Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by harry 53 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: The Mysterious Fred - by Simon Wood 3 hours ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Dennis Nilsen - by Mayerling 4 hours ago.
Non-Fiction: The Mysterious Fred - by Mayerling 4 hours ago.
Visual Media: "Mysteries at the Museum" features JtR Museum - by Mayerling 4 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Trevor Marriott 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (7 posts)
Non-Fiction: The Mysterious Fred - (3 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Dennis Nilsen - (1 posts)
Casebook Announcements: Katherine Bradshaw Amin (1980-2018) - (1 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Kansas Physician Confirms Howard Report - (1 posts)
Visual Media: "Mysteries at the Museum" features JtR Museum - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Social Chat > Other Mysteries > A6 Murders

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #4951  
Old 07-13-2018, 06:14 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 900
Default

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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4952  
Old 07-13-2018, 06:37 AM
Spitfire Spitfire is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 613
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock Houses View Post
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?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4953  
Old 07-13-2018, 01:24 PM
Graham Graham is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 3,329
Default

SH,

you wrote:

Quote:
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?

Thank you.

Graham
__________________
We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4954  
Old 07-13-2018, 03:01 PM
gallicrow gallicrow is offline
Cadet
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Oxford
Posts: 43
Default

There's an excellent summary of the alsatian story on this page (search for "alsatian"):
https://forum.casebook.org/showthrea...t=218&page=344
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.