally without sense. OK Hanratty was educationally backward (as we expressed it at the time) but in terms of profit/illegality he was a sharp enough character and driving better cars than my father back in 1961. In fact my old man had a Lambretta scooter until 1964.