After twenty-five years of living a lie, it's very difficult for the people of Leeds and Bradford to admit that Peter Sutcliffe is NOT the Yorkshire Ripper. The Yorkshire Ripper was never caught and is still killing our women right now. This game of pretending is a betrayal of every woman in England.
------------------------------------------------------------------
THE YORKSHIRE RIPPER COVER UP
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ten years ago I came across an advertisement for a book titled "The
Real Yorkshire Ripper" by a man called Noel O'Gara. It was 1996 and
I was living temporarily at the time in Chapeltown, Leeds, which had
been the hub of the Yorkshire Ripper investigation.
I was bewildered by Mr O'Gara's advertisement. Like everyone else
in Leeds, I had automatically assumed that the West Yorkshire Police
had been telling us the truth and that the newspapers had been telling
us the truth when they said Peter Sutcliffe is the Yorkshire Ripper and
that therefore the case was closed and our worries were over.
I resolved to read Mr Noel O'Gara's book, first in the Reference
Section of the Central Library in Leeds, to which Mr O'Gara had
donated a copy, and then afterwards I was quick to get my own copy of
this very important document.
The Yorkshire Ripper cover up is a complex subject. As if it were not
bad enough already, a further complication has been introduced this
year, 2006, by the bizarre trial and conviction of a vulnerable
alcoholic John Humble as the 'hoaxer' who supposedly was
responsible for the letters and tape which the West Yorkshire Police
said were definitely the work of the Yorkshire Ripper at the height of
the furore in 1979. What I can say for sure about John Humble, having
listened repeatedly to recordings of his voice alongside recordings of
the voice on the Yorkshire Ripper tape of 1979 - is that John
Humble's voice is NOT the voice on the Ripper tape and that John
Humble has been framed. This is obvious to anyone who just does a bit
of homework. And that explains the sparse, low-key media coverage of
the John Humble fiasco.
Readers of this article will probably be new to the subject of the
Yorkshire Ripper cover up, or else will consider themselves to be well
informed on the matter in their belief that there is no cover up, and
that Peter Sutcliffe is the Yorkshire Ripper, and that the only problem
around here is that the West Yorkshire Police took a long time to
apprehend Peter Sutcliffe.
The truth is much more complex. The reason the West Yorkshire Police
took so long to catch Peter Sutcliffe is that Peter Sutcliffe has a
different blood type to the Yorkshire Ripper and therefore Peter
Sutcliffe is NOT the Yorkshire Ripper. Peter Sutcliffe murdered about
four women in the north of England during 1975-1980. By a bizarre
confluence of events, Sutcliffe's activities took place at just the
same time as another, much more intelligent and much more cunning
serial killer also began killing women in the Yorkshire area.
There are indications that the REAL Yorkshire Ripper was well aware of
Peter Sutcliffe's amateurish attacks on women in the north of
England, and decided to play him and the police off against one
another, to confuse the police all the more and to cover his tracks.
The REAL Yorkshire Ripper was clearly an extremely evil and intelligent
and cunning man, who knew he was the intellectual superior of the
police and who took a delight in tormenting the police by confusing and
tantalising them. The appearance of the amateurish, idiotic woman-hater
Peter Sutcliffe on the scene around 1975 was a bonus for the REAL
Yorkshire Ripper, who exploited the situation to torment the police all
the more. In the end, the REAL Yorkshire Ripper drove Assistant Chief
Constable George Oldfield into an early grave.
The whole truth about the Yorkshire Ripper fiasco is so complex that it
cannot be covered in an article of this size. What I can do now is to
refer you to the following links for further information on this
amazing subject which raises important questions about our collective
human psychology and which holds out great educational and healing
opportunities to the entire global human family if we will face up to
all the facts and implications of this amazing case.
=====================================================
=====================================================
====================================================
Noel O'Gara's uniquely definitive site on the Yorkshire Ripper case
http://www.yorkshireripper.co.uk
Thoughts on the Ripper Humble Case
http://groups.google.ie/group/uk.local.geordie/browse_frm/thread/09f8...
Arrest / Press Conference / False Smiles
http://yorkshireripper.com/arrest.htm
A Police Corruption Scandal of Unprecedented Proportions
http://groups.google.ie/group/soc.culture.irish/browse_frm/thread/42c...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Killings have not stopped
http://yorkshireripper.com/sundaytimes.htm
http://www.yorkshireripper.co.uk/hyper/win-005.htm
http://www.yorkshireripper.com/aftermath.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE YORKSHIRE RIPPER COVER UP
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ten years ago I came across an advertisement for a book titled "The
Real Yorkshire Ripper" by a man called Noel O'Gara. It was 1996 and
I was living temporarily at the time in Chapeltown, Leeds, which had
been the hub of the Yorkshire Ripper investigation.
