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