The Yorkshire Ripper - Peter Sutcliffe - Arrested In Sheffield.. But Where ?

[DaveH]

Think about it Dave. The detectives are not idiots. Once is enough to eliminate any suspect.

They interviewed Sutcliffe 12 times. He was blood tested. His teeth pattern taken and compared with the Ripper's teeth left on two victims breasts. His voice and handwriting samples taken. In short he was so well known to the police that they proved beyond all doubt that he was not the Ripper.

He came to their attention so much because he was reported by friends, his car was seen in the red light areas so frequently, he resembled a photofit of himself because that attack was wrongly attributed to the Ripper.

In 2005 he admitted in broadmoor that the didnt do all the murders and he was writing a book but the authorities never let that out again.

All interesting stuff.

Very much an open issue then, but closed by a shroud of secrecy.

[Guest noelogara]

you can read my website Dave if you want to see what happened.

I'm not trying to sell you anything. Its all there online for free.

http://www.yorkshireripper.com/the-arrest/

[RichardB]

Not read it. This belongs in Sheffield Shopping since there is the intention to sell.

I've not moved it there (yet) - I'll await other opinions.

you can read my website Dave if you want to see what happened.

I'm not trying to sell you anything. Its all there online for free.

http://www.yorkshire...com/the-arrest/

[Sheffield History]

That's the website that inspired this thread

Immense and absolutely captivating reading...

Would recommend everyone reading that..

[Sheffield History]

Nah Richard - that links fine

[RichardB]

OK Toots.

Nah Richard - that links fine

[Guest noelogara]

thanks Dave, its a true story and very hard to believe. But it happened to me.

[spanner]

I used to live on Southbourne Road,which backed onto the lane where Girl's High School is. There were many Ladies of the night on there after dark with their clients. Unfortunately one did not make it back out. Needless to say it was pretty much a no go area after dark, at that time.

[Guest plain talker]

If I may proffer my humble opinion, I think it's tinfoil hat time.

I don't believe there was another murderer, except perhaps in the case of the lady from Manchester, which may be attributable to another person.

There were mint five pound notes found on (I think) Helena Rykta, one of the women murdered by Sutcliffe, directly traceable back to the firm for which he worked (the bank logged these serial numbers as part of a wages delivery to that very firm) . Is it just coincidence, then, that he just happened to have *cough* "used" this lady within minutes of the "Real" ripper brutally murdering her? (and going on the serial number evidence, that someone from the same FIRM as Sutcliffe could have also used the same woman, within that short window, and then murdered her...?

there is other evidence that pointed to him being the culprit, but becasue of the hoax tapes and letters, it was dismissed.

"Oh, the ripper's from tyneside, we heard his voice on the tapes, and he sent the letters from that area... Sutcliffe's from bradford, can't be him, despite the artist's impression, despite the same small boot size, despite the fivers despite being caught, by Sheffield's finest, in a car with a prostitute in posession of a knife and a ball-peen hammer ..etc, etc"

[Guest plain talker]

I used to live on Southbourne Road,which backed onto the lane where Girl's High School is. There were many Ladies of the night on there after dark with their clients. Unfortunately one did not make it back out. Needless to say it was pretty much a no go area after dark, at that time.

Thankfully, the woman found in the car with Sutcliffe, (Who happened to be a "working-girl" partner of a prostitute former next-door neighbour of mine, funnily enough) was saved from what doubtless was the same fate as his other victims by two of Sheffield's police.

[Guest noelogara]

Hello there plain speaker. Can I ask you to read the webpage about Jean Jordan's murder by Sutcliffe in Manchester and that explains his first involvement with the Ripper squad.

When he killed her he hid her body between a double hedge and she wasnt found, a matter which appeared to frustrate this deranged man. So he returned to the scene a week later and cut up the body and pulled it from the hedge where it was found next morning by shocked workers.