I was bewildered by Mr O'Gara's advertisement. Like everyone else
in Leeds, I had automatically assumed that the West Yorkshire Police
had been telling us the truth and that the newspapers had been telling
us the truth when they said Peter Sutcliffe is the Yorkshire Ripper and
that therefore the case was closed and our worries were over.
I resolved to read Mr Noel O'Gara's book, first in the Reference
Section of the Central Library in Leeds, to which Mr O'Gara had
donated a copy, and then afterwards I was quick to get my own copy of
this very important document.
The Yorkshire Ripper cover up is a complex subject. As if it were not
bad enough already, a further complication has been introduced this
year, 2006, by the bizarre trial and conviction of a vulnerable
alcoholic John Humble as the 'hoaxer' who supposedly was
responsible for the letters and tape which the West Yorkshire Police
said were definitely the work of the Yorkshire Ripper at the height of
the furore in 1979. What I can say for sure about John Humble, having
listened repeatedly to recordings of his voice alongside recordings of
the voice on the Yorkshire Ripper tape of 1979 - is that John
Humble's voice is NOT the voice on the Ripper tape and that John
Humble has been framed. This is obvious to anyone who just does a bit
of homework. And that explains the sparse, low-key media coverage of
the John Humble fiasco.
Readers of this article will probably be new to the subject of the
Yorkshire Ripper cover up, or else will consider themselves to be well
informed on the matter in their belief that there is no cover up, and
that Peter Sutcliffe is the Yorkshire Ripper, and that the only problem
around here is that the West Yorkshire Police took a long time to
apprehend Peter Sutcliffe.
The truth is much more complex. The reason the West Yorkshire Police
took so long to catch Peter Sutcliffe is that Peter Sutcliffe has a
different blood type to the Yorkshire Ripper and therefore Peter
Sutcliffe is NOT the Yorkshire Ripper. Peter Sutcliffe murdered about
four women in the north of England during 1975-1980. By a bizarre
confluence of events, Sutcliffe's activities took place at just the
same time as another, much more intelligent and much more cunning
serial killer also began killing women in the Yorkshire area.
There are indications that the REAL Yorkshire Ripper was well aware of
Peter Sutcliffe's amateurish attacks on women in the north of
England, and decided to play him and the police off against one
another, to confuse the police all the more and to cover his tracks.
The REAL Yorkshire Ripper was clearly an extremely evil and intelligent
and cunning man, who knew he was the intellectual superior of the
police and who took a delight in tormenting the police by confusing and
tantalising them. The appearance of the amateurish, idiotic woman-hater
Peter Sutcliffe on the scene around 1975 was a bonus for the REAL
Yorkshire Ripper, who exploited the situation to torment the police all
the more. In the end, the REAL Yorkshire Ripper drove Assistant Chief
Constable George Oldfield into an early grave.
The whole truth about the Yorkshire Ripper fiasco is so complex that it
cannot be covered in an article of this size. What I can do now is to
refer you to the following links for further information on this
amazing subject which raises important questions about our collective
human psychology and which holds out great educational and healing
opportunities to the entire global human family if we will face up to
all the facts and implications of this amazing case.
=====================================================
=====================================================
====================================================
Noel O'Gara's uniquely definitive site on the Yorkshire Ripper case
http://www.yorkshireripper.co.uk Thoughts on the Ripper Humble Case
http://groups.google.ie/group/uk.local.geordie/browse_frm/thread/09f8... Arrest / Press Conference / False Smiles
http://yorkshireripper.com/arrest.htm A Police Corruption Scandal of Unprecedented Proportions
http://groups.google.ie/group/soc.culture.irish/browse_frm/thread/42c... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Killings have not stopped
http://yorkshireripper.com/sundaytimes.htm http://www.yorkshireripper.co.uk/hyper/win-005.htm http://www.yorkshireripper.com/aftermath.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
Hide the following 25 comments
blood types
29.06.2006 08:08
Sutcliffe is NOT the Yorkshire Ripper.'
