The source for the document is Natalie/Norma who has accepted that the heading ‘transcript of statements from Hanratty to police’ appears to be wrong. She said: “All three pages suggest to me they have the hallmarks of interrogation by his defence in order to build his case.”
In any case, on what legal grounds could the police have interviewed him at that time?
Earlier in December, Kleinman interviewed Olive Dinwoodie and inserted in her statement: “I am not sure whether it was the Monday or Tuesday that the man called.” Dinwoodie spotted this and refused to sign the statement until it had been removed, as she was sure it was the Monday.
Kleinman is doing the same with Hanratty, inserting things that he thinks will be to his benefit. The obvious difference being that there is no reason for Hanratty to object!
In fact it is as reprehensible as his attempt to change Dinwoodie’s statement. By this route he is feeding Hanratty information, and it explains how ‘Carlton or Talbot’ in his first statement morphed through subsequent statements into ‘Carlton or Tarleton’ at trial.
Quite incorrect actually. Hanratty made lengthy statements to police on December 21st 1961, December 30th 1961 and January 10th 1962.
And further even lengthier statements made on 22 January 1962, 4 February 1962 and 11 February 1962 all of which referred to public conveniences and staying in a guesthouse in a room with a bath.
The law which pertained in 1961/2 (and which continued until the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008) was that once the Police charged their suspect they could not conduct any further interview with him. Hanratty was charged on 14 October 1961 and should not have been subject to further questioning by the police.
Hanratty was committed for trial on 5 December 1961 yet the questioning continued by the Police.
So we have a clear breach of the rules in Hanratty being questioned not only after being charged but also after being committed for trial.
What are we to make of this? It can only mean that Sherrard and Mansfield must be in on the conspiracy in not objecting on Hanratty's behalf. Moreover, Foot and Woffinden omit to mention that Hanratty described the location of the sweet shop/ tobacconist with such precision. Could they too have been in on it (the it being the conspiracy)? We must not forget that Woffinden wrote a book about the Beatles. Was he covering up on behalf on one of the Fab Three?
5] Mrs Walker's Alsatian dog was at her side by her front gate when the young man approached her. Hanratty's father recalled his son telling him of 'a large dog' accompanying one of the Rhyl women he had asked for accommodation.
Now, I am aware that Mrs Walker did mention to Gillbanks that she had her dog with her at the front of her house when the 'young man' approached her seeking accommodation. But would you kindly reveal the source of your assertion that James Hanratty Snr recalled his son telling him of a 'large dog' being with 'one of the Rhyl women he had asked for accommodation'? And also, if you would, when Mr Hanratty Snr made this statement and to whom it was made?
We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze
Concerning Gregstens last week or so.
It seems there is enough information through this period , that although it raises more question than answers,we have sufficient to ponder why the famed investigative journalists didn't dig deeper
Most people it is said tend to live beyond their means,financially that is.
In the case of Gregsten we are informed by those who knew him well ,he certainly fell into this category, and then some! Having to sell his car presumably to cover debts, and his wife selling his piano apparently without consulting him ( this, one would assume ,would have caused quite an upset in their already unstable relationship)
Regardless of all this , the happy family headed down to Swanage on the Dorset coast for a week's holiday. It most likely would have showed up in 'the woffinden ,Foot ,books '
if the accomodation was provided free using a relatives caravan ,or some such, so we must assume a payment for B and B ,hotel, of some kind was secured.
Next we have his travelling for that week,128 miles to Swanage,then back home to paint the flat, in Abbots Langley, then back to the coast on the Sat. or Sun. Then back home again. Total 512 miles. At 30 mpg. I make that approx. 4 pound five shillings given the price of petrol back then . That was a goodly chunk of outlay for just fuel for a week's holiday.
The question as to which flat was being painted has been mentioned before ,and I initially assumed it to be his rental place .However giving this more. consideration, it seems almost certainly the Sabine house he shared with Janet and the boys, that would be alluded to here. Thinking logically the children would be out of the way , and he could paint away unhindered by distractions.Also having consulted my trusty Google Earth site ( geographical researchers best friend) 68 St.Marks road Maidenhead, appears to be a very nice suburban fully detached home , and Mike would very likely have been only renting a bedroom , so it would follow in a private home situation ,it is not likely that he would be painting there. Another side issue not addressed to my knowledge is,'was Valerie supposedly moving into the premises with Mike ? I would almost certainly say not , again given the look of the home and assuming Mike would be sharing with a family , It can be supposed that ,especially being the early sixties , that would be a none starter as they say.
The only other possibility I can see is that Valerie and Mike had agreed to move in together and rent a place all to themselves, but I would suggest 'not in this house they wer'nt 'The rent would be ,at a guess, double the cost of Sabine house, especially given they're government subsidy etc.
Incidentally, I would draw attention to the fact that Valerie had stated at a later date that 'her involvement with Mike was not likely to last much longer'
Digressing aside. Mike is said to have phone called into his office to tell them 'I won't be in work Monday or Tuesday. ,The girl who took the call claimed she just thought it was extra holidays he was taking' .How well was this taken up by the journalists? What was going on?
Also ,Was Janet ever asked by Foot or other investigatives , 'what she knew about Mikes girlfriends parents ', I.E. do they know your a married man with children?' Good question for a wife I would have thought. Personally I don't believe that they did know, despite Valeries insistence that 'someone snitched'.My feelings are that John Storie would not have accepted his daughters involvement with this man, not for a second!
Interviews with the Cattons touched on what they knew about their best friends the Gregstens ,but I feel more could have been gleaned from them.
There never seemed to have been enough attention paid to the possibility that Valerie was economical with the truth, even down to little details which seem irrelevant, such as , the petrol gauge was broken, this was evident in the fact that Mike always logged his miles when buying petrol, and confirmed by the fact that the so called carjacker enquired ' how much petrol do you have in the tank ? ' when the very noticeable easy read petrol gauge was right there on the big centre clock , it would have read a third of a tank ,if what Valerie tells us is true, that when asked how much petrol was there Mike answered ,about a gallon, when in fact there was considerably more than that . Then when they added 2 more gallons at the Regent garage , the gauge would have read over half a tank. Just a minor detail,but why lie? Even a none driver would see the fuel gauge ! Finally not to mention the "We picked a man up in Slough"
I am really troubled by Mikes 'none action' on this whole journey to the north. Given all that has been explained by Valerie, we are to understand that a complete stranger who seems somewhat deranged is in the backseat with a loaded ,powerful, handgun, and has directed us through two fairly densely populated towns and is about to head out of Luton and back into the countryside. Even to consider this briefly,never mind a couple of hours,you must be of the opinion that you are soon to be shot dead along with your partner and left in some remote place . To do nothing at all at this point would be, as it indeed was ,fatal.
I don't believe Gregsten was in fear of his life. I don't believe Storie was telling all.and I do think the journalist could have uncovered more.