He returned again to the scene of that crime days later and threw Jean's handbag on the grass where it was turned in immediately by the finder. Inside it was found a new fiver. The reason the police were so perplexed was because that fiver was only put into circulation AFTER the date of the murder. In other words the killer returned to the scene and planted it. It was his third time to go there and obviously the police suspected he was winding them up. At first it was thought that the bag was missed in the MASSIVE search of the murder area but that was impossible.

http://www.yorkshireripper.com/2011/12/29/jean-jordan/

This murder was Sutcliffe's first in the context of the Ripper murders. He had committed several serious assaults some of which had been thought to be Ripper attacks which were not completed because he was disturbed.

That fiver brought him to the attention of the police for the first time once they identified where the fiver originated and he was narrowed down as one of the most likely to have received it in his pay packet. At that stage he was visited a few times by detectives and eliminated as the Yorkshire Ripper. However that Manchester murder was not at that stage regarded as a Ripper murder and was the business of the Manchester cops.

It was only after the real Ripper wrote to the police and included it in his count that it was taken into the Ripper frame.

[Guest plain talker]

It seemed that the police only really got momentum once the youngest woman murdered by the ripper was killed, as there was more outrage at her death because she "wasn't a tom" (prostitute) Jane Mcdonald was sixteen. It was as if the police thought the other women were just collaterol, it seems.

It didn't matter that the women killed were someone's daughter, sister, wife, mother... they were not looked at in that way. The overriding opinion was that no matter how brutally they were killed they were "just" prostitutes.

I know there were at least three women/ girls who were attacked by sutcliffe and survived, and I am aware that one was able to describe him incredibly accurately.

A friend of mine, who grew up in Wakefield, believes very strongly that Sutcliffe was the perpetrator in an incident where a man in a car tried to abduct her when she was a teenager.

[Guest noelogara]

you are correct in your assertion that the police and indeed the public didnt care too much about prostitutes until the 16 year old respectable girl Jayne McDonald became his victim. In fact he had planned on another prostitute victim when he was stalking them that night outside the Hayfield pub but they were all uptight because of the murders and they were in groups with their pimps and any punter would have to be seen by them all before she would go with him. It was that paranoia which gripped the north that led the innocent Jayne McDonald to walk past a prostitute haunt late that night and rather than go away empty handed, the Ripper seized his opportunity and conned the innocent girl into turning her head to give him directions and that led to her sudden battering.

People had been deluded into thinking that the Ripper was a motorist when in fact he was on foot and used taxis to get around.

As for Sutcliffe, a few of his victims were able to identify him after his arrest and gave accurate descriptions of him after their attacks. But the police had eliminated Sutcliffe so many times and knew for certain that he was not the Ripper because his blood group didnt match and his teeth pattern was different.

Take Dave's advice and read my website and you will get the full amazing story. It is an eyeopener and unbelievable. But it happened.

[Guest plain talker]

why should people be more outraged over Jane McDonald's murder, for being a "respectable girl" than, say, Helena Rytka's, though?

They were all someone's mother/ sister/ daughter... for example, Wilma Mc Cann's murder left her children motherless.

All the Ripper murders were despicable, and as I understand it, they all boiled down simply to Sutcliffe's hatred of women, supposedly stemming from his humiliation at being unable to "perform" when using one.

The later murders showed him becoming less organised, and killing random women who were just students, and other "ordinary" women, (like a building society clerk) rather than the prostitutes that he initially targetted.

[Guest plain talker]

I remember Sheffield being in absolute panic stricken terror around that time

Women didn't go out at night...

I was a young woman in my teens around this time, I was only slightly younger than Jane McDonald, and yes, I remember so well the terror and paranoia across the country about these murders.

[Guest plain talker]

Police evidence shows that Sutcliffe's first attack on a prostitute was in 1969, which was "dismissed" as a spat, as the woman did not want to take the assault further.

There is some evidence to suggest that he was attacking women in a similar way between 69 and 75, and his behaviour seems to be typically escalatory in nature, going from assault at first, to murder.

[Guest noelogara]

Plain talker, I'm afraid you are avoiding everything I said. Sutcliffe was NOT the Ripper. He was a very disturbed lunatic who took his hatred for his wife out on innocent women whenever he was in a particularly bad temper.