Both were blood type B, but Sutcliffe was a non-secretor (see below)
I assume the confusion came about by comparing a semen sample (with B antigens) and a blood sample with low B antigens.
The fact that you haven’t explained this makes me doubt the level of your research. I don’t see a need to create a big bad boggie man to account for the murder of prostitutes –there are enough real life killers out there.
Secretors and Non-secretors: An overview and preview of the new saliva-based secretor test
In the genetics of the secretor system two options exist. A person can be either a Secretor (Se) or a Non-secretor (se). This is completely independent of whether you are a blood type A, B, AB, or O. This means that someone can be an A Secretor or an A Non-secretor, a B Secretor or a B Non-secretor etc.
In a simplified sense, a Secretor is defined as a person who secretes their blood type antigens into body fluids and secretions like the saliva in your mouth, the mucus in your digestive tract and respiratory cavities, etc. Basically what this means is that a secretor puts their blood type into these body fluids. A Non-secretor on the other hand puts little to none of their blood type into these same fluids. As a general rule, in the U.S. about 20% of the population are Non-secretors (with the remaining 80% being Secretors)... [Read more]
Ingrid
e-mail:
Holme_i@hotmail.com
learn from Hans Ruesch
29.06.2006 17:04
You're lying, Ingrid. Peter Sutcliffe's blood type is O. So all your plausible-sounding, half-scientific-sounding babble is just a load of shite.
Hans Ruesch taught me how to deal with dirty little cunts like you, Ingrid.
Don't bother me again.
-Peter Newman
Peter Newman
the disinfo crew
29.06.2006 20:36
I don’t see a need to create a big bad boggie man to account for the murder of prostitutes –there are enough real life killers out there.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Again this is typical of the disinfo crew: try to divert attention from the real issues by pretending the Yorkshire Ripper kills only prostitutes. Remember Jayne MacDonald, a sixteen-year-old shop assistant returning home from a disco in Chapeltown; her father died of a broken heart a few years after his beautiful teenage daughter's life was snuffed out in its prime.
The Yorkshire Ripper was never caught and every woman in England is still at risk from the Yorkshire Ripper. On that basis, I do not believe that "Ingrid" is a woman. She sounds a bit like Keith Bannen or Brannen or whatever he calls himself..................
Peter Newman
Wow -this is real
29.06.2006 23:20
There had got to be something about the Sutcliffe trial Tell me more
dh
Good grief
30.06.2006 08:43
You sound like the fuckin ripper to me mate, why are you so hostile just because someone questioned your somewhat far fetched original post?
observer
Blood type
30.06.2006 09:31
I was completely unaware of this alleged conspiracy until I saw this post, but a half hour search has thus far failed to bring up anything I can find which confirms that Sutcliffe's blood type was O as you claim. Could you provide a link to some clear evidence to this affect?
hmmm...
Blood Type B as stated by Ingrid
30.06.2006 15:27
I have not come across anything that indicates he was type O as you have maintained. What evidence do you have to support this claim? Have you ever tried to make even a cursory effort verify the claims made on conspiracy sites re these wild accusations? Frankly, it does not look like it, though the fact that some people are instantly happy to beleive it, without even checking out any of the available evidence, does not surprise me.
hmmm
Peter Sutcliffe's blood type, etc.
30.06.2006 15:42
As for the use of strong language toward "Ingrid," please understand that this farce has been going on for twenty-five years, ever since the phoney Peter Sutcliffe trial, and I have been aware of it for ten years. A man does tend to become frustrated with people's insistence that because the newspapers say Peter Sutcliffe is the Yorkshire Ripper therefore it must be true! I know who "Ingrid" is and what she or he represents. If you study this case in depth, you might also use intemperate language toward the likes of "Ingrid."
I do agree that one must question the Ian Huntley conviction. What evidence is there that Ian Huntley committed the Soham murders? What jury would dare to acquit him, when he had already been tried and convicted by the media........ (see also the Wayne Williams case in Atlanta USA, for further insight into 'trial by media')
.......just as the media took it upon themselves to proclaim that the Yorkshire Ripper had been caught after that amazing press conference following Peter Sutcliffe's arrest in 1981.
Ronald Gregory, Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, just fed a few ambiguous statements to the media at that amazing press conference. The media took the bait and did the rest. The media tried and convicted Peter Sutcliffe as the Yorkshire Ripper. The forensic evidence was just ignored at the phoney trial of Peter Sutcliffe, and history has been rewritten - Orwellian style - ever since.
In George Orwell's classic "Nineteen Eighty-Four," Winston Smith's job in the Ministry of Truth is to rewrite history by altering the archive of 'The Times' newspaper whenever a new event occurred which contradicted the official historical record.
The amazing case of the Yorkshire Ripper cover up demonstrates that the ruling group do not even have to alter the archive - they only have to publish any pack of lies in the newspapers, and almost everybody will automatically believe it, just as almost everyone believes that Peter Sutcliffe is the Yorkshire Ripper.
Peter Newman
your whole case...
30.06.2006 16:09
hmmm
it MUST be true!
30.06.2006 17:00
Your contribution reminds me of the situation in the 1960s when I was a boy. If two little boys were arguing about whether something was true or false, one might pipe up:
"But I saw it in a book!"
And that supposedly was the end of discussion - it was stated in a book, so it must be true!
Now, Mr Hmmm is saying something similar:
Because it is not stated on the internet that Peter Sutcliffe's blood type is O, it cannot possibly be true!
Is that the level on which your intellect operates, Mr Hmmm?
Or are you being paid a bit of money by certain people in return for contaminating this debate?
Peter Newman
Ah, right the classic 'spook' retort
30.06.2006 18:09
And lets not get patronising about intellect here - your assertions seem to revolve largely around 'one book', namely the somewhat flawed work of Noel O Hara. I am arguing purely from a stance that you support your assertions with evidence, namely by indicating that you have some concrete evidence on which to base your conclusions - that Sutcliffe had Group O blood type, I do not care whether you can offer internet links, but you have offered nothing other than parrotting the assertions of Noel O Hara.
Am I simply to take your word for it, because you say it is so? What exactly is wrong wanting people to establish the veracity of their claims. As is often the case with conspiracy theories, you are not offering a scientific argument in as much as you are arguing an 'unfalsifiable' case. I ask for proof, you claim that all existing evidence has been falsified or covered up in some grand Orwellian conspiracy. It is therefore more akin to an argument based on faith than on any scientific facts.
Are you going to fly off the handle at me now as well then?
hmmm
burden of proof
30.06.2006 22:48
When Noel O’Gara said to me that John Sutcliffe, Peter Sutcliffe’s father, and a certain police officer, told him that Peter Sutcliffe has blood type O, I accepted that Noel is quoting them accurately. Neither Noel nor his informants had any reason to lie. That is not final proof of Peter Sutcliffe’s blood type. However, it is easy to ascertain a prisoner’s blood type, with independent verification, and the burden of final proof should not be on me.
Noel O’Gara’s activities have been a huge embarrassment to the police and the ruling group for the past twenty-five years. They have been trying to discourage and discredit Mr O’Gara by various means, but never by offering proof that Peter Sutcliffe has blood type B. If it were the case that Sutcliffe has blood type B, don’t you think the police and the ruling group would have been shouting it from the rooftops ever since Mr O’Gara’s book appeared? Many people will draw a certain conclusion from the fact that they have not offered any such proof of Sutcliffe’s blood type. The foregoing is not final proof beyond all doubt that Sutcliffe’s blood type is O. But the burden of final proof should not be on me.
The Yorkshire Ripper case is full of holes. It just doesn’t hold together. The West Yorkshire Police themselves declared repeatedly during 1978-1980 that there were two men committing that series of murders. That implies two different blood types, although not necessarily. A well described Irish suspect was observed at the scene of several of the murders and was being sought by the police…. until Sutcliffe’s arrest….. Then suddenly history was rewritten, and there were no longer two Rippers but only one.
Then there is the film footage of the bizarre press conference following Sutcliffe’s arrest. George Oldfield looked as if his entire world had collapsed, when he should have been looking delighted….. The Yorkshire Ripper had just been caught, so we were told. It should have been the high point of George Oldfield’s career. Yet he looked totally dejected and drank himself to death in the months that followed. Body language is a science. It doesn’t lie. The forced and fake smiles on Gregory and Hobson at that press conference tell the same tale.
I could go on and on. Everything about the Yorkshire Ripper case just stinks. It doesn’t add up.
Mr Hmmm, if you have a connection with the West Yorkshire Police or the ruling group, tell them it is incumbent on them to provide independently verifiable proof of Peter Sutcliffe’s blood type. Also they need to explain why there were two Rippers before Sutcliffe’s arrest and then after Sutcliffe’s arrest suddenly there was only one Ripper.
