the condemned person prior to their execution. Therefore, officially, each condemned man was executed while still a serving member of the armed forces. Although Joan Wolfe's lifestyle had been called into question at the trial, one prosecution witness defended her character and intentions: Superintendent Richard Webb of the Surrey CID, who had questioned Wolfe after she had been brought into custody on 23 August due to concerns for her welfare. Like others in authority before him, Webb had noted her as being "in need of protection" and, on the occasion he had seen her, had observed her as being "somewhat dirty". Webb testified to having repeatedly spoken with Wolfe in great detail; noting her soft-spoken and quiet manner. In defence of her character, Webb conceded that, although her lifestyle was somewhat immoral, she had been fiercely loyal to any one soldier at a time, in the hope he would marry her and provide her with the eventual security and stability she desired. In his memoirs, published in 1960, Inspector Edward Greeno confided his conducting the formal interview with Sangret at Godalming police station on 12 October had subsequently proven illegal, as Sangret had been held without charge for five days—four days longer than the law of habeas corpus allowed. Greeno confided he had been extremely concerned this issue may have been raised in court, adding that, prior to trial, he had been contacted by then-Assistant Commissioner Sir Norman Kendal on this very issue. However, for reasons unknown, neither Linton Thorp or his co-counsel, Laurence Vine, chose to raise this issue at Sangret's trial or subsequent appeal. Despite his conceding the case against Sangret may have been "flung out [of court] then and there" had Sangret's defence raised the issue of his breaching the law of habeas corpus, Greeno nonetheless reiterated his conviction of Sangret's guilt in what he recollected as being "nearly the perfect crime: a murder not only unsolved, but undiscovered." Greeno did, however, theorise as to Sangret's motive:I had interviewed thousands of people in this case, and seventy-four of them went into the witness-box. The case was so watertight that, as Sir Norman Kendal said later, Sangret's appeal against the death sentence was almost a farce. One small doubt remained: Sangret murdered the girl because she was expecting his child—but was she? Was she expecting anybody's child? The doctors didn't think so on the occasion that the police