The Ripper on the other hand was a dangerous psychopathic career criminal who embarked on a series of murders of prostitutes in order to humiliate the police whom he hated with a vengeance.

At some stage in the course of events Sutcliffe, who had an insight into attacks on women began to believe that he was in fact the Ripper. However after his first murder of Jean Jordan in Manchester, he came to the attention of the police who eliminated him as the Ripper.

Unknown to him, however, the real Ripper was writing letters to the police chief hunting him and confiding to him that he did the Manchester murder and promised another in Manchester AGAIN. He delivered on that promise with an older woman in Manchester, Vera Millward, and that led the police to include Sutcliffe's murder of Jean Jordan in the Ripper frame.

From then, Sutcliffe believed he was the Ripper but the cops kept eliminating him because his blood group didnt match the Ripper.

Eventually he was arrested in Sheffield much to the dismay of the West Yorkshire police who knew him so well.

The problem was that pressure on the police, once the media got wind that a man had been arrested in connection with the Ripper murders led the police to do a deal with this lunatic eventhough they knew that he was not the Ripper but rather a copycat killer whom they didnt wish to arrest until after they got the Real Ripper.

The whole unbelievable story is on my website for free.

The police knew at all times that he was not the Ripper and thats why they accepted his confessions in a deal for no trial so the public would be convinced that they caught the Ripper.

http://www.yorkshireripper.com/sonia/

Sutcliffe actually had to travel to Sheffield to be arrested because they knew him so well in West Yorkshire and wouldnt touch him. He wrote a poem saying SHEFFIELD WILL NOT BE MISSED, NEXT ON THE LIST.

[Guest plain talker]

OK we'll ignore all the evidence about the hoax Tapes and letters, that misdirected George Oldfield's team into looking for a Wearsider, for a considerable length of time shall we? (Wearside Jack)

With the greatest respect, Noel, your posts really just come across as unsubstantiated, tinfoil-hatting, and making advertisements plugging your book and website.

Your "page" which you linked to, above, has its first glaring error before you even get to the end of the first paragraph:-

.

..Sonia Szurma who was married to him in August 1974, after a courtship of six years. Sutcliffe’s first assault on an ordinary woman was committed the following July, after less than 12 months of living with Sonia Szurma. Then, in August 1975, he committed 2 further unprovoked assaults, one on a housewife walking home from a pub in Halifax, and the other on a 14 year old

As I pointed out in my earlier post on this thread, Sutcliffe's first known assault was five years earlier than your site claims; in fact the first KNOWN assault was carried out in 1969. He got off with a warning!

[Guest plain talker]

Teeth-marks evidence not matching? Since when? The forensics quite clearly showed there was a gap between the killer's front teeth. As Sutcliffe had.

[Guest Linz85]

Teeth-marks evidence not matching? Since when? The forensics quite clearly showed there was a gap between the killer's front teeth. As Sutcliffe had.

I seem to remember reading somewhere before that the ripper had a '2 inch' gap in his teeth, which would be consistent with having a few missing, rather than just a gap between the front teeth

[Guest noelogara]

You want to ignore anything that doesnt already fit with your own accepted wisdom of what was reported by the police.

I think the best evidence that Sutcliffe is not the Ripper was produced by the detectives who are not idiots. They eliminated him as the Ripper not once, not twice, but twelve times over so they proved beyond all doubt that this known lunatic was not the Ripper.

Of course after the Sheffield cops arrested him and once the media got hold of the fact that he was arrested in connection with the Ripper murders, naturally they all concluded that they caught the Ripper.

It was this pressure that pushed the police into offering him a deal of ten years in the mental and no trial in exchange for his confessions to all the Ripper murders in addition to his own murders and of course all of his assaults. The Ripper himself always left his victims in a state that the police always were sure it was his crime.

In the early stages of the hunt they were unsure whether the Smelt and Rogulsky assaults might have been Ripper attacks in which he was disturbed and fled. However all the evidence proves that Sutcliffe committed all the assaults and many of the victims recognised him on arrest but in fact many of them were never regarded as Ripper attacks until after his arrest and to bolster public confidence that they got the Ripper.