(Those interested in investigating further may wish to revisit the links given at the end of the article at the top of this thread.)
Peter Newman
Burden of Proof
01.07.2006 11:28
Frankly, I can also see plenty of reasons why Peter Sutcliffe's father would want to maintain that his son is innocent (well, he did not claim that did he, he just said his son did not do all of the murders). Even O Hara believes Sutcliffe did some of them so in that sense he is still nonetheless rightfully banged up for his crimes. Unlike many other 'miscarriage of justice' claims there remains the fact that Peter Sutcliffe has never retracted his confession.
Moreover, Noel O Hara's claims are flawed, with respect to the mysterious Irishman:
Numerous, writers, journalists et al have looked at the ripper evidence over the years, and numerous books have been written on the subject. No one, apart from O Hara, has claimed that Sutcliffe's blood type was O and that Sutcliffe was previously released after questioning on forensic grounds. Michael Bilton, author of Wicked Beyond Belief, looked closely at the Ripper evidence and concluded: "I spent four years going through everything the police had and I am not aware of any forensic evidence which excluded Sutcliffe from any of the murders he was convicted for." Are all these authors part of the conspiracy also? Why have none of the 17 or so people involved in the forensic evidence gathering during the ripper case come forward to say 'hang on, Sutcliffe was blood type O'. There are also numerous reasons why the police did not look overjoyed at the press conference either, the Yorkshire ripper case was appallingly handled, it was a shambles, as is clearly proven in the Byford report.
And no I do not have any links with the 'ruling elite' or West Yorskshire police. You bemoan the fact that people take what they read in the press at face value, yet seem to expect that any counter claims posted on websites should not be questioned or examined in any way.
hmmm
Dear Mr Hmmm
01.07.2006 15:25
I find it interesting that you said you had never heard of this controversy until the same morning when you saw my article initiating this thread. Yet, by that same afternoon you had suddenly become an expert proponent of the police / ruling group smokescreen. That’s not what happens in real life with real people, meaning people unconnected with the ruling group. Also, I suspect that you and “Ingrid” are one and the same person, or members of the same group of professional infiltrators.
The West Yorkshire Police and the ruling group as a whole are very worried about the Yorkshire Ripper cover up. Whenever Noel O’Gara and his allies start to make an impression, a reaction sets in, and you and “Ingrid” are part of that reaction. Hans Ruesch taught me how the present civilisation works. It’s always the same formula, always essentially the same script.
Your task is to confuse and contaminate this discussion with diversionary tactics. For example you mention a retrial, which I never mentioned. There’s no need to retry Peter Sutcliffe. Let him rot. He will always be a threat to women and should never be released. However, England being the place it is, he may be released in a few years.
Although you write (or transcribe) intelligently, you insist on misspelling Noel O’Gara’s name, knowing that this will inconvenience and divert any reader who wishes to do an internet search with the name Noel O’Gara.
Also, your latest message ignores one of the major issues of this cover up: the fact that the West Yorkshire Police are damned by their own statements of 1978-1980 that there were not one Ripper but two, and the fact that as soon as Sutcliffe was arrested, history was rewritten and there was only one Ripper. So what happened to the second Ripper? He didn’t just evaporate when Peter Sutcliffe was arrested. A man like the Yorkshire Ripper will not stop killing until he is caught. The hunt for the ‘other’ Yorkshire Ripper was called off in 1981, when it became expedient to rewrite history and to pretend that there was only one Ripper and he is safely in jail, case closed….. and part of your agenda and Ingrid’s agenda is to divert attention from the issue that there were two Rippers to catch, and only one was caught.
Peter Sutcliffe’s blood type is an important issue. You refer to the Byford report as if it is sacred scripture from which you and Ingrid can quote without fear of contradiction. It is not sacred scripture. What if the Byford report is a pack of lies, a whitewash job?
If Noel O’Gara reads this, he may wish to contact John Sutcliffe, Peter Sutcliffe’s father, to see if John Sutcliffe can provide incontrovertible proof that Peter Sutcliffe has blood type O. John Sutcliffe has an interest in proving that his son did not commit all of those murders. So I’ll leave that to Noel if he reads this.