You point out what you call a mistake in my website but if you look again you will find that its you who is mistaken if you blindly accept all that the police said after the conviction. You were fed with lies about his past to present this lunatic as a dangerous and psychopatic killer who eluded justice. You and the rest of the public were conned by bent cops who didnt care except to solve the case and close the file on a botched job.

[Guest plain talker]

I seem to remember reading somewhere before that the ripper had a '2 inch' gap in his teeth, which would be consistent with having a few missing, rather than just a gap between the front teeth

A 2-inch gap would be pretty much all the way across the front of the mouth. If I were to lose all six of my front teeth,(2x canines and 4x incisors) I could not make an inch-and-a-half wide space, never mind 2 inches.

[Guest noelogara]

You really should study the case facts a bit before commenting on something you have a vague recollection of. Especially as that recollection was based on what I am telling you was a MASSIVE police cover up and lie. But you must be prepared to face the real unpalatable facts.

There are several independent reports in this webpage about the teeth gap.

http://www.yorkshireripper.com/preston-connection/

[Guest plain talker]

You want to ignore anything that doesnt already fit with your own accepted wisdom of what was reported by the police.

I think the best evidence that Sutcliffe is not the Ripper was produced by the detectives who are not idiots. They eliminated him as the Ripper not once, not twice, but twelve times over so they proved beyond all doubt that this known lunatic was not the Ripper.

Of course after the Sheffield cops arrested him and once the media got hold of the fact that he was arrested in connection with the Ripper murders, naturally they all concluded that they caught the Ripper.

It was this pressure that pushed the police into offering him a deal of ten years in the mental and no trial in exchange for his confessions to all the Ripper murders in addition to his own murders and of course all of his assaults. The Ripper himself always left his victims in a state that the police always were sure it was his crime.

In the early stages of the hunt they were unsure whether the Smelt and Rogulsky assaults might have been Ripper attacks in which he was disturbed and fled. However all the evidence proves that Sutcliffe committed all the assaults and many of the victims recognised him on arrest but in fact many of them were never regarded as Ripper attacks until after his arrest and to bolster public confidence that they got the Ripper.

You point out what you call a mistake in my website but if you look again you will find that its you who is mistaken if you blindly accept all that the police said after the conviction. You were fed with lies about his past to present this lunatic as a dangerous and psychopatic killer who eluded justice. You and the rest of the public were conned by bent cops who didnt care except to solve the case and close the file on a botched job.

Sorry, but, no, this is just more tinfoil-hatting. there were a number of reasons for Sutcliffe being overlooked as the murderer, many times, despite the evidence that should have flagged him up as the perpetrator.

Here are just three examples:-

The hoax tapes and letters caused the police to dismiss anyone who was not from Wearside. Sutcliffe's accent was local to west Yorkshire.

The filing system was cumbersome and cross-referencing was difficult, back in the pre- H.O.L.M.E.S. days.

Sonia Sutcliffe gave him false alibis as to his whereabouts at the times of the murders.

[Guest plain talker]

You really should study the case facts a bit before commenting on something you have a vague recollection of. Especially as that recollection was based on what I am telling you was a MASSIVE police cover up and lie. But you must be prepared to face the real unpalatable facts.

There are several independent reports in this webpage about the teeth gap.

http://www.yorkshire...ton-connection/

I'm sorry, but I find tinfoil very uncomfortable! (and it doesn't suit me!)

Again, to counter your comment:-

it says nothing about the size of the gap, in the link you provided. it just says the gap was "pronounced". I'd say, looking at the pictures of Sutcliffe, that his gap could, without any contradiction, be accurately described a "pronounced"

If the gap in the teeth were as large as two inches, that would mean that there were no teeth at all in the upper front area, which would have been described by the forensicists as "having no teeth there ", not just "a pronounced gap". a "pronounced" gap would indicate there is spacing between teeth that are still in situ, a two-inch gap would suggest no teeth at all.