Either way, we’re still left with the fact that the West Yorkshire Police themselves stated repeatedly in 1978-80 that there were two Rippers, then as soon as Sutcliffe was arrested, history was rewritten – Orwellian style - and suddenly there was only one Ripper, although the earlier police statements are on the record for all time…… unless the ruling group really do start altering the archive as in Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”
Peter Newman
conspirators: please please find another site :-(
01.07.2006 19:18
Go out and organise, or at least leave indymedia alone so we can.
indy regular
Yvonne Pearson
02.07.2006 07:01
from Dail Mail, London, 28 March 1978:
Yvonne ‘a victim of the carbon-copy Ripper’
By Stephen Oldfield
A SECOND Ripper was being hunted by police last night.
The crazed killer is thought to have set himself up as a rival to the man who has already killed seven girls.
So far he is known to have murdered Yvonne Pearson whose battered body was found in Bradford on Sunday.
A pathologist who examined all the good-time girls murdered by the Ripper told police yesterday:
“She is not his eighth victim.”
(End of extract from Daily Mail, London, 28 March 1978.)
Source: “The Real Yorkshire Ripper” by Noel O’Gara, page 126.
==================================================
Comments:
Everybody agrees that Peter Sutcliffe murdered Yvonne Pearson. Yet according to the West Yorkshire Police themselves, Yvonne’s killer was not the Yorkshire Ripper. Therefore according to the West Yorkshire Police, Peter Sutcliffe is not the Yorkshire Ripper.
Yet, when Sutcliffe was arrested – outside West Yorkshire Police jurisdiction and displaying fake number plates in a red light area, as is he was desperate to force the police to arrest him – suddenly history was rewritten, so that suddenly there is only one Ripper and that is Peter Sutcliffe.
If you buy that you’ll buy anything.
==================================================
Peter Newman
Dear Mr Newman
02.07.2006 08:24
Sorry, but this is absolute paranoid drivel. I had not heard of this whole scenario until Friday morning when you posted your original post. But the fact remains that after several days of digging I can find so many holes in this alternative explanation to consider it worth challenging. No one apart from your conspiracy obsessed Mr O Gara (my apologies for misspelling it, the fact that you see this is significant is further proof that you see anyone who challenges you as part of some shadowy conspiracy) has ever stated that Sutcliffe was blood type O. You simply want to believe O Gara because it adds an element of mystery and conspiracy to the whole thing, yet this means dismissing all the other evidence gathered together by other writers and researchers about the ripper case. Plenty of evidence surrounding the case exists and it states that Sutcliffe was blood type B. Your 'cover-up' theory would then have to extend to all the other independent researchers and writers who have looked into the case over the years, as well as the forensic people who examined the evidence originally. The fact that no-one has ever acted on the work of O Gara, where they have in the past through the investigations of someone like Ludovic Kennedy, just indicates to me, that the claims made are not worth pursuing, particularly if O Gara is just plain wrong in his assumptions about the blood type of Sutcliffe.
Frankly, the fact that the police thought there were two rippers early in their investigations does not surprise me, and I do not find it particularly significant. The whole case was very badly handled. You seem to think the fact that the police were not overjoyed at the press conference is significant. Yet they had to go out and admit that they had finally charged someone who had been in their custody on numerous occasions. You posit a case where the press were in a cosy relationship with the press, yet at the time, the police were being crucified by the press for their inability to catch the killer.
As I have said previously, if you want to beleive this 'alternative' explanation re the ripper that is up to you. Personally, I do not. It may have been more by accident and luck, rather than design, but eventually the police got the right bloke.
hmmm
roundabout
02.07.2006 11:05
Ludovic Kennedy's book referred to the Birmingham Six or Guildford Four.
You yourself have already pointed out a major difficulty in gaining public support for confronting the Yorkshire Ripper case - the fact that, unlike the others, there is no innocent victim languishing in jail, as Sutcliffe killed some of those women. Besides, it was largely pressure from the Irish in America which finally freed the Birmingham Six. The point here is that nothing nice is going to happen if we confront the Yorkshire Ripper fiasco, for example no joyous celebration as an innocent victim is freed from jail, because there isn't one. Instead it will make us all look foolish, on account of our having taken our thoughts from media headlines and from the desire for a conviction and for the closing of the case. People don't want to humble themselves by confronting their own psychological limitations and the need for reform of the judicial system.
There is an obvious need to deal with the problem of convictions obtained solely on the basis of confessions. For example Ian Huntley; correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody saw those two girls enter his house the day they disappeared; much was made of the fact that he cleaned his car at some stage; we all clean our cars; does that make us murderers? And Huntley's defence was so stupid, about two girls virtually dropping dead beside him.... they had plenty of time to 'work him over' emotionally before the trial.... I do not know of any evidence that Huntley killed those girls. We need a mechanism for preventing a conviction from proceeding on a basis of confessions alone, which also must involve accepting the flaws in human psychology- the mass hysteria which can grip us at times, especially when a particularly heinous crime has been committed and we all desperately want the perpetrator caught. The Wayne Williams case in Atlanta USA is another prominent and obvious case of trial by mass hysteria in the absence of evidence.
My interest in the Yorkshire Ripper case is mainly on account of its healing potential, and the insights into our own psychology that it offers. In that way, the Yorkshire Ripper, Wayne Williams, Ian Huntley cases etc are a mirror in which we can see ourselves reflected - warts and all - if we have the courage to look.
You insist nothing is wrong and everything is to stay as it is.
I can't force people to look.
Peter Newman
Daily Mail...
02.07.2006 11:24
If you are going to accuse me of being one and the same with Ingrid, I could counter that you are probably Noel O Gara, here to publicise your own work!!!
The fact that O Gara's book is self published speaks volumes. While you may want to dress this up as being 'evidence of no-one wanting to expose the coverup', an alternative explanation would be that no mainstream publisher would touch it because it is utter nonsense. O Gara even seems to go round adding negative reviews to other ripper books on Amazon, in a vain attempt to publicise his own speculations. As far as I can see, O Gara just seems to bear an extreme grudge against someone called William Tracey, a former close associate, and has spent years twisting the facts of the ripper case to suit his own purposes.
I agree, if O Gara can come back with conclusive evidence that Sutcliffe is Blood Type O, that would be a clincher, but I somehow doubt he ever will.
hmmm
I am not ignoring the wider issues
02.07.2006 12:16
hmmm
context
02.07.2006 15:23
Why are the West Yorkshire Police so bashful, when Noel O'Gara has been such an embarrassment to them for twenty-five years? They could fatally damage Noel's case by simply publicising Peter Sutcliffe's blood type as B, independently verified. The ball is in their court.
I do want to concentrate more on the healing poetential of cases like the Yorkshire Ripper, Ian Huntley, Wayne Williams etc. The common denominators are convictions derived solely from confessions and/or mass hysteria gripping the community where the inverstigation and trial occurred. For example, correct me if I'm wrong, but after Ian Huntley's arrest, there was no news at all on him for about a week; then finally he was ready to confess. What was happening to Ian Huntley during those days following his arrest? He was the perfect scapegoat - previous convictions for sex with minors, which would be publicised after the trial, thus appearing to confirm his guilt. Even if we say it's better that he's out of circulation, the problem is that if he didn't kill those girls, the hunt for the real killer or killers was called off when he was arrested, just as the hunt for the Yorkshire Ripper was called off after Peter Sutcliffe's arrest.
The police are what they are in every country, and today few people are unaware of the realities of how police forces operate. Human civilisation progresses only by slow degrees. I'd like us to concentrate more on stiving for some good to come out of all these cases of highly suspicious convictions based solely on confessions. If the cops knew that whenever they secure a charge and conviction based only on a confession and perhaps meaningless circumstantial such as Huntley washing his car - such convictions would automatically be referred immediately to a review body independent of the police force and community where the crime took place.... then that would send a powerful message to the cops that they can't fit people up without coming under immediate independent scrutiny. In Huntley's case, for example, such an independent review could have considered the fact that Huntley was no stranger to the police and their methods and may have been terrified that they were planning to frame him as the most convenient 'patsy' so that Huntley panicked and asked his girlfriend to give him a fake alibi and to help him scrub the house and car clean, as the two girls had in fact been in the house previously to chat with Huntley's girlfriend...... I don't know of any proof that Huntley killed those girls. He should not have been convicted on the basis of his confession and inconclusive circumstantial, at least not without an immediate and thorough scrutiny of the case by an impartial review body, with the power to quash the conviction if it had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and if there were evidence of localised mass hysteria playing a part.
If such a balancing mechanism were to be introduced into the criminal justice system as a result of Noel O'Gara's efforts, then on that basis alone, his work has not been in vain.
Mr Hmmm, you have not said anything directly about this very reasonable proposal for curbing police excesses, and your silence on this issue adds to my suspicions about who you are.
Peter Newman
Good grief....
02.07.2006 17:45
Now that we have established that you have no concrete proof for your assertion that Sutcliffe is blood type O you are shifting the debate onto a wider issue. If it makes you happy, no I do not believe people should be convicted solely in response to moral panics nor do I agree with the police badgering and harrassing vulnerable people. But the fact remains, your hero O Gara has been ignored for 20 odd years because his claims re Peter Sutcliffe are simply ludicrous and if I can spot the weaknesses in his claims after a few days reading then it is hardly surprising that someone with extensive knowledge of the case would simply ignore him.
I am afraid you appear somewhat paranoid to me, do you really think that everyone who disagrees with your wild claims is an agent of the state? You use the language of progressive politics (ruling elite etc), but somewhere along the line, you have taken Marxist analysis concerning objective socio-economic and politcal structures and conflated and confused that with a set of somewhat irrational beliefs about widespread organised conspiracies and shadowy cabals. If I was going to categorise my own 'ideology' as anything, it would probably be neo-Gramscian Marxist. However, as a way of looking at the world, Marxism is still ground very firmly in rationalism. When people put forward a notion or a theory about something, I expect it to be thoroughly grounded in tangible real evidence, not hearsay. Nor do I happen to believe any old nonsense merely if it seeks to dress itself in the garb of 'progressive' politics. Persist, if you must, with your insinuations that I am 'part of the conspiracy', but I know I am not, and it just re-inforces my own belief that rationalism took a back seat in your own world view quite some time ago.
Hmm
Yeah
03.07.2006 17:44
The purpose of opening this thread was to notify the people of Leeds and Bradford that something is horribly wrong with the Peter Sutcliffe conviction. The body of evidence assembled by Noel O'Gara is cumulative in its effect on the impartial reader and it piles up so high as to amaze the reader and to sow grave doubts in the mind and to change the way we think of the English police.
Peter Sutcliffe's blood type is of huge importance. I was satisfied by Noel O'Gara's statement that John Sutcliffe (Peter Sutcliffe's father) and a certain police officer told him that Peter Sutcliffe has blood type O. The fact that the West Yorkshire Police, who have been hugely embarrassed by Mr O'Gara for twenty-five years, never hit back with independently verified proof that Sutcliffe's blood type is B - suggests strongly that no such proof exists. How do we prove anything in the present civilisation? Most people now place little or no trust in governments, police and media. So what is truth and what is proof? If we have to reduce it to a balance of probabilities on account of the impossibility at times of acquiring 100% reliable information in this type of civilisation - well then I'd say that Noel O'Gara's quoting John Sutcliffe and a certain police officer as saying that Peter Sutcliffe's blood type is O, combined with the West Yorkshire Police's silence on the matter for twenty years, despite the acute embarrassment caused to them by Mr O'Gara.... gives something like a 95% probability that Peter Sutcliffe's blood type is O, and places an obligation on the West Yorkshire Police, Prison Service and Home Office to settle this matter, which is bringing them into increasing disrepute, by supplying independently verifiable proof of Peter Stucliffe's blood type.
Apart from that, we don't want this thread degenerating into a personal tiff between me and Mr Hmmm, who said himself that we should agree to differ, so I'm giving my email address here so that Mr Hmmm can contact me privately if he wishes. I just hope this thread is archived and that if it is thrown up by search engines in the future, that some good has come out of it and some useful information has been conveyed which may prompt readers to investigate this amazing case for themselves.
Peter Newman
e-mail:
mr.bop@ntlworld.com
sutcliffe is the ripper
21.07.2006 09:03
josh
josh
e-mail:
premiermaple@hotmail.com
Martin Ingram Aka Ian Hurst is a liar.
16.10.2006 16:06
The person who calls himself Martin ingram but is in fact ex Int Corps SSgt Ian Hurst (known as rocky) is a liar of the highest order. His book STEAKNIFE is almost complete fiction, as are his assertions that Martin McGUINNESS was an agent of the state. He is dementedly lying completely about his past service in FRU. He only ever served in sleepy backwaters of the Province and never came face to face with anyone except low level eyes and ears agents. He never ran STEAKNIFE or even met him. In short, his book is a complete fabrication based on god knows what. He endangers the lives of serving and former soldiers as well as civilians with his ridiculous fairy tales. Hopefully he will appear in court at some of the current inquiries and investigations so he can be shown to be the liar he really is.
This message comes from
This message is not off topic.Ian Hurst comes from Leeds and currently spends his time "Blogging on the Darkside"
Jack Grantham
Homepage:
http://jackgrantham.blogspot